The Voice of Treason

Yup, they’re still there. Excuse me, but am I expected to support Hillary because of her gender? My gender? Call me crazy, but I thought we were supposed to vote for individuals based on qualifications other than color, religion, or gender. Or am I smokin’ dope here?

T and I met up with liberal friends this week and our female friend announced that she’s definitely voting for Hillary. Why would you do that, I asked. Because, she responded, voting for Hillary will change the world. Precisely, I said, and that’s not necessarily a selling point. But we’ve never had a woman president, she said. True, I said, but I’d rather hold out for someone’s who’s qualified.

It reminds me of an exuberant C-SPAN caller from Iowa who announced that she was definitely voting for Hillary, too. The host asked her if she had seen or heard Hillary at any of the many campaign events in the state. No, she said. But, she said, she saw Bill and heard him talk about Hillary! Clearly, for our liberal friend and this caller from Iowa, Hillary is a viable candidate because she passes the ovary test.

Clearly, I do not.

If no one believes there’s a difference between the two major political parties, one should watch those Luntz focus groups. You know, the guy who corrals groups of people into a room and charts their responses to what the candidates are saying during the debates? It’s pretty straightforward stuff: When the group and candidates are Democrat, he charts the liberal and moderate responses; when the group and candidates are Republican, he charts the conservative and moderate responses. Accordingly, when a Democrat candidate talks about a woman’s choice, ending the war and bringing the troops home, taxing the rich, the redistribution of wealth, increasing entitlements, free healthcare, pre-K, and free college for all, the line on the chart climbs. When a Republican candidate talks about school choice, fighting Islamofascism, securing our borders, lowering taxes, tort reform, abolishing the IRS and Department of Education, the line on the chart climbs.

T feels that this is a waste of time. He would prefer to see a chart that compares all the responses to each party’s candidates. For example, let’s see the lines side by side and see if they climbed higher for one candidate over another. Did Romney get a better response than Giuliani on that one? Did Hillary outscore Edwards there? Sounds good to me, but a tad tricky. What I’d rather see is a mixed focus group and their responses to the candidates. As it is, when I watch Democrats watching and responding to Democrats, I watch the lines climb… in direct correlation to my blood pressure.

Edwards says something about pre-K and free college for all (government control and indoctrination of your offspring for how many years?) and the lines climb along with my blood pressure. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for education, but a college education isn’t necessarily an education. I mean, Michael Vick went to college for a couple years – did this make him a better human being? I think not.

My theory is simple: Republican and Democrat voters should be measured simultaneously, and Republicans should watch for the conservative line to soar or the liberal line to plummet while the candidate is speaking. If the liberal line soars, it’s an indication of which candidates to avoid. I’d like to see a liberal voter respond to a Republican, for a change, so as the line nose-dives, plunges, crashes – in correlation to my blood pressure – my choice will be confirmed.

I love coffee, I love tea
I love the java jive and it loves me.
Coffee and tea and the java and me
A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup!

I love coffee, I love tea…

I spent most of my life with two women – my little Italian, lapsed Roman Catholic mother and my ultra-conservative, atheist, excruciatingly funny sister – and most of what I’ve learned I learned from them. Unfortunately, most of it is absolutely crazy sh*t but, in those mountains of dreck, there really are nuggets of truth. One thing I remember them always saying about men was this: If he doesn’t have a sweet tooth, if he turns down a piece of cake or pie, or shies away from candy or chocolate, watch out. He’s a drunk.

The other thing – and this was gospel – was the coffee rule. Pay close attention to how a man takes his coffee, they said. It will tell you everything you need to know. Needless to say, I was intrigued when the coffee preferences of the 2008 candidates made news.

DEMOCRATS:
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Sometimes black, sometimes with cream
John Edwards: Doesn’t drink it
Barack Obama: Black, but rarely drinks it
Bill Richardson: Cream

REPUBLICANS:
Rudy Giuliani: Splenda, Sweet’N Low or Equal, whichever is available
Mike Huckabee: Splenda
John McCain: Cappuccino or coffee with cream and sugar
Mitt Romney: Doesn’t drink it, has been known to have hot chocolate
Fred Thompson: Cream

Oh, dear. I come from a long line of coffee drinkers and my mother mainlined the stuff. She never failed to remind us of her supreme sacrifice: She gave up the stuff while she was pregnant. A badge of honor, and we should have been grateful. Actually, we just suspected that she resented us for it. I do not exaggerate: The woman loves her coffee.

I, too, am a fan and I dutifully grind my beans – always dark, always fragrant – and concoct a brew that’s very dark and thick. Some have complained that my coffee has dissolved whole sections of stomach lining because it’s “too strong.” Too strong? What are they talking about?

Anyway, my theory is that if coffee is worth drinking, it’s worth drinking very hot and very black, or with a modest splash of half ‘n’ half. Real cream, of course, is acceptable if you’re lucky enough to have it, but milk is insipid. And the cream is there only to lighten and enhance the flavor of the coffee. Its role is not to overpower. After all, the expression is “coffee with cream,” not cream with coffee. “Boston,” as my mother and sister would say.

And please – none of those sugary, flavored creamers. Why? Because the rule of coffee is this: no sugar. Ever. With that in mind, which candidate passes my coffee test?

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy! Sweetener in your coffee? No wonder you attended every funeral after 9/11. When we first moved to California, our old Italian landlord, Mr. Mancini, always slipped me cups of hot, strong coffee with sugar. I drank it and loved it because sugar was only a minor ingredient. There was considerably more bourbon than sugar in there, and usually a bit of lemon, so the sugar was easy to overlook. I was only eleven, but I knew the family’s rule on coffee. If I’m going to have sugar in coffee, it had better be accompanied by alcohol and a lot of it.

Huckabee’s diabetic – and it’s probably because of all the sugar he put in his coffee. If he has the discipline to lose over a hundred pounds and run marathons, he should be man enough to kiss the Splenda goodbye. Mike, once you go black…

McCain. He’s a Starbucks guy, isn’t he? That combination of caffeine and sugar is probably what makes him so peevish.

Clearly, Fred Thompson is the only Republican on this list who knows how to take his coffee. A man’s man. An adult. The Gary Cooper in the group.

Mitt’s a Mormon, so I’m not surprised that he passes on the cuppa joe. It’s the main reason I’ll never join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That and the alcohol thing. But isn’t hot chocolate a stimulant? I mean, I’ve been stimulated by a good mug of hot chocolate.

So we’re left with the Democrats. So why doesn’t Edwards drink coffee? Just one more reason to dislike him.

Barack is trying to please everyone here. He drinks it, but he doesn’t. And in case you need to be reminded, when he drinks it, he drinks it black.

Govzilla uses cream, but how much I wonder? So… to my horror… the Senator from New York and I continue to have some things in common. I raise my mug to her.

“That was not just the worst debate of 2007, that was the worst debate in Western history – and that includes the Ancient Greeks. There was no record in any major European language of a debate this transcendently and crashingly dull. It was an astonishment.”

That, again, was Charles Krauthammer, describing the debate from Iowa. Today’s Democrat debate? No, that one, which he also described as “a bad debate,” was actually a slight improvement over the Republican. The little exchange between Obama and Hillary, Krauthammer explained, was “the only reason it didn’t reach the gold standard of cosmic dullness that was achieved yesterday.” And, frankly, if you ask me, the only reason Obama’s remark stood out was because it felt as if he’d taken a bit of Karl Rove’s advice.

“She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise…

Find a way to gently belittle her… Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more.”

That had some sting on it. Nicely done.

“South Carolina — I do believe he’s the one!”

– Oprah Winfrey

Everyone’s entitled to her opinion, and I have my own about Miss Winfrey’s pick. Quite simply, when it comes to the current bushel of candidates, Oprah and I can agree to disagree. After months of waiting for confirmation, I woke up this morning to the sound of Rich Lowry’s voice – and I admit that’s a little weird – breaking the news that the Editors at National Review had finally closed their eyes, reached into the hat, and pulled out the name of…

Well, of course, they didn’t do that. Pick up a dead-tree issue of NR or go online and you’ll find article after article supporting… well, pretty much the whole batch. In fact, the last issue devotes an argument of support to each of the major Republican candidates — which just doesn’t make the decision any easier. As Charles Krauthammer wrote back in October:

“Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the last quarter century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today’s discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled, and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials…

So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.”

Well, as Reagan would say, National Review has finally narrowed the field and chosen a captain. (“O Captain! my Captain…!”)

“In this most fluid (there’s that word again!) and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for…”

It was the weekend that wouldn’t end. Oprah and Obama were everywhere – there was no escape. I finally did catch the Iowa rally on C-SPAN – with sound this time – and decided I preferred what Oprah and Obama had to say when I couldn’t hear them. Were these rallies or revivals? Welcome to the Church of Obama! If this was to prove that the Senator is a Christian, that’s fine; after all, polls show that Americans would vote for a Mormon over a Muslim, but the whole “Second Coming” feel of these events was a tad unsettling.

It was just a little too weird to watch Obama addressing the crowds with the girl fan backdrop. Michelle, his wife, looking up at him from one side, and Oprah, his… I’m really not sure… beaming at him from the other. For those of you who have peculiar ménage à trois fantasies…

I’m serious: Does Oprah have a crush on Obama? Or is she simply kicking herself for wasting time and not hooking up with a promising young Senator a little earlier in her career so she would one day have a shot at First Lady? Hmmm. Shades of Jackie… O.

There was just too much Oprah and, to make matters worse, on Sunday night I actually watched that movie she’d produced. Don’t ask. Just know that I can never get those two hours back. Worse, I couldn’t even get away from the O-fest by burying myself in the newspaper. The cooing couple was there, too, but the absolute worst item was the article about what the former U.S. Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and mayor of Atlanta said about Obama in front of a Newsmakers audience.

Andrew Young – who, at age 75, isn’t – had the audacity to suggest that Barack Obama is “too young.” Well, it’s nice to see that ageism is so easily tolerated in the black community. But even more distasteful and offensive were his remarks about a former president. Bill Clinton, said Young, is “every bit as black as Barack.” Not waiting for that to sink in, he immediately followed up with:

“He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

Can we have a show of hands, please, from those who weren’t offended? Young is just one more reason why the United Nations is such a travesty. First, do we really need to be reminded that Bill Clinton is a ho? And, frankly, I know I’m not the only one who shuddered when Oprah mentioned Obama’s tongue. (I commented on this in a previous post.) Look. I just don’t want to have to think about a president’s body parts ever again. If her comment was engineered to bring back memories of a Clinton White House, then fine. It worked. But I never want to hear about Obama’s tongue again. Ever. It’s one reason John Edwards turns my stomach. I don’t want to see my president’s tongue, I don’t want to know what it’s doing, and I don’t want it distracting me during important addresses. A darting tongue is charming on a reptile, but repulsive on a candidate.

So, after all that, can anyone remember a damned thing Obama said over the weekend? Unfortunately, I do. First, his unflattering comment about being related to Dick Cheney and, second, his promise to raise the minimum wage every year of his presidency. There are times that Obama’s advisors should suggest he bite that tongue. This was one of them.

I know I’m not the only person who watched this spectacle and felt that I was being sold a bill of goods. Oprah is famous for hawking products and all she has to do is include something she likes on her list of favorite things and – Katy bar the door! – sales skyrocket. I know she likes Obama and I know she likes a particular face cream from Philosophy. So all I could think when I was watching her sell me Obama over the weekend was: The Audacity of Hope In a Jar.

Found this online while I sat on the phone — on hold — for an hour… Gosh darn, that’s amusing!

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all there is…

A few months ago I picked up my Albuquerque Journal (we like to refer to our lone paper as “The Urinal”) and saw the choices for Nuevo Mexico’s quarter. This is what we’ve narrowed it down to, the article stated, so what do you think? Uh… I think I’m not enchanted.

Every time we, the taxpayers, are introduced to a new piece of Nuevo Mexican “art,” invariably the question arises: How much did we pay for this? Next: Why? Then: Whose cousin’s lining his pockets? And finally: That’s it? You’re telling me there’s no other choice?

Is that all there is?

Today’s Urinal features the final five state quarters scheduled for a 2008 release to the public. Oklahoma’s features a Scissor-tail Flycatcher over an assortment of Indian blanket blossoms. If you don’t already know, a Flycatcher’s a bird, the official state bird, to be precise. Its name is derived from its elongated tail, which separates like the blades of scissors while in flight. We’re talking a nine-inch tail, here. So impressive, the birds are often targeted by poachers who like to collect the tails and… I don’t know … hang them from their rear-view mirrors? Anyway, the bird is famous for its elaborate “sky dance,” in which the male bird zooms 100 feet in the air, makes a series of V-shaped flights, then plunges down towards the earth in an erratic zigzag, often somersaulting in mid-air, all the while articulating a rolling, cackling call. No doubt many an Oklahoma driver has been treated to a Scissor-tail Flycatcher zigzagging into his windshield.

Still, something about the design of the coin captures a little something of the state and suggests the artist took some time to think the project through. So… Oklahoma’s O.K.

Then there is Arizona, The Grand Canyon State. The new coin will feature the canyon at sunrise, a signature saguaro cactus in the foreground. To me it says simply: “If you got it, flaunt it. And we got it.”

Alaska’s quarter depicts a magnificent grizzly bear, immersed in a roaring stream, with a large salmon in its mouth. The scene suggests both the state’s wild beauty and the harsh realities of nature.

Hawaii. We see King Kamehameha, in elaborate headgear and costume, clutching a spear in one hand while raising his right arm — perhaps to unveil those islands in the Pacific, as if they were jewels. Dramatic, and a tad campy, it’s no wonder gay men flock to this tropical paradise.

And now… the long-awaited quarter of Nuevo Mexico. It is the image of our state. Mind you, the shape of New Mexico is basically a square, made only slightly more interesting than Wyoming in that it has what is called a “boot heel” in its southwest corner. Over the top half of the square is the symbol found on our state flag: the Zia, a circle with four lines radiating from the top, bottom, and sides to suggest the sun.

Our state nickname, Land of Enchantment, is on the lower left side of the coin. The words “land” and “of” sit behind the heel of the boot; the word “enchantment” has been placed under the heel. As if it is being crushed by the weight of the large, dull block in the middle of an otherwise empty space.

Perhaps, for once, a Nuevo Mexican has captured the essence of our state.

Let me begin by saying that I am a woman of “a certain age,” probably perimenopausal, and I do not watch Oprah. I’ll repeat that: I don’t watch Oprah. It’s not that I dislike the woman, it’s just that she’s on at the same time Brit Hume’s on FOX. If I’m near a set at 4:00, I’m watching Brit. Anyway, today I sat down with a cup of tea and surfed around, then landed on FNC – the Obama rally in Iowa was about to begin. Michelle Obama, looking like she was on her way to a funeral, dressed in black from head to toe, introduced Oprah Winfrey to the expectant crowd.

Oprah took the podium and began to speak. A few moments later I came to an important realization: Oprah’s black. In fact, she was speaking black to a predominantly white audience. How odd, I thought. That is not her usual manner of speaking, yet she is suddenly using a heavy dialect and is dangerously close to lapsing into Ebonics.

Worse than how she was saying it was what she was saying. She described Obama as a politician who “has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Plainly someone hasn’t that ear for eloquence, and as for the tongue… well, better that, I guess, than a tongue dipped in an intern.

Say what you will about FNC, at least they weren’t having technical difficulties. I’d switched over to C-SPAN to catch what Obama had to say and I only caught every eighth word. I simply couldn’t get what he was saying because the sound quality was sh*t, but from what I could make out, Barack had brought his black voice, too. Again, an odd choice. You’re all up there talking about change – change we can believe in – and it appears nothing has. You say you’re not going to be a politician that says what he thinks people want to hear. You say you’re honest. You say you’re different.

Fine, then drop the phony dialect and just be yourself. Same goes for your friend, Oprah. Critics of George Bush cringe when they hear that drawl and they know he’s perfectly capable of speaking with barely a twang. It’s like Hillary and her Arkansas voice, back in the day. And worse, her “I don’t feel no ways tired” voice.

The human voice is a most important instrument. It is the essence of a person. To change one’s voice in order to communicate to a different audience is, frankly, a consternation. Sure, one might speak differently to an infant, a small child, or a dog, but if one is authentic, one should be able to communicate in the same voice to all people, no matter their age, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religion. In fact, one should even be able to speak – without altering one’s vocal quality – to another species. I mean, I don’t change my voice when I’m speaking to my dog. Why would I want her to think that I think she’s not as intelligent as she is?

Please. Just leave the dialects to the actors, dahlings.

“… I guess you read about the high school students in Kansas City, Mo., who got ten-day suspensions for using the n-word. Yes, I know it’s hard to believe that anyone could be so insensitive in this enlightened day and age, but there they were, classmates Travis Grigsby and Alex Coday, tying up the equipment after band practice. They were having trouble with the knots, and Alex asked Travis if he knew how to tie a noose. Travis said, yes, he knew how to tie a noose. A third student overheard and reported the exchange to the principal. Ten days’ suspension!

So now we have another n-word to avoid. First there was the n-word. Then there was ‘niggardly,’ a fine old English word (first in print 1571, according to the OED) that no one dares use any more for fear someone within earshot might burst into tears and go running for an attorney. Now we have to find some other way to say ‘noose.’

My fellow Americans, I have a suggestion. Let’s preempt future embarrassments of this sort by just dropping the letter ‘n’ from our alphabet altogether. It’s obviously just going to cause more trouble. It’s a hurtful letter, a mean-spirited letter.

Of course, we’ll have to rewrite all the great documents of our so-called civilization, but surely it’s worth doing that in the cause of racial sensitivity, isn’t it? How hard can it be, anyway? We’re only dropping one letter out of 26. There’ll still be 25 of the little suckers to work with.

Let me get the ball rolling here. I’ll start with something short. How about the Gettysburg Address?”

– John Derbyshire, NRO

I was having a cup of coffee the other morning and had FNC on for some background noise when a news story caught my attention. An Ohio high school’s production of Ten Little Indians had been cancelled because it was deemed OFFENSIVE. Sure, most high school productions are, but what on earth, I asked myself, could be so odious about this delightful Christie tale of mayhem and murder?

Flashback to my high school theater days and our annual senior play! I dug out a yearbook and there’s the photo: my cohorts and I are sitting on the set in front of the French doors we, the stage crew, had built. I was a junior, the year was 1976, and – gasp! – we had actually been allowed to present this classic-turned-contraband. My, how unenlightened we all were. Shocking, just shocking.

So what got the latest production axed — after the kids spent weeks in rehearsal? Was it the title? Yes, that was part of it. No, it wasn’t that “Indians” was so offensive per se – it was that the original title, Ten Little Niggers, was so abhorrent. Personally, I always preferred the revised title: And Then There Were None because I felt it more accurately captured the true flavor of the piece, though if you count the actual number of corpses the title is inaccurate.

Somehow the local chapter of the NAACP discovered that the original book cover, published in England in 1939, featured an illustration of a “black figure” and a hangman’s noose under the offending title. (In many print accounts of this story the title is referred to as “Ten Little N - - - - - -.” Um, should I have followed suit and described the picture as a hangman’s “n - - - - ?”)

Instead of taking a deep breath and using this as a teaching tool (like, duh, explain the significance of the original title and the name changes that followed), school administrators panicked. And for good measure they cited concerns about the level of violence in the play. (Characters are – gasp! – murdered!) Okay, so (we are led to believe) this is a mean-spirited, racist, hate-filled, violent, sadistic little murder mystery. The real mystery about this Christie mystery, however, is that there’s been a reversal and, true to theater tradition, the show will go on! With the revised, somewhat inaccurate title.

The N-word has been in the news a lot lately what with the Jena 6 controversy and a spattering of reports that suggest people are finding the N-word hanging from trees and on doors wherever they look. No, not that N-word – the other N-word! A college professor said she found one on her office door, an 18-year-old woman attached one to a tree in her yard and threatened to hang her b - - - - neighbors’ children, and then a firefighter in Baltimore found one at the station with a threatening, badly spelled note:

“We cant hang the cheaters but we can hang the failures.”

It was a hoax. The firefighter who found the items later admitted he’d placed them there himself. The perpetrator, incidentally, is b - - - -.

Thank you, sir, for fanning those flames, so to speak, of racism in B-more! As if the citizens there need your help. Twenty-six year-old Sarah Kreager tried to take a seat on a city bus this week and was told by a teenage passenger that she couldn’t sit down. She tried another spot and was told by another juvenile bus rider that she couldn’t have that seat, either. Finally, in the tradition of Rosa Parks, Miss Kreager just sat down. That’s when she was brutally attacked by nine students (three females, six males) from Robert Poole Middle School. The suspects, all ages 14 and 15, are b - - - -; Miss Kreager is w - - - -.

I don’t mean to nitpick, but the Poole School consists of grades six, seven, and eight. I was thirteen when I started ninth grade, seventeen when I started college. Oh, sorry – was that insensitive?

Also in the news are reports of swastikas appearing on property. A day after a b - - - - professor discovered a n - - - - outside her office, a caricature of a man in a yarmulke above a swastika was found on a bathroom door somewhere else on campus. Following that incident, a swastika was spray-painted on the office door of a Jewish faculty member.

Even locally we have a report of a family who has been targeted. They have lived in the same Northeast Heights neighborhood for 35 years and now someone is harassing them. It started with piling dozens of bags of trash in front of the house. Then the vandal (or vandals) returned and left nails under the tires of the family’s SUV. After spray-painting swastikas around the property, they sprayed the SUV and wrote the word “k - - -” on the side of the vehicle. (Uh, that would be “kike,” for those of you who might still be trying to figure it out.)

What’s disturbing about the incident other than the obvious, is that the family – the Garcias – are Hispanic and not Jewish. They even wish the offenders a merry Christmas. It’s being called a hate crime. Given the circumstances, one might surmise that this is, by all accounts, a senseless crime.

No word yet about the Baltimore bus incident being classified as a hate crime.