First Amendment authority and weblogger Eugene Volokh is taking the New York Sun to task for its repellent editorial gloating about the denial of a permit to an apparently non-Stalinist antiwar organization, and rightly so. The protesters have the right to oppose government policy, They have the right to speak out against it in public. Indeed, I'd say that they have the duty to oppose the government, if they think the government is wrong. I (and others) may think they're mistaken, or even that they're a pack of fucking mental retards, but that's our right. It doesn't interfere with their right. See how that works?

I'm reluctant to use this term, since the idiotarian left applies it indiscriminately to anyone who disagrees with them on any subject whasoever, but the Sun's position can only be described as fascist, and the Sun's characterization of anyone who's opposed to the war as a "traitor" is just as slimy as the antiwar movement's adoption of the "chickenhawk" term (see post below).

I'm not really familiar with the New York Sun, I have to say. Out here in the hinterlands the only New York papers that show up on our radar are the Times and (if a dingo eats someone's baby or something) the Post. All I know about the Sun is the name, but I suspect that today Virginia's dad would say, "If you see it in the Sun, it's fascist propaganda".

via InstaPundit

Good God. CNN is airing a "rebuttal" to the Michael Jackson interview, featuring the aptly-surnamed Gloria Allred. Dueling sleazeballs. Wonderful.

Why the FUCK do they trot out that ignorant harridan when they want commentary on children or families? In a sane world, Allred wouldn't be getting paid to comment in any public forum, except perhaps Man-Hating Dyke magazine.

In regard to Michael's claim to be "Peter Pan": Was anyone else imagining Jacko in a steel cage match with this guy to settle which one is the "real" Peter? (<ominous voice> there can be only one </ominous voice> ) Now that I'd pay to see. Would the tactics include slapping? Hair-pulling? Running chainsaws? We can only speculate.

Anyone else as boggled as I by this "chickenhawk" idiocy? What are these people saying? That decisions about whether or not to go to war can only be made by the military? I really don't think that's what they're advocating. There's a name for that form of government. It's called a military junta.

Also, the term appears to rely on an (unstated) assumption that the men and women in our armed forces are reluctant to go when called. Of course, that's simply not the case. Every single member of our military is a volunteer. While it's not likely that any of them are looking forward to a war, when (not if) one does break out they'll do their duty and do it with honor and professionalism.
It's not just stupid to use this term; there are other risks. You might encounter, oh, I don't know, a guy with a hypothetical birth defect, such as atrophy of a major muscle, who thus wasn't eligible for military service. Let's suppose, too, that many of his friends and relatives, by birth and marriage, did join the military. It could also be that this guy might've learned to compensate so well that 90% of the people he knows don't even know that anything is wrong with him.

Now envision calling this hypothetical fellow a "chickenhawk" to his face.

Does your mental picture involve this fictional character kicking your fucking ribs in with a pair of size 11 steel-toed boots? Good.