I came across the following Drudge headline this morning:

U.S. Senator calls American urban centers "jungles" that are more dangerous than 'the jungles of deepest Africa!'Â…

If you take the time to follow the link (which is worthwhile for other reasons than the one Drudge cites), you'll see that the Senator in question is Robert Byrd.

Urban centers are “jungles?” Robert Byrd, America's longest serving senatorial Klansman* is involved? I'm sure Democrats cringed, and some Republicans clacked with glee—but there isn't anything to the story.

The article reads:

Mr. Byrd embraced the same judicial philosophy as the president in his memoir, "Child of the Appalachian Coalfields," released earlier this summer. In the book, he repeatedly blamed "liberal judges" and "activist judges" for many of the nation's problems.

"One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities," he writes. "In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."

He's wrong... where?

"The jungles of deepest Africa" are not a nice place for an outsider. Ebola and Marburg are just some of the small things that can kill you there, but you don't have to worry about being eaten by lions or trampled by elephants, which are part of the circle of life in the plains, not in jungles. Your biggest danger in African jungles, other than your own ignorance, occurs on the microscopic level.

In the jungles of Africa, as in our urban cities, the greatest predatory threat to man, is man.

Sometimes, even a blind hog can find the acorn, and sometimes, even the Robert Byrd's of this world can be right.

* That is a fact, I think. Sorta.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

With all the focus on four year-old Jack Roberts being a homosexual Nazi clone, nobody ever thought to ask about dear old dad.

You gotta love the pants.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:48 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Drudge:

I do/don't have a problem with whiny NY immigrant rights activist Tony Lu's t-shirts bearing the text, "I do not consent to being searched."

Ace said it quite well when he made the observation that while police look out for our lives, The Reality-Based Community Opts For Fantasy:

It's very simple. There are some on the left that don't like the real world. They'd prefer a different world, one in which terrorism wasn't occurring, and if it were perpetrated, then perpetrated by White Male Corporate Pigs rather than Oppressed Heroic Multicultural Victims that they're supposed to feel solidarity with.

So liberals choose denial. They "don't consent to being searched."

I Choose Something Else.

Update: Here's a visual link...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Perfect! It would be even more perfecter if you added the Bacon Ribbon. http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/pass_it_on

Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2005 11:27 PM (jAQRx)

2 If you had the same text under it in Arabic, it would be perfect.

Posted by: Master Shake at July 21, 2005 11:28 PM (MPien)

3 Everybody's a critic... ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 11:38 PM (0fZB6)

4 Yes, but it was constructive criticism. I do love the shirt and may buy one just to confuse our local granola population.

Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2005 10:33 AM (3TuFG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've got to give it to the Kossacks and DUers of the world. They're determined.

Unable to prove that a four year-old boy is gay?

Insinuate instead that he and his sister are reconstituted Nazis!

Hey, at least this time they're just joking when they compared Jack Roberts to Hitler.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Somehow, I just can see this being a valid complaint.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

According to Fox News, the explosives found today in London's four terrorist bombs were made of TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a mix of hydrogen peroxide, paint thinner, and sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. The formula has been around for 110 years, and is popular with terrorists, but has been known to be very unstable. According to Wikipedia, TATP has killed at least 40 Palestinian terrorists over the years as they tried to handle it. TATP is very shock sensitive.

With that knowledge in hand, Londoners are better armed with the knowledge that they, too, can help prevent terrorism.

Should you be in London, and happen to see a swarthy looking fellow carrying a backpack and looking somewhat nervous, push him in front of a bus.

If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist. Of course, this advice is hardly foolproof. Terrorists are highly sophisticated, and are therefore known to change their tactics to confuse authorities.

That in mind, if you should happen to be in London, and happen to see a swarthy-looking fellow (or a Jamaican, or someone from Asia, or a scummy-looking white guy, or a Hispanic with a Chicago accent, or George Galloway) carrying a backpack (or a briefcase, or a pizza box, or a copy of the Guardian) and looking relaxed (or content, or annoyed, or French), push him in front of a bus. If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist.

This advice is not always applicable.

If you "like to take the Tube" (a phrase that means something completely different in San Francisco), a bus may not always be available. Adapt. If you see a man—or maybe a woman, or a particuarly obnoxious child—carrying something, or looking like he might plan on carrying something, push him or her in front of the train. If he detonates on contact with the train, he or she is—was indeed a terrorist.

Strike a blow for jolly old England... and watch your back when standing near the curb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Via WaPo:

The top U.S. border enforcement official said Wednesday that his agency is exploring ways to involve citizen volunteers in creating "something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary" -- a significant shift after a high-profile civilian campaign this spring along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner told The Associated Press that his agency began looking into citizen involvement after noting how eager volunteers were to stop illegal immigration.

"We value having eyes and ears of citizens, and I think that would be one of the things we are looking at is how you better organize, let's say, a citizen effort," Bonner said.

He said that could involve training of volunteers organized "in a way that would be something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary."

My gut reaction is that this is a ploy to placate those that are becoming aware of just how porous and unprotected our borders are. We should not fall for it.

If Commissioner Bonner's boss Michael Chertoff were serious about stopping illegal immigration and protecting our borders from terrorist infiltration, he would press the President and Congress for funding to hire, train and equip full-time, professional border patrol agents, and he'd actually let them arrest suspected illegals.

Chertoff and Bush have no apparent interest in protecting our borders.

I hope all of us live to regret it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Colin Farrell is suing to stop the release of a homemade sex tape he made with Playboy playmate Nicole Narain. I can't understand why.

It was sure to be better than than Alexander.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd been intent on steering clear of Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent comments about possible responses to an Islamic terrorist attack on multiple American cities involving multiple nuclear weapons. The comments were made while a guest on Pat Campbell's AM radio show:

"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Hugh Hewitt, though made the following challenge:

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOTÂ…

Â…We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue.

Hugh, the last time I checked, every "responsible American" is still entitled to his own opinion, yet you present your opinion on this matter as fact, and everyone else's opinion that may differ is presented as wrong.

As experts studying Islamic jihad are far better versed in the subject, and some feel that Islam and violent jihad are so entwined as to be inseparable, I'd suggest that your decree that we are categorically not at war with Islam is wishful thinking unsupported by fact. At this moment, we simply do not know if we are in a war with Islam.

So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. I'd like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."

Just hoping something to be true does not make it so, Hugh. We do not know it for a fact any more than heliocentrists "knew" that the universe revolved around the Earth. The historical evidence, it seems, indicates just the opposite.

Islam had a history almost a millennia-and-a-half long of near-constant warfare with its neighbors. Even charitable biographies of the prophet Mohamed acknowledge that he led his followers into combat more than 20 times and ordered captured prisoners executed, including women and children. Islam is decidedly not a "religion of peace." It never has been. Any attempt to say otherwise is historically ignorant revisionism.

The near universal Muslim desire to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth shows us that Muslims are willing to wipe out entire nations and commit genocide if they can. Why is it inconceivable to you, Hugh, that if we show ourselves to be weak, that they won't try to utterly destroy us well?

Congressman Tancredo was talking about a hypothetical situation where Muslim terrorists attack multiple major U.S. cities with thermonuclear weapons, rendering hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans dead, and tens of millions wounded. To think that the American people would not demand a proportional response is unrealistic.

Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and financial heart of Islamic extremism. It is the most logical target for a proportional response. If Mecca is not your preferred target Mr. Hewitt, please offer an alternative target. Riyadh? Medina? Perhaps Jeddah, just to let them know we'll get that close to their holiest of holies?

If a military response to the nuclear murder of millions of Americans is not acceptable to you, do you care to offer another appropriate response? Offer up a solution of your own and I'll gladly discuss its merits with you. So far, Mr. Tancredo's off-the-cuff response is as appropriate as any other option I've seen placed upon the table.

The destruction of the holy center of Islam may not endear us to mainstream Islam, but then, neither has the billions of dollars we've invested in their culture. If we let it be known as a matter of policy that we will respond to nuclear attacks on our heartland with nuclear attacks in their heartland, perhaps then it might inspire a bit more vigorous pursuit of terrorists within Islamic cultures. Call it inspiration. Call it fear. In any event, it is motivation that Islamic culture currently seems to lack.

I'm quite willing to consider other options, and readily admit that Congressman Tancredo's option is probably not the best solution, but don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me a more valid option.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Man, don't you know, you can't nuke Saudi Arabia. It's too hard to extract oil from underneath all that glass.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 06:18 PM (AahOX)

2 Perhaps, merely a light dusting with radioactive cobalt would suffice. Mecca would not be destroyed yet no one would be able to go there. It could still be venerated from afar. Way afar.

Posted by: Tuskis at July 20, 2005 11:15 PM (PD1tk)

3 [Not to the above comments, but to the above post] Why can you tell someone youÂ’re wrong without providing a better solution? What rule states this? Why isnÂ’t a person allowed to come to the conclusion/thought - the current course of action is not working and a new one need to be formulated before proceeding - back solely on recognition of the problem/problem situation. This does not imply one is being critical with comments for the pure purpose of being obstructive, though most experience would suggest otherwise; it just proves a recognition of the problem and while no current solution is presented, a better idea/process should being given more thought and worked on before proceeding with any action.

Posted by: Guy at July 21, 2005 05:59 AM (blfs0)

4 My understanding of Islam is beyond that of "Joe Six - Pack", I believe, although certainly not in the Samuel Huntington / Bernard Lewis category, and I would say we're in a war with Islam. Look at it this way: During World War II, many US Communists were opposed to our entry into the War, until Hitler invaded Russia -- then they all changed their minds, as neatly as they changed their allegiance in World War I, when the Communists took over Russia during World War I. By the same token, Lord knows how many G.I.'s trooped through the forests of Europe and the jungles of the Pacific, without being at all clear as to what we were fighting and why. The Muslims that are war with the Infidel (that's us) want us dead, no doubt about that. Quibbling about who the anti-war elements of Muslim are is rather pointless, to me. They are not helping us (like the Resistance Danes or French in WW II did), nor are they hurting them (like the resistant Jews or the Cheka in WW II). "Lead, follow, or get blown up," I say.

Posted by: Frank DiSalle at July 21, 2005 09:46 AM (rxhtx)

5 So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. IÂ’d like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."The problem is that the Islamic fanatics are those who holler loudest, have the guns and bombs, and can cow the rest of the Muslims into silence. I have a friend who happens to be Muslim and he has to watch what he says, where he prays precisely because of the extremists in the community. Instead of calling these guys out, he's silent. Perhaps he's made the decision that his personal safety warrants that silence, but that silence has a spillover effect to the rest of society. If those he came in contact with were preaching violence, it could incite someone to violence. He might not have condoned the action, but the silence provided the means. Providing greater support to those who call out those who are inciting people to violence in the name of Islam is one way to keep the fight from going West v. 100% Islam. At this point we're fighting a West v. some % of Islam that is less than 100% but greater than 1%. We just don't know.

Posted by: lawhawk at July 21, 2005 10:24 AM (AcoYr)

6 What the anti-war left, and unfortunately some on the right, when they refer to Islam as a religion of peace is complete self-delusion. It's why we hear crickets when we ask why moderate muslims don't condemn terror attacks. No explict codemnation is tacit silent approval.

Posted by: acwgusa at July 21, 2005 10:39 AM (3J44f)

7 Seems to me like "moderate Muslims," whether in the US or "over there," are considered the equivalent of what Christians would call apostate, or backslidden, by those in the vanguard of modern militant Islam. So, I don't think I'd put much credence in what any of 'em said -- the "moderates," I mean. 'Cause they obviously don't speak for those who seem to be making decisions for Islam today.

Posted by: Erudite Redneck at July 21, 2005 10:44 PM (ywZa8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Perhaps one of the more pathetic early attempts to attack new Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was this gutless attack against Judge Roberts' family by Daily Kos poster mayan:

Did You Catch His Wife

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack...Roberts' wife's face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

This was quickly followed by bottomdweller Geotpf:

He's probably gay

Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children...

Judge Roberts has been an official Supreme Court nominee for less than three hours, and progressives are already employing two of their more repugnant tactics:

1. Attacking a conservative through their family.


2. Attacking a conservative though sexuality.

In this instance, they combined the two, much as John Kerry and John Edwards did in making an issue out of Mary Cheney's sexuality in their failed 2004 political campaign.

The difference here is that Mary Cheney is an adult.

Jack Roberts is four years old.

Update: And the moonbat party never ends.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:58 PM | Comments (80) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Typical. Sad, but typical.

Posted by: trentk269 at July 20, 2005 01:21 AM (vfcfP)

2 Well, NBC's "Today" just revealed the truth. Using a different camera angle, they showed Jack fidgiting and "dancing" before being escorted from the room by his mom. No doubt when Justice-designee Roberts mentioned Jack, Mrs. Roberts probably flashed back to that moment. If you have kids, you know what went through her mind. ;-)

Posted by: Sardis at July 20, 2005 07:07 AM (u5tbz)

3 I think Ted Koppell had it first on Nightline, or at least that is where I saw it first. A perfectly understandable reaction from Mrs. Roberts, and President Bush (who grinned a little when he told John Roberts that he was "glad your family could be here tonight," presumably just after the children were escorted off-stage) as well, followed a perfectly disgusting response from the depths of the progressive movement at Daily Kos.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 08:00 AM (2cgwG)

4 I saw that comment last night too. Hilarious!

Posted by: TallDave at July 20, 2005 10:58 AM (9XE6n)

5 The new biggest sin of the right seems to be being gay. What with all the outings being perpetrated against good men, the left seems to be making a war on gays. Gays are good, but only if they're leftist. I think that's a good way to sum up their position. And if they're not leftists, subject them to the nastiest most degrading attacks that you can. By the Way, *very* nice new place. I haven't been over here in a while. Lots of great MuNuvians around, between you and Ace, at least.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 11:45 AM (AahOX)

6 I have a personal problem with the "if you're conservative, you must hate gays" meme. I've know a lot of gay people over the years, and have included some as among my best friends. Being conservative doesnt' mean you must dislike gays (though obviously enough conservatives do dislike gaysto establish the stereotype). I also have a problem with the liberal "if you are gay, you can't be conservative without being a traitor" mindset. Conservatives don't happen to be the best party if gay marriage or similar issues are your only real issues. But what happens if you are a Hawkish fiscal conservative? Should you immediately dump an entire party that you agree with 90% with becuase of one issue you disagree with them on? That is the liberal argument, and it is idiotic, and yet that is the way many militant liberal gays see the world. We should fight for these 90-percenters, and shouldn't give them up without a fight.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 11:55 AM (2cgwG)

7 You know that the left is going to look for dirt on Jack. How long before they figure out that he is 4? I'm looking forward to the Libs making utter fools out of themselves in the coming months. Let's middle America (politically) know what idiots the Dems are.

Posted by: William Teach at July 20, 2005 12:20 PM (IRsCk)

8 I have found some dirt on this Jack Roberts. I have it on good authority that he often 'plays' with young children, many of whom are mere infants. He is also virtually illiterate, with almost no formal education. He is supported entirely by his parents, and is known to take frequent 'naps' during the day (surely a sign of substance abuse). When news of his degenerate son gets out, Judge Roberts won't stand a chance.

Posted by: jic at July 20, 2005 12:42 PM (CLqtL)

9 jlc -- Just a few years ago, he was constantly drinking from a bottle and could not control his bodily functions!

Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 20, 2005 01:25 PM (n5eDP)

10 Robert, that is quite enough about Senator Kennedy. Please try to stay on topic...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 01:35 PM (2cgwG)

11 Brilliant Ted Kennedy rip, ConYank!!!

Posted by: Brian at July 20, 2005 01:43 PM (DTrX+)

12 Geotpf is a member of a forum I go to General Mayhem http://www.genmay.com He's really a devoted Democrat that hates all aspects of conservatives or Republicans. http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=544568 http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=529734 http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=513103 http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=496167 And alot more

Posted by: ViriiK at July 20, 2005 02:05 PM (eqOFm)

13 Spot on target, ConYank. Gay conservative here. My political concerns are: 1. Taking the war to the terrorists. I support the invasions of both Iraq and Afganistan. 2. Tax cuts. They work everytime they are tried. 3. Overturn Roe v. Wade and appoint strict constructionists to the court. I don't care about "gay marriage". I think it's kind of silly. Property inheritance issues can be resolved with contracts. With my philosophy of government, how could I possibly be a democrat? This is something my liberal friends just can't wrap their minds around. This "conservatives hate gays" mentality is tiresome.

Posted by: Bald Eagle at July 20, 2005 02:05 PM (EGxxl)

14 RobTBCS has a good point. I often wonder why there is no concern for that "Right to Privacy" used to justify abortion and condemn Sodomy laws when the subject is a Conservative. Seems like clear hypocrisy to me.

Posted by: OBQuiet at July 20, 2005 02:22 PM (ELuPG)

15 virrik... u cannot b serios!

Posted by: unknown at July 20, 2005 02:28 PM (NuPkO)

16 Unfortunately, it appears that "attacking a conservative thru sexuality" (even some else's) is acceptable practice... Gay Activists Call For All "Out" Attack?

Posted by: California Conservative at July 20, 2005 03:50 PM (zY/yx)

17 Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society. Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy. Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires. Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee. Well, not quite. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote. (The source for the information in the second through fourth paragraphs is “Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law,” co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen Fasteau in September 1974. The information in the fifth paragraph can be found in the transcript of Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing.)

Posted by: IraqvET at July 20, 2005 03:56 PM (M7kiy)

18 Well, while liberals are soooo senstive about sexuality, it's fair game for them to use it as a weapon. Like Ted Kennedy proves, liberals can get away with murder.

Posted by: TexanPatriot78 at July 20, 2005 04:03 PM (5UO9n)

19 I heard that he wets the bed too. Oh wait, that's John Kerry...!

Posted by: Paulie at July 20, 2005 04:04 PM (4WChe)

20 Fine forum Con Yank! Fine forum.

Posted by: TexanPatriot78 at July 20, 2005 04:04 PM (5UO9n)

21 Confederate Yankee: I have a problem with the whole "If you think homosexual sex is wrong then you don't like gays" meme. I think divorce, suicide, praying to saints, and gay sex are wrong. This does not mean that I dislike divorced people, attempted suicides, Catholics, or gays. Is it really so inconceivable that one might disaprove of another's activities without disliking (or, more commonly, "hating") the person? So, I disagree that "enough conservatives do dislike gays to establish the stereotype". Rather, enough conservatives think gay sex is wrong and enough people interpret that disaproval as hatred to establish the stereotype, which is completely unjustified by the facts.

Posted by: Doc Rampage at July 20, 2005 04:19 PM (6IZFG)

22 The kid is four years old. It was past 9pm. I'm sure well past his bedtime. The disgusting comments that resulted from his childish fidgeting shows an obvious [void] in their understanding of children, in any respect, i.e., see the left's failures in public education.

Posted by: OhioMags at July 20, 2005 04:56 PM (ywZa8)

23 Confederate Yankee: The "traitor" bit is always a bit... well... I don't know how to say it. Too knee-jerk. No set of people can be simplified that much. On the other hand, I always get a chuckle out of my favorite statement "I'm not racist/homophobic, I have black/gay friends." (Though you didn't say that, because it directly equates having friends of a certain sort as disproving a certain negative quality, instead of offering evidence. If you get me) Bald Eagle-- you hit the nail on the head w/ the gay marriage deal. I often see many people justifying it because of the legal advantages. I think to myself... wouldn't it be simpler just to modify the current laws about, i.e., hospital visits if need be or, oh no, write a will or contract of some sort, rather than redefine marriage. Oh well, kudos to you there. It's eminently reasonable. Doc Rampage-- Good thing you don't dislike Catholics. And since you said perfectly what I think about the unfair stereotype of conservatives hating gays, I'll leave it there. What a can of worms I've opened!

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 05:08 PM (AahOX)

24 BaldEagle: God bless you; we need more like you.

Posted by: DaveP. at July 20, 2005 05:10 PM (Jjc60)

25 Terrific piece! I couldn't figure out your trackbacks, but I linked!

Posted by: The Anchoress at July 20, 2005 05:29 PM (Sp817)

26 As a straight conservative who supports civil marriage rights for homosexuals (preferable done on a state by state basis through referenda), I do wonder about the Left's new anti-gay stance. I also wonder what they think abot this: http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-556874 They were 18 years old -- their only crime was being homosexual.

Posted by: Blue State Conservative at July 20, 2005 05:35 PM (aasx6)

27 hey ! i'm a gay guy (who was once a child too - gasp !) and my first reaction at seeing that cute photo was that the kid may very well be gay. you often hear about how we were just 'the best little boy in the world' .. bright, inquisitive, and always ready to perform. my mom always said of me as a child "he was always dancing and singing" ... and i still am ! i fail to see how that's any kind of a put-down. lighten up, folks !

Posted by: el polacko at July 20, 2005 07:17 PM (FhV+Q)

28 Jack also sleeps with stuffed animals - precursor to bestiality?

Posted by: Kathlene at July 20, 2005 07:18 PM (pO1tP)

29 I know the people on the left feel better about using the termprogressive than liberal,but can someone tell me if there is any difference in the views of the two groups?Or is it like saying "pre-owned " instead of "used" for a car. I'm actually serious;I do no there are differences between "neo-con" and conservative ,but I suspect progressive is just a mimicry(Viceroy and Monarch butterfly) for a form of protective coloration.

Posted by: linc at July 20, 2005 07:35 PM (jj5qG)

30 He was also seen masticating the the lunchroom of a pre-school. The KOS should run with that.

Posted by: moptop at July 20, 2005 07:54 PM (Xpp+m)

31 "Jack also sleeps with stuffed animals - precursor to bestiality?" Kathlene, you made me snort! An eminently quotable sentence. linc-- progressive is mostly the same thing, I think. It's a positive way to say what we've all come to know (and hate) as liberalism without the stigma currently engendered by that word. It's a shame too, because liberalism once meant something good! Right now, I wouldn't let them trade liberalism, although I'd like to reclaim it, because the power of words could easily be lost. Oh well, you didn't ask to hear me bloviate, so I'll clam up now. It is my understanding that it's basically the same thing.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 08:07 PM (AahOX)

32 There is no such thing as a "progressive" They just use to term because these losers are too afraid to tell the truth. They know that if they tell anyone outside their little box that they are liberals the game is over..... The liberal solution to this unruly child would undoubtedly be counseling and a good dose of Ritalin.

Posted by: LJS at July 20, 2005 08:40 PM (gyNYk)

33 Interesting...just stumbled onto this site, read the two comments about the mom's shift in facial expression (your program won't let me type the word "P*ker" !) and a joke about little boys who burst into dance for whatever reason wherever the spirit moves them... and thought the postings were a funny, sort of insider joke between two gay guys on the message board... then read all the TOTALLY opposite perspective some of you folks have taken on this... like the other guy said, lighten up, y'all! Use more emoticons, or something! Unless this is an EXTREME IRONY message board.. in which case, nice job! Thanks for the tidbit. Bye!

Posted by: Lil Gilbert at July 20, 2005 09:31 PM (eBvdZ)

34 So let me get this straight (no pun intended). Pretty much every conservative on this board thinks the Dkos poster was SERIOUS about doing "opposition research" on a four-year-old kid? Jesus Fucking Nailholes, can you really ALL be as dumb as Michelle Malkin looks? Get a sense of humor, ya fuckin' retards!

Posted by: Jerky at July 20, 2005 09:57 PM (3kksJ)

35 Try again, Jerk. Kos' readers were quite serious. They just didn't know the kid was only four. And yours is a pathetic attempt to mask your compadres' ignorance using the "just a joke" method.

Posted by: Juliette at July 20, 2005 10:25 PM (/leTf)

36 Jerky, It was quite obvious that the Kos Kids weren't bright enough to find out how old Jack Roberts was before they decided to attack his sexuality. They were deciding on a plan of attack first, and were going to worry about little details--such as whether or not he was gay, or old enough to walk across the street by himself--for later. They were quite serious, which is why the other posters {such as trillian) felt so ashamed. They were outed...for fools.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 10:33 PM (0fZB6)

37 This is how division is wrought. You read a couple of posts by a couple of morons in an open thread and immediately attribute it to an entire political wing. I don't equate all Con's with the statements of, say, Rick Santorum. And neither should any of you. Grow up and learn to ignore the village idiots that have learned to type.

Posted by: Peasant at July 20, 2005 10:48 PM (FfqIP)

38 It's good to see that conservatives are nasty too on their blogs. This story started with everyone being upset by a bunch of libs joking in a nasty way and ended up with a bunch of cons being nasty too. But really, if you want to know why libs make a thing about repubs being gay, it's because your party and BASE doesn't respect gays at all. Sure you can say, "But some of my best friends are gay." but when it comes down to it the repub BASE thinks they are sinful people and don't want anything to do with them. That's a shame.

Posted by: knoxlib at July 20, 2005 10:51 PM (1SdpX)

39 Not to rain on your liberal bashing party here or anything, but I suspect it was a joke. Not a very good one to be sure, but likely a joke. As for the "attacking a conservative through his family" as the original post suggests... Please! We learned that stuff from you guys and we'll never be as good at it as you are. Take a bow. Now, as you were. Continue your antics.

Posted by: David at July 20, 2005 10:53 PM (jdZ2x)

40 "Completely unjustified" Doc Rampage? BULL, try being a gay man in a room of conservative "christians" , you'll learn soon what hate really is. Try telling those who have been beaten and killed by conservatives that it is an unjustified stereotype. It's totally justified, it's a fact. It's also a fact that it does not describe all conservatives or all who call themselves Christian. And if you're so worried about stereotypes why don't you confront the amount spewed by the "conservatives" on here. The dancing kid is probably more mature than most who have posted here.

Posted by: David Rowe at July 20, 2005 10:56 PM (0xajt)

41 Actually David, the most homophobic single social group I know of are black men--a demographic that votes over 80% Democrat. I invite everyone to read the entire Kos post. It is quite obvious that posters mayan and Geoptf were quite sincere at the time they made these comments, which was made more apparent as another poster, the previously linked trillian said: Maybe you should shut up about things you know nothing about. It's one thing to research and criticize someone's record, but this whole sub-thread just makes dems look ridiculous. Trillian was right. To pretend otherwise, and to try to play this off as a joke is revisionist. Or would you prefer "reality-based?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 11:05 PM (0fZB6)

42 I have a personal problem with the "if you're conservative, you must hate gays" meme. I've know a lot of gay people over the years, and have included some as among my best friends. Being conservative doesnt' mean you must dislike gays (though obviously enough conservatives do dislike gaysto establish the stereotype). James Lileks said it best, I think, when the Kerry-Edwards campaign decided to go after Mary Cheney: "So the Cheneys have a gay daughter. OMG! I go to church, ergo I should hate the Cheneys for not putting her under wooden planks and pressing her death with stones, old-skool style! This is truly upsetting to me, because as someone who believes in a permanent reduction in capital gains tax and a strong military posture I must ergo obviously stands-to-reason rear back in horror at the very idea of gay people walking around freely instead of herded into camps and made to sew pink triangles 18 hours a day. Kerry was right to expose this festering obscenity! What if she visits the White House? What if she touches the silverware? Icky icky icky!"

Posted by: Voice of Reason at July 20, 2005 11:36 PM (fUiqr)

43 But don't you realize that there are fools on both side of the fence? Do you take into account that there are certainly Republicans that say/post offensive things? No, Con Yankee, you and the Coulter/Malkin sects will only always play the game of "Oh yeah? well your guy said THIS!" and try to appear to be a little less ridiculous than the other side.

Posted by: Peasant at July 20, 2005 11:50 PM (FfqIP)

44 Little boy...four years old...can't stand still...sounds like he had to "go #1" to me.

Posted by: JAS at July 20, 2005 11:58 PM (HAhts)

45 I'm quite aware conservatives say and do stupid things on occasion, Peasant. We just haven't turned it into a lifestyle.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 12:07 AM (0fZB6)

46 I'm a liberal, and I know that qualifies me as a retard from the get-go in your book, but let me just say that anybody who tries to label the sexuality of a fucking four-year-old at all is sick. I have come to expect this kind of bullshit from both sides of the aisle, and it is sickening. When I saw the pics of Roberts' son breakdancing, I was thinking what Michelle Malkin was thinking: I could picture my son doing the same thing, and it made me smile. Then, I hear the "people" over at DailyKos trying to criticize Roberts over it, and looking for something to latch onto. From my perspective, that of a liberal (? I don't even fucking know any more if I want to be associated with sick fucks like that), I find their behavior repugnant. Why does everything have to turn into a smear campaign? ~A!

Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 12:45 AM (kJi8d)

47 You conservatives miss the whole point, particularly bringing up the Mary Cheney example. Progressives don't think there's any moral issue attached to being gay or being straight - it's conservatives who make an issue out of it. So when conservatives end up being closeted self-hating gays (think the current mayor of Spokane, WA) or have family members who are gay (think Phyllis Schlafly), but continue ranting against gay people, it's only natural that progressives would point out the massive hypocrisy.

Posted by: Rick at July 21, 2005 12:50 AM (Egq9Y)

48 Marcos testified at the FEC that (to paraphrase) we welcome people from all areas of political THOUGHT! Obviously, they also welcome plenty of people who can't think. Diversity in everything but thought! Airheads all of em. KOS = Kookie Offensive Sick

Posted by: cavy at July 21, 2005 01:05 AM (CFnqr)

49 No, Rick, it is you who misses the point of the Mary Cheney example. Yes, some conservatives are bigotted against gays, just as some liberals are bigotted against whites, and some moderates are bigotted against left-handed Bangladeshis. But ask yourself: why did both John Kerry and John Edwards mention Mary Cheney's sexual orientation en passant during their debates? They didn't bring it up in the context of an accusation of hypocrisy, they brought it up completely in passing. Clearly they were attempting to reach the caricatured caricature in the Lileks post I quoted. They were hoping to appeal to bigots; they were hoping that by reminding Bush supporters of Mary Cheney's orientation, some of them would be repelled enough to withhold their votes. What does it say about politicians when they engage in a naked attempt to stroke the sensibilities of the bigots they claim to despise?

Posted by: Voice of Reason at July 21, 2005 01:09 AM (fUiqr)

50 Ok, so it is extremely obvious that Kerry and Edwards used Mary Cheney as a political tool. They denied her the dignity to fucking be left out of it, period. Left, right, or center, denying that makes you narrow-minded and short-sighted, not enlightened and elite. I guess I don't fit anywhere inside the political sphere any more. Damn. ~A!

Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 01:16 AM (kJi8d)

51 ~A!, Not fitting into a neat little pigeonhole is not a bad thing these days. When the far right and far left are America-haters, self-titled liberals are segregating isolationists, progressives follow the regressive themes of communism and marxism, and today's conservatives are classical liberals, it is enough to make your head spin. Try to find honorable intellectually defensible ground and make a stand.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 01:30 AM (0fZB6)

52 Not to get off track, but is Dick Cheney about the only guy who talks out the side of his mouth both literally and figuratively? Is it a coincidence that his name is also decriptive of him in the literal and figurative sense? ...point being, anyone can snipe. Anyone can pull the rotton apple from a barrel and declare the whole lot spoiled. Regarding Roberts, we shall see. Based on what I know, I would vote him down, but I'm not closed minded about it. You see, in many ways I am a "liberal"; my mind is open to new evidence.

Posted by: chadwig at July 21, 2005 01:31 AM (78eXZ)

53 Chadwig, Personally, I'm still trying to get background on the guy before I make a decision on whether or not I am going to oppose him. Anyone see Iran hang a minor yesterday? Where is that? Why isn't that all over the MSM? I mean, I don't want any more war in the world, but things are getting nuts. No matter what we say about human rights, and no matter what people say about US human rights, I have yet to see a gay man hanged for being gay. So we're still ahead of the middle east. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, Iran's government, people who abuse women and deny human rights to other people. Jesus, I sound like a Republican. I need a drink. ~A!

Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 01:45 AM (kJi8d)

54 I support Jack's right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

Posted by: jules at July 21, 2005 06:14 AM (HKmLO)

55 To Rob: How is it a war on gays by the left to point out the hypocrisy of the closet type who fights against the openly homosexual? Some creative thinking you got going there. And calling those that were outed "good people" is also a real creative stretch. In most cases outing occurs because the person is waging war AGAINST their own kind or is exhibiting deeply hypocritical public behavior. So.... "good?". If you attack, you have to expect to get hit back. I'm really surprised that on a conservative blog you people aren't getting that. You're the masters of "attack" politics. Just ask Rove, Coulter, Limbaugh, Bush, etc... for instance. you have all these comments indicating that leftists hate gays or think it's bad to have a homo child. Don't know where you're getting that from... Unless you're misinterpreting jokes about the right wings inability to deal with the topic without sounding like hateful Jesus freaks. (Not that Jesus wouldn't weep at the way his name got coopted by the extreme right wing -- but that's another story) And it's interesting to see Cheney brought up as in 'those poor Cheneys being attacked by liberals'. Mary Cheney is an out gay woman whose father is the vice president. How is she suddenly entitled to privacy about her lesbianism? She was already out. She herself made her gayness public. Personally I also felt the Edwards bringing it up was awkward at best --but the Republican discomfort with it being brought up at all, despite being public knowledge, shows the right wing discomfort with the topic. I personally hope that no homo children are born to right wingers of any sexual persuasion --if only to spare them from future pain and suffering. Even if their parents are gay conservatives: Who wants a parent that cares (as Confederate Yankee suggests) more about fiscal matters than their own child's civil rights? Not that all Dems are homo-loving of course... but the odds are better. You all need to get a sense of humor if you think people are trying to "out" a 4 year old. It's called a joke. Dancing 4 year old = funny.

Posted by: Nathaniel R at July 21, 2005 07:04 AM (HrSVp)

56 It is obvious that mayan and Geotpf are conservative provacateurs. Quote some "leftist" saying something outlandish and then get the conservative minions to condemn it over and over. How very Rovian!

Posted by: US Labor at July 21, 2005 07:22 AM (SEpeR)

57 A Kos reader here. I just wanted let you guys know that these comments are not representative of the Kos community as a whole. If want to take the time to follow the links you will find that using our ratings system that these commentators where hammered pretty hard and I would guess that if they keep it up they would eventually be banned from the site.

Posted by: marcus alrealius alrightus at July 21, 2005 07:38 AM (5KFA0)

58 This whole thread reminds me why I have decided to take a step away from party politics and actually look at the real problems in my own life. Again there are factless accusations from both sides, full of hate and venom and little else, all the while the politicians themselves are screwing you both over. They pass draconian laws taking your `freedom` and you just sit and bicker on the web. "I think the puppet on the left supports my views" "I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking" Government is the shadow cast by big business onto the people. You are all arguing about the shadow...

Posted by: Sensibl3 at July 21, 2005 07:48 AM (xKYiO)

59 Just another sign of the mean-spiritedness that is a defining feature of the American left.

Posted by: Jim O'Sulivan at July 21, 2005 08:13 AM (ywZa8)

60 wow - how desperate are you people to start quoting posters to blogs as being indicative of ANYTHING? do you really want to start that low a level of discourse because I promise you - both the left and the right have commenters who are idiots.

Posted by: j. bryant at July 21, 2005 08:15 AM (HQ7dD)

61 Seriously, I think Jack may be struggling with ADHD, at best, or PDD, at worst. I noticed some mild stimming, often more pronounced in less affluent children, who can't obtain good professional help. He's probably in an excellent behavior modification program, so it's harder to notice. As the parent of a PDD child, I saw what looked like the "war - weariness" of the special child parent, as opposed to "I went through _____ (fill in the blank) hours of labor for this?

Posted by: Frank DiSalle at July 21, 2005 09:07 AM (rxhtx)

62 "Neocon" is a liberal code word to reference Jewish conservitives.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2005 11:09 AM (UUgVa)

63 "Quote some "leftist" saying something outlandish and then get the conservative minions to condemn it over and over..." ...and watch the left-wing fruitcakes fall over each other rushing to the defense of the speaker...it was just a joke...you guys are worse...I think he might actually be gay, so what's the problem?... God, I say God Awmighty, liberals are so-o-o-o stupid!

Posted by: unclefrankie at July 21, 2005 11:27 AM (gSWPJ)

64 So, two anonymous posters to a blog make some crass comments about Roberts' family and that means all liberals and progressives are resorting to such tactics? I suppose you never watched Rush Limbaugh's skewering of Chelsea Clinton when her father was President.

Posted by: Brian Ragle at July 21, 2005 12:40 PM (YHNXi)

65 "To Rob: How is it a war on gays by the left to point out the hypocrisy of the closet type who fights against the openly homosexual? Some creative thinking you got going there. And calling those that were outed "good people" is also a real creative stretch. In most cases outing occurs because the person is waging war AGAINST their own kind or is exhibiting deeply hypocritical public behavior. So.... "good?"." See, that's exactly what I don't like... "AGAINST their own kind." Sexuality isn't the defining characteristic of every person on earth, and it's frustrating how that seems to be the only important thing anymore. Aren't human beings more than just their sex drive? They become a 'traitor to the race,' so to speak, because they don't have the same beliefs as other gays. They obviously believe that being conservative or Republican or whatever is the best for their interest if they're supporting such candidates. I'm surprised you wouldn't want them to decide what's best for themselves. Yes, they may honestly think supporting such candidates is in their best interest, as hard as that is to believe for you.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 21, 2005 12:52 PM (AahOX)

66 "So, two anonymous posters to a blog make some crass comments about Roberts' family and that means all liberals and progressives are resorting to such tactics?" Brian, equally repugnant posts are available all day, every day on the major mainstream liberal blogs and message boards. Not fringe boards, mind you, but the mainstream of liberal web sites. I think psychologists call it "projection."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 01:21 PM (2cgwG)

67 You libs are pathetic.

Posted by: Dan at July 21, 2005 02:27 PM (AnpmI)

68 WOW... don't you guys get it? For every crazy thing idiots on the right say, the goobers on the left do the same, and vice versa. NEITHER side can take ANY kind of moral high ground here. BOTH sides have the same amount of dipwads. For every liberal that wants to protect the rights of a loser living off of welfare there's a conservative that wants to dump chemicals in every natural body of water in the name of big business. The only sensible thing is, in general, to be middle of the road. But both sides love to point at the other and say "See? See? THOSE guys are the mean ones!" It's just not true, and it's childish.

Posted by: charcoal at July 21, 2005 05:50 PM (K0Z01)

69 "So when conservatives end up being closeted self-hating gays (think the current mayor of Spokane, WA) or have family members who are gay (think Phyllis Schlafly), but continue ranting against gay people, it's only natural that progressives would point out the massive hypocrisy." It's good to have no morals - then you can never be called a hypocrite, right?

Posted by: PDXCon at July 21, 2005 06:19 PM (1hZWn)

70 Re who's gay. I think the jury is also out on Dubya. Remember he "was" a cheerleader, at that bastion of famous closet queens YALE (see W. Buckley, etc.) and he had skinny arms and didn't get married until his mother insisted. Ergo: Gay! Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Posted by: Jon at July 21, 2005 06:34 PM (Jq8H8)

71 Well crap, Jon, I'm still skinny, lived with my folks, and dated a cheerleader, so I guess I'm gay, too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 07:01 PM (0fZB6)

72 For those of us that have problems with liberals/progressives let me give you a list of genuine liberals and my take on progressives. Liberals (alive and dead): Scoop Jackson, JF Kennedy, Roger Simon, Charles at LGF (surprised?), Jeff Jarvis, Zell Miller (who would have thunk), etc. Progressives are socialists and include most of Kos and DU types. Progressives spent most of the 60's sneering at liberals and then finding that a losing proposition coopted that name and defamed it. For the record, I am not a liberal either in the classical sense or in the modern usage. I admire true liberals even though I disagree with them on many issues.

Posted by: David at July 22, 2005 09:08 AM (mUvQC)

73 Its a shame that the DU, Kos kiddies and other progressives are so bankrupt that they have to attack a man's family and accuse his four year old son of being a homosexual. You mean he's like being Barney Frank or the Hildabeast? I gather this is what passes for deep thought on the Left which accounts for their recent impressive showings.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 22, 2005 06:25 PM (hTthA)

74 man... you guys are WAY off-base thnking that a comment on the fact that the cute dancing kid may possible be gay is either an "attack" OR a "joke". both views say a lot about your understanding (or lack thereof) of gay folks. talk to some parents and listen to them describe what their gay sons were like as kids and learn.

Posted by: el polacko at July 22, 2005 07:44 PM (FhV+Q)

75 Oh gimme a break. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. A whole page to talk about a couple of innocuous comments? Sheesh.

Posted by: Bill at July 22, 2005 10:51 PM (uBrrL)

76 Nobody is actually claiming that Roberts is gay. This is just something that immature left-wing bloggers do for fun. (You can see one of Wonkette's guestbloggers pretending to claim that John Edwards is gay here.)

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf at July 22, 2005 11:36 PM (IZsbU)

77 So, the bad guys here aren't the liberals who attack a little kid and accuse him of being gay (Hilarious! Ha Ha!), just because their parents happen to be prominent conservatives. No, the REAL bad guys are the conservatives who get upset about the attack, express their anger and try to draw attention to said attack. OK. I get it. BTW, if these posters are Rovian plants, then I suppose DU and Indymedia must also be phony, supposedly "liberal" sites actually run by Rove.

Posted by: cleve at July 23, 2005 02:13 AM (25MX/)

78 "Their" should be "his"...

Posted by: cleve at July 23, 2005 02:14 AM (25MX/)

79 But two things: I seriously doubt anyone can determine sexual preferance from early childhood. You find pretty much every variance amongst both straight and gay. Someone here opined that having a friend of a certain type did not preclude you from being prejudiced against that type. I find it difficult to believe that, for example, a member of the KKK could in any way consider him or herself friends with a black man or woman. If you can find one person who is honestly friends with someone of a kind they hate, do let us know.

Posted by: Jachra at August 06, 2005 04:10 AM (zsChZ)

80 as

Posted by: inuyasha hentai porn at November 07, 2005 11:27 AM (/pdyw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I think Mark Levin might summed up the choice of Roberts before word got out the best:

"In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

Roberts says it is an honor to be nominated...has a deep regard for the Constitution...acknowledged his family (nice touch)...seems like a warm, caring guy, for what it is worth on face value.

And now, the battle begins...

Update:

Senator Leahy responds: "no one is entitled to a free pass" ... is disappointed over a non-moderate being nominated, almost choked over the word "fair" when saying he was entitled to a fair hearing.

Senator Shumer: Attacking his limited record and unknown views, setting up the liberal Inquisition...nominee must prove he is worthy, the Senate doesn't have to prove he is unworthy.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but since when does a nominee have to prove his worth? I'm not a lawyer, but understand the Senate's role as "advise and consent," not "judge."

Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, JOHN Roberts...

Had me worried there for a second...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Trying to keep up with the Supreme Court nomination guessing game? We'll find out for sure at 9:00 PM Eastern, until then, it is a guessing game.

(Fox News is calling it John Roberts, a former Rehnquist Clerk, as of 7:45 PM Eastern)

Be sure to visit these sites that are sure to have insightful commentary once the nominee is disclosed:

Confirm Them
NRO's Bench Memos
Instapundit
Michelle Malkin
Powerline
Southern Appeal

Also sure to be fun--and for completely different reasons--the message boards at the Democratic Underground. I'm guessing the nominee will be referred to as:

• an "extremist" by the second poster (was actually 5th with "jackbooted goose-stepping blackshirt thug")


• a fascist by the fourth poster (was actually 3rd)


• a Klansman (or woman) by the tenth post (actually made it to #85 before they brought up slavery)


• a Bible-beater (or equivalent) by the twelfth post (was actually 8th with theocracy comment)

And while I didn't predict it, we have a poster looking to move to Canada by post #32. DU tends to combine posts or otherwise randomly change URLs, so these links may not last, but that's how we stand for now. Gotta love the moonbats.

In any event, the evening promises to be great blog food. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

Every once in a while people ask me why I use the name "Confederate Yankee" for my site. It refers to a couple of things, on a couple of different levels.

Part of it was simply convenience: my very first post was meant as a one-off, addressing the historical ignorance of an arrogant liberal by the name of Jane Smiley who said those of us who lives in "red" states suffer from "unteachable ignorance"—as she reversed Civil War history, getting it precisely backwards. With the Civil War as a reference point, using "Confederate" and "Yankee" seemed as logical as any other possible throw-away blog name I could have chosen. I had no idea that influential blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame would actually link to the post even though I emailed him about it, and as the comments started rolling in I got hooked, and what was intended as a one-off protest post quickly became a blogging passion.

The blog name also worked on other levels, of course. I began blogging as a Southerner relocated to upstate New York, where because of my accent, I got my fair share of ribbing about being on the losing end of the Civil War. On another, more important level, I am also a North Carolina native with a New York-bred wife and in-laws. Our family and values come from the convergence of two very different cultures.

Last but not least, I've always been a fan of Mark Twain, and there is a distinct possibility that "Confederate Yankee" is a subconscious nod to one of my favorite Twain stories, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

That explains the name of the blog. "Confederate Yankee" is however, just a handle.

My real name is Bob Owens. I've been a day laborer, atv rider, sports writer, web designer, technical writer, and blogger. I have both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in English from East Carolina University. I've moved back south since starting this blog in New York, and currently live and work near Raleigh, North Carolina.

I am an original member of Pajamas Media, where I contribute frequently as a writer.

I was interviewed by the Washington Post on February 27, 2006, and guest-blogged there on Feb 28th, March 1st, March 2nd, and March 3rd, and was honored to be a panelist at the John Locke Foundation's Carolina FreedomNet 2006. I've been most recently featured nationally in an op-ed adaptation on one of my blog entries in the New York Post on July 23, 2008.

I've also been discussed in the book Blog Wars: The New Political Battleground by University of Kansas journalism professor David Perlmutter, who has also featured some of my work in his teaching and in media conferences as an example of bloggers as investigative journalists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 4 kb.

An American hero died today.

William Westmoreland died in Charleston, SC, at the age of 91. His life was extraordinary by any measure. He was an Eagle Scout who graduated at the top of his class from West Point in 1936, and earned the respect of his soldiers fighting legendary German Filed Marshall Erwin Rommel in North Africa during World War II. He was a colonel by 30, and became a general during the Korean War.

He had the distinct honor of being the superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point from 1960-64, where he will soon be laid to rest.

After West Point, General Westmoreland commanded troops in Vietnam during the controversial years of 1964-1968, became Army Chief of Staff in 1968, and retired in 1972.

He became active in veterans' advocacy, and he visited veterans' groups in all 50 states. He led thousands of his comrades-in-arms in a veterans' march in 1982 to dedicate the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial in Washington, DC, calling it, "one of the most emotional and proudest experiences of my life."

This is how he should be remembered, as a soldier who dedicated his life to his country and to his men.

This is how the Washington Post would remember him:

One comment, lifted out of context, spoken out of passion, to tear down an entire career and reduce a man's dedication to his country to partisan politics.

I'd try to explain to the Post that this is not the way to honor someone who dedicated his life to preserving their freedom to say what they want, but that would involve explaining the concepts of duty, honor and loyalty, which would only cause confusion in the newsroom.

Update: The L.A. Times, perhaps predictably, proclaims an equally hate-filled view of General Westmoreland's life with the headline,"A Commander Caught in the Mire of Vietnam" and a lead paragraph that reads:

Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the World War II hero who was later vilified for his leadership of the United States' failed war in Vietnam, died Monday night in Charleston, S.C. He was 91.

Classy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Fellow blogger, designer of this site, and real-life younger brother phin of phin's blog is 30 today.

Be sure to drop in and harrass him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Matthew Cooper's "double super secret" source revealed! more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

About the only thing I can say with any certainty regarding Plamegate is that any lies told by Republicans on the topic have been met and possibly exceeded by the media and their allies in the Democratic Party.

No finer demonstration of that fact can be found than former Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright's claim in his Forth Worth Star-Telegram editorial (registration or BugMeNot required) today that Karl Rove "initiated a call to Time magazine" to start an assault against Plame and Wilson.

It is established that Matthew Cooper of Time called Karl Rove. This is recorded extensively by Editor & Publisher, National Review, CNN and other news organizations.

But Jim Wright takes the dishonest step of changing the circumstances of the call in an attempt to establish a sinister motive for Rove. Cooper called Rove ostensibly to talk about welfare reform, and then after discussing that subject briefly, Cooper changed the subject to discuss Joe Wilson.

But that bit of documented history fails to firmly establish Rove as a villain, and so former Speaker Wright turns to fiction, and attempts to present it as fact.

This is irresponsible of course, but not more so than the Star-Telegram's decision to run a Sunday-edition editorial with such a major fact error in the second paragraph. Jim Wright (who knows something about ethics violations) and the Star-Telegram seem to have made the conscious decision to run an editorial based at least in part upon fabricated evidence.

The New York Times just ran a major correction for fabricating parts of an editorial. It remains to be seen if the Star-Telegram will have that kind of class.

Of course, you can ask them that yourself.

Update: Cooper further discredits Wright with the very first sentence in this article in Time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 3 kb.

...they just smell that way.

Phin is turning 30 this weekend (well close, enough, the 18th). Be sure to drop by his site and harrass him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Alphecca takes the gun-grabbing Violence Policy Center to task for shoddy policy-driven "research." Five youth gun suicides in an entire state from 2000-2002?

It's an epidemic!

Remember: Guns don't kill people, Garth Brooks kills people.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.