Search Results

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.

THE INSTA-WIFE: Double Standards On Men, Marriage, and Money.


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.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS DEMAND HUUUUGE PAY HIKE: They already make on average 78 percent more than private sector works – counting salary and the value of benefits – but a coalition of federal employee unions claim they deserve a 5.3 percent pay raise, reports Katie Watson of the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.

“At a time when we need to recruit the best and brightest to civil service, federal pay is falling further behind the private sector and living standards for federal employees and their families continue to decline,” the coalition claims in a letter to Congress. “A catch-up raise to reflect market rates in 2017 is imperative.”

Yes, that’s really what they said.



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.

WHEN MEN DO IT, IT’S ICKY AND OBJECTIFYING. WHEN WOMEN DO IT, IT’S EMPOWERING! Henry Cavill says women exhibit ‘double standards’ with street propositions and catcalling.

SHOCKING NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF SCIENCE: What Men and Women Want From Sex Robots Is Very Different. Of course, if you consider a vibrator a sex robot, many, perhaps most, women have sex-robot experience already.

Related: Feminist double standards and some classic thoughts from Eugene Volokh.

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’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 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.

MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS: Did Amy Schumer Get a Pass for Stealing Jokes because She’s a Woman?


And the double-standards of one MSM.

IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE ANY AT ALL: Flint v. Chicago — Democrats’ dirty double standard.

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: Planned Parenthood was ‘right wing terror,’ but with Islam suddenly ‘motives don’t matter’.


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.”

IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS: Bill Cosby is being crucified for being conservative.

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.

LLOYD GROVE: A Weak Apology Won’t End George Stephanopoulos’ Clinton Problem. The Brian Williams comparison has got to hurt: “Willams wrapped himself in the flag; Stephanopoulos cloaked himself in charity.”


It is hard to argue that asking tough questions of a charity’s critic on the air—as Stephanopoulos did last month with Schweizer, whose much-publicized book Clinton Cash has been the target of war room-level pushback from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign—without bothering to mention that you’ve donated to that charity, is anything other than a serious breach of accepted journalistic standards. Or that letting viewers know about such a potential conflict of interest is “going the extra mile.”

Apparently Stephanopoulos still fails to grasp that there is nothing “extra” about what should have been a common-sense disclosure. What’s more, on GMA Friday morning, he didn’t see fit to mention the sheer size of his donations; no doubt many of his viewers would consider $75,000 real money, even for a television personality reportedly making double-digit millions.

Yes, it’s more than 150% of the average family inocme.

DAMON LINKER: The shameful hypocrisy of our double standards on religion. “Everyone has blind spots. And some people have bigger blind spots than others. But the people with the biggest blind spots of all? It might be secular liberals, especially when it comes to thinking about conservative forms of Christianity. Their double standards are so egregious that they’d be laughed out of town on any other topic. The examples are legion. But two in The New York Times over the last week were particularly shameful.”

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.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Sex Offender Registry? No thanks, we’re women.

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.

HEH. Seen on Twitter.


STEPHEN GUTOWSKI: Ambush Interviews And Double Standards. 60 Minutes/Michael Moore: Fine! Journalism! Jason Mattera/James O’Keefe: Stalking! Harassment!

THE ECONOMIST: How Prosecutors Came To Dominate The Criminal Justice System.

Another change that empowers prosecutors is the proliferation of incomprehensible new laws. This gives prosecutors more room for interpretation and encourages them to overcharge defendants in order to bully them into plea deals, says Harvey Silverglate, a defence lawyer. Since the financial crisis, says Alex Kozinski, a judge, prosecutors have been more tempted to pore over statutes looking for ways to stretch them so that this or that activity can be construed as illegal. “That’s not how criminal law is supposed to work. It should be clear what is illegal,” he says.

The same threats and incentives that push the innocent to plead guilty also drive many suspects to testify against others. Deals with “co-operating witnesses”, once rare, have grown common. In federal cases an estimated 25-30% of defendants offer some form of co-operation, and around half of those receive some credit for it. The proportion is double that in drug cases. Most federal cases are resolved using the actual or anticipated testimony of co-operating defendants.

Co-operator testimony often sways juries because snitches are seen as having first-hand knowledge of the pattern of criminal activity. But snitches hoping to avoid draconian jail terms may sometimes be tempted to compose rather than merely to sing. . . .

It is not clear how often prosecutors themselves break the rules. According to a report by the Project on Government Oversight, an investigative outfit, compiled from data obtained from freedom of information requests, an internal-affairs office at the Department of Justice identified more than 650 instances of prosecutors violating the profession’s rules and ethical standards between 2002 and 2013. More than 400 of these were “at the more severe end of the scale”. The Justice Department argues that this level of misconduct is modest given the thousands of cases it handles.

Judge Kozinski worries, however, that there is “an epidemic” of Brady violations—when exculpatory evidence is hidden from defence lawyers by prosecutors. For example, in 2008 Ted Stevens, a senator from Alaska, was found guilty of corruption eight days before an election, which he narrowly lost. Afterwards, prosecutors were found to have withheld evidence that might have helped the defence. Mr Stevens’s conviction was vacated, but he died in a plane crash in 2010.

Prosecutors enjoy strong protections against criminal sanction and private litigation. Even in egregious cases, punishments are often little more than a slap on the wrist. Mr Stevens’s prosecutors, for example, were suspended from their jobs for 15 to 40 days, a penalty that was overturned on procedural grounds. Ken Anderson, a prosecutor who hid the existence of a bloody bandana that linked someone other than the defendant to a 1986 murder, was convicted of withholding evidence in 2013 but spent only five days behind bars—one for every five years served by the convicted defendant, Michael Morton.

Related: Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime.

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?”


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.


YASMIN ALIBHAI BROWN: The Rotherham child abuse scandal is a tale of apologists, misogyny and double standards.

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.

ABOVE THE LAW: Tamara Tabo: Wendy Wants It Both Ways: Wendy Davis And Double Standards.

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!


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.

IS IT REALLY A “DOUBLE STANDARD?” Or is it just that standards of attraction are different for women than for men?

DOUBLE STANDARDS: D.C. man on trial for one shotgun shell – wasn’t given David Gregory deal.

A year ago this month, the attorney general for the District of Columbia let NBC News anchor David Gregory off scot-free for possession of a “high capacity” magazine because doing so “would not promote public safety.”

Now, Irvin Nathan refuses to use that same prosecutorial discretion for an average citizen who violated a bizarre technicality that makes empty casings and shells a crime as serious as having an illegal firearm.

This sort of thing is addressed in my Second Amendment Penumbras piece, though the prosecutorial abuse involved in bringing such charges is covered in my Ham Sandwich Nation piece.

IRS SCANDAL UPDATE, DOUBLE STANDARDS EDITION: TV gives ‘Bridgegate’ 17 times more coverage in 1 day than IRS scandal in 6 months.

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.


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, 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.”

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Guys give fake names to members of the opposite sex behind their backs just like girls do—and often get in more trouble for it. “Somehow, nicknames derived from appearances, behaviors, sexual habits, and personal characteristics seem more offensive when they’re invented by men to talk about women. And therein lies a big, weird rub.”

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?


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.


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.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: The Economist: American universities represent declining value for money to their students.

A degree has always been considered the key to a good job. But rising fees and increasing student debt, combined with shrinking financial and educational returns, are undermining at least the perception that university is a good investment.

Concern springs from a number of things: steep rises in fees, increases in the levels of debt of both students and universities, and the declining quality of graduates. Start with the fees. The cost of university per student has risen by almost five times the rate of inflation since 1983 (see chart 1), making it less affordable and increasing the amount of debt a student must take on. Between 2001 and 2010 the cost of a university education soared from 23% of median annual earnings to 38%; in consequence, debt per student has doubled in the past 15 years. Two-thirds of graduates now take out loans. Those who earned bachelor’s degrees in 2011 graduated with an average of $26,000 in debt, according to the Project on Student Debt, a non-profit group.

More debt means more risk, and graduation is far from certain; the chances of an American student completing a four-year degree within six years stand at only around 57%. This is poor by international standards: Australia and Britain, for instance, both do much better.

At the same time, universities have been spending beyond their means. Many have taken on too much debt and have seen a decline in the health of their balance-sheets. Moreover, the securitisation of student loans led to a rush of unwise private lending.

Do tell.

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Is Having Sex With A Robot Cheating? I dunno, is a vibrator cheating? That reminds me of this oldie-but-goodie post by Eugene Volokh on vibrators and double standards.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Democrat sends out a mailer saying crime has gone up “over 50% in our negrohood so far this year.” Ann Althouse comments: “Imagine if a Republican had done that. People would be saying the mask has slipped and this shows what all the Republicans are really like.”

And by “people,” I think she means the absolute leading lights of the journalistic establishment.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Post-racial progressives count white faces at The Villages; President campaigns in ‘affluent’ 97%-white Windham, NH.

97% white? That’s almost as white as Obama’s Chicago Campaign headquarters. Too bad these folks can’t achieve the diversity of a Tea Party Rally.

UPDATE: Jeff Dobbs emails: “Have we so soon forgotten that Obama’s spiritual mentor, upon retiring moved to . . . . a community that is only 2% black and 93% white?

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Woman Stabs Husband Over Facebook Post. Is this a “love crime?” I thought the approved term was “domestic violence.” Or is it different when a woman is the perp? And is this the lesson to take from the story? “Guys, here’s one more reason to watch what you post on Facebook.”

No double standards here.

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:


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.


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.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: When Romney Fights Back, Politico Declares the Day ‘Nasty’. Personally, I found it delightful.

POLITICS: Mitt Hitler and Double Standards: Godwin’s Law Applies to Thee, But Not to Me.

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.

SURVEILLANCE AND DOUBLE STANDARDS: Dallas Police Don’t Like It When The Shoe Is On The Other Foot. “better spin for this article would be ‘police violations of traffic law treated far more leniently than those by anyone else.’ And even with this lenient treatment, they still shut it down as too onerous.”

MORE ON THOSE AIRBRUSHED MALIA SPRING BREAK STORIES: The story of Malia Obama’s Mexican vacation reveals double standards and a noodle-spined media. “Rather than collapsing spinelessly, the press, collectively, should have said, ‘Sorry, but this story is already out there, so you’ll have to deal with the security consequences of sending your daughter off to a dangerous country.'”

Pulling a story at the White House’s request is pretty craven.

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.'”

DOUBLE STANDARDS ON POLYGAMY VS. INFIDELITY: What If Hugh Hefner Were Mitt Romney’s Great-Grandfather. “Why are polygamy and promiscuity treated so differently? Does it make sense that we don’t penalize a man for living with many partners, but we do if he wants to marry them? If Hefner tried to make honest women out of his bunnies, he’d go from celebrity to outlaw.”

No, he donates to the right politicians, and entertains the right journalists. I think he’d turn out to be “boldly transgressive” or something. . . .


John Tierney says there’s a double standard, with the government foulups and coverups that led to September 11 barely even being investigated — even though thousands died — while Enron’s foulups and coverups have already got people calling for criminal prosecutions. Tierney’s lesson:

“If you’re going to make that kind of mistake, do it on government time.”

Well, we’ve certainly seen that observation borne out.

DOUBLE STANDARDS ON FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION? “The Illinois attorney general is planning to sue Westwood College, a for-profit institution with four campuses in the Chicago area, saying that it has misled students about its criminal justice program in ways that have left the students facing serious debts without employment prospects.”

I wonder what the Chicago City Colleges, with their 7% graduation rate are telling incoming students?

TEN YEARS AGO ON INSTAPUNDIT: Mark Steyn on double standards: “These two stories usefully clarify the peculiar pathology of the antiwar left. On the one hand, we need international investigations if Americans are insufficiently decorous in their questioning. On the other, it’s perfectly justifiable for disaffected Muslims to target Western civilians purely on the basis of their ethnic identity.”

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.

PROF. JACOBSON ON MEDIA DOUBLE STANDARDS: How Would They View Occupy Planned Parenthood? A Proposed Paradigm For Protest Propriety.


But I stand by what I told her in 1998.

Interestingly, her 1998 oped doesn’t seem to be on the NYT’s site. Reader Howard Isaacs writes: “You wrote comments about feminist double standards regarding a piece that MacKinnon published on March 5, 1998 in the NY Times. Your published letter is easily found. I can’t imagine why not, but no matter how I search, that MacKinnon piece cannot be found on the Times’ site.” Yeah, I can’t find it either, whether searching for “Catharine Mackinnon” or “Catharine A. MacKinnon.” Weird.

Meanwhile, Cain’s problems don’t have much to do with what Catharine MacKinnon thinks. But then, how much does, these days?

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Lois Brenner, I think this is the missing column.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Richmond tea party: Charge Occupy protesters or refund $10,000 we spent to rally in Virginia.



PETER WEHNER: Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and Double Standards On Adultery.

DEFENDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE when it’s done by women. No double-standards here!

Also, castration is funny. Happy to see the pushback by commenters on these posts.