July 2, 1969 - The Flight to Nha Trang

Check this post from Pat Houseworth, "July 2, 1969 .... The Flight to Nha Trang:

I spent the night of July 2, 1969, in the Transit Barrack at Tan Son Nhut on the outskirts of Saigon...as I mentioned, the sounds and the anticipation left me with little sleep, and the events of early the next day are pretty cloudy 40 years hence. What I do rememberr is that I walked on to that concrete runway at TSN, and got on board a Military Plane for the first time...I had been a member of the Air Force for a year by this time, but had never flown in a Air Force aircraft...all my flights had been civilian to this point ...

Head on over to Pat's to read the whole thing!

James B. Webb Apologizes

I've had a couple of e-mails today regarding the latest round with James B. Webb ("Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging"). I'm sharing them here without additional commentary. James B. Webb's apology follows. This should end the matter for now.

Commenter Gregory Koster (not of CUNY) sent me the following e-mail, published with his permission:

Dear Mr. Douglas:

I am Gregory Koster, an occasional commenter at your blog AMERICAN POWER. I am writing you privately to express sympathy at having that odious James Webb throwing tar at you. Simultaneously, I think you are caught in a no win situation. He is winning in the sense that every post you devote to him takes away from the posts that are the reason everyone should read AP. He is most unlikely to apologize to you, nor to drop this vendetta. I think you would be better off ignoring him. To be sure, he will bray loudly about your being afraid to engage him, but after all, his blog gets many fewer readers than AP has. Each time you link to him, he gets readers that make a great audience for him. The reverse is not true.

In your AP Blogger profile, you write: "Yet in friendship, you'll find no one more dignified, trustworthy, nor loyal."

Trustworthy and loyal I believe. Responding to Webb is costing you dignity. To what end? Short of violence, he's not going to stop. I don't think his psyche will allow him to stop. Best, I think, to let him go. What harm can his cawing do you, professionally, or as a blogger?

I am sure following such advice would exact a price from you, in allowing him to crow. But this price can easily be paid by concentrating on AP blogging, and considering that every time he crows or throws tar, he is under your control, and is spending time from his allotted lifespan that he won't get back. That's one way to improve this world.

To this end, I've stopped reading your posts on Webb. The moment I see his name, I go to the next entry.

As for me: I can't prove it, but I hope you'll accept that I'm just a reader who stumbled onto your blog (from one of RS McCain's links, I think) and enjoys reading all but Webb. I write solely because Webb is getting in the way of my reading. I don't know you, nor Webb. Reading this puts you under no obligation to do anything. I am grateful to you for reading.

I know you are busy, so please don't trouble to answer this.

Sincerely yours,

Gregory Koster

Another reader, who prefers to stay anonymous, was very upset today. She sent me this on Comrade Comrade Repsac3, in response to this comment at the blog (by permission):

Donald:

I can't believe that Repsac3 is still sticking his nose into this thing. It looks like the others could just stay out of it, and allow you and JBW settle things between yourselves. That's the way they operate, though ... like members of a gang, ganging up on a single individual. I guess they believe in power in numbers ... several of them against you. They are the most disgusting group of men that I have ever had the displeasure of learning about ... if, indeed, they can be called 'men.' They are more like a bunch of bullying, juvenile delinquents. I've a good mind to go to another of my screen names and comment, I'm so disgusted. If I did that, I wouldn't be posting as anonymous, and they wouldn't be able to come to my blog, via yours. I'll have to give that some thought.

Here's James B. Webb's apology. I accept it for what it is:

I'm sorry, Don. I'm sorry that you seem to take yourself and the rest of the world so seriously that you have no discernable sense of humor to speak of. I'm also sorry that you can not grasp the concept that a handicapped person could be included even tangentially in a joke about someone else without that handicapped person being the butt of the joke, nor that you can not grasp that a black person who doesn't look obviously black by most objective measurements and rarely identifies himself as such could be included in a joke about fighting a fictional monkey without that black person also being called a monkey. I like handicapped people, neoconservatives, black people and monkeys and I call many from every group friends. I'm sorry that you can't view the world without confusing several of these hominids in your blindingly righteous indignation.

Obama's Presstitutes

Congratulations to Carol at No Sheeples Here! She getting some sweet Memeorandum traffic action for her post today, "The Pressitutes: Obama’s Lewinsky":

The snake oil salesman answered questions from a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care For America Now. The audience was stacked and the questions were pre-selected. The political sham made for good television but in no way informed the public about socialized medicine.

The pageant of subterfuge at the town hall meeting was exposed by Helen Thomas who has covered the White House during every presidency since John F. Kennedy.

Following a testy exchange during a briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

Also Blogging: And So it Goes in Shreveport, The Blog Prof, Piece of Work In Progress, and The TrogloPundit.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Washington Post: Laughingstocks and Let’s Make a Deal!; Update: “Salons” Shut Down."

Why Andrew Sullivan is the Best Smear-Merchant on the Web

From Patrick Appell's apologia for Andrew Sullivan's debased "Trig Trutherism":

Andrew has an uncanny ability to see important stories before anyone else. He understood the potential of the Iran story before almost any blogger. He saw the discussion that the Tiller murder might provoke the minute he read the news. This sort of insight is a gift, but false positives are hard to let go of. That is the way the human brain is wired.

Actually, that's the way Andrew Sullivan's brain is wired, and perhaps tweaked by HIV-associated dementia. Markos Moultisas is a close second. I wrote about this last summer. See, "Kos and Andrew: Merchants of Hate."

See aso, "Trig Trutherism! Andrew Sullivan Gets a Lifeline - Again!"

Obama's Stimulus Swindle

Here's more data on Obama's disastrous economic policy, from the House Republican Conference:

Here's the new GOP video, which is "a little "unfocused" (via Memeorandum):

From Moe Lane, "This is a hokey ad ... but I like it anyway ..."

More commentary at the link.

See also, "Democratic Irresponsibility."

Democratic Irresponsibility

Here's a follow-up to my post from last night, "Firms Closing as Leftist Policies Make Costs of Doing Business Prohibitive."

Recall that Democratic economic policies are already killing businesses and jobs.

We also know that the administration proposes massive unfunded liabilities that will hang an anchor of debt around future generations. The chart above is from "Policy Watch," House Republican Conference. There's more good stuff at the link.

Here's some additional resources I received from the GOP House leadership:

* Raise the top income tax rates from their current 33 percent and 35 percent rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent in 2011: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x66802.xml

* Limit itemized deductions for people paying high rates: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x66802.xml

* Increase capital gains and dividend taxes by 33 percent for people paying high income tax rates: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2271.cfm

* Impose a value-added tax (VAT) on all goods and services: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909.html

* Raise the Social Security tax by lifting the cap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909.html

* Raise a variety of business taxes by $353 billion over 10 years, including repeal of LIFO rules, restoring Superfund taxes, seven tax increases on energy companies, and more :http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

* Tax employer-provided health benefits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061402769.html?hpid=topnews

* Implement a cap-and-trade system for emissions permits, the functional equivalent of a massive new taxhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217336075913063.html

* Tax drivers on their mileage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/20/transportation-chief-considers-taxing-miles-driven/

* Change rules to raise gift taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/11/news/economy/treasury_budget_taxproposals/

* Restore the estate tax at 45 percent: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54A3DL20090511

* Raise cigarette tax by 62 cents a pack: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/29/single-largest-cigarette-tax-hike-goes-effect-wednesday/

* Raise taxes on beer, wine, liquor, and soda: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-20-beer-health-insurance_N.htm

* Eliminate health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts: http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/senate-finance-committee-could-limit-or-eliminate-flex-savings-accounts

* Tax employer-provided cellphones: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124501952511913563.html

* Tax AIG employee: bonuseshttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/AIG.bonuses/index.html

* Raise taxes on overseas corporate earnings: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897085163290813.html

Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging

Who knows if James B. Webb is gay? (NTTAWWT!) As I've said all along (see, "James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial"), only God knows for sure. I do know that Mr. Webb links to the atheist OUT campaign, and that page is a portal to gay sex weblogs. Frankly, it's a tacit endorsement of the lifestyle, IMHO. No matter, as I've shown, Mr. Webb is a hypocrite and a homophobe who doesn't get snark (even when it's labeled as such). So now, it turns out, a man who refuses reason to embrace hatred and nihilism, appears to be racist as well. This long exchange has has reduced James B. Webb to a purveyor of the most despicable racial slurs.

Earlier, after I had demonstrated James' blatant hypocrisy, he posted this on his unwillingness to let go:

It's getting kind of sad, yet I don't want to let up on him because he keeps lying and mischaracterizing everything I've said ... As I've said, I have a problem letting an insult or argument go unanswered.

And to make good on that pledge, in his post today, "American Power and Unhealthy Obsession," Mr. Webb smears me as a monkey "throwing poop." Mr. Webb is referring to his previous Planet of the Apes smackdown Photoshop. I called him out on it earlier. This is an implied threat here, and I'd frankly prefer to hear it to my face. But, instead of retracting his post, Mr. Webb digs even deeper into the hellhole of moral depravity. Now I'm a "poop throwing monkey":

Seriously though you can relax Don, that's just a picture of my pet liberal-attack-hate-monkey Thade. He says that he'll be happy to meet you for a throwdown anytime anywhere but he has two conditions: 1) Your tussle will have to stay within the bounds of "monkey rules" (I truly have no idea what that means; just pray that there's no flinging of poop involved...) and 2) You must rub bananas all over yourself prior to the fight; apparently it gets him into the mood.

When a remark even remotely this crude is made with reference to President Obama, the entire left-wing of the political spectrum erupts in outrage. But for the atheistic socialists of the hard left-wing base, this kind of blatant racism is totally cool. For reference, remember the Huffington Post's, "New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate." Or, here's the reaction from an obscure radical blog, "Racist New York Post Continues a Murdoch Theme."

But the friends of James B. Webb will be cheering and slapping high fives at the latest smackdown against Dr. Douglas, the "evil" neoconservative.

Enough is enough!

This pissing contest has gone on long enough. I am again calling on James B. Webb to issue a full apology to me. I will publish it here in a new post. This debate began almost two weeks ago, when Mr. Webb attacked the "everyday stupidity of right-wing religious neoconservatives." Now it's time for him to have the last word. I confess honestly myself right here: Sure, I like to debate and tussle online, and I admit that I'm pretty zealous in defending against attacks as a "stupid" neocon extremist. And things have gotten pretty ugly too.

So, now James can show he's a gentleman. James B. Webb can end it here with a full apology for his "blacks as monkeys" slur (see, "Blacks as Monkeys? It's Time For An Adult Conversation"). I will accept his apology and we all can move on.

President Obama: Don't Forsake American Exceptionalism

Monica Crowley recounts Michael Jackson's relationship to President Ronald Reagan (she notes how both men reached the towering heights of fame and power, both beginning with humble origins). But it's her discussion of American exceptionalism that is superb.

During his public life, Barack Obama has often referred to his biracial background and itinerant childhood and has said, "In no other country on Earth is my story even possible." True.

But earlier this year, while attending the European summit of the Group of 20 major economic countries, the president was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism. He replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Not exactly the way Mr. Reagan would have answered.

American exceptionalism is grounded in the founding of the United States upon an idea, rather than upon the ambitions of men. Indeed, it was designed to be a nation of laws and specifically not of men, built on the concept of individual liberty and equal justice before the law, with freedoms ranging from speech to worship, and rights from gun ownership to assembly.

The Founding Fathers institutionalized these freedoms so we would be safe from the overweening burdens and capricious claims of a too-powerful state. These freedoms would allow individuals to do as they pleased within the confines of the law and to achieve, in ways big and small, to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Even in extremely difficult times, American exceptionalism survived. Faced with the darkest days of civil and foreign wars; economic depression and recessions; weak leadership at home or aggressive, hostile leadership from abroad; the American people kept faith in the uniqueness of our democratic experiment. Liberty provides opportunity, which is why in our 233 short years, we have produced (even with its flaws and flawed representatives) the greatest democracy in the world, the most productive engine of economic growth, the most influential culture and the most far-reaching effects of innovation.

President Obama's reference to British or Greek exceptionalism suggests a belief that the United States doesn't stand alone with a particular greatness but that every nation is great in its own way and America is simply one of many nations with something cool to offer.

This kind of multicultural, politically correct, "we're all unique in unique ways, every kid must win at dodgeball" thinking is the basis for his economic and foreign policies, from his schemes to nationalize the auto, banking, and health care industries to his lollygagging on behalf of those fighting for greater freedom in Iran.

Israeli Strike on Iran? Timing's Never Been Better

From John Bolton, "Time for an Israeli Strike?":

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

It's a great piece (full essay at the link).

Adam Serwer is not pleased:

Bolton mocks those who are in favor of continued engagement as "theologically committed" to such a course, even though he's certain it won't lead anywhere. Robert Farley and Matthew Yglesias have both expressed skepticism about whether meaningful engagement is possible with Iran post-crackdown, but it doesn't necessarily follow that bombing is in our interest, given our continued involvement in Iraq and the devastation a bombing would cause. It also probably wouldn't work; the consequences of a failed bombing would be pretty catastrophic both for the people of Iran and our relationships in the region, and it would reinforce the legitimacy of the regime at a time when it is struggling to maintain it.

Serwer cites Robert Farley (a man totally bereft of moral credibility) and Matthew Yglesias (who espouses a foreign policy that only Caracas, Damascus, and Tehran could love).

Yglesias is basically an American Basiji, and Farley's no better.

And our options in Iran? Jules Crittenden says there's never been a better time to take out the nukes. And here's this from Israel Matsav, who notes that it's not all upside:

Israel should strike Iran now, because there is no choice. It has to be done, and this seems to be the ideal time to do it. Curiously, there has been very little talk here over the last three weeks about preparations for striking Iran, although we saw a lot of talk about that in the winter and in the spring. But to expect an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear capability to bring about regime change is probably wishful thinking given the values and goals of the current US administration. It is more likely to bring a further crackdown on Iranians by the Ahmadinejad regime and sanctions against Israel from the United Nations with US cooperation.

American Soldier Believed Captured by Taliban

From the Los Angeles Times, "American Soldier Believed Captured in Afghanistan":

An American soldier is believed to have been captured by insurgents in eastern Afghanistan, the U.S. military said today.

The soldier has been missing from his unit since Tuesday, said Army Capt. Elizabeth Mathias. Citing concern for his safety, she did not disclose the circumstances of his disappearance, or explain how military authorities had concluded that he was being held, or say whether there had been any communication with insurgents about the missing man.

The brief military statement was not definitive about a capture having occurred; Mathias said the soldier in question was "believed" to have fallen into the hands of "militant forces."

There was no immediate public claim of responsibility from any insurgent group. A number of different militant commanders, not all of them affiliated with the Taliban, operate in eastern Afghanistan.

However, the Reuters news agency quoted a senior Taliban commander, Mullah Sangeen, as saying the soldier was captured earlier this week as he left a base in Paktika province on patrol.

See also CNN. Plus, Dan Riehl has more on the new U.S. offensive in southern Afghanistan (via Memeorandum); but check Greyhawk for the military angle and updates.

Reformists Face Quandary in Iran

From the Washington Post, "Iran Unrest Shifts Power Dynamics: Reformists Must Rethink Strategy."

Iranian protester beaten by the regime.

The large-scale protests in Iran since its hotly disputed June 12 presidential election have shaken the Islamic republic's long-standing balance of political power.

For decades, hard-line members of Iran's cleric-led government controlled the judiciary, military, intelligence and state media. But reformists also had wide public support and room to push for more moderate social and political policies.

That delicate balance worked for both sides, providing an outlet for people who chafed at the Islamic regime's austerity and isolationism, while ensuring that the core system, created after the 1979 revolution, would not be seriously challenged. The reformists did not advocate a revolutionary overhaul. The general view was that Iranians did not want another revolution.

But the recent protests attracted hundreds of thousands into Iran's streets, resulting in at least 17 deaths and many more injuries. The hard-liners have tightened their grip, leaving the reformists to decide whether they should keep playing the old game or whether the rules have changed so much that the game no longer exists.

There's more at the link.

Related: Victor Davis Hanson, "Thuggery 101," and Roger Cohen, "Let the Usurpers Writhe" (via Memeorandum).

Photo Credit: Iran Press News. (Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit.)

**********

UPDATE: Cold Fury links with, "STRONG content warning":

The most hideous and disturbing picture I’ve seen yet of what Obama’s theofascist pals in Iran are capable of. These are the people he wants to go crawling to for more futile negotiations. These are the people he wants to see maintained in power. These are the people he’s sided with ...

Attention Conservatives: Be Feared

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

I've cited John Hawkins a couple of times at various points during the recent debates, but this comment sticks out:

Everybody in the conservative movement does not have to be an Ann Coulter, which is fortunate, because few people have her biting wit, talent, or fearlessness. But we need people who aren’t afraid to go for the throats of our political enemies.

It takes a while to figure this out, but when debating leftists, conservatives will never gain points for civility, grace, honesty, and respect. These folks will cut your heart out given the chance. You will be hated equally, no matter your disposition. Stand strong for your values, my friends. You will not betray them in defense of your goodness.

Firms Closing as Leftist Policies Make Costs of Doing Business Prohibitive

I got the tip from James at The Real World.

It turns out that Hav-a-Tampa cigars, a Florida-based unit of Altadis USA, is going out of business. Demand for cigars has declined amid the economic downturn, but aggressive regulations and taxes drove the final decision to close the business:

Several things conspired to hurt Altadis' sales ... including the recession and the growth of indoor smoking bans. The bans have especially hurt sales in cold-weather states, where it's impractical to smoke a cigar outdoors in the winter ... However, the company attributed much of its trouble to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, a federal program that provides health insurance to low-income children ...

Yesteday Fox News published this report, "Obama Flirts With Breaking Campaign Pledge on Taxes to Pay for Health Care Reform."

But actually, "President Obama broke his pledge not to raise taxes on lower- and middle-income families with his large tobacco tax increase back in February." The story on that is here: "Obama's Cigarette Tax Puts the Lie To His No New Taxes Pledge."

Now, of course, there's debate this week on the Obama administration's global warming "cap-and-trade" legislation. And Robert Zubrin has this analysis, "The Costs of the Cap-and-Trade Bill":

On June 25, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate stabilization act, which would institute a cap-and-trade system to restrict Americans’ carbon emissions. While proponents of the bill have sought to argue that the costs of such a system would be negligible, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill proposes a massive and highly regressive tax on the U.S. economy, and could potentially cause not only extensive business failures, unemployment and privation within our borders, but starvation among poorer populations elsewhere.

Read the whole thing, here. More analysis at Memeorandum. James' post is here, "Those On the Left Are Mostly Clueles."

See also, Gateway Pundit, "The NRCC Hits Dems Hard Over Cap-&-Tax (Video)."

Related: Los Angeles Times, "Losses of Factory Jobs in California Blamed on Regulation."

James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just found this on Twitter:

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

And from ABC's Lara Setrakian on Twitter:

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

Also Blogging:

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

* Berman Post, "Iranian Revolution."

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

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

* Hot Air, "Mullahs Stringing Up Opposition?"

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

* Michael Ledeen, "Iraq and Iran."

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

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

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

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

Check Memeorandum and Atlas Shrugs for updates.

Jackson Begged For Sedative

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

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

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

Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

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

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

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

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

The Filibuster-Proof Majority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Hat Tip: Hot Air.

The Supreme Court Says No to Quotas

I was expecting this commentary, from Abigail Thernstrom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at the link.

Biology and the Sick Ideological Fantasies of the Left

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

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

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

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

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