On this 4th of July, as the federal government prepares to assign to itself ever greater control over our lives and liberty, down to the very manner in which we address our health, and as the state of California, despite seizing large amounts of treasure from its citizens through onerous taxes far in excess of those imposed by the British on American colonials still finds itself unable to satisfy its ravenous hunger for money, it is worth pausing to read one of the greatest orations in American history, Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech. While not done on July 4th, but on March 23, 1775, it was the catalyst for a narrow vote in the Virginia House of Burgesses in favor of joining the Revolutionary War effort then underway in New England. Without the support of Virginia, the most populous and wealthiest colony, that effort would have faced even more daunting odds. Note the tone of defiance that jumps from the words themselves and that was brought to life by his voice, as, according to contemporaries, it rose in crescendo to the defining declaration at the end:

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

“Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Here is one interpretation of the speech:

Two further observations. The speech was delivered without notes or, ahem, a Teleprompter. Also, Henry appeared not to be of the “let’s talk to them without preconditions, and then continue talking to them while they openly proclaim their intentions to achieve our destruction” school of defense and diplomacy.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn reposts an article on “independence.” You know, the concept that the U.S. used to practice when dealing with the whining demands of foreign politicians.

As those who have followed my musings on Sarah Palin, I have been a (generally) enthusiastic supporter of her political moves. Before John McCain picked her to be his running mate, I wrote that she was my first choice (with Bobby Jindal second), though I doubted that McCain would want to pick her. To my delight, he did, the best move he made in the whole campaign and one that, for a brief moment, made fortune smile upon him in the polls.

Unlike some of her more smitten supporters, I understood that she, no more than any politician and probably any human at all, was without flaws. Some of her fans view her with almost the degree of rapture and attribution of infallibility the media and many Americans reserve for The One. But she offered the best and most authentic voice for that broad swath of Middle America to which Richard Nixon once referred as the “Silent Majority.”

Certainly she was not the voice of those who saw themselves primarily as members of various identity groups thrown together into a confederation of victimized racial, ethnic, or sex-denominated tribes. Nor was she the voice of elitist snobbery that, while centered in the academy, the professions, the entertainment industry, and the media, nevertheless knows no clear socio-economic bounds. Nor was she the voice of the inexperienced-in-life, who might take time off from their trust-funded education and their Wii-games to work for a political Pied Piper who dazzled them with “cool.” Nor was she the voice of those for whom real religion and a true Messiah did not slake the thirst for a connection with something greater than themselves, and who sought refuge instead in the secular preachings of someone who promised that with him, the oceans would finally begin to recede. For all of those, there was Barack Obama.

She struck a deep chord, however, with those humbler folk who work, produce, take care of their families, and cherish without guile or embarrassment the connection to the older traditions, religious and secular, that define our shared culture. Mr. McCain’s flacks, such as the execrable Steve Schmidt, mishandled her press appearances and smothered her personality in a way that proved as satisfying a product as dressing a fashion supermodel in a burqa.

Towards the end of the campaign, as the cause became increasingly desperate, she cast off the bonds of the elitist insiders, and struck out on her own. “Let Sarah be Sarah” was the demand from her supporters, and she drew enthusiastic and large crowds in a way that the top of the ticket was unable to do. There is no doubt that this was one of those rare, if not unique, campaigns where many people voted for the ticket because of the vice-presidential nominee.

Meanwhile, she and her family were vetted for the most picayune and hypothetical transgressions and infractions (all eventually shot down) by a now-frenzied press who had been asleep at the switch or had tried to delay or deflect stories about Obama’s long associations with corrupt politicians (Blagojevich), shady business operators (Rezko), racist hate-spewing pastors (Wright, to name one), and former (and still unrepentant) terrorists and Chavez-worshippers (Ayers and Dohrn).

Worse, she and her family were subjected to the vilest slurs, accusations, and slanders in living memory. An indulgent press treated rumors hatched in the scabrous minds of certain leftie bloggers as demonstrated facts of which she and her family stood convicted until she could prove the contrary. Not the wildest of these was the allegation that Palin’s daughter Bristol was the mother of the baby Trig, not Palin herself. The corporate media picked up on this, and soon, led by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlanticon his blog, demands were made that the Palins produce complete medical and hospital records on a matter of complete irrelevance to Palin’s health. Mere physical impossibility resulting from Bristol’s own almost contemporaneous pregnancy was not enough to dispel this idiotic rumor in the eyes of the press. This from the same media that made no demands that Obama release his medical records and that, when he released a single summary page, uttered no protest. Certainly no investigation into physiological remnants of his self-admitted prolific drug use in earlier years was demanded.

Since then, Palin has remained in the public’s eye, drawing cheering crowds and collecting political chits. The opposition perceives the danger she presents. They resent her resilience and her giving a voice to those the elites expect to be followers. The attacks on her have resumed. Those range from numerous expensive and time-consuming “ethics violations” filed against her for making speeches outside Alaska, wearing a visible label on her clothing, and similar eye roll-producing minutiae. All 15 of them have been dismissed. But since they are being filed by the same bloggers and “citizens,” with ties to the Democratic Party organization, one can expect them to continue. While those complaints cost nothing, to investigate them costs the state, and to defend herself costs Palin, so far to the tune of $500,000.

The personal vendetta has been ramped up, as well. David Letterman’s sex jokes (not joke—there were two separate ones) about Palin’s minor-aged daughter Willow were one example, though Dave tried to excuse them by saying he thought he was talking about Palin’s other daughter. Well, all right then. No similar Letterman jokes about Obama’s minor-aged daughters have been noted, nor about Biden’s children. Nor about Clinton’s. Nor Edwards’s. Then came further disgusting attacks on baby Trig, courtesy of the Huffington Post and other liberal bloggers that eventually entered the news cycle. Interesting how the liberals who loudly proclaim their own compassion in contrast to the bigotry and hatred they ascribe to conservatives attack a helpless baby for his handicap, something that this presumably (in the definition of liberals) insensitive and bigoted hate-mongering right winger would find beyond the pale. What seemed clear was that these attacks reflected the state of panic the elites (mainly, but not exclusively, the liberal portion) felt at the star quality of Sarah Palin. Again, I have certain reservations about some of her speeches, themes, and approaches. She is, after all, a politician, and one should never invest too much of oneself in a person with one has not reached an advanced state of emotional intimacy and personal convergence. But the scope and intensity of the attacks on her are directly proportional to the fear she instills in her (mostly) liberal enemies and in the Democratic apparatchiks. One doesn’t, after all, see such vitriol directed at Mitt Romney—yet. 

In my next post, I will have some thoughts about her resignation as governor.

This is a good article about the voting trends of the Supreme Court Justices this past term and the role of swing voter Anthony Kennedy. The writer also makes a good case for the political skills of Chief Justice Roberts in setting the stage for future bigger doctrinal shifts. Some comments:

1.  I find the observation that Alito is becoming the “most conservative” justice puzzling, especially because the declared reason is that he supposedly “has found room to the right” of the Chief Justice. That reason implies that the Chief has been the most conservative member of the Court. Allowing the use of the malleable term “conservative” as a short-hand designation for a certain view of the Court’s role and of the Constitution, I would have thought that Scalia and Thomas were easily the most “conservative.” Thomas, especially, dissented in the Voting Rights Act case, but not because he thought the Court had been unduly narrow in its interpretation of the statute in allowing the Texas water district to opt out. Rather, Thomas wanted to go well beyond the Court and to declare the whole act unconstitutional. In the strip-search case, Thomas alone would have upheld the constitutionality, though not the wisdom, of the search. So, I’m not convinced that Alito is the most conservative justice, with the Chief second, based on some unspecified concurring opinions in criminal procedure cases in a single term of the Court.

2.  Similarly, with all respect due a Stanford law professor, I find risible the opinion that Scalia and Thomas are “in play,” based on a single case that, at most, reflects an appropriate adherence to their view that the Constitution’s original understanding should, unless amended, guide their interpretation of the law. That opinion also flies in the face of the article’s main theme that Roberts is building a coalition and jurisprudential foundation for a more significant substantive shift to the “right,” and of Thomas’s opinions in the Voting Rights Act case and the strip search case. Roberts’s quest would be immeasurably more quixotic were Scalia and Thomas “in play.” Moreover, Justices “in play” will show that tendency within a few years of joining the bench. It is highly unlikely that a couple of battle-tested two-decade-or-so veterans whose jurisprudence is particularly associated with strong principles and who have resisted such superficial influences would finally succumb.

3.  Another point raised by the article is an implied refutation of the criticism from liberals such as Supreme Court “reporters” such as Slate’sDahlia Lithwick that “originalists” of the Scalia type are really acting as advocates for a political point of view whose opinions therefore have no more claim to intrinsic legitimacy than the result-oriented liberalism (or, more rarely, conservatism) of the “living Constitution” school. The writer is to be commended for putting that canard to rest, especially in a paper with an ideological vector decidedly against “originalism”: ”Justices Scalia and Thomas are apt to follow what they understand to be the original meaning of the Constitution, even when the consequences might not align with their policy preferences. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, for instance, Justices Scalia and Thomas joined three members of the court’s liberal wing to say that the Constitution’s confrontation clause requires crime laboratory analysts to appear at trial rather than submit written reports.”

I am not as rigid (or principled) on that point as Thomas, certainly, as I have a stronger adherence of “evolutionary constitutional custom.” But their approach is consistent and merits respect that most writers, other than the author of the article, are willing to grant.

4.  The focus on Justice Kennedy and the conclusion that this is Kennedy’s Court is superficially correct, in that he tends to be the swing vote in the many 5-4 decisions of the Court. That pivotal position drives the media and legal academics’ theme of his role and stature. But I think that is wrong in some ways. First, the author himself focuses on the skills of Roberts in putting together doctrine and votes for future decisions. He is planting seeds (or landmines, if one prefers) for future doctrinal changes. Some of these will bear fruit, even if not all will. That would suggest that this is, or is fast becoming the court of Roberts, the master political strategist.

Second, this may be Kennedy’s Court in the immediate sense, but it is not likely it will become known as such. Even if one were not to stick with the customary designation through the Chief’s name, it is more likely that the future will find this to be the Scalia Court. Justices play tactical or strategic roles. Kennedy is looking for immediate influence through his swing position in particular cases. But to do so, he must engage in narrow and technical reasoning and incremental and ad hoc constitutional jurisprudence to avoid the appearance of a purely result-driven approach, as he veers to the left and then the right. This is not the stuff of a lasting legacy, though it has the institutional merit of modulating the Court’s course and reducing the ferocity and likelihood of political attacks.

Scalia, on the other hand, is a jurisprudential strategist who engages in the Long March through the Court’s constitutional battlefields. His opinions, though often concurrences or dissents, lay the groundwork for a future adoption of his principles. He works through bold assertions, opulent analysis of supporting historical materials and constitutional philosophy, and powerful writing. So, while Kennedy’s decisions and influence likely will wane quickly (as have his predecessor’s as swing vote, Justice O’Connor), future Courts can mine the Scalia opinions for usable arguments for years to come.

Thomas is a jurisprudential strategist as well, but one that always appears to be refighting the last war. One gets the sense that he is more of a law professor wanna-be, who likes to point out the Court’s previous (and current) doctrinal errors and how the case should be decided without those errors.

5.  While I find his argument that the Chief is beginning to hit his stride in building coalitions on the Court, his real test will come when the Court begins to consider executive power cases connected to interrogation, detention, and rendition of terror suspects by Bush administration officials. While the Iqbal case (dealing with burden of alleging monetary liability of high level officials for detention practices by underlings) this term was encouraging because it rejected plaintiff’s lawsuit, it was also a somewhat inconclusive case. If a more direct case of detainee rights, akin to Hamdan in 2006 or Boumediene in 2008 arises, we shall see whether the Chief can nudge Kennedy in the direction of the proper result, at least, even if it is unlikely that Kennedy can be swayed to the point of supporting a robust statement of executive power.

6.  Perhaps the Court’s move to the right will have staying power. Kennedy certainly is more comfortable there, even if it often seems hard for him to express a consistent reason therefor. The last couple of years of Kennedy’s flirting with more liberal positions may have been an aberration due to the particular cases. With the White House now in the hands of someone with strong left-leaning inclinations, and the Congress dominated by the barely-sane Left of Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers, Durbin, Franken, et al., Kennedy may see too much government in general and too little in national defense as the problem, rather than the other way around. Another theme to this article is that the Court moves right as the political branches move left. Actually, the Court has not moved significantly, if at all. But when the other branches lurch left, sitting still may seem like a big shift to the right

As Chavez threatens military action against Honduras, and his fellow Latin American leftists, the Presidents of Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and (of course) Cuba, demand the forced return of the deposed Chavez-wannabe Zelaya against the wishes of the country’s constitutional government, the Obama administration continues its track record of foreign policy mistakes. I posted about the administration’s strange deference to Iran’s government in contrast with its willingness to meddle in Honduran affairs. This article from National Review reviews the evidence of a Chavez-led and Obama-enabled subversion of Honduras that the civil and military institutions of that country eventually resisted. In other places, people have asked why Obama so insists on abetting anti-American dictators, when, to do so, he has to contradict principles and policies he claims to follow, such as the hallowed principle of non-intervention in other countries’ affairs. The only unifying thread is the observation made by one commentator that, deep down, Obama is ashamed of what the U.S. stands for, echoing the sentiment so undiplomatically (but forthrightly) expressed by his wife during the campaign and reflected in the Obama World Apology Tour. Thus, he hides behind and bends to anyone who is seen in his circle as challenging American power and place in the world.

Admirably, so far at least, tiny and impoverished Honduras is doing what the bumbling nominal superpower to its north, the United States, is afraid to do, namely, stand up to Chavez’s imperialist subversion of other countries (as his previous military and financial support of Colombia’s FARC rebels) and to the anti-American and Iran-connected Leftist ring of thugs who subvert their own countries’ political institutions and their citizens’ civil rights.

While Obama, Chavez, and the rest of their ideological compadres call the Honduran action a coup, but fail to characterize the Iranian “election” as a coup or even as fraudulent, some Iranian politicians and mullahs are more robust.

Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has it down.

It is difficult to believe that more than a year has passed since that day. The memory of the emotional havoc it caused is still vivid. I am talking about the visit a year ago by the then 2-year old little terror, also known as “the golden-curled prince,” and his mother to the local library.

I first became aware of the disastrous outing when my work at my home office was interrupted by a loud voice that I recognized as my wife’s. Since my wife rarely raises her voice in matters not directed at me, this was decidedly odd. Her stern instructions to “Go to your room,” were followed by the sound of a door shutting and enraged screaming that I recognized to be the voice of the little prince. As my wife strode past the office door, I made the mistake of inquiring as to the cause of the commotion. Thus began her sad tale, which ended in a cascade of tears—hers.

It all started innocently enough that day, to pick out some books for the two littlest tokens. Then the real fun began as the two-year-old turned the library into a chamber of emotional horrors. To start, while Mom was looking for a title on the library computer, her son turned off the companion computer, necessitating the intervention of a librarian to restart it. Like a skilled military leader having created a tactical diversion, he proceeded to the main task: Pull several dozen books off the shelves. Faster than Mom could put them back.

With that skirmish eventually concluded and order superficially restored, Mom focused on finding some books for the then seven-year old blonde princess, when her concentration was interrupted by a crash. Looking about, Mom saw a toppled CD-stand with its contents splayed across the floor and a certain tow-headed boy nearby.

After that excitement, matters seemed to calm down. But it was a false calm, as the little terror had run to the giant fishtank in the library and was turning the lights on and off. When apprehended, he celebrated the event by running through the library while screaming at the top of his voice. He likely didn’t notice, and even more likely didn’t care, about the startled looks from the rest of the children, who were peacefully using the library for its intended purpose. Same about the icy glares from the bespectacled librarians.

Finally, with the book search completed, it was time for the check-out. But standing in line is so b-o-r-i-n-g. It’s much more fun for a young lad to dash out the library toward the street, Mom frantically behind yelling and yanking him back out of potential danger. Only to be taunted with cries of “child abuse” by a couple of wet-behind-the-ears pre-adolescent bicycle riders passing by.

As said, a year has passed. How fast they grow up. Hoping that retirement or memory loss on the part of the library personnel would facilitate the matter, Mom decided that the time had come to risk another trip to the library with the little terror. An encouraging omen was that no one pointed at a “Wanted” poster and stopped them from entering, and, aside from some screaming and dashing about, everything was relatively civilized. With such hopeful development, maybe we can start taking him to the library more often. And next time even do it without having the family wear Groucho Marx disguises.

Ads use sex to sell products. There, I’ve said it. A remarkable observation. Shocking, in fact. At least that is the sense one gets from the periodic outrage that comes, usually from conservatives, at some attempt or another to earn a buck through appeal to eros. Moreover, the breathlessness of the reaction makes it seem like an unheard-of event.

Thus it is with this Burger King advertisement that not-too-subtly suggests sexual activity associated in the popular imagination with the antics of a former President and his thong-bearing, or is it “baring,” twinkie. The reaction against the ad has been fast and furious—and predictable. The ad itself is crude to the point of parody, not funny due to its hamfistedness that allows even the Low I.Q.-American community in on “the joke.” It likely will be pulled within a couple of weeks or a month. The sandwich will be renamed or even dropped from the menu. The protesters and critics will bask in self-satisfaction at their success.

Until next time. That ad is genius. It taps into a basic human drive, sexuality. Its brazenness also corresponds to the outer boundaries of our culture’s sexualization. Fifty years ago that ad would have gone nowhere, because Americans then had not been sensitized (or desensitized) to the point where the ad could become “plausible.” Such an ad would be so alien in, say, Saudi Arabia, that it would not achieve its purpose. No Saudi ad agency would even think of running such an ad. The reaction would not be public controversy. It would be prison.

In our culture, however, the ad creates “buzz.” It is not so “tame” as to fit comfortably within the norm of our current standard of sexuality. It’s not, for example, just an ad for Viagra on the morning (!) Weather Channel that regales the audience of all ages with the dangers (though, to be fair, not the opportunities) from four-hour erections. Nor is it a chirpy ad, complete with helpful explanatory diagrams, during the dinner hour about this or that menstrual flow product guaranteed to make women feel fresher and more secure even while engaging in whatever activity they want. Those ads, too, would have been beyond the pale fifty years ago, ignoring for this point Big Pharma’s soon-to-be-curtailed inventiveness that made Viagra possible.

The Burger King ad is just crude enough to break through the fog of our accustomed dosage of crudeness. So the ad goes viral and the company has bought an enviable amount of publicity for itself. It’s not the ad itself, for which it has paid, that produces a return on the investment. The main strike, the Mother Lode, is the derivative publicity, the free mentions of the company, that keep its name before the public. Keep in mind that the ad was produced in Singapore for their markets, yet it is causing controversy in the U.S. The company really isn’t expecting people to flock to its outlets demanding “Seven Inchers.” The sandwich is just another hamburger. Does anyone care whether a burger is round or oblong? The company is trying to keep its name in front of the public. They’re playing defense, not offense, to ward off its competitors.

Sure, people will say they will boycott Burger King. But most will soon return, or be cajoled into returning by some toy promotion designed to bring in the kids. The ad will be gone and forgotten, but the Burger King name will not be. If people find this offensive, by all means don’t patronize Burger King. I refuse to buy various products over political or social issues, but I have to admit that often it is only as an adjunct to other reasons, such as lack of taste or inferior quality. But don’t create an additional firestorm by organizing official boycotts that only gin up the publicity mill. Without that secondary publicity generated by the controversy, a too-sexualized ad runs the risk of defeating its purpose. Viewers will be watching the “action,” not noticing the product or the company.

The ads reflect the culture and, to the extent our culture is oversexualized, so will be the ads. The process of changing that culture takes time and slow-moving massive shifts that go well beyond protesting a commercial. It is best, then, that we act quietly and individually on many fronts so as gradually to remove the oxygen from such advertisement campaigns. And always keep in mind that these matters are relative. Whatever the time, some ads will be seen as “oversexualized,” too raw, and over-the-line of decency. Sellers will always try to keep their product on the minds of customers, and if their competitors have cornered the market on wholesomeness, the desire for brand identification will have them go the risque route.

For more delving into “food porn ads,” all in the name of research, you understand, see this collection of ads and helpful analysis. Why does reading this article feel like “reading the articles” in Playboy magazine (in the interest of research)? Actually, I think the article is too alarmist in its implied conclusions, such as a connection between sexualized food ads and seventeen year-olds deciding to become strippers and fourteen year-olds deciding to lose their virginity. Try to keep a sense of proportion. The connection is between the ads and the general culture and the popularity of strippers and the culture and the early loss of virginity and the culture (though, in fairness, the notion of 14-year olds losing their virginity, while regrettable, is hardly new, even in the U.S.).

Unlike some of these ads, including the Burger King ad, the Bud Light commercial is uproariously funny. And the Carl’s Junior ad, which seems to be part of a series with similar motifs of dripping burgers, displays a sexuality that might have a more resistant researcher running for some ice cubes or a cold shower. The former ad is humorous precisely because it taps into our (still) existing embarrassment about buying porn in public and the experience of many males who have found themselves in a similar, though likely less-extreme predicament. (I am making no confessions here, BTW.) But the latter ad is an obvious flight of fancy, not the least for the reason mentioned by the author that, having eaten at these fast food establishments over the years, “I have yet to see any of these women showing up to partake.” But that doesn’t stop the powerful pull of the libido, nor businesses’ (s)exploitation of that pull.

With the push for ObamaCare in full swing, we get regaled by the President, the Vice-President, the media and by Obama supporters (often one-and-the-same) with health care disasters allegedly from private industry and focusing on treatment supposedly unjustly denied to the protagonists in these tales of woe. Conservative blogs collect these stories, and the comments typically fill with observations about matters that are murky about these stories. For example, they involve emergency needs of people without insurance (not clear just why they don’t have insurance), though they can find such emergency services, without charge if they cannot afford them, as well as an assortment of government programs, from Medicare to Medicaid and on. There are the tales of veterans, though they should be able to get care in Veteran’s Administration facilities (though perhaps not of the highest quality, but that will be the case under ObamaCare, anyway). Then there are the tales of woe of unserved children, never mind that there is an extensive SCHIP program that serves “children” up to age 30.

But Obama, Biden, Axelrod, and the rest are unlikely to tell of the benefits of the private system and the disastrous aspects of government-directed care. The hospital parking lots in American cities with their cars bearing Canadian license plates must be avoided. Canadians fleeing their system would only point out inconvenient truths. Mark Steyn links to yet another such instance, this time of the absence in Canada of a place for a premature baby that needed emergency help. (U.S. immigration authorities don’t come off too well in this matter, either.)

Steyn sarcastically describes the situation:

“Well, it would be unreasonable to expect Hamilton, a city of half-a-million people just down the road from Canada’s largest city (Greater Toronto Area, five-and-a-half million) in the most densely populated part of Canada’s most populous province (Ontario, 13 million people) to be able to offer the same level of neonatal care as Buffalo, a post-industrial ruin in steep population decline for half-a-century.”

Also click the links in Steyn’s post. The other one describes another instance of the Canadian health care system being overwhelmed by births. And Canada is not even reproducing at replacement rates. One can imagine how well rationed care would work in Canada if they were having children at normal rates.

So, let me get this straight. When Iranians are putting their lives on the line against a thuggish regime that has made a mockery of the rule of law and of elections, the Obama administration dithers. Wouldn’t want to offend the government that constantly refers to the U.S. as the Great Satan and even now blames the CIA and Basij “impostors” for the death of that young woman, Neda, caught on the video. Certainly one would not want to call that a “coup,” as quite a number of commentators have analyzed it.

But, lo and behold, that same Obama and his officials are very quick to call what happened in Honduras a coup. Indeed, unlike the example of Iran, where the administration did not want “to meddle,” they had no such reticence about meddling in Honduran politics. There, the incumbent president, a leftist ally of Obama buddy Hugo Chavez, could not run for re-election due to constitutional term limits. South American citizens, with their experience with caudillo governments that run rigged elections and serve decade after decade, have a reason to be suspicious of multiple terms, so term limits are a protective device.

The Honduran president, Zelaya, following the lead of his mentor Hugo Chavez, then tried to get the constitution changed by popular referendum to allow him to run again. Problem is that the Honduran constitution does not permit amendment by popular referendum called by the president. Instead, it has to come from the Congress.  But the Congress, worried that Zelaya was becoming a Chavez stooge, refused. The country’s Supreme Court ordered Zelaya not to undertake the referendum. When Zelaya persisted in pursuing the referendum against the constitutional order, Congress told the military not to assist in the referendum. The army chief warned Zelaya not to proceed and told him that the military would obey Congress. Zelaya fired him, whereupon the heads of the military resigned. The Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to reinstate the general. When Zelaya refused the Supreme Court’s order and also persisted in pushing for the referendum, the army (acting on the order of the Congress) deposed him. This appears to be permitted under Article 239 of the Honduran constitution.

The military did not seize control. Rather, Congress elected an interim president (from Zelaya’s own party), as the constitution requires, and kept the election date set for November. Zelaya has no support among the political institutions of Honduras, apparently. Yet Obama wants this man restored, presumably to make it easier for Chavez, who has demonstrated his support for Iranian agents and Hizb’Ullah-connected figures, to influence Honduras. Iranian influence has already spread into Latin America through Chavez, Castro, and Ortega in Nicaragua. Now it is to spread into Honduras, a country even closer to Mexico, a likely Iranian target for destabilization.

Meanwhile, Obama’s buddy Chavez has threatened military action against Honduras to restore his puppet to power. Not a word against that from Obama, of course. It is rich that Chavez, who himself led an unsuccessful actual military coup against the Venezuelan government before he became president, rails against this civilian change as a coup, language duly adopted by the White House. Further, some members of the Organization of American States want that group to expel Honduras. At the same time, they want the real gulag-enforcing thugocracy of Cuba duly admitted as an honored member, another matter where Chavez and Obama see eye-to-eye.

Yet another example of Obama’s keen intellect at work and proof again of the historian Bernard Lewis’s aphorism that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”

Remember the famous Obama pledge that he was not going to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 a year, a pledge repeated over and over and touted by the media as evidence of Obama’s compassion and concern for the middle class? Only the “rich,” as if those making over $250,000 are rich, would be hit, and, as that great patriot Joe Biden informed us, those people have a patriotic duty to pay the taxes. This, of course, suggests that the people appointed to Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions in the Obama administration, especially the Treasury Secretary, are not patriots.

Those not mesmerized by The One’s eloquence and intellectual brilliance pointed out that the cost of his programs compared to the scarcity of “rich,” as well as the history of such pledges, meant that tax increases would be coming for others. Even yours truly understood that basic truth. Yet anyone who dared to criticize Obama was a racist (during the campaign) and someone who just wanted Obama to fail (after the election).

Well, the predictable is happening. Functionaries like Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod are giving up the pretense, and even the press joins the ridicule.

More analysis that the Iranian political upheaval really has little to do with good pro-democracy protesters and a faction of supportive mullahs against the bad hard-line mullahs and various thuggish elements among the security forces. I have written before about how little sense it makes for Khamene’i to go all in to guarantee up-front (as these results were pre-determined based on how quickly they came out with an official version) a win for Ahmadi-Nejad. If the power really was in the clerical Council, they could easily have controlled Mousavi, who would not have challenged the basic internal and foreign policies of the government. His “reform” credentials had to pass muster with the mullahs. He only became more outspoken as events began to unfold and the outcome briefly hung in the balance. It appears that now he is backing down, which likely is an omen of things to come.

This article provides a plausible solution to the puzzle of Khamene’i’s support for A-jad. As I have written in previous posts, the whole matter may be a military coup that was ongoing over some time, as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps took the final steps to consolidate power, a process ongoing for years and hastened under the A-jad presidency. The mullahs, under that analysis, are merely window dressing for those who, after suitable purges, will be in control of the country in a neo-fascistic corporate state. The IRGC and their patrons (or tools) Khamene’i and Ahmadi-Nejad could not allow even the appearance of momentum for a “reform” movement, which would imply division or factions among the ruling clique. And, as has been written since Plato’s Republic, a guardian class and rule by an absolute philosopher king can permit no intra-class rivalry—or even the appearance thereof. Such weakness is the cause of instability in society, which presents a threat to the ruling class.  When the “philosopher king” also sees himself as divinely-ordained, any challenge to his control becomes not only a political issue, but one of apostasy. In a religion such as Islam that is, in its founding and history, a “political” religion, such apostasy poses concrete threats to the legitimacy of the ruler. That would explain the remarks of another mullah that the arrested protesters must be dealt with cruelly and their leaders executed.