WWII Parallels to War On Terror: A Reach

When the president of the United States in time of war gives a commencement speech, you can pretty much count on the “carpe diem” line showing up. In his graduation talk to Air Force Academy cadets, President George W. Bush didn’t disappoint. He used the forum to underscore America’s commitment to defeating terrorists and seizing the opportunity to liberate Iraq — and in so doing capture the high ground in the broader war on terrorism.

The president later segued into a parallel with World War II. Given the Memorial Day weekend, the dedication of the Veterans’ Memorial and the 60th Anniversary of D-Day, it was understandable. It was also inaccurate.

Vietnam, alas, continues to be the more appropriate analogy.

Would that the war on terrorism were truly comparable to the epic struggle that was WWII. Referencing Hitler and Hussein or Tojo and bin Laden doesn’t make it so. Comparing Pearl Harbor with the World Trade Towers isn’t enough.

*Would that perverted Fundamentalism were merely a dangerous, geopolitical ideology — not unlike Nazism and Facism.

*Would that religion were not a factor, let alone a driving force.

*Would that we were merely an enemy — not an infidel.

*Would that mosques weren’t also for preying.

*Would that geopolitics only involved countries — not tribes.

*Would that Americans — civilian and uniformed — felt the war was as good as the cause. Najaf isn’t Normandy.

*Would that we had joined key allies for an easily agreed upon common mission.

*Would that those we liberated two generations ago didn’t now see us as arrogant pillars of pre-emption and unilateralism.

*Would that those we recently liberated would see something other than a culturally insensitive occupation by contemporary Crusaders.

*Would that the rules of engagement were similar. Suicide bombers, male and female, are an especially obscene mutation.

*Would that the enemy were sovereign hegemons with uniformed armies — not jihad-crazed Muslims in mufti. Muqtada al-Sadr is not Erwin Rommel.

*Would that the enemy loved their own lives more than they hated us.

*Would that the Israeli lobby and Ariel Sharon’s blank check weren’t undermining our Mid East credibility — such that even Muslim “allies” can’t act like it.

*Would that the word sacrifice had meaning to Americans at home — not just the unlucky ones in uniform in Iraq.

*Would that victory would be recognizable when it happens.

*Would that FDR, Ike or Harry were waiting in the wings.

In Memoriam in comics

From time to time the complaint is raised that the “Comics” page is less than an appropriate forum for the “Doonesbury” strip. Agreed. But it’s not a matter of political partisanship.

If Thomas Sowell, for example, could draw something other than conservative conclusions, I wouldn’t want his paneled politics on the “Comics” page either. “Doonesbury” belongs on the editorial page even more than “Dilbert” belongs on the business page.

Never, however, was the context more inappropriate — and jarring — than on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend. Both metro newspapers ran “Doonesbury” as they normally do in the Sunday Comics. Only this time the strip’s six panels were devoted entirely to the names of those American G.I.s killed in combat in Iraq through April 23.

It came from a good place, and Gary Trudeau is to be saluted for his tribute. Our fallen troops can never be remembered enough.

However in this case, an otherwise legitimate “In Memoriam” tribute was trivialized by its “Comics” context. In one newspaper, which ran the strip vertically, “Doonesbury” was under “Marmaduke” and adjacent to, among others, “Mother Goose and Grimm” and “Hi & Lois.” In the other, which ran “Doonesbury” horizontally, it was sandwiched between “Hagar the Horrible” and “Luann.” Positioning next to “Non Sequitur” would have made more sense.

Unlike the generic issue with “Doonesbury,” this was no mere journalistic judgment call. It was, however much unintended, disrespectful.

Barely A Priority

Have I been missing something? I mean REALLY missing something? I’m talking about the ongoing debate (there are two sides to this?) over the banning of “NUDITY In PUBLIC.” It’s shocking that everybody wouldn’t think a ban on people — with maybe a very few exceptions — being bare-assed naked in public wasn’t a good idea.

But, no, this is all about banning commercial nudity. That which takes place inside adult clubs. Where they have a cover charge and bouncers and keep the windows closed. The only ones ogling the naked — or whatever — are paying customers. The dancers aren’t exactly indentured servants. It may be a club full of voyeurs, strumpets and traveling salesmen, but they’re consenting voyeurs, strumpets and traveling salesmen.

Ultimately, we keep coming back to this fundamental issue: These are sleazy places run by First Amendment parasites. We’re embarrassed when out of town visitors or national media remind us of our strip club reputation. We cringe upon hearing that a Las Vegas marquee actually advertises “‘Tampa-style’ lap dances.” We see statistics about prostitution and correlations about crime and blight and figure they can’t all be selective and skewed.

But do we really want to use tax money to play the dicey, pricey ordinance-appeal game?

The city, which is hardly flush and where all the live nude clubs are, has other priorities.

The Board of County Commissioners, whose priorities aren’t always fathomable, just passed up an opportunity to put an anti-nudity ordinance on the November ballot. It was actually the right call and not just because unincorporated Hillsborough has no live nude clubs.

The commissioners — 10,000 signatures from the Citizens for Decency and two pro-ballot motions by Ronda Storms notwithstanding — did the prudent thing. They will wait and see what happens in Manatee County, which is currently in the throes of legal challenges to its own anti-nudity ordinance. Manatee is appealing a federal court rejection of its ban. If nothing else, some helpful options or guidelines may result.

In the mean time, don’t look for Joe Redner to open up an adult club in Mango.

New York Times Can’t Blame Blair This Time

Now we have the New York Times issuing another mea culpa. Perhaps it’s the annual.

Last year it had to admit — eventually — that Jayson Blair was a lot more than the iconic newspaper’s minority, superstar-in-the-making reporter. He was a fraud. A superstar-in-the-faking. A plagiarizing, source-fabricating, arrogantly venal fraud — and the leadership of the Times was his self-congratulating, diversity enabler.

This time it’s a lot more serious. This time it’s not the Times being caught worshiping its idols at the altar of political correctness. This time it’s the Times being caught hurting a lot more than its reputation. This time it blindsided the country.

The Times now confesses that it was “had” in its reporting on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It was duped by dubious, agenda-driven sources and became an unwitting co-conspirator in presenting the key rationale for war to the American people — and the rest of the world. It accepted as geopolitical gospel assertions and allegations by a clique of self-appointed, self-serving, Iraqi regime-change advocates.

As a result, it ill served its readers, a seemingly forgiving lot who still like their world according to the Times . But much more importantly, it ill served the national interest. The Times may want to send personal apologies to the families of all those soldiers who have been killed fighting a war with a bogus rationale propagated in no small part by the lazy, hapless reporting of the New York Times.

America’s newspaper of record can’t blame this one on Jayson Blair.

Hockey’s Incongruity

There’s something ironic and incongruous about a sport where the archetypal joke is that “during the fight a hockey game broke out, ” and yet at season’s end players actually vie for something called the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy, emblematic of “sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct.” For all the slashing, bone-rattling hits, periodic brawls and generic mayhem, the players are the best spoken of the major team-sport athletes. And that’s in French, Russian, Ukrainian, Swedish, Finnish and Czech-accented English. An unshaven John Lynch on skates comes to mind.

Mayor Antes Up For Tix — Sort Of

Who would have thought that the city’s new ethics code would have impacted the Stanley Cup finals? But the code precluded Mayor Pam Iorio from being comped by the St. Petersburg Times for the opening game against Calgary, and she had to ante up for tickets. Guest luxury box ducats for the mayor and her husband had a face value of $700. Since the mayor can’t accept a gift in excess of $100, she paid for them. Sort of. With left over campaign money.

Here’s how that works.

After campaigns, politicians typically allocate a portion of left over funds to charity and to an “office account” for business-related items that are inappropriate to charge off to taxpayers. Iorio did both.

She wrote out $7,500 checks for the Boys and Girls Club and the Andy Aviles Scholarship Fund (in honor of the Robinson High Marine killed in Iraq). She also contributed $10,000 to the Community Foundation Scholarship Program that had been established by former Mayor Dick Greco. The remaining $10,000 went into the “office account.”

She tapped into that account, for example, when she treated the budget staff to lunch upon completion of her first budget. The same account covered the ticket value.

“The office account helps fill a gap,” explains Iorio. “Things that come up of a work nature that you don’t want to spend tax money on.”

It just happens that the nature of some work is more fun than others.

“Why You Ain’t?”

Remember when Bill Cosby was criticized by a lot of black folks for “The Cosby Show”? Holy Huxtable, it was an unreal depiction of black life. As if any sitcom was a depiction of anything real. Cosby’s original sin was that he wasn’t Jimmy Walker.

Now a generation later, he is hearing it in some quarters about comments he made recently in Washington in the context of a performance commemorating Brown vs. Board of Education. Cosby had the temerity to note that subsequent black generations hadn’t done nearly enough with the Brown vs. Board kick start. Too many blacks were still mired in lower-economic cul-de-sacs, and they had to assume a lot of the blame, he intimated.

He referenced “knuckleheads” who couldn’t be bothered to speak Standard English — and gave slangy, ebonic examples. He referred to warped priorities that valued “$500 sneakers” over modestly priced “Hooked On Phonics” kits. And so on.

Among those not amused: Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert.

Cosby’s current sin apparently wasn’t so much the lampooning, black self-criticism — but going public with it. Some things are better off being kept in-house. Unfortunately in America that only leads to a house further divided over race.

We do ourselves no favor as a nation if, in effect, the only serious racial conversation we can have is one reiterating the insidious legacy of racism and lamenting its resultant, ongoing victimization.

“The Longest Movie”?

Oh, those PR-magnet Bucs. Head Coach Jon Gruden has agreed to be a (play-scripting) consultant — with a cameo still possible — for a re-make of “The Longest Yard,” the 1974 classic about a former pro quarterback-turned-prisoner who leads the inmates’ football team. The original starred Burt Reynolds in his prime. This one has Adam Sandler in over his head.

Fortunately after last season, Gruden has a lot of third-and-long calls handy.

But it could have been worse. How about a reprise of “Brian’s Son” starring 50 Cent and Eminem?