The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Boo frickin’ hoo.

Republicans have carped about the “left wing media” since Gutenberg was the “media”. In their world, a negative word about a member of the He-Man Boys Club will send Rush Limpdick up to his elbows in their arse, followed by 10,000 screaming dittoheads with radio, TV, or newspaper gigs - all of whom, by the way - are members of the media.

There’s no doubt that all media outlets have a particular point of view. That’s been the case since Ben Franklin founded the first newspaper in America. Anyone who’s ever played the game Telephone can see the consequences of different people listening to stories and passing them along. Most of the facts are basically right, but everyone adds their own little twist along the way. There’s a way to beat this - use other media sources from contrasting points ya moron! If you believe only one media outlet is “unbiased”, you’re trying harder than Dub to avoid reality.

It’s funny that both the left and the right claim the opposing team has an 800 pound media ringer. If the media’s not quoting people out of context - despite two dozen video tapes to the contrary - or it’s not climbing all over the story you’d personally like to see, it’s just plain lying. Still, you can quote those non-existent stories at will. Damned amazing thing that is.

That’s why Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain’s senior lobbyists…er, strategists, launched a myopic attack on MSNBC over the weekend. In his eyes, MSNBC’s nighttime schedule with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann is nothing more than a “partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain.” Steve, I don’t think broadcasting opinion shows is anything MSNBC trying to hide. If it were, they wouldn’t consistently run Number 3 in the ratings. If your supporters are being hoodwinked on that score, you must have a mighty low opinion of the knuckle-draggers that didn’t fill up Johnny’s latest fund-raising event.

There’s no doubt MSNBC’s hosts have their own shtick, but I think Hillary Clinton would disagree they’re singling out Uncle Nutso. It’s also a little disingenuous to view MSNBC as a nest of lefty loonies when the operation is owned by GE, hardly a socialist’s wet dream. It’s more than a little delusional to think your campaign doesn’t own the airwaves over at Unfair and Unbalanced Fox News too, but I don’t see you complaining to Rupert Murdoch. They’ll report and you’ll decide that whatever they say is God’s own truth. However, I wouldn’t stand too close to Johnny in case God’s actually listening to John’s mumbling. I hear a thunderbolt up the arse is a mighty painful thing. And finally, how can a lobbyist who’s ensconced on McCain’s Crooked Talk Express imply a conflict of interest in someone else’s house?

Of course, none of this is rare on either side of the aisle. People will complain, but they mostly complain when things are going poorly for them. You almost never hear public figures praising puff pieces offered up to their altars. You only hear about the “biased attacks”. Little Stevie should take a page from the Republican responses to charges that the Moron-in-Chief stole the 2000 election.

Get over it.

The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!

Our good friend Dave Away From Home recently blogged for the reinstatement of the draft. I urge you to read his common-sense post, it’s a great accounting of the pluses and pitfalls - especially on a subject that’s a political third-rail electrified by a very unpopular war.

There’s much to be said for national service, but it makes me uncomfortable when the government demands service. I’d prefer a nation in which citizens are proud of their country and elect to serve rather than being chased down and conscripted. However, I’d be the first to admit that’s a pipe dream. There’ll always be the Cheneys of the world, so convinced of their specialness they’ll breed like rabbits to avoid the crossfire while declaring fellow non-servers unpatriotic leeches on the skin of society.

As always, there’s no shortage of hypocrisy among those John Fogerty branded fortunate sons.

Hiding Behind Mommy’s Skirts
During peacetime people are quick to declare a peace dividend and eviscerate the military. Whether you agree with the War of Error, our military’s current predicament shows the folly of that thinking. A universal draft could shore up our battered military and have the added benefit of forcing the “fortunate sons” out from behind Mommy’s skirts. It’s also a way to get our infrastructure back in shape and be better prepared for the next national disaster - all good arguments.

But compelling national service still sticks in my craw. For me, it’s too much like anti-gay marriage laws or other personal behaviors the government has no business regulating. What is freedom if not the power to decide for yourself what to do with your life? How could a person argue against laws that chill civil rights while simultaneously abridging them by forcing people into indentured servitude, even if it is for our society’s greater good?

I don’t have an answer and I don’t believe there is a clear one.

How Many Liberties Do We Need to Lose?
But I’m a practical man. I know blindly objective stances always boil down to subjective decisions. In court, laws cease being inviolable, clear-cut rules and start breathing as a living organism serving society. Law practiced right is a careful balance between the desires of a few and the needs of the many.

A universal draft lies along that fault line.

So in the end, the draft isn’t so much about troop strength, rebuilding our nation, or forcing the nation’s fortunate sons to accept the responsibilities of being a citizen. It’s a matter of how we express and use our liberties. Many, including me, believe we’ve already given up more liberties than is wise. Is the price of giving up one more worth the cost of preserving the few liberties we have left? I believe so, but my decision is predicated on a new draft being implemented properly. Given our current political state and the toxic nature of the issue, there’s scant reason to believe it will or will truly benefit the nation as a whole.

I may be a practical man, but I also dream of the great things this country can do. A universal draft is a big gamble, but has huge payoffs. We certainly aren’t ready for a universal draft today. Draft dodgers and pusillanimous parttime fighter pilots still hold sway and they’ve shown they neither respect the law nor take responsibility for anything - including their own behavior when they had a chance to serve. Leaving a this important decision in their incompetent hands will surely produce a universal draft that’s both unfair and doesn’t meet the needs of the nation. No, this decision can’t be made until the nation heals itself and calm heads on both sides of the aisle can work together and with the American people to define exactly what a draft should do and how we can implement it properly.

Unfortunately, I’m not holding my breath on that one.

The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!

Incest. It’s an ugly word. People cringe when they hear it. Sometimes the perpetrators themselves even shy away. Many victims spend their lives in silence battling the demons visited upon them by those they should have been able to trust. Others eventually screw up their courage to talk about it in therapy, or survivor groups - or sometimes - to the police. The word is so reviled even the most fearsome and detestable convicts reserve it to describe a special category to be loathed. Incest prisoners have a bad survival rate in the lockup because garden variety inmates prey upon them in ways not unlike how they tortured their victims.

There’s no legitimate defense for this crime, but anyone who commits this heinous act is also obviously warped. Insanity is a common courtroom defense - and in some cases, obviously true. There are those so far gone they can’t understand the implications of their actions, but many more have a sort of selective insanity that affects only this one part of their personality. Otherwise, they may be perfectly good neighbors, spouses, or community leaders. That basic tear in the fabric of their personality is what frequently makes their dark secrets so unbelievable when they surface.

Rev. James Bevel - a crucial figure in the 1960s civil rights movement - is one of those men. He stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy railing against the injustice of racism. Without him, much of the progress that came out of the civil rights movement might have been swallowed whole by the attack dogs in Selma. However, his work helping victims of one crime was obviously no inoculation against victimizing others. At the same time he was preaching against racial injustice, he practiced a much worse injustice, raping his daughter and calling women “prostitutes until they reach a state where sex is only for procreation.” In his mind, he was a, “scientist who tried to teach his children the difference between perversion and procreation.”

It’s Easy to Hate Beer-Swilling, Violent Abusers
Come judgment time, society often finds it easy to hate beer-swilling, violent abusers. These abusers have little to offer their families, victims, or society. They are simply “bad seeds”, but cases like Bevel’s are harder to understand.

How can a man who did so much for so many be such an undercover monster? And equally important, how should we view his undeniable contributions when projected against a background of such loathsome severity? What is the right proportion of gratitude and punishment for his awful deeds? In other words, how much does mercy cost per pound?

Unfortunately, judges and juries face this Hobson’s choice all too often. It’s their job to tease the “right” decisions from a mammoth haystack of confusing and contradicting information. As often as not, they somehow get it “wrong”, a balance that wildly wobbles from jury to jury and judge to judge.

A Quest for Illusive Fairness
There’s an inherent difficulty in modulating individual behavior to compliment society. One person’s crisp black and white view is another’s million-shades-of-gray quest for illusive fairness. Our society’s legal structure is all about rules and verifiable facts. DNA can prove a connection with a crime, but may be disallowed if not collected in a legally sanctioned way. But when it comes to society’s account of fairness, there are no rules, or structure, or even verifiable facts. It’s merely the subjective side of the objective coin.

My knowledge of Bevel’s case is limited to this WaPo story. I have few of the legal facts of the case, but I do have a clear view of the emotional trauma his daughter has suffered. I admit I couldn’t make a “right” decision with the information I have, but I’m also not so sure I could even if I had sat through the trial - but, my hunch is that he did commit the crimes and I would eventually vote that way on a jury.

It takes a facile mind to find just the “right” balance between punishment and recognition of the good works that coexist in a man like Bevel. But without an attempt, society is stuck where two portions of a bridge come together, but fundamentally don’t fit.

Society’s tricky that way.

The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!