A Start

This video outlines the Southwest-to-Northeast-Rail corridor that is supposed to be operational by 2013 (I'll believe that when I see it.)



The rail line goes through some of the heaviest populated parts of the city and can take people to the airport, as well, which is a big plus. But this is only a start. It isn't particularly useful for me because the stations are nowhere near where I live, and I'm not sure how close they are to places people really shop. If Tarrant County adds buses around these stations, it might be more helpful, but I'm not certain what the plans are.

Certainly, Fort Worth and Dallas desperately need transportation alternatives to cars. The roads that have been planned are toll roads (I won't use those) and most people are not going to be happy with that. The current freeway system is completely inadequate for handling the traffic, and that will only get worse with time.

This is a good and exciting first start for mass transit here.

Now That the MSM Are Acknowledging Their Bias...

What are they going to do about it?

WPA 2.0

Obama's job creation program sounds an awful lot like the We Piddle Around program from the 1930s.

"We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges; modernizing schools that are failing our children; and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technology that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years head," he said.

Compare that to

Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million laborers to build public buildings, projects and roads

Is this any different?

From The Other McCain:

This is nothing but orthodox Keynesianism, and it won't work, because Keynes was wrong. The secret to economic growth is not government "investment," it's increasing the capital supply. And it's not exactly a secret, either.

But--but it's Uber-Obama Keynesianism so it's bound to work this time!

Go to a thriving Southern or Western state (North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.) and you'll find yourself traveling on well-maintained modern roads, occasionally obstructed by construction of improvements -- extra lanes, upgraded exit ramps, repaving, etc. Now travel around the Rust Belt states and note the general dilapidation of the highways. You can't miss the poorly-designed freeway ramps built 40 years ago, or the narrowness of highway shoulders because the state went cheap on right-of-way acquisition.

It's hard to argue against roads and bridges, and if Obama is determined to expand the government, this is a better way than hiring a bunch of bureaucrats to decide if someone making $40k a year is poor or not.

But when Obama announces the "raking leaves in the park" initiative, we'll know where he got that idea from.

Trolls

Why do trolls try to get banned? I've been at a couple of sites recently where someone bragged about creating so much trouble on someone else's site that the person had been banned. That behavior leaves me scratching my head. What is the point?

I'm sure if you want, you can get banned pretty quickly at most sites. But I fail to see the point of that. When I go to liberal sites, I like to argue and debate a topic or else drop a comment and move on. I can't imagine being proud of being such an annoying jerk that you get banned.

Whiners

I really hate whiners.

Last month, mike g complained that I had referenced a post at Iowa Liberal without the courtesy of a link. I could think of two occasions when this had happened: one I deliberately didn't link and the other, the link was broken.

But in an attempt at civility, I decided to link while knocking down every argument in this post. And what did that get? More of the typical non-arguments.

Well, ok. I won't bother linking to ya anymore, even while snickering at the pathetic arguments made (Republicans wrote the legislation the last two years? Really?) But when reality sinks in that your party is in charge and you still try to blame Bush/Republicans/conservatives/Christians/the sun/the moon, you'll at least be able to retreat to your echo chamber in peace.

Killing Conservatism?

This is frightening.

The reason Democrats want universal health care is because, like Social Security before it, it will shift an entire generation to the Left. Worse, once implemented, it will be nearly impossible to eliminate, and change will become a third rail.

Republicans would face the same problem with healthcare that they currently do with Social Security, persuading people to trade one in the hand (the current system) for two in the bush (a reformed system). And we see how well that has worked out. Combine Obamacare with plans to take away the tax-advantaged status of 401(k) plans and IRAs and you would end up with government responsible for both healthcare and retirement. The big-government constituency would grow and deepen. And remember that fewer and fewer people are paying the incomes taxes that would help pay for increased government services. That breakage of the linkage between taxes and government "benefits" creates toxic incentives for more of both — and an economy more shackled than ever by taxes, debt, and regulation.

People like the idea of something for nothing. And the fact that more and more of the tax burden is being shouldered by a smaller and smaller fraction of the population makes it more attractive to the moocher class. Sadly, these same people will be shocked and perplexed when knee replacements, heart surgery, cancer drugs and MRIs become unavailable to them because the cost is too high. But rationing is the only way socialized medicine controls costs. Sure, it's not too bad for children; but if you are 63 years old and want a hip replacement, you won't get it.

John McCain's healthcare plan was perhaps the most provocative policy proposal of the entire 2008 campaign. Too bad he could neither fully explain how it worked nor persuasively argue why it was better than Barack Obama's plan. Also too bad since his plan would have smartly reduced healthcare costs by getting companies out of the healthcare benefits business and empowering individuals to buy insurance on their own. This would have helped fix what economist Arnold Kling calls the insurance vs. insulation problem: "Insulation relieves the patient of the stress of making decisions about treatment. The patient also does not have to worry about shopping around for the best price. The problem with insulation is that it is not a sustainable form of healthcare finance."

Republicans need to do all they can to block Obamacare. It is not only terrible from the patient's point of view, but a disaster for the GOP.

Speaking the Truth

Michael Steele:

"The problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don't give a damn. It's all about outreach ... and outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them - 'See, look at us,' " he said.

"And then we go back to same old, same old. There's nothing that is driven down to the state party level, where state chairmen across the country, to the extent they don't appreciate it, are helped to appreciate the importance of African-Americans and women and others coming and being a part of this party, and to the extent that they do appreciate it, are given support and backup to generate their own programs to create this relationship."

Demographics are the new politics.

Headed to a City Near You: The Bad Manners Police

Via Lone Star Times, comes this.

Practicing bad manners by refusing to give up your Sun Metro seat to an elderly or disabled person could get you in trouble, and not just with Mom.
Starting this week, the police could become involved, too.

The City Council on Tuesday voted 7-0 to adopt a new ordinance that makes it a Class C misdemeanor for an able-bodied person younger than 65 to deny a seat to elderly or disabled passengers in specifically marked areas of each Sun Metro bus.

Violators of the new ordinance could be fined up to $500.

What about pregnant women? When I was pregnant with my oldest daughter, I took a trip to England to visit relatives and was surprised at how many people would not give up a seat for me. Amusingly, elderly women were most likely to give me their seats. But men, generally, would make it a point not to look at me, even with my protruding belly at eye level. ;)

Frankly, I think mandating good manners in this way is silly. But can't you see the incremental creep here? First elderly and disabled, then pregnant women, then the obese, then...

This is Progress?

eHarmony Forced to Offer Same Sex Dating Service.

eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide.

These sorts of suits always irritate me because they are invariably brought by someone just wanting to make a fast buck. Are there really lots of gay people clamoring to use eHarmony's 29 dimensions of compatibility to find a life partner? Somehow, I expect that homosexuals looking for love go to LGBT dating services.

Shakesville is exasperated, but for different reasons.

Another aspect of this story that is irritating me is that "winning," in this case really means setting up a portal for LGBTQI folks to send their money to a group that hates them. In case you weren't aware, eHarmony is run by a evangelical with strong ties to the ultra-right wing Christian community. He was buddies with James Dobson, for Maude's sake (although he's "distanced" himself from Dobson, for a variety of reasons). Let's just say they were probably voting Yes on 8.

Maybe this will set up more protests, complete with threats and press coverage, for the No on 8 crowd.

California Supreme Court Set to Overturn the Will of the Voters (Again)?

One of the differences between the Left and the Right is our approach to problems. When liberals lose, they call people names, issue threats, march in the streets and assault people. They threaten the tax exempt status of churches which have the nerve to preach from the Bible. They try to intimidate businesses and get employees fired for the audacity of supporting causes with which the Left disagrees.

The Right is not like this. Before the election, there were claims that if Obama won, angry, white McCain supporters would riot, burning down businesses and possibly killing people (ok, I made that last part up, but the link about rioting was real). Of course, McCain supporters did not do this. They accepted the election results and, in fact, have stated that Obama is America's president, not just the Democrats'. There's a statement you've never heard from the left.

But if there was a situation that could induce angry protests, this just might do it.

The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling...

Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.

Crushing the will of the voters for the second time in a year would, quite possibly, cause the sort of uproar we're always warned that conservatives are guilty of. Frankly, I find it disgusting that the court seems to be so hellbent on defying democracy.

Is Kathleen Parker Trying to be Andrew Sullivan

I have to agree with Jonah Goldberg that this "let's eat our own" schtick that has infected certain pundits, causing them to debase and denegrate certain factions in the GOP. Here's from Parker's column today:

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

If Kathleen Parker wants the Republicans to become the permanent minority she remembers from her youth, that's her opinion. But I fail to see how mocking and sneering at a certain faction of the party is going to make us a majority.

Calling committed Christians "oogedy-boogedy" will get you a lot more invites to Chris Matthews show (and probably Keith Olbermann's), and that may be the point. But as Jonah Goldberg writes, it's getting old really fast.

I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you'd realize that.

Parker's not courageous or "speaking truth to power." She's a whiner. She gets hate mail? Really? Gosh, like no one who writes anything anywhere doesn't get that. Left, right or centrist, you're gonna get a large volume of hate mail from time to time. Some people will argue that you should be dead or (if a woman) raped. Others will try to threaten your livelihood. Some people are low enough to say disgusting things about your family and children.

Well, guess what, Kathleen? Time to put on your big girl panties and stop acting like a whiny baby. You're no martyr. Just a whiner. You don't like the fact that Sarah Palin was hugely popular with the base and you aren't.

There are arguments that can be made about the place of religious people within the GOP, or the emphasis the party should place on social values. But insulting a committed constituency isn't going to grow the party at all. But maybe, like Andrew Sullivan, you aren't really all that concerned about the party.

The Parallel Universe Inhabited by Democrats

That's really the only explanation I can come up with for posts like this one.

Bush got nearly all of the appointments he wanted along with a blind eye turned to rampant illegal surveillance. I can’t think of a single case outside of SCHIP where there was a substantial ideological debate that would fall into the category of gridlock inducing partisanship. “Liberal” Democrats routinely fell in line and cow-towed to any and all Republican demands not to mention the fact that several Bush proposals were stymied by Republicans and not Democrats. That’s why I find this pearl-clutching by the wingnuts over the trad and ritualistic kid-glove treatment Obama is receiving from the press completely baffling considering that during the Bush administration the media ran right along with the idea that anyone who disagreed with the president’s policies was a seditious coddler of terrorists. How dare they question our Commander In Chief during war time!? The press has always been more deferential to Republican presidents than it is to Democrats and pretending that the media is perpetually stacked against them has been part of the radical right MO for the past twenty years and it is absolutely ridiculous to recommend bipartisan ship after eight years of the most partisan administration this country has ever seen.

I've been blogging the last two years, which has included post after post after post after post with examples of biased and negative coverage in the MSM and the fact is, the MSM is overwhelmingly positive when it covers Democrats and overwhelmingly negative when it covers Republicans. I'm not just talking about campaign coverage, which was so lopsided that only a complete idiot would believe the coverage was fair. No, I'm talking about coverage of every issue for the eight years George W. Bush has been president.

Let's put the above mentioned statement in perspective: When Democrats swept Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised civility and bipartisanship. But that's not what we got. Instead, we got massive spending bills, calls to slowly bleed our military dry (and thus lose the war in Iraq), and the filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have tried repeatedly to steamroll over Republicans and the sitting president by threatening, insulting and cajoling them at every turn. This includes multiple attempts to defund the war (without taking the blame for it) and rolling back various measures such as the Patriot Act and FISA laws.

If Democrats haven't accomplished these things, it's not for a lack of trying. The fact is that a presidential veto has prevented a variety of disasterous and foolish legislation from becoming law. But in no way does that constitute Democrats rolling over (or, more laughably, the press fawning over Republicans).

This is why I think Democrats inhabit a parallel universe, one where Democrats haven't been in charge of Congress for two years and are responsible for what has come out of it. Rather, they must live in a world, like those set in comic books, where Republicans are always evil geniuses who seemingly defy all laws, both manmade and natural, to win every battle until the end when Captain Democrat figures out how to save the world. Because in the real world, the MSM has never been nicer to Republicans than Democrats and Dems have run Congress like the Keystone Cops. And arguments that contain hyperbole like "eight years of the most partisan administration this country has ever seen" just sounds like someone who's been out of touch for a while.

How Obama Got Elected

You gotta visit this site and watch the video to understand Obama voters.



See what's important?

The site adds results from the Zogby poll, which shows how uninformed Obama voters in general were. These are the people telling us we have to give Barack Obama a chance. Why? Because they were too stupid or busy to actually pay attention to the election but just decided to vote for Obama anyway?

Ed Morrissey says,

It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.
As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context. Anyone can find fools for “man on the street” interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show. Zogby’s poll shows that Ziegler’s video is no anomaly. Wait for the end, where the ignorant endorse their favorite media outlets, which is the real highlight of this project.

Norm Coleman Wins Minnesota Senate Seat

This is good news. The bad news is that the closeness of the race (Coleman wins by 215 votes) triggers an automatic recount. Can Dems cheat their way into another seat?

Yes, they can!

What Pro-Choicers Do Not Accept About Pro-Lifers

Pro-life supporters do not believe the government should support abortion, considering it to be a barbaric and antisocial practice. They believe that private citizens should and will support mothers and babies both before and after birth, and that this in and of itself should encourage women not to kill their children.

Many pro-choicers do not understand this simple concept. They argue that if we want to reduce the number of abortions, we need governmental mandates to subsidize women and children through direct support (WIC, AFDC, tax credits) and indirect support (regulations on business requiring paid leave, for example). The argument is that pro-lifers do not really want to reduce the number of abortions because they don't typically support more government interference in these areas.

But it really does miss the point, doesn't it? Most abortions are not sought by the poor, who would takethe most advantage of government subsidies. They are sought by middle and upper middle class white women who would most likely want the abortion regardless of government support for women and children. As much as pro-choicers hate to admit it, these abortions are about convenience versus inconvenience. Not just the inconvenience of a nine-month pregnancy, but the inconvenience of a lifelong commitment to someone else who might interfere with other life goals (for example, career advancement, educational pursuits).

Poor women desire abortions less often than richer women because having more children does not change their lives as dramatically. If you make $20,000 per year as a clerk, have two children, get both WIC and AFDC, and live very close to the vest, another child, while inconvenient, is not earth-shattering. These women make other sacrifices to make their lives work.

The women who typically seek abortions are well-to-do, the kind who see 2 a.m. feedings and daycare as threatening to their financial well-being and privilege. For a woman, say in college or working on a professional certification, the rigors of childrearing can interfere with their ability to concentrate. For the professional woman, a day's absence from work can harm the client or one's chances of advancement. For the woman with two almost grown children, the desire for life outside dirty diapers and teething and the pursuit of her own interests--career or otherwise--might justify abortion.

But to put it simply, greater governmental support wouldn't really change the decisions of any of these women. Their decision to abort or keep the child is based on internal factors, not external ones. Which is why pro-lifers do not believe any of the proposals pro-choicers trumpet would reduce abortions at all. And why they look at greater restrictions on abortion as a better way to reduce abortions.

The New Tolerance How Not to Show Tolerance and Respect

I'm not sure why any group would think they could go into a gay neighborhood and try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals, particularly after the passage of Prop 8. It just seems to me that emotions are so high that it doesn't take much--even just prayer and singing--to rile people up and start fights.

Having said that, I've watched street ministers work hostile crowds on college campuses and it's amazing to me that there are people willing to take such abuse on the off chance that someone will listen and change his or her mind and behavior. In any event, this one didn't go too well.

UPDATE: I've changed the title to this post to reflect my opinion that, while I don't condone harassment and assault, going into a well-known homosexual neighborhood right after Prop 8 passed wasn't merely a dumb thing to do. It was a highly disrespectful thing and was probably designed to get the results shown on the video.

The Fawning Press

The other day, I was standing in the checkout line at WalMart, waiting to put about 100 bucks worth of groceries on the conveyor belt (it was actually more like $140, but still) when I decided to scan the magazine headlines out of sheer boredom.

The Obamas' New Life! blared the headline from People Magazine.


"New home, new friends, new puppy! All about the move to the White House," read the tagline. "New home, new friends, new puppy?" Who writes this stuff? It sounded like something off of Blue's Clues or maybe a sentence out of Barney's mouth. Granted, we are talking about People Magazine, not a more austere periodical. But still. When does the fawning stop? Not soon enough, evidently.

There were other magazines on the racks: the obligatory plastic strips covering Cosmo's latest "How to Keep Your Man Happy In Bed So He Doesn't Run Off With That Slut Next Door" article; holiday cookie recipes from Betty Crocker, Word Find puzzle books. But mostly, there were the blaring "Teh One Has Arrived!" magazines.

Look, I know these things aren't aimed at me and the four other sane people in the U.S., but is it possible for the MSM to be slightly less obvious in their genuflection? When Howard Kurtz notices the adoration, you know it's deep.

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story." Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

For anyone still arguing that we just need to "give Obama a chance" before criticizing him, ask yourself this question:

Would John and Cindy McCain have been given this much fawning attention?

I thought not.

The First Step in Solving Your Problem Is To Admit You Have One

The good news in Deborah Howell's latest column is that she actually admits there is a bias problem in the media.

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

Ed Driscoll quotes James Lileks who has, perhaps, the best answer for this:

The first question in any J-school application ought to be "do you want to change the world?" And anyone who answers yes gets kindly turned away. Your job is to describe the way the world changes. Not pretend you're there to nudge it along towards utopia.

The bad news in Howell's column is that many journalists are still in denial.

Journalists bristle at the thought of their coverage being viewed as unfair or unbalanced; they believe that their decisions are journalistically reasonable and that their politics do not affect how they cover and display stories.

Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said, "The perception of liberal bias is a problem by itself for the news media. It's not okay to dismiss it. Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help Democrats are wrong. But conservatives are right that journalism has too many liberals and not enough conservatives. It's inconceivable that that is irrelevant."

Journalists weren't trying to help Obama win? Really? That's a rather difficult whopper to swallow when so many journalists admit they vote for Obama and when studies show coverage of Obama was overwhelmingly positive compared to John McCain's. This isn't even bringing up Howell's other column in which she admits the WaPo's coverage was undeniably favorable to Obama.

Journalists could do a lot to rectify the bias most Americans see if they tried to be more even-handed in their coverage and more critical of their own behaviors.

The biggest problem in the campaign coverage was the MSM's incuriosity about Barack Obama and their reluctance to dig for dirt. They had no problem trying diligently to portray Sarah Palin as unqualified and unfit to be president (when she wasn't running for the job), but completely dismissed the relevance of arguments about Obama's experience (or lack thereof), his voting record, his past, etc.

Comparing, for example the questions Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin, it's difficult to disguise why Obama was given softball questions while Palin was scrutinized on the finer points of public policy.

The problem isn't just the perception of bias. It's the fact that many journalists have abandoned objectivity and actively slant their coverage the way they decide it should go. In other words, many, if not most, journalists think their job is to change opinions, not just present information for readers/viewers/listeners to chew on. Until Howell can admit that the problem is journalists' behavior, not the public's perception, there will be little change.

Has George Bush Really Been a Social Conservative?

The left has castigated George Bush as having been in the pocket of social conservatives, but has he really?

Not according to this article from The American Conservative.

President Bush has supported some family issues, from the 2001 increase in the Child Tax Credit to increased funding for abstinence-only sex education. And the Bush administration did put a halt to allowing the United Nations to dictate American policy in terms of women and children.

But in many other areas, George Bush cannot be called a "family values president."

Even before the end of his first term, however, there were signs of trouble. Trying to find a middle way that would placate social liberals, the White House backed federal funding for certain forms of stem-cell research. Most pro-life and pro-family groups favored a total ban. Meanwhile, HHS projects to promote marriage and fatherhood were moving instead toward a punishing noncustodial fathers, pleasing feminists, and creating perverse incentives for divorce.

Most curious was this revelation:

The Bush administration also refused to embrace a broader package of pro-family economic initiatives. The proposed Parents’ Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Lee Terry, would make the Child Tax Credit permanent and indexed to inflation, double the personal income tax exemption for children, give parents at home a tax benefit equal to that given to daycare users, encourage home-based businesses, and treat full-time parenting as real work relative to Social Security credits. The bill has enjoyed broad support from pro-family groups, small business associations, and home-based entrepreneurs. But the Bush domestic policy team turned up its collective nose, insisting that any new tax relief should go to corporate America, not parents and children or even family businesses.

While George Bush has certainly been more pro-family and pro-life than any Democrat would have been, his record is certainly a mixed bag.

The Gay Enemies List

Stick up for traditional marriage? You'll end up on the gay enemies list.

A National Protest Against Prop 8 organized by JoinTheImpact.com is scheduled for this Saturday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.

group being singled out for criticism. African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8. Said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."

The vast majority? I doubt that seriously. If there were a national referendum, I'm pretty sure that the number of Americans who support traditional marriage would be more than the 52% who supported it in California.

In addition to protests, gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Proposition 8 are publicized, with readers urged not to patronize their businesses or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions of over $1,000 and all contributions of over $100 given before October 17. Dentists, accountants, veterinarians and the like who gave a few thousand dollars to the cause are listed alongside major donors like the Container Supply Co., Inc. of Garden Grove, Calif., which gave $250,000. "Anyone who steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens themselves up to criticism," said Wolfson. "The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."

Does this mean it's ok to use these same guerilla tactics against gun control supporters?

The Left has become obsessed with intimidating opponents into obeisance. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about gay marriage or the latest political campaign. This isn't about persuading anyone or changing minds. It's about shutting up those with whom they disagree. We cannot let them win this fight.