So...I'm busy. You guys obviously want to talk. Here's another open thread.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Attacking Free Speech
The student chapter of the International Socialist Organization at Columbia University rushed a stage where the founder of the Minutemen, Jim Gilchrist, tried to deliver a speech. The campus Republicans had asked him to speak.
The New York Sun has this to say:
"It's not that some Columbia students chose to disagree with Mr. Gilchrist — this newspaper does, too. It would have been entirely appropriate for school administrators to allow students to protest peaceably outside the lecture hall or to host a competing event. The university's willingness to allow this event to devolve into pandemonium, however, speaks volumes about its commitment to fostering open debate. The video of the event shows campus police officers — paid for by the Columbia College Republicans — standing by just feet away as students overturned tables and chairs onstage and proceeded to attack Mr. Gilchrist and his fellow Minuteman, Marvin Stewart."
How many times have conservatives decried some outrageous leftwing speaker speaking on campus? More times than I can count. But did we ever go to the extremes that the leftwing protesters do when they oppose speakers? No.
Why is it that those who yell "Free Speech" the loudest are the same ones who don't want anyone to hear the speech if they don't agree with it? This kind of behavior not only sends the wrong message to our youth about free speech, but also the wrong message about common decency.
via Human Events via Mary Katherine.
And just to emphasis the point, Ann Coulter nails it:
"But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!"
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Good Grief!
Drudge reporting:
"According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives,"
PRANK??????????
Are you a woman with an interest in politics? No bikini pics for you!
In case you missed the stir up with Michelle Malkin and some left wing blogs using a photoshopped picture of her in a bikini to make some sort of a point, The woman whose pictures they took from her site has written an excellent article about it:
"That is what we learned from conservative author Michelle Malkin last week. After she wrote a column criticizing once-wholesome singer Charlotte Church for her slide into pop star hedonism, left-wing Internet blogs discovered photographs of Malkin on spring break fourteen years ago. Accompanied by headlines like “Michelle Malkin gone wild” and “Michelle, you ignorant slut,” the blogs linked to a photo-sharing page that featured Malkin cavorting with girlfriends and posing in a string bikini.
It seemed like the perfect “gotcha” moment for the liberal blogosphere. But there was a problem: the photo page wasn’t real. I know this because most of the pictures on it belong to me.
Whoever made the photo page apparently wasn’t content to insult Malkin, an Asian woman, with racial slurs – a popular activity among her critics. Instead, they aimed to expose her as a hypocrite. Using pictures stolen from various Webshots.com accounts, including mine, the creator wrote captions to imply that I had had been a classmate of Malkin’s at Oberlin College in the early 90s – and that she was anything but a moralist back then.
By the time I discovered the hoax, liberal blogs were already hard at work smearing Malkin as a “slut,” “hussy,” and “b-tch.”
I was shocked as I scrolled through posts and reader comments about my pictures, some of them photoshopped or falsely labeled as pictures of Malkin. Racist jokes and sexual denigration were common themes."
Wonkette, a leftwing blog that started this mess refuses to answer e-mails from this author with her proof that the photo was photoshopped from her page.
The ironic thing is that the picture isn't even bad. It's just a girl posing in a bikini. Does the left believe that we women who are conservative were some sort of a Postulant growing up? Do they believe we didn't wear bikinis??
I don't know why Michelle puts up with what she does. What a creepy world we live in.
"Former Washington Post senior political writer Thomas Edsall on Bob Woodward and his new book."
Hugh Hewitt has the interview. Let's just say this former colleague doesn't find Woodward credible.
More on Bob Woodward's credibility from RCP:
Brent Scowcroft released the following statement today (View image):
"I have spoken to Bob Woodward a number of times about a variety of subjects over the years, but I did not agree to be interviewed for his latest book. Further, there are statements in the book, directly or implicitly attributed to me, that did not and never could have come from me. I never discuss any personal conversations that I may have with President George H.W. Bush, and he never discusses with me any conversations that he has with President George W. Bush."
Scowcroft's office confirmed the authenticity of the statement and said it was released earlier today to the Associated Press. Curiously, I can find no mention of it on any AP-driven news site.
via Powerline
How does this change things?
It seems the site that broke the Foley story was made up for that sole purpose:
StopSexPredators, a pseudo-vigilante blog filled with plagiarized, hastily-assembled posts, which no one seems to have heard of, visited, or linked to before last week—and whose operator has a suspiciously savvy grasp of the news cycle.
via NRO
And the left can just drop the "defending a pedophile" meme. It's a great word for them to throw around but it isn't what Mark Foley is. He is a scumbag, but he didn't target young children. I'm still confused about whether the young man who IM'd (the sexually explicit ones) with Foley was 18 at the time or not. Drudge still says he was, but I have seen no confirmation of that.
In fact the ones on the left can just drop the whole "defending Foley" thing at all. From the moment this story broke I have seen NOT ONE PERSON on the right defend Foley at all. What seems to be happening is what will happen from now on with the internet, and that is we aren't going to just accept a story at face value. If it smells, people will look into it because we can't trust the media.
If the boy was 18 then ABC put a false story out there which started the whole pedophile thing. Because let's just face the honest truth. If Mark Foley didn't have sex or try to solicit sex from a minor, then he becomes someone who was simply gay.
And that would not have been a story the left could have run with.
The fact of the matter is every soundbite I have heard from the Democrats have been about Hastert resigning, not what Foley did.
Finding out who ran this bogus website that broke the story will tell us much.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
A Gay Question
Ok, I know. I know. People are SICK of the Mark Foley story. But I was reading that blog that outs "closeted gay Republicans" and reading several stories where some on the left blamed Foley being in the closet for his behavior and that he was outed years ago by the Advocate, but no one ran with it. The Rogers blog outed Foley because he voted "against gay rights." I got to thinking about it. Put aside the page scandal for a moment and let's focus on the gay thing because I have a few questions.
I hate to use Foley as an example because he's a scumbag, but bear with me. First, I don't think he was closeted. Isn't closeted when you deny you are gay? Foley never denied he was gay. He only told people that it was none of their business. It seemed everyone knew anyway, but he obviously didn't want to discuss his sex life (now we can see why) but my point is why should anyone be forced to discuss their sexuality??? Because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act? Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they march in lock step with gay activists. Even on an issue that affects them directly. Maybe Foley didn't think gays should marry. Can't he and other gays believe that if they wish??
Oh yeah, I wanted to add something. You know that all this crap we are writing about and all the details don't mean squat to the American people. They hear the buzz, the basics and that's it. So, I was getting my oil changed today and there were four men in the waiting room with me and something was mentioned on TV about Foley so I asked the guys what they knew about it (like I didn't know anything) and one guy said, "Some gay guy resigned from Congress for talking dirty on the internet with a kid." "yeah", said the another guy, "I'm telling you it's dangerous to let gays around kids. This is just proof of that." (This hasn't been exactly good PR for gays I can tell you that I heard that more than once today) So I asked them, "Was he a Democrat or Republican?" One guy said, "Hmm.... I think he was a Republican." "No" said another, "He was a Democrat." I looked at him and said, "How do you know?" And he said, "Isn't it the Democrats who are all for gay rights and all? The guy must have been a Democrat, but they are all crooks up there anyway." And everyone shook their head in agreement.
My point is that people aren't sweating the details of this and all this is really doing is making Congress look worse than it already does.
An outing of sorts.
Passionate America has done some investigative work to say the least and says he has found the young man who we have read about through the IM"s with Mark Foley.
If it is the same guy, he is Campaign Manager for Ernest Istook Oklahoma City.
What can I say? This is the internet age. Nothing is hidden anymore.
h/t dave
Sex
This whole thing with Foley and everyone dredging up Clinton and all the other sexual escapades of politicians got me to thinking about relationships. I was waiting for an appointment today and picked up a "Jane" magazine, which I believe is aimed at young women. There was an article on how to score free drinks from the bartender you slept with last weekend. There was a regular column that asks young women across the country where is the "craziest" place you have ever "done it." There were about 6 other articles relating to sex that had nothing to do with love.
I never allowed my daughter to read the Cosmos and Glamour magazines and this is why. What messages are being sent here? That there are no consequences for your actions.
It got me to wondering why we don't seem to focus more on our love relationships in popular culture rather than just our sexual ones.
I remember when I met one of my boyfriends in college. I was in the library and saw him across the room. Instant attraction. I was 20. I turned to a girl sitting next to me who was in my sorority and I said, 'I want to meet that guy." And she looked over at him and started to laugh. I said, "What??" She said, "That should be pretty easy to arrange. That's my brother."
So she introduced us outside. He told me later that he just thought his sister was being nice and it didn't occur to him at introductions that I liked him. He was standing by his car and I blurted out, "I like your car." Because I couldn't think of anything else to say and I didn't want him to leave. He looked at his car puzzled for a moment because it was truly a bland and nothing car and then looked at me with a huge grin on his face. He realized I liked him.
That was the start of some romance.
I can't relate to giving into any old sexual urge that hits you. Oh, I had the urges, trust me. I just chose not to act upon them. Not only because of my faith, but because the only sex talk my Dad ever gave me was basically 3 words and they stuck with me all through my dating life- "Don't be stupid." When I was 14 my Dad was concerned about the growing number of boys showing up on our doorstep. We were out on the front porch and he didn't look at me when he said it. He never said the word "sex," but we both knew what he was talking about. He said, "Don't be stupid sweetie. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose."
I heard those words in my mind more times that I care to remember. My Dad told me not to be stupid and I wasn't. And I have no regrets for not being sexually active until I was married. I don't have to remember drunken one night stands. I don't have to remember feeling used. I don't have to remember sweating over a cold sink waiting for a strip to turn blue or pink. I never had to watch a boyfriend walk away when I had his child in my womb.
No, I have no regrets.
Oh, I know the stories. I watched my girlfriends go through it. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't perfect. I was not a goody two shoes. But long before I was Catholic I avoided the mortal sins. Back then I called them the "Don't be stupid sins."
Which brings me back to Foley and Clinton. Foley can blame alcohol and Clinton can blame Monica, but what it really came down to is making a decision to do something stupid. How can men who are so smart be that stupid?
I don't believe the sexual urge overrides our common sense. People make the choice not to give in to sexual sin every day. Maybe it was the combination of power and arrogance that flip the switch to override with these men and other men like them. But people who have no power or arrogance do these things as well. So it really is all about the choice you make every single day.
Maybe instead of these sex saturated magazines and movies and TV, we should have public service announcements that say,
Don't Be Stupid
Hey, it worked for me.
Tourism gone......nuts?
Iran Opens Nuclear Sites to Foreign Tourists.
Come to Iran! Wear a burka! See the sites! Nuclear sites that is.
Very Interesting Tidbits.
From Media Blog:
"ABC reporter Brian Ross, who broke the Mark Foley story, hinted to The New York Times that his sources on the story have come from the Republican Party:
Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.
“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.
In this context, it's worth remembering the Rep. Rodney Alexander — who sponsored the page who received the e-mails that started all this — was a Democrat until he switched parties in 2004. What happened to his staff?"
Even more interesting from NRO:
"I do not trust Dick Morris. Period. But here's what he said on Hannity & Colmes last night, in context:
HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.
Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.
MORRIS: And that's going to back fire.
HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.
MORRIS: And that's going to back fire on the Democrats by focusing on what did Hastert know, because you know that some of the Democratic congressmen knew. I had a reporter who told me today that she knows that one very prominent member of the Democratic leadership knew about this for months. And it came out through...
HANNITY: That's a big story.
MORRIS: ... a left-wing — came out — yes, but it's up to her to break it. And came...
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: But, Dick, it's the Republican leadership we're dealing with here. It's their leadership.
MORRIS: Yes. I mean, the Democratic leadership knew, was what she told me. And I think that, obviously, it came out through a liberal Web site, and obviously it was fed to ABC through one of their more liberal channels. And obviously there were Democratic fingerprints on it.
But I don't think that the public is going to care much about what Hastert knew and what the Democratic leadership knew and any of that. They are going to focus on the details of this scandal, and they'll be very glad that it came out, and they will feel that it epitomizes what's wrong with Congress.
COLMES: All right, Dick, we only have a few moments here before we have to break again. But, look, this actually appeared on a Web site, "Stop Sexual Predators." I don't know that that's a liberal Web site.
We know that the Democrat in the page program in Congress was not informed. Only the Republicans knew. To actually put any blame for this on the Democratic leadership, as if they should have done something, when it's clear the Republican leadership didn't, is really not taking responsibility where it belongs.
MORRIS: Listen, I hate to take both of you on at once, but you're both missing the point. This is not a Democratic or a Republican scandal. It's a congressional scandal."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Well, we know one group that kept Foley's secret...
WND has this:
"A radical activist on a mission to "out" conservative homosexual lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers held on to information about Rep. Mark Foley's relationships with underage male pages, suggesting the story would break at the time of mid-term elections.
Blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit points to a campaign by two activists who had Foley on their "target list" of 20 people and shared the information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
More:
More than a year ago, in a March 2005 post, Rogers said he had thought hard about what kind of action to take and said that while none would be taken at the moment, "When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface."
via Gateway Pundit h/t Garry
Owning a gun..not really a right.
At least according to Rosie O' Donnell on The View. Newsbusters has this:
O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."
This quickly led to an exchange with the program’s token conservative, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which O’Donnell asserted that there is no right to own a gun:
Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."
O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"
Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."
O’Donnell: "Well, let’s talk instead of yell."
Hasselbeck: "I’m not yelling."
You should be yelling sweetie.
Show me a law that would keep dirty rotten stinkin' dirtbags from getting guns anyway on the street and I'll show you my "look 20 your whole life" face cream.
Has outlawing drugs kept criminals from getting drugs? What world do these people live in?
I just want to get this straight (pardon the pun)
Mark Foley says he is gay and that he never had sex with a minor and that he was molested by clergy as a young teen. Is He saying that being molested made him gay?
Also, Foley isn't the only one remembering molestation. The killer at the Amish school says he was a molester and was dreaming of doing it again.
I'm officially depressed.
Hastert on Rush
He isn't resigning. Good on him.
If you are innocent stand firm. Listen to the audio. Hastert explains exactly what happened. You can believe him or not. But there it is.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
