Wal-Mart Wins Supreme Court Sex Discrimination Case

This is huge.

At New York Times, "Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case."

And at Althouse, "'The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there'":

I hope the GOP candidates for President are smart and articulate enough to use this case in their argument against electing the Democratic President to a second term.

Word.

High-Tech Lynching: Progressives Attack Clarence Thomas Alleged Ethics Breach Because He's a Black Conservative

It's one of the greatest apostasies from progressivism. To be black and conservative is to reject everything about the politics of racial grievance and victimology. And for 20 years we've seen Clarence Thomas bear the brunt of the left's attack on black conservatism at the Supreme Court. I mentioned it today, the story at New York Times, "Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics." And I linked Althouse, but folks need to go over there again, because she hammers the progressive hypocrisy: "The NYT goes after Clarence Thomas over 'an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship'."

And here comes the Soros-funded Think Progresss, "Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done":

Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe.

And he's being subjected to a high-tech attack in a white robe.

Despicable, but it's the progressive left we're talking about, so there you go. Just terrible people.

Via Memeorandum.

The Racist 2012 Republican Field?

So far both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have been attacked as racist. Check Matthew Yglesias, "Newt Gingrich Proposes Reviving “Poll Tests” of the Sort Outlawed in the Civil Rights Era." He did nothing of the sort, but Yglesias cites race-monger Ta-Nehisi "Don't Spell My Name Wrong" Coates as an authority. It's just a warm-up. The entire GOP field will be attacked as "racist," pretty much for just running against Barack Obama. He's black. How dare you??!!

Via Memeorandum (with some bonus dolt-douche thrown in).

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted for the Civil Rights Act

And Scott Lemieux uses that wholly unsurprising revelation to slur Robert Stacy McCain as racist? Well, yeah.

Lame-ieux links to Robert's essay, "Whatever Happened to AuH2O?" And Robert mentions Rand Paul's controversy over the Civil Rights Act back in May 2010, where Rachel Maddow saw an opportunity and squeezed it for all the racism juice she could get out of it. I wrote at the times, in "Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow: 'IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM'":

Paul wants government out of enforcing behaving among individuals, consumers, and places of business in the economy. We are 46 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it certainly seems difficult --- given the crises of that era --- to envision progress in eradicating that kind of Jim Crow racism in the absence of federal intervention.

I actually had a lot more to say, but basically I doubt any libertarian argument can carry the day on that issue, and I recall Ace of Spades making a really in-depth repudiation of the kind of libertarianism favoring private discrimination. See: "A Little History For Rand Paul."

That said, I know Robert Stacy McCain pretty well. He's a helluva lot smarter than Scotty Lame-ieux. But colorblind fairness (which is how I've come to see Robert's interaction with people) means nothing when progressives break out the long knives. It's pretty awful, but that's the way thing are nowadays.

RELATED: "Burlyce Sherrell Logan Returns to the University of North Texas."

Burlyce Sherrell Logan Returns to the University of North Texas

She's interviewed at New York Times, "A College Degree, 55 Years and an Era in the Making."

Burlyce Sherrell Logan, now 73, faced horrendous, racist attacks when she attended the university back in 1956:

“One day I was walking across campus, going to another building, and I saw a bunch of placards out,” she said. “I thought someone was going for office.” She recalled that she started reading the signs and they said, “ ‘Jungle bunnies go home,’ ‘Africans go home,’ ‘Burrheads go home.’ And I was totally shocked, but I had noticed there were a bunch of kids ganging up behind me. And I don’t know what made me do this, but I just started knee-slapping laughing, and I couldn’t stop. I think they think I went crazy, and they all ran away.”

She quit as bad grades piled up; moved west; married, divorced and remarried; raised three children; worked as a banker and a secretary. Then, in 2006, Ms. Logan returned to a changed university, now with 36,000 students — about a third of them black, Hispanic or Asian. It took 55 years, but she has earned a bachelor’s degree, her only worry whether her cranky 73-year-old knees can carry her up the steps and across the stage to collect a diploma that is as much about a life journey as any academic achievement.

Read the whole thing.

Ms. Logan is not bitter. Times have changed, and she's appreciative of the second chance and wise to the social transformations since 1956. That's apparently not enough for the racial grievance masters at The Root:

I wonder if some are in too much of a hurry to close the door on past injustice without exploring the history first. At a time when there is a disturbing rumble about race under the surface of so many of our discussions, we need to hear the survivors' tales. America has changed since 1956, or even 1976. It wouldn't hurt to remind America of the enormous psychic and emotional price that African Americans paid to simply exercise their rights.

Oh no. Wouldn't want to close the door on the last deep wellspring of radical left-wing power. Americans want to move forward and provide citizens with equal opportunity, and, unfortunately, more often than not, what's holding folks back is the Democrat stranglehold on inner-city political and educational institutions, not to mention the culture of anti-intellectualism that's gripped those trapped in the black underclass. But The Root says don't "close the door on past injustice ..." It's all we've got left!

The Paranoid Style: The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories in American Politics

An interesting piece from Kate Zernike at the New York Times. An excerpt:

The fact that many Americans — and many Republicans in particular — have told pollsters that they doubt the president’s citizenship is less surprising when you consider the sizable percentages of Americans who subscribe to other conspiracy theories, said Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and the author of “Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America.”

Eighty percent of Americans, he said, believe that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, rather than a lone gunman, as a government commission affirmed. Thirty percent believe that the government covered up aliens’ landing in Roswell, N.M., and a third of American blacks believe that government scientists created AIDS as a weapon of black genocide. Sept. 11, of course, has inspired conspiracy theories — it was plotted, variously, by “the Jews,” the Bush administration or Saddam Hussein.

By definition, Professor Goldberg said, a conspiracy theory is a belief that cunning forces are seeking to bend history to their will, provoking terror attacks or economic calamity to move the world in the direction they wish.

“I look at this birther conspiracy as a typical example,” he said. “This is far beyond the issue of whether this is a legitimate president. The real issue for them is this belief that this is a ploy by this hidden group to get power, to move Americans toward socialism or globalism or multiculturalism using Barack Obama as a pawn.”

RTWT at the link.