Gay Marriage and Sexual Exclusivity

David Frum gets all wishy washy, "I was wrong about same-sex marriage." (Via Memeorandum.) Frum indicates that he'd long opposed gay marriage, and he'd engaged Andrew Sullivan on the topic in online debates. But he's had a change of heart. Here's the gist of Frum's argument:

... I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

It keeps going like that, on the not-so-bad decline of the traditional family structure in America. But it's a lousy argument. I wrote on families the other day. In California just 23.4 percent of households include a traditional married family with children. The causes are complex, but making same-sex marriage easier will cause those numbers to further erode.

I don't think David Frum has a clue. More likely, he's just consolidating his shift away from the conservative right-wing. And this seems like a losing proposition, since it's not like there aren't enough incisive and influential commentators on the left, which is where Frum's headed. He's basically doing a Charles Johnson, except that he was a major pundit and conservative insider rather than a husky pony-tailed psychotic narcissist.

Anway, since Frum's using data from the mid-2000s, let's flash back to an article from 2004, by David Tubbs and Robert P. George "Redefining Marriage Away":

Conservative advocates of same-sex marriage insist that their goal is not a radical alteration of the institution itself. They favor the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages in order to secure "equal rights," they say. Their goal in redefining marriage is not to weaken or abolish it but to expand access to it, while leaving its core features intact. Far from harming marriage, they contend, the move to same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution.

Though this argument has a certain superficial appeal, it is profoundly mistaken. The issue is not one of equality or the right to participate in a valuable social institution. What divides defenders of traditional marriage from those who would redefine it is a disagreement about the nature of the institution itself. Redefining marriage will, of course, fundamentally change the posture of law and public policy toward the meaning and significance of human sexuality, procreation, and the bond between the sexes. Even more important, there are powerful reasons to fear that the proposed redefinition of marriage will destabilize and undermine this already battered institution.

To understand the destabilizing effects, consider this scenario. A young man and woman are engaged to be married. A month before the wedding, the man approaches his fiancée to ask whether she will consider an "open marriage," in which they will free each other from the duty to be sexually faithful.

Even today, the man's proposal is shocking, and his bride-to-be will almost surely be horrified by it. Nearly everyone would say that what the man has proposed is something other than a true marriage, since the norm of sexual exclusivity within marriage is essential to the institution. That is why the overwhelming majority of couples entering marriage do not even discuss whether they will follow the norm; they simply accept it.

Do most American husbands and wives honor the principle of sexual exclusivity in practice? The best evidence says yes. In their rigorous and acclaimed 1994 study on American sexual behavior, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann and his associates found that 65 to 85 percent of American men and more than 80 percent of American women (in every age group) had no sex partners other than their spouses while married. These figures are remarkable, especially if we recall the many ways in which popular culture has mocked or trivialized human sexuality and the demands of marriage in recent decades.

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships.

Sorry, David Frum. That's decidedly NOT keeping families stable. What an idiot.

Anyway, I cited news reports earlier that the battle for gay marriage has a long way to go nationwide, and I'll be writing more on this, since New York has energized the Democratic Party's rim-station base.

Meanwhile, Robert George had a major research paper out last year, which updates some of the arguments above, "What is Marriage?"

Michele Bachmann Makes Formal Presidential Announcement in Waterloo, Iowa

At New York Times, "Bachmann Is In, Officially" (via Mememorandum).

My Fox Chicago has video and text of the speech, "Michele Bachmann's Presidential Announcement Speech."

Andrew Breitbart is New York Times' Blogger Provocateur

Well, he should be. He's declared war on the Democrat-Media-Complex.

See, "The Right’s Blogger Provocateur."

The Other McCain responds: "The Semi-Smear."

Below, as promised, is the video from the Breitbart talk in Newport Beach. And buy a copy of Righteous Indignation here.

'José, Can You See?' U.S. Soccer Team Booed at Gold Cup Final, Rose Bowl, Pasadena

You get used to it. You're a foreigner in your own country sometimes. You get the feeling in many parts of Southern California. And in some of the small agricultural towns in the Central Valley you might as well be in Mexico. Democrats and progressives don't care, except to the extent that it keeps them in power, but we've long ago basically undergone a foreign invasion of people whose primary loyalty remains to the countries of their origin. The Los Angeles Times has the report, from Bill Plaschke, "In Gold Cup final, it's red, white and boo again." The U.S team was booed. Here's a quote from the piece (via Memeorandum):

Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere.

Welcome to another unveiling of that social portrait known as a U.S.-Mexico soccer match, streaked as always in deep colors of red, white, blue, green … and gray.

"I love this country, it has given me everything that I have, and I'm proud to be part of it," said Victor Sanchez, a 37-year-old Monrovia resident wearing a Mexico jersey. "But yet, I didn't have a choice to come here, I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be."

Right.

This is an old debate, largely taboo for discussion in polite company, like academic departments. But it's not a new thing, at all. Recall Samuel Huntington's seminal essay in 2004, "The Hispanic Challenge"

Massive Hispanic immigration affects the United States in two significant ways: Important portions of the country become predominantly Hispanic in language and culture, and the nation as a whole becomes bilingual and bicultural. The most important area where Hispanization is proceeding rapidly is, of course, the Southwest. As historian Kennedy argues, Mexican Americans in the Southwest will soon have “sufficient coherence and critical mass in a defined region so that, if they choose, they can preserve their distinctive culture indefinitely. They could also eventually undertake to do what no previous immigrant group could have dreamed of doing: challenge the existing cultural, political, legal, commercial, and educational systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the very institutions in which they do business.”

Anecdotal evidence of such challenges abounds. In 1994, Mexican Americans vigorously demonstrated against California's Proposition 187—which limited welfare benefits to children of illegal immigrants—by marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving scores of Mexican flags and carrying U.S. flags upside down. In 1998, at a Mexico-United States soccer match in Los Angeles, Mexican Americans booed the U.S. national anthem and assaulted U.S. players. Such dramatic rejections of the United States and assertions of Mexican identity are not limited to an extremist minority in the Mexican-American community. Many Mexican immigrants and their offspring simply do not appear to identify primarily with the United States.

Déjà vu.

RELATED: At Pamela's, "US SOCCER TEAM VICIOUSLY BOOED IN L.A. -- MEXICO WAS "HOME TEAM" - ENEMEDIA CALLS IT "UNIQUELY AMERICAN'."

'The Local Government Pension Squeeze'

We're going to be hearing more and more about stuff like this, particularly as the Obama Depression deepens.

From Stephen Malanga, at Wall Street Journal (via RealClearPolitics).

RELATED: The process is playing out in one of the cities right next door to where I live. See NBC News Los Angeles, "Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Talks About Unprecedented City Cuts." And at Los Angeles Times, "Costa Mesa's police chief abruptly quits over council's plan to slash workforce," and O.C. Weekly, "Costa Mesa Police Chief Resigns With a Letter, Calling City Council 'Incompetent' and the City's Fiscal Crisis a Lie."

BONUS: "Republicans promote Costa Mesa as a pension-slashing leader."

Power Line Making Switch-Over to Wordpress

John Hinderaker has the announcement, "COMING SOON: POWER LINE 3.0."

Power Line's been on a Movable Type platform for almost ten years, not Blogger, so it's interesting in light of the other recent upgrades, at Legal Insurrection, for example. But what I noticed at Power Line, at the bottom of the page, is that all three of the original bloggers are listed, John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff. But recall that Mirengoff's no longer a Power Line blogger. He's no longer featured at the "About Us" page. There is a partial archive for Mirengoff, but the timeline cutoff seems totally arbitrary. Entries are available up through February 2009, and it's something worth an explanation in the context of the shameful campaign of PC destruction against Mirengoff early this year, when he criticized the memorial services for Gabrielle Giffords at the University of Arizona in Tuscon. I watched live, and personally thought the opening blessing delivered by Dr. Carlos Gonzales of the University of Arizona College Medicine was a politically correct nightmare. It was a indigenous time-waster of Native American PC overkill, and frankly, Dr. Gonzales seemed like an amateur in performing the ritual. But you can't criticize criticize stuff like that in the U.S., or not if you want to keep your job. Mirengoff wrote a post, long since deleted, strongly criticizing the event, "An evening in Tucson — the good, the bad, and the ugly":

…I didn't appreciate the president of the University of Arizona (and master of ceremonies) telling us how lucky we are to have Barack Obama as our president and Janet Napolitano as our Homeland Security chief. Nor did the frequent raucous cheering by the huge crowd seem appropriate at what was, at least in part, a memorial service.

As for the "ugly," I'm afraid I must cite the opening "prayer" by Native American Carlos Gonzales. It was apparently was some sort of Yaqui Indian tribal thing, with lots of references to "the creator"
but no mention of God. Several of the victims were, as I understand it, quite religious in that quaint Christian kind of way (none, to my knowledge, was a Yaqui). They (and their families) likely would have appreciated a prayer more closely aligned with their religious beliefs.

But it wasn't just Gonzales's prayer that was "ugly" under the circumstances. Before he ever got to the prayer, Gonzales provided us with a mini-biography of himself and his family and made several references to Mexico, the country from which (he informed us) his family came to Arizona in the mid 19th century.

The reaction was fierce. Here's the headline at Right Wing Watch, "Right Wing Blogger In Trouble for Insulting Native American Prayer at Tucson Memorial." And here's this from a PC ayatollah at Crime & Federalism, "Paul Mirengoff Humiliates Himself and Akin Gump":

If you, Paul Mirengoff, honestly do not understand why calling someone's religious invocation "ugly" is insulting, then your professional judgment is suspect. You are a total dipshit moron whom I would never trust to handle a parking ticket for me.

Anyhow, here's hoping Mirengoff gets all the negative publicity he deserves.

Yeah, negative publicity. It happens, but in this case it was costly, because Mirengoff's firm had major contracts with Native American tribes. The backlash came swiftly and forced Mirengoff off the blog. William Jacobson, a law professor who was previously in private practice, criticized Akin Gump's handling of the complaints, "Big Law Firm Takes Down Big Conservative Blogger." Read the whole thing, and note especially William's update: "Eric Boehlert of Media Matters is practically jumping for joy that Mirengoff no longer is blogging, which is what Boehlert had been hoping would happen, 'Note To RW Bloggers: Could Obama Derangement Syndrome Cost You Your Day Job?'" (That post went down the memory hole at Media Matters, most likely because it was way too honest about the progressive program of destruction against people who break from the acceptable narrative --- more about that stuff later, as I'm still working with my lawyer about the related progressive campaigns against American Power.)

Anyway, more at The Other McCain, "Power Line Gets Scalped: Did Indian Tribe Money Influence Akin Gump Decision?," and Pope Hat, "I, Paul Mirengoff, Offer Heap Big Apology To My Indian Brothers."

Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz Married!

What a couple!

I like them both a lot.

At London's Daily Mail, "The name's Craig, Mrs Craig: Rachel Weisz marries James Bond star Daniel."

The Bond films are great, although I liked Craig in "Defiance," which I wrote about at the time, a couple of years back:

And I enjoyed Rachel Weisz's sexy, stoical character in "Enemy at the Gates," a thrilling World War II film. Both of Weisz's parents escaped the Holocaust:

Planned Parenthood Takes on the States

From Charmaine Yoest and Denise Burke, at Wall Street Journal, "A majority of Americans tell pollsters they do not want taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions."

Without a doubt, measures to defund the abortion industry will remain a top priority for states in 2011 and will re-emerge in 2012. Legislators are responding to the majority of Americans—72% in a 2009 Quinnipiac University poll—who say that they do not want taxpayer dollars to be used to directly provide or indirectly subsidize abortions. Planned Parenthood and the administration appear committed to obstructing these efforts. Clearly, they prefer the status quo of taxpayer-funded largess for abortion providers—a bounty that amounts to $363 million annually in federal and state funds for Planned Parenthood alone.

RELATED: At Life News, "Judge Blocks Indiana Law Stopping Planned Parenthood Funding."

New York City Gay Pride Parade 2011

At Detroit Free Press, "New York Gay Pride parade follows legalization of same-sex marriage":

And the morning after, at New York Times, "For Gay Marriage Movement, Momentum but Challenges." And at Wall Street Journal, "New York Gay Marriage Vote Alters Political Battle Lines."

VIDEO: Katy Perry Rolling Stone Photo Shoot

At London's Daily Mail, "'I wanted to lose my ample curves': Katy Perry reveals her unusual teenage dream to Rolling Stone."

And at Rolling Stone, "Katy Perry Talks Body Image, Fame and Politics in Rolling Stone Cover Story."

Angie Harmon at The Daley Gator

I promised to do more Angie Harmon blogging, and I like the slideshow technology: "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Angie Harmon" (via Wombat's Rule 5 Roundup).

VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Interviewed on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, June 26, 2011

The transcript's at Fox News, "Rep. Michele Bachmann Talks Earmarks, Obamacare and Gay Marriage..."

It's a good interview. She responds to the Los Angeles Times hit piece from this morning, "Bachmann's had her share of government aid." And the Times updates, "Michele Bachmann denies benefiting from government aid." And Wallace's "Are you a flake question" comes at the very end, so that gives it a different context from the 30 second video clip that that's gone viral today. It's definitely not quite as alarming. Bachmann responded at length earlier in the interview, after Wallace asked, "Why are you suddenly a frontrunner?" She spent at good amount of time discussing her background, and does so again at the end of the clip.

See also, Hot Air, "Wallace: Sorry for the “flake” question." (Via Memeorandum.)

RELATED: At Marathon Pundit, 'Michele Bachmann: "I grew up in John Wayne's America'."

'Are You a Flake?' Chris Wallace Insults Michele Bachmann on Fox News Sunday

And Wallace handled Jon Stewart so well.

This is shameul.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Wallace has apologized but I'm going to look for the full interview and update.

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Chris Wallace Palinizes Michele Bachmann" (via Memeorandum). And Ed Morrissey, "Great moments in journalism: “Are you a flake?”"

Britney Spears 'Honored' to Meet HMLA-169 Marines Who Made 'Hold It Against Me' Video in Afghanistan

Now if we could just get her to rethink her position on gay marriage.

At London's Daily Mail, "Patriotic Pop: All American Girl Britney Spears gives lucky U.S. Marines the VIP treatment."

And on Twitter.

NYPD Raids Homosexual Eagle Bar During Gay Marriage Celebration!

Well, you can't make this stuff up.

A report from Kenneth in the (212), "Did the NYPD Raid the Eagle Last Night as the LGBT Community Celebrated Marriage Equality?" Hmm. Kenneth in the 212? Actor212? Maybe Carl Salonen was also on hand? Coincidences? Who knows? They apparently share common interests. And what fun!

Anyway, see New York Times, "Sudden Inspection at Gay Bar Mars Victory Celebration for Some" (via Memeorandum):"

An unannounced inspection that several agencies carried out at a gay bar in Manhattan on Friday night occurred at nearly the same time that patrons were celebrating the passage of legislation in Albany legalizing same-sex marriage.

Police officials said on Saturday that the inspection was part of a routine operation planned long ago. But Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said that he was troubled by descriptions of what took place at the Eagle bar, on West 28th Street off 11th Avenue, and that the actions amounted to a raid.

“I am going to ask the police commissioner to conduct a formal investigation concerning the circumstances around this raid,” he added.

The inspection occurred late at night, Mr. Stringer said, and while it was “true that there are these multiagency inspections, I think this one was ill-conceived and ill-timed given the circumstances surrounding the marriage equality celebration, on Pride week.”

According to those present, about 100 people were mingling at the Eagle, when representatives from the New York Police Department and three other city agencies, as well as from the State Liquor Authority, showed up, at nearly the same time as a vote by the State Senate to legalize same-sex marriage and as the thrill of victory was swirling through the place.

“I was on the roof deck, smoking a cigar and having drinks with friends, and all of a sudden, the police showed up and started shining flashlights in everyone’s face and offending everyone,” said Thomas J. Shevlin, a financial markets researcher and the treasurer of the Stonewall Democratic Club.

“Basically, it is offensive,” Mr. Shevlin, 40, said. “It is real serious harassment that they come out on pride weekend.”

Life is so unfair!

'Heck of a First Week for Bill Lueders'

According to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism on Twitter:

Well, as I reported earlier, Lueders may be the one who "should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack," according to Ann Althouse.

And that's because not only is Lueders the author of the main hit piece against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, but he's also now basically pulled his initial report on the alleged altercation, replacing it with a version featuring a disclaimer:

10:15 p.m.: This story is updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations.

Yet there is no "update" at the bottom of the report. It's been airbrushed, and Althouse is demanding answers this morning, "How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders's attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?"

The first thing I want to note is the common sense angle. The story's extremely fishy, mainly because it's impossible to envision Prosser administering a deadly choke-hold to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. As I noted before, "The idea that Prosser got Bradley in a 'choke hold' is outlandish, and perfectly suited to the left's progressive thuggery agenda." And as Althouse writes today, agreeing with progressives that Prosser should resign if the allegations were true:

But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.

That's a big point for me, because it's not just an age thing, but that here are two people who essentially represent the epitome of the legal profession at the state level. It's inconceivable to me that a sitting judge would try to choke a judicial colleague in her chambers, but again, leftists don't think logically, despite endless claims to being "reality-based."

Another thing to note is that the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is funded by George Soros, the messianic multi-billionaire behind such neo-communist attack outfits as the Center for American Progress. These people do not "report." They destroy. And that's the context for understanding Bill Lueders, whose deed pushes the evil meter way over to the right.

But read Althouse's entire indictment. For example, Althouse reads the various news reports and determines that two independent sources say Justice Bradley came at Justice Prosser with "fists raised." That's a lot of information to be left out of initial reports, and Althouse notes:

Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.

I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?

More discussion, and then she continues:

In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.

Well, actually that did occur to me when I quoted Althouse last night, and I went to sleep knowing that truth would come out. And the truth is still coming out, but of course it's no surprise that we're finding apparently evil deeds here: Progressives are evil!

And more at Althouse:

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Precisely.

And again, read the full post, because Althouse is going Alinsky on the left, especially Ian Millhiser's, "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office." Check the link, but Althouse turns the table:

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

More at Memeorandum. And Instapundit.

Aliyah

A timely follow-up to yesterday's Allison Benedikt blogging.

At Jeruslalem Post, "Talking seriously about aliya."

Let’s be honest: English-speaking Jews will not make aliya because you showed them a brochure extolling the financial benefits of immigration.

That’s not because they are waiting for more money, but because it’s not about money.

Young Diaspora Jews in the West are not seeking comfort, but challenge. They don’t want to blindly follow in the footsteps of their parents, but are nevertheless willing to explore Jewish life and tradition as a source of authentic identity. More than anything else, they want to feel that their lives are a product of their own initiative.

(I should know. In 1999, at the age of 18, I left a beloved community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a red 9- seater Chevrolet Suburban, bought for me by my parents when I learned to drive at 16, in order to join the IDF.)

The real challenge of aliya, therefore, is not bureaucratic. It’s not about reducing the paperwork or improving the benefits package. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anything that could change the mind of an American Jew, especially a young one, on the question of whether or not to remain American. Hard, but not impossible.

Faced with these facts, we must ask ourselves if we actually know how to bring American Jews on aliya. For the first time, we find ourselves competing for their attention in a completely open marketplace, without the pressure of parents or tradition. Are we up to that challenge?

Go read the rest at that link.

I guess there's a crisis in Israel over the issue of aliyah. Check the article above, but the reference is to the essay by Isi Leibler of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The collapse of Zionist leadership."

New York Gay Marriage Vote Energizes Europe

I thought the direction of influence would run the other way, because, you know, Europeans are so gay. But apparently not. At New York Post, "NY gay marriage vote bolsters French backers."

Islam Encourages Rape

Commentary from Pat Condell (via Gates of Vienna).

The silence of Western "feminists" is literally killer:

'I am a Democrat because I believe that government should take care of its citizens...'

Seriously?

Check the homely one at about 55 seconds.

I was once a Democrat. It hasn't been that long ago since the party turned neo-communist, but back in the day my sense was that government would promote equality of opportunity. It's shocking to me that young people have learned somewhere that it's the government's job to take care of them. These are the same type of people who argue that the Constitution's preamble, which calls in part to "promote the general welfare," actually means that government would establish a welfare dependency state. It's kind of astonishing. "Welfare" simply means "well-being." But in the minds of the progressives, "welfare" means government handouts, kind of like Peggy Joseph who swooned when Obama was elected, saying how he was going to pay her gas and mortgage. I write about America's relative standing in the world, the balance of power, and so forth, which is more in the realm of international relations. But nation-states can rot from within, from decadence and sloth, and when I see these young people here, most of whom can't speak intelligibly, well, I'm going to have to adjust my theories a bit. Sheesh.

In any case, Robert Stacy McCain has a different takeaway, "Good News: College Democrats Succeed in Recruiting Stupid Ugly Losers! (Video)." And yeah, there's that alright.

Gilad Shalit Five Year Anniversary

At Haaretz, "Shalit family members chain themselves together outside Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem."

Also, Noah Pollak at Commmentary, "“Human Rights Community” Agrees: Gilad Shalit Should Remain in Captivity."

New York Churches React to Gay Marriage Vote

At WIVB-TV Buffalo, WIVB-TV Buffalo. A mixed reaction among church groups, but this part is heavy:

In response to the State Senate's vote Friday night , the New York State Catholic Conference released a statement saying, in part:

"The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled. We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman."

Check the full statement here.

And at the Jackson Sun, "Same-sex marriage vote is a national issue."

VIDEO: New Jersey Nets Dance Tryouts

Cool.

Tryouts were yesterday in Brooklyn. The NBA homepage is here.

Bradley Charged Prosser With 'Fists Raised'?

At Althouse, "An alternate account of the Prosser-Bradley confrontation surfaces: Did she "charge him with fists raised"?"

And from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Justices’ feud gets physical: Prosser, Bradley clashed on eve of union ruling":

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley late Saturday accused fellow Justice David Prosser of putting her in a chokehold during a dispute in her office earlier this month.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the Journal Sentinel.

Sources told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred. Some confirmed Bradley's version. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

A joint investigation by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism first reported on the incident early Saturday, stating that Prosser "allegedly grabbed" Bradley around the neck.

Before Bradley spoke to the Journal Sentinel, Prosser issued a statement that said: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

"No comment" is basically being taken as "I did it" by progressives, which is typical. But just think about this for a moment. The idea that Prosser got Bradley in a "choke hold" is outlandish, and perfectly suited to the left's progressive thuggery agenda. They're losing in Wisconsin, losing badly. This sounds like a desperate gambit, and I think Althouse really is on to something:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

We've been talking about evil a lot around here lately, but this time it's not me making charges. And it's not Robert Stacy McCain. My criteria earlier was that speech per se wasn't evil, it was the action. That's a kind of ad hoc thing, but evil's a lot like obscenity: You know it when you see it.

Progressives are evil. My money is that these are false allegations, and if so, seems like Bradley should resign.

Erik Kain of Forbes: Wishy Washy Pussy

Well, if Alex Knapp only knew!

And E.D. Kain responds, at Ordinary Gentlemen, "Classical Liberalism in America":

So, for many readers of my work there’s a sense that I am wishy-washy on a number of issues (though hopefully they also notice where I am consistent: against the war on drugs, for non-interventionism, gay rights, immigration, civil liberties, etc). In my humblest of opinions there are certain tangible truths and certain areas of dispute where the issues become quite a bit more murky. There are also times when the truth and the realm of possibility are not always aligned. So I write a lot about how to reconcile these things (if only to placate myself), and I try to strike a balance.

Well, no. I'm calling bullsh*t.

Readers will remember from 2009 that Erik Kain launched a campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation against this blog, "E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!" And, "E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger!"

All the background at the links.

E.D. Kain's a sleaze-blogger. Contacting someone's place of work, to silence them, or to get them fired, is un-American. And for me it's unforgivable. I think I've had six episodes of these now, and I'll be writing more about the latest of these soon. Just let it be noted that E.D. Kain changes his position from week to week because he's a sycophant. He keeps a finger to the breeze to see how the debates are going, and makes careful moves not to alienate his rim-station allies. Indeed, here's E.D. at Forbes, on the same-sex marriage vote this weekend: "New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" (which links to his man-crush, RawMuscleGlutes' Milky Loads). The tragedy is the guy's actually got some talent. But to be a good writer takes conviction, and that stuff just doesn't grow on trees. Too bad. Losers. All of them.

We Should Ban Muslims From All Airlines Flying into Western Countries

From Jason Bradley, at The Western Experience, "In the Spirit of Civility and Brotherhood, Let’s Ban Muslims."

A New Constitutional Understanding of War Powers?

Bruce Kesler takes Charles Krauthammer to task, quite effectively, at Maggie's Farm, "Krauthammer Goes From Frying Pan to Fire, and Misses the Point."

Weekend Rule 5

Starting things off with Theo's "Red Corset Totty..."

And see Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Vanessa Marcil."

And at Bob Belvedere's, "Rule 5 Saturday: Caterina Murino."

Plus, just breaking at Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Ana Beatriz Barros."

More, at American Perspective, Maggie's Notebook and Zilla of the Resistance.

Don't miss: Astute Bloggers, Blazing Cat Fur, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Doug Ross, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, PACNW Righty, Pirate's Cove, Proof Positive, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, and Zion's Trumpet.

And my friends Marathon Pundit and Marooned in Marin.

Drop your links in the comments!

The Implosion of Counterinsurgency

At the video is the fascinating exchange where General Petraeus endorses torture in the case of the ticking time bomb. Keith Olbermann, whose "Countdown" program has been resurrected, smeared Petraeus on this in a recent segment, with quotes from other top officials who essentially impugn the general's reputation.

More video from the testimony at Gateway Pundit, "American Hero General David Petraeus: “I Disagree With Barack Obama… I’m No Quitter”."

Yeah. A hero. Not to Keith Olbermann.

Anyway, on the implosion of counterinsurgency, see National Journal, "Washington Losing Patience with Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan."

John Nagl is the kind of guy who brings to mind F. Scott Fitzgerald’s wicked line in The Great Gatsby about people who succeed at such an early age that “everything afterward savors of anticlimax.” A star at West Point and a Rhodes scholar, the native Nebraskan was only 37 when he landed on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in January 2004. In that article, Nagl offered an inside-the-Sunni-Triangle tutorial on what he came to call “graduate-level war.” Nagl’s mantra: “We have to outthink the enemy, not just outfight him.” In an era when small but wily bands of nonuniformed insurgents could stymie America’s mighty military machine with stealthy guerrilla attacks and roadside bombs planted in the night, the U.S. had to figure out how to hunt down the bad guys and cut off their support from the local population. Nagl, after studying the British and French colonial experience, as well as America’s handling of the Vietnam War, helped to develop what has since become famous as U.S. “counterinsurgency doctrine,” or COIN. As his celebrity grew, Nagl proselytized about it everywhere, even on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.

By the late 2000s, the precocious Army major had become part of a brain trust around America’s uber-general, David Petraeus, the commander who implemented the Iraq troop surge. Commissioned by Petraeus, Nagl helped to author the official counterinsurgency manual that has since reoriented American military doctrine, shifting the center of gravity from rough-and-ready conventional war fighters to cerebral specialists in irregular warfare and targeted response. After retiring from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in early 2008—even though he seemed to be on the fast track to four-star fame—Nagl took over a little-known think tank, the Center for a New American Security, and turned it into what journalist Tara McKelvey called “counterinsurgency central in Washington.”

Brilliant and brash as ever at the advanced age of 45, Nagl delivers a sober endorsement of the military’s current COIN strategy in Afghanistan, which, because it was adapted from Iraq, is partly his brainchild. It is a strategy that many experts believe is not working—and the skeptics may now include President Obama himself. “I think any sane person would be disillusioned,” Nagl says over a lunch of mussels and mozzarella salad at Finemondo, a lushly decorated restaurant around the corner from his office. Even some of those around Petraeus (who is retiring from the military to run the CIA) are losing heart. But Nagl says that the Janus-faced core of COIN strategy—winning over the Afghan population with kindness, aid, and a multibillion-dollar policy to “clear, hold, and build” towns and villages while ruthlessly killing off insurgents—is just starting to succeed. He laments that the debate in Washington is dominated by critics who complain that the war is almost 10 years long and already more hopeless than Vietnam.

RTWT.

Yet another reason I'm unhappy with the president. Cut-and-run is one thing, but running when the tide is turning is another. George W. Bush refused to abandon Iraq, and that's when the consensus from all quarters was that the war was a "fiasco." We persevered in Iraq, and it's a stable emerging democracy today. In Afghanistan, I'm not confident we'll be able to say the same thing a fews years from now.

Too Hot for Huffington Post: 'The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla'

I first read of Huffington Post's censorship of David Harris at Power Line, "Too Hot for HuffPo."

Harris is the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and his essay's posted at AJC's website. An excerpt:

George Orwell, where are you? You could have a field day with this story.

Actually, you anticipated it when you wrote about the Ministry of Truth in your classic book, 1984. What were the ruling party's slogans on the outside of the 1,000-foot-tall building housing the ministry? Weren't they "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength"? And didn't the ministry rewrite history at will to ensure it always served the party's interests?

The Gaza flotilla spokesmen are inverting the truth and rewriting history at will to serve their interests. And what are those interests? To prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza and delegitimize Israel.

While they are entitled to their own opinions, however misguided, they are not entitled to their own facts.

They cannot separate Hamas from the equation. Much as they might try, the central fact is that Hamas is key to understanding Gaza today.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Don't take my word for it. Check with the United States and European Union, both of which have designated Hamas as a terrorist entity.

You can see why that's an "Oops!" Doesn't jibe too well with the neo-communist narrative.

More at Ron Radosh, "The Huffington Post Censors AJC’s David Harris, for Telling the Truth about the New Flotilla."

And linked there, Howard Jacobson, "Why Alice Walker shouldn't sail to Gaza."

Update on Thomas Ball Self-Immolation Suicide

I hadn't planned on doing too much writing on this, since my main interest is how once again we see Amanda Marcotte as the extremist personification of the radical feminist agenda.

But the story continues to develop in the blogosphere, and I'm part of the debate. Marcotte responded to me on Twitter this morning, which was her initial statement since first commenting on the Thomas Ball suicide (and she's updated on Twitter here).

I also tweeted Robert Stacy McCain, knowing his occasional Amanda Marcotte blogging, and he's got a post up: "The Beast of Babylon Wears Bangs: Amanda Marcotte’s ‘Pure Feminist Evil." And he writes:

Being a tolerant sort of person, I have sometimes entertained the thought that maybe Amanda Marcotte is merely misguided or ignorant, an idea I kicked around when she made a complete fool of herself over the Anthony Weiner scandal. But perhaps it is time to consider whether she is in fact deliberately and consciously evil.

RTWT. Robert goes out of his way to point out that he's not a men's rights activist. Neither am I, but more often than not I hear of men bearing the brunt of unjust legal separation from children, although I have neither the experience nor expertise to comment more widely on the phenomenon. Note, though, that Thomas Ball was in fact an activist with the Central Massachusetts Chapter of the Fathers' Rights Movement. And those initially blogging on the story are clearly advocates for men's rights. So, it's a pretty fascinating story all around. Indeed, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology has an update on the story, "Amanda Marcotte Continues to Say That Men Use Suicide to Hurt Women." And Snark responds to Robert Stacy McCain, "Amanda Marcotte Is Not Evil." I disagree fundamentally with that post, however, not so much over Amanda Marcotte's alleged demonology, but on the underlying premise of her comments themselves. These aren't one-off, throwaway statements, as Snark suggests. Marcotte claims that men inflict pain on themselves --- even kill themselves --- as a way to further victimize women. THAT is representative of radical feminism and THAT is inflammatory, if not evil, with all due respect to Thomas Ball. But the context is key. Marcotte speaks in furtherance of extreme feminist praxis. (So that's not to say some leftists aren't indeed evil --- Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen come to mind --- but more that Marcotte's statements, as reprehensible as they are, reflect attempts at political speech rather than actions intended to destroy.)

In any case, Dr. Helen Smith has weighed in, "My take on the Thomas Ball case." And the crucial passage, regarding Thomas Ball's last testament:

His statement is not the ramblings of a madman, it is the mission of a warrior in some sense. He was fighting for his rights and for yours, if you are male. He was trying to bring some urgency to the male plight in this country, one that no one appreciates or cares about until they are engaged in the battle of the courts. If you want to understand more about how men's rights are being stripped by family courts, take a look at Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.

Oh, and Instapundit updates his original entry with comments from Assistant Village Idiot.

Image Credit: HyperVocal.

Sarah Palin Heads to Iowa on Tuesday

For the premiere of "The Undefeated," the big new documentary that's perfectly timed for a major Palin announcement.

At National Journal, "Palin to Iowa Tuesday":

Just as some pundits were counting her out as a presidential candidate, Sarah Palin has laid on plans to visit Iowa next week -- one day after her tea party soul mate and potential rival, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is set to launch her presidential campaign in the same state.

Distributors of The Undefeated, a flattering documentary about Palin's political career, announced Saturday that the former Alaska governor and her husband, Todd, will attend a premiere of the movie Tuesday in Pella, Iowa.

The town, about 40 miles east of Des Moines, is home to an historic opera house where the movie will be shown.

"We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland," Palin is quoted as saying in a release announcing her plans to attend the event.

The national rollout for the movie begins July 15.

Also at the Victory Film Group, "GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN TO ATTEND PREMIERE OF THE UNDEFEATED AT PELLA OPERA HOUSE IN PELLA, IOWA" (via Memeorandum).

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

Orange County Continues to Hold Conservative Values

And not in the 1950s sense.

The county's demographics are more diverse than ever. Traditional family values are thriving as newer groups, with strong cultural and religious traditions, increase in population.

At Los Angeles Times, "Orange County remains a bastion of conservative family values."

Orange County, home to 3 million people, has the lowest percentage of single-parent households of any county in Southern California, according to a Times analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures, as well as the lowest percentage of households occupied by opposite-sex unmarried couples.

It also has one of the lowest percentages of same-sex households and has retained one of the highest percentages in the region of nuclear-family households — those with a married man and woman who are raising children under age 18.

Orange County has not sidestepped entirely the modernization of the California family. Its percentage of nuclear-family households, for instance, while relatively high, fell between 2000 and 2010 from 29.1% of households to 26.1%. Overall, however, the county is a bastion of tradition, relatively speaking.

"Change is happening, just at a slower pace," said Edward Flores, the project manager with the population dynamics research group at USC.

Ah, change at a slower pace. That's a conservative principle. Nice.

CONTRAST: At The Other McCain, "Viva, Californication?"

Saturday Cartoon Roundup

At Theo Spark's.

And at Power Line, "TOO LITTLE, WAY TOO LATE: THE CARTOON."

Bonus: At Doug Ross, "Photos: Insane Plane-Spotting Tourists on the Island of St. Maarten."

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) Delivers Weekly Republican Address, 6/25/11

From the House GOP Conference:

'Pure Feminist Evil' — Amanda Marcotte's Response to Thomas Ball's Courthouse Self-Immolation

She's constantly in the news!

See the "pure feminist evil" commentary at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology, "Man Burns Himself To Death; Women Hardest Hit" (via Instapundit). Also at Snark, "Amanda Marcotte Weighs In On Thomas Ball." I think Amanda's comments are so vile that SHE may need a bodyguard, and that's saying something. (And I don't see her commenting on Twitter, which is telling.)

Read about the suicide at the Holden Daily, "Holden man sets himself ablaze in front of New Hampshire Courthouse," and Keene Sentinel, "Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim."

And more, at In Mala Fide, "Fatwa of the Week: Keene Sentinel Whitewashes Tom Ball’s Suicide."

More later ...

Allison Benedikt's 'Life After Zionist Summer Camp'; or, The Mysterious Evolution of a Dumb Hadassah Youth Activist to Hip Progressive Israel-Basher

With apologies to Susan Strange for the title.

A lot of this is Jewish inside baseball, so I'm only partly competent to weigh in authoritatively, but my first impression while reading is that Allison Benedikt is, to be frank, a monstrously ignorant, enormously indecisive groupie/wannabe hipster. The essay's written in a kind of droll childish style. It reminds me of someone you might see walking down the street but looks like they don't have the slightest clue where they're going. Benedikt, a Jew from the Midwest, lived her entire life thinking she was going to make aliyah, only to decide that, nah, Zionism wasn't so cool after all. The clincher is that she met, and then later married, a "progressive" non-Jewish dude named Mark (not Marc, to the horror of her parents). Mark had been duly programmed as a zombified anti-Semite by some sections of the modern Jew-hating left. He obviously liked Allison, despite religious differences, and thus quickly went to work destroying her faith in Israel, and since she'd spent an entire life refusing to really learn about the country of her faith --- and her parents' enduring commitment --- she basically melted into a Hamas-defending self-hating American Jew who would be perfectly at home in the comment threads at Daily Kos. It's a long read, so find a few minutes before diving in. The main takeaway is how the piece is like catnip for the neo-communists now cheering the next Gaza flotilla.

Anyway, I saw this when it came out, and then William Jacobson wrote a pithy post, so I was reminded: "Least Shocking Blog Post Title Ever: “Village Voice Editor discovers she hates Israel, curses when challenged”." Check that entry, but the preview is that she told Israeli historian Yaacov Lozowick to f**k off on Twitter. Not surprising, I know. And check the Memorandum link as well. Benedikt gave a cryptic citation to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, and he felt obligated to comment, and at considerable length as well. And the debate devolved to include Andrew Sullivan, but I don't read him so you'll just have to check it out.

'The Crush at the Afghan Exits'

An editorial at the Wall Street Journal.

The NATO allies will follow Obama's move and cut-and-run from the deployment: "France to gradually pull troops from Afghanistan."

I noted previously that it's not the Afghans who're forcing us out. Domestic political calculations are driving policy, and I pray the region doesn't deteriorate into a million Mumbais, but that's asking a lot from the Man Upstairs.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

At WSJ earlier this week, Geert Wilders mentioned that Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff wasn't as lucky as he was to be acquitted. She was convicted in February for "incitement to hatred" and "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” for giving informational seminars on Islam."

This is another Ezra Levant interview that really crescendos with power. Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff concludes:

The thing is, you don't care about freedom of speech until you've lost it. But I'm here to tell you that I will never, ever give up the fight for freedom of speech.

Heidi Klum Nude!

Really.

At AdWeek, "Heidi Klum Gets Naked for Latest 'Project Runway' Ad." And Chicago Tribune, "'Project Runway': Heidi Klum bares all to promote Season 9."

RELATED: At London's Daily Mail, "In the hot seat! Kim Kardashian sizzles in a little black dress for guest role on Project Runway."

Steven Crowder on the Free Enterprise System

Via Theo Spark:

Huma Abedin's Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Jamie Glazov interviews Walid Shoebat at FrontPage Magazine, "The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin."

Glazov also interviewed Robert Spencer, "Abedin/Weiner: A Marriage Made by Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

And at World Net Daily, "Weiner's mother-in-law a member of Muslim Brotherhood."

Ed Morrissey's Visit to Israel

He's mentioned it at the blog a couple of times, but he's got an interesting interview at this post as well, "Farewell, Jerusalem." He's speaking with Erielle Reshef from IBA News:

NewsBusted: 'Obama not spending enough time with daughters'

Via Theo Spark:

The Hate Israel industry

From Kelly McParland, at National Post, "Dog days in the Hate Israel industry":

Things must be getting tougher in the Hate Israel industry these days, what with Arab leaders slaughtering their own people everywhere you look, in order to hold onto their jobs.

People were killed in Egypt, people were killed in Tunisia and Bahrain, people are still being killed in Yemen, Libya and especially Syria. They’re being killed because they’d like to change the government, which you can do in Israel just by turning up to vote. They’re being killed because they’d like to be more like Israel. How can you focus the world’s attention on the despicable state of affairs in apartheid Israel when the people in neighbouring countries insist on giving up their lives in hopes of winning similar rights to those Israel already offers? It’s almost like the protesters in all those places didn’t realize that the source of all their troubles lies in Jerusalem, not in their own countries.

Hate Israel people aren’t easy to persuade, though, so they’re persevering despite the headwinds. The folks behind the Canadian boat to Gaza sent their little contingent off on the weekend to join the heroic struggle to break the murderous Israeli blockade of Gaza and bring life-saving supplies to its besieged people. The people of Gaza aren’t really besieged, and it’s not really that hard to send them supplies, if that’s your intention, but admitting as much would spoil all the drama and self-serving bombast of the Hate Israel folks, so they’re pretending otherwise. If they’re really lucky, Israel will try to turn back the boat and they can try to provoke a confrontation, enabling them to get a ton of international publicity for themselves, which is what they live for. It might be a bit more difficult than in the past, though, since Israel may be reluctant to play along, and since the blockade has already been eased. And Turkey, which has been supportive of the flotillas, has its hands full trying to deal with the flood of civilians fleeing Syria to escape the government’s murderous campaign to put down a popular revolt. (Syria is one of those countries that kills people who challenge the government, a state of affairs the Hate Israel people have to studiously ignore.)

Amazingly clear and concise commentary. But the world plays along with the Islamist charade, in a pro-Palestinian campaign of anti-Semitic hatred.

'Hitler's in the Charts Again'

An encore from last year, more relevant than ever:

Listen to the sound of the soldiers dancing
Armageddon time on the firing line
Don't know what they're doing
Looks like trouble's brewing
Wunderbar, auf wiedersehen
Hitler's in the charts again
You look like a tramp - put you in a camp
Join the shower queue in your dancing shoes
Be the dancing champ of your concentration camp
Keep on movin' fast, remember Belsen was a gas
Hitler's in the charts again
Moving in a trance, watch the soldiers dance
Bloodstains on their feet, scared of everyone you meet
Army's on the street, can you feel the heat
Watch the soldiers fall - it couldn't happen here ...

Kate Upton, Jenna Leigh Lingerie Photoshoot, Spring/Summer 2011

At The Kate Upton Experience, "Kate Upton Super Sexy Jenna Leigh Lingerie Photo Shoot."

Sen. Jeff Sessions Calls on President Obama to Halt Secret Debt Ceiling Negotiations

At The Hill, "Sen. Sessions challenges Obama to make debt-ceiling talks public" (via Memeorandum).

And Sessions on Fox News earlier today:

And Sessions hammers Obama yesterday from the floor of the Senate:

And see the latest at Wall Street Journal, "Obama Joins Tense Debt Talks."

Progressives of course blame Republicans as has having "temper tantrums." So, FWIW, here's Journo-Lister Ezra Klein's take, "No matter who wins the debt showdown, we lose."

VIDEO: North Dakota Flooding — Souris River Hits Record High Flood Level in Minot

North Dakota blogger Rob Port has has first hand coverage: "Some Before And After Pictures Of Minot Flooding.

And in the news, from Fox and PBS:

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Looming flood prompts North Dakota evacuations," and New York Times, "They Dropped Their Flood Insurance, Then the ‘Mouse’ Roared."

Plus, at Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Neighbors, strangers aid Minot flood victims."

Afghans Wary of U.S. Drawdown

At Los Angeles Times, "Afghans fear U.S. drawdown will allow Taliban to regroup":

Next month, Afghanistan is expected to assume security responsibility in two provinces, four provincial capitals and most of Kabul. One of those provincial capitals, Lashkar Gah in Helmand, has been the site of fierce fighting between coalition troops and Taliban insurgents. Even relatively quiet provinces like Bamian, also slated for a handoff to Afghan forces next month, recently have been hit by Taliban violence. This year, the beheaded corpse of the Bamian provincial council chief was found on a roadside.

[Hamid] Karzai welcomed Obama's speech, saying the drawdown announcement signaled the start of Afghanistan's self-determination.

"Every nation protects its own land, and Afghans can do it better," he said in a statement. "We have proved it over the course of history, and we are proud of that."

Nevertheless, Afghans say the drawdown probably will rekindle fear of a U.S. abandonment of the region akin to that of the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed and Washington no longer saw a need to nurture strong links with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Washington has said on numerous occasions that it will not make the same mistake, but Afghans remain unconvinced.

"America left us, and Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists," said Samad, a manager of a Kabul wedding hall who, like many Afghans, goes by one name.

Also at Agence France-Presse, "Withdrawal Symptoms: Afghans Anxious Over Obama’s Out of Afghanistan Plan."

I think it's a mistake, but Obama's on a political timetable, not a strategic one.

And ICYMI, see that Charles Lane essay at WaPo, "Obama’s Afghanistan exit."

Michele Bachmann: 'I Stand With Israel'

I saw this clip at Power Line yesterday, "BACHMANN ON ISRAEL." And following the links takes us to Atlas Shrugs, "MICHELE BACHMANN ON ISRAEL."

The greatest speech by an American leader on Israel. This is what America needs in the White House. Seriously, this is greatness. What a breath of fresh air and righteousness in Obama's current climate of hatred and jihad-enabling.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

And Blazing Cat Fur links to Caroline Glick, who writes:

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more pro-Israel speech by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more cogent explanation of Israel's importance to the US by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

And this speech came out of nowhere. She's not pandering for votes. No one asked her to say this. She just decided that she had to make a statement.

What a great woman. What a great leader. What a great American.

God bless you Michele Bachmann!

Peter Falk, 1927-2011

My parents let me and my sisters stay up to watch "Columbo" back in the day.

But I'll never forget seeing Falk in "Wings of Desire," in 1987:

An obituary is at Los Angeles Times, "Peter Falk dies at 83; actor found acclaim as 'Columbo'." And at New York Times, "Peter Falk, Rumpled and Crafty Actor on ‘Columbo,’ Dies at 83."

Out Yesterday to Irvine Spectrum Center

I've mentioned it before (website's here). And the weather's been awesome:

We had lunch at Wahoos:

Probably going down there again today, to the Apple Store. My son likes the iPhone 4, although if we get him something, it'll probably be an iTouch. We're debating it, since he's still young, but it'll be soon, no matter what happens. He's about that age when kids start to get wired, and of course, the technology's everywhere. For now though, he can just play with the "Cars" app on the store's demonstration model.

Esti Ginzburg Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2011

It's Rule 5 weekend! In the mood for it, and great for traffic.

And interestingly, R.S. McCain writes of his original inspiration for Rule 5, "Want to Make My Wife Happy?"

'Courage, New Hampshire' Premiers Sunday

At Hollywood Reporter, "Tea Partiers Create Their Own TV Show and Production Company (Exclusive)."

Also at Big Government, "‘Courage, New Hampshire’: Tea Party’s Shot Across Liberal Hollywood’s Bow." It's playing at the Krikorian Theater in Monrovia, but tickets are sold out. The program's going to DVD, so something to keep to look forward to.

No doubt. WaPo's Rachel Weiner concurs, "Can liberals start their own tea party?" (via Memeorandum).

Ann Coulter Goes Canadian!

The good kind of Canadian.

Via Blazing Cat Fur.

I love this description at the YouTube page:

Ezra Levant and guest Ann Coulter discuss violent leftist retards.

Word.

It's a lengthy clip, but asked toward the end on what to do when besieged by the mob, Coulter nails it:

When faced with a mob you must smash it. You cannot reason with the mob. It is an irrational, violent organism. Rationality does not work. Calming the mob down does not work. You must always smash a mob. And whether that involves police activity, or pressing charges, calling the police --- engaging in serious self-defense, you don't back down to a mob. That only lets it run wild.

Exactly.

That's why I never back down to progressives, especially the evil mob attacks from the likes of Lawyers, Guns and Murder, or the Sadly No! freaks, people who've contacted my college in continuing campaigns of personal destruction. I'm a threat to these progressive mobsters. They can't touch my moral clarity, for they are immoral, demonic. Flustered and impotent, they've repeatedly demonstrated their violent mob tactics against me. I don't back down, and they hate it. It drives them crazy. They are dangerous. Yes, dangerous, personally to me. If I was a public speaker I too would need a body guard, like so many conservatives I've met in the last couple of years. The progressive mob is about one thing: shutting down those who deviate from and challenge the neo-communist agenda, by any means necessary. I don't cower. I don't relent in standing up for what's right. I stand up to the mob. Ann Coulter is awesome. Read her book! Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.