Homocon

Meehan targeting 'don't ask, don't tell'

"Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he plans to hold congressional hearings early next year of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, which he is likely to chair, on a bill that would allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces."

It would be an interesting chain of events, indeed, should a bill allowing homosexuals to openly serve actually pass in the House and Senate. Universities that have long used the ban on gays in the military as an excuse to keep military recruiters off-campus will find the rug ripped out from underneath them.

But beyond that, it would be a solid step towards the legalization of gay marriage -- for how can you deny gay-marriage to people who are fighting to defend the life and liberty of their fellow citizens?

While the ban on homosexuals in the military has been defended as necessary to keep enlistment numbers and morale high (it's arguable that many potential soldiers would not enlist in the military if they felt they would have to share their quarters and showers with the dreaded fag, but think of all the macho-lesbians who'd be knocking down the military recruiter's doors!), with the Democrats in control of the House and Senate, I think the military is already experiencing less than stellar morale anyway, so you may as well kick it when it's down and see if it gets back up on its feet again.

When you stop to consider the dangers that our military men and women presently face in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it difficult to believe that a couple of size queens in the showers is going to faze more than just a very few.

Posted by at 5:34 PM | Permalink

Study: Television, Filmmaking Industries Are Big Polluters

"Although Hollywood seems environmentally conscious thanks to celebrities who lend their names to various causes, the industry created more pollution than individually produced by aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels and semiconductor manufacturing, the study found."

I am so not surprised. I'm also so not amused. It brings to mind George Clooney's infamous little sulk (through his publicist) when it was pointed out that driving a Prius doesn't compensate for his high-polluting, globe-trotting, private jet lifestyle: "You clearly have no understanding of certain people's need for private transport."

Clearly.

Posted by at 5:33 PM | Permalink

Baghdad Gays Fear for Their Lives

"Thamir and other gay men complain about frequent mistreatment by police, accusing them of blackmail, torture, sexual abuse and theft. "Policemen raped me several times at gunpoint and threatened to hand me over to extremist groups if I refuse," said Thamir . . . Nail Mohammed, 25, considers his being gay just one risk among many others. In the Al-Fadhil neighborhood where he lives, extremist Islamic groups kill gay men, but also people who wear jeans or drink alcohol. In the past six months, he said three of his closest friends have been killed for drinking."

Are we sacrificing American lives for the establishment of Sharia law? What good is democracy and a constitution if there isn't a corresponding right to the pursuit of happiness?

As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address: "America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, and to make their own way." So does this make a repressive government voted in by a population long submissive to fanaticism an acceptable outcome?

I prefer the General Douglas MacArthur route, where post WW2 Japan was given a democratic constitution written by Westerners, universal suffrage was introduced, human rights were guaranteed (not voted on) and the emperor was forced to announce on the radio to the Japanese people that he was not a god but just a mortal. Japan's media was also subject to a rigid censorship of any anti-American statements and racially charged topics in order to prevent the established powers from poisoning the revolution (see: Al Jazeera).

If we'd twiddled our multiculturalist thumbs after WW2 and let the Japanese write their own constitution, their emperor would still be a god and the people his servants. They'd be fine with it, most likely (as the majority of Iraqi citizens seem agreeable with what we in America consider the undo oppressions of Sharia law), but we would have lost a key ally in the Asian-Pacific rim, a future international economic powerhouse and a visionary champion of social freedom and technological progress -- qualities which Islamic nations seem to lack for the most part.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that last statement, but I don't think I am. Despite representing over 20% of the world's population and occupying over 20% of the world's landmass, Muslim nations produce only around 8% of the word's GDP -- not much of a recommendation for handing them the keys to their own constitutions.

What Bush seems not to have learned from history is that imposing our style of government on the unwilling is a model with a successful track record. The inability of the Bush Administration to recognize that an Islamic society will not whole-heartedly embrace the Western concept of individual freedom -- no matter how it's packaged -- is perhaps the one thing that will completely undermine the entire GWOT.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were breathtaking in what they attempted to accomplish (i.e. the establishment of democratic and free societies in sadly non-democratic or free countries), yet are proving utterly misguided in the execution, resulting in the sacrifice of thousands of American lives so that Iraqi citizens can be beaten and killed for being gay, drinking or wearing jeans.

But hurrah for the Iraqi constitution!

In Mario Ferrero's 2002 paper, Radicalization as a Reaction to Failure: an Economic Model of Islamic Extremism, he states that "even the vast majority of Muslims who see September 11th as a crime, nevertheless also see it as a "lesson" for the United States to wake up and change its vicious policies toward the Middle East" -- so #1. we're not likely to be winning any hearts and minds no matter what we do, and #2. it's near useless to foist an age of enlightenment on a populace whose most moderate members still think we had it coming.

It looks like we're not going to get anywhere in our battle against Islamic Fundamentalism until we seal off Mecca and post big signs across all the entrance ways reading, "Closed For Repairs!" I think we already have an outspoken candidate who'd love to head the construction crew . . .

Posted by at 1:13 PM | Permalink

Okay, so Michael Steele didn't pick up the Senate seat in the Maryland race, but hey -- it's rumored that he's going to replace Ken Mehlman as RNC Chair. How cool is that?

Way. Cool.

Posted by at 7:45 PM | Permalink

Wallstreet analyst Jim Cramer, of the RealMoney Radio Show, had this to say about last night's election:

Although this is not a political show, where the left vs. right is discussed, whenever there is a big election with a political shift, it is important to focus on the financial realities of such a change.

One such reality is class-action lawsuits. One area that nobody's talking about with the Democrats coming in is the repeal of the reform against class-actions . . . (I) fear that one of the unintended consequences of the Democrats taking over the House is that the people who bring these lawsuits are going to be back, and drug stocks are going to be sued.

I would really hate for this to be true, but one thing that Cramer seems to have forgotten is that the Class Action Fairness Act was passed by a resounding and bipartisan 72-26. This means that there were plenty of Donkeys braying their "Yea" right along with the GOP.

Class-Action lawsuits were (and still are, in many cases) a huge problem, and we still need a lot more focus directed toward reform of the legal system in this country, though with a Senate comprised mainly of lawyers (and the Dems receive huge contributions from the Trial Lawyers Association, soon to be renamed "The American Association for Justice" . . . whatever), further reform is unlikely, no matter how necessary.

And lest we forget, John Edwards was a Trial Lawyer, and he was almost one-step away from the Presidency. Can you imagine the accelerated bloat of the Trial Lawyers Association if that had happened?

*shudder*

One good measure of (Trial Lawyers') size is their political clout: In 2002 the trial lawyers' PAC ranked third in America -- and was the Democratic Party's most generous contributor. We're not saying that there's no role for trial attorneys in the American legal system, or that they don't occasionally secure justice for a wronged individual. But with the billions its firms rake in each year putting them squarely in the category of Big Business, shouldn't their self-serving claims be treated with the same skepticism routinely directed at, say, Halliburton or Philip Morris?

On second thought, maybe I should be worried about the repeal of tort reform . . .

Posted by at 1:48 PM | Permalink

I'm sitting here biting my nails over the potential for bad news on election night, but I'll tell you what -- a lot of bad news would be mitigated by a Michael Steele win in Maryland. I'd really like to see an energized and motivated black caucus make its presence known and felt in the Republican Party.

Competition is always good for the consumer, and the black population of these United States could see a significant benefit from holding highly visible leadership roles on both sides of the aisle -- and just think of the possibilities for cross-pollination!

"In the new economy driven by systemic innovation, new ideas arise from cross-pollination – complex interactions between many individuals, organizations and environmental factors. Winning innovative solutions are inspired and developed in the process of cross-pollination of ideas, rather than narrowly focused search."

And on that note, I'd love to see the gay voting block abandon its simple-minded, one party shall rule them approach to politics, as well, because we'll never be able to settle this whole marriage issue until gays stop flogging it as a "right" that only bigots would frown upon.

Gay marriage is a big step in the grand social experiment, and it has the unfortunate liability of a lack of historical precedence. How the same people who are legitimately concerned about pharmaceuticals without a proven track record of safety-in-use can merely shrug off concerns about the possible social implications of gay marriage ten, twenty, thirty years down the road is beyond me.

It isn't that gay marriage is good or evil, it's that a large number of people are rightly concerned about the potential for harm that may result from incorporating an unknown factor into what's considered one of the fundamentals of our social structure (i.e. marriage/family).

These concerned people are fellow citizens and fellow voters, and calling them names, ridiculing their beliefs and spewing profanities because no one can assure them that same-sex marriage won't result in long-term damage is ridiculously counter-productive -- it's like the Palestinians blowing themselves up in Tel Aviv and then complaining bitterly when Israel builds a wall that prevents them from accessing Israeli health-care and Israeli employment.

Rather than staking out a claim in the increasingly crowded territory of Victimhood, we should instead be engaged in a PR campaign which stresses our achievements and accomplishments: employment productivity, intellectual creativity, psychological well-being and thriving, stable relationships . . . because if we can't come up with good examples for all the above, then why would anyone wish to entrust us with the keys to the family car?

But I digress -- and often. I'll feel like we all won a victory if Michael Steele comes out the winner in the Senate race in Maryland. It would send a strong message to both parties that the black voting block is in play, and trending upward. Now, if only the gay community would end its one-party dependence and send the same message . . .

Posted by at 4:32 PM | Permalink

Could this be any funnier?

Thanks to Blackfive -- and thanks to all our very capable and obviously razor-witted troops.

Posted by at 5:46 PM | Permalink

Ann Althouse posted clips from a 1960's interview between Woody Allen and Billy Graham. The two men couldn't be more diametrically opposed in many of their views regarding life, religion and morality, yet the interview (recorded during one of Allen's Talk-Show episodes) is warm, witty and respectful on both sides.

You can tell that both of these men have very strong personalities and even stronger convictions, yet not one unkind word was uttered, no bombs were thrown, no condescending sneers or self-righteous indignation. Hell, the audience was even polite -- laughing and cheering when either man said something clever.

One of the many comments left at Althouse sums up the interview nicely: "Both men come off very well. Charming, funny, and enjoying each other's company. That was more fun than anything I've ever seen Letterman, Stewart, Colbert, or Maher do. It really is possible to disagree without being a jerk."

Amen to that. I could actually start to watch talk-shows and news analysis shows again if people learned to stop shouting at, and/or insulting, everyone who disagrees with their point of view.

Posted by at 1:48 PM | Permalink

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear -- well, of course, now that they know we won't do a damn thing about it.

We're like that awful mother in the grocery store who keeps telling her screaming, hysterical brat that he/she is going to get in a lot of trouble if he/she doesn't stop misbehaving right now. I mean, like . . . now. Stop it. You're gonna get it. I mean it. Really. I mean it. This time I really mean it. You don't believe me? You just keep misbehaving then. Yeah, keep it up. You're in more trouble every second. I will not put up with this any longer. You're in sooooo much trouble. Oh, for god's sake, I'll give you a frickin' cookie if you'll just shut up!

Posted by at 5:12 PM | Permalink

There are only a few more days until the mid-term elections. You may think there's nothing you can do to help the GOP candidates running in districts and states other than your own, but that's not true.

Head on over to ABCPAC and check out the various GOP candidates running for tightly contested seats. Most of the races that were considered defeats for the GOP only two months ago, when Mark Foley was all the buzz, are neck and neck now that actual issues pertinent to our country's long-term welfare are being discussed.

Consider donating a few extra dollars towards much needed, last-minute advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts for these candidates. I especially recommend looking at Michael Steel, Diana Irey and Mike Bouchard.

Posted by at 9:54 AM | Permalink

Even the Boston Herald, one of the main news outlets in Kerry's home state, printed an editorial stating that Kerry's condescending, elitist attitude towards the military is offensive beyond belief: "The real shame is that while John Kerry stumps around the country, building up chits for his own possible presidential campaign rerun, he still has that D-Mass. after his name. And that’s an embarrassment to the good people of this state who sent him to the U.S. Senate."

This is what happens when you get a DNC stuffed full of 60's radicals nostalgic for their glory days of anti-establishment bravado and forcing our military to abandon millions of Vietnamese citizens who depended on them for their very survival.

UPDATE:
Another classic (from the Mudville Gazette):

You can find a much larger version of the first photo over at Hot Air.

UPDATE:
And another pertinent photoshop job from Seixon Blog:

And it frickin' cracked me up when Don Imus told Kerry to just shut up and go away. I mean, doesn't this completely blow Kerry's bid to get renominated in 2008? He's gotta be scrubbing the foul taste of shoe leather from out of his mouth about right now, because this quote will haunt him for years, no matter how much he protests about "botched jokes" . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE:
The hilarity just keeps on a comin' . . . John Murtha Proposes "Strategic Redeployment" Of John Kerry To Okinawa: " I have come, sadly and slowly, to the conclusion that our current deployment of John Kerry in the campaign is creating more 'insurgent voters' than it is turning towards us. Therefore, I suggest, at the earliest feasible moment, that we withdraw John Kerry from the theater of political battle and redeploy him to nearby Okinawa."

Posted by at 9:52 AM | Permalink