VIDEO: Roger and Lionel Analyze French Media Coverage of “Alleged IMF Pervert Dominique Strauss-Kahn”
Kirsten Powers has a great piece at the Daily Beast about the so-called “slut walks”
Gail Dines, professor of women’s studies at Boston’s Wheelock College and author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, finds the Slut Walks alarming. She told me, “It is not understanding the context of the world they are living in. The average male today gets his major sex education from porn. And the message they get is that women are sluts.” To the liberal feminists, whom Dines calls porn and prostitution apologists, she asks: “If it’s such a great profession, why aren’t you turning tricks?”
It’s one thing to acknowledge that women are in control of their sexuality and have the intelligence to decide if and when to have sex. It’s a whole other to celebrate a lifestyle that is primarily the result of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse. Anyone who’s been out in the real world for any meaningful period of time has encountered enough “slutty” women to know that primarily only the emotionally damaged choose to have sex with many men. Where do you expect to find a higher incidence of depression, among female doctors and “oppressed” Christian homemakers or the San Fernando valley’s porn stars?
And here’s a (censored) video of the hilarious Australian comedian Jim Jeffries talking about the difference between sluts and studs. Note to pseudo-feminists: there are biological reasons why a man who has a lot of sex is highly regarded while a woman is looked down upon for the same behavior. There are different biological results of both lifestyles.
There is no doubt that every human being wants to be free. But free to do what? Western freedom is based on the notion of individualism – the idea that we should each make our own choices. But Islamic freedom denounces such freedom as impure and problematic. Essentially, Islam contends that submission to Islam is the source of freedom – freedom from the un-Islamic parts of human nature.Many in the West wonder why so many would embrace such a restrictive notion of freedom, but the answer is simple: while the human heart desperately wants freedom, it also desperately wants group identity. We all want to be members of a community: a religious community, an ethnic community, or a national community. Our deep and abiding need for group identity leads us to join churches and synagogues, to go to group schools, and even to go to movies with others and follow sports teams. We would rather be part of an arbitrary group – of, say, Lakers fans – than to be part of no group at all.
I find Eldad’s arguments about Obama’s speech (which we published at NRB today) very compelling:
The Obama speech was clearly wordsmithed to keep Zionists as happy as possible while he slipped in a major US policy change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a US president has announced that the solution must be based on the so-called “1967 lines” as opposed to the previous position that the borders must be determined through negotiations.
Now, this has been the Israeli position–or at least the Labor and Kadima position–since 2000, and it is hard to ask the US to be more righteous than the Pope. But it is still a change in policy and it makes it much more difficult for Jews to believe that they will continue to have free access to their holiest sites.
On the other hand, he did have quite a few good things in the speech in regards to Israel. (Of course, my speech for him would have been better!)
It’s not surprising that this would be Obama’s approach. He’s in campaign mode and is trying to walk a careful tightrope to avoid alienating either his anti-Israel leftist base or the more centrist, pro-Israel Democrats who he’ll need to get elected again in 2012. There’s really no politically coherent foreign policy position for Obama to take, hence the only option available to him is to both stick Israel with this “1967 lines” shift while acknowledging that the “Palestinians” need to accept Israel’s right to exist.
If Obama’s foreign policy looks incoherent it’s because it is by design. He knows there’s no way to reconcile his base with the mainstream of the country so he doesn’t attempt to. Instead he just slogs through these irritating foreign policy questions until he can get back to where his heart’s really at — socializing the whole country step by step. Stanley Kurtz’s analysis in Radical-In-Chief very much applies here.
Full text of the speech here, btw.
Last night, after Andrew Breitbart had already left to catch his plane, a few of us hung around to chat and to try to answer one question: what was the takeaway from Breitbart’s talk? Eat their eyeballs? Women’s dominance in the Tea Party means that men are eunuchs? The fact that the Tea Party needs to sex up a bit (Breitbart suggested cleavage) to attract younger people? Our responsibility to buy tickets to conservative movies even if we don’t attend, because brave Hollywood conservatives need box office support? Nope.
Those were all enjoyable motifs that Breitbart interjected repeatedly to liven up his talk, but the real takeaway message was this one: The true battle today isn’t being fought in the political arena, it’s being fought in the social and culture arena. It’s there that we need to engage the Left; to out-Alinsky the Alinsky-ites; and to call Leftists on their behavior. We can’t be afraid of confrontation, unless that confrontation will utterly destroy our lives and our livelihoods.
Bookworm also teases at the end of the post that she’s on chapter 2 of Righteous Indignation — hinting that perhaps a book review is forthcoming. I’m about 800 words into a draft of my review and hope to have something publishable by the end of the week. I will say, though: Bookworm, you’re in for a treat. The book really takes off 100 pages in at chapter 6.
Indeed, I’ve never thought much of all the talk about how Ron Paul is the “Godfather of the tea parties.” I’ve given major speeches at three tea party rallies (including the Cincinnati Tax Day tea party rally last year which was the biggest audience I’ve ever spoken to), and attended a couple tea party related events in the D.C. as a spectator. I bring that up just to say that I’ve met a lot of tea party folks at the leadership level all the way down. Obviously, Ron Paul has many fans and adherents in those circles. But I never got the sense that, generally speaking, the tea partiers were definitive Ron Paul followers or fans. Among other things, I think the folks I’ve met were generally more in favor of the military, the war on terror, and mainstream conservative foreign policy than anything that could be described as Paul-ism. Moreover, both in e-mail and in person, the enthusiasm for Herman Cain and to a lesser extent Michele Bachmann and, before her, Sarah Palin, was greater than anything I’ve seen for Paul.
In fact, Clinton’s problem arose from the fact that he was exploiting a junior employee and lying about it under oath in the course of a lawsuit. That lawsuit in turn arose from an episode in which he had made use of his political office to “hit on” young women in his employ. Not content with forcing his whole Cabinet to join in the deception, Clinton used his own staff to suggest that Monica Lewinsky was “stalking” him, an accusation that was highly defamatory and damaging and might well have been believed if she had not been in possession of proof. This extremely sordid behavior led to the surfacing of many earlier allegations. These included charges of coerced sex, amounting to rape, from more than one believable witness. (The story of that revolting conduct is told in my book No One Left To Lie To.) But a majority of the country made light of the entire business, regarding it as a “peccadillo” or private matter. Two of Clinton’s hastily recruited spiritual advisors, Jesse Jackson and Billy Graham, even defended the exercise of his special needs as an alpha male, overlooking the crucial fact that his entire defense consisted of denying having done so. Jesse Jackson has gone on to admit the fathering of an out-of-wedlock child, without any noticeable effect on the rate of his pious public appearances. So it seems that the American public is by no mean as censorious either as it believes itself to be or as others believe it to be.
In an attempt to defend himself from my exposure of his record and actions, Mosab Hassan Yousef has solicited help from Gonen ben Itzhak – Yousef’s former handler within Shin Bet (Itzhak was fired from the organization). Itzhak intended to write and publicize a letter damaging my name and credibility. I obtained the letter sent by Itzhak prior to its publication, have seen its claims, and can offer proof beyond any doubt defending myself from the spurious charges therein.
It is crucial to note Itzhak’s own background: he was fired from Shin Bet for “financial mismanagement and lying.” Additionally, former deputy head of the Shin Bet (and current Kadima MK) Gideon Ezra has questioned the credibility of Mosab’s story, saying it was all “exaggerated.” Itzhak is also an extremist Greenpeace activist and a pro-Palestine, anti-settlement advocate. This man is now countering my honest, factual reporting of Yousef by claiming he investigated me and found that I was a “fraud.” I can prove he is now lying about my past, and given his current behavior, I am not surprised at the stated reason for his previous firing.
Here’s Shoebat’s original post which is very much worth reading. That Yousef would respond by trying to destroy Shoebat’s credibility is very telling.
The death of World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah’s doubts about the legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been greatly exaggerated.
In an interview with TPM, Farah confirmed he’s still on the “birther” crusade and said he might sue Esquire over a satirical article that said otherwise.
The magazine’s parody claimed that Farah was recalling the WND-published book Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr. Jerome Corsi, and giving refunds to anyone who already purchased a copy.
“Don’t believe everything you read,” Farah said in an interview with TPM on Wednesday.
“The only hint at the parody was the made up name of Jeri’s book about the moon landing or something, and I had to do a double take and read it two or three times in astonishment before I even caught that,” Farah said.
Everyone who ever wrote about the birth certificate issue in any depth saw this coming. The new Party Line at WND is that the long form birth certificate released by Obama is a fake. No matter what documentation is released it will be inadequate for those committed to this crusade. There’s really not much left to say about the subject.
My affection for leftists who will state their actual views openly only continues to grow in the age of Barack Obama’s stealth socialism. Here’s Cornel West unloading on a President who’s been smart enough to stop returning his calls:
No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”
“When you look at a society you look at it through the lens of the least of these, the weak and the vulnerable; you are committed to loving them first, not exclusively, but first, and therefore giving them priority,” says West, the Class of 1943 University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University. “And even at this moment, when the empire is in deep decline, the culture is in deep decay, the political system is broken, where nearly everyone is up for sale, you say all I have is the subversive memory of those who came before, personal integrity, trying to live a decent life, and a willingness to live and die for the love of folk who are catching hell. This means civil disobedience, going to jail, supporting progressive forums of social unrest if they in fact awaken the conscience, whatever conscience is left, of the nation. And that’s where I find myself now.
“I have to take some responsibility,” he admits of his support for Obama as we sit in his book-lined office. “I could have been reading into it more than was there.
“I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor,” he says. “But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, ‘Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.’ And the same is true for Dennis Rossand the other neo-imperial elites. I said, ‘I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade. I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitzand brotherPaul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong.”
It’s really pretty simple actually. The increasing severity of our debt problem is going to provoke a realignment of the apolitical Center (people who are barely politically active and don’t know much) with the Right.
Before long, when Finley didn’t budge, the books from Mamet stopped arriving, and Finley asked if he could send Mamet some books too. One of the first was A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution. In it Sowell expands on the difference between the “constrained vision” of human nature—close to the tragic view that infuses Mamet’s greatest plays—and the “unconstrained vision” of man’s endless improvement that suffused Mamet’s politics and the politics of his profession and social class.
“He came back to me stunned. He said, ‘This is incredible!’ He said, ‘Who thinks like this? Who are these people?’ I said, ‘Republicans think like this.’ He said, ‘Amazing.’ ”
Finley piled it on, from the histories of Paul Johnson to the economics of Milton Friedman to the meditations on race by Shelby Steele.
“He was haunted by what he discovered in those books, this new way of thinking,” Finley says. “It followed him around and wouldn’t let him go.”
For years Mamet and Finley talked by phone at least once, sometimes twice a day. He became friends with Sowell and Steele, another Hoover Institution fellow. Mamet dedicated his most popular recent play, Race, to Steele.
A former literature professor, Steele told me he’d been an admirer of Mamet’s work since the 1970s and thought he’d detected signs of incipient conservatism in the plays.
“I think he has the same values today that he did before,” Steele said. “He’s said to me he thinks he might have always been conservative without knowing it. All that happened was, he finally found a politics that suited his values.”
I’ll be reviewing Mamet’s book as part of a series of book reviews I’ll be doing on what I’m describing as “the Hollywood Revolt.” Andrew Breitbart’s book will be first.
This shift narrative — of reading a bunch of books while arguing for an extended period with a conservative friend — is the same thing that I went through with David Horowitz. Sowell in particular is one that ex-leftists tend to drift toward regularly. I’ve filtered out all the old copies of Sowell’s books from the Freedom Center Library (translation: the tons of books that David has dropped off here at the Center.) They’re all sitting on my desk right now. That Sowell was a Marxist in his 20s probably plays a factor.
Roger Simon has a very good suggestion: the United States government needs to release the (apparently quite large) collection of pornographic images and videos that was discovered in Osama bin Laden’s hide-out.
We need to understand minds like bin Laden’s as well as we can if we’re to defend ourselves against them. Know thy enemy.
And that includes understanding what drives him at a psycho-sexual level.
I’d like to argue that we need to go a step further, though. If we make Osama’s porn collection available then there is going to be CONSIDERABLE interest in it online — and not just from scholars. Pornographic websites are the most popular content online. I propose that we do this:
1. First filter out all child pornography and the most degrading, disgusting, violent content.
2. Post it online in an easy, accessible, modern website.
3. Sell advertising space on this site at especially high rates.
4. All money made from this advertising will be invested in scholarships for Reform-minded Muslim young women to go to college in Western universities so they can develop the skills to pursue their dreams and bring the Islamic world out of the Middle Ages. I’m sure clever names for this scholarship fund can be developed.
End result: one of the world’s great misogynists will be responsible for empowering the women he spent his whole life oppressing.
My friend John Hawkins, the mastermind behind Right Wing News and one of the must-read columnists at Townhall, has a thoughtful post explaining why he’s skeptical and worried about getting married some day. John goes through all the reasonable points you might expect, in particular how devastating divorce can be on everyone involved in it.
We all know that the divorce rate is too high in this country today. And the effects of growing up in a divorced family is something that we’ve all seen if we haven’t experienced it firsthand ourselves. But is the fact of the high divorce rate a disincentive for someone to want to get married in the first place?
John, let me tell you something directly: people with hearts as big as yours shouldn’t worry so much about divorce. I don’t foresee you having a hard time making a woman feel loved, cherished, and appreciated — as long as you put your mind to it. The failure rate of divorces says more about our broken human nature than a problem with the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is a job like any other. (I sometimes feel like when I’m clocking out at NRB that I’m just clocking in with the Swindle-Bey household.) And just as we’re all capable of failure — and in general that we fail more than we succeed — so too do many marriages collapse. But the chances of all of us having a painful divorce are not equal. Getting married isn’t like spinning a slot machine where it’s totally out of your hands whether you hit the jackpot or lose your money.
Marriages don’t have to fail when both people in them take them seriously and don’t allow them to crumble under the pressures of life and our own selfish, broken nature. Read a few books on marriages — The Five Love Languages is very useful — spend enough quality time together, and pay attention to their needs and things will work out.
This Monday will be my wife April and my second wedding anniversary. It hasn’t always been easy. We’ve had big changes, angry fights, and plenty of surprises. But we’ve both grown and are starting to evolve slowly into better people than we were before we came into each other’s life.
I’ll admit that I’m talking through my hat on this, but I wonder if the reason why so many marriages fail is because the people in it don’t realize that marriage only works properly if both people participate in what it’s supposed to do: change you into a better person. Marriage only works if you let it transform you into a less selfish person. And let me tell you, THAT can be really hard. But I think it’ll be worth it.
Third, the assault on Wiesenfeld should raise alarm bells for all parents in the US. It isn’t just that universities are increasingly closed to critical thought regarding Israel. Their refusal to countenance the truth in the discussion of Israel — Columbia, my alma mater just established an institute of Palestine studies. That is, Columbia just established an institute to study an imaginary country and a nation that was invented by the Soviets circa 1969 — is a signal that they cannot study anything. What the Kushner story shows is that there is no reason for parents to believe that a college degree from most US universities today will provide their children with anything remotely resembling an education.
Read the entire column.
Such is the claim of a budding blogging talent named Allen James Burnham after I refuse to let him publish progressive posts at NewsReal Blog. I had a little too much fun with this guy. Our correspondence is now available at NRB.
My response to a commenter on Robert Wargas’ post who warned us not to quote Chomsky too deeply lest people see how sensible he is:
The easiest way to end the cult of Chomsky is for his fan base to actually read and understand his work (instead of just perceiving him as the hip dark priest of nihilism in their political death cult.) The best way to marginalize Chomsky more is to spread his words far and wide in as much fullness as possible so that sane people can comprehend his level of self-hatred.
Hat tip to Bosch.
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed. On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever. In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead
Go and read the whole thing. Ed of course eloquently explains what everyone knows: Pakistan could not be trusted to capture bin Laden for us. Anyone with the most elementary education in foreign policy is going to understand this.
It’s one thing to be ignorant and say something stupid. It’s a whole other to be malicious. There’s no possible way a Congressman who has been engaged in the foreign policy debates of the last ten years can not understand this basic fact, not opinion, but fact about the nature of our Pakistani “ally.”