blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



american chic

the new york times is absolutely mystified by a new trend in european fashions: the american tough-guy look.

A remarkable reversal of sentiment and symbolism has occurred in the five months since designers here and in Milan and London, the site of fervent antiwar rallies, displayed peace flags and, in one instance, staged a love-in that featured a couple in a bed. At that time, European opposition to President Bush's position on Iraq ran so high that Tom Ford, the creative director of Gucci and a fellow Texan, told reporters after his women's show in February, "I'm embarrassed to be an American."

But last week in Milan, on the same runway where he had criticized the president, Mr. Ford struck an image that symbolized the virile Texas cowboy in boots and broad hat.

before we delve into the broader social implications of peacenik america-haters embracing george w. bush as a fashion plate, let us first take a moment to reflect on the notion of a bunch of milksopped-fop euro-weenies prancing down the runway in the biggest homoerotic cheese-fest since the village people last took stage. good gracious if that doesn't just brighten up your whole thursday.

anyway, what's the deal here? it's simple, folks. bush is a real man. he's confident, aggressive, determined, committed, and powerful. he's not afraid to lead. he's not afraid to face the heat. he's not afraid to march to the beat of his own drum even when he's 180 degrees out of step with everyone else. noodle-kneed europeans--those in the fashion industry especially--can't help but be attracted to that which they are so desperately lacking--and more or less have been for the past century, with churchill and (no offense, maggie) thatcher as two notable exceptions.

i would tack justice on to bush's other traits which makes me admire his steadfastness all the more: a real man does what he knows to be right regardless of what others think. yet notwithstanding their meek ethical protestations, the pups in europe can't help but fall in line behind the leader of the pack. the big dog. the alpha male. the anti-gore.

besides my parochial disdain for europe, i haven't really passed any judgments on their submissive tendencies. it's amusing, if unimportant. or is it? folks, didja ever wonder why europeans were such suckers for fascists? ever wonder why il duce came on like gangbusters? it wasn't the quality of his ideas, i can tell you that--in fact he was a lousy administrator. but he did manage to inspire all of italy, and one young, tragically efficient german corporal who was blown away by the effectiveness of his presentation, and the rest, as they say, is history.

what's the bottom line? america needs to lead. we need to do what we were born to do--what we were born doing as we will remind ourselves tomorrow. leave the playschool babies to the kiddie pool, ignore their crying when they get scared, and wade out into the deep end. it's clear enough that, for better or worse, they'll follow. let's just make sure we lead in the right direction.

locdog believes that, by and large, we have



bring them on.

i know how this is going to be portrayed by enemies of the bush administration. i know that when they read

There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.

they'll rocket to the height of apoplexy. i know that there will be outrage and indignation and long speeches about how this isn't die hard, and bush is the president of the united states not bruce willis, and that he ought to take the lives of americans in combat more seriously than some hollywood action hero would. they'll lament the damage being done to our world image, the arrogance that's pooling in an ever-widening moat between us and everyone else. they'll decry the close-mindedness and irretractability which has characterized bush's presidency--the bull-headed, two-fisted, uncompromisingly hegemonistic approach to foreign policy that they've come to know and hate.

well i love it.

i love it for a lot of reasons, the pettiest (and most pleasurable) of which is the fact that i'll bet "bring them on" really ticks barbara streisand and jacques chriac and all the right people off. i love it because i'm sick of poll driven politics, of clintonian backpedaling at the first sign of trouble, of the president being blown by the wind of the latest headlines (among other things.) i love it because there's an uncompromising devotion to what one believes is right, and not only that, but there's a display of genuine character in the face of adversity here--no, bush isn't the staring down the business end of a kalishnikov, true, but he's staked his presidency on this war and let me tell you folks, that takes guts. and when no WMDs have yet been found and the iraqi guerrilla raids are come at an ever-quickening place, well, the bravura of this little bon mot boggles the mind. you just don't see this sort of thing in politics any more.

but i guess that, most of all, i love it because i can hear the men and women of the armed services mouthing those words right along with him. do you think, my dear pinkos, that our soldiers wanted to get chased out of africa by a two-bit warlord and his whitehouse whipping boy? do you think they wanted to lay down their guns after seeing the bodies of their comrades drug through the mogadishu streets? do you think they wanted to be told--in effect--that they bled and sacrificed for nothing? taking losses in combat isn't exactly conducive to high morale, but taking those losses only to turn around and throw away the ground they died for...well, one only needs to think back to vietnam (or somalia) to judge the effects of that. no, "bring them on" is more like it.

locdog's $0.02


the moby dick of red herrings just went belly up

to those who care, i apologize for not being able to post much lately. there's been a weird cosmic convergence of factors keeping me from my keyboard.

anyway, drudge this morning links to a story on a survey done by, of all things, a pro-abortion advocacy group who has found that 51% of women now hold to a reasonably pro-life view.

yeah, yeah. statistical sampling. margin of error. imprecisions. inconclusive. blah blah blah. read the numbers anyway you want to, a pro-abortion group has found that roughly half the women out there don't want babies killed.

how can that be? isn't abortion a gender issue? isn't it about women having power over their own bodies? i thought that pro-lifers were all a bunch of he-man women-haters and mousy little housewives who think whatever their husbands tell them to think. since roe v. wade established that medical science is out of bounds in the abortion debate, we've talked of nothing but privacy and women's rights. now we find that women themselves don't even see it in those terms.

abortion is the san andreas of american politics and we've just witnessed a major slip. will mainstream republican candidates be a bit more forthcoming with their pro-life agendas? will we see moderate democrats taking their pro-abortion rhetoric down a notch? who knows--this may even lead to less babies dying.

locdog hopes so