Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Media and Popular Culture

IWF Event: Scared to Death

Fri, 02 May 2008 14:41:00 EDT

Below is the video from IWF's Book Event, Scared to Death From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth, by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

The Thom Hartmann Show: How Women Would Run the World

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:28:00 EDT

IWF Vice President for Policy and Economics Carrie Lukas joined The Thom Hartmann Show for a discussion on how women would run the world, which was inspired by a recent Financial Times article.

The G. Gordon Liddy Show: Scared to Death

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:40:00 EDT

Listen as Christopher Booker and Richard North, the co-authors of Scared to Death, analyze the crucial role played in each case by scientists who have misread or manipulated the evidence; by the media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response on The G. Gordon Liddy Show.

The Dennis Prager Show: Scared to Death

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:49:00 EDT

Co-authors of Scared to Death, Christopher Booker and Richard North talk to host Dennis Prager about their book.

The Andy Caldwell Show: Christopher Booker & Richard North

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:43:00 EDT

Co-authors of Scared to Death, Christopher Booker and Richard North talk to host Andy Caldwell about their book.

V-Day Comes to New Orleans

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:03:00 EDT

Townhall.com

Watch out, New Orleans: "Vagina Warriors" are headed your way. This weekend V-Day will celebrate its 10th anniversary with a two-day festival in New Orleans, or "the vagina of America," as V-Day board member and actress Rosario Dawson called it at the luncheon announcing the festivities. Why New Orleans? V-Day's website says, "We need to celebrate New Orleans, cherish it, protect it, just as we do our vaginas, and make sure it goes on and on."

Celebrities, including mega-stars Katie Holmes and Oprah Winfrey, have signed on in droves to attend the vagina festival, but one wonders if they know what they are really supporting. V-Day's mission is to end violence against women, surely a noble cause. But when you look at the activities done in the name of V-Day, it's clear that this about more than just ending violence. On campus, V-Day groups sell vagina-shaped lollipops, chocolates, and t-shirts with slogans like "I love Vagina" and "A vagina by any other name would smell just as sweet." They parade around campus in vagina costumes, or in the case of the George Washington University, have a four-foot-tall "living vagina" named Joan on display. If ending violence is really the aim, V-Day's organizers have some bizarre tactics.

The New Orleans celebration is of a similar nature. The Superdome will transform into SUPERLOVE, "a place to heal, gather, celebrate and activate to change the story of women." During the event, V-Day organizers say they will "reclaim the dome, transforming it into a place of empowerment and action." Activities will include everything from slam poetry (a staple at leftist events), a parade, storytelling, and art to free massages, yoga, meditation, and makeovers. If you favor more blatantly political activities, you can celebrate "everyday activists doing extraordinary things" which will feature liberal political activists like CODE PINK co-founder Jodie Evans, or take in a panel on race and gender issues in post-Katrina Gulf South or discuss "the connections and parallels between our treatment of the earth and our treatment of women's bodies." And for those attendees who just like to boogie, Gabriella Roth will lead an "ecstatic dancing experience for all attendees."

Of course, the event will end with a performance of The Vagina Monologues, including a new monologue to be performed by Oprah Winfrey. The Monologues have always been the centerpiece of the V-Day movement, so it's worth taking a closer look at the play's content. Some people are taken aback by the often vulgar nature of the play (shouting "c*nt" on stage over and over, for example), but the material is just as disturbing.

For starters, the play is extremely anti-male. Nearly all of the men featured in the play are despicable characters. The only "positive" male character is "Bob," who enjoys staring at vaginas. It's difficult to see how that is a redeeming quality, but in the context of the play he stands out as the most worthy male.

You might not be surprised that men are stereotyped, but women are too as they are constantly treated as sex objects. The plays message, after all, is that women's path to empowerment is "embracing" their vaginas. They should aim to "be" their vaginas and discover themselves through sexual acts. The Monologues blatantly promote promiscuous behavior-a message that could be easily construed as socially irresponsible in an age where sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among young people and women are especially vulnerable to STDs.

The women of New Orleans have certainly had a rough time recently with the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. It's hard to see how a vagina parade or slam poetry session will help them recover, let alone stop violence against women (there are after all, other ways to hold a fundraiser). The women of New Orleans-women everywhere actually-deserve a positive message about women and relationships. And if V-Day's past behavior is any guide, they are not capable of providing that message.

Allison Kasic is the director of R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

Holding the Earth Hostage

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:00 EDT

The Washington Times

It's well known that bad news sells more papers and attracts more viewers than good news. Something works even better than bad news: A story about a threat with the potential to harm our families and society.

As Christopher Booker and Richard North detail in "Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth," recent decades have witnessed a flurry of scares that have gripped the public. These scares exact high costs: Wrong-headed policies are put in place that make us more vulnerable instead of less; costly measures are taken that disrupt economies and the public needlessly worries and changes their lives to response to the latest media bogeyman.

Mr. Booker and Mr. North identify a dynamic through which a marginal public concern mushrooms into a full-blown scare - from salmonella and mad cow disease to DDT and asbestos, and focus on what may be the greatest, most costly scare of all: Global warming.

Competing factions drive a scare's progress. There are pushers "whose interest is to promote the scare and to talk it up, such as scientists for whom it provides the promising of winning public attention or further funding," and blockers whose interest is to downplay it. The lay reader is unlikely to be surprised at the role that the media and politicians play in sensationalizing a threat.

More jarring is the role that the scientific community plays. As the authors write: "At the heart of every scare we have looked at has been a group of scientists or technical experts making a wrong or exaggerated guess on the basis of what eventually turns out to be inadequate data."

The most compelling example of this dynamic and the misuse of science is global climate change. Mr. Booker and Mr. North caution readers by exploring how the current "consensus" came to be, the political forces that have pushed these conclusions and the competing explanations for the warming trend that have often been suppressed by those vested in human-caused climate change.

Emblematic of the bungled science and politics that has helped fuel the climate change scare is what they call "The Great 'Hockey Stick' Fiasco." A young scientist published a paper with findings that radically diverged from previous estimates of the earth's climate history, generating a graph that was essentially flat with a strong tick up at the end, suggesting unprecedented warming in recent years.

This graph was highlighted prominently by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in the media, fueling the perception that urgent action was needed to avert this historic danger. Yet analysis of the methodology that produced this graph revealed fundamental flaws. The IPCC quietly excluded this graph from recent publications, but the damage was already done.

In addition to the use of faulty science, competing scientific explanations of climate change (such as changes in the level of solar activity) are shortchanged by the scientific community. At a minimum, these competing theories suggest that the rush toward a "solution" premised on a faith in carbon-based warming is premature at best.

In particular since, as the authors note, even if one accepts the carbon-based warming explanation, the proposed solutions aren't a logical response: "Even if the terms of the Kyoto Protocol were all met to the letter, its most fervent advocates have been unable to deny that its effect on global temperatures would be totally insignificant."

With other scares detailed in the book, there are obvious victims and easily quantified costs: Farmers and shop keepers driven out of business because of hyped food-related scares, families torn apart by overactive social workers in the grips of a scare and taxpayers paying the costs of huge unnecessary government programs enacted to avert the latest threat. Mr. Booker and Mr. North call the implications of the global warming scare "immeasurable."

Their exhaustive account of the development of a scare - from the first news stories and the interplay between various politicians to the misstatements that make their way into the press tipping the incident into a full-fledged scare - has a feel of a forensic analysis. The details, at times overwhelming, become convincing, compelling and at times dramatic. In total, the book is a fascinating analysis of a modern phenomenon that has broad implications for our culture and our public policy. Its overarching message resonates: Be skeptical of those who would scare us to death, or, more accurately, ask us to give up our freedoms in response to a scare.

Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

PBS' To the Contrary: Various Topics

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:34:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard on PBS' To the Contrary.

Topics include:

Americans leaving organized religion;
Did the media's gender bias doom the Clinton campaign?; and,
A new book by Dee Dee Myers, Why Women Should Rule the World.

The Right Balance: Duke Lacrosse Team Lawsuit

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:59:00 EST

Allison Kasic joins Accent Radio's The Right Balance to discuss the Duke Lacrosse team's lawsuit and Title IX.

Women Who Make the World Better: Wendy Shalit

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:19:00 EST

Wendy Shalit is IWF's latest member of that courageous band of women we call Women Who Make the World Better. Ms. Shalit had the courage to stand up and say some important things about the effects of the sexual revolution on young women. She knew a lot of people would think this wasn't cool. But she did it anyway. Her bestselling new book, Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good, has been as controversial as her first, A Return to Modesty. As a result of being fearless, Wendy is one of the coolest Women Who Makes the World Better we've ever met. She sat down with IWF at the Caribou Coffee near our office and talked about her new book, her website (ModestlyYours.net) and what inspired her, before flying home to Canada, where she now lives. We thank her for her public advocacy of a more humane attitude towards sexual behavior on campus.

IWF: Our culture seems to encourage girls to be sexually active, whether they really want to or not. What has changed in our culture that makes it the norm for girls to behave in a fashion that once would have been considered "bad"?

SHALIT:Well, you know, in the '60s it was rebellious to be bad. There were always those who were "bad," and it was kind of counter-cultural. But now, these rebels of the '60s are in positions of authority, so the "badness" has become institutionalized, and it's coming from a lot of different places. It's coming from the college administrators, it's coming from the media, and it's coming, often, from parents who mean very well, but they associate happiness and maturity with racking up sexual experience and unfortunately, that's not usually the case.

IWF: In your new book, you talk about cuddle parties. What are they? Are they good for young women?

SHALIT: The cuddle party was one of the more interesting investigative things I did for the book. A cuddle party is a non-sexual environment where people can supposedly form bonds with others in a non-sexual way, and people pay admission to cuddle with strangers. And I was very suspicious that it was a non-sexual environment, but it really is not. I was expecting everyone to be very weird, to be honest, so what shocked me was how completely normal everyone was-with the exception of one guy I call "creepy married guy." Creepy married guy was just trying to cuddle everyone in ways that were perhaps more than friendly.

But all the people there seemed like nice people who just were not finding emotional connection in their own life; they were not finding real friendship, and I found that tremendously sad. We formed a circle at the end where we were told that emotions might surface after this event. Well, we're never going to see any of these people again, so to hug them and then leave-I experienced it as a very alienating and my friend who came with me said the same thing.

But to me the cuddle party represented something larger. On the one hand, casual sexual relationships are the popular thing and it's fashionable to pretend we don't have feelings, but clearly, we still do and we've got to deal with them. What I propose in my book is instead of advocating the bitch as the ideal and this pose of "being mean to other women is cool" and "committing adultery is a feminist act because we're not oppressed by these rules anymore," instead of advocating all of this nonsense which alienates women from one another, let's bring back female solidarity. Let's bring back the idea that, out of respect for you, I'm not going to flirt with your boyfriend or with your husband because he's taken.

I just got an email from someone whose marriage of many years has been shattered because her best friend is now sleeping with her husband. And it happens, unfortunately, a lot. This is not a feminist thing, this is a tragedy. So we've taken off the scarlet A and put up the scarlet M for modesty, and the girls who have more traditional values are now stigmatized. But it has not helped us, it's caused tremendous pain. I'm not advocating going back to the scarlet A, but certainly, let's end the scarlet M and the stigma against reticence. It makes a lot of sense to wait until you get to know someone before jumping into bed with him-and thinking twice before committing adultery for that matter.

IWF: Let's talk about repression. If you never repress anything sexually, don't you end up having to repress your emotions?

SHALIT: Absolutely. That's a whole chapter in my book because I'm extremely concerned. We talk about sexual repression, but no one talks about emotional repression, and that's what's being advocated by a lot of these "positive sexuality" organizations. If you look at their literature, they often observe that if you don't care in the first place, then you can never be disappointed. This is certainly true, and yet it's not a way to live life it seems to me-because it takes us away from our purpose as human beings. What they're advocating ends up becoming a jadedness contest, and for example they say that teens are "not ready" for sex until they've detached their emotions from sexuality.

You know, I've gotten a lot of flak for speaking out about it because these people are very organized, and of course the pornography industry is right there behind them. And there's no organization backing me; I'm just a lone voice. But I think it's really important to speak out because this advice is extremely damaging and girls should not take this advice. Actually, no one should: emotions are a wonderful part of us, that's what makes sex passionate-that you care-and emotionless sex is not good.

In fact, even the sex therapists are speaking out about this and they're admitting that if somebody doesn't give a hoot about you, they're not going to be giving you much attention in private either. Think about it, and it makes sense that casual sex should be so bad. That's why there's so much alcohol involved, because people are numbing their feelings. Show me a girl who says she's very happy with the hook-up scene; I challenge her to try it without alcohol and then get back to me.

IWF: One of the most charming things in your new book is how to tell your boomer parents you've decided to remain a virgin. Talk a little about that and boomer parents in general.

SHALIT: I think like all parents, they want the best for their daughters, and they've observed that those who are experienced "fit in more" since that's what's being promoted as our ideal of womanhood. They want their daughters to fit in, but unfortunately when parents say, "it's good to try the shoes on before you buy them," or they ask a daughter if she's a lesbian because she's still a virgin as a freshman in college-that's a lot of pressure. And the parents don't mean it that way, but that's unfortunately how the daughters experience it, that's what the daughters are telling me.

So there's a very interesting tension now, where the older generation, they're the ones organizing the co-ed sleepovers; they're the ones renting the hotel rooms for the prom; they're the ones buying the skanky clothing for their "prostitots."

And increasingly it's the younger generation that's saying: You know what? No, we don't want this; this is too much, and we want something more than this. I think that's encouraging; it's really encouraging.

IWF: Well, the name of your book is Girls Gone Mild. Is this because you detect that the tide is turning with the upcoming generation?

SHALIT: Oh, definitely. But the problem is the most outspoken people are always the exhibitionists, the ones who say the only way to be a feminist is to be crude about sexuality. There is a feminist slogan on T-shirts that goes, "My cooking sucks but fortunately so do I." So this idea of being casual about sex, swearing, being crude "just like a guy"- we run into it everywhere, but is it actually advancing any women in real life? I don't think so.

The first problem is: there are a lot of wonderful guys out there who are not like this. So really, we're only imitating the most adolescent male. And a lot of young women are saying, "This doesn't appeal to me," so they don't identify as feminists because they don't want to be like that. In my interviews with younger feminists-I mean the ones who do identify as feminists-they want to bring dignity back, not pile on the gross slogans.

That is what the Abercrombie controversy [when young women protested crude T-shirts sold by the apparel company] was about; the young women who didn't like the T-shirts wanted to bring the concept of self-respect back. And the company told them, "these shirts are ironic," and the girls retorted, "Well, you know what, it's not being taken that way in school." I was so encouraged in talking with these young women, because they are so much smarter-or maybe they're more intellectually honest-than all the ideologues combined.

IWF: Wendy, how did you get involved in these issues? It's not a crusade a young woman on a college campus who wants to be "cool" is going to embrace, so how did this happen back then?

SHALIT: Well, actually most of my support comes from high school and college students. A high school girl from Los Angeles started a Facebook group for Girls Gone Mild and we keep it a closed group so the discussions are productive but we have 400 active members. I think it's really important to remember that not everyone involved in promiscuous behaviors is necessarily thrilled-very often they're participating because everyone else is. They're just waiting to know that an alternative is viable.

In terms of myself, I regard myself as pretty fortunate because I had great friends in high school-and I grew up in the Midwest where you didn't necessarily have to drink to be cool, and I had a very nice social life, and I came to college pretty confident in who I was. And-no one talks about this-but I noticed when I got to Williams that it was actually the ones who didn't have as many social skills, the kids who were the most insecure in high school, who were the quickest to blend in with the hook-up scene and to agree to everything that the college and the most ridiculous groups on campus were promoting.

So when I saw situations that didn't seem right to me, I spoke up right away. I didn't understand the implications of doing this. I didn't understand that I would eventually have people who didn't know me following me and giving me "the finger"; I didn't know that I'd eventually have to move off-campus because I became such a pariah. I didn't care because I had been used to being myself and speaking out, so that's what I continued to do. But nowadays I think there is more support for the traditional-minded student-that wasn't the case when I was in college.

IWF: How do you take the vitriol your book has unleashed?

SHALIT: Well it's always someone who represents a special-interest group of some kind, and whenever such a person attacks me personally or feels the need to create a caricature and then attack me for something I never said, I just take it as a compliment and an admission of defeat. They don't have a counter-argument. And certainly if they didn't feel I was making a difference they wouldn't feel the need to vilify me. So I accept the compliment, and then I also keep a log and write the attack down-whether it's a death threat or some "prude" silliness. You'd be surprised how often it comes in handy when the same people start blathering on about how tolerant and liberal they are. It doesn't faze me anymore, but sometimes it's worth pointing out the limits of their type of "tolerance." I've been dealing with this type of reaction for a long time-ever since I opposed the coed bathrooms in college.

IWF: Wasn't that kind of the beginning of it all?

SHALIT: Most definitely. I wrote about that because I felt there was a connection between the lack of a dating scene, which many students complained about, and the lack of mystery, for example, in the bathrooms. I was told I was "not comfortable with [my] body" when I opposed the coed bathrooms. But when I wrote about it and Reader's Digest reprinted my piece [which originally appeared in Commentary] I got a ton of positive letters in response-from students on campus too-and that's really when my perspective began to change. I realized that there were so many people who actually did value the things that I valued, but they were afraid to speak up. They were intimidated because of what happens when someone stands up for modesty or privacy; they are always attacked, personally and viciously. People know that and so they decide it's not worth it.

But the funny thing is that after I graduated, I was invited back by a group of Williams students, about 200 students turned up, and many of them thanked me for changing the situation on campus. So I really wish that people would be less concerned with what other people think. You only have one life after all, and if more people would speak up about these situations that don't seem right for them instead of just going along with the herd, we would have a changed society.

There will always be smirkers, but if you realize that you can transcend them and have a hopeful message, you can reach so many people. What means more to me is the letters I get from girls who say that they were about to commit suicide, literally, and they read my book or they came to the website and they realized that they weren't alone. And why were they ready to end it? Because all the people attacking me are also attacking them for stepping outside the socially-acceptable bad-girl ideal.

So that's what motivates me to take the heat, because I feel like maybe I'm taking a bit of the heat off of them.

IWF: I understand you have launched a website to help young women who might need help navigating the sexual seas. Tell us about it.

SHALIT: Well, what motivated me was getting all these letters from girls saying that they felt so isolated at their schools and they thought there was something wrong with them because they just wanted to meet the right person and they didn't want to hook up. And I thought: Wouldn't it be great to organize these girls and have them form alliances and exchange ideas and know that they're not alone?

Way back in 1999, iVillage hosted a forum for me. I was really enjoying hearing from people, but then all of a sudden, this one person started writing all in capital letters and attacking a particular girl and saying that they were "outraged" that iVillage would even host this discussion on modesty. And eventually, because participants were being attacked, the discussion petered out; and finally iVillage had to take it down because it became just so unpleasant.

And I thought it was such a shame because these smirkers and exhibitionists are not even in the majority, yet they always dominate the conversation. And I thought: Wouldn't it be cool to have a space online that would be safe, where girls and women could come and exchange ideas, and we just won't publish the death threats and the attacks, and therefore they'll feel that they can come back and feel encouraged in their high standards?

And so that's the idea behind our group blog [ModestlyYours.Net] because unlike the herds of people who have nothing better to do than attack people all day, most people who believe in modesty and love, I find, have very full lives. So this way, busy moms & busy students can every once in awhile write a thoughtful blog and it's certainly been a very interesting conversation.

IWF: How has it affected your writing?

SHALIT:Well, my new book is about how the real rebels today are the good girls. And someone asked me why I quote so much material from the girls' lives instead of philosophers like Rousseau and Hume-whom they had preferred reading about in my first book. They regarded the philosophers as more "important." Well, when you become a mother you have such little time. And so you really have to ask yourself where you're going to devote your efforts. When I was younger, I was more concerned about seeming smart, and I guess that's just not important to me anymore. As a stay-at-home mom who writes during nap-time, I'm not really interested in impressing anyone; I'm just trying to use the time I have to help people in some way.

Sure, there is a certain type of person who cares about Rousseau's views on modesty and that's fine-I was a philosophy major so obviously I care about that stuff too. But in general, when a girl reads about another girl who stood up to her friends who were making fun of her, and she just went her own way, that has a much bigger impact. So that's what my second book is about: talking to these role models in person and finding out where they got that courage.

FOX's The O'Reilly Factor: Media coverage on Obama

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:33:00 EST

...

New York Post: Writing Her Off

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:48:00 EST

New York Post

December 16, 2007 -- At an address before the Independent Women's Forum in 2006, Condoleezza Rice made a spine-tingling statement: "[T]he fact is that our Founding Fathers, trying to create a perfect union of ‘We the People,' couldn't quite find a way to deal with slavery. So instead, they left my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man. But some hundred plus years later, I stand before you as a descendant of those people who were three-fifths of a man and I ask, ‘Would anybody have thought it possible?' "
As the first black female Secretary of State, Rice should by rights be a heroine to establishment journalists such as New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, author of "Condoleezza Rice: An American Life." But it doesn't quite work that way.

Throughout her life and throughout this book, there are those who question Rice's "blackness," her pro-women bona fides and her gradual move from the Democratic to Republican Party; many refuse to recognize the reasons for the idealism of her outlook.

The portions of the book that discuss Rice's family background, early childhood and early career path are the most fascinating. Rice's grandfather, Albert Robinson Ray III, more likely than not worked as a laborer in Alabama's cotton fields. According to family legend, in 1904, a white man assaulted Ray's sister. Albert risked being lynched and avenged the attack. Four years later, he moved to Birmingham and married Mattie Lula Parham, a classically trained pianist. They had five children, all of whom graduated from historically black colleges in the South. One of their children, Angelena, Rice's beloved mother, was a refined, proud teacher.

Early in his life, Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., was a part-time minister, taught gym, and was head basketball coach at a local high school. The son of a former slave who could read and write, John preached at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Birmingham. After working on a master's degree in student personnel administration, he accepted a position as assistant director of admissions at the University of Denver where he focused on recruiting minority students.

By age three, through the sheer will of her parents, Rice had learned how to read and she gave her first piano recital at age four. At five, her mother tried to enroll her in first grade, presumably because the young Condoleezza did not need to bother with kindergarten. When the school disagreed, she took a year off from work and home schooled her daughter.

Bumiller tries to suggest some of the challenges that led Rice to become the most powerful women in the world. So we are told about a school guidance counselor who steered the very talented young woman toward junior college despite her grades and musical talent; we learn that her father registered as Republican because Democrats would not allow him to vote, imposing poll tests that no one could possibly pass (i.e., "How many jelly beans are in that jar?"), and we are told that her father favored Catholic schools over public schools for his daughter because the Catholic schools were "very rigorous, very traditional, lots of languages, Latin, lots of mathematics." Bumiller also tells us about how young Condoleezza had a college professor who spoke positively about a physicist who was promoting a theory that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites; and we see her as the only black member of a presidential delegation waiting to see President Gorbachev off at San Francisco International Airport (the Secret Service ordered Rice to leave the tarmac and stay behind the security gate).

Bumiller conducted numerous interviews, and the book has some fascinating moments, but she misses the mark in trying to capture Rice's wonderful story of American achievement. Indeed, many of those interviewed do not believe that Rice authentically represents the American dream, and they are seemingly incapable of understanding what fuels Rice's self-made potpourri of idealism, pragmatism and determination to succeed. I couldn't help wondering whether veteran members of the feminist movement and self-described progressives can be fair to a woman whose political views do not match their own.

Bumiller and many of those she quotes in her book are unable to fairly consider a black woman who embraces individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the free market. She mistakenly concludes that Rice's "real ideology was not idealism or realism," but "succeeding." In analyzing Rice's evolution from concert pianist to political scientist, Democrat to Republican and political realist to idealist, Bumiller concludes that "shedding so many skins raises the question of what she really stands for . . . she is a pragmatist who for four overwhelming years got swept away by her devotion to the president." Isn't it possible that Rice has simply evolved rather than "reinvented" herself as Bumiller suggests?

One black Birmingham civil rights activist says that despite spending her early childhood in Birmingham and losing one of her friends in the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, "[M]ost black people understand that Condoleezza Rice's politics and our politics are not the same. I'm not sure she ever had the real black experience, I'm not sure of that at all."

In a 2006 address, Rice spoke of the "unfolding of moral progress," "optimism" and a "sense of historical perspective." She told the audience that she believed that "with enough moral courage, with enough optimism and with enough human agency . . . there will come a day when we will look back on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and the troubled spots of the world, and we will ask, "Who could have ever doubted that liberal democracy would take hold there?" Given all that has happened in her life and the lives of her forbearers, isn't it possible that this is her real ideology?

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum.

Condoleezza Rice: An American Life

by Elizabeth Bumiller

Random House

Summer Newsletter 2006

CNN's The Situation Room:Don Imus' return to the airwaves

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:26:00 EST

...

PBS' To the Contrary: Gun control and the 2008 elections; Educational baby toys; Don Imus' return

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:38:00 EDT

...

Answering Media Matters: A Real Time-Line of the "Phony Soldiers" Controversy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:14:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com.

Media Matters has criticized me for my recent comments about Rush Limbaugh's so-called "phony soldier" statement. On the Fox News Channel, I said that "about 30 seconds" after Rush used the term "phony soldier" he began talking about Jesse MacBeth (the war critic who lied about his military record). According to Media Matters, it is actually one minute and fifty seconds later: I was off by eighty seconds.

This hardly seems a critical distinction. If it wasn't completely clear who Rush was referring to when he used the initial phrase, it became clear shortly thereafter. I hadn't timed the lapse between the "phony soldier" term and the start of his next "Jesse MacBeth" statement-in the midst of a heated conversation, I used the term "thirty seconds" when what I really meant was "a short period of time later." However in hindsight, given Media Matters' increasingly desperate efforts to save face, I ought to have been more precise.

So let's get more precise, because there is far more to the timeline of the "phony soldier" term than just these noted calls to Limbaugh's program.

On Wednesday, September 24th, Rush Limbaugh recorded his Morning Update, which aired the following morning. He talked about how the antiwar left had made another celebrity of "Army Ranger" Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to have witnessed gruesome atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq. It turned out that MacBeth wasn't really an army ranger, and has since been sentenced for falsifying his Army records. [The Morning Update] Also, on the evening of September 24th, ABC's World News with Charles Gibson [video] aired a package on military imposters, which used the phrase "phony heroes" three times and "phonies" once, and specifically discussed Jesse MacBeth. [link]

The day after that "morning update" on Jesse MacBeth aired, Rush took a call from "Mike in Chicago," [transcript] during the second hour of his show. Mike repeatedly claimed to be a Republican, and mentioned in passing that he used to be in the military. With regard to his claim to be Republican, Rush said, "You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican... the limitations that you want to oppose-impose-here are senseless, and they frankly betray or portray no evidence that you are a Republican." He then took a call from, "Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington." [transcript] This caller was in the military, and referred to those who want us to just pull out of Iraq in order to keep the troops safe, ignoring the chaos which would require troops to return again. That led to the following exchange:

Rush: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

Caller: No, it's not. And what's really funny is that they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue -

Rush: The phony soldiers.

Caller: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

The caller then digressed into a discussion of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Byron York reports that Rush explains that during the rest of that call, he asked a staff member to print out the previous morning's "Morning Update" on phony soldiers. And as soon as the call was concluded, Rush immediately returned to his phony soldiers comment to reprise "the morning update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes."

The next day (September 27th), Media Matters announced on its website "Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq ‘phony soldiers,'" and cited the brief portion of the transcript where the "phony soldiers" comment was made, ignoring his comments less than two minutes later on phony soldiers and the Morning Update from September 25. A few hours later, Democrats begin denouncing Rush based on Media Matters' characterization of his comments.

By October 1st, Democrats were in full attack mode. There are numerous examples of irresponsible attacks on Rush-a private citizen, not a politician or political action group-but Senator Harkin's stands out: [transcript] "I find it offensive that Rush Limbaugh, who never put on the uniform of this country, would attack the patriotism and the dedication of any soldier fighting in Iraq....What's most despicable is that Rush Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers. This makes more news...maybe he was just high on his drugs again."

It is important contextually to know that it wasn't only after, but before the "phony soldier" comment, that Rush was discussing phony soldiers who falsify their military records and so was the rest of the media. Yet Media Matters has ignored this evidence. It also has ignored Limbaugh's explanation of what he was saying and his long record of respecting members of the U.S. military, including those who disagree with him.

Surely Media Matters recognizes that at most, it might initially have been unclear to whom Rush was referring when he first used the term "phony soldiers." Yet a review of the evidence strongly suggests Rush was thinking specifically of soldiers (such as MacBeth) who falsify their records. Certainly nowhere does Limbaugh state that "phony" refers to service members who support U.S. withdrawal-a strained interpretation that Media Matters presents as hard fact. I suspect it's precisely because Media Matters knows their assertion has so little merit that they are making an issue over a few dozen seconds in the timeline. If these seconds are critical to their case, then clearly they don't have one.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

FOX News Live: The Left Attempts to Smear Rush

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:44:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas joined FOX News Live to discuss the recent controversy over Rush Limbaugh and "phony soldiers."

Do the Facts Matter When the Subject Is Rush Limbaugh?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:24:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

A frustrating part of political discourse is the inability of both sides to agree on the facts. The effects of a new tax policy on the economy or the costs of a potential government program are often in dispute. But in the current dust-up about Rush Limbaugh's so-called "phony soldier" comments, there cannot be a dispute about the facts. There is a transcript.

The transcript shows to whom Rush was referring when the phony solider comment was made. The conversation began with a caller complaining that the media never talks to "real soldiers" to which Rush says "The phony soldiers." Moments later, he moves on to an example of a phony soldier-"Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth"-who had claimed to witness atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq. It turns out Jesse MacBeth wasn't an Army Ranger at all. As Rush described:

In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.

Surely it isn't out of bounds to describe someone who lied about his service a "phony soldier."

Few people who hear the clip from Rush's show in the media get to the part about Jesse MacBeth. They only hear the first short exchange between Rush and the caller. The caller says: "No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." And Rush responds "The phony soldiers."

Who is Rush referring to here? Arguably, it isn't clear. It is clarified later when Rush discusses Jesse MacBeth, but even if you takes this clip in isolation, it is a gigantic leap to assume that Rush is referring to "our men and women in uniform who oppose the war," as Senator Harry Reid has chosen to assume. The caller wasn't talking about soldiers who oppose the war and Rush didn't continue to talk about those who oppose the war, only to those who lie about their military service.

Yet the Democrats have used this exchange in an attempt to manufacture a scandal. Senator Reid is collecting signatures to urge Rush to apologize to the soldiers (for something he did not say). Senator Harkin in a speech on the Senator floor, not only accuse Rush of tarring soldiers in uniform, but assigns Rush the motive of greed: "Now what's most despicable is that Mr. Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers, this makes more news, more people tune in, he makes more money." For good measure Senator Harkin speculates that Rush might be "high on his drugs again."

It is breathtakingly irresponsible behavior for a Senator to attack a private citizen like this on the Senate floor.

If we are in the business of assigning motives, let's speculate about the Democrats' motives for smearing to tar Rush. A few weeks ago Moveon.org ran a tasteless ad smearing a military general for "betraying" the country. The leaders of Democrats were uncomfortably silent about this attack on a public servant and soldier. Democrats have also just had the disappointing task of acknowledging that the American war effort is going better than they expected. Their push for an immediate pullout of Iraq has been stalled. Tarring Rush Limbaugh as anti-American soldier helps with both problems: it satisfies their base, who has been disappointed with Congress's inability to exit Iraq, and gives them an opportunity to say that they support the military in spite of the attacks on General Patraeus.

It's politics at its worst. The media has taken the Democrats' bait and are covering this as a controversy, as if there is a question about the validity of the Democrats' charges. There is no question. The facts are clear.

Certainly someone needs to apologize-but it isn't Rush Limbaugh.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

What about that USA TODAY headline?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:39:00 EDT

The headline on a USA Today report on a poll reads: "Public Not Swayed by Petraeus." The headline might just as well have been: "More People Approve Petraeus Plan than Don't." The MSM wasn't swayed, but if you look at the actual poll percentages, there's good news rather than bad for the Bush administration.

For example:

Forty-three percent say Petraeus' plan would withdraw "the right amount" of troops; 36% say it withdraws too few; 9% says it withdraws too many. Similarly, 42% say the plan would withdraw troops at the right pace; 33% call it too slow; 12% call it too fast.

Look at the numbers: 54 % think that the Petraeus withdrawal plan is good or too fast - meaning a majority of Americans don't favor a more rapid withdrawal than the general. This is terrific news for the administration.

Here's something else:

The results are consistent with a Pew Research Center poll taken last week. In that poll, 57% of those who heard something about Petraeus' report approved of his recommendations, but just 16% said his testimony made them more optimistic about the war.

Look at the numbers: More than half polled, 57 %--approved of his recommendations? If the majority weren't swayed, they liked what they heard. And 16 % feel more optimistic about the war than before Petraeus's testimony. Dear Reader, that's huge.

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:42:00 EDT

Mark Steyn says that in recalling 9/11 some are "looking for love in all the wrong places:

We should beware anyone who seeks to explain 9/11 by using the words 'each other': They posit a grubby equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim - that the 'failure to understand' derives from the culpability of both parties. The 9/11 killers were treated very well in the United States: They were ushered into the country on the high-speed visa express program the State Department felt was appropriate for young Saudi males. They were treated cordially everywhere they went. The lap-dancers at the clubs they frequented in the weeks before the Big Day gave them a good time - or good enough, considering what lousy tippers they were. Sept. 11 didn't happen because we were insufficient in our love to Mohamed Atta.

Meanwhile, in "Defeat at Any Price," David Gerlernter says something fascinating about the Iraq debate on the Hill:

The Democrats' embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let's be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.
Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. Each one has been defended by serious people; all are philosophically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements.

Good-bye to all that...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:33:00 EDT

Peter Oborne's new book is entitled The Triumph of the Political Class. It will be published in England on 17 September. He has an interesting piece in the Spectator on the demise of England's Establishment and what has come in its place (the political class).

England, of course, is rather different from the U.S. in terms of the kind Establishment it once had. But you still might find some disturbing similarities:

Though the eclipse of the Establishment is well-documented, the Political Class which replaced it is so far poorly understood. This is regrettable because the Political Class has come to occupy the same public space that the Establishment was supposed to until the end of the 20th century. This new class now stands at the pinnacle of the British social and economic structure. It sets social conventions, and demarcates the boundaries against which both public and private behaviour are defined. Unlike the old Establishment, the Political Class depends directly or indirectly on the state for its special privileges, career structure and increasingly for its financial support. This visceral connection distinguishes it from all previous British governing elites, which were connected much more closely to civil society and were frequently hostile or indifferent to central government. Until recent times members of British ruling elites owed their status to the position they occupied outside Westminster. Today, in an important reversal, it is the position they occupy in Westminster that grants them their status in civil society.
The Political Class is distinguished from earlier governing elites by a lack of experience of and connection with other ways of life. Its members make government their exclusive study. This means they tend not to have significant knowledge of industry, commerce, or civil society, meaning their outlook is often metropolitan and London-based. This converts them into a separate, privileged elite, isolated from the aspirations and the problems of provincial, rural and suburban Britain.

And does this remind you of any group of people in the U.S.?:

The pure and disinterested quality which lies at the heart of friendship is alien to the Political Class. Personal courtesies do exist, but they are tailored to power. Casual acquaintances with something to offer - holiday villas to stay in, celebrity endorsements, expensive gifts, or cash for party machines - are rapidly treated as close friends. However the Political Class is negligent when it comes to people of no utility. They are avoided as if they possessed some kind of infectious illness. When the politician Fiona Jones, who served as a Labour MP from 1997 to 2001, died earlier this year, apparently from alcoholism, not a single MP attended her funeral.

How would YOU contain Islamic terrorism?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:15:00 EDT

The Wall Street Journal's ace columnist Daniel Henninger says that Iraq is not the hot political topic it was before Petraeus spoke this week. So whither?

As a political debate, the Iraq war has been drained. There's not much more to get out of it. The hearings proved that. The one fresh, forward-moving issue that emerged from the hearings, raised by Joe Lieberman, was whether we should crack back at Iran (or Syria), which is costing American lives in Iraq. But for Democrats, this subject is off the table. So what does that leave them for the next 14 months? Are they going to bet the ranch on Iraq being in flames next fall? Most likely, it won't be. If Iraq gradually improves, most Americans will be relieved or rejoice. If Net-rooted Democratic candidates can't bring themselves to do that, they need to change the subject.
There is one campaignable question begging for an answer: Was the Iraq war worth it? It's a legitimate question. Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton, have said Iraq distracted us from the global war on terror. Nothing would be more useful for our politics than that these presidential candidates should debate what they would do to contain Islamic terrorism.

MSNBC's Scarborough Country: Dan Rather vs. Katie Couric

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:31:00 EDT

IWF's Anne Trenolone weighs in on the debate between Dan Rather and Katie Couric.

Right Wing, Wrong Character? Real Republican Women Assess Flockhart's New Role

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

The Politico

Don't even get them started on the name.

On a recent Wednesday night, The Politico assembled five Washington-based professional Republican women to discuss whether ABC got it right with prime time's newest conservative Gal Friday -- named Kitty.

Kitty Walker, played by Calista Flockhart, is at the center of the network's woman-comes-home-again saga "Brothers and Sisters." She's an attractive, youngish, right-wing radio host-turned-TV host-turned-Senate staffer, whom the show has described as "not Ann Coulter."

So, basically, "she's not insane," said Ken Olin, the show's producer.

Some of the women described Kitty as "squishy," others called her "human" and "palpable." They all bemoaned her career track as very un-Washington, but despite the suspension of disbelief required, they also found themselves "pleasantly surprised."

"As a conservative watching TV, I have pretty low expectations," said Mary Katharine Ham, 27, who blogs for Townhall.com, a conservative news and commentary website. Ham originally set her DVR to "Brothers and Sisters" to find out what Hollywood was going "to do with us" and has since been hooked.

The rest of the women watching -- some who have followed the show from the start and others who've never tuned in -- were just as interested.

The pivotal "come to Jesus" moment for Kitty the conservative comes in the first episode. With the opening credits still rolling, she decides, oh so spontaneously, to tick off a neat list of her GOP credentials:

"I'm sick of the cracks about my political beliefs. I am a conservative -- tough on crime, big on defense, America First, old-fashioned and in your face. And if you think this is funny, great. I'm glad to be of comic service. But you just keep on laughing and watch the rest of the country pass you by."

Not exactly seamless, but it'll have to do.

"That's what comes up when you Google 'conservative,'" joked 23-year-old Allison Kasic, director of campus programs for the Independent Women's Forum, a nonpartisan think tank, which according to its website promotes "limited government" and "a powerful and effective national defense."

Amanda Carpenter, author of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton," called the manifesto "pretty lame." Plus, Kitty's list of conservative philosophies wasn't in the right order. Carpenter, 24, would have started with small government.

Last October, The Boston Globe said the true litmus test for conservative TV characters "will be if their creators keep them from becoming reality TV types -- that is, parodies of themselves or simply stick figures with labels attached."

So far, according to this group of women, small-screen, small-government characters have an extremely limited range: vapid moron or shrill harpy.

In the same scene in which Kitty defines her conservative principles, her brother Kevin (who is gay) rails against her "self-involved" boyfriend, who has yet to receive the family's all-important seal of approval.

"Maybe it's just part of the whole conservative anti-feminist thing, right," Kevin avows more than asks, "to sort of put yourself in second place?"

The response from the group? A collective eye roll.

"That's a common misconception," groaned Kasic, who said she was tired of feminism being defined as solely a "liberal ideology."

Carrie Lukas, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism," agreed. As she mentioned something about conservative women being typecast as "barefoot and pregnant" drones, she shifted uncomfortably. Literally. Lukas, 33, is six months pregnant.

Speaking of feminism, Walker's looks, not her smarts, are a chief concern when it comes to her viability as an effective commentator. On her fictitious cable show, "Red, White and Blue," Kitty sits prettily in the red chair. The promo posters read, "Kitty Walker is RED HOT" and feature her in a tight red dress. (With any luck, soon Republicans will choose a new color.)

It could've been worse, everyone says.

"She could have had pearls on," said Lukas, who was wearing a single-strand pearl necklace with matching pearl-drop earrings. (She noted the irony.)

Brooke Oberwetter, 27, who has appeared on Fox News Channel, said she's usually made up to look like "a painted whore" when she appears on Fox. (To be fair, TV makeup is always heavy.)

Ham called it "dressing up your evil."

"You're supposed to be surprised that she's sexy -- and still a conservative," added Lukas.

"It's not our fault we're pretty," teased Oberwetter, who tonight has been shattering her own myths -- conservatives know comedy.

For most, getting in touch with their GOP side means nights spent with Bree Van De Kamp ("Desperate Housewives"), Harriet Hayes ("Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip") or even Elisabeth Hasselbeck (playing herself).

"Brothers and Sisters" is an hour-long homage to the Walker clan: matriarch Nora (Sally Field); brothers Justin (Dave Annable), Tommy (Balthazar Getty) and Kevin (Matthew Rhys); and sisters Sarah (Rachel Griffiths) and Kitty.

They fight in a cliquish, inside-jokey sort of way and make up just as sappily, but without the "7th Heaven"-style melodrama. These kids are grown, and so are their problems -- infidelity, embezzling, drug addiction and national security all get equal time.

Guess which cause is Kitty's?

One of the biggest topics on the show is the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan), which comes up so often it should be listed in the credits as the sixth Walker child. Baby of the family Justin is a veteran/drug addict whom Kitty supported joining up. Mother Nora, of course, did not.

When the two go head to head, Kitty usually comes off as the bad guy, since "selling her views" is considered dangerous. "This isn't your radio show," snaps Nora, who repeatedly asks Kitty to choose between her politics and her family, since the two, it seems, are mutually exclusive.

"Sally Field is not known for her subtle acting," quipped Oberwetter.

Carpenter, who probably leans the furthest to the right, said she can relate. Her brother enlisted in the Marines straight out of high school -- a decision that was difficult for her mother to process. Still, Carpenter supports the mission, which according to most of the women has not changed since 2003.

"It's this idea that you would never have a principle that goes against your actual life," said Lukas, sounding a bit exasperated by Kitty's constant grilling.

As if "we can't actually believe these things," added Kasic.

Perhaps the most controversial episode for everyone is "Mistakes Were Made Part II," when Kitty flips her position on the war and subsequently bribes a senator -- she puts the kid gloves on during an interview in the hopes that Justin won't be forced to re-up. Sen. Robert McCallister (played by Rob Lowe) does not oblige the pretty blonde, and Kitty must deliver an on-air mea culpa.

"Did she just say, 'Mistakes were made'?" laughed Ham, who saw the issue of Kitty's integrity as black and white, calling the character's indiscretion a career-ending suicide.

"After she sells out, she gets the job with McCallister, who she sleeps with," explained Ham. "It's a triple whammy on the conservative woman."

Maybe she's a Libertarian, offers Oberwetter.

"What is worthwhile about this woman?" demanded Carpenter, who probably won't be tuning in on Sunday nights. "If we can't identify with this girl, I think they've failed. Thanks, but no thanks."

Oberwetter, however, had another take.

"I think that was realistic," she said. "There are shades of gray on all these issues. I think they've done a pretty responsible job. I think it's a plus."