The NYT's sleazy innuendo challenged

By

John McWhorter is one of the most brilliant of the generation of conservative thinkers set for intellectual leadership in the years ahead. Being eloquent, insightful, and posessed of that curious immunity granted only to black writers, allowing them to write critically on certain aspects of race relations, McWhorter promises to become steadily even more important as a thought leader in American political commentary.

Today in the New York Sun, he responds to the sleazy innuendo recently flung by the New York Times at conservative think tanks. A few years ago, you see, McWhorter moved from UC Berkeley, where his focus was on linguistics, to the Manhattan Institute, where his focus is on politics.

Last Friday I opened the Times to be greeted by a photo of me illustrating a story arguing that conservative think tanks instruct their writers to shill for corporations that give them contributions. My sin was saying on a radio show a year ago (in passing amidst a discussion of several issues) that Wal—Mart provides jobs for lower—income black people. At least the photo was good — black don't crack! However, the notion that the Manhattan Institute sits its writers down and instructs us to speak in favor of corporations that give us money is fiction.

I had no idea Wal—Mart was one of our funders and have never been apprised of a list of such — nor have any of my colleagues. Rather, naturally as someone employed by a free—market think tank, I do not see Wal—Mart as the scourge to humanity that it has become fashionable to claim. The less—than—generous health insurance they offer is a problem, and to me suggests a new discussion about national health insurance. But I said Wal—Mart offers gainful employment to poor blacks because it is, quite simply, true, as plenty of black community representatives have been noting for years.

There is nothing sleazy about the Manhattan Institute. Its employees like me are simply people who express what they believe. Again, once, my employer was UC Berkeley and race commentary was a hobby. Now, it's vice versa. There is no sinister drama in this.

Read the whole thing, for it is worthwhile biographical detail on a many well worth following closely. Incidentally, at the end he reveals his recent marriage, for which I wish to offer my warm congratulations to both parties and both families.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson  9 14 06

Update:

Michelle Malkin has much more on the NYT sleaze, including a correction from the Gray Lady, figures on Waltaon Family Foundation donations to left wing groups, and labor union funding of left wing think tanks. Brava! Speaking of the rising generation, Michelle is right there in the front ranks.

John McWhorter is one of the most brilliant of the generation of conservative thinkers set for intellectual leadership in the years ahead. Being eloquent, insightful, and posessed of that curious immunity granted only to black writers, allowing them to write critically on certain aspects of race relations, McWhorter promises to become steadily even more important as a thought leader in American political commentary.

Today in the New York Sun, he responds to the sleazy innuendo recently flung by the New York Times at conservative think tanks. A few years ago, you see, McWhorter moved from UC Berkeley, where his focus was on linguistics, to the Manhattan Institute, where his focus is on politics.

Last Friday I opened the Times to be greeted by a photo of me illustrating a story arguing that conservative think tanks instruct their writers to shill for corporations that give them contributions. My sin was saying on a radio show a year ago (in passing amidst a discussion of several issues) that Wal—Mart provides jobs for lower—income black people. At least the photo was good — black don't crack! However, the notion that the Manhattan Institute sits its writers down and instructs us to speak in favor of corporations that give us money is fiction.

I had no idea Wal—Mart was one of our funders and have never been apprised of a list of such — nor have any of my colleagues. Rather, naturally as someone employed by a free—market think tank, I do not see Wal—Mart as the scourge to humanity that it has become fashionable to claim. The less—than—generous health insurance they offer is a problem, and to me suggests a new discussion about national health insurance. But I said Wal—Mart offers gainful employment to poor blacks because it is, quite simply, true, as plenty of black community representatives have been noting for years.

There is nothing sleazy about the Manhattan Institute. Its employees like me are simply people who express what they believe. Again, once, my employer was UC Berkeley and race commentary was a hobby. Now, it's vice versa. There is no sinister drama in this.

Read the whole thing, for it is worthwhile biographical detail on a many well worth following closely. Incidentally, at the end he reveals his recent marriage, for which I wish to offer my warm congratulations to both parties and both families.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson  9 14 06

Update:

Michelle Malkin has much more on the NYT sleaze, including a correction from the Gray Lady, figures on Waltaon Family Foundation donations to left wing groups, and labor union funding of left wing think tanks. Brava! Speaking of the rising generation, Michelle is right there in the front ranks.