More Democratic Demonization of Israel: 'Someone Explain to Me Why We Need to Make Israel Happy?'

Why today's Democratic-leftists continue to berate American support for Israel is beyond me sometimes.

The centrality of the Jewish state in U.S. foreign policy goes back to 1948 and the founding of that country. Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that worked to establish and guarantee the survival of Israel, as Ron Radosh tells it in his book, A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. As the New York Times book review put it, Harry Truman was a "Zionist in the White House."

But today's Democrats have abandoned the moral clarity of earlier generations. Indeed, a large contingent of the mainstream Democratic Party has sought to excoriated Israel and cast off the Jewish state to extermination. One of the most ugly examples of this is found in the notorious anti-Semitic Daily Kos post, "Eulogy Before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

The entry recounts all of the historic anti-Semitic conspiracies against Israel. The essay notes, for example, that Israel embodies "the vessel of boiling blood of horror and perfidy in demonic vileness for its pattern of terrorism and murder in the name of Zionist ideology."

Most right-thinking folks abhor such evil talk. But what we do see is a more subterranean discourse on the left that excoriates Israel by questioning U.S. support for the regime. The end result, much like the uglier side of the debate on The Israel Lobby, is ultimately a crude repudiation of Israel as a hegemonic oppressor whose people are undeserving of American support.

We see this despicable meme yet again in an essay by the slithering Dr. Hussein Biobrain, "Appeasing Israel":

'Would someone care to explain to me why we need to make Israel happy? I don't even buy into the idea that having them in the middle-east is some great strategic advantage for us, and think it's the exact opposite. Israel is one of the biggest problems we have in the middle-east. That's not to say I don't support their existence or anything, merely that I fail to understand their strategic importance to us or why we need to keep appeasing them. As with our embargo of Cuba, I believe our support of Israel is more about domestic politics than foreign policy and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.'

Actually, what others are "selling" is moral clarity of world historical importance. Melanie Phillips can "explain it" to Dr. Hussein Biobrain:

... the reason why Israel figures so heavily in any discussion about the predicaments of our era is that Israel is the defining moral issue of our time. It is Israel, and the century-old existential onslaught against the Jewish people in its ancient homeland, which stands at the very centre of the titanic fight by truth against lies, fact against propaganda, freedom against totalitarianism, liberty against slavery, justice against injustice and reason against irrationality in which the entire free world is currently engaged. Israel is the quintessential canary in the mine. It is the front-line in the defence of the free world. If it goes down, the rest of us will go down. Those who are on the wrong side of the Israel issue are on the wrong side in the great struggle for civilisation against barbarism. That is why I return to it again and again.

And that is why I return to it again and again.

And to answer Dr. Hussein Biobrain, yes, it is about domestic politics, for the preservation of Israel remains central to the partisan debates in the domestic politics of U.S. international security.

See also, Ed Lasky, "The Democratic Party and the Jews."

Sarah Palin to Divorce? Left's Biggest Fantasy-Smear Dead on Arrival - UPDATED!! Atlas Shrugs: Time to 'Ratchet Truth' on Obama Predilections

From the Christian Science Monitor, "Palin Getting a Divorce? Nope":

Word of a pending divorce between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former First Dude Todd is gaining a lot of traction in Internet land.

“Palin divorce” is the fourth-most searched topic right now on Google Trends.

There’s only one problem with that. It’s not true. Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton is shooting down the story by an Alaskan blogger who claimed to have inside information on a split.

Stapleton posted a response to the charge on Palin’s Facebook page.

“Yet again, some so-called journalists have decided to make up a story. There is no truth to the recent “story” (and story is the correct term for this type of fiction) that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family, and have not purchased land in Montana (last week it was reported to be Long Island),” Stapleton wrote.

“Less than one week ago, Governor Palin asked the media to ‘quit making things up.’ We appreciate that the more professional journalists decided to question this story before repeating it,” she said.

The article links to Ace of Spades HQ, "Team Palin: Um, No, We're Not Divorcing; Please Stop Makin' Things Up." Ace then links to Conservatives for Palin, "Palin Camp Shoots Down Ridiculous Divorce Rumors Spread by CNN Stringer Dennis Zaki."

For the smears, check Memeorandum. Here's one, for example, "Todd and Sarah Palin to Divorce: Affairs on Both Sides":

According to C4P:

The release is in response to a ludicrous rumor being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki. Zaki, who previously bought into rumors of Trig Truth, picked up these allegations from the same source - the rabidly anti-Palin, Trig Truth-espousing anonymous blogger "Gryphen" of the blog "Immoral Minority". Gryphen is a friend of Zaki's, along with fellow Team Truth members Shannyn Moore, Phil Munger, and "AKMuckraker" of the Mudflats.

The rumor was already being picked up and spread around the echo chamber of the Alaskan Team Truther blogs...not only by Zaki, but by fellow Trig Truther "Doctor Phil" Munger of Progressive Alaska.Sounds like the Palins are cutting these rumors off at the knees.

Good for them.

More at Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE! From Pamela Geller, "CNN Tells, Sells More Lies About Palin, it's Time to Expose the Truth About Obama" (FULL CONTENT WARNING: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MOTHER ANN DUNHAM SOFT-PORN PICS AT ATLAS SHRUGS!! LINKS BELOW!! - CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK!! - REPEAT!! CLICK ANN DUNHAM NUDE PICS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!):

The Palin camp has issued a statement decrying rumors of a Palin divorce being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki, sourced to an anonymous Anchorage blogger and the National Enquirer.

Let's understand this, CNN won't touch the birth certificate issue, the Rezko/Auchi corruption, his anti-semitism, ACORN/SEIU ties and corruption and legitimate stories that need investigation. But they write fiction about Palin. Daily. So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well know[n] that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren't they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show! Obama trafficked in some very deviant practices, where's the investigation?

Why isn't CNN pursuing the nude pornographic of Obama's mom, Stanley, (untouched pictures here and here and here) - I never ran the pics as it was unseemly and wasn't relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It's time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and their whores in the media. It's Obama operatives spreading the Palin lies. They know we won't play dirty, so it's time to play dirty.

I strongly recommend that conservatives start sending emailing these family pictures taken by Obama's spiritual father, Frank Marshall - child rapist and famous communist. I say when they ratchet up the lies, then we ratchet up the truth.

Now that's what I'm taking about!

See, "Democratic Stimulus Funds Go to Perv-Porno Promotions: 'Four Men, Three Women and a Gorilla'."

Added: Robert Stacy McCain:

QUOTE FROM SARAH PALIN

"Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I'm not blind!"

-- SARAH PALIN

Yes, that is her OFFICIAL response, which I got via phone at 5:35 this afternoon. Take that to the bank [original typos corrected].

**********

UPDATE II: Actually, I didn't know the Ann Dunham nude shots were published in October. See, Astute Bloggers, "Naughty Obama Mamma."

I guess I wasn't the only one.

The Truth About Obama’s Pressure on Israel

There's some considerable debate flying under the wire regarding some recent editorial comments on the Middle East peace process. See for example, the Los Angeles Times, "Obama's Evenhanded Mideast Policy," and the New York Times, "The Settlements Issue."

Well, check out Jonathan Tobin's response on this, "Editorials Skewer the Truth About Obama’s Pressure on Israel":

Yesterday the Washington Post stated the obvious when it noted that under President Obama, America’s relations with the state of Israel had deteriorated. In contrast to the administration’s desperate efforts to curry favor with Venezuela, Russia, and Iran, the focus of American foreign policy in the past seven months has been to heighten tensions with the Middle East’s sole democracy.

A day later, as if on cue, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times responded with their own editorials in support of Obama’s blundering.

The L.A. Times’s stance, titled “Obama’s evenhanded Mideast policy,” is a straightforward defense of an abrupt change toward Israel while disingenuously claiming that Obama’s friendship with it ought not to be questioned. The editorial endorses the downgrading of the U.S.-Israel alliance from one of close cooperation and support to a more equivocal relationship, in which Israel would be subjected to pressure to conform to specific ideas about achieving peace. Considering “evenhanded” a good approach means ignoring the isolation that would ensue if the United States abandons Israel: the Jewish state would be effectively left without an ally in the region and surrounded by a hostile Islamic culture that still rejects its legitimacy even in those few states that have officially come to terms with it.

But the claim of evenhandedness is itself a falsehood since it is very clear that Obama’s public pressure on Israel far outweighs Washington’s gentle urgings that the Palestinians should cease their support for the infrastructure of terror and to halt the official incitement of hatred toward Jews and Israel that is the hallmark of Palestinian political culture. Nor has the administration’s call for Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations to tone down their hostility toward Israel been either energetic or successful.

The L.A. Times goes as far as to say that Obama is right to scrap George W. Bush’s commitments to Israel, which recognized that a complete withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines would be unrealistic in any peace agreement. Israel paid for this promise in hard currency through a complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and was rewarded for this concession with the creation of a sovereign terrorist Hamasistan that remains free to bombard southern Israel with rockets. If Obama repudiates this promise, why should Israelis trust him when he makes his own guarantees about their country’s safety once a Palestinian state is put in place?

But even more to the point, the notion that as a prerequisite for peace, the U.S.’s demand for an absolute freeze to all building over the green line in both the West Bank and Jerusalem is as absurd as it is unfair. Israel has proved time and again that it will uproot settlements in exchange for peace or even for the false hope of quiet, as was the case with Gaza. The demand for a freeze does not advance negotiations; it is a substitute for talks, since squeezing Israel in this manner predetermines the outcome in favor of the Palestinians. That is not a negotiation but rather a dictate.

There's more at the link.

See also, The Astute Bloggers, Israpundit, Power Line, and Yid With Lid.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Glenn Greenwald Confirms 'Win' for O'Reilly Factor

Here's an update to last night's report, "Peace Plan Brokered in Olbermann, O'Reilly Cable Flame War!"

According to the The Agonist, "Fox Wins"!

Well, Glenn Greenwald thinks so too, "GE's Silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's Sleazy Use of Richard Wolffe" (via Memeorandum). But what he really hates is how the "corporate media" are controlling news content:

The New York Times this morning has a remarkable story, and incredibly, the article's author, Brian Stelter, doesn't even acknowledge, let alone examine, what makes the story so significant. In essence, the chairman of General Electric (which owns MSNBC), Jeffrey Immelt, and the chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), Rupert Murdoch, were brought into a room at a "summit meeting" for CEOs in May, where Charlie Rose tried to engineer an end to the "feud" between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly. According to the NYT, both CEOs agreed that the dispute was bad for the interests of the corporate parents, and thus agreed to order their news employees to cease attacking each other's news organizations and employees.

Most notably, the deal wasn't engineered because of a perception that it was hurting either Olbermann or O'Reilly's show, or even that it was hurting MSNBC. To the contrary, as Olbermann himself has acknowledged, his battles with O'Reilly have substantially boosted his ratings. The agreement of the corporate CEOs to cease criticizing each other was motivated by the belief that such criticism was hurting the unrelated corporate interests of GE and News Corp ...

This is hardly the first time evidence of corporate control over the content of NBC and MSNBC has surfaced ....

And now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC - ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer - because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE. The corporations that own our largest news organizations have extensive relationships with the federal government. Anyone (like Charlie Rose) who denies that those relationships influence how these news organizations "report" on the government - driven by the desire which corporate executives have to avoid alienating the government officials on whom their corporate interests depend, or avoid alienating potential customer bases for their products -- is completely delusional. GE's forcing Keith Olbermann to cease his criticism of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is a clear and vivid example of how that works.

Giving Greenwald credit, he's been a vociferous critic of the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policies (see, "The Obama Justice System"). But it's hard not to think that his indictment of "corporate media control" might be a bit less strident had the focus of this story been on Rupert Murdoch capitulating to pressure from Keith Olbermann.

More at Memeorandum. And note how Joe Gandelman summarizes things, "in the end it seems as if Fox News O’Reilly 'won' in his ongoing feud with MSBNC’s Keith Olbermann."

At UC Santa Barbara, 'Sociology of Human Sexuality'

Breaking!

This is serious news, plus it's another chance to blog about my party-school Ph.D. alma mater!

From the Los Angeles Times, "At UC Santa Barbara, Sex as a Matter of Course: Sociology Professors John and Janice Baldwin, Married for 41 years, Are Trusted Voices on Love and Lovemaking for Thousands of Students at the Beach-Side Campus":

How well should people know each other before they have sex?

In the biggest classroom at UC Santa Barbara, sociology professors John and Janice Baldwin are reeling off survey results showing that male and female students are almost equally willing to sleep with someone they love. But the hall erupts in knowing laughter as a gender gap emerges: Men, the long-married couple reports, remain eager for sex through descending categories of friendship and casual acquaintance. Women don't.

By the time Janice Baldwin gets to the statistic on sex between strangers, the din from the 600 students is so loud, they can hardly hear her announce that 37% of men would have sex with a person they had just met, compared with only 7% of women.

"So you can see, males are a little more likely to go to bed with somebody they don't know very well," Baldwin says dryly.

"Or at all," she adds, to guffaws.

By turns humorous and deadly serious, "Sociology of Human Sexuality" has been an institution at the beach-side campus for more than two decades. So have the Baldwins, unflappable sixtysomethings who are trusted voices on love and lovemaking for thousands of current and former UC Santa Barbara students.

Today's undergraduates have easy access to X-rated Internet sites, and many have watched television gurus dissect troubled marriages. But there are often gaps in their knowledge of biology and sexual behavior, the result of squeamish parents and less-than-candid high school health teachers.

The Baldwins step in with data about orgasm, birth control and infertility -- and, implicitly, with their own example of a 41-year marriage that seems to work well.

"We don't feel we are the sex king and queen of the world," Janice Baldwin, 63, said recently in the cramped office the couple share, their desks touching. "So this is not about us. It's about the students, and we are privileged to get to teach a class that can help them avoid the downsides of sex and increase the positives."

John Baldwin, 68, said he and his wife do not aim to be role models. "We are not trying to teach them to be like us," he said. "But we are going to be talking about relationships, and a lot of them want relationships. Even though there is a lot of casual sex, they want to find somebody special . . . So we are little hope signals."

Students say the class is fun, eye-opening and altogether useful. Clearly, many of them pay attention: Lectures on sexually transmitted infections can trigger a stampede to the campus health center.

This is a serious class, of course. And popular too - 600 students! Geez!

And recall previously, "UCSB Makes Top-Ten in Latest Party-School List."

It's hard out there for UCSB alum!

Hey, maybe Smitty can get new series started with some of this stuff! Could be educational!

'Turning the Tide of Battle': The Surge: A Military History

Between breaking scoops, I'm actually reading a number of books; next up is Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies."

Well, add another to my list, thanks to my good friend Courtney at Great Satan's Girlfriend: Kimberly Kagan's, The Surge: A Military History.

Courtney, herself a young neocon-hottie, is getting some traction as an up-and-coming blogger-analyst. She's linked at Small Wars Journal, and the folks over there liked her eye-grabbing visuals: "... the post caught my eye more for the visual, rather than the written word - so sue me."

I wonder if that dude reads Robert Stacy McCain!

Plus, the Wall Street Journal had a piece on Kagan a few weeks back as well, "Turning the Tide of Battle: Why, After So Much Carnage and Pessimism, A New Strategy Worked in Iraq."

It must be something about those tenacious neocons!

More hot neoconservative commentary at GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD.

Did Obama's Secret Service Draw Guns on Conservative Protesters?

It's hard to tell from the picture, probably taken from a cellphone, but the image is said to depict one of the vehicles in President Obama's Secret Service motorcade with windows open and guns drawn. Gateway Pundit shares a letter from a demonstrator:

During the motorcade when the president was arriving, there were several vehicles following the limo that contained the secret service. All of the vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatch open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifes, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear. I have seen the secret service before, but never like this. While they were intimidating, I never felt in danger. The guns were not drawn when the motorcade was leaving the event. But I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them and nothing else until the end of the program.

The reader asked if "this was normal"?

To which Gateway Pundit responds, "It's not normal for the secret service to pull their assault guns on conservative protesters as they drive through town."

Well, it's pretty clear that the administration's not tolerating a lot of dissent.

Here's Betsy Newmark, in response to The Politico's article on the cancellation of town hall meetings by Democratic congessional members:

Gee, the American people are fed up and they don't want to take it anymore. Instead of looking at the level of anger and readjusting their behavior, the tendency of these congressmen is to dismiss the protesters and cancel the meetings. While I don't approve of a mob blocking a speaker's right to speak, these groups represent a real anger that their representatives would do well to address. These elites may have found all the "tea bagging" jokes amusing when the Tea Party protests were held earlier this year, but the numbers and intensity involved have not dissipated. People are angry and they're taking advantage of their access to their representatives to make that emotion felt. They would do better meet with members of the protesters and answer their questions than to simply decide to shut down their meetings. That would be treating the symptom rather than the cause.

And now they know how conservative speakers at college campuses feel.

Change!

More at Memeorandum. See also, Atlas Shrugs, "That's Why I Fear My Gov't .... Because I Don't Know if the People Are Awake Enough to Do What Needs to Be Done .... And That is to Start Shouting From Rooftops." Pamela's got video of the motocade.

Peace Plan Brokered in Olbermann, O'Reilly Cable Flame War!

Well, at least this battle was across partisan lines!

From the New York Times, "Truce Reached in Cable News Feud":

It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to bring it to an end.

At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the two networks. Then, even though the feud had increased the viewing audience of both programs, they instructed lieutenants to arrange a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN).

“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.

The rapprochement — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.

“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”

The parent companies declined to comment directly on the details of the cease-fire, which was led by Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation.

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment.

I like this part, about Bill O'Reilly:

The conservative-leaning Mr. O’Reilly has turned “The O’Reilly Factor” into a profit center for the News Corporation by blitzing his opponents and espousing his opinions unapologetically.

It turns out that PBS's Charlie Rose served as a mediator to bring both sides together and negotiate a cease-fire.

My first thought? Robert Stacy McCain's no Charlie Rose! (See, "Nine Days in July: Nuclear Diplomacy in the Conservative Blogosphere").

But I REALLY like this, "Donald Douglas is trying to be the wingnut blogosphere's Bill O'Reilly."

Maybe that has something to do with this, from Gawker, "Pervy Flesh-Peddler Bill O'Reilly Plays Erin Andrews Peephole Video On-Air."

That O'Reilly's something! Actually, dude knows real news when he sees it!

And of course, "Fox Wins"! Just like American Power!

Could be some differences of opinion, like from the sore losers at Gawker (Deadspin's sister-publication), "NBC Agrees to Muzzle Journalists Following Fox News Pressure."

But, onward and upward!

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Crowley is 'Sole Class Act' at White House Beer Summit

Via Fausta and Nice Deb, check out Thomas Lifson, "Obama's Revealing Body Language":

This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

More at the link.

See also, Ron Radosh, "Lessons of the Teaching Moment." And Memeorandum.

Added: See the great post from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, "The Beer Summit."

Senator Christopher Dodd Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer

From the Hartford Courant, "Dodd Diagnosed With Early-Stage Prostate Cancer" (via Memeorandum):

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

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd has been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer.

Dodd is scheduled to undergo surgery during the Senate's August recess and said he expects to be back at work after a "brief recuperation" at home.

"It's something that's very common among men my age,'' said Dodd, who is 65 and the father of two young daughters. "In fact, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their life.''

Dodd, a Democrat, said he feels fine and intends to run for re-election in November 2010. "As you have probably noticed, I'm working some long and hard hours lately,'' he said. "And that will continue."

Read the rest, here.

My best wishes go out to Senator Dodd and his family.

Politically, Dodd is currently in a tough spot. A poll out last week found Dodd trailing likely Republican challenger Rob Simmons 48 to 39 percent.

Plus, there's increasing revelations concerning Dodd's "special VIP treatment" from Countrywide Home Loans when he refinanced both of his homes in 2003 (see, "Dodd's Lingering VIP Problem"). Michelle Malkin has more, "Unscrupulous Borrowers: Democrats Dodd & Conrad Knew About VIP Treatment."

We'll know more in time, but political scandal is an incumbent-killer, and whispering campaigns questioning Dodd's health and vigor certainly won't help his prospects.

What Went Down at the Beer Summit?

Elizabeth Gates shares her experience at the White House, "What I Saw at the Beer Summit" (via Memeorandum):

In a world in which the conversation on race has traditionally taken a back seat to both logic and reason, it’s no wonder that yesterday’s so-called “Beer Summit” at the White House seemed to make little sense at all. It wasn’t because the President was wrong in offering up a few cold ones to my father, Henry Louis Gates, and the now infamous Sergeant James Crowley in an attempt to tame the media blitz around my father’s arrest—it was because like most issues that make their way to TMZ, the reference point had shifted. The debate over Red Stripe and Blue Moon had somehow overshadowed the fact that this story began with a black Harvard professor and a white cop from Natick, Mass—and as CNN’s countdown clock to the event taunted viewers like a time bomb, it was clear that this day wasn’t going to be the beginning of a serious discussion on human relations but rather a circus-like ending of a misunderstanding between a couple of very decent men.

I can’t say that I was shocked.

As our family rounded the corner to the White House library and I first caught sight of Sergeant Crowley’s lovely 14-year old daughter—who was wearing an appropriately heavy and charmingly untrained amount of green eyeliner on her lower lashes—we were instantly transported from the post-racial myth of America in 2008 to the reality of 2009. There they stood, a pleasant family of five, listening patiently to the overzealous tour guide boast about the fully functioning fireplace to the left of the doorframe.

Read the whole thing, here. Also, The Astute Bloggers, "Like Father Like Daughter: Ridiculous, Illogical and Typically Liberal Non-Sequitur From Elizabeth Gates."

Related: "White House 'Beer Summit' Becomes Something of a Brouhaha."

But don't miss Jim Treacher's take, in sequential photos (humor alert!), "Oh, to be a fly on a beer mug ..."

Democratic Stimulus Funds Go to Perv-Porno Promotions: 'Four Men, Three Women and a Gorilla'

Shocker!

From Fox News, "Stimulus Bill Funds Go to Art Houses Showing 'Pervert' Revues, Underground Pornography: Emergency Gants Fom the National Endowment for the Arts May Be Going to Help Fund Nude Simulated-Sex Dances, Saturday Night "Pervert" Revues and the Airing of Pornographic Horror Films at Art Houses in San Francisco":

Talk about a stimulus package.

The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.

The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide, and most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes that have been hit hard by the recession.

But some of the NEA's grants are spicing up more than the economy. A few of their more risque choices have some taxpayer advocates hot under the collar, including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."

"When you spend so much money in a short amount of time ... you're going to have nonsense like this, and that's why the stimulus should never have been done in the first place," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste.

Click here for a full list of all of the NEA's Recovery Act grants.

Williams said such support for the arts is a luxury at a time when the president and Congress have been telling the public to make sacrifices to manage the recession.

"When taxpayers see this, they realize that's just a bunch of hot air," he told FOXNews.com.

Some members of Congress raised alarms as the stimulus bill was being drafted and approved, but President Obama, while admitting there were problems with the $787 billion legislation, stressed the need for immediate action to resuscitate the economy.

"We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," Obama said at the time.

But he presumably didn't intend to have stimulus money help fund the weekly production of "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, whose "long-running pansexual performance series" invites guests to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun."

More at Atlas Shrugs, "Obama's Stimulus $$ Funds Horror Porn, Naked Dancing, Underground Pornography - Four Men, Three Women and a Gorilla."

And gasp! Pamela shows some breasts!

No word yet from chief Internet cop Dan Riehl. Who knows? Hey, maybe Dan likes art flicks! For sure the Democratic guys at American Nihilist are digging it!

Photo Credit: The People's Cube.

Iranians Defy Authorities in New Round of Protests

From the Los Angeles Times, "Iranians Defy Authorities to Mourn Those Slain in the Unrest:

Protesters swarmed Tehran's main cemetery and fanned out across a large swath of the capital Thursday, defying truncheons and tear gas to publicly mourn those killed during weeks of unrest, including a young woman whose death shocked people around the world.

The protests marked the 40th day since the shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan was captured on video and posted on the Internet. For Shiite Muslims, the 40th day has religious importance, often an occasion for an outpouring of emotion and grief.

Thirty years ago, such commemorations helped build momentum for the Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the shah. The resilience of the thousands of protesters this time set the stage for more clashes next week, when hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be inaugurated for a second term despite allegations that he won only because of widespread fraud in the June 12 election.

The scale and reach of Thursday's protests, which also erupted in at least four other cities, appeared to catch security forces off guard. After initially bloodying some of the mourners arriving at Behesht Zahra cemetery, many of them young women dressed in black and carrying roses, officers stepped back. They mingled amicably with protesters, and in one case even accepted flowers from them.

The mourners chanted political slogans as they rode the Tehran subway from the city center to the cemetery and back. When they returned to the center, they took to the streets, first in the area of the Grand Mosala Mosque, where they had been banned from gathering.

Later, on side streets and main thoroughfares, they were occasionally attacked by baton-wielding security personnel, some on motorcycles.

But they were also cheered on by thousands of well-wishers honking car horns ferociously or hanging out the windows of apartments and buses. They clogged roadways and tunnels, holding up signs in support of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Shopkeepers handed out bottles of water to sustain the demonstrators in the heat.

"Honorable Iranians," the protesters chanted. "Today is a day of mourning."

More at the link.

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Day 49 Iranian Revolution: What Really Happened at Tehran University."

Video Hat Tip: Berman Post.

Sgt. Crowley's Press Conference: Beer Summit Fizzles?

Sgt. Crowley appears like the consummate professional to me:

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

Professor Gates made his statement at The Root, " 'An Accident of Time and Place'."

But see, Peter Wallsten and Mike Dorning, "Beer Summit: Professor, Officer Have Cordial Chat With President Barack Obama":

A national furor over race relations paused Thursday as President Barack Obama, in a shady spot on the White House lawn near the Rose Garden, sat down for beers with a black Harvard professor and the white police officer who arrested him two weeks ago.

For the two men who raised mugs of beer with the president -- both of whom wore suits and ties and sat stiffly in what was meant to be a casual moment -- the discussion of race and policing will go on.

The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police, said afterward that he had already discussed racial issues with the professor, African-American studies scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., and that the two had set plans to talk further.

But for Obama, the most anticipated happy hour in recent memory may be little more than a timeout in a debate over racial profiling and other racially charged issues.

Obama helped escalate the national debate by saying the Cambridge police had "acted stupidly" in arresting the black professor on disorderly conduct charges at the scholar's home.

Charges against Gates were later dropped, but whether Gates had been arrested July 16 because he was black has since spawned a national debate.

Obama has tried gradually over the past week to ease the controversy, most notably by saying he regretted his choice of words and setting up what became known as a "beer summit."

The get-together Thursday had been described by the White House as a "teachable moment."

A small group of camera people and reporters was permitted to witness the meeting only for about 30 seconds and from about 50 feet away, showing Obama, in shirt sleeves, seated at an oval able with the now-famous adversaries.

Gates and Crowley appeared to talk seriously, and at one point, Obama laughed heartily.

Joining the three was Vice President Joe Biden, also in shirt sleeves.

Crowley said later that no apologies were exchanged between him and Gates. The police sergeant called the discussion Thursday "cordial and productive" but declined to offer specifics.

Gates struck a calming tone in a statement to the Web site The Root.

"The national conversation over the past week about my arrest has been rowdy, not to say tumultuous and unruly," he said. "But ... there's reason to hope that many people have emerged with greater sympathy for the daily perils of policing, on the one hand, and for the genuine fears about racial profiling, on the other hand."

See also Memeorandum, and the Washington Post,"Gates, Police Officer Share Beers and Histories With President."

Video Hat Tip: Hot Air.

Beer Summit Won't Lead to National Conversation on Race

Allahpundit's got an open-thread, "White House Kegstand Solves Nation’s Racial Problems." But check also, The Politico, " 'Beer Summit' Letdown":

President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated “beer summit” with Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. Jim Crowley was reduced Thursday for viewers at home to two minutes of shaky, silent video of the men gathered around a table in the Rose Garden.

Obama followed through on his promise to bring to the men together at the White House – and suggested he saw seeds of progress for the future.

“Even before we sat down for the beer, I learned that the two gentlemen spent some time together listening to one another, which is a testament to them,” Obama said in a statement after the meeting. “I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode.”

After the event, Crowley characterized the discussion as “two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue. We didn’t spend too much time dwelling on the past. We spent a lot of time discussing the future.”

Crowley also said he and Gates had agreed to meet again – but not for a beer the next time, “maybe an Kool-Aid or an iced tea,” he joked. He also said he first talked to Gates earlier in the day when their two families were taking separate tours of the White House and ran into each other, then finished the tour together.

He called the day “an effort not just to move the city of Cambridge or two individuals past this event, but the whole country beyond this and toward some meaningful discussion in the future.”

Still, the portion of the event aired on TV had an anti-climatic feel, and in many ways was exactly what Obama had said it would be earlier – the men sitting around having a drink. One surprise was the addition of Vice President Joe Biden.

Analysts of race relations said the benefits of the White House encounter were murky, at best.

Jake Tapper adds some details on tap:

The President and Vice President spent much of the time we were out there snacking on the peanuts and pretzels on the table. In frosty mugs, the four men had their beers of choice. For the president it was Bud Light, a beer company once headquartered in swing state Missouri now owned by a Belgian conglomerate.)Vice President Biden, who doesn’t drink alcoholic beverages, had a non-alcoholic Buckler, brewed by Dutch Heineken. Crowley had a Blue Moon Ale, brewed by Toronto, Canada’s Molson Coors Brewing Company. Gates opted for a Sam Adams Light – the only truly American beer in the lot.

The CBS News report at the video is pretty skeptical that tonight's quaffing is going to lead to a lessening of racial tensions going forward. See also, "What a White House Beer Says About Race and Politics" (via Memeorandum).

I'm going to be reading up on this story throughout the night. I'm preparing an essay on the whole thing for Pamjamas Media, so I'll update if I find anything really juicy.

My previous collection of Pajamas articles is here. You know, I do actually write about things besides Erin Andrews!

Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

Tammy Bruce tweeted this morning, "Dog Murderer Watch: Another NFL Team Says No to Michael Vick." I hadn't thought of it that way, actually. Tammy links to Fox News, "Another NFL Team Says No to Michael Vick":

Another team turned down the opportunity to sign reinstated NFL quarterback Michael Vick.

Washington Redskins coach Jim Zorn told the media his team wouldn't sign Vick "at this juncture."

Zorn says he wishes Vick the best and is sure the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback will return to the NFL.

The Redskins join a long list of teams — including the New York Giants, Jets and Dallas Cowboys — that have said they don't want Vick after he served 18 months in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring.

How does that sound to folks? Vick did two years in federal peniteniary. Doesn't the guy deserve a shot at returning to sports?

Rick Moran makes the case at Pajamas Media, "Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?":

Michael Vick is going to get a second chance. Like almost all the 408 other NFL players who have been arrested on felony charges since 2000, the league is granting him the opportunity to return to stardom — despite committing crimes relating to gambling (Vick insists he never bet on the dog fights) that some believe should have disqualified him from ever lacing up a pair of spikes again. At one time, prosecutors were discussing the possibility of bringing charges under the organized crime statute known as RICO — a turn of events that would have meant the end of his career since he would have been sentenced to at least 25 years. In that way, Vick dodged a bullet, as he did when several similar state charges against him were plea bargained down to three years probation.

None of us are granted the insight to look into a man’s soul and discover if he truly is remorseful and willing to change his ways. All we can do is judge someone based on our ability to interpret a person’s attitude toward their transgression and how they carry themselves from that point on.

Michael Vick appears to have made many of the right moves. He has paid his debt to society and given more than a million dollars to fund the care and rehabilitation of some of the dogs he so barbarically used. He has even agreed to Commissioner Roger Goodell’s suggestion that former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy “mentor” the 29-year-old man to make sure he makes the right “decisions.”

But despite our longing to welcome back tarnished heroes with open arms, Vick’s crimes may be a bridge too far for the very image-conscious NFL. Despite Goodell’s conditional reinstatement of Vick, there has been very little interest shown by the 29 NFL teams in signing him, with many completely ruling out the possibility. It seems that there are indeed some things that are unforgivable — or, at least in the NFL, unmarketable.

That's insightful. I didn't know Rick was such a sports aficionado.

My sense is that Vick's talents are what will make or break a comeback. A team needing at elite QB may not be too worried about image-consciousness. As long as the league's going to let Vick play, he should at least get a chance to compete for both attention and success.

See also, Bleacher Report, "ENOUGH! Michael Vick Is Not This Interesting."

Rough Week for Senate Candidate Stormy Daniels

From Tampa's WFTS ABC Action News, "Porn star Stormy Daniels' Possible Senate Bid Hits Turbulence."

It has not been a good couple of weeks for Tampa porn queen Stormy Daniels, who recently made news by announcing that she may run for the U.S. Senate. Daniels found herself slapped with a domestic violence charge, while her political adviser reported an apparent car bombing.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was arrested Saturday on a battery charge after she allegedly hit her husband during a fight over laundry and unpaid bills.

Two days earlier, her political adviser in Louisana, Brian Welsh, said his 1996 Audi may have been blown up outside his apartment in an upscale area of New Orleans.

"It's something out of The Sopranos," said Edward E. Chervenak, a professor of politics at the University of New Orleans. "Very weird."

In May, Daniels announced she was considering a run in 2010 for the U.S. Senate seat held by Louisana Republican David Vitter, whose family-values stance took a major hit in 2007 when his name was linked to a Washington prostitution ring.

Daniels was arrested Saturday afternoon after her husband, Michael Mosny, reported that Daniels struck him several times, according to a Tampa Police Department report.

Mosny told police that his wife was upset "about the way the clothes had been done" and then "got more upset about some bills that had not been paid," according to the report.

The report went on to say that Daniels "threw a potted plant at the kitchen sink," hit Mosny on the head several times and "threw their wedding album onto the floor and knocked candles off coffee table, breaking them."

Earlier in the week, her political adviser's car exploded in New Orleans while he and his wife were walking their dog nearby.

More at the link.

Talking Points Memo is reporting as well, via Memeorandum. But for a kick, check out DownWithTyranny!, "Whoremonger David Vitter Takes a Swing at George Voinovich. Geez, what's the matter with all the conservatives - folks are taking a lot of lumps!

You Too Can Ascend to an 'Unofficial Leadership Position Within the Blogosphere'

The quoted section is from Michael Massing, speaking of Glenn Greenwald, at the New York Review, "The News About the Internet. He talks about the bloggers he's found while researching the article, and he notes that the blogosphere's online commentators aggressively reject the newspaper industry's goal of objectivity. Here he discusses Greenwald:

The bloggers I have been reading reject such reflexive attempts at "balance," and it's their willingness to dispense with such conventions that makes the blogosphere a lively and bracing place. This is nowhere more apparent than in the work of Glenn Greenwald. A lawyer and former litigator, Greenwald is a relative newcomer to blogging, having begun only in December 2005, but as Eric Boehlert notes in his well-researched but somewhat breathless Bloggers on the Bus, within six months of his debut he "had ascended to an unofficial leadership position within the blogosphere." In contrast to the short, punchy posts favored by most bloggers, Greenwald offers a single daily essay of two thousand to three thousand words. In each, he draws on extensive research, amasses a daunting array of facts, and, as Boehlert puts it, builds his case "much like an attorney does."

Greenwald initially made his mark with fierce attacks on the Bush administration's policy of warrantless surveillance, and he continues to comment on the subject with great fury. Other recent targets have included Goldman Sachs (for its influence in the Obama administration), Jeffrey Rosen (for his dismissive New Republic piece on Sonia Sotomayor), Jeffrey Goldberg (for his attacks on the Times 's Roger Cohen), the Washington Post Op-Ed page (for the many neoconservatives in residence), and the national press in general (for its insistence on using euphemisms for the word "torture"). In June he wrote:

The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture"—even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantánamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries—reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

For the press, Greenwald added, "there are two sides and only two sides to every 'debate'—the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment."

In so vigilantly watching over the press, Greenwald has performed an invaluable service. But his posts have a downside. Absorbing the full force of his arguments and dutifully following his corroborating links, I felt myself drawn into an ideological wind tunnel, with the relentless gusts of opinion and analysis gradually wearing me down. After reading his harsh denunciations of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of torture photos, I began to lose sight of the persuasive arguments that other commentators have made in support of the President's position. As well-argued and provocative as I found many of Greenwald's postings, they often seem oblivious to the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.

That's interesting.

And keep in mind, except a brief mention of Drudge Report, Massing does not discuss the many conservative bloggers who have broken huge stories ahead of the press. Recall that Power Line and a number of top conservative blogs provided most of the reporting that led to Dan Rather's resignation as anchor at CBS evening news.

But Massing has a point about the "wind-tunneling," although I think it's better to have it than not. The mainstream press is not going to cover the tough stories with the same no-holds-barred aggressiveness. It's up to readers to sift through the baloney and make up their own minds.

Greenwald responds to Massing here, "Practicalities v. Principles: The Prime Beltway Affliction" (via Memeorandum). Greenwald's a nasty guy, and he's reviled by many across the web (see, "Greenwald’s Sock Puppets: The Worst Blog Scandal Ever?"). But he's feted by Eric Boehlert as an unofficial leader of the blogosphere. I guess good content matters, even if it's leftist partisan hackery. Folks might keep that in mind when reading about threats of excommunication from the blogosphere (as was the case in the recent flame up around these parts).

Obama's Public Approval Crashing!

Okay, here's an awesome update to the Wall Street Journal's report, "Support Slips for Health Plan."

Now, check this out from Pew Research, "Obama's Ratings Slide Across the Board: The Economy, Health Care Reform and Gates Grease the Skids":

Barack Obama’s approval ratings have suffered major declines. The president’s overall job approval number fell from 61% in mid-June to 54% currently. His approval ratings for handling the economy and the federal budget deficit have also fallen sharply, tumbling to 38% and 32%, respectively. Majorities now say they disapprove of the way the president is handling these two issues. The new poll also finds significant declines over the last few months in the percentage of Americans giving Obama high marks for dealing with health care, foreign policy and tax policy.

Three factors have likely contributed to more negative views of Obama. First, criticisms of the government’s economic policies are mounting. For the first time since Obama took office, as many say the government is on the wrong track (48%) as on the right track (46%) in handling the nation’s economic problems. In May, 53% said the government was on the right track on the economy, while 39% said it was on the wrong track.

Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that many of the health care proposals being debated in Congress are sparking negative reactions, especially from those following the debate most closely. By a 44% to 38% margin, more Americans generally oppose than favor the health care proposals now before Congress. Opposition rises to 56% among people who say they have heard a lot about legislation to overhaul the health care system. Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

Thirdly, Obama’s comments on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. appear to have played some role in his ratings decline. News about the arrest of the prominent African American Harvard professor at his Cambridge home was widely followed by the public and 79% are aware of Obama’s comments on the incident. Analysis of the poll data found that the president’s approval ratings fell among non-Hispanic whites over the course of the interviewing period as the focus of the Gates story shifted from details about the incident to Obama’s remarks about the incident. Interviews Wednesday and Thursday of last week found 53% of whites approving of Obama’s job performance. This slipped to 46% among whites interviewed Friday through Sunday as the Gates story played out across the nation.

Read the whole thing, here. (Via Memeorandum.)

This is nothing short of devastating for the administration.

And of course, conservatives are fired-up, ready to plunge the sword to the grip.

Folks are planning a Nationwide Recess Rally to hammer the administration and defeat the left's big-government agenda.

Here's more from Nice Deb, "Join The Tea Party Express Tour." See also Pat in Shreveport, "Time for Obama to Back Up and Regroup."

And Media Matter's is mad! See, "Not About "Parties or Politics"? Fox News Promotes Anti-Dem "Tea Party Express."

Newsweek: 'The Feminist Roots of Polyamory'

From William Jacobson, "The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Is Back "

At issue is Newsweek's, "Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory—Relationships With Multiple, Mutually Consenting Partners—Has a Coming-Out Party." Newsweek also features a special supplement, "The Feminist Roots of Polyamory":

Terisa and Scott have been together for 12 years, and live in a lakeside neighborhood of Seattle, where they share a vegetable garden and three dogs. For 10 years, Terisa has also been dating Larry, who on the side is dating Vera, who is married to Matt. Now Terisa is dating Matt, too. It’s like a real life Big Love, without the Mormonism: they’re “polyamorists”—a term used to describe people who believe in loving, consensual, multi-partner relationships. And while it’s easy to brush off anything with the word “poly” as some kind of frat-house fantasy gone wild, polyamory has a decidedly feminist bent.

The key to poly relationships is gender equality, and women have been central to the creation of the practice. The word "polyamory" itself was coined by two women, in the early ’90s, and the first five books on the topic were all female-authored. Over the past year, writers like Jenny Block and Tristan Taormino, the sex columnist, have written on the topic, while celebrities Tilda Swinton (who called herself a “freak” in an interview with Double X) and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have spoken out in favor of open relationships. “Multiple-partner relationships have always gone on, but they have rarely had the gender equity characteristic of poly relationships,” says sociologist Elisabeth Sheff, one of the few researchers to study polyamory.

I'm struck by how casually acceptable this all sounds.

As much as I've blogged on gay marriage, it's astonishing to read how the culture is developing on the radical left.

For a good response to all of this, see Gay Patriot, "Defend Marriage as an Institution to Avoid Slippery Slopes."

Dropping Public Support for Obamacare

From the Wall Street Journal, "Support Slips for Health Plan: Obama Push Faces Growing Doubts in Poll; Overhaul Advances in House, Senate" (via Memeorandum):

Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care.

In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.

Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.

Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions.

See also, the New York Times, "New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan." (Via Memeorandum.) And Gallup, "Benefits of Healthcare Reform a Tough Sell for Americans:
Americans Least Confident That Reform Will Benefit Them Personally."

Plus, David Freddoso, "What Will Happen to My Individual Health Coverage?"