I guess I've been hearing it for years now as the country has slid into knee-jerk relativism. Till now though, it's merely been an equivocating grandfather clock in the background, metronomic, at worst nettlesome. It was at the beginning of l'affaire Polanski, though, that I realized how much I've come to detest the word "but."
One liberal pundit or another (banality = interchangeability) was bleating on and on, and I actually heard the words "what Roman Polanski did was wrong but ..." and it hit me like an air horn in a Trappist monastery. With a simple wave of the conjunctive wand, we now believe that we can explain away absolutely anything!
I know man does not live by declarative sentences alone, although you can certainly do a lot worse than Hemingway. Purely and simply, there are certain times in life that you have to pull up short of the logic abyss that is the word "but" and pitch camp on the near side of it. This is one of those times.
Not rape-rappe...
To apply a caveat to the forcible rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 40-year-old euro-lech armed with quaaludes and bubbly (and ably assisted by a brain-dead parent) is akin to sailing around the Cape of Good Hope to visit the corner store.
Now while I'm pretty certain Whoopi Goldberg is going to try to put a Roadrunner cloud between herself and her "not a rape-rape" gem, I'm not even sure she has to anymore! I think our society is so inundated with misinformed faux wisdom these days that her swing and a miss moment has already passed. The dogs bark, the caravan/news cycle moves on.
And where do you most often find this contorted gibberish masquerading as insight? Invariably on the backside of the word "but." Liberals have commandeered "but," conservative bunko artists favor "nevertheless," and moderates put you into an induced coma with their incessant "howevers." Pick your poison, fact is we'd all be better off staying on this side of the "but."
If you feel you've got something so wise, so precious, so singularly sagacious, that you want to tag it onto Polanski's atrocity to "shed some light on it," light is in fact your biggest problem because you've got your head shoved so far up your tuchus that they're gonna have to cut in switchback trails to get to it.
The Roman Legions came over the hill flying a single flag, the liberal one. Make of that what you will, I guess occasionally a man is going to be pushed too far. Think Van Heflin in "Shane." Evidently some liberals felt pushed too far by the arrest of Polanski. No doubt some airtight progressive notion about the day of the rape paling in comparison with the days since the rape. Now, I can't tell if Polanski's defenders are completely underthinking this or overthinking it. Either way, they're obviously not thinking. Theirs is a flat-line electroencephalogram.
If we don't have unanimity on the rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, well, we're never gonna have it, are we? If "but" appears as a fulcrum in a sentence about an occurrence this horrific, it signals a brokenness in the American spirit that even a card carrying, "eyebrow-raised-higher-than-Pelosi's" skeptic like me could never have imagined.
"But" appears to have become America's verbal Continental Divide. Rainwater falls down one side, drivel the other. Polanski is a monster and the evil he perpetrated on that child demands punishment. No "buts."
*Author's note. Short of its parenthetical use to remind the reader which word was the butt of this screed, not one "but" was used (at appreciable difficulty I might add), in the composition of this piece.
Oh. My. God. Vocabulary, grammar, history, a passing literary reference, and wit, in 612 words.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What Fred said. All I'll add is that I need to go brush the dust off the bust of Salieri on my bookshelf.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/17/2009 2:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A great article, but he doesn't mention the word "postmodernism" once, and understanding it is the key to understanding Hollyweird's reaction to Polanski's apprehension and impending jail time.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/17/2009 5:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Let the Holloywood types speak out on Polanski so that we may be able to discern the despiccable from the merely irrelevant.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/17/2009 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Now while I'm pretty certain Whoopi Goldberg is going to try to put a Roadrunner cloud between herself and her "not a rape-rape" gem...The dogs bark, the caravan/news cycle moves on.
What is that? some sort of snark on whooopie's Michael Vick dog fighting culture statement? Racist!
Scientists at the University of Toronto found that by genetically tweaking fruit flies so they failed to produce a particular type of pheromone or odour, it turned them irresistible to their species.
Professor Joel Levine, who led the study, removed the cuticular hydrocarbon pheromone, used by the flies to communicate.
They discovered that when the pheromone was removed, it created a "sexual tsunami" where the bugs proved attractive to one another, regardless of sex. The research found that male fruit flies with no history of homosexuality attempted to mate with their pheromone-free males, according to the research published in journal Nature.
Even flies of a different species were interested, according to the research team.
"Lacking these chemical signals eliminated barriers to mating," Prof Levine said.
He conceded however that although pheromones play a key part in the human mating game, ours is far more complex than that of fruit flies.
"We may rely more on the visual system, and we may have a more complex way of assessing other individuals and classifying them and determining how we're going to relate to them than a fly does." Drop a can of this stuff on the Pakistani madrassas and let the Taliban bugger themselves to death.
#2
Implicit in this column is the view that Turkey was 'lost' through US mistakes and that, presumably, the more able policy would have been to promote a military coup. Hypotheses like this are essentially untestable because, although it's clear the actual strategy produced poor results, it is by no means certain that the alternative strategy would have done better - it may well have done even worse. Sometimes, situations are bad and almost all outcomes are negative. Attempted coups can fail leading to liquidation of allies. Coups can also succeed temporarily, but then leave permanent resentment and blow-back for a generation (Greece, for example). The world is gradually becoming more democratic and that is largely a good thing, in spite of the fact that some of the temporary and awful results include an Islamic party taking control in Turkey. This isn't to say that Glick is wrong in saying the Bush policy was naive and too hopeful in its treatment of Erdogan; it's to say that even if Bush (or more precisely, his advisors) had been more hard-headed in regard to Turkey, that they had any realistically good alternatives. Turkey's interests have been less aligned with us since the collapse of the Soviet Empire after which, understandably, Turkey's fear of Russia greatly dimished. Once fear is gone as a motivator, gratitude for past support is a pallid substitute.
#4
"The world is gradually becoming more democratic"
No, it is not.
Posted by: Large Snerong7311 ||
10/17/2009 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Turkey lost when conquest no longer directly added coin to the vault, and there was not a reasonably assured way for the ordinary person to bank so anything other than small market stuff and hiding your valuables in a hole in the ground...but blame Attaturk for their problems. The concept of Turkey being European or Western, as far as I know, only dates back to WWI, and is not a Turkish point of view.
#6
The greatest national pride that the Turks collectively possess is their ability to stab someone in the back.
I'm sad to see Caroline Glick's brain has become infected with the blame game. Blame or more specifically blaming Jews, is what keeps the Palestinians and all other Islamist countries from having to make real reforms. Blaming George Bush is what allows Western liberal leaders the same escape.
Blame is like black mold - it infects everything it touches. It allows the person casting blame to at once feel superior and as if they are actually doing something constructive. In fact it does neither.
Blaming GW for the Turks being backstabbers is like blaming the automobile for killing the dinosaurs. It's silly. Sad to see she reducing herself to such meaningless drivel.
But take heart, the Turks will eventually stab the Syrians, the Iranians and everyone else in the back. It's just what they do.
#7
When the Turks denied passage of the 4ID across Turkey in order for the 4ID to attack Saddam from the north, they strung us along for 2 weeks, IIRC. Bottom line is that they jacked us around, causing us some serious problems in OIF. When you get jacked around and burned like that, you must accept the fact and the situation and move on. It was a painful and expensive lesson that you could not trust the Turks. You can buy them off, perhaps, but how long will they stay bought? Not a pretty picture. Sometimes you have to buy someone off, but it is a temporary fix, and it must be realized that it is not a long term solution.
Commenter #6 has it right. Turkey will shaft its new allies. Turkey will suffer the consequences of their behaviors.
Fooled once: shame on you
Fooled twice: shame on me
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/17/2009 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
like blaming the automobile for killing the dinosaurs.
I would adore you for that simile alone, Jumbo Slinerong5015.
#1
After watching the Anita Dunn clip on the Glen Beck show, (and the Van Jones debacle) can anyone doubt the Communist leanings of Bambi and his minions?
#2
Personally, when someone praises Mao, they no longer get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/17/2009 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Steyn is brilliant, but my favorite part:
Twenty years ago this fall, the Iron Curtain was coming down in Europe. Across the Warsaw Pact, the jailers of the Communist prison states lost their nerve, and the cell walls crumbled. Matt Welch, the editor of Reason magazine, wonders why the anniversary is going all but unobserved: Why aren't we making more of the biggest mass liberation in history?
Well, because to celebrate it would involve recognizing it as a victory over Communism. And, after the Left's long march through the institutions of the West, most are not willing to do that. There's the bad totalitarianism (Nazism) and the good totalitarianism (Communism), whose apologists and, indeed, fetishists can still be found everywhere, even unto the White House.
#4
The 2010 elections will be the watermark for US: whether we will slide into the abyss of history as another failed experiment, or whether this is just another painful midcourse correction(think US civil war) in our journey.
#5
The dollar is sliding throughout Europe almost as fast as the Europeon economies. To say there is a general mood of apprehension is the wildest of understatements. Thanks to Barry and his borrowing we may be faced with Zimbabwe on the Mississippi, but it will be far, far worse in Germany, France and the UK I assure you.
#7
Thanks to Barry and his borrowing we may be faced with Zimbabwe on the Mississippi, but it will be far, far worse in Germany, France and the UK I assure you.
Sounds a lot like Europe pre-WWII. These economic dislocations are often precursors to war.
#8
Before inflation soars too high, more likely you'll see pols implementing Nixonian wage and price controls resulting in shortages and either direct government or economic rationing, think Obamanomics in a manner of Obamacare.
Recently, I crossed paths with a cute, chubby prepubescent girl on a street in Philly. She was about six years old, dressed in an ankle length hijab. As we crossed paths, I smiled and thought nothing of it.
Later, though, I was bothered by the idea that someone so young would be required to wear a headscarf, since even the most orthodox interpretation of Islam requires a woman to cover her hair upon hitting puberty, and otherwise, simply dress "modestly".
Then I remembered her mother and an op-ed I read last year. Her mother wore a niqab, which is a hijab-plus garment that not only covers a woman's hair, but also her face and body, leaving slits for eyesight only. Suddenly, the headscarf on the six-year-old made sense. The daughter was being mentally prepared for the niqab.
The niqab is controversial. A ban is being called for from France to Canada. It has become a symbol of not only female suppression, but radical Islam's invocation of separatism and criminality as well. Unfortunately, the niqab is but one issue facing Muslim women today.
Remember Lubna Hussain, the Sudanese journalist found guilty of indecent dress for wearing trousers in Sudan, or the more recent news highlighting Egyptian clerical outrage against Chinese hymen reconstruction kits now available for $30?
Such incidents move quickly through Western news media due to their un-believability. But, if one understood the danger behind such incidences, perhaps reaction in the West would be stronger, especially from feminists.
What these stories have in common is the continued use of a woman's body as the first battleground for political and cultural conflicts between reformers and authoritarian religious patriarchs that enjoy the status quo.
Which brings me to the op-ed, I mentioned above. Feminist Naomi Wolf published a troubling article entitled, "Behind theveil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality," where
Wolf argued that veiling is a valid form of modesty when predicated upon choice. Her proof of free-will was based on visits to various homes in Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.
Wolf argues that, unlike Western society which ruins women's lives with unattainable standards of beauty, the veil allows women to be taken seriously in the public sphere without objectification. Moreover, Muslim women are "thriving" in private where their sexuality is appropriately channeled towards marriage.
Is this what feminists argue these days? It is essential to recognize that, while some modern Muslims may choose to wear a headscarf, no choice exists where a girl is socialized to "channel" her sexuality "for her husband."
Such social mores reinforce the belief that women are property, who must consider their sexuality and identity as mere extensions of family honor. It is no coincidence then that honor killings are prevalent in the countries Wolf visited.
Moreover, it is ironic that Wolf, ignoring such realities of the Middle East and North Africa, is able to marvel at the access Muslim women have to Victoria's Secret catalogues, whose very images illustrate the feminine ideal Wolf ridicules in the West.
Lubna Hussain was not jailed for wearing pants. She was convicted for being an outspoken journalist, who criticized undemocratic laws in Sudan. She was an easy target because she was a woman. If the authoritarian Sudanese government was incapable of debating her intellectually, they resorted to attacking her person - her sex, and justifying it with high-minded notions of religion and morality.
Likewise, Egyptian clerics who revile the hymen-reconstruction kits, are not simply concerned with immorality in society. Instead, they tacitly reinforce the notion that the "goodness" in society, or its collective honor, is the woman's burden alone.
Wolf forgets that women in our own nation were never handed equal rights, but fought for them in increments. For generations, American women endured threats, jail, physical assaults and ostracization from friends and family, including religious arguments against their activities. Yet, Wolf concludes by asking that the West not judge the veiled women on our streets and calls any hesitancy we have Islamophobic.
I can't imagine what she would conclude then of actual Muslim women in Muslim majority nations, like Lubna Hussain, who fight for more personal and political rights and are criticized, harmed or jailed by locals for upsetting local religious or cultural standards that are meant to keep women marginalized.
The debate on women's rights and human rights are not "relative" but universal. Feminists like Naomi Wolf do men and women a disservice by blurring the line between equality and human rights with cultural relativism.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
NOW needs to do more defending of it's assertions that effectively rationalize that NOW Islam style should be stuck in the 8th century. I'm sure they can be more ridiculous than they've been so far.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/17/2009 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The author writes the article as if the feminist movement actually cares about women.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I guess I've been hearing it for years now as the country has slid into knee-jerk relativism. Till now though, it's merely been an equivocating grandfather clock in the background, metronomic, at worst nettlesome. It was at the beginning of l'affaire Polanski, though, that I realized how much I've come to detest the word "but."
Scientists at the University of Toronto found that by genetically tweaking fruit flies so they failed to produce a particular type of pheromone or odour, it turned them irresistible to their species. 
Recently, I crossed paths with a cute, chubby prepubescent girl on a street in Philly. She was about six years old, dressed in an ankle length hijab. As we crossed paths, I smiled and thought nothing of it.
