The Voice of Treason

I’ve looked under chairs
I’ve looked under tables
I’ve tried to find the key
To fifty million fables

They call me The Teaser
I’ve been searching low and high
I won’t get to get what I’m after
‘Til the day I die…

It was funny when the news broke that Newt, after months of what the pundits are referring to as a “tease,” had made it official: He would not be seeking the presidency in 2008. This came as no surprise, and despite the explanation that he was forced to make a difficult choice (legally explore a bid for leader of the free world or remain leader of his tax-exempt political organization, American Solutions), it was clear that the real reason was as simple as timing.

It was in June of last year that The V.O.T. cited an article by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. entitled “The Boy Speaker.” Bob, as I said back then, is “none too fond of his subject, and that subject would be Newt Gingrich.”

As much as I like Newt and admire his intellect, passion, and knowledge of politics and history, I have to agree with Bob Tyrrell: Newt carries a lot of baggage. He is, like it or not, the Republican version of Bill Clinton. Like the former president, Newt had a wonderful opportunity to initiate real change, but because of some very real character flaws, he fell short of the objective.

I won’t rehash the entire article, but it’s interesting that the Editors at National Review published something very similar recently: “Newt Don’t Run.” It echoes Tyrrell’s concerns about Newt’s electability because, like Hillary, he represents an unpleasant political past that, ironically, he is committed to changing. But great ideas cannot wipe out historical fact. He’s tainted. Like Hillary, he has too much baggage – way more than a full set of Samsonite – and his participation in the race would hurt not only himself, but the other candidates, too.

Like the Editors point out:

“The Republican party owes Newt Gingrich a big debt. It will benefit should GOP politicians borrow some of the initiatives that result from his latest project. But not if he runs for president.”

Frankly, when the Conservatives aren’t backing you, it might just be time to back off. But as much baggage as there is, my real issue with Newt, again, is timing. A Gingrich candidacy would be bogged down by war and terrorism, political correctness, a trend towards Socialism and more government control, a dumbed-down electorate, and a lopsided media.

Newt, if given the opportunity, could do a lot of good and radically change the nature of American politics. But as President, too many of his ideas and programs would have to take a backseat. George W. Bush came into office with good ideas and the best intentions for his domestic policy, and then came September 11. The current political climate would not be warm enough to nurture a Gingrich administration, and in all honesty, I don’t think Newt would want to fail at the job. What he should do now is adopt a Dick Cheney attitude. Forfeit the top job and work in a support role – not for himself, but for the team.

He had an opportunity once. That was his time. That time has passed.

Runners:

1. Duncan Hunter

2. John McCain

3. Rudy Giuliani

4. Mitt Romney

5. Sam Brownback

6. Tom Tancredo

7. Mike Huckabee

8. Ron Paul

9. John Cox

10. Fred Thompson

11. Alan Keyes

Jumpers:

1. Bill Frist

2. Frank Keating

3. Jim Gilmore

4. Tommy Thompson

5. Chuck Hagel

6. Michael Bloomberg

7. Newt Gingrich

“The world would be a lot better off if it were dominated by people like Ernie Banks. The former star of the Chicago Cubs was never too busy to greet people with a smile. He didn’t complain about extra-inning games or doubleheaders… Baseball would have little difficulty drawing fans if it could find the mold which developed Banks and put one of him on each team.

Banks continued to play with the Cubs through 1971. He had one major disappointment in his career. He never got to play in a World Series, because the Cubs never won a league championship.”

– Best Baseball Stories, A Quarter Century – Hank Lowenkron, Editor

Every family has a running joke – at least one, anyway – and ours was probably pretty typical for North Side Chicagoans. My father was born in April 1906 and died in April 1970. Technically, it was his fourth and final heart attack that did him in, although sometimes I suspect 1969 might have had something to do with it.

In 1970, my mother took me and one of my sisters – now deceased – to Prescott, Arizona, leaving the city we loved behind us. A married sister was still there, another sister was already a longtime resident of Tempe, and my brother was in the Air Force. My father, who had been separated from my mother for several years, stayed behind. I was ten years old and carried a ten-year-old child’s fantasy west with me. I believed that one day, when my father retired, he’d leave Chicago and join us in Arizona. My father loved Chicago, and he left his family’s horse farm in the Shenandoah Valley when he was sixteen, hopped a train with his dog Sally, and made his way to the “City of the Big Shoulders.” He was a diehard Cubs fan, yet never saw his team win a World Series. He died two weeks short of retirement age and my fantasy died with him.

My sister – her father’s daughter, as my mother was always quick to point out – “took after” him and his family (the Dutch and English side, not my mother’s Italian side) in several ways. Like Dad, she was a Cubs fan. She was born in April 1953 and died in the spring of 2003 – her heart failed, too – and she was another Cubs fan who never saw her team win a World Series.

My mother always told us that our father was a jinx because whenever he watched the Cubs play, they would lose. The running joke: He must have watched a lot of games. Family legends stick, and my sister and I carried that curse. To this day, I’m afraid to watch the Cubs play or wear a Cubs cap or shirt when there’s even the slightest, most remote possibility that they could actually win a championship. Because, if they lose… well, it’ll be my fault.

I’d said I’d boycotted baseball this season and wasn’t watching the game. It was difficult, hearing reports of the unusually good performance of the Cubbies after the All-Star break, but I stood firm. Misbehavior had affected even my team and after a brawl and the fisticuff between team members, I refused to participate and lend my support.

But I am old and weak. I confess that I did watch the last couple games at Wrigley and I even started wearing Cubs jerseys and sweatshirts again. One day I wore my 1969 shirt, and a woman stopped me in the grocery store to tell me how much she liked it.

“We’re from Chicago,” she started.

By the end of the conversation we had both agreed that this winning streak would end somehow. But we could still hope. The team had left Wrigley and was in Florida, playing somewhat dismally against the Marlins. Would this be another sad September?

I’d stopped watching after that last Chicago game and was trying not to pay attention. But tonight I knew the Cubs could clinch the division if they beat the Reds and the Brewers lost to the Padres. I didn’t watch the game. I didn’t wear a Cubs shirt. I didn’t want to jinx the team.

What happened to the Chicago Cubs in 1969 appears to be, ironically, happening to the New York Mets in 2007. It might turn out to be a very sad September for Shea Stadium’s fans, but I do not relish this. I know what they’re going through. I – dare I say it? – really do feel their pain.

A local theater just produced Bleacher Bums recently. The director is a woman who said she always wanted to do the show because her team, like mine, was the ’69 Cubbies. That woman in the grocery store asked me if I’d gone to see it, and I said that I hadn’t.

I’d thought about it, sure, but in the end I didn’t go. Guess I just didn’t want to jinx it.

One of the most depressing aspects about this week was the quote I unearthed in a Tony Blankley article about Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York. This from an open-minded American Liberal:

“I know I’m a Jewish lesbian and he’d probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon…

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policing preceding.”

Cuddly? Looks like a Muppet? Turned on by his rhetoric? This is in no way an example of that illustrious “left wing irony”: It’s an example of someone who is so open-minded that her brain has fallen out of her head. Perhaps she should enter Democrat politics, then lead a group of fellow travelers to Iran to chat with President Kermit.

Thankfully, there was a small glimmer of hope. When I woke up this morning I saw a clip of Karnit Goldwasser, wife of Ehud Goldwasser – one of the IDF soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah – questioning the cuddly frog.

“My name is Karnit and I’m the wife of Goldwasser that was kidnapped by Hezbollah to Lebanon more than a year ago and you’re responsible for this by your support. I’m asking how come you’re not allowing the Red Cross to go to visit them?

How come you’re not answering me?”

Excellent question. Mrs. Goldwasser’s microphone, however, was turned off and she was “escorted” from the room. This in the land of free speech. Of course, hers wasn’t the only question ignored by our infamous guest and, like these questions, this clip, this story will be ignored, too.

“Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. He’s the most uninformed person on foreign policy that’s now running for president.”

– Joe Biden

“Critics are like mayors of New York; no one really wants to like them.”

– Dore Schary

I had no intention of watching the Democratic debate because it’s Wednesday and I’m committed to Kitchen Nightmares on FOX (although Ramsay’s show on BBC America is, in many ways, superior to the Americanized version) and, of course, Top Chef on Bravo. Still, I found myself giving in to my masochistic streak and watching MSNBC anyway. (Ramsay and Top Chef were DVR’d.)

In a week in which an American city, still recovering from a terrorist attack six years ago, rolled out the red carpet for the Nazi weasel, the emphasis on the legal drinking age and bans on public smoking had me bewildered. There’s just so much here that’s unsettling, but I’ll limit the horror analysis to the segments that struck me as the most horrific: the Giuliani-Iran-Israel moments.

Russert: In 1981 the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.

If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

Clinton, although her answer was quite laborious, did not give the correct response.

Russert: You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani. This is what he said.

Would you make a promise as a potential commander-in-chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?

Clinton continued speaking, but still didn’t answer the question. Russert tried it on Obama, who called Giuliani’s statement “irresponsible.” Russert asked Edwards and failed to get the answer again. Oddly enough it was Govzilla, the governor of Nuevo Mexico, who started off with absolutely the most appropriate answer. And it was immediate.

“Yes!”

Unfortunately, Bill Richardson spoiled the moment and did precisely what he does after every other question. He launched into a rundown of his resume and started, like the others, on a long answer about how diplomacy is the solution. Wrong answer. It’s a shame because he, compared to the other candidates, started out strong and on the right track.

“A fundamental goal of our foreign policy should be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Another cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the strength and security of Israel. So you cannot deny a nation the right to legitimately defend itself.”

Precisely. If the answer is no, we don’t support Israel’s right to defend itself (which is, in essence, what the others were saying), then how do we justify our actions when we act preemptively to defend ourselves? But here’s the rub. Some will ask why it’s fair to prevent other nations to develop nuclear weapons. Who are we to put the kibosh on Iran?

Uh… because we are the voice of reason, perhaps? The only adults in the room? To be fair, Richardson’s response was the closest to correct but, again, he just missed the mark.

“Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”

One by one, the candidates explained that each would “do whatever it takes to keep America safe” which is obviously a blatant lie because none admitted that they would do whatever was necessary to get that information and save the lives of thousands – perhaps millions – of American lives.

This is precisely why I have no future in politics because I know what my answer would have been and I would hope one of the Republicans, perhaps Giuliani, wouldn’t have skipped a beat.

“Beat it out of him? With my own hands, Tim. And, of course, I’ll take full responsibility. Next question?”

In Lumine Tuo Videbimus Lumen

Well, that was certainly depressing. I skipped half of Amadinejad’s TV appearances, but did tune in for the National Press Club debacle and the Columbia University performance yesterday. I was initially encouraged by the number of student protests outside the auditorium, but any hope I had was wiped out – much like Israel will be – by the enthusiastic response to the twaddle inside the auditorium.

So much fanfare for the little tyrant, so much attention paid to this nutjob. So many supposedly intelligent, thoughtful people hanging on to his every word, giving him and his ideas credibility. The students and the parents of these students who are shelling out thousands of dollars for an Ivy League education are getting robbed.

Our president spoke, too, this week and didn’t get half the attention. Juan Williams interviewed him and Williams’ employer NPR rejected the interview. So much for the argument in favor of free speech and hearing what the “other” side has to say. So much for open-mindedness and dialogue.

Bush also spoke this morning at the United Nations, but there was much more attention paid to the speaker who said he wouldn’t be making an appearance there: Hugo Chavez. Even more attention was paid to the meeting between Chavez and Kevin Spacey – who’s apparently taking a break from hawking Japanese cars.

We live in twisted times.

“There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else.”

– James Thurber

“There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.”

– Edmund Burke

I recently criticized Dennis Kucinich for the timing of his recent trip to Lebanon and Syria. Too close to September 11, I said. Too close to Rosh Hashanah. And now Yom Kippur, The Day of Atonement, has passed, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denier, Brown Shirt, purveyor of weapons, and friend of our enemies is paying us a visit. Speaking at the United Nations is one thing – we’re stuck with that albatross – but being so cordially invited to attend a forum at a New York university is another matter entirely. But then, the Dean at Columbia has said Adolf Hitler would have been just as welcome. (Yes, but would Dick Cheney get an invite?)

Again, I’m not Jewish – I grew up with a lapsed Roman Catholic in a Jewish neighborhood. No Jew has ever tried to recruit or convert me, yet many Christians have. (Speaking of recruitment, just recently a man with a dyed beard tried to convince me to join Islam. Hmmm… no thanks.)

In looking at the “top” religions in the world and the sheer numbers of followers, there are, by most estimates, 2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, and 14 million Jews. The largest Jewish population is not in Israel – it’s here in the United States. And many of these people just happen to live in New York.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has every intention of destroying Israel and annihilating Jews, and is already killing Americans in large numbers, is coming to visit, right after the most sacred of the Jewish holidays. Defenders of this decision cite free speech; others say that there’s no proof that Israel – or America, for that matter – is in danger.

It would make no sense to wipe Israel off the map, they say: Iran would be responsible for killing not only Jews, but also the Christians, Muslims, and Druze who live there. A drop in the bucket. No one cares about the Druze, the Muslims in Israel are expendable “moderates,” and the annihilation of Jews and Christians is… well, a good start. There is no fear of retribution so there is no deterrent. Ahmadinejad is willing to suffer casualties. Destroying Israel is the goal; if millions of Muslims die as a result, not to worry, there are others.

Iranian students have protested; they have not been deceived. They know a dictator when they see one. Those in America who feel the only hope for change in Iran lies with its students might also take a moment to look at the students of Columbia. How they handle their terrorist guest will speak volumes not only about the quality of their education but also about our future.

“Train up a fig tree in the way it should go, and when you are old sit under the shade of it.”

– Charles Dickens

This Dickens quote just speaks volumes, doesn’t it? I mean, talk about a lifetime’s worth of advice in a nutshell. I can just picture taking an impressionable child by the hand and planting a tree, explaining all the while that how you make the decisions as to which tree to plant and where to plant it; how to plant it and then how to nurture and maintain it; to protect it and to respect it is so important. Why? Because someday it will return the favor and let you sit in its shade: the reward for all that work you put into doing the job right. The fruits of your labor.

As the child grows, no matter the situation (and there will be many), you simply remind him of the tree. Carefully and lovingly planted, roots firmly in the ground, trunk straight and tall, branches growing upward and outward — in the way it should go — providing fruit, a safe haven for birds, and plenty of shade.

The story of Jena, Louisiana is one of blame, but why blame the tree? Was it the tree’s fault that no one took the time to take these chiiillldrunnn by the hand and teach them the lessons of the fig tree? That no one took the time to train up these chiiillldrunnn, in the way they should go?

That part of the story has yet to be addressed. It’s easier to mistake the actual root of the problem, so the Jena 6 tree was 86’d. Instead of growing the children of Jena as if they were trees, of training them, it was easier to just target the only tree in sight.

“Women should be obscene and not heard.”

– Groucho Marx

Much has been said this past week about Sally Field’s insipid acceptance speech (“If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddamned wars in the first place!”), and both Michelle Malkin and Pia de Solenni have written just about everything that needs to be said on the subject. I did hear one person say that the whole “Taser Boy” story had him thinking that a taser might just be useful at these awards shows and that Sally was a prime candidate for a good zap. I couldn’t agree more.

From Michelle Malkin:

“Motherhood and peace-making aren’t synonymous. Motherhood requires ferocity - the will and resolve to protect one’s own children at all costs, and a life-long commitment to sacrifice for a family’s betterment and survival. Conflict avoidance is incompatible with good mothering…

Sally Field fancies herself the mother of all spokesmothers. To which I say, in my most maternally combative tone: Speak for your own bleepin’ self, sister.”

This reminds me a bit of that John Stuart Mill quote: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.”

And from Pia de Solenni:

“I can’t quite understand the misplaced Victorian sentiment that women are peaceful, peace loving, always benign, and always loving. Maybe that was the case before Adam and Eve ate the apple; but since then women, like men, are imperfect human beings…

As I thought more about Sally Field’s remarks I realized that she’s typecasting women just like Betty Friedan stereotyped women in the suburbs of 1950s and ’60s…

Note to Ms. Field (and Ms. Sheehan) — there would be no wars if there weren’t people who did bad things to other people. In some cases, war is a good thing because it means good people — good women and men — are standing up for themselves and for those who can’t stand up for themselves.”

Both Michelle and Pia make excellent points about women. They know women. They are women. I’m one, too, and I was offended by Field’s speech the same way I was offended by her 1985 Oscar speech.

“I haven’t had an orthodox career, and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!”

Oy! Talk about a woman thinking with her womb and not her brain! For so long women griped about not being taken seriously and just as one who epitomized the opposite of serious was being taken very seriously, she took a big purple eraser and made it all disappear with that “you like me!” speech. Because at that precise moment in history everyone thought the very same thought:

“Ah-ha! The truth comes out! Women don’t really want to be taken seriously! They just want to be popular!”

All those books and articles and movies came flooding back, filled with those pathetic adolescent girls just wanting to be liked. That this was the most important thing in the world: to get the approval of the people around you. To be popular. To be invited to parties. To be asked to the prom.

And what’s the best way to make friends, they were told? Always be nice! Be diplomatic, be accommodating, do what the other person wants to do. Be the little appeaser. If two friends aren’t getting along, be the peacemaker. Draw a happy face on the world and be that sweet girl that everyone wants to be around.

The nice person that everyone knows they can take advantage of. Swell advice. And about the time that women figured out that they were letting themselves be doormats and not getting any respect, they decided to get fierce. So what did they do? They emulated the worst aspects of their male counterparts and spewed profanities in the workplace. Ah, progress.

Sally Field makes it sounds like there are wars simply because the world is run by men, and that this is a bad thing, thereby suggesting that there is something wrong with men. That they are inferior to women.

Frankly, my dear, ovaries are fine, but if women want to run this world successfully, they’ll need to grow a significant pair of balls.

Unfortunately… it’s time. Long ago on The V.O.T., as some of you may recall, I created something called “The Loogy Award.” To those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s The Loogy in a nutshell:

“I said I would, from that day forward, ‘hock’ a Loogy to anyone who performed so badly as a human being and demonstrated behavior so repulsive that he or she stood out from the rest of humanity as truly depraved human debris. Well, hell, I could devote a whole site to Loogy recipients — even if I just concentrated on local stories about child and animal abuse, and examples of poor parenting.”

This is precisely why I stopped awarding The Loogy – it was threatening to become a full-time job. But this week a story appeared about an individual who thought his YouTube moment had finally come. Don’t misunderstand – I have no issue with YouTube. It’s where I go when I want to remind myself how much I used to enjoy watching Mike Rowe on QVC.

Sadly, YouTube is also the place where misfits go to get recognition. It works out for some: Chris “Leave Britney Alone” Crocker will be getting his own reality show. His little piece of stardom. His fifteen minutes.

Most of the misfits are benign, some are genuinely amusing, and others are… well, sociopaths who should be incarcerated. One such individual is today’s Loogy Award recipient: twenty-seven year-old Anthony Anderson. Mr. Anderson is in Britain, so hocking a Loogy so far a distance is difficult, but well worth the effort.

According to the BBC, fifty year-old Christine Lakinski of Hartlepool collapsed on the street, and Anderson — shouting “This is YouTube material!” — used this poor woman’s misfortune as an opportunity to finally be recognized. What was recorded on a cell phone was a bit of performance art, which included urinating on the woman, pouring a bucket of water over her, then covering her with shaving cream.

Miss Lakinski, whose brother Mark described her as “a lovely sister,” collapsed when her pancreas failed her: She died there on the street, her last moments on earth being desecrated by an inebriated subhuman obscenity.