April 16, 2010

"It's an odd thing to get attacked by the White House for a blog post..."

"... and odder still when the attack is for something mentioned in passing, and intended to highlight a political positive about a potential Supreme Court nominee."

More commentary here.

150 comments:

lucid said...

You don't understand, Ann.

Obama doesn't work for us. We all work for him. So, when we do something that displeases him, it is just like your boss being displeased with you--he or she tells you off.

This is also why he feels so free to do with our money whatever he likes--it's not really our money--it's his.

former law student said...

Nice backpedaling.

Credibility is like virginity -- once lost it cannot be regained.

Alexis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
themightypuck said...

This is only interesting if Kagan is actually gay. The idea that saying you are not gay or having someone say on your behalf that you are not gay is homophobic is just silly.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Slow Joe said...

"former law student said...

Nice backpedaling.

Credibility is like virginity -- once lost it cannot be regained.
"

Only he doesn't backpeddle. He admits he made the claim, explains why he did and how it's reasonable, and explains why it's not some kind of hatred, but actually tolerance. He also notes that there are Lesbos being considered seriously... it's not like he was actually wrong, then, about his argument.

And he argues effectively for the Gay Rights movement.

Anyone who is bashing him for this is just plain unserious. Just another issue the White House looks silly on. They still aren't ready to lead?

El Pollo Real said...

The mere facts of the incident suggest that an "Obama is like Nixon" tag is in order.

The WH taking a personal interest in a piece of journalism?

themightypuck said...

The idea that the White House doesn't have an interest in this is also silly. This is all about tactics.

edutcher said...

OK, so far we have the Black seat, the Woman's seat, the wise Latina (not just any old Latino, mind you), and now we're going to have a gay seat.

Somebody tell me if there's a seat for someone who actually has read the Constitution.

lucid said...

You don't understand, Ann.

Obama doesn't work for us. We all work for him. So, when we do something that displeases him, it is just like your boss being displeased with you--he or she tells you off.


Be glad your head doesn't roll, or is that why Andy Stern quit SEIU, to head up the Civilian National Defense Corps (or Corpse, if you can't read TOTUS)?

Penny said...

""It's an odd thing to get attacked by the White House for a blog post...""

If the White House had tipped their hat to him in some positive fashion, I suspect that Domenech would have been a "journalist" for The New Ledger instead of a "blogger" for the same publication.

madawaskan said...

Has Obama changed his mind about-

Don't Ask Don't Tell?

madawaskan said...

Obama's prompter must be dizzy.

Or maybe it's on the wrong speech-ya that must be it.

tim maguire said...

It's an odd thing to get attacked by the White House for a blog post,

Not nearly as odd as it should be, but that's Team Obama for you.

knox said...

Gay! Not Gay!

ZZZZZZZZZZ

I only care if you're qualified.

former law student said...

Only he doesn't backpeddle. He admits he made the claim, explains why he did and how it's reasonable, and explains why it's not some kind of hatred, but actually tolerance.

He got the facts wrong, and his excuse is that the facts don't matter. In fact, his error does nothing but benefit the victim, because gay judges are so darn popular these days. Bottom line -- you're an idiot to object to the error because the error is better than the truth.

Like I said, nice backpedaling.

Lincolntf said...

Gotta love the faux outrage in the comments over at HuffPo. Of course these people would "use" the fact that a nominee (not the one the dingleberry named, but still) is "openly lesbian". Every bit of opposition to her, including that based on her own words, actions and rulings, would be branded homophobia by the "educated class" and their idiot drones.
These people are obsessed with diversity of the meaningless (skin color, what you do with your junk), while real diversity (of thought and perspective) is stomped out at every turn.
Screw 'em and their box-checking simple-mindedness.

ricpic said...

We've reached the point where not being completely comfortable with putting our fate in the hands of antinomian sexual inverts is hateful.

Scott said...

I read the Kurtz piece. Barry O.'s lackeys do seem a bit skittish, don't they?

Then again, in our country, speculating that a politician is a homosexual is far more poisonous than saying they're a socialist. If you don't believe this, you just try stating the "g" word in the same sentence as the name of that perpetually single senior senator from a certain midwestern state known for cheese in the comments of this blog, and you'll know exactly how far the blogmistress tolerates free speech. Apparently homosexuality is still the love that dare not speak its name -- at least around these parts.

Jeremy said...

As for lucid's inane comment that; "Obama doesn't work for us. We all work for him. So, when we do something that displeases him, it is just like your boss being displeased with you--he or she tells you off."

What in the world does that tea bagger drivel have to do with the ridiculous explanation this creep gives for publishing the story in the first place?

Are you saying President Obama called this asshole to complain?

Get your head out of your right wing ass.

And, as for themightypuck saying; "This is only interesting if Kagan is actually gay."

Why is it so interesting? When you meet people who are gay do you immediately tell them how "interesting" it is that they are?

c3 said...

One cannot be proud of one's sexuality until one has officially announced. Until then any discussion is patently of ill intent.

I think that's the rule I read somewhere.

PS Ricky Martin exception:
A one time exception is allowed in a vain attempt to regain past celebrity

Jeremy said...

El Pollo Real said..."The WH taking a personal interest in a piece of journalism?"

You consider this to be a "piece of journalism?"

One more reason I don't think you read.

Trooper York said...

Hey dude, he just likes to hang around with big guys because he misses Bob Lanier.

That's what happens when you own an NBA franchise.

Didn't you see "Semi-Pro!"

Trooper York said...

You know Red Auerbach used to love to suck on big cigars on the bench.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Trooper York said...

On the other hand....everybody knows....BOSTON SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeremy said...

Pollo Loco - Here's your "journalist":

Washington Post
Jim Brady
Executive Editor,

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

It's nobody's business if Kagan is gay.

Why would the White House participate in gay bashing of this kind? Outing someone as straight who is gay is just outrageously homophobic.

Are they so homophobic in the White House that they're willing to push people back into the closet?

Can you not be gay in Obama's world? Why would the White House even participate in a discussion of this kind at all?

Jeremy said...

Trooper York said..."On the other hand....everybody knows....BOSTON SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Finally...something to agree on.

Trooper York said...

Back in the day there were a lot of rumors about Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson because they used to kiss each other before the tip-off.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

El Pollo Real said...

You consider this to be a "piece of journalism?

Yeah, I do.
But I'll leave to you to quantify that & explain why il Douche thinks it's so important.

I thought some of the things Nixon and Agnew went after in the press of their day were pretty douchy too.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Oh, come on, she's definitely a lesbo... maybe a part-time lesbo... maybe a past lesbo now going straight-for-the-job or going celibate, or consciously staying in the closet... but she's definitely a lesbo.

She'll be confirmed and then in 10 or 20 years she'll write a book revealing her lesboness and it'll sell millions of copies and she will be rich!

Why else would Obama & Co protest so vigorously?

Why else would Obama & Co reveal, at this obscure time and in this obscure way, who their nominee is going to be?

Why would Obama & Co make this statement, which seems to regard the possibility of a gay nominee as akin to old stinky cheese?

SHE. IS. DEFINITELY. A. LESBO.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Trooper York said...

Now Phil Jackson used to kiss Michael Jordan before every game.

Of course it was on the ass so I don't think that means he's gay.

We have to ask Titus about that.

Roger J. said...

No problems with Ms Kagan'sexuality; only her jurisprudence

Trooper York said...

Eddie Curry of the Knicks was accused of demanding sex from his limo driver.

He should have just considered himself lucky that he wasn’t Jayson Williams limo driver.

Limo driver can be a very dangerous gig.

madawaskan said...

Althouse Proportional to Population Judge Representation Theory on the Supreme Court-

could be headed for the skids as we speak.

Althouse is worried about too many Catholics.

Now-what would happen to this proportional representation appointment game if-we have

too many rumored-to-be-gay?

[We already have two.]

How will we ever balance the Court...!?

Next thing you know a Closet Catholic will sneak through....

Nals said...

I didn't realize there was any discussion of Kagan's sexual preferences before this guy, Domenech, said anything. Did you? Mission accomplished.

Cedarford said...

Look, it's 2010 -- no one should care if a nominee to any position is gay....It should be a positive.
THe problem with identity politics is if you are a bent that you call for the gay seat as a political plus, as well as maintaining the black seat, latin seat, 2 Jewish seats, progressive feminist women's seat - you run out of 9 seats pretty fast. And have most of America, not just white male protestant "oppressors" locked out and looking in on an institution their ancestors created.

It is like the argument that military honors for our soldiers certain "support our heroes!!" fanatics make - that they love and advocate for each soldier soooooo much that the whole nation whould have flags at half-staff for 2 weeks or a month for each soldier who dies by accident, suicide, illness, or enemy action in a combat zone. Well, there are still just 12 months and 26 two-week periods in a year to divvy up. What if 8 soldiers are killed in a day? Do you half staff the nation for a month and thus "dilute the fallen heroe's honoring" to 1/8th? Or do you show how much you love and support the troops by given each the "honor" sequentially month by month?
What if we have 2400 killed? Flag at half staff for the next 200 years?

It's always something advocates ignore: Limited time, space within an organization, and money. Love to give each ghetto mamma a million dollars in "slavery reparations" - but only if we could somehow convince the Arabs or Chinese to donate the money.

bagoh20 said...

"It'a an odd thing to get attacked by the White House..."

Not anymore.

Cops doing their job.
Gun owners
Religious Pennsylvanians
Business owners
Business leaders
Stock holders
Toyota
Tea Partiers
Fox News
Doctors
Jews building homes In Jerusalem
Our Allies
Bank employees
... My fingers are tired
Feel free to add; there are plenty more after only one year.

I predict in year two:
Veterans
puppies
Helen Keller
...

Synova said...

Her being gay or not doesn't make this interesting. The assumption that it's a particular smear to suggest that she is gay is what makes this interesting and the people doing the assuming that being gay is a slur that makes this interesting.

But I suppose no one should be surprised because the first thing that comes to hand when a liberal wants to smear and insult someone is a handy dandy reference to homosexuality.

The original heavily crossed-out and corrected post was absolutely listing the supposed homosexuality as a plus rather than any sort of insult. It wasn't framed as any sort of "outing." (Again, "outing" is what liberals do to people they don't like.)

And yeah, it is homophobic to get all bent over the error. It's sort of like my great-grandma who'd get furious over any suggestion that she might have a French ancestor, someplace, from whom she inherited her dark hair. She didn't react that way because she thought that being French was every bit as good as being anything else. Substitute a suggestion that someone is part negro (which is what it was called back when anyone cared about being mixed) and clearly the person who thinks this is a horrible insult or smear would only think that because they were racist.

How many other "Oh, my God, how dare you!" things can we think of... "You're illegitimate" would get yawns. Anything else I can think of that is traditionally insulting would get yawns. Maybe someone else can think of something that wouldn't get yawns.

It's one thing to correct an error. It's another to see the mistake as some sort of slander. And it only counts as slander if it's something that actually harms a reputation.

Like being French.

We're told it's homophobic to have a profound disinterest in what other people do in bed.

And now we're being told it's *not* homophobic to view homosexuality as a significant character flaw.

Trooper York said...

John Amaechibecame one of the first NBA players to come out of the closet and admit that he was gay.But that wasn’t the weirdest thing he said.

He told everybody that Don Ameche was his father.

They just spelled their names differently.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

NBA guys and their fathers are a tangled web sometimes.

lucid said...

Ah, Jeremy.

Thank you. I am so pleased to have put your tiny little mind into such a snit.

Trooper York said...

Michael Jordan's father was murdered when he was sleeping in his car by the side of the road.

But they are pretty sure that wasn't a gay thing. He was visiting one of his many lady friends at the time.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Synova said...

I'm far far more interested in the suggestion in the same post that as a negative, the judge is considered too moderate for the left.

I'm interested in that.

madawaskan said...

Ya but it was an Eldorado-so back to "undecided."

Trooper York said...

Shawn Kemp was the NBA's best father. He had seven kids with seven different women in seven different cities.

He logged the most frequent flyer miles on Father's Day in league history

His oldest just signed to play college ball for Auburn.

But I am pretty sure that none of his kids are gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

I think we should have DNA tests for these lifers-then Althouse would feel better about the distribution.

Peter V. Bella said...

What is wrong with calling a lesbian a lesbian? Is it any worse than calling her an attorney? Or calling Jeremy a coffee enema troll?

rcocean said...

You only have to read the Left's "defense" of Kagan or read her biography to know she's a Lesbian. Why hide it? Why lie about it?

No one cares.

More troubling. We need diversity on the High court and I don't think having 3 Ivy-league Jews and 6 Catholic Ivy-league lawyers is "diversity".

We need a Protestant or maybe another Hispanic or maybe an Asian. Someone from outside Ivy League would be nice too.

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."What is wrong with calling a lesbian a lesbian?"

I don't think anybody has said anything that disputes that notion, numbnut.

The point is whether the person is indeed gay in the first place.

Put those bottles of booze and pills down and try to digest the central point.

And I don't mean the one on top of your little head.

XWL said...

From Ben Domenech in his own defense,

"I erroneously believed that Ms. Kagan was openly gay not because of, as Stein describes it, a "whisper campaign" on the part of conservatives, but because it had been mentioned casually on multiple occasions by friends and colleagues -- including students at Harvard, Hill staffers, and in the sphere of legal academia -- who know Kagan personally. "

There's an unexplored possibility suggested by this. Was Kagan encouraging people to assume she's gay (without ever confirming or denying that assumption)? Within the world of ivy league academia it would be an asset to be thought of as gay.

I'm reminded of a certain Cheers episode.

Jeremy said...

rcocean said..."No one cares."

You mean, other than the tea baggers, wing nuts, far right Christian Republicans and anybody else on the right who can denigrate gays if they think it will help their cause?

GFL with that bullshit.

Jeremy said...

XWL - "There's an unexplored possibility suggested by this. Was Kagan encouraging people to assume she's gay (without ever confirming or denying that assumption)? Within the world of ivy league academia it would be an asset to be thought of as gay."

Good lord...now we have someone trying to say it's actually an advantage to be gay in an otherwise straight world. Just look at all of the terrific benefits afforded those who are gay.

I suppose it's better to be black, too...right?

madawaskan said...

So you're a BF Skinner type?

We are products of our environment?

Jeremy said...

Bag-O-Wind - You REALLY need to pick yourself up some Prozac or at least some decent pot.

Talk to that Petey character, he appears to have plenty of everything at hand.

Synova said...

"The point is whether the person is indeed gay in the first place."

Honestly?

Explain why it matters. Why is that the point? How is it more of a point than, oh, if someone got listed as a Protestant and they issued a correction that they were Catholic or unobservant?

Or do you think it matters to know if she is or if she isn't?

If her orientation was the only positive listed and as negatives she's too moderate for the left... I suppose it does matter a whole lot to someone if she isn't gay, but those same people are saying that the administration taking the time to assure us that she absolutely isn't gay is an indication that this will be their choice... this heterosexual too moderate for the left judge.

So what does Obama have against gay people?

XWL said...

"I suppose it's better to be black, too...right?"

Absolutely, for some. All other things being equal, it's far better to be black than otherwise in the United States.

If you are wealthy, educated, and well spoken, then then being black is a huge advantage in politics and the workplace, especially in fields dominated by idiotic liberal elitists (like ivy league schools) who think that skin color is a proxy for things that actually matter like class, upbringing, and family wealth.

Synova said...

"Good lord...now we have someone trying to say it's actually an advantage to be gay in an otherwise straight world. Just look at all of the terrific benefits afforded those who are gay.

I suppose it's better to be black, too...right?
"

It might be. Sigorney Weaver said that Avatar didn't get the Oscar because the director of Hurt Locker had boobs (among other reasons.) Would you mock the idea that in some contexts it actually does help to be female? Geraldine Ferraro said exactly that. She would never have been on the Dem presidential ticket if her name was Geraldo. She said that Obama benefited from being black. He certainly did benefit from being black. It's no sort of stretch of the imagination that in some contexts it could well be seen as a benefit to be thought homosexual. Sometimes women in the military will encourage the rumor because it gives them a handy excuse to say no. It takes no real stretch of the imagination to think that other professional women might appreciate the freedom from sexual interactions or pressure as well. It takes little to imagine that if you're hanging around people who like an opportunity to demonstrate their tolerance that at the very *least* it's not a negative.

If she's not gay, my money is on her just not caring very much if people thought she was.

Why does it matter more to you than it seems to have mattered to her?

master cylinder said...

This guy never gets his facts straight and if he does it's stolen from someone else. Cant believe he got another chance.

madawaskan said...

If you believe that DNA is destiny-produces your environment, that only those from your niche can empathize {Obama} then you really don't believe in-

All men are created equal.

In fact you couldn't be further from the truth of that-but the hypocrisy is-that's what Liberals profess all the while maintaining the barriers: the walls.

Rush-Subdivisions

Lincolntf said...

"Cant believe he got another chance."
Seriously, if plagiarism is "no biggie" in journalism, then what rule anywhere matters?

Hard to tell who's sleazier, the politicians or the "journalists" who serve them.
Let's not forget Veep Joe B, who should've resigned in shame after he was busted ripping off Neil Kinnock. But now he's the guy Obama added to the ticket to bring "credibility"!
What a bunch of worthless jokers.

The Drill SGT said...

I don't care if she or any of the other potential candidates are gay, however:

former law student said...
Credibility is like virginity -- once lost it cannot be regained.


I assume you meant that in reference to the blogger, but it is several orders of magnitude more important for the POTUS.

If Kagan is confirmed and shows up for her swearing in with her female friend (if there is one), Obama is going to look very very stupid if they are caught in a lie here.

Chip Ahoy said...

That does it !

))) WHAP (((

* looks up antinomian *

Oh, bloody wow. What a useful word. Thanks ricpic. I'll take care not to use it accidentally in everyday speech. Wouldn't do to needlessly alienate myself from my peers.

David said...

The point is, Ms. Kagan does not make her sexual orientation a part of her public personna, then it's not appropriate to make it part of the debate. It's not relevant to her qualifications, and she does not make it part of her political approach. So the journalist should just leave it alone.

But so should the White House. If it's irrelevant, just say so and move on.

Does anyone who will be involved in these decisions actually know if she is gay? Are they going to ask? No and no.

Trooper York said...

There also a lot of rumors about Marques Johnson who was a big time player back in the day. Him and Paul Mokeski who they used to call Paul Molest-me. They played for the Milwaukee Bucks. Owned then as now by the senior Senator from Wisconsin.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Lem said...

OT - asking for a tip, help, maybe a suggestion.

Apparently I made a mistake of making long big tea party videos and none of them made it to PJTV via the meager 10 mb web mail.

If anybody knows of a way I can send the videos via the web other than email please let me know.

I would really appreciate it.

Lem said...

Oh Look whos here .. my friend Trooper..

Any help Trooper?.. forget I'm a Sox fan for a minute ;)

Lem said...

I guess I can put them on CDs and mail them.

That's prob the answer.

Trooper York said...

I don't know how to transfer them to the Web Lem. But I think you should preserve them. The best way to do that is to attach them to a tuna fish can and put them in your freezer.

Just sayn

bagoh20 said...

I wanna know what kind of sex all the justices prefer... in detail.

David said...

Marquis Johnson now writes (unpublished) screenplays and short stories and (quite) occasionally appears on Fox Sports Net to comment on basketball. Mokeski is an assistant coach with the Rio Grande Valley Vipers of the NBA D-League. Kinda downhill since the sports careers.

They go camping together twice a year in the Bitterroot Mountains. (Making that up.)

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

If Alex doesn't get his ego brown nosed he goes 0 for 4.

David said...

I had business dealings with Mr. Kohl back in the day. He was intelligent, thoughtful, polite and honest.Also quite reserved and almost shy. Not your politician's profile.

Doc Merlin said...

'OK, so far we have the Black seat, the Woman's seat, the wise Latina (not just any old Latino, mind you), and now we're going to have a gay seat.

Somebody tell me if there's a seat for someone who actually has read the Constitution.'

Um, the guy in the 'Black seat' is a pretty hardcore constitutionalist your comments about him notwithstanding. Thomas is /the/ most 'constitution following' guy in the court and easily is my favorite justice.

jeremy said...

Help!

I've fallen, and my head is up my ass and I can't get up.

jeremy said...

Yes, it's true. I amm 13 years old.

Tim said...

Conservatives would probably strongly oppose a lesbian nominee who was a standard barer for gay issues, but if a lesbian nominee was just a person who happened to be a lesbian, the lack of a reaction from the right would shock the mainstream media.

It would be like, say, a black who ran for President. Conservatives would probably strongly oppose a black nominee who was a standard barer for racial issues, but if a black nominee was just a person who happened to be a black, the lack of a reaction from the right would shock the mainstream media.

PatCA said...

Remember when, 30 or 40 years ago, the bien pensant said that if only we could elect black people, the problems of black people would go away?

In South LA riots since then, the office of Mark Ridley Thomas, the black councilman, was burned down. South LA is still a pit. Detroit, under black Dem rule for a generation, is a ruin.

What good did identity politics do then, and what good would it do now?

Porphyrogenitus said...

The funny thing is the adjectives people like Jeremy attach to their remarks.

I'm sure in his own mind he's the one engaging in civil discourse, standing up to haters.

We're definately in a New Era of LoLs.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Next time someone like Domenech pulls this shit, Obama should not take such a gentle approach.

The Prez ought to send out the Feds to arrest him for "seditious conspiracy".

Or perhaps Obama whould rather send a drone over with a little "we didn't like your blog post" message? "Say hello to my little friend!!!" That would be bloody and violent, and therefore should be a-okay with the Republicans who love that sort of stuff.

If Obama & Co can assassinate any American citizen abroad at their own discretion, then why can't they do the same with an American seditionist causing trouble for them here at home?

Synova said...

Yes, Tim. It's ideology, not identity.

Maybe that's why it seems so imperative to some that people's political beliefs coincide with their identity. Because it really makes no sense at all that any particular person would have political beliefs that can be determined by skin color or ethnicity or gender or orientation.

But step out, as they say, off the plantation, and watch what happens.

Synova said...

"If Obama & Co can assassinate any American citizen abroad at their own discretion, then why can't they do the same with an American seditionist causing trouble for them here at home?"

Point.

madawaskan said...

Julius-

What happens to soldiers that not only go AWOL but start fighting for the other side?

madawaskan said...

Are they US citizens?

Oligonicella said...

Lem, have you tried FTP? Maybe a public repository temporarily.

Lem said...

Its a simple strategery..

Appear to attack what seems to be a friendly to get the friendly to respond 'I didn't come up with those hideous ideas.. I was pointing out what the evil conservatives are saying'.

Some kind of proxy ambush.. if I'm making any sense.

Its really sad to subscribe this kinds of child like tactics to people who are supposedly in public service.

Enough to wish I was wrong.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

What happens to soldiers that not only go AWOL but start fighting for the other side?

Hey! That's just like Domenech did here with his blog post, 'cept with writing rather than soldiering... Domenech was fighting for the liberal side but then seemed to go AWOL on his blog and started to float rumors that are uncomfortable for the administration to deal with.

So, yeah, the American citizen soldier who ends up on the enemy's side in the War on Ragheads should be taken out. BOOM!

And, in a similar vein, Domenech needs to be taken out. Or at least reined back in to the liberal side. He's probably been given a last chance and he's probably on probation. The next wrong move, even if unintentional, and the result is going to be a nice friendly morning visit from either the Feds (with an arrest warrant for seditious conspiracy) or a drone (with a "BOOM! GOOD MORNING MOTHERFUCKER!")

And thus power accrues to Obama & Co. Better watch what you say. Better watch what you write.

"I tell you this one time. Don't fuck me. Don't you ever fuck me."

That's the message for everyone from Obama & Co. Why else would the President respond to, of all things, a blog post recounting rumors about the sexual orientation of a potential Supreme Court pick?

Lem said...

Lem, have you tried FTP? Maybe a public repository temporarily.

I posted an sos on PJTV, asking them to help me get it to them.

I remember my former employer had an FTP site.. for the interoffice exchange of humongous CAD files it was the best way to go.

Fred4Pres said...

That's okay, I thought David Brooks was gay too. And it was not because he wears pink shirts and lavender ties. I just mistakenly thought he was gay.

Synova said...

madawaskan... there is a difference between meeting someone who used to be on your side in battle and in approving an assassination.

If we're targeting combatants, that's one thing. If we're assassinating someone who is a threat or political target, even if they aren't a citizen, we likely shouldn't be doing that either.

Bill Clinton gets a lot of heat for deciding not to make the kill call on Bin Laden early on when our guys had a bead on him, but except for hindsight, can we say that decision was so clear cut?

It's disturbing if we target anyone at all that is not a combatant in a hot war, a legitimate military target. It's drastically more disturbing if we target a US citizen even if he is. If there is any case with terrorists that warrants a capture and trial, being a citizen would seem to be it.

Bombing the guy as part of a legitimate military target is different.

Lem said...

Because it really makes no sense at all that any particular person would have political beliefs that can be determined by skin color or ethnicity or gender or orientation.

I agree.

In lew of the possibility that infiltrators posing as racist would try and tarnish tea party demonstrations, yesterday Rush posed an good question.

If a black baseball umpire makes a terribly bad call affecting the home team and the overwhelmingly home team fans boo and jeer the black umpire does that make them racist?

The obvious answer is no.

Lem said...

While discussing with a the tea partier about what it might take to become a faux-racist infiltrator, it occurred to me that the level of mischievous sofistication (if we can call it that) at some point must trigger a 'whats the worst thing that can happen' self preservation logic.

Here is a persons face on the web professing racist views. Is that something a prospective employer, wife/husband, family, neighbor might take time to dissect a circuitous concept?

We concluded that you have to be really stupid to do something like that.

AJ Lynch said...

Lem:

If you can upload the video to You Tube,then you could send the You Tube link to Pajamas TV.

madawaskan said...

Synova-

To be quite honest I'm not really up to speed on this particular story-maybe because I refuse to watch-tv but also because I suspect that-because it's Obama it does not get near the coverage.

But-hey-will that stop me from pontificating- probably not.

My first instinct-is to think that this particular case because of the advancement of technology and the concurring devolvement of terrorists from accepted norms of engagement-and the law's by definition dependence on precedent-history-the Executive is at war time almost always going to have to respond to unique situations.

Terrorism takes advantage of that. They are-well hell I don't have to tell you the way they take advantage.

Anyways- it occurs to me that under say a normal or old style war of attrition with more honorable enemies you could have had a soldier that was fighting for Germany that was a US citizen-and he would have been killed readily by Americans of less rank and with less review.

Now because this terrorist is not uniformed , is not traditional, is not honorable violates the boundaries of what would be considered the area of armed conflict, hides behind innocent civilians-somehow he gets more chances not less and his particular case gets taken up the line of command all the way to the C in C.

Somehow I'm not ready to judge instantly that Obama is wrong- in fact I might go so far as to say he's justified.


I forgot to add that one of our best resources to offset the no rules game changing methods of the terrorists and the asymmetry of it is via technology and RPAs are putting us into uncharted territory but I feel that they act as a method to keep the battle limited in a strange way-but that's a whole other discussion.

Lem said...

It was pointed out over and over at the tea party (in so many words) that "we the people" are the deciders.

I've got the power .

The tax levy it's gettin' kinda heavy.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Synova-

On re-reading your comment-you aren't going to get those "hot battles" with terrorists anymore.

That's not their methodology.

They come in and then they bug out. They cross borders, they don't wear the uniform. They hit and run-and then hide amongst-even another country's population.

You don't get a pure hot engagement form these bastards.

I'm not so ready to give up pursuit of them just because-they've declared for themselves some safe zone like playing tag in kindergarden.

Lem said...

Lem:
If you can upload the video to You Tube,then you could send the You Tube link to Pajamas TV
.

I don't have a YouTube account nor a Twitter, negative Facebook.

For reasons that elude me, I want keep it that way.

madawaskan said...

So-obviously I am reading this thread backwards but Julius-you are cracking me up.

LOL.

I'm off-my grammar has gone to pot.

Zoe Brain said...

Synova said: How many other "Oh, my God, how dare you!" things can we think of... "You're illegitimate" would get yawns. Anything else I can think of that is traditionally insulting would get yawns. Maybe someone else can think of something that wouldn't get yawns.

Try "transsexual".

And if being lesbian doesn't matter... how come the opposition to ENDA, the Employee Non Discrimination Act which would make it illegal for large businesses and governments - but not small businesses, individuals or churches - to fire someone for being Gay?

Firing someone for being transsexual is so common it doesn't make the papers. It's happened to ~40% of trans people at least once.

Penny said...

So many things getting "all mixed up".

Is Domenech a blogger attacked by the White House, or a journalist attacked by the White House?

Is he a conservative or a liberal, or just too conservative to state a liberal's view?

Is he a plagiarist or just targeted by the left because he agreed to do a conservative column for a left leaning newspaper?

Did he post "fact" when he said Kagen was a lesbian or are "facts" only corroborated when the person being talked about, says it's a "fact"?

This guy is in "no man's land", and most here at Althouse's blog, AND most people at the Huffington Post... on-line newspaper? news aggregator? blog poster? GIANT mixer upper?... seem to be pretty comfortable with that too.

If that's the case, he must be a jerk. Right?

Lem said...

You call me a fool
You say it's a crazy scheme
This one's for real
I already bought the dream
So useless to ask me why..


Deacon Blues - Steely Dan.

I'm tea party pregnant ;)

Penny said...

So many things getting "all mixed up".

Is Domenech a blogger attacked by the White House, or a journalist attacked by the White House?

Is he a conservative or a liberal, or just too conservative to state a liberal's view?

Is he a plagiarist or just targeted by the left because he agreed to do a conservative column for a left leaning newspaper?

Did he post "fact" when he said Kagen was a lesbian or are "facts" only corroborated when the person being talked about, says it's a "fact"?

This guy is in "no man's land", and most here at Althouse's blog, AND most people at the Huffington Post... on-line newspaper? news aggregator? blog poster? GIANT mixer upper?... seem to be pretty comfortable with that too.

If that's the case, he must be a jerk. Right?

Penny said...

Sorry for the double post...

Connection problems. So glad I saved it before I pressed "enter".

Penny said...

"I'm tea party pregnant ;)"

Ha ha, Lem. That's your business, not mine! Just don't invite me to your damned baby shower!

Hey, I'd even pay higher taxes not to go!

Is that OK to say here?

Synova said...

How do you quantify that, Zoe? Why someone was fired, I mean. How do you decide what the reason was that a person, any person, has been fired?

Few people who are fired think they deserved it. One fellow who worked with my husband was so sure that he was unjustly fired that he planned to sue and expected his co-workers to testify on his behalf. That was *his* reality. Everyone *else* lived in a reality where he was a jerk on a personal level, vindictive and privileged, and they discovered that for over a whole year he'd managed to hide the fact that he wasn't doing anything more productive than making noise and taking credit for other people's work. And he *really* expected his co-workers to help him sue the company.

Now figure if he hadn't been a straight white male.

Not that I doubt for a minute that people face workplace discrimination. The question is what is the best solution for that. Many people believe that government almost always makes things worse and that nothing is ever as simple or without extraneous consequences as people like to think. And it's not like we don't already know what some of those are for anti-discrimination laws governing the workplace. Employers hang on to people who absolutely ought to be fired because they fear being sued. We know that happens.

Ignoring how the real world works doesn't solve problems either. It causes more of them. The government removing the ability of employers and managers to hire and fire on the basis of immediate personal knowledge means the same loss of responsiveness that happens with any centralized control.

The answer, the practical answer for employers of any sort may be to find some reason not to hire people who might be a litigation problem in the first place... just never give them a chance to even try.

And then we can legislate quotas to fix that problem.

And it goes on.

Lem said...

The tea party Mojo just don't work on the left.. it don't mean we are not going to get there.

Mojo Working - Muddy Waters

Synova said...

Oh, and if the tranny who worked at one place my husband worked ever got fired from there I'm sure it wasn't because he/she had freaky days and changed clothing and gender in his/her cubicle. I'm sure it was just because people don't like transexuals.

Here, again... most people don't care. If someone presents a professional appearance, does their job well, and doesn't show up to work in a costume meant to be off-putting... most people don't really care.

I have a friend who hasn't been fired for being transexual, and I'm impressed with the forbearance of his employer. Because he refuses to do certain jobs. Does an employer have the right to fire someone for refusing to touch feminine products? I think that an employer does have the right to fire someone who refuses to do something that anyone, male or female, disabled or not, can be reasonably expected to do.

This is a real person, and last I knew he was still working for the same retailer.

I think that in the real world people are far more accommodating than some would like to think.

Lem said...

Hey, I'd even pay higher taxes not to go!

That's very magnanimous of you Penny.

However, there is a good argument for lower taxes and smaller government that would allow you the alternative choice of giving that money to a charitable cause instead.

just saying ;)

rhhardin said...

She'd organize Supreme Court softball games.

Estragon said...

Like his Politico colleagues, Domenech is and was always pretty much a hack. Paying attention to anything he writes should be taken as a sign of a person who is not serious in the pursuit of accurate information.

Is he a "journalist?" I wouldn't deny him the honorific if he considers it such. There are at least 10 J-school hacks practicing for every serious reporter or analyst at the major media outlets.

Is Dana Milbank a journalist? Was Dan Rather? Are former Democratic staffers like Stephanopolous and Matthews? Does it matter? It's not like it is a "trusted profession" these days, or deserves to be.

MayBee said...

It is hilarious to see this White House- in which Joe Biden is a major player- attack someone else for problems with plagiarism.

They are so very small.

Jason (the commenter) said...

The blogger should have known that you can only out people from the right, not the left.

Also, I don't think the White House should have offered any comments. What if Elena Kagan is gay and decides to come out now? The administration would look foolish, which only encourages her to stay in the closet. And if she isn't gay the White House's response only publicizes the rumor.

MayBee said...

I don't like people being outed if they aren't ready for it.
I'm not sure that's what happened here. Even the WH's favorite blogger, Marc Ambinder, wrote that the WH wasn't sure if she is gay. Obviously, talk is out there and it seems pretty compelling.

I think the WH mishandled this. They went all attack-y on CBS and Ben. Once again, they ensmallened themselves. They should have just said, "it doesn't matter". That has the benefit of being much easier than having to do oppo research on the reporter saying things you don't like.

Lem said...

“Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

My mind is made up

Lem said...

is ok to listen to NPR ;)

Lem said...

In the face of bad news like runaway deficits, Obama becoming some kind of CEO in chief and the long list grievances.. tea partiers are and resolutely upbeat.

Summer Sun - Koop feat

I cant help but desire to be a part of it.

Lem said...

I came home to find a jury duty summons.. it occurs to me that I might take advantage of the captivity to proselytise tea party.

Love's Theme - Love Unlimited Orchestra

I feel like a kid in candy store.

Kirk Parker said...

"... standard barer for gay issues ... "

Nice Freudian typo you got there!

Eric said...

Lem, use megaupload and send PJTV a link. Or put them up on youtube if you don't mind the unedited version being "out there".

Ag said...

I'm more interested in Domenech's comment that in 2010, no one should care if the nominee is gay. It's very obvious that he *does* care. And LGBT people care. And liberals care. Everyone seems to care. It's a lie to say that "no one should care" about it. It's another of these self-deceptions on the part of liberals. Personally, I don't much care either: I'm more interested in what these nominees think about the law than what configuration of genitals they find pleasing. But it does say something substantive about the liberal world view when they insist that only conservatives care about sexual orientation when it's so bloody obvious that it means more to *them* then it does to their political opponents.

Penny said...

"However, there is a good argument for lower taxes and smaller government that would allow you the alternative choice of giving that money to a charitable cause instead."

True!

However, it does seem to me that when people choose to have babies, and seeing that I hate attending baby showers, all in all it would be much easier for me to pay ONE fee or ONE tax to avoid thinking about what I should get for all my friends' "kids-to-be".

Once upon a time, I would have spent a lot of time just thinking about what the perfect gift for your baby would be, and then go looking for it, while of course keeping my budget in mind, which often turned out to be MOST frustrating of all.

But all that gave way to the suggestion of Gift Cards for my friends' babies, and I had to say "nuh uh" to them! Just way too impersonal, PLUS, some parents...well? They would even tell me that they were raising that baby and used that gift card as they saw fit.

And here YOU are, Lem! Now my on-line, GUY friend is pregnant with a tea party baby? Hey, I am open-minded, and caring, but WTF?

Don't give me that "charity" bullshit. That's even LESS personal than that gift card which started to have kid-to-be "drift" because the kid's own PARENTS said they needed the money rightthatminute.

OH, and you want "government" smaller? That kid's PARENTS, my friends, are his or her own friggin' little mini-government, and THEY can't keep their mitts off the kid's gift card!

And now you want to talk about "charity" being the answer?

Look, Lem. I never even blinked an eye that you were pregnant because of a one night stand, and that's because you are my on-line "friend". I am even holding my tongue in suggesting that you abort this baby...because I have respect for your objections on abortion.

Frankly, I am tired of this mess, and if the government can charge me a fee for not worrying about it, and if your baby will get that "special gift" I intended exactly when I intended it to get there because the government guarantees that? Well then, I am OK with that because I'm tired of going to baby showers.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"What is wrong with calling a lesbian a lesbian?"

I don't think anybody has said anything that disputes that notion, numbnut."


On the contrary, the President of the United States has done exactly that by specifically attacking this blogger and outing Kagan as "straight" when they know she is a lesbian.

They've announced, officially, her sexual preference. And in doing so, they've lied about her sexual preference. The Senate cannot provide advice and consent if they're being lied to by the candidate and the White House on any subject.

So, they're trying to cover up something, or force her back into the closet. The White House is saying, by its actions, that it is embarrassed to have nominated someone who is willing to let the White House lie about her sexual practices - some of which some people's religions find deviant (Mormons, Amish, Catholics, Christians, for example).

Otherwise, the White House would have simply issued a statement saying that any American's sexual preference is not suitable for discussion by the White House.

The Obama regime cannot force openly gay lesbians back into the closet for their own political convenience and then lie to the American people - some of whom believe that lesbianism is deviant (not me, but some people do believe this and that is the free exercise of their religion. Kagan should be happy this isn't a Muslim country. She would be beheaded).

The White House can either be silent, or it can be truthful.

It cannot officially lie about this.

HDHouse said...

Because whisper campaigns are slimey that's why.

Why do you have to comment or ask?

I'm glad the WH pushed back. If you are up for the fight then fight, if you are a blogger and a creepy whiney mouse, then get out of the game.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

And frankly, the thought that Kagan's lesbianism is not a proper subject of inquiry is absolutely wrong.

The Supreme Court has, for hundreds of years, set out exactly which sexual practices can and cannot be engaged in by consenting adults.

For years, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy (gay anal sex) could be made illegal.

The Supreme Court has ruled that laws against having sex with minors are Constitutional (to use another example).

The Suopreme Court has ruled that making lesbian videos could be outlawed on the basis that such films had "no redeeming social value."

The Supreme Court decides for all of us which sexual practices the government is allowed to outlaw and which sexual practices the government is going to allow.

And so a discussion of a nominee's sexual practices (which some people find are deviant and without any redeeming social value) is absolutely germane to her nomination.

Should we let what some people would call "sexual deviants" be nominated to a court which will decide for the rest of us what is, and what are not, deviant sexual practices?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Because whisper campaigns are slimey that's why."

It's not a whisper campaign.

It is a legitimate topic of debate, since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what are, or what are not, illegal deviant sexual practices in the United States.

The Supreme Court has held (to cite just one example) that gay anal sex is "deviant" and can be outlawed.

It has said that "pornography" - which it admits even it cannot define - could be outlawed after-the-fact on the basis that it is without any redeeming social value (yes, I know that's vague and that vague laws are un-Constitutional ... but that's the way they ruled.)

It is the Supreme Court which decides what kind of sex we consenting adults can have. And it decides which kinds of sex we are not allowed to have. It intrudes on our privacy in this way.

And so when a Supreme Court nominee is trying to hide her sexual proclivities and practices from Senate oversight - and is using the White House to propagate a lie about her sexual activities - then that is a topic for legitimate debate.

Why is she trying to hide her sexual activities from the Senate when in fact it will be she who decides for the rest of us what kinds of sex are illegal?

Nobody is whispering.

We're asking legitimate questions about why the White House is trying to cover up the sexual practices of a nominee who will decide for the rest of us what kinds of sex are legal and which kinds she would outlaw.

Palladian said...

"Nobody is whispering."

Certainly not you. Someone seems to have set your volume to 11 and broke the knob off.

shoutingthomas said...

Apparently homosexuality is still the love that dare not speak its name -- at least around these parts.

Homosexuality is the love that won't shut the fuck up.

Pretend martyrdom has become the standard pose of the left.

I'm so tired of listening to the weeping, imagined martyrdom stories about gays, women and blacks.

Give it a break

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Someone seems to have set your volume to 11 and broke the knob off."

Not really. I'd just like to know whether Ms. Kagan would outlaw sodomy for men, but not for women, and whether her own personal experiences animate such a decision.

That's a legitimate subject of debate as long as the Supreme Court is deciding for the rest of us what kind of sex is deviant and what kind of sex will be allowed.

Is vaginal-squirting going to be allowed, but not gay anal fisting? This is a debate the august Senate needs to have because I have a lot of unpoped kernels that I need to get rid of.

garage mahal said...

New sheets please.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Where, one wonders, does Ms. Kagan stand on "Two Women, One Cup?"

Legal ... or deviant? What if vanilla ice cream was used? Still illegal?

Has she ever partaken?

These are the sorts of burning questions that the Senate needs to probe if Obama nominates someone who deliberately engages in acts that were once outlawed by the Supreme Court.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Let's remember: The Democrat-controlled Senate found the discussion of a pubic hair on the edge of a Coke can to be a legitimate point of inquiry in the advice and consent of Justice Clarence Thomas.

And now, that shit is going to come back to haunt them.

I can guarantee you that "Two Girls, One Cup" is going to be a topic of discussion if Barack Obama nominates a person who deliberately chooses to live so far outside the mainstream of American sexual mores.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

What about the gay horse sex phenomenon?

Are laws banning allowing a horse to mount a man Constitutional? Or not?

Will women be allowed ponies ... but not men? Where does Ms. Kagan stand on this issue? Why do girls get ponies to masturbate on (come on ... we know you do it) but the boys can't have any fun?

Isn't that un-Constitutional sexual discrimination?

What are her views?

This is the sort of advice and consent that needs to be brought out into the open so that these things don't have to go on in dark barns and musty stables.

MadisonMan said...

New Hussein Ham's posts are far more icky if you imagine him masturbating as he writes them.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... if you imagine him masturbating as he writes them."

How would you know? Is that what you're doing? Imagining me masturbating?

Deviant.

Ann Althouse said...

@Lem I don't know if anyone else answered you question yet, but the answer is Dropsend.com

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Lesbian vaginal squirting - from a purely legal and jurisprudential standpoint - has always fascinated me.

It is a sexual practice that seems to get a lot of hits on the internet.

And I've been waiting years for society to finally nominate a lesbian so we can bring this discussion out of the shadows and talk openly - if wetly - about this fascinating topic.

So, Obama has done the nation a great favor by nominating someone who may have - we don't know but we should find out - actually participated.

We can now have this national conversation we've been neglecting for far too long.

DADvocate said...

Another idiot who's good with words.

First he says: My recent blog post at The New Ledger, crossposted at CBS News, mentioned that I thought the appointment of Elena Kagan, along with potential nominees Pam Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan, would mark the first instance of an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. I included it as a political positive, describing it as a "Plus" that "would please much of Obama's base." The issue is already out there: Karlan and Sullivan are both openly gay, and one need not look too far for arguments being made on left-wing blogs that it would be an affirmative good to appoint a lesbian.

Then, a few paragraphs further down: no one should care if a nominee to any position is gay.

Domenech points out who cares that a nominee is gay, which appears to include himself, and why it's a good and all that. Then after all this, he claims no one should care. Grade schoolers could see through this guy's logic.

Palladian said...

"New Hussein Ham's posts are far more icky if you imagine him masturbating as he writes them."

Which brings up the terrible question of which appendages he's typing with.

AllenS said...

Is the nose an appendage?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Domenech points out who cares that a nominee is gay, which appears to include himself, and why it's a good and all that. Then after all this, he claims no one should care. Grade schoolers could see through this guy's logic."

The only people objecting seem to be anonymous gay-bashers in the White House furiously trying to push Kagan back into a closet as if it's 1920 all over again.

You should maybe take a look at them. They've outed her as "straight." I would note that this action is an unprecedented act in American history - that a White House would out a nominee's sexual orientation.

And lie about it in the process.


Absolutely outrageous.

You can be assured that once the nominee is under oath, we'll get to the truth of this matter and find out who in the White House has been lying about Kagan.

The nominee has rights and those rights are being violated by unnamed sources inside the White House who are trying to supress the natural expression of this nominee's sexual desires.

It's horrible what they're doing to this woman.

garage mahal said...

I cringe thinking of what other tabs NewHam has open while he's posting. I'm guessing Neo-Confederate militia porn is a favorite though.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I cringe thinking of what other tabs NewHam has open while he's posting. I'm guessing Neo-Confederate militia porn is a favorite though."

Stop it garage ... you've giving me a huge boner.

HDHouse said...

New "Hussein" Ham said...
"The Supreme Court has held (to cite just one example) that gay anal sex is "deviant" and can be outlawed."

not sure this is relevant...or do you know something about the female anatomy others do not...or are you kinda dating out of the mainstream...

"And so when a Supreme Court nominee is trying to hide her sexual proclivities and practices from Senate oversight - and is using the White House to propagate a lie about her sexual activities - then that is a topic for legitimate debate."

yeah..well when that happens you let us all know. otherwise go back under that prehistoric rock out from which you slithered.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Look folks,

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in the United States - not to mention lesbian vaginal squirting purely as an art form along the lines of a Robert Maplethorpe.

Kagan's sexual activities are thus - fair game. Just as Clarence Thomas' pubic hairs were fair game when Democrats were opposing Supreme Court nominees.

I would never have thought that Clarence Thomas' pubic hairs would come up in the United States Senate. But Democrats raised that issue. Joe Biden questioned the candidate along those specific lines.

Democrats set the bar.

As a lesbian, we need assurances that Ms. Kagan will exclude herself from such cases because she clearly cannot be unbiased about these issues. If she herself is a lesbian ... it would be impossible for her to be unbiased on the question of whether society should rule lesbian vaginal squirting a practice that can be banned.

We have the right to know whether or not she is a lesbian, since she will be ruling on these gay issues as well as deciding for the rest of us which deviant sexual activities will be permissible and which she would vote to prevent us from doing.

As long as the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is permissable, as long as pubic hair is a topic of legitimate advice and consent in the United States Senate, then we have a right to know where nominees to this court stand on what the Supreme Court calls
"deviant sexual activities" that have "no redeeming social value."

Elana Kagan should review carefully Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings.

Because that's the sauce her goose is going to be cooked in.

Lem said...

Lem I don't know if anyone else answered you question yet, but the answer is Dropsend.com

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

jr565 said...

As Michelle Obama said all those years ago (ok, last year, but it seems like a while ago):


Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
So clearly, this guy hadn't moved out of his comfort zone, nor pushed himself to be better, and had gone back to his life as usual, uninvolved and uninformed.
So he had to be called on it, as he wasn't playing along with the dictates of the supreme leader.
Plus, as Obama showed during the debate on health care he's a hands on type:


“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face
This intemeperate blogger had the werewithal to displease the supreme leader, so needed to be talked to by the supreme leader himself. Such was the outrage felt by the supreme leader that he couldn't rely on his lackeys to get in his face, he needed to personally get in his face.

c3 said...

Paying attention to anything he writes should be taken as a sign of a person who is not serious in the pursuit of accurate information.

And that explains why the White House commented on his blog post

Synova said...

Caring: It's possible that his own opinion is that no one should bother to notice, but he knows that certain constituencies care a great deal.

In which case it's not quite a logical contradiction to say that in 2010 no one should care and then explain that people do care.

It's also possible that by "care" he meant "object."

Or he could just be unaware of his own internal contradictions.

former law student said...

My guess is that just the other day, the Solicitor General was complaining she hadn't been out on a date for months. Spreading the rumor that she is gay will only decrease the likelihood that someone reading her eHarmony (or Jdate) profile is going to click on her.

And we all know a dateless SG will not be as happy and productive as s/he can be.

So that is why the WH is concerned.