gdp's Comments

The Heritage Foundry : Eich Is Out. So Is Tolerance.

Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:43:18 +0000

On the point about the word marriage, I'm with you. The name of a religious sacrament has no place in secular law and never did. For me the answer isn't to relegate gay folks to only having "civil unions," but to replace the word "marriage" in all laws with the term "civil union" and to recognize the sacred act of marriage as one way of getting civilly united under federal, state and local law. That puts marriage and it's definition back in the hands of one's Creator and place of worship, while giving straight folks and gay folks the same access to the secular rights and responsibilities attendant to those united according to US law. (I fully understand that this is never going to happen, btw, and that the confusion and struggle between "sacred marriage" and "secular marriage" will continue... but just because it won't change doesn't mean it shouldn't...)

Jewish Daily Forward : Shul Cancels Pamela Geller — But Fails To Take Stand – Forward Thinking – Forward.

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:57:29 +0000

Sincere appreciation for your position. Sad, the way Ms. Geller divides everyone, apparently including even some of your fellow members at the Great Neck Synagogue. The accusations of naziism and not being sufficiently jewish, by both her supporters and by Ms. Geller herself, make me ever more sure that she is hateful and dangerous. Thank you for standing tall, even as so many attack. Stay strong; you're in the right, in spite of the bile and vitriol these sad creatures are throwing at you.

Commentary Magazine : RE: Obama’s Power Grab Slapped Down

Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:59:53 +0000

If this stands, that intersession vs intrasession bit will call all of judge Pryor's rulings into question, as well. (In fact, I read there have been hundreds of these intrasession appointments...and that if they (and their fruits) remain illegal based on this ruling, there will be a whole lotta people claiming they were wrongly judged or ruled against by someone without standing to judge, which'll get awful messy.) I suspect that overreach alone will mean this ruling won't survive en banc / Supreme review.

Commentary Magazine : The Significance of Obama's Inaugural Address

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:14:11 +0000

An army of 1, defending an ever-shrinking island of "I got mine." Good luck with that.

Commentary Magazine : Re: Where’s Winston?

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:12:39 +0000

I can't speak to Pfeiffer. I think it more likely that he was as uninformed as most people seemed to've been about there being two Churchill busts and, believing there was only the one, which he's seen with his own eyes outside the Treaty Room in the residence, said the story about it being sent back was a falsehood. But maybe he did know the truth, and intentionally lie. I'm less sold on the rest. The Bush administration received the bust that they had, as a loan for the length of his first term, and then that was extended through the length of his second. Doesn't that make the Bush administration responsible for returning it (along with other items they had been loaned for the length of his time in office--and I'm given to understand there were other items) at the conclusion of his Presidency? I'm not saying Bush was in the office rolling things up in old newspaper--anymore than you folks are saying Obama licked the stamps on the package that sent Churchill #2 back--but wouldn't it be his outgoing transition team making sure all the items loaned to them during Bush's administration were returned? But ok, let's say the incoming Obama transition team or the permanent White House staff agreed to take care of that for the Bush folks, and that Obama was in office and therefore "responsible" for refusing the Brit's offer to extend the loan thru his term(s) in office, and actually sending the item back. So what? Why does it show disdain for Churchill, England, Israel, or any other person or country for him not to continue the loan whose time was up? Apparently, he already had a bust of Churchill--which makes one wonder where the one we received as a gift was all during the Bush administration. Did Bush have both on display, or did the Obama administration go to the trouble of getting the original Churchill bust out of storage and displaying it, showing their admiration for the man and his country? And for that matter, where was the Churchill bust during the rest of the presidencies since we received it, and does it also show disdain if they did not have it in the Oval? And further still, why do some conservatives find it preferable for this Democratic President to have the bust of an Englishman in the Oval Office, rather than a bust of one of the great U.S. Presidents--and a Republican, no less--from whom the man says he draws inspiration? The whole nontrovercy seems awful silly to me... ...but just the same, maybe we need a congressional inquiry to get to the bottom of the whole mess. I'm most interested in finding out where that Churchill bust gifted to the White House during the Johnson administration has been all this time, and why Dubya had to get a loaner... The truth is out there...

ScrollPost : Excavating Pure Evil — Failed New York Actor Carl Salonen Revealed as 'Tintin' at Sadly No!??

Tue, 10 May 2011 22:52:45 +0000

True or false, one has to be a real douchebag to intentionally release offline (and seemingly, unverified) information about another blogger as vengeance for some online difference of opinion. Given the sickos out there, it's an invitation for trouble. Bad enough, if the info's correct. Far worse, if the info's unreliable, and they're targeting the wrong guy.

ScrollPost : Scott Lemieux Backs Anti-Semitic Tony Kushner at Lawyers, Guns and Money

Sat, 7 May 2011 19:37:47 +0000

Ideas that are not born in one’s own head (or that harmonize and synchronize with the ones that are, at least) scare some folks silly. Pointing and yelling “Anti-Seeeeemite!!!” (or “Cooooomunist!!” or “niiiiihilist!!”) at the top of one’s internet lungs is no substitute for reasoned discourse.

ScrollPost : Patterson School of Diplomacy, University of Kentucky, Screens Steven Soderbergh's Che to Commemorat

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:18:44 +0000

A real right wing echo chamber...

Big Government : The 99ers: Addicted To Unemployment

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:51:45 +0000

psst... 99 WEEKS, not months. Still a long time, but significantly shorter than 8 years.

NewsReal Blog : "You Buy the Ticket, You Take the Ride": Not the Conservative View of Date Rape

Sat, 8 Jan 2011 19:48:13 +0000

The question for those defending Stacy is, would they feel the same if Assange had offered that "You buy the ticket..." line? It's fine to say that women who dress a certain way, or drink too much, or walk home alone late at night, or agree to have sex with relative strangers are foolish. But none of those behaviors are the equivalent of buying a ticket on the rape ride. The factor that makes it rape is that one participant has bought no ticket. There IS no ticket to be raped... not even if you drink excessively, dress and behave provocatively, pay little attention to personal safety and security, or even consent to some degree of sexual activity you'd prolly be wiser not to.

Wonkette : Elizabeth Edwards Is Dying, Hates the Baby (Baby Jesus)

Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:31:29 +0000

Anyone who doesn't think and believe just as he does.

Israellycool : The Day In Israel: Mon Sept 20th, 2010

Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:36:32 +0000

Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:58:21 +0000

Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:49:17 +0000

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:33:27 +0000

Dr. Gohheil replied to an e-mail I sent him, and gave me permission to make his response public. Because it's kinda lengthy, I posted it all here: What'd I Say?: In Reply: "If Fred Gottheil doesn't reply to my unsolicited e-mails, it's proof that he doesn't care about this issue" (Does the fact that he did reply to my e-mail prove he does care about the issue? Stay tuned...)

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:32:53 +0000

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:27:06 +0000

While it was also written by a college academic, the Israel petition was posted online by a rights group that the prospective signers could Google to find out more about. (While there may've been an e-mail campaign as well--with a "sender" address from a rights group, rather than an individual stranger--the bulk of those who signed the Israel petition went to it, rather than having it come to them.) It was not a "cold call" e-mail campaign by a single professor they never heard of who had no history of dealing with Muslim rights issues. While I want to hear from the people who did/didn't sign before jumping to any conclusions, I believe it quite likely that the vast majority of Dr. Gottheil's e-mails were tossed out without ever having been read, and that many more weren't signed because they had no idea who he was or the interest he was representing. Should later facts prove my theory wrong, perhaps I'll come to agree with you, but the way it stands at present, I'm not prepared to indict the academy based on the fact that the majority of college professors who signed a petition on a human rights org website failed to read/respond to a different petition that showed up in their received e-mail from an individual stranger. For the record, I've sent two e-mails to Dr. Gottheil in the past 48 hours, and he hasn't responded to either of them. How long do I have to wait before accusing him of not caring about my concerns regarding this issue--an issue that he himself put into motion? (Granted, he's never heard of me or anything, and I have no media or academic credentials, but I fail to see why that should matter...) If he does not reply to my unsolicited e-mails, I declare it to be obvious proof that he does not really care about this issue.

Frontpage Magazine : Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:53:09 +0000

Dr. Gottheil: Thank you for releasing your Statement of Concern. (While I doubt you did so as a result of my e-mail or blog post, I still appreciate the quick response.) However, I'm still looking for the official version, complete with signatures, released in the public domain in the manner you promised in your Statement. (One would hate to think that this was just a stunt, and that you had no intention of doing so). I'm also hoping you'll release: 1) the list of people to whom you e-mailed the statement 2) any proof you have that some/all/any of the folks you e-mailed but who didn't reply actually read it (Did anyone reply with a "NO"?), and 3) any follow-up you did to determine why these folks hadn't signed (phone calls making sure they had in fact received and read it, for instance). Personally, I find it kinda troubling that you folks are making such a big deal about the fact that many academics failed to reply to a "cold-call" e-mail campaign from a professor they likely never heard of... But as I said yesterday, I would like to hear it direct from the horse's mouths, as it were. The professors who didn't sign should be afforded the opportunity to explain why they didn't sign originally, and, now that they have another chance, whether they'd be willing to sign now. (Again, while I'm not an academic, I'm willing to affix my liberal "YES" to the statement. I'd be surprised to find there were many liberals who would disagree...) I again look forward to your further reply (in part 3, I'd imagine.)

Big Journalism : As Accusations of 'Violence' Flow, Let's Take a Look At the Record

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:01:26 +0000

Tit for tat just isn't it. Everyone who commits violence or vandalism is wrong, and anyone who does so in an effort to influence a political/social situation, or to punish a person or place who doesn't share your political beliefs is at the very least bordering on committing a minor act of domestic terrorism (and some acts aren't so minor). That the other side does it, too, or that someone on the other side once did something worse doesn't absolve the guilty folks on your side... It's not subjective. Violence/vandalism is wrong, period.

NewsReal Blog : The Alinsky Rules in Action

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:27:44 +0000

Just happened upon my 12/17/09 3:40 AM reply to this post that I had the good fortune to've crosspost elsewhere, and noticed that it never posted here. (or perhaps was removed after the fact, since it doesn't look like this blog is moderated.) Either way, I figured I'd give it another chance... ------------------- Maybe I'm not understanding how this place works (or maybe I AM, all too well) but it looks to me like Michael van der Galien wrote nothing but the header on this post (and surprise, surprise, the actual author, Donald Douglas, is now referencing this cut & pasted post as "proof" that his claims about E.D. Kain are factual... Is anyone really shocked that Donald Douglas here on Newsreal thinks the claims of Donald Douglas @ American Power offer readers the Gospel Truth?) Smoke & mirrors, and an echo chamber the size of the Grand Canyon... ...and as obvious.