Friday, May 7, 2010

Offend a Feminist: Laura Sjoberg, Ph.D., J.D.

In case you missed it, Robert Stacy McCain issued the call for contributions to "National Offend a Feminist Week 2010." And as I've recently learned, it's not so hard to actually offend a feminist. Last month I posted on 13 year-old Alaina Podmorow, from British Columbia, who had slammed Canadian Melanie Butler's master's thesis, "Canadian Women and the (Re)Production of Women in Afghanistan." Shortly thereafter, I noticed a post by Professor Laura Sjoberg at Duck of Minerva, and for fun, left the link there to my post on Podmorow. Upon reading about Podmorov's smackdown of Melanie Butler, Professor Sjoberg wrote at the comments at Duck of Minerva:

Wow. I suppose I have an answer to how long it takes to write an oversimplified, essentialist, and empty statement on complicated, contingent, and multifacted [sic] issues. Answer to follow, when I have some downtime around the conference.

And she did answer, later that afternoon, with "Smashing as Feminist Practice?"

Having been around feminist academics for some time, I got a kick out of Professor Sjoberg's response. Indeed, the notion of feminist chauvinist elitism might apply here, or more simply, stuffy scientific snobbery. Unsurprisingly, Professor Sjoberg dismissed 13 year-old Alaina solely on the basis of age and credentials, not on argumentation. This passage is best, especially that highlighted in bold:
To the extent that I identify as a post-colonial feminist, I will make the disclaimer that I don't speak for the field as a whole. Still, I think I am pretty safe in saying that post-colonial feminists do not hate women, desire their suffering, or oppose their access to basic needs and physical security. There is much more to this ....

This is not to take anything away from the very bright, very passionate
"little woman" whose blog post was appropriated on American Power. Her passionate writing is clearly intelligent, well beyond her years, and a valid and important point of view.

That said, it is, of course, not all there is to the issue. One cannot expect someone who has not yet had a college education to dig through decades and even centuries of theorizing and empirical work on gender relations in political and social life, and certainly activism on behalf of women, in whatever form, is far preferable to the sort of apathy that seems to be largely endemic in younger people now.

But when one has intellectual and practical access to those resources (as I am assuming the blogger who appropriated this passage does), there comes with that a responsibility to see complexity and contingency when it exists. And this is a place where it clearly does. I have not yet had the chance to read the
Master's Thesis from UBC by Melanie Butler, but, before going further, want to point out that it is really crappy pedagogical practice to viciously attack a Master's Candidate like American Power does (citing another attack by Terry Glavin), given that a Master's Candidate is not, as American Power claims, "a political scientist," but a student writing a paper to learn the field and demonstrate a knowledge of it.
You see? Nowhere has Professor Sjoberg actually addressed Alaina Podmorov's actual argument. The response is to dismiss the precocious one for not yet having earned the keys to the academic kingdom. And that's what so sad about Professor Sjoberg. Podmorov is arguing that human rights are universal, and that working for education and opportunities for women in Afghanistan is not a hegemonic Western project designed to "reinforce and naturalize the Orientalist logic on which the War on Terror operates," as Melanie Butler argues. Frankly, as I've noted, Podmorov's commentary smashes Butler's claim that Canadian women's rights campaigns in Afghanistan simply reinforce "narratives that sustain imperialist violence and women's subordination."

Elevated on her pedestal, Professor Sjoberg refused to dignify Alaina Podmorov with a substantive rebuttal.

In any case, I've come to learn more of Laura Sjoberg, Ph.D., J.D. She's got a more recent post at Duck of Minerva, "
Reading Andrea Dworkin to Write Feminist IR?," where she writes:
My first feminist mentors were in the legal profession, particularly Catherine MacKinnon, and my first exposures to feminisms were in debate rounds and law schools rather than political science or International Relations departments. My first feminist books were (therefore?) Andrea Dworkin, before Ann Tickner or Spike Peterson or Jindy Pettman. Perhaps that's why I return to Andrea's work whenever I start writing a major project, despite the fact that it does not translate to and often is not directly cited in my work.

But I think there also might be more to it.

While I remain, always, committed to feminist politics and combatting the other oppressions that gendered lenses help me to see, there's a rawness, a plainness, a terror in Andrea's work that's not in mine explicitly, but which is a lot of why I am committed to feminism and feminist politics
.

I am a feminist because I will never be free when rape culture exists. I don't even know what free means, or if I will ever be free, but I know I will never be free if rape culture exists. I do not know what it would look like or how it might be achieved. Still, I want to inspire thinking about it through my work, and use my work to agitate for the cause.
So there you have it: Professor Sjoberg's epistemology gains supreme inspiration from the work of Andrea Dworkin. Interestingly, it just so happens that I've read Andrea Dworkin. For the uninitiated, Andrea Dworkin is the progenitor of the "heterosexual intercourse is rape" thesis. And while holders of the Dworkin flame deny this, folks need only read for themselves. Here's this, from Intercourse, Chapter 5, "Possession":

The act itself ... is the possession. There need not be a social relationship in which the woman is subordinate to the man, a chattel in spirit or deed, decorative or hardworking. There need not be an ongoing sexual relationship in which she is chronically, demonstrably, submissive or masochistic. The normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in the mode of predation: colonializing, forceful (manly) or nearly violent; the sexual act that by its nature makes her his ....

In other words, men possess women when they fuck women because both experience the man being male. This is the sustaining logic of male supremacy. In this view, which is the predominant one, maleness is aggressive and violent; and so fucking, in which both the man and the woman experience
maleness, essentially demands the disappearance of the woman as an individual; thus, in being fucked, she is possessed: ceases to exist as a discrete individual: is taken over.
And here's this, from Chapter 7, "Occupation/Collaboration":
There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people -- physically occupied inside, internally invaded -- be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?
Andrea Dworkin was so radical, so hate-addled and misandrous, that the popular backlash to her work spanned both genders. Note especially how Dworkin was excoriated by feminists themselves. See, Havana Marking, "The Real Legacy of Andrea Dworkin":
When young women put on the Dworkin x-ray specs for a moment, they see female victims everywhere ....

But when a woman is portrayed as a victim, even when she is not, and certainly does not feel like one, you not only insult her but you alienate her as well. The idea that a sexually active and interested woman is merely fulfilling man's fantasy, and there to serve him, is outrageous ....

Heterosexual culture, like pornography, is not a bad thing in itself. Dworkin might not have actually said "all men are rapists" but she did have the slogan Dead Men Don't Rape above her desk. Blanket and extreme arguments help no one
.
And this brings me back to Professor Laura Sjoberg. After the first round of debate, I wrote a snarky follow-up making fun of the recent "topless" gender protests. See, "Topless (Post-Colonial?) Feminists: Now That's My Kind of Protest!" And playfully ribbing Professor Sjoberg, I wrote:
EXIT QUESTION: Will Professor Sjoberg loosen up in response, or will our dowdy dumpling do a grammar-check once more?
She responded at the comments at Duck of Minerva:
I don't think you know whether I am "loosened up" or not, nor will you ever, and if you don't see the sexualization in that question, you're an idiot; if you do, its disrespectful ...
I must be an idiot, because my usage of "loosen up" was meant as "to relax", "to reduce the tension", "to take it easy" in debate. But by reason of such comment, Professor Sjoberg reified me as the evil possessor and internal violator of the most Dworkinite kind. Never mind that I'm just playing. Feminist international relations, which is Professor Sjoberg's speciality, is a serious discipline. But when its practitioners are driven by pure hatred and ideological extremism -- and when they refuse to debate individuals on substance rather than atop prestige hiearchies -- it becomes increasingly difficult to take them seriously or give them legitimacy.

And Professor Sjoberg will no doubt find that offensive, without even trying.

ADDENDUM: FWIW, Professor Sjoberg has a forthcoming book, Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War, due in 2011. And for the record I'm up for a serious review and debate of the book upon publication. Hopefully, by that time our good professor will have relaxed somewhat.

Lawrence Taylor's Attorney: 'There's Was No Sexual Intercourse'

I happened to catch Lawrence Taylor do a couple of numbers on DWTS. I love that guy, a gentle giant and soulful man. So I was obviously shocked by the scandalous rape charges bursting through the news cycle yesterday. See, "Lawrence Taylor Charged with Rape," "Former NFL star Lawrence Taylor charged with third-degree rape," and "LT Alleged Victim: I Told Him I Was 19."

RELATED: "Nutrisystem Drops Lawrence Taylor as Spokesman."

Hot British Snipers!

At London's Daily Mail, "Gone in 28 seconds: Rapid-fire sniper takes out five Taliban soldiers from more than a mile away to save British patrol":

Photobucket

A British sniper shot dead five Taliban gunmen in just 28 seconds to save the lives of comrades walking into an ambush.

The marksman felled the rebels from more than a mile away as they prepared to attack troops on foot patrol in Afghanistan.

The corporal - whose identity cannot be revealed for security reasons - has killed a record 37 enemy fighters during a four-month tour of duty.

But his most remarkable feat of arms came when he and the spotter who accompanies him saw the group of armed Taliban.

They were taking up positions to fire on a patrol that included the platoon commander in Helmand Province.

RTWT.

RELATED: At Times of London, "Hotshot sniper in one-and-a-half mile double kill."


BONUS: At Theo Spark's, "Kings of War."

You Can't Be Serious! Elisabeth Hasselbeck Forced to Apologize for Tame Erin Andrews Joke?

It's to the point that the Erin Andrews peep video scandal is "The Crime Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered." It's especially verboten to make any suggestion that Erin Andrews apparently cares not one whit about her previously-criticized "playing to the frathouse" image. She is a beautiful woman, yes, but she's a sideline reporter in the testosterone-packed sports media, so it seems appropriate at some point to ask at what point does Andrews bear some responsibility for her image?. And I'm not talking about last year, before she was violated. The point is that perhaps post-scandal she'd play it cool with her wardrobe style. I wrote about the sexiness earlier at "Erin Andrews on Jimmy Kimmel." So it's a kick to see that Elisabeth Hasselbeck and I are on the same page. Only now it turns out that Barbara Walters may have forced an apology on "The View" star. Talk about political correctness. See, "Was Elisabeth Hasselbeck forced to apologize for Erin Andrews comments?"

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Journalist Carol Rosenberg, Banned from Guantanamo, Previously Attacked Gitmo Navy Spokesman With Homophobic, Sexualized Slurs

You know, when Spencer Ackerman vouches for someone it's worth looking into. The background is here, "Pentagon Bans Four of The Most Knowledgeable Reporters on GTMO From GTMO." (At Washington Independent as well, via Memeorandum). And at the tweet:

Photobucket

Ackerman's especially gushing on the Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg, and knowing that Attackerman's one to root for the other side, I had my doubts about Rosenberg's integrity. So no surprise here, as it turns out: "Military and Media Clash In Complaint: Navy Spokesman Alleges Abuse by Miami Reporter":
Tensions between journalists and military officials are nothing new. But a bitter series of clashes between a top Navy spokesman and a Miami Herald military reporter reached a new, eye-opening level this week.

In a letter to the paper's editor, Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon accused Carol Rosenberg of "multiple incidents of abusive and degrading comments of an explicitly sexual nature." Gordon, who deals primarily with the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison, said in the letter that this was a "formal sexual harassment complaint" and asked the Herald for a "thorough investigation."

"Her behavior has been so atrocious over the years," Gordon said in an interview. "I've been abused worse than the detainees have been abused."

Herald Executive Editor Anders Gyllenhaal said Friday that "obviously we're trying to sort this out. We're not going to talk about a personnel matter like this until we figure out what it's all about." Rosenberg, who declined to comment Friday, is described by other journalists as a seasoned reporter who pushes hard for access and answers.

The extraordinary complaint shines a light on the sometimes bruising battles between journalists, who sometimes must scratch and claw for information, and government officials, who attempt just as tenaciously to control information provided to news organizations. This cultural clash can be especially stark on military matters.

Gordon, 41, detailed a number of "vile and repulsive comments" he attributed to Rosenberg, stretching back to last summer. In the July 22 letter, Gordon alleges that:

--
While watching Sept. 11, 2001, co-defendant Mustafa al-Hawsawi seated on a pillow in court last year, Rosenberg told Gordon: "Have you ever had a red hot poker shoved up your [butt]? Have you ever had a broomstick shoved up your [butt]? . . . How would you know how it feels if it never happened to you? Admit it, you liked it."

--
When Gordon emerged from a shower facility in shorts and a towel last year, Rosenberg said to him and more than a dozen journalists and soldiers nearby: "Seeing him topless in tent city was the most repulsive sight I've ever seen in my life. I wanted to vomit."

--
After dealing with a Gordon intern whom she described as "your little chick with the hot pants," Rosenberg told Gordon, earlier this month, in the presence of others: "I know you're hot for your interns and bring them down as your 'companions,' but seriously, if I'm going to do their work anyway, what purpose do they serve? (Carol knows my intern last year was a male, therefore another inference that I was gay.)"

In addition, the letter alleged, Rosenberg "routinely labeled my colleagues in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Justice Department, as well as her peers in the press, as 'bitches,' 'stupid,' 'lazy,' 'incompetent,' 'Nazis,' 'Saddam Hussein-like,' etc." Gordon works for Defense Secretary Robert Gates and said he consulted department lawyers in drafting the letter ....

Jerry Markon, a Washington Post reporter who spent a month at Guantanamo last year, said he saw "some fairly heated arguments" between Rosenberg and Gordon: "The tension between them was palpable. Carol is a very good reporter and she's very aggressive. She's constantly pushing the envelope, pushing the military to get as much access as possible. . . . Gordon seemed very frustrated by her approach, thought she was obstinate, thought she was difficult."
Yeah. That's some professionalism.

See also, "Man Bites Dog: U.S. Navy Commander Files Sex Complaint Against Female Miami Herald Journo.

Rocky Mountain Way

I promised some running commentary on The Eagles ... So, I should note how stoking it was to see Joe Walsh's material integrated into the larger body of Eagles songs. This created a fabulous contrast. Joe Walsh is the irreverent stage performer of the band. He makes funny faces and yuks it up much more than the other members. Most of all, his signature songs stamped an extra reminder that this was a Hall of Fame performance. What a show ... unbelievably good concert. At the video, notice the "talk box" as well, at Rocky Mountain Way, which seems so '70s-ish:


As always, don't miss others blogging, for example, The Astute Bloggers, Left Coast Rebel, Sir Smitty, Snooper, and Theo Spark.

Illegal Hispanic Immigration Undermining American Values

PREVIOUSLY: An April 5th essay, from Walter Rodgers, "Illegal Hispanic Immigration is Undermining American Values":

Photobucket

Santa Barbara, Calif.

Walking the sandy beachfront in this ultra-affluent city, I chanced upon two Hispanic men rummaging through the trash. Startled at the sight, I stared momentarily. One of them yelled at me, “You look now, but in 50 years we will own all this!” Given the tsunami of illegal immigration and the prolific Hispanic birthrate, I responded, “I believe you will” ....

Committing national suicide is not without precedent. The Dutch are rapidly losing their country. Before long, its largest cities will belong to Muslim immigrants. What then becomes of the liberal tradition of Erasmus and traditional Dutch tolerance?

Illegal immigration may ultimately be more threatening to the character and values of the US than any threat from radical Islamists. It’s not about tribe; it’s about the law.
Image Credit: Youth for Western Civilization.

Obama Administration Dangerous to Our Survival

Newt Gingrich on Greta Van Susteren last night:

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit.

Republicans Have Edge in Social Media

Cool clip from PBS, surprisingly, "Republicans Hope to Maintain Social Media Edge into Midterm Elections":

Cool interview with Tabitha Hale as well!

Large Corporations Nearly Ditched Employee-Sponsored Health Coverage

At Fortune, "Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits":

ATT Benefits

The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans -- coverage they know and prize -- will react to the new law's radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we're getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.

Hence, health-care reform risks becoming a victim of unintended consequences. Amazingly, the corporate documents that prove this point became public because of a different set of unintended consequences: they told a story far different than the one the politicians who demanded them expected.
More at the link.

Ed Morrissey digs deeper. House Democrats pulling some wool over the people's eyes: "Shocker: Major corporations may dump health insurance, pay penalties instead."

Hat Tip: Caleb Howe.

The Country Will Be Better Off Without Newsweek

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, at the New York Observer, on the future of the magazine:
"We have to figure out what journalism is going to be as the old business model collapses all around us ... "And I want to be--I want to try to be--a part of that undertaking. Will it work? Who the hell knows. But I'm at least going to look at this ... I'm not living in a fantasy 1965 world ... This is not a Mad Men romanticism about the news magazine. I'm entirely realistic about our prospects for economic success and the possibilities of finding a consistent audience for our journalism. These are incredibly difficult questions. That said, I believe it is a worth a good long look to see how the Newsweek--call it what you will--platform, big tent, whatever fits into a world that I think needs some common ground. I'm not saying that we're the only catcher in the rye standing between an informed public and the end of democracy. That's self-involved. But I defy you to make a compelling argument that the country is going to be better off with fewer places like this."
Well, defy this: It'd be hard to find a better example of the utter moral, intellectual, and economic collapse of traditional 20th century journalism than Newsweek Magazine. One year ago, upon the launch of the magazine's makeover, Meacham argued:
There will, for the most part, be two kinds of stories in the new NEWSWEEK. The first is the reported narrative—a piece, grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact, that illuminates the important and the interesting. The second is the argued essay—a piece, grounded in reason and supported by evidence, that makes the case for something.
"Grounded in reason and evidence"? Newsweek's become nothing but a weekly mouthpiece for the hard left Democratic agenda, attacking traditionalism, shilling for the anti-tea party crowd, and foaming at the mouth with accusatory race-baiting. A classic refusal to look at both sides of an issue is the exact opposite of reason. It's blind prejudice, and that's what Meacham's rag represents. Ellis Cose had a piece last month called "Drowning in Hate: Ugly rhetoric perverts our politics." It's a disastrous rehash of the false allegation of racial epithets hurled during the Capitol Hill tea party in March. I defy you, Jon Meacham, to post any raw video and find one tea partier yelling the N-Word at a black congressional member. Can't do it. And the "spitting" incident was phony as well. So much for evidence and reason, and there's way more examples after that. The magazine's "Religious Case for Gay Marriage" was thoroughly discredited as an utter embarrassment. Folks should read Mollie Hemingway's rebuttal, where she notes with pure contempt, "if you are going to pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is based Sola Scriptura, could we at least get our Scripture right?" Is this the "reason and evidence" Meacham proposes. Talk about fail.

As noted, the rag can't die soon enough. But listen to Meacham himself, who's a model of journalistic hubris in his interview with Jon Stewart last night:

The Communist Experience in America

Check out Jamie Glazov's interview with Harvey Klehr, the author of, The Communist Experience in America: A Political and Social History.

Photobucket

In graduate school in the late 1960s I was influenced by Marxism. The first two published articles in the book explore the ways Marx and Lenin tried to understand America and how the USA might fit the Marxist paradigm for the development of capitalism. I was really curious about why the Left had done so poorly in America – it’s the only advanced industrial country in which a left-wing movement explicitly committed to socialism never came to power or seriously competed for power. My doctoral dissertation was on the theory of American exceptionalism. It led me to an interesting episode in the history of American communism – the moment in 1929 when Joseph Stalin himself presided over a Moscow commission that expelled Jay Lovestone and his followers from the CPUSA for the crime of American exceptionalism. Lovestone’s group, which included some fascinating people – Lovestone himself later became the fiercely anti-communist advisor on international affairs to George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO, Bert Wolfe became a noted historian of Russia, Will Herberg a prominent conservative theologian – had the support of 90% of the American party, but that meant nothing to Stalin.

That was what got me interested in the history of American communism. I spent nearly twenty years studying the CPUSA and its relationship to Moscow. After my first book, a sociological study of the leadership of the CPUSA appeared, Ted Draper, the dean of historians of American communism, approached me and asked me to finish his project on the CPUSA’s history. That resulted in The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade. By the early 1990s, I was sick of the topic and through a complicated set of circumstances, went to Moscow to get information for a biography – that I still intend to write – about a colorful character named David Karr.

I arrived in Moscow just a few months after Boris Yeltsin’s foiling of the coup and was fortunate enough to be the first American to get access to the Comintern archives, where I found stunning documentation of the role played by American communists in espionage operations of the USSR. The archivists did not realize the material was in the files or its significance and I was able to take copies out of the country. A few years later Yale University Press published The Secret World of American Communism, which I co-authored with John Haynes and Fred Firsov and I had launched myself on a new career as a writer on espionage. John and I have written several other books, including Venona, Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, and most recently, Spies, The Rise and Fall of the KGB in American with Alexander Vassiliev.

The more I studied communism and the CPUSA, the more conservative I became. It was fully as responsible as fascism for the most blood-soaked century in human history. Individual communists were often motivated by the highest ideals and yet they helped to create and perpetuate many of the worst horrors in human history. Writing about communists meant I also had to contend with many writers and intellectuals who apologized for or excused these atrocities – even as more and more information about them became available. So, part of my responsibility, as I saw it, was to call them to account, something that Haynes and I did in In Denial and that is also on exhibit in many of the articles in this new book.
Klehr's curriculum vitae is here. He's currently the Andrew Mellon Professor of Politics and History at Emory University.

Hat Tip: Washington Rebel.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Manchurian President: New Book Exposes Obama's Radical Past

I posted the large thumbnail to the sidebar on Monday. And I'm getting excited to read Aaron Klein's new book, The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.

Klein discussed his work with Sean Hannity last night:

Americans Back Arizona Immigration Law

At IBD, "60% Favor New Arizona Immigration Law":

Photobucket

Editorial pages may rage against the Arizona immigration law, but a solid majority of Americans support it, an IBD/TIPP poll found.

Sixty percent back the law, with 40% strongly favoring it, according to preliminary results. Meanwhile, 30% oppose it, with 20% strongly disapproving it. The remaining 10% are unsure.

The responses show a public increasingly frustrated with the response by local, state and federal authorities and welcoming solutions — like Arizona's law — that would have been politically untenable a few years ago.

"The majority of Americans support the Arizona law, though they may have some concerns about it," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors restrictionist policies, says the poll is not surprising. Border control policies are always popular, he notes.
And don't miss at IBD, "Illegals As Useful Tools of Left."

TOTALLY UNSURPRISING RELATED ITEM: From The Hill, "Obama uses Cinco de Mayo to call for immigration reform, criticize Ariz. law" (via Memeorandum). Also, at Weasel Zippers, "Presidente Obama Wants Congress to Work On Immigration Reform This Year…Lies About Arizona Law…"

Bury Newsweek ... The Sooner the Better...

I say with some passion, as a longstanding former subscriber, death to Newsweek! And no one more deserves to see the magazine die a most ignominious death than current editor Jon Meacham. As indicated by the collection of Newsweek covers below, Meacham practically destroyed the magazine all by himself. Not even the recession could wreak as much havoc. Once a great American institution, Newsweek long ago lost any claim to the honorific of "professional journalism." A laughingstock and disgrace, having abandoned even the tiniest shred of integrity, the magazine sold its soul to the false zeitgeist of the Obama Zombie Interregnum. And as reported today, Newsweek's demise couldn't come too soon (and actually, the end won't be long in coming, despite the whiff of hope at the announcement):
The Washington Post Co. announced Wednesday that it has retained Allen & Company to explore the possible sale of NEWSWEEK magazine. The newsweekly, which has struggled in recent years, was launched in 1933 and purchased by The Washington Post Co. in 1961.

Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham came to New York to tell the magazine staff at a 10:30 a.m. ET meeting on Wednesday. "We have reported losses in the tens of millions for the last two years," he said. "Outstanding work by NEWSWEEK's people has significantly narrowed the losses in the last year and particularly in the last few months. But we do not see a path to continuing profitability under our management."

Graham said the company decided to go public with the news to invite as many potential buyers as possible, and said the sale could be completed within a few months. "Our aim will be--if we can do it--a rapid sale to a qualified buyer," he said. "We're a public company and we have to consider the price offered. But we'll have a second and third criteria: the future of NEWSWEEK and the future of those who work here."

In a later meeting, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham told the editorial staff that he continues to believe in the mission of the company. Meacham said he would do everything he could to ensure the continuation of the magazine, including personally pitching potential buyers. He also reminded the staff that NEWSWEEK wasn't closed today, but was put on the market.
The best analysis I've seen on this is at NYT (of all places):
Newsweek is your father’s magazine, and no amount of reinvention could fix that. The brand still has recognition, but beyond helping its editor, Jon Meacham, get on television and sell some books, it hard to tell what the brand is really worth at this point. The people at the magazine had been told that they had until the end of 2010 to figure it out, but with loses of more than $500,000 a week, the alarm clock rang on the early side.

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket


The Jihadists' Deadly Path to Citizenship

At Michelle's:

America’s homeland security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack over the weekend, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s U.S. citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham marriage racket with impunity for years. And immigration benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for U.S.-based Islamic plotters, including many other operatives planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously ...
Check the link for the details.

Plus, at WSJ, "
Faisal Shahzad’s Life in America and Path to Citizenship."

RELATED: At NYT, "
Security Lapses Let Bomb Suspect Board Plane" (via Memeorandum).

Thanks to Bush Administration for Anti-Terror Mindset

At WSJ, "From Peshawar to Times Square: Good antiterror work, except for Shahzad's civilian arraignment":

Photobucket

Monday night's arrest of suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad is both disconcerting and reassuring—proof that the world's jihadists are still targeting the U.S. homeland, yet also evidence that our antiterror fighters are getting better.

From the street vendors who alerted police to the smoking car, to the mounted officer who moved crowds away from it, to the impressive forensic and detective work that led to Shahzad's dramatic arrest as his flight was preparing for takeoff at Kennedy airport, to the international cooperation that led to the capture in Pakistan of one of his radical associates, things rapidly came together after the botched car bombing in a way they too rarely do outside the movies.

Surely all this deserves a cheer—and no small amount of credit goes to the Bush Administration for mobilizing this antiterror capability and mindset, which its successors have been able to exploit.

The bombing attempt is also a timely reminder that all the talk about the war on terror being over is nonsense. Astute police work foiled last year's plot to bomb New York's subway, as it did similar planned attacks against a New York synagogue and a Dallas skyscraper. But it was only luck that saved the passengers aboard Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, just as it was luck and terrorist incompetence that prevented an atrocity at the corner of 45th Street and 7th Avenue. The victims of November's Fort Hood massacre were not as fortunate.
But a cautious note on the left's "law enforcement" approach:
One regrettable part of this investigation so far is Shahzad's arraignment in a Manhattan court room yesterday on terrorism charges. This means he has been allowed to lawyer-up and told of his right to remain silent, rather than being subjected to more thorough interrogation as an enemy combatant. Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday that Shahzad is cooperating, and we hope he is.
RELATED: At New York Times, "A Renewed Debate Over Suspect Rights." (Via Memeorandum.)

Image Credit: LAT, "
Interactive: Times Square Car Bomb."

Oh Oh Catch That Buzz ... Love is the Drug I'm Thinking Of...

Hey, give it up for Bryan Ferry. He's not only a suave lady's man, but conservative as well! Roxy Music was my very first "gig." I'd been going to stadium concerts since I was in high school, but in 1979 my friend Potato Head (Skatemaster Tate) turned me on to new wave and punk, and the rest is history:


Speaking of hot conservatives, check out Washington Rebel, "Red Red Robin." And linked there especially is, "Liberals are from Mars, Conservatives are from Earth." And more on conservatism from across the pond, at Theo's, "VBS TV: Rule Britannia - Election: Conservatives."

MUSIC EXTRA: Anton at PA Pundits International, "
Sunday Music – It Ain’t Me Babe – The Bob Dylan Series (Part 5)."

BONUS: Robert Stacy McCain sends me a hat tip in, "
Lindsay Beyerstein’s Gay Rage."

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Lindsay Beyerstein: 'If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You're a Bigot' ... Now That's Original!

I haven't blogged much on same-sex marriage, although the holding pattern on Cal's Prop 8 trial will come to an end in June, when closing arguments are scheduled. And we'll see things pick up big time then, especially since hack Judge Vaughn Walker scheduled arguments to coincide with the LA PRIDE FESTIVAL, which celebrates the 40th anniversary of L.A.'s first gay pride demonstration. Not only that, I see folks like Lyndsay Beyerstein have kicked up with the extremist gay marriage agitation, which we find here is the not-so-original meme of defining conservative marriage traditionalists as bigots with no reason other than, well, they're supposed to be bigots. I know. Beyerstein's one Class A anti-intellectual. Still, she's apparently looking to break records with this entry, "If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot":

By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn't make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there's something wrong with them.

You can insist you don't wish gay people any harm. Perhaps not. But there were lots of pro-segregationists who didn't wish ill upon black people, but still didn't want to drink out of the same fountains. They too were bigots.

You can point out that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a longstanding tradition, but that doesn't excuse your bigotry. If anything, it makes it worse. It was one thing to fear what the expansion of gay rights might do when gays and lesbians had no rights. Today we're decades into gay liberation and none of the dire predictions have come true. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite sex parents--and no more likely to identify self identify as gay.

So, if you're still clinging to those irrational fears in the face of evidence, guess what? That's bigoted. If, like the voters of California, you voted to break up families in the name of preserving family values, that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot
.

As longtime readers know, I've debated this issue up and down to heaven and back. And I've yet to encounter anyone with a prevailing argument. The most folks can muster is that the much-esteemed youth demographic is supposed to carry the pro-gay marriage vote over the top any time soon. Well, the youth vote's petering out as Obama remorse hardens, and, frankly, the Stalinist actions of gay rights forces were so over the top as to alienate potential allies. That whole outing campaign, and the Google maps, etc. God, totally ridiculous, come to think of it, but desperation drives that kind of extremism, so understandable.

And now we've got this screed from Lindsay Beyerstein that's so bereft of anything substantial it's plain ludicrous. She holds herself up as a journalist, which is obviously hard to sustain when your MO is to completely ignore extant arguments against SSM while yammering "There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage." No, Lindsay, there are lots of reasons. You're simply too closed-minded, er, bigoted, to even entertain the idea that there might actually exist fundamental non-religious cultural norms, social folkways, and regenerative biological facts that easily repudiate the radical gay licentiousness and hedonism that's never far from the gay marriage program. I mean, sheesh. At least excitable Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan puts up some arguments when making the case, as whacked as he is. You're just proving yourself to be the more genuine bigot than anyone of those anti-SSMs you excoriate. It's all you've got (remember, dissent is the new racism).

For reference, see Susan Shell, "
The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," and David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage.

The Pill at 50

From LAT, "'The pill': 50 years after":
The thought of out-of-wedlock pregnancy struck terror in women in midcentury America, said Claudia Goldin, a professor of economics at Harvard University who has studied the pill's effect on professional women. The proper course of courtship was to go steady, become lavaliered, pinned, then engaged.

"They were a set of steps that led almost irrevocably to marriage, and they were set down at an early age," she said. "The pill allowed us to get rid of all of those steps."

That first pill, Enovid, contained a mixture of the hormones estrogen and progestin that worked to prevent ovulation. Women took one active pill a day for 21 days, then a placebo pill for seven days to allow for menstruation, which the pill's inventors thought was necessary and would assure women they weren't pregnant.

In the post-pill era, the average age of first marriage began to creep up as women and couples no longer felt they needed to wait to become sexually active. The rate of women in professional schools rose from 18.4% of professionals in 1960 to 36.4% by 1998.

The pill also has been credited — or blamed — for overturning sexual mores, but there is less evidence that it caused or evenly greatly contributed to the sexual revolution, May said. The nation, she noted, experienced sharp changes in sexual behavior in the 1920s, during World War II, and during the 1960s and '70s.

Other predictions swirling around at the time of its debut did not come true, May said. The pill did not curb worldwide population growth, create happier sex lives for married couples or reduce rates of divorce.
More at the link.

Amazing to think that a scientific advance like this accelerated the collapse of traditional values and culture. Could've happened in any case, but the empowering effect of the pill certainly made options available for women outside of marriage, and that, along with the radical feminist interpretation of marriage as institutionalized rape pretty much sealed the deal.

Jihadi-Supporting Left Bummed Out Faisal Shahzad Wasn't Next Timothy McVeigh

Unlike Jonah Golberg, the notion that the Times Square bomb attempt was mounted by some domestic Timothy McVeigh type never remotely entered my mind. But Goldberg's dead on about about this:
A lot of liberals seem very keen to minimize or dismiss the reality of Islamic terrorism while working devilishly hard to create a false reality that the real threat is from American citizens American "rightwingers."
And right on cue, we have MSNBC's Contessa Brewer bemoaning how suspect Faisal Shahzad wasn't some extreme right-wing militant:

I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.

That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. Obviously this guy did.
Great commentary at Dean's World as well ... and as I always say: Nothing compares to the leftists. Absolutely nothing.

She Drives Me Crazy ... I Can't Help Myself...

Heard Fine Young Cannibals on the radio during drive time this morning. "She Drives Me Crazy" reminds me of a woman, way long ago, who picked me up cold at Fresno's Wild Blue Yonder, a happening Tower District nightclub, now defunct. I was just coming off a bad breakup. But who's to quibble when a hot blond falls in your lap. I don't see her on Google, so no need to mention her name. But come to find out later that she's friends with my wife's step-brother's wife. Long story short, when I saw the woman at their wedding it was a shock. I'm married with children by this time, which made it very weird, TSTL. She had a conveniently sketchy memory, which is I guess what happens with folks trying to live down their wild years. Anyway, she drove a Mustang and rode horses back then, in Fresno. Had Fine Young Cannibals on the brain all the time, in the summer of 1989. Weird memories the radio brings up. Interesting band, in any case. Glad I found my wife, that's for sure. We love each other and there's no deception:

Majority Supports Arizona Immigration Law, Poll Finds

Notice Pancho Villa playing make my day with Governor Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, from POWIP:

Photobucket

And check the new poll at NYT, "Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Law" (via Memeorandum):
The overwhelming majority of Americans think the country’s immigration policies need to be seriously overhauled. And despite protests against Arizona’s stringent new immigration enforcement law, a majority of Americans support it, even though they say it may lead to racial profiling.

These are the findings of the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

With the signing of the Arizona law on April 23 and reports of renewed efforts in Washington to rethink immigration, there has been an uptick in the number of Americans who describe illegal immigration as a serious problem.

But the poll — conducted April 28 through May 2 with 1,079 adults, and with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points — suggests that Americans remain deeply divided about what to do.

The public broadly agrees, across party lines, that the United States could be doing more along its border to keep illegal immigrants out. The view was shared by 78 percent of the respondents.

That unity, however, fractures on the question of what to do with illegal immigrants who are already here and the role of states in enforcing immigration law, normally a federal responsibility.
Well, shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Just say, "Sí, se puede!":

Photobucket

RELATED: Michelle Malkin, "The May Day angry mob you won’t see."

Pakistan Émigré Arrested as Times Square Bomber

At ABC News, "Pakistan Émigré in Connecticut Arrested as Times Square Bomber: FBI Says Faisal Shahzad Bought Vehicle That Carried Bomb on April 24, After Trip to Pakistan" (via Memeorandum):

The FBI has arrested a 30-year-old Bridgeport, Conn., man in connection with the failed attempt to set off a car bomb in New York's Times Square, federal authorities told ABCNews.com late Monday night.

The man was identified as Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, who had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan and the city of Peshawar, a known jumping off point for al Qaeda and Taliban recruits.

Shahzad was arrested at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City where FBI agents said he was attempting to leave the country to go to Dubai.

At a press conference early Monday morning, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "It's clear that the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans." He urged America to "remain vigilant."
Ed Morrissey has some conjectures on the case, and see LAT, "Arrest made in N.Y. bomb case."

Monday, May 3, 2010

Jimmy Carter's Iran Debacle: Thirty Years Ago

Didn't have time last week (given The Eagles concert and all), but Third Wave Dave posted an awesome historical entry ... not to be missed: "APRIL 25, 1980--THE DAY JIMMY CARTER KNEW HE WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT."

And don't miss Regime Change Iran, "The Desert One Debacle."

Hat Tip:
Blazing Cat Fur.

RELATED: John Bolton, "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran" (via Memeorandum).

Leftist Stupidity of the Day: 'Progressive Radicals' are Really 'Classical Liberals'

Hilarious update on the sacking of Santa Cruz by the violent May Day demonstrators over the weekend. It turns out that "Paddy" over at The Political Carnival needs to bone up on some political philosophy. See, "Tomorrow's RW meme today: "Liberal" May Day Riot!":
How they equate Anarchists with Liberals/Progressives I don't know... but they do. Aren't they always whining about how we love "Mommy Government"? Yep, totally makes sense that we'd join up with a "movement" that wants no government, no authority. I detest how these little idjits reflect on us by default. But we will be hearing about this tomorrow.
Paddy's getting warm on the "anarchists," although anarcho-communists and Marxian socialists differ not so much on the repudiation of private property, but on the role of the state. Anarchists hope to smash the state on the road to utopia; Marxist want to build the state as the conveyor belt to the eradication of capitalism.

But anarchist quibbles aside, the real kicker is Paddy's link to those "Liberals/Progressives," which takes us to Wikipedia's entry for "
Liberalism." Big mistake. Today's left-wing ideological cohorts of the Democratic Party call themselves progressives, not liberals. And there's a reason. True liberals are the "classical liberals" of enlightenment political philosophy, folks like John Locke, and later, Adam Smith. A top 20th century classical liberal would be Friedrich von Hayek, an aggressive advocate of free-market capitalism who most leftist today would demonize as "reactionary."

No, Paddy's thinking about the left-liberalism as it's practiced in the U.S., and thus she wanted to link to
this Wikipedia entry:
The term liberalism, without a qualifier, in the United States for the last 70 years usually refers to modern liberalism, a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s. It is a form of social liberalism, whose accomplishments include the WPA and the Social Security Act in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Community Reinvestment Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And of course, since 1965 we've seen this version of American liberalism coalesce into a working alliance with the neo-Marxists of the post-Vietnam era, and this alliance of "no enemies on the left goes all the way to the Obama White House. As David Horowitz noted this morning, in his essay, "Obama-Style Socialism":

Jonah Goldberg has written an important article in Commentary on what he calls the “neo-socialism” of the Obama administration. I like this label. It is both accurate and more palatable than the term “neo-communism” which I have applied to the hard left. But given the twenty-year political partnership between a neo-Communist like Billy Ayers and Obama, and Obama’s coterie of Communist Party mentors and allies, it is at bottom a distinction without a difference.

Neo-socialists are fellow travelers of neo-Communists and vice-versa. The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians, and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality. Since people are born unequal (in talent, capability, brain power and physical beauty and prowess) and since they develop unequally through circumstance, the only way to make them equal is to take away everyone’s liberty. And of course this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace constitute a new and oppressing ruling class.

And it's worth remembering that Obama-style neo-socialists have no qualms making tactical alliances with the anarchist "occupy everything" hordes, for example, earlier this year when the Democratic Party-allied California Teachers Association endorsed the anarchist March 4th 'Day of Action' to 'Occupy California!'"

And that explains why there's minimal MSM coverage of the violence and radicalism on the left over the weekend. As noted at Jawa Report:

Did you hear ANY OUTRAGE OR HAND-WRINGING FROM THE MOTHERF*CKING MAINSTREAM MEDIA OVER THIS LEFTWING VIOLENCE, VANDALISM AND HATE? Were there any MSNBC specials about the violence of the political left? Were there any "expert" panels on the history of leftwing political violence, or any discussion over how one-party dominated government could be fueling this kind of behavior, as the supporters of the Obama regime actually appear to think (with good reason, it would seem) that their beloved President condones or at the very least looks the other way when his supporters commit acts of violence and vandalism to further his party's agenda?

Nope. Because it's leftwing Democrat hate, violence and assault directed at the "correct" people for the "correct" reasons. And as we all know, that's just "political expression."
So, sorry Paddy. Looks like you're schooled on "liberalism." Love "The Pistols", in any case: