So much that the two US Airways flight attendants were discussing who the Republicans should run against him in 2012.

That’s trouble…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In his comment to my post speculating why Andrew Sullivan made a hard left turn, Chuck in Del asks:

I would just like to know where does one go in conservative circles to get support for gay equality? Is it progressives and liberals ammending state consitutions against gay marriage? I am sorry but how long does a gay conservative have to sit in the back of the bus to get even workplace equality? Or are we supposed to swallow the argument that equality is code speak for special rights?

My response is simple, you don’t go to conservatives begging for equality, not for gays, not for anyone.  When conservatives are true to their principles, we speak out for freedom.  Indeed, freedom, until all too recently, has been the watchword of the American political tradition.

Thomas Jefferson did indeed write in the Declaration of Independence that we are “created equal,” but the rights with which we are “endowed” included “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Equality didn’t make the list.

And yet when we survey the gay political landscape, we see the notion of “equality” replacing the idea of freedom, with many state gay political groups defining themselves by a word with socialist implications.  Here in the Golden State, it’s “Equality California.”  Similarly in the Old Dominion, the Tarheel State, the Sunshine State, the Buckeye State and the Keystone State, to name put a few.

The equal sign serves as the logo for HRC which bills itself as “America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.”  (Emphasis added.)  Neither the word “freedom” nor “liberty” appears once in the group’s mission statement.

So, I’m curious how did this come to pass?   (more…)

In his press conference last night, the president said he “inherited” a $1.3 trillion annual deficit.  Guess this former constitutional law scholar has lost sight of the document which ostensibly served as the center of his legal studies.

According to that august document, Article 1, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”  For the last two years of George W. Bush’s Administration when the deficit spiked, Democrats, the incumbent president’s party, controlled Congress.  Obama, as a Senator from the great state of Illinois, was part of that majority.  This fact has led one blogger to ask,

What did Obama do to reduce the deficits as the Senator from Illinois? What legislation did he author? What opposition did he provide to the high-spending policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007 and 2008?

Unless President Obama can provide evidence of such opposition, he shares responsibility for the deficits he claims to have inherited.

Few things show the hollowness of Barack Obama’s campaign commitment to a new kind of politics which seeks, through transparency and civil discourse, to overcome partisan divisions in the national interest than his appointment of the hyperpartisan gunslinger Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, his top administrative aide.

Perhaps if the president had more regular contact with someone less adept at partisan warfare, he would quit bellyaching about the mess he “inherited” and instead roll up his sleeves and fill those vacant positions in the Treasury Department so he could have a full stable of advisers who could help him develop solutions to fix it.

Instead of blaming Republicans, he might take heed to the fact that the deficit spiked only after Democrats took control of Congress. He was a part of their majority.  Realizing his own responsibility for the mess, he might tone down his rhetoric.  But, with Emanuel advising him, he is more likely to see others, namely Republicans, as the responsible party.

Thus, replacing Rahm Emanuel with a less partisan aide, the president would lack that sounding board reinforcing his partisan instincts.  He put the nation’s interests ahead of his party.  That’s why I believe Rahm must go.

So says Glenn in linking Ann Althouse’s must-read post.

The Massachusetts Democrat claims that Justice Scalia “makes it very clear that he’s angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people:”

If you read his opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas], he thinks it’s a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people.

Well that sage blogress, who actually read Lawrence informs the mean-spirited Decmorat that “you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader.”  Actually quoting the actual words of Scalia’s actual dissent, Althouse finds the Associate Justice objecting to the majority opinion overturning Texas’s sodomy law as rooted in “plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text.”   His opinion is thus consistent with his constitutional jurisprudence.

Read the whole thing.  Maybe it’s Althouse’s direct manner which so offends those on the left.  And they, like Barney, are so easily offended.

If a Republican were as outspoken and mean-spirited as the Massachusetts Congressman and so regularly engaged in name-calling, he would be the target of regular media attacks.  Tom DeLay got in more trouble with the media for saying things far less offensive about his adversaries than Ol’ Barney has done.

Does this unhappy Congressman hide behind his sexuality, as if the marginalization he’s suffered somehow justifies his meanness?

Just a quick post this evening as I wait for my flight from Philly back home to Charlotte to takeoff.

I’m in a period of intense travel for the next few weeks. That will either mean little posting from me cuz I will be so overwhelmed. Or some bursts of blogging from a boring hotel stay.

I wish blogging were my fulltime jon sometimes, though I love what I do “for real”.

Anyway, just a quick hello. I’m out here somewhere whether I post or not!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Due to our capricious spamfilter, I have been spending more time than perhaps I should “fishing” through our “Spam Queue,” rescuing the legitimate comments hidden amidst Viagra ads and other strange spam. I try to error on the side of inclusion and have frequently published comments attacking Bruce, myself and others who comment here regularly.

I don’t think the ad hominems are in good form, but also believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. Like Ann Althouse, I believe “in the marketplace of ideas. . . . Is it not better to have scurrilous ideas out in the sunlight where they can die?”

All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some very strong comments when they resort to ad hominem, using the term “libtard’ or some such. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

There have been some really great exchanges in the comments thread to this blog, sometimes including those who occasionally use ad hominems. But, we could use more argument and less insult.

That’s why I was heartened to read Draybee’s response to Kevin’s comment in the thread to my latest post on Barney Frank’s name-calling and his subsequent commentary on that response:

By the way, I hope the rest of you noticed that I responded to Kevin’s post without resorting to insulting him or calling him names. He’s entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I’d like to see more mature debate on this site and less ad hominem attacks.

So would I.

Our readers should make his wish a reality. And follow his example.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot) – I could not agree more with *everything* Dan wrote above. One more thing – the auto Spam Filter is NOT a conspiracy against certain comments or individuals. Sheesh.

Today, the Vermont Senate approved “a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.“  While it’s unfortunate that there was “no debate” on this important legislation, allowing Senators to flesh out why gay marriage is a good thing, I commend the legislature for taking up the issue.

Unlike the Green Mountain State’s decision to recognize same-sex civil unions in 2000, this time the legislature acted on its own without the State Supreme Court requiring it to take up the issue (as it did for the civil-unions legislation).

This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.

As those following the gay marriage debates turn their attention again to the Green Mountain State, let us recall how we have progressed since last we focused on that New England state.  In 2000, civil union were seen as a revolutionary step, one which required court intervention.  Now, they’re seen as the conservative solution to the controversy over how to recognize same-sex couples.

Earlier today, when I linked Scott Ott’s satirical post, that Supreme Court Justice “Scalia Urges Patience with Barney Frank’s Heterophobia,” I did not realize that the unhappy Massachusetts Congressman called the Justice a “homophobe.” What is it with Barney that he has to label all those with whom he disagrees as bigots?

Brainy Barney may be, but narrow-minded he is as well.

Last fall, he accused conservatives of racism for linking the financial meltdown to the Community Reinvestment Act and the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

When, on the campaign trail, then-Republican presidential nominee John McCain made an issue of the Massachusetts Democrat’s proposals to raise taxes, increase domestic spending and gut the defense budget,* Barney called the attack on his statements, “an appeal to prejudice.”

Smart as Barney is, he has shown little capacity to understand conservative ideas, smearing his ideological adversaries rather than countering their arguments.  Is this the kind of man we want as the “most prominent openly gay politician in America”?

Now, do you have a better idea why I think he’s bad for gay people?

—————-

*Frighteningly, it seems what Barney hoped would come to pass in the Obama Administration is coming to pass.

UPDATE:  Ed Whelan and Mark Hemingway have been having a field day with this issue at the Corner.  Whelan called the attack “inane,” with Frank using the word, “homophobe. . . . to cut off serious discussion, not to promote it.“  Not sure I agree with him there, but I do share his distaste for the word.  (He, like me, would prefer a term like “anti-gay animus.”

Mark Hemingway agrees with Whelan that “the context of Frank’s remarks seems to betray his casual slander of” Justice Scalia.

One of the most hopeful signs about the “tea party” movement is that it represents an opportunity to rebuild the Reagan coalition.  When I joined my fellow Angelenos last month protesting higher taxes and bigger government on the Santa Monica pier, I noticed the diversity of the crowd, social conservatives, military veterans, veterans of the Ron Paul campaign, businessmen, conservative activists and various and sundry citizens from all walks of life.

If you attended tea parties in other towns, please let me know whether or not you had a similar experience.

Considering the diversity of these rallies, the tax and spending issue should be the one to help lift the Republican Party out of its late doldrums and into productive activity, offering voters that “better vision for the future” that Michael Barone believes we need to build on the growing disfavor Americans are feeling for the Democrats.

Barone has blogged much on the need for Republicans to Target Upscale Voters Unhappy With the Obama Economy. His analysis of polling data help confirm a conclusion I have reached based primarily on anecdote, conversations with friends, fellow alumni of my “élite” New England alma mater and family members.  A good number of these people share my fiscal conservatism, yet buy into the media image of the GOP as a party in thrall to social conservatives.

“If the Republican Party were more tolerant,” they say, they’d move back or toward, as the case may be, to the GOP.  It’s why, I believe, the GOP needs downplay the social issues to focus on the fiscal ones.  To that end, I believe Barone’s point about choices is so important. Young Americans, he contends, “are used to making their own choices, setting up their own networks, taking their own initiatives.”

This issue of choice could appeal to more than just young voters.  It could only serve to keep senior citizens in the Republican fold, reminding them that Obama’s health care plan would limit the choices they currently have.  As it helps the GOP retain social conservatives as we remind them that less government means more freedom, leaving them with the choice how to raise and where to educate their children, in public schools, parochial schools or at home.

(more…)

As I read yet again of Obama’s minions going door-to-door at the behest of Obama aides now working for the Democratic National Committee to press for passage of a spendthrift budget with trillion-dollar deficits, I note how this budget does not meet up with the fiscal responsibility the candidate preached in his campaign. As he himself said in the third presidential debate “what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

That’s right he said that throughout this campaign, he proposed a net spending cut. Now, some of his supporters might say, well, he didn’t realize how bad the economic situation was. Um, he repeated that message of fiscal responsibility after the election, promising to “scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts.”

And just after pushing through the spendthrift “stimulus,” he hosted a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House.

He has been praised for his gift of rhetoric, that he, with a good speech in front of him, is a master of the spoken word.  Alas, that he uses those words to deceive.

UPDATE:  An illustration of Obama’s deception.  Here’s what one of his prominent supporters had to say recently:

In the midst of this bonfire of inanities, President Obama is pressing ahead with a $3.6 trillion budget, predicated on utterly unrealistic economic growth, even as the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting that this year’s deficit will soar past $1.8 trillion, 13 percent of the US economy. . . President Obama came to office proclaiming that he aims to solve problems, not hand them on to our children. Most presidents say that sort of thing. But now we are in very dire straits, and that being the case, he will be held to account. It’s your legacy, sir, and let’s not hear any more about ‘inheriting the crisis.

(H/t:  Jennifer Rubin)

Read the whole thing!  Via Instapundit.

Turns out hyperpartisan White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was in the meeting when the language allowing for the AIG bonuses about which Democrats have been grandstanding overmuch in recent days was inserted into the “stimulus” bill”

“Right now, you get the feeling this is all about protecting [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel,” says a former Treasury Department lawyer, who worked in that department’s counsel’s office on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) before joining a D.C.-based law firm in February. “At the time, we were led to believe there were basically three or four people from the Administration at the table when the final deals were cut and one of them was Emanuel.”

“Emanuel isn’t talking” as White House officials try to pass the buck.  Doesn’t sound like the Administration is doing much to follow through on the president’s recent pledge to break “a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.”

If the president wants to live up to his campaign pledge of post-partisanship, his commitment “new kind of politics,” he needs to fire Rahm Emanuel, a man who embodies the worst excesses of that old kind of politics against which Mr. Obama ran such an effective campaign.

Not just that, as I’ve said before, given the president’s particular strengths*, he need a Chief of Staff with a different skill set, a man who can serve a kind of prime minister, effectively running the government while the president sets the broad agenda.  A master of scripted eloquence, Obama needs a detail man as his right-hand man.  Not a partisan gunslinger with an axe to grind.

*UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin suggests Obama might see his new job as preferring to “campaign and hold summits, leaving the governing to others.”  It would then follow that he should entrust that govering to competent and dispassionate indiviuals.

Shouldn’t Liberals and Global Warmingists be thrilled at all of America’s newspapers failing?

Saves trees, right? More trees to hug!!!

Bruce (GayPatriot)

Glenn linked some left-wing blogger depicting certain conservative bloggers as crybabies because they faulted the MSM for not covering the various “tea parties” across the land protesting higher taxes and bigger government.

But, the tone I find in conservative blogs is not so much anger and whining.  It’s not not such much outrage any more, but just plain amusement. This is what we’ve come to expect from the mainstream media. It proves what we’ve been saying all along, that their mantra is not, as per the New York Times‘ masthead motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” but rather Only the News that Fits our Narrative We Print.

Nothing illustrates this better than the front page from the Connecticut Post which Don Surber reproduced on Sunday.  The paper gave the story of the protest/bus tour again AIG executives “two big pictures, a main story, and a side story.“  Even the paper’s page-one photo shows more photographers than protesters.

“Buried inside [the paper] was a story of 300 people in Ridgefield staging a Tea Party against the entire $700 billion bailout and the subsequent $787 billion stimulus.”  That is, the paper devoted front-page cover to a rally less than one-seventh the tea party’s size.

As we right-of-center bloggers detail such hypocrisy, we experience a weird kind of “schadenfreude,” a pleasure in misfortune.  The misfortune is the media’s failure to cover (or, in the case when they do cover, attempts to downplay) rallies in support of ideas we conservatives and libertarians have long championed.  And the pleasure is being proven right about the mainstream media, finding in their silence (or downplaying) further evidence that they are biased against covering stories which don’t fit their narrative of what they believe the news should be.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  “You’re off just a bit on the NYT slogan — it’s ‘All the News that Fits, We Print’.”

See for yourself how the Smugness-In-Chief performed on 60 Minutes.

Gross. I’m guessing Michelle is growing arugula in her new White House lawn garden. Two peas in a pod.

Let us eat cake!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Last week, I linked Jay Cost’s Weekly Standard piece where he urged “Republicans to use their principles creatively—to generate new and compelling solutions to public problems.”

Today, Glenn Reynolds identifies the reason my party has failed in recent years, “THE PROBLEM ISN’T REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES — it’s unprincipled Republicans. ‘Because Republicans didn’t stick, we got stuck.’”

UPDATE:  In an excellent post showing how recent polling numbers show that while Democrats are doing worse, Republicans aren’t doing much better, Michael Barone offers what the GOP must do to take advantage of this potential reversal of political fortune:

That instability worked to Democrats’ advantage in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Now it seems to be working against them—I was going to write to Republicans’ advantage, but I think what we are seeing is more disillusionment toward Democrats than any positive feeling toward Republicans. In the short run, Republicans can benefit from this. In the longer run, they need to offer voters a better vision for the future, or they risk losing once again if there is a revival of enthusiasm among Democrats and warm feeling toward them among independents.

Read the whole thing.

One of the original American patriots, Patrick Henry, delivered one of the greatest speeches in our nation’s history — 234 years ago today.  (h/t – Casey Wright via Twitter)

I can’t believe I have never posted this speech at GayPatriot before.  Perhaps the time wasn’t right.  Until now.

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

“Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Where are today’s Patrick Henrys?  Or Thomas Jeffersons?  Or Abraham Lincolns?

Instead, we have and Oprah-fied President in the White House.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In my preliminary research of presidential chiefs of staff, I don’t think I’ve discovered any as partisan as the incumbent, Rahm Emanuel.  More than any of his predecessors, he has an ideological axe to grind.

He cut his teeth in Chicago politics, his first job in national politics was national campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1988.  Seventeen years later, he would take over that operation which, by definition, is highly partisan.  That job seemed particularly suited to the Chicago Democrat.  Throughout his career, he has shown a ruthless partisan streak, dedicated to electing Democrats and defeating Republicans.

Indeed, he seems to have long harbored a particular animus against his partisan adversaries.

This seems hardly the individual to administer the executive office of the President of the United States, a man elected, albeit by partisan means, to serve the entire United States.

Given that this particular president who had, before taking office, almost no experience as an administrator, it would seem he would want a gifted experience as his chief of staff, someone who could balance the president’s preference for rhetoric with a competence at administration.

Where he needs a dispassionate administrator, the president has instead appointed a partisan gunslinger.  Take a gander at Emanuel’s defense of Obama’s tack of blaming his predecessor:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, denied that the president has changed his tone toward the previous administration. He said Obama is “not trying to place blame, but he is trying to say clearly: Here’s what we’ve got and here’s our way out of it. He’s offered a positive alternative to their criticism.”

“The truth is that 98 percent of his speeches are about the future, and 2 percent are about inheritance,” Emanuel said. “Whereas I think for Republicans it’s 2 percent about the future, and 98 percent hope that the people have amnesia.”

He just had to offer that dig in against Republicans.

Shouldn’t a White House chief of staff be above politics?

It is revealing that the president would tap such a partisan for the most important administrative job in the White House.  Not a man who whose political experience fits with the new type of politician Mr. Obama claimed to be in the campaign.

(more…)

Of the bloggers (and blogresses) I try to read on a regular basis, Ann Althouse is probably the one with whom I disagree the most on matters political.  She voted for Obama, leans left on a number of issues, regularly criticizes conservatives; she repeatedly ridiculed John McCain.  And yet it’s those on the left who are most eager to vilify her, the latest being blogger Ezra Klein.

On Saturday, I wanted to make sure to check her blog largely because she’s visiting my home town and posting pictures from the city Winston Churchill dubbed “the most beautiful city inland in the Union.”  She offered a photo of my favorite flavor of ice cream from the best ice cream place on the planet.  As well as images of the most delicious chili concoctions ever created by the mind of man.

She posed for a picture at the very statue where my grandmother gave me my very fist lesson on mythology in my favorite urban park in the nation.

Amidst all these happy images, she also alluded to her run-in with Ezra Klein, a blogger quite unhappy that this blogress diva doesn’t censor her comments and lets some pretty hateful ones stand.  As she explains:

Well, Ezra, I do not delete comments based on viewpoint. I believe in the marketplace of ideas, and to the extent that there are some anti-Semitic comments here, there are many more comments that strike back. Is it not better to have scurrilous ideas out in the sunlight where they can die?

Now you know what we call her a diva.  She doesn’t mince words and is unafraid of criticism and nut jobs.  (Memo to self: remember Ann’s words next time you find a hateful comment in the spam filter; expose it to sunlight so it can more readily be killed.)

(more…)