I'll try to comment on this topic after work, if you're interested in reading a Greek-American's point of view.

Mostly, the commenters here have the right take on what Golden Dawn is and how the media's portrayal of them exposes their own prejudices.  Golden Dawn is National-Socialist in its philosophy, with a penchant for violence.  The media unthinkingly call them right-wing, because, well, that's what journalists do.  One thing that doesn't get mentioned about Golden Dawn is that—at least in its inception—it had some sort of neo-pagan religious philosophy, which the organization tries to play down now.  The Church of Greece has denounced the group, not only for its unorthodox spiritual views but for its use of violence and its political views and tactics.

But the video that Daniel Jeyn posts above is easy to misinterpret if you don't know what they're saying.  Golden Dawn actually gained a lot of sympathy from the Greek people after that incident.

I like the linkiness:

McCain brought us Palin; Palin brought us Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Mike Lee (inter alios).

Palin had to endorse McCain out of gratitude and loyalty, so she brought us McCain again.

But: Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Lee caused McCain to kick himself in the butt.  Graham is just a freebie.

She's brilliant!

Yes. Count me in.

By the way, notmarx and Barbara Kidder: the Miserere (Psalm 50 in the Septuagint and the Orthodox Church) is featured prominently in all the Orthodox Lenten services.  We get to hear it a lot this season, but read, not sung.

And Allegri's setting of it is beautiful.  I've sung it with an excellent English choir, and I have a few recordings of it, one of which—the album cover of it—greets me every time I open iTunes on my computer.  (It just happens to be the first album, alphabetically, in my iTunes collection.)

I'm enjoying the conversation on this topic.  If you're interested, here are a few observations from the Orthodox Christian perspective.

We haven't entered Lent yet this year, not even the three-week Triodion period which leads into Lent.  The Orthodox have no ritual of placing ashes on the head.

The Orthodox Church has detailed fasting rules.  For fasting days, the fasting diet resembles a vegan diet, though there is no philosophical connection between the two.

Fasting is considered the beginning point of conquering the passions—controlling sinful behavior.  The basic human passion is eating, and if you can't control that you'll have trouble with all the other behaviors.  Ask an athlete.

That leads me into what I guess is my main point.  I'd say that the Orthodox see fasting from food less as self-punishment and more as training towards better behavior.  The word ascetic in Greek invloves the concept of exercise.  In modern Greek still, askesis means exercise, whether it is a schoolbook exercise or an athlete's training.  I think it's healthier to see an ascetic not as someone who punishes himself, but as an athlete who's always in training.

I was thinking about this question just yesterday and concluded that the Person of the Year really was

The Low-Information Voter.

As a group, low-information voters had the most influence over the events of 2012.  They even have power over Obama and the Democrats, who must pander to them.

So my vote goes to DrewInWisconsin, who named them first on this thread.

(My hope is that Scott Walker—or someone similar—is Person of the Year 2013.)

Goodness!  Instant hand wringing whenever Rush or Levin or Hannity are brought up.  (And let us not speak of Sarah P . . . .)

I wish Thomas Sowell had their audience.  Well, he did at least twice this year when he co-hosted parts of Rush's show with Walter E. Williams.  Sowell didn't seem embarrassed of Rush.

I like 'em all, from Mamet to Levin, even the one I don't listen to (Hannity).

This video was sent to me a week ago and I still love it, even with its few imperfections.  I even wrote to the producer to tell him how much I like it.

Thanks, Melanie, for sharing it with Ricochet.

Sullivan should be asked this one question by everyone he ever meets: Why are you still in America?  The answer should destroy his credibility, but instead it allows him to think he's superior to the law and to his fellow human beings.

We should have stopped paying attention to him years ago.

What an inflated, illogical, self-absorbed, self-righteous, self-important blowhard.

Drew, I'll take pettiness like yours any day!

But tell me, how do you decide on judges, for example?  Do they declare their party affiliation on WI ballots?  They don't in California.  In fact, there are so many of them it's impossible for a normal person to keep track of who they are and what their principles are.  That's why I rely on the voter guides that rate them according to their decisions.

Θα το βρεις εδώ.

They are simply trying to cover their nakedness with a fig leaf.  And, as Barbara Kidder says above, we see this in the U.S. too.  The Southern Poverty Law Center puts a few leftist organizations on its "hate group" list so they can point to it when the SPLC is accused of being a leftist organization itself.

Likewise, the ACLU will offer to defend a conservative once in a while to cover its own nakedness.

Everyone knows that the SPLC and the ACLU are leftists—hard and aggressive leftists.  Their purpose is to destroy conservatives.

What's happening in Egypt confirms what many conservatives say about Western "Progressives" and Islamists: they share a love of authoritarianism, which they promote by perverting the legal system and the franchise.  They share the idea that they alone are the dictators of correct thought, which they promote through demagoguery and intimidation.

Archbishop Chaput is indeed courageous for saying this, and Prof. Rahe is right to say that believing Christians ought to worry about their beliefs becoming criminalized.

I suspect that Archbishop Chaput would include in his "secular leadership classes" those leaders who profess to be Christian (and may really believe are doing Christ's work) but who actually undermine Christianity—and religion in general.  Kathleen Sebelius is at the moment the most obvious example.

DocJay: let the designation "wingnut" be our badge of honor!

genferei: this is the spirit I'm talking about.  And throw in some righteous indignation for good measure.  If we could take the argument right to their front door, in substantial numbers, we might make a real impact.

First of all, I agree with Sawatdeeka's comment.  Next, listen to what many conservative commentators are saying: there is a massive effort by the media to demoralize conservatives.  They're directing a lot of bluster at us.  Make that harden your resolve to defeat the Democrats in November.  We have a difficult task, but not an impossible one.

And don't pick up a baseball bat; pick up a sign with a catchy (and mordant) slogan and protest the media at their offices and studios.  At least that's the idea I propose at my post.

(Leave a comment.  Do you think this is a viable idea?  I think the Tea Party needs to come to the rescue.)

Travis: obviously the main focus should be on New York.  But I happen to live mere minutes away from the broadcast networks' studios in Los Angeles.  I'll gladly protest there.

My problem is that I don't have the skills or knowledge or connections necessary to organize something like a protest.  My hope is that this idea is picked up by people who can organize.  They would be able to gauge whether this is a good enough idea to act on, and if so, how many places to hold protests.  If it's all over the country, great.

Thanks very much for your comment.

CoveredUp: I said nothing about camping out or pooping on police cars.  Tea Party people have responsibilities.  Instead, think of the 2009 town halls, or the very many Tea Party rallies since.  You do know they happened, right?

As for the MSM's response, they've already done their best to destroy the Tea Party's reputation and morale.  They have only raised the ire of good people and increased the number of Tea Party participants.  I think it would be perilous for them to attack the Tea Party with as much venom when the Tea Party presents them—the MSM themselves, directly—with the truth that they are bad actors operating in bad faith.

So they'll attack the "wingnuts" anyway.  As I said, if it takes some of their time and energy away from distorting the news, so much the better!