James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial

This post is a lengthy response to yet another iteration of the recent attacks on this blog. (Actually, a couple of iterations. James "Barebacker" Webb" has photoshopped me again since I started working on this post! And this time, with this particular Photoshop, James appears to imply a physical threat. I don't buckle to threats, so if big boy James is really calling me out, he knows where I am. He's a sorry-assed punk who's been beaten badly already, for all to see. But if he's looking for serious trouble, he'll need to get real personal and kick me to the curb like a man - put up or shut up!)

**********

Anyway, as readers know, I like the online debates. And I recognize that sometimes things get a little hot. But after three years of this stuff one gets the knack for holding their own. The leftists are bullies and brutes. After Wonkette posted more links to the demonic Trig Palin Photoshops, the moral balance had really turned against the leftists. My own commenter, Grizzy Mama, summed things up (link):

This is unreal. These lefty bloggers are incapable of behaving like adults. It's like they are a bunch of nasty, spoiled little kids. They're like some of the 'publics' (as I call them) on the block in the old neighborhood - desperately in need of mature parental guidance. That they are fully grown and have a forum for their base thoughts and so-called humor is shocking, really.

With that, and the commentaries of William Jacobson, it was manifestly clear that it'd be impossible for James B. Webb to continue his defense of the indefensible. Yet, when he Photoshopped me one more time, I responded:

An apology for your depraved attacks would be the decent thing to do, and I'll publish it at my blog with your denuniciation of Wonkette and your disavowal of using your sister as a shield.

Well, there's more: Mr Webb, after the merciless thrashing he's gotten, indeed offers a summary apology - but not to me! It's to his readers, and includes this:

The apology I'd like to offer is to say that I'm sorry to the readers of this site. This latest rhetorical scuffle between Don and myself was mean and it was ugly and I'm sure that it was hard to read about at times. I'll admit that I wrote some fairly unfriendly words in the course of things but I still feel justified in the stance that I took and I still stand behind every word that I wrote. I realize that by this point in my life I should be able to resist getting dragged down into the gutter by someone with Don's level of intellectual dishonesty in the blogger world but for as long as I can remember I've always had a problem backing down from an argument when I've known that I was on the right side of it.

There's actually a diagnosis for this in psychiatric medicine. James clearly manifests the indications of acute psychological denial. As Dr. Sanity points out in her post, "STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part III":

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

(ASIDE: Dr. Sanity's example of an alcholic's denial is hypothetical, and is not specific to my criticism of James B. Webb. It is interesting, though, that with James B. Webb, many of his attacks are alcohol-fueled. I don't know if James' drinking problem is related to the supression of the other feelings and conflicting guilts, but there's no doubt that when someone has been shown as not just badly wrong, but bereft of moral virtue, some kind of psychological clinical adaptation must take place. Absent that, one might completely breakdown to a catatonic state.)

But let's recap the whole week-long debate with James B. Webb, the king of postmodern hypocrisy. In response to my first post over a week ago, on the Photoshopping attacks on Trig Palin, we got this from Mr. Webb:

My youngest sister also has Down Syndrome so you can imagine that I too would be considerably offended and justifiably outraged at such an attack against a defenseless child, only I have taken the time to arm myself with a few weapons that Don appears to lack: restraint, common sense and the Google ...

In a recent post about the faux Palin/Letterman controversy I asked what the next outrage du jour from the Republicans would be, a question that I think was aptly phrased in that it certainly does appear that there is something new that positively infuriates these people every single day. The term "sore losers" seems a bit simplistic and trite to explain this apparent derangement and never ending persecution complex ...

Famous last words? Mr. Webb has written four posts [six now, but who's counting?] since that time, most in response to my blogging on the controversy. But finally, earler, after William Jacobson pointed out Wonkette's latest reprehensible attack on Sarah Palin - including completely stomach-churning Photoshops of Governor Palin's son - it turns out that James B. Webb has finally eaten his words dissing the "ghoulshopping" of Baby Trig:

I understand ... any of those photoshops attacking or making fun of Trig are disgusting and should rightly be condemned ...

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place, big boy? You might have avoided a bit of, what's it called? Oh yeah, hypocrisy:

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, it's bad enough to be hypocritical. But what's worse is hopelessly attempting to escape such hypocrisy to the point of denying the accepted definition of the word:

I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay ...

Well, there's ample evidence to James' hypocrisy, not just in the example above, but here as well, "James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays." God only knows James' sexual orientation for sure, although we have no hard evidence to rebut the suspicions that surround him. No matter, since that time James has stopped backlinking his posts attacking me to my own blog. I guess the notion that that might be a little hypocritical finally sunk in, especially having once denounced such practice himself. Oh, and James has yet to start calling me "Dr. Douglas," despite his hysterical demands that I show "respect" by addressing him as "James B. Webb." I won't hold my breath for a little recipical respect on my side. No matter though. There's certainly some comfort, altogether, that James' moral bankruptcy and nihilist hypocrisy are on brilliant display by now, for the whole world to see. Note too that this complete break with intellectual honesty is the hallmark of the postmodern left:

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

This last section is key. Because when James sees this post, he'll embark on another round of alcohol-fueled irrationalism and denial in and attempt to get out from under the weight of the unmistakable proof of the complete collapse of virtuous character.

Iran Regime Hangs Protesters; Oppo Newspaper Shut Down, Mousavi Defiant!

Atlas Shrugs, "Day 19 Iran Revolution: Supporters of Opposition Hanged." Plus, from JPost, "6 Mousavi Supporters Reportedly Hanged."

Also, from the Los Angeles Times, "Iranian Opposition Newspaper Shut Temporarily," and "Analysis: Hopes Fading for Negotiated Solution to Iranian Nuclear Impasse in Wake of Crackdown." From London's Independent, "Mousavi Declares Iran Government Illegitimate, " and Washington Post, "Ahmadinejad's Rivals Defiant on Iran vote."

Just found this on Twitter:

RT @inblueink: Protests continued across Iran today, Tehran and Tabriz and others #iranelection ...

And from ABC's Lara Setrakian on Twitter:

Khatami: #iranelection was a 'velvet coup' against democracy, undermines country's leadership @ap

Also Blogging:

* Astute Bloggers, "Mullahs Hang 6 Mousavi Supporters."

* Berman Post, "Iranian Revolution."

* Enduring America, "The Latest from Iran (1 July): The Opposition Regroups."

* Gateway Pundit, "Iranian Regime Hangs 6 Mousavi Supporters In Mashhad."

* Hot Air, "Mullahs Stringing Up Opposition?"

* Jihad Watch, "Iran is Still supporting, Funding and Training Surrogates Who Operate Inside of Iraq."

* Michael Ledeen, "Iraq and Iran."

* Nice Deb, "Iran Hanging Mousavi Supporters, Now?"

* The Lede, "July 1: Latest Updates on Iran’s Post-Election Turmoil."

* Jonathan Tobin, "Has the Iranian Regime Been Strengthened?"

See also, Der Spiegel, interview with Iranian theologian and philosopher Mohsen Kadivar, "'This Iranian Form of Theocracy Has Failed'." And CNN, "Opposition Movement in Iran Not Over, Experts Say."

Check Memeorandum and Atlas Shrugs for updates.

Jackson Begged For Sedative

From KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Nurse: Jackson Had Begged For Sedative":

Also, CNN, "Jackson's Will Filed in Court, Officials Say," and "Michael Jackson Public Viewing Set for Friday." From the Los Angeles Times, "Michael Jackson Will Not Be buried at Neverland Ranch."

For the latest gossip news, check WeSmirch. Plus, UsWeekly, "Dermatologist Is Father of Michael Jackson's Kids."

Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

That's Gallup poll director Frank Newport in the video:

It turns out that the public sees the Dems as more liberal than they see the GOP as conservative, "More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”":

The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.

Oh, and remember: We're the right-wing "extremists."

The Filibuster-Proof Majority

Markos Moulitsas' wide-eyed glee in this MSNBC video is almost creepy:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ezra Klein notes how short-lived these legislative majories are, with the implication that the Dems better ram home their program while they've got the chance: "Democrats Have 60 Votes. What Will They Do With Them?"

At The Hill, "Another vote for card-check bill" (via Memeorandum).

Dick Morris suggests the GOP should stand its ground against the disastrous Obama policy agenada.

Actually, I'm glad the Minnesota race is done. Now we'll really see the Democratic agenda in action. The Dems are the country's majority party. They'll have responsiblity for the policy disasters under their watch. As Private Pigg said about Al Franken in the comments here yesterday:

I'm glad he won. The last thing we needed was the economy to be stinky and Democrats to be able to point to Republicans who were actually able to kill some Dem programs and use them as scapegoats. Now the Dems can ram their crap through, over-reach, and be out of power in 2 and 4 years.

Video Hat Tip: Hot Air.

The Supreme Court Says No to Quotas

I was expecting this commentary, from Abigail Thernstrom:

The Supreme Court has made an elegant start at cleaning up the mess of employment discrimination law, in part by insisting on a critical point. "The purpose of Title VII is to promote hiring on the basis of job qualifications, rather than on the basis of race or color," Justice Kennedy said. The goal was to create a workplace environment free of discrimination, "where race is not a barrier to opportunity." And yet "the City made its employment decision because of race. The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white."

Justice Samuel Alito's concurring opinion noted that New Haven never made any credible effort to determine whether the firefighters' promotional exam was a legitimate test of job-related skills; the decision to discard the test results was nakedly political. The tests, in fact, had been scrupulously designed and scrubbed of all possible racial bias.

Incredibly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent, agreed with the willfully blind conclusion of the district court -- which had reasoned that New Haven's assessment "was race-neutral" on the grounds that "all the test results were discarded, no one was promoted." The panel on the Second Circuit effectively agreed with this nonsense.

Yet another Second Circuit judge, José Cabranes, properly posed the broad constitutional question at issue: "Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit a municipal employer from discarding examination results on the ground that 'too many' applicants of one race received high scores and in the hope that a future test would yield more high-scoring applicants of other races? Does such a practice constitute an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside?"

Unfortunately, only Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this issue -- and only briefly. "The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how -- and on what terms -- to make peace between them," he concluded.

All racial classifications are highly suspect under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution protects individuals from discrimination -- without respect to race. Distributing benefits and burdens on the basis of color was supposed to be the ugly mind-set the leaders of the civil rights movement struggled so heroically to change. We have not escaped such race-thinking yet, but this decision is an important step in the right direction.

More at the link.

Biology and the Sick Ideological Fantasies of the Left

Dr. Sanity comments on the case of the Swedish parents who want to let their child "choose" its gender when the "time is right":

This is probably one of the best examples of the kind of biological fantasies generated by the so-called 'progressive' and 'reality-based' intellects of the left. Yesterday I talked about how the face of evil constantly renews itself ; however, the ultimate goal remains the same: it is anti-mind, anti-life, and anti-reality.

The parents who wish to deny the biological reality of their child are no different than all those who wish to deny reality in order to proudly disply their leftist credentials. They are no different from any other "selfless" sociopath who desires control over others; except that their particular brand of malignant narcissism couches its oppression of others in terms like "social justice" and "choice"--but it is tyranny nonetheless.

Is it any wonder then that, unlike the capitalist system they abhor, where basic human nature--both the good and the bad parts--is harnessed and made socially useful, the ideologically-motivated paents described above (and all the reality-denying morons of the left) intend to stamp out or ignore any aspect of human nature they don't happen to like, or which is inconvenient to their ideology.

Someone should tell them it has been tried many times before, and by much smarter tyrants than the current crop of ideologues will ever be. It won't work. It cannot work. It has NEVER worked.

Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys!

I thought James B. Webb was a beaten man by now. But no, he's back with another depraved smear against me, "American Power Powers Down."

Actually, I didn't "power down." It was James B. Webb who was down for the count (after the brutal pounding he took in the last round). He's back up, in any case; but I'm not in the mood to deal with this sick little boy right now, so please take a look at Andrew Klavan's recent dealings with another batch of beasts from the netroots swamps, "Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys!":

Last week, my Pajamas Express blog suffered an onslaught by these leftist haters. As far as I can tell, they were spurred on by someone named Glenn Greenwald, whom I don’t know, but who seems to have inspired them with a nonsensical personal attack of his own and then sent them forth like the Wicked Witch dispatching her flying monkeys. Now, my policy has always been to allow all comments on my site. I enjoy the debate, occasionally learn from it and frequently get a laugh from some hostile wit who lands a good one on me.

So at first I shrugged off the Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys. As a result, they were allowed to darken the atmosphere for other readers and commenters and detract from the generally free and jovial bellicosity of online discussion. Thus, after a weekend of meditatively beating my wife, relaxing around the men’s room glory hole and skewering babies to watch them writhe and die, I’ve decided I’ll ever-so-slightly modify my policy. All opinions – by which I mean ALL opinions – remain welcome. Snarkiness, sarcasm, satire, pointed wit, commonplace nastiness will still make the grade. Even low-level name-calling is all right if it applies. Nothing wrong with the occasional “boor” or “knucklehead.” But cursing, strangled cries of hate-filled rage, disturbing personal attacks that reveal more about the attacker’s sick mind than we want to know—they’re gone. Send that stuff to my mailbox through my personal website. You can be sure I’ll give it the consideration it deserves.

There's more at the link.

Perhaps Mr. Klavan might take exception to James B. Webb's nickname. But before anyone has ideas, I'd suggest folks read John Hawkins' piece, "Attention Conservatives: Nice Guys Do Finish Last."

It's too bad James and his leftist friends have stooped to such a low level. But being conservative doesn't mean having to cave to these idiots.

Cynthia McKinney Demands Release After Confrontation With Israeli Navy

This just in from Yid With Lid, "Cynthia McKinney Earns Certificate of INSANITY."

It turns out that the Israeli Navy has seized McKinney's boat, the Spirit of Humanity, as it attempted to violate the blockade against outside intervention in Gaza. Fox News has the report, "Cynthia McKinney Demands Immediate Release After Her Gaza-Bound Boat is Seized by Israeli Navy":

Former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, whose relief boat was seized by an Israeli naval ship Tuesday for the second time in a year, is demanding the immediate release of her and 20 other activists.

McKinney, a longtime supporter of Palestinians, said her Greek-flagged boat, the Spirit of Humanity, was carrying medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys to Gaza when it was boarded by the Israeli navy.

"This is an outrageous violation of international law against us," said McKinney. "Our boat was not in Israeli waters and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip. President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey."

The Israeli military issued a statement Tuesday saying that the boat had attempted to break a blockade of Gaza and was forced to sail to an Israeli port after ignoring a radio message to stay out of Gaza waters.

More at the link.

Actually, I knew something was up. I received this notification from Cynthia McKinney's headquarters, dated June 24, 2009:

From Cynthia McKinney: We Leave for Gaza Tomorrow; I've Asked the White House to Intervene for our Saftey...

I just sent the following message to President Obama:

"Mr. President, Please ask the Israelis to not harm our boats and to let us proceed to Gaza. The Israelis are paying attention and have printed stories about our boats in both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz. We are doing nothing more than what you have already requested the Israelis to do: ease up on the Gaza blockade. Please ask the Israelis to allow us to proceed to Gaza without harm. Sincerely, Cynthia McKinney"

You, too, can contact the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/) and ask them to send a message to Israel requesting our safe passage to Gaza. We pose no threat to Israel and represent real hope for change in US policy for the people of Gaza. I also contacted the State Department and the Justice Department with similar messages.

We are in a group training now. What will we do if . . . I'll upload pictures and some video (if I've mastered this video camera) to our http://www.dignity.ning.com/ http://www.dignity.ning.com/ and livestream.com/dignity pages. Please visit all of our pages listed below and join!!

DIGNITY will be planning some direct actions inside the U.S., too. Additionally, I have communicated with the authorities re Troy Davis and am in communication with Peltier's attorney.

As always, I do look forward to hearing from you!!

I received a second notification on June 25th:

The Israelis are hopping mad. And they're flexing their muscles in all the ugly places. They can't ram us again without sparking an international uproar, so they're trying to stop us from leaving the port at all. The Limasol, Cyprus Port Authority which controls the port of Larnaca also, sent their inspector to Larnaca with a letter saying that the boat failed inspection, only thing, the letter was written BEFORE he even arrived in Larnaca to do the inspection! Reuters is doing the story at this very moment saying that we were prevented from leaving due to Cypriot authorities. We just learned from a Cyprus government source that pressure is being applied by Israel to deny us departure credentials. It appears, then, that Israel is putting us into contortions because they don't want us to take cement into Gaza. After white phosphorus, depleted uranium, DIME, cluster bombs, F16s, death, destruction, and mayhem. All of *this* over a few bags of cement. Can you believe???

1. Read the Haaretz article here, showing Israeli concern about us taking cement to Gaza

2. Hear the interview with Don Debar on the contortions we're being put through by Cyprus Port Authority

3. Read the Reuters article here (interesting that the story broke in Israel and not Cyprus!!)

4. Individuals have already started to contact the Cyprus UN Mission and their DC Embassy to inquire why they are arbitrarily not allowing the Spirit of Humanity and the Free Gaza to set sail.

1. Here is the Ha'aretz article:

Last update - 17:00 18/06/2009

Activists plan to send Gaza cement, in violation of Israel blockade
By Reuters and Haaretz Service

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Israel+News

http://www.twitter.com/haaretzonlineActivists campaigning for an end to Gaza's blockade by Israel will sail to the Hamas-run enclave from Cyprus despite the presence of the Israeli navy, they said on Thursday.

Two boats, including one carrying cement and building supplies -- materials not permitted in by Israel over fears that they could be used for military purposes -- will sail from Cyprus on June 25, the multi-national Free Gaza Movement said.

"We are taking 15 tons of cement, which is just a token of how much the Palestinians need, because the Israelis won't allow building supplies into Gaza," said Greta Berlin, a representative of the group.

The group started regular shuttles to Gaza from Cyprus in August 2008, but was turned back by the Israeli navy on its last journey in mid-January of this year.
Israel tightened a blockade on Gaza in 2007 after the Islamist Hamas took control of the enclave, a strip of land that is home to 1.5 million people.

Israeli forces bombed and then invaded Gaza in late December 2008 in a bid to rout out militants lobbing rockets into Israel, badly battering its already decrepit infrastructure.
Related articles:

* U.S. ups pressure on Israel to end Gaza blockade

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093870.html

* Ex-president Carter urges Obama to remove Hamas from U.S. terror list http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093577.html

2. Hear Greta Berlin and I explain what is happening with the purposeful delay of our departure?http://www.livestream.com/wbaix

3. Read the Reuters article:

??? 12:54 25Jun09 -Cyprus halts aid boats bound for Gaza Strip LARNACA, Cyprus, June 25 (Reuters) ...

This really has nothing to do with promoting humanitarianism in Gaza. It has all to do with promoting Cynthia McKinney. Check the links to the "Dignity" page above. I've just skimmed them, but her supporters appear on the fringe of the left-wing fringe. Unfortunately, McKinney's playing an extremely high stakes game. It's dangerous business. And there's really not much she can achieve as one who's no longer in government and as one who's developed a reputation as acting outside of international law.

As I've noted previously ("Cynthia McKinney at Long Beach City College"), Ms. McKinney seems personally vexed by ideologically demons. Yid With Lid is absolutely correct in suggesting some sort of insanity.

Trig Trutherism! Andrew Sullivan Gets a Lifeline - Again!

Look, even the freaks at Daily Kos let it go.

And take it from Glenn Beck (who knows something about fringe conspiracies), "It's the whackiest rumor about Sarah Palin or any other politician so far this election."

A pregnant Governor Sarah Palin, interviewed by Alaska's TV station KTVA in Anchorage, April 2008.

But Andrew Sullivan has gotten a lifeline from Todd Purdum's hit piece at Vanity Fair:

It remains true that no one in the MSM will investigate the details of this truly bizarre story - and MSM journalists instead have devoted their efforts to demonizing any journalist who tries.

The one MSM newspaper that tried to report out the story of the pregnancy, asking the questions that any sane person would ask, was the Anchorage Daily News ....

But Palin refused to answer any questions and went on a tirade against the ADN. You can read the full story of this here. As I have said all along, I do not know what happened and the benefit of the doubt should go to Palin in the absence of actual journalism being committed. But the more her pregnancy with Trig becomes a campaign platform, a serious inquiry into exactly what happened in those few surreal days - days and decisions that she has made public and that reflect vital questions about her character and judgment - remains on the shelf of media deference. And the key witnesses who could verify it all - Palin herself, her husband, her doctor - still refuse to even take questions on the most bizarre series of events in Palin's entire life.

I believed then and I believe now that the MSM is too concerened [sic] with their own reputations and too deferent to power to even ask the questions. Which is another betrayal of their core purpose. And why they are dying. And deserve to.

That's good, actually, that someone still believes reputation matters!

As it is, far too many people take for gospel the word of Andrew Sullivan.

It's surprising too. Remember the comment by AOSHQ: "A brain-addled conspiracy crank unable to observe the minimum levels of respectability and human decency is simply not fit for polite company."

See also, Ed Morrissey, "A Picture Refutes a Thousand Nutcase Conspiracies."

And in case you missed it, see Christopher Badeaux's, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."

Also Blogging: JammieWearingFool, "Sullivan: MSM Should Die Because They Won't Go Trig Troofer."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Previously: "Trig Trutherism Lives!"

Are You Franken Serious? Vile Comedian to Take Seat in Washington

Al Franken will take a seat in the U.S. Senate.

From The Politico, "Norm Coleman Concedes Minnesota Senate Race to Al Franken," and the New York Times, "After 8 Months, Franken Wins Senate Seat in Minnesota."

Most folks might appreciate the idea of the "citizen legislator" taking the fight to Washington. But with Franken, we're seeing the acccession of the most disgusting fever-swamp partisanship to Capital Hill.

See, "THE FACTS ABOUT AL FRANKEN."

Also, "Are You Franken Serious, Minnesota?":

In an effort to keep his promise to Minnesotans and prove his seriousness Franken called Senator Coleman, "one of the administration's leading butt boys." (Hey, wait. Isn't that what the PC police call, a homophobic slur?) Ask Ann Coulter if she thinks it's a homophobic slur. Not to worry though, Al Franken is a Democrat, and is pro-gay rights, so "butt boy" is ok for him to use. Which has me pondering this whole Al Franken fiasco; look at the Democrats today, they are driven by the extreme angry, anti- (fill in the blank), Left-wing sector of the Party.

Don't miss Kathy Shaidle as well, "Send in the Clown."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Also Blogging: Michelle Malkin, "Franken-fied: Make way for (another) clown; Update: Coleman statement added," and Hot Air, "Breaking: Say hello to Senator Al Franken; Update: Coleman concedes."

Steers, Queers, and Ordinary Gentlemen

Only two things come out of Oklahoma.
Steers and queers.
Which one are you, boy?
I don’t see no horns.
You must be a queer.

Sometimes E.D. Kain reveals just a bit too much about himself. Here he is attempting to take down Robert Stacy McCain for alleged homophobism and sexism, and he ends up looking like a grotesque caricature of the most peurile practitioner of political correctness. At least his post is appropriately titled, "The Things People Say on the Internet" (emphasis added):

Here’s the frustrating thing to me about McCain. He can be a funny guy, with a good sense of humor. He’s obviously a talented writer. It’s just that he says such damn stupid things sometimes, and does it mainly because he’s ... an attention whore. His dissection of gay culture (and its apparently misogynistic nature) is absurd. I don’t know, but pretty much every gay guy I’ve met has had a veritable harem of girl friends. A lot of girls I know really like hanging out with gay men because it avoids that Harry Met Sally rule that all male/female relationships are inevitably about sex. And I have yet to meet one single gay man who is as misogynistic as many of the straight men I’ve known.

Then again, I’d give people overall the benefit of the doubt here – most men, gay or straight, that I know are not women haters. It is certainly not a defining feature. In fact, none of the gross generalizations Stacy evokes in his post are definitive in any way. That’s the funny thing about people – gay or straight, they’re each unique with a plethora of personal issues that compose their psychology. That’s the problem with psychology in general, but especially this hackish voodoo psychology that Stacy’s pushing.

I think E.D. needs to spend a little time with Lou Gossett, Jr. Not to mention Ernest Hemingway. (Just to toughen him up a bit. No insinuations here. Besides, E.D.'s got nothing on James B. Webb - NTTAWWT!!).

Related E.D. Kain posts, "Neoclassicons," and "Liberaltarianism and Intellectual Dishonesty."

Obama Stands With Latin Strongmen

Fausta Wertz has been doing the top blogging on the Honduran constitutional crisis. Check her latest post this afternoon, "Honduras: What Was On the Referendum Ballots Printed in Venezuela?"

But check Power Line, "Obama Stands With Castro, Chavez and Ortega":

In condemning the removal of Honduran President Mel Zelayaya by the Honduran military, Pesident Obama stands shoulder to shoulder with the Fidel Castro and his thug epigones Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. Zelaya sought to conduct an illegal referendum to extend his rule. The Honduran military has sought to enforce the rule of law by providing for Zelaya's departure from the scene. Mary Anastasia Grady explains:

Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

More at the link.

See also, International Business Daily, "Banana Democrats."

Alvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Winner in Honduras: Chávez," and Glenn Garvin, "Nothing So Shocking About This Coup."

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

Despicable: Huffington Post Equates Iran Neda Murderers to Israel

Here's the detestable essay from Max Blumenthal at the Huffington Post, "Neda in Palestine, Sentenced to Die Alone":

For over a week, major American news outlets have broadcast on a virtual loop the video of the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, an unarmed 26-year-old Iranian woman, by Iranian security services. The poignant footage of Neda dying before a throng of grief-stricken bystanders crystallized the vulnerability experienced by the millions of demonstrators who have filled cities across Iran to confront authoritarian forces determined to suppress their voice through brutal means. When the mainstream American press chose to broadcast the graphic video -- as moving as the footage is, it is difficult to watch -- it made a commendable decision that nonetheless highlighted its hypocritical attitude towards Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation on a daily basis, and who often meet the same fate as Neda.

Every week, in the Palestinian cities of Bi'lin and Ni'ilin, local residents demonstrate beside international and Israeli solidarity activists for their basic human rights. The Israeli separation wall has been constructed through the heart of their communities, cutting them off permanently from farmland they have worked for generations. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the path of the wall was illegal, but construction continued unabated. When the demonstrators mobilize non-violently to stop the wall's construction -- to demand that the rule of law be honored -- the Israeli army has responded with massive force, killing, maiming, and brutalizing them on a consistent basis.

This is nothing but lies. Leftists always blame Israel and the "Jewish controlled" media. The truth is that the media's long been in open collusion with Israel's enemies. See for example, Caroline Click, "The Media's Enduring Narratives,"and "How and Why Muslims Riot in Liberal Democracies."

Notice how Blumenthal posts videos alleging Israeli atrocites, and then claims:

These videos are no less outrageous than the video of Neda's death. However, to my knowledge, no outlet from the mainstream American media has ever broadcast them ....

Direct action protest tactics only work if the brutal responses they provoke are recorded by influential media sources and projected to sympathetic audiences across the world. MLK's tactics in Selma would not have succeeded had he not been accompanied by camera crews ready to broadcast images of racist savagery to outraged Northern white liberals. The outpouring of American public sympathy for Iranian demonstrators might never have occurred had cable news outlets not made the courageous decision to broadcast Neda's killing vividly and repeatedly.

This guy might as well be a spokesman for Jimmy Carter (it's "apartheid," remember?).

See Atlas Shrugs, "The Face of Evil: Hamas and Jimmy Carter." Also, Ben Johnson, "Carter Hearts Hamas."

*********

UPDATE: Linked at Gateway Pundit! See, "Leading Dem Blog Huffington Post Equates Iranian Thugs Who Killed Neda to Jews."

Added: William Jacobson, "Neda Never Strapped on a Bomb."

Amazon Drops Rhode Island Affiliates to Avoid Tax

I just received my first payment from Amazon last night, so this is interesting, "Amazon Drops More Affiliates to Avoid Tax":

Amazon.com Inc. ended its business relationships with marketing affiliates in Rhode Island so the online retailer could avoid collecting sales tax in the state.

Rhode Island's state legislature recently passed a bill that would force companies to collect sales taxes if they have online-marketing affiliates—businesses that get a sales commission by featuring links to outside e-commerce sites on their own Web sites—in the state.

The Rhode Island termination follows a similar move by Amazon last Friday to end its relationships with affiliates in North Carolina as the state approached passing a similar law. Cash-strapped states across the country have looked at similar legislation to boost revenue. Such a law went into effect in New York last year.

Amazon, based in Seattle, sent an email to its Rhode Island affiliates on Monday saying that it was closing their accounts immediately. "This is a direct result of the unconstitutional tax collection scheme passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly with a veto-proof majority," said the message.

Check Memeorandum as well.

Also, Amazon warned California lawmakers about taxing its business in the state. See, "Amazon Threatens California Over Sales Tax."

It'd be disappointing to lose a newfound revenue stream from blogging. But more importantly, it'd be a collossal tragedy of economic stupidity if tax increases simply wiped out huge sectors of Internet commerce nationwide. It's certainly happening in a few states already.

Palin: "Sexiest Brand of Republicans"

From Todd Purdum, at Vanity Fair, Sarah Palin is the "sexiest brand in the Republican Party":

Her appeal to people in the party (and in the country) who share her convictions and resentments is profound. The fascination is viral, and global. Bill McAllister, until recently Palin’s statehouse spokesman, says that he has fielded (and declined) interview requests from France, England, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Germany, Bulgaria, “and probably other countries I’ve forgotten about.” (Palin, keeping her distance from most domestic media as well, also declined to talk to V.F.). Whatever her political future, the emergence of Sarah Palin raises questions that will not soon go away. What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

Read the whole thing, here.

Oh, and speaking of qualifications? See, "Is Palin Qualified? Obama’s Not Saying."

Added: From Purdum:

Another aspect of the Palin phenomenon bears examination, even if the mere act of raising it invites intimations of sexism: she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs. This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse. It has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin’s record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle. And it has made others reluctant to give her a second chance because she looks like a beauty queen.

**********

UPDATE:Actually, these aren't "mere intimations" of sexism, they're flagrant attacks against Palin as a mom. Here's Purdum's account of Palin's private side during the campaign:

All the while, Palin was coping not only with the crazed life of any national candidate on the road but also with the young children traveling with her. Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression? (Palin’s youngest son was less than six months old.) ...

Oh, wow! The leftists really did want to kill that baby!

More commentary:

* Joseph Russo, "John McCain's People Can Not Stop Trashing Sarah Palin."

I assume that everybody has read the hit piece that will be published in the August edition of Vanity Fair. The Castroesque article is written by liberal writer Todd Purdam, the husband of former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers ...

* Jim Geragthy, "Palin's One of Those Tired, Ambitious, Resentful Enthusiastic Types."

* William Kristol, "Liberal Media and GOP Hacks vs. Palin" (via Memeorandum).

**********
Meanwhile: Celtic Diva claims she's "vindicated" by Purdum's hit piece; she links to another despicable Something Awful forum, and with a faux disavowal, posts this Photoshop:

**********

UPDATE II: Dan Riehl has more, "As If McCain And Crew Didn't Do Enough Damage Already."

Moral Debate on Ricci: For the Left, Diversity Replaces Fairness

David Paul Kuhn, at RealClearPolitics:

It took the story of one firefighter to expose the tension between fairness and affirmative action.

The nation's four most prominent liberal justices ignored that tension Monday. By consequence, the liberal justices decided that equal outcome should trump equal opportunity, when the two values compete. And in that decision, supported by a chorus of liberal analysts, American liberalism continued decades of thinking that places diversity, not fairness, as its first principle ...

The uniform liberal view on affirmative action, or any legal issue for that matter, takes on a heightened resonance today. Democrats are hoping President Obama marks the beginning of an enduring majority. A primary aim of either party, when seeking sustained dominance, is to shift the court to their side. Had today's Court been left leaning, it would have almost certainly upheld a policy that denied a promotion based on the color of those promoted.

The Ricci case gets to the core of the American ideal of "the pursuit of happiness" as an "inalienable right." This right was most egregiously denied to blacks through slavery. It was not until the 1960s that the nation finally confronted and outlawed discriminatory practices. Affirmative action was instituted to correct past inequality.

Nearly a half-century later, liberalism faces new questions. In the time of the first black president, when white men's unemployment rate increases at twice the rate of black women in this recession, liberal thought has remained hinged to an earlier era.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination based in disparate treatment or disparate impact. In 1960s and 1970s America the tension between the two principles was mitigated by the need to right history.

The liberal opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on behalf of all four left-leaning justices, argued Monday that the "purpose" of Title VII's disparate-impact provision "is to ensure that individuals are hired and promoted based on qualifications manifestly necessary" and "do not screen out members of any race."

The liberal justices refused to reckon with the instances when the desire for "manifestly necessary" skills create an unequal racial outcome, as was the case in New Haven.

The conservative majority affirmed this tension Monday. It decided New Haven's actions amounted to disparate treatment, what the rest of us call overt discrimination.

Read the whole thing, at the link. See also, "Thoughts on this Term and the Next." And the readings at Memorandum.

James Taranto: "The New 'Separate but Equal'"

From James Taranto, "The New 'Separate but Equal': Justice Ginsburg, Judge Sotomayor and "Sympathy" vs. "Empathy":

On the surface, it seems like a blatant case of unlawful discrimination. The fire department in New Haven, Conn., administered an exam for firemen seeking promotions. "Many firefighters studied for months, at considerable personal and financial cost," as Justice Anthony Kennedy recounts on behalf of the Supreme Court's majority in Ricci v. DeStefano .

When the results came out, the city decided to deny promotions to the men who had earned them--because they were of the wrong race. Eighteen of them sued. The trial court summarily rejected their claim, and the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--with La Jueza Empática, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, casting the deciding vote--upheld the decision. This morning the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, overruled Sotomayor and her colleagues and held that New Haven had indeed violated the law by discriminating against the plaintiffs.

How in the world could the lower courts, now joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, have countenanced this blatant discrimination? They accepted the New Haven officials' claim that they had to discriminate in order to avoid running afoul of antidiscrimination laws.

As Justice Kennedy explains in the majority ruling, federal civil rights laws prohibit two different types of discrimination: "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact." The plaintiffs in Ricci were plainly the victims of disparate treatment, which is prohibited by the plain language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

It makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

In the 1971 case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., however, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of "disparate impact." An employer that uses "testing or measuring procedures" on which minorities do not perform as well as whites has the burden of proving that its method of evaluation is "a reasonable measure of job performance." The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified this principle into statutory law.

New Haven officials argued that they would risk a disparate-impact suit if they did not discriminate against the white firemen. The court rejected this argument:

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

This is a very modest holding. It leaves the door open for permitting "intentional discrimination" in cases where there is "a strong basis in evidence" for disparate-impact liability. By framing the question as a conflict between statutory provisions, the court avoids addressing the question of whether New Haven's actions are constitutional, as Justice Antonin Scalia notes in a lone concurring opinion (citations omitted):

[The] resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection? . . .

The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII's disparate-treatment provisions forbid "remedial" race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result--the question resolved by the Court today--it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal--discriminate on the basis of race. . . .

The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how--and on what terms--to make peace between them.

Scalia's colleagues seem less than eager to join that "war," however: No other justice joined his concurrence ...

More at the link.

Palin-Romney 2012?

From Nate Silver, "Palin-Romney '12," discussing Pew's recent survey, "Who's Your Favorite Republican?"

I thought this passage on Sarah Palin was pretty interesting, especially the numbers on the Democratic respondents:

The Pew results reveal strong levels of support for Palin among evangelicals, but overall her support from self-described conservatives actually ebbed a bit from their highs last autumn during the late stages of the presidential contest. Oddly enough, since then her approval actually improved from 18 percent to 24 percent among Democrats, though this may be a result of a sympathetic boost resulting from David Letterman's jokes about Palin and her family earlier this month. (The poll was taken June 10-14, at the height of the national controversy over Letterman's remarks about the governor's daughter.)

Also, don't miss Allahpundit's quote of the day, "For the Romney team, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that the campaign never really ended."

Disclaimer: This is a rare occasion in which I'm not critical of Silver. He's good, but not that good. Mostly, I like the t-shirt!

Neoconservatism and Regime Change Iran

Abe Greenwald's got an awesome essay over at Commentary, "Give Bush Credit on Iran."

He links to Reuel Marc Gerecht's earlier essay, from 2002, "Regime Change in Iran? Applying George W. Bush's 'Liberation Theology' to the Mullahs."

Here's this longer section from Greenwald citing Gerecht:

Seven years ago, Reuel Marc Gerecht looked into the best crystal ball in all global strategy and wrote down what he saw in the pages of the Weekly Standard:

If the United States stays in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime, and ushers in some type of a federal, democratic system, the repercussions throughout the region could be transformative. Popular discontent in Iran tends to heat up when U.S. soldiers get close to the Islamic Republic. An American invasion could possibly provoke riots in Iran--simultaneous uprisings in major cities that would simply be beyond the scope of regime-loyal specialized riot-control units. The army or the Revolutionary Guard Corps would have to be pulled into service in large numbers, and that's when things could get interesting. The clerical regime fears big street confrontations, afraid that it cannot rely on the loyalty of either the army or the Guard Corps.

And if an American invasion doesn't provoke urban unrest, the creation of a democratic Iraq probably will. Iraq's majority Shiite population, who will inevitably lead their country in a democratic state, will start to talk to their Shiite brethren over the Iran-Iraq border. The collective Iranian conversation about American-aided democracy in Iraq will be brutal for the mullahs (which is why the Bush administration should prepare itself for Iranian mischief in Iraq's politics once Tehran determines that the Bush administration is indeed serious about ensuring a democratic triumph in Baghdad). The Bush administration should, of course, quickly and loudly support any demonstrators who hit the streets in Iran. America's approval will not be the kiss of death for the brave dissidents who challenge the regime's armed defenders. On the contrary, such psychological support could prove critical to those trying to show to the people that the die is now decisively cast against the regime.

More than a testament to Gerecht’s uncanny grasp of theocratic politics, the passage highlights the thoughtfulness of George W. Bush’s much maligned Iran policy.

Among Bush’s critics it has become accepted fact that “the big winner of the Iraq War is Iran.” There are several arguments to support this view: the invasion empowered the fanatical Shia of Iraq, who inspired their ideological brethren across the eastern border; difficulties in establishing order in Iraq hurt America’s image as a formidable military threat; the U.S., in turn, needed Tehran’s help in subduing Iraqi unrest; without Saddam to worry about, the mullahs were free to follow through on plans for regional hegemony. All these arguments could be supported by events that were actually unfolding in the region – once upon a time. Today, few of them hold water.

You know, that's the thing about neocons: It's not so much "they knew they were right" and failed, but that they knew they were right AND stayed true to their principles when the chips were down. And as folks have been suggesting, "we're all neocons now."

This naturally hard for a lot of folks to accept (so brain-addled by neocon derangement as they are), but neconservatism's making a comeback, big time.

**********

By the way, if you've never read it, now's a good time to check out Max Boot's, "What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?"