A good reminder of the significance of this date…. from the Heritage Foundation.

On this day in 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped into the Boston Harbor an estimated £10,000 worth of tea as a protest against British colonial policies.. John Adams declared this event, that we celebrate today as the Boston Tea Party, to be the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.” What led once loyal colonists to protest the World’s leading power?  How should we think about the Tea Party two hundred thirty-seven years later?

The American Revolution began as a tax revolt. After defeating France in the Seven Years’ War (which began in North America as the French and Indian War), Great Britain gained control over vast areas of land in the Americas, but also incurred massive debts. For the first time, Parliament looked to the American colonies as a source of revenue, and so began the long train of abuses against the American colonies. The American Revenue Act (sometimes called the Sugar Act) expanded import and export duties and created new government mechanisms to enforce trade laws. The Stamp Act was the first direct tax levied on America, requiring all newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and official documents—even decks of playing cards!—to have stamps as proof of payment of taxes.

These new policies outraged the colonists. The problem with the policies was not the amount of taxation—the taxes were actually quite low—but the process by which the British government imposed and enforced these taxes. As loyal colonists, the Americans recognized Parliament’s authority to legislate for the empire generally. But, the power to tax was a legislative power reserved to the colonists’ own assemblies rather than a distant legislature in London. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without legislative consent, and since the colonists had no representation in parliament they complained that the taxes violated their traditional rights. Thus the American’s rallying cry became: “No taxation without representation!”

The British rejected the Americans’ argument for self-government. The Declaratory Act of 1766, asserted Parliament’s absolute sovereignty over the Americans, including the power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” “No taxation without representation” meant no taxation without the approval of the British Parliament. It never literally meant—not for the Americans or even for the overwhelming majority of British citizens—representation in that body. The colonists, like all British subjects, enjoyed “virtual representation” of their interests by the aristocrats that controlled Parliament.

After repealing the earlier taxes, the British government passed a new series of revenue measures (called the Townshend Acts) in 1767, which taxed goods such as paper, glass, lead, and tea—and once again affirmed the power of British courts to issue undefined and open-ended search warrants (called “writs of assistance”) to enforce the law. Asserting that the sole right of taxation was with the colonial legislature, Virginia proposed a formal agreement among the colonies banning the importation of British goods—a practice that quickly spread to the other local legislatures and cut the colonial import of British goods in half. So Parliament eventually repealed those duties, too, except for the tax on tea.

Our forefathers did not destroy the tea cargo because of a simple tax dispute. At issue were the principles of self-government, consent, and natural rights. These principles are enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and continue to define us as a nation and inspire us as a people.

In 2010, we have our own intolerable act—Obamacare, a massive bureaucratic expansion of government over one-sixth of the American economy and many aspects of our lives and medical decisions. But there is a key difference between the situation now and that of 1773. Those early patriots had to establish their independence and to start anew. But, our task is different. “It is not about fixed bayonets but fixed principles; not about bullets but ballots. Our task is not to overthrow; it is not revolution; it is renewal and restoration of those self-evident truths of constitutional government at the heart of America.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Last week, the Smoking Gun reported on military files revealing that iconic actress Bea Arthur was a truck-driving member of the US Marine Corps in World War II.

DECEMBER 9–While she strangely denied serving in the armed forces, military records show that the actress Bea Arthur spent 30 months in the Marine Corps, where she was one of the first members of the Women’s Reserve and spent time as a typist and a truck driver.

The “Maude” and “The Golden Girls” star, who died last year at age 86, enlisted in early-1943 when she was 21 (and known as Bernice Frankel). In a February 1943 letter included in her Marine personnel file, Arthur gave military officials a brief account of her prior employment as a food analyst at a Maryland packing plant, a hospital lab technician, and an office worker at a New York loan company.

This news resulted in an off-line exchange of emails among some of GayPatriot’s readers and Dan & I.  Of course, whenever I think of Bea Arthur — I fondly recall the Golden Girls during my college years.  (Yeah, I had no life and was watching TV on Saturday nights; what of it?)

And whenever I think of the Golden Girls — this memorable scene is at the top of my laugh list.  It is a great piece of writing, acting, timing and portrayal of Dorothy, Sofia and Blanche.  Hoping they continue to rest in peace….

Enjoy!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When people who see my devotion to my nieces and nephews (even the adopted ones), they ask if I want to have kid of my own.  I always reply that I’d be a terrible father because I find it most difficult to say, “No,” to my niblings.

And saying, “No,” is an essential party of parenting.

Well, it seems that the Ado Annie of parenting is trying to use a California court so she doesn’t have to do that part of her job.  Doug Powers inform us that a Ms. Monet Parham is all irate that McDonald’s lures unsuspecting children into their fat factories, er, restaurants with tantalizing toys:  ”According to Parham, the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald’s is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake.”

So, she’s doing what most irate liberals do.  She’s taking McDonald’s to court and demanding that they stop using “toys to market directly to young children.”  This leads Powers to explain Ms. Parham’s duties to her:

The next time your kids ask to go to McDonalds, try saying this: “NO!” It’ll work wonders — or you can just sue McDonalds if it’s easier. That way you’ll get the added benefit of teaching your kids exactly how they too can grow up to be crappy parents.

Dr. Froyd sums it up:

I could rip it based on the fact that she’s a horrible parent who is having trouble saying no to her kids or she’s a horrible parent who isn’t making sure that the kids know why happy meals aren’t good for you or she’s a horrible parent for wanting to make quick cash on a lawsuit instead of working for it or she’s a horrible parent for showing kids that if something’s too difficult for you, you should sue somebody.

So do Rodgers and Hammerstein: (more…)

Uber progressive blogger and Islamic terror apologist Glenn Greenwald is whining about how PFC Bradley Manning (alleged Wikileaks source, and anti-DADT activist) is being treated.  It is cute how in the beginning of his piece, Greenwald goes to great lengths to distance Manning from the Wikileaks story; but by the end is lauding Manning’s treasonous behavior and labeling him a “hero” (cue Berkeley City Council).

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.  Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months — and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait — under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning’s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a “Maximum Custody Detainee,” the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

Oh boo freaking hoo.  Glenn and I had a minor dustup on the topic via Twitter yesterday:

ME:  GayPatriot: RT @GregMitch: Glenn Greenwald on Bradley Manning held under “inhumane condiitons” possibly constituting “torture.” // Aww, cry me a river.

GG response:   @ggreenwald: You’d be crying a river – and doing much more – if you were held under inhumane conditions without being convicted of anything

My response: GayPatriot: I wouldn’t have committed treason against my country while wearing the uniform cuz my boyfriend dumped me. He’s a pissy bitch.

“Lexington Concord” at RedState has the right idea as to what to do with Manning (and any other Wikileaks sources, I might add).  It is priceless…

Glenn Greenwald is constantly telling us that the reason the terrorists want to kill us is not because they are regressive degenerates who hate Western values like freedom and tolerance, but rather because they just don’t like our military policies and how we’re all meddling in their business.

Well, I am not a man without a heart, so I am willing to propose a solution to Greenwald’s problem which I am confident the Army would be amenable to. As an added bonus, it will serve as an opportunity to validate Glenn Greenwald’s views on the causes of Islamic terrorism. We will give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back, and remove him from solitary confinement. In fact, we’ll let him be around lots of people. We’ll call an emissary with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and tell them that we have a political prisoner to release to them, no strings attached. We will tell them that we are going to release to them an American who thoroughly rejects our interventionist policies and our military meddling – he rejects them so strongly, in fact, that he did everything in his power to see that American soldiers were killed and that Islamic terrorists were given access to our operational details. Therefore, we have decided to let him go to be with the Taliban so that he can self-actualize and join the fight against America with them.

I’m sure that like John Walker Lindh, the Taliban will be happy to have an American like this on board. So we’ll drive Manning out there to meet them at some safe remote location in Afghanistan somewhere, and we’ll release Manning and let him rush to join his new Taliban brethren.

Then we’ll tell them he’s gay.

Sign me up to help complete this diplomatic arrangement!  I think Manning would prefer my solution anyway:  firing squad.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Several readers have approached me suggesting I organize a dinner in Los Angeles before the end of the year.  If you live (or will be) in Southern California and would like to attend just such a gathering next week, drop me a note and I’ll put something together. And please indicate which day of the week you prefer.

The US House has just voted 250-175 to end one of the most sweeping anti-gay pieces of legislation in American history that was signed into statute by President Bill Clinton (D).   The other, the Defense of Marriage Act, was also signed into law by Clinton.  He campaigned on both anti-gay laws in his re-election bid in 1996.  Just sayin’.

The House voted Wednesday to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy that for 17 years has forced gays desiring to serve in the military to conceal their sexual identity. The 250-175 vote propels the issue to the Senate for what could be the last chance for now to end the 1993 law that forbids recruiters from asking about sexual orientation while prohibiting soldiers from acknowledging that they are gay.

It’s “the only law in the country that requires people to be dishonest or be fired if they choose to be honest,” said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo.

<…>

Implementation of any new policy should begin “when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

The issue also has split the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior military leaders support lifting the restrictions on gay service, pointing to a recent Pentagon study showing that most people in uniform don’t object to serving with gays. But the head of the Marine Corps, Commandant Gen. James Amos, repeated his opposition this week, saying that lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives. “I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction,” he said.

The White House, in issuing a statement in support of the repeal, stressed that the change would go into effect only after the president, the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that implementation is consistent with military readiness, recruiting and retention and unit cohesion.

Your move, Dingy Harry.  But you are too busy with your $8B pork-laden, special interest funding bill to worry about other things, I suppose.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On matters political, I don’t often agree with my rabbi.  But, she offers a similar take (to my own) on the failure of the Senate to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  And she’s no conservative:

Incompetence. There I said it.  The Democratic Senate leadership under Harry Reid is simply incompetent. And I am afraid President Obama’s staff and his inexperience continue to show.  The fiasco surrounding the squashing of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is embarrassing.

Read the whole thing.

And let me ask again the question that really gets at the Nevada Democrat’s mismanagement of the issue:  why didn’t he reach out to Republicans, like Maine’s Susan Collins, who favor repeal, when time was on his side?

He did it last year and seems set to do it again:

The big buzz in Washington this afternoon is over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s warning to colleagues that they’ll be working right up until Christmas — and perhaps beyond. Word is that he’ll try to keep the Senate in session until the very last seconds before the new Congress opens on January 5, 2011.

Now that I have successfully defended my dissertation on a strong confident goddess who commands the respect of men, it’s time once again to consider those conservative blogresses who embody the qualities of the owl-eyed Olympian.  As you know, we here at GayPatriot define a diva as a strong, confident woman who commands the respect of men.

And it’s time again to consider which blogress merits the much coveted honor of Grande Conservative Blogress Diva. To be nominated, a blogress need not be conservative, but merely command the respect of conservative men.  

If competition is again fierce this year, the Grande Diva will be joined in her court by Regents (as in years past).

Submit your nominations either via the comments section below or in an e-mail to me. Over the weekend, Bruce and I will consider the nominees and prepare a ballot.

Let the cat fight competition begin!

From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey’s latest fund-raising e-mail:

Right-wing hate groups, emboldened by electoral victories, are determined to halt our long march to equality and put LGBT people back in the closet.

I have to wonder: what exactly are they afraid of?

We’re working to secure the most basic of human rights: fair employment and housing … freedom from bullying and violence … the ability to care for our loved ones when they’re sick … the right to form and raise stable families.

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could be against these things. But groups like the Tea Party, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage want to turn back the clock — and they’re raising millions to finance their campaigns of discrimination and hate.

It’s one thing to criticize these groups and their agenda, quite another to call them “hate groups.”  And striking that she includes the Tea Party in her list of groups who want to “turn back the clock” — and raise “millions to finance their campaigns of discrimination and hate.”

That she includes the Tea Party in a list of social conservative organizations shows just how clueless she is about the right — and the agenda of the Tea Parties, assuming there is no distinction between social conservatives and conservative free marketeers.  It seems to be a common prejudice of people on the left.

What, Miss Carey, are you afraid of?

Interviewed on what changing demographic trends mean for both parties, Joel Kotkin offers this:

Republicans govern most of the growth states (I leave it up to the reader to say whether this is a direct connection). These states are attracting migrants from both abroad and the rest of country. When these people, including Latinos and millennials, arrive three things can happen: they turn the states blue, they themselves turn red, or sometime in between. The key is for Republicans in these states to make a case for their lower tax, lower regulation model. But tolerance for immigration and ethnic change and social tolerance (for example towards gays) will prove critical over time.

Emphasis added.  Republicans do need make an appeal to Latinos.  Had Carly and Meg broken even among Hispanic voters, the Golden State would not have returned two septuagenarian politicians with ideas and ideologies drawn from the 1970s to office.

But, the GOP also needs make its pitch based on the ideas which have proven a winning formula at least since Reagan — and govern on those small government principles.  And in this day and age, social tolerance, particularly toward gays as Kotkin noted above, is key.

(via Instapundit)

There is an odd serendipity between my blogging here and my graduate work.   About a month after I began my graduate work at Pacifica, Bruce asked me to join him here on this fledging blog.  At the time, I had thought my life in politics was over.

And now I find that I will separate two of the great passions in my life, story-telling and politics.   Today, December 12, 2010, I defended my dissertation and have been called Dr. Blatt.   It is a moment that I will likely always remember.

Two of the people there today were individuals I met through this blog.  And I was moved that they went out of their way to hear my defense.   It seems to me that my destiny is at that place Lionel Trilling described as the “dark and bloody crossroads where politics and literature meet.”

Rare for me, I’m at a loss for words.

Save for a few process matters, I no longer have my graduate work hanging over me.   I will now start looking for part-time teaching opportunities while continuing to blog.

So, to those of you who offered you your support, thank you.  I’ll enjoy my buzz right now and ponder the next step on my journey.

I regret that I have not had much time to blog in recent days, but have been busy preparing the final draft of my dissertation as well as practicing my defense which I will deliver later today in Carpinteria.

Friday, while at the gym, I got my daily dose of CNN and was appalled that that “news” network was giving a lengthy platform to an attention-seeking hate-monger.  They even showed an extended clip of the self-proclaimed Reverend Phelps talking about how Elizabeth Edwards had entered hell — or some other nonsense (in their extended segment on his latest stunt).

Didn’t Mr. Cooper know that he was playing right into that crackpot’s hands by giving him such attention?   Because that is exactly the reason the man protests funerals.

From a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, “The Tea Party’s brew includes gays and lesbians“:

Mr. Meyerson assumes that gay Americans are politically myopic. National exit polls for the November election showed that 31 percent of voters who identified themselves as gay voted for Republican candidates in House races.

Liberals would like to believe they own the gay vote, as if gays were a monolithic voting bloc whose sole, overriding concern is gay marriage and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Gays are heads of families, professionals and business owners, and issues such as national security, sane economic policy and halting the rapid growth and overreach of government rank far ahead of gay issues for many, though the importance of gay issues can’t be discounted.

The Tea Party movement has three core principles: Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. While individual Tea Partyers may embrace a wide range of views on social issues, the movement has risen to power because it has formed around this very narrow range of principles most critical to the survival of our nation at this precise moment in history.

The letter’s author Doug Mainwaring may not be a GayPatriot reader, but he sure does sound like one!  :-)

Sees more and more of us freedom-loving gay folk are speaking out!

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been serious about repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), he would have put the matter on the Senate calendar back in June, shortly after the House voted to overturn the ban.  Instead, he waited until last September just as the Senate was preparing to adjourn before the fall elections and again pushed the matter back until this month, the final weeks of the current Congress.

While left-of-center  bloggers may fault Republicans for blocking repeal (yes, they do have a point), the bulk of the blame lies with Harry.  He’s had the votes to break a filibuster.  There have always been least three Republicans who would have voted for repeal — and break a filibuster.  The question is why didn’t he reach out to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and work with her on the proper manner to bring the matter to the Senate floor.

But, it appears the Nevada Democrat once again antagonized the Maine Republican.

While many on the left are busy badmouthing Republicans, they also need to ask why didn’t Harry Reid move this matter when time was on his side.  And why he failed to reach out to Republicans who favor repeal.

With all the goings-on in the lame-duck session of Congress, there is much to write about, but, I, alas, have had less time than I would like to keep up with the news and to follow the blogs.

In what little attention I have paid to the news, I have noticed how the president has blundered badly this week.  He neglected to consult his allies before he negotiated with his partisan adversaries on extending the Bush tax cuts and acted as if blind-sided by the criticism which ensued.  Surely, a politician has to be prepared for attacks from all sides.

Jennifer Rubin called his press conference earlier this week this “worst press conference  – ever“:

I don’t mean just for Obama. I mean any president. Or head of state. When I wrote this morning that he doesn’t do well in defeat, you didn’t know how right I was, huh? Let’s count the ways.

Calling Republicans “hostage takers.” Not helpful. Saying Republicans opposed middle class tax cuts. Not true — they wanted no tax increases for anyone. Accusing Republicans of holding out tax cuts for the rich as the “Holy grail.”

Others had similar reactions.  Asking us to “Remember all that nonsense from the David Brookses and Chris Buckleys of the world in 2008 about” Obama’s “first-class temperament”, Rand Simberg, for example, quipped, “It’s hard to take anything they tell us seriously, at this point.”  (Via Instapundit.)

In another post commenting how “glum” he was in his presser, Rubin found it yet another example of his difficulty in facing defeat. In “his post-election “shellacking” press conference,” Rubin observed, “he became peevish.”

Rubin’s former Commentary Contentions colleague Peter Wehner notes the contradictions in Obama’s campaign image and his record in office: (more…)

Married men are nicer, and here’s why. (H/t Instapundit.)

A striking serendipity helped me appreciate the true strength of Elizabeth Edwards.  On the day she died, I was fixing, as per the request of my committee chair, a hole in the section on the mythical hero Jason in my dissertation.  This one-time captain of the Argo lost the favor of the goddesses who facilitated his quest for the Golden Fleece when he abandoned his wife who provided him the tools he needed to take the fleece for another woman.

Medea did not take kindly to this infidelity and murdered her children, depriving her husband of progeny.

Elizabeth Edwards bore her husband’s pursuit of another woman with far greater class than did that legendary priestess of Hecate.  Indeed, Mrs. Edwards seemed always to show class on the public stage, particularly when she spoke about her cancer. As Michelle Malkin put it, “Mrs. Edwards was able to set aside partisanship when it came to the ravages of cancer. As should we all.”

Over at Patterico’s Pontifications, Aaron Worthing alerts us to this beautiful testimony she wrote on her Facebook page.

You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces – my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.

While Edwards acknowledged that there are times when we can’t muster the strength and passion we would like, she showed far greater strength that do many people who faced trials similar to those she faced.  We all could learn a lot from her words.  We can learn even more from the grace with which she faced misfortune.

No, my friends, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not a partisan organization.  From an e-mail, they sent me two days ago, December 6, they explain why they’re coming from:

I won’t sugarcoat it. The election results are a setback to all fair-minded people.. . . .

Because, in spite of the Republican takeover of the House, a more conservative Senate and the rise in hateful rhetoric and action from far-right groups like the Tea Party, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage, the Task Force will continue to fight for equality for the LGBT community.

A setback to all fair-minded people?!?!  Couldn’t they have just said, “not the results we were hoping for”?  Defining opposition to state recognition of same-sex marriage and advocacy of small government as “hateful rhetoric”?  Come on, now.

Why do some left-wing groups define opposition as hatred?

“We keep voting ourselves bread and circuses without figuring out how to pay for them.”

–Professor Bainbridge via Instapundit