June 30, 2004 by s.z.

Family Circus Sexual Tension Today's Cartoon (You can see it here) Billy (who's lost a lot of weight since we saw him -- his parents must have sent him to fat camp over the weekend) is holding a hefty book (possibly the Weekly Reader edition of Bill Clinton's My Life) and pointing rudely at Grandma. Grandma, trim yet buxom in a tailored salmon-colored dress, is sitting in an easy chair and holding her own book, one with very few pages (it appears to be an obscure new-agey religious book titled A Gift to the Present: Wellderly Wisdom). In a dialogue bubble, Billy asks Grandma, "Grandma, are we livin' in the present tense?" The white-haired, blank-eyed (she must be Daddy's mother -- although her boobs do remind one of Mommy's), smooth-faced old lady replies in the caption: "These days, Billy, many of us are living in the present VERY tense." Analysis: Bil Keene, spokesman for the elderly, is lamenting the fact that Grandma has to live with the constant worry that Jeffy/Dubya is messing around with Social Security and Medicare, which may leave a lot of old people having to make do with "herbal insulin," and subsisting on generic canned catfood.  Plus, Billy's question about whether we're "livin' in the present tense" is an implicit rebuke to the Republican party, which wants to live in the past: a never-was era where June Cleavers wear pearls while they happily cook, clean, and darn socks;  Ward Cleavers spend all day doing manly white-collar jobs in all white offices, and then come home to be treated like gods (when they're not playing golf or relaxing in a Playboy club); and President Reagan defeats communism by talking out Sputnik with his space-based laser. Or, perhaps, the real meaning is, as that lascivious guttersnipe Pete, wrote: Let's just say it involves Barbara Bush reading a book called "Gift to the President" and complaining about not having been, uh, serviced by the elder Bushman for quite some time. For those of you who aren't Turkee, I'm sure the meaning of this is clear.   6:58:13 AM

Townhall Moral Relativism Today's meme is: "Sure, lying, saying the f-word in the Senate, tricking your wife into visiting sex clubs with you so you can ask her to commit sexual acts on you while others watch, comparing your opponents to Hitler, and committing treason are bad -- except when our side does them." Mona Charen In a column entitled "Liberals hate fellow Americans more than Islamists," Mona claims that liberals hate fellow Americans more than "Islamists" hate fellow Americans -- as demonstrated by the fact that Tom Daschle and other Democrats attended Michael Moore's movie, and by Paul Krugman's writing that Simone Ledeen's chief qualifications for her position with the C.P.A, "seemed to lie in mainly in [her] personal and political connections." This is rich. I happen to know Simone Ledeen. She is an MBA who speaks three languages.  But since none of those languages is Arabic, how exactly do they (or her new MBA) qualify her for a position managing Iraq's $13 billion budget and "making decisions affecting millions of Iraqis"? For seven months, Simone worked constantly and slept little. She did these things for her country and for the cause of freedom.  I don't see where Krugman impugned Simone's industry or dedication, just her qualifications.  And he wasn't the only one -- here's a paragraph from the Wash Post story about Simone and her fellow "brat pack" C.P.A. employees: Several had impressive paper credentials, but in the wrong fields. Greco was fluent in English, Italian and Spanish; Burns had been a policy analyst focused on family and health care; and Ledeen had co-founded a cooking school. But none had ever worked in the Middle East, none spoke Arabic, and few could tell a balance sheet from an accounts receivable statement.   Oh, and Simone and the others got their jobs (which ended up paying "the equivalent of a six-figure salaries") after posting their resumes to the Heritage Foundation -- proving that Krugman was totally wrong when he said that cronyism and ideology had anything to do with their being hired.  Just like how cronyism and ideology had nothing to do with why Mona wrote this column. Rebecca Hagelin We must prohibit same-sex "marriage" (quotes hers), because otherwise we'd have to get new text books, "the military would have to change" (?), and we'd need new "insurance structures" and will forms.  "The list is endless."   Plus, gay marriage "completely destroys the notion that fulfilling marriages are found only when they are composed of both a husband and wife"-- and that's bad because ... well, it just is.  Anyway, Rebecca's cousin Peggy wrote an essay for the Focus on the Family website which tells how Peggy's parents have Alzheimer's and yet they still love each other -- something that could never happen in a same-sex union.  Some might argue that two men or two women could form such a bond. My faith tells me such blessings could come only from what is natural.  And if Rebecca's faith tells her that only heterosexuals can form loving bonds, then that's a good enough reason for this country to amend the Constitution. To share your own inspiring story about marriage, please contact me.  I'll select the most compelling for inclusion in a book I'm writing about the culture war. The book is scheduled for release in April.  I'll try to polish up my inspiring story of marriage to a plant, a rock, a child, and a puppy (and how they were all tragically killed in the Great Culture War of '02, and our bond survived even this) and get it to Rebecca before April. Dr. Mike Adams, Professor Dr. Mike (in his 6th or 7th column of the week), gives us Part II of his indeterminate-part series about the case of Charles T. Sell.  (Sell is a dentist accused of Medicaid fraud and plotting to kill an FBI agent and witnesses.  He suffers from a mental illness that makes him incompetent to stand trial, but refuses to take his medication, and so has been held without trial for seven years.)  Mike is writing about the case to show the liberal media what they should be reporting on -- here's his manifesto from Part I. [T]he strange case of Dr. Sell has already been in the national news. In fact, it has been all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But there are some aspects of the case that have not been publicized. I think that is partly because papers like the New York Times fight for the constitutional rights of our enemies in Iraq who actually have no constitutional rights. But they care less about their countrymen who actually do have constitutional rights. Over the span of the next column or two (or however many columns it takes), I will try to get papers like the New York Times to take a short break from their campaign against the re-election of George W. Bush. Hopefully, during that break, they will find some time to cover some disturbing aspects of Dr. Sell’s case.   Well, the NY Times covered the story seven times during 2002-2003 period when the Supremes were considering whether a defendant could be forcibly medicated for trial.  However, it's true that the Times didn't include "disturbing aspects" like this: Questions about Sell’s mental state have been raised for quite some time. For example, some have expressed concern that Sell believed that the government intentionally brought about the deaths of the Davidians in 1993 in Waco.  ...  As evidence of mental instability, newspaper reports have also alluded to his ownership of about a dozen firearms and rumors that he claimed membership in a white supremacist group.   So, per Mike, instead of worrying about who okayed torture, the Times should write stories implying that Sell isn't crazy,  he's just being discriminated against because he's a white supremacist, conspiracy theorist, gun nut.  [Okay, here's some of what the Times did report, "Charles Thomas Sell has a long history of mental illness. He has told doctors that his gold fillings were contaminated by Communists, and he once called the police to report that a leopard was boarding a bus outside his office."  Proof that the Times should make all their reporters take journalism lessons from Mike.] Michelle Malkin Michelle is having a major hissy fit because the lazy officials at a middle school in Worcester, MA have "decided to ditch the sonnets of Shakespeare" on their summer reading list, to instead include Tupac Shakur's posthumously published book of poems, because that's what kids like to read.  The presumption that children -- and particularly inner-city children -- can only be stimulated by the contemporary and familiar smacks of lazy elitism and latent racism. These educators, and I use that term as loosely as gangster rappers wear their pants, are clearly more interested in appearing cool than in inculcating a refined literary sense in students. Their aim is not enlightenment but dumbed-down ghetto entertainment. So that teachers and pupils can "relate" and be "down with that." So they can "keep it real." You know what I'm sayin'?  Yeah, Michelle, you're sayin' that you're going to volunteer to teach at an inner-city middle school next fall -- you know, to show those so-called educators that 12-year-olds love reading Shakespeare's sonnets when a REAL teacher demands that they read them. Kathleen Parker Those traitorous liberals just won't celebrate the handoff of Iraqi sovereignty like decent Americans should.  And, they refuse to say that the turnover of power means that the war is won, and everything is sunshine, lollipops, and roses, thus proving that they hate America! But celebration isn't a likely option for those who want to defeat Bush more than they want American success abroad. A short list of those for whom successful Iraqi sovereignty is not such good news would include: the radical Islamist world, terrorists, al-Qaida, Michael Moore, George Soros, John F. Kerry, moveon.org and the Democratic Party.  Thus proving that Kerry is a radical Islamist terrorist.  Cal Thomas While Cal doesn't approve of profanity in the Washington Post, he does think that it's good that Dick Cheney was honest about his feelings. While calling political opponents "Nazis" isn't nice, it's okay if Bush compares Kerry to Hitler, since the images came from an ad submitted to MoveOn.org by some guy who doesn't want Bush to be reelected.  And while immorality is wrong, all that Jack Ryan did was pressure his wife to have public sex in kinky clubs -- so, Ryan's alleged lapse doesn't reflect on his character the way Bill Clinton's private sex with Monica Lewinsky does. Clinton does it with women not his wife in the Arkansas governor's mansion and the Oval Office and gets rich. Ryan allegedly wants to do it in public with his wife, but doesn't, and is forced out of his Senate race. I'm confused. Hey, if Ryan writes about his public sex with Jerri Ryan, I bet he'll get rich too. And Cal, you're not confused, you're stupid.  There's a difference. Jonah Goldberg Bush's ad with the Hitler images is bad -- but teacher, the liberals started it! Meanwhile, a host of liberal and leftist intellectuals and journalists routinely compare Bush's America to Hitler's Germany in far more direct ways than the Bush ad. Last September, Vanity Fair ran a photo of Richard Perle alongside a photo of Josef Goebbels. Sheldin Wolin wrote in the Nation that the GOP was Nazifying before our eyes. And of course, one cannot swing a digital cat on the internet without finding pictures of George Bush in Nazi garb and Hitler's twee mustache. I could go on for pages with this sort of thing (in part because I'm writing a book about fascism). Jonah's point?  That he's writing a book about fascism.   Oh, and that liberals have been calling people Nazis for more than 70 years, but the conservatives just started doing it last week.  Of course, some of those getting labeled 70 years ago WERE Nazis, but the libs still have given up any right to complain about Bush's ad.  Yes, only Jonah can do that credibly.  Because he's writing a book about fascism. Dennis Prager Newspapers should stop worrying about their dwindling readership -- it turns out that even lowly city beat reporters are nearly as important as the President.  And since they are, Dennis wants to hear all about Nedra Pickler's sex life. But aside from talk radio, there is virtually no public criticism of any newspaper, TV news program or news magazine; and they never have to run for re-election. They also have little competition. In Los Angeles, as in almost all cities in America, there is essentially one newspaper. If power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, how shall we describe the news media, which are more powerful than anyone but the president of the United States and have no checks on their power?  Dennis, who hosts a talk radio program and realizes that such things exist, apparently can't read, and so is unaware of the nation's various newspapers, not to mention this new thing the kids call a web log. If the public needs to know about the sexual desires (desires, not even practices) of a senatorial candidate, it also needs to know the sexual desires of the men and women who run the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV. But we know nothing about these people. Not one in a thousand Illinois residents knows the names of any editor at the Chicago Tribune or of any manager of WLS-TV. But why should we know one whit less about these people's sexual lives or divorce settlements than we know about a senatorial candidate's? They hold positions no less significant than a U.S. senator.  I think Dennis's idea of detailing the sex lives of reporters is a much better way to keep teens celibate than those expensive abstinence education programs. David Limbaugh Conservatives are rubber, and iberals are glue.  And David's brother is NOT a liar -- you're the liar!  And Rush isn't gay either!  The Left's only defense against Moore's mockumentary is to charge that people on the right, like Rush Limbaugh, also distort the facts to fit their ideology. But that, too, is a flagrant lie. The only way the Left has ever been able to deal with the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon (something that had to be dealt with because it had the monumental effect of mainstreaming conservatism) is to try to demonize Rush Limbaugh, resorting to the very tactics -- lies, distortions, deceit, context-tampering -- they pretend to abhor. Rush never distorts facts -- it's just that he's an entertainer, so he's allowed to make things more entertaining by sorta changing them, and sorta making stuff up. Emily the Intern While Emily didn't get a column this week, here's one of her "C-Log" posts, for your enjoyment: Where is the controversy? The entertainment industry is slowly going downhill, as many have already noted.  Suzanne Fields' newest column discusses "Sex and the City" and how it displays the problems with society.  She talks about how free sex has left women still looking for Mr. Right and finding it even harder to find him. Yeah, Suzanne talks a lot about how women can't find true love these days because they're unfeminine, liberated, sluts who don't deserve to be loved.   I'm sure this is a topic that resonates deeply with the gently-reared young Emily, who is no doubt waiting for her father to choose a suitable husband for her, like the Bible mandates.  Even worse than this erosion of the male-female relationship is the erosion of adult-child relationship.  Now pedophilia is being portrayed as acceptable in society.  I remember when Lolita was first coming out and the huge controversy that followed. Emily remembers when Lolita was first coming out, back in 1955?  Maybe she's older than I assumed. Many people spoke against it saying it was a slippery slope and would encourage more of the same behavior.  Yes, there are hundreds of documented cases of middle-aged men who took up with 12-year-old girls after the novel (or one of the movie versions) dared them to do it. Now there are two new movies coming out that have the same despicable content, but none of the controversy that followed the first movie of its kind.  "The Door in the Floor", starring Kim Basinger, and"Birth", starring Nicole Kidman, both deal with women seducing young boys in order to find satisfaction.  Where is the opposition? Well, Emily, the news story on Birth that you linked to mentions that: Nicole has played the role of a widow in the unusual film and two scenes have sparked outrage among executives. The Oscar-winning actress and the boy strip off together to submerge in bubbles and also lock their lips in the film.   Now enraged executives have protested to producers that the bath and kissing scenes between Nicole and the boy are sick and disgusting. So, the opposition is coming from movie executives.      And The Door in the Floor is about a grieving mother who takes up with a 16-year-old -- which, while objectional enough so that several actresses declined to audition for the role (per the article you linked to), it's not quite the same thing as an affair with a 12-year-old.    Anyway, while I am doubtful that either movie portrays pedophilia as "acceptable in society," I imagine that we'll be seeing some opposition from the Christian Right before too long -- they probably just need an intern to spearhead the indignation. 3:19:40 AM