“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . .”
— Oath of U.S. Citizenship
In the name of “multiculturalism” we have crammed our cities full of people like Mona Eltahawy, who feel no love or allegiance to this country, but instead cling to their narrowly defined ethnic identities, so permanently alienated from the American mainstream that they can feel no joy at our nation’s triumphs. These estranged newcomers — citizens in name only — are the fertile soil on which the seeds of hatred are sown.
The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces.
Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was shot by U.S. forces.
I can’t imagine that the anti-war left will stand quietly for much longer while President Obama does a victory lap for snuffing an unarmed old man no matter how much they may want him re-elected.
But who cares? Consistent non-partisan peaceniks tend to be kooks like Cindy Sheehan and fanatics like Glenn Greenwald. From the political perspective of the White House, who cares whether a relative handful of cranks and crackpots whine about this? I don’t seem to recall a sudden exodus of peaceniks from the Democrat Party when Bill Clinton ordered relentless bombing of Serbia in “The War of Monica’s Thong.”
How did we go from “Bin Laden had a weapon and was using his wife as a human shield” to “Bin Laden was unarmed and didn’t have a human shield” in the span of 24 hours when there’s apparently helmet-cam footage of the whole raid? Surely, surely, the White House knew that conspiracy cranks and naysayers would cite every discrepancy in the official narrative as “proof” that Bin Laden’s still alive or whatever.
Video of Jay Carney’s White House press conference:
Officials in the Obama administration “go to great lengths to avoid disclosing their meetings with lobbyists,” a Republican congressman said Tuesday, as he opened a House subcommittee hearing to investigate whether the White House is keeping its promises of “transparency.”
“The American people were promised a new era of openness and accountability and they haven’t gotten it,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“We’ve seen a lack of transparency in the Administration’s response to FOIA requests; their secrecy about the work done by key czars, such as the Climate Change Czar and the Health Reform Czar; and, more recently, they’ve tried to require selective disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, but not unions,” Stearns said. “And our own investigation into the secret health care negotiations has been delayed by the Administration for more than a year.”
Stearns cited a recent report by the Center for Public Integrity which found that logs of White House visitors released by the administration “routinely omit or cloud key details about the identity of visitors, who they met with, the nature of the visit, and even includes the names of people who never showed up. These are critical gaps that raise doubts about their historical accuracy and utility in helping the public understand White House operations from social events to meetings on key policy debates.”
As Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner noted, “White House staff have purposely and repeatedly circumvented … visitor logs by meeting with lobbyists at Caribou Coffee and other locations outside of the White House.”
Now, this is what we call a “joke.” The guy in the commercial is watching the game, and his wife wants to talk to him about something else — something greatly interesting to her, but of no interest to him, since he is watching the game.
The joke is dependent on stereotypes: Guys just want to watch sports on TV and aren’t good at listening to their wives. But there is a recognizable element of truth to these stereotypes, and certainly many married people — husbands and wives alike — will smile in recognition.
Adelman is offended, however: “Wives, of course, only talk about things like which color to paint the foyer.”
No, but whatever she wants to talk about while her husband is watching the game is, from her husband’s perspective, trivial. The point of the joke isn’t that wives only talk about trivial things. Rather, it is about the fact that women value communication in a way that most men don’t. (And guys value sports in ways that women usually don’t.)
Entire essays have been written on the subject of differences in how men and women communicate. This TV commercial oversimplifies these differences, and arguably does so in a sexist direction, but hey — it’s just a freaking commercial, OK?
The assassination of Osama Bin Laden doesn’t signal a victory for Americans but rather a resounding alarm about the surreal state of affairs in which we Americans have landed, with President Obama at the helm, leading the charge to assassinate Americans and foreigners alike, and vicious beatings of all others who express dissent and stand in the way of the United States Government. We must finally set our sights on neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, but instead put our faith for hope and change in a third party who will kick these vicious xenophobic, racist, brutal plutocrats out of office, and send their banker and insurance friends packing as well. Shame, President Obama, on you and all your “Democratic” colleagues.
You really ought to read the whole thing, just to see how demented this woman is in her anti-Americanism. (You won’t be surprised to learn she is a Berkeley alumna.) But while the editors of Feministing permit Professor Sheth 1,000 words to denounce American “imperialism,” they offer just a brief and uncritical mention of this bit of news:
There are reports that during the attack on the Osama bin Laden’s compound yesterday, a woman was used as a human shield. The President’s chief counterterrorism adviser says that woman was one of bin Laden’s wives.
Not a peep of criticism there of Islam’s explicit endorsement of polygamy, nor any acknowledgement that, in fighting militant Islam, the West is confronting a belief system infinitely more oppressive of women than anything in that Klondike TV commercial.
Also skipping: Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann. It should be kept in mind that, since 1980, no Republican has won the nomination without winning the South Carolina primary. Georgia’s Herman Cain is practically on home turf there, and coming off a strong showing Friday in New Hampshire. Yeah, I know it’s early, but the key GOP activists in South Carolina will remember who dissed them by skipping this debate.
Isn’t it time you joined the online grassroots army at Citizens for Cain?
“Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden — and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders — can easily rejuvenate that war love. . . . Americans are marching in the street celebrating with a sense of national pride. When is the last time that happened? It seems telling that hunting someone down and killing them is one of the few things that still produce these feelings of nationalistic unity.”
— Glenn Greenwald
“I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid. Just think to yourself — they paraded Saddam’s dead sons around to prove they were dead — why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent — just put your flags away and THINK!”
— Cindy Sheehan
Let’s begin by acknowledging that these are two different kinds of crazy. But people who find Cindy Sheehan’s crackpot paranoia risible might not see why Greenwald’s “nuanced” anti-Americanism is almost equally demented.
As I explained yesterday, I can understand people (e.g., Joy Behar) who view the news of bin Laden’s death as an occasion for partisan political cheerleading. I understand it, even if I don’t endorse it. Our political discourse nowadays is so often a matter of scorekeeping and talking points — the horse-race mentality where the only relevant question is “Cui bono?” — that this is only to be expected.
(If Hurricane Katrina could be used as a partisan weapon, what is off-limits? Once you politicize the weather, everything is fair game.)
No, what disturbs me particularly about Greenwald’s argument is that he doesn’t view every “sense of national pride” as dangerous, but only American national pride. Cubans or Canadians, Chechens or Chinese, Poles or Palestinians — all other peoples can cherish their national identity without stirring any Greenwaldian concern. But let Americans express satisfaction that their military has vanquished a sworn enemy, and this frets Greenwald to no end. His fear and loathing of American nationalism is so great as to produce its mirror-reverse.
Robert Frost once described a liberal as someone who refuses to take his own side in an argument. Greenwald is horrified that Americans do not join him in that refusal. He is appalled that we are happy about “hunting someone down and killing them,” as if bin Laden were just any old “someone,” and not the man who funded, organized and inspired a global terrorist conspiracy that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
America is, to Greenwald, the one nation on the planet so dangerously evil as to be underserving of affection, admiration or allegiance.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and supporters celebrate their new, solid majority
Tories ahead in 165 of 308 seats for solid majority; Liberals, Bloc Quebecois decimated; NDP to be official opposition
“Canadians have chosen hope, unity of purpose and a strong Canada,” Harper said.
