- The Washington Times - Monday, August 6, 2001

No era has been without its contradictions, but political correctness has, paradoxically, made the contradictions of our age both sharper and less noticeable. Consider the following contradictions from recent headlines.
Slobodan Milosevic, former head of state of Yugoslavia or Serbia, is imprisoned in the Netherlands where he is to be illegally tried by a nonsovereign entity for human-rights violations. Mr. Milosevic broke no law. Faced with armed rebellion by Albanian separatists determined to cleanse Kosovo of Serbs, Mr. Milosevic's forces replied in kind.
In contrast, China's political leaders, who routinely violate the human rights of unarmed citizens, are honored guests in every country and have been awarded the prestige of hosting the 2008 Olympic games.
What can we make of this, other than Serbia, being a small country that we can bomb to smithereens, is vulnerable to our power, whereas China is a vast land with nuclear weapons? Is an example being made of Mr. Milosevic who is white and (Eastern) European, while the Chinese, a population larger than the combined populations of every white country, are protected "preferred minorities"?
Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but law, morality and leadership demand it. Without consistency, there is privilege. The Chinese have it. The Serbs don't.
Turn now to the Condit story. In sexual affairs, the male is always seen as the predator and the female as his victim. Bill Clinton abused his power with Monica and, likewise, Rep. Condit with the missing Chandra Levy. These set attitudes are absurd in our era of the feminist-led sexual revolution that has spawned hordes of promiscuous young women in pursuit of male trophies.
Monica Lewinsky caught the president of the United States by lifting her skirt and snapping her thong underwear. "Here it is, here it is," she said. Tell me truthfully, was Bill a seducer or Monica the seductress?
In the Condit-Levy case, it is clear that Chandra was obsessed with the Democratic representative. When Gary Condit realized her obsession, he urged her to date other men.
In these affairs between middle-aged men and young women, who has the sexual power? Despite the obvious facts, tiresome commentators always saddle the male with "power abuse." Even conservative Republicans unthinkingly repeat this liberal line. Surely they are acquainted with the sexual aggressiveness of the modern female.
Earlier in my life, I worked for the U.S. Congress. In many offices, the staff was organized to protect their boss from females on the make. No woman was allowed to meet alone with the officeholder. If while seated she let her skirt slide too far up her thighs or gave other body language signals, staff would caution the officeholder and monitor his whereabouts after hours.
With Sen. Bob Packwood (and Ted Kennedy), this system broke down. Mr. Packwood was a target because every woman thought that, if she could bed Mr. Packwood, she would gain access to the Finance Committee and be worth six figures as a lobbyist. Mr. Packwood was not a seducer and abuser of women. He was relentlessly pursued.
Feminists turned on Mr. Packwood, like they later turned on the Navy (Tailhook), because feminists needed some examples of "abuse" in order to further their political agenda. It is inexcusable for commentators to serve as PR agents for feminist claptrap about "male sexual predators."
Adultery, like homosexual acts, was once a felony. Many states still have "dead letter laws" against these practices on their books. Today, paid heterosexual sex and adult-minor sex are the only remaining criminal sex acts. Princeton University even has an "ethicist" who defends the morality of bestiality. Women who love their dogs and desire to be ravished by them have every right, he says.
Many police forces run sting operations to catch "Johns," men looking for prostitutes. The District of Columbia runs a "John School" to teach men that they can catch the same diseases from prostitutes that they can get from women they meet in bars or computer chat rooms. Hippies lived in free love communes without interference, but a Mormon with more than one wife can be prosecuted.
There is no end of contradiction. Consider that the same people who justify infanticide (partial birth abortion) demand jail terms for people who kill animals. In July, one man was sentenced to three years for causing a dog to be run over. Another was given jail time for trying to kill a dog that bit the face of his baby daughter, and a third was sentenced by a Montgomery County, Md., District Court to six months for killing a goose.
If human life is worth so little, why are we so concerned with the poor and underprivileged?

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide