FrontPage Magazine » Diane Suffern

Hot Post:Facebook’s Child Porn Subculture Baffles Executives, Challenges Parents

Diane Suffern — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:00:29 +0000

Read the original post and comments first published here.

Without doubt, the Internet has wormed its series of blissful tubes throughout our lives. It’s what we check in the morning, what we look at during the day, what entertains us at night. It provides news, products, business opportunities, conversation, relationships, self-promotion and endless distraction. An entire generation is growing up having never known a time without the Internet. Parental reaction is swinging the pendulum of opinion from luddite to addicts themselves.

One thing most involved parents will agree on is the unparalleled role this technology has in our kids’ lives, social networking sites in particular. With choices such as MySpace, Twitter, Xanga, Tumblr and the mother of all, Facebook–it’s rare to find an unplugged teen.

Many parents are content to simply regulate time spent online, sometimes check content to monitor behavior. But, all should be concerned about online safety. Facebook specifically bills itself as a safe site. Yet, after a series of busts and multi-state investigations, the underbelly of both MySpace and Facebook were exposed.

While both attempted to scrub the sites of any child-exploitative material, Fox News revealed that child predators still thrive on Facebook after concluding an exclusive investigation.

Currently, the site filters content by key words that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has found to be linked to child pornography. According to “cybersecurity experts,” this should flag most offensive material found on the site. Most.

Fox reports:

During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture – an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.

In the interview, FoxNews.com told the executives to enter “PTHC” in the website’s search box. The term “PTHC” — short for “Pre-Teen Hard Core” — is frequently found in connection with child sexual exploitation activity and materials, law enforcement officials say. Multiple sources confirmed that “PTHC” is on the NCMEC list of keywords.

You mean to tell me that perverted individuals who get their kicks from criminal sexual deviancy don’t use conspicuous tags like, “Child Porn Right Here?” I’m…not exactly shocked.

Interestingly, the term PTHC is actually on the NCMEC watch-list, yet Facebook missed that in its previous purge. Fox continues:

Having searched for “PTHC,” the two Facebook executives were then instructed to click on the first result — a public group Page called “PTHC,” with 197 members. That’s when the executives came face-to-face with a post directing users to a video purportedly featuring an 8-year-old boy being sexually abused.

Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.

At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.

The two executives made profuse apologies, clarifications and, according to Fox, removed the offensive pages from the site after claiming to have launched an internal investigation that day. Only…

It’s still there.

But despite their efforts, FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook — hundreds of pages with “PTHC” and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms are on the NCMEC keywords list, sources said, and they were found on Facebook’s public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.

Ernie Allen, President of NEMEC, said there were three reasons the content would still be up: law enforcement requested it remain for investigative purposes, the content itself didn’t merit action according to Facebook’s standards, or Facebook simply hadn’t seen it. As the two executives explained:

[...] they face greater challenges than any other social networking site, many of which can be tied to the evolution of what once was a closed network for college students to a global behemoth facing real-world criminal threats. Add increasingly savvy criminals and the sheer volume of content — more than 1 billion files shared daily by its half-billion users — and the challenges grow.

Plus, Sullivan said, scrubbing users from Facebook will be a game of whack-a-mole until law enforcement figures out how to track down predators who hide behind computers.

Facebook’s Child Porn Subculture Baffles Executives, Challenges Parents

Diane Suffern — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:00:28 +0000

While both attempted to scrub the sites of any child-exploitative material, Fox News revealed that child predators still thrive on Facebook after concluding an exclusive investigation.

Fox reports:

During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture – an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.

In the interview, FoxNews.com told the executives to enter “PTHC” in the website’s search box. The term “PTHC” — short for “Pre-Teen Hard Core” — is frequently found in connection with child sexual exploitation activity and materials, law enforcement officials say. Multiple sources confirmed that “PTHC” is on the NCMEC list of keywords.

You mean to tell me that perverted individuals who get their kicks from criminal sexual deviancy don’t use conspicuous tags like, “Child Porn Right Here?” I’m…not exactly shocked.

Interestingly, the term PTHC is actually on the NCMEC watch-list, yet Facebook missed that in its previous purge. Fox continues:

Having searched for “PTHC,” the two Facebook executives were then instructed to click on the first result — a public group Page called “PTHC,” with 197 members. That’s when the executives came face-to-face with a post directing users to a video purportedly featuring an 8-year-old boy being sexually abused.

Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.

At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.

It’s still there.

But despite their efforts, FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook — hundreds of pages with “PTHC” and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms are on the NCMEC keywords list, sources said, and they were found on Facebook’s public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.

[...] they face greater challenges than any other social networking site, many of which can be tied to the evolution of what once was a closed network for college students to a global behemoth facing real-world criminal threats. Add increasingly savvy criminals and the sheer volume of content — more than 1 billion files shared daily by its half-billion users — and the challenges grow.

Plus, Sullivan said, scrubbing users from Facebook will be a game of whack-a-mole until law enforcement figures out how to track down predators who hide behind computers.

Shock: Muslim Brotherhood Officially Declares War on the U.S. Despite Obama Administration’s Appeasement

Diane Suffern — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:00:59 +0000

In a recent article for Town Hall, Frank Gaffney exposed President Obama’s accommodation of the Muslim Brotherhood, identifying seven areas where the administration had complied with the organization’s chief objectives. Considering the group’s overall aim is to wage “a kind of grand jihad eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” it stands to reason that any compliance is de facto submission to the enemy.

The Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in subversive warfare against Israel and the West from it’s very inception. It has has served as both an ideological outpost and a covert supporter of violent splinter groups, including (though not limited to) al-Qaida and Hamas. Muhammad Badi’, the recently-elected General Guide of the group, has affirmed his support for Palestinian resistance to Zionist “oppression” and made no attempt to disguise his disdain for the United States and its interests. And now? The declaration of war against Israel and the West is official.

Barry Rubin, at the center for Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA Center), wrote an enlightening piece explaining how this declaration differs from those of the past, and why the West must take action. The move from ideology to mobilization is cause for alarm, according to Rubin:

Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.

But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.

When the extreme and arguably marginal British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary says that Islam will conquer the West and raise its flag over the White House, that can be treated as wild rhetoric. His remark is getting lots of attention because he said it in English in an interview with CNN. Who cares what he says?

But when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood says the same thing in Arabic, that’s a program for action, a call to arms for hundreds of thousands of people, and a national security threat to every Western country. (Emphasis mine.)

Rubin helps to distill the declaration into key requirements for Muslims worldwide:

Gay Parents and Sperm Donors: Storks and Science Revisited

Diane Suffern — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:00:27 +0000

Last week, TIME reported on a study of children conceived by artificial insemination raised by lesbian parents. It was billed as the first longitudinal study of its kind, charting the development of 78 children from conception to the age of 17. The “conclusions” were surprising. According to TIME:

[...] they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

Some have called this a victory for same-sex parents against nay-saying traditionalists. But are these conclusions the vindication they consider them to be? Can a parental questionnaire and data collected at ages 10 and 17 from only 78 children constitute an accurate longitudinal test? Is the sample large enough and perimeter wide enough to conclude strong correlation considering the unpredictability of human behavior? What about the issue of artificial insemination and biological heritage?

Slate magazine recently published a parallel study of children conceived via sperm donation which raised numerous questions about the procedure itself and the long term implications for offspring. Researchers Karen Clark and Elizabeth Marquardt reported:

Our study, released by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future last week, focused on how young-adult donor offspring—and comparison samples of young adults who were raised by adoptive or biological parents—make sense of their identities and family experiences, how they approach reproductive technologies more generally, and how they are faring on key outcomes. The study of 18- to 45-year-olds includes 485 who were conceived via sperm donation, 562 adopted as infants, and 563 raised by their biological parents.

The findings were both enlightening and heartbreaking. Contrasted with peers of biological parents, donor offspring ranging in age from 18-45 are:

…twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems.

On Beauty, Body Parts and Bias (A Word to Conservatives)

Diane Suffern — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:27 +0000

Everyone seen this picture?

Of course you have. Want to know what my first impression was when I saw it linked in a thread at a conservative site? “She looks like an attractive, healthy woman.” That’s it. Perhaps it’s a female thing…or perhaps it’s a respect thing, but it didn’t go much further than that. Yes, she’s got a great figure for a mother of five and anyone, any woman who doesn’t immediately recognize that is a blind. Yet, I want to hear her views intelligently articulated, manifested through her actions. I’d love to see her prove all her critics wrong one day, including myself, which I think she’s entirely capable of doing. I respect her enough to move past image, examining her work and opinions. Essentially, that means not reducing a serious political player to the sum of her body parts.

Imagine my discomfort when I saw comment after comment on said conservative site like, “Mmmmmmmm those look good,” and “Wowza…what a MILF” and “I’d like to….nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggg.” I can only assume that because they’re her supporters they think that affords them the right to discuss her body.

Predictably, the left weighed in, surmising whether Palin had gotten implants. Now reader, you’re smart. You tell me what happened next. Correct!

Outrageous conservative outrage! How dare they look at that picture and comment on her breasts? Really. Tell me fanboys, is the only distinction here whether one is negatively speculating about size increase or “positively” expressing desire for her based on those same…parts?

Because, trust me, expressing desire for her isn’t limited to the right (content warning). Somehow I doubt anyone would find those comments appropriate, yet I wonder what the difference is aside from party affiliation and degree of lewdness.

Allow me to say here, that I think the treatment Palin has received from the media and individual liberals has been atrocious. What they continue to do to diminish this woman physically and intellectually is reprehensible. From “Sarah Palin is a c**t” t-shirts, “Nailin’ Paylin,” filthy comments about her relationship with McCain, strip shows, stalking, and ceaseless investigation into the contents of her womb, she has felt the full brunt of actual sexism from the alleged protectors of True Womanhood™.

So, I’m in wholehearted agreement that the launch of “Implant Trutherism” is but par for the course. We should reject this as the low-ball attack on womanhood which it is.

What’s my suggestion for protecting her and other female politicians from such viciousness? We should stop objectifying and often ridiculing them ourselves. This extends to other pols: Dede Scozzafava, Elena Kagan, Hillary Clinton and even (gasp) Janet Reno to name a few.

Admit it. Who among us hasn’t made a “man” joke about any of the above at one time or another? I absolutely have. I’m not saying we can avoid having visceral reactions or personal opinion. We certainly cannot control our automatic thoughts. What we can control is what pours from that gaping orifice on our faces and what our fingers type on a keyboard.

In response to this post I’m sure I’ll hear, “There isn’t anything wrong with appreciating something beautiful.” Or, “What we do isn’t nearly as bad as what the left has done to eviscerate conservative women.”

In my preemptive defense, I’ve never said it was wrong for a woman to dress attractively and want others to think she is. Nor have I said it was inappropriate for others, namely men, to acknowledge it. I do make certain distinctions, however.

If you’re a politician or serious pundit, a level of respect should be reserved for your position and concepts presented. If you’re a celebrity or pundit with a moniker including “hot” or “sexy,” you should probably prepare yourself to be judged accordingly. The rest of us should hope for natural appreciation of our attractiveness with respect for (and intellectual challenge of) our ideas.

In our healthy appraisal of beauty (or “hotness“) we should also never use behavior from the left as our plumb line. Bad behavior is not improved by pointing at worse behavior. If we hope to maintain the moral high ground, we have to be the example, not a milder version of something worse.

Incidentally, isn’t that why we use the pejorative term RINO? Where’s the distinction?

Planned Parenthood: Making Abortion Easier, One Video Conference at a Time

Diane Suffern — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:00:55 +0000

American innovation and freedom have long made our health system the envy (and “medical travel” destination) of the world. But some new technologies challenge both medical ethics and the respected patient-physician relationship. In a recent New York Times article, a method known as TeleMedicine (medical consultation and administration done via video conferencing) was explained, with one particularly shocking application. Consider the following scenario:

You’re pregnant and terrified. You have to make the problem disappear and know the one place you can go for “help.” You enter the local Planned Parenthood, fill out some information, get an appointment for your procedure and leave. Upon your return, you sit in a room with a video screen and a doctor in a remote location speaks. Then, remarkably, a drawer is triggered open, and your prescription is made available for administration. You take the pill, listen to some final medical advice from the screen and are on your way. With brilliant efficiency, your panacea was delivered and your burden lifted. In Iowa, with the same amount of expediency, attention and, perhaps, forethought it takes to get you through the McDonald’s drive-thru for a McNugget fix, you can end a human life.

Essentially, a woman may now bypass meeting with an actual physician to receive Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486, to end their unwanted pregnancy. While video conferencing is currently used in other medical settings, the Iowa chapter of Planned Parenthood is the first to use the technology to provide one of the already most widely used abortifacients available. According to the NYT article:

Advocates say the idea offers an answer to an essential struggle that has long troubled those who favor abortion rights: How to make abortions available in far-flung, rural places and communities where abortion providers are unable or unwilling to travel. So far only Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa use this method, but around the country, abortion providers have begun asking how they might replicate the concept.

An “essential struggle” to make killing humans easier, in more places, faster! Now without even bothering to have the physical presence of a doctor there for administration. Are we not compassionate? Are we not…enlightened? After reading Peter “Infanticide Advocate” Singer’s recent piece extolling the virtues of (forced) sterilization for the sake of the planet, linking the history and eugenic ambitions of Planned Parenthood to a future dystopia isn’t all that difficult.

It should surprise none of us that Planned Parenthood is at the forefront of removing yet another barrier, the actual attending physician, in their lust for further “abortion care.” Many of us have long lamented the ease with which Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers facilitate death, to say nothing of their unethical and illegal tendencies. Yet their desire to extend their reach to more individuals without even the physical presence of an attending physician confirms the worst stereotypes of a business already built on ending lives.

To read more, follow Diane on Twitter or her personal blog.

Fatwas for Everyone: Celebrating the First Annual “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”

Diane Suffern — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:15:45 +0000

Join Reason (via Dan Savage) and HotAir in the First Annual “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” on May 20. The purpose is threefold: express solidarity with South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone in their current battle against both Islamic intimidation and corporate censorship, celebrate freedom of speech and artistic expression, and widen the death threat pool to protect those who’ve dared to insult Islam and suffered for it (which, clearly, doesn’t take much).

“Hey, but aren’t all Americans under fatwa anyway?” you ask. “Haven’t Islamic thugs received ‘permission’ to kill hundreds of thousands of our children already? Seems…redundant.” Sure. But I didn’t write the book on Egregiously Irrational Religious Legalism, so your guess is as good as mine, infidel. I say treat it as a community art project and urge everyone to get involved. Art Day at the park, fun for the whole family! I look forward to seeing my kids’ representations, personally. A turban-wearing Wonder Pet lobbing bombs from the flyboat? Genius.

Cross-posted.

Newsweek Exclusive: Christopher Hitchens Hates Sports, Doesn’t “Believe in Miracles”

Diane Suffern — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:50:26 +0000

Christopher, why don’t you tell us what you really think about sporting events because I don’t believe your latest Newsweek piece, “Fool’s Gold,” did the job.

With trademark flourish, you revealed a portfolio of the world’s worst behavior, decrying sports competition as the catalyst. As your subtitle stated,

How the Olympics and other international competitions breed conflict and bring out the worst in human nature.

Human nature? A definition would be helpful. If men are fundamentally good (as the converse of “worst” of human nature suggests), what, then, is the panacea for what ails mankind? Aside from ending sports competition, that is.

In fairness, I cede your point that such contests can function as a spark, igniting an already-volatile situation between countries or people-groups. But, is it only sporting events which–pardon the pun–get the ball rolling? Weren’t these conditions latent prior? The event can hardly be to blame except, perhaps, exacerbating said preexisting tension. If the event is at fault for provoking poor behavior, what about other competition? How about Spelling Bees and Science Fairs? Chess matches? Theological debates? Not mentioning the business world or political campaigns. Dear Hitch, (blogger evokes John Lennon) imagine all the people, living live without competition…you can do it if you try! Yes, well, people have and it’s called Communism.

Aside from this, are there not more immediate “sparks” to squelch rather than wagging your finger at the Olympics, et al? As a cross-cultural pursuit, sports provide far more enjoyment, goodwill, national pride and admitted distraction for people from the difficulty of their daily lives than it does harm.

Ultimately, Hitchens, this is a cheap shot, a foul ball…a poor play. You bricked it. What would you recommend as the world’s primary form of entertainment or diversion, particularly in the poorer nations you listed? Sitting in drawing rooms sipping sherry discussing the philosophical import of the latest Ellis novel?

Oh, right. You’d recommend whiskey.

(Don’t take this the wrong way. I still adore you.)

Hot Air Shakeup?

Diane Suffern — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:26:48 +0000

The rumors of a major business announcement at Michelle Malkin’s Hotair.com have been swirling…

What began as a cryptic hint dropped by Allahpundit in a post last evening:

Having said all that, I now feel the odd urge to atone somehow. If only there was some exciting business news to report on, perhaps involving this very website. Ah well. Tomorrow is another day…

…turned into a twitter hashtag game, guessing what the big news was.

Ed Morrisey then responded this morning to a Mediaite article referencing a possible acquisition of HotAir by Salem Communication:

Neither Allahpundit nor I will have any official comment on this until tomorrow, but if you read our Twitter feeds last night, you already knew that a big announcement about Hot Air’s business status was on the way. What I can tell you now is that Hot Air’s current mission and direction will not change, and that both AP and I will continue being part of Hot Air for the foreseeable future.

Whatever the news, Mediaite was correct in saying that Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit (and the culture they’ve created at HotAir) are invaluable to the site’s continued success.

I, for one, hope nothing changes. Especially the Humpbot.

Newsweek Reports: Department of Homeland Security Top Web Picks!

Diane Suffern — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:25:21 +0000

The Department of Homeland Security recently released a memo entitled, “Privacy Impact Assessments” listing some of the agency’s favorite tip-worthy web sites in case of an emergency, Mark Hosenball of Newsweek reports. Call it the DHS Blogroll, if you will.

It is no surprise that a government entity would harness this technology and gather information from online sources. What might be surprising are some of the web sites listed for, say, Haiti intervention:

Social Approach
Go.usa.gov
WikiLeaks
Cryptome
Google Blog Search
Technorati
Foreign Policy Passport
Danger Room
Threat Level
NEFA Foundation
Counter-Terrorism Blog
Homeland Security Today
NTARC
LA Now
NYTimes Lede Blog
STRATFOR
Drudge Report
Huffington Post
BNOnews
MEMRI
Informed Comment
LA Wildfires Blog
Homeland Security Watch
Joe Cirincione’s nuclear issues blog
Borderfire Report
Homeland Security Watch
ABCNews Blotter
WireUpdate
MexiData.info
RSSOwl
Twitter

Given the impact twitter had on the recent Iranian election protests, utilizing such an inconsequential-sounding site is quite logical. Even recently, according to USA Today, the Haitian government gleaned information from the social networking site to aid in rescue efforts. Still, Hosenball questions the relevancy of certain sites in relation to Haiti and the Vancouver Olympics, while also wondering why others aren’t included:

Missing from the list, however, are other potentially useful sites from various parts of the political and ideological spectrum including neo-Nazi and pro-Gun sites.

Perhaps the DHS is still smarting from the whole Right-Wing Extremism Report debacle?

While the DHS list is extensive, it is not exhaustive. In an addendum provided by Newsweek, a DHS spokesperson explains:

After this item was first posted, Amy Kudwa, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, called us to advise that website lists published by the Department were “illustrative but not comprehensive,” and that they represent a list of sites which, in the experience of the department’s operational personnel, historically have contained information which has helped the department develop its situational awareness in the wake of a major incident.

Our government necessarily must use tools and information available, while still preserving our privacy rights. Given the current technological landscape and related threats, this is a fine line to walk in any case, under any administration. What can we do but keep our noses clean and our eyes wide open?

Political Sex, Lies and TMI: Meghan McCain Asks “How Much is Too Much?”

Diane Suffern — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:25:45 +0000

The other night I endured Barbara Walters’ 20/20 interview with Jenny Sanford, crudely titled, “The Woman Who Didn’t Stand By Her Man.” (It’s come to my attention that 20/20 has since changed the title to an entirely more acceptable, “Stand By Your Man?” It’s good to know I wasn’t alone in my ridicule of the original heading.) While half my time was spent pondering the harsh lighting on Mrs. Sanford’s face in contrast to the honey-colored hue delicately gracing Hillary Clinton’s, the other half was spent cringing at at the interview itself.

Not details of The Affair™ , per se. Unless you were living under some rock on the Appalachian Trail, you’ve heard all you ever wanted or needed to know about Mark Sanford’s special, special friend in Argentina. Soulmate, love story, two magnificent “parts,” check, check and, um, double-check. I’m referring to Jenny Sanford’s scorned-yet-faithful-woman memoir written and promoted before the ink has even dried on the divorce papers. I found myself saying, “Jenny, no! You’re doing it wrong!” What would have been a positive look at the woman who stood on principle turned quickly into an unseemly book plug. Anyway, do we really need more information? I mean, we get it.

While the Sanford disclosures differ from other public scandals, is does raise questions of political privacy and propriety for both the protagonist and voyeur. What type of behavior should be expected from our elected officials, and, when those lines are crossed, how much information do we really need?

Meghan McCain’s latest piece in The Daily Beast asks similar questions from her unique perspective as a politician’s daughter. Comparing political private lives past to present, she writes:

Before the 1970s, the American public almost never heard about politicians behaving badly. Were we really so much worse off not knowing about the bedroom activities of FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK? And it’s not just affairs—in the 1930s and ‘40s, the media agreed not to photograph FDR in his wheelchair. It wasn’t until Jimmy Carter’s “lust in his heart” interview with Playboy in 1976 that the public felt entitled to know such intimate details. And after Gary Hart taunted the press to follow him around in 1987, we believed all political monkey business was our business.

It’s safe to assume that humans have long been interested in the sensational details of the latest gossip. With the advent of image-based media, the increased sexualization of advertising, and the freight-train of the internet, we’re provided ample material to sate prurient interests. By extension, it appears an impossibility for a culture to be drawn to things tawdry and not be curious about the salacious actions of those we elect.

But, is it wholly improper to have an interest in politicians’ behavior? So many scandals are acted out privately using very public money. Furthermore, we elect our officials on expressly moral platforms, whether that be traditional family-values or green morality. It isn’t surprising that we would take issue with contradictory behavior from the person they sold us on. In business transactions, we’d call this false advertising and be righteous in both investigation and indignation if our precious dollars were wasted on a faulty product.

It appears to be a fine but necessary line between the public right to to information and too much of it (TMI). While we elect men and women to the job, we must also realize we elect men and women. Humans. Humans with messy emotions just like the rest of us. Whether infidelity or other sins, which of us can, ultimately, cast the first stone? McCain concurs and concludes:

We don’t need political tell-alls and memoirs to know that our politicians are, in the end, only human. Trust me, despite the media’s saintly portrayal of him, President Obama is just a man. But if we don’t start drawing a line somewhere about what we have the right to know about our leaders, there will come a day when no one is good enough.

Like any relationship, public or private, we can rightly revoke the contract if breached. However, I doubt we need to write a memoir about our faithfulness or others’ indiscretions to cash in on the collateral damage.

Follow Diane on twitter and check out her personal blog, PinkbeeMission.com for scintillating details of the life of a stay-at-home mommy and unrepentant internet addict.

Don’t Run, Sarah! Newsweek Assesses Palin’s Electoral Prospects (Again)

Diane Suffern — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:36:48 +0000

Two parts predictable, one part probable: Newsweek’s Daniel Stone takes a look at Sarah Palin’s Tea Party Nation convention speech and determines her unable to win a national election. Shock!

However, aside from his own unambiguous sentiment and Newsweek’s penchant for Palin mockery, is he necessarily wrong?

The basis of her speech, as she put it, was simple: rein in government spending, be more firm on national security, and keep the government out of businesses and people’s lives. And not one person in the room didn’t think she was dead right.

I doubt anyone at the Tea Party convention would disagree with that platform. Properly articulated, I also doubt most Americans would either. In fact, this seems like a solid platform for any candidate seeking office in our center-right country. Didn’t our current Commander in Chief do so? Shouldn’t that be enough?

Palin’s fiery rebuke of Washington certainly firmed her base, but it did little to widen her appeal to moderates and independents, two groups without which she’d have a real tough time passing the threshold of electoral votes.

I have my own concerns about her electability. But, would a rebuke of Washington’s runaway spending be what turns indies away? Or something else?

(At one point, she even mocked the majority of voters who voted for President Obama, asking them, “How’s that hopey changey thing working for you now?”)

Could the very qualities which engender such devotion among her fans (her willingness to charge into debate, folksy-charm, unique colloquialisms) inspire the exact opposite amongst some in the electorate? Surely we can consider personality a determining factor if:

Her supporters laud her personality as a draw for a Palin presidential run, and
We actually elected a man on image alone this past election cycle.

It matters. Could her personality be a liability? Also, has the media been effective in branding her inept or inexperienced? Serious questions.

A moot point, perhaps. According to Stone, her speech might have been the death knell of her presidential aspirations (not the first time we’ve heard that, mind you):

Which is to say that electorally speaking, tonight’s speech may have been a self-inflicted wound for Palin, offering ammo to opponents to argue that she’s simply too far right and too niche to win widespread support for national office.

If the presidency is what she wants at all.

That may have been the point. With tonight’s speech, Palin cemented her role as the de facto head of the tea-party movement—but in a bigger sense, as the fearless warrior leading conservatives into battle in November and beyond. That might be where she’s most effective (and undoubtedly where the pay is best). Because at this point, it’s increasingly unlikely that she’ll seek national office. Until now, the Palin guessing game has focused on whether she’s running. On her current course, she simply wouldn’t be able to win.

She might or might not decide to run in 2012. Until then, we should watch her decisions, consider her record and examine all candidates judiciously. The last time I checked, no one has the nomination yet. Let’s keep it that way until all bids are in.

Obama Seeks to Politicize Super Bowl Pre-Show

Diane Suffern — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:27:57 +0000

Of course, there’s the game – THEE game – the Super Bowl. And then there are the commercials, some of the best commercials offered up to television viewers. Now President Obama is getting in on the action. Is nothing sacred – exempt from the media-saturated messages of the Obama administration?

As if co-opting an important Duke/Georgetown match up wasn’t enough, Barack Obama wants the Super Bowl pre-game slot as well. According to the Chicago Tribune blog The Swamp, CBS is more than happy to oblige:

CBS News is billing the session as “the first broadcast interview since delivering the State of the Union address to Congress last week.”

Evening News anchor Katie Couric will interview Obama live, during CBS’s pre-game program on Sunday. Questions will be taken from viewers across the country, and also on CBSNews.com

Because, you know, he simply hasn’t gotten his message directly to the American people with all these unsympathetic media types in the way like Fox News and…er…Fox News.

To Hitchens, with Love: Two Tickets to Paradise, Please! (Just not in North Korea.)

Diane Suffern — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:32:25 +0000

Dearest Christopher,

Thank you so much for forgiving me for my part in our last tiff. I promise to only call you Christopher from now on. (Except in private, you naughty cad, you!)

I’m so grateful for your travel recommendations, as well. You know how I was looking forward to my trip to North Korea (I adore nations of racist dwarves)! However, given your warnings, such as:

Every child is told every day of the wonderful possibility of death by immolation in the service of the motherland and taught not to fear the idea of war, not even a nuclear one.

and:

First, when viewed by satellite photography at night, it is an area of unrelieved darkness. Barely a scintilla of light is visible even in the capital city.

How would I use my hair straightener? Finally, this:

Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.

Yes, I think I’ll pass. As much as I love Stephen King nightmare circus shows, this seems a vision too dreadful to entertain. It’s a good thing we can sleep easily, knowing our President has this menace contained!

Now, could you tell me a bit about Venezuela? I’ve heard it’s lovely in the summertime.

Smitten,

Diane

P.S. You looked dashing at the Daily Caller launch party. (1:17)

Christian Capitalism? How Faith Informs Economic Theory

Diane Suffern — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:36:59 +0000

Money is a metaphor; our monetary dealings shed light on aspects of our human condition that, rightly understood, tell us something about how we might relate to God.

- Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

An agnostic friend once asked me how I squared my Christian faith with capitalism; an honest question deserving an honest answer, as Francis Schaeffer once said. I told him that, of all economic theories, capitalism granted humans the greatest possible worth across the board. Presupposing a fallen world, I reasoned that the best economy is one which sees no color or creed, only human ingenuity and private ownership of capital. If I believe in certain communicable attributes endowed by our Creator, this includes the distinct pleasure of work and creativity which we share, in part, with God. When an individual works for their own livelihood, they are not only fulfilling the cultural mandate, but satisfying that which is uniquely human.

Being a Christian requires me to respect my fellow man and, by extension, his property and fulfill all that I have pledged to do; this is how we arrive at a form of Natural Law. By adhering to certain Natural Law principles, we have proper ethical underpinnings in all areas of life regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Capitalism can then work freely with little to no government intrusion, allowing for prosecution of those who violate the basic principles of Natural Law, which forms the basis of the laws government enforces.

Furthermore, I reject the oppressively narrow Marxist caricature of capitalist economies, pitting rich vs. poor. Certainly global injustice is rife, regardless of political or economic persuasion, class or creed. The frequently called-for prescription for such economic abuse is tighter governmental regulation of business and greater taxation, thus penalizing all business instead of the guilty few. Yet, how does this answer fundamental questions of man’s nature and injustice? We’ve merely shifted control to another master’s hand. I’d rather trust a secular, Darwinian-infused survivalist system rather than an oligarchy inhibiting the work of man based on its own ideological agenda and a police force to back it up.

With my own theories in mind, I read Rowan Williams‘ contemplative piece in Newsweek which demanded an ethical, even theological, perspective on economic theory. Regarding consumerism, he wrote:

In our culture, we have become used to an attitude in which economic motivations, relationships, and conventions are fundamental: the language of seller and customer has wormed its way into practically all areas of our social life, even education and health care. The implication is that the most basic interaction between one human being and another is the carefully calibrated exchange of material resources.

While I cede his point that our lives have been increasingly dominated by consumption, logic and (yes) my faith tells me this is not the fault of the medium of exchange itself, but rooted in individual choice. Personal responsibility and subsequent accountability is fundamental to a free man’s capitalism. We agree that our choices affect others, yet, we maintain the right to also freely choose what we accept within the marketplace. In essence, we dictate by dollars. Does this assume a lesser view of man as mere consumer? Or, does it dignify man, elevating his status to a free agent, fully capable of creating and purchasing products while impacting culture? Williams suggests the former:

But we must hang on to the idea that not everything reduces to one standard of value. Treat economic exchanges as the only “real” thing that people do, and you face the same problems confronted by the evolutionary biologist (for whom the only question is how organisms compete and survive) or the Freudian fundamentalist (for whom the only issue is how we resolve the tensions of infantile sexuality).

I grant that reductionism, by definition, falls prey to oversimplification and rejection of situational nuance. However, there are immovable laws of nature and economics. Some things can, indeed, be reduced to the sum of their parts. I find it interesting that Williams cites biological and psychological reductionist theory whilst arguing for a more ethical economic system. Yet, he fails to note the incredibly rudimentary Marxist dichotomy of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. Interesting omission of a relevant theory.

Ultimately, one must ask Williams what his prescription is. If he believes certain biblical doctrine to be objectively true (an unresolved question where the Archbishop is concerned), why not in economics? And could that fundamental economic system, in the end, best correspond with reality as perceived by God and the best possible situation for every man? I believe so. I also believe that some theologians might be more interested in the endless questioning of weightless minds as opposed to the anchored surety of foundational truth.

A penny for your thoughts.

Barack Obama: Sports Commentator, Duke Mojo Killer

Diane Suffern — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:12:49 +0000

It was supposed to be a good game.

The kids were napping as my husband and I ate lunch, enjoying some Newcastle, watching a decent match up of two top ten teams, Duke and Georgetown. Until…Barack Obama, ubiquity personified, was revealed on the sidelines with his entourage: Joe Biden, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Reggie Love, amongst others. (Seriously, was the entire executive branch there? Was Rahm manning the replay videos? Giving Coach K half-time pointers on how not to waste a good “crisis?”)

Aside from the cut-away shots to Obama spattered throughout, he donned a head set and sat with the commentators at half time. Why, he’s just like us. Behold:

One live tweet of the game came from GalThursday:

Yeah, and it was sitting courtside.

Assuming he was there in support of Reggie Love, a former Duke forward, I think it’s time we acknowledge this special ability Obama has in foiling the chances of whatever he endorses. Call it the reverse-Midas touch. With a track record like Corzine, Coakley, and Deeds, folks should be frantically running for an exit whenever he approaches. “Hey, guys, I’m here to help! Wait up!”

Ultimately, Georgetown prevailed over Duke, 89-77. I blame these guys:

Read more at The Huffington Post and Hot Air.

Obama, iPad, Jesus: Who is this King of the News?

Diane Suffern — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:25:39 +0000

The anticipation was palpable…what would he say? What would it do? Is this what we’ve been waiting for? Experts surmised, pundits pontificated while the population pondered: whither change?

He spoke…

For some, there was immediate disillusionment. Others, compelled by loyalty to the “brand,” made excuses for lackluster delivery. Who could blame them? When hopes set high are dashed, one needs time to move through stages of grief, denial certainly being one. Some reacted angrily, others irrationally. Still others, never persuaded, stolidly awaited their moment of premeditated rebuttal.

Come! Let us reason together: Jesus never said He was coming as literal King at the time. He can’t be blamed for your confusion, sovereign plan and all.

Just kidding! I was talking about the iPad. Look, Steve Jobs never promised flash or better app versatility. He can’t be blamed for the hype-fueled rumors.

Got you again! You know of whom I speak, his first year, and the culminating crown of his first State of the Union Address. Listen, people: Obama never actually articulated what change he would bring and when. He only promised he’d be a blank screen you could project your own desires upon, while his were projected on dueling plexiglass screens. He can’t be blamed if what you wanted was the exact opposite of his job description (stop thinking about czars).

He’s just a man, you see. Now, could you spare a meager $15.00 monthly pittance so he can talk more about things he really can’t do and things he can but pretends he can’t and the things he is doing which no one wanted him to?

He’s not the iPad.

He’s not Jesus.

This isn’t some strange religiopolitech cult amalgamation, either.

Whatever gave you that idea, anyway?

Silly, Bristol! Abstinence Pledges are for Lying, Manipulated Kids.

Diane Suffern — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:37:12 +0000

If anyone would want to spin a new narrative and forget her past, it would be Bristol. Every story about her is marred by the taint of professional ne’er-do-well Levi. Who wouldn’t want to start fresh?

Reasonable, no? Compassionate, even. Given the patronizing approach Double X took in its scintillating exposé of Bristol Palin’s sexual decisions, I have my doubts.

Citing every reason under the sun and in the kitchen sink to explain why and how this pledge will fail, their magnum opus concludes with this predictable morsel:

And then there’s the more cynical read of Bristol’s recent abstinence promotion: It’s all orchestrated by Sarah Palin, who wants a new spin on her daughter’s unfortunate teen pregnancy and failed romance. If Sarah Palin decides to run for president in 2012—which the former governor refuses to affirm or deny—she will be questioned about her daughter’s missteps. If Bristol can pull off a second virginity and an image resurrection, Sarah can point to her daughter’s triumph over adolescent misfortune. (emphasis mine)

The only cynicism I see is this sniping, condescending, faux-scientific mental vomit I’m reading from Double X. Here’s a thought: instead of telling Bristol (and girls like her) how she’s likely lying to herself and going to fail in her quest to wait to sleep with someone else until she’s met the man she’s marrying, why not promote her sexual freedom? Why not laud her new-found self possession? Why not hail her innate ability to hold out for her best? You know, feminist style. Sometimes a young woman will surprise you and do the right thing.

I did.

“Hey, Let’s Purify the Party from Party Purification. NOH8, haters!” Says Meghan McCain.

Diane Suffern — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:05:05 +0000

Ms. McCain: talk to me about how “creepy” ideological purity is when you wipe that dogmatic “NOH8” kiddie paint off your face. Your intellectual inconsistency is showing and it’s definitely not as cute as that airbrushed pap you’re so proud of.

In her current piece for The Daily Beast, she opines the latest in her ongoing struggle as a unique and delicate snowflake amidst the ravenous barbarians of the GOP…sorry. She details her latest tiff with the party as one College Republican group at George Washington University renounced their endorsement of her speech on behalf of homosexual marriage. According to McCain, the official statement was:

“Ms. McCain’s views on marriage equality align with neither the Republican Party nor her father’s personal stance. Though we fully supported John McCain’s candidacy for president, we feel that Meghan McCain’s last name is not near as important as the message she advocates.”

To which she followed:

And let’s call a spade a spade here—this is about marriage equality. I would have been less insulted if the George Washington College Republicans had simply come out and said that.

Er…they did, Megs.

You want to talk party reform? Fine. So do I. But please stop whining about Republican groups misunderstanding you when you co opt euphemistic, leftist propaganda. Those aren’t your friends, either, Meghan. They will toss you to the wolves the minute you actually stand for something that doesn’t align with their morality du jour. Or, didn’t you know that leftist ideology is a closed system bent on total assimilation? There’s no “you” in the borg, you know. But, wait, that’s just the Republican party, right?

Michelle Malkin has more on the real victims of Prop 8.

Brown Wins? Get Out of the Way or Buckle Up, Says White House.

Diane Suffern — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:25:36 +0000

“Buckle up — let’s get some stuff done,” one White House staffer said Obama’s response will be in the event of a Brown victory today in Massachusetts. Politico reports:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”

A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.

Clearly aware of the political ramifications of losing such an important (symbolic, even) seat, Obama has chosen the only proper route for any self-respecting ideologue:

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party. (Emphasis mine.)

Seems like a smart move. Remember, he won. At the same time, the population is becoming increasingly aware of and subsequently rejecting Obama’s other objectives:

Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill have made clear that enthusiasm is cooling for tackling controversial cap-and-trade legislation to curb carbon emissions as the party heads into an election year. The same is true for the always-sensitive issue of immigration reform. On the fiscal front, massive deficits were already pushing Obama toward more austerity on spending.

Viva la populism! This should be a clear indicator to Obama and leftist Congress that American disapproves of this unprecedented increase of Government and leftist hegemony, right? Er…

Already Obama’s rhetoric is reflecting what aides acknowledge is a strong undercurrent of populist anger. By these lights, impatience with the status quo — rather than any rightward turn in the mood of the electorate — is what would fuel a Brown victory [...]

In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”

I suppose even salvific, unicorn-riding, charismatic Dear Leaders get it wrong…sometimes.

Related: see Allahpundit’s post which has even more delicious tid bits, including Obama’s new “underdog” meme. Poor beleaguered Aristocrat! Yeah, I don’t even know. Square that with his mandate for change.