Kathleen Parker is going to be Attacked Again

Parker was one of the first and few conservatives to point out that Sarah Palin may not really be the savior of the party. And she took a lot of heat from her fellow conservatives for failing to recognize the homespun greatness of Palin. Well, her latest article isn't likely to turn that around.

When you're up to your waders in barracuda, blame the media.

And quit your job.

And say you did it for the people.

And hire an agent.

And try to keep a straight face.

On your way to the bank.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, H.L. Mencken once said. Terribly elitist fellow, that Mencken. If only he were alive to witness the phenomenon of Sarah Palin, whose biography validates every cynical thought that ever found expression in his prolific prose.

Let's just say, Palin is in no danger of going broke. From her book contract alone, she never has to worry about money again, according to one close insider.

Parker isn't wrong; but I doubt expressing these sorts of opinions is going to endear her to the conservative base.

Even handed

Boy do I look forward to the day when I can get away from Jeremiah Wright. But that day hasn't come yet. Today's article is from Kathleen Parker who tries to be evenhanded. She notes, for example, that Blacks justifiably see America differently than Whites.

The historical experience of blacks and whites in this country couldn't be more different. Whites know it intellectually, but blacks feel it viscerally. No matter how many books we read or movies we watch, whites can never quite grasp what it is to be black or to be descended from people who were denied their humanity and enslaved by whites with the benign approval of the state.

But we didn't do it, we protest. Our children aren't guilty. When is enough enough? Why must preachers such as Wright insist on fanning those flames?

White Americans want to put race behind them, to move on.

All that is fair enough, but at the end, Kathleen parker wants to put race behind herself as bad as the Whites she seems to be chastising. She ends her article chastising Obama for not taking the white side in this argument.

Between a history of distrust born of painful experience -- and people like Wright who keep that history alive and well-stoked -- racial harmony will require more than hope. It will also require that people like Obama speak up and object to harmful rhetoric, sooner rather than later, even if it hurts the ones he loves.

It sounds very much like in Parkers mind the way to solve racial problems is to ignore them. You see that in a lot of the conservative criticisms of Obama's speech; why didn't he just tell Black America that everything is fine (for a nasty version of this argument see Jonah Goldberg's latest article "A Race Conversation? What Are You Talking About?"). Why did Obama have to acknowledge racial injustice, and how it is built into the fabric of our society?

Like it or not, I think Obama took the right tack in his speech; now we get to find out how badly Whites wanted to hear "everything is fine in America."

Catch 22

Here's a political Catch 22. The Democratic Party has two main contenders for the nomination, Obama and Clinton. I'm an Edwards supporter and I hope he does well in the south, but for right now Obama and Clinton are the big two.

At the Iowa Caucus last week, Obama did very well. But that's not good news for Democrats, because Obama is all about emotions and feelings and not about real practical solutions. This is the point to Kathleen Parkers recent article on him.

Destined for the historical audio files, Obama's speech was grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric. But what does it mean? It means nothing, but it sounded so good, who wants to cause trouble? We're feelin' good for the first time in a while and that's what matters.

Obama isn't just the inevitable dream candidate. He is the self-object of Oprah Nation, love child of the therapeutic generation. What he brings to the table no one quite knows. But what he delivers to the couch is human Prozac.

He may or may not be the right man to fill the Oval Office, but Americans will feel too good to notice.

So if we vote for Obama we are touchy feely dopes voting for style over substance.

Of course we could vote for Clinton, and yesterday New Hampshire did. But wait - they've got us there. Look at the key words that describe Clinton on the right (and in the mainstream media) - she's cold, she's calculating. She had an emotional moment on Monday, and reporters were heard to speculate on how long she spent practicing (from Glenn Greenwald). And if we vote for her, we are the same, I predict. Selecting cold, calculating Clinton in a cold, calculating assessment of who will win. Choosing electability over heart, practicality over principals. Or so I predict the stories will go (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am).

Bear in mind that this catch 22 is largely fictitious. There's not that much difference on the issues between Obama and Clinton. And many people genuinely support Clinton with both their heads and their hearts. But there it is, if we select Obama (or I suspect, Edwards) we are head in the clouds dolts, following our hearts right over a cliff. If we select Clinton we are grasping opportunists, casting aside our hearts to win at all costs.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Will Conservative Christians sink Republicans?

It's increasingly possible. They don't like Guilliani, aren't fond of McCain, are scared of Romney and haven't warmed to Thompson. None of the top tier candidates suit them. And James Dobson has already warned that he might lead his flock into a third party if he doesn't get a candidate he likes.

Kathleen Parker writes about their disdain for the top tier candidates, suggesting they get behind Romney now, rather than drawing it out.

Ultimately, Christian leaders (some of whom make off-the-record, supportive calls to Romney, I'm told) most likely will back the Mormon. But their actions meantime have hurt Romney as he tries to close the deal nationally.

If they were smarter, they'd embrace Romney as the one who can beat Hillary because he, more than anyone else, unites all wings of the party -- economic, security and social.

Joe Conason also has an article on this problem, saying approximately the same thing, without referring to Romney specifically.

Whether Dobson is serious about a third party or not may become clearer at his upcoming "Values Voters Summit," a mini-convention of religious-right activists that will convene in Washington on Oct. 20, with appearances by nearly every Republican presidential hopeful (except Giuliani and Thompson). The Republican Party won't be "finished" by the defection of the religious rightists -- as a few feverish partisans predict -- but they have the capacity to make what portends to be a bad year even worse.

There's an element of pride involved here - both the Liberal Base and the Conservative Christian Base are upset at their respective leaders/candidates. But the Conservative Base has had power and influence for 7-8 years now and so isn't as "hungry" as the Liberal Base. So while the Liberal Base might be willing to swallow a candidate like Clinton (who isn't really what they want), the Conservative Christians might feel capable of turning up their noses at a Guilliani.

We'll find out, I suppose.

Hey I didn't write the rules

Kathleen Parker's latest article is the normal sort of drivel you would expect from someone with a uterus. As you know women are catty creatures, focused solely on personal appearances, and Kathleen Parker certainly lives up to that in her comments on John Edwards.

But vanity is of another order, especially -- and perhaps unfairly -- when it comes to men.

Women get a pass for indulging their vanity, mostly because men appreciate the effort and applaud the result.

But we want men to be unaware of their attractiveness. Fairly or not, vanity is deemed unmanly.

Don't look at me. I didn't write the rules. But I do know them. Women don't trust men who spend more time in the bathroom than they do. And men don't trust men who primp.

So you see that Kathleen Parker is just another typical female, flighty and scatterbrained; focused only on specialities.

Hey I didn't write the rules. Wait - they aren't really rules are they? The more I think about it they are vague and crap stereotypes, at best. Many women are bright, smart, articulate, creative, and trying to make the world a better place. Maybe I should abandon my sexist point of view (which hopefully I have just adopted to write this article) and try to see individuals as individuals rather than as genders.

Maybe Kathleen Parker should consider doing the same, rather than throwing up her rhetorical hands and saying "Hey I didn't write the rules."

Molly Ivins

I really love Molly Ivin's writing and now she is gone and it's sad. I don't know what else to say beyond that. Except to point you to a really nice article by Kathleen Parker over at Townhall. Kathleen Parker is on the opposite side of the political fence but her tribute is very nice.

A great broad is everlasting, a presence, a force, a woman of substance -- solid, intelligent, humorous, sexy and full of "it." Reliable, strong, confident and competent, she walks into a room and causes a stir. The air shifts and heads turn. Who's that?

At six feet, Ivins was impossible to ignore. She commanded a room just as she commanded op-ed pages for millions of readers who found pleasure and inspiration in her words.

Parkers readers do not share Ms. Parkers charitable attitude. Consider this response by Reality (who is apparently not part of the Reality Based Community).

Liberals don't raise hell
They go there. Good riddance.

I should have known better than to read the comments given there are 79 of them. Reading the first ten or so I see three with Good Riddance in them. I'm tired of conservatives.

Truth, Justice, and American Exceptionalism

America is special. America is good. America is noble.

And by America I mean the United States of America, not Canada or the various assortments of Latinos who happen to share the American continent with that most special of nations, the United States of America. You guys aren't special; just us Americans are special.

And don't get me started on how unspecial, ungood and unnoble (ignoble?) the rest of the world is. No if you want a country that's special, good, and noble, there's only one place to get it. The good old United States of America.

That's the doctrine of American Exceptionalism in a nutshell. We're special; the rest of the world is crap. This is why some people have a problem with the latest Superman movie (which, if memory serves, is entitled "Superman Opens a Deli"). Kathleen Parker references this issue in her latest article (which is more about Superman and Richard White as father figures).

Much has been written about the scriptwriters' decision to delete Uncle Sam from the Superman triune: truth, justice and the American way. In the latest version, Superman represents "truth, justice and ... all that stuff," as Daily Planet editor Perry White puts it.

Some critics have been deeply offended by the extraction of American exceptionalism from this quintessentially American superhero and take it as yet another manifestation of lefty Hollywood's self-loathing. Both the scriptwriters and director Bryan Singer have explained that they were after a more international hero, sent to Earth to save not just America but the world.

Conservatives clearly believe in American Exceptionalism. Moreover they believe that anybody who fails to believe in American Exceptionalism hates America. You either believe America is perfect and blameless (except when Clinton is in charge) or you hate America.

Al Franken contrasted the love American Liberals and Conservatives feel for their country by saying that Conservatives love their countries like a child loves his or her mommy, and can't or won't see any flaws. Liberals love their country like an adult and so want to see it improve and do better. I don't think he's wrong. Of course another thing about adults, they don't need to believe that their loves are naturally superior to everyone else.

Oh, and Superman hasn't been a quintessentially American superhero in a long time. You might be thinking of Captain America. Superman's enormous powers and extra-terrestial origin ensure that he protects the planet not just America.

Anyway the rest of the article argues that Superman, a fictional character, might make a very poor father. I'd say that's true of most fictional characters, actually.

Even More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Diana West isn't so keen on the port deal.

Well, one overwhelming reason is that it was spawn of the Middle East, not Great Britain, that hijacked four American passenger planes on Sept. 11, 2001. And it was United Arab Emirates, not Great Britain, that served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers (two of whom came from UAE), and a hub for Pakistan's rogue nuclear export business. As Great Britain is Islamized, the distinction narrows; for now, it's reason enough to hold a UAE company to that "different standard." But such evidence -- and there's more -- is obvious; hardly the stuff of great debates. The fact that the president even begs the question is what requires deeper consideration.

Bush threatens to veto any legislation drafted against the port sale. Why? The only explanation I can think of -- and it spells disaster -- is that George W. Bush has decided that international feelings trump national concerns; that upsetting the UAE is worse than upsetting Americans: "I am trying to conduct a foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly,'" he said. Fairly? That's how you treat people after the war, not while the outcome remains undecided.

Of course one chilling thing about the current War on Terror is that it's not really expected to end. So I gather we won't be dealing with the Muslim World for quite a while.

Robert Novak, on the other hand, is in favor of the Port Deal. And of pointing out the political opportunism of the Democrats in congress.

. . . deeper problems are reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice.

The firestorm over whether Dubai Ports World should be permitted to replace a British company in control of U.S. ports is unexpected largesse for Democrats, desperate to regain control of Congress this year. Left-wing Democrats led by Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton seek the opportunity to trump Bush and the Republicans on their strong suit of national security.

Armstrong Williams goes a step further, to comment on the growth of American racism against Arab Americans.

This new strain of anti-Arab racism is exemplified by the hubbub that greeted the United Arab Emirates plan to take over shipping operations at six U.S. ports. The operations had previously been rented out to a British navigation company. No one had a problem with that. Nor does anyone have a problem with ports being rented to other countries, which they are. Legislators are only exhorting the President to block Arabs from taking over operations at the ports. To his credit, the president has said those who oppose putting the United Arab Emirates in charge of operations need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."

Williams does not see fit to comment on how his fellow Conservative Commentators (people like Ann Coulter or Cal Thomas) have fed this racism to the best of their abilities. Larry Kudlow takes a similar tack in his article, laying the problem completely at the feet of Democrats and calling the hullabaloo a symptom of Islamophobia.

Kathleen Parker responds to this line of defense in her article opposing the sale of the ports.

That distant thunder you hear is the sound of thousands of harrumphing pundits and politicians clearing their throats.

"Ah, what we really meant to say was that we love all G-d's people, but we'd really rather not have Middle Easterners managing our ports. If it's not too much trouble."

But trouble it is to admit what's really got Americans in high dudgeon over the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It's not just the sale itself, but the Bush administration's apparent lack of respect toward American citizens concerning a business deal that at least seems untimely and counterintuitive.

David Limbaugh straddles the fence on this one, which is odd since his brother has been so supportive of the deal.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of this deal and to urge that we err on the side of caution in these dangerous times. It is not just xenophobes and bigots who recognize that all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslims, two of which came from the UAE, that Palestinian Muslims danced in the street upon the news of the murders, that terrorist activities in Iraq and elsewhere around the world are overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and that we see so little condemnation from "moderate" Muslims of suicide bombings and other atrocities repeatedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

. . . I'm not yet completely convinced we should oppose this transfer for security reasons, but I'm confident it raises sufficient red flags that we ought to take more time to scrutinize before finally deciding.

So let's tally them up (so far)

In favor of the Port Deal - Stuart Rothenberg, Tony Snow, Oliver North, Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, Larry Kudlow,
Opposed to the Port Deal - Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Spencer, Diana West,
On the Fence - David Limbaugh
Disinterested - Tim Chapman

So that's 6 in favor and 6 opposed with 2 abstaining. Looks like they haven't got this one figured out quite yet. It is interesting that the braniacs who stress about economic issues seem to be in favor of this deal while those rubes who are more concerned with social issues are opposed.

Conservative Commentary on The Port Deal

Ann Coulter is against it, for about the reasons you would expect.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

. . . Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

Kathleen Parker also finds this deal baffling, but is just as interested in what the deal reveals about President Bush's psychological make-up.

The final throes of Bush's journey toward self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational rights to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Approved by the Bush administration against all reason, the $6.8 billion sale includes the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Despite bipartisan condemnation, the Bush administration has defended the sale to Dubai Ports World as not only safe, but prudent. The UAE, which incidentally served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers, is an important ally in the fight against terror, we're told.

Cal Thomas, given his strong anti-Muslim feelings, takes the tack you would expect.

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Tim Chapman seems mostly interested in the politics of the situation.

Of course, the irony of this situation is that the bipartisan opposition to the president comes on an issue that he polls strongest on. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows President Bush receiving strong approval ratings for his handling of the war on terror. Clearly, Democrats have sensed an opportunity with this news story to move to the right of the President on an issue that has traditionally been his ace in the pocket. Republicans in Congress must agree, because they are ceding no ground on the issue to the Democrats.

Finally Stuart Rothenberg, who is not a name I'm very familiar with, trots out to defend the administration's position.

While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administratios decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking "control" of America's east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don't know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the "threat" don't know. As a matter of fact, I'll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn't stopped people from ranting about the Administration's decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

Actually when I say that is the administration's position, I get the impression it won't be for much longer. Anyway it's interesting to me how many big conservative columnists haven't seen fit to write on this. Presumably they have their fingers in the air for the moment, and will speak when the time is right.

The Cartoon Controversy

This is the big story going on these days - what to do about those damned cartoons.

Short version - some anti muslim cartoons were published in Denmark. Muslims got very upset (to the point of rioting). Danish cartoonists are scared. Europe is wringing its hands. American Media is not showing the cartoons (although they are, of course, readily available on the internet.

This is a story made for Conservative Commentators. Poor Danish cartoonists being harassed by intolerent and hateful Muslims.

The riots and demonstrations across the Middle East and Western Europe (though not yet playing here) over some cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad have set off a parallel intellectual riot in the West over the nature of free speech and free expression. Many pundits and editorialists have worked feverishly to keep this a debate about the propriety of running cartoons. Some news outlets are updating their procedures so as not to offend "religious" sensibilities in the future.

The quotation marks around the word "religious" should say it all. We're not talking about "religion." We're talking about a specific religion - Islam.
- Jonah Goldberg, "Controversy is about culture clash, not cartoons"

The cartoon implosion now rocking the Muslim world - featuring embassy burnings, threats of 9-11 sequels and the Arab street equivalent of the Terrible Twos - is based on equal parts fake photographs and a default riot mode looking for an excuse. Extreme propaganda on one side and a lack of fortitude on the other have brought us near the brink of extinction through a global act of accidental self-mockery.
- Kathleen Parker, "The end of civilization was a joke"

Those who argue for republication of the Danish cartoons are not "instigating" a clash of civilization. Nor are they pouring gasoline on a fire. Rather, they are defending against the already declared and engaged radical Islamist clash against the Christian, Secular, Jewish, Hindu, Chinese world by expressing solidarity with the firemen.

In this case, the firemen, perhaps surprisingly to some, is the European press. French socialist newspapers, The BBC, and other major secular European media stand shoulder to shoulder with a right-wing Danish newspaper against what they correctly see is an unyielding demand by radical Islam that Europe begin to start living under Sharia law.
- Tony Blankley, "Cartoons, but not the funnies"

I have to admit not having a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue. The cartoons are mostly banal and not very funny, I can't see defending them as some great artistic statement. And of course it's hilarious for the newspaper who requested these cartoons to pretend they didn't know this might happen.

On the other hand, my own religion has been mocked before. In cartoons and in articles. And reading those articles and cartoons did sometimes upset me. But I didn't riot. I didn't demand that my personal feelings be taken into account by my entire society.

On the other hand, I am pretty well off. Perhaps things would look different to me if I was broke. Or, more to the point, if I lived in a society that I felt prevented me from ever making something of myself. Perhaps the riots are just a symptom of larger social problems in Europe.

So like I say, not sure what to say about this issue.

Intelligent Decisions and the Wal-Mart Effect

Kathleen Parker, over at Townhall, writes an unusual column for a conservative; one that is not completely laudatory towards Wal-Mart. Not to worry, she's no threat to Wal-Mart; she just allows questions to be asked about their long term effect on the world economy.

Take salmon. Wal-Mart, which buys all its salmon from Chile, sells more than anyone else in the country and undersells all other retailers by at least $2 per pound. That's a lot of market power, which prompts Fishman to ask: "Does it matter that salmon for $4.84 a pound leaves a layer of toxic sludge on the ocean bottoms of the Pacific fjords of southern Chile?"

Salmon in Chile are raised in packed underwater pens - as many as 1 million per farm - and fed prophylactic antibiotics to prevent disease. Here's a fact you'd rather not know: A million salmon produce the same amount of waste as 65,000 people. Combine that waste with unconsumed food and antibiotic residue, and you've got a toxic seabed.

Does it matter?

Only if consumers say it does, says Fishman.

Now it may seem like I'm damning with faint praise, but this really is a step up from "Everybody who doesn't like Wal-Mart is a pinko communist.

But not enough of a step. What Parker leaves out in her rosy thoughts on customer determinism is that customers are regularly deceived or given only half the story. How many Wal-Mart customers are aware of the ecological damage their cheap salmon is causing? Presumably very few.

And, of course, American customers are pretty good at overlooking or ignoring the moral implications of their spending power. Unlike Chilean Salmons, we all know that third world textile operations don't tend to be run along humane grounds (all protestations aside). Doesn't stop us from buying them. And I don't think the equation would change all that much if the abused employees were United States citizens.

Or, to put it another way, I don't think we can safely rely on Wal-Mart customers to save the world.

The Value of Democracy

What is the value of Democracy?

What is the value of letting people make the wrong decision?

This is the question Diana West asks in her latest article. The recent Iraqi Elections showed strong gains for the United Iraqi Alliance, a party with close ties to the Shi'ite state of Iran. This is obviously disturbing on a couple of different levels. For one, if we liberate Iraq and they ally with Iran, how much of a victory is that? For another, the debate of imposing sharia will tilt towards imposing those rules. Which means at least half of Iraq will lose some freedoms.

All of which is why I beg to differ when the president says, "the terrorists know that democracy is their enemy." From the PA, where sharia-supporting terrorists are winning primaries, to Egypt, where sharia-supporting terror-ideologues are being elected, to Iraq, where sharia-supporting terror-state-allies are being elected, democracy is not their enemy. It is vox populi. And just because the people have spoken doesn't mean we should applaud what they say.

We don't have to applaud it, but do we have to respect it?

Anyway it's an interesting puzzle, and not one I have an immediate answer to. I'm tempted to suggest that the Republicans wanted this war and now have to live with the results; but that's not a very positive way of looking at it. So I don't know.

Medical Marijuana

For those who don't know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government and against medical marijuana. This has raised a certain amount of ire on both the right and the left. Kathleen Parker (Right), for example, waxes sarcastic in her latest article, which covers the ruling.

I've got that all-over tingly feeling not felt since Martha Stewart was put away and America's mean streets made safe again.

I'm talking, of course, about Monday's Supreme Court ruling against state-sanctioned medical marijuana use that will keep the terminally ill and chronic pain sufferers from firing up a marijuana joint, getting stoned and, in addition to risking acute munchies, enjoying a temporary reprieve from hellish suffering.

Thank G-d we've got that particular homeland security problem under control. Why, in the age of terror, one can never be too careful with dying people who have nothing left to lose.

Her column continues in that vein, wondering why, with so many law enforcement problems facing America, the Federal Justice system is focused on this particular issue. A question I've wondered as well. I've concluded that it's for political reasons; John Ashcroft would like to get elected to something someday. And he thinks getting tough with pot heads (even terminally ill pot heads) will endear him to a certain segment of the voters. He might be right.

Over at This Modern World, which now features a variety of bloggers, Greg Saunders (Left) discusses the issue in relation to the movement to legalize Mary Jane for recreational as well as medicinal use. His feeling is that, for those who really want to see Weed legalized, this was kind of a wrong turn.

Like I said before, I think the "war" on drugs is awful, but I thought we were talking about the ways marijuana helps ease the enormous pain and suffering of cancer patients. Yes, the two issues are related, but nobody should be exploiting the sympathy for the terminally ill to piggyback the larger, but tangential, issue of the excessive criminalization of narcotics onto this particular fight.

Furthermore, I can't think of a worse way to pave the way for medical marijuana than the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment as described above. I think doctors should be allowed to prescribe pot to chronically ill patients, but the idea of allowing bad laws to remain on the books while passing additional laws that make it illegal to enforce the existing laws seems like a big, big mistake. Sure, it may provide the necessary results, but the means to that end would probably be a legal mess that could end up confusing the issue even further.

That sort of makes sense to me. I think that combining the medical marijuana issue with the larger issue of drug legalization just ends up trivializing what is really an important issue in and of itself. That said, both sides have good reason to continue combining the two, unfortunately.

Divisions

This is from Kathleen Parker of the Chicago Tribune (I think, the article was published at Townhall.com).

She comments, "There seems to be little sense of a middle ground these days. It's an either-or world, a condition that may be blamed in part on President Bush's "you're either with us or against us" mantra following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If you write in support of Bush policies, such as the war on Iraq, for example, those who disagree infer that you're either on the Haliburton payroll or jockeying for a job with the Bush administration.

I assume that those who write against the war get similar mail suggesting that they're either Clinton apologists, or communists, or teen-raping, pot-smoking, baby-aborting Hollywood agitators. What were once differences of opinion among gentlefolk have become vast ideological divides between fanatics and zealots."

I've noticed this as well. The concept of respectfully disagreeing seems to have gone by the wayside, and now politics is a war in which there can be no comprimise except for victory. I believe that most Conservatives and most Liberals love their country and want to make it better, but this is not a popular view these days.

How to Feel

We are at war, in case anybody out there didn't get the memo. Right now, on the other side of the world, United States Armed Forces and Iraqi National Guard forces are battling. And right now I'm at work, hardly paying attention. How does that work?

Ms. Kathleen Parker, commented on this phenomenon in her weekly column. She states "What was war like before real-time live feeds? How would George Patton have behaved with Wolf Blitzer holding a mike and 200 million Americans listening in? If there's no one there to film it, is there still a war? Without an interviewer, are there heroes?

We watch with a mixture of awe and angst, punching buttons on an electronic device that provides new angles and fresh commentary, all of which leaves me longing for a cleansing tub of soothing oils. The feeling isn't that I shouldn't be watching this, but that I shouldn't be doing this.

. . . The extraordinary so neatly juxtaposed against the ordinary robs the breath and weakens the knees. Horror transmutes to banality when perceived through the lens of artifice. How did we come to this, we should not stop asking."

It's a hard question. Are we doing our duty if we watch five-hours of news a day, following the war? How about if we just check on it every so often at MSNBC? Is that enough?

Quotes from Townhall

"While these antiwar types in America recoil with feigned outrage at the suggestion they're anti-American, when is the last time you heard them praising America? I'm waiting ... Regardless, most of them are useful idiots – useful to Saddam, that is, and idiots if they don't realize it or don't care."
David Limbaugh

"To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil."
Michael Kelly

"It is a tough time to be grown-up. To have moral courage, to swim against a tide of tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them, but it's bad, whatever it is. Real bad. American stuff. Big bad meanies. Where are the weapons? Where's bin Laden? What's Saddam got to do with it?"
Kathleen Parker

OK lets run this down. What does Limbaugh mean by praising America? Presumably he means simply praising American agression throughout the world. Most protesters do praise the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what they believe are American values. As for the second part, it's the best argument in the conservatives repretoire (Michael Kelly uses it as well). To oppose Bush's drive to inflict war on the Iraqi is to be pro-Saddam. To oppose this war against a war because we believe they may pose a threat to us down the road, is to be pro-Saddam. To be concerned about how a unilateral war will play in the middle east where we require the support of the governments to prosecute the war on terror is to be pro-Saddam (and to forget, that all Muslim Arabs are so full of hate that they are incapable of changing their minds anyway, so there's not point worrying about what they think).

And the humorously Kathleen Parker tells us all to grow up. The only reason people oppose war is because, infantile-like, they think war is bad. And that's as far as it goes. Of course Ms. Parker doesn't comment on the adultivity (to quote Kearny) of saying any opposition to the war is being pro-Saddam.

For those grown ups out there, here's how this works. Life is full of crappy decisions. Yeah, those who oppose the war are indirectly supporting Saddam. But that's not why they oppose the war. They oppose the war because they believe this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. You might not agree with that assessment. Fair enough. But it is really so impossible for you to believe that hard working Americans who love their country and who take the time to study the issues might disagree with you?

When Commentators Attack

Ok, so here's the first paragraph of Kathleen Parker's latest article about SUV's. "Honestly, if I didn't already own an SUV, I'd go out and buy one. While I'm at it, I might grab a Big Mac and fries, shoot a deer and run over a war protester."

So here's a simple question for those of you playing along at home, don't these two setences kind of imply Ms. Parker's already ran over a war protester? I could be wrong.

Later on, Ms. Parker comments that Marijuana may not be much help to Terrorists. "There's probably more marijuana being grown between Tallahassee and Thomasville than seeps across our national borders." Well, good for the local economy I guess.