Our Tea Party Moment

We are approaching April 15th.

As folks will recall, that's Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Day, when conservatives around the country will rally to the banner of limited government. I'm attending my local Tea Party in Santa Ana, the government seat of Orange County. I was just now looking around online to see what kind of attendence numbers are expected for the event. I found a meetup website, "Orange County National Tax Day Tea Party." I've been networking with folks at the page. About 1000 people have confirmed their attendance with this particular group. Andrew Breitbart will give the keynote speech. Here's the flyer:

In any case, as readers may have noticed by the nature of my posting this week, I'm a little taken aback by what's been happening in politics of late. Iowa's gay marriage ruling is frankly unreal to me, especially the actual holding of the court, which showed complete disdain for common sense and tradition. But I've also been concerned with the broader, obvious leftist collapse of respect for and value in America's classic traditions of individualism, constitutionalism, and limited government.

Over at Michelle Malkin's, Doug Powers is guest blogging, and he shares similar thoughts on the era's social breakdown, and he suggests why the Tea Parties are important:

For me, these tea parties are about putting an end to waste. Not the waste of money (though obviously that’s a major concern), but rather the tragic waste of American ingenuity, innovation, creativity and philanthropy.

Isn't that the stuff that makes this country great and exceptional? And so many of the secular progressives are losing it. They've got no sense of right and goodness in America's history and political culture. Take Senator Charles Schumer, for example. Jillian Bandes, at Townhall, posted on Schumer's recent interview with Rachel Maddow, where he attacks conservatives as deviant obstructionists:

They have nothing positive to say. The world has changed. The old Reagan philosophy which served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right which still believes when the federal government moves, chop off its hands, still believes that, you know, traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over. So they have nothing other than to say no.

There's nothing ambiguous about Schumer's comments (watch the video for his telling gesticulations), but check out Thers at Whiskey Fire, who tries to spin reactions to Schumer's postmodernism as "wingnuttery":

Good Lord! Chuck Schumer hates strong foreign policy and traditional values! Holy shit!

The real fun begins, though, when another Townhall inmate decides to follow up, and posts a video of the Schumer interview... which clearly shows that when Schumer makes the "traditional values" remark, he does the air quotes gesture, and that when he mentions "strong foreign policy," he smiles and makes a silly kind of fist. Both of these gestures clearly indicate to the non-moron community that his remarks are meant to be taken ironically. (The gob, it is smacked.) Indeed, Schumer is making a pretty banal point, that "conservatives" are reduced to the hysterical peddling of ludicrous cliches, a contention Townhall only manages to confirm. Good one, kids.

Notice the jabs at conservatives as "inmates" and "morons"; but note especially how traditionalism and strength in foreign policy are scourged as "ludicrous cliches."

Or, how about the Rasmussen poll out this week that found just 53 percent of Americans agreeing that capitalism was preferable to socialism. I noted earlier that I don't read too much into the numbers. We are in an economic recession, so naturally faith in markets will be weaker during a downturn. But support for socialism was particularly high among the young (which I found interesting, for the same cohort is big on support for same-sex marriage). Here's how Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast explains the current youth support for socialism:

Some of the preference for socialism among the young may be simply attributable to age. As my generation knows full well, it's easy to be a socialist when your parents are paying at least some of the bills. But I think there's more to it than just a facile question of generations.

Over nearly three decades, as Reagan Republicanism has largely ruled this country (yes, even during the eight Clinton years), Americans have seen what unfettered, so-called free market capitalism looks like. Until the October 1987 crash, even the post-baby-boomers were supportive of the Doctrine of I Want More. But the financial collapse of 2008 represents the natural outgrowth of deregulated capitalism -- and Americans don't like what they see. The question is whether this translates into support for if not an outright socialist economy, certainly a more egalitarian one with a better safety net than we have now. Young Americans aren't carrying the baggage of the Cold War with them. These are people who grew up in post-Berlin Wall, for whom the boogeyman of Communism evokes no Pavlovian fear response. And if you are just getting started in your life and careers, and you see the wreckage that deregulated capitalism has left in its wake, and you're interacting with people all over the world via Facebook and online games, and seeing how people in Europe have health care even if they can't find a job, you're damn right you're going to think socialism is better.

Well, I personally never considered a realistic understanding of the threat of communist expansionism worldwide as "Cold War baggage"; and this notion of "deregulated capitalism" as the source of the nation's ills is completely bereft of facts (one look at Barney Frank will tell you that). But the comments from Charles Schumer, as well as both the posts at Whiskey Fire and Brilliant at Breakfast, serve as perfect indicators of the kind of ideological thinking prevalent on today's left.

Schumer's a key example of today's Democratic Party leadership, with his anything-goes moralism and defeatism in foreign policy; and the left bloggers offer nothing but nihilism to the debate, for they don't understand what makes this country tick.

For me, the Tea Parties are not about a "revolution" to overthrow the United States government, like Markos Moulitsas has alleged. The Tea Parties represent a political uprising of the conservative grassroots of this nation. People are getting active. They are returning to the principles of the Founders, principles of limits on governmental power, and a belief in free markets and free peoples. The members of the left denounce the Tea Party movement at their peril. This is the moment. This is the return of the conservative right wing of American politics, and the return of moral clarity and good to the nation's polity. Note as well, that the economy is already starting to make a comeback, so combined with the growing Tea Party protests movement, it's going to be even harder for the Obama administration to justify the continued socialization of the economy.

Note in conclusion, that I do not believe, as does British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, in his essay today at The Guardian, that capitalism is "bankrupt." When all is said and done - and the economic histories are written of the recession of 2008 - we'll likely understand the current downturn as another deep trough in the nation's history of economic cycles; and as traumatic as its been for many people across the land, the recession - and especially the political responses in Washington - will provide positives opportunities for the natural recuperative power of "creative destruction" in this phenemonal American marketplace of over 300 million people.

I can't wait for April 15th!

See also, No Sheeples Here, "The Second American Revolution—What Will You Do Without Freedom?", Midnight Blue, "A Tea Party in West Chester, Pa," and Legal Insurrection, "Tea Parties Are Sooo Scaaary."

The Passion of the Christ

From Mel Gibson's, The Passion of the Christ:

E.D. Kain's Total Break With Reality

I have to admit that reading E.D. Kain is, for me, one of the more interesting things about the postmodern blogosphere. E.D., a past publisher of a popular neoconservative website (the name has been changed to protect the embarrassed), has now become one of the biggest Andrew Sullivan myrmidons of the left-blogosphere. Even more interesting, it's clear by now that E.D's ideological shift wasn't just a change of heart, but has now matastasized into clinical case of Sullivan-esque psychopathology (with a smidgen of Larison-esque anti-Americanism).

Case in point is E.D.'s post this afternoon, "Adventures in Invective," and the introduction alone's worth the price of admission:

“What leaves me with a queasy feeling, though, is the growing sense that Obama is willing to denigrate America in order to boost his own personal popularity in other countries. As President, Obama has a responsibility to explain and interpret America to the rest of the world — in a way that is truthful and corresponds to reality for sure, but in a way that explains his country and its history and actions. So it would have been nice for him to point out just once that (as Charles Krauthammer has reminded us) during the last two decades Americans have shed their blood and spent their treasure in order to defend innocent Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.” ~ Peter Wehner

Right, Peter. That’s exactly what Obama’s doing - denigrating America in order to boost his popularity in other countries. And you’re right, he should have reminded the Turks and Europeans about all those American-instigated wars; I’m sure they’ve forgotten all about them by now. Certainly the President should have spent more time pointing out just how successful the “liberating” Americans have been in Iraq. That always goes over well in countries totally opposed to the Iraq war and fundamentally opposed to American arrogance and imperialism.

You see, Wehner is having trouble with what many neocons and movement conservative types are suffering from: a total break with reality. This makes it very, very difficult to understand the importance of reinvigorating our diplomatic efforts with, yes, even the French.

Read the rest of the post at the link.

So, who's really suffering a reality break here?

Well, let's first review these "American-instigated" wars: Kuwait? Eh, hello. E.D.'s obviously referring to the Gulf War of 1990-91. The conflict was the result of Saddam Hussein's invasion of his southern neighbor is July 1990. The threat to international security was recognized around the world, and for the first time in its history of the United Nations mounted a true collective security response, a deployment ultimately representing more than three dozen nations. This multinational force, underwritten by American military primacy, successfully ejected Iraq from Kuwait - thus securing the free flow of crude from the Persian Gulf region.

And Bosnia? I can't recall anyone on the left denouncing the U.S. for "Bosnian imperialism." If anything, leftists were attacking the Clinton administration for turning its back on a humanitarian "slaughterhouse" (see Mark Danner, "America and the Bosnia Genocide").

Now, about Afghanistan? Yes, the U.S. fought the Afghanistan war in 2001 and 2002, a successful engagement that was largely considered a strategic masterpiece at the time - with the main complaint against the deployment being that U.S. forces failed to capture Osama bin Laden. Upon authorization, only Representative Barbara Lee voted against the mission in either chamber of Congress. Recall that this week Ms. Lee led a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus to Cuba, and while there lauded supreme leader Fidel Castro as an agent of international cooperation (see my essay, "Congressional Black Communists?").

And Iraq? Well, left and right will never agree on "Bush's debacle," although in 2003 all the top Democrats rushed to authorize the deployment. Arthur Borden's, A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq, puts all the left wing criticisms to bed; and as David Horowitz shows in Party of Defeat, the Democratic Party literally stabbed American forces in the back by turning against a war - for rank political purposes - that its members had initially voted to support in overwhelming numbers.

So, we can ask the same question of E.D. Kain that prominent writers have been increasingly asking of his idol Andrew Sullivan: "Should anyone take this man seriously"?

I have nothing personal against E.D. Kain. It's that rarely in my personal and political life have I encountered anyone with less integrity and credibility. This is a man who once published a number of neoconservative authors at his neocon blog-portal, and then one day he disappeared from the radar with nary an explanation. That behavior alone raises questions of character in my mind. But this post today clinches the case that E.D.'s gone literally batty. Conservatism has lots of problem, but they certainly aren't found in the writing of Peter Wehner. Besides, E.D. Kain and the boys at Ordinary Gentlemen are the last people who should be attempting a takedown of the right, much less the articulation of a "21st Century Conservatism."

American Socialists Come Out of the Closet

I'm always a bit surprised at how resistant American secular progressives are to the "socialist" label. Socialism does not require the abolition of private property or nationalization of industry. We know what's happening right now with the "social-market" economies in Europe, with their heavy state sectors and generous welfare states. Mark Steyn argued recently that Americans risk a disastrous shift toward the European model in his recent essay, "Prime Minister Obama: Will European Statism Supplant the American Way?"

While some leftists strain to deny a "convergence" toward collectivization between the U.S. and European models (and some are consumed by denialism altogether), others on the left are openly embracing an identifcation with genuine socialilsm. Michelle Goldberg, at The American Prospect, wrote a detailed piece the other day arguing that the declining birthrates in Western democracies are less problematic in states with aggressive social welfare regimes. The key? Progressive social programs supportive of working mothers that in effect engender fecund family-level reproductive patterns. So, don't worry about falling birthrates! Big government will take care of it! And here's the clincher:

In other words, the threat of population decline is one of the best arguments yet for socialized day care, family leave, and other dreamy Scandinavian-style policies. It’s a discussion we should welcome.

Put aside the idiocy of Goldberg's argument for now. I'm simply fascinated by the growing acceptability of the state-socialist model among those on the left.

Moreover, Rasmussen has a new poll out today on this, "Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism." According to the survey:

Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

I don't take too much away from these findings, actually. Those on the extreme left of the spectrum, including many in Congress, are committed to some version of a revolutionary socialist doctrine. Most Democrats are more likely disenchanted with the free enterprise system, and they likely equate "capitalism" with greed and corruption.

Nevetheless, it's extremely telling that a bare majority prefers capitalism to socialism. Of course, no other system in human history has been developed to provide greater prosperity and encourage greater human potential than the capitalist mode of market organization. Hendrik Hertzberg may think that Americans are warming up to a "nice" cushy progressive social welfare state, but folks need to read Mark Levin's, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, for a powerful argument that statism does nothing but destroy freedom. It's that simple. Growing support for a European-style socialist welfare state is a shift toward tyranny. It's un-American through and through, and one can only hope that we're in a passing phase of deviation from America's historical norm of liberal exceptionalism.

On the Growing Secular Value System

Man, this debate is never ending!

Far-left blogger Ezra Klein asks, "Will D.C. Force Congress to Consider Gay Marriage?" Actually, I've already answered yes to this question. See, "How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?"

But check out this article from the Christian News Network, "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders":

"Having lived in New York City for more than 30 years, I am all too aware of the harm that firearms in the hands of criminals can cause. Having grown up in a small town in Illinois, where citizens owned guns without misusing them, I am also aware that guns aren't the underlying problem. I am not an opponent of gun regulation; I am an opponent of making guns the scapegoat for mass murder.

"The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity taught that murder was wrong and that included murder motivated by anger, hatred and revenge. Both religions also taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to forgive others.

"For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.

"This secular value system is also reflected in the 'sexual revolution,' which is the driving force behind the push for 'gay marriage;' and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

"It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

"I would add that if conservative media's irresponsible talk of revolution can 'poison weak minds,' the liberal entertainment media's irresponsible portrayal of mayhem can also poison weak minds."

Check the link for the introduction to the article, as well as the responses at Memeorandum.

While I agree with the main points of the religious morality angle, I don't think that argument will prevail amid the growing hegemony of secularism Peters decries. A powerful secular case can be made against same-sex marriage, based in the logic of biological reproduction and the regeneration of societies. The gay marriage extremists can do little to change the logic of social reproduction and the facts of biological procreation. To win the argument, gay radicals have to argue in denial of the fact that social institutions are normatively substantiated in such terms. The left has yet to do so, of course, which is why the notion of "same-sex marriage" remains a fantastic radical progressive ideological construct.

See my earlier piece on this, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage."

Polling on Gay Marriage

Nate Silver has done a sophisticated analysis of polling trends on gay marriage, "Fact and Fiction on Gay Marriage Polling." He concludes that:

Support for gay marriage ... is strongly generational ... Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.

Not so fast, actually.

Note this methodological note from Silver's plotted-data of PollingReport surveys:

This chart includes all surveys in the PollingReport.com database, except those where the respondent was given a three-pronged choice between gay marriage, civil unions and nothing.

This is problematic. Recent surveys, from Iowa Iowa and nationally, have queried support for gay marriage outside of this binary formulation (gay marriage/civil unions). Here's Newsweek's key question item, with only 31 percent favor full same-sex marriage rights:

Thinking again about legal rights for gay and lesbian couples, which of the following comes CLOSEST to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples, OR support civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, BUT NOT full marriage rights, OR do you oppose ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples?

Now, while there is evidence for the notion that the liberal youth cohort will replace older voters less tolerant of gay marriage (see, for example, "Explaining the Growing Support for Gay and Lesbian Equality Since 1990"), the nature of question wording, as well as the environmental political influences (gay rights protest extremism, activist political mobilization strategies, and so forth), will determine the levels of support for same-sex marriage in the years ahead. With these facts in mind, it seems a bit premature to suggest, as does Silver, "that gay marriage will reach majority status" in just a few years.

Gays and Infertile Heterosexual Couples

Citing political scientist Susan Shell, here's this from my post, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage":

American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

This really gets to the heart of the gay marriage debate. Radical gay rights secularists are trying to ram down their views on everyone else. William Murchison, for example, decisively argued yesterday against "The Gay Marriage Fantasy." That is, there's really no such thing, logically, as same-sex marriage.

And what about infertile heterosexual couples. Well, in response to National Review's editorial, "The Future of Marriage," check out Andrew Sullivan's latest hissy-fit:

National Review's new editorial comes out firmly against even civil unions for gay couples, and continues to insist that society's exclusive support for straight couples is designed

to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households.

This is an honest and revealing point, and, in a strange way, it confirms my own analysis of the theocon position. It reaffirms, for example, that infertile couples who want to marry in order to adopt children have no place within existing marriage laws, as NR sees them. Such infertile and adoptive "marriages" rest on a decoupling of actual sex and the rearing of children. The same, of course, applies much more extensively to any straight married couple that uses contraception: they too are undermining what National Review believes to be the core reason for civil marriage.

And note that point: "much more extensively." Or, fundamentally radically.

No matter how you spin it, and especially no matter how hard gay radicals attempt to repudiate traditionals as "theocons," the shift to gay marriage is a radical departure from the situation of infertile heterosexuals couples who are married. People like this, when they adopt children, and when they live their lives in the context of society's historically accepted normative institutions, are not revolutionary. To say that gay marriages are indentically co-equal to marriages between infertile heterosexual couples raises the question once again of how we are to define society's social regimes. Look, as Shell notes:

A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman?

No scheme of demonization concocted by Andrew Sullivan can change the fundamental fact that marriage AS AN INSTITUTION is established for the regeneration of society. Infertile heterosexual couple who marry are not trying to overturn that norm. Same-sex couple who demand marriage are.

Spencer Ackerman's Klan Slander

Let me remind readers of my post from July of last year, "Epitaph for Imperialism? Or, the Death of President Bush Foretold."
In that piece I cited a Spencer Ackerman essay, where he declared of President George W. Bush, "May his war-crimes prosecutor be Iraqi; may his judge be American; and may he die in the Hague."

I generally don't like radical leftists, especially in foreign policy, as they enable America's enemies. But I'm certain that Ackerman's got a special place reserved in Hell - the way he condemns, defames, and demonizes those of upright moral standing and resolve - so things do even out in the end.

I mention all of this with reference to Ackerman's essay today, "Neocons vs. Bob Gates, With Special Guest Appearance by KKK Founder." The piece is a slanderous attack on Thomas Donnelly and Gary Schmitt, and their essay at today's Wall Street Journal, "Obama and Gates Gut the Military." The authors argue that the Obama administration's new Pentagon budget, announced this week by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will result in "a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop." Read the whole thing for the specifics (I'd hate to see the F-22 Raptor get the ax after all). At the introduction, the authors quote Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate Cavalry commander and innovative thinker of military doctrine. Forrest was also a founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and this fact provides Ackerman's opening against Donnelly and Schmitt:

Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, members in good standing of the neoconservative cabal to eat your babies and conquer the world and then eat more babies, have an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing against Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ program cuts. While they don’t really like the budget, they do seem to like the founder of the Ku Klux Klan ....

American dominance is not so fragile that trading planes is going to eliminate it. But I guess taking advice from Klan leaders leads to all sorts of paranoia.

Ackerman, at one point, takes issue with Donnelly and Schmitt's argument in favor of the F-22, claiming that the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) is a ready "alternative." Of course, as I cited the other nght, the incomparable F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter aircraft ever built, and as my friend Tom the Redhunter notes, the F-35 Lightning "was never intended to be our primary front line fighter"

Spencer Ackerman, who bills himself as a national security "expert," should know this. But the comparative efficacy of military readiness, force postures, and ordnance requirements are irrelevant to Ackerman's program. His demonic goal is to excoriate and ridicule the "evil" neocons, but in the process Ackerman simply demonstrates once again how childish he is. He's might as well quit journalism to focus on his punk band. No doubt some of the Nazi skinheads at his gigs would be better able to appreciate the significance of historical figures such as Nathan Bedford Forrest.

See also, The Redhunter, "Obama's B-1A?"

Image Credit: All Things Beautiful, "The Power of Demonization."

The Gay Marriage Fantasy

It turns out there's some backlash on the secular left in response to the National Organization for Marriage's new ad compaign, "The Gathering Storm."

The Human Rights Campaign, a radical gay rights pressure group, has launched a counter-offensive, attacking "The Gathering Storm" as "lies about marriage for lesbian and gay couples." The Human Rights Campaign has released a video allegedly countering the claims of the National Organization for Marriage, which is available here.

The National Organization for Marriage can defend their own advertisment, but when the actors in the video suggest that advocates for same-sex marriage "want to change the way I live," there's no question as to that statement's accuracy. Indeed, as William Murchison demonstrates at Real Clear Politics, the gathering storm of gay marriage radicalism seeks indeed to hijack the very identity of traditional American culture, abducting it for themselves in a campaign of vile licentiousness and excoriation of those of moral faith and values:

You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.

Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.

The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.

The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. "What I say goes!" has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existence.

A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

A gay "marriage" (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile -- barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.

Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't "like" too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.

True, marriage isn't the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There's also the ancient practice called illegitimacy -- in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It's a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.

Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to "equal protection of the law" necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.

One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?

The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn't to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to "keep your distance." We're reminded again -- as with Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence -- of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn't say things that weren't so. Would they?

Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.

See also my recent essay on the controversy at Pajamas Media, "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa."

For the radical left's campaign of demonizing those of faith, see Pam Spaulding, "National Organization for Marriage's new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word 'religion'."

The Gathering Storm: The National Organization for Marriage

Here's the new advertisment from the National Organization for Marriage, "The Gathering Storm":

April 8, 2009 (Trenton, NJ) -- Today the National Organization for Marriage is launching a nationwide Religious Liberty Ad Campaign designed to raise awareness of the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage legislation.

Already, Boston Catholic Charities has been denied its adoption agency license because of their religious beliefs concerning marriage and the welfare of children. A New Jersey church group has been denied property tax exemption because they cannot in good conscience permit civil union ceremonies in church facilities. And individual service providers have been forced to choose between their faith and their profession. Religious liberty experts have said that these sorts of conflicts just scratch the surface of what we are likely to see if same-sex marriage becomes widespread.

The secularist media establishment is already attacking the ad campaign. The Hot Sheet has posted a screed entitled, "$1.5 Million Spent On Anti-Gay Marriage Ad." With less hysteria, Ben Smith at The Politico joins in with, "New campaign fights same-sex marriage."

More at Memeorandum.

Congressional Black Communists?

The Congressional Black Caucus is often identified by its acronym the "CBC," which, considering the oganization's meeting yesterday with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, might as well be stand for "Congressional Black Communists":

Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.

“The fifty-year embargo just hasn’t worked,” CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) told reporters this evening at a Capitol press conference after returning from a congressional delegation visit to Cuba. “The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.”

Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro's later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.

"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.

“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama’s message of turning the page in American foreign policy.

"He listened. He said the exact same thing" about turning the page "as President Obama said," said Richardson.

Richardson said Castro knew her name and district. "He looked right into my eyes and he said, 'How can we help? How can we help President Obama?'"

U.S. Represenative Barbara Lee was the only member of either chamber of Congress to vote against the use of force to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Representative Laura Richardson, the "deadbeat Democrat" from Long Beach, is widely recognized as the most corrupt member of Congress.

Now these idiots are getting Communist Cuba on board to "help" the President of the United States?

No doubt Obama will be receptive, and the academic elite and the mainstream press will sweep the Democrats' Communist Diplomacy under the rug. It's not like conservatives didn't anticipate this stuff. See, "Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines."

A Constitutional Convention for Iowa?

At MyDD, "Des Moines Dem" fears the talk in Iowa on holding a constitutional convention:

Although I'm confident that over time a large majority of Iowans will come to support marriage equality, I confess that I am a bit nervous about the issue coming to a statewide vote in 2010 or 2011.

One might think that secular progressives would be more confident in their policies. The Des Moines Register reports on the possible issues that might be addressed at such a meeting. Interestingly, Chet Culver, Iowa's Democratic Governor, voiced the traditional line on same-sex marriage:

As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines.

Any changes to the constitution will go directly to the voters through ballot initiatives, although the process is lengthy. Yet, the sooner the voters decide the gay marriage question, the sooner we'll see how out of tune the state's leftists are with the majority of Iowa citizens.

Leftists Want in on Tea Party Action!

Here's Michelle Malkin on the left's efforts to shoehorn in on the conservative tea party buzz:

So, in addition to preemptive smears and sabotage efforts, the Left’s nutroots — feeling, well, left out of the spotlight after putting the Obamessiah in office — are organizing their own anti-Tea Party demonstrations.

Liberal guru Joe Trippi and government-subsidized Bill Moyers are pushing the new initiative, titled “A New Way Forward.” Hey, wasn’t Obama supposed to be your New Way Forward? Way to go!

The lefties have chosen April 11 to try and usurp media attention from the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party event on April 15. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's funny, but it was just a few weeks ago that leftists were ridiculing conservatives for "Going Galt", and last week Markos Moulitsas blamed the Pittsburgh cop killings on conservatives agitating "revolution." And this week faux conservatives are attacking Rush Limbaugh: "You're a brain-washed, Nazi!"

But they sure are looking to get in on the tea party action!

For example, "The Huffington Post wants to have citizen journalists at as many of these events as possible." Right. "Citizen journalists"? Make that counter-demonstrators, if anything.

In any case, via Glenn Reynolds, see "Tax Day Tea Party local events, videos and anti-tax boom." Also, Nice Deb asks, "Who’s Going to A Tax Day Tea Party?"

I will be attending the Santa Ana tea party, not far from my home (check Tax Day Tea Party - California" for more information on the California protests). And check out "Tea Party Sign Artwork" for downloadable signage.

**********

UPDATE: Actually, I saw the warning last night at Nice Deb, but check out, Via Memeorandum, "ACORN, HuffPo Organizing Efforts to Infiltrate Tax Day Tea Parties":

Acts of protest tend to be synonymous with the left and are usually considered unsurprising on the right. However, when conservatives demonstrate – liberals take notice in a big way.

On Fox News Channel’s April 7 “Your World,” host Neil Cavuto reported that the Tax Day tea party protests on April 15 will be “infiltrated” by their political opponents and led by left-wing activist organizations. He specifically named Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

“Only eight days before a nationwide tea party, some over-caffeinated crashers aiming to lay waste to it,” Cavuto said. “Reports of very well-organized infiltrators trying to mix in and rain on this parade. Talk about taxing.”

One organizer, Mark Meckler of the Sacramento Tea Party, dismissed the counter efforts and said they were to be expected.

“We don’t take them seriously at all, and I’ll tell you why,” “It’s not that they don’t exist – we expect people to attempt to infiltrate,” Meckler said. “We expect people to attempt to disturb what we are doing, but the reality is that this is a very broad-based grassroots movement. There is no leader at the top. There is no individual event that they can disturb that would cause us a problem nationwide.”

Meckler explained that everyone was invited – even if they come to promote a philosophy that runs counter to what the tea party movement is attempting to convey.

“So also, the people – we trust the grassroots,” Meckler continued. “We know, the people are skeptical of anyone approaching at these events, and we believe that people are going to handle it well. And in fact, we invite everybody to come to our events. We don’t care if they are from ACORN, The Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. We want them all there. We’re excited to have them attend.”

Obama's Polarization of America

Amy Walter has published a great essay at National Journal, "From 'Post-Partisanship' To Polarization":

Despite calls for a "post-partisan" presidency, a recent Pew Research Center study found that President Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings for a new president in 40 years.

The 61-point gap in opinion is driven by almost universal support from his party (Democrats give him an 88 percent approval rating) and very low approval ratings (27 percent) from Republicans. In comparison, President Bush had a 51-point gap in April 2001 (he had higher approval ratings among Democrats than Obama has among Republicans), while President Clinton had a 45-point gap in April 1993 (his support among Democrats wasn't as strong as Obama's, though he had the same approval ratings among Republicans).

This sounds shocking on its face -- Obama more polarizing than Bush after the 2000 election? But it shouldn't come as that much of a surprise. After all, when a president pushes -- and passes -- an agenda that leans heavily on government spending, Democrats rally around him while Republicans move away from him. Our own polling backs up this theory.

You can read the entire essay, here, but the point is obvious for anyone with a moderate interest in politics: This administration has aggressively combined leftist big government activism with dishonest claims to bipartisanship. Just one look at this administration's sheer magnitude of deceit and hubris illustrates why Barack Obama is dividing the country more than any of his recent predecessors.

What's even more interesting is how totally cocooned are the hardline Democratic progressives. As soon as conservatives start to act like an actual opposition movement, they're branded by the leftist nhilists and libertarians as "hysterical bed-wetters" and panicked militia-movement "birther" extremists? Indeed, Michael Cohen's got a whole piece up at The Politico on Glenn Beck's recent hypothetical anarchy segments entitled, "Extremist rhetoric won't rebuild GOP."

Jimmy at Sundries Shack takes down the Cohen piece, in "It’s Easy to Call Someone a Conspiracy Theorist When You Can Just Make Up What They Believe."

Ain't it the truth.

But I'm glad to see some pushback here, because while polling data show that it's in fact the Obama administration that's now polarizing the nation, the left-liberaltarians and the progressive totalitarians are making a play to dominate the political framing wars. But let's return to Amy Walter's piece, where she notes:

With almost universal support from Democrats, Obama doesn't have to worry so much about keeping his base happy. But the fact that he has so little support from Republicans means that he can't afford to lose his standing with independent voters. At this point, independent voters are showing signs of disenchantment with the Democrats, but Republicans still need to give them a reason to support them and their policies.

So that's our play. As Robert Stacy McCain notes today, with reference to this week's bogus New York Times poll:

We are barely five months past the last election, the biggest Democratic victory since 1964, and Obama's been in office less than 90 days ... Opponents of Obamanomics ought not be worrying about polls at this point. Organize! Raise money! Identify and support promising candidates in promising districts.

Yeah, organize ... like a few more tea parties!

It's happening already, folks. The conservative comeback is the light at the end of the tunnel!

How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?

Well, there's a lot of news on the gay marriage front today.

The Vermont legislature legalized same-sex marriage by overriding the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas (more here and here). Counterintuitively, what may be even more significant is the vote at the D.C. Council to recognize the gay marriage laws of other states. As the Washington Post reports, "The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress ..." And that debate would then raise questions in Congress surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allows states to refuse recognition of the same-sex marriages of another state.

I've written so much on this question, and sometimes I have to wonder: Maybe Rod Dreher's right - are traditionals indeed "on the losing side of this argument?"

Actually, I don't think so. The problem is that I'm not seeing enough conservative activism against the same-sex movement, or maybe I missed it?

In any case, let me share another section of Robert Bork's essay making the case for a Federal Marriage Amendment, "The Necessary Amendment." I often hear the question posed, well, "how does gay marriage even effect me?" Bork responds:

How does homosexual marriage affect me? What concern is it of mine or of anybody else what homosexuals do? The answer is that the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live.

Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.

Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.

There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold.

Now, just wait ... Pam Spaulding and other representatives of the nihilist hordes will no doubt be attacking me as "bigot" for even posting this.

God, what is happening to this country?

Ta-Nehisi's Blood of Martyrs

I just read over Krissah Thompson's piece at the Washington Post, "Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President." It's a decent article - rather interesting, enlightening even. Thompson indicates that President Barack Obama's honeymoon is wrapping up for a growing and critical black constituency that wants action on a number of pressing issues facing black Americans:

As the nation's first black president settles into the office, a division is deepening between two groups of African Americans: those who want to continue to praise Obama and his historic ascendancy, and those who want to examine him more critically now that the election is over ....

... a growing number of black academics, commentators and authors determined to press Obama on issues such as the elimination of racial profiling and the double-digit unemployment rate among blacks.

Ms. Thompson highlights some prominent radio and television personalities, like Jeff Johnson and Tavis Smiley. Folks like this are facing pushback from the hegemonic "blood of martyrs" old-boys' club of corrupt left-wingers in the Democratic Party's race-hustling shakedown machine.

Interestingly, it turns out that Ta-Nehisi Coates, at the Atlantic, is an aspirant-in-good standing of the Democratic blood of martyrs patronage regime. Ta-Nehisi takes exception to Thompson's piece not be refuting her argument, but by excoriating her as an illegitimate journalist, dismissing her as among a class of "young reporters whose editors don't care enough" to smack down." Ta-Nehisi provides only one example for such demonization, which is that Thompson's use of Tavis Smiley's "Uncle Tom" quotation is weak, and from that Ta-Nahisi can write off Thompson, saying she "does no digging to see if there's more to the story."

The problem here?

The story obviously isn't Smiley's alleged bogus story (to which Ta-Nehisi provides no counter evidence or links). The issue is that Thompson's story challenges the Obamessianism among the far-left civil rights activist contingent - and Ta-Nahisi's obviously down with them "boyz n the hood."

The "Blood of Martyrs" refers to the chokehold the far-left grievance masters have on the post-1960s Democratic Party. As told by Juan Williams, in Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America - and What We Can Do About It, the story goes back to Al Sharpton's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where Sharpton attacked President George W. Bush for taking the black vote for granted:

"Our vote is soaked in the blood of martyrs, the blood of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham, Alabama. This vote is sacred to us. This vote can't be bargained away...given away. Mr. President, in all due respect, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale!"

But as Williams asks, what record of achievement could the Democrats claim to justify continued black partisan support?

The answer: absolutely nothing. But by waving the red flag labeled "blood of martyrs," Sharpton diverted all attention from dealing with bad schools, persistent high rates of unemployment, and a range of issues that are crippling a generation of black youth. Somehow, "blood of martyrs" remains the anthem of black politics at the start of the twenty-first century. Black politics is still defined by events that took place forty years ago. Protest marches are reenacted again and again as symbolic exercises to the point that they have lost their power to achieve change. As a result, black politics is paralyzed, locked in a synchronized salute and tribute, by any mention of the martyrs, the civil rights workers who died violent deaths at the hands of racists. The major national black politicians invoke these icons and perform shallow reenactments of the powerful marches of the movement as hypnotic devices to control their audiences. And if people try to break the spell by suggesting we move beyond these ancient heroes and their tactics, they are put down with language that implicates them as tools of the white establishment, reactionaries who've "forgotten their roots." Race traitors.

Or "truly lazy journalists" not "smacked down" by the editorial bosses. Right, Ta-Nehisi? .

Phyllis Chesler: Voice of Moral Clarity

Phyllis Chesler placed me on her e-mail list sometime after I blogged about the honor killing of Aasiya Hassan. I'm glad she did. Dr. Chesler, a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies, and a contributor at Pajamas Media, is a voice of reason and moral clarity in a world where right and wrong seems to evaporated from the culture.

It turns out that Dr. Chesler has been attacked mercilessly in a series of e-mails from the followers of Norman Finkelstein. See the whole post, "My Norman Finkelstein Problem—And Ours."

I'll just share one of the attacks on Dr. Chesler here:

Dear Dr. Chesler, I’ve just finished reading your article entitled ‘Our Eternal Struggle’ written for the Jewish Press, and I felt compelled to write you. I have to ask you, in all seriousness: do you genuinely believe this hysterical, vacuous drivel you’ve discharged upon we the already steeped-in-bullshit reading public? Do you genuinely believe in this absurd and unjustifiable conflation of legitimate (and legally supported) criticism of Israel’s post-1967 occupation, warmongering, war crimes, rejectionism, torture, settlement expansion, house demolitions, imprisonment of civilians without trial, slaughter of innocent men, women and children (please show me the evidence from any respected, independent Human Rights organisation’s records to support the claim that Palestinian militants routinely use innocent civilians as human shields); with this old, recycled “New Anti-semitism”? Are you not even a little tempted to entertain the overwhelmingly more credible hypothesis that whatever little new anti-Jewish feeling that does exist can adequately be accounted for by Israel’s very real, very consistent and very gross violations of basic human rights in the eyes of the world? Do you feel at all guilty for damaging, albeit in a very tiny but still notably insidious way, the prospects of achieving a just and lasting peace for both sides to the conflict in the form of a two state settlement in accord with UN Resolution 242 and International Law? I mean, surely this MUST bother you in some small way. Do you suffer from nervous ticks at all? From the trademark Dershowitz facial spasm, perhaps? Guilt must manifest somewhere, surely? Assuming, of course, you’re not a hopeless sociopath.

Your genuinely concerned “new anti-semite” (I can safely assume my preceding remarks more than qualify me as a worthy target for this particular piece of ideological excrement?),

Hugo Newman.

p.s. Shame on you.

Hugo Newman, hugonewman@gmail.com

This is not out of the ordinary for those on the contemporary left.

There are a couple of more letters attacking Phyllis at the link.

Personal Message to the Rich in America

I was interviewed by Bill Whittle when I appeared on Pajamas TV last October. Whittle's blog, Eject! Eject! Eject!, is now available at the Pajamas site, and I've been checking over there every few days for new content. You see, Whittle's one of the best conservatives writing today - always a pleasure to read.

In fact, his essay this morning is no disappointment, "A Message to the Rich":

So let me now send a personal message to The Rich in America ...

As an American and a patriot, I implore you – I go to my knees and beg you – LEAVE NOW.

Leave. Just go away. Retire to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or wherever, but do it now, please, while you still have some love for this country. Close your companies, fire your employees, shutter your factories and offices, sell your property, and take all of that somewhere else… better yet: somewhere scenic but poverty-stricken. Somewhere that could use some wealth creation. Somewhere that people simply are grateful to have a job in the first place. Somewhere where you will be appreciated.

You are not welcome in America any more. Take your wealth and prosperity and inventiveness and hard work and vision and insight and bold risk-taking and joy in seeing growth and wealth creation and just go away – right now, before it’s too late. Because if you stay, Joel Berg and Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will continue to come after you for more and more and more and they will not ever stop – not ever – until you are forced to flee. And when that day comes, you will go with not with fond remembrances and a desire to return home, but rather a black heart and hard and bitter memories.

So on behalf of those few of us who still believe in the Land of Opportunity, I beg you and implore you, in the name of our common patriot ancestors who worked so hard and sacrificed so much so that we could become so spoiled and ungrateful: take your 60% of the total income taxes and just go away.

Because if you do, then there will no longer be an Enemy for the Left to stick it to. Then, perhaps, the half of the country that pays no income tax might have to put some skin in the game. Then, perhaps, with most of the wealth generation gone we will turn to our community organizers to provide the wealth creation, and the tax dollars, and the innovation. When you have gone the President of the United States, supported by an army of little acorns like Joel Berg, will have to start calling for the rest of us to be taxed more to address the inequality gap.

This isn't the best part. Whittle's personal confession is even better, so be sure to read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Also: Serr8d's Cutting Edge, "Rich Man, LEAVE!"

Defense Budget Marks Shift in Military Priorities

There's a lot of attention to the news today that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed a dramatic reshaping of the Pentagon budget. The New York Times has a big story in this, and see the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

By chance, I found the story earlier at Business Week, "Defense Budget Reflects Shifting Priorities":

U.S. military spending cuts urged by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Apr. 6 represent a fundamental shift in military priorities and strategy that could save large sums of money for the government. But even though a number of high-priced weapons programs are being pegged for the scrap heap, investors seemed relieved that cuts had not gone deeper. They also seemed heartened by the prospect of gains on other projects—and possible restoration by Congress of at least some of the money for programs such as the F-22, whose builders astutely spread production across 44 states.

Gates aims to slash elements of many weapons programs in a manner not seen in Washington for decades. Among them: the Future Combat Systems program, the F-22 Raptor, an $11 billion satellite network for the Air Force, and the nation's missile defense program, refocusing the latter on the "rogue state and theater missile threat." Many of the programs have faced substantial cost overruns, and military strategists now question their necessity.

Other systems were terminated entirely, including the Multiple Kill Vehicle, the Transformational Satellite program, and a second airborne laser prototype aircraft.

The lefties are loving it! (See here, here, here, and here, for example.)

But see also, "Pentagon Chief Rips Heart Out of Army's 'Future'."

If Gates wants to shift military emphasis to fighting small wars on the periphery, the new focus in fact might well shore up one of the historically more vulnerable areas of America's strategic primacy, the "contested zones" of international conflict. See Barry Posen, "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony."

Photo: F-22 Raptor.

Farrah Fawcett: "Not on Death's Door"

Farrah Fawcett, the actress and former "Charlie's Angel" sweetheart, was hospitalized because of complications from cancer treatment. She was reported earlier as "unconscious," but the Los Angeles Times has confirmed the Ms. Fawcett is "doing fantastic":

Your prayers have been answered, folks. Farrah Fawcett is not at death's door!

LA Now reports that her friend/producer Craig Nevius confirmed Monday to Associated Press that the 62-year-old "Charlie's Angels" star has been hospitalized for a blood clot, a side effect of treatment she underwent in Germany. But she's not near death.

"She's doing fantastic," Nevius said. "Her fight goes on ... She's not going anywhere anytime soon."

He added: "As previously reported by everybody, she's not unconscious. She is not on death's door. The family has not gathered to say goodbye."

This guy is producing Fawcett's documentary chronicling her fight against cancer, called "A Wing and a Prayer." The actress was diagnosed with the disease in late 2006. She had chemotherapy and radiation and was in remission in early 2007. However, a few months later, her cancer returned. She eventually pursued alternative therapy abroad.

Fawcett's doctor, Lawrence Piro, said that Fawcett had abdominal bleeding and a hematoma after undergoing aggressive alternative cancer treatments in Germany.

More at the link.

According to a USA Today report, "Fawcett, 62, was diagnosed in 2006 with anal cancer, which has since spread to her liver ..."

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times.