Search Results

ANDREW MCCARTHY: In Politicized Justice Department, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures.

It has now been confirmed that the Trump campaign was subjected to spying tactics under counterintelligence law — FISA surveillance, national-security letters, and covert intelligence operatives who work with the CIA and allied intelligence services. It made no difference, apparently, that there was an ongoing election campaign, which the FBI is supposed to avoid affecting; nor did it matter that the spy targets were American citizens, as to whom there is supposed to be evidence of purposeful, clandestine, criminal activity on behalf of a foreign power before counterintelligence powers are invoked.

But what was the rationale for using these spying authorities?

The fons et origo of the counterintelligence investigation was the suspicion — which our intelligence agencies assure us is a fact — that the Democratic National Committee’s server was hacked by covert Russian operatives. Without this cyber-espionage attack, there would be no investigation. But how do we know it really happened? The Obama Justice Department never took custody of the server — no subpoena, no search warrant. The server was thus never subjected to analysis by the FBI’s renowned forensics lab, and its evidentiary integrity was never preserved for courtroom presentation to a jury.

How come? Well, you see, there was an ongoing election campaign, so the Obama Justice Department figured it would be a terrible imposition to pry into the Democrats’ communications. So, yes, the entire “Russia hacked the election” narrative the nation has endured for nearly two years hinges on the say-so of CrowdStrike, a private DNC contractor with significant financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

In Investigations 101, using foreign-intelligence authorities to spy on Americans is extraordinary, while taking custody of essential physical evidence is basic. By the way, the government’s failure to ensure the evidentiary integrity of the DNC server by taking possession of it and performing its own rigorous testing on it makes it practically impossible to prosecute anyone for “colluding” in Russia’s cyber-espionage. It’s tough to prove that anyone conspired in something unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the something actually happened the way you say it happened. To do that in a courtroom, you need evidence — a confident probability analysis by your intelligence agencies won’t do.

They covered for Hillary. They spied on Trump, and then when he unexpectedly won they panicked. Now, you’ll notice, all the mad leaking to the NYT and the WaPo is defensive in nature: Smoke-blowing to try to cover their tracks. In fact a lot of people involved in this should be in jail, and I’m beginning to think some of them might actually wind up going to jail.

IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:   Hollywood Hypocrite: Alyssa Milano’s Disastrous NRA Video.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Heckled law prof: CUNY Law would have sicced cops on pro-life protest of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But right-leaning students should act to heighten the contradictions here.

RAISE THE CONE OF SILENCE: Watchdog finds EPA broke law by spending $43K on Scott Pruitt’s soundproof booth and not telling Congress.

In a report issued Monday, the Government Accountability Office said the agency violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2017 when it failed to notify both House and Senate appropriations committees prior to obligating the money to install a soundproof privacy booth in Pruitt’s office.

Any office expenditure above $5,000 requires lawmakers be notified, according to the eight-page GAO report. The total cost of the soundproof booth and its installation amounted to $43,238.68.

The privacy booth cost $24,570, including delivery and assembly, according to the GAO. The remaining expenses included: “Concrete Floor Leveling” ($3,470); “Drop Ceiling Installation” ($3,360.97) “Prep and Wall Painting” ($3,350); “Removal of CCTV Equipment” ($7,978); and “Infrastructure Cabling and Wiring” ($509.71).

EPA Spokeswoman Liz Bowman said the agency would comply with the findings and alert lawmakers.

It’s important to cross all the I’s and dot all the T’s, especially when the press is out to get you.

WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, THE LEFT WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:  Obama’s illegal campaign contributions vs. Trump’s.

IF IT WASN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THE LEFT WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: The UK Guardian’s been harvesting your data — while bashing Cambridge Analytica.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Twitter Refuses to Revoke Louis Farrakhan’s Blue Checkmark Despite Numerous Anti-Semitic Tweets.

IF IT WASN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THE HOUSE OF STEPHANOPOULOS WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Does ‘The View’ Think Pelosi Has ‘Mental Illness’ Since She Says She Hears Dead People?

The hosts of ABC’s “The View” said that Christians like Vice President Mike Pence have “mental illness” if they think Jesus talks to them – but, do they feel the same way about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) repeated claims she’s heard dead peoples’ voices?

On the Feb. 13, 2018 episode of “The View,” the show’s hosts mocked Pence’s Christian faith, leading host Joy Behar to declare the vice president mentally ill.

* * * * * * *

But, the liberal media looked the other way when video surfaced of Democrat Pelosi describing her encounter with ghosts back in August of 2012. An Aug. 12, 2012 CNSNews.com story recounts Pelosi’s claim she not only heard – but also felt – dead women sitting in a chair with her:

Also getting a pass from the DNC-MSM on listening for voices from beyond: “God, if you think I’m supposed to run, you gotta tell me, and it has to be so clear that not even I can miss it.’ And I haven’t gotten that,” Oprah tells People magazine today.

BUT TRUMP IS LOWERING THE TONE OF OUR POLITICS: Democratic candidate Randy Bryce once used Bristol Palin’s pregnancy announcement to suggest she sell condoms.

Randy Bryce, the viral Democrat running to “repeal and replace” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in 2018, once used Bristol Palin’s pregnancy announcement as an opportunity to suggest she sell condoms.

After Palin announced her second unwed pregnancy in 2015, Bryce sent her a tweet that read, “I’d suggest a career selling condoms instead of abstinence. Looking for help @TrojanCondoms?”

Palin had previously advocated on behalf of abstinence.

Bryce has secured endorsements from a number of progressive politicians and organizations, including NARAL and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He frequently lends support to women’s causes on Twitter, from the Women’s March to birth control mandates.

While Bryce’s tweet to Palin, flagged on Tuesday by Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller, does not amount to a major scandal, those sentiments would not be tolerated by his feminist supporters if there were an R next to his name rather than a D.

If it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY WOULDN’T HAVE ANY STANDARDS AT ALL: Environmentalist Millionaire Candidate Heavily Invested in Fossil Fuels.

Millionaire congressional hopeful Dean Phillips invested as much as $2 million in energy companies even as he criticized Rep. Erik Paulsen (R., Minn.) for supporting fossil fuel development.

Phillips, a Minnesota liquor heir, is campaigning as an environmentalist in a bid to win a crowded Democratic primary and unseat Paulsen, a five-term congressman. He has supported a massive carbon tax as well as a shift away from automobiles to cut down on emissions.

“I care about the environment and I’d like to see fewer cars burning fossil fuels,” he said at a May townhall with voters. “Anybody who argues that a carbon tax would kill jobs is simply, fundamentally misguided.”

Phillips’s financial records show that the environmentally conscious candidate has no problem profiting off of automakers and fossil fuels. He has invested between $780,000 and $2 million in energy companies and major car companies. He held stocks valued between $65,000 and $150,000 in Energy Transfer Partners, owners of the Dakota Access Pipeline that has inspired numerous protests and arrests from radical environmental activists.

Well, what else is he supposed to do now that the “clean” energy crony bonanza is drying up?

THE DOUBLE STANDARD FOR TRUMP SPOKESWOMAN SARAH SANDERS:

Liberal male columnists have written about Sanders in terms that, if applied to a progressive woman, would be recognized as despicable and borderline misogynistic. In the most infamous example, Los Angeles Times writer David Horsey called her a “slightly chunky soccer mom” in a scathing column. It was so clearly offensive that he was forced to issue an apology: “I want to apologize to Times readers — and to Sarah Huckabee Sanders — for a description that was insensitive and failed to meet the standards of our newspaper. I’ve removed the offending description.”

Just when you think a media establishment that has lost its collective mind, credibility, and sense of decency since last November can’t go any lower, it does. These sexist, cruel taunts have little to do with Sanders’s job performance or making sure the American public gets the facts from a sometimes fact-averse White House. Viewed from a wider lens, the treatment of Sarah Sanders has little to do with Sanders at all. The vicious ridicule is directed at all conservative women — particularly women from the South — whom the Left will never forgive for helping elect Donald Trump. It’s on a continuum with attacks against conservative women such as Kellyanne Conway, Ivanka Trump, Melania Trump, and Betsy DeVos. The hatred is aimed at all female Trump voters — Sanders is simply a proxy. A year that began with faux feminists participating in the Women’s March, where aggrieved women loudly pledged to defend their sisterhood against sexist bullying or attacks, is ending with a whimper.

As all the best people who hold themselves out as progressive intellectuals believing in hope, tolerance and diversity told me about Sarah Palin in 2008, “She’s not a woman, she’s a Republican.”

SOME ARE UNHAPPY ABOUT THE LACK OF A DOUBLE STANDARD: Under New Civility Rules, Facebook Is Banning Women For Calling Men ‘Scum.’ “When asked why a statement such as ‘men are scum’ would violate community standards, a Facebook spokesperson said that the statement was a threat and hate speech toward a protected group and so it would rightfully be taken down.”

Related: “I don’t support what Facebook is doing, but I do think the use of the word ‘scum’ warrants a historical note on ‘SCUM’ — The Society for Cutting Up Men. The author of ‘The SCUM Manifesto,’ Valerie Solanas wasn’t joking. . . . I wrote ‘Valerie Solanas wasn’t joking,’ because she did go out and shoot Andy Warhol.”

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Elizabeth Warren Again Calls for ‘Equal Pay,’ Ignores Pay Gap in Own Office: Warren’s women staffers earned 71 cents for each dollar earned by men in 2016.

YES, THESE ARE THE STAKES:

But our childish and entitled political class continues to play with fire. Because it’s childish and entitled.

Related: Peter Berkowitz: The People vs. The Political Professionals. “A satisfactory argument for transferring more power to today’s elites would require addressing the people’s legitimate anxieties about the professional class. These include policy incompetence ranging from mismanagement of the economy and immigration to botching diplomacy and the conduct of war; politicization of the administrative state as illustrated by IRS targeting of conservatives during Obama’s first term; and the elite media’s use of double standards in reporting and opining about left and right. Underlying it all is the corruption of liberal education, which has become boot camp for progressivism, and of graduate and professional schools, which provide advance training in the progressive exercise of power. To play the vital role contemplated for them by our constitutional system, intellectual and political elites have a long way to go in regaining the people’s trust.”

Indeed they do. Remember, Hitler didn’t happen because of Hitler. Hitler happened because of Weimar, which was the failure of the people in charge of the liberal political order to maintain a liberal political order because they were weak, entitled, corrupt, and incompetent.

UPDATE: The Guardian, of all places, has something useful on this:

Even as their world came apart, the bankers clung to denial. By August 2007, the flagship hedge fund of Wall Street’s most prestigious firm was tanking fast – and what explanation came from the man at Goldman Sachs? “We were seeing things that were 25-standard deviation moves, several days in a row.” The bank was getting hit by events that were only meant to happen once every 100,000 years – and they were happening every day of the week. Given a choice between blaming their models or reality, Goldman’s bosses held the world at fault.

You know the rest because, a decade later, you and I are still paying for it. How the banks died, the world economy collapsed and most of us got poorer. How the financiers, mainstream economists and regulators were so detached from reality that they swore blind that such a catastrophe was impossible – even while it was under way.

Their reputation has never recovered. And as an economics journalist, I look across at politics and see the same process at work. Brexit, Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn: time after time, the political class has completely failed to understand the world they were governing, policing and analysing. Allow me to be blunt: our political crisis is also a crisis for our political class. And it is one from which I doubt they can recover.

At each major fork in the road, they have sped off down the wrong turning, while decrying the other as unimaginable. Each time, they have crashed.

We need to take a serious look at how we select these people. Our current method is not working.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Silence from Hill, Liz on Maher speaks volumes.

We just had a vivid, striking example of what Zoob and King were talking about, courtesy of two faux feminists who shamelessly masquerade as heroines of their gender and guardians of our culture.

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would have us see them as they see themselves, towering women whose values and principles cannot be compromised.

So it was not surprising that neither could contain her horror when Donald Trump was heard making vulgar, sexist comments in a private conversation.

Both had bully pulpits and wasted no time using them to clobber him.

Then HBO’s foul-mouthed Bill Maher, looking for new ways to tear down the president, reached to the bottom of the barrel to imply he was having an incestuous relationship with his daughter Ivanka.

Anyone with a modicum of decency understood Maher had crossed a line; ideologies notwithstanding, nothing could justify such depravity.

But because it was aimed at Trump, not a peep was heard from Hillary or Liz, suggesting Maher’s smuttiness didn’t ruffle their feathers a bit.

It also suggested they assume their constituents are too superficial to connect the dots and see them for who and what they really are.

Here’s hoping they’re wrong.

We’ll see.

CBS’S SCOTT PELLEY LOSES A FIGHT RIGGED IN HIS FAVOR: Ever since it was created by Don Hewitt in 1968, CBS’s Sixty Minutes has functioned as a sort of ritual kabuki for its audiences: it made stars of its left-leaning investigative journalists, who would grill the offending conservative politician or businessman of the week. By the mid-’80s, the show’s formula was summed up brilliantly in the classic parodies by Martin Short’s Nathan Thurm character on Saturday Night Live, who would be drenched in sweat and chain-smoking Marlboro 100s by the time he was done attempting to survive the hammering from the crusading journalist on the other side of the desk.

But CBS made its bones during the days when, as Rob Long wrote of NBC’s Johnny Carson, “There were three big channels—and maybe an old movie on one of those fuzzy UHF stations—so if you didn’t like what was on, you were out of luck. Network television didn’t compete with cable channels or Hulu or Amazon Prime. It competed with silence.”

And such lack of competition allowed the networks’ news divisions to create self-contained worlds where they could absolutely control the dialogue, as Walter Cronkite did throughout his career at CBS, while signing off each night “And that’s the way it is.” His successor’s career at CBS ended there with a Sixty Minutes segment…well, we all know how it ended there, right?

Which brings us to CBS’s Scott Pelley and his recent interview with Mike Cernovich, whom Breitbart.com’s Ezra Dulis describes as “a lawyer, independent blogger/author/filmmaker, and a dominant voice on Twitter,” and whom BuzzFeed describes as “a troll.” The latter Website of course is home of the infamous Trump golden showers with Russian hookers story and an editor who believes covering Trump “sometimes…means publishing unverified information in a transparent way that informs our users of its provenance, its impact and why we trust or distrust it.”

Whatever Cernovich’s excesses, assuming this transcript of the full unedited interview is accurate, it’s fascinating much more for what it reveals about Pelley, watched by six and a half million viewers on the CBS Evening News, than for Cernovich. Here’s how the transcript begins:

Scott Pelley: How would you describe what you do?

Mike Cernovich: I’m a lawyer, author, documenter, filmmaker, and journalist.

Scott Pelley: And how would you describe your website?

Mike Cernovich: Edgy, controversial content that goes against the dominant narrative.

Scott Pelley: What’s the dominant narrative?

Mike Cernovich: The dominant narrative is that there are good guys and there are bad guys. The good guys are liberals. Everybody on the right is a bad guy. Let’s find a way to make everybody look bad. Let’s tie marginal figures who have no actual influence to anybody we cannot overwrite. That’s the narrative.

Scott Pelley: That’s not a narrative I’m familiar with. Who’s narrative is that?

In 2008, Pelley compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Ben Rhodes, who until January was Obama’s deputy national security advisor, is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. John Dickerson, the host of Face the Nation and the “political director” for CBS, wrote an article for Slate in 2013 charmingly titled “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.” Katie Couric, whom Pelley succeeded as Evening News host, read a poem on her broadcast to shill for the passing of Obamacare, and after leaving CBS had a Rathergate-like moment of her own, attempting to marginalize gun owners.

But back to the transcript of Pelley and Cernovich, where eventually, the hunter is captured by his prey:  

Scott Pelley: You wrote in August a story about Hillary Clinton’s medical condition the headlines said, “Hillary Clinton has Parkinson’s disease. Position confirms.” That’s quite a headline.

Mike Cernovich: Yeah, Dr. Ted Noel had se-sent a story to me anonymously, that I checked out, analyzing her medical condition. And –

Scott Pelley: It isn’t true.

Mike Cernovich: How do you know?

Scott Pelley: Well, she doesn’t seem to have any signs of Parkinson’s disease.

Mike Cernovich: She had a seizure and froze up walking into her motorcade that day caught by a citizen journalist.

Scott Pelley: Did you, well, she had pneumonia. I mean –

Mike Cernovich: How do you know?

Scott Pelley: Well, because that’s what was reported.

Mike Cernovich: By whom? Who told you that?

Scott Pelley: Well, the campaign told us that.

Mike Cernovich: Why would you trust a campaign?

To ask the question is to answer it. In a post headlined “‘Shamefully Stupid’: CBS’s Scott Pelley Loses a Fight Rigged in His Favor,” Breitbart.com’s Ezra Dulis adds in response, “Pelley has no answer for those six words — ‘Why would you trust the campaign’ — as his entire profession goes berserk with literal-minded fact checks for every tweet from President Trump. Pelley also seems to forget the fakery that Clinton World attempted hours before its pneumonia statement — with the candidate smiling and waving outside her daughter’s apartment, greeting a little girl, and assuring reporters everything was a-okay.”

More:

Mike Cernovich: So let’s be, let’s be honest with one another, which is that you are reporting that the Hillary Clinton campaign-

Scott Pelley: I didn’t report that she had Parkinson’s disease.

Mike Cernovich: You just told me she’s healthy though. Based on what was told to you by the campaign. See? That’s what I’m saying about the double standards which is I don’t take anything Hillary Clinton’s going to say at all as true. I’m not going to take her on her word. The media says we’re not going to take Donald Trump on his word. And that’ why we are on these different universes.

Scott Pelley: Why should anyone take you on your word?

Mike Cernovich: Oh, you should always double-check. You should always fact check. And if people don’t agree with me, people express that disagreement, and I’m completely, completely open to criticism.

Insert Glenn Reynolds’ Rathergate-era comments about the positive nature of the Internet being a low-trust environment here. Not to mention Michael Crichton’s Gell-Man Amnesia Effect.

Let’s give Pelley the exit quote: “Well, the benefit of intermediaries is having experienced editors check things out and research people. Check the facts before it goes out to the public. You don’t do any of that.”

Mary Mapes could not be reached for comment.

UPDATE: “Was Pelley not around in 2004?” John Hinderaker asks at Power Line. “Has he forgotten how stupid that refrain sounded then? (‘Layers and layers of fact-checkers’) Does he not realize how false it rings today? We have been here before: the liberal media are in a panic because their authority is being challenged. It must be worse now, though, than it was in 2004. Then, Time’s refrain was a relatively benign ‘Who owns the truth?’ Now, they ask, ‘Is truth dead?’ We can translate: ‘Is the liberal news media monopoly dead?’”

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS… WaPo Preps for Storm and Bashes Trump for Doing the Same.

The Post hypocritically bashed Trump for taking this winter storm Stella seriously just hours after the newspaper hyped the storm itself, according to tweets captured by Cameron Gray, a writer for NRA News, on March 14.

A Post Twitter account dedicated to D.C. news mocked Trump for inviting “D.C. mayor to Oval Office for storm that brought 2 inches of snow.”

Less than 24 hours before, however, The Washington Post’s main twitter account asked “Are you prepping for the Northeast Blizzard?,” and advised “here are the things you you really do need in your winter emergency kit,” and reported “more than 4,000 flights” had been canceled due to the impending storm.

It’s different when they do it.

ACE ON MILO: “I would say an important additional dimension here is that if they can do it to him, they can do it to you too. And they seem to be really doing it.” Lena Dunham writes a book where she reminisces about abusing her baby sister and it’s no big deal. Milo talks about being abused, says it wasn’t that bad, and Simon & Schuster cancels his contract. Double standards indeed.

Meanwhile, he should self-publish. He’ll make a lot more money, and, really, you can’t rely on lefty platforms. They’ll cut you loose in a second.

REPORTERS UNEARTH ANCIENT DOCUMENT: With Trump, Media Strike a Pose as Sticklers for the Constitution. Tom Kuntz at Real Clear Investigations:

When Barack Obama was president, most members of the media apparently believed in a fluid interpretation of the Constitution. Constitutional sticklers were dismissed as dinosaurs or worse—especially if they identified themselves with the Tea Party movement. Except for Glenn Greenwald and the occasional lonely voice or two, the ladies and gentlemen of the press raised barely a peep about the administration’s drone killings, even of U.S. citizens. Executive-branch rewrites of health, immigration and environmental law were met with a collective yawn in the Fourth Estate.

That attitude certainly changed quickly. Donald Trump has turned the mainstream media into strict constructionists, or so they would have us believe. The Constitution they sternly invoke against the new president’s moves is now one carved in granite with words bearing unimpeachably plain meaning in their favor.

This is happening even as Trump – whom they routinely cast as a Constitution-destroying authoritarian – puts forth a Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, who is notably skeptical of expanding presidential power and by most accounts really thinks the document ought to mean what it says.

The media’s new enthusiasm does not require a lot of close reading.  Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who lost a son in the Iraq War, waved the Constitution at the Democratic convention last summer and invited Trump to read the text, evidently hoping that the mogul would find immigration wisdom within.

I don’t know if Trump ever took him up on the offer, but I did. I didn’t see the words “foreigner” or “non-citizen” or “immigrant” or “refugee” anywhere in the document, nor mention of any right to enter the country.

It may be that policy or legislation or court precedents have created or divined such rights, but those are not what Khan waved at the podium. And, more to my point, that’s not something the media have bothered to explain in their copious sympathetic coverage of Khan – whose law practice includes securing visas for immigrants — and others who pummel Trump as a constitutional transgressor.

If it weren’t for double standards . . . .

 

 

IT’S DIFFERENT WHEN OBAMA DOES IT: Dem Congresswoman Forced To Face Her Own Voting History After Calling Trump’s Travel Ban ‘Horrifying’

Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Esty from Connecticut launched a tweetstorm Monday afternoon against President Donald Trump’s travel ban, but quickly backtracked after followers confronted her on her visa-related voting history.

Esty co-sponsored H.B. 158 on Dec. 3 2015, a bi-partisan bill that enabled the executive branch led by the the Department of Homeland Security to severely limit or curtail visas from countries like Iran and Iraq.

If it weren’t for double standards…

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Obama Era Precedents Haunt Media.

Noah Rothman:

“Don’t recall ever seeing a WH do this,” remarked Huffington Post White House reporter Christina Wilkie. “Some might call it Propaganda,” NBC News’ Katy Tur averred. “I didn’t totally expect the 1984-esque dystopian future to be so soon, but life comes at ya fast,” snarked the Center for American Progress’s economist Katie Bahn. But this, too, is not an unparalleled abuse of the public trust; at least, not for those who remember how the Obama administration sold the public on the Iran nuclear accords in 2015.

The Obama administration’s “blog” content (now maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration), which includes former Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s “Regional Roundup: What America’s Newspapers are Saying About the Iran Deal.” The blog consisted entirely of favorable headlines from around the country reciting verbatim (and false) administration claims about the nuclear accord. “The Iran Deal” even had its own Twitter account which disseminated not only favorable press mentions but also crafted insipid pop culture memes to get the millennial generation jazzed about nuclear non-proliferation. Imagine the anxiety among journalists when the Trump White House mirrors this tactic.

If it weren’t for double standards…

JOURNALISM PROFESSOR: Boycott Kellyanne Conway.

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen floated the idea of denying Conway access to television on a Recode podcast. Her ability to befuddle interviewers and parry questions and accusations from journalists frustrated Rosen, who served as department chair from 1999 to 2005.

“This is somebody who can speak for the Trump administration. But if we find that what Kellyanne Conway says is routinely or easily contradicted by Donald Trump, then that [reason to have her on] disappears,” he said. “It’s not just lying or spin or somebody who is skilled in the political arts of putting the best case on things or not answering a question, which is a pretty basic method of doing politics. It’s that when you are done listening to Kellyanne Conway, you probably understand less. That’s a problem.”

Rosen’s concern for spin appears to be new-founded. He was critical of President Barack Obama for allowing reporters to control the narrative during press conferences.

“You’re the President of the United States standing at the podium in the briefing room? You can steer the conversation any damn way you want.”

If it weren’t for double standards…

ADRIANA COHEN: No hats off to rallies’ huge double standard.

Of course none of these women were up in arms and protesting when Hillary “went low” by calling Republicans “deplorables” and comparing conservatives to “terrorist groups.” Liberal women everywhere gave her a pass. They also looked the other way when she didn’t walk the walk when it came to advocating for equal pay for women while serving as a U.S. senator for New York. Senate financial expenditures show Hillary gave the majority of the top-paying jobs to men.

Under Hillary’s watch, women made 72 cents on the man’s dollar — a fact that didn’t result in widespread demonstrations.

These “pussyhatters” also gave President Obama a monumental pass for failing women economically.

Under Obama’s watch, more than 2 million women fell into poverty, according to 2014 Census Bureau reports. The Obama administration also failed to put “equal pay” into practice over the last two terms. But these left-wing women — with their blatant double standards — chose to turn their rage against Trump instead.

That’s the goal.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Trump’s Presser Shows Media Double Standard On Politicians Attacking The Press: The idea that this kind of singling out of press members by politicians is new and especially catastrophic is odd. Remember de Blasio and Obama doing the same? “There was also the time the Obama adminstration named Fox national reporter James Rosen a co-conspirator in violating the Espionage Act so they could spy on his phone records, whereabouts, and personal emails. Or the time the Obama administration seized two months of AP reporters’ phone records. Also, don’t forget the time Obama booted three newspapers’ reporters from his campaign plane because he didn’t like their coverage. So, there’s that.”

That’s different, because shut up.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS… Obama Boasts No Terror Attacks On Our Soil, Then Lists Terror Attacks On Our Soil.

It’s generally considered good form to wait at least 24 hours before contradicting oneself so completely.

HOWIE CARR ON HATE-CRIME HYPOCRISY:

Finally, yesterday, the Chicago police charged the four aspiring rappers with a hate crime for allegedly beating, torturing and kidnapping a white mentally disabled kid from the suburbs.

They were screaming “Bleep white people!” and “Bleep Trump!” but none of the PC posse wanted to … uh, jump to any conclusions.

Take Obama — please. His flack Josh Earnest was asked if this was a hate crime.

“I think it’s too early to tell.”

No call from Obama for a “national conversation” about hate crimes. He didn’t even call it “workplace violence.” . . .

This wasn’t the first post-election black-on-white hate crime on the West Side. In November, a 50-year-old white man was dragged from his car by four people screaming obscenities about Trump. That hate crime was likewise recorded on videotape.

Police arrested Rajune Lewis, Dejuan Collins, Julian Christian and a juvenile and … do you remember seeing anything about this on the network newscasts? Me neither.

Compare this kid-glove treatment for all these thugs to what happened to the two Babson College students who drove over to Wellesley College after the election. Let’s let Babson President (and former Lt. Gov.) Muffy Healey describe how her students “engaged in behavior that was, at a minimum, insensitive, unacceptable and contrary to our core values.”

Their crime? They were yelling “Trump 2016!” and “Make America Great Again.”

Muffy banned them from campus and they were kicked out of their frat. They had to hire lawyers to fight Muffy’s fake news.

If it wasn’t for double standards, the alt-left wouldn’t have any standards at all.

True.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: How Trump Clears Obama’s Minefield.

Before moving into the White House, President-elect Trump needs to double check the Oval Office for trip wires. His predecessor has spent the last month setting traps to ensnare the new administration.

President Obama has more on his mind than an effort to solidify a legacy and nail down policy. He has adopted a guerrilla strategy designed to defame and debilitate. Inherently political, it’s administrative sabotage by extra legislative means and it threatens to hobble Trump.

Obama has prepared what looks like a classic episode from Mad Magazine: Executive vs. Executive. Instead of delivering on his own agenda, Trump will be forced to deal with the aftermath of his predecessor’s final binge. They could consume a notable portion of Trump’s first 100 days, but if left unaddressed it would stain his administration long term.

To avoid that hazard, an examination of President Clinton’s final days in office is helpful. After all, Obama didn’t develop these tactics on his own. He lifted them directly from a manual written by the Clintons.

Just days before President George W. Bush’s inauguration, Clinton weaponized EPA regulations to set a trap for the new administration. Despite complaints from rural communities about crippling compliance costs and a lack of a scientific consensus, Clinton adopted aggressive arsenic standards for drinking water. When Bush eased the mandate, it unleashed a torrent of criticism that had been long planned, most notably from Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

Despite calling for studies based on “sound science,” Bush couldn’t shake accusations that he wanted to poison children. The attacks found their mark, and Bush later remembered the experience as one of the worst mistakes of his young administration.

Now Obama’s running the same play. But while his midnight regulations haven’t escaped media attention, journalists continue giving the Obama administration charitable coverage. By focusing on the policy impact, they ignore and amplify the coming political fallout. . . .

Although Obama promised a smooth transition, he’s moved unilaterally to make that impossible. He lacks the grace and modesty to recognize that the country does not want him or his policies any longer. His indefinite oil ban in the Arctic Ocean provides a perfect example. Overturning the ban would require congressional action and incur significant political opportunity cost. For every regulation Trump overturns, he risks letting another slip into the Federal Register forever.

None of this should dissuade Trump from delivering on his pledge to roll back regulation. But he should proceed with the proper preparation and study on both the substantive policies and on the public relations.

Trump would be wise to condemn early and often Obama’s weaponization of executive action. Remember how Obama blamed everything on Bush until, oh, about the sixth year of his presidency. Trump should make sure the public knows where the blame really lies.

I expect he will.

IF IT WASN’T FOR DOUBLE-STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Gutless Liar, Harry Reid, Smears James Comey As A ‘Partisan’

IF IT WASN’T FOR DOUBLE-STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Roger Simon on the Democrats’ Nauseating Putin Hypocrisy.

CAMPUS TRUMP SUPPORTERS PUNCHING BACK AGAINST BIAS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS:

Conservative students who voted for Mr. Trump say that even though their candidate won, their views are not respected. Some are adopting the language of the left, saying they need a “safe space” to express their opinions — a twist resented by left-leaning protesters.

Administrators are struggling to maintain a balance between political factions. But some college presidents have entered the fray with statements that seem more sympathetic to the left, in some cases provoking a backlash. . . .

For conservative students like Ms. Deletka, the messages from university officials, seemingly assuming that everyone on campus was upset about the election result, were particularly offensive. . . .

Ms. Delekta described how she had been offended when a classmate wondered why as a “white female,” she had not voted for Hillary Clinton. She resented what she saw as identity politics on campus.

“My identity is so much more than my race and my gender,” Ms. Delekta said. “We’re all so much more similar than we think.”

She was able to separate Mr. Trump’s policies from his personal attitudes toward women, she said later. “I’m not electing a grandpa or a babysitter,” Ms. Delekta said.

Ibtihal Makki, a self-confident senior in a pink hijab who is studying biopsychology and neuroscience and is chairwoman of a student government diversity committee, objected to conservatives on campus saying they needed safe spaces to express their views.

Of course she did. And it looks like I was ahead of the curve here. And Pres. Mark Schlissel’s really blown it at Michigan.

And students should be punching back. Despite all the talk about “diversity” and “inclusion,” many campuses — Michigan clearly among them — are marginalizing and “othering” Trump supporters and conservative/libertarian students in general.

But conservative/libertarian students are members of the “university community” too and deserve to be treated with respect, and to have their political views treated as legitimate. Students should demand this from administrators, and alumni, parents, and legislators should demand it from universities.

IF LEFTIES DIDN’T HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:

screen-shot-2016-11-23-at-8-24-30-am

Related:

screen-shot-2016-11-23-at-8-26-16-am

WHEN REPUBLICANS USED OBAMA’S MIDDLE NAME, THEY WERE CALLED RACIST: If these people had no double standards, they would have no standards at all. Poor Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

WHAT’S SAD IS, I’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF GEORGE MASON AS LESS P.C. THAN AVERAGE: George Mason Needs To Get A Grip.

My school, George Mason University, has been triggered.

I know this from the seven — yes, seven — university administration emails I received in less than 24 hours advertising forums described as “post-election conversations” and “healing spaces.” These forums are offered as “a space for students to gather in the wake” of the election to “discuss and make sense of the outcomes.” Counselors from the university’s Counseling and Psychological Services will be available for “students wishing to discuss the recent election results in a safe environment.”

Although “snacks and refreshments” will be provided, the emails say nothing in the way of binkies or diapers; students may need to bring their own.

Okay, fine, I should not joke. There are, after all, some very sinister undertones hidden in these emails.

First, let’s strip these forums of all pretext: such “post-election conversations” are intended for those unhappy with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s victory. I can only speculate, but I think it is safe to assume the university would not take such ridiculous measures had Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won. Professors would have outwardly exalted checking off the “madam president” box, students would have celebrated preserving our nation’s indifference to abortion, and much of George Mason would have been cheering what conservatives view as the destruction of individual liberty.

Moreover, such sweeping liberal changes would have bolstered left-wing hubris, giving conservative Americans ample reason to fear for their freedom, beliefs and even personal safety. Just ask David Wilcox, Omar Mahmood, Jade Armenio, Ben Shapiro, the North Carolina and Delaware GOP or these Republicans. Given past edicts of the Democratic Party (e.g., providing space to “those who wished to destroy”) and the viciously anti-conservative censorship culture on most of America’s college campuses, it is not at all clear conservatives would have been safe to disagree.

So, yes, conservatives were completely justified in fearing a President Clinton.

With their true purpose exposed, however, George Mason’s “post-election conversations” become even more disturbing. . . .

Conservatives have suffered many disheartening setbacks in the past few years, many of which kept us up at night in worry and anger. Yet we saw no comforting emails from administrators or invitations to use “special resources” (not that we would have used them; we value our dignity). Rather, we were left to endure the harassment, intimidation and death threats all by ourselves. And we’re still here and still going strong.

Students and faculty and George Mason: get a grip.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

And let me note that, even though I’m at a state university in a conservative state, a university that has a green-light rating from FIRE for free speech, I’ve had lots of conservative students say they’re afraid to speak out, whether in support of Trump or on other topics.

And the author of this piece, Thomas Wheatley, is a law student at George Mason. I hope that more students will be inspired to push back against these double standards at their own schools.

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS:

● “We have proof, in exit polls, that white women will pawn their humanity for the safety of white supremacy.”

What Happened on Election Day, The New York Times, yesterday.

Due to the double standards being played by the mainstream media, the Clintons have been able to hide their racist skeletons.  The Clintons’ “Birth of a Nation” tactics have gone unnoticed by many White people, but best believe that African-Americans peeped it in South Carolina and definitely in Pennsylvania as we witnessed Hillary chant over and over again to her predominately White audience “he’s not one of us”and “I will fight for you.”   Well, people here’s the iceberg to HRC’s already sinking Titanic:  The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). The UDC is a neo-Confederate organization that is affiliated with white supremacist groups including: the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South, to name a few.  The organization was formed in 1894, and limits its membership to white women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”  Now how are the Clintons affiliated with them? Oh, they’ve  just only written letters lavishing praise upon the organizations values and ideology for more than 10 years!!  I can’t believe this woman has audacity to say she’s more electable.

The Clintons’ Link to White Supremacist Group-UDC, the Daily Kos, May 8, 2008.

An unhinged tirade by Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes has led to an unprecedented suspension from the network, according to its new management and several left- wing websites. This is a breaking story with details still emerging.

In a rant so salty it could make a sailor blush, Rhodes repeatedly called Hillary a “big f***ing whore”, to both cheers and jeers from the audience. The afternoon drive talker was there on behalf of Air America at an event sponsored by the local affiliate.

In addition, Rhodes referred to former Democrat vice presidential candidate [and Hillary campaigner in ’08] Geraldine Ferraro  as a “David Duke in Drag”.

Randi Rhodes Suspended; Calls Hillary ‘Big F—ing Whore,’ NewsBusters, April 3, 2008.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

—Nora Ephron, “White Men,” the Huffington Post, April 20, 2008.

— Father Micheal Pfleger, in Obama’s Trinity United Church, circa 2007-2008. In May of 2008, CNN reported that “Obama has known Pfleger for more than 20 years.”

“JURORS AWARDED A UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATOR $3 MILLION MONDAY FOR HER PORTRAYAL IN A NOW-DISCREDITED ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE ARTICLE ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S HANDLING OF A BRUTAL GANG RAPE A FRATERNITY HOUSE,” AP reports tonight, adding, “Jurors found that the magazine and its publisher, Wenner Media, acted with actual malice because they republished the article on Dec. 5 with an editor’s note after they knew about the problems with Jackie’s story. The jury also found that Erdely acted with actual malice on six claims: two statements in the article and four statements to media outlets after the story was published. Jurors awarded $2 million to Eramo for statements made by Erdely and $1 million for the republication of the article by Rolling Stone and Wenner Media. Rolling Stone could appeal the verdict.”

Rolling Stone is currently facing a $25 million defamation lawsuit from the UVA fraternity whose house was where Jackie claimed she was raped,” Bre Payton of the Federalist adds.

Earlier: “Rolling Stone Can Take Their Defamation Statement And Shove It,” Mollie Hemingway wrote on Friday:

When Rolling Stone published “A Rape on Campus” in 2014, it was attempting to drive a sketchy narrative for progressive political results. That’s what Sabrina Erdely has done with many of her pieces over her career. That’s why Rolling Stone hired her. They took a very serious issue of how the sexual revolution has led to all sorts of abuses on college campuses and decided instead to focus on the dubious “rape culture” message pushed in recent years by progressive activists. Abuses on college campuses — and especially off college campuses — are real, but the recent “rape culture” craze has led to attacks on the civil liberties of men and created a panic built on emotion more than reality.

Rolling Stone has spent the last half century fostering that aforementioned sexual revolution, and has pushed hard for numerous additional examples of relaxing social mores. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in a recent G-File, “If we can’t immediately grasp why some old practice, some ancient tradition, some venerable custom or Chestertonian fence is worthwhile, we tend to instantly dismiss it as outdated and old-fashioned. But again, as Chesterton and Hayek alike understood, simply because something is ‘old-fashioned’ doesn’t mean it wasn’t fashioned in the first place. And by fashioned, I mean manufactured and constructed. Customs are created because they solve problems. But they get less respect in our present age because they have no identifiable authors. They are crowd-sourced, to borrow a modern phrase for an ancient phenomenon. The customs and institutions we take for granted are crammed full of embedded knowledge every bit as much as prices are. But most intelligent people are comfortable admitting they can’t know all the factors that go into a price, but we constantly want to dissect the whys of every custom.”

Let’s assume for a moment that Rolling Stone’s base story was true. Or as Jann Wenner was quoted as saying late last month by the New York Times while defending the story as being fake but accurate (to quote a Times-approved phrase):

“We did everything reasonable, appropriate up to the highest standards of journalism to check on this thing,” Mr. Wenner said in a libel trial in federal court here. “The one thing we didn’t do was confront Jackie’s accusers — the rapists.”

As he has previously, Mr. Wenner assigned much of the blame to the woman at the center of the article, identified as Jackie, whose account of being raped began to fall apart shortly after the article was published two years ago. Mr. Wenner said there was nothing a journalist could do “if someone is really determined to commit a fraud.”

He said that while the magazine rightly retracted “the Jackie stuff,” he disagreed with the decision to retract the entire article in the wake of a damning report on it in April 2015 by The Columbia Journalism Review. He said the bulk of the article detailed ways that the University of Virginia could improve its treatment of victims of sexual assault.

Does Wenner feel that Rolling Stone, his life’s work, bears any responsibility for creating the conditions he describes in the above passage?

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: On Accepting Election Results.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: When Democrats say the ‘system is rigged’ the media doesn’t seem to mind.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Twitter under fire after it was slow to react to Jewish Labour activist being subjected to anti-Semitic abuse. “A Jewish Labour activist has been told that abuse calling for her to be deported to Auschwitz does not violate Twitter rules.”

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: The White House’s top spokesman refused on Wednesday to condemn the company or its top executive, whose father is a Democratic senator, for dramatically increasing the price of EpiPens.

“As it relates to this specific issue, you know, obviously I’m not going to make specific comment or specifically second-guess the pricing strategy or the business practices of one private enterprise,” Josh Earnest, President Obama’s press secretary, said on Wednesday.

He was reacting to reports that Mylan N.V. had boosted the price of the life-saving allergy shot 400 percent, to roughly $500 per dose. Earnest and other officials have had more violent reactions to similar price spikes in the healthcare industry that have often been blamed on corporate greed.

Earnest also had no comment on the fact that Mylan CEO Heather Bresch is the daughter of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

She also got a phony MBA degree from WVU while Manchin was Governor.

SOME GRIEVING PARENTS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS: “According to the media, not all grieving parents of fallen servicemen are created equal. Whether those parents are protected, defended and respected or ignored, dismissed and smeared depends on their political affiliation — and how useful they are to the ‘right’ side.”

Read: the left side.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL. Philadelphia’s Disgusting DNC Double Standard on Alcohol:

Pennsylvania is known for its restrictive alcohol laws — venues cannot sell alcohol after 2 a.m. or provide happy hour specials, and all drinks must be purchased at vendors run by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). But the state gave a special dispensation for the Democratic National Convention this week.

State legislators in Harrisburg have implemented temporary “national event permits” allowing bars to circumvent these restrictive rules, but only for DNC events. This raises the puzzling question of why outside visitors for the Democratic convention can be trusted with alcohol, while native Pennsylvanians cannot.

Know your place, Pennsylvania peasant!

WHY NOT? THERE ARE DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. Is there a plagiarism double standard?

Melania is a potential first lady, not the actual candidate, so the criticism she’s getting seems outsized compared to the plagiarism (h/t Heavy) of past candidates Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

When Biden was running for president in 1987, he had to admit to plagiarizing a law review article when he was in law school. He claimed at the time that his plagiarism was not “malevolent” but merely a “mistake” because he “misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully.”

We’ll have to take him at his word that back in the 1960s, people who made it through high school, their undergraduate studies and into law school wouldn’t properly know how to cite sources.

Biden also stole passages from the Welsh Labor Leader Neil Kinnock during a visit to a state fair. Biden has used quotes from Kinnock before, but had always credited him.

Biden also straight up stole details from Kinnock’s life and used them as his own, like claiming he was the first in his family to go to college. Oh, and Biden also stole passages from Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey.

Despite the blatant, serial plagiarism, Biden has been our vice president for the past eight years. It might have kept him from the presidency (not really, he wasn’t that well known in 1988 and in 2008 he was up against Barack Obama), but it didn’t keep him from the Senate or the vice presidency.

President Obama also plagiarized a part of a speech. In 2008, he gave a speech that sounded suspiciously similar to a 2006 speech from then Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Patrick closed party ranks and defended Obama after the accusation.

Democrats do that for their own. And so does the press.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS SUCH CESSPITS OF SEXISM? Obama White House still pays women less than men.

If activists are going to use median annual salaries to claim women are paid less than men, then they ought to be consistent and call out President Obama’s White House.

Female staffers in the White House earn 89 cents for ever dollar that male staffers earn. That’s on par with one of the numbers often reported for the misleading “gender wage gap,” which finds women earning 77 or 78 or 89 cents to a man’s dollar.

American Enterprise Scholar Mark J. Perry, who analyzed the White House data, found the median salary for the White House’s 271 female staffers to be $68,658, while the median salary for the 198 male staffers was $76,928 in 2016.

“Therefore, female staffers in the Obama White House currently earn 89.25% of the median salary for male staffers, or 89.25 cents for every $1 men earn, and there is a 10.75% gender pay gap at the Obama White House,” Perry wrote. “That pay gap is slightly smaller than the 15.8% gender pay gap at the White House last year, but is still more than 2.5 times greater than the average gender pay gap for the Washington, D.C., labor market of only 4% according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor.” . . .

Activists, naturally, don’t want to acknowledge that Obama’s White House pays women less because, as they’re almost exclusively all Leftists. They would have to tie themselves in knots to explain how this pay gap is different from some other pay gap.

But it’s not different — it uses the same over-simplistic measurement as all similar derivations of the gap. The main reason women earn less in the Obama White House is that more senior positions are occupied by men and more junior positions are occupied by women. You can judge the intention here for yourself, but if you’re going to make excuses for Obama, you might want to apply the same excuses to any other employer where this is the case.

If it weren’t for double standards, “activists” would have no standards at all. But remember: They don’t care about people, they care about power.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, SHE’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Senator Warren’s Glaring Hypocrisy.

SCOTT JOHNSON: Dartmouth And Double Standards. PC culture effectively makes black students “lesser breeds outside the law,” not expected to live up to the standards of behavior expected of others. This is racist, of course, but PC was never about getting rid of racism, merely redirecting it in politically useful ways.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Israel Rejects Effort by Democrats to Launch Legal Probe of Jewish State.

BUT IT ENRICHED WALL STREET FATCATS/DONORS: Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans: Under Bill Clinton, Wall Street created a ruinous bubble, while workers lost wages and power.

How could Clinton have undergone such a lightening-fast reversal? The answer is straightforward, and explained with candor by Robert Rubin, who had been co-chair of Goldman Sachs before becoming Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Even before the inauguration, Rubin explained to more populist members of the incoming administration that the rich “are running the economy and make the decisions about the economy.”

Wall Street certainly flourished under Clinton. By 1999, the average price of stocks had risen to 44 times these companies’ earnings. Historically, stock prices had averaged about 14 times more than earnings. Even during the 1920s bubble, stock prices rose only to 33 times earnings right before the 1929 crash.

A major driver here was Wall Street’s craze for Internet start-ups. In 1999, for example, AOL’s market value eclipsed that of Disney and Time Warner combined, and Priceline.com’s value was double that of United Airlines. The Clinton team created the environment that encouraged such absurd valuations. Throughout the bubble years, Clinton’s policy advisers, led by Rubin and his then protégé Larry Summers, maintained that regulating Wall Street was an outmoded relic from the 1930s. They used this argument to push through the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall financial regulatory system that had been operating since the New Deal. The Clinton team thus set the stage for the collapse of the Dot.com bubble and ensuing recession in March 2001, only two months after Clinton left office. They also created the conditions that enabled the even more severe bubble that produced the 2008 global financial crisis and Great Recession. . . . The unemployment rate did begin falling after Clinton took office in 1993, reaching a 31-year low of 4 percent in 2000. But this growth in job opportunities resulted primarily from a major expansion in household and business spending tied to the stock-market bubble. A run-up in both household and business indebtedness financed this spending boom. Unemployment started rising again soon after the bubble burst, and the debt-financed expansion collapsed in March 2001.

Yep. The fabulous Clinton economy was mostly a bubble. Plus:

What was Clinton’s overall record with respect to improving living standards for working people and the poor? During the eight full years of Clinton’s presidency, the average real wage for non-supervisory workers, at $13.60 an hour (in 2001 dollars), was 2 percent lower than the average under Reagan and Bush and nearly 10 percent less than under Jimmy Carter’s “years of malaise.” The average individual poverty rate under Clinton, at 13.2 percent of the population, was modestly better than the 14 percent rate under Reagan and Bush. But it was worse than the 11.9 percent figure that was maintained, on average, under Nixon and Ford, as well as Carter.

In sum, Bill Clinton’s presidency accomplished almost nothing to improve conditions for working people and the poor on a sustained basis. Gestures to the poor and working class were slight and back-handed, while wages for the majority remained below their level of a generation prior. Wealth at the top exploded with the Wall Street bubble. But the stratospheric rise in stock prices and the debt-financed consumption and investment booms produced a mortgaged legacy.

But here’s a hint: Electing Bernie Sanders won’t improve things.

TEACH STUDENTS NOT TO LIE ABOUT RACISM: Students who falsely reported a racist attack will be charged.

Several students who falsely claimed they were the victims of a race-based attack at the hands of a dozen white people will be charged, most likely with filing a false report.

The three students at the State University of New York at Albany claimed they were attacked by a dozen white people while riding on a bus in January. The alleged attack quickly caught the attention of Black Lives Matter activists, the school’s president and even presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, all of whom condemned the attack before any evidence was provided.

The evidence showed the attack was a hoax, and in fact that one of the alleged victims threw the first punch. Bus cameras also showed that no passengers yelled racial slurs at the students, as they had claimed, but one of the accusers did use a racial slur against a white passenger.

Nonetheless, SUNY Albany President Robert Jones said he was “deeply concerned, saddened and angry about this incident.” He added that “there is no place in the SUNY Albany community for violence, no place for racial intolerance and no place for gender violence.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even tweeted about the incident shortly after protesters took to the campus to decry the alleged assault. Clinton wrote: “There’s no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus.”

One SUNY Albany student actually did become a victim after this story was reported. The brother of one of the accusers — who is a lineman for the San Diego Chargers — threatened a student over Twitter whom he claimed was one of the attackers before quickly deleting the tweet. The threatened student allegedly left school fearing for his safety.

In an odd decision, the Albany County District Attorney actually allowed activists to view evidence of the alleged assault. One activist who viewed the footage of course argued against jailing the accusers, but suggested they apologize.

We cannot keep allowing false accusations to go unpunished.

Nope. And note that the story never quite says that the accusers were black, though it does say that the accused were white. Perhaps if the press abandoned racial double standards in these matters it would help.

WITHOUT LIES AND DOUBLE STANDARDS, COULD MODERN FEMINISM EXIST AT ALL? Feminist organization still defending Rolling Stone rape hoaxer.

The National Organization for Women must be hurting for publicity and must also adhere to the old saying that there is “no such thing as bad publicity,” because their recent decision to come to the defense of the woman who lied about being gang raped to Rolling Stone is otherwise astonishing.

Police found no evidence to back up the allegation (although they haven’t officially closed the case). The accuser, Jackie, named the man she claimed took her to a fraternity party and initiated the gang rape — and no one by that name was a student at the University of Virginia or even existed in the United States.

There was no party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on the night she claimed to have been raped. Her story changed in material ways over the years. At one point, she claimed he had been forced to perform oral sex on five men. At another, she said she had been raped by seven, including with a beer bottle. Every detail she provided to Rolling Stone was either absolutely proven false or cast into very deep doubt — from her bloody and torn dress to the way her friends and a university administrator treated her after she came forward.

Despite all of this, NOW is calling Jackie a “survivor” and condemning the U.Va. dean who is suing Rolling Stone and requesting documents to prove she was defamed by the magazine.

Well, they fundraised a lot off this. If they admit it’s bogus, people might want their money back.

WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Facebook’s anti-Israel double standard on hate speech.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:

cnn_teabagging_schlonged_12-25-15-1

WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL:  Oh, the hypocrisy!

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Alan Dershowitz Goes Off on PC College Culture: ‘the Fog of Fascism Is Descending.’ “It is free speech for me, but not for thee. Universities should not tolerate this kind of double standard… If you’re going to be a college administrator or a professor, if you have tenure, you have to speak back to the students, you have to call these things what they are: double standards, hypocrisy, bigotry, McCarthyism, and the fog of fascism is descending quickly over many American universities.”

JOHN COCHRANE: Sclerotic growth is the overriding economic issue of our time.

From 1950 to 2000 the US economy grew at an average rate of 3.5% per year. Since 2000, it has grown at half that rate, 1.7%. From the bottom of the great recession in 2009, usually a time of super-fast catch-up growth, it has only grown at two percent per year. Two percent, or less, is starting to look like the new normal.

Small percentages hide a large reality. The average American is more than three times better off than his or her counterpart in 1950. Real GDP per person has risen from $16,000 in 1952 to over $50,000 today, both measured in 2009 dollars. Many pundits seem to remember the 1950s fondly, but $16,000 per person is a lot less than $50,000!

If the US economy had grown at 2% rather than 3.5% since 1950, income per person by 2000 would have been $23,000 not $50,000. That’s a huge difference. Nowhere in economic policy are we even talking about events that will double, or halve, the average American’s living standards in the next generation.

Even these large numbers understate reality. GDP per capita does not capture the increase in lifespan—nearly 10 years—in health, in environmental quality, security and quality of life that we have experienced. The average American today lives far better than a 1950s American would if he or she had three rather than one 1950s cars, TVs, telephones, encyclopedias (in place of internet), or three annual visits to a 1950s doctor.

But even these less quantified benefits flow from economic growth. Only wealthy countries can afford environmental protection and advanced healthcare.

Yes, but policies that produce strong economic growth produce insufficient opportunities for graft, and our political class — which controls the policies — values opportunities for graft above all else.

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS: They’d have no standards at all. Everyone Freaked Out When the Bush Sisters Did It. Here’s the Response to Malia Obama Partying…

DOUBLE STANDARDS: University dismisses male student’s harassment claim.

How are male and female students treated differently under the anti-discrimination law Title IX? Not only are men accused of sexual assault denied due process or the assumption of innocence, but male accusers are often ignored.

Case in point: A male student from Northwestern University brought forward sexual harassment claims against a male microbiology and pathology professor but had them dismissed by the school. Now, the male student waited two years to report the sexual harassment, which allegedly occurred between 2007 and 2010. The male student reported the harassment to his adviser in 2012, who then reported it to the school’s Title IX coordinator.

Setting aside the merits of the case and my initial skepticism, the university dismissed the student’s accusation, claiming Title IX required reporting to be done within 180 days of the alleged harassment. The timing claim, however, applies to filing Title IX lawsuits with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, not to filing claims with schools.

Regardless, the male student tried again one year later, this time by appealing to the Title IX coordinator directly. The adviser acknowledged that comments made by the professor to the male student were “ill-advised and unwelcome,” but maintained that they did not rise to the level of sexual harassment.

The student had accused the professor of “making suggestive comments” and “ogling.” He also claimed he was once invited to the professor’s room to have his hair cut and that the professor asked other students about the accuser’s sexual orientation.

Now imagine, as the College Fix does, what would have happened had a female student made similar allegations against a professor.

Related: Prosecutors support more due process for accused students.

ASHE SCHOW: Democrats tweet sexist attack on Carly Fiorina.

For those who weren’t watching the debate, Fiorina wore a pink suit. Of all the disbelief GIFs the Democrats could have chosen, they chose one of a small blonde girl in a pink jacket?

Had this been a tweet from the Republicans about Hillary Clinton, the phrase “war on women” certainly would have been attached. It should be no difference for the Democrats.

While the Left wants to claim that every criticism or slight from a Republican is rooted in sexism, their own Twitter account compares a female Republican to a little girl. Maybe they should look in the mirror the next time they accuse a Republican of being sexist.

If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Ivy Honors And The Justices: “The differential treatment of justices on the right and left of the Court provides more evidence of the high double standards of higher education. It also offers some indirect evidence that professors on the right likely suffer discrimination in the elite legal academy. After all, the faculty and the administration of the law schools likely have some influence on who gets honorary degrees. And no doubt there is likely to be a similar message in many classrooms about which justices are worthy of emulation.”

CULTURAL TYRANTS: “This isn’t stopping at the Confederate flag. It accelerates with each victory the cultural Left achieves. And never, ever is there a price paid for its aggression,” Scott McKay writes at the American Spectator. “A price must be exacted. The Left cannot be allowed its double standards and guilty pleasures on the way to unquestioned cultural dominance. If traditional America must perish under Alinsky’s Rule #4 (‘Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules’), then so must the Left.”

DIVERSITY COMEUPPANCE:  Kate Bachelder at WSJ has a great column on “Harvard’s Chinese Exclusion Act“:

Getting into Harvard is tough enough: Every year come the stories about applicants who built toilets in developing countries, performed groundbreaking lunar research, or won national fencing competitions, whatever it takes to edge out the competition. So you can imagine that the 52-year-old Florida businessman and author Yukong Zhao is incensed that gaining admission may be even harder for his children—because of their race.

“It’s not a political issue,” he says. “It’s a civil-rights issue.”

Mr. Zhao helped organize 64 groups that last month asked the Education Department to investigate Harvard University for discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions. The allegation is that Harvard is holding Asian-Americans to higher standards to keep them from growing as a percentage of the student body. The complaint, filed also with the Justice Department, follows a lawsuit against the university last fall by the nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions. . . .

This spring, 21% of the students admitted to Harvard were Asian-American; in 1993 it was about 20%. Harvard selects students based on criteria it calls “holistic,” taking into consideration subjective qualities such as, according to the university’s website, “interests,” “character” and “growth.”

Yet look how Harvard stacks up against schools that explicitly don’t consider ethnicity in admissions. At the California Institute of Technology, the share of Asian-American students hit 42.5% in 2013—double Harvard’s and a big jump from Caltech’s 26% in 1993. At the University of California-Berkeley it is more than 30%; the state’s voters banned the state schools from using racial preferences in a 1996 referendum. The trend is also observable at elite high schools with race-neutral admissions: New York City’s Hunter College High School was 49% Asian-American in 2013.

This disparity suggests “a de facto quota system” at Harvard, Mr. Zhao tells me over dinner at a restaurant near his home in Orlando, where he works for a large energy company. Racial quotas aren’t allowed thanks to a 1978 Supreme Court ruling, but in 2003 the court confirmed that colleges could use race as a “plus” factor.

That “plus” factor decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, allowed the University of Michigan law school’s race-conscious, “holistic” admission program but warned:

“When using race as a ‘plus’ factor in university admissions, a university’s admissions program must remain flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application. The importance of this individualized consideration in the context of a race-conscious admissions program is paramount.”

What Harvard and other “diversity”-driven admissions programs are doing isn’t giving Asian students a “plus” factor (as it is with “underrepresented” black or Hispanic students). Instead, being Asian with impeccable credentials is actually a “negative” factor that prevents such Asian students from being evaluated as an individual, which illustrates how perverse the quest for “diversity” has become.  The same can be said for white students who lose admissions seats to minority students with less impressive objective credentials.  But the incredibly high credentials of Asian students helps bolster the case that “diversity” is just progressive code for “discrimination” based on race rather than increasing educational opportunities for minority students.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D). THIS SHOULD WORK. Judge sends strong message with teacher’s sentence.

Saying there is no room for double standards, an Oakland County judge sentenced a 30-year-old female teacher to spend the next six to 15 years in prison for having a sexual relationship with a student. . . .

Grant was dismayed by letters asking for leniency for Ronk, a former teacher at Bishop Foley High School in Madison Heights, but making no mention of concern for the boy.

“You are dealing with children that are still developing emotionally,” Grant said Wednesday. “To have this continuing double standard is unacceptable. The law does not recognize a double standard, the law is clearly on point in terms that these children are developing human beings. This was a person in position with power and influence over him.”

If we’re going to end this pervasive culture of female sexual entitlement, there will have to be consequences for abusive behavior.

THE HACK REPORTER’S NAME IS STEVEN ROSENFELD: The Killer, the Reporter, and the Southern Poverty Law Center: Reporter interviews source about murderer, doesn’t ask about murderer’s apparent fondness for source’s organization. “No, I don’t think the SPLC deserves any blame for the crime. That would be ridiculous. But the SPLC itself has a long history of throwing around blame in precisely that ridiculous way, so it would have been nice to hear how Potok reacts when an event like this lands in his own backyard. Double standards deserve to be challenged, right?”

Not by hacks who write for Alternet, and get reprinted in Salon and The Raw Story. They’re not reporters. They’re Party Indoctrination Officers. And Party Indoctrination Officers look at SPLC/HuffPo supporters and write: “We can safely say that Craig Stephen Hicks fits the profile of the most common type of domestic violent extremist—a white man with grievances and guns.” But it would be nice if some actual reporter put Potok on the spot.

THE SPLC AS INCITER OF MURDER? Under the SPLC’s Own Logic, It’s Guilty In The Chapel Hill Killings. “Somehow, if he had liked Sean Hannity and the Southern Baptist Convention instead of Rachel Maddow and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, I don’t think we would witness the media restraint we’re seeing when it comes to connecting this killer’s politics to his terrible deeds. And again, I would note the irony of his fondness for the Southern Poverty Law Center. By the SPLC’s own logic, the SPLC shares responsibility for another hate crime. Now that the SPLC has been hoisted by its own petard twice in a few years, I hope it and other liberal groups act more responsibly the next time they want to blame a tragic crime on someone’s personal politics.”

Related: SPLC apologizes, removes Dr. Ben Carson from its “Extremist” list.

Also related: Of Double Standards and Triple Homicides: Media Malpractice and the North Carolina Murders. “It is ironic that in the wake of President Barack Obama’s remarks about a ‘random’ attack by a Muslim terrorist on a Kosher supermarket — note that the White House will not call it a jihadist attack on Jews — in the case of the victims in North Carolina, again from the start they were identified as Muslims. Randomness is clearly in the eye of the beholder.” To be fair, this killer had some pretty suspicious associations, what with Facebook “likes” for the SPLC, HuffPo, Rachel Maddow, etc.

HEY, WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY’D HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL: Jonah Goldberg: Ringing Out The Year With Liberal Double Standards.

CHARLES C.W. COOKE: The Left’s “Climate Of Hate” Hypocrisy.

Consider, if you will, the recent behavior of Salon’s Joan Walsh, who yesterday suggested in earnest that the conservative-led condemnation of the “climate” that supposedly provoked the shootings in New York City represented the unconscionable “politicization” of murder. “To blame the peaceful movement against police brutality that’s emerged nationwide,” Walsh wrote, is “the worst in demagoguery.” “Right wingers,” she added, “are using a terrible tragedy to make sure that no one can find middle ground.” Prima facie, I concur with Walsh, of course. But what, we might ask, has finally led her to this conclusion? After the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011, Walsh fretted dramatically about “the rhetoric of violence”; asked aloud, “Will any prominent conservatives denounce ‘reload’ and ‘crosshairs’ imagery?”; inquired dishonestly, “Is it really controversial to suggest that the overheated anti-government rhetoric of the last two years, with its often violent imagery, ought to be toned down?”; described Sarah Palin’s pretty standard political-campaign map as “unconscionable”; hoped that Republicans would find it in their hearts to “listen to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who denounced ‘the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about the government’ at a Saturday night press conference”; played a remarkably dishonest game of “But Anyway . . . ,” repeatedly noting that there was “no evidence” that Jared Loughner had reacted to any right-wing rhetoric before insinuating in the next breath that he must have; and, when her well was running dry, went so far as to suggest without any attestation at all that the shooter was a registered Republican.

Later, talking characteristically out of both sides of her mouth, Walsh proposed that “even if Tuscon exists in a vacuum,” it would still be the case that the “Tea Party’s violent rhetoric is dangerous.” Naturally, these accusations were part of a trend. Two years earlier, Walsh had cynically blamed conservative talk-radio for a shooting at the National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. The perpetrator turned out to be a neo-Nazi.

If it weren’t for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

Related: The Monsters Who Screamed For Dead Cops.

A little over a week ago, a group of people marched down the streets of Manhattan and called for police to be killed. But exactly who cried out for violence has been something of a mystery as New York goes through its most tense moment in more than a decade.

Evidence from photos, videos, social-media posts and interviews suggest that a group—the New York chapter of the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee, or TMOC—might have been involved. There is no definitive proof that TMOC led the call for dead cops, but there is a web of circumstantial ties with the group at its center.

TMOC’s own social-media posts put them near the scene of the cry for police blood. Some of the slogans used that night—including “arms up, shoot back!”—are the same as the ones used by TMOC. And recently TMOC has been soliciting money for the legal defense of people it calls its “comrades” who were arrested for allegedly assaulting police officers on the Brooklyn Bridge, just hours after the “dead cops” chant was recorded.

The bedrock of TMOC’s politics, judged by their social-media output, is hatred for police and endorsement of violence against them. The group seems to blend “black bloc” anarchist street violence with social-media campaigns. Keeping their organizing online, members can plan and incite without coming out from behind their digital masks until they hit the streets. (The group did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

Finding TMOC started with an interview of the man who shot the video showing marchers chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” . . . It would be interesting to find out more about the radicals whose slogan is “shoot back.” What we know now is that, out of the people arrested on the bridge, one is a Harvard-educated poet and another was making more than $100,000 a year working for one of the most the most powerful unions in New York City.

I think further inquiry is worthwhile. And if this were a Tea Party event, every journalist in New York would be tracing all the connections. But the Tea Party famously leaves places cleaner than it finds them. The left, not so much.

THE NEW CRITERION ON DOUBLE STANDARDS: “Why is it acceptable for celebrities or other certified feminist icons to prance around in pornographic splendor when men are expected to behave with Mrs. Grundyesque rectitude?” Because feminism, as practiced, is all about expanding women’s options and diminishing women’s responsibilities, while doing the opposite to men. Because equality!

NICK GILLESPIE: Journalistic Hypocrisy Over Hacked Emails vs. Celebrity Pics.

It was just a few months ago that everybody and his grandmother was truly livid—or at least feigned anger before firing up our search engines—when hackers released naked pictures of celebrities ranging from Jennifer Lawrence to Kate Upton to Dave Franco. Curiously, such outrage is almost completely missing in the media’s response to the massive hack attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment, which may be linked to the North Korean government and has dumped private emails, contracts, files of unreleased movies, and more all across the Internet.

This time around, there is unapologetic prurience at the chance to get a real behind-the-scenes look at an industry long notorious for its wicked, backbiting, and hypocritical ways. Big-shot producer Scott Rudin tells Sony co-chair Amy Pascal he thinks Angelina Jolie is “a minimally talented spoiled brat”? A-List director David Fincher is as difficult as Hitler was anti-Semitic? Tell us more!

Whatever the differences in public responses, the episodes underscore two basic points that are worth learning fast: First, nobody cares about other people’s privacy, especially if the divulged material is juicy enough. Second, privacy is itself a highly fluid concept that will have probably changed yet again by the time you finish reading this article. Once upon a time, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that federal agents didn’t need warrants to tap phones. Privacy is invented more than it is discovered.

And if journalists didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

MEGAN MCARDLE: Campus Rapes And Kangaroo Courts.

I’ve heard some version of this argument over and over in discussing campus rape prosecutions: “not a big deal, because this is not the government depriving you of your liberty, it’s just a help for victims to get away from their rapists, and nothing really bad happens to the boys.

In the first place, the government is pushing for these relaxed standards of evidence and due process, via Title IX, which means that this is the government doing something to you. Not putting you in prison, to be sure. But — and I hardly believe I have to say this — getting expelled on a sexual assault charge is, in fact, something very bad happening to you. I don’t know why people keep saying that this is “all” that happens, as if it were the educational equivalent of having to change hotels mid-vacation.

Read BuzzFeed’s account of what happened to men who went through these college disciplinary processes to see just how big this can be. One man lost his job after an anonymous caller notified them of his “convictions” — which were for “non-consensual kissing.” It can go on your permanent record, making it hard to get into grad school — you might possibly recover from a youthful bad grades, or plagiarism, but our society doesn’t offer much rehabilitation for sex offenders. You’ll probably lose credits, and for those attending selective schools, it seems likely to me that a man with such a notation on his record would have a hard time enrolling in another elite school.

When people say this is “no big deal,” how many of them would shrug off having this happen to them, on the basis of a hearing where the odds are stacked in favor of believing the accuser, and double standards are often rigorously applied? Which is to say: when two people who are equally drunk have sex, the girl can be presumed to be unable to consent—while the boy is held to be fully capable of determining her level of intoxication, and of making the informed decision not to have sex with someone too much the worse for wine. And this in the name of promoting equality between the genders.

It’s like there’s some entirely different agenda actually at work here.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: If She Hit Him, He Probably Deserved It. “Mitchell points out Skoien’s small size – ‘5 feet 4 inches and 110 pounds’ – but as we know, if it were a diminutive man doing the beating, it wouldn’t lessen the crime, just make the bullying somehow more psychologically charged. Should her husband have called the cops on her?”

SUDDENLY, WE’RE DISCOVERING THAT SEXUAL ABUSE OF BOYS BY WOMEN IS VASTLY MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT:

Eight to 16% of the male population has been abused sexually in youth. Most at risk are poor, fatherless boys 13 and younger. A significant number of child sex abusers – estimates range between five and twenty percent – are women. According to a 2004 report published in the Children and Youth Services review, “In 1996, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) investigated more than two million reports alleging maltreatment of more than three million children. More than one million of these children were identified as victims of abuse. Of the one million children, 12% were sexually abused. The sexual abuse of children by women, primarily mothers, once thought to be so rare it could be ignored, constituted 25% (approximately 36 000 children) of the sexually abused victims. This statistic is thought to be underestimated due to the tendency of non-disclosure by victims.”

But many people – even professional therapists – resist the very notion that women can harbor such instincts. A 1984 study reported that “pedophilia…does not exist at all in women.” Researching the subject several years ago, I interviewed an Ontario woman whose life, and that of her brother, had been blighted by the chronic sexual abuse they endured at the hands of their mother. As an adult, she sought therapy and was disheartened that she “never found any social service agency willing to acknowledge this or speak about it.”

Her experience is borne out in a 2004 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence by McGill professor Myriam S. Denov, “The Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators,” in which Denov notes that “professionals working in the area of child welfare perceive sexual abuse by women as relatively harmless as compared to sexual abuse by men.” Denov found that this professional minimization and disbelief of patients’ allegations can exacerbate the original abuse’s negative effects, “ultimately inciting secondary victimization.”

The instinctive discomfort people feel regarding female pedophilia can be located in two sources. One is the universal image of the female as the “nurturing” sex. But even harder to combat is an ideology, currently dominant in our culture, in which men are associated with violence and women with victimhood. Any suggestion that women are as capable of predatory sexual behavior as men is viewed as social heresy. The ramifications of this sex-specific dogma can be seen in the double standards for men and women – notably in cases of domestic violence, but also in cases of child abuse – routinely applied by law enforcement and social services in assessing the veracity of victims.

Yep.

ASHE SCHOW ON THE LATEST COLLEGE CRAZE: Thought experiment: Let’s reverse the sexes in this story about drunk shaming.

These upstanding citizens take photos of women after they have passed out, drawing crude Images on their face, arms and legs with markers or posing next to them in suggestive ways.

These men completely degrade these women while they don’t have the situational awareness to respond or defend themselves.

Is this not worthy of feminist outrage?

Well you can stop being outraged, because the sexes in this story are actually reversed.

Using the hashtag #CantHang, college women are doing the above shaming to men.

But of course there’s no outrage there right? I mean, who cares if this kind of stuff happens on college campuses, so long as it’s happening to men, am I right, feminists?

If it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW: Are Female Journalists Softballing Jill Abramson Because She’s A Woman?

Here’s the thing. I don’t begrudge Abramson the right to pick the journalists she believes will give her the warmest embrace, or will accept her terms for an interview. Why shouldn’t she do that? In this case, she’s not in the role of “journalist,” she’s the newsmaker trying to spin her version of events. And on that score Abramson has a deft touch. She is not only brilliant at overseeing the news, she is also brilliant at managing the news, particularly when it’s about her. In the weeks since her firing, the public relations skirmish looks something like: Abramson 7, The New York Times 0.

But it is an absurd display of credulity and clubbiness on the part of her interviewers to take dictation on whatever Abramson says, to accept her version of highly controversial events surrounding her firing at The Times and then call it a day.

There are plenty of questions still to be asked: What about Abramson’s compensation battles with her bosses and, if true, her extraordinary decision to hire a lawyer when she was the executive editor? What warnings was she given that she might be fired? What did she tell then-managing editor Dean Baquet about the prospect of another managing editor coming in? Is his version of events complete?

I happen to be one who thinks there indeed was a double standard operating in the executive suite at The Times, and that a man would not be dismissed for his management style when his performance as a journalist was unsurpassed. But I was hoping for some better understanding of this issue when Abramson finally started speaking.

I’m beginning to think the details may never come out. Abramson has mainly dodged male reporters. And the male reporters I know would just as soon stay clear of the whole matter anyway. Most men don’t go rushing to cover tempestuous stories of sex discrimination.

That means it’s probably up to female journalists to seek complete answers to an event that’s still of no small importance in some quarters, particularly the quarters containing the young female journalists Abramson says she cares about most.

If female journalists want to be treated equitably, they should abide by their own principles of fairness. That means not giving your own a slide because you think they deserve it. Behaving otherwise is convenient, but it’s not journalism.

If it weren’t for clubby double standards, today’s journalism wouldn’t have any standards at all.

CATHY YOUNG: The Surprising Truth About Women And Domestic Violence: Traditional stereotypes have led to double standards that often cause women’s violence—especially against men—to be trivialized. “Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent, and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence.”

21st CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: How Will Sexbots Change Human Relationships? Nobody tell that notorious robophobe Matthew Yglesias.

But if you’re going to worry, as this author does, that “female” sexbots will shape male expectations of real women, what about vibrators? The oldest of all sexbots, have they shaped female expectations of men? Plus, note this old post on double standards. Plus, a discussion in the comments here.

SHIKHA DALMIA: Does NYT’s Jill Abramson Have It Worse Than Her Indian Sisters?

Now, much of the agenda of American feminists—wage gap, not enough female CEOs, tax payer-covered birth pills, and, the emerging cause celeb, the absence of paid menstrual leave—strikes me as special pleading masquerading as gender justice. (What’s next? All expenses paid bikini waxes?) But sexism—holding women to different behavioral standards than men—is a genuine issue in America, especially in workplaces.

That’s true, but the double-standards work both ways. All sorts of behavior that would be punished as sexual harassment if done by men is ignored when done by women, for example.

#WARONMEN: Shocking video shows how members of the public intervene when they see man attacking his girlfriend… but stand by and LAUGH when the roles are reversed.

A hard-hitting experiment has revealed how strangers react differently when seeing domestic abuse depending on the gender of the aggressor.

A video filmed with hidden cameras at a London park shows a male actor attacking his ‘girlfriend’ in front of onlookers who immediately rush to help, with one shouting: ‘Oi mate, what’s wrong with you?’

The man is told ‘someone will call the police if you carry on doing that to someone’, before a passer-by says to the woman: ‘You don’t have to put up with that honey, he’s not worth it’.

The experiment is then conducted with the same actors – but this time, the woman is the aggressor, attacking him and saying: ‘Don’t try to walk away – listen to me when I’m talking to you.’

However, instead of reacting with shock, nobody watching even attempts to help the man. They actually seem rather entertained by the incident, stopping to stare and laughing about it.

If it weren’t for double standards, nowadays, we’d have no standards at all. Video at the link.

JAMES TARANTO: Drunkenness And Double Standards: A balanced look at college sex offenses.

Winerip notes that between 2005 and 2010, “more than 60 percent of claims involving sexual violence handled by United Educators”–an insurance company owned by member schools–“involved young women who were so drunk they had no clear memory of the assault.” We know from Sgt. Cournoyer that the accused young men typically are drinking to excess, too. What is called the problem of “sexual assault” on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. . . . In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

That is self-evidently unjust, yet it turns out to be a matter of high principle for many feminists. Last fall Slate’s Emily Yoffe, the mother of a college-age daughter, was the target of a Two Minutes Hate for a post titled “College Women: Stop Getting Drunk,” even though she offered the same advice to college men: “If I had a son, I would tell him that it’s in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate.”

Women are obviously too fragile to handle college. They should just get married young, have babies, and stay home. Luckily, ObamaCare encourages that!

CLAUDIA ROSETT ON THE HYPOCRISY OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONDEMNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OVER SEX ABUSE:

That’s rich coming from the U.N., which has still not solved its own festering problems of peacekeeper sex abuse, including the rape of minors. Exposing abusers and holding them to account is a great idea. The Vatican has spent years addressing the scandal of its own past handling of such cases. But the U.N. hardly engages in the transparency it is now promoting.

The U.N. releases only generic statistics on violations committed by personnel working under its flag. The U.N. doesn’t share with the public such basic information as the names of the accused or the details of what they did to people the U.N. dispatched them to protect. Blue berets accused of sex crimes are simply sent back to their home countries, where in the majority of cases they drop off the radar.

Though the U.N. has been recording a drop in sex-abuse cases since it began releasing numbers in 2007, the number of alleged instances of rape and exploitation each year still runs into the dozens. (This may understate the realities, given the hurdles to victims coming forward, often in societies in tumult or at war.) From 2007-13, the U.N. reported more than 600 allegations of rape or sexual exploitation, with 354 substantiated—many of them involving minors. The numbers do not convey how ugly some of these cases get. Details can occasionally be gleaned when an incident seeps past the U.N. wall of omerta and makes it into the news, as with the peacekeeper gang rape in 2011 of a Haitian teenager, whose agony was caught on video.

If it weren’t for double standards, the U.N. would have no standards at all.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: “Juan Williams thinks he’s defending Obamacare by observing that it has no effect on him and the other members of the Sunday talk show pundit panel. This is the sort of thing that a Republican would be pilloried for saying. . . . Williams shouldn’t get away with that callousness. Where’s the empathy?” You demonstrate “empathy” by being a Democrat, especially a minority Democrat. As a Republican, you can only demonstrate “empathy” by agreeing with Democrats’ demands, preferably accompanying that agreement with an apology for your own existence.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Why Is Female Sex Tourism Embraced By Society? “One would assume that since society views men who visit prostitutes in a negative light they would also be critical of women doing the same thing. In the case of sex tourism, both older men and women from developed countries make trips to the developing world to pay for sex with partners far younger than themselves. However the way society and the media view the men and women doing the same thing couldn’t be more different. Male sex tourists are depicted, at worst, as criminals or, at best, as low-life scum taking advantage of poor desperate women. Meanwhile, the media practically celebrates women who do the same thing—in the form of films and articles—while the at-large society seems to accept this glaring double standard.”

Female sexuality is always to be celebrated, unlike that icky and dangerous male sexuality.

REVERSE THE SEXES AND THERE’S NO STORY HERE:

Writing for his college paper, Cory Booker once admitted that he groped a friend when he was 15 years old.

Now the mayor of Newark and a candidate for New Jersey’s open Senate seat, a college-aged Booker described the experience of grabbing the girl’s breast and having his hand pushed away.

But it is unfortunate for him that people are bringing this up as so many other Democratic politicians — and feminist heroes — are having problems.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse proves my point about double standards, and also demonstrates that even I am not immune.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Is Althouse playing the Drudge juxtaposition game?

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Tea Party Groups May Be Too Political For IRS Comfort, But Here’s How OFA Defines Itself. “The video was sent out by OFA today and posted on BarackObama.com, which is operated by OFA. But 501(c)4’s aren’t supposed to be about politicians, theoretically, but about issues. Yet there’s not much in the video in the way of substance.”

INDEED: Hate Speech Against Gun Owners Shows Double Standard. Hey, if it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all!

Plus: “If liberals and left-wingers get any more civil, conservatives and Republicans might have to start wearing body armor.” Start?

LAW, JOURNALISM, AND DOUBLE STANDARDS: David Gregory, Meet James O’Keefe.

Howard Kurtz dismisses the legal concerns. Gregory may have violated the law, but he was just engaged in a media stunt. ”I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes,” Kurtz writes — no crimes other than violating D.C.’s gun laws that is. But who cares if it was illegal, it was good TV! Tell that to James O’Keefe who, Kurtz may recall, was prosecuted for his own legal indiscretions when trying to film some stunts of his own. Prosecutors wisely allowed O’Keefe to plea to a minor charge, but he wasn’t let off the hook just because he was attempting act of journalism. Why should David Gregory and his NBC colleagues be held to a different standard?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Kurtz springing to O’Keefe’s defense.

UPDATE: This is all over Facebook.

David Gregory Gun Crime

ANOTHER UPDATE: Guns And Posers: Why Isn’t David Gregory In Jail?

MORE: The David Gregory meme started at Legal Insurrection with this post: Feds and media jump to David Gregory’s defense as race card goes missing.

INNATE FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY AND INSECURITY?

As we watch the Syrian dictator struggle to survive, and the Egyptian would-be dictator run from an angry mob, and as we think back to the many fallen dictators of the recent past – Gorbachev, Ceausescu, Pinochet, and their numerous ilk– we might well ask ourselves two questions:

Why does that job look so good?

And why do so many intellectuals cozy up to the dictators?

It doesn’t say good things about the “intellectuals,” though.

ENEMIES LISTS: From Nixon to Obama. “For those of use who lived through Watergate, it must be at least slightly surprising how little attention Strassel’s columns have drawn. . . . The mainstream media are of course missing in action. An election is looming and if it weren’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.”

Yeah, if you wonder how Watergate would have played out under a Democratic President, well, wonder no more.

WILL AMAZON’S PUSH FOR SAME-DAY DELIVERY destroy local retail? “Physical retailers have long argued that once Amazon plays fairly on taxes, the company wouldn’t look like such a great deal to most consumers. If prices were equal, you’d always go with the ‘instant gratification’ of shopping in the real world. The trouble with that argument is that shopping offline isn’t really ‘instant’—it takes time to get in the car, go to the store, find what you want, stand in line, and drive back home. Getting something shipped to your house offers gratification that’s even more instant: Order something in the morning and get it later in the day, without doing anything else. Why would you ever shop anywhere else?”

Avoiding stores is mostly a plus, not a minus. Maybe if physical retailers had better staff. . . .

UPDATE: Reader Hunt Brown writes:

Hypocrite.

I like your page, and I enjoy your perspective, but when you start slamming bricks and mortar retailers about the time involved… without mentioning that absent the cost of gas looking on line for an item can be as infuriating as Burdines on December 24… well, that’s not entirely transparent, especially when you are taking a percentage of all online sales that slip through your site. You rail about Obama’s double standards and duplicity, perhaps it’s time you considered your own.

Tough love sucks.

Hey, Farhad Manjoo wrote that passage, not me. (And my Amazon Affiliate status is hardly any secret). But I’ve seldom had to spend much time finding things online — and nothing like the experience of looking in a crowded brick and mortar store. (And I just bought a new skillet at Williams-Sonoma, ending my boycott over their maltreatment of the Insta-Daughter.)

There are some things (shoes, nicer clothing) that I prefer to buy at brick-and-mortar stores; for everything else, I’d personally rather shop online. I do feel, though, that brick-and-mortar stores ought to be trying harder to make the shopping experience pleasant. Instead, I often get the feeling that the staff views me as a disturbance to their texting-their-friends time. I wrote a column nearly eight years ago about how brick and mortar stores could compete with online selling, but most of them seem not to have listened. Oddly, places that compete most directly with online — like Best Buy — seem to try the least.

Meanwhile, reader Grace Kittie has another complaint:

You have touched on a subject near and dear to my heart! I agree that dealing with what passes for “staff” these days is a fine reason all on its own for avoiding local shops, however the feature that has driven me to my laptop and comfy chair is the music that assaults the shopper the instant one steps through the door. It is not uncommon to have two or three different “tunes” floating through the air at once if the shop is large enough. Whatever happened to the concept of quiet contemplation? My first push to the online approach was a few years ago when a locally owned book store, where for many years I had enjoyed wonderfully peaceful browsing, started sponsoring live music events. I complained but was clearly in the minority. I was gone shortly thereafter. (So was the bookstore, come to think of it.)

On the other hand, when you shop online sometimes music starts up in another browser tab and it’s hard to find it and shut it down. At least when you have as many tabs open as I do.

And reader Marc Bacon writes to tell me where I should be shopping: “At Publix. Where shopping really is a pleasure…really.”

Well, we’re getting a couple of new Publix stores later this month. Happy to have someone challenge Kroger’s near-monopoly anyway, but on that recommendation I’ll definitely check them out.

And reader Clay Register gets the last word:

Funny this came up today. Last night I ordered a new $30 weather station from Amazon at about 8 P.M. (tree ants got my remote for the old one). It arrived this afternoon from Kentucky (I’m in FL). I told the UPS guy that, even if I had to pay taxes, this kind of service would be better than driving to the store and possibly not finding what I wanted

You know, I’ve never really considered moving to Florida, but if you’ve got ants that can carry away a remote, I’m pretty sure I never will. But yeah, that’s pretty good. Meanwhile, some related thoughts from Megan McArdle.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Tina Parker emails: “My son, an Economics doctoral student, just came in from the local games & graphic novel store. He browsed, bought a card game, and a couple of books. He said he realized he could have bought the game for less at Amazon but decided he wanted to reward the store for their customer service and game selection. Service will be the only way brick and mortar stores will survive online buying.” That’s what I keep trying to tell them.

MORE: Reader Mike Reynolds (no relation) writes:

First, Thank you for the site, love it, I will keep visiting. Second, in response to your reader Hunt Brown who called you a hypocrite, I must call foul. Having visited your page on a regular basis over the years I know you are affiliated with Amazon. You have told us so and have indicated our patronage of the Amazon link puts a little money in your pocket. I get that. It’s called capitalism. I actually appreciate your recommendations. I shop Amazon weekly and will continue to do so because I get what I need at a great price and with Prime, I get it quick.

If you want to use my name, you may. It’s Reynolds, and even though we are not related, I will continue to visit your site throughout the day.and click through to Amazon. Then I might hit The Corner, or Wired.

And reader Michelle Dulak Thomson emails:

Unless I’m listening to music for work (I’m a classical CD reviewer) at my computer, or watching online video/podcasts/whatever, I just turn the speakers off. There is too much loud and obnoxious music tied into websites these days (or, more often than not, to the pop-up ads associated with them, which Firefox isn’t catching as often as it used to).

Re: Amazon, the sales tax business doesn’t affect me at all, as I’m in Oregon. But if they can leverage their capitulation on the tax thing into even quicker shipping, good on them. I’ve noticed, as Manjoo did, that my Amazon orders are frequently coming ahead of schedule.

Indeed.

SO MUCH FOR THAT “NEW CIVILITY” BULLSHIT: Creepy Democrats Now Stalking Republicans At Home.

Related: Alternator Belt Cut On Romney Bus.

UPDATE: Speaking of double standards, reader John Casey writes: “There was a certain US Senate candidate who complained about video recordings made during his 2004 campaign, and I’ve suspected that the ‘invasion’ was blown out of proportion by the press, which was working for him even then.” Ya think?

They always go all have you no decency? when it’s done to them.

Plus, on the Romney-alternator story, from the comments: “Nobody knows whether Robert Gibbs cut the alternator belt on Mitt’s bus.”

And where’s the Secret Service? Romney’s the presumptive nominee, and anybody who could cut the alternator belt could have cut a brake line, or planted a bomb.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Obama vs. Romney: Bully vs. Nerd.

Romney’s big problem is that he grew up in another America. He was raised to believe there is a clear standard for adult conduct, that even politics has rules and that it is the duty of a president to unite and lead the nation through its economic crisis.

Timing could be his great misfortune. Fate has given him a demoralized electorate that is growing distant from that old America and an opponent who spouts its verities, but actually believes in none of them.

Barack Obama believes that politics is a knife fight, and the only rule is that he must win. His conduct reflects the unholy mix of a messiah complex with the muscle of The Chicago Way. His goal, he tells us, is to “transform” America, not fix it.

This culture clash explains a presidential campaign operating in parallel universes.

Old-fashioned America’s remedy for bullying: Punch the bully in the nose. Twice as hard. Think Romney knows that?

MORE: A Secret Service reader emails:

Regarding your “where’s the Secret Service?” response to the sabotaged Romney bus: frequently used motorcade vehicles are always under lock and key or attended by agents. If a vehicle is only occasionally used (like, say, a campaign bus), we don’t guard it, but the vehicle is carefully checked for bombs and sabotage prior to return to service.

And reader John Pennell writes:

I just finished the first two of Peter Godwin’s books about Zimbabwe, this smacks of the very early stages of Mugabe’s tactics which have kept him in power. One has to wonder if/when the “occupy” crowd becomes our own “war vets”.

By the way, the three books are available on Kindle and very much worth reading. 1) Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa, 2) When a Crocodile Eats the Sun, and 3) The Fear.

I think that may have been the intent with Occupy, but it’s hard to get good goons these days.

SUDDENLY NOTICING “ONLINE HARASSMENT.” As Stacy McCain emails, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

WHEN CUPCAKES ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE CUPCAKES: In Massachusetts, “Bake sales, the calorie-laden standby cash-strapped classrooms, PTAs and booster clubs rely on, will be outlawed from public schools as of Aug. 1 as part of new no-nonsense nutrition standards, forcing fundraisers back to the blackboard to cook up alternative ways to raise money for kids.”

RELATED: Shocker: FLOTUS’s plan to weed out “food deserts” failing to bear much fruit.

UPDATE: An Insta-reader emails some thoughts on the Orwellian doubletalk in the “War on Food:”

Food desserts are alleged to cause obesity. I am talking about the alleged epidemic of “hunger”.

“The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is a significant step forward in our effort to help America’s children thrive and grow to be healthy adults. Thanks to the dedication of this Congress and First Lady Michelle Obama, more kids will have access to healthy, balanced, nutritious school lunches. By increasing the number of students eligible to enroll in school meal programs and improving the quality of food served, this legislation simultaneously tackles both hunger and the obesity levels currently affecting too many communities across this nation.

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

How can we have epidemics of starvation and obesity at the same time? A statement like the one highlighted above should be the subject of constant ridicule (e.g. The Fat Children are Starving…). At the very least the government should be forced to pick one or the other area in which to overreach.

My children (who are not overweight in the slightest) are subject to monitoring and now food restrictions at school. Meanwhile, they are dragged to community service at the local food pantry and badgered about “walking for hunger”. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest, and nobody is talking about it.

This sounds like it would make for great updates to the next editions of both Liberal Fascism and the Tyranny of Cliches.

ROGER KIMBALL: How the Liberal Mind Works, WaPo edition.

The moral: if you are a liberal think tank, advocacy is OK because you are advocating the right ideas. If you are a conservative think tank, advocacy is not OK because it is “divisive,” “partisan,” and lacks “objectivity.”

The good news is that the double standards are increasingly obvious.

OOPS: Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle. “The bottom line is that it’s not clear at all that the fight over the contraception/abortifacient mandate has hurt Republicans.”

UPDATE: So how’s that anti-Limbaugh campaign working out?

“The dust up over Sleep Train, along with the blowback suffered by Carbonite over that company’s public denunciation of Limbaugh… demonstrates that the iconic radio talk show host is dealing from a position of strength in the campaign to deprive him of advertisers. One tends to prosper when one advertises on Limbaugh’s show. But cross him, and one will suffer.”

Writes the lefty Drudge Retort, noting that Limbaugh hasn’t lost listeners (and has probably gained listeners, people who are “curious about what the fuss is all about”).

Stay tuned. Things don’t seem to be following the narrative here. More from Prof. Jacobson.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, reader William Moselle writes that he just quit HBO: “Had it for a decade or more. Loved it and ignored Maher. But the time came to make a bit of a statement, no matter how small, about the utter hypocrisy and double standards. Being Breitbart (in my own little way).”

I’d be interested to know how many people have done the same over the past week or so.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Oh my: Obama’s approval rating hits new low in CBS poll.

MORE: On HBO, reader Bill Ryan emails:

I tried to quit HBO yesterday and I was told I was getting it for free and I had been getting it for free since Nov. My wife talked to them about a TV package back then but had no idea we were getting HBO for free. I told them I wanted to quit anyway because of Maher and their anti-Palin movie and their left wing bias.

This reminds me of when I tried to quit the Denver Post. They kept delivering it for months afterwards even though I called them to stop delivery. They kept delivering and offered the paper free if I would buy the Sunday edition.

I wonder how many other “subscribers” to HBO are getting it for “free.”

Heh. I don’t know. I’d like to know, though.

STILL MORE: Reader Ray Toohey writes:

Hey Glenn, you asked who has canceled HBO recently. I’ve never had it, so I couldn’t cancel it. BUT I did have Carbonite.

I called them last week and said “cancel me as of today.” The guys response was, “does this have anything to do with the recent troubles?” Yep!

He said they wouldn’t refund my money (I only had a month left before renewing.) I told him I don’t care I just wasn’t interested in their service anymore due to their politics.

Dropped them and got IDrive. (following a recommendation from another of your readers). Enough is enough!

Keep up the good work!

And reader John Hickey emails:

Just a quick note to let you know I’m another one of those Brietbart types who cancelled my subscription to HBO. I was able to cancel with ATT Uverse on line, but I did follow up with an email to HBO listing “Game Change” and Bill Maher as a couple of reasons for leaving. They never gave me the courtesy of a response.

I am Breitbart!

Stay tuned. Plus, one more reader email:

One explanation for the Obama administration/media misstep in the contraception contretemps is that the decision makers may be thoroughly cocooned that they really could not see how this would play out.

I think it is entirely possible of Obama’s inner circle and (to a lesser degree) the MSM that a) they don’t know many practicing Catholics b) they really did not recall how much more often left wing commentators and entertainers had said things about right wing women that were far more vile than anything Rush Limbaugh said, and c) Sandra Fluke seemed like a person whose life story would resonate, because her story is so similar to about half of their circle of friends.

A little more contact with the real world would have led them to the cautionary advice that a) many Catholics _actually believe_ that forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortion in health coverage is a violation of their religious freedom, b) the Left says horrid things about conservative women all of the time, and they really would lose a tit-for-tat on this subject and c) Georgetown law students who want free contraception are really not as awesome of a victim group as it might seem on first look.

I don’t think this will be the last time during this campaign that Republican “losses” and Democrat “wins” get revised in the court of public opinion.

No name if used, please.

Like I said, stay tuned.

And note this, from the New York Times:

At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking re-election.

Hey, wait, I thought those dumb Republicans had thrown away their chances last week.

And reader Eric Rauch writes: “I just canceled HBO with Directv and the young man knew why I was canceling before I had to explain it to him. He said HBO is getting canceled a lot because of Bill Maher and the Palin movie. If I understood him correctly he offered discounts for 6 months of HBO free. Of course I canceled anyway.”

Plus, from reader Leslie Eastman: “A business model in which you cannot even give away your product for free is full of fail.”

And reader Eugene Dillenburg emails: “I don’t see what the big deal is. All that’s happening is the conservatives want to ‘make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.'”

ANN ALTHOUSE LOOKS AT double standards on Presidential offspring. After all the Trig Palin nastiness, I have no patience with the have you no decency? crowd, since it is obvious that they possess none themselves.

CLEVELAND? REALLY? Obama praises Cleveland as the ‘tech belt.’

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch emails: “If he gets a second term Cleveland and Detroit will have the highest standards of living in the country. It won’t be because either of them improved, either.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader William Jamieson emails:

If The One called Cleveland the tech belt, he’s the only one who’s done so, to my knowledge. Maybe some local, rah-rah guys from the chamber of commerce have, but that’s just the spin and the hype, which no one believes. Seriously, aside from some nano stuff nearby, I’m not sure what The One might mean.

We’re an old blue-collar, factory town, and once thrived as a producer of cars and steel. We made things. Now, I don’t know how you’d describe us, as I don’t think we’ve made any real transition to a new business base.

I work in the midst of the projects, but only a few miles from the University Circle area and the Cleveland Clinic complex. Some of the best medical facilities in the world, along with one of the best art museums and orchestras in the world, are a 5 minute drive from my work.

But you wouldn’t know it from my work’s immediate neighborhood, which is rife with abandoned houses and the barrack-style projects built immediately post WW II, or so they look; around another corner, brick multi-story buildings, which once housed factories, but have been abandoned 10 or 20 years, are only now being torn down. Who’s the largest employer near us? RTA…the Regional Transit Authority, as in public transportation, heavily subsidized, of course. It’s a pretty depressed and depressing area.

If you want to see what 25 or so years of single party rule (democrat) have done to a city and county, and don’t want to go to Detroit, you should come here. Democratic mayors, congressional reps on east and west sides, county commissioners and other county officers, many of whom are going to jail….you think Chicago is corrupt, you should come here.

We’ve had the feds crawling all over some of these county guys for 3-4 years now, nailing one after the other. The County Auditor pleaded guilty a few months ago, in exchange for a light sentence for his son, also convicted of corruption, and is soon off to jail for 20+ years, the bastard. A county commissioner is going down with the ship, too. Of course, he’s innocent. I hope he gets double the auditor’s sentence.

Meanwhile, jobs have melted away, high school graduation rates every year hover at 50%, little new commercial construction has started, save for government buidlings….and, seemingly, no new businesses are moving in.

Gee, I wonder why?

ORGASM, INC: Will You Love or Hate This Documentary about the Search for a Female Viagra? Quite possibly neither. But I like this: “The unexpected star of the film is Stuart Meloy, a North Carolina anesthesiologist implanting electrodes into the spines of women who want to have orgasms. There’s something weirdly likable about him, demonstrating insertion of an electrode with a model of the human spine. A remote control completes the package which Meloy has christened the ‘Orgasmatron,’ after a device in Woody Allen’s 1973 comedy ‘Sleeper.'”

Plus this: “When it comes to sexual pleasure, we still have double standards. We’re often paranoid about drug companies and doctors such as Melroy selling orgasms to women, yet we don’t assume there’s a conspiracy when the guys are being offered Viagra. Is that because we still think satisfaction is optional for women and necessary for men?”

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED OVER THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND, if you were off having a life or something:

Advice to the new Congress: My Sunday Washington Examiner column.

Dollar goes down, oil goes up.

More airports consider ditching TSA.

2010: A Momentous Year For Commercial Spaceflight.

Why California has become the epicenter of unemployment.

Lee County School Board doubles down on stupid.

Some fascinating automotive history.

Brain-dead anarchists for socialism.

Blizzard-inspired thoughts on low-budget disaster preparation. And a followup here.

Thoughts on sexual double standards.

Instead of plowing, NYC snowplow guys got plowed.

The James Cole controversy won’t go away.

Austan Goolsbee’s debt problem.

A SEXUAL HARASSMENT DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE VIEW:

“The women on the show, by virtue of their age and status into the media world are able to say and do pretty much what they please, including invading the personal space of male guests and talking to them about subjects that would be taboo if the genders were reversed.” Examples include their discussion of Robert Pattinson’s private parts, their grilling of Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino regarding his condom usage, and their flat-out declaration of Benicio Del Toro as “sexy.”

And yes, he is sexy. But this does, admittedly, reek of double standards

The View is all about entitlement, so this makes sense . . . .