Irish paper ticks off US golf team

Hmm, Irish newspaper prints a story to drag some of the US Ryder Cup team's wives through the mud...and they get the picture wrong.

Tiger Woods has reacted with fury after a Dublin magazine printed topless photos of a woman which it wrongly claimed it was the superstar golfer's wife.

Woods and the United States team are said to be "appalled" by the article in the latest issue of the Dubliner, which portrays the players' wives and girlfriends as cheap on the eve of the Ryder Cup.

The photograph purporting to be of Woods's wife Elin Nordegren appears in the September issue of the listings magazine. Under the headline "Ryder Cup filth for Ireland" is a picture of a topless woman.

Oh, the stories the magazine tells.

"Most American golfers are married to women who cannot keep their clothes on in public. Is it too much to ask that they leave them at home for the Ryder Cup?

"Consider the evidence - Tiger Woods's wife Elin Nordegren - pictured left - can be found in a variety of sweaty poses on porn sites across the web..."

...

It goes on to claim that Chad Campbell's wife Amy is a " largechested singer" and suggests that Jim Furyk's wife Tabitha " married geeky Jim as his winnings hit £10 million". The piece also says Sonya Toms, wife of David, finds it "liberating" to wear her bikini around the house.

OK, one, this is tasteless. Yep, no doubt about that. Two, WHO CARES, really, about the spouses of the celebrities (in this case the wives of the golfers)?

Three, has it not been proven already that you do not want to piss of The Tiger?

UK thwarts mass murder plot

You have already heard the news, I'm sure. A plot to blow up at least 6 planes while flying over the Atlantic in a 'mass murder' plot. Some are saying that this may have been another 9/11 and there are ties to al Qaeda. The UK arrested 21 people so far but there may be as many as 50 involved. They are reported to be of Pakistani descent. Thank you to Drudge for reminding us that a few days ago a London to Boston flight was turned away because it was discovered that passengers on the no-fly list had actually boarded. Britain is on high alert as a whole while the US has only air related areas on high alert.

That story is going to be played for a while, now. But people are missing the bigger picture. I have been saying for almost 7 weeks that Iran is behind a ton of this stuff...all for various reasons.

First, they want everyone's attention to be divided. Have you noticed no that Iran's nuclear program (and its pending completion) is in a position to not be higher than 3rd headline? Third biggest story...that is below the fold on print papers, scroll far down on webpages and non-bold face in the headline boxes in the sidebars.

Second, divided attention means divided resources. 'Nuff said on that.

What I want you to understand in this is what the danger WILL be domestically. The people in politics who ARE a danger to this country (both on the Left and Right) will turn this in to "advantage talking points" and tie this to the elections. This has nothing to do with the elections...hate to burst the bubbles of partisans out there.

While the partisans tell each other that the other side is "evil", "dangerous" and on the Right they say the Left will lose the War (intentionally, in some of their minds) I do not believe either side is actively trying to lose the war. Everyone sees it in a different lens. Some see the War on Terror as, well, a war and a military campaign. Others see it as criminal elements that need to be dealt with in a criminal justice frame of mind. Frankly, the former view is mostly right. Mostly, because they actually miss the point that we are dealing with rational people...radical, yes, but their thought process is not unflowing like North Korea's. You can easily connect the dots from their premise to their conclusion...even though you disagree with them. The "War on Terror is a War" crowd (which I will call the Right on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Right) misses that our enemies are rational. The "War on Teror is Criminal" crowd (which I will call the Left on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Left) misses the point that they are (a) the enemy of a war they declared, (b) are willing to die as long as they take others out with them, (c) are not working in a psychological mindset of criminality, but of wardom, and (d) are proven to understand our systems, our weaknesses because of those systems and exploit those weaknesses.

Both the Left of Terror and the Right of Terror are getting distracted (if paying attention to at all) by each individual occurance...Israel vs Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Russia's involement, al Qaeda, these latest plots...and failing to step back with a wider lens. These are all connected.

Why should WE, here in Minnesota really care? Because more experts are coming out connecting a few of these dots (e.g. Iran's nuclear programs near completion with Hezbollah)...and all of the dots together lead to WWIII in some manner. I have explained the different scenarios of WWIII (see the section of the post titled "Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan" if you don't want to read the whole thing). To give you an idea of the location of battlefields think of WWII. In relation to the extent of 'action' and casualties within the borders I think the following analogies help to demonstrate. We are the Russia of WWII...lots of action within our borders and heavy casualties (our civilian casualties will be higher the longer it takes for non-political American citizens to acknowledge the scale of what's coming), Britain (and Europe eventually) is like, well, Britain. They will be 'host' to a lot of carnage as well. They may see more destruction than casualties, mostly because I think in the end they are more willing to sacrifice more freedoms for more security. Their economy will be harder to recover from than ours...though we will seem some really tough times. Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Israel are going to be the Germany of all of this. Nearly completely leveled...likely more complete devastation than in WWII...and a lot of casualties.

It will not get better and will not end until all of the leadership from one side or the other are killed, captured or otherwise permanently neutralized and the government destroyed. That is what I see as a fact of what is building.

Don't like it? Sorry, you have to understand that the enemy is looking for that reality, they are striving for that major battle, they have accepted that road. With each passing day of "negotiations" and "diplomatic" efforts instead of battle hardening we draw closer to both losing advantage in the pending battle and allowing the enemy to set the course of action.

Both the Right of Terror and the Left of Terror try to keep us off the grand battlefield. We are reluctant to deal with Iran (and their tentacles) in combat or with actual military force. Yes, we are thinly spread...but survival is at stake. Find a way to make the disadvantage of thin into an advantage of stationed in many fronts. The politicos (politicians and their supporters) want Terror to be a campaign issue, but don't want to have us step on the battlefield now that the time is near. Shutup with "November" and focus on "Iran".

The timeframe for prevention is drawing to a close. Get ready. Get busy. Most of all open your eyes to the bigger picture...the enemy is not the American on the other side of the aisle. The enemy is on the other side of the battlefield we refuse to actually step on.

And to understand the real danger of making this issue a political topic listen to the FIRST CALL on Glenn Beck's show when it airs tonight on KTLK at 7PM. Understand that BOTH sides are guilty of that caller's ignorance for what is going on.

Please, for the sake of our survival...watch Iran more broadly and understand the difference between "enemy" and "political adversary".

Missing foreign students and WWIII

I'm sure this is nothing...I mean the government authorities say so.

[FBI Special Agent Richard] Kolko said there is no reason to believe the missing students, all men around 20 years old, represent a threat.

What missing 20-year old male students?

Eleven Egyptian students who were supposed to travel to a Montana university after flying to JFK airport late last month disappeared in New York, spurring federal authorities to issue a nationwide alert, officials said yesterday.

The students - who were traveling with six classmates from Mansoura University in Egypt - had their student visas revoked for failing to show up at Montana State University in Bozeman, the officials said.

The other six students made it to the college.

"The FBI and ICE [Immigration and Custom Enforcement] would like to locate these 11 students in order to speak with them," said FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko after the "be-on-the-lookout" alert was issued to all police in the United States.

Now, that is nothing to worry about? Really? At what point do we worry?

"At this point, all they have done is not show up for a scheduled academic program, and their visas have been revoked," Kolko said.

"We do not know of any association with any terrorist or criminal groups. There is no threat associated with these men. We have simply asked law enforcement's assistance in locating them so that the FBI and ICE may interview them."

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the situation "has to be taken very seriously."

"Having a number of students from an Arab country arriving on student visas and disappearing is cause for concern," he said.

Montana State University Provost David Dooley said 17 Mansoura University students signed up for a 32-day cultural-exchange program to intensively study English, learn about Montana history and go on several field trips.

They arrived at JFK on a flight from Egypt on July 29, but only one managed to clear immigration in time to make a connecting flight, Dooley said.

By July 31, five others had arrived in Bozeman, but the rest were unaccounted for.

I remember the outrage at various colleges and from the Left when the Student Visa programs were beginning to clamp down on their requirements. Again, it is proven that compromise on the issue was compromising our security. In all seriousness there is nothing preventing this from happening with scores upon scores of foreign students. Perhaps some more national-background profiling is necessary to help diminish the risk of this happening.

Why is this posting also listed under the WWIII category? Because this story is fishy AND it ties very nicely with my unease since the beginning of the Israeli defensive that August is going to be a very troublesome month at best.

This from Yahoo News (no link--it will be dead in a few days anyway)

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has renewed calls on Muslims to rally to the defence of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah in its war against
Israel, state television reported.

"Today it is the entire Muslim community's duty to defend Hezbollah," Khamenei told a meeting Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the birth of the Shiites' first Imam, Ali.

I have no doubt that Iran is behind the whole mess right now.

Iran helped to create and arm Hezbollah in 1982 in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and Tehran stands accused by the United States and Israel of fomenting chaos in the region by channelling weapons to the guerrillas.

Iran denies the allegation, saying it provides only moral support to the movement.

Nevermind the fact that each rocket fired from Hezbollah right now must have the express approval from Iran...we are simply jumping to conclusions that Iran has an active hand in this offensive against Israel.

Wait, there's more.

The all-powerful Iranian leader lashed out at the
United Nations for what he called its "incompetence", and also attacked some Arab countries for "looking on in silence".

"Some Arabic states that have kept quiet should know that the United States will never consider their interests," Khamenei said.

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians have been killed in the Israeli offensive unleashed after the capture of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid from Lebanon on July 12.

Khamenei also accused the US and Britain on Tuesday of encouraging the "Zionists' crimes" and "seeking to eradicate Islam in this region".

Let me explain how this works. These guys believe that it is OK to have a stated goal of the "extermination" or "annhilation" of Israel, and any resistance to that is "seeking to eradicate Islam". Quite honestly, if these guys are the representatives of Islam in that region then the world will be a better, more tolerant, more peaceful place after their eradication. The ONLY question is if these angels-of-satan are representative of Islam.

And further proof that the end of the world is near...I agree with a Princeton professor (Bernard Lewis to be exact). Some of you have been critical of me for (1) calling this WWIII...and maybe it is not YET WWIII, but I think the liklihood of it is stronger than the liklihood it is not/will not be WWIII, and (2) of having the heebie-jeebies about August.

According to a Flash Report from Drudge I am not too far off.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that [the time of Armegeddon] is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Now some smaller minded people have decided to use this as political fodder. Essentially, the end of the world may be beginning this month so 'vote for my party' in November. Logic...they don't need no stinkin' logic. Rationality...won't find that from them either.

Domestically what is important in all of this is that the USA is not going to do much in all of this and it is the fault of the partisans...all of them. Two general groups are to blame.

First, the Left for weakening the resolve of the nation to fight evil which threatens us. Also the Left for putting very short-sighted lenses on the whole issue of terrorism, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. Rather than look at these issues as a "what is best for the survival of the United States against evil" they turned it into a "how can we dennigrate Bush on this topic?" The Democrats turned it into a "what do we need to do to make this a political chip in our favor?" Health of the country be damned. Survival of the country be damned...because the party comes first.

Second, the Right for many reasons. They (Bush in the forefront) failed to make the brazenly honest case about Iraq...it has always been primarily about Iran. Failing to make the ABSOLUTELY HONEST case allowed the partisan Left to turn the survival of America into a political gambit. Next they failed by getting weak in the spine on national security. Yes, many of them will come back and say they were strong...but when they failed on so many fronts that are equally tied to security (border security, immigration reform, illegal immigration lockdown, etc) they hold the blame ticket as well. By having so many of the Right and the Republicans start wavering on Iraq specifically it perpetuated the domestic reality that America's survival is just another campaign issue again in yet another campaign year. Being strong on national security is more than just supporting Bush in fighting "terrorism" and "on Iraq"...it is more than repeating the talking points on those narrow topics.

Shame on 100% of the party members and partisans on both sides. And I guarantee they will continue to do it through November.

Most importantly is this: Keep your eyes firmly planted on Iran. They are the root of all that is going on right now...they are on the verge of nuclear weapons, and all the negotiations in the UN is playing into Iran's advantage.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.

Iran says no way...Why it is WWIII

(H/T: Northern Alliance Wannabe)

Can We Think About That...No Thanks
In case you have not heard the completely expected news:

Iranian state radio said Saturday that the government would reject a proposed U.N. resolution that would give it until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of international sanctions.

"Iranians will not accept unfair decisions, even in the framework of resolutions by the international bodies," the commentary on state-run radio said.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

The resolution was formally circulated to the full 15-member U.N. Security Council late Friday and likely will be adopted next week.

"Ultimatum and deadline cannot be acceptable to us," the commentary said, accusing the United States and its allies of making what it called an illegal demand.

The commentary also said the draft might not be approved because of opposition by China.

Tehran said last week it would reply Aug. 22 to a Western incentive package, but the council decided to go ahead with a resolution and not wait for Iran's response.

The incentive package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce peaceful reactor fuel or fissile bomb material.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions.

Had to do the whole article...sometimes the full story on FoxNews.com does not go into long term archives.

In case you didn't hear us yesterday (show is available through webcast) I explained why this whole Iranian consideration of the UN proposal was a delay tactic.

Short version in chronological bullet points:
* Iran enriching Uranium...making U-235. Takes about a year of spinning in centrifuge to make it weapons grade (80% pure).
* Israeli intelligence has been putting the estimated timeline for completion between May 2006 and October 2006.
* Iran claims enrichment is for needed power.
* In June Iran is offered enriched Uranium in exchange for them shutting down all enrichment facilities (estimated to be about 17 or 18 facilities). If the offer is not accepted there will be sanctions.

Consider how long sanctions would take to (a) be put in place and (b) have any effective impact.

* Iran says, "give us 'til the end of August to decide".
* Shortly after Iran's surrogate kidnaps Israeli soldiers and fighting begins.

Why? My belief is for a few reasons.
1) Create a distraction enough to take public attention away from Iran's development (completion soon?)
2) Tie up some of Israel’s military resources so Israel will be less able to effectively perform a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities
3) Have an event that will still be a higher priority in most people's minds when it is discovered that Iran's U-235 weapons grade enrichment is complete
4) Give the borderline Arab states a more solid justification for attacking Israel or at least standing on Iran's side firmly. As it is, Saudi Arabia is already swaying from the "Israel can defend itself" to the "Israel’s response is unhumanitarian"

That Iran is going to turn down an offer giving them everything they claimed they needed from nuclear enrichment is not surprising at all.

Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan
Israeli intelligence is also indicating that once Iran has weapons grade U-235 and a delivery system (not difficult to buy, really) their first three targets will be simultaneous strikes on Israel, London and New York. Absolute collapse of the Western World's economic structure in more devastating fashion than 9/11.

What is Israel going to do? What are we going to do?

We will likely do nothing. We are immasculated by the war-protesting movement that effectively and falaciously blurred the line between "support our troops" and "against the war". While they are actually mutually exclusive the war-protesters have succeeded in making many people believe that it is possible to believe both. This strengthened the consensus of people who think the troops should come home from Iraq. Mind you, Iraq was never primarily about WMD, but was about Iran. That does not matter to the ideologues (party over principles on the Left)...they want a Bush defeat no matter the cost. The result is American sentiment leaning towards withdrawal from Iraq. That queasy stomach is also weakening support for being in Afghanistan (which, btw, borders Iran). The result is also the unwillingness of sitting politicians to take a strong stance for action against Iran.

That leaves Israel to act. There are 3 main scenarios from this.
1. ACTION AND SUCCESS
If they act (and succeed) in time by annihilating ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities they will have likely ended the immediate nuclear threat. But what will the response from Iran and the Arab world be? My belief is the attack on Iran will give them all the concrete justification to "unload in the face" of Israel. Then a good portion of the Western World and the few Arab states the do not attack Israel will be pressured into an actual armed response. We then will likely lead the charge with Canada and Australia, maybe even Japan. The UK will follow. Eventually I believe Russia will give the same neutrality for Iran that we gave the UK before WWI and WWII. Then Germany will jump in, I think on Israel's side. They are so aware and haunted by their history that they try to side on non-violence. At this point they will not be able to be on that side and, continuing to be in the shadow of judgement for the Holocaust, will side with Israel. France I believe will be the last to jump in...and I think their spineless nature will affect their decisions. They are a coin toss as to which side they would support. My money (though not a lot of it) is on them trying the road of appeasement once again...trying to satisfy their Muslim minority and side with Iran.

2. ACTION AND FAILURE
If Israel attempts to destroy all of the facilities and misses any or does not effectively damage/destroy any the response will be similar to above. Arab nations attack and sides will be taken. The difference is Iran will be able to turn the battle nuclear to some degree. That may affect which side and how strongly Germany & France join, but the important detail is: nuclear will be a factor. How soon into the fighting will nuclear weapons be deployed depends on the amount of damage, but it will be a question.

The problem is we will not know which of these scenarios is occurring until either Iran & co. are defeated or they do launch a nuclear missile.

3. INACTION
Inaction, sadly, is the most likely. As mention already we are hogtied by our anti-war movement. We are nearly as impotent as Europe has been. Israel's resources are distracted/divided right now making an effective strike unlikely, or at least unlikely to succeed. Getting the UN Security Council, the UN in whole, NATO, the EU or any consensus of nations to any action takes tooooooo long. That is a fact I'm certain the enemy is aware of. What happens then? Iran completes enrichment and fires their missiles. Do NOT fool yourself into thinking they are not willing to do so. Mutually Assured Destruction works if neither side wants to die. We fear death and our enemy looks for it.

They launch, and in their mind one of two things happens. (A) We launch back and we all die, they go to heaven, Zion and its allies are defeated, Muslims win, or (B) No equal response happens and they severely weaken, if not destroy, the West. Some of their brothers may die, but that is martyrdom at its finest!

They launch and (I hope) we would respond. Hopefully the yields they manage and yields we respond with are not high enough to destroy civilization (welcome back Cold War nightmares--remember The Day After). Then we simply have a war to be fought that has gone nuclear to start.

Peace and Palestinian Civilian Casualties
Certainly there may be a way for all of this to calm down without WWIII. I see it as a long shot...like trying to draw for an inside straight. I suppose the first step in that no-WWIII scenario is for Israel to cease fire. I don't see that happening as Israeli PM Olmert said so.

Israeli warplanes carried out strikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt air raids while investigating a bombing that killed at least 56 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there will be no cease-fire, adding that "Israel is continuing to fight."
...
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel plans to "expand and strengthen" its attack on Hezbollah, diminishing hopes that the 48- hour airstrike halt could become a longer cease-fire.

The worldwide crying against Israel is mostly rooted in the Lebanese civilian casualties. According to Australia's Herald Sun there are photos showing Lebanon is fighting from civilian suburbs...using civilian dressed fighters.

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

The reality is if one side dresses as, fires from and hides amongst civilians then the other side is 100% justfied in targeting civilian locations. If the blame is to be laid at the targeter's feet then the targets must be dressed in military uniforms, firing/fighting in uniform and NOT hiding as/among civilians.

No discussion. Sorry, Lebanese innocents, but the people you allow to hide amongst you have deemed you to be worthy and necessary targets. Good luck.

Conclusion
I hope I am wrong. I hope this is not WWIII brewing (or underway). I REALLY hope Iran cannot go nuclear. I see these paths though as being the most likely given the actors participating and the evil that is driving Muslim nations.

And if we, the West, and we, the United States, can get through the Iranian danger we cannot rest. North Korea is the exact same situation...except Iranian's leaders are rational (wrong and evil, but rational). North Korea's leaders is insane which complicates things. And after that...China. BTW, notice that China has been sitting fairly silent on the sidelines, not using any of their resources on this?

Breastfeeding Cover Controversy

I feel pretty strongly about this. The pictures displayed in throughout this post are NOT generally offensive. And if they are, then, how do you like life in that Amish community of yours? I take that back...some are not offensive and the rest received little or no controversy. So this post should be deemed safe. And I'm sorry, there is not effective way to describe the hypocrisy in our society without the pictures.

# "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine"
# "I immediately turned the magazine face down"
# "Gross"

What? Was there a stray Hustler in a public area?

# "'I shredded it,' said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. 'A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He [her 13-year old son] didn't need to see that.'"

National Geographic?

# "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

[sidenote] Any son or husband that "didn't want to see" a breast is either lying or is gay. Sorry, that is the state of man. Seeking to see them...that succumbing to nature, fighting against seeing them is controlling nature...but not wanting to see breasts is against the nature of males. That women does NOT understand man. However, most of us don't see a breast used for nursing as 'sexual'...so maybe THAT is what she meant.

# "'Men are very visual. When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

What could they be talking about?

# "'Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,' wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old."

Ah, they are talking about some breastfeeding picture. Salacious? Racy? A new fetish porn magazine?

BabyTalk? What is that?

It is a magazine targeted to new mothers. It is free. It is distributed exclusively through clinics. Mostly OB/GYN clinics.

Yes, there is a part of the boob being shown. Big deal. I think the picture is actually a cute baby picture...and find nothing sexual about it. And I am a boob guy!

What made me decide to write about this story is the hypocrisy of the outrage. Did we forget Jennifer Lopez at the 1999 Grammys?

Easily more flesh being shown there. Easily more breast flesh shown there. That was in open public, not in a targeted magazine in a clinic.

And while looking through IMDB for the green dress pictures I came across the next J Lo example. And doing show prep in the past Friday's edition of USA Today I was reminded of the Lil Kim example. None of them had much outrage and so they MUST be safe in society.

Which begs the questions: What is it about the baby picture above that makes is offensive and "gross" while the above displays were so fashionable that people went out trying to buy similar dresses? The HINT of the full breast?

Enter Lil' Kim. 1999 MTV Music Awards.

The outrage/discussion after THAT event was (1) the dress was simply a horrible dress (and not necessarily because it was 'exposing') and (2) that Diana Ross on stage grabbed and jiggled Lil' Kim's, er, exposure. No outrage about the breast being exposed...in public...on television.

Maybe because the nipple at least was covered. Maybe that is why the nipple is always covered on TV?

Hypocrisy Again...The nipple theory exposed as not valid:
This picture looks like a nice formal dress worn by Jennifer Lopez at the 2001 Oscars.

But it actually was not quite so "nice" if you think that the nipple-is-offensive theory is correct then brace yourself...

Nothing left to imagination in that 'nice formal dress'.

So, maybe it is simply the act of breastfeeding that is offensive. Maybe. Even the targeted audience of the first picture above was offended. Remember the story a while ago (July 2) about Victoria's Secret?

Saturday was a day of protest against Victoria's Secret as mothers gathered to nurse their babies in front of the sexy lingerie stores at malls across the US.

The women were expressing solidarity with two mothers who were told by Victoria's Secret staff to use bathrooms to breastfeed their infants in separate incidents in Wisconsin and Massachusetts.

In both cases, the mothers reportedly had asked to use dressing rooms but were turned down. Both refused the employees' alternative suggestions by asserting, in essence, that a bathroom was not a suitable place for anyone to eat.

Many of the protesting mothers expressed outrage that a company known for ads that celebrate the female form -- often revealing far more breast than the average nursing mother does -- would be insensitive to their natural purpose.

Victoria's Secret responded by saying it has a policy permitting women to nurse their babies in their stores. A company spokesperson apologized for the incidents and said that the employees had behaved inappropriately.

Although 38 states currently have laws on the books protecting nursing mothers from indecent exposure charges and validating their right to nurse in public, 12 do not. It is not uncommon for breastfeeding moms to be treated as though they are behaving immodestly, according to protestors.

Yeah, Victoria's Secret displays modesty...when it comes to breastFEEDING. This is the same company that has a lingerie fashion show on network television. There was, btw, outrage for that the first time. But nothing much after the subsequent ones which reportedly were more revealing.

Oh, and be careful. The link goes to Daily News Central...the Health Section. And has a sultry picture on it. Honestly which one is closer to the threshold of offensive? The first one in this post (which is surrounded in controversy) or the one on DNC:

Or this one on breastfeeding.com's article about the BabyTalk cover controversy

Now why is there this schitzophrenia? Great question. My theory is twofold.
First, the often offended (likely offended by ALL of these pictures) are mistaking prudishness for modesty.

The second part of the theory is that there are two very strong (but small) groups fighting for American societal mores control. On the one side is the aforementioned often-offended who would prefer full coverage all the time (even at the public swimming pool). On the other hand is the group that thinks the above pictures are far too tame. They would not have a problem with public nudity and public sex anywhere, anytime.

The missing part is common sense. J Lo & Lil' Kim should have been chastised for their appearal. (Honestly I can understand the differentiation between the MTV attire vs the Grammys and Oscars attire...cable vs network. I don't agree, but I understand it and leave it to a place where reasonable people can disagree.) Each of the above breastfeeding pictures are, well, innocuous. Would I have a problem with my nieces or nephews viewing those? Nope. Why? Because that is the natural part of life, no different from them eating.

There is a reason the United States has a sexual assault rate problem.

The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.

While I was in Germany (my high school years) I discovered that toplessness was no big deal. Where men could be topless so too could women. Ads had no worries about breasts being exposed. And amazingly there was not a big deal. It was Americans who were doing the staring. Not the Germans and not the Americans who were there for any amount of time. Desentisization? Maybe to a degree. But also there is not a taboo the drives curiosity. There is not secrecy that creates an overreacting fascination.

Are you confused about the controversy? Good. You should be. There is no logic behind any of it.

Bring common sense into the picture and it can get much clearer.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Katie's Beer. I hope you enjoy your stay and feel the blog is worthy of your return.