Adopt a Box of Docs Update: Box 45(10)
As bloggers continue to sign up to adopt a box of virtual docs to review over at Radioblogger, I have finished rifling through Box 45 JGR/Pro Bono (10).
There are no headlines here.
Other than the review of a proposed Ronald Reagan matchbook, the recommendation that Ronald Reagan avoid meeting with an author of a book on Vietnam which had not been read by anyone on the staff, and a note on the receipt of a resolution from Tenth Circuit judges on the subject of judicial pay, the box contains an October 4, 1984 memo clearing remarks of a White House staffer for delivery to the National Federation of Republican Women. The speech concerned “gender discrimination,” and in reviewing the speech Roberts describes the argument that women in 1984 were receiving $.59 for every $1.00 men earned and branded it, correctly, as a “canard.” Roberts also urged that the speech be modified to more accurately express the law on illegal pay discrimination.
I suppose some Democratic senator may try and get worked up over calling a canard a canard, but there’s nothing much in this box. Back to its rest on its dusty virtual shelf.
The Los Angeles Times is sifting through the documents as well, and found a Roberts memo blasting Bob Jones III for his “petulant paranoia.” That’s going to hard for the left to work into its warning that Roberts is part of the “religious right.”
Ed Morrissey’s review of Box 31, though, yielded some interesting stuff that may indeed surface in the next couple of weeks. Forewarned is forearmed, as the old saying goes.
As bloggers post the results of their virual page turning, I am hoping Duane will link the post reviewing the box so a handy guide to all the boxes is in one place. Trusting the MSM to fully report on the boxes and boxes of docs is not a wise course.
BTW: The Times also reviews a new biography of Elizabeth I’s spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, branding Sir Francis as “The World’s First Great Spy.”
Set aside the headline writer’s ignorance of, say, Caleb, Sulla, and Judas, and get to the end of the review:
Like all great villains, Walsingham comes across as undeniably charismatic, admirable for his ingenuity and resilience ‘” not to mention his devotion to Elizabeth at any cost.
What would the royal protector make of Karl Rove? One can only imagine.
So Rove is a great villain? Not even reviews of biographies of 16th century figures can escape the relentless agenda journalism of the Times.
Which is one reason why the paper’s ad revenue is down 11% year to year, and likely to fall like a rock as Hollywood and real estate ad buys teeter on the edge of a huge drop-off. In such a situation it is crucial to signal at every turn that no matter how desperate the paper is for new subscribers, even “regular contributor[s]” to the book review will do their part to run off any center-right reader who wanders into their column.