MSNBC attacks achievement

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) might think twice before agreeing to another appearance on MSNBC. What's to be gained from discussing issues with an interviewer whose mind is the political equivalent of a black hole? Credit Fleming for trying, but he must realize that MSNBC is nothing more than an outlet for left-wing activism.

MSNBC's Chris Jansing scolded Rep. Fleming for opposing Democrat tax policy. Jansing asked Fleming to explain his own high income -- his business interests gross $6 million annually -- but paid no attention to his answer. Fleming took more than his "fair share" and that's all that mattered. The condescending Jansing continued to prod Rep. Fleming:

You do understand, congressman, that the average person out there who's making maybe 40, 50, $60,000 out there, when they hear you only have $400,000 left over, it's not exactly a sympathetic position. You understand that?

It's difficult to tolerate someone so arrogant in their ignorance as Chris Jansing. An honest interviewer would've at least listened to Rep. Fleming's explanation of how his gross receipts are dispersed, especially since she raised the issue. But not Chris Jansing; she heard from Fleming only what she wanted to hear. Like so many journalists she played the role of ideological puppet, as if the DNC had a hand in her back.

Sadly, Chris is partially correct. Too many Americans aren't sympathetic when a deceitful, immoral, and fiscally irresponsible ideology deploys government to steal their neighbor's earnings. And I can give her one big reason why. Look around your newsroom, Chris. Then look around the newsrooms at the vast majority of broadcast and print media. Finally, Chris, look in your own mirror.

Journalism sold out long ago. Rather than providing balanced information, journalists promote a vision in which one person's failure is the result of another's achievement. The predominant American media now serves an ideology bent on expanding the State, making it no different from the operatives at TASS and Pravda during the Soviet Union's heyday. You understand that, Chris?

Thinly veiled media attacks on achievement are common and predictable. Thus the question isn't how to reform the media, but how to undo the petty jealousies and animus toward achievement Democrats and their media apologists have created. As long as this mindset exists politicians will parlay class envy into electoral success, never fully explaining who the "greedy rich" are or what constitutes their "fair share."

Certainly Chris Jansing's brand of journalism is secure in the First Amendment, wherein she and her colleagues can compromise their profession to their heart's content. But there's a funny thing about freedom; it runs both ways. Those of us in the great unwashed are equally free to criticize media propagandists whenever they're encountered.

Achievement has its attackers. But let it be known this day, achievement has its defenders, too.

The crisis of hysteria

According to polling from Rasmussen Reports, 81-percent of Americans followed the media coverage preceding Hurricane Irene, with 63-percent the reporting favorable reviews. At face value there appears nothing but positives in these poll numbers. But should sensationalism and hysterics warrant positive marks from the public?

Hurricanes are one of nature's most potent forces and ignoring them is unquestionably foolish. Therefore it was perfectly sensible for people to keep an eye on Hurricane Irene, especially if they or their loved ones were in her path. Yet, there's cause for concern when 63-percent of the public believe the coverage of Irene wasn't -- pardon the pun -- overblown.

Playing Monday morning meteorologist isn't difficult. But even the slightest attention to Irene's pre-landfall progress revealed that she was never the catastrophic storm the news and weather media billed her to be. Irene wasn't gaining strength as she tracked north. In fact, she was steadily weakening. By the time she struck North Carolina's Outer Banks she was a Category One storm, rather common as hurricanes go. While the track may have been unique, there was no need for the newsroom panic that accompanied Irene's approach.

Certainly Irene was no simple summer squall. A hurricane is a hurricane. To the people who lost their property, or their very lives, Hurricane Irene was serious business. But the reports on Irene's pending destruction sounded as if the storm was the offspring of a weekend rendezvous between Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina. So it goes when the media gins up a crisis of hysteria.

No matter the coming attraction the media will present its potential danger as the end of civilization as we know it. Hurricane Irene was merely the latest illustration of the bombastic partnership that exists between the media and various governmental bodies. The two form an unholy alliance with a track record of sensationalizing harmful situations and fostering public fear.

According to an article titled "Refugees Escape Ravages of Climate Change" (the Journal of Environmental Health, 2003) global warming and environmental destruction would produce 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Entire island chains would disappear beneath rising seas. Zafar Adeel, of the United Nations University, echoed the dire prophesy in December 2006. Where are those 50 million climate change refugees now? What islands have disappeared? The UN's prediction of mass refugees resulting directly from global warming proved to be -- if you'll pardon another pun -- hot air.

Disease is another catastrophe routinely manipulated in media and governmental circles. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surfaced in Asia in early 2003 and was immediately treated as the Black Death reincarnate. News viewers were inundated with nightly videos of Chinese people cowering behind facemasks. In reality, the only thing pandemic about SARS was the media panic. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed only 8,098 SARS cases worldwide and 774 deaths, mostly in China. Influenza and tuberculosis killed more people than SARS.

If the SARS scare was the only example of the media over-dramatizing microbial threats we might grant them a pass. But the story is too common to dismiss as a singular mistake in reporting, or even an instance of poor judgment.

Bird flu was the dread du jour in 2005. Before anyone knew how serious the strain was, or would become, the media compared it to a 1918 flu outbreak that killed 50 million people worldwide and half-a-million in the United States. Government organizations, notably the World Health Organization (WHO), joined the media cacophony. The public was berated with prophesies of widespread suffering and death. But bird flu's reality never lived up to the hype and the threat dissipated just as quickly as it came.

Swine flu was another crisis that never quite materialized. World Health Organization flu expert Keiji Fukuda warned that a H1N1 pandemic could infect up to 2 billion people worldwide. The panic was on. Media outlets filled space with ominous predictions of widespread suffering and death. The world seemed poised for a plague of Biblical proportions. But, like SARS and bird flue, swine flu didn't cooperate with the doomsayers. It was soon discovered that swine flu wasn't as serious as first reported. Thousands, not billions, were infected and relatively few died.

While diseases and natural disasters are nothing to ignore, they're also nothing to manipulate for ratings and political advantage. Yet potential threats to humanity, of which we should be aware, are routinely exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The reason is clear. Crisis benefits both the media and government. Sensationalism sells news and promotes fear. Under the threat of possible harm people will exchange their liberty for government's oft-empty promise of security. The worse a looming disaster appears the more people will hang on the media's reports and demand government action. Hysteria breeds ratings for media outlets and dependency on government.

There's nothing wrong with reporting potential disasters or planning for unpredictable scenarios. Preparation is common sense and people should be aware of imminent or possible threats. However, journalism and bureaucracy have a long history of blowing biological and meteorological threats completely out of proportion. Informing the public of anticipated events is mundane. Thus cataclysmic crises are created whether or not they exist.

The language used to report possible harms, whether in the form of disease or natural disaster, can be a greater threat to public safety than the dangers themselves. The so-called experts have cried wolf so often that their credibility is shattered. The media and governments bear a responsibility to maintain the public's trust. That bond has been sacrificed to the pursuit of ratings and authority.

The next danger will surface soon enough. Maybe it will be another hurricane, or the tropical rainstorm drenching the gulf coast. Flu season is just around the corner. Whatever the source, the media and government will the treat that threat like a combination of Pompeii and the Chicago Fire before it reaches a serious level, further eroding the public's trust. When a crisis worthy of widespread hysteria does arise, will anyone pay attention to their warnings?

Washington and the media spawned the “deathers”

More than a week ago Navy SEALs ushered Osama bin Laden to his everlasting calling. A rush of boots, the pop of small arms fire, and he was gone. Word has it that Osama remains dead. Or does he?

Conspiracies are popping up like lost relatives at a lottery winner’s doorstep, as are the attempts to discredit anyone asking questions about bin Laden’s demise. The situation is similar, in nature if not degree, to the "birther" movement. Osama conspiracists even have a nickname, "deathers."

Generally speaking, conspiracy theories combine overactive imaginations with the need to explain the unexplainable. However, the White House’s delay in producing Obama’s actual birth certificate prompted skepticism concerning his birthplace and his qualification for office. Thus "birthers" were born. Likewise for the White House account of bin Laden’s death. Just as a lack of White House transparency fueled the birthers it now fuels the "deathers," who can posit some interesting questions.

Why did finding bin Laden take so long? U.S. military and intelligence agencies possess satellite surveillance technology capable of determining the coin toss at next year’s Super Bowl, assuming there is one. Why couldn’t we find the world’s most infamous terrorist? Osama bin Laden’s prompt burial at sea did little to squelch the conspiracists, either. We saw photos of the dead Uday and Qusay Hussein, and of Saddam himself. Why not bin Laden?

Conspiracists can legitimately argue a captured bin Laden is more valuable than a dead bin Laden. A live al-Qaeda leader would be a wealth of intelligence information, ripe for the interrogating. The federal government could easily fake bin Laden’s death. Then he could be spirited to some remote corner of the globe for unencumbered questioning.

Would releasing photos of a deceased Osama bin Laden quell the conspiracies and satisfy the "deathers?" Probably not. Conspiracists will claim the pictures are forged products of the Photoshop age. Some may allege the bin Laden in the photos is a double, not the genuine article. Besides, releasing photos is of small benefit when the White House can’t so much as get its story straight.

We were told how bin Laden died during a fierce firefight while using his wife as a human shield. In one account bin Laden’s wife was wounded, in the next she wasn’t. Then she was shot, but only in the leg. Was she a human shield? Or did she charge SEAL Team Six? Osama bin Laden was armed; then he wasn’t. Was he reaching for his AK-47 when he was killed? Or, was he captured and summarily executed, which he richly deserved?

Considering the conflicting reports emanating from Washington, and dutifully parroted in the media, who can say with certainty what occurred in Abbottabad? Too much contradiction, too much swirl. No evidence, regardless its strength, will mollify the skeptics now. Photos and DNA tests can be faked while making each seem credible. Also, reports of Osama bin Laden’s death aren’t new; they began circulating within months of 9/11.

I believe bin Laden is dead. Does my opinion relegate the conspiracists to the far corners of Crackpotistan? Not entirely. When conspiracy theories become commonplace, the government and media are condemned more than the conspiracists. Contradictions and lies on the part of the federal government combined with a compliant media, over time, have fostered a public mistrust toward both parties. Frankly, neither entity is more credible than the tinfoil hat brigade.

Spin, swirl, and bias are par for the federal government and most media outlets. Phraseologies, like "quantitative easing" and "integrative complexity," breed distrust. Such phrasing is intended not to enlighten the public but to conceal an agenda the public would oppose, or worse, ridicule. Small wonder mainstream news reports and the federal government’s official statements create suspicion.

Whether people believe bin Laden died last week at the hands of Navy SEALs or ten years ago of natural causes is of little consequence. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And if he’s alive and under interrogation at a black ops center? Happy waterboarding! What’s truly shameful is how once-revered institutions have instilled such distrust in the population that every government action and media report spawns a conspiracy theory.

Are the "deathers" piloting black helicopters? Maybe so. But Washington and the "mainstream" media needn't point fingers. They birthed the "deather" movement.

What a difference a war can make

How times have changed! The United States isn’t the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We’ve shed the “I ride alone” image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday’s news and America can again wage a just war. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Remember the arguments against President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren’t heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don’t consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that’s a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a “police action.”

While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration’s “rush to war” in Libya they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrat’s chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.

Bush’s detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush’s agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq’s elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.

President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We’re unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.

For a proper perspective on our current alliance, look at World War II. What if America had fought Nazi Germany in Europe while joining forces with them on the Russian Front? The scenario sounds ridiculous. But that’s what we’re doing with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Libya.

Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries than Obama’s coalition in Libya. What’s more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.

Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.

Gaddafi’s government hasn’t directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush’s critics charged him with involving America in Iraq’s civil war. So what’s happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.

The Iraq War began without Congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.

The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there’s no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya, where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn’t the same true in Iraq?

Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn’t kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein’s fall. What’s more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.

The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama’s decision to bomb Libya. I’ll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren’t meddling in their affairs. Hussein’s actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.

Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I’ll loose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops’ safety and their mission's success. Alas, there’s no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.

The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olberman. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama’s military-industrial complex. Obama hasn’t been labeled a Nazi and I’ve yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.

What a difference a war can make!

This article originally appeared on American Thinker.

Seeking humor in assassination

Blaming journalists for biased reporting isn’t unique. Adherents to all political ideologies accuse the media of aligning with their opponents. However, Washington Post syndicated columnist Esther Cepeda gives conservatives a leg-up in proving leftist favoritism in the "mainstream" media. Either that or she’s a total dunce.

Ms. Cepeda has issues with the audience at Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) town hall meeting. Apparently, the audience laughed when one constituent asked, "Who’s going to shoot Obama?" In perfect media fashion Ms. Cepeda parlayed the incident, which the Secret Service investigated and deemed a poor joke, into a blanket hatred for Obama based on his race and a "perceived socialist slant to government" since he took office. What happened, she lamented, to the outrage against such incendiary language after Gabrielle Giffords was shot?

Esther Cepeda finds no humor in jokes about assassinating President Obama. I’ll second that motion. But where was she when jovial leftwing pranksters had George W. Bush all but in the grave? It would be naïve to think she suffers from poor memory. More likely she has selective memory, or she’s a prejudiced media stooge.

First, no one has forgotten about Rep. Giffords or her battle to recover from the Tucson shooting. It’s just that rational observers quickly realized that blaming the representative’s injuries on conservative speech was a media generated myth. Second, Ms. Cepeda should know that crude comments about presidential assassinations didn’t originate with Obama’s inauguration.

The left’s outrage over tasteless references to presidential assassination depends not on some newly discovered high moral plane but on who’s in the crosshairs. Remember how President Bush’s opponents treated him? He was labeled an international criminal and accused of single-handedly initiating a war Congress had authorized him to wage at his discretion. Yet Bush was an evil tyrant, a blood-thirsty liar and a despicable fraud. He was Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun all rolled into one genocidal package. The left did more than joke about Bush’s death; they fantasized about it.

Review a photo gallery from an Iraq War protest march and you’ll find plenty of knee-slapping calls to punch Bush’s ticket to the Great Beyond. His opponents had no qualms with a movie depicting his death from a sniper’s bullet. In fact, Peter Dale broadcast such a film (Death of a President) on British television. Dale found the film "serious" and "thought-provoking," even defending the use of Bush’s likeness rather than a fictional president because "it’s absolutely legitimate to deal with contemporary named figures."

Ha! I get it! Quite the card that Peter Dale.

Amazingly, Dale’s attitude is tame compared to British columnist Rod Liddle. Liddle said the movie depicting Bush’s death would strike a popular chord in Britain and predicted the actor who played the assassin would drink free in any British pub. The movie’s theme, according to Liddle, was entirely reasonable.

What a jester! And the jocularity surrounding Bush’s demise wasn’t confined to crackpots at anti-war rallies and movie sets. It was available in printed form, too.

A novel titled Checkpoint also hinged on threatening Bush’s life. The main character, named Jay, pulled no punches with his hatred for George W. Bush or his desire to kill the president in a variety of torturous ways. "I’m going to kill the bastard," Jay railed at one point while promising Bush would be "one dead armadillo" at another.

How’s that for civility, Ms. Cepeda? Where was your outrage when Bush was the bull’s eye of death by a thousand jokes? Did you not care, or were you simply ignorant of this leftwing merriment? The latter is difficult to swallow.

I doubt Ms. Cepeda is a fan of the conservative media. Therefore it’s equally doubtful she would review such outlets to discover the left’s witty jabs at Bush. But she needn’t have soiled her hands with World Net Daily, Town Hall, or Newsmax to uncover the premise behind Death of a President and Checkpoint. She didn’t need to scour the archives at the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Limbaugh Letter, or (God forbid) Fox News.

The reactions to the previously mentioned movie and book appeared in the Washington Post, with nary a sign of condemnation from the writers, I might add. Yes, Ms. Cepeda, the same Washington Post that employs the cesspool of columnists in which you swim. Feeling slimy, Ms. Cepeda? Perhaps a bit foolish? You should! But I’ll bet the farm you don’t.

Ms. Cepeda’s outrage rings as hollow as Obama’s promise to wisely spend the public’s funds. Crass jokes about killing presidents aren’t new, they didn’t originate with Obama’s ascendancy, and they arise from all points of the political spectrum. Vitriol isn’t the "knuckle-dragging" conservative’s copyrighted material. Put aside your self-righteous indignation, Ms. Cepeda, and open your eyes to reality. The left is to spiteful venom what Fort Knox once was to gold bullion.

If Cepeda and her "progressive" media cohorts truly find no humor in joking about a president’s death the newspapers and airwaves should’ve been flush with condemnation when leftist cranks and nutcases openly advocated for Bush’s demise. Did it slip their minds? Or did they find more pressing matters to attend? Hardly! Most media outlets simply weren’t too concerned when Bush was the dead man walking. Maybe there is humor in assassination only when the president has an "R" beside his name.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

The two faces of Julian Assange

Julian Assange, Wikileaker extraordinaire, is somewhat the enigma. His appearance is, at best, unimpressive. In fact, his visage screams “metrosexual” with the subtlety of a train horn on a still summer’s eve. His sexual preference is in question even while he’s accused of raping two women. Assange is both a heroic freedom-fighter and a treasonous lout, depending on who you ask and when. Perhaps he is equally both and yet neither, all the while turning American politics on its ear.

Regressives cheered when Assange’s Wikileaks exposed information that endangered key allies and operations in Afghanistan. Kudos for open government, they crowed. To hear Regressives tell it, protecting domestic constitutional liberties meant knowing everything our military was planning on the other side of the world. Of course, contemporary Regressives would’ve considered leaking the U.S. military’s big secret on June 5, 1944 as an act of patriotism, too. Conservatives (and some Regressives) liken Assange to the second coming of the Rosenbergs, even encouraging the CIA to punch his ticket.

Assange next dumped information that embarrassed the State Department. The leaked communications revealed how U.S. emissaries spied upon both friend and foe and exercised strong-arm diplomacy with our allies. However, to spill the beans on champagne-sipping envoys doesn’t seem as evil as unveiling military secrets. Besides, anyone who doesn’t realize that we spy on our allies, and they on us, and that international negotiations aren’t invariably conducted according to Robert’s Rules is rather naïve.

Assange’s leak of Afghanistan War records harmed the military. This infuriated conservatives and caused Regressives to squeal like school girls on prom night. He then exposed the State Department’s diplomatic affairs--and diplomacy is the true love of the Left--that embarrassed the Obama administration. In a pure political sense he has offended and satisfied both the Right and the Left. Thus Julian Assange is 100-percent evil and 100-percent good, depending on what was compromised, who was embarrassed, and when. Regressives and Conservatives have political common ground; they can both love and hate the dual faces of Julian Assange.

But, not all matters should be seen through red or blue colored glasses. Sometimes there is no right, left or middle. Sometimes moral and ethical aspects transcend political advantage. That time is now, when Julian Assange’s two faces have become one. His publication of military documents potentially compromised the safety and mission of American troops fighting on foreign soil. That’s a Julian Assange that no American should excuse, regardless how thoroughly Wikileaks may have tweaked their political opponents.

Ines Sainz is no innocent victim

Our politically correct media culture demands immediate confession. Any offense, real or perceived, sends damage control teams rushing for microphones, issuing apologies in all directions. Seldom will common sense prevail, especially if it contradicts a good story. Bring in Ines Sainz.

Inez is the female sports reporter who became the target of “locker room” commentary when she entered the New York Jets’ locker room. The PC media culture immediately circled the wagons around Inez, condemning the crude and boorish behavior the Jets players and coaches exhibited.

Yet the question remained, was Sainz harassed or not? At first glance she appeared to be offended by the various hoots and whistles that hailed her arrival in the world of the New York Jets. But, within a few days, Sainz refuted the harassment claims. She told the New York Daily News, “I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there.”

It turned out that a colleague and the Association for Women in Sports Media contributed to turning a rather minor incident into a world-wide frenzy.

Now let’s be frank. Ines Sainz is a woman of rare features. She’s exceptionally pretty with a gorgeous figure. But none of those qualities is an excuse for grown men to behave like horny high-school kids. Jets personnel are responsible for their actions regardless of the situation.

In a perfect world Ines Sainz could strip naked and wiggle her caboose through the darkest subway station without fear of rape, assault, abuse, or accost. Also in a perfect world I could don a Confederate Army uniform and carry the Rebel Flag through South Central L.A. while singing Massa’s in de Cold, Cold Ground. But our world isn’t perfect and neither act represents a prudent choice.

Ines Sainz wasn’t assaulted in any substantive way. No one groped her or offered her an evening to remember. Her person wasn’t insulted; her professionalism was. On this point Ines cannot claim innocence. While a provocatively dressed woman doesn’t excuse a man’s loutish behavior, such behavior is no surprise. And it’s equally true that professionalism begins with the person. Has Ines cultivated a professional image?

Sainz looked rather comfortable in her body-hugging denim Capri’s and low-cut blouse while cavorting with two Indianapolis Colts linemen at last year’s Super Bowl. When she visited the Jets her jeans were again seductively snug. This is her rule, not her exception. Sainz routinely packages her assets in jeans tighter that those worn by the lead singers of 1980s hair metal bands. Her bikini photos aren’t unspectacular either.

Not being someone who’s offended by a pretty woman in sexy clothes, let me be the one to go out on the limb. Yes, Ines Sainz looks great in her Frederick’s of Hollywood wardrobe. Her bikinis are fit for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and her jeans superb for trolling the club scene. But, if she wants professional treatment she should dress professionally while on the job.

When someone presents a serious, professional image their chances of being treated seriously and professionally escalate. Yes, woman can dress attractively and still present a professional appearance. Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson prove it everyday. But when a woman dresses provocatively on the job it should surprise no one when she’s ogled.

Researching Ines Sainz’s wardrobe choices and pontificating on who is at fault and why is easy. Solutions that prevent similar episodes are more difficult. Fortunately, I have an answer. Since locker rooms and clubhouses are filled with athletes in various stages of undress no reporter, male or female, belongs there.

Locker rooms and clubhouses are the athlete’s refuge, their haven to concentrate on the game ahead, reflect on one completed, or simply unwind. Locker room reporters are a distraction whether they come in the form of sexy women in skin-tight jeans or bald men in sport coats. Reporters have ample opportunity to interview athletes outside the locker room.

Ines shouldn’t have received a stripper’s reception at the Jets’ facility. However, her choice of attire was imprudent. She didn’t present the image of someone who wants to be taken seriously. In fact, the Redskins’ Clinton Portis was quite correct. Ines looked more like a teenager seeking a date for the prom that a reporter conducting an interview.

The Beltway Zone: where minds turn to mush

The beltway surrounding the nation’s capital must comprise some paranormal force capable of melting a person’s mind. Nearly all life that ventures inside loses memory, common sense and contact with reality.

Politicians forget their campaign pledges and how to reconcile financial accounts. Business leaders who become lawmakers forget the most basic principles of economics, like the implausibility of borrowing one’s way out of debt. The worst examples--or the most piteous--are journalists.

Once journalists join the beltway media they exit the atmosphere of planet Earth. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne isn’t the only example; he just happens to be the latest.

Mr. Dionne has a problem with guns at healthcare forums, especially Obama’s. He wonders why conservatives excuse the gun-toting protesters at a black president’s appearance and what they might’ve said if leftists had brought guns to Reagan or Bush appearances.

First of all, the presence of guns--right or wrong--has nothing to do with race. People have brought guns to white representatives’ forums, too. It’s not just the president. Also, someone did bring a gun to a Reagan appearance. He was shot, if you’ll recall. Furthermore, there were movies and books about assassinating George W. Bush.

Drop the race-baiting, Mr. Dionne. It’s an empty argument and beneath the dignity of a serious commentator.

Another of his peeves is the “jackboot politics” that opponents of government healthcare employ. If you’re a vocal opponent of socialized medicine you’re part of an “angry minority engaging in intimidation.”

Mr. Dionne, your memory is short.

When Bill Clinton was president and his administration botched the Branch Davidian raid, federal agents were called “jackbooted thugs.” Leftists came unglued. They fully supported Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, heaping scorn upon the “jackboot” comments. As for the “angry minority”, support for the plan to “reform” healthcare is trending downward. The “minority” you lament is actually a majority, one that’s weary of being ruled rather than represented.

Guns aren’t the basis of American liberty, Mr. Dionne argues. It is discussion, debate and free elections that produced our liberty; violence bypasses the rule of law.

Really? Try selling that notion to the Founding Fathers.

The Colonists presented the British Crown with petition after petition and grievance after grievance. All were rebuffed. The Declaration of Independence is the epitome of reasoned and rational argument. However, if I remember my history, King George ignored the Colonists’ complaints. Monarchal tyranny was halted only at the barrel of the Colonial gun.

Freedom doesn’t exist if mankind has no fundamental rights. It is the natural course of government to steal those rights one authoritarian necessity at a time. Without the ability to defend liberty our rights become privileges that can be granted or repealed at the ruler’s whim. Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but armed citizens are the basis of freedom, if freedom is to have meaning.

As for violence, it’s the totalitarian government’s favored tactic. The Romans made sport of killing Christians. Oppressing the rule of law and human liberty drove Nazi Germany to exterminate six million Jews. The Soviet Union was even worse. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Viet Cong, Islamic revolutionaries, Castro, all have used force to suppress freedom.

Those rulers stripped people of all legitimate means for defending their rights. And if armed citizens make America appear “foolish and lawless” to the rest of the world, let’s remember that the majority the world’s governments are themselves authoritarian regimes of some sort. The idea of limited government and personal liberty often makes America look foolish to worldly tyrants.

Visions of a right-wing armed revolution are premature. We can peacefully overthrow our government at the ballot box. However, bearing arms against enemies both foreign and domestic is the cornerstone of liberty. Failing to recognize that fundamental truth proves that Mr. Dionne has been inside the Beltway Zone too long.