4:11 PM, Apr 17, 2015 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
I understand that to many people who work at the New York Times, guns are frightening animistic objects. But Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of the Times, just took the following swipe at Ted Cruz, under the headline "Ted Cruz’s Strange Gun Argument," and it is his argument, not Ted Cruz's, that is strange to say the least:
Americans who believe the Second Amendment gives them an individual right to own guns (as opposed to a more general right to bear arms, as our editorial board argues) often make cogent arguments for their position. I believe that allowing people to own guns is not incompatible with imposing reasonable restrictions on their ownership, but I have heard sensible people strongly argue the opposite side.
But there are ridiculous arguments against gun control, perhaps the silliest of which is that the framers of the Constitution wanted to preserve the possibility, or even encourage the idea, of armed rebellion against the government. It’s a particularly absurd argument when it comes from a member of Congress who is running for president.
So, if we're tracking this argument here, Rosenthal thinks it's mystifying that the American founders who just successfully fought an armed rebellion against their own government and felt justified in their cause, would preclude the possibility of a future generation doing so? Let me direct Mr. Rosenthal to the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Certainly, we can all agree governments should not be "changed for light and transient causes." But if, per America's founding document, it is our right and duty to cast off tyrannical governments, how does Rosenthal think that happens? Pillow fights? The founders's own example suggests a lot of guns would be involved. And the fact that these same men would later declare firearm ownership a God-given right should be an unsubtle clue to help connect the dots here. Rosenthal may find the prospect of armed insurrection horrifying to his urban liberal sensibilities, but it's almost impossible to argue allowing for this possibility was not a significant part of the historical rationale behind the Second Amendment -- and it's a rationale Americans would be foolish to stop believing in.
11:20 AM, Apr 17, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
If there is anything that liberals and Big Business can seemingly agree upon, it’s that we don’t need an approach to immigration that benefits Main Street. It remains to be seen whether anyone running for president will seize this opening and buck the liberal-corporate consensus, but in the meantime Sen. Jeff Sessions has been ably holding down the fort against Democrats and Republicans alike. As his partial reward, he just received the wrath of the New York Times editorial board.
Gleanings and observations.3:28 PM, Apr 8, 2015 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
For your further enlightenment, two news stories on page one of last Sunday’s New York Times. One begins a long report on California’s water problems, attributed to a drought rather than bureaucratic mismanagement.
Apr 6, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 29 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
Normally The Scrapbook is pleased to learn of advances in technology allowing greater numbers of people access to the news. Ceteris paribus, these innovations help cultivate an informed public and, we like to hope, keep our journalistic colleagues from the economic chopping block just a little while longer.
11:03 AM, Feb 22, 2015 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Hillary Clinton would likely defend her continued spate of high-dollar speaking engagements, according to a New York Times reporter, as follows: "It's expensive to be a Clinton."
Even the sports section has a liberal bent.8:25 AM, Feb 16, 2015 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
Nothing like a quiet Sunday with the New York Times. Start with the sports section, as I do, hoping for an escape from the paper’s relentlessly liberal approach to what it calls news. No luck.
3:23 PM, Jan 29, 2015 • By IKE BRANNON
New York governor Andrew Cuomo, not content with President Obama’s proposal to make junior colleges free, recently introduced his own plan for New York to essentially waive the first two years of student debt payments for college graduates living in the state.
9:05 AM, Jan 23, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
Michael Bloomberg expressed interest in buying the New York Times, a new report in New York magazine says.
Dec 29, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 16 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
Does the New York Times have a Rolling Stone problem? The author of a celebrated op-ed, who confessed to having “tortured” while serving at Abu Ghraib, had previously said he played no role in prisoner abuse at the infamous Iraqi prison.
11:31 AM, Dec 8, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
CNN’s lame duck, Candy Crowley, asked former President George W. Bush one of those questions. How did he feel about something in the New York Times. Namely, a review that:
11:46 AM, Nov 7, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
The Democratic party's drubbing in Tuesday's election was good for Hillary Clinton's presidential chances. At least that's the line being fed by the New York Times.
"A number of advisers saw only upside for Mrs. Clinton in the party’s midterm defeats," writes Amy Chozick, the paper's Clinton reporter.
11:43 PM, Nov 4, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Despite tonight's election results, President Obama "doesn’t feel repudiated." At least, that's what a nameless aide is telling the New York Times.
The paper reports:
4:01 PM, Nov 2, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
It is becoming increasingly clear how important it is to liberals to try to insulate Obamacare from what is shaping up as another “shellacking.” Sure, a few months after House Democrats passed Obamacare (over unanimous Republican opposition), they lost more House seats (63) while also losing control of that chamber than they had since the 1800s. And, sure, President Obama’s approval rating in Gallup’s polling, which was