Archive for February, 2011

…if you have CBS covering the Planned Parenthood videos that tells us then operation Journolist 2.0 is floundering.

Planned parenthood finds itself re-training their workers, Publius asks a funny question:

One would have hoped Planned Parenthood staff wouldn’t have to be “trained” to protect victims of sex trafficking. You’d think that just went along with being human.

Hey Publius, these folks kill kids for a living and you expect them to worry about sex trafficking?

This was a stupid fight for the left, Soros, and those who defend them.

If this was stuff like the Wikileaks documents that people would have to read it might have worked but videos are a different matter. People are more likely to watch videos via social networks even if kept off the news. You can’t suppress them. But since abortion is the linchpin of the cultural left any price must be paid to defend it, and if a few women have to die in 3rd world conditions in Philly or a few pimps of underage girls need to be covered for, well every revolution has it casualties.

Fresh Canolli from Joyce's Pies and Bakery Leominster

Just picked up the cannoli this morning and we are on the way to DC and CPAC

It’s interesting but almost a cliche. What I think is more interesting and much sadder is that now the Rendell is out office and will never be running or holding office again, his marriage is over.

The question, they have been married for 40 years. How many years did they stay together strictly so he could be a married family man while running for or in office?

Am I the only one who finds this very very distasteful?

Instapundit, Stacy and Legal Insurrection and hotair headlines have all commented on this story concerning social scientists and the left:

If you want to really understand why I believe that the same elitist attitudes that caused democrats to support Slavery, Jim Crow and abortion (all three are about one group of people being better or more worthy than others) still run strong check out the comments section of the story itself:

Stuff like this:

Interesting article, but not proof of bias. There may be a selectivity effect that explains the dominance of liberals in the social sciences.

Or this:

The same “bias” would show up among physicists and other “hard” science people. Conclusions? Draw your own. Mine? Most thinking people are not very likely to be what you call “conservative”.

Or this:

there’s a bias against non-thinking people in a lot of fields.. that would mean non -liberal.

Or this:

Alternative hypothesis: closed-minded conservatives don’t make very good scientists.

All these comments were highly recommended by times readers, now lets play a game and re-write all of these comments with the words “liberal” and “conservative” replaced by “whites” and “blacks”:

Interesting article, but not proof of bias. There may be a selectivity effect that explains the dominance of “whites” in the social sciences.

The same “bias” would show up among physicists and other “hard” science people. Conclusions? Draw your own. Mine? Most thinking people are not very likely to be what you call “black“.

there’s a bias against non-thinking people in a lot of fields.. that would mean non –“whites”.

Alternative hypothesis: closed-minded “blacks” don’t make very good scientists.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the children of Alexander Stephens and Cotton Ed Smith, the modern democratic party, same arrogance, same bigotry, different targets.