Conservatives can (and should) fight like Liberals

Brendan Miniter's piece in the Wall Street Journal online brings up a topic I have admittedly mixeed feelings about. The rules of political discourse have changed. The media deals in "soundbites": terse and shrill, they are designed to make the biggest point with the fewest words (not my forte, I know). Soundbites have evolved, or devolved IMO, into the verbal equivalent of smashmouth football. Execution of ones politcal opponents should be swift, powerful and certain to cause maximum damage.

Many Democrats believe this era began with the persecution of President Clinton, and its' progenitors were Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Granted, the Far Right did jump all over Clinton. But let's be honest: it isn't as if Clinton didn't open the door and invite them in. The Democrats gave it back as good as they got it, so no one comes out clean when looking back on the 1990's and the "politics of personal destruction". Americans have a long tradition of enjoying political sport. With the advent of terrorism, however, the stakes have been raised, and our tolerance for political sport is dwindling. Personal attacks, or character assassinations, are acceptable amusements available to the power class in times of plenty. Should they be acceptable in times like ours?

One of my complaints about the Bush administration is that they don't argue their point very well. Lacking skills in persuasion and P.R., they allow their opponents to frame the argument, and this has damaged their ability to convince the American public to stay the course in Iraq. I'd like to see them communicate their position clearly and forcefully. I'm just not sure I want them to come out swinging. To me, mean-spirited political discourse is the handmaiden of The Left (*I know this statement could go both ways. I'm merely expressing my opinion*), and I hate the thought of stopping to their level.

Evolving Tactics: Conservatives learn to fight like liberals.

Christopher Hitchens on Cindy Sheehan & A.M.A.

From last week comes Christopher Hitchens' assessment of "Gold Star Mom" Cindy Sheehan, courtesy of Slate. A.M.A., if you are unfamiliar, isn't the American Medical Association. Our newest acronym comes via lush extradinaire, Maureen Dowd, who unilaterally conferred upon Mother Sheehan "Absolute Moral Authority" by dint of having lost a child in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think MoDo would have been quite as generous had the Mom been a continued supporter of the war in which her son had given his life.

In his essay, Hitchens conveys why summary judgments such as Dowd's are off the mark, and the danger of painting people with too broad a brush. The killer paragraph, as only Hitch can write 'em:

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions (ed.: that of Dowd & Sheehan's supporters) can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

In my mind, Christopher Hitchens is the only person who can write the expression "I dare say" and not sound like a pufftah.

Can long-term addicts truly be rehabilitated?

Quite frankly, I don't think so. It's entirely unrealistic to think that long-term substance abusers/adicts can be rehabilitated. Anyone who makes a lifestyle out of alcohol, drugs, or other self-abusive behaviors is an addict, and many if not most addicts move on to something else once they have stopped using. People who know addicts know what I mean. Too often they can tell therapists, the court, the friends and family exactly what they want or need to hear.

Addicts should be judged on their actions, not their words.

Which brings me to the "inspiration" for my post: Courtney Love.

Tearful Courtney Love ordered into rehab facility

A judge ordered a tearful Courtney Love into an in-patient substance abuse facility on Friday after the troubled rock singer admitted to violating the terms of her probation by using drugs.

Love broke down in quiet sobs as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rand Rubin warned that he was prepared to send her to jail because he felt she needed "to hit rock bottom" before she was ready to overcome her drug addiction.

But Rubin said the performer's lawyers persuaded him to give her one more chance to avoid incarceration by placing her immediately into a "chemical dependency center."

"I'm convinced that you need either a long-term (treatment) program or a long-term stay in the county jail," Rubin said.

Forgive me for my lack of pity for the addict/victim, but hasn't Courtney had enough chances?

Granted, Courtney Love can afford to pay for her own rehab. But what about those men and women who are given as many chances as she? Each chance an indication of prior failure, I might add. Is it right that the city, county or state government should pay for repeated incidences of willful failure to abide by sobriety?

I feel the same way about the meth addicts profiled in the 8th August 2005 Newsweek cover story America's Most Dangerous Drug. The human toll of this drug is clearly illustrated in this anecdote about a suburban Chicago mom:

Kimberly (Fields) tried drug rehab but failed, and she couldn't care for her children, according to divorce papers filed by her husband, who moved out last year. She was arrested three times for shoplifting—most recently, police say, for allegedly stealing over-the-counter cold pills containing pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient used in making meth. By the time cops came banging on her door with a search warrant on June 1, Kimberly, now 37, had turned her slice of suburbia into a meth lab, prosecutors allege, with the help of a man she'd met eight months earlier in an Indiana bar, Shawn Myers, 32.

Fields, the article goes on to mention, lived with her two young children in her home-turned-methlab, and lest I go off on a tangent about what sort of scumbag would expose their children to meth's known proclivity for spontaneous explosion, I'm going to focus on what I saw as the article's *largely ignored* revelation: the fact that Kimberly Fields and every other current or former meth addict profiled had already failed at rehab, many numerous times. Combine this with the unprecedented number of people requiring advanced life support and plastic surgery due to their careless handling of the drug during it's "cooking" process.

The print issue details how many areas are having trouble coping with the financial burden these accidents create, and venerable institutions like Vanderbilt University's Burn Center are finding themselves unable to collect from Medicaid the full cost of treating meth-related burn injuries. Lesser institutions are considering closing down their burn units, as they are going broke. What this means for a child burned in a house fire is clear: the "critical hour" (during which a person might, receiving treatment in 60 minutes, have a chance of surviving traumatic injury) becomes "hours". With the local burn unit closed down, that critically-burned child will likely die. All because habitual drug abusers choose to use, no matter the risks.

Is it time to start talking about whether or not we begin to say "No more?" I think so.

What issue will be the undoing of Tony Blair?

Iain Murray: "Europe Adds Headache to Blair's Post-Election Hangover"

I like Tony Blair. He's young, bright, earnest and articulate in ways many of us hoped the younger "new guard" within the Clinton administration would be. I also feel oddly indebted to him: his support of the United States in our efforts to dismantle terrorism and prevent another September 11th is not to be dismissed as political opportunism. He's paid a price for his standing fast with the United States, and as an American I want somehow to reward that loyalty. But I'll be damned if he doesn't make me crazy - not sometimes, but most of the time.

I could talk about the appalling lack of foresight towards the rising immigration problem, and Britain's partiality towards Muslims. His patently silly belief in the value of the EU and it's revolting Socialist Manifesto/Constitution defies explanation. Same goes for the degree to which Britons are taxed: just because the exchange rate is skewed towards the dynamic Pound Sterling does not mean that Britons have more money than they could possibly spend at home. Housing prices are on the verge of collapse: they question is "when" not "if" Britons will find themselves owing more to the lending society than their home is actually worth. Each of these issues was put to the public on 5 May, and the public has made their choice.

None of these points bother me nearly as much as his continued devotion to pseudoscience. In making the defining issue of his G8 Chairmanship the legitimization of further ratification of "The Kyoto Protocol", Blair has decided that he wants to be the Euro Al Gore. It boggles my brain.

Enough, however, of my rant: read Iain Murray's piece about how Blair's Euro-Kyoto affectations may in fact be his undoing, not his partnership with George Bush. He's says it far more aptly than I.

Kyoto and it's undoing of the EU

Iain Murray: "Europe Adds Headache to Blair's Post-Election Hangover"

I like Tony Blair. He's young, bright, earnest and articulate in ways many of us hoped the younger "new guard" within the Clinton administration would be. I also feel oddly indebted to him: his support of the United States in our efforts to dismantle terrorism and prevent another September 11th is not to be dismissed as political opportunism. He's paid a price for his standing fast with the United States, and as an American I want somehow to reward that loyalty. But I'll be damned if he doesn't make me crazy - not sometimes, but most of the time.

I could talk about the appalling lack of foresight towards the rising immigration problem, and Britain's partiality towards Muslims. Same goes for the degree to which Britons are taxed: just because the exchange rate is skewed towards the dynamic Pound Sterling does not mean that Britons have more money than they could possibly spend at home. His niaive belief in the value of the EU and it's revolting Socialist Manifesto/Constitution defies explanation. Housing prices are on the verge of collapse: they question is "when" not "if" Britons will find themselves owing more to the lending society than their home is actually worth. Each of these issues was put to the public on 5 May, and the public has made their choice.

None of these points bother me nearly as much as his continued devotion to pseudoscience. In making the defining issue of his G8 Chairmanship the legitimization of further ratification of "The Kyoto Protocol", Blair has decided that he wants to be the Euro Al Gore. It boggles my brain.

Enough, however, of my rant: read Iain Murray's piece about how Blair's Euro-Kyoto affectations may in fact be his undoing, not his partnership with George Bush. He's says it far more aptly than I.

"Dave Matthews Apologizes" for $100, Alex ...

Correct Response: "What was the tour bus dump onto a Chicago River architectural boat cruise!"

Snarky 'Daily Double' Response: "What is his band's music!"

Terry Armour: Band is Sorry for the Mess

Dave Matthews finally comes clean.

In his first public comments since his tour bus driver dumped 800 pounds of raw sewage onto a sightseeing boat on the Chicago River last August, Matthews apologized to fans and to the city during an interview on WXRT-FM 93.1 Tuesday.

"We're just so embarrassed and we're truly, truly sorry about what happened in Chicago," Matthews told WXRT's Bobby Skafish. "We will keep doing things to try to help keep that river clean . . . we want to do our best to turn this thing around."

Last week, the eco-friendly band agreed to pay $200,000 and to keep a log of when and where its tour buses empty their septic tanks to settle a suit. The settlement followed last month's guilty plea by bus driver Stefan Wohl to charges of reckless conduct and discharging contaminants to cause water pollution.

One for the "Perpetuating the Stereotype" files

Yes, I am familiar with Pvt. Jessica Lynch. I have great respect for women
like Specialist Shoshanna Johnson, one of the 1st female Iraq POW's. They are a tribute to the kind of women we want fighting alongside (if not on the frontlines) the men of our Armed Forces. It must be said, however, the I have always had a great deal of reservations about women in combat.

It's not the idea that we are the "weaker sex". It's not that we aren't capable of heroism and sacrifice. It's just that we can make such asses of our selves, with little or no help from "the guys". After all, it's not unusual outside of wartime to read newspaper accounts of drill sergeants who sleep with their recruits. It is also not unusual to have several enlisted female Navy personnel return from extended tours-of-duty pregnant by one of their shipmates. In the case of the drill sergeant, the enlisted women said that they slept with him not out of romantic interest, but as a means of obtaining favors and being able to opt out of some of the more rigorous requirements of basic training.

All too often it seems that women act less like Shoshanna Johnson, and more like lazy, juvenile opportunists.

Case in point: The Sun's headliner. US girls' muddy shame.

American girl soldiers have been shamed in a mud-wrestling scandal.

Photographs taken by colleagues showed them grappling and exposing their boobs at a party in an Iraqi PRISON.

Some of the 30 pictures reveal male soldiers cheering on two women in bras and panties in a mud-filled paddling pool.

In others, military policewomen bared their breasts or flashed thongs for male comrades with cameras.

Investigators probing a breakdown of discipline at the US Army’s Camp Bucca jail were told sergeants also lent their rooms to squaddies for sex.

Ironically, the soldiers had been assigned to guard Iraqi inmates being transferred there from scandal-hit Abu Ghraib jail.

Blonde prison guard Specialist Deanna Allen, 19, was demoted to private after being pictured grinning as she flashed her boobs.

Most of the soldiers pictured in the audience wear T-shirts emblazoned with Army logos, but at least one appears on snaps in full uniform.

The morning news shows were -- of course! -- practically twitching over the story this morning, showing a slew of pictures (including a blurred shot of the aforementioned Pvt. Allen doing her best 'Girls Gone Wild' impersonation).

To Pvt. Allen: I "get" that blowing off steam is a necessary part of the process of coping in a war-time environment. But do you have to make yourself the star of a burlesque revue? How is this appropriate behavior for a soldier ... any soldier? And when are you going to realize that that you represent all women in the military, who must now work far harder than the requisite "110 %" in order to earn our respect?

Pvt. Allen's demotion is sure to be decried by so-called feminist groups, but isn't equal rights concurrent with equal responsibility, and thus equal consequence?

If not, it certainly should be, so as to not sully the reputations of enlisted women, who follow the code and conduct themselves with courage, self-awareness and battle-tested skill.

Dems' Cynicism in the Face of Democracy's Triumph

NY Post: Democrats' Depressing Denial

In this morning's online edition of the Post, the editors rightfully take Sens. Kerry & Kennedy to task for their openly cynical (if not outright derrogatory) attitude toward the Iraqi elections. In so doing, not only are they pandering to the lunatic fringe of the party, they deny the courage and commitment of the Iraqi people to exercise their newfound right to vote, and their joy in doing something we Americans take for granted. I'd like to see Massachusettes voters come out to vote if mortar fire, suicide bombs and Al Qaeda terrorists might be waiting for them outside the local public school or police station.

"Kerry, in his first broadcast interview since losing last November, suggested that there was something illegitimate about the election because the turnout in some areas wasn't even larger.

And, he warned, "no one in the United States should overhype this election."

Which makes you wonder just what — short of the kind of craven U.S. bugout he prescribed for Vietnam — Kerry would deem an important development.

After all, the point of the war was to begin pushing the Arab Middle East out of its dead-end rut of tyranny and the export of terror. And Iraqis made a huge step forward in that regard Sunday — in an election that many on the left predicted (and, no doubt, privately hoped) would be a failure.

Kennedy, meanwhile, stuck by his pre-election demand for immediate U.S. withdrawal — and even refused to term the voting a success, saying Bush "must look beyond the election" and "demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term design on their country."

Even after the most significant political development in Iraq since the invasion, Kerry and Kennedy couldn't summon the grace to acknowledge progress.

Millions of Iraqis, many at grave personal risk, turned out to vote. That is, a clear majority of the Iraqi people on Sunday endorsed America's vision of their future — and in so doing sanctified the sacrifices so many young Americans have made on their behalf.

This was a stunning repudiation of the terrorists — and a signal moment in the eternal quest for human freedom. The Kerry-Kennedy failure to recognize that illustrates their personal moral myopia — while the Democratic Party's failure to celebrate it demonstrates its institutional lack of ethical bearings.

Day-uhm! Well said.

Oh, this is just too funny!

Well, at least it is to me. You see, I don't think much of people who can't enjoy a night out (whether at the local or a nightclub) without snorting a line. From Britain's Sky News comes the most amusing story 've seen in quite a while:

WD-40 USED TO FIGHT COKE

"A new weapon is being launched in the war on drugs - WD-40.

The household lubricant, usually used for such challenges as loosening rusty screws or stopping creaky doors, is being deployed by pubs and clubs. They are spraying it onto lavatory cistern tops to stop punters going into the toilets to snort a line of cocaine.

The oil-based, colourless WD-40, disssolves cocaine so when the user spreads it on a surface that has been sprayed, the drug turns into a mush and is unusable. If the taker does try to snort it and it gets up the nostril they will end up with a bad nose bleed.

The use of WD-40 is the brainchild of PC Graham Pease, a liquor licensing officer, who first launched the idea in Bristol. He said: "When the drug comes into contact with the WD-40 it becomes unusable. "It congeals into a mess then semi-dissolves and prevents it being sniffed."

Carl Brown, landlord of the Mailcoach Inn, Swindon, said: "It makes the blood vessels in the nose bleed; at first I found tissues and pools of blood. It's proving very effective."

Ingenious, innovative & cheap. You gotta love it!

Good timing, Mr. Environmental Editor

Just as Al Gore chose New York City's coldest day in decades to deliver his fire & brimstone Global Warming diatribe (at a moveon.org environmental conference last year), The Independent has chosen to sound its' own eco-alarm nearly one year from the day when Al Gore's base realized he was certifiably insane (speaking in tounges tends to do that to us secular folks). As to the logic of environmental editor Michael McCarthy playing Cassandra on the heels of record snowfalls both in the UK (last week) and the US (this past weekend), let's just say the envirophants are their own worst enemy:

Countdown to global catastrophe

"[The report] breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

Unfortunately, the article divulges that one of the champions of the report is none other then Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), a RINO (Republican In Name Only) of the first order, as well as the UN. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Ah well, perhaps she can still be 'saved': Sen. Snowe is now on my list to receive a copy of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, courtesy of courtesy of Amazon.com

A little common sense can do a girl a world of good!

The Chairman of Nokia wishes to return to the cooperative days of his youth ...

The Chairman of Nokia, the mobile phone giant, is criticizing The West, citing a direct link between conservatism and the so-called "individualism" threatening to disintegrate community values. Of course, the United States comes in for the major portion of Jorma Ollila's disdain:

"What I'm worried about is that if this disintegration of values continues and develops further, we'll get a conservative counter-reaction precisely like what has actually happened in the USA," he said.

"This ultraconservatism, coupled with the elements of the church ... which, as we well know, has also supported the current (U.S.) administration, is a powerful counter-reaction to a longtime vacuum of values in society," Ollila said.

Come again? The U.S., and our President, has been roundly criticized by the Catholic Church, which has called the Iraq situation and unjust and immoral war. The Presbyterian church has chosen to divest itself of all Israeli investments, citing the U.S. and Isreal as the true villians in a "war" against the Palestinians. I don't know what "Church" he's talking about, as it doesn't exist. And BTW, Jorma, one of the things we must realize as we become adults is that the ideals of our childhood were contructs our parents created in order to protect us. Childlike ignorance is bliss, they believed, and in time we would be ready to face the realities, often harsh, of life. To continue to yearn for them far into one's adulthood is a bit naive, n'ect-ce pas? Obviously, the adult world hasn't been too rough for you, and you can thank the U.S. for the fact that Finland is a free nation able to capitalize on its' technological prowess.

From the "Yeah ... Right!" files

Say this along with me in your best Elmer Fudd impression:

"Poo wittle Senat-uh Barbara Box-uh"

According to The Washington Times' headline Sen. Boxer takes victim role after hearing for Rice, the B*tch from Berkeley is claiming, in essence, that "Condi started it!" Behavior like this is so petty, so unbecoming of a person of her stature, that I am completely at a loss to explain her continued presence in Congress.

Can any Californians explain to me what qualities this shrill woman brings to the Senate that you would continue to elect her again, and again, and again? Because, like the people of Massachusettes who elect anyone with name Kennedy, you're beginning to get on the rests of the country's nerves. Could you at least think before you vote?

Oh What a Circus! Oh What a Farce ...

"Oh what a circus, oh what a show
The Beltway has gone to town
Over the rise of a woman named Condoleezza Rice
They've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over themselves, to get all of the misery right!"

You'll have to forgive my bastardization of the song sung by Che, the protagonist anti-hero of Lloyd-Webber's "Evita". I'm feeling more than a bit peckish after the display in Senate chambers yesterday.

It is with true sadness that I continue to see the Democratic Party attempt to define what it means to be black, and move to punish those who don't adhere. The 'Festival of Lies' that has been the Senate Confirmation of Dr. Condoleezza Rice is a shameful, racist episode, one that is is especially troubling when one considers that just two days ago we were celebrating the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I do not profess to know what political affiliation Dr. King would hold if he were still alive today, but I do believe he would be horrified by the social and political bigotry Dr. Rice has bravely faced this past week.

When Dr. King spoke of being judged by the content of one's character, he was speaking directly to those who would seek to impose on black men and women what qualities of thought, word or action they could possess. In the actions of his life he sought to expand the opportunities of his 'sons and daughters'; to give them the chance to succeed or fail based on their own efforts; to allow them the breadth of experiences and associations that, until then, were the privilege of the white majority.

Whether or not one agrees with Dr. Rice's neoconservative political slant (and I will admit that I do), she is inarguably the living fulfillment of Dr. King's dream. The America of today is a meritocracy, and Dr. Rice's ascension confirms this fact. She is almost unfathomably bright. She is appreciated by the President for speaking her mind. She is respected for the discernment of her mind, and she ably manages crises during a time of extreme political and socioeconomic uncertainty. Each of these qualities is remarkable, and Dr. Rice is being granted the ultimate reward for her loyalty and service. She will be the first black female Secretary of State, the person whom Kings, Prime Ministers and Presidents the world over will receive in the grandest palaces and statehouses the world over. It is a remarkable moment in our country's civil rights movement, one that is being stripped of its' significance by those who claim to hold civil rights paramount.

Rather than celebrating the heights to which a black woman, the daughter of sharecroppers, has risen, so-called civil-rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and the NAACP have criticized Dr. Rice for her lack of liberal points of view. Democratic political leaders such as Senator John Kerry - MASS and Senator Barbara Boxer - CA castigate Dr. Rice as an obfuscator, a turncoat, a liar. Sen. Kerry, as you may recall, spoke during his campaign of his desire to be the "Second black President". Amazing.

The point of these Senate hearings is to query a nominee on his or her positions, and to discern the direction in which said nominee intends to deal with the US's unique foreign policy challenges. It is right and it is proper that any nominee, woman or no, minority or no, be made to sit for questions from our elected officials.

Yesterday's antics, however, were engaged towards no such goal.

Kerry and Boxer, having divested themselves of their responsibilities at the hearing chamber's door, played more for the edification of bitter Democrats than to determine how Dr. Rice may act once she is Secretary of State. Yesterday's dog-and-pony show illustrated the petty, malicious games career Liberal obstructionists will stoop to in order to strike at President Bush, and any black man or woman disloyal enough to think for themselves and ally themselves with a conservative political philiosphy. What we witnessed yesterday was Kerry and Boxer participating in the most condescending form of racism: you will think like we tell you to, or you will be treated as one underserving of dignity and respect.

Blast! I wish I could write like Mark Steyn ...

Steyn is the British expat living in Toronto whose 'wit of write' makes the average columnist read like a fifth-grade grammar student. In today's column for the Telegraph he exposes the chattering journo-boobs who are piling on Prince Harry (of whom I hardly approve) for making the witheringly stupid decision to wear a swastika-emblazoned version of Rommel's desert kit.

While I think the young royal is simply reflecting the nascent anti-semitism inherent in the "Hooray Henry" contingent that constitute his circle of friends, the swiftness to which his detractors engaged in condemning him reveals far more about the lack of perspective, let alone history, the supposedly well-educated have made about this essentially teenage boy. Of course, he does it with far better humor and panache than I ever could:

"It's a good rule of thumb that, no matter how big an idiot someone is, he can never compete with the political class's response to his idiocy. Thus, whatever feelings of unease I might have had about Prince Hitler were swept away the moment the rent-a-quote humbugs started lining up to denounce him.

I say to Harry: you go, girlfriend, you Reichstone Cowboy you. It's uniforms night at my pad every Thursday and you're more than welcome, Your Royal Heilness."

Unlike many Democrats, I'll assume you have a healthy sense of irony and will 'get' that Steyn's having fun. The meat of the column comes a moment later:

"The French sports minister suggested the 'scandal' would undermine Britain's bid to host the Olympics. Londoners should be so lucky.

But, if I understand the concern of the sporting world correctly, being a totalitarian state that's killed millions is no obstacle to hosting the Olympics, but going to a costume party wearing the uniform of a defunct totalitarian state that's no longer around to kill millions is completely unacceptable."

Ouch. Read it all, but if you lack humor I'd suggest doing so with a tincture of topical iodine at the ready as Steyn's words sting.

Kudos to Essence magazine ...

Stanley Crouch: "At last, women lash out at hip hop's abuses"

Stanley Crouch, the NY Daily News' music and cultural critic, focuses on the campaign Essence is fighting Hip Hop's continued degradation of women, and the effect gangsta and pimp-centered rap has had on the self-image of young black women and girls. The campaign, as Crouch in no way exagerates, "could have monumental cultural significance", and it is unfortunate that Essence, in a period where more mainstream magazines than ever before are catering to affluent black men and women, appears to be waging this campaign alone.

The magazine is the first powerful presence in the black media with the courage to examine the cultural pollution that is too often excused because of the wealth it brings to knuckleheads and amoral executives.

This anything-goes-if-sells attitude comes at a cost. The elevation of pimps and pimp attitudes creates a sadomasochistic relationship with female fans. They support a popular idiom that consistently showers them with contempt. We are in a crisis, and Essence knows it.

When asked how the magazine decided to take a stand, the editor, Diane Weathers said, "We started looking at the media war on young girls, the hypersexualization that keeps pushing them in sexual directions at younger and younger ages."

I enjoy a lot of Hip Hope music, but I hate the videos. Same old bimbos in thong bikins peeling grapes for low-life thugs. Outkast has moved further away from these images in video, but Andre 3000's CD artwork (as well as his lyrics) can pretty erotic. But misogynistsic? No way.

Their stance is a far cry from much of gansta rap, and it would serve Hip Hop well to dissociate itself from those who would produce the likes of "Bitch Better Have My Money" and "I'm Gonna Beat That Bitch with a Bat".

For FastEddie_Felson: a belated response

For those of you who aren't coming over to my humble blog from Gaijin Biker, a short synopsis of the debate I have been in with FastEddie. We got into a discussion (click on the Gaijin Biker link above) about whether or not the concept of torture can be applied to the conduct of U.S. armed forces and secuity personnel in Iraq, specifically Abu Ghraib. Among his arguments were the following points:

"Looking from the perspective of you and I who love our country, we should be unhappy when the principles of moral correctness that the U.S. stands for is disregarded. The psychological damage done to the Iraqi people, and what is trying to be accomplished in Iraq seems to have been high. I think it would have been much better if those pictures never came out, but what was happening stopped and those responsible punished.

Do you allow for bending of your morals for what ever cause you support? I can not and that was the point of my last posted comment. I can not excuse what happened to those prisoners by saying it was "overblown" and these things happen during wartime.

I hate the murder of innocents, such as the beheadings the insurgents have used to incite fear. Because the insurgents are dirty and evil we are allowed to lower our ideals too?

The torture of the prisoners was not beheadings, but it was not what I believe the U.S. stands for, it was evil.

I am not naive to believe that atrocities do not happen during war. War is defined by atrocities, hence my distaste. I can’t defend insurgents killing innocent people; I can’t defend torture of Iraqis or Afghanistanis, innocent or prisoners of war by American guards."

Good points all. I'm also guilty of not having checked my comments for the previous posting here at Langtry, so I feel honor-bound to feature, if you will, my response in its' own blog entry. I'll start with a tidbit of my response to FastEddie's note:

"Fast Eddie: To be perfectly frank with you, I do not understand the fetishization of Abu Ghraib, and I will not classify what took place there as torture. Humiliation, without a doubt: but torture? Only in a post-modern world where words no longer have any meaning would making state-sponsored rapists and murderers "feel like women" (a quote from one of those "tortured" as to what was the most horrifying aspect of having been an inmate at Abu Ghraib) qualify as torture. Let me also say that I believe you are sincere.

I know it disturbs you that we can't fight a war as the moral people we hold ourselves up to be: my response to you is to be realistic about the morals of those whom we are up against.

As I said before, I'll own that I possess a double-standard when it comes to the broad-based definition of torure that FastEddie advocates. My definition is more precise in that I don't include huimiliation as a constituent component of the concept of torture. Torture is having metal files pushed under your fingernails. Torture is having your arms tied together behind your back and being hung by same from a hook in the cieling, as was done to Sen. John McCain during his years as a P.O.W. in Viet Nam. Torture is having to witness your wife or daughter being raped, because you didn't respond to questions quickly enough. Torture is having your body crammed inside a crudely constructed (yet terribly effective ) "Iron Maiden" for the offense of having missed a goal in a soccer/football game. Torture is being paraded into a room in a large warehouse for the express purpose of seeing one of your friends fed, slowly, into an industrial shredding machine.

The last two atrocities I noted above were, in fact, committed by Sadam Hussein's son Uday, and members of the Fedayeen Sadam, in that order. The inmates being held at Abu Ghraib were, by and large, members of the Fedayeen Sadam, nefarious men who terrorized anyone who didn't have the priviledge of being among Sadam's Sunni minority, and who held all of the power in the government and society we (the U.S.) recently abolished. These were not poor saps who were forced at gunpoint to march with Saddam's militias and serve as frontline canon fodder. The inmates at Abu Ghraib were sadists, rapists, child molesters, grifters, "knee-cappers", and murderers. I'll gladly admit to a double-standard when it comes to acts of humiliation such creatures are be subjected to upon apprehension.

I say humiliation, FastEddie, because I do not yet know of any credible reports of soddomy, dog attack, electrocution, murder, and other incidents of terror having been committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib. You may be more up-to-date than me: as of this moment it still appears to be at the "He Said/She Said" phase, and I am more apt to believe our guys than Saddam's. More time needs to be allowed for an objective, and comprehensive, investigation of the allegations. Until I have more credible information, I'm sticking to my guns (I know, bad choice of words, lol).

Is this to say I support the likes of Lyndie England and her co-horts? Absolutely not. Those asshats, in an ideal world, would have been recognized as head cases and underachievers and discharged from the military before being shipped out to Iraq. As it stands, we needed the manpower, and their true natures would not be known until the publication of the pictures those mental midgets managed to take of themselves, let alone distribute to family and friends. I hope they spend many years in prison, as they have tainted the achievements of their more dedictated compatriots.

Getting back to the issue of whether or not the case of Abu Ghraib is synonymous with torture, I just can't equate humiliation with what I understand to be the true nature and scope of the act. In the New York Times article that broke the this story, what I remember most from the article was the admission, by many of the detainees quoted, that the worst aspect of what they endured at Abu Ghraib was not having wires attached to their scrotums, or being forced to pose for naked cheerleader-style pictures. It was being (for the first time in their lives) in an inferior postition of power and having no control over their situation. It was, as one inmate put it, "being made to feel like a woman." In other words, they felt psychic pain over being powerless, and having no recognized rights or privileges. That's not torture. That's justice.

I'm not making this point to be a smartass, although it first blush it might appear that way. I appreciate the fact, FastEddie, that you want the U.S. held to a higher standard, one that we, as a nation, profess to hold. As I said before, I believe that making a determination about whether or not what we currently know to have occurred at Abu Ghraib constitutes torture, we have to look closely at those making the accusations. In doing so, we may find that our concept of morality becomes more fluid, more Machiavellian, especially when the concept of morality is being defined by those whom are wholely unfamiliar with the concept.

These men are not, in my opinion, credible witnesses. In the twisted world they live in, being humiliated is the worst kind of offense, and therefore their braying is likely to be loud and lasting. They are experts at playing to the vast wellspring of inferiority the Arab world feels when they are compared to their Western counterparts, and adept at using our moral standards against us. They hate women, they believe Jews are at the root of a conspiracy to rob them of their rightful place in the world, and they are quite adept at using the superior morality of Western nations to undermine us. They are not like the enemies we have faced in the past. Therefore, we cannot presume that they hold the same values we do, or that they define torture in the same way we do. You can be sure, however, that they will exploit our moral "failings" in the court of public opinion, whether or not they believe in the veracity of their assertions. This is realpolitik and it's most cynical manifestation, and we cannot afford to back down in its' face.

It has been shown, long before September 11th, that radical Islamic extremists do not value life, and that they abhor achievement, especially the sort gained through sustained effort. They would rather their children grow up to wage jihad than study medicine, or law, or education. They are a culture whose well has been poisoned for decades; not at the hands of despotic Western powers, but rather their own so-called "Leaders", who would rather wage terror for their own personal gain than work towards peace and prosperity. Radical Islam is a different enemy, and our standards must change in acknowledgement of this fact. I wish we could be more moral in fighting this enemy, but adherence to such standards may hurt us more than if we adapt, and use the standards our enemies against them. This may involve doing some things that feel foreign, and quite possibly immoral: however, they must be done.

But for the lipstick on my teeth, I like this picture! 

Curiouser and curiouser ...

The story about Sandy Berger "inadvertently" removing classified documents from their files during his preparations for his appearance before the 9/11 Commission is getting really weird.  Berger, Bill Clinton's former chief of the National Security Agency (NSA), claims that his souvenir taking was limited merely to his hand-written notes, along with  documents that he accidentally packed away in his binder. 
 
Perhaps this is indeed more innocent than it would appear, as former Republican strategist and one-time Clinton Adviser David Gergen asserts.  Perhaps.  But do you know anyone who "inadvertently" misplaces classified papers in their suit jacket, pants and socks? 
 
Neither do I.
 
Federal probe targets Clinton's national security adviser
 

"In a statement, Berger acknowledged that he removed his handwritten notes without first having them reviewed for sensitive information, and he also said he "inadvertently" removed some of the classified documents he had reviewed during his time at the Archives.  National Archives' policy requires that if someone reviews classified documents and wants to take their handwritten notes with them, those notes must first be cleared by archivists. 
 
In his statement, Berger said that "when I was informed by the Archives there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had, except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," he said.

Fox News Online includes this critical tidbit:

"Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio."
 
In the world I live in, that last statement is called Bulls$*t.  How do you knowingly place papers in your pants while inadvertently taking evidenciary papers in your portfolio?  It's clear to me that Berger wants to have it both ways, and with the precedent set for him by his former boss, I'm not surprised to see a reappearance of such bald-faced equivocation.
 
 
 
 
 
 

This is an issue I hoped not to have to discuss on this blog ...

but Rosie O'Donnell has forced my hand.

Anyone who reads this blog with any regularity knows that I consider the War on Terrorism to be the preeminent issue of our time. In fact, if we fail against our enemies, it makes all other issues moot. Especially the issue of Gay Marriage.

Sorry if this offends my gay friends. I am not making a judgement about your commitment to your significant others, but rather the extreme insensibility of focusing on this non-issue, and demanding the same level of focus from our political leaders, when there is a struggle for the survival of our country, our civilization taking place. If you cannot see how, should the Islamist way of life prevail, there will be no possibility of your living your lives as homosexuals, let alone marrying your partner, then there is no sense in paying you any attention. Your assertions to the contrary speak of narcissism in its' worst possible form, and those who would capitulate to your demands are ambitious narcissists who do so only to gain your vote.

So what, you ask, did Rosie O'Donnell do?

Rosie Takes Shot At Bush During Gay-Friendly Cruise

On a chartered "Gay Cruise" to Key West, O'Donnell castigated the Bush Administration:

"O'Donnell, who is a strong advocate of gay marriage and adoption, railed against President George W. Bush and the administration, according to the report.

"It will be the first time, except for prohibition, that bigotry has been added to the Constitution," O'Donnell said. "That the prevention of rights and exclusion of rights takes paramount over some religious ideology. And, supposedly, that is what we are fighting in Iraq -- A religious extreme government that is not letting people live freely."

I got news for you, Rosie: Any country where you and 2,000 others like you can charter a ship and cruise with your families in the Caribbean IS NOT beholden to a religious ideology. Any country where you, and your partner, can live a as a family IS NOT extremist in nature. A government that allows you to flourish as an entertainer, a celebrity and a capitalist while persuing a secular life free of any religious affiliation IS NOT a theocracy.

Yes, the Bush Administration supports an ammendment to ban gay marriage. They have their reasons for doing so, and I will admit that it would be much more prudent for them to ignore the sentiment of the "Religious Right" at this time. It's an election year, however, and both sides of the political spectrum in this country are seeking to solidify their traditional bases. Get over it.

In the meantime, your political panderers of choice, John Kerry and John Edwards, are busy trying to make you think that they will speak up on your behalf: "Where Bush seeks to deny, we will provide," if you will. Perhaps they will do a better job at promoting your particular interests. I just happen to think it's unfortunate that you put your own unique interests above the interests of our country and its' survival, which is the point of my screed. Far be it for some gays to stand united with everyone in protecting our country from harm and preventing another 9/11.

No, your largely manufactured issue of discrimination against gays is so much more important than a little thing like that.

P.S.: Prohibition banned the posession and sale of alcoholic beverages. It had nothing to do with discrimination.

Kerry/Edwards: 60's Narcissism Comes to Friution

My father was born just before the "Baby Boomer" era, as was my mother. Eminently sensible they continue to be, while most "Baby Boomers" seem devoted to being anything but. Why bother? Sensibility means considering others as well as yourself, and that just gets in the way of relating everything to one's self - the "Baby Boomer" obsession.

I'm not saying every person between the ages of 45 - 60 years is self obsessed: however, a remarkable number of those men and women in that category are. "Baby Boomers" control the media (not "The Jews" as many half-wits believe), and every event is filtered through their perception of reality. Consider:

Quagmire ... Viet Nam ... The 60's ... John F. Kennedy

With all due respect, I for one am sick of everything being compared to Kennedy, Viet Nam, Peace, Make Love Not War, The Man, etcetera ad infinitum. Scores of things just as important have happened in every decade since man began to record history.

My generation has seen just as much of triumph and tragedy as yours: you hold no monopoly on moral imperative.

"Daniel Henninger" weighs in on today's most glaring example of generational dissonance: the John Kerry / John Edwards democratic ticket:

Ditto, Ditto:
Kerryedwards is the most narcissistic ticket in 55 U.S. elections.

"Another thing that is unfair to say but hard not to notice: This may be the most narcissistic ticket in 55 U.S. presidential elections. These two guys really radiate self-awareness.

The oft-seen footage of the two emerging from a car after the VP announcement looked like a ZZ Top video for "Sharp Dressed Man." John Kerry slides a hand down his already smooth tie and deftly buttons his suit jacket. John Edwards checks the flaps on his coat pockets. "Silk suit, black tie." Both of their heads are rotating like satellite dishes scanning for signals. Light is ricocheting off porcelain in every direction. Come November, these two Power Rangers may have just worn out the electorate."

We're in a battle for our civilization here, and yet that fact seems to be anything but self-evident in the Democratic Party. After all, John Kerry, the man who expects to be our next President, has made two gigantic blunders in as many days: riding a wave of flotsam and jetsam, Kerry asserted that voters consider "We've got better hair!" Couple that with his statement on last night's "Larry King Live" that he hadn't yet had time to sit for his terror briefing. His stop right after Larry King? A fundraiser where emcee Whoopie Goldberg made graphic double entendres about the current President's last name. Far be it for a child of the 60's to give up scatalogical sermons in order to focus on the greatest threat in our country's history.