SPECIAL GUEST COMMENTARY...HERE SHE IS...

Are We Obsessed with the Veil?
by Kelly D.

While commentator’s scrutinized the text of Obama’s speech at one comment that seemed overlooked in the media was his rejection of the “view in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal”. In Western culture, we often over engage in the simplistic use of symbols. Like many feminist scholars, especially Lila Abu-Lughod
("Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?") argue, I agree the West views the veil as the “poster symbol” for women’s oppression.

But, should the veil truly be a symbol of women’s oppression? Let me be clear, there is a paramount difference between being forced or choosing to wear a veil. However, we often forget that Muslim women choose to wear a veil or “hijab” to show what Lughod defines as their “modesty and respectability”. In my opinion, all cultures should deem these two qualities as admirable. Thus, is it fair to ask a Muslim woman to abandon her own views and choices on modesty and respectability to appease Western symbolism? Furthermore, in the West, we must remember our definition of proper dress for certain social and religious occasions.

While many Christians attend church now in informal clothing, do we forget the term “Sunday’s best”? Do we culturally accept short denim skirts to the ballet or flip-flops to the White House? My point is that in all cultures and all religions there is “culturally” acceptable clothing. The veil is not a sign of oppression if worn by choice and instead, just an unfortunate symbol we choose to place our focus. The focus should not be if Muslim women should veil or unveil, it should be if all women have equal rights and equal access.

Kelly D. aka The Anti-Kenneth

Journalists Ignore Reality That 'Post-Racial' President Isn't
Dan Gainor details how the media doesn't hold President O to account for any of his actions in regards to being post-racial. Gainor uses the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as his example and I think he could have used more examples. The point nevertheless is made that the media does not hold Barack Obama accountable for his rhetoric.

Most media types are so busy getting chills up their legs when O speaks that they fail to scrutinize how President Obama's actions seldom line up with candidate Obama's rhetoric. He was supposed to be bipartisan, but that hasn't happened either.

Extremism Costs Obama His Security Nominee
President O's and Nancy Pelosi's demonetization of the CIA has cost him a nominee for intelligence chief at Homeland Security. Phillip Mudd was a terrorism analyst at the CIA and is certainly qualified but he just doesn't need to subject himself to the kind of hatred, ridicule and scorn necessary to get through the process.

Pres O is finding out that things aren't as simple as he thought. He's learning that his words have consequences. He's learning that running for office is much easier than governing. He's learning that a lot of people, not just Dick Cheney maniacally sitting in a dark room, worked on ways to keep Americans alive.

How many other qualified intelligence and security personnel will avoid service? What will it cost us?