Just a very quick link here to a piece on the New Obama Civility as of 2009. Not much to say* besides, Victor Davis Hanson is brilliant as usual.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*Except that; to our Leftist readers, Hanson is being ironic in this article, just so you know.

I’ll start taking liberal critics of the supposedly incendiary/racist rhetoric Tea Party protesters spew regularly in their reportedly* raucous rallies when the critic leveling the charge can point to comments he made in the George W. Bush era, to “differentiate themselves” (to borrow an expression from one such critic) from the hateful tone of their ideological confrères opposing that decent Republican.

As Peter Wehner put it in his post on former President Clinton’s attempt to tie Tea Party-type rhetoric to the Oklahoma City bombings:

The problem for Mr. Clinton is that his concern about the dangers of incendiary rhetoric seems to have taken flight during the two terms of the Bush presidency, as well as during his own. Regarding the former, there was, for starters, the 2006 film, The Death of a President, on the assassination of President Bush. Mr. Clinton did not, to my knowledge, condemn the movie in a front-page story in the New York Times or in a major speech.

Moreover, George W. Bush was, during his two terms in office, routinely called a war criminal, an international terrorist, and compared to Hitler [see a photo gallery here and here]. Signs with bullet holes in Bush’s forehead, with blood running down his face, were all part of the fun and games. The president was accused of moral cowardice by Al Gore, of being a liar and the anti-Christ, and of being a totalitarian and dictatorial leader. Members of Congress such as Keith Ellison compared the attacks on September 11 to the Reichstag fire.

This was all pretty common fare during the Bush presidency. Yet Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, remained silent, apparently unconcerned that such words would fall on the serious and the delirious, the connected and the unhinged, at the same time. And many of Mr. Clinton’s fellow Democrats, including his vice president, said words that encouraged the worst elements and instincts of the haters and the loons. (more…)

Far be it from me, someone who calls ObamaCare the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, to impugn somebody else’s hyperbolic references to the dictator-under-glass.*

That said, what is wrong with Chris Matthews?

He recently characterized the primary challenge of Governor Charlie Crist for Florida’s Republican Senatorial nomination by former Speaker of that state’s House of Representatives, Marco Rubio—a challenge Crist has basically no way of winning at this point—”Stalinesque”, and a “purging” of the party. Really?

First of all, Chris, it’s not as though Rubio is trying to run Crist out of the office he holds, like Ned Lamont tried to do to Joe Liebermann in 2006. That wasn’t an attempt at a “Stalinesque purge” either, as the party allowed the primary to unfold before ultimately endorsing Lamont after he won the primary.

But let’s see what, to Matthews, a “Stalinesque purge” looks like:

In an open primary to replace a Senator who was installed by Crist himself (ostensibly as a place-holder till he could run for the seat himself), the Republican National Senatorial Committee has endorsed Crist. So has the Senate Minority Leader.

But when a grass-roots organization rises up within the Republican party, demands its leaders hear them, and supports somebody besides that of the established party elites (Dede Scozzafava, please call your office), it’s considered a “Stalinesque purge” by Chris Matthews.

I suppose, if you’re a socialist like Chris Matthews, perhaps you might buy into Stalin’s rhetoric that he was all about “The People”. In that sense, when “The People” actually do take action to overthrow an inefficient and centralized party structure that’s overbearing on the citizenry, it’s reminiscent of the bearded-one.

But it almost sounds, to hear Matthews say it, like a bad thing.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*Just as clarification, I reference Stalin in describing ObamaCare becuase it’s, essentially, a take-over of an industry; the means of production, if you will.

Before I realized that Bruce had written about the police closing down Lafayette Park yesterday in response to a juvenile stunt by gay activists supporting repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), I had written a quick post on the matter which appeared briefly on the blog.  I removed after seeing Bruce’s post.

Seems we offered a similar argument and there was no reason to have two such posts.

It has kind of surprised me that the mainstream media has picked up on this.  Didn’t think they wanted a story which would put the Obama Administration in a bad light.  To their credit, many media outlets have covered the story.  A leftist with integrity has discovered some folks who haven’t taken notice:

Why am I so critical of the Gay Inc orgs GLAAD, HRC and NGLTF, other than the usual reasons of they have miserably failed to deliver much-promised change and fierce advocacy?

It is for things like their silence today over the courageous disruption of activists from the GetEqual org last night demanding President Obama spend some political capital repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Click here to check out LA reporter and blogger Karen Ocamb’s comprehensive coverage, with lots of text, some pics and vids, of the action.

Then there is the same silence from the orgs regarding the arrest today of six gay military personnel, both veteran and current active, at the fence of the White House. Click here for some mainstream news coverage, and here for blogosphere coverage.

Now, we may quibble about whether or not the disruption was courageous.  But, we do agree that it is newsworthy.

Agree or disagree with the folks at GetEQUAL, you gotta admire their spunk.  They have organized independently of the main gay organizations, believing they’re not working aggressively enough to promote gay interests, with some seeing them as toadies to the Democratic Party.  They are, to be sure, far to the left of us, but at least they’re true to their principles.

And from Instapundit who also picked up on the story:

Police chase reporters away from covering protest outside White House. “Exit question: On a scale of one to 10, where would this rate on the Crushing-of-Dissent-o-meter if it had happened under Bush? (Exit answer: Eight!)”

Related: Park Police, Secret Service give contradictory accounts of why Lafayette Park was ”closed” during White House protest by present and former servicemembers.

Commenting on the President’s trip to Los Angeles earlier this week to raise money for Barbara Boxer’s faltering Senate campaign, my gal Carly Fiorina quipped:

Of course the president is out here today because Barbara Boxer is vulnerable, and the Democratic establishment is working overtime to prop her up in a way they have never done before. . . We are witnessing a rescue mission in action.

And quite a rescue mission is needed, with polls showing Mrs. Boxer running more than fifteen points behind the Democratic presidential candidate’s 2008 tally in the state.  Her approval rating is slipping faster than his.

No wonder Obama warned people at the fundraiser that the hyperpartisan California Democrat might lose:

President Barack Obama is telling California Democrats that their liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer might lose her re-election race unless they work hard for her campaign.

And Mrs. Boxer wants us to “get excited like the tea party people.”  Just not quite sure though how having her supporters dress well is going to help her electoral prospects.

In the forty-eight hours (and then some) since I issued my challenge to those who tar us with the self-hating smear, not a single person has risen to meet it.  Oh, yes, a few have offered screeds and called them arguments, but in none of their comments do they address things we actually said.  Instead, they just recited the prejudices  (about conservatives) they already hold.

Now, one guy did link three of my posts, “summarizing” their contents to show just how self-hating I was:

Defending calling Barney Frank a “fag”

Gay people shouldn’t be around children

Gays don’t deserve marriage because they are rude

Problem is none of these posts says what he says they said as I noted in one comment and ILoveCapitalism in subsequent comments.  In other words, in order to demonize me, this fellow had to twist my words to claim I said things I never said.

It seems that for so many on the left (and indeed some on the fringes of the right), they see politics as an exercise in venting their spleen.  They define an adversary as worthy of opprobrium based not on his own beliefs and qualities, but those they project onto him.

It’s as if they have the need of someone to vilify, an individual — or group of individuals with one shared characteristic of belief — to hate.

Those who level the charge against us aren’t interested in debating our ideas or even understanding the apparent oxymoron of gay conservatism, but in treating us as some extreme social conservatives treat gay people, as a group onto whom they can target their own insecurities and deepest animosities.

*NB:  I changed the title, making it more succinct.

When I read that former President Clinton’s had said that it was “legitimate” to draw “parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today.“, I recalled a comment from Frank Rich that I had quoted just over a year ago.

The head of the Family Research Council is Gary Bauer, a G.O.P. power broker and putative Presidential candidate, who disingenuously goes on talk shows to say that his organization hates no one and deplores violence. But if you wage a well-financed media air war in which people with an innate difference in sexual orientation are ceaselessly branded as sinful and diseased and un-American seekers of ‘’special rights,” ground war will follow. It’s a story as old as history. Once any group is successfully scapegoated as a subhuman threat to ”normal” values by a propaganda machine, emboldened thugs take over.

Without any evidence that the thugs who murdered Matthew Shepard had ever even heard of Gary Bauer or his social conservative cohorts, Rich was blaming them for the young man’s murder.  Now, to paraphrase what I wrote last year, I agree Gary Bauer is kind of loopy, but advocate of violence he clearly is not.

Back in 1995, Clinton had no evidence to tie Timothy McVeigh to the talk radio hosts against whom he then inveighed, but that didn’t prevent him from leveling accusations against his critics in that medium, then the vanguard of conservative opposition to his policies.

In calling the Democrat’s comments “unconscionable,” the Sooner State’s senior Senator reminds us of an inconvenient truth, inconvenient that is to those peddling the left-wing narrative that conservative activism breeds violent reaction:  “Now, we know that even McVeigh himself said upon his execution that it was Waco that motivated him. There’s no evidence he even listened to conservative radio.”

Just as there’s no evidence Shepherd’s killers had even heard of Gary Bauer.  Guess, for columnists like Rich and Democrats like Clinton, you just don’t facts to make a narrative, prejudices will suffice.

UPDATE:  Heck, McVeigh even “perpetrated the attack in Oklahoma City on the two-year anniversary of” Waco.

UP-UPDATE:  Via Glenn, “ILYA SOMIN: Timothy McVeigh Was No Libertarian: The Fallacy of Conflating Two Very Different Types of “Anti-Government” Movements. It’s not so much a fallacy as a malicious lie, but yeah.”  As the master says, “Those dangerous libertarians — they want to take over the government, and then leave you alone! Read the whole thing.”

Check out my newest posting at BigJournalism.  Here’s a sample:

Now I don’t really get into the whole “shouting down the President” and “handcuffing to the White House gates” approach to things. But it is very disturbing that Obama’s people are using the District police to prevent reporters from doing their jobs and covering an act of peaceful civil disobedience. I can only imagine the breathless and shrill outrage by network news anchors tonight if Bush-Cheney had kept the press away from the White House during an anti-war protest in 2005? Surely the Bush Press Secretary would be “The Worst Person In The World” tonight on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. So why shouldn’t Robert Gibbs be tonight?

<….>

Not surprisingly, the demonstrators [in Los Angeles on Monday night] have not received much national media attention despite the shocking rebuke to the President most favored by gay rights groups in recent years.   I do seem to remember that during the 2003-2008 time period, network news reporters and camera crews seemed to be just a phone call away for even the smallest chance that a Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan appearance might interrupt then-President Bush or then-VP Cheney.

It seems King Barack I doesn’t like protests, especially from his left flank.

Please read the whole thing so they keep me over at BigJournalism!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Tuesday, May 18, there will be a special election to fill the Pennsylvania congressional seat of the late John Murtha. So unpopular has the Democratic agenda become in this part of the Keystone State that even the Democratic nominee Mark Critz has been campaigning against Obamacare.  But, remember, should that Democrat prevail, he’ll become a loyal foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi.  Should he be reelected to a full term in November, the first vote that Democrat would cast would to extend Mrs. Pelosi’s terms as Speaker.

Citing a Public Policy Polling survey which shows Pelosi’s favorables in the district at 24 percent, compared to 64 percent unfavorable, Jim Geraghty reports that the Republican candidate in the race, “Tim Burns[,] is having a money-bomb.”

Please join me in making a modest contribution to this fine Republican.

Via Glenn Reynolds, we learn more about “the new climate of fear in America: DEM DONOR Arrested for Threatening to Murder GOP Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite …Media Silent“:  ”Erik Pidrman threatened to murder GOP Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite.”

Mr. Pidman, “gave $250 to Hillary’s campaign in 2008.”

Barney, you’ve got some differentiating to do.  I do expect the unhappy Massachusetts Democrat to take to the microphones any minute now to “differentiate” himself from the hateful threats made by this supporter of his party.  Should Barney remain silent, we will assume, based on his very words, that he countenances the types of threats the Florida Democrat made.

Barney had said that, “If this [i.e. Tea Party] was a movement that I was part of, I’d be doing more than I think the Republicans are, to differentiate myself“.  Well, Tea Party protesters didn’t issue the kinds of threats Mr. Pidman did.  And Barney said he would have differentiated himself from the kind of hateful language he claimed he heard last month.  So, we’re waiting for him to weigh in on this matter.

. . . but it may have keep some public employees on state payrolls.   (Guess that’s what Obama meant about “saved.”)

Michael Barone explains:

One-third of the 2009 stimulus money went to state and local governments–an obvious payoff to the public employee unions which gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats and got hundreds of billions of dollars in return, to insulate public employee unions from the effects of the recession which has affected everyone else.

What Obama and Boxer don’t seem to realize is that they—like Corzine and Coakley–are on the wrong end a taxpayer rebellion. For decades, Californians paid high taxes but got good services in return: good schools and roads, an excellent university system. But now, after favor after favor to the unions from their pliant political pawns, we have bloated payrolls, unfireable teachers who are the highest-paid in the nation, state workers who retire at 55 and make more money not working than when they were working.

Had it not been for the time it would take to organize a Tea Party to protest outside the fund-raiser the President was hosting earlier tonight for one of his least accomplished former Senate colleagues, I might have put something together.  Well, it seems like some gay activists beat me to the punch:

A group of gay rights activists disrupted President Obama’s speech at a fundraiser here for Sen. Barbara Boxer Monday night, decrying what they describe as Mr. Obama’s inaction on overturning the military’s ban on gay service members and calling on him to submit repeal language to Congress. 

Something tells me these protesters have nothing to do with the various gay organizations, but are more likely affiliated with the leftist blogs, holding the Democrat to account for the campaign promises he made to the gay community.

While I respect them for standing up for their beliefs,they should have showed the president more respect, waiting for him to complete his remarks before raising their concerns.

Via JammieWearingFool via Instapundit.

UPDATE:  Just got this release in my in-box.  The group GetEQUAL (whatever that means) claims responsibility for the interruption:

Moments ago, several GetEQUAL activists interrupted President Obama during his speech at a fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer in Los Angeles, expressing anger over the slow progress on repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and demanding that he repeal it.
 
GetEQUAL activists shouted, “what about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” and “it’s time for equality for all Americans.”   The President, at one point bringing his remarks to a halt, said, “Barbara and I are supportive of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” (more…)

In his comment to my firsts post on Obama’s memorandum on hospital visitation, David wrote, “I knew you’d be against whatever Obama does so I wasn’t surprised.”  Wonder how he knew that?  Must not have been from checking our archives where I praised Obama here, here, here, here, here, here and here for the way he was going about repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

(And those aren’t the only posts where I praised the president on DADT.)

David is not the only one of our critics to make assumptions which, with just a few keystrokes, he could have learned were false.  In my post challenging our critics using the “self-hating” slur to defend themselves, Jennifer, one of the few such critics who kept her comments civil, wrote:

You are tolerated in the ranks only because you agree that you deserve the second-class legal status assigned to you by the conservative movement, and you know that if you stepped out of line on that one, you’d no longer be tolerated.

(And that wasn’t her only misrepresentation.)  She could provide no evidence that conservatives would no longer welcome us if we “stepped out of line.”  Well, we still get linked on conservative blogs and invited to conservative confabs even though this blog has opposed Proposition 8 and in spite of my writings in favor of civil unions and against Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).

They have, as we’ve said before, this view of the Republican Party and conservative movement not based on their actual experiences at party meetings on in conservative gatherings, but based on what they read in the mainstream media and on left-wing blogs.

But the most delicious of all false assumptions came from a fellow styling himself Mr. Wonderful:

Bear in mind that Dan doesn’t think he’s self-loathing because he’s not aware of FEELING that way. Like all the fine folks on the right, he probably “doesn’t believe in” analysis, psycho-therapy, or any other kind of therapy.

This happily named narrow-minded man must certainly have missed all my posts referencing Carl Jung or was blind to the fact that I am completing a Ph. D. at a graduate school that, according to its website, offers “masters and doctoral degree programs framed in the traditions of depth psychology.”   (more…)

Blogging law professor William A. Jacobson offers an answer:

The attacks on the Tea Parties have nothing to do with stamping out white supremacy and everything to do with shaping the political dialogue to stamp out legitimate opposition to Obama administration policies.

Via Instapundit.

This treatment of Tea Parties strikes a chord with Gregory of Yardale:

You know, I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!

Via this must-read post from Jennifer Rubin, we learn what Bill Kristol said about this matter:

It’s an attempt to demonize and discredit the movement and not engage it on its ideas. … I think this notion that — the left pretends to think the Tea Parties are a problem for the Republicans. The fact is the left is terrified of the Tea Parties.President Obama knows they have done a huge amount of damage to his attempt to transform America in a left-wing direction. And therefore, they don’t want to debate the issues. They want to demonize them.

While we’re more focused now on domestic issues, our brave men and women in uniform are still fighting the good fight in Iraq and getting the bad guys:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced today the deaths of Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, more commonly known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al-Qaida’s top leader in Iraq, and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, or Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq. The two were killed during a nighttime raid on what the U.S. military described as an al-Qaida safe house, U.S. forces in Iraq said in a statement confirming the deaths of the two leaders.

Two terrorists dead.

United States Forces-Iraq Commander Gen. Raymond T. Odierno called their deaths “potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaida in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency”.  While Odierno is leading an operation begun when George W. Bush was president, he’s doing it during Barack Obama’s watch.  The bulk of the credit may belong to our service members on the ground too, but by dint of his role as Commander in Chief, the president also should accolades for this successful operation.

Kudos, Mr. President, for continuing to take the fight to the terrorists.

UPDATE: Max Boot reports that “Even before [these terrorists'] demise, Odierno noted on Fox News Sunday, security trends were positive“:

First quarter fiscal year ‘10 was the lowest number of incidents we’ve had in a quarter, the lowest number of high-profile attacks, the lowest number of indirect fire attacks, the lowest number of civilian casualties, the lowest number of U.S. force casualties, the lowest number of Iraqi security force casualties. So the direction continues to be headed in the right way.

When I set to write my post last night on Constance McMillen in order to distinguish my view of the situation from the perspective Nick offered, I did so with the sense that the young woman had done nothing wrong.  I confirmed that “sense” when I read various articles (and opinion pieces) on the whole hullabaloo.

She didn’t do anything wrong.

The worst that she can be accused of is poor taste — and being a teenager.  But, even the great hero Beowulf acknowledged impetuous behavior when he was a youth.  As to her poor taste, women just don’t look good in tuxes; and she wanted to wear one to her prom.  But, then again, men look terrible in lime green tuxes and how many high school seniors have worn just such an outfit to theirs?

As to her accepting invitations to appear at various gay functions, well, we may not like the groups sponsoring those functions, but, well, she is a teenager.  And what teenager, in this culture, wouldn’t jump at the chance to become a sudden celebrity?

The real issue here is that some wish to use this situation to show a society where gay teens have it pretty rough.  And, to be sure, while things have greatly improved for gay people over the years, it’s always going to be difficult to be different, particularly in a high school environment where there’s so much pressure to conform.  But, we shouldn’t let the poor treatment this young woman suffered blind us to the improved situation for gay teens at high schools across the country, many of which allow students to bring same-sex dates to their high school’s spring formal.

Things are getting awfully awkward in Pennsylvania.

In the race to fill the seat of the late Marine-slanderer, John Murtha, the Republicans have put up Tim Burns against the Democrats’ Mark Critz in the special election slated for May 18th. CQ reports that Speaker Pelosi and DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen will be hosting a fundraiser tomorrow for Critz.

That’ll have to be kind of like kissing your cousin, based on this ad Critz’s campaign just put up, declaring: “I opposed the health care bill, and I’m pro-life, and pro-gun.”

Hmm…wonder if that’ll come up tomorrow. You know, who Critz is actually making a point of telling people in advertizing that Pelosi will help raise money to continue how he’s opposed to her signature “achievement”.

Just a reminder to the fine folks of the 12th CD: Critz may be against the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, pro-life, and pro-gun. But, were this not a special election to fill a vacant seat, his first vote as a Congressman would be for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Oh, and by the way, Critz also is also lying about Burns supporting tax breaks “to ship jobs overseas”. But that’s a whole ‘nother post.

(h/t, Jim at NRO.)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Perhaps, the greatest irony about blogging is that it’s very often the posts to which we bloggers devote the least amount of attention that elicit the greatest amount of controversy.  I had posted on the president’s hospital visitation order, in large measure, because my take nearly perfectly paralleled that of a the left-leaning lesbian friend who alerted me to the story.  We both liked the result, but were concerned about the means.

I put together that post in a matter of minutes, eager to get it done so I could get on with my weekend.  And it generated a relatively long thread in a very short amount of time, with solid arguments and intense acrimony.

Later, when I read some of the comments, it was amazing to see how many people, deliberately or not, misrepresented my view on the issue or used the space we offer to make juvenile and/or inaccurate accusations.

That said, amidst the bile, there was some very solid criticism of my free market approach.  Darkeyedresolve addressed an issue I should have considered in my initial post:

I’m not sure how of a customer you are when you got into a hospital, most people get rushed to the nearest hospital in the event of emergency. You may not get the same treatment at that hospital as a opposed to the one you frequent, especially in an out of the state situation.

While normally a libertarian, opposed to government mandates, I’ve never had a problem with a government mandate that private hospitals treat people rushed there for emergency treatment.   So, in that situation, I would certainly favor requiring hospitals to accede to the patient’s request to have the visitor of his choosing. (more…)

On the whole, I have been supportive of the president’s plan for Afghanistan. My main quibble is that he wants a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, signaling to our enemies that they just need to wait us out. In an interview with the AP’s Kathy Gannon, a Taliban commander admitted as much:

The Taliban commander, who uses the pseudonym Mubeen, told The Associated Press that if military pressure on the insurgents becomes too great “we will just leave and come back after” the foreign forces leave.

Later, in the article, Ms. Gannon wrote:

It is difficult to measure the depth of support for the Taliban among Kandahar’s people, many of whom say they are disgusted by the presence of both the foreign troops and the insurgents. Many of them say they are afraid NATO’s summer offensive will accomplish little other than trigger more violence.

Wonder what was her source for Kandahar public opinion.  The Taliban commander perhaps?  She references no other source in the article.

Usually, on this blog, each blogger posts a piece without consulting the others.  On occasion, Nick, Bruce or I may run an idea by the others before publishing it.  On at least one occasion, I have chosen not to run with a piece (I had written) after showing it to Bruce.  On other occasions, I have run posts by friends or readers before posting them.  On some occasions, I have edited them as per their suggestions.  On others, I have not published the pieces at all.

Had Nick run his piece, The Gay Left’s Newest Member, by me, I would have suggested he not post it. In a way, I see what he’s getting at, how Constance McMillen becomes the latest “victim” of American society feted by the gay groups to promote their agenda.

That said, I do see where she’s coming from.  (I appreciate Nick’s clarification; she’s not the one to blame here.)

And I don’t think it’s right for a public school to prevent her from taking the date of her choice to its prom.  After the “American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi . . . got involved, claiming the school’s policy regarding dates was discriminatory and violated McMillen’s constitutional rights . . ., the local school board decided to call the whole thing off.

Some parents then organized an alternative prom.  According to the Advocate, to “prevent Constance McMillen from bringing a female date to [that] prom, the teen was sent to a ‘fake prom’ while the rest of her class partied at a secret location“.  That was a cheap and mean stunt, but it was privately done.  By challenging the parents’ actions in court, activists would make the case for forcing Keith Olbermann off the air.  His show is little more than a series of cheap and mean stunts.

All that said, I just couldn’t muster the energy to blog about this until I felt it necessary to distinguish my viewpoint from that Nick’s.  My reaction to the kerfuffle was that the hyperventilating on some gay blogs and from some gay organizations was a bit overblown.  It was as if a new Dark Age had dawned in America.

But, if this were a new Dark Age, then why all this hullabaloo over McMillen’s exclusion?  To a large extent, we see this hullabaloo because of the changes taking place across the country.  Back in 1980, it made national news that a student in a Rhode Island high school student was taking a same-sex date to the prom.  Now, it makes national news when a Mississippi girl can’t take a same-sex date to the prom. (more…)