African American Derangement Syndrome

A "performance artist" recently warned that if Sarah Palin entered Manhattan, she would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers." I won't mention the performance artist's name, because she doesn't deserve the publicity that she would derive even from this no-readership blog. Suffice it to say that the reference to "my big black brothers" struck me as odd, since the "artist" happens to be white.

Many have said that this is the latest example of Palin Derangement Syndrome. PDS is a disease that causes people who are gripped with an irrational hatred of Sarah Palin--frequently Hollywood celebrities--to make ridiculously vicious statements that damage their own reputations more than Governor Palin's.

That's not how I interpreted it. I thought the remark was an example of African American Derangement Syndrome, whereby people damage their reputations by launching hateful and irrational insults against African Americans. I mean, if you predict that a certain person will become the victim of gang rape perpetrated by members of a certain race because members of that race (who, of course, all think alike) disagree with her political opinions, then who are you insulting? The predicted victim? I don't think so.

What made the remark so incredibly offensive was its racism against African Americans. You would have to be an idiot to not see that, but the sad thing is that the "artist" clearly did not see that. As a liberal, she would be horrified at the suggestion that she harbors the racist sentiments that were so clearly betrayed by her outrageous words.

The artist has apparently tried to defend her racist statement by suggesting that it has to be understood in the proper context. You see, her statement was made as part of a comedic performance in which she was making an important statement against racism, sexism and all of the horrible things that are embodied by the evil Sarah Palin and her party. Since I'm a member of Sarah Palin's party, I'm probably too much of a buffoon to appreciate the profundity of the performance artist's work. She's a liberal, and people like her are just plain smarter than people like me.

This "comedic context" defense is essentially the Michael Richards Defense. And as we all know, that defense worked out just fine for Michael Richards. Oh that's right--it didn't.

All that aside, the performance artist can get away with statements like that because as a white liberal, she's Down with the Black Man. And besides, racist statements aren't racist when liberals make them. Why? Because they're liberals. If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. But it's kind of like how sexual harrassment isn't sexual harrassment when Bill Clinton does it.

You see, famous liberals can get away with almost anything simply by loudly proclaiming how much they care. They can absolve all of their sins by walking into the voting booth once every two years and pulling the "D" lever, which is their equivalent of walking into a confession booth and saying 40 Hail Mary's.

Us normal people, however, have to mind our P's and Q's. We don't get a free pass on racist and sexist remarks. That might explain why, during this election season, virtually all of the racist and sexist remarks by public figures have come from liberals.

Be Kind to Charlie Rangel

When House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel was asked why Democrats were so afraid of Sarah Palin and her popularity, he responded with a non sequitur: "You got to be kind to the disabled." When asked whether he was calling Governor Palin disabled, Rangel responded: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live."

Many have criticized Rangel for contributing to the mountain of vitriol that has been hurled at Sarah Palin since was selected for the Republican ticket. Many have also criticized Rangel for not grasping that the thing about being able to see Russia from Palin's house was a "Saturday Night Live" joke, and does not really form the basis of her foreign policy.

I, personally, am not going to join the chorus of criticism against Congressman Rangel. You've got to be kind to the ethically disabled.

On Sarah Palin's (and Joe Biden's) Foreign Policy Experience

Much has been made of Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. What no one seems to have noticed is that over the last 30-plus years, we have only elected one President--George H.W. Bush--that had any previous foreign policy experience. Four of the five Presidents that we have elected since 1976--Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush (George W.)--were governors with no foreign policy experience. That didn't stop those Presidents from achieving such foreign policy accomplishments as winning the Cold War, brokering the Camp David accords and ousting Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, is often said to have the most foreign policy experience of the major party candidates for President and Vice President. He has served in the Senate since 1972 (!) and chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All of that experience, however, hasn't stopped him from being wrong on almost every major foreign policy issue he has ever weighed in on.

He opposed the Reagan military buildup policies that ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He opposed the first Gulf War to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Although he voted in favor of the current Iraq War, he opposed the surge and pushed instead for a policy--vigorously denounced by virtually everyone in Iraq--to split Iraq into three pieces. Had Joe Biden been our Commander in Chief, we might still be engaged in a Cold War with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Saddam Hussein might be still alive and well and occupying Kuwait (if not Saudi Arabia as well). Biden is the guy that, according to Barack Obama, has "stared down dictators." Yeah, right.

Biden aborted his first campaign for President after he was charged with plagiarizing Neil Kinnock, Britain's leftist Labour Party leader at the time. Perhaps Biden could have demonstrated sounder judgment on foreign policy by instead plagiarizing Margaret Thatcher.

On foreign policy, Senate experience is fine, but I would much rather have someone with toughness, sound judgment, common sense and strong convictions. I see much more of that in Sarah Palin than I do in Joe Biden (or Barack Obama, for that matter).

Perhaps much of the anxiety that some feel over Palin is the fact that she's uncharted territory. Put aside for a second the fact that she's a woman. Think of Palin's unique mix of characteristics, for better or worse: Under 45, put on the ticket with less than two years' experience as a governor, avid outdoors enthusiast, member of the National Rifle Association, large family, reputation as a reformer unafraid to take on fellow Republicans. There's never been a major party candidate for Vice President with all of these characteristics. Well, actually there has been. His name was Teddy Roosevelt. If we could put Teddy Roosevelt in a time machine and insert him into the current race, he would make a much better choice for Commander in Chief than Joe Biden. And so would Sarah Palin.

Sorry, Charlie: If You're Going to Play "Gotcha," You Need to Get Your Facts Straight

In his long-awaited interview with Sarah Palin, Charles Gibson's attempt at a "Gotcha" moment was undermined by his own confusion over the facts. He asked Palin about her views on the "Bush Doctrine." Palin asked for clarification. Gibson did not initially clarify what he meant by the "Bush Doctrine," in an obvious attempt to make Palin appear ignorant. At long last, he "informed" her that the Bush Doctrine meant that the U.S. has the right to launch pre-emptive military strikes to prevent an attack on us.

Sorry, Charlie. You are the one who is ignorant. The fact is that there have been at least four successive doctrines that have been known as the "Bush Doctrine," and the right of pre-emption is not the one which is currently in common usage. The more commonly accepted current version of the "Bush Doctrine" is that the survival of our freedom and democracy depends increasingly on the spread of freedom and democracy around the world. Palin was justifiably confused by Gibson's question, since there is no one "Bush Doctrine." He might as well have asked Palin to read his mind.

This is just the latest example of the mystical judo that Palin has been effortlessly practicing against the elite chattering class. The harder they try to make her look stupid, the more they make themselves look stupid. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for them.

Obama Campaign Questions John McCain's Honor

Responding to a campaign ad highlighting Barack Obama's support for comprehensive sex education for kindergartners, Obama press secretary Bill Burton issued the following statement: "Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."

Now, the campaign is close and heating up, and both sides are taking hard shots at each other. Each side believes that the other side isn't always being fair; it's normal for those in the thick of the battle to feel that way.

But does the Obama camp really think that it's a good idea to question McCain's honor? Most Americans believe that a man who fought for his country and suffered through five and a half years of torture as a POW--which worsened after he refused early release because it would violate his honor code--has demonstrated enough honor to last several lifetimes.

I believe that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are both honorable men, but have they ever proven their honor in the way that McCain has? Attacking John McCain's honor will only make people remember Sarah Palin's pointed line in her speech at the convention: "Though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, 'fighting for you,' let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you."

After the raucous applause died down, Palin elaborated on her point: "There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death. And that man is John McCain. You know, in our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world, the nightmare world in which this man and others equally brave served and suffered for their country. And it's a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office."

In this election, each side will have plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the other. It's a free country, and anyone is free to question John McCain's honor. Those who chose to do so, however, will only succeed in demonstrating that they don't know the meaning of the word.

If You Disagree with Me, Then You Are Worse Than Hitler

My wife was having a business meeting with a Hollywood producer when the producer made a remark about how horrible John McCain was. My wife responded that she liked John McCain. Big mistake.

The producer, who came of age during the 1960's, appeared stunned that anyone could even think to utter such a hurtful and offensive thing. After regaining her composure, the producer asked my wife (who must have looked "foreign" to the producer) whether she was even allowed to vote in this country. When my wife broke the sad news that she did indeed have the right to vote, the producer put her face in her hands in despair. The producer then launched into a 20-minute tirade about how rotten, corrupt and incompetent John McCain was.

The producer demanded to know why my wife liked John McCain. My wife made mention of McCain's heroic service to his country. "Let me tell you about that," said the producer. "McCain was a screw-up. He only got into the Navy because his father was an admiral. He was such a bad pilot that he crashed into the lake without even being shot down. If the Vietnamese hadn't rescued him, his own crew would have killed him."

Now, for the record, none of that is true (except for the part about McCain's father having been an admiral). But even if it had been true, what would be the point? Would it somehow negate the heroic strength of character that it took for McCain, his body broken, to choose to suffer years of additional torture because he refused to released without his comrades? When was the last time that we had a presidential nominee from either party who had rendered such compelling proof of his strength of character?

John McCain's heroism does not obligate anyone to agree with him or to vote for him. But why did this producer feel compelled to impugn the character of such an honorable man? Would she not have had more credibility had she simply said something like: "John McCain is a man of great character and I have tremendous respect for his service to his country, but I have good faith disagreements with him on issues that are important to me and so I won't vote for him"? In fact, most people who are not supporting McCain would have no problem saying something like that. But there are some people out there who reflexively demonize people with whom they disagree, and who believe that people who do not share their political views are stupid, evil or both.

Most people, be they liberal, conservative or moderate, would recognize this as an adolescent way of looking at the world. The majority of people on both the left and the right are reasonable, tolerant people who are secure enough to respect good faith differences of opinion.

A subset of conservatives, religious conservatives, are often stereotyped as being intolerant. I believe that this stereotype is unfair, and that the majority of religious conservatives are tolerant (within reason, of course). The most influential religious conservative today is Rick Warren, who has earned trust and respect from both the right and the left. However, there remains a signficant minority of people on the right who are intolerant of those whose views and lifestyles do not conform to a particular set of religious teachings.

Leftist intolerance is a little different. Leftists are more likely to be intolerant of those who do not share their ideology, rather than those who do not share their religion. Perhaps this is because some on the left have rejected religion but have subconsciously filled the void with ideology. Indeed, the leftist brand of intolerance to differing political views bears all of the hallmarks of fundamentalist religious intolerance. Since ideology fills the role in their lives that religion plays in the lives of others, they deal with ideological diversity with the same lack of grace that some religious conservatives deal with those who do not share their religious views. Intolerant leftists practice what I call "secular fundamentalism".

College campuses have become hotbeds of secular fundamentalism, with activist groups frequently trying to stop speeches by those with whom they disagree, and professors sometimes abusing their positions of power to try to impose their political views on their impressionable young students. Ironically, intolerant leftists are the ones who are most likely to assert that all Republicans and/or all people of faith are intolerant.

Let me stress again that the intolerant ones, at least in the U.S., are a minority on both the left and the right (although they may be a majority in Hollywood). To the intolerant ones on the left, being called on their intolerance cuts to the core of their lofty self-image as open-minded, accepting people. Most of these people will never have the self-honesty to grasp the fact of their own close-mindedness and inability to accept diversity of thought. (In fact, many afflicted with the leftist brand of intolerance place great value on "diversity", but they value diversity of skin color to the exclusion of diversity of thought.) To admit their intolerance would destroy their sense of self, and so they protect their psyche by going into denial about their ideological bigotry. They firmly believe that they and people who think exactly as they do have a monopoly on virtue, and that McCarthyism can only be McCarthyism when conservatives are the perpetrators.

I believe that those who accuse John McCain of being corrupt, dishonest, etc., simply undermine their own credibility. Most people know in their hearts that John McCain is a good man. When Madonna compares McCain to Hitler, she makes herself, not McCain, look bad.

I support John McCain for President for many reasons, but I also recognize that Barack Obama is a good man with great intelligence, talent and ability to inspire. It's no insult to say that Obama has not proven his character to the same extent that McCain has; hardly anyone has.

Of course, all of this is only my opinion. But as Greg Gutfeld, host of the hilarious Fox News show Red Eye, would say: If you disagree with me, then you are worse than Hitler.

Golden Bones: A Truly Inspirational Story

Golden Bones (HarperCollins), Sichan Siv's new autobiographical account of his escape from the Killing Fields of Cambodia to find extradordinary success in America, is one of the most inspirational stories ever.

Siv grew up in a middle class family in a village near Phnom Penh, Cambodia's capital. After working his way through college, he eventually landed a job at the international relief agency CARE. When Pol Pot and his communist Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia in 1975, Siv's close-knit family was split apart and forced to return to the countryside to perform slave labor. The Khmer Rouge would eventually cause the deaths of up to 2 million Cambodians--over a fifth of the population--through execution, starvation and forced labor. Since the Khmer Rouge systematically murdered the most educated members of society, Siv had to hide his educated background at all costs.

Knowing that he would eventually be discovered and murdered, Siv plotted a daring escape into Thailand. He had to bicycle his way from the southeast corner of Cambodia all the way to the northwest corner, hiding in the forests and outwitting the murderous Khmer Rouge every step of the way. After finally making his way to a town near the border, he laid low until he found his chance to escape. He hid in the back of a truck that was transporting logs near the border, jumped off at what he thought was the appropriate moment, but got his shirt caught. After being dragged by the truck for about a mile, he finally broke free and miraculously escaped detection. He then broke into a mad dash through a mine-infested forest and eventually made it into Thailand.

After living in a refugee camp in Thailand, Siv was allowed to enter the U.S. as a refugee in 1976. After working as a migrant farm worker and burger flipper in Connecticut, he moved to New York and became a taxi driver. It was there that he learned that his worst fears had in fact been realized: virtually his entire family, including his elderly mother, his brother, his sister and their families, had been clubbed to death back in Cambodia.

Siv managed to win a scholarship at the prestigious international affairs graduate program at Columbia University. By 1989, just 13 years after he arrived in the U.S. virtually penniless, he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as Deputy Assistant to the President for Public Liaison. Golden Bones recounts Siv's triumphant but sad return to Cambodia as a high-ranking White House official, and his subsequent service under President George W. Bush as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council.

Sad Commentary recommends that everyone read Golden Bones, which is full of dramatic twists and turns that are stranger than fiction. It would make a great movie. The question, however, is whether Hollywood today is capable of making a movie that could capture Siv's unabashed love for America without snickering. If every American could see this country through Sichan Siv's eyes, we would all be a lot more thankful for our blessings.