As I been reading the continuing commentary on the Washington Post piece that has really got the attention of bloggers and readers from the daily pundit

DADT as the reason for ROTC’s banning was always a sham. Now the mask is finally off. The elite professoriat doesn’t hate ROTC because of DADT, they hate ROTC because they just can’t stand “the warrior ethic”. That’s code for courage, honor, and duty, ethics all anathema to Leftist indoctrinators. They prefer us supine, afraid, and dependent on them.”

an opinion I share to Vodkapundit

See there, Mr. U.S. Marine Captain — McCarthy doesn’t hate you. Why, he thinks you’re every bit as respectable as a Taliban.

who adds a graphic that says it all to this post at Ace of Spades HQ that compares the course requirement for ROTC at Sienna College and woman and gender studies at Columbia guess which one is more challenging academically?

While all of these are first-rate there is a thought that hit me this morning that hasn’t been touched on. Namely that the McCarthy’s of the world actually bring about the results they claim to deplore.

Consider; our media tends to reflect the views of people like McCarthy and the movies and media we put out there tend to show our troops in a very poor light, particularly over the last 40 years that has been exported as American Cultural and elite opinion to foes all over the world that the Saddam’s, Bin Ladin’s and Chavez’s et/al have bought into. It is precisely believe they have bought into the weakness of American culture and the people opposition to the military and the troops as uneducated rabble that they have been bold enough to make war figuring we can’t defeat them or oppose them.

Hundreds of thousands of idiotic and fanatical followers of these fools have learned the hard way that this is not true (in fact it was the last thing they ever learned), yet their fanatical leaders who are not hiding in caves manage to convince them that America will simply roll over. Why don’t they believe the evidence of the empty chairs where their predecessors have been? Because men like McCarthy promote the idea of a military unwanted and supported, because our media is so focused on the number of our casualties in war that they ignored the losses of our foes that dwarf ours.

These men are the enablers of the very wars they claim to oppose, and even more ironically are only able to be such enablers because our military is precisely NOT like the Taliban or any of these guys.

The secret here is that the McCarthy’s on the left’s position is really less about their hatred of the military, but more about convincing themselves of their own moral superiority. They can’t match the courage or the honor or the sacrifice of these men and women so they denigrate them in a vain attempt to convince themselves that it is their words and good wishes, dare I say it their faith in their own love for their fellow-man that outweighs the works of the military in risking their own lives to save others.

That’s liberalism in a nutshell belief and good intention trump works and results every time.

Update: Oh Brother!

Hitler could have been waited out. He might have been overthrown by his own government. Who knows? To have 50 million people killed: Hitler would have died within 10 years no matter what he did.

Oh and Lincoln was wrong to fight the civil war too. Moe Lane nails it:

Whichever editor approved this Washington Post article should be ashamed of him- or herself. I do not expect shame, but it’s long past time that we started telling these people when they’ve done something foul.

He certainly has the right to free speech but did he have the right to a Washington Post op-ed?

Way back in the early days of the Blog I talked about Gay Marriage and Richard Cohen’s self=righteous hit piece:

Personally on a religious level I can’t support gay marriage but this is not a valid argument for a non-religious person. On a non-religious level it seems to me you can not rationally say that gay marriage is ok and should be legal without also allowing either polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Both have a longer and more accepted cultural history worldwide.

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago. It is particularly galling when gay people are subject to state sponsored murder in places like Iran and ick is invoked beside Islam.

Via Glenn we have Eugene Volokh being a lawyer with some interesting items in the news has expanded on this bigtime:

(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?

(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre–Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners?

Go and read his whole point but let me say that a Judge named Antonin Gregory Scalia saw this coming a mile away as did an awful lot of us. When I made the argument saying that you can’t logically ban polygamy while allowing gay marriage in a discussion on Center of Mass podcast this year my host insisted that it was totally different.

I’ve talked about the ick factor in the past. And let me quote myself one more time:

This is a republic. If the people who support gay marriage can move enough of the public in the individual states or on a national level to support it in an actual vote then the more power to them. That is how a republic works. With the media’s help they are well on their way to doing so, but let the people vote for it and if you win, you win. If your argument holds water it should be capable of doing so and you should be able to make that argument stick.

Take out the word gay marriage and enter anything you want instead and the argument holds. The fact that a respected lawyer is actually making the case tells me this is already coming down the pike. And let me leave you with some John Nolte in terms of changing the culture with the help of the media:

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure

None of this is a bug. It’s a feature.

Stacy McCain while writing on the subject of Frank Rich’s column ( a painful task always since it involves reading it) accidentally or on purpose crystallizes the difference between Radical Islam and mainstream religion that Pam Geller made points about yesterday on my show.

Rich decries the pulling of a taxpayer-funded Christmas exhibit that had ants crawling over a crucifix and called those who demanded it be removed bigots and homophobes.

Stacy’s take-down of the self-righteous Mr. Rich should of course be read in full but it is this sentence that is of interest to me.

That article prompted William Donohue of the Catholic League to send suicide-bombers to maim and murder innocent women and children ask Catholics to call the museum and complain.

And herein lies the difference. Roman Catholics call and complain, radical jihadists don’t.

By an odd coincidence an even better example of this difference became apparent yesterday. Another person acting on behalf of a different religion that Mr. Rich doesn’t deign to critique decided to voice his objects to a set of cartoons in a slightly different fashion as reported by Mr. Rich’s own paper:

One man was killed and two other people were injured when two explosions hit the heart of Stockholm’s city-center shopping district on Saturday evening, the police in the Swedish capital said. The country’s foreign minister called the blasts a terrorist attack, and an e-mail to news organizations minutes before the blasts seemed to link them to anger over anti-Islamic cartoons and the war in Afghanistan.

Although many right leaning bloggers decided to condemn this act of barbarous terror Mr. Rich has however decided to courageously spend his time critiquing American citizens who object to their tax dollars being used to offend them and decided to peacefully exercise their 1st amendment rights to make their objections known.

Mr. Rich, as an elite journalist of the left, has the courage to see beyond mere murder to locate the real danger to our society.

Plus he knows Catholics won’t harm him for criticizing them.

Any questions?

There is an old saying that one is better off keeping ones mouth closed if thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Richard Wolffe decided on MSNBC to remove all doubt as he refers to one of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century as merely a Children’s author.

Wolffe seems to think it is clever to mock Palin reading a “children’s author,” while disrespecting one of the greatest authors in literature. Yes, C.S. Lewis is most famous among the pop culture crowd with the movies and sudden ressurgance of The Chronicles of Narnia, which happens to be an allegorical tale of Jesus Christ, who became a human being, and gave His life to save undeserving human beings from the penalty of sin. (Richard Wolffe seems to be in the same boat as Liam Neeson when it comes to not understanding C.S. Lewis’ Christian tales.)

I guess the MSNBC pop culture crowd are not as well read as they think they are.

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Chris Matthews who is apparently remembers some of the stuff the Nuns taught him as a kid tries to warn Wolffe off but Wolffe doesn’t get it.

And to those of us (like Sarah Palin apparently) who are better informed and apparently better read than MSNBC analysis the fun continues:

Evidently, they didn’t cover Mere Christianity or The Four Loves when Wolffe himself was attending Oxford, where Lewis was both an alumnus and a distinguished faculty member for over thirty years.

And MSNBC wonders why no one takes them seriously. With or without Olbermann. Really.

and as Michelle Malkin reports Wolffe instead of admitting he goofed is spinning madly:

Brian Faughnan called Wolffe out on Twitter. Here was his response. Seriously:

She said “divine inspiration”. Not the traditional reaction to theological essays, even formidable ones by Lewis.

As Michelle says “He (Lewis) had them pegged”

But it is Stacy McCain who gives away J.R.R. Tolkien’s and Lewis’ game to the sectarian atheist crowd.

Lewis was, of course, a master of Christian apologetics and a good friend of J.R.R. Tolkien — they were colleagues at Oxford University – with whom he shared a desire to use literature to as a means of spreading the Christian worldview. Most fans of the Lord of the Rings trilogy are probably unaware that they are absorbing a sort of sermon when they read the tales of Frodo and his comrades, but that’s the point: Tolkien (and Lewis) understood that many people who wouldn’t sit still for a theological lecture would be only too happy to read a well-written adventure tale about elves and dragons and magic.

Sarah Palin understands this. Richard Wolffe apparently does not. A nelson award for him:

I have a funny feeling the clip from Hardball will not make the Sunday Talk shows nor will it make Willie Geist’s “news you can’t use” segment on Monday for some reason. Can’t fathom why.

Market Basket knows what day it is!

For having this picture in their window.

Market Basket is handling this exactly the right way. By putting a sign that explicitly says Merry Christmas they are eschewing the political correctness that has frightened and intimidated the multitudes.

What many business don’t understand is that by trying to placate a vocal and angry minority they actually upset the vast majority of customers who have many other alternatives for shopping. When I see “Happy Holidays” as opposed to Merry Christmas I am inclined to spend my money elsewhere and I’ll wager a lot of other people are too.

And for the few in the “tolerant left” who do not want “Merry Christmas” on anything Market Basket has not ignored your, nor have they ignored those who don’t celebrate Christmas but are not as easily agitated as some. Take a look at the poster next to the first one

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, Side by side in perfect harmony

This allows everybody to take a deep breath, the explicit Christmas poster allows them to say “Happy Holidays” elsewhere without insult because of the acknowledgment of the actual federal holiday that the country celebrates.

Would that more business’ had that degree of courage and common sense.

The blog Fiat Lux has an interesting post up about the ROTC at Stanford University. He links to an anti ROTC Op Ed that argues the following:

So the question we must all consider is clear: should we permit the military to have an ROTC presence on campus? The answer will logically depend on what the effects of on-campus ROTC would be and, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be positive overall, whether Stanford’s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.

Fiat Lux answers these questions, a peek:

Mr. Windley’s next observation, that there exists some resource trade-off in allowing ROTC back, is true only to an insignificant extent. To my knowledge, the military would pay for the trainers, the gear, the development of a curriculum, etc. The real stumbling block to bringing ROTC back is more a question of whether students should receive academic credit, which does not really affect the University’s bottom line. In fact, one could contend that allowing ROTC back would actually be net-positive for the University in terms of resources because it would free up more money for financial aid (because ROTC participants have their tuition paid for by the U.S. government).

What I find most interesting is the last argument of the Op-Ed writer, namely that it would be more efficient for the military to train in a single location rather than at different campus. I find it fascinating. Basically the idea is We don’t want ROTC but if they can be trained elsewhere away from us wouldn’t that be OK?

Or to put it the way I would. As long as equal facilities are available you don’t need to be here. Separate but equal. Now where have I heard this kind of philosophy?

The bottom line is the university in the name of fighting discrimination that was imposed by congress (and not repealed by congress) is discriminating against those who wish to serve their country and have a different political philosophy. Same bigotry different target. I guess history does repeat itself the 2nd time as farce.

As you know I’m very Roman Catholic. I’ve argued that “Gay Marriage” is just an exercise in narcissism and have absolutely no problem with the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality and I stand by that.

However this is simply wrong:

Arab and African nations succeeded Tuesday in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.

That’s bad, but this is simply embarrassing:

That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favor, 10 abstentions and no votes against.

That’s as Rush would put it, Zip Zero Nada, no England, No Holland, No Canada, and no US.

Cripes according to many on the left I’d be considered a religious fanatic for being a believing Catholic and I think this is a disgrace.

And to those in the LGBT community who voted for this administration I say again….SUCKERS!

Don’t worry you still have Ken Jennings.

It looks like Comedy Central is REALLY trying to stage manage a successful rally:

Steve Albani:
Please note, taping for television or any other filming is strictly prohibited between 3rd and 7th Street without a media credential.

Richard Pollack sets him straight about the law:

Although it may not make any sense to you at this moment, the National Mall is not a TV set, although it may look like one.

As the former chief Washington producer for ABC’s “Good Morning America” for nine years, let me assure you that you cannot bar cameras from public walkways on the Mall. It has never happened.

And so we will be there crew and all.

It does seem a bit incredulous that a rally for “reasonableness” should exclude freely based camera crews exercising their First Amendment rights to cover your attendees walking on public property. Unless this is Prague in 1968. And unless Comedy Central own tanks. Or unless it deploys a Comedy Police with enforcement powers.

An attempt to protect their live show, or an attempt to manage news? It will be fun to see them try to stop people on public property filming and tweeting. I don’t think it will go over well with their fans. Are these people really this stupid?

I smell crashing and burning.

Update: After 2 hours of watching this I know why they were forbiding filming. It really REALLY Su*&^!

Update: Tweet of the day:

This really says it all

Attendance:

I predict a rally attended by maybe 50k maybe slightly more a ceiling of about 75k pretty close to the Freedomworks rally but nowhere near Beck’s. Stewart is a legitimate star as is Colbert, the idea of what their fans consider and “open air show” and what the establishment left consider their best chance to convince their base that they have a chance will help bump the numbers up porta potty issue or no.

The Draw

The draw will come in three flavors. The primary flavor that decided to go right at the start will be college age Comedy Central fans. They are coming for fun, and if Arianna Huffington and Oprah want to pay their way so much the better. Their purpose is not primarily political (although some might have strong political beliefs) they are there for a good time, some partying and the hope of getting laid. (yeah that’s blunt but true)

The secondary flavor will be the Democratic political class/Unions. There are the hardcore dems who hope to use this rally in the way that OneNation was supposed to be used, to convince the democratic base that they have momentum. They are aware that the MSM are going to do their best to advance this narrative so Union leaders and Various activists will compel their membership to go. I suspect they will be dwarfed by the first flavor and will find the Stewart fans a whole lot less enthusiastic for what they are selling.

The final flavor will be the true believes like the lady I met in Newton two weeks ago they believe in Obama, Obamacare, global warming, cap and trade, etc. This includes a lot of the socialist groups that attended one nation in the hopes of getting joiners contributes. They will be the smallest group and their reaction will be based on how they look at it. Publicly they will talk numbers and be “inspired”, privately they will notice that the non-activists have very little interest in their causes. Watch their body language when they get home, it will speak volumes.

The Show

This I have absolutely no idea about, don’t know what Stewart is planning, how he is planning it, how much will be comedy and how he intends to do it. Since his primary shtick is to play off of others I don’t know how he does that. Will he show parts of the Beck rally and comment? Will he try to parody bits and pieces of it? Will Colbert do a fake Beck while Stewart laughs at him? I’m presuming that he has good writers but there is a difference between writing for a live show with an audience that he can’t predict vs a studio audience. I’m presuming Stewart’s team is likely to and has been collaborating as much as possible with the democratic left to whatever degree they can without risking their brand. I also trust Stewart’s team will make sure that there is not trash left everywhere.

The Media

The media is in the worst of all positions. They support this march and the goals of all three groups. They will be portraying the march in the most favorable light possible, but people from the right will be there with cameras and phones tweeting so they are in a box. If the attendance numbers are VERY low then they will be very embarrassed since the story will be of an epic fail. If the air photo is smaller than Beck’s by degrees as I suspect they will be it will be used against the media as it portrays it as a win. If there is drunkenness and public nastiness then it is going to be shown by conservatives but ignored by the media. If the crowd gets too rowdy and/or destructive then the story and the narrative goes very astray. I don’t know if CSPAN will cover the rally, if they do then watch out. Bottom line, the media has a narrative they have already written and are hoping for, everything will depend on how far from that narrative that the actual event goes.

The End Result
Bill Press is exactly right in on respect, activists here are wasted instead of being in the field. A lot of the young people there frankly are not likely to be getting OTHERS out to vote and I suspect the greatest quantities are already coming from the bluest of areas. This is not going to create any actual votes but it might allow the media to try to push a narrative of democratic momentum in the last 48 hours.

In the end The Sunday and Monday shows will be all over this, if it is a success they will trumpet it, if it mediocre they will pretend it is a success, if it is a failure and/or an embarrassment then they will declare it simply a comedy show and nothing else. The problem for the media however is they no longer have the monopoly on the message and the alternative message will be getting out in real-time via twitter and the blogs.

What started as a show/publicity stunt has basically become a high stakes risk for Stewart and Comedy Central. If they make democrats look bad he will find there is plenty of room under the Obama/Democratic bus. If he pulls it off then he will have even more power then the left has already ceded him. God help him if it is boring.

I will know if I’m right within 48 hours, so will you.

BTW how telling is it that there is not a single Memeorandum thread on this subject at this time 7:48 a.m. Could it be that the media has already decided it will not pan out and is starting to downplay it?

Update: One thing I neglected to mention. Politics aside Stewart’s primary goals for the rally are tied up with fans of the show and the audience there. The lefts & the media’s goals (I know redundant) are tied up with the viewing public not there.

Update 2: My God that was boring. He did however draw more folks then I thought but not nearly as many as Beck.

Update 3: Pajamas Media has some more and wider shot photos and better methodology (including the ridiculous CBS stuff) Still not as much Beck but still pretty impressive. This quote is vital:

Big name acts, extensive crowd control, rules against video or audio taping even with your cell phone, boring political speeches … this wasn’t a rally, this was a U2 concert!

And that tells us the real story: they held a rock/comedy concert, with pro acts including two of the hottest TV comedians around, and professional production, with free admission and with Arianna Huffington paying for bus rides — and no matter what you think a “dense” crowd is, it was still only about six-tenths of Beck’s open-air church service.

Actually I thought the acts were so so (I thought the dueling trains stuff was very clever) but I think the real question that I still don’t have a good answer on is the composition. I’ll keep digging