Posts Tagged ‘media’

I was approving comments today and a fellow named Billy asked what I think is a very fair question:

If “Kagan has to stand or fall on her record,” why has every single one of your posts about her been related to her sexual orientation?

It’s a good point worth answering, particularly since I’ve claimed that it has non bearing on her qualifications for the court.

First Two people I like, Robert Stacy McCain and Cynthia Yockey wrote stories on the issue. I thought that Cynthia’s was particularly good and I found it a good reason to link to them. I must not be alone in that opinion since she has been invited on two radio shows since her PJ media piece.

Second: Frankly the Elena Kagan nomination story is… well boring. Very important mind you, will affect the country for decades but boring nonetheless. You have a liberal president with a 59-41 Senate nominating a supreme court nominee. Barring a revelation that she was working secretly for the Taliban there is a greater chance of this president naming me to replace her in the solicitor general’s office than there is of her being defeated. If the Senate was closer it might be different but with these numbers, until the hearing it is just a giant yawner.

Third: We have been told over and over again that republicans and conservatives are “homophobic” and the democratic party is the one place that is welcoming for gays, yet during the course of the year this administration has stuck their finger in the eyes of Gay groups on more than one occasion. Thus how the administration handles the first “Gay” nominee to the court is significant.

Fourth: The reactions themselves have been telling. The suggestion that she is a lesbian is being treated by Democrats and the administration as a slur. This totally contradicts the image the democrats have of themselves as Gay friendly. It is that phoniness that is the only interesting story at this point, at least until the hearing start, then you never know.

Finally: It gave me a chance to quote Andrew Sullivan. For reasons that will be clear in just under three weeks I wanted an excuse to link to and quote Sullivan. This story provided it.

I hope this is an adequate answer to your question.

Gay rights groups are apparently hitting the WSJ over the softball picture.

Pat Buchanan talked about what playing softball meant, I guess I AM a naif, I’ve never ever heard of Softball=lesbian. This is Massachusetts, Baseball and the Red Sox are practically the 8th sacrament.

Oh and Joe agrees with me, I like the batting stance.

I’m looking at the gay rights groups response over that photo, left and right, I say the various groups were waiting for a chance to be “out-raged”

On the left you hear it:

“Personally I think the newspaper, which happens to have the largest circulation of any in the U.S., might as well have gone with a headline that said, ‘Lesbian or switch-hitter?'” grumbled the Dallas Voice’s John Wright.

On the right they are using the photo to hit the administration

“I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it’s a smear to insinuate she did,” emailed a founder of the conservative gay group GOProud, Chris Barron.

The response of the WSJ was classic and Morning Joe read it:

“If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message,” said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston.

I don’t know what the Journal pays Ashley but she deserves a bonus, that was awesome.

I still never heard a thing about the Softball stuff, I’ll have to take Pat’s word for it, but then again I didn’t see the Spongebob connection either until a gay friend told me either.

Of course there is this report from Dan Riehl

And the subject of civilian casualties comes us as it always does whenever the US is involved in a war.

I personally think people have seen too many movies and seem to have the idea that we can magically only hit the bad guys. Generations will pass before that is possible, but something that Lesley Stahl said really bothered me.

She talked about how civilians die in drone attacks and how even at maned checkpoint civilians are accidentally killed. She talked about how it hurts our reputation in the world.

I never forget that she was the person who was questioning General Colin Powell about his supply lines in Iraq

I want to ask that great military tactician Lesley Stahl a serious question:

Since it is necessary to get further troops on the ground and further forward to decrease civilian risks and since such actions are inherently more dangerous lets bottom line it; How large an increase in American casualties (read dead American soldiers) would you be willing to accept Lesley in order to drop accidental civilian casualties by say 10%?

I’d love get an answer on this one.

After 30 minutes of telling us what a good job Law Enforcement did to protect us, Morning Joe brings on Raza Aslan author of Beyond Fundamentalism to call this a “criminal” act and not part of any kind of war and David Sanger downplaying any foreign connection.

Apparently that is the new narrative. Lone wolf, no connection, amateur act, nothing to see here.

It is much easier than to admit something might be up with Islam.

If the left wonders why they they aren’t taken seriously it’s stuff like this.