Flippin’ the Word

For politicos as for pop stars, “the N-word” is the stuff of dreams, the gravity of which they mold out of our collective yearning to be offended together with our related collective need to be politically correct.

In a discussion stemming from Jesse Jackson’s comments about Barack Obama’s “nuts,” The View hosts - led by the rabid race-baiter Whoopi Goldberg - ganged up on Elizabeth Hasselbeck over their disagreement about the use of “the N-word.”

You probably think you know where I’m going with this: Given Hasselbeck’s conservative views, you’re likely assuming that she defended the use of the word, or that she, being all beige like she is, made racially insensitive statements.

Wrong.

What provoked Whoop’s ire is that Hasselbeck deigned to suggest that nobody should use the word, undoubtedly referring to black hipsters who think they’re all avant-garde for peppering their songs, their movies, their dialogue with that word. That same word, mind you, which, when uttered by the melanin-impaired among us, supposedly celebrates the white patriarchy.

Whoopi, along with fellow black co-host Sherri Shepherd, got positively head-bobbing when Hasselbeck declared that even blacks shouldn’t use “the N-word.” Whoop’s argument is - get this! - that blacks can use it because “we took out it out of the hands of the people who were using it and put it into our hands…”

Ok, so whites used the word to denigrate blacks, then blacks, empowered by the civil rights movement, claimed it as their very own so that they could…denigrate themselves?

Since there’s pretty much nowhere to go from there, I’ll just let you chew on that for a bit.

All I know is that it must be nice to be play the linguistic referee to a language which you can hardly speak.

With all the mumbo-jumbo about the economy and the market and the bottom line, something’s been niggling at me - something which, now that I’ve put my finger on it, encapsulates and delineates and sums up our problem. People - media people, expert people, people people - inexplicably speak about impending financial doom in terms of “rising monthly expenses.” Monthly expenses. How microcosmic.

To think of economic security in terms of this month’s or that month’s limits is to - and I’ve always avidly avoided this phrase - miss the forest for the trees. Financial security - or insecurity - is not a matter of month-to-month evaluations. Rather, financial security - or, again, insecurity - revolves around longevity, cultivated by - but never culminating in - daily and weekly and monthly and yearly outcomes.

A monthly assessment of one’s finances is but a blip on the money radar, mattering much less than the months that preceded it and those that will follow. That Americans conceptualize finances in terms of tiny and arbitrary increments ironically highlights the now!now!now! mentality that causes them to fear the end of the month.

Apparently meriting front page attention, anecdotal evidence has revealed that construction worker catcalls have decreased. While my inner attention whore is lamenting this news, I’m more interested in a heretofore unexplored dimension of this topic - one which brings together two of the left’s most ardent issues in a liberal crash-and-burn bonanza not seen since Elian Gonzalez confused and divided progressives.

I just love it when a pair of liberal causes - in this case, feminism and tolerance - collide to reveal the blaring inconsistencies within the liberal paradigm. What’s clear from the anecdotes is that it is Hispanic construction workers who are the catcalling perpetrators. From the article:

“Hispanic workers, who have a tradition of making unsolicited “piropos” in praise of passing women, generally fear for their jobs if they try it in the U.S.”

Now, one would expect that feminists - ever the voice for the disenfranchised - would be tolerant of all Hispanic tradition, including those which prompt catcalls. But no, it appears that feminist tolerance does not extend to flirty construction workers. In fact, it’s the hard-core feminists who complain the loudest about catcalls.

About the worst thing a catcaller could do is seek the attention of Mai Shiozaki, press secretary for the National Organization for Women. “I’ve filed five complaints in the last two years,” she said. “As a feminist, I don’t sit back. After I complain, I usually call the site manager to see if they took any action.”

In other words, even the most fervent pity-partyers have their limits, a fact which may come handy the next time leftists start vomiting their “tolerance” drivel. Come on, if the feminists have found a behavior with which they cannot sympathize, that’s got to guarantee the rest of us some slack.

Newsweek recently ran a feature in which it pondered the connection between fashion trends and the nation’s fluctuating finances. Apparently, an examination of our clothes is the most accurate gauge of the heft of America’s wallet.
 
It seems that women turn toward the traditional during hard times, trading polished pinstripes for pretty dresses.
 
“…the dress has remained an almost primal marker of female identity in the postmodern world. Its multiple variations…accommodate many different identities while simultaneously bringing to mind more traditional times, when America was still sitting securely on top of the world. The contemporary woman seems to be reacting to modernity by returning to simplicity and femininity, as opposed to the in-your-face working woman in a power suit.”
 
This buttoning-down of America signifies more than just economic hardship; it indicates that American women, despite their brash feminist militancy, miss the past - at least insofar as those mighty and fulfilling careers have lost their luster, sparking nostalgia for the simple life of yesteryear.
 
The working woman pretends to love it that she’s overworked and overextended. She wears her stress like a badge of honor, fake-complaining about her mile long to-do lists and her total lack of time. It’s an entirely gratuitous gripe, though, because she also coos breathlessly about her career and how it fulfills her and gives her purpose and allows her to feel independent. 
But underneath the surface, this woman - most women - feel cheated. Women miss being women; they traded femininity for feminism, thinking the nouns were interchangeable and realizing too late that they sacrificed a feeling for a cause.
 
Their despair resides in the shadows during economic success. But when a downturn occurs, as it has now, it leaps to the foreground, prompting women to rethink their choices - and most of all to reconsider the feminist paradox created by the “choice to choose.”
 
It happens to be that fashion provides the most salient indication of this dissatisfaction. As for me, I’ll keep rockin’ my skirts and dresses, too proud of my femininity to be a feminist.
 

As I recently predicted, John McCain has some ’splaining to do about his support of last summer’s immigration legislation. This past weekend McCain and Barack Obama separately addressed groups of Hispanic officials, each trying to coax the presidential election their way by pandering to the newest swing voting bloc - a bloc which, ironically, is largely comprised of people who are not even allowed to vote.

Obama criticized McCain’s withdrawn support for the very plan he endorsed just a year ago, insinuating that McCain’s change in position is an example of brazen politicking.

“One place where Senator McCain used to offer change was on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party’s nomination, he walked away from that commitment. He said he wouldn’t even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. If we are going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate, we can’t shift depending on our politics.”

But actually, isn’t that what representative democracy is all about? Isn’t a senator supposed to defer to the will of the people? The truth is that McCain’s constituents - those people he has sworn to represent - spoke loudly last summer to voice their disapproval of an immigration bill which they regarded as a plan for amnesty. The point is not whether it was actually a plan for amnesty, nor whether the bill would have been effective, nor even whether it was right or wrong. The point is that the people didn’t support it, and so McCain did what he should have done: He stopped supporting it.

It’s en vogue to bemoan political flip-flopping, having been brought into fashion by the catchy phrase that defined the 2004 presidential election. Somehow, it has come to be seen as a bad thing for a politician to change his position in response to the reactions of his constituents. In reality, though, that is the single most important aspect of a government ruled by the people. Indeed, a government is ruled by the people only insofar as officials adjust their policies in accordance with public response.

The story is not that John McCain has changed is position on immigration. The story is that it is regarded as a story at all.

First wives wield a lot of influence during each aspect of a presidency. A president’s wife is inspected closely during nomination bids and scrutinized during tenure. After the term has ended, it is surely the president’s wife who largely determines the tone of her husband’s legacy.

So, then, who are the women behind the current campaigns, and what are their relative merits and demerits?

Well, before I delve into my candid assessment of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, I have to first reveal my partialities. I totally heart Laura Bush. Her term as First Lady was as sweet as her husband’s tenure was sour; if I could, I’d keep her for another 8 years. Laura always acted appropriately, maintaining a deserved distance between herself and her husband’s policies. In doing so, she remained a First Lady rather than a cabinet member and a wife instead of a consulting partner.

Our current choices are somewhat less savory.

Cindy McCain is the quintessential ice queen, with gleaming opaque eyes and an upturned nose. If she were prettier she’d be the penultimate trophy wife: large inheritance, Slavic features, and a penchant for prescription pills. She talks a lot about her charity work, which would earn her points if only she weren’t so effing Stepford-like. Seriously, it’s kind of scary. If the American people want a down-to-earth, approachable, accessible executive branch - as they apparently did when they elected the Bushes - they won’t find that in Cindy McCain. While the Bushes were elected on the buzz that they’re the kind of people with whom you could share a beer, the closest Cindy has come to beer is DeBeers.

Nutshell: Cindy’s got the detached disengagement of a country club MILF who keeps a separate bedroom than her husband and holds her grandchildren at arm’s length to avoid sticky kiddy hands.

Michelle Obama, for her part, is no Laura either. She’s professionally successful in her own right, though you’d never know it by listening to her pity party rants. She bemoans the supposed race stigma and socioeconomic disparity, acting as if she’s suffered at the hands of racism.and poverty. The truth is, Michelle was raised by two parents in a solidly middle-class household. Further, she attended Ivy League schools, probably at the behest of affirmative action mandates. How can I be so sure? Well, I took a gander at her undergraduate thesis, infamous for its glaringly poor grammar and its overt racism. Michelle Obama’s upbringing and professional life have been anything but wrought with struggle - though she’d have you believe that she’s waged a Civil War of her own. Still, she’s smart, there’s no doubt about that. She snagged a future U.S. President, and she’s probably got a lot to do with his candidacy. I see something there between she and Barack, that undulating adoration that exists when the marital bond is strong and edifying. Indeed, I credit her with a great deal of Obama’s past and future successes.

Nutshell: Michelle’s certainly accessible, if sometimes tedious and trite.

It’s hard to say which woman will have the best impact on her husband’s campaign…that depends on what America is looking for in a First Lady this time around. I’m predicting that voters will prefer Michelle’s wry accessibility to Cindy’s confectionary imperfection.

As for my preferences, in case my implications above weren’t clear, I’ll break it down for you. I’ll take Michelle Obama over Cindy McCain any day. I value my life, after all, and Cindy’s impish eyes make me fear for my mortality.

Listening - Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl”

Reading - Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”

Watching - Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan”

Loving - Gmail Notifier

Missing - Domino’s Doublemelt

Awaiting - Spoloeto’s “Monkey”

Clicking - http://thedairiburger.wordpress.com/

P.S. - I understand that some of you readers are veritable grammarians, so preemptively: Save yourselves some time and refrain from sending me anal emails about my misuse of parentheses when titles should have been underlined and vice versa. My guide to MLA is MIA, and besides, I have trouble with authority.

A chapter of the Boy Scouts is suing Philadelphia, citing censorship after the City demanded that the organization admit gays. Of course, the City provided some semblance of a choice so as to make it look like the demand was not in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s explicit ruling that the Scouts has a First Amendment right to exclude who it wishes. The City, which has historically rented the Scouts’ meeting place for $1 a year, now threatens fair-market rent if the group doesn’t comply with Philadelphia’s no-discrimination ordinance.

As to the relative merits of each case, I say “whatever.” I do, however, suggest that City Solicitor Shelley Smith take a law school refresher course, or even just arrange a visit to her local fourth grade civics class.

“I think they think that their First Amendment right trumps our local ordinance,” said Smith.

Indeed. It’s called the Supremacy Clause. Read it and weep.

Within the framework of the acclaimed American justice system, thousands of children are flung like pinballs at the whim of the very agencies enlisted to protect them.
 
Twelve Mormon children are now back in the care of their parents, after a Texas appeals court ruled that the seizure of the kids was illegal.
 
At the forefront of this issue is the debate over governmental latitude in determining a child’s best interests. There is, however, an unexplored but essential dimension of this situation: If the stakes are so high when we’re dealing with children’s welfare - and everyone agrees that they are high - then why is there an utter lack of certainty, accountability, and predictability?
 
At least in the realm of the family court, the notion of justice is fickle, relying not on precedent, order, or the child’s best interests, but on fluid statutory interpretation and feckless judges.
 
What goes on in family court is less about putting kids first and more about putting kids out - out of their homes, out of their comfort zones, and eventually out of their minds - at least until the next branch on the withering judicial tree reverses the previous.
 
And when it’s decided that some court or agency got it wrong - as in this case - the affected family has no recourse or recompense, only the looming threat of more litigation. In the name of justice, and under the guise of so-called “checks-and-balances,” families are hauled from one legal venue to the next.
 
Such is the case with the Mormon families: Like flicking a gnat from its shoulder, the Texas appeals court passed the case - and the kids - onto the state Supreme Court.
 
The most frequently used word in family court is “stability.” The most frequently used phrase in family court is “in the best interests of the child.” All that talk is merely lip service: It’s glaringly obvious that the family court provides neither, and in fact actively contributes to the opposite.

The glaring national spotlight is once again shining on South Carolina, and once again the attention is negative. Eddie Walker, principal of Irmo High School, has resigned following a disagreement with the student body. Of course, since this is South Carolina we’re talking about, that disagreement naturally involves the sanctimonious banning of something-or-other in the name of high-and-mighty “ideals.”
 
A group of Irmo students sought the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club, sparking opposition from Principal Walker on grounds that such a club would conflict with his “professional beliefs and religious convictions.” The school district concluded that it was legally required to allow the formation of the club, prompting Walker’s resignation. Walker continued in his resignation letter:
 
 
“My decision to resign is a personal choice based on my professional beliefs and religious convictions. I have prayed about the decision for a period of time and I have a peace about it. … I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.”
 

Seeing as I regularly go along to get along, perhaps I’m not really suited to make assessments about a principal and his principles, though I will anyway because I’m nosy like that. What is it with some Christians? Allowing one’s principles to interfere with one’s cushy government job is just unacceptable, and I think that Jesus would agree. If anyone knows the importance of hedging one’s bets, it’s Jesus. He has, after all, resumed his cushy government job, this time as advisor to President Bush. Seriously, WWJD?