Law enforcement is a matter of convenience. Whether street crime, speeding tickets, or prosecution of corporate offenders, there are logistics which tell us that the law is enforced only if there's time, means, and motivation to enforce it.
The State of California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, is going to sue a chain of supermarket stores (Kroger, Albertson's and Safeway) for entering a pact to share profits and expenditures. Such an arrangement, says Lockyer, threatens to create price fixing, and it prevents the competitive process. Also, the pact was entered into without the consultation or consent of some 70,000 striking grocery workers.
A case of the White Knight, apparently. Lockyer to the rescue. (Or are the striking grocery workers and unions forcing him to spank the bad boy grocers?) Lockyer is already suing the grocers over failing to warn consumers about mercury levels in the fish they've sold recently.
So, we're not going to let the food industry get too high and mighty. Fuel, software, clothing, construction, or automotive corporations do what they will, be we won't have our food prices tampered with. How patriotic, Mr. Lockyer. And you have illustrious support from American socialists to boot.
While we're at it, why don't we look at the ethnic breakdown of those 70,000 employees. I wonder where they're from? Besides that matter, we must remember that the illegal Mexicans plant, grow, and harvest most of the food in California. Why, we'll not have their lives affected by any of this. In fact, we can probably expect Lockyer to advocate a food price discount for all illegal Mexicans. After all, they do the work. They grew the food. They're "entitled" to a price break.
Mexican worker in the field
It just seems superficial, a California state suit against grocers. Why is the food industry disallowed the corporate process? Other industries get by with it, in much more significant ways. I smell onions in this deal. Mexican onions, sauteed in political expedience. Add a little sausa, and you may have a lot of votes.
No, illegal Mexicans aren't part of the labor union force, but, in the Southwest, when you are talking about labor, you're talking about Mexicans, one way or another. It is the cheapest labor available, and it's in your face.
Americans don't expect truth out of politicians any more. And there is certainly little trust in the major media. Yet the society lives with these conditions.
John Kerry, at some point in the day-long victory
All afternoon, primary day (January 27) in New Hampshire, the media said "Kerry Wins," or "Kerry Winner," half a day before the polls closed. Now, is this self-indulgence on the part of pollsters and anchormen, or is this their intentional influence on the voters? Either way, it's obvious and egregious bias. As Richard Poe noted in December, (2003) the Supreme Court essentially granted media control over the election process. Poe called it "The End of Free Speech." Well, it was the tradition anyway. And like the Vatican's ecclesiastical law tradition, the Supreme Court merely sanctioned the already existing social reality. The media is apparently already taking new advantage, in spirit and in print.
And Kerry himself has wrapped his image in such a caccoon of lies that the public ought to be shocked at the creature beneath. His "Vietnam Veteran" image is one of the most false and fabricated in history. Once again, the American military uniform does not guarantee the integrity of the man wearing it. Anti-Americans, communists and Muslim terrorists can wear it, same as the genuine American patriot.
So, Americans don't expect truth from the critically important sources.
Would Americans recognize the truth if it did happen to appear--even in these same sources?
There was an interesting lesson about how to package truth in these modern times, and how Americans may accept it. We can't really credit Winston Groom (or Eric Wroth) with all the profundities suggested through the story of Forest Gu-ump, but there is a tell-tale element which reflects all that's wrong with American society: truth is acceptable only in the form of a semi-retarded person. All that is precious in the human character, love, honesty, innocence, and even consistency, cannot be tolerated, accepted, experienced, or even recognized, except through the person who is "not all there." All that is right with our ideals of character is precisely what was wrong with Forest. In his handicap alone could such precious jewels of character be set. Only there we could trust them as genuine. It is as if character really isn't quite real, but seems to be only in an "unreal" person.
Jenny and Forest (Paramount Pictures)
Gump is slaughtered by irony and coincidence, yet his handicap keeps him distant enough that he triumphs, endlessly. But it isn't really pity that we feel for him, it's remorse for our own failure of character, remorse for the tragedy of pretense--that outrage which life seems to demand of us all.
No, we don't expect truth from the beacons of our society, and we really find little of it. American society apparently saw a little of it in a fictional, mentally handicapped character. It was almost frightening. But we keep it safe there, in the retarded, in the movie.
The latest issue of Yale Divinity's Spectrum magazine (Autumn 2003) is all about ministry in multi-cultural parishes.
Yale Divinity's Spectrum
It's all about American Negros, "Hispanics," and Orientals. Of course, the decendents of African slaves have long had a place in the heart of Yale Divinity. The "Hispanic" population, on the other hand, was always mostly Catholic, and historically not so central to the seminary. This has certainly changed. The feature article notes that "Hispanics" total nearly 39% of the American population now, comprising the largest "minority community." As for the history of missions, the Orient has been at the foundation of Yale Divinity's outreach, and indeed has been a long focus of the University. Yung Wing was the first Chinese student to graduate from Yale, in 1853.
Of course, in the Spectrum issue there was no emphasis or mention whatever of the American Indian. One could hardly expect otherwise. In spite of the fact that Yale Peabody Museum has the largest collection of North American plains Indians artifacts east of the Mississippi, included Chief Red Cloud's pipe and medicine bag, Indians generally don't go to Yale. Yale offers Indians nothing.
Red Cloud, left out of Yale?
There isn't a single course currently offered in the American Studies program that even addresses the subject of American Indians. There is no Native American Studies program. There are, of course, two separate African studies programs, two "Hispanic" departments, Latin America and Spanish, and two East Asian departments. Clearly, the American Indian is not part of Yale's concept of America. There is less than 1% of Indians attending Yale, but that listing is no doubt just to fill the "ethnic" stat label, and probably shouldn't even be listed at all.
I graduated from Yale Divinity. I'm American Indian. I was one of only about four Indians at the University, and I thought I was the first and last Indian at the Divinity School. Well, I wasn't representing the Indian cause at the time. I was researching the nature of religious music. I was into the philosophical aspect of music itself. I completed the Master of Divinity in 1979, but I wasn't known as a professional racist. The "crazy Indian" (as one of my favorite professors called me) was just an anomaly.
The first Indian to attend Yale at all was Henry Roe Cloud (Winnebago), in 1906. He got a B.A. in 1910, then went to study theology at Oberlin (where I myself also attended), and was ordained by the Presbyterian church in 1913.
Now, Yale leaders, including Yale Divinity ministers, have had interest in working "for Indians." That dates back at least to 1735 and the Reverend Mr. Sergeant's mission to the Housatonic Indians of Massachusetts. Yale's Howard Lamar used to teach one course every other year on the American Frontier, which touched on Indian affairs, obviously. And he has tried to name a few Indians in recent years that have graduated from Yale.
But, whatever interest a few Yale leaders have shown in Indians, and however influencial some Yale graduates have been in later Indian policies, Yale itself, as a educational institution, has never sought to provide any program, of any kind, for American Indian students. If you're an Indian, and you just happen to get into Yale, it isn't because Yale has any interest in you, as an Indian.
It's on. A federal grand jury has begun hearings in the investigation of the CIA leak of the name "Valerie Plame," an intelligence employee whose name and position was considered classified. This is now the American tax dollar at work, keeping America safe.
If anything it should become an investigation of the news profession. The disgraceful, unprofessional part Robert Novak had in the "leak" has already been noted.
It all seems moot now. Everyone knows what happened. That isn't questioned. The only point of interest is culpability. Who is going to be blamed for it? Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie, says the White House leaked. Novak says he got the info from two top administration officials. The Chicago Sun published Novaks "leak." Wilson says it was all to smear him, because he criticized the President's handling of pre-war Iraqi intelligence information.
Never mind the motives, the exchanges, the payoffs. One man made it public: Robert Novak. How exactly the information got to him, the nature of the conversation, the context, etc., is all irrelevant, really. One paper published it: The Chicago Sun.
Not all that can be known in the world is supposed to be known by everyone. This is a lesson everyone should have learned in his own family life. Every parent knows the child cannot comprehend everything in the bigger picture, so the parent often ends up telling the child only bits and pieces. And the child also learns that there are "family secrets" that are not to be shared with anyone or everyone. This isn't lying, deceiving, or dishonest. This is discretion. This is protection.
Novak failed in all of these. Novak was grossly immature about this. His "leak" was not necessary, and his only justification is going to be, "the administration gave me the information, knowing I would publish it, and therefore wanted it published." Poor mechanical operative, Mr. Novak. Poor, amoral stooge. No responsibility, no objectivity, just the simple process of the news profession. Novak was just a victim of his profession. He's trying desperately to weasel out of responsibility.
Robert Novak, 'on trial'
Freedom of speech? Will that come up in the defense? The right of the people to know the truth? Some such noble sentiment will be invoked, certainly. But no one must know about "palm greasing" that goes on in such "insider" news deals. That's one truth we don't deserve to know. The public indeed must not know everything.
It is difficult to grasp a healthy concept of the news profession altogether. The free enterprise aspect, competition for the best story, the most marketable story, the highest seller, is one of the most fundamentally distorting elements in the business. Not only does money affect the story itself, but also whether it's even going to be a story. In a very real way, money decides what the news is.
This is a very different reality than that which was established in the family. The values out in the real world tend to run against some of the most basic family values. In our family life, we learn to protect the ones we love. But outside, in the world, money doesn't love anyone. Anyone who's highest goal is money doesn't love anyone either. Such "professionals" will never make good patriots. They don't love the country. They can't.
A new TV movie has just been created on the Lacy Peterson story. "The Perfect Husband" will premiere Friday, February 13th (8/7C), on the USA Network.
It's all about the question: Did Scott Peterson kill his wife Lacy and their unborn son?
But Scott Peterson's trial hasn't even begun yet! It starts January 26th. He pleaded "not guilty" at his arraignment last April. So, it looks like there's been a lot of professional media work going on behind the scenes. A writer, a producer, actors, interviews, and a mammoth effort has been made for cutting edge entertainment. But this is so cutting edge, it comes out before the suspect is even tried, let alone convicted. Reckless abandon on the part of the entertainment industry? Any effect on the sacred jury? Who cares?
California has been pretty tough on media access to prisoners in the state. Pete Wilson vetoed SB 434 in 1997, which would have allowed face-to-face interviews, confidential media correspondence, electronic recording devices, cameras, and writing instruments. Grey Davis vetoed another version of the bill, AB 1440, in 1999. Davis said the bill gave more access to media than to the inmate's family. California stands out as one of the most restrictive states when it comes to cameras in prison, and stories from the inmates.
(There's just a terribly large loop-hole in the Peterson situation: he's a not-yet-tried prisoner, therefore, he might benefit from the media frenzy. However, there as yet no published account of his technical, legal relationship to the movie, the story, or the production. I find it hard to imagine that he has no say in the matter, or no actual rights regarding the money involved in creating the movie.)
There are those working against such restrictions on media coverage of inmates. Americans Seeking Judicial Reform, for instance, demands prisoners rights as American rights. And certainly all media personnel want complete, free access to all prisoners. (They obviously want the inside scoop!)
Five states are reconsidering their rules about prisoner rights. Presently, they do not allow a felon ever to vote in elections, even after serving time, paying fines, and returning to society. Fourteen states have this law. In America, there are some four million of these poor "disenfranchised" fine American citizens to whom liberals like Delaware state senator Magaret Rose Henry ("black" and Democrat) love to show compassion. And 20% of the felons in Delaware are male Negroes, so Sen. Henry's righteousness is in extreme demand and her compassion is transcendent. And the Democrats sure need more votes. Deal?
Well, technically, the media can't interview prisoners in most states, and the felon cannot sell his story. But in the Peterson case, the trial hasn't happened yet. He is not convicted, only arraigned. So our aggressive law/media teams here in American aren't going to miss one moment of opportunity.
And the media professionals are very conscious of what happened to Tony Martin, the old English farmer who defended himself against violent burglars. The incredibly idiotic English lawmen sued Martin for the crime of self-defense. Martin was convicted, and sent to prison. Certainly, there was a crying demand for his story. Certainly, every journalist in England wanted it, and felt they had a right to it.
Tony Martin. He should be Knighted. But
that would put him with the likes of Mick Jagger
Not a good idea.
How perfectly, and ironically suited to the Liberal cause is this Tony Martin case. A case that's really justified is used to validate all the Liberal bleeding heart comapssion for true and dangerous criminals, whose cases are not justified.
And the media got Martin's story. But that brought up the whole controversy of "selling crime stories." The upper echelon Liberals like Chris Martin, in their supremely righteous anti-freedom say, "someone is making money out of committing a crime." Indeed, the criminal, and his criminal attorneys.
But the problem is, obviously, Tony Martin was not the criminal, though he was the one sent to jail. The Mirror editor, Piers Morgan, believed the story was simply of too great a public interest, so that this demand overruled the statute. Well, let's hope he doesn't wind up in jail.
So, in the last analysis, the Liberals feed on their own blood. They thrive on the injustice they cause. The tyrannical Liberals, who would have Tony Martin in jail, have already profited from the Scott Peteron case, and that man hasn't even gone to trial yet.
"Cowboys and Indians," and the historical images associated with each, is something that will probably never erode from America's public eye. In one form or another, movie, novel, or even music, the popular relationship between the frontier cowboy and the wild Indian seems permanent.
It came up again, incidentally, in Ann Gerhart's new book about Laura Bush, The Perfect Wife
Gerhart is a Washington Post writer, and has recently published a couple of articles on her new work. It's all perfectly home spun, and seems to typify the pith of American home life. Heaven knows America needed such a restoration, after the complete amoral mess the Clintons left in the White House. It is a great work Gerhart has done for us all.
However, there is one little snag for any American Indian reader. It's a little matter about the 21st birthday party of the twins, Jenna and Barbara. Here's Genhart's version:
The Bush girls, Jenna and Barbara
When they finally turned 21 on Nov. 25, 2002, White House aides breathed a huge sigh of relief. Mom threw the girls an elaborate party at the Crawford family ranch on Nov. 30, and busloads of revelers arrived dressed in costumes according to the theme, which was cowboys and Indians. Jenna insisted on celebrating her actual 21st birthday, however, at the scene of her original crime, Cheers Shot Bar, where she insisted staff cover the windows with black paper to prevent news crews from seeing inside.
Sounds innocent enough, really. Young people's parties have all sorts of themes, from Jack and Jill to now Cowboys and Indians. In this case it is like a costume party. Now, I wouldn't expect to see authentic regalia on anyone coming as an Indian, but that isn't the point of the party, really. In fact, I wouldn't even expect an Indian to be there at all. That would be downright weird.
But there is a certain equality in the image itself. Both the cowboy and the Indian are at a deep historical level of social consciousness in America. The struggles between them are psychological archetypes. Yes, the enemy was the Indian, and that is completely inaccurate. Yes, the real enemy was the Cowboy. But, it depends on whose view you take, and America does not take the Indian point of view. America "conquered" the Indian. And in this historical process, the Indian became some kind of symbol of the wildest, meanest, worst enemy anyone could every imagine. Why, if you really want to show your grit, you have be up against an Indian! That was the John Wayne take, and he insisted on the Indian being Comanche. Nothing less would do!
The Duke, always up against the Comanches
My Jewish friend, the late Jack P. Eisner, Holocaust survivor, even mentions Indians in his book, The Survivor." When he was a young kid in Poland, he saw TV and movies of cowboys and Indians fighting. Jack says he always wanted to play the cowboy. Why? Facing an Indian made you feel bravest of all.
Of course, such depth of psychology is no doubt subliminal at a party, if present at all. These are Texas girls we're talking about, Jenna and Barbara, from a Texas family. Or at least their mother is the genuine article. The Cowboys and Indians theme? Just a party fad among Texas young people. Nothing more.
It does however indicate the perpetual relationship of White and Indian in the American psyche. It's all about conflict, and victory. This is the underlying impetus, and the secret of the perpetuity of "Indian Wars" imagery. This is why I have always advised Indians not to play into the enemy role today. I advise public Indian figures not to associate with anti-American senitments of the Left, the Communists, the globalist anti-white racists. We face historical images too deep to remove, to powerful to change, and too dangerous to ignore. We must learn how to use these images to our favor, not to our detriment, as the Left would have it.
I say let the public have it's historical memorabilia. Indians are better off ignoring it. Why demand Leftist "truth and equality" when it works against you in the society in which you live? Besides, equality only means assimilation in many cases. That's not something that insures the Indian's future at all.
The woman's natural gossip network is the most efficient source of news in the world. Its usually more reliable than the national media. Take the nurses knowledge network at a hospital for example. The nurses generally know more about what's happening than the doctors. Maybe women just naturally go with the flow more easily.
When CBS (60 Minutes) presented Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's statements about President Bush's plans to invade Iraq before 9-ll, as if this was news, CBS showed how unreliable national media can be. When CNN picked up the story, it was made even more insulting, as if news about news is news.
Former Sec. Treasurer Paul O'Neill and President Bush
The idea that the United States must control the unstable Middle East is not news. It is an old idea, dating well before September 11, 2001. It goes back to the first attack on the World Trade Center, February 26, 1993. That, of course, was Al-Qaeda's response to the Gult War, when George Bush, Sr. invaded Iraq the first time. Again, that invasion was in reponse to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was destabilizing element even then.
Those who report the idea of long range US involvement in the Middle East as if it is news, are simply unformed of the news. Richard Poe noted this back in February, 2003. GWBush's plans have certainly been clear since 9-11. The war on terror would involve several countries, and victory will take several years. Those who act like this is news are behind the times.
Eric Margolis was behind, December, 2002. Hartung, Berrigan, and Ciarrocca were behind two months earlier. Jay Bookman was behind the month before that.
It was Dr. Jack Wheeler who had the logistics of the war on terrorism all work out a month after 9-ll. He called it a "sequencial war," involving first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia. Bush does seem to be following some such plan, but the need to protect the world's energy supply in the Middle East did not simply appear suddenly on September 11, 2001. The idea has been long contemplated. Lately, the "news" is that the plan was conceived as early as 1973. That could be a stretch, but not unreasonable.
O'Neill's remarks are therefore not only not news, but a kind of false news. The media is making his information seem revelatory, but it simply isn't. Professional news is based on the marketing element, and can become quite distorted as a result. News must seem new, to sell.
The women's natural network dispenses with these professional inhibitions. I think if you want news that's new, just ask a woman. It may or may not be accurate, but at least its new news. And after all the pretense in this O'Neill affair, women's news can certainly be called competitive news. It's at least that good.
The American Civil Liberties Union now wants to be associated with the defense of Rush Limbaugh. The ultra liberal, the revolutionary "turn America upside down" conclave of law school flunkies," the most revulsive, malignant legal tumor in the United States, is now lining up with the one man most renowned for denouncing its every mitosis.
Rush Limbaugh, a most popular cause
Of course, Rush didn't solicit their support. The ACLU rallied to his cause. They simply think Limbaugh's rights of privacy have been invaded. They think they're only mission is the Bill of Rights. Why, they don't discriminate against clients. They have no ideological prejudice. So what if Rush condemns them as evil "liberals." They are above political labels. They're America's transcendent patriots. Indeed, trandscendent is the word. Transcendent of morality.
But what of morality and Rush Limbaugh? To this date, he has not recognized anything immoral or even illegal in his actions. He "became" addicted to prescription pain killers, pretty much against his doctor's orders. Rush preferred to forgo spinal surgery, and live on pain killers. When he crossed the line, and obtained his first prescription pill without a prescription, he simply broke the law. Financially, he could afford to. Most people can't.
So now he has rights? Privacy rights? He has a right to break the law, and not be investigated, and not have anyone know about it? No, Rush didn't solicit the support of the ACLU, but his actions and attitude appealed to them. But they saw in him values similar to their own. This fact says fearful things about Rush Limbaugh. It implies all kinds of liabilities in the conservative cause, at least in Limbaugh's cause, at least in its rhetoric.
Or, shall we now say to all, Beware of the ACLU. It is a media-frolicking Leftist entertainment enterprise, with no pride. It will defend anyone. It may come looking to defend you, whether you like it or not. The ACLU can file whatever it wants, whenever it wants. No "frivolous law suit" complaint against them, ever.
Rush's repeated disdain for the Christian Right has not won him their undivided support, certainly. Rush is a conservative without an avowed traditional moral foundation. Christian conservatives believe morality is the very basis of conservatism. Therefore, Rush can seem to even oppose the Christian Right. (And the Christian Right can seem to oppose even it's own leaders.)
Rush has become entangled in rhetoric. The unfortunate medical condition, and the tragedy of the addiction, can only be remedied by an acknowledgement of the actual, legal transgression. Until Rush faces this, he will never recover from the rhetorical malaise.
What do we want from him beyond that? He's rich. He still has the big show. What will satisfy all those who are disappointed in him? What do they want to see happen? Due process of law? Same rule applying to him as to anyone else? This all sounds terribly awkward, as if we've already lost him.
Dolly Parton has to be the ultimate American blonde (with or without the wigs). Whatever the elements in her career, she somehow doesn't quite have the same "trash" character element associated with Marilyn Monroe. Dolly's romances have generally been confined to lyrical imagination. She's escaped the public image of being amoral.
The one and only Dolly
There is a authenticity that comes with birth in the Appalachians, in her case, the Smokey's, in Sevier County, Tennessee. A two room shack welcomed Dolly Rebecca Parton in 1946, along with ol' Doc Thomas (Dr. Robert F. Thomas), who was compensated with a sack of corn and later Dolly wrote a song for him. So, "country" she was, from the start. Country music folk do have their authenticity to vouch for, much like Indians our Indianness.
And that "country" element is just what might make Dolly the supreme American blonde. Certainly for country music fans, Dolly might even engender a sense of "patriotism and spirituallity." Many, of course, can't quite see this in such a stage image as Dolly has created for herself. Nevertheless, she generally determines what she's going to do, and not going to do. In this respect, we can't call her new album, "For God and Country" a mere producer's gig. It is no doubt vintage Dolly.
Speaking of vintage, here is an early photo. Do all things look the same? Not quite, top or bottom. Let's say vintage pertains to the voice and the style, rather than the shape. (Whatever was done, was done early on, apparently after this particular shot.)
An earlier Dolly, photo by Sam Trent
In early photos, there is a marked absense of open bouses. This is interesting in itself. Dolly was never a "give away," no matter the price offered. Of course, over time, that changed. But we have to remember, spirituality to a many Southerners has always rather mystified other Americans, to say nothing of the idea as it persists in Hollywood.
The new Dolly album
As for the new album, who can say. If it inspires "patriotism and spirituality," so be it. Different Americans associate different things with their deepest sense of America, and being American. Doesn't work for me, but, I suppose in a fox hole in Afghanistan, it really might do the trick.
One historical element no one can gainsay: Dolly changed country music. Dolly made it half-rock, half-country. Now "country" music is churned out in New York like factory-made plastic. It's not the same, even though she is, as a country talent. She forever expanded the concept of "country," at least in terms of the musical style. For better or worse, that's the final outcome.
Third in our series of blonde topics, we introduce the spiritual type. If Ann Ann Coulter is the mind dazzler, and Britney Spears the dim dits, then Hillary Clinton is the grand duper. Hillary likes to dupe people.
Hillary just apologized. She's become a master of apology, a guru of socialist politics. Her political righteousness is overwhelming.
Hillary in sincere repentence, or simply annoyed?
In a fund raiser for Missouri senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Hillary made a comment about Mahatma Gandhi, the great Hindu leader of India. It was a mild piece of humor. Farmer is considered the underdog in the senate race, and Hillary was trying to encourage her. Why, Gandhi worked a gas station right there in St. Louis, before he became the great leader for the indendence of India! Farmer needn't worry. Hillary quoted the Hindu leader as saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Ah, but the Leftist-trained American Hindus were quick to respond to the humor. Michelle Naef, administrator of America's M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, a Memphis-based organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson. said Hillary's comments "could be incredibly harmful."
How dare hillary stereotype the wonderful Hindu folk here in America. Think of it! Gas station workers. Small business entrepeneurs, successful, independent business owners. Job holders. Money makers. Dark foreigners who have displaced white American workers. What an incredibly demeaning stereotype.
And what a wonderful opportunity for Hillary to offer a transcendent apology. Such an apology, especially when the offense is false, fabricated, or otherwise immaterial, creates instant righteousness. It is instantaneous moral self-exaltation. It works every time. Apologizing for something you didn't do, or for some offense which is false, displays supreme spirituality and sensitivity. And it's all free! Plus, you get the benefit of national media to magnify your righteousness.
Hillary rejoicing in superior "political" spirituality
Well all know the Leftists can say anything they want, and with a mere apology, all is well. Democrat Senator William Byrd could say "nigger," and with an apology, the world moves immediately on. But when Republican Trent Lott offered a birthday compliment to old "racist" Strom Thurmon, the mere association of thought cost Lott is seat as senate majority leader. A Republican apology carries no weight in righteousness. The Republican must grievously pay for his sins, however trifling.
And so Hillary is allowed superior spirituality. The media always wants a story, and far be it from Hillary to refuse the media. All is forgiven.
So much for blondes, or, shall we do Dolly next?
Britney Spears is the kind of blonde most people think of when they think of a blonde. Immature, mindless, and totally superficial. Fun and games. Britney is the utter opposite of Ann Coulter, even the Ann Coulter doll. Wind Britney up, and she'll do something idiotic. Pull her string and she'll run predictably wild. No batteries needed. My, what fun.
Britney Spears, the traditional blonde
She got married, then got the marriage "annulled" two days later. Her young partner Jason completely agreed.
Well, what fool of an official married the two children in the first place? In the Las Vegas Little White Wedding Chapel, indeed! Alter of the Big Risk. A Justice of the Peace for $55? It can't be true! And Judge Lisa M. Brown ought to be disbarred and fined herself for granting annulment. Her action is equally reprehensible. The marriage was not a mistake, therefore should not be treated as one. Someone really needs to pay for this intentional recklessness.
This is all about pay-off, anyway, no doubt. And when you have money to throw round, it probably doesn't matter too much to you. You do what you want to do. Go, Britney! You have power. You can control the mighty courts of America. You can get just everything you want, right when you want it, too!
But this is one of the more egregious affronts to marriage in recent times. Never mind its affirmation of the "ditsy blonde" image. This ritzy ditsy routine could not convey a more superficial, irresponsible, decadent, and detrimental social conditioning than if it were scripted, which it probably was.
Or was it a desperate attempt of a pop star slave to recover, in her own personal way, some sense of independence? Was Britney in despair? Was she just screaming out, "I want to do what I want to do!"? Ah, speaks well of the pop star industry, no? Don't you want to become a star? Don't you want your child to scream and girate behind the microphone?
How well youth hides truth,
and how well it endures deception
I'm afraid Britney has a lot more influence in the world than Ann Coulter. This is something to be concerned about. The pop music industry is all about creating dizzying emotional peaks, addictive fads, and bewildering fame. The amount of money involved is staggering. What most people don't know is that many other individuals make millions off the star. The pop star is their merchandise. The managers, or "pimps" if you please, use the pop star for whatever they can. It is sad, really.
Functioning as a teen fad can be brutal to one's psychological health. Many of the stars become therapy puppets. Stardom takes a heavy toll on the mind and on personal independence. One loses one's sense of self. (Elvis Presley survived by singing gospel hymns all night. That was before the days of big time entertainment therapy.) It's a life, though, and few young people indeed would turn down the opportunity to be a star. They don't know about the slavery aspect, and they'll never be told. You'll rarely hear a star discourage anyone from the life style. When you have fame and fortune, which is what everyone seems to think he wants, how can you say, Hey, this isn't what I thought! I've been tricked! Now I've lost myself! Can I ever have me back?! Why, the managers would quickly dope that star up for a time, and take her out of commission before she damaged the industry.
But then, there's now the Christian rock and pop music style. Is there less professional slavery in that field? I'm sure we're even less likely to hear about that. Any aspect of the entertainment industry must sanctify itself, else it won't sell as well.
I really rather feel sorry for Britney, poor "dumb blonde" that she is. There are many like her, blonde or otherwise, but they needn't feel envious, for sure. They can just enjoy Britney's fame and fortune vicariously. That's less costly, and a lot more safe.
I guess the real question is this: is it right that we enjoy the entertainment which costs a human being his own dignity? Are we beclouding our own soul by so doing?
Wind her up and watch her...do something...
Pull her string and listen to her... say something...
Push her button and... oh, boy...
Batteries Included!
The Ann Coulter "Action Figure" The Ann Coulter figure is dressed in a single-piece black dress, black high heels and gold earrings. The articulated figure bears a striking resemblance to its namesake -- even down to Ann’s striking green eyes, long blond hair and determined look...
Well, this just doesn't sound quite right. It's all terribly funny, but, who's the sport here? Who gets the last laugh? I can't imagine that Anne would not be a financial beneficiary, of one percentage or another. But, the doll is marketed by conservatives, and that confuses me.
A little risky, I'd think. Anne the robot, Anne the mechanical talker, Anne the machine, the attack dog, the exocet missile. We all know her for her powerful intellect and command of language. We all know her for her tireless anti-Left rhetoric, and for her refined defense of the American constitution. She's really hard to beat on these matters. She's something quite unusual, being so smart, and so blonde, and so "attractive." Many people find her hard to take on that account.
Some even note her deep voice, and her laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple), suggesting more than ideological issues. (I must say, again, I've seen Ann in a bathing suit. She's most definitely a woman, believe me.)
The real Ann Coulter
But this doll thing just seems to set her up for sport. This I would think is completely unnecessary. I'm glad she can laugh at herself. We must all be able to do, but, I hope this doll doesn't degrade her good influence. I'm concerned.
Ann hasn't published any position on American Indians that I know of. I see her only as a patriot-minded individual. I have said in commentary, (and also written her), that what she might to well to consider is that matter of love of country. The key word there is "love." Love is the important element completely left out of most political discussions. Patriotism is not a matter of rhetoric. It's a deep feeling, with enlarged larnygeal prominence indeed--as in, lump in your throat. It's a heartfelt emotion which cannot be produced by polemics or debate. As a successful woman, she is in a special position to offer what few other commentators can: she can talk about love.
This is what we need to hear from Ann Coulter now. She's pushed the limits of rhetorical patriotism and political party polemics. She's even applied it all to history. What we need now is the heart applied to the country. All of us need this. We need to have a heart, and a country to give it to. Having a country is part of us. It is an intuition, an instinct. But it must be informed, educated, and trained aright.
That would be a different doll, indeed. Humor is Ann's thing, up till now. But is not also love? This is what people expect from a woman: love. In this case, love of country. This is the challenge before her. How does a woman love the country? What does she say is 'love of country?' Tell us, Ann, please. The rest is but fun and games, and that can't heal the country.
For the fourth time since he took office, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited the Yashukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where some 2.5 millions Japanese war dead are honored. This visit comes just after Japanese news papers report that Koizumi will send a thousand Japanese ground troops to Iraq.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, left, follows the chief Shinto priest Tadashi Yuzawa as he visits Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo to pay homage Thursday, Jan. 1, 2004. Koizumi started the new year by visiting the controversial shrine honoring Japan's war dead. (AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)
Two Japanese diplomats were killed in Iraq, but the troops are being sent in for the purpose of reconstruction, not defense or retaliation. So say the reports.
Of course, the usual suspects, that is, Asian regionals such as Korea and China, wildly protested the Prime Minister's visit to the shrine, just like they have done before. They think it is outrageous that the national leader would honor the aggressors in this way, despite whatever words of remorse or repentence he might express.
According to the Leftist Asians, like Democratic party leader Naoto Kan, it is "irresponsible" for the Japanese leader of today to honor the aggressions (i.e., "war crimes") of the past generations by even paying a visit to their shrine.
Well, that would mean the site of any American U.S. soldier who fought against American Indians would be taboo. No American leader should ever be seen at Custer's grave, Sherman's, Grant's, or even Washington's. Nothing but aggressors buried there.
Gravestone of the man who said, "Indians all have to be killed, or
maintained as a species of paupers."
Let's start the new year off right: propriety of aggression is matter of judgement. The world, such as it is, has been created by aggression, and preserved, such as it is, through defense against aggression. War is easily condemned. Tyranny is even more easily condemned.
Does a people have the right to create an empire? or even a nation? America did. England did, and Arabia, Rome, Greece, Persia, Assyria, and Babylon. Even the Comanches did, though ours was only a hunting empire. (We never sought to control anyone else's culture, but simply to keep them off the hunting grounds.)
It isn't about right or wrong. There are no "rights" in this realm. It's all about the privileges of power. The strong rule the weak. Therefore, all should act accordingly. I say, seek strength, or be ruled, and don't cry about it.
The power to do right costs some wrong along the way. America earned for itself the power to do more right, more good, than any outfit in modern history. Yes, there was wrong done in the process. That's the way of this world. Right always does somebody wrong. From a quantitative view, do we want more right or less right? Isn't more the better choice? Less right means more wrong.
Let Japan honor her dead. America honors George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and William T. Sherman. Sure, most Americans feels America was in the right during WWII, and Japan was in the wrong. But the Japanese leaders didn't think they were in the wrong at the time. For that matter, neither did Hitler. It isn't about what leaders think. It's about who has the greater power.
And honoring the dead doesn't mean emulating their values. Koizumi is actually handling this situation more adroitly and astutely than just about anyone else has. He has confessed the error of the dead, but has also honored their sacrifice, loyalty, and bravery. That's all he's doing. What more can be asked?