“While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people “cowards” for holding public-policy views at variance with one’s own. Her childish display in the New York Times is an embarrassment,” – Kevin Williamson, NRO.
Was this childish?
Via Wonkette.
“Which is more important: LGBT or border security? I’ll tell you what my priorities are,” – Senator John McCain.
But how on earth are the two contradictory? Allowing same-sex spouses the same immigration rights as opposite-sex spouses would make not an iota of difference to border security, or to anything else to do with immigration. But telling an American citizen that he or she can only live with his husband or her wife if they emigrate to another country violates basic humanity and equal protection of the laws.
Remember those two ideas?
“This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on,” – Kurt Schlichter, in a Breitbart-rant against “Girls”.
One tip for “conservatives” tackling pop-culture. Not everything in the arts or literature fits into a liberal-conservative divide. Almost nothing of any quality does. Most good shows, like Girls, are far, far too interesting to be compressed into that kind of ideology. And real conservatives – who regard politics as a necessary evil and life as the great adventure – do not encounter every cultural offering and rate it on some dreary lib-con spectrum of acceptability. That’s what ideologues do. And at one point in the distant past, the entire point of conservatism was to insist against the dictates of ideology, rather than rely entirely upon them to understand everything.
Breitbart actually understood this a little. He was happy to leave politics aside at times. His followers would not even know how to approach a work of art or literature without asking first: is it right or left?
“Reading through the speech (I will be honest: I couldn’t bear to listen to it live, I just couldn’t), I was haunted by an echo. The speech reminded me of something, of someone. Who was it? Woodrow Wilson? Yes, in part. But there was another ghost in the wings . . .
Got it: “Peace in our time,” the president said, “requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.” Now, I am as keen on tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice as the next gun-toting bitter-ender. But “peace in our time”? Where have we heard that before? Who was the last politician to strut across the world stage proclaiming “peace in our time”? Why, Neville Chamberlain, of course… ” – Roger Kimball, National Review, in a post called “Inaugurating President Chamberlain.”
"And here we are eleven years after the largest and bloodiest Islamic attack on America and Al Jizz is buying Gore TV. This is a major step in the network’s goal of expanding jihad propaganda further into the U.S. cable market and gives it a chance to brainwash millions of Americans. How much did those traitors sell us out for? Al Jazeera is a security threat to America. Demand investigative hearings." – Pamela Geller.
For a glossary of Dish Awards, see here. For 2012's champions, see here.
"Unfortunately, Sullivan isn't going away entirely. He's too beloved by the elite left-wing media to disappear into the obscurity he deserves. As we've seen from left-wing journalists like Ben Smith and Dave Weigel, there's already a push to ensure Sullivan's success in a new venture that will likely produce more of the hysterical, out-of-control Andrew Sullivan the media finds so valuable. Now that he'll be a total independent and beholden to no editorial oversight whatsoever, Sullivan will enjoy the room necessary to blossom even more as the media's wicked id, the raging conspiracy theorist and bigot who attacks the Right in ways the media doesn't dare, but still enables by propping Sullivan up," – John Nolte, Breitbart.com.
Actually, my contracts in the past all guaranteed me total editorial independence so there is no change there. And he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a pay-wall (which we won't have) and a meter that nonetheless leaves a vast amount of the content free. But if you want to show him that this is emphatically not a site propped up by anyone except its readers, pre-subscribe here.
