They're Toast

When the Grey Lady finally weighs in on your blogging controversy, it's all but over.

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

According to the Times, the Edwards campaign is "reconsidering" hiring the two bloggers. That's politicalese for "they're out."

The Times story is hilarious in its uptight, toned-down description of Amanda and Melissa McEwan, blogger for Shakespeare's Sister.

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women "to bear more tithing Catholics." In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: "Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

I guess the NYT can't print anything close to what Amanda actually says--repeatedly--about Christians in general and Catholics in particular. Well, here's a sample of Amanda's "insightful, issue-driven commentary," as she put it. First, there's this:

The very good news is that Phil Kline, who was thrown out of his office as attorney general of Kansas because his anti-choice views alarmed the voters so much, has failed in another one of his missions to use the government to harass doctors who help women make reproductive choices Kline does not approve of. This time around, Kline was harassing Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors left in the U.S. who will perform late term abortions, mostly because he seems to be a brave motherfucker who will face down endless death threats from “pro-lifers”. The charge was that Dr. Tiller was aborting pregnancies that involved fetuses that Kline felt were viable (meaning no doubt that Kline thought these women getting abortions were depriving some white, middle class couple of a baby to adopt). Kline forgot that the right to abortion is not based on fetal viability, but on the woman’s right to medical treatment, despite her criminal possession of a vagina, which is why his harassment suit was thrown out of court.

I'm curious to know if Amanda's view on this parallel's John Edwards'. It would be an interesting question for a press conference.

JOHN EDWARDS: Next question.

INTREPID REPORTER: Mr. Edwards, your blogmaster has stated previously that pro-lifers want to ban abortion so that there will be more white babies for adoption. She has also stated on your blog and her own that you and she agree on many issues. Do you agree with her that pro-life supporters are only interested in having more white babies for adoption?

JOHN EDWARDS: Anyone else?

Ah, yes. The press conferences we wish we'd see.

But there is more from Amanda about Catholics specifically, such as this:

Perhaps Savala can speak to the archbishop, who makes it clear that losing his wife is just the price he has to pay in order to make sure the sluts just don’t get away with Teh Sex...

I’d like to ask the archbishop what the acceptable number of deaths is every year. Is there a number of dead women too high before the church reconsiders its position on mandatory childbirth? Probably not, considering the church’s opposition to condom use, despite the staggeringly high number of deaths from AIDS every year. The fear that people might get away with fucking is just too much to bear...

Unlike the belligerent Catholic church officials in Nicaragua, American anti-choicers know that they have no legal options if they simply come right out and say their opposition to abortion is based on the principles that no one should escape punishment for fucking and that women’s god-given role in life is to push out babies, full stop, and therefore abortion is an alarming demonstration that some women might think there’s more to life, including having one. So they say that their opposition to abortion has something to do with “life”. When faced with the fact that their beloved abortion bans kill actual human beings, they say, "Nuh-uh!"

Back to the press conference.

INTREPID REPORTER: Do you agree with Ms. Marcotte that American pro-life supporters' opposition to abortion "is based on the principles that no one should escape punishment for fucking and that women’s god-given role in life is to push out babies, full stop, and therefore abortion is an alarming demonstration that some women might think there’s more to life, including having one"?

JOHN EDWARDS: Next question.

It's too bad there aren't any reporters gutsy enough to ask Mr. Edwards those questions. I would do it, but then I always was the student who got in trouble for pointing out the obvious idiocy and hypocrisy of certain views.

And it's really too bad the NYT in describing this kerfluffle didn't use any of the more exemplary quotes by Amanda. I'm sure they just couldn't find any.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more on this and points out the obvious: what were they thinking?

Catholics have overcome bad weather that had more impact on our faith than either blogger, but Edwards wants to court the Catholic (and Evangelical) impulses for social justice and peace to bolster his populist campaign. Surely someone on his staff had the responsibility to actually read the bloggers' previous work to see if it matched the tone Edwards wanted to set with the on-line community and voters in general. That someone should be fired right along with Marcotte and McEwan.

UPDATE x2: The shrieking Left is getting antsy now. Zuzu at feministe is almost incoherent with rage.

the very idea that the Edwards campaign would even consider hanging these two bloggers out to dry to appease people who won’t even be voting in the primary, much less for him, turns my stomach.

Obviously, Zuzu doesn't get that firing the flipped out feminists is to prevent Edwards from looking like a complete moonbat to that portion of the population inclined to vote for his health care proposals or other issues. In other words, Amanda and Melissa are distractions from the message and that's not a good thing for any candidate.

National Chauvinistic Husbands Association

This sounds like something I would have gotten from Pandagon, but didn't. It is an item from Women's eNews on a Japanese husband-improvement organization.

The purpose of the group is to help men learn to be better husbands and to stave off divorce. Divorce rates in Japan have skyrocketed in recent years, and many younger women are either delaying or foregoing marriage all together.

The NCHA hopes to help rigidly traditional Japanese men become more "modern." And what is a modern man?

In September, they gathered in suits and ties outside a busy train station in Tokyo and chanted their Three Principles of Love: saying "sorry" without fear, saying "thank you" without hesitation and saying "I love you" without shame.

Shuichi Amano founded the group after discovering his marriage was on the rocks.

"It happened when I came home late one evening from work and asked my wife if she thought it was strange that suddenly all the middle-aged men around me were getting divorced," he said. "My wife said, 'Well, I think you will be next.'"

Amano said he was shocked, he broke out in a cold sweat and his heart "stopped" because he knew his wife was serious. After that initial jolt, he reflected on his past relationship with his wife and daughters. He realized as a busy writer and editor for a publishing company, he was a typical chauvinist and, furthermore, he took pride in it.

"I realized I had only communicated three things to my wife: 'furo,' 'meshi' and 'neru,' which mean 'bath,' 'dinner' and 'sleep,'" he said. "It is the typical way for a strong husband to communicate with his family."

Amano began a program of "self-improvement." He washed dishes, took out the garbage, cleaned the bathtub and paid attention to his wife.

His wife even started smiling at him, which she never did before.

I can't imagine never smiling at my husband, but then I can't imagine him being so insensitive and unfeeling. Our Western emphasis on emotion, however, has been ridiculed by other cultures as a sign of "weakness." Evidently, if you can't get enough women to marry and make babies, being strong can lead to cultural decline.

Here's one of the funnier things about this group:

The main activity of the group is to measure how well the members are getting along with their wives by ranking them in a 10-tier system. Amano and other senior members rank the new members, who report on their own progress.

So, you can level up in this group just like in Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh!? Are they going to put out a card game soon?

Masterpiece HotAir Theatre

As your mommy told you, be careful what you say because it can come back to bite you on the ass.

That's what's been happening to Amanda Marcotte since she became *giggle* blogmistress for John Edwards.

Now, Hot Air has video of Michelle Malkin reading some of Amanda's insightful, issues-oriented commentary. It's better as live action!

"Nothing new is being said here"

But that won't stop William Arkin from droning on about how everybody who disagrees with him is wrong and he is right.

This last column is filled with his categorizing the various comments he's received about the previous two columns and then marginalizing and shooting down any arguments those comments present.

But then there's this jewel:

On the advice of my editors, this is the last column I will post for awhile on this subject. My impulse would be to continue to fight back and answer the critics, but I see the wisdom in their observation that nothing new is being said here and the Internet frenzy is adding nothing to the debate or our understanding of our world. I also see that I cannot continue to write about humanity and difficult questions if indeed what I wish is to vanquish those who attack me.

Mr. Arkin, it isn't that you can't write about humanity. It's that you can't label the soldiering part of our humanity "mercenaries" and tell them they don't have a right to criticize the American anti-war crowd and expect it not to have an effect. And then don't write column after column insisting how right you are to think these things about them. It's time for you to admit you lost and move on. This is your little Vietnam.

Duke Lacrosse Jurors Speak Out

ABCNews has a story about two of the Duke lacrosse grand jurors and what they think now that the whole case has exploded.

When asked whether he would have made the same decision today to indict lacrosse players Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans, the first grand juror said he had second thoughts.

"Knowing what I know now and all that's been broadcast on the news and in media, I think I would have definitely … made a different decision," he said to ABC News.

"I don't think I could have made a decision to go forward with the charges that were put before us. I don't think those charges would have been the proper charges, based on what I know now," he said.

In contrast, the second grand juror said he did not regret the decision to indict, but he said that he now had new doubts based on what he had learned as the case had unfolded.

"I don't know for sure whether she was raped, you know, because of everything that … came out," he said. "I'm not sure, to tell you the truth."

It's really incredible that anyone would say indicting those three men is still ok, in light of recent evidence. If the woman was raped, it wasn't by these guys. Why is it still ok that they were dragged through hell?

Another Guy Who Should Probably Just Shut Up and Go Away

I know that statement sounds harsh, but I can't help thinking it every time Ted Haggard's name, face, or voice come across my field of vision (does hearing count?), so to speak.

Now, Ted Haggard has announced he's not gay. Well, I'm glad for him, I guess, but I can't help thinking that it still isn't anyone else's business except, perhaps, his wife's, is it?

The Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur also said the four-man oversight board strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work instead of Christian ministry if Haggard and his wife follow through on plans to earn master's degrees in psychology.

Haggard broke a three-month silence in e-mails over the weekend to select members of his former church. New Life Church interim senior pastor Ross Parsley forwarded Haggard's message to the wider church body Monday.
In the message, Haggard revealed that he and his wife, Gayle, intend to leave Colorado Springs and pursue master's degrees through online courses.

Haggard mentioned Missouri and Iowa as possible destinations. Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town, and the Haggards agreed.

"This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed."

I am not unsympathetic to Haggard. This entire situation has been embarrassing and humiliating for Haggard, his wife, his church, evangelicals, and, frankly, Christians everywhere. Haggard is now fodder for unsympathetic lefties (see here for starters) and there's no way for him to rebuild any credibility in three months.

Andrew Sullivan put it best:

Let's put it this way: even the quacks behind reparative therapy for homosexuals do not believe a few weeks of therapy will do the trick. (A few years and you can function heterosexually without wanting to kill yourself.) And so the psychological and spiritual abuse that Haggard has imposed on others and is now imposing on himself continues for another cycle of denial and pathology.

I'm no expert in this area, but it seems to me that Haggard is desperate to regain some of the limelight he had six months ago and he isn't accepting that the world for him is different now. This is going to be a slow and painful process for this man, but he needs to accept the consequences--yes, consequences--of his behaviors. Jumping out with this exclamation now is just pathetic.

Sacrificing Your Sudafed Isn't Helping the Drug War

If you're like me, you've all but given up using Sudafed when you have allergies or a cold. That's because you have to sign a lot of ridiculous paperwork with a pharmacist just to get some Advil Cold & Sinus.

According to Bridget Johnson, all that rigamarole to get some Sudafed isn't curbing meth labs (who, I'm sure, were buying the 24 cap Sudafed for this purpose).

According to the National Drug Intelligence Center’s 2007 National Drug Threat Assessment, ‘Marked success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production through law enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions has enabled Mexican (drug trafficking organizations) to rapidly expand their control over methamphetamine distribution - even in eastern states - as users and distributors who previously produced the drug have sought new, consistent sources.’

Additionally, the flow of ‘ice’ - highly concentrated meth that is usually smoked - from Mexico has increased sharply, most likely creating more addicts because of the better high it creates, states the report.

So while lawmakers have focused on regulating sniffling customers at drugstore counters, Mexican cartels have monopolized the gaps left in the meth market, bringing their goods - and guns - across a porous border. ‘Now, approximately 80 percent of all meth purchased in the U.S. originates from Mexican labs,’ U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a May address at the National Methamphetamine and Chemicals Initiative Strategy Conference.

It's still a border issue but don't tell anyone or else you'll be labelled a racist.

“This is more of the principle that we’re going to be a relevant minority and assert our rights to a fair process."

So says Texas Senator John Cornyn about the Republican victory to prevent the end of debate on debate on the Iraq War.

Republicans succeeded in halting the Democrat juggernaut that has, in the House, cut off all debate by Republicans on a variety of bills.

It's clear Senate Republicans aren't going to let the Democratic leadership steam-roller them like is happening in the House.

Joe Gandelman has a round up of news and analysis at The Moderate Voice.

California Yankee at RedState explains the MSM spin on the situation.

Should This Be a Government Function?

I've been wrestling in my mind with how to approach the story about Texas Governor Rick Perry issuing an executive order mandating that all girls receive the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer.

I am of two minds on the issue. The first is that requiring vaccines for public health reasons is a normal government responsibility. My children have received many vaccines in their lives for everything from measles to chickenpox without ill effects. And I've never understood the anti-vaccine people, although I do understand there is some concern among them about increased rates of autism (which I'm not convinced is related).

The second mind is this: why is the governor getting involved in what amounts to a parenting decision? One doesn't get HPV, which can also cause genital warts, by casual contact but through intercourse. In other words, HPV isn't like getting measles or chickenpox. A person has to engage in certain specific behavior to get this. Is it really up to the government to protect young girls from behavior they shouldn't be engaging in in the first place? And if we are going to protect them from this disease, what about other sexually transmitted diseases? Should we require all girls to have protection against them as well? Does pregnancy fall into this category?

According to Pandagon (where I originally read about the vaccine), parents who don't want their daughters getting this vaccine would rather they die of cancer than admit they will have sex one day. Read that sentence again. Parents who don't want their daughters to get the HPV vaccine would rather they die of cancer than admit their daughters will have sex one day. This is just another example of the Amanda Marcotte way of discussing a topic. I wonder if the Edwards campaign is going to ask her to clarify this one. Here's more:

Under the opt-out policy, however, if you want to keep your daughter in danger of getting cervical cancer, you have to get an opt-out form, fill it out, sign it, and make your daughter take it back to school and then the school officials will know that you’re the kind of creep that would rather have your daughter be dead from cancer than to face up to the fact that she is going to grow up and have sex one day. On top of that, you run the risk of having your daughter get cancer or even just genital warts one day and remembering that you took action to deny her treatment that would spare her this pain. I don’t know about you, but if I found out my parents had a chance to spare me from a disease but they went out of their way to make sure that I wasn’t spared, I’d be furious. I may even refuse to speak to them again. I’d blame them for my cancer. And I’d be right to do so.

Amanda has no children, of course, and as Patterico said, doesn't plan on any any time soon.

That is her right, naturally, but if people who haven't served in the military don't have a right to comment on the war in Iraq, shouldn't people without kids not be allowed to say stupid things about parenthood?

After reading Amanda's screed, here's what I was wondering: is there any reason women can't get the vaccine once they reach adulthood? There's no indication that only teenagers are eligible for the vaccine. Worse yet for the pro-vaccine people, the vaccines available only work on some HPVs, not all that cause cervical cancer. So women would still need to get regular Pap smears (one Pandagonista said parents who didn't want this vaccine must want their daughters getting a Pap smear every year because otherwise they wouldn't need one).

In other words, while the vaccine would have some beneficial effects, it isn't a cure-all against cervical cancer and the vast majority of teens aren't having sex anyway.

I guess Amanda doesn't understand that just because one's daughters might have sex one day doesn't mean they will be teenagers when they do so. If my adult daughter chooses to engage in sexual activity, that's her business. If she does it as a teenager, that's my business.

I don't think the people who object to this vaccine think that giving girls the vaccine will make them go out and have sex (the strawman argument Amanda constructs). But rather, they think it is a gross intrusion on their right to determine health care for their children. We're not talking about easily communicable diseases here. That's when it should be a government concern. It appears to me Governor Perry is stepping over the line.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

UPDATE: There are charges that Gov. Perry has a conflict of interest in making this vaccine mandatory for sixth grade girls.

Texas Eagle Forum president Cathie Adams believes "corruption" is at play. Adams explains that Governor Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is now a lobbyist for Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine.

"Not only that," continues the family acvocate, "his current chief of staff is the daughter-in-law of the chairman of the health committee in the State House of Texas -- and she's also a member of Women in Government." Adams describes that group as a "Merck-supported, -funded, and -organized group of legislators."

We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

So says Timothy Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, about global warming.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Ball points out that he's already lived through two climate cycles: a cooling cycle from 1940 to 1980, and a warming cycle from 1980 to the present. He also says that it appears we are heading into a cooling cycle again.

A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As (Richard) Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT) said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

The agenda is driven by governments looking for particular answers and by extremist groups.

Good Religion Reads

I don't think I've ever hidden my admiration for the job the people at GetReligion do. But the last few days, they've really outdone themselves journalistically (is that a word?).

GetReligion is a site that covers not religion, but the way religion gets covered by the MSM. Their critiques of media events tend to be thoughtful and thought-provoking and have changed my mind about an issue from time to time. I also occasionally juxtapose their interpretation of a story with some other website's interpretation.

This week's variety of stories is a perfect example of the quality of coverage shown on this site.

1. There's coverage of a story by Neil MacFarquhar in the New York Times on how the differences between Sunnis and Shias is playing out in the U.S.

2. There's a story on the way the L.A. Times mangled a timeline of important events in the Episcopal church split (including a critique of the timeline itself as being overly concerned with homosexuality).

3. Terry Mattingly discusses a long ago article he wrote on U2 and the religious overtones in some of their early music, but that, in no way, could one label their music as "contemporary Christian."

I thoroughly enjoy the mix of stories and perspectives provided on this site and recommend it to anyone interested in religion and how it gets reported.

But Remember, We're Just Like the Taliban

If you frequent enough lefty websites, you'll see referece to Christians as being Taliban-like. For an example of how this plays out, here's part of a comment from Mary on one of my threads at Common Sense Political Thought:

If the history text honestly explained that America was founded as and has historically been a secular state in which many religious individuals live, and then put forth the opinion that separation of church and state ought to be set aside in favor of a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy (emphasis mine), I doubt UC would have a problem with it. Instead of doing that, however, the book lies repeatedly about easily determined facts. No self-respecting UC history professor is going to pass such a textbook as college-prep material, any more than a UC biology professor is going to pass a creationist biology text...

Mary had made some decent points up till this time about why the University of California might have rejected certain courses from Calvary Chapel (the Association of Christian Schools International has since sued the U of C for viewpoint discrimination). Contrary to what certain trolls would have you believe, I try not to be rude to them until they give me reason to. So, when Mary started turning up the heat with this "Fundamentalist Christian theocracy" stuff, I answered her politely that I was looking forward to more information. My theory is that give a lib enough time and all the polite veneer will come off and you'll see what they really think of conservatives, Christians, etc.

I guess for Mary, saying that I was "looking forward to more information abou this 'Fundamentalist Christian theocracy' that some people want to set up" was a green light to turn loose on the anti-Christian (and more pointedly, anti-fundamentalist Christian) meme:

Calvary Chapel is part of the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist movement. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm for a concise summary of their beliefs, including the necessity to take over the government so they change United States law to criminalize all activities and religions of which they disapprove.

It’s pretty scarey stuff. Among other things, some Dominionist groups appear to advocate reinstituting slavery.

Slavery?! It turns out her source is far from objective about any Christian group and has been rejected by many because of it. I gave her a Wikipedia citing which was far less vituperative. But that wasn't enough...

You’re quite right that only a small fraction of Fundamentalist groups subscribe to the theocratic philosophy expounded by Rushdoony and the other influential Reconstructionists (since you don’t like the term “Dominionists”). The fact that this small minority is unlikely to succeed in their goal of reforming the United States into a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy doesn’t make that goal any less objectionable.

Because freedom of religion only applies to religions we like, right? But there's more...

Sharon, the Taliban are Muslim Fundamentalists who believe that all civil laws should be based on a strict interpretation of the Koran, including the death penalty for “heresy”, which they define as not being a member of their particular sect, stoning for adultery, relegation of women to strict second-class status, and so on.

The Reconstructionists are Christian Fundamentalists who believe that all civil laws should be based on a strict interpretation of the Bible, including the death penalty for “heresy”, which they define as not being a member of their particular sect, stoning for adultery, relegation of women to strict second-class status, and so on. At least, that’s clearly what the leadership of the Reconstructionist movement is proposing in their published works. Read them for yourself, if you don’t believe me.

The primary difference between the Taliban and the Reconstructionists is that the Taliban has been more effective at gaining the political power to actually implement their agenda.

I am not advocating that the Reconstructionists be suppressed as a national menace. They are too small a group to ever gain power as long as we have a functioning democracy, and if we lose that, we’ll have bigger problems to worry about. However, don’t assume that I am making the comparison between the Reconstructionists and the Taliban lightly, or out of ignorance about either group’s philosophy and goals. The “Christian America” the Reconstructionists want would be very like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

No, she isn't advocating suppression, but smearing any group that might be connected is ok, I guess. There was more, but you get the idea.

Why do I bring this up? In my tangential way, I'm getting to the point. Dana has a post at CSPT titled This is why I laugh when some of our liberal friends complain that America is becoming a theocracy which then links to a story about foreigners in Saudia Arabia getting 20 lashes for dancing.

The point being that for all the rhetoric we hear about Christian intolerance or "Taliban-like" behavior on the part of some Christian sect or other, these sorts of things don't happen in America.

I tried pointing this out to Mary. There's no Christian sect that I know of that saws off the heads of "infidels" or enforces wearing of a burka by women. None of them stone people or cut off hands or stop anyone from practicing whatever religion they desire.

But to the Marys of the world, the idea that some tiny fraction of Christians have such a strict interpretation of the Bible that they advocate using Leviticus as law is only a matter of degree, not kind. There's no questioning why literally millions of Muslims agree with Sharia law but only a tiny handful of Christians would agree to the severe limitations some kook fringe group advocates. It's sad, really.

You Knew They Would Get Around to the Misogyny Angle Eventually

It's interesting watching the Amanda Marcotte-Duke lacrosse team flap unfold.

First there's the complete denial of the Pandagonistas. If you read their comments, there's absolutely no reason anyone would question the Edwards campaign's decision to hire Amanda "to provide content" and babysit the website.

Will: This shows just how much batshit conservatives have bought into the idea that they can define what liberals (and most of American, for that matter) believe. I guarantee that if you looked outside of the uber-conservative small circle that Malkin hangs out in, most people would agree with Amanda at least 80% of the time. [80%? Is there some scientific study he can cite for that figure?]

Roxanne: Of course it makes sense for Bush loyalists to divert attention away from the actual issues. It also makes sense for Obama loyalists to slag anything remotely having to do with Edwards. [Which issues are those? That people from North Carolina, Edwards' home state, are a bunch of bigots who love the idea of black women being raped?]

MikeEss: Dude, is it too much to expect some sense of proportion here? Do you have quotes from Amanda promoting child molestation? Or advocating an overthrow of our government by a military coup? Or promoting a suicide cult? I’ve read Amanda since Mouse Words and that ain’t her bag, and you know it…

So Amanda has an opinion on the Duke case that some people disagree with. Huh? That makes her so toxic she can’t be employed? [Oh, she can be employed. But if she works for a political campaign and says her views mirror the candidate's, then it's reasonable to assume he agrees with her outrageous opinions about the Duke lacrosse case.]

geoduck2: I find their "arguments" and "logic" to be rather bizarre. I’m guessing jealousy is the motivating factor. [Oh, wow. You found us out. You must be really clever!]

As silly as the support system at Pandagon is, we finally get around to the real reason so many conservatives have a problem with a presidential candidate hiring a hack to run his blog: it must be because she's a woman!

Like a scene from the director's cut of some lost George Romero zombie flick, the anti-feminists stumble forward in this dawn of the dead pre-political season, lurching incompetently and semi-blindly for victims, and reminding Americans that an endemic hatred of powerful women lies just below the surface when the full moon blooms. Only a head shot will kill them.

The bitter harvest of the incompetent Duke lacrosse sexual assault prosecution - tied so closely as it was to national fault lines of race, gender and wealth - is sucked into the thresher of public opinion, tossing out the seeds of enduring misogynist lore. Women lie about rape. They use it was a weapon against men.

I've always believed that one of the worst legacies of the disastrous Tawana Brawley episode in New York was the cover it provided for gender discrimination. Race got the headlines, as it did in Duke; but the collapse of a prominent rape case, its notorious revelation as a hoax, throws up a screen to the endemic violence against women, regardless of race of social status.

Thus, when noted blogger feminist Amanda Marcotte was dinged for her admittedly knee-jerk reaction to reports about the Duke case, the online gotcha moment in the last day or so (she was hired by the Edwards campaign to lead its blogging efforts, and so became an instant target) immediately led within nanoseconds to hate speech on the right-wing RedState blog...

You see, the real problem is that conservatives don't want to accept that white men rape black women all the time. Even if this particular woman was lying, we shouldn't stop accusing the Duke players of rape because, after all, they are white men and wealthy, therefore, they are automatically guilty.

The fact that so many of Amanda's defenders (read through the comments of the linked post) can't even admit that Amanda still clings to the rape/sexual assault defense even after the entire case has collapsed under the weight of its own falseness speaks to their own delusions. Conservatives pointing out that Amanda is viscious, unnecessarily nasty (see this post for the latest example), and deceitful is just a sign that they "hate women," especially women in power. Yet other defenders point out that the blogmistress isn't a big deal and there's no power in it. Will they please make up their minds?

The irony to me is that I've read for several months now all the lambasting she's done to people she opposes, be they Christians, pro-lifers, conservatives, married people or others. She railed against Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom and the cast and crew of Pandagon continue to childishly misspell or use asterisks for various letters in his name so it won't come up on a pingback. It seems to me that she shouldn't complain that she's being called out now.

More Fun with Food

Ever since I decided to start eating and feeding my family better food, I've had some interesting revelations.

1. Finding good food takes more time. I've always liked grocery shopping because I like browsing through the goods and deciding which things I want to buy this visit. Now every purchase is rife with meaning--politically, socially, economically, ethically. And stemming from this revelation...

2. We are the most blessed society on earth. I have literally hundreds of choices I can make in any given grocery trip. From the kind of meat I buy, to which sauces I want to use to what sort of shampoo, cleansers and assorted sundries I desire, there are more choices available in the average American supermarket than some villages and towns have in other parts of the world. The amazing variety on display makes me think about women in other countries who must deal with many burdens, both physically and socially, to bring food to their family table. That we have such largesse is amazing and humbling. We should find ways to give and help more of those who aren't as fortunate, either directly through charity work (food pantries and kitchens) or indirectly through gifts to programs in other parts of the world.

3. The choices we make can be overwhelming. Natural or pasture fed? Free range or cage free? Organic or all natural? The words on the labels are frequently confusing (sometimes intentionally) and trying to make the best choices is difficult. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the best way to go is either growing it yourself (so you know what you used) or buying directly from farmers whom you trust (and finding one can be a chore in itself).

4. Falling off the wagon is incredibly easy. It's so much easier to run down to the local Wal-Mart to pick up the odds and ends I need or to make my grocery trip a quick one. Going to Whole Foods or Central Market is a 20 minute trip one way and usually requires more planning. Besides the planning there is the costs, since organics tend to be two or three times the cost of conventional food. Readjusting one's budget can be tricky. Right now, I'm focusing on natural, pasture-fed beef and organically grown veggies. Finding chicken that hasn't been stuck in cages is more difficult. Everything else is bought where I happen to be. It's the best I can do ATM.

5. Organic food can taste different and sometimes different isn't better. I'm still in the process of converting my family to more organic food. With a husband, a teenager, and two younger kids, this can be a challenge. The younger ones don't want to touch anything that isn't McNugget-shaped and my husband is convinced that, since he likes the way his regular food tastes, changing to something healthier that doesn't taste the same isn't worth the effort. The only clear ally I have is, believe it or not, my teenager. She is an athlete and is very much into eating the proper foods and watching what she eats and drinks. While all of them make fun of me for wanting to buy milk that comes from "cows dancing in the fields," she is most supportive of the change.

I never thought buying food would evoke such wide-ranging emotions from me, but watching an ad for Cargill during the Super Bowl (it was one with happy farm animals who were prodding their farmer to buy more Cargill feed) made me a little agitated. I launched into a monologue about how farm animals don't want animal feed, but usually desire grasses and other food sources that they are built to eat.

It's realizing the deceptiveness of those ads that steel my resolve, even if it is jusst in my little corner of the universe.

The Four Types of Commenters

I've discussed comments here before, both the kinds of comments I get and what I'd like to see happen (basically trying to set up some guidelines). Via Ann Althouse, Dr. Helen Smith describes four commenter types.

1. The sympathetic acknowledger--I understand how frustrating this must be!

2. The Fixer--Here, let me figure out how to solve your problem.

3. The subtle dig commenter--The problem isn't so bad. I wouldn't worry about it because you sound obsessive. Unbecoming.

Then there was my favorite: the plain old aggressive commenter.

So the thread will typically desintigrate from there until we have the "plain old aggressive commenter" who hostilly accuses the blogger of being a racist, sexist, Nazi, or launches an outright personal attack on the blogger and so on--all stemming from an unrelated post on a topic having absolutely nothing to do with what the aggressive commenter imagines the post to be about. But then, it is not about responding in any meaningful way to the topic at hand, but rather about how the commenter views the world and his or her place in it. Some people are sympathetic, some practical, some passive-aggressive and others just plain aggressive in their approach to the world.

Gee, remind you of any commenters we see around here?

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Why Articulate Is So Offensive

In this post, I brought up Joe Biden's description of Barak Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." I pointed out that I was offended at articulate and didn't even make it to clean.

Lynette Clemetson addresses the offensiveness of articulate in a New York Times article. Her article is well worth the read.

Her point is that when white people use the word articulate to describe black people, there is an underlying insult, intentional or no: "He's articulate"...for a black person.

Frankly, I'm always a little surprised when I hear Democrats make this sort of faux pas because to read moonbat sites or listen to Air America, you would think only Republican bigoted morons like Trent Lott would say something so completely insulting. (BTW, I don't think Trent Lott is a bigoted moron, but there are plenty of libs who do).

Clemetson has some good advice:

But here is a pointer. Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person. Do not make it an outsized distinction for Brown University’s president, Ruth Simmons, if you would not for the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman. Do not make it the sole basis for your praise of the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O’Toole.

There's Good Burning and Then There's Bad Burning

When is burning something appropriate free speech? According to the women on The View, burning your bra is ok, but don't burn your CD or it's 1933 Germany all over again. (Via Media Research Center).

Speaking about the Dixie Chicks, Rosie said, "Because, honestly, there was and there still is in some capacity sort of a McCarthy era-esque feeling about entertainers speaking out against the government in any capacity."

I actually think Joe McCarthy gets a bad rap, considering there wasn't a single person he accused of communism who wasn't. So, I'm not sure comparing anyone (or any time period) to him is a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure Rosie meant it to be.

In the Dixie Chicks case, they haven't faced any sort of government action against them. What they've faced is what most of us call choice. And we all know that we should be able to choose anything, right, Amanda?

I guess Rosie and Whoopi Goldberg would disagree. The fans should be forced to keep buying Dixie Chicks albums even after they insulted their fan base repeatedly.

Sorry, gals. That's not how it works in this country. See, you have a right to make an album and if I like it, I'll buy it. But if you stay stupid ass things that disgust me, I won't buy your work anyway because there are other people out there who produce things I like without insulting me. Got it? In the immortal words of Laura Ingraham, Shut Up and Sing.

It always amazes me that entertainers think they should be able to say whatever outlandish thing they want about political issues, then get incensed when there are repercussions to doing it. According to the gals on the View, you aren't really allowed to do anything if an entertainer hacks you off. You certainly can't burn the CD in protest of their views because then it's 1933 Germany again.

Rosie O’Donnell: "This is way before anything happened to the Dixie Chicks."

Whoopi Goldberg: "Oh way before."

O’Donnell: "Because, honestly, there was and there still is in some capacity sort of a McCarthy era-esque feeling about entertainers speaking out against the government in any capacity."

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Why then if you– for instance, I was a huge Dixie Chicks fan. Ok, I love the ‘Cowboy, Take me Away,.’ whatever that song was I used to listen to. I love it, even now I still, I still like it, but I'm not a fan anymore. So why if they, if they have a right to, to speak their mind and say what they want at their concerts that people pay for and don't intend to like go to a political statement or, you know, concert. Alright, ok, so why don't I have a right to not buy their records to say you shouldn’t buy their record either?"

Goldberg: "You have a right not to buy their records, but burning them in public brings on 1933."

O’Donnell: "Correct."

Hasselbeck: "But why is it, why is that not an ok-"

Goldberg: "Let me tell you, let me tell you why. Because in Germany, when they started burning art and they started burning books and they started burning things, when you start burning stuff in public, that is a whole other statement. You can say, you know what? I don't- But they were burning their records. And that’s why- You can say I don't like what they stand for. I don’t like what they did."

Hasselbeck: "What about when women burned their bras? That was a political statement. That was ok."

Joy Behar: "They're burning their own bras. They're not burning your bra."

[Applause]

Hasselbeck: "I’m just saying if you want to say burning, burning. I'm an artist, too. If I say something that's emotionally charged or politically charged and someone burned it-"

Goldberg: "Nobody has the right to burn it. They can say I don't like it, I don't want to hear it."

Hasselbeck: "But it’s theirs they bought it. They bought the CD. It's theirs."

Goldberg: "Then don’t listen to it."

Behar: "There's something symbolic about burning it."

Goldberg: "When you burn it, you take it to another level."

Hasselbeck: "But isn't this just protest in some way?"

Behar: "Think Ku Klux Klan, when they burn the cross."


Hasselbeck: "I'm not ok with that."

Behar: "Well, but I mean it’s the same thing. It’s the burning."

Goldberg: "It’s the burning of the thing. You really want to stay away from it."

[laughter]

Goldberg: "You know, the sheet thing. It’s not good."

Hasselbeck: "I got you there."

Behar: "It’s a complicated thing because we also, a lot of First Amendment people believe you should be able to burn the flag or step on the flag. It's a complicated conversation."

Goldberg: "I don't think burning anything because of the connotation that it has had, everything it has meant through the history of the world."

Hasselbeck: "Well, I mean bottom line is, it's just a fire hazard, so you shouldn’t do it. It’s not ok."

[laughter]

Goldberg: "Now that is a bright way to look at it."

So, are Rosie and Whoopi saying bra burning good (because it's yours) but burning a CD is bad (because it's yours)? And what about that sticky wicket, burning the flag? The Supreme Court says flag burning is just another expression of free speech. But if flag burning is just free speech, why isn't burning your own CD? Why the double standard?

Because It All Depends on Whose Side You're On

Media Research Center has this article on the difference in coverage of protests.

When is a protest worthy of coverage? Why, when it's an anti-war protest, of course!

On Monday, January 22, none of the networks sent a Washington reporter a few blocks down to the March for Life. CBS and NBC offered brief anchor snippets noting “both sides” of the abortion debate would protest on the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, ignoring that one side brings tens of thousands to Washington, and the other side numbers in the tens. ABC did nothing.

But over the weekend, the Big Three networks were much more eager to publicize tens of thousands of protesters in Washington just six days later for a different cause: against the war in Iraq and in favor of the impeachment of President Bush. The Big Three networks offered five full reports and six anchor briefs on the Bush-bashing rally. So the contrast in stories was 11 to 2, or if you only count full stories instead of anchor briefs, the contrast was 6 to 0.

There is an argument that could be made that the March for Life is an annual event and the anti-war protests was a one-time event, making it more deserving of coverage. I'll buy that the anti-war protests deserved coverage as a single event, but shouldn't the March for Life get more coverage than a mere mention? I guess not, if you don't think it's any big deal.

Too Bad Edwards Can't Hire Him, Too

Sometimes I think the Left needs some new material. Well, actually, I think that a lot.

Hasn't the "America is Nazi Germany" meme kind of lost its punch? It's not like it is a novel approach by the Left. They call every event in America, however unrelated, from Hurricane Katrina to the Republican National Convention, "Nazi Germany."

At least they don't compare us to Imperial Japan, I've thought.

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time.

This piece in the New York Post discusses George Soros's latest stupid statement.

Sen. Barack Obama might want to tell George Soros to shut up, now that the Hungarian-born billionaire has equated the George W. Bush administration with the Third Reich. Soros, who spent $26 million trying to beat Bush two years ago, is a key supporter of the media-darling Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign. But last week at Davos, Soros made folks like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sean Penn look downright patriotic. After asserting that the United States is recognizing the error it made in Iraq, Soros said, "To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future." He went on to say that Turkey and Japan are still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process." Soros spokesman Michael Vachon told Page Six: "There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president. Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office."

So, now they're comparing us with the people who brought us the Armenian Holocaust and the Nanking massacre? If the analogy is apt, where are the dead bodies of the people killed by starvation, mass executions, etc.?

Isn't there a point where the hyperbole is too much even for the Left?

Poor Amanda

It's tough when you write things that come back to bite you on the ass. I guess that's what's happening to Amanda over her posts on the Duke lacrosse team false rape scandal.

Now Amanda's stuck editing comments and deleting them because they don't "stay on topic." This is a laugh, of course, because her threads rarely stay on topic and there are certain moonbats who've gotten hysterical because I deleted comments that were lying, three times as long as the original post, or simply argumentative. I wonder if the same moonbats will argue with Amanda?

Maybe Amanda's just a little cranky because her posts are receiving greater scrutiny since she joined the John Edwards campaign. But it isn't like Amanda ever gave anyone any slack because of their affiliation. That's why she's now rewriting posts and deleting comments. Of course, as Dana pointed out, the tenor of the comments is a reflection on the post:

Rape is a crime unlike others. In any rape case, but especially in a rape case where a black woman accuses a white man, the rapist should be considered guilty until he proves his innocence. And he must prove his innocence not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any possible doubt. The Durham rapists have not done so, by any means.

People claim this is unfair, but 400 years of slavery and countless millenium of male on female rape make this not only fair, but necessary. Let’s just say the accusation of rape IS false, that doesn’t take away the rapists (yes, they’re still rapists even if these particular men didn’t rape this particular women) genealogical guilt. How many slaves have their forefathers raped? Nobody asks that question.

And I”ve no doubt these men would be raping slaves if they could get away with it. They are white and rich, they are jocks, they attend an expensive university, (no doubt with money saved from when their families owned plantations) and they hired black strippers. Even worse, they requested white strippers first, which proves they are bigots.

People who talk about the details of guilt in this particular case are missing the forest for the trees. The narrative is bigger than 3 white boys whose lives are inconsequential compared to the sweep of history- of the descendants of slaves getting just recompense on the descendants of slave owners.

I guess Amanda had to get the "white boys get away with everything" meme out of her system, which is why she wrote the snarky post initially refered to here. I don't believe she never heard anyone say O.J. Simpson's wealth, celebrity, and privilege made it possible for him to murder his wife and her friend because I've made arguments to this affect since the original verdict came down, and I don't assume I'm the only one with that epiphany.

Of course, the post was merely a veiled way of Amanda taking a potshot at people disgusted by her insistence that the Duke lacrosse players must be guilty regardless of facts (and changing posts to suit this premise). And when people began discussing the Duke case, she started deleting posts and finally closed the thread.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with deleting abusive and lying comments from people, especially when you tell them to stop doing it and they won't. But it seems like Amanda is just a wee bit sensitive at the moment. Maybe it has to do with having to deal with so much insipid copy for the John Edwards campaign.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin beats Amanda like a drum and shows the actual post by Amanda about the Duke lacrosse team. Auguste jumps to her defense and says that criticism of Amanda is "getting ridiculous." Is it any more ridiculous than the numerous vituperative posts by Amanda about, say, Feminists for Life (see also here, here, here, here, here, and--well, you get the picture)?

UPDATE x2: Here is Jeff Goldstein's letter to the John Edwards campaign. Priceless!

Reining in the Vitriolic Rhetoric

Our friend Dana has an interesting piece about the ever-polite and consciencious (not) Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon being hired by the John Edwards campaign as its blogmistress.

Let the circus begin!

Amanda is already having to alter her statements (something I'm sure she wouldn't ever allow any Republican, Christian, heterosexual, feminist who is against abortion, or pro-lifer to do without skewering them) to match the more family-friendly Edwards campaign picture (don't they make a lovely family?).

Dana pointed out this post by the always courteous Amanda where she deleted what she actually said to put in the sanitized version:

UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.

Oh, if only it were!

I'm sure once the short-lived Edwards campaign is over, Amanda will claim that she didn't really mean to change what she wrote because that would mean she was hypocritical. But I guess even the mud-slinging Amanda has to tone it down a bit to fit into the real world. You know, the one the rest of us live in.

The Nanny State Takes Over for Parents

There are several stories this week about government interfering with parenting issues (via ifeminists.net):

The jail-for-spanking plan has been put on hold.

"This home-invasion bill has been stopped cold by parents and grandparents who know that to love children is to discipline them and show them the way to live," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a non-profit, non-partisan pro-family group in California.

"Because so many people have spoken out, the Democrats in Sacramento realize that their liberal agenda is offending a whole lot of people."

Don't miss those parent-teacher conferences if you live in Texas.

A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would charge parents of public school students with a Class C misdemeanor and fine them for playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.

Excuses are allowed, but be prepared to have a good one...

Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in their child's education.

"I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to communicate. That's all the intent was," Smith said, adding he talked to teachers, including his daughter, who teaches in junior high, before filing the bill.

I'm all for parents being involved but fining 'em for missing a parent-teacher conference (which are frequently scheduled at bad times and/or run wayyyy late) isn't the way to foster that involvement.

In the U.K., social workers are putting fat kids on the same child protection register as children suffering from sexual or physical abuse.

The intervention of social services in what was previously regarded as a private matter is likely to raise concerns about the emergence of the “fat police”.

Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems.

Don't feed 'em too much but make sure they get their contraception early.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Arkin Tries to Get His Foot Out of His Mouth...And Fails Miserably

William Arkin just won't shut up.

Having made a mess all over himself, the Washington Post, and much of the blogosphere with his first two posts (see here and here), Arkin is obviously trying to cover his butt with his latest post.

He starts out apologizing for calling our soldiers "mercenaries" and proceeds into some meaningless pablum about how

When we in society make war and consent to war, we accept the righteousness of those who fight on our behalf with the knowledge that they are a part of an organized and disciplined military force that operates lawfully and chivalrously. We also accept that they kill only as a last resort, and that they are engaged in a just endeavor that in its existence and though their conduct presents the prospect of restoring peaceful relations once the enemy has been defeated.

Unfortunately, like so many people, Arkin can't simply apologize for being a complete ass and let it go. No, he has to try to make his obnoxious point a different way and so, having extricated the left foot from his mouth, sticks the right one in its place.

When I hear soldiers and war supporters expressing their frustrations about the American public or the news media, something doesn't quite seem right -- even when the soldiers and war supporters aren't talking about me. I know that those in uniform would like to bring the war to an honorable conclusion, but are they blaming those who are against the war and the news media for having tied their hands under a Bush administration which is certainly the most warrior-oriented in the past 20 years? Is there no space for respectful acceptance of the possibility that people who also love the nation and care about our security think that the country is wasting national treasure - lives and money - on an unwinnable cause?

In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly "support" these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot.

Translation: Don't blame us for not supporting you. It's all Bush's fault.

This is a really cheap rhetorical trick Arkin has employed here. He's toned down the rhetoric a bit but is still making the same point: Military people, you don't have a right to be frustrated with the media, the left, and the American people who have no stamina for war and who want instant solutions to long-standing conflicts.

In other words, this apology isn't one.

UPDATE: Hot Air has video of Black5 responding.

Rush Limbaugh Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Landmark Legal Foundation has nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Limbaugh, whose daily radio show is heard by more than 20 million people on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world, was nominated for the prestigious award for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world," said Landmark President Mark R. Levin.

"Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today," explained Levin. "Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."

This follows on the heels of Al Gore being nominated for his "documentary" An Inconvenient "Truth." (All quotation marks are mine).

But those two notables aren't the only guys nominated. According to Dana, Patterico is also trying to get nominated. Not because he would consider it to be a great honor, but just to show how meaningless the nomination is, particularly after nominees like Stanley "Tookie" Williams and prior Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat.

Surely Rush is at least as deserving to win as those guys.

More Ethical Behavior from the New York Times

How would you like to see your son or daughter, a soldier in the U.S. military, die on the streets of Baghdad?

What if it were a photograph published in the New York Times, or a video of him/her dying was published on their website?

I can't write what I might think about doing to the person(s) who approved this. I can't even imagine my pain and suffering if this were to happen to me. Fortunately, my children are all too young to become subject matter to increase subscriptions at the NYT.

But the same can't be said for Domingo and Manuela Leija, whose son was featured in a NYT story in print and on the website...before they were notified of his death.

Michelle Malkin has a column detailing the event, including the rules journalists must adhere to when they are in Iraq.

The Times has covered this up, removing the offending material from their website, but the damage is done. And the Times has said it will send a "letter of regret" to the family. But my question is, why didn't they bother to think about the family before they ran this material? Or maybe they agree with William Arkin that it doesn't matter about the feelings of the family of the "intolerant and arrogant few."

Lifestyles of the Arrogant and the Clueless

William Arkin just won't shut up.

It was bad enough when Arkin called our soldiers mercenaries and said that while he recognized their right to free speech, they don't have a right to disapprove of people who say they support the troops but not the mission.

Now he's mad because a lot of people wrote back. It's probably the first time he's had more than four comments on any thread and he's a little, shall we say, shell shocked.

I know what it's like to write something that's a bit unpopular with the subject matter. When I quoted real live feminists who said abortion was "no big deal" and "just a 20 minute procedure," they got really, really mad and bombarded my site calling me anti-woman, a fascist, and a phallic worshipper (I'm sure my husbanad wishes I was!). It's tough when you have 50 comments on a thread and 48 of them are blasting you and your views, but such is the life of a person who puts their unvarnished opinions out on the internet.

In other words, don't whine, Mr. Arkin. You can't say you honestly didn't expect to take some heat for saying the soldiers "should be grateful" that the public doesn't blame them for Abu Gharib and "every rape and murder" in Iraq. Or that soldiers wouldn't take umbrage at you writing

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

Or

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

It's inconceivable to me that you expected responses to your arrogance to be dignified and polite. To be frank, you haven't earned that, Mr. Arkin.

Arkin responds to his critics by cherry-picking comments to make his points. Perhaps they really are emblematic of the others, but it seems that, instead of realizing why so many people would lash out at him, he has taken the stiff-necked approach and decided to tell them where to get off.

Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security.

And this:

But there is such contempt for civil society in these words and I wonder where it comes from?

Well, gee, I don't know. Maybe if Arkin spent a little time with our friends at Pandagon, he just might figure out why there seems to be such contempt for civil society.

But according to Arkin, it is only the military who are contemptuous of civil society. He brings up the molding of esprit de corps but somehow makes it sound more like brainwashing. Worse, he ends with this:

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

I don't think anyone advocates the military do whatever the hell they want. What they were attacking was his notion that it is possible to support the troops and not support the mission. Arkin has proved that those who say this really don't support the troops or the mission.

A Good Idea without a Chance

The American Conservative Union has sent a letter to Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) supporting H.R. 500, the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2007."

This legislation provides significant reductions in pay for Members of Congress each year that the congress approves expenditures that exceed federal revenues. In other words, it places the pain of of deficit spending right where it belongs--in the Members' of Congress own wallets.

The American people demand that Congress stop the run away federal spending that has resulted in a federal debt of $8.7 trillion. Until Members of Congress place the responsibility for unconscionable deficit spending on themselves and suffer the pain that this spending inflicts on their own pocketbooks, the likelihood of seeing any real fiscal discipline in Washington appears to be nil.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

TruthOut Funnies

I found TruthOut from reading posts by my friend Dana from Common Sense Political Thought.

The reading there is quite fascinating. I can think of several moonbats who must feel at home there. But I had to laugh when I read this lede:

Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by defense attorneys for former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.

My immediate response was, implicate him in what? That he knew Plame's identity? He's the President!

I know there are Lefties who clapped their hands at the news that President Bush might have known about Plame, but given that no crime was committed, it's pretty difficult to get worked up at this "implication." I'm sure it doesn't stop the folks at TruthOut, though.

Here's the note TruthOut is so excited about:

Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the document.

The problem with this rather twisted view of the note is that "this Pres." doesn't make sense in context,where as "that was" does.

Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important fact that has emerged from the trial thus far.

Meaning that nothing important has emerged from this trial.

The interesting part is that there is far more to the note from Cheney than just this convoluted sentence. It says:

People have made too much of the difference in how I described Karl and Libby.

I've talked to Libby.

I said it was rediculous [sic] about Karl and it is rediculous [sic] about Libby.

Libby was not the source of the Novak story.

And he did not leak classified information

I guess TruthOut wasn't interested in that part of the note.

Frankly, I'm more concerned that the Vice President of the United States can't spell ridiculous.

What's One or Two Nukes Among Friends?

That's basically what Jacques Chirac said about Iran having nukes.

President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

President Jacques Chirac being interviewed Monday in his office. On Tuesday, he withdrew remarks on Iran.

The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks.

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

Ah, the old "I thought I was off the record" excuse. I've known many a person who was tripped up because they assumed they were off the record when they weren't. Here's my golden rule for everybody who talks to the press: Never assume it is off the record. If you follow that rule, you are unlikely to ever have to apologize.

Chirac backtracked, saying that he didn't mean Tehran would be razed. He said several countries in the area would shoot the bomb down. I'm not convinced they would, considering the antipathy of the many Arab countries to Israel.

Chirac also retracted his statement that Saudi Arabia and Egypt could pursue nuclear weapons if Iran has one. I realize it is intemperate to speak the truth, but it seems to me that if Iran gets nukes, then other countries in the region will want them as well.

More Support for the Troops

Some things just have to be read to be believed. Such is William Arkin's post titled The Troops Also Need to Support the American People.

Essentially, Arkin is irritated that so many of our soldiers in Iraq are disappointed by the opposition to the war expressed in the U.S. What he writes is arrogant, inaccurate, and appallingly naive.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

It's nice to see that Arkin acknowledges our soldiers actually have freedom of speech and that it isn't simply the prerogative of civilians. But Arkin doesn't stop with insulting our soldiers here.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

Yes, it would be nice if the nay-sayers did shut up for a change instead of their relentless blatherings about supporting troops without supporting their mission. The troops know that that is just blathering designed to make the blatherer feel smug. Of course, the blatherer was probably never in the military and certainly not in a war. Very few journalists these days have served in the military (and I'm not talking about embedding). There's a great deal of difference in the attitude one has if one has served.

But Arkin isn't through insulting our soldiers yet.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

It's too bad we don't have a different sort of media.

Powerline has more on this.

Jules Crittenden has a wonderful idea: embed Arkin.

I nominate Arkin for a combat embed. On the peacenik chickenhawk theory that, if you want to talk about something, you have to do it. He should be able to tell those GIs to their faces what ingrates they are.

Did Biden Pull a George Allen?

Betsy asks a good question about Joe Biden's gaffe. I'm speaking of Biden's description of Barak Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

I was stopped at the word "articulate," a word generally loaded with bad baggage. I don't think I even got to the "clean" part. WTH does he mean by that? And here, I thought Joe Biden was only good for plagiarism jokes.

Betsy has the key question about the Biden gaffe: Will he get the same treatment from the MSM as George Allen did for his macaca slip?

Now that Drudge has picked up on this interview, I have to wonder if the media will pay half as much attention to this gaffe by Biden as they do to Republican gaffes. Will the Washington Post run as many stories on it as they did on George Allen saying macaca?

My bet is no.

Bad Tattoos

One more reason I won't ever get a tattoo is that I don't want to end up on the bad tattoo site (via Ann Althouse).

The best part of the pictures is the "WTH were they thinking?!" taglines with them. I laughed so hard and I really needed that today.

Columnist Molly Ivins Dies at 62

Molly Ivins, a thorn in the side of every Texas Republican politician for the last 30 years, died Wednesday from complications of breast cancer.

Ivins wrote for my beloved Fort Worth Star-Telegram for nine years after the Dallas Times-Herald folded in 1991.

I thought it was fitting to use S-T writer John Moritz's obit for Ivins.

Ms. Ivins, the Star-Telegram's political columnist for nine years ending in 2001, had written for the New York Times, the Dallas Times-Herald and Time magazine and had long been a sought-after pundit on the television talk-show circuit to provide a Texas slant on issues ranging from President Bush’s pedigree to the culture wars rooted in the 1960s.

"She was magical in her writing," said Mike Blackman, a former Star-Telegram executive editor who hired Ms. Ivins at the newspaper’s Austin bureau in 1992, a few months after the Times-Herald ceased publication. "She could turn a phrase in such a way that a pretty hard-hitting point didn’t hurt so bad."

A California native who moved to Houston as a young child with her family, Ms. Ivins was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999. Two years later after enduring a radical mastectomy and rounds of chemotherapy, Ms. Ivins was given a 70 percent chance of remaining cancer-free for five years. At the time, she said she liked the odds.

But the cancer recurred in 2003, and again last year. In recent weeks, she had suspended her twice-weekly syndicated column, allowing guest writers to use the space while she underwent further treatment. She made a brief return to writing in mid-January, urging readers to resist President Bush’s plan to increase the number of U.S. troops deployed to Iraq. She likened her call to an old-fashioned "newspaper crusade."

I met Ivins a few times up at the paper and even drank a beer with her once, but would never say I knew her. She was as brash and funny in person (if you like that humor) as she was in her columns.

I can say I liked Ivins much better when I was a liberal than I did as I became more conservative, but regardless, she had an amazing way of turning a phrase.

Her writing flair caught the attention of the New York Times, which hired her to cover city hall, then later moved her to the statehouse bureau in Albany. Later, she was assigned to the Times’ Rocky Mountain bureau in Denver.

Even though she wrote the Times’ obituary for Elvis Presley in 1977, Ms. Ivins said later that she and the sometimes stodgy Times proved to be a mismatch. In a 2002 interview with the Star-Telegram, Ms. Ivins recalled that she would write about something that "squawked like a $2 fiddle" only to have a Times editor rewrite it to say "as an inexpensive instrument." Ms Ivins said she would mention a "beer belly" and The Times would substitute "a protuberant abdomen."

Molly was always interesting to read and we will miss her.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Learning about the Emerging Church...But Don't Forget Your Dictionary

Yesterday, I read this article from ChristianityToday.com on the Emerging Church.

Evidently, this is considered a big movement in Christianity, although I'd never heard of it. The article tries to describe this movement but, I must confess, I didn't feel like I knew any more about the movement after reading it than before. It sounded vague and ephemeral, without doctrine or concrete dogma.

From there, I went to that standby, Wikipedia for a clearer idea of what this church is.

Or is it clearer? Well, the description of the church itself might be somewhat easy to understand (if you know what ecclesiology means). But where Evangelicals disagree with the emerging church becomes more difficult to translate to plain English.

While many Evangelicals have been open to some of the criticisms that the emerging church movement has offered, most seem to have rejected the emerging church movement's views of several key theological themes within their soteriology and eschatology as well as the openness of some in the emerging church movement to alternative lifestyles.

Translation:

While many Evangelicals have been open to some of the criticisms that the emerging church movement has offered, most seem to have rejected the emerging church movement's views of several key theological themes within their salvation plans and theology and philosophy about the end of the world as well as the openness of some in the emerging church movement to alternative lifestyles.

Sure, it isn't as succinct, but most people don't discuss their denomination's soteriology, they talk about their plan of salvation.

The rest of the article was no easier to understand, but the impression I've come away with is that this is a church with no doctrine and no Truth in the sense most Christians understand. Its appeal to a "postmodern" society is that there is no judgement about belief systems and a large reliance on individual expression of faith through works.

What I like about this theology is that its members tend to be very active in helping people and they believe that faith without works is not enough. What bothers me is that there doesn't seem to be any real doctrinal definition to the movement, which has led to cultism in other movements. I'm still trying to find out more, though.

Silencing Christians in the Public Square

Great Britain is doing the same thing to Catholics there that Boston did to Catholics here: get them out of the adoption business.

Catholic officials told reporters today that the government was engaging in Orwellian strong-arm tactics against the religious freedoms of Christians in attempting to force Catholic adoption agencies to adopt children to homosexual couples.

The comments came in response to yesterday’s announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that British Catholic adoption agencies could not expect an exemption from a new law prohibiting “discrimination” in the provision of goods and services.

“Some legislation, however well intended, in fact does create a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm - as this does,” Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor told BBC Radio 4's Today program.

The forcing of Catholic services to adopt children to homosexual couples can only be aimed at silencing Christians in this area, since homosexual couples can adopt through secular agencies, says Anthony Esolen, editor of Touchstone Christian magazine.

(T)he purpose of legislative tactics to force churches to act against their conscience were specifically and only attacks on the freedoms of Christians.

At the time of the closing of Boston’s Catholic adoption agency last year by a similar legislative move, Esolen pointed out that homosexuals can legally adopt children from secular agencies and could not possibly benefit from the strong-arming of Boston’s Catholic adoption agency.

Esolen wrote, “The conclusion seems inescapable: the Church was given the ultimatum not so that homosexuals would benefit, but so that the Church would be hurt, either by a capitulation that would signal its subservience and irrelevance evermore, or by a curtailment of the freedom of Catholics to practice their faith in the public square.”

This was echoed by Bishop Nichols who said last week, “Catholic adoption agencies do not obstruct adoption by same sex couples.”

“Any such request made to Catholic agencies are referred to other agencies that are able to respond. Granting an exemption to Catholic agencies will not alter the legal rights of same sex couples seeking to adopt children,” Nichols added.

In my opinion, the purpose of these laws is to force Christians to accept and treat homosexual behavior the same as heterosexual behavior, whether this agrees with their religious beliefs or not. It seems that all the talk about accepting everyone's views doesn't really count when you are talking about Christian views.

White House Holds Dossier on Iranian Involvement in Iraq

FoxNews.com has a story on how the Bush administration has decided not to release a report on Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq.

A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.

Officials had said a "dossier" against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.

Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.

Jules Crittenden thinks the main reason for not releasing the report is because of the behavior of the Democrats.

The report goes on to detail exactly how much the Democratic Congress does not what to deal seriously with Iran. I suspect the concerns are not so much with how Ahmadinejad will react or what the U.S. will do about it, but rather how Congress will react, and how it will try to prevent the U.S. from doing anything about it.

The grownups can’t talk about ugly truths in front of the kids, because the kids aren’t ready to handle it.

Dan at Riehl World View thinks this is more a case of saber-rattling to get the Iranians back in line.

Obama Used Cocaine...Does Anyone Care?

Brent Bozell has a column on the media double standard when it comes to drug use.

We have Barak Obama, the media darling of the moment. Obama has admitted that he used both marijuana (we can assume he inhaled) and cocaine, yet no one on the Left seems to care.

Yet since 1999, these same people have touted the story that George Bush used cocaine. Why concern about Bush but not Obama?

The Non-Story Trial the Left Loves

I have to admit that I don't really understand the excitement the Left feels over the Scooter Libby trial.

I mean, here we have a trial based on a guy who might have perjured himself about...what? Patrick Fitzgerald knew early into his investigation that no crime had been committed. He also knew the identity of the leaker: Richard Armitage. He also knew that the leak was inadvertent and that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Fitzgerald knew there was no there there. But he persued the case anyway until he found someone in the Bush administration--however tenuous the link--to indict.

And that's why we face the gleeful liberal onslaught of stories on this trial. Huffington Post ran this breathless account of how five--five!--witnesses have contradicted Scooter Libby's version of Leakgate. Firedoglake is running daily summaries of events. Digby is running transcripts.

Maybe this is the way liberals felt about the Clinton impeachment, that it was a minor offense, "just about sex," and that Republicans blew it out of proportion. They think Ken Starr spent millions and turned up nothing but a blue dress.

But aside from the obvious difference (Clinton was president, after all), there are other differences. Like the fact that Clinton did lie to the American people. He misused executive authority. He got other people to lie for him (suborning perjury). Dems may think everybody lies about sex, but Clinton is the first president in history to lose his bar card for it.

What we have here is silliness and stupidity. But since they won't get an impeachment, I guess liberals have to make themselves feel better with this idiotic waste of taxpayer time and money.