Disdain for Women Who Choose to Have Abortions

While Ross Douthat's hardly a conservative favorite for me, I definitely appreciate his latest New York Times essay, "Not All Abortions Are Equal." I appreciate it not so much for his argument, but for the reaction it has engendered among radical abortion rights commentators.

There's a decent-sized thread in response at Memeorandum. What's interesting is the essential refusal of the pro-aborts to engage the most devasting aspect to Douthat's piece: that the pro-choice movement supports all manner of unlimited fetal termination; that pro-aborts not only advocate elective partial-birth abortions, but they'll fight to the death to preserve a woman's right to choose/kill.

I wrote on the renewed abortion debate the other day, "Late-Term Abortions Get New Scrutiny." Here I'm just providing a roundup of leftist opinion so readers can get an even fuller sense of not just how morally bereft are the pro-aborts, but also how abortion - along with gay marriage - really is the decisive sociopolitical issue of our time. How do we want to define society? As one that fails to protect its most vulnerable?

Note first that Scott Lemieux, at Lawyers, Guns and Money, is left impotent by Douthat's moral case for greater regulation. He's reduced to quibbling with what's essentially a debateable legal technicality rather than the larger existential issues at hand. I'm not even quoting Lemieux. The guy's questionable recent writings on abortion and public opinion have actually forced a spotlight on his competence.

So let's see what the netroots pro-aborts have to say ...

The left's overarching ideological (gendered) foundation is captured in this hypothetical scenario at Firedoglake:

Imagine a matriarchal society where, for example, men are expected to stay home and raise the children and keep the house, are paid 75¢ on the dollar, are continually passed over for promotions because they're not part of the "girls' club," and are solidly underrepresented in state and federal legislative bodies. Imagine a world where men's bodies are still considered chattel, and are subject to archaic and inhumane religious beliefs costumed as "law." And yes, it's a cliche, but imagine a world where men could get pregnant. Then imagine a world where a doctor is murdered for performing an abortion that man sought because he didn't want to carry the child to term for any number of reasons.

All this counterfactual does is play the pity-poor-me-oppressed-woman-tearjerk game. It avoids anything substantive on the moral depravity of baby killing. TBogg, a Firedoggerel member, titles his post thus, "Hand Over Your Uterus and Nobody Gets Hurt."

Also classic is the brutal clarity in Mahablog's post advocating the case for choice. Rejecting Douthat's suggestion that there are exceptional circumstances that may arguably necessitate abortion, Maha writes:

No, the argument for legal and medically safe abortions — which would still be regulated, as is any medical procedure — is that there are times when pregnancy and childbirth would place an unbearable burden on a woman’s life, and so women will seek abortions. Their reasons are as infinite as the details of their lives. If abortions are not legal, they will either abort themselves or they will find underground abortion providers, medically trained or not.

Nope, don't want to be "punished" with a child! Kill 'em!

And this notion of "underground abortion providers" is a myth in the U.S. There are untold clinics in the U.S. providing abortion services. Planned Parenthood's so hard up to kill babies that they refuse to report statutory rape in favor of pushing "choice" on a minor.

But check out Echidne's post, "Every Sperm Is Sacred." As you can tell, there's a religious angle here:

So Ross Douthat has written a beautiful, almost elegiac, column on abortion, with the title "Not All Abortions Are Equal." The title is meant to make you subconsciously think that women's equality is irrelevant for this topic which is defined by Mr. Douthat and concerns the way we can save people like Dr. Tiller from getting murdered.

That way is to give in to the demands of extreme anti-abortion fanatics so that they stop killing people:

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester — as many advanced democracies already do – would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases — and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller's murder.

God willing, indeed. Let's apply the same arguments to the Islamic terrorists: If we only gave them what they want they would stop terrorist acts against the West! Let's do that! Surely Osama bin Laden would allow us to micromanage some parts of our own lives as women? Surely?

Hmm, more with the "terrorist analogy." That's pretty sick.

Now, there's not much argumentation at Athenae's post, but she does call Douthat a "sanctimonious garden weasel"!

But let me conclude here with Kathleen Reeves' longer discussion. To be fair, it's probably the more thoughtful of the bunch. But utlimately, Reeves' critique is just one more example of how leftists, in their abortion-as-gender-equality-meme, cannot appreciate the beauty and sanctity in the lives of the unborn:

The pro-life movement wants abortion gone not only from our health clinics, but from our memories. The movement focuses, at times, on late-term abortion because it’s easier to sensationalize and mischaracterize. For example, the PR genius who came up with the phrase “partial-birth abortion” ensured that in addition to the originally targeted procedure, intact dilation and extraction, all late-term abortions are now legally questionable. With a clever turn of phrase—calling it something that it was not—the pro-life movement attached a gruesome association to an entire set of procedures, all of which are employed to save women’s lives.

But again, the pro-life movement wants abortion gone, and it sees late-term abortions as a promising inroad. Douthat argues that our laws on abortion can avoid the all-or-nothing question, “Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t,” and can be more responsive to the many different types of abortion in America. He writes that the law is “the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense.”

While Douthat takes a well-considered, cool-headed tone in his writing, and while he implies at the beginning of the op-ed that he identifies with abortion rights supporters, his disdain for women who choose to have abortions is fairly apparent. It’s all too clear that the “common sense” he’d like to see in our abortion laws is Ross Douthat’s common sense, which makes little room for experiences that aren’t his own.

I can't speak for Douthat, although I must admit that I share this "disdain for women who have abortions." Well, not so much all women (there may indeed be medical circumstances whereby fetal termination should be available as a last resort). I'm disdainful of women who talk about abortions as happy day sharing opportunites. I'm disdainful of women who make decisions about pregnancy as if the "choice" at issue is no more significant than "paper or plastic." And I'm disdainful of women who advocate a feminist totalitarianism that demonizes men as "forced-childbirth barbarians."

Mark Steyn on the Divider-in-Chief

It's a little late, but this video with Mark Steyn on Sean Hannity's is worth it:

See also, Srr8d's Cutting Edge, "Obama's visit to Egypt ... Sphinx Obama."

Eggs Against Fascism?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I don't really have much interest in defending Nick Griffin. And I especially can't stand a Holocaust denier. But the guy did win a seat to the European Parliament. And on the basis of his free-speech rights, the man should be allowed to discuss his program, whatever that is. So it's disturbing that Griffin was egged by an angry mob at the College Green in front the British Parliament on Tuesday.

See Harry's Place for an interesting condemnation of the mob's assault, "This Is No Way to Fight Fascism":

Make no mistake - the BNP is a semi-criminal conspiracy. Many of its key activists have convictions for racist violence. One of its new MEPs - Andrew Glans- has a conviction that arises from an incident in which he was discovered shouting “Kill the Jews” in the street, before having a go at a police officer.

The BNP know that their reputation for violence is their weakness.

That is why Nick Griffin’s spin is that it is the BNP that they are the victims of far Left thuggery. It is the best he can do, to distract public attention from the vicious nature of his own party.

And Unite Against Fascism play right into his hands.

Seriously - what is the value of egging Nick Griffin? Does it make SWP activists feel good? Do they think that the sight of an egg-covered Nick Griffin will encourage would-be BNP voters to reject his politics of hatred?

This wasn’t a spontaneous outburst of anger. This was a planned assault. It was illegal, reprehensible, and counterproductive.

The first step towards defeating the BNP is to take the fight against the far Right out of the hands of the far Left.

So where does that place Charles Johnson? I imagine he's "delighted" that Griffin got egg on his face. It's all anti-BNP all the time over at LGF nowadays. So, leftist thuggery is okay? Anything that helps his campaign against Pamela, Robert, and Sammy?

Check the comments. I wonder if Lawhawk will get banned for repudiating the mob's thuggery at the thread?

More at Memeorandum.

Stuart Rothenberg: Cable News is Bad, Especially O'Reilly and Hannity

It's amazing, really.

Here we have Stuart Rothenberg writing a commentary on how he'll never "accept another invitation to appear" on Hardball with Chris Matthews. So, we're set up to expect a hard-hitting centrist analysis on the decline of objective journalism on the air. And then, well, not so much:

Chris Matthews is a smart, politically astute observer of politics, but my last appearance convinced me that "Hardball" has evolved from a straight political news program with quality guests to one that has more in common with its network's prime-time slant. Like most of the evening programming on MSNBC and the Fox News Channel, "Hardball" has become a partisan, heavily ideological sledgehammer clearly intended to beat up one party and one point of view.

During the show on which I appeared, Matthews referred more than once to Republicans as "Luddites" and took every opportunity imaginable to portray them as crackpots. The show's topics inevitably pander to the most liberal Democratic viewers and present Republicans and conservatives in the least flattering of terms.

I don't mean to single out Matthews for criticism because he actually understands politics and I believe that he would prefer to do a serious political show. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the newest addition to MSNBC's unfortunate lineup, Ed Schultz, are far worse than "Hardball."

Depending on your politics, Fox's one-two prime-time punch of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity is either just as bad as the MSNBC crowd or much worse. They can't talk about Democrats without labeling them as socialists or unpatriotic. O'Reilly's obsession with General Electric and that company's CEO is bizarre, though any program that treats Dick Morris seriously as an independent analyst obviously has major problems.

When I surf the channels and pause for a moment on O'Reilly or Hannity, I rarely see guests who aren't openly partisan. But MSNBC's left-leaning shows do use political reporters and columnists who would bridle at the notion that they are ideologues or favor one party over the other. This is particularly true of "Hardball," which at one time seemed to want to fill the void left by the cancellation of CNN's terrific daily political program "Inside Politics."

That's got to be a novel twist to partisan demonization: Announce you'll never be on Chris Matthews' show again, and then say O'Reilly and Hannity are the worst.

Casual Sexual Encounters

Via Glenn Reynolds, "Sex Without Intimacy: No Dating, No Relationships":

Dating is an evolution of the courtship ritual; it became common for young couples — like this pair at a soda fountain in the 1960s — to go out for a movie or a meal as part of a courtship.

Young people during one of the most sexually active periods of their lives aren't necessarily looking for a mate. What used to be a mate-seeking ritual has shifted to hookups: sexual encounters with no strings attached.

"The idea used to be you are going to date someone that is going to lead to something sexual happening," Bogle says. "In the hookup era, something sexual happens, even though it may be less than sexual intercourse, that may or may not ever lead to dating."

Young people from high school on are so preoccupied with friends, getting an education and establishing themselves, they don't make time for relationships.

New Goal: Fun, Not Marriage

"Going out on a date is a sort of ironic, obsolete type of thing," says 25-year-old Elizabeth Welsh, who graduated from college in 2005 and now lives in Boston. She says that among her friends, dating is a joke. "Going out on a date to dinner and a movie? It's so cliche — isn't that funny?"

Photo Credit: NPR.

Tricia Cunningham: Help Eliminate Lousy Politicians

Here's an article out today on Tricia Cunningham, a Facebook friend: "Tricia Cunningham HELPS Business":

Signing up voters isn't a new activity for Tricia Cunningham, but the people she is encouraging to register these days might be surprised to know she is a die-hard Republican.

"We're non-partisan," Tricia said on June 5 in the living room of her home in the Hunters Ridge community off Forestbrook Road. "I think I'm the only Republican in the group. We don't even discuss political party affiliations."

The "we" she refers to is a recently organized political activist group called HELP, which stands for Help Eliminate Lousy Politicians. Tricia met HELP's founder, Trevor Tarleton, the day before the Harley-Davidson 2009 spring rally began in Myrtle Beach on May 8.

HELP was formed in response to City of Myrtle Beach elected officials' actions to end motorcycle rallies. Tricia is now the group's media spokesperson, and is comfortable in the role. She got her first taste of media notoriety as a young child.

On March 30, 1981, Tricia was 8 years old and lived in Pennsylvania. She was recovering from an ear operation, and while sitting on her living room couch watching television, she saw President Ronald Reagan shot in an assassination attempt.

"I started crying," she said. "It affected me so much. I wrote a letter to the president in crayon. The next thing I know, he was standing outside the hospital reading my letter."

In her letter, Tricia told President Reagan she was praying for his speedy recovery. In addition to having her letter read by the president on national television, she received a hand-signed thank-you note which she has framed with the envelope bearing a return address that reads only "The White House."

"That affected me," she said. "That's why I got into politics. I am Republican, conservative."

Tricia says she has volunteered to work on "every major campaign" since she was 9 years old. In Pennsylvania, she went door to door asking people to register to vote.

What a great story!

There's more at the link.

This kind of stuff is going to bring conservatives back to power. Did you see Rasmussens's poll yesterday? "Voters Now Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Economic Issues."

Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin

Sean Hannity interviews Sarah Palin:

Governor Palin is in the news this morning. From Conservatives for Sarah Palin, "Were Politico and CNN at the Same Fundraiser?."

The reference is to "Sarah Palin Makes Little Splash at Dinner," and "Palin Center of Attention at Big GOP Dinner."

Dan Riehl offers some insight, "GOP and The NRCC: Epic Fail."

Yid With Lid Banned From Little Green Footballs

Sammy at Yid With Lid wrote an almost melancholy post after being banned from Little Green Footballs:

Today, I was Banned From Little Green Footballs. My Crime, I am friends with Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and I link to both Pamela and Robert Spencer.

Pamela and Charles Johnson of LGF had a now famous falling out about a year and a half ago. On this site and especially on LGF, I have stayed out of it. Although I have discussed with Pamela privately as friends do ....

I have been saddened by the way Charles has distanced himself from Pamela and others in this small world of blogging ... This blogging world which Charles helped to created is too small and faces too many challenges for us to fight amongst ourselves ...

I too think our conservative blogging world is "too small for us to fight amongst ourselves."

But Charles Johnson is not interested in building a movement. Nor is he interested in building a community of friends. His sole aim is to feed his narcissism. William Teach left this screencap in the comments at one of my earlier posts. Charles Johnson makes threats:

Sammy's better off being rid of his relationship to Johnson. The guy needs some help.

P.S.:The comment thread is worth you time. It's pure "Banned-a-monium!"

Fareed Zakaria on Iraq: Then and Now

Fareed Zakaria is one of the most well-connected and influential foreign policy pundits writing today. He's at the top of the heap of international relations insiders; and as editor of Newsweek International, and the host of his own foreign affairs show on CNN, Zakaria's at the center of popular commentary on world politics and American foreign policy.

I've admired his urbane style for some time, but in 2006, as he became major critic of the Bush administration in Iraq, I frankly refused to take him seriously anymore. He seemed something of a fair-weather commentator, frankly (and that's putting it nicely.)

Anyway, in November 2006, at the peak of American difficuties in Iraq, Zakaria published an article on the "drawdown option" in Iraq, "Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward." The piece essentially became a liberal template for a U.S. withdrawal from the theater:

In point of fact—and it is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless—America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing. Iraq has fallen apart both as a nation and as a state. Its capital and lands containing almost 50 percent ofthe population remain deeply insecure and plagued by rising internal divisions. Much of the south, which is somewhat stable, is subject to gangsterish, theocratic and thoroughly corrupt local governments. To recognize this reality does not mean that there is no hope for the years to come. There is—but hope is not a policy.

The piece is a bit disingenous. Zakaria writes, on the one hand, that the U.S. should not "pack up and go home." And then on the other, he offers a "drawdown" so drastic as to be tantamount to the premature "Iraqization" of the conflict:

To preserve these interests, the United States should begin drawing down its troop levels, starting in January 2007. In one year, we should shrink from the current 144,000 to a total of 60,000 soldiers, some 44,000 of them stationed in four superbases outside Baghdad, Balad, Mosul and Nasi-riya. This would provide a rapid-reaction force that could intervene to secure any of the core interests of the United States when they are threatened. To preserve the basic security of Iraq and prevent anarchy, U.S. troops must also act as the spine of the new Iraqi Army and police force. American advisers should massively expand their current roles in both organizations, going from the current level of 4,000 Americans to at least 16,000, embedding an American platoon (30 to 40 men) in virtually every Iraqi fighting battalion (600 men).

Interestingly, January 2007 is precisely when the U.S. began sending MORE troops to supplement a change in strategy toward forward counterinsurgency. Had the the U.S. gone with the "drawdown option" at the time, with just 44,000 troops in the cities that saw some of the worst fighting early in the post-major operations insurgency phase, the U.S. most assuredly would have been defeated.

Now, remember all the leftists who decry neocons who face no penalties for getting things wrong?

Well, don't hold your breath on these folks coming out against Fareed Zakaria, and his new piece, "Victory in Iraq: How we got here is a matter for history. But the democratic ideal is still within reach":

When the surge was announced in January 2007, I was somewhat cautious about it. I believed that more troops and a proper counterinsurgency strategy would certainly improve the security situation—I had advocated more troops from the start of the occupation—but I believed that the fundamental problem in Iraq was political discord among the country's three main sects and ethnic groups. The surge, in my view, would alleviate those tensions but also postpone the need for a solution. Only a political agreement among these groups could reach one.

I was wrong in some ways. First, the surge turned out to be a more sophisticated strategy—encompassing political outreach to the Sunnis—than I had imagined. Second, the success of the surge empowered the Baghdad government, brought Sunni rebels out from hiding and thus broke the dynamic of the civil war. Sunni militants have now been identified, their biometric data have been collected and their groups are being monitored. They cannot easily go back to jihad. The Shiite ruling elites, secure in their hold on the country, have less to gain by ethnic cleansing and militia rule. An adviser to surge commander Gen. David Petraeus told the reporter Nir Rosen that the civil war in Iraq would end when the Sunnis knew that they'd lost and the Shiites knew that they'd won. Both now seem to be true.

Ah, only wrong in "some ways." I guess if we're charitable.

Of course, Zakaria's as influential as he's ever been, although his boss, Newsweek Magazine, could be well on its final legs. And CNN's not doing so hot in the ratings on top of that. So who knows how long GPS will hang around.

When Zakaria wrote in 2006 that we ought to consider the "drawdown option," it was indeed a dark period for America's campaign in Iraq. I never lost sight of the rightness of our project, and I certainly didn't advocate pulling out the troops. The Bush administration turned things around in one of the greatest military comebacks in all of U.S. history. For all of G.W.'s flaws, he'll have my endless gratitude for seeing the war through. That will be his greatest legacy, and his historical legacy will rise on that fact.

"Racism and National Consciousness News"

Blazing Cat Fur has a blast from the realm of the truly unreal:

Introducing RCN "Racism and National Consciousness News." It's got it all, Jew-Bashin, Evil White Folk bashin, Ward Churchill fetishism...and much much more.

Whelan's Apology to Publius

Ed Whelan's apology to Publius:

On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius. Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.

Maybe Whelan will sleep better?

Interestingly, just now Paul at Power Line comes to Whelan's defense, and John adds this in an update:

Anonymity is the curse of the internet, and the principal reason for the dismally low level of discourse that generally prevails online. Which is why we have absolutely banned anonymous comments from our experimental comment system. In my opinion, the idea that a goofball like Blevins has some sort of "right" to smear Whelan anonymously, without taking responsibility for his assaults, is ridiculous. Be a man, for God's sake. Or, for that matter, a woman - you don't see Michelle Malkin, say, scurrying out from under a rock to issue anonymous attacks. If you can't muster the gumption to say who the hell you are and stand behind your words, my view is: get lost. You have nothing to contribute.

I think the case of milbloggers might be an exception, but other than that, I'm down with John. See, "As if Osama and Your Mama Were Reading..."

More at Memeorandum.

Understanding the Democratic Healthcare Takeover

Michelle Malkin's having an Obamacare Photoshop contest.

She links to Keith Hennessey's analysis of Senate Democrats' health care legislation, "Understanding the Kennedy Health Care Bill ...

And get a kick out of this, "My Day At An Obama Health Care Meet-Up." See also, Memeorandum.

Obama's Relativism Invites War

Publisher's Note: It is my pleasure once again to publish a guest essay from my friend, Rusty Walker.

**********

President Barack Obama’s recent speeches feature a reluctant nod to our American heroes - and really, do we have to go back to "Algebra" to find significant Islamic contributions to society, when a cursory glance at Jewish contributions are too numerous to list?

Combined with our current recession, the United States, thanks to Obama’s obsequiousness in the Middle East, non-action in North Korea, and deference to the UN, is now as vulnerable to a world war as we were in the 1930s. We are also just as inactive in response to aggression as we were then. Once again we have a war-weary Democratic administration; but now, the world recognizes us as having a dangerously unprepared president. If this is not an invitation to WWIII then I don’t know what is.

The Obama administration, in its self-important quest, is too preoccupied with bankrupting the U.S. with infrastructure projects to recognize our immediate peril. With a potential depression and advantages of a two theater war, North Korea and Iran are sizing us up for an all out conflict. Meanwhile, Obama is busy with his speeches, mounting pure Middle Eastern theater, including teleprompter taking-points on the Holy Koran.

The president’s nominal responses to Iran and North Korea, always followed by non-action, reveals his unhealthy aversion to confrontation. The UN Ambassador Susan Rice threatens North Korea, suggesting they will “pay a price.” These sound bites do nothing but perpetuate the liberals' lame hopes for a peace, working ultimately to embolden Iran and North Korea. Since the G20 speeches, Obama and Secretary Clinton have been repeating the same empty phrases. And wasn’t Vice President Biden supposed to be the expert on foreign policy. Where is he? I believe we do nothing because it is “inconvenient” to consider the possibility of a war right now, particularly when Obama's love affair with the press is going so well.

The administration is rightly perceived to be weak by those Islamic and Asian rogue regimes to whom he extends friendship. The D-Day landing was necessitated because the U.S. had let the Third Reich rise and conquer most of Europe, while Americans, weary of war, stayed out. If this teaches us anything, our current enemies will engage in military rearmament during such times. War experts say an aggressor’s advantage is fleeting. The build up of arms and secret alliances are formed, and the aggressor strikes suddenly.

The Obama cult of personality has transformed into “The Cult of Apology.” We have no world credibility left. Our verbal threats carry no follow-up. Our apologies feel momentarily good while we languish dangerously in our rhetoric. In the midst of the Great Depression, military rearmament took place on two fronts, in Asia and in Europe - much like our present plight. What does this portend for us in today’s heated climate? Behold Palestinian Nationalist myth-making, Iran's demonization of the West, and the steady development of nuclear capabilities. North Korea's a proven nuclear proliferator with expansionist designs, both with no concern about their expendable casualties.

If we don’t act decisively very soon we will be looking at a scenario very similar to WWII – two theaters of war. It is an exercise in futility to look for Russia and China to pressure their allies. These countries have deep self-interests, and trade agreements with Iran and North Korea respectively, and both have a history of opposing U.S. interests. Yes, even though Obama is reaching out with empathy, these countries all want us to fail.

While Obama is in the Middle East, the Asian theater of war is currently developing. Instead of China attempting to help us in this new crisis, expect China to sign a secret non-aggression agreement with North Korea. As for the U.S. building up military options in the event of conflict in and around Asia and Iran - as we would if John McCain were president - Obama and the Congress are not paying attention. I also don’t see this administration having the intestinal fortitude to help Japan build a nuclear capability to level the Asian playing field. And even if they did, we don’t have the luxury of time.

The threat of war in the Middle East theater is currently developing in Iran, while Obama warms our souls with his constant reference to differing religions on the world stage. After Obama’s speeches, I was reminded of my studies of the Crusades. Has Osama Bin Laden finally convinced the president that we are in a Holy War? Perhaps Obama's reference to the HOLY Koran will make it into the Madrassas. Maybe his speeches will dissuade the Arab orphans from suicide bombings, or including dirty bombs in our future.

In view of Obama’s relentless apologies, expect Iran to finish its nuclear capability in step with North Korea. Iran will form an alliance with North Korea, and like-minded Arab countries, to join in the attempted annihilation of its neighbors. Iran will work to wipe out Israel, becoming the hero of an emboldened Middle East. The Taliban will move on Pakistan with the aid of Iran and Syria. When that happens rogue elements will join in from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda; if they achieve nuclear capability, they will take out India and finish off Israel. China will use the opportunity to take Tibet and Taiwan. Similar to the death wish of the aging Mao in later years, the North Koreans and fundamentalist Islamists won’t mind losing great populations for victory. If President Obama were to actually read the objectively-instructive Koran, it seeks to foretell our infidel fate.

It will be a nightmare wake-up call for Americans. We'll watch hostile Middle Eastern countries align one-by-one with other Arab countries once considered our allies. There's further self-deception in expecting Arab regimes, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, to be our allies in a war over Palestine. These states do not care one wit about the "charms" of Barack and Michelle, or our complaisant American way of life. These states have split loyalties. With the exception of small forces of England and Australia, the weakened European countries will afford the U.S. no assistance. Expect no help from France or Germany.

If Americans are waiting for Israel to solve the Iranian problem as they did in Syria, this is improbable. Israel has a small, powerful, but limited Air Force in today’s complex world of fortified nuclear facilities. At a distance of 1000 miles against an enemy with Iran’s air defenses, Israel would need something more than non-nuclear forces. In addition, the effort would involve prior notification to the U.S. Such a strike would mean great distances though U.S.-controlled air. Even if Israel knew the exact location of Iran’s nuclear facilities, ICBMs and cruise missiles would have a tough go at these buried targets. If Iran is allowed first-strike capability, Israel would be toast. To interrupt Iran’s surprise attack, we would need to declare intentions for a U.S. first strike on those facilities if they are not dismantled and inspections resumed. Sound familiar? That’s right, But, Obama and the Democratic Congress will not go there.

If you want to see where North Korea is now headed with a 68 year-old Kim Jong-Il, consider what Mao Tse-Tung, at 68, was planning and would have accomplished were we not protected by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Mao stated, “We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution” (pp.457-8, Mao: The Unknown Story biography, Jung Chang). Were it not for the cautious Soviets, who were calling the shots for China, we were looking at WW III. Now, we may have it. Kim Jong-Il has followed Mao’s totalitarian domination. The motivation of the masses uses the same sociopathic cult of personality. Kim organized state-sponsored terrorist activities on his populace; “re-education” camps, and famine – just like Mao.

Obama has humiliated us on the world stage. The U.N. resolutions are a joke - China will form a treaty with North Korea just as the Soviets' alliance with the German aggressor in 1938. Obama’s penchant for platitudes is fostering partnerships of a nuclear North Korea, Iran, Syria. This is my prediction, unfortunately, that North Korea will attack South Korea. Iran will attack Israel (but the Israelis will have been denied sufficient air space by the Obama administration, making a pre-emptive attack on Iran prohibitive; it is no longer possible to simply launch a strike against these well-buried and hidden sites.) We can expect the thuggish Russian leadership to align with its trading partner Iran, and may take advantage of aggression to make a move on Georgia, Ukraine, et. al.

It is all reminiscent of the sleeping giant of WWII. A war on two fronts happened with Americans early unwillingness to fight. We have enemies in South America with ties to Russia. Russia will form an alliance with them, as well as Iran and North Korea.

The hapless U.N. will do nothing. So, we need to act with such strength of conviction that we reverse our image to the rest of the world. Insist on the dismantling of Iranian nuclear facilities, and reject fake "inspections," or take them out. In North Korea, we need to start by enacting the NSCR 1718 Proliferation Security Initiative that will allow our U.S. Navy to board and search North Korean vessels that may contain nuclear related materiel. Seizing contraband would be the next step. The United States is the sole chance for stopping the coming horrors.

All this, and, Obama is currently cutting military spending in areas essential for our defense and offense.

I hope I am wrong, but if Obama is in for eight years, I will be right. I don’t want to be right.

*********

Previously from Rusty Walker, "Barack Obama's Overblown Self-Delusions."

Picture of the Day, 6-8-09

From today's Los Angeles Times, "Pakistan military campaign has broad support, but for how long?":

Taj Mina, 10, in blue scarf, and Mariam, in brown, line up for food at the refugee camp dubbed Little Lahore outside Swabi. Residents queue for hours for supplies in extreme heat, without water or electricity.

Support for the military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban in the northwest has been widespread, cutting across economic and ethnic lines. But that support hinges precariously on how Pakistan manages the massive humanitarian crisis created by the war's displacement of an estimated 3 million Pakistanis.


About 200,000 of the displaced people, nearly all ethnic Pashtuns, are crammed into sprawling tent camps in Mardan and elsewhere in the country. The rest have sought refuge with relatives or friends. At Sheikh Yaseen, more than 7,600 people live in 1,485 tents.

The Pakistani military launched the offensive in April after Taliban militants based in Swat began to assert control over adjoining districts, one of them just 60 miles from the capital, Islamabad.

The broad support for the military campaign could be undermined if the flow of displaced Pashtuns to other regions and cities triggers ethnic tensions. Thousands of Pashtuns have sought shelter in camps and homes in the southern port city of Karachi, where political leaders of the majority ethnic Sindhi population have vehemently opposed their influx.

Photo Credit: Carolyn Cole for the Los Angeles Times.

Simon Owens: The Ethics of Outing

Simon Owens sent this via e-mail, "Should a National Review writer have outed an anonymous blogger?"

Simon interviews both Ed Whelan and John Blevins. There's also a thread on Simon's post at Memeorandum.

I've already written on the Whelan/Blevins controversy, here and here. But since there's some continuing discussion, check out Jay Anderson excellent commentary at Pro Ecclesia, "An Outing in the Blogosphere":

I know for a fact that there are many times when people write things anonymously or pseudonymously that they NEVER would have written under their own names. I don't believe that to be a particularly healthy state of affairs. Quite honestly, my own personal opinion is that blogging anonymously/pseudonymously removes much of the incentive for engaging in responsible, charitable, and good-faith commentary, and, therefore, should be discouraged except for the most extreme of circumstances.

The debate continues with Jonah Goldberg on "amateur blogging," with responses from Steve Benen and The Anonymous Liberal.

Matthew Yglesias: George W. Bush's Guantánamo Archipelago

Isn't this despicable?

Matthew Yglesias has used the North Korean prison sentences of Laura Ling and Euna Lee to make a political attack on the policies of the George W. Bush administration. Yglesias' post is "Hard Labor in North Korea." After a long discussion of forced labor in totalitarian societies, Yglesias concludes with this:

As in the Soviet Union during the high tide of the Gulag, it appears that the forced labor camps are important to the regime not just as a mechanism of repression ....

Needless to say, it’s easy to recognize this sort of barbarism as the torture that it is when you read about it being done by North Korea (it appears that the Bush administration and the DPRK were both modeling themselves on the Chinese Communist tactics from the Korean War). And it is being done, and on a massive scale. Meanwhile, a related angle to this is that many of the people in the prison camps are people who actually escaped from North Korea and then wound up getting apprehended in China and deported back. In terms of practical things that could be done to help the population of North Korea, getting the Chinese to stop doing this.

I don't have much to add.

If radical leftists today really think the Bush administration's detention policies - which were the product of a national, bipartisan, and democratic consensus on the clear and present dangers following 9/11 - are coequal to the policies of not only Kim Jong Il, but to Joseph Stalin's Gulag Archipeligo, than we really have reached the Rubicon of partisan polarization in American politics today.

Words. Utterly. Fail.

Matthew Yglesias is just a sick, awful man.

My thoughts and prayers go out the families of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. And I'm praying for their safe return home.

There's more commentary at Memeorandum. Senator Jim DeMint's statement on North Korean terrorism, at Red State, is also worth a look.

**********

Added: It's not just Yglesias. Check out Spencer Ackerman as well, "What Laura Ling And Euna Lee Will Endure."

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to DADT Policy

The Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prohibits openly gay service in the military:

Fox News reports, "Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'":

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

You know, it's not public opinion that's preventing a repeal of DADT.

Gallup had an interesting piece on this last week, "Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members."

I wrote on DADT a couple of weeks ago, "Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military."

What's interesting to me is not so much the civil rights of openly gay service (I think the policy should be repealed), but this administration's spineless incoherence on gay issues. As noted previously, respected milbloggers don't care much about Don't Ask, Dont' Tell (see Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive).

But I have no regrets, actually, over the schadenfreude in seeing the response of gay radicals on the Court's ruling. See for example, Pam Spaulding, where she throws up her hands:

Honest to god, it's embarrassing at this point. Anyone who thinks DADT is going to be harder to repeal than passing ENDA is smoking something, IMHO. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, mind you, just that the fundievangelical machine has no one relevant left to make a case on DADT. Who are they going to have on the other side -- the "professional Christian" set, fossil retired military officers and...Elaine Donnelly?

On the other hand, the right has been working hard to bring the bathroom debate front and center with ENDA and that will be a PR battle that we have to be ready for. If the White House and Congress is so gun shy on DADT, I don't believe that they will grow a spine to help us sell a fully inclusive ENDA when the bathroom hysteria sh*t hits the fan if we don't lay enough groundwork and political cover for them, sorry to say. What do you think?

The "professional Christian" set? "Fossil retired military officers"? And ... "Elaine Donnelly"?

Hmm ... must be part of the "evil Christofascist" cabal that's taking over the country!

Oh, actually, here's something on Elaine Donnelly: "Elaine Donnelly Steps Up Crusade Against Gays in the Military." Interesting. Donnelly's bio at the Center for Military Readiness is here.

I'll be looking into this issue a bit more. I'm all for equal rights for homosexual Americans, but as I've noted many times, gay marriage is not a civil right. Open service for gay Americans is important, but relaxation of DADT, unfortunately, may give a boost to the program of gay licentiousness on the far left.

More later ...

Ten Illegals, "Stacked Like Wood," Killed in Arizona SUV Rollover

The first video shows the local Arizona news report on the 10 illegal aliens, "stacked like wood," who died when a bus carrying 27 rolled over in southern Arizona yesterday. The Associated Press has the story, "10 suspected illegal immigrants die in SUV crash in Arizona." But take a look a the second video, which is from London's Daily Mail:

Tickle Me Obama? I'll Pass, Thank You...

Time Magazine debuts a novel form up sycophancy this morning, "Tickle Me Obama: Lessons from Sesame Street."

Warner Todd Huston puts things in perspective:

You want a blatant example of the Old Media's over-the-top, gobsmacked love affair with Obama? Well, one would be hard pressed not to see Time Magazine's latest piece by Nancy Gibbs as a perfect example of the media ignoring all ills and of projecting only what is wonderful onto the dearly beloved as this piece represents. The lionization of Obama is bad enough, but the selective memory of the writer is even more appalling.

I love that saying, "gobsmacked."

Read the whole thing, here.

See also, Tim Graham, "Time: Barack Obama, Sesame Street Both Show Mastery, Empathy, and End to 'Childish Games'" (via Memeorandum).

Sotomayor and the Politics of Race

From Shelby Steele at the Wall Street Journal, "Sotomayor and the Politics of Race" (via Memeorandum):

The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America's first black president, and a man promising the "new," we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed.

The Sotomayor nomination suggests not. Throughout her career Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated a Hispanic chauvinism so extreme that it sometimes crosses into outright claims of racial supremacy, as in 2001 when she said in a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, "a wise Latina woman . . . would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male."

The White House acknowledges that this now famous statement -- both racist and dim-witted -- was turned up in the vetting process. So we can only assume that the president was aware of it, as well as Judge Sotomayor's career-long claim that ethnicity and gender are virtual determinisms in judging: We need diversity because, as she said in her Berkeley lecture, "inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . make a difference in our judging." The nine white male justices who decided the Brown school-desegregation case in 1954 might have felt otherwise, as would a president seeking to lead us toward a new, post-racial society.

But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.

The whole essay is here.

See also, Betsy Newmark, "Obama is Not a Post-Racial President."

Cartoon Credit: William Warren.

Employee Forced Choice

Daily Kos has a big roundup on legislative developments on labor's "card check" agenda, "Employee Free Choice Act."

But don't miss Investor's Business Daily, "Card-Check Threat Alive And Well":

If you thought "card check" legislation that would kill off workers' right to a secret ballot is dead, think again. Despite public repudiation, it's back — with its advocates using sneakier tactics.

The Employee Free Choice Act would permit the establishment of new unions solely on the signatures of a company's employees, taken either on the fly or with union thugs standing in their doorways.

Besides denying workers a right to a secret ballot, "card check," as it's known, also forces federal arbitration onto companies for union contracts, ensuring that either unions dictate the wages they want or a federal bureaucrat will step in and do it for them based on politics, not economics.

It's a formula for disaster. This still-undead bill will shut plants, drive jobs abroad and ensure that few new jobs are ever created. Little wonder the public has turned a thumbs-down on it, and Congress has backed away. A recent Pew poll shows that 61% of Americans think labor unions have gotten too powerful.

But it hasn't stopped Big Labor. Card check remains its top goal, and instead of dropping a bad idea, it's switching tactics ....

Read the rest of the editorial, here.

See also, "The Real Faces of EFCA."

Image Credit: Union Facts.

European Tea Leaves for Conservatives

From Ken Davenport, "From Europe, hope for conservatives":

The left in this country has made much of the big electoral victories that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 -- and for good reason. Not since 1977, when Jimmy Carter swept to victory along with huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, has there been such lopsided partisan rule in this country. With Al Franken seemingly a lock to win the Minnesota Senate seat, the Democrats are on the verge of a 60 vote "supra majority" that is virtually filibuster proof. The immediate future seems to all be swinging the left's way, and all the things that come with it are now a foregone conclusion: major health care reform, tax increases, deficit spending and a spate of intensive, restrictive environmental regulation.

But will it last? As we know, Jimmy Carter's 1977 victory gave way in just four years to the Reagan Revolution -- and though Barack Obama is much more politically sophisticated than was Carter, a former Georgia peanut farmer who was poorly schooled in the ways of Washington, there are many similarities thus far between the two presidencies. Carter took over after a period of eight years of Republican rule and in the wake of an unpopular war and scandal; his campaign was based on a promise to "change" Washington -- to clean up government and restore the nation's image in the world. The economy he inherited was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation -- and Carter's typical "tax and spend" policies made both worse. He oversaw the expansion of government with the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, instituted price controls and rationing on energy, oversaw the bailout of a Detroit automaker (Chrysler) and pursued Middle East Peace by promoting the cause of the Arab states over those of Israel.

Sound familiar?

But it is not a lost cause, for as Carter gave way to Reagan, Obama’s left-wing policies and programs may lead to a new conservative revolution. In fact, there are signs now from Europe that the purported "death of conservatism" has been greatly exaggerated. As the BBC reports tonight, in European Parliament elections this weekend it appears that Center-right parties have made major gains ...

More at the link.

Obi's Sister and Robert Stacy McCain

From Obi's Sister, "The Six Degrees of Stacy McCain," riffing on, well, "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" :

Saturday morning, I got to play this game with Notorious Blogger, Stacy McCain, during breakfast at a Cracker Barrel in Douglas County, Georgia. He was in Georgia to give a speech up in Rome to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

As if Osama and Your Mama Were Reading...

I want to follow up my last post on the Ed Whelan/John Blevins controversy.

Two friends, Wordsmith and Serr8d, took exception in the comments (here and here) to my claim that using a blogging pseudonym is "kind of cowardly ..."

So let me clarify: It is my personal belief that someone, especially an academic, should stand up for what they have to say. It's a matter of integrity and reputation. Would you make more vociferous attacks on others when enjoying the cloak pseudonymity? Would you make demonic attacks? Even if your answer is no, can you deny that your comfort level would not tempt you? It's a difficult situation. James Joyner said something this morning that was just about right for me. He notes:

I’ve blogged here under my real name for over six years and prefer to read and link bloggers who do likewise. Signing my name to what I write makes me think twice and the active realization that others whose arguments I’m engaging are real people also tends to make me more reflective.

And to remind folks:, I don't approve of what Ed Whelan has done. On the other hand, I question why "Publius" needs to remain protected by pseudonymity. Ann Althouse has been a long-time inspiration for me, and she's written quite a bit on using the "cloak." See quotes herself in a post today on Publius' predicament, offering a little cost/benefit analysis on academic blogging:

I would never insult or demean or deliberately hurt the feelings of students. I wouldn't casually knock my law school (though there are some considered criticisms I would be willing to make). I wouldn't hurt my family or acquaintances or even reveal much of anything about them (without permission). So there aren't really any significant ways using my own name limits me ... I care immensely about freedom as I do this blogging. But I also want to be aware of myself as an identifiable person, responsible for what I say (which is true whether you use a pseudonym or not). And I don't mind getting personal credit for anything good I might happen to say. Also, I kind of like being a public persona.

I especially like that last part about the "public persona." That's precisely how I feel about my blogging identity. But I also like Ann's honesty and integrity. She wants to blog responsibly. But I don't think academics who blog using a pseudonym are going to worry about responsibility when they're able to write whatever they want, cost-free. That, to me, is what's "cowardly."

Having clarified that, I think Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette makes the most compelling case on the need to blog under the cloak of pseudonymity, "Who the f%^& are you?":

I staggered back to the Underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remembered throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair
<...>
Well, who are you / Who are you... who who, who, who...
Oh, who are you / Who are you... who who, who, who...
Come on, tell me, who are you / Who are you...
Oh, who the f%^& are you / Who are you...

- The Who, "Who are You?" ...

Wanna be linked by everyone in the blogosphere? Try exposing an pseudonymous blogger. It works, and as a double bonus your subject's identity will be known far beyond the readership of your site.

Bad form, says I - though so is hiding behind a pseudonym in order to be an obnoxious twit (note I'm not accusing anyone of that motive here). I maintained a pseudonymous blog here for many years and many reasons - at the outset primarily because as a milblogger I practiced more strict OPSEC than what's officially required; for example, someone who knew who I was could determine where I was, from that many other bad things could potentially follow. Bear in mind that was the calculation of a guy who was one of the first milbloggers, entering into an unknown world (and an unknown future at war) - and the handful that preceded me were all pseudonymous, a tradition that continues with the vast majority starting out today.

I'm fine with that - I'd encourage it, even. But beyond potential OPSEC considerations, I tried to write everything I posted as though I were using my real name (as if Osama and your mama were reading is advice I follow and give freely). Part of the reason for that was anticipating I wouldn't be pseudonymous forever - that either by my choice or otherwise (as in the example above) I would one day be known ...

Read the rest here.

Wordsmith and Serr8d have their own reasons for blogging under a pseudonym, and I really don't begrudge them for it. These guys are right-on, straight-up, and solid. They're not messing around, attacking their enemies with the most vicious slanders and vulgarities - and if they were, they wouldn't be my friends.

If you're up for more, Ed Whelan has now responded to the whole uproar he instigated. He crossed a line, and he's diminished for it. And that's all I have to say about that ...

Schwarzenegger Seeks Deep Cuts in Welfare Handouts

From the Los Angeles Times, "Pockets Empty, Calif Considers Deep Cuts in Spending for the State's Most Vulnerable Residents":

Carolina Fuentes and her daughter Katherine, 5, wait for an appointment at the Sacramento county welfare office in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, June 1, 2009. Facing a $24.3 billion state budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzengger has proposed ending welfare for poor mothers and their children, wiping out health insurance for 1 million children and disbanding care for people with Alzheimer's disease or other disabilities. Fuentes, 22, a newly-single mother , doesn't qualify for benefits having crossed the U.S.-Mexico border as a teenage, applied for cash assistance, food stamps and health coverage of her daughter.

With empty pockets and maxed-out credit, California is debating whether it can continue honoring all parts of its social contract with the state's most vulnerable residents.

The state faces an unprecedented drop in tax revenue and a widening budget deficit amid the deepest recession in decades, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to propose cost-cutting steps that once seemed unthinkable.

At stake are programs for the poor, elderly and frail, placing millions of people in the nation's most populous state at risk of falling through a decades-old social safety net.

Ending the welfare-to-work program for mothers and their children would affect some 546,000 families, and health insurance could be eliminated for 1 million children from low-income families. Services for Alzheimer's patients, disabled and other frail recipients of in-home care also would be greatly reduced under the governor's latest budget proposal, leaving more than 400,000 people without such support.

Schwarzenegger acknowledges that his proposals will be painful.

"I know the consequences of those cuts are not just dollars. I see the faces behind those dollars. ... I see the Alzheimer's patients losing some of their in-home support services," he told lawmakers last week. "It's an awful feeling, but we have no choice."

The twists of political logic to this story are unreal: Here you have a Republican governor who came to power with a mandate for reform. Having blown that, he's presided over the worst fiscal collapse in California history: and he's now being forced by his own political opportunism to adopt the kind of cutbacks in government that he should have been seeking all along!

Also interesting about this story: No talk of the teachers unions facing similar draconianism. The poor need some safety net of c,ourse, but they won't have one as long as average teacher salary in California is higher than anywhere else in the nation.

Photo Credit: Associated Press.

Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics

I should probably weigh in on the Ed Whelan/John Blevins imbroglio. Everyone else is, and I'm getting some links out of it as well!

Some quick background: Ed Whelan outed "Publius" at Obsidian Wings. The latter's real name is John F. Blevins, and he's an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law. Check the links above, and Memeorandum. At issue are the attacks on Whelan as the right's go-to "legal hitman." The term is from the "Anonymous Liberal," so the irony there is rich. Readers can assess who comes out on top in the substantive debate. No matter, though. Whelan comes off as putz, either way. Both James Joyner and Dan Riehl eloquently make the case against Whelan.

Now, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't out someone who writes anonymously (or "pseudonymously," as the case may be). Repsac3 got mad at me once for using his real name in a comment thread. But he had posted his real name at his Twitter link, at he linked to it at the sidebar. So, it's kind of hard to get mad at being "outed" if you "outed" yourself.

Frankly, if a blogger writes under complete anonymity (or pseudonymity), that's his prerogative. And it's not up to me or anyone else, in pure spite, to reveal their identity. It's kind of cowardly, in my opinion, to use a pseudonym, but I can understand it. After the Repsac3 exchange, PrivatePigg, a conservative blogger and friend of mine, said he blogs anonymously simply to protect his privacy from the radical leftists he knows will stalk him and his family.

It happens. As reader know, I routinely wade into the comment threads at leftist blogs to debate and ridicule. I don't claim to be nice about it. I've even used profanity in a comment thread at "Dr. Hussein Biobrain's" blog. But I don't threaten people; I skewer. And some folks can't handle being revealed as nihilist America-bashers. After commenting a few times at The Swash Zone, I received this e-mail from "(O)CT(O)PUS," the blog's publisher:

DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.

I don't harrass. If folks can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or go to comment moderation at least!

But if there was ever good reason to blog anonymously, real harrassment such as this is it. "(O)CT(O)PUS" made the rounds at leftist blogs to brag about how he'd "kicked my ass." And he PUBLISHED MY WORK CONTACT INFORMATION so that his co-bloggers could call my college president. I wrote about it here, "(O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY."

What's funny about this, in the present debate, is that while Whelan's coming off like an adolescent jerk, the truth is that radical leftists have made a career out of "outing" those with whom they disagree. TBogg, whose real name is Tom Boggioni, has made a pastime of it, as Willliam Jacobson reveals:

So yeah, screw Ed Whelan. The guy's coming off like a thin-skinned prick. But just know that all the faux-outrage on the left is totally hypocritical. These folks get off on outing, snarking, shaming, and demonizing conservatives. That's their livelihood. This secular demonology has no counterpart on the right. Sure, some conservatives are peurile, but leftists are masters at the game.

P.S.: I have a lot of respect for conservatives who get along amicably with leftists. I don't do it well, online at least. Some of my best friends are Democrats (scroll down, here, for my colleague Dr. Greg Joseph, who's a Truman Democrat). But these friends would never put up with the kind of filth that is the stock and trade of today's netroots hordes.

Also, Ed Morrissey's got a poll up, "When is it okay to out liberal bloggers?" See also, Rick Moran, "The Outing of Publius and the Comfort of Anonymity."