In his post, Middle East War & Mordor, Bruce suspected I’d have more thoughts on the analogy.  He was right.  Like many in Middle Earth as Sauron built up his forces in Mordor, all too many in the world today discount the growing strength of terrorist groups like Hamas.

Much of what I have to say about Israel’s efforts to stop Hamas from indiscriminately firing rockets into its sovereign territory has already been said–and better than I could say it.

As leaders around the world rush to condemn the Jewish State for its supposedly disproportionate response to Palestinian terror, I join others in asking, where were they when Hamas was firing those rockets at civilian targets?  Did that story make the front pages of our daily newspapers or lead the evening news?  Did nations put pressure on Hamas to stop firing?  Did the UN Security Council meet in emergency session?

Charles Krauthammer said it best when he wrote:

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.

. . . .

Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis — 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years — deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage — or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb — will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Natan Sharansky echoed Krauthammer:

Palestinian children are dying today not because of Israeli brutality, but because their own leaders have chosen to use their children as human shields, and their pain as a battering ram against Western sensibilities.

Of course, it is easy to blame Hamas. It is they, after all, who deliberately put their weapons caches in mosques, their rocket launchers in schoolyards, and their command centers in hospitals — all with the explicit goal of maximizing the tragedy of an Israeli response.

The world may blame Israel for bombing a school and killing civilians seeking shelter there, but Hamas bears the ultimate responsibility for their deaths as it stationed terrorists armed with rocket launchers at the UN facility.

And just as Hamas is responsible for those deaths so too is the terrorist outfit responsible for the current conflict. Israel should not accept a cease-fire until it receives an iron-clad guarantee that Hamas will respect Israel’s border and refrain from launching rockets or attacks across it.

Bret Stephens offers an interesting option for Israel should Hamas violate that cease-fire: “For every single rocket that falls randomly on Israeli soil, an Israeli missile will hit a carefully selected target in Gaza.” Sounds like a reasonable request to me.

Perhaps to the consternation to those who routintely defend me in the comments section, I had thought to refrain from criticizing the president-elect in the penultimate week (i.e., from January 6-13) of his tenure with that title.  After all, quite frequently in the two months since his election, I have found myself pleasantly surprised by his actions and even his rhetoric.

The two major mistakes he has made in putting together his Administration (failure to fully vet BIll Richardson and to consult Senate leaders on Leon Panetta) stand out in a largely smooth selection process where (with three significant exceptions), he has tapped a number of very competent (and mostly centrist) officials to serve on his team.

But, it’s more than just that.  Despite a rhetorically banal and occasionally self-serving victory speech on election night, Barack Obama has, in the transition process, shown that he intends to govern as the president of all Americans.  I don’t recall having a similar sense sixteen years ago when Bill Clinton was assembling his team.

He is meeting today with Republicans today on Capitol Hill. He has been careful not to say anything which might undermine the incumbent Administration as it responds to crises abroad.  He has risked offending his base by including a respected evangelical pastor in his inaugural ceremony.

To be sure, he has shown some flaws as president-elect which could prove weaknesses once he takes office.  He often comes across as aloof in his press conferences, often dodges tough questions and save the choice of Rick Warren to offer the invocation on January 20, has refrained from making difficult decisions.  That said, these flaws do not include a quality which marks many of his followers and supporters (and even the most recent Democratic president), a tendency to engage in petty partisanship.

I still have my concerns about Barack Obama and I dare say I won’t refrain from criticizing him for a full week, but I will say that his performance this past two months has allayed some of my fears about his ability to lead.  He has still left many questions unanswered about how he intends to govern, but, if the past two months have shown us anything, it is that Obama does see himself as president of all Americans.

And that gives me some hope that he might just be able to unite our nation and lead us through difficult times.

Originally posted at my blog, Average Gay Joe…

I finally had the opportunity the other night to watch the Johnny Symons documentary Ask Not on gays serving in the military under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Last summer the guys at Gay Patriot and I had the privilege of doing a podcast interview with Symons and a few of the “stars” of this film, including Jarrod Chlapowski, Alexander Nicholson and Al Steinmann of Servicemembers United.

Where Symons does his best work in this film is with the excellent interviews of gay veterans. One of the finest examples is with “Perry”, a gay soldier serving in Iraq. Because of the DADT policy his identity had to be concealed but he had some of the most moving scenes in the film, including at the end. The scenes with Chlapowski, Nicholson, Steinmann and Fred Fox during their Call to Duty Tour were compelling, especially with their personal stories of military service as well as their efforts to engage the public on repealing the ban against gays. If this documentary convinced me of anything, it is that the work of these men to bring about change through constructive dialogue while maintaining the obvious respect they have for the military, which I share, has a far greater chance of success than ill-advised publicity stunts. More on the latter in a moment. While all of these veterans had very interesting stories I found myself most identifying with that of Fox, probably more because although I do not know him and we served in different branches, our enlistments were roughly at the same time in the early 1990s. I’ve been impressed with Fox from previous interviews I’ve listened to and the material in this film reinforced this. I enjoyed the “personal stuff” about all of these men and it strengthened the documentary in putting a human face to gay veterans, as well as challenged ridiculous stereotypes.

The weakest portions of this documentary were where Symons included footage of events with Soulforce protesting the ban against gays. The anger and need to “take action” I can understand but the effectiveness of their efforts is highly doubtful. In the film they came across as spoiled brats with little or no understanding of the military, let alone respect for the organization they claimed to want to serve in. The most glaring example of this is in one scene where Soulforce protestors take advantage of a Marine recruiter who treated them well, only to have them “invade” his office when his back was turned. All of this was done just so they could get arrested to make their point. Putting aside the stupidity of inflicting these kinds of stunts on persons having zero control over the policy, Congress makes the laws after all and not the military, if this Marine recruiter had any sympathy for gay servicemembers before this incident one wonders how their poor behavior may have changed that. I could have done without just about all the scenes on Soulforce, with the possible exception of the brief interview of one female Navy veteran discharged for being a lesbian. I would have liked to see her interviewed more, like the others were, outside of the Soulforce nonsense. Barring that, Symons should have found other gay veterans to interview who are also working against the ban like Pepe Johnson of Integrity in Service. This would have been more in keeping with the rest of this film and far better than the material with Soulforce. Gay veterans instead of gay activists.

Probably the most surprising to me watching this documentary was how quickly the anger I had at former President Bill Clinton (D), the spineless coward who signed DADT into law, and Congressional politicians from the early 1990s, like former Senator Sam Nunn (GA-D) and his asinine “investigations”, came rushing back. The nonsense from DADT proponents in this film only made it hotter. Yet where Symons excelled, thanks to many of the “stars” mentioned above, was taking that anger and focusing it towards constructive means. Overall I’d say this documentary was well-made and I’d recommend that anyone interested in this topic, see it for themselves.

Back when I was researching my script The Lady of Mississippi, an interracial romance set in 1926 in the Magnolia State, I came across one of the most mean-spirited men ever to serve in the United State Senate, Theodore Bilbo. This racist Democrat was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and famously filibustered an anti-lynching bill in the Senate. He advocated violence against blacks.

So much did this hate-monger define the worst aspects of Jim Crow that I included him in one scene in the script. Whenever I think of him, I realize that while some of the most noble and principled Americans have served in the United States Senate–as well as a number of dedicated public servants, so have some of the worst rapscallions in American political life.

Following a recount fraught with partisan shenanigans with more votes counted that people who voted, it looks like another such individual, a man of Bilbo’s angry ilk will now serve in the United States Senate.

To be sure, Al Franken embodies a different kind of hate and does not (to my knowledge) advocate violence against his foes, but like that mean-spirited Mississippian, he harbors intense hatred for an entire class of people. For Bilbo, it was African-Americans. For Franken, it’s conservatives and Republicans. And just as Bilbo embodied a political movement so too does Franken.

Fortunately, that movement is not nearly as pervasive or as powerful as was Bilbo’s in its heyday. It does not control state governments which repress some citizens and look the other way when others abuse and murder their fellows.

To Al Franken and his base on MSNBC and in the “netroots,” conservatives don’t just support (what they believe to be) bad ideas, they’re bad people, deserving opprobrium and ridicule.
(more…)

If you want to know why I respect my state’s senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, while regularly disagreeing with her on any number of issues, just take a gander at this headline:  Feinstein slams Obama CIA head pick.  This responsible Democrat has taken issue with the president-elect of her own party for tapping a political hack to head the CIA.

Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement:

I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read. . . . My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.

Shouldn’t the president-elect have consulted with the leading Senate Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee before selecting someone to head the CIA?

Unlike her junior colleague, the former San Francisco Mayor does not walk in lockstep with her party’s leadership and understands that Republicans are political adversaries, not mortal enemies. She often works with Republicans on key issues, even when her party leadership favors obstruction. And as this statement shows, takes issue with her party when she thinks its leaders have proposed bad policies or otherwise blundered.

H/t: Jennifer Rubin who offers a great critique of the Panetta appointment.

Apology for the slow blogging. Had hoped to be back up to speed today, but had to run a number of errands, plus I have two nieces and two nephews celebrating birthdays, requiring trips to toy stores and jewelry shops (the step-PatriotNieceWest just had her ears pierced . . . .).

UPDATE:  Might Feinstein oppose his nomination in committee and on the Senate floor?

Say what?   Yeap, it is true. (h/t – Towleroad)

Call it a Christmas present for gay and lesbian couples. President Bush signed the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) two days before Christmas. The new law makes it mandatory for businesses to roll over retirement benefits to a same-sex partner in the event of the employee’s death.

Previously, employers could decline and surviving same-sex partners would have to pay tax on the inheritance of the deceased partner’s retirement savings. Legally married heterosexual couples automatically avoid that tax penalty.

National LGBT rights groups hailed the move. “This legislation secures much-needed protection for lesbian and gay couples,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Our community faces unique challenges in preparing for retirement because we are denied Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. Protecting our hard-earned retirement savings is even more crucial to us, and until now, the tax code made it that much harder.”

How interesting that this hasn’t been well-reported.  Why?  Because by signing this into law, President George W. Bush has, by law, done more for gays than any other President in history.   President William Jefferson Clinton, on the other hand, signed two laws (DOMA and DADT) that put gay rights progress into full reverse.

Bush increased American gay rights, Clinton took away American gay rights.  Facts are facts.

Ah, the irony.

So, thank you President Bush.  This is actually a solid real-world benefit for same-sex partners across the USA.

[RELATED: Here's a primer on the new law (WRERA 2008).]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A dog’s smile is always a good way to forget about the headlines in today’s world.

Saxby says “Hi.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I suspect Dan will have some thoughts on this analogy, but the words of Victor Davis Hanson pretty much sum up my dim view of the world we live in.

There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.

Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.

Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world’s craven reaction to all this.

Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien’s Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised “international community,” the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed.

By the way, Leah….. your nephew Achikam is in my thoughts and prayers.  Please keep us updated.

UPDATE:  Here’s video of the lovely demonstration in Ft. Lauderdale on 12/30/08.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I am always fascinated by which of our posts lead to sustained comment threads. I had not expected my post announcing a dinner for blog-readers at Hollywood’s El Coyote would excite such controversy.

All those who RSVPed favored holding the dinner on Sunday. If you’d like to join us, please e-mail me for time and details.

Let me just say, I think the whole notion of boycotting this establishment is absurd. In frequenting it, we are not, as one reader suggested, countenancing bigotry. We are simply supporting a restaurant wrongly targeted by a group of angry activists in need of an enemy at whom to vent.

Merely because one employee supported Proposition 8 does not mean that the restaurant is itself anti-gay. Nor does it mean that she herself is. It merely means that she believes gender difference is a defining aspect of marriage.

And until gay marriage advocates learn to respect that understanding of this ancient institution, an understanding that prevailed unassailed for millennia, they will remain incapable of participating in a serious civil discussion on expanding the definition of the institution to include same-sex couples, an expansion which they seem to favor, but are unwilling to defend (with serious argument).

This dinner is a chance for our readers to gather and enjoy each other’s company. And to take a stand at politically correct anger run amok.

I hope everyone is enjoying the first day of 2009.  We are watching the Rose Bowl, rooting for Penn State, and have just finished a yummy New Year dinner cooked by PatriotPartner.

Saxby wanted some of the smoked pork, sauerkraut, black-eyed pea salad and collard greens.  He had to settle for a pig’s ear dog treat.

So, what are your New Year’s resolutions?   I have two:   exercise regularly and use the phone vs. text/email.

I’m keeping it simple.

Oh yeah, and MORE podcasts! (And more cowbell, of course)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’ve been watching the events in Illinois with much amusement. it is a nice respite from nursing our wounds in the aftermath of last month’s election to watch the Democrats attempt to contend with corruption in their own ranks.

They don’t want the man (or woman) filling the president-elect’s Senate seat to be tainted by the scandal swirling around Illinois’s Democratic governor, but want to make sure a Democrat holds that seat.  So, they stopping talking about changing Illinios law calling for a special election when it appeared a Republican could win. Yeah, for the Democrats, partisanship reigns supreme. Can you imagine how the media would react if Republicans engaged in such shenanigans?

With Governor Blagojevich tapping a prominent African-American politician for the Obama seat, he has played the race card. Roland Burris is clearly qualified to serve. As Michael Barone puts it, “If Fitzgerald had not arrested Blagojevich and held his December 9 press conference, Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris would have gone unnoticed and would have been almost entirely uncontroversial.” But, with that arrest, in making the appointment, Blagojevich added another ring to the Democrats’ circus.

Barone links us to this witty column where John Kass sums up the whole situation:

Of course, Tuesday’s fiasco [the of the Burris appointment] could have been avoided. Democrats in the state legislature could have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and imposed a special election. Obama also could have demanded it. But as he has done so often in his career, Obama avoided a confrontation and looked the other way.

Read both things (Barone as well as Kass).