The War On Christmas comes early this year:
TDW has deets:
At The Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit of the Day: Ted McGinley (AKA Stan Gable AKA Jefferson D’Arcy AKA Mr. Scream) and Daniel Baldwin (AKA The other, other Baldwin brother) star in Christmas with a Capital C — a straight-to-DVD holiday turkey about a godless Grinch desperately trying to steal Christmas from the good, God-fearing folks of Seward, Alaska. It’s the feel-good movie of the Rapture!
The dictator's belated acknowledgment and disavowal of his persecution of homosexuals prompted this fascinating email from Frank Kameny, the most important activist in the early gay rights movement:
While, Castro had no notion, of course, of what he was doing in this context at that time, in my view and in my interpretation of the dynamics of the 1960s Gay Movement, he triggered Stonewall and all that has followed.
News of Castro's incarceration of gays in detention camps in Cuba came out early in 1965 — probably in March or very early April. At that time "the 60s" hadn't yet erupted in their full force, but the precursors were very well advanced. Picketing was considered the mode of expression of dissent, par excellence.
Jack Nichols approached me to suggest that we ("we"= The Matachine Society of Washngton, of which I was President) picket the White House to protest Cuba's action. I felt that it was rather pointless to picket the American President to protest what a Cuban dictator was doing. So I suggested that we broaden and Americanize the effort. One or more of our signs said (in gross paraphrase, here, from memory) "Cuba persecutes Gays; is America much better?", and others specifically addressed governmental and private anti-gay discrimination here, and other gay-related problems of the day.
And so, on April 17, 1965, ten of us gathered in Lagayette Square, marched across Pennsylvania Avenue to a site amongst the other demonstrators designated by the police officer on duty, and picketed. That was followed by another White House picket in late May; at the Civil Service Commission (now the OPM) in June; the Pentagon in July (and again in May, 1966); the State Department in August; and finally, a huge demonstration (55 people!!!) at the White House in October, with participants from New York and Chicago.
That July 4, we also staged the first of 5 annual "Reminder Day" pickets in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The last of those was scheduled for July 4, 1969, a few days after Stonewall-to-be., and was widely publicized in New York (as the previous July 4 ones had been) in the preceding weeks. It was well attended by New Yorkers, indicating that it was well known there.
Ever since, it has been my view, and remains so, that those demonstrations created the protest-oriented mindset which made Stonewall possible, and that without it Stonewall just wouldn't have happened. Therefore, several steps removed, and obviously utterly unbeknownst to him. by his 1965 detentions of Cuban gays, Fidel Castro precipitated and triggered Stonewall and all that we have gained from it since. So, if you enter into a same-sex marriage, or are helped by a gay-protective anti-discrimination law, or run for elective office an an open gay, thank Fidel.
"When Secretary Sebelius said the other day she would punish insurance companies that told the truth about the cost of Obamacare, she was behaving exactly in the spirit of the Soviet tyranny. And if she’s going to represent left-wing thought police about Obamacare, she should be forced to resign by the new Congress," – Newt Gingrich.
Posted consecutively by Palin:
"I have a feeling Christine O'Donnell opposes masturbation the way Bristol Palin opposes pre-marital sex," – Jimmy Kimmel.
Many readers agree with this one:
What's Malkin-ish about Krauthammer's statement? I'm a Dem, strong supporter of the president, and I can't disagree with what Krauthammer is saying. I believe, and have always believed, that Obama wants to shift the country back to the left in the same way that Reagan shifted it right. I don't know if you consider that a "structural" change, but it was pretty significant. I suppose Krauthammer would say that Obama looking at something more Rooseveltian, and is taking advantage of the economic crisis to do it. But I don't know that his supporters would consider this a bad thing; the economic crisis may have made this kind of change possible, but it has also shown how much it's needed. In short, I don't really see Krauthammer's accusation as an "accusation," much less one harsh enough to merit nomination for this prestigious award.
Well, allow me to fisk.
"This is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious."
I think the notion that this administration is ideological is bizarre. Did it nationalize the banks when it could have? Nope. Did it withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope. It followed Bush's timetable on Iraq and has massively – and foolishly – doubled down on counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Did it prosecute the war criminals of the last administration? Nope; it has covered for them. Has it raised taxes on anyone? Nope. It merely wants the already-sunsetted Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire on schedule. Did it provide a Krugman-style stimulus? Ask Krugman. Is Obama a peacenik? I suppose we have forgotten that he used the Nobel ceremony to defend Reinhold Niebuhr, has retained extraordinary rendition, and ramped up the troop-levels in Afghanistan to far beyond anything Bush ever contemplated. Has the president publicly backed marriage equality or pot-decriminalization? Au contraire. Has he even risked an iota of political capital to end the ban on gays in the military? No. In fact, it is now more likely than not that gays will still be persecuted by their own country by the end of Obama's first term. Compare that to Clinton's early efforts – in a climate far more conservative on the issue. "No ordinary Democratic administration." You mean – like LBJ's? This is preposterous piffle.
It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly.
Structurally? You mean returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels? Irreversibly? Again, what on earth is Krauthammer talking about? What has Obama done that is not reversible? Unlike Bush, whose massive debt, torture precedents, new Medicare entitlement and two wars are with us for the rest of our lifetimes.
It has already done so with Obamacare
Obamacare is to the right of what the Clintons attempted to do in 1993- 4. It is almost identical to Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. It claims to cut Medicare. Again: what is Krauthammer smoking? And can I get some?
and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court."
On energy, Obama's positions are now close to identical to McCain's in the campaign (his one radical move was to the right on deep-sea oil exploration), and cap-and-trade is dead and will surely be buried in November. On education, Obama's support for teacher accountability is further to the right than Bush – and it tackles one of his own party's interest groups. On immigration, Obama's position is identical to Bush's and on his watch, illegal immigration has fallen sharply and border enforcement is up. Industrial policy? Yes, Obama saved the auto industry, but it was temporary and its revival has vindicated the gamble. The Supreme Court? Does Krauthammer think the modest Sotomayor and the careerist defender of executive power, Kagan, are in any way, shape or form as radical as Roberts or Alito? Does he think in the wake of Citizens United and the Second Amendment ruling that we are in danger of having a Supreme Court permanently shifted to the left?
The truth is: all of this is bald-faced, indefensible, untrue propaganda. No, it is not as extreme in rhetoric as most Malkin Award winners – but that it comes from someone on the Washington Post op-ed page, and one of the most respected conservative intellectuals, puts it well over the edge.
I stand by the award. With bells on.
It appears that the remarkable, courageous and brilliant war reporter, CNN's Michael Ware, is suffering from PTSD from his time during the Iraq war. God knows what he saw firsthand that still haunts him. And one wonders if those who still defend the fiasco would do so after witnessing even a smidgen of what Ware experienced. There is a new series about him on Australian TV, where he recounts his experiences (the transcript of the first part is here). This insight of the true horror of what the US unleashed is worth keeping in the front of one's mind:
There was just not the one war in Iraq. You had the American war versus the insurgency, who are nationalists fighting to free their country and who were purely politically motivated. Then there's the American war with al Qaida in Iraq. Then there's the Sunni and Shia war amongst the Iraqis themselves. There was the Arab versus Kurdish on again off again little conflict. And then there was the Iranian war versus most of those named above.
While distrust of most institutions has grown, and Americans are in a foul mood, the latest AP poll found that 52 percent now favor full civil marriage rights for gay couples, and 58 percent support the same rights in every respect as heterosexual couples. President Obama, and those Democrats who do not have the balls to repeal DOMA, let alone the GOP base, are now in a minority in opposing marriage equality.
An authoritative review.
"Christine O’Donnell is a bit of a flake I think," – Bill Kristol. And Palin isn't?
The Dish 