Michael Moore Repudiates 'Hooey' Rape Comments During Rachel Maddow Show Trial — BUMPED AND UPDATED!

It's really hard to watch these people. Michael Moore especially.

He keeps saying stuff about "what it means to be an American," and then --- like Nina Totenberg --- has to apologize for an outright affirmation of Christianity. (Asking if it's okay to say you're Christian? Only on MSNBC, I guess, or NPR.) But frankly, I tuned in because basically this Rachel Maddow episode was a Michael Moore show trial for the benefit of rape victims and their advocates in the radical feminist community. It's not my bailiwick, but it's been an unusual week for progressive feminist advocacy groups. And I guess it needs to be said, but there's nothing okay about rape --- and there obviously shouldn't be anyone who's actually "for it." But for the feminist left's sexual assualt grievance industry --- folks will recall --- marriage is legalized rape. And as we saw with this big debate over the sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange in Sweden, if one didn't come down on the side of the accusers they were quickly excommunicated from the progressive community (Naomi Wolf, for example, but see, "Making Sense of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Rape, Michael Moore, Naomi Wolf, and Keith Olbermann"). This is also interesting since for some reason Robert Stacy McCain wrote a bizarre essay in response to a set of literally unhinged questions regarding his positions on rape, purportedly posed by Elizabeth Blackney. Folks need to just read the whole thing for themselves. I'm not out to defend Robert. What's interesting is that some on the left went more aggressive against McCain than they did against Michael Moore. I mean, seriously. Tommy Christopher? Who gives a fuck what that guy thinks? And Mediaite who? People like this are the dregs of the new media establishment --- bottom suckers looking to scrape off something halfway newsworthy, punching the clock for another day's sleazy dollar. It's pathetic. In any case, as for Michael Moore, I think he's back in good with the neo-Stalinist feminist bloc. The recantation begins just after 7:00 minutes. He's very sincere. No longer are the allegations against Assange a bunch of "hooey," but are instead of the gravest nature, and "have to be treated very seriously." And speaking of serious: Look at the intensity of the audience when the camera pans around the auditorium. It's like a general assembly of Soviet commissars. One false utterance and it's the gulag for the defendant. And then once cleared, Moore shifts the focus to the WikiLeaks criminal enterprise, and spins more collectivist lies on how noble this operation is. At 9:10 minutes, for example, Moore claims that American soldiers "murdered" Iraqi civilians from a helicopter in Iraq. The whole "Collateral Murder" propaganda campaign was proven completely false, of course. U.S. forces were engaged with insurgents on the ground throughout the morning, and an examination of the WikiLeaks video indicates U.S. troops following rules of engagement to the letter. Michael Moore is a disgusting hack, a liar recycling untruths on national television. The whole thing is sickening to me, creepy even. Julian Assange is a national security threat. He should be brought to justice in the United States. But the latest WikiLeaks circus has once again clarified the loyalties of those of America's Fifth Column plugging away at the evisceration of the United States. Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow --- they're both top operatives in the progressive left's longstanding neo-communist program of delegitimation and destruction. And it won't be long now, but the controversy over the Assange rape charges will blow over. Michael Moore has paid penance tonight to the mass proletarian overlords. He should be safe now, or at least until he gets cocky again and bloviates with another untimely "Countdown" hooey gaffe.

**********

UPDATE: I pretty much scooped the entire blogosphere on this!

Anyway, Dan Collins responds directly: "My 2 Cents Regarding the Tommy Christopher/Stacy McCain Kerfuffle."

Tommy Christopher blows off my essay, with falacious spite, I might add. His essay's here, published almost twelve hours after I posted: "Michael Moore Changes Tune On Assange Charges, Does Not Directly Address Protest."

On a related note, I had a brief exchange with a feminist named Amadi on Twitter. She dismissed me as a "mansplaining troglodyte."

Huffington Post has a write up, "Michael Moore To Rachel Maddow: I Take Rape Charges Against Julian Assange 'Very Seriously' (VIDEO)." And at Business Insider, "Michael Moore Will Not Defend Julian Assange Over Rape Charges, But WikiLeaker Manning Should Be Rewarded." Also, at Vanity Fair, "Michael Moore on Julian Assange: As an American, You Have to Believe He’s Innocent Until Proven Guilty."

Noel Sheppard, at NewsBusters, picks up on Michael Moore's Christian apologetics: "Michael Moore at a YMCA Asks Rachel Maddow if it's Okay to Say He Was Raised Christian." I noticed that too, but it's so standard among progressives that it warranted little mention at the time.

I think that's it, although Sady Doyle has related ruminations, pre-Maddow: "A Week of #MooreandMe: Keith Olbermann and the Eternal “If”."

I don't see the promised column yet from Elizabeth Blackney.

And perhaps Robert Stacy McCain is holding off on reentering this debate. Meanwhile, he goes with the tried and true: "Christmas Cheesecake."

And speaking of Christmas, I'm going shopping. Back online later this afternoon.

Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'A Nation of Desire' — Christmas 2010

A special Christmas edition (via Glenn Reynolds):

Previously:

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism'."

Why Does Vice President Joe Biden Hate Christmas?

Via Jim Treacher:

Illegal Immigrants Factor Into 2010 Census

No surprise there, at Fox News, "Illegal Immigrants Factor Into 2010 Census Results, Congressional Makeup":

Census data released Tuesday reflects how illegal immigration could shape the makeup of Congress, with border states and other immigration magnets registering big gains over the past decade.

Though the latest Census Bureau information does not include breakouts on race or ethnicity, Western and Southern states with large, or at least growing, immigrant populations were generally the ones that gained enough new residents to warrant additional congressional seats.

Illegal immigrants would constitute just one of several factors in the population shifts recorded in that time. But since illegal immigrants are counted in the U.S. Census by law, they have an inevitable impact on the way House seats are divvied up.

"You can see how they can have a big impact on the distribution of seats," said Steven Camarota, research director with the Center for Immigration Studies. "Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to lose a seat and it's going to go to some other place ... because of the inclusion of illegal immigrants."

Camarota estimated the total number of illegal immigrants counted in the 2010 Census at about 10 million. Total population growth for immigrants in the United States exceeded 13 million over the last 10 years. With the U.S. population at 309 million, that might sound like a drop in the melting pot. But their numbers start to make a difference on a state-by-state level.

Several states with large immigration populations, both legal and illegal, will gain at least one seat out of the latest census numbers. They include Florida, Texas, Arizona and Nevada. South Carolina, Georgia and Washington state, which all saw unusually high rates of growth in their immigrant populations over the past decade, will also gain a congressional seat each. South Carolina, for instance, registered a 150 percent increase in its immigrant population, according to a CIS analysis.

Camarota said that regardless of whether the changes are coming from influxes of illegal or legal immigrants, more districts are going to be created with swaths of people in them who can't vote.

Slaves couldn't vote either, but they bulked up the South's representation after 1787. The Democrats were for slavery back then too.

Afshan Azad Honor Killing Threat Not Over

Update on my report yesterday: "Afshan Azad, 'Harry Potter' Star, Beaten and Branded as Prostitute After Meeting Non-Muslim Man."

Megyn Kelly indicates that Ms. Azad will not testify against her father for fear of death:

RELATED: At NewsReal Blog: "“Harry Potter” Actress Assaulted, Under Threat of Honor Killing."

Dan Connolly's Record-Setting Kickoff Return

Amazing play.

And I was watching live on Sunday night. I thought he was gonna score, and Connolly was all class when he didn't. Via Theo Spark:

Neo-Neocon Breast Blogging

Seriously.

Yes ladies have traffic suckage problems, and while the guys get a lot of flak for blogging hotties, Neo-Neocon knows there's utility in blogging the bazongas:

In an effort to boost my traffic, I am writing about breasts today. Small breasts. But breasts nonetheless

As did the NY Times recently, in a piece about a new trend: lingerie stores that cater to and celebrate the less-endowed woman.

RELATED: Blazing Catfur goes multicultural: "The Making of Bauernkalendar 2010."

2010 Congressional Reapportionment: Winners and Losers

Check the interactive graphic at New York Times.

Plus, "Power in Congress to Tilt South and West" (via Memeorandum).

And at the Rose Institute, Claremont McKenna College, "2010 Apportionment Continues 40-year shift to South/Southwest."

PREVIOUSLY: "After Census, Texas Leads Way on Immigration Politics."

Lady Gaga Groped in Paris

At Splash News, "Lady Gaga Got Groped!"

My wife's first comment was: "She looks old."

And then I clicked over to London's Daily Mail, "Bum Note: Lady Gaga Shows Buttocks in See-Through Flesh-Coloured Pants for a Chilly Shopping Trip in Ice-Bound Paris" (NSFW), and my wife says: "She deserves to be groped if she's dressing like that!"

Rasmussen Reports: 58 Percent Oppose Automatic Citizenship to Illegal Immigrant Children

The report is here, plus Scott Rasmussen's interviewed at KSAZ FOX10 Phoenix:

RELATED: At The Week, "The GOP War on 'Anchor Babies'."

National Security and the New Media

From the Center for Security Policy: "Dick Morris, Andrew Breitbart, Roger L. Simon, and more from the Center’s Mightier Pen & National Security and New Media Conference."

VIDEO: Actor Injured During 'Spider-Man' Performance

I saw this at New York Times early this morning, but no video clips were available. And now at Hollywood Reporter, "Spider-Man Performance Canceled After Actor Seriously Injured":

The New York State Department of Labor opens another investigation after Christopher Tierney fell an estimated 20 feet Monday.

Spider-Man on Broadway will postpone a Wednesday matinee after an actor was seriously injured during Monday night's show, producers confirm to The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. Watch the video, below.

"The [Occupational Safety and Health Administration], Actors Equity and the New York State Department of Labor have met with the Spider-Man company today to discuss additional safety protocols. It was agreed that these measures would be enacted immediately. Tomorrow's matinee has been postponed and will be rescheduled. Tomorrow evening's, and all subsequent performances, will proceed as scheduled," says Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark spokesperson Rick Miramontez.

Miramontez says Monday's audience will be contacted individually and offered an exchange or refund.

Actor Christopher Tierney, 31, is currently in serious condition at New York City's Bellevue Hospital, says a hospital spokesman. (While the spokesperson would not confirm reports of a broken rib or internal bleeding, "serious" means the patient is "acutely ill, vital signs can be unstable and not within their normal limits.") Director Julie Taymor visited him Tuesday, according to the New York Times.

Two officials from the New York State Department of Labor spent Tuesday investigating equipment at the theater.

After Census, Texas Leads Way on Immigration Politics

Census numbers are out today and Texas will pick up four seats in the House of Representatives.

The Texas Tribune has the numbers, "Apportionment Nets Texas Four New Congressional Seats." And Bloomberg reports on how the state's Latino population is responding, "Texas Hispanics to Challenge Status Quo in Reapportionment."

And see New York Times, "After Dream Act Setback, Eyeing a Sleeping Giant":

HOUSTON — About 37 percent of Texas residents are of Hispanic origin, and the state has a long history of welcoming newcomers who work hard and obey the law. So the state would seem likely to support a bill to grant citizenship to thousands of foreign-born college students.

Yet the two Republican Senators from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both voted to block the bill, known as the Dream Act, from coming up for a vote on Saturday.

Neither senator was moved by protests and hunger strikes in San Antonio, nor by calls from religious leaders to pass the bill, nor by newspaper articles about the children of undocumented immigrants who had made it to college, only to be picked up for traffic violations and threatened with deportation.

Their votes are another sign of how strong the reaction to illegal immigration has grown among Republicans in Texas, a state where Mexicans, with visas or without, have always been an integral part of the society.

Beyond anger about Washington’s spending, immigration policy was also on the agenda of many of the conservatives who came out in droves to vote in the November midterm elections.

The question now is whether the failure of the Dream Act will create a backlash among Hispanic voters against the Republicans in power.

It has already become a cause for some young Hispanics in Texas. One group of hunger strikers in San Antonio has vowed to use the defeat as a rallying cry to build a broad movement for an immigration overhaul.

“There is a lot of anger, disillusionment,” said Arturo Chavez, the president of a Catholic organization in San Antonio who lobbied for the bill. “But all the young people I talk to are even more determined than ever.”

The political winds seem against them, however. Since the election, Texas lawmakers have introduced dozens of bills intended to discourage illegal immigration, chief among them an Arizona-style law making it a crime to be in the state without a visa.

The Republican tide in November gave the party a two-thirds majority in the State House, prompting one Hispanic Democrat to switch parties recently.

What is more, the Dream Act was supposed to be the easy part of the immigration overhaul to pass, a law that taps into notions of meritocracy. Proponents say they are dismayed that such a moderate measure could not win passage even with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both chambers.

The Texas GOP risks a backlash, although the Bloomberg report cites Republican Blake Farenthold from Brownsville, on the Mexican border, who is optimistic:

"South Texans are mainly Catholics with traditional values and people who value a hard day’s work ... We’ve done a poor job until this election of getting that message across."

The GOP majority in the legislature, which will control the redistricting process, will likely pack Latino voters into key districts, hence diluting that bloc's impact on state politics.

This story is developing. Republicans will gain power at the national level. Expect updates, but see National Journal, "An Embarrassment of GOP Riches," and Politico, "The Reapportionment Rundown." Plus, at NYT, "Census Data Show 308 Million People and a Regional Shift."

The Obligatory Haley Barbour Racial Revisionism Racism Post

I doubt this is the kind of attention the folks at Weekly Standard had in mind. But readers should at least visit the scene of the alleged crime: "The Boy from Yazoo City." Folks might get a kick out this passage, for example:

What role Yazoo City’s segregationist past might play in Barbour’s presidential campaign is hard to say. It could become an issue, particularly for Washington political reporters who enjoy moralizing about race and public education while sending their own children to progressive schools like Sidwell Friends and St. Albans, where applicants of color are discreetly screened and their numbers carefully regulated.

Exactly.

(The Obamas send their girls to Sidwell, but progressives are hypocrites like that.)

Reading the whole thing provides the context. Governor Barbour grew up in a time of changing racial norms and in his experience of segregation in the South wasn't "all that bad." But such thoughts are verboten nowadays, remember? And faster than you can say "post-racial America," the progressive left — the kind of folks who don't think twice about getting their kids out of crime-ridden, dilapidated inner city schools — have launched a campaign of racist allegations against Barbour. Of course, cries of racism are all that progressives have left — something conservatives have pointed out repeatedly during the Obama interregnum. But with the 2012 pre-primary season picking up, we should be preparing for a bumper crop of left-wing racist allegations.

Now, I'm not sure, but it looks like the Barbour smear got going at Talking Points Memo, for example, "Barbour Praises Civil Rights-Era White Supremacist Citizens Councils." The lead accuser investigator there, Eric Kleefeld, contacted the governor's office and got a statement (which of course lends credibility to the allegations): "Barbour Spokesman: Mississippi Gov. Is Not Racist." And Kleefield follows up with some additional research: "Flashback: Citizens Councils Touted 'Racial Integrity,' 'Christian Love and Segregation'."

At Daily Kos the meme was that Barbour's statements were revisionist:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has a strategy for beating Sarah Palin to the teabaggers' support in the 2012 primaries. Digby calls it his "Southern Strategy," consisting of a the dogwhistle message that "racism in America was always overblown with the implication being that those who complain about it have always been whiners."

And at Hufffington Post, former George Soros protégé Amanda Terkel chimed in with how Haley's account was at odds with the professional left's academic establishment and racial grievance organizations: "Haley Barbour's Account of Civil Rights Era in Mississippi Assailed By NAACP, Historians."

Then of course we've had current Soros tool Matthew Yglesias holding forth non stop, and he's got a piece headlining right now at Memeorandum: "Haley Barbour's Affection for the White Supremacist Citizens' Council." And notice this follow-up piece from Yglesias: "Barbour Has a History of Citizens’ Council Trouble."

So, as you can see, the left's meme has gone from situating Barbour's personal recollections as an attempt at GOP racial revisionism to a full frontal attack on the governor as a Klan-style white supremacist. Michelle Goldberg provides the flourishing touch, at The Daily Beast, "Is Haley Barbour a Racist?":

Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and likely presidential candidate, has fond memories of his native Yazoo County during the days of Jim Crow. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he says in a Weekly Standard piece this week. He praises the Citizens Councils—“an organization of town leaders”—for keeping the peace and keeping out the KKK. Writer Andrew Ferguson takes Barbour at his word, arguing that if Barbour’s segregationist roots become an issue in his presidential campaign, it will be because of “Washington political reporters who enjoy moralizing about race and public education while sending their own children to progressive schools like Sidwell Friends and St. Albans.”

The piece is an exquisite example of the conservative racial two-step: a blatant expression of racism, followed by aggrieved wailing at the mere thought of being called a racist. It proves that Barbour is either dishonest or so blindly ignorant that one can scarcely imagine how he’s managed a successful political career.

Hold on.

All Barbour said was "I just don’t remember it as being that bad."

That's racist? Hardly, but anything involving old-school private social organizations in the South is a potential mother load for the progressives. We'll see how this plays out thoughout the day. Meanwhile, at the Seattle Times, "Civil-rights days not so bad, recalls Mississippi governor," and New York Times, "Discussing Civil Rights Era, a Governor Is Criticized."

RELATED: "Doing a ‘Macaca’ on Haley Barbour."

Democrat Sugar Plums

Via Jawa Report and Memeorandum:

'They Won't Hold Up Well in Combat' — North Carolina Marines Voice Concerns on DADT Repeal

Actually, just a couple of dozen of 'em, but interesting nevertheless. At NYT, "Backing ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal, With Reservations":

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — Pfc. Daniel Carias, a Bronx native who is just weeks from graduating from Marine Corps infantry training at Camp Geiger near here, says he has known plenty of gay men since high school and feels completely comfortable around them.

He thinks Congress did the right thing in repealing the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, a policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But Private Carias, 18, has one major concern: gay men, he says, should not be allowed to serve in front-line combat units.

“They won’t hold up well in combat,” he said.

That view, or variations on it, was expressed repeatedly in interviews with Marines around this town, home to Camp Lejeune, and outside Camp Pendleton in Southern California on Sunday.

Most of the approximately two dozen Marines interviewed said they personally did not object to gay men or lesbians serving openly in the military. But many said that introducing the possibility of sexual tension into combat forces would be disruptive, an argument made by the commandant of the Marine Corps a week before the historic repeal was passed by the Senate on Saturday and sent to President Obama for his signature.

Many concerns — and possible solutions — are outlined in a Defense Department plan for carrying out the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Officials said they did not yet have a timetable for adopting the change. Under the terms of the legislation, the Defense Department will not carry out the repeal until Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, certify that the military is ready to make the change.

RTWT at the link.

Yeah, pfft, what do these guys know, right? It's an unrepresentative sample, of kids, really, mostly just out of high school.

By contrast, surely the editors at NYT know best, for example, at today's editorial, "At Long Last, Military Honor":

The Senate vote on Saturday afternoon to allow open service by gay and lesbian soldiers was one of the most important civil rights votes of our time. The ringing message of the decision to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law will carry far beyond its immediate practical implications. Saturday may be remembered as the day when sexual tolerance finally become bipartisan.

Sadly, the vast majority of Republicans remained on the benighted side of the party line. Senator John McCain disgraced his distinguished military career by flailing against the vote, claiming it would be celebrated only in liberal bastions like Georgetown salons. But to the surprise even of supporters of repeal, eight Republican senators broke with party orthodoxy and voted with virtually every Democrat to end the policy. Fifteen House Republicans did the same on Wednesday. By focusing on history and decency, they took a stand of which their states can be proud. Perhaps a new moral momentum may even help them erase the remaining traces of prejudice in public life, including Washington’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage.

Hmm... Actually the Pentagon's report was a bit more complicated that the editors let on. And interesting how we can see that DADT repeal will help "erase the last traces of prejudice" in American life. Well, no. We'd have to totally erase human nature to eliminate prejudice — but reason isn't the basis for the policy change. Politically correct emotionalism is.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory."

* "'Deal With It' — Straight Troops to Shower With Gays Under DADT Repeal."

* "Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — BUMPED AND UPDATED!"

And more from Stephanie Gutmann, at National Review, "Rhetoric on DADT Was Overblown."

My award for schmaltziest lede of the year goes to the New York Times for kvelling in an editorial yesterday that “More than 14,000 soldiers lost their jobs and their dignity over the last 17 years because they were gay, but there will be no more victims of this injustice.” Can we have a little reality here, please?

Via Memeorandum.

The Obama Who Stole Christmas

Via Miss Moneypenny, "Obama the Grinch Destroyed Xmas and America":

And it's not only the millions of unemployed who're getting grinched by this administration, but the progressive left as well. See "Can Obama Repair Relations With Liberals?", and "Austerity Grand Bargain Feared Between Republicans, White House."

iJustine Encounters Steve Jobs

My policy is to avoid meeting celebrities, especially movie stars. They break your heart.

Here's Justine Ezarik with the age-old dilemma:

Afshan Azad, 'Harry Potter' Star, Beaten and Branded as Prostitute After Meeting Non-Muslim Man

Religion of peace, tolerance, and justice for women.

At Telegraph UK:

Harry Potter star was beaten, called a ''slag'' and threatened with death after she met a young man who was not a Muslim, a court heard today.

Victim Afshan Azad, 22, played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on the children's books by JK Rowling.

She was assaulted and branded a ''prostitute'' after meeting a young Hindu man, a relationship which brought anger from her father, Abul Azad, 53, and brother, Ashraf, 28, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The frightened actress later fled through her bedroom window after threats were made to kill her.

But despite attempts to get her to come to court for the trial of her father and brother, Miss Azad would not attend voluntarily, the court was told.

Both men were charged with making threats to kill her and her brother was also charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his sister.

And at Manchester Evening News, "Brother found guilty of attack on Harry Potter star Afshan Azad over relationship with Hindu man."

RELATED: It's not the first time that Ms. Azad has been assaulted by her own family.

Hamas Terrorist Attempts to Fire His AK-47

According to Weasel Zippers. I need more context, actually. Fascinating though:

And no ambiguity here. Best to shoot this guy in the head too, ASAP. Via Jawa Report:

Rising Computer Prices Buck the Trend

And I've been in the market for one too.

After buying a new laptop for each of the past three years, they seem even more expensive. I blame Obama.

At WSJ, "Average Prices Rose 6% in November, Industry Reversal Has Some Executives Saying Prices Have Bottomed; No $99 Laptop":

For the first time in several years, people shopping for personal computers are doing something new: paying more.

Computer prices are rising even as the prices of other consumer electronics such as high-definition televisions and digital cameras plunge this holiday season.

In November, the average retail price of a PC sold in the U.S. was $615, up 6% from last year's $580, which marked a record low, according to research firm NPD Group. Average PC prices have now increased in six of the past eight months compared with 2009 levels, according to NPD data.

The rising prices for PCs—including desktops, laptops and low-cost netbooks but not tablets—is a stark turnabout for the $250 billion global PC industry, which for years has coped with sharp price declines even as machines became more powerful.

The cut-throat pricing of recent years has rippled through the industry, squeezing profit margins for big PC makers such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. Now those firms are focusing on premium machines and seeing profit margins expand.

The higher-end models are "flying off the shelves," said PaulHenri Ferrand, chief marketing officer for Dell's consumer unit.

The price reversal is also driven by stabilization in the prices of laptops, which dominate the mix of computers sold today and have been pressured by both new tablets and low-priced netbooks.

More at the link.

Confidential Police Report Leaked in Julian Assange Sex Assault Case

At The Australian, "Lawyers cry foul over leak of Julian Assange sex-case papers" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, at NYT, "Confidential Swedish Police Report Details Allegations Against WikiLeaks Founder."

And at WSJ, "New Details Reveal More About Problems Assange Faces":

New details of the Swedish sexual-misconduct accusations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shed more light on the deepening and complex legal problems he faces over his conduct with two women during a short stretch in August.

Mr. Assange was released on bail in the U.K. last week following his Dec. 7 arrest on a European arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Now, the WikiLeaks founder finds himself in the middle of a multifront legal battle stemming from two seemingly disparate events: WikiLeaks' release of thousands of classified U.S. documents, which has angered U.S. officials and sparked a broad U.S. federal investigation; and the sexual-misconduct case in Sweden, where prosecutors want to extradite him to answer questions regarding accusations of rape and molestation by two women there.

Mr. Assange has denied the sex allegations, and his attorney, Mark Stephens, has suggested that the Swedish criminal case is a ruse to keep Mr. Assange in custody while U.S. prosecutors consider whether to bring a criminal case against him or WikiLeaks.

But as more details about Sweden's criminal case against Mr. Assange emerge, through interviews and the leaking of a Swedish police report to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, the sexual-misconduct allegations have come into fuller view.

And at The Other McCain, "Julian Assange, Victim?"

RELATED: From Kash Hill, "Julian Assange Knocks Mark Zuckerberg on Saturday Night Live."

Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory

I knew this was going to happen. Indeed, one of the reasons I haven't extensively engaged the debate on gays in the military is because while supportive, the overall agenda dovetails with the militant same-sex marriage movement to which I'm opposed. Aggressive lobbying for it would be basically helping the other side, and I draw the line at gay marriage, which is against both nature and moral right. This is something that's been discussed here many times. And just today I added an important update on the debate, "Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife." And now with the DADT repeal, we'll be seeing not just a flurry of activity in the militant gay community, but a campaign of gay marriage cheerleading in the left's Democratic-Media-Industrial-Complex. We have this at the New York Times tonight, for example, "One Battle Won, Activists Shift Sights" (via Memeorandum).

And also at this morning's Los Angles Times, "Gains Outweigh Setbacks in a Landmark Year for Gay Rights":

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?

In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.

Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."

Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.

Still, the wrangling in the halls of Congress, in courts and at ballot boxes about how gays are treated shows no sign of abating anytime soon.

"All social justice movements are two steps forward, three steps back," said Fred Sainz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "It's always been a lot of highs and sometimes more lows, but the highs tend to be more momentous than the lows."

Social conservatives, though disappointed with the Senate vote, disagree that there is a link between the military and marriage.

"It's a tragic day for America," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. "But I don't think this will really affect the marriage issue very much. It's been rejected by voters in 31 states."

Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.

RTWT.

RELATED: At Sense of Events, "What Makes Marriage, Marriage?"

And from the gay militant commentary: Pam's House Blend, Towleroad and, AMERICAblog Gay.

Disco Man — What Are You Doing, Your Life's in a Ruin...

The Damned are on Twitter, and the band's website's here.

Take my hand, disco man
Are you just a one night stand?
Have some fun, jump the gun
But what's left when it's all done
But who are you taking for a ride, disco man
Better to run or else to hide discoman, disco man
Tall and neat, watch his feet
Got the jist he's all complete
Understand discomans
Heading for the garbage can ....

What are you doing
Your life's in a ruin...

Most Controversial Women of 2010

A nice slideshow at Bleacher Report, "Jenn Sterger, Elin Nordgren and Erin Andrews Are 2010's Most Controversial Women."

More Jenn Sterger pics here (NSFW).

And at The Other McCain, "Rule 5 Sunday – Did Somebody Say Cheesecake?" And at Pirate's Cove, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup."

RELATED: "Brett Favre: Career May Have Ended With Shoulder Injury."

Lindsey Graham Announces Opposition to START Treaty

Graham's extremely displeased with the Democrats' sleazy lame duck politics.

The story's at CBS News and Memeorandum. It's politics, and I'm loving how this has Nicole Belle tied up in knots, at the neo-communist Crooks and Liars.

Lady Gaga Gets Results on DADT

"Lady Gaga Among Celebs Cheering DADT Repeal."

And via Doug Powers, apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't wait to tweet Gaga the news: "We did it!"

'Deal With It' — Straight Troops to Shower With Gays Under DADT Repeal

According to a Stars and Stripes report, December 1st:

ARLINGTON, Va. — Should ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal become a reality, the message that the Pentagon’s working group sent to straight troops Tuesday was clear: Deal with it.

The working group concluded that integrating openly gay troops into the military would best be achieved with complete immersion, rather than hindered by separate rules or facilities. And straight troops who oppose the decision, with very rare exceptions, should not be granted special accommodations.

And today at CNS News, "Straight Troops Must Shower With Gays, Says DOD Working Group" (via Memeorandum).

And at Black Five:

I think back to the best speech I have heard regarding lawyers, liberals and problems like this and the defense of the nation...

And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Thanks Col. Jessup for your supportive words. I have always said I don't care what you do or with whom you do it, but don't demand that I think that it is normal or OK. And mark my words, there are going to be problems.... Huge problems....

So libturds, you might think that you have given us a kinder gentler military that is more fashion conscious and sensitive. All you did today was weaken a country.

PREVIOUSLY: "Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — BUMPED AND UPDATED!"

Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife

Now that DADT has fallen, radical progressives will escalate their attacks on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). It's not likely that Republicans in the new Congress will be sensitive to progressive concerns, but the Obama administration will face continued attacks for "selling out" the progressive base to the political center. Not only that, we have Prop. 8 working its way up to the Supreme Court, and my sense is that if Anthony Kennedy is the deciding vote, the Court will strike down Prop. 8 with arguments along the same lines as Lawrence v. Texas.

In any case, progressives could very well prevail on gay marriage at the federal level eventually, although not without a fight. And taking up arms anew are Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, in their new paper, "What is Marriage":

Real Marriage Is—And Is Only—The Union of Husband and Wife

As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. All three elements point to the conjugal understanding
of marriage.

1. Comprehensive Union

Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friendship inasmuch as it is comprehensive. It involves a sharing of lives and resources, and a union of minds and wills—hence, among other things, the requirement of consent for forming a marriage. But on the conjugal view, it also includes organic bodily union. This is because the body is a real part of the person, not just his costume, vehicle, or property. Human beings are not properly understood as nonbodily persons—minds, ghosts, consciousnesses—that inhabit and use nonpersonal bodies. After all, if someone ruins your car, he vandalizes your property, but if he amputates your leg, he injures you. Because the body is an inherent part of the human person, there is a difference in kind between vandalism and violation; between destruction of property and mutilation of bodies.

Likewise, because our bodies are truly aspects of us as persons, any union of two people that did not involve organic bodily union would not be comprehensive—it would leave out an important part of each person’s being. Because persons are body‐mind composites, a bodily union extends the relationship of two friends along an entirely new dimension of their being as persons. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must (among other things) unite organically—that is, in the bodily dimension of their being.

This necessity of bodily union can be seen most clearly by imagining the alternatives. Suppose that Michael and Michelle build their relationship not on sexual exclusivity, but on tennis exclusivity. They pledge to play tennis with each other, and only with each other, until death do them part. Are they thereby married? No. Substitute for tennis any nonsexual activity at all, and they still aren’t married: Sexual exclusivity — exclusivity with respect to a specific kind of bodily union—is required. But what is it about sexual intercourse that makes it uniquely capable of creating bodily union? People’s bodies can touch and interact in all sorts of ways, so why does only sexual union make bodies in any significant sense “one flesh”? Our organs—our heart and stomach, for example—are parts of one body because they are coordinated, along with other parts, for a common biological purpose of the whole: our biological life. It follows that for two individuals to unite organically, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole.

Here is another way of looking at it. Union on any plane — bodily, mental, or whatever—involves mutual coordination on that plane, toward a good on that plane. When Einstein and Bohr discussed a physics problem, they coordinated intellectually for an intellectual good, truth. And the intellectual union they enjoyed was real, whether or not its ultimate target (in this case, a theoretical solution) was reached—assuming, as we safely can, that both Einstein and Bohr were honestly seeking truth and not merely pretending while engaging in deception or other acts which would make their apparent intellectual union only an illusion.

By extension, bodily union involves mutual coordination toward a bodily good—which is realized only through coitus. And this union occurs even when conception, the bodily good toward which sexual intercourse as a biological function is oriented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally called the act of generation or the generative act; if (and only if) it is a free and loving expression of the spouses’ permanent and exclusive commitment, then it is also a marital act.

Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate. This is a clear sense in which their union cannot be marital, if marital means comprehensive and comprehensive means, among other things, bodily.

2. Special Link to Children

Most people accept that marriage is also deeply—indeed, in an important sense, uniquely—oriented to having and rearing children. That is, it is the kind of relationship that by its nature is oriented to, and enriched by, the bearing and rearing of children. But how can this be true, and what does it tell us about the structure of marriage?

It is clear that merely committing to rear children together, or even actually doing so, is not enough to make a relationship a marriage — to make it the kind of relationship that is by its nature oriented to bearing and rearing children. If three monks agreed to care for an orphan, or if two elderly brothers began caring for their late sister’s son, they would not thereby become spouses. It is also clear that having children is not necessary to being married; newlyweds do not become spouses only when their first child comes along. Anglo‐American legal tradition has for centuries regarded coitus, and not the conception or birth of a child, as the event that consummates a marriage. Furthermore, this tradition has never denied that childless marriages were true marriages ...

This is basically the argument I've made against same-sex marriage following the passage of Prop. 8 in November 2008.

There's a rebuttal from Kenji Yoshino at Slate, "The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Fails." And then the "What is Marriage" authors respond: "The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Doesn’t Fail."

Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — BUMPED AND UPDATED!

At NYT.

I've been on record as favoring repeal for a long time, but that doesn't mean I don't find the military's rationale compelling. See, "Against Gays in the Military."

And I haven't seen this kind of reaction for a while, but see Bryan Fischer's, "Benedict Arnold Republicans destroy military and our national security."

The GOP platform is plain and unambiguous:

“Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.” (emphasis mine)

For those who say the Republican Party does not need a litmus test for its candidates, you just lost the argument and frittered away the strength of the U.S. military at the same time.

The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.

They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

PREVIOUSLY: "Gen. James Amos Comes Out Against DADT Repeal." And lots of commentary at Memeorandum.

UPDATE: Eric Rawls, "Hello flamers, goodbye Marine Corps," cross posted at Astute Bloggers.

Also, from the comments at This Ain't Hell:

"I will be tendering my resignation this summer after 27 years of service."

I saw this comment in response to similar sentiment on another blog and I think it’s true here as well…

=====
You know what is irritating… while I 100% understand and support anyone who will now leave the military or refuse to join, because they don’t like the PC bullsh!t with which it has been infested, this then plays right into the Left’s hands.

Now, with conservatives leaving or not joining the military, it allows the Left/progressives to take it over and destroy it from within… just as they have done with the MF-ing media, with our grammar schools, high schools, universities, Hollywood, etc.

Just as they did with all those organizations, they are now going to take over the military and make it a liberal PC utopia. And, just as they don’t care about results in the other organizations (don’t care about facts in the MF-ing media, don’t care about education of children in schools and universities, don’t care about making money in Hollywood, so long as they get their message out, etc), they won’t care if the military becomes inefficient.

This is their goal. Take over the military from within, destroy it with PC bullsh!t.

And more:

"Can we talk about something else now? Something important? Something like killing large numbers of our enemies who won’t tolerate gays either?"

And here's Senator McCain's comments from the Senate floor:

And see Politico, "John McCain's New Role: GOP Agitator." (At Memeorandum.)

Plus, radical progressives weigh in at Rachel Maddow's.

And from AmericaBlog:

More, at NPR, "Gays See Repeal as a Civil Rights Milestone."

Related, from William Kristol, "Gays in the Military, ROTC back on Campus?" Plus, more at Instapundit, and Volokh Conspiracy, "DADT is History."

At 9:52am on Sunday, check out some of the progressive reaction to John McCain:

From Steve Benen:

Watching McCain rail endlessly yesterday was a genuinely painful experience. In one sense, he was practically embracing the caricature of himself, lashing out as a bitter, cantankerous ass. I kept expected McCain to start shaking his fist at clouds and demanding that children stay off his lawn.

But that's really not that unusual anymore, and it's only part of a larger picture. McCain wasn't just an angry old man yesterday; what we saw was darker and uglier. The Arizona senator on the floor yesterday, with a series of cringe-worthy tantrums, was hateful and filled with bile. McCain was even sarcastic at times, as if he almost relished the role.

This wasn't about policy. By all appearances, this was personal.

And Thers at Firedoglake:

The United States Senate is a preposterous institution that has no place in an advanced democracy — or even the turd-festering cesspit we’re currently soaking in.

The pig-stupid disgraces of the Senate are multiple. It is antidemocratic; states where nobody lives except gay cowboys and halfwit moose-slaughtering reality teevee stars are as equally represented as states containing multi-millions of people deemed contemptible because they inhabit “cities,” a term that in contemporary Official American Moron Discourse translates as “Mordor.” Moreover, the Senate operates according to a set of “rules” that a Distinguished Panel of Geniuses comprised of Nostradamus, Caligula, and a cherrystone clam would consider arcane, vicious, and primitive.

Most hideously, the Senate tends to produce Senators, who as a class are insufferable cretins whose self-regard and pomposity and belief that they are not horrible loathsome shitheaded troglodytes stand in precisely inverse proportion to the fact that they are, often enough, James Inhofe.

So one can never really expect very much from an encounter with a United States Senator; all one might reasonably express is the wan hope that they might not prove overly difficult to scrape off one’s shoe.

Nevertheless, John McCain has recently managed to dunk head and shoulders below his colleagues in terms of Senatorial road-apple bobbing.

Road-apple bobbing?

I learn a new progressive phrase of demonization almost every day.

Saudi King Pushes on Ground Zero Mosque Relocation

At NY Post, "Saudi King May Want to Move Ground Zero Mosque to St. Vincent's Site." And at Australia's Daily Telegraph, "'Plan to Move Ground Zero Mosque'."

Leftist MNA Amir Khadir Boycotts Quebec Store That Sells Israeli-Made Shoes

At Blazing Catfur, "Muslim Attempts to Turn Montreal Into Nazi Shithole." And at Vlad Tepes, "Muslims Harrass Montreal Shoe Shop for Selling Israeli Shoes."

What's unreal is this guy's a member of the Quebec National Assembly. See, "MNA Khadir urges boycott of shoe store." And "MNA Amir Khadir Unapologetic for Picketing Store That Sells Israeli-Made Shoes."

Yves Archambault, owner of Le Marcheur, said he was "sickened" to learn his own MNA was picketing his store.

"I was sickened to see him distributing flyers and stopping people who were coming into the store to tell them they shouldn't support a business that sells Israeli products," Archambault said.

"In Quebec we have free enterprise, and as long as it is legal, nobody has the right to tell me what I can and cannot sell in my store," he said.

Archambault said he is "completely apolitical" and does not follow politics here or abroad. He admits he had no idea who Khadir was, until some of his employees told him.

He said he feels personally attacked by the picketers, and Khadir's participation has made it worse.

More here: "Amir Khadir is the only member of the Quebec Parliament representing the separatist Quebec Solidaire political party, which is distinguished from the Parti Quebecois by being much more left wing, extreme and militant."

Video c/o Blazing Catfur:

Demi Lovato Nude Video Scandal!

Well, not yet, but close.

At TMZ, "Porn Co. -- We Want Demi's Hypothetical Sex Tape!"

And of course, R.S. McCain's on the case, "Four Words You Probably Never Wanted to Hear: ‘Demi Lovato Sex Video’."

Also, "Racy Photos of Demi Lovato Leaked Online."

PREVIOUSLY: "Demi Lovato's Crisis Shows Risks of Teen Stardom."