Is Newsweek sexist?

The big question of late is all about Sarah Palin. Her book, if she will run in 2012, if she can win. And then there are the controversies.

Newsweek really set things aflame with their cover of Mrs. Palin. And the claims of the cover photo being sexist and insulting have been raised. But are they right?

Well the best way to answer the question seemed obvious to me. Compare the cover photo (taken from an image used by a running magazine some time ago) to a similar photo of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Or Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Except that no such photos seems to exist. None.

I searched through 500 images of Hillary Clinton on Google looking for a single legitimate image of her with exposed legs. Couldn't find any. In fact I was hard pressed to find photos of Secretary Clinton in a dress. I know hardcore lesbians that show more cleavage and legs than Clinton has over the decades. (As for Speaker Pelosi, I'm sure there might be a photo somewhere that shows off her legs, but I'm too scared to see it)

So it would seem that compared to her the general media is sexist. They have directly sought to make her an image that is more of a tart than a political figure. And I have to wonder why any woman would allow that without complaint.

Basically isn't Newsweek saying that a mother and independant woman is worthless if she is cute and/or doesn't agree with the editor's views. They are saying that a woman who has achieved success in business and politics - she did run a major State after all - is about as important as a bikini model. Which I would think Secretary of State Clinton might find insulting. (And don't expect N.O.W. to stand up for a woman that exemplifies many of the ideals they are supposed to support)

Newsweek says the image is fair. Ok, then show me a similar photo that was on their cover of Nancy Pelosi, or Hillary Clinton. I couldn't find one. How about Michelle Obama? Why don't they have an image of Michelle Obama in a bikini on the cover while the story in the magazine is about say healthcare. Would anyone find that sexist?

I know, how dare I use examples of the First Lady and Secretary of State (and the Speaker of the House). They are Liberals and Democrats after all. It's a taboo to speak of them as anything but powerful women that are political leaders. Yet, Mrs Palin IS a political leader too. So what's the difference?

If it isn't sexism, then all that is left is a political bullying that says you better think the way we want you to think or else. Is that what we have come to expect from the media? That the ideas they like are the only ones we should have? That the only people we should vote for or listen to are the ones they approve of?

I recall another time when the media told people what to believe. They told people directly to buy only the versions of songs that Elvis sang and not the Black original versions. They said that African Americans didn't need to vote, or to sit in diners, or enter buildings through the front door. I recall when the media claimed that all Japanese in America were spies and traitors. I recall when the media was so afraid of politicians that McCarthy had everyone looking over their shoulder in case they were called a Communist and would be blackballed from their careers.

I thought we were past the days of yellow journalism. But it would seem, as Newsweek has proven, that we haven't moved forward at all.

Drugs and punishment

It's just truly amazing how much sympathy and adoration is felt in the nation for drug dealers and addicts. I'm being serious.

We have Secretary of State Clinton rushing out to foreign nations, declaring that their problems are caused by our actions. While this is in part true for the nations that supply the vast drug culture of the United States, it is not the only reason many of those nations are impoverished. The degree of culpability of the U.S. aside, the fact that Secretary Clinton is airing our national dirty laundry to the world is a bit stinging. Especially as the Government fails to act.

That of course says nothing of the way Secretary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, rode on the humor and prestige of his declared failure to inhale. Sort of a just say no after you've already done it campaign. Very effective in getting the youth of America to stop taking drugs.

Add to this the prestige given to ex-convicts, most for drug-related crimes, as they perform their minstrel acts. America buy tens of millions of dollars worth of adulation on rappers and hip hop - as they directly promote various aspects of getting high. Just watch most rapper music videos, and absolutely any movie that has a rapper in it.

Suffice to say the Government likes drugs, legal or not. Both by its actions and inaction.

But the actions get to be even bigger in some states. The NAACP recently sent out an email, requesting support in getting NY Gov. Patterson to change the Rockerfeller drug laws. Because they are not nice, in essence.

Now I agree that an addict on the corner does not need to be locked up for life. There is a better way to deter new drug users than locking up a kid instead of focusing on the dealer and the supplier. But in America, the end-user has been the focus of attention. Except if you lived in an inner city during the 1980's crack epidemic. That was basically left alone to run amuck.

So yes I think the Rockerfeller laws can be changed for the better. But not in the way Gov. Patterson or the NAACP believe. No, I think there is a lesson that we can learn form a nation trying to school America on math right now. China.

Not very long ago, China has a debilitating problem with opium. Addiction and dealers were rampant in the nation. Something had to be done. Something dramatic.

They took addicts , and drug dealers, put them in a square on live television on every channel and shot them dead. It was a very clear message. They did this for a few years. Rounding up a few hundred addicts and dealers, and then publicly executing them. In less than a decade or so, and with the majority of dealers and addicts still alive, they curbed the problem. Not that it does not exist today, but it is negligible.

Personally, I like this plan for drug dealers. They are effectively mass murderers. They are the ones that kill innocents in their turf wars. They are the ones who seek out children for new clientelle. They offer our communities poison for nothing more than monetary profit. I consider them scum.

And for those that are the most visible, the most visible punishment makes sense. A rapper in a movie or music video extolling the fun and/or wealth generated by drugs - and is a known drug offender, possibly even still being arrested for drug related offenses - deserves to have all their wealth removed and donated to recovery programs. They deserve to be put in a box on Hollywood Blvd, and left alone. Because how many millions of kids will eventually see that movie, and the music videos, and the MTV programs, and the various Award shows, and equate the grandeur of that entertainer with drug use? Especially when that entertainer glorifies their past actions in the drug trade at every opportunity (ie. 50 cent or Snoop Dogg).

Now I know that the NAACP thinks that the effect of laws in the nation like the Rockerfeller law is biased against African Americans, Hispanics, and the poor. Which is true. But that does not divert from the fact that inner cities are focal points of drug activity. Given that there are far more Whites that go unpunished in any manner; the real point of attack is the dealer and supplier. And the punishment to both should be extreme.

Just saying no is not effective. Just attacking the addicts is not effective. Logically we need to move up the chain. And we need to act in a manner that actively causes every criminal involved to question the worth of pursuing such a lifestyle.

It's really just that easy. When I was growing up in the Bronx I could have shown the police half a dozen crack houses. Not that they needed to be shown, they knew of them. But instead they focused on the addicts, effectively just opening a new spot for the next addict to take.

Yet when I had to actively threaten to murder a crack house near where my family lived, because one of the addicts pulled a gun on me and thus proved a threat to my entire family, I got results. Where the police ignored the situation for almost 5 years, I had results in 5 minutes. Because the absolute guarantee of death cuts into profits and risk/reward evaluations for everyone.

If America, New York State, or anywhere wants to be effective in ending the drug problem, we need action. Take a drug dealer, which are easy to find in any city or town, and publicly flog them to within an inch of their life. I guarantee they will give up the suppliers. Get the suppliers and publicly hang them. After a few dozen are killed, I guarantee that there will be fewer drugs, and thus fewer addicts.

But this has to be done across the board. It doesn't matter if the dealer is White, Black, Hispanic, male or female, owns a big company or whatever. Delorean, back in the day, was caught with kilos of cocaine and got treated with kid gloves. What do you think that said to the next CEO that wanted a quick cash infusion to their company? Don't get caught.

Yet if Delorean was placed on national television, and shot in a firing squad, I guarantee cocaine sales would have dropped. And today there would be far fewer celebrities touting their involvement in drugs (like Amy Winehouse).

This is an epidemic problem. It requires an even-handed iron fist resolution. Anything less, in my opinion, is just wasting time and money.