This column was originally published in 2006.

This man is Justin J. Molisani, Jr. He was killed by Islamic terrorists on September 11th. Justin was Senior VP for Eurobrokers in Two World Trade Center. Every place I have looked for information about him tells the same story… good man, big guy, big heart – loved his wife and daughter more than words could say. He & his wife were hosts for the neighborhood Christmas Party. One of 2,996 souls who were taken from their loved ones – and from America’s complicated and beautiful fabric.

New York Times: Portraits in Grief, Justin J. Molisani, Jr.

On September 11, 2001, Justin called his wife Jodi just after the first plane hit. His office was on the 82nd floor of Tower Two. After they hung up, Justin began evacuating his coworkers. Due to his efforts, about 80% of Eurobrokers employees escaped death by mere moments. His courage is one of so many examples of the courageous goodness in mankind. That he was an American, is our good fortune.

On Monday, all the Cable networks will show footage in real time of September 11, 2001. Some will stream the coverage in its entirety on their websites. Most will have some picture-in-picture stuff happening during the broadcasts. Newspapers have been sorting through photographs of that day, contemplating which to put on the front page.

President Bush will address the nation in prime time. America will grieve all over again. The memories for some have faded. For others, it will seem like yesterday. The sound of a loved one’s voice is harder to recall now. For others, it will be the first time they put an old home-video in the VCR… just to jar their memory. As a survivor, the burden to remember never fades. The words left unspoken wear on the tenuous connection we have to our past.

This weekend, remember Justin Molisani – and his wife Jodi, his daughter Morgan Lynn – in your prayers and thoughts. Gather your loved ones close, and raise a toast to this wonderful man. He was your brother too.

In the News:

Wall Street Journal: Ground Zero – Not Just an Empty Hole

Washington Times: Bernard Kerik – Preventing Days of Infamy

Investor’s Business Daily: Bush Puts War Foes on Defense

The Nation: Politics, the Media & 9/11

Washington Post: Bush Plans Primetime Address

Washington Post: September 11th, From Many Angles

It was forty years ago today that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon. The plethora of commemorative and retrospective articles and documentaries all rightly remember this day as a great landmark in the development of mankind. By looking at the culture, mores and achievements of 1969, we can ask ourselves what our priorities are now for how we treat each other as nations, our spirit of discovery, our protecting the environment, indeed everything. The Apollo Programme holds a mirror up to where we are today and where we want to go in the future.

Space and politics go hand in hand, often murkily. No cold war, no space race. No Nazi V2s, no leaving Earth’s orbit. No Mutually Assured Destruction, no giant rocketry. The launching of Sputnik and Gagarin’s spaceflight were remarkable achievements for what was a third world country calling itself the second world. But the US military, political and scientific establishment had no real way of knowing just how poor the USSR really were – they just looked at the optics and were dazzled. Kennedy’s mission statement to ‘go to the moon and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard’ rallied a nation against a straw-man supported by nukes and limitless tanks and soldiers.

And yet a huge amount of idealism lay behind the Apollo Programme. Over 500,000 people were involved in putting the first men on the moon. The astronauts may have been military men but, in the words of every 50s ‘B-Movie’ that caught the popular imagination, ‘they came in peace’. Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were 1960s Philosopher Warriors, explorers but not conquistadores, men of action but also poets. The fact that the three Apollo 11 crew have had their many ups and downs as in any human life does not take away from the courage they showed forty years ago in travelling further than man had ever travelled before. They were all too human but still heroic individuals.

The International Space Station has shown what nations can do when they co-operate rather than fight and compete. The growing influence of the BRIC countries, (Brazil, Russia, India and China) means that space has become a community rather than a hegemony. We rely on satellites launched in the former Soviet Union or in French Guiana to make calls to each other around the World on hand-held devices foreseen on ‘Star Trek’ in that decade of dreaming. Space development should be embraced, not feared. Environmentalism owes so much to the ‘Earth Rising’ photo from the Moon; we only realised how fragile our planet was by travelling outside it.

But there are huge negatives too. Arming and militarising space makes life more and not less dangerous. The billions of dollars spent on the space programme need to be balanced against poverty and starvation still all too prevalent on Earth. There were protests in 1969 about the cost of the Space Programme; there are objections now that we can not afford to go to Mars, to do ‘the other things’. Yet peaceful endeavours beyond the atmosphere may be crucial to making nations work with, not against each other.

Greetings everyone….

Please visit me at the new MediaLizzy.com – I will continue to write here, as will our contributors – but I’m taking on some new challenges. More in depth writing on women’s equality, Africa, FGM, moral hypocrisy in politics, and national security.

The site is up and running but needs a few tweaks.  My coverage of South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford, and the impact it will have on 2010 – and perhaps 2012 – will be there tomorrow.

Thanks for your continued support.

—Media Lizzy

This morning on CNN’s Reliable Sources, the last real reporter on any of the Cable news channels, Howard Kurtz, hosted a fiery segment regarding the HuffPo receiving a heads up from the Obama Administration that the President would be calling on Pitney at his big presser. 

Rarely do I find myself defending the honor of Dana Milbank (just look him up on this blog, he is abysmally uninformed with regard to military protocol) but, this week I was in total agreement.  Plus, he just outguns Nico Pitney – who came off as hysterical and ill-equipped to play with the big boys. 

If you insist on dancing the Potomac Two-Step, wear the right shoes. Punk.

—Media Lizzy

Governance is a funny thing.  All campaign promises fade into the history books – to be replaced by new, slightly more realistic promises after the oath of office is administered.  Rare exceptions occur – and they become the “obstacles” on which many a politican has stumbled, bumbled, and flipped over.

President Barack Obama is no different.  He promised to close the detention facility for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  He made many a speech – spoke with great conviction and made his case.  Just hours after his inauguration as America’s 44th president, he ordered Gitmo closed within a year.

And then, the fun began.  Many of us Bushies – from the campaign, from the administration, from the PR & Donor classes – shook our heads.  Some mocked hope-n-change openly.  Others bid Obama “good luck with that.”  Still others explained that no matter the approach – Gitmo was far more complicated than anyone knew.

Now…six months later… Obama is finding out that his presdecessor George W. Bush has been straight with the American people.  There are no good answers.  The difference?  W knew that bad things happen during war.  Obama believed he could obviate nature – from legal opinion to PR counsel – he thought he knew better.

From The Washington Post, White House Considers Executive Order on Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects:

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

Not to mention serious problems with the Democratic-led Congress:

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.

Just to be clear:

“These issues haven’t morphed simply because the administration changed,” said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal questions of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn’t create security loopholes that cause Congress to worry,” Zarate said.

Being President isn’t about anything other than the oath.  Not hope.  Not change. Not empathy. Nor Compassionate Conservatism.  It is about the oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

—Media Lizzy

From Republican Whip Eric Cantor comes a strong statement regarding fiscal sanity, and American culture — both under assault from the Obama Administration.  While I absolutely recognize the passionate differences between average Americans and the political elite with regard to spending, war, abortion, education, etc… some things are indecent. 

Thank you, Eric for your steadfast leadership.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement as the House began consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410):

“This authorization bill, which includes a thirty-five percent increase in the State Department’s basic operations account, is the latest to be larded up with unnecessary spending.  As Republicans work to eliminate wasteful Washington spending, Congressional Democrats and the Administration have taken the opposite approach of imposing massive spending increases upon the American taxpayer – all under the cloud of unprecedented deficits.

“This bill is full of troubling initiatives, including a massive spending increase to fund abortion in foreign countries through the Office of Global Women’s Issues – which Secretary Clinton acknowledged is a tool to promote abortion worldwide.  It makes no sense for American taxpayers to pay for abortions overseas when they disapprove of the procedure here at home. As recently as February, nearly 7 of 10 Americans do not support President Obama’s decision to reverse the prohibition on funding overseas abortion providers. The inclusion of taxpayer funding within this current bill is a blatant dismissal of the will of a majority of Americans.”

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

Feminine mystique.  For some, it is a fairy tale.  For others… it is a way of life.  Some have no understanding at all what it actually is.  Elusive are the women who possess it, and all too common are the women who don’t.

A Playboy “bunny” or “playmate” is not mysterious.  Common as a waste receptacle.  No empowerment.  No equality.  Nothing intimate.  Just a simple quid pro quo:

The “Object” (that is my assessment of what a Bunny or Playmate has chosen to be)  exchanges fantasy for cash. Because bodily fluids are not directly exchanged, it is not prostitution. 

Flesh is not the problem here.  Intent is.  Consenting adults have all manner of sex, all the time.  That is fine.  We all have our own ideas about sex, sexuality, morality, fidelity, purity, virginity, promiscuity, depravity and many other facets of a healthy – or unhealthy – sex life.

I have no issue with art.  Who can argue that Helmut Lange, Steven Meisel, Annie Leibovitz or Mario Testino have not created some truly beautiful nude images? They have.  Portrayal of the human body can be iconic.  As I noted recently in my column Beautiful, Successful and Hated:

Our culture makes many assumptions about beautiful girls and women.  Some wars are not meant to be waged, yet women do this to each other every day. 

A (naturally) symmetric face, dewy skin, full lips, and a decent metabolism is not a choice.  Nor is it a personal and individual attack on ugly people.  It is genetic.  It is possible to be a spectacular looking woman and be a good person.  What constitutes beauty differs from person to person.  Simple beauty, exotic beauty, classic beauty, and timeless beauty all exist.  Many of these beautiful women also possess above average intellect.  Strong work ethic.  They maintain high moral standards.  And are lovers, mothers, friends, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces, wives that happen to be wonderful beings as well. 

Aphrodite.  Nefertiti.  Helen of Troy.  Cleopatra.  Botticelli’s beauties.  Titian’s startlingly self-possessed and sexually aware Venus of Urbino. Iconic women with iconic faces.  Their lives were rich and enduring.  Helen, wife of Menelaus, and lover to Paris… thousands of years later her face, “the face that launched one thousand ships” continues to fascinate and bewitch us. 

Beauty comes from the content of our character as well.   Think of the woman you know with the laugh or smile that  warms up a room.  Or the woman with a smile that casts incandescent light on every face around her.  Remember the mom at soccer, cross country or football?  The lovely mommy toting snacks and drinks, who effortlessly generates a positive energy - boosting team spirit.   She is not Halle Berry or Cindy Crawford but she is just as beautiful.

The “sisterhood” rarely functions flawlessly for every young girl, every woman, every day.  What we give to each other is wisdom.  Personal responsibility. Accountability.  Self-worth.

As of this writing, the National Organization for Women has not issued a statement condemning the article “So Right, it’s Wrong” (see NSFW screen shots HERE, h/t Caleb Howe) that was abruptly deleted from the Playboy website – after many Republican and Conservative folks went ballistic.

From my column earlier this week, I summed up my take on Playboy thus:

1. I read the article written by Cimbalo before it was taken down by Playboy.

2. None of those women were likely to consent to being “hate f$#ked” – and yet he persisted.

3. Translation: if a woman does not giver her consent – the act is, by definition, RAPE.

4. It is not satire. Nor comic. It is a degradation of women, pure and simple.

5. Ask a rape victim her opinion. I have. She agreed with me.

6. No woman “deserves” to be “hate f$#ked” / raped. Ever.

7. None of these women “asked” for it. And of Mr. Cimbalo, I am sure no real woman ever will.

Then, one of my favorite writers, Tommy Christopher blew me away.  It was not unexpected – he is the most intellectually honest Liberal man I have ever meant.  He loves women.  But not in a one-note way.  He really does love us.  He knows we are about more than the contents of our uterus, or what choices we make with regard to those contents.

He wrote, Playboy Magazine Officially Hates Women, Conservative or Otherwise.  Then, Playboy Violates Bro Code with Hate F**k List. And because Politico was stupid enough to post the list without READING the totality of it first, Tommy laid the hammer down when: Politico Takes Down Light Touch Version of Playboy Hate F*** List.   Being a gentleman, and true hipster, he decided to celebrate political differences and great debate with a list of his own: Top Ten Conservative Women I Love to Love.   As this week continued to be driven by defining “hate f***” and what does and does not constitute rape, or consent… Twitter became a united, driving force.  Tommy captured the whole movement in Twitter Community Defeats Playboy Hate List. 

Christopher understands something every good man does: women are different than men.  And that is a good thing.  We agree on some things, not so much on others.  But I have always found him to be fair, witty, and insightful.  I love the guy. 

Yesterday, he was fired.  Fired by AOL’s Politics Daily because (in my estimation) he is simply more highly evolved than his editors at AOL, which is owned by TimeWarner – a company that has a massive distribution deal with Playboy.

Therein lies the rub.  Guy Cimbalo who penned a column that advocates Rape fantasies at minimum… and incites thoughts of violent, nonconsensual sex on the face of his column… and at worst, provides permission to the crazy misogynistic bastard who will identify a virtuous woman and rape her.  This is the man the corporate geniuses at AOL, Playboy, and TimeWarner are defending.

But Tommy Christopher – a committed liberal – stood for the things we ladies most revere: truth, respect, equality and fairness. 

Around the print media and blogosphere, I found a few nuggets:

Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the DC Examiner displays exception acumen in his article Is American Politics Becoming a Hate Sport? And, I am very, very grateful for his mention of my take:

Media Lizzy described the Playboy post as a manifestation of an “inner rapist,” and it is difficult to see much in the way of meaningful distrinctions between rape and a sexual act whose initiator himself links it with hate and in terms that fall just short of violence and against women because of their political views. To be sure, rape as a political weapon is not a new thing, nor is it uniquely associated with a particular portion of the ideological spectrum.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said this:

I quoted a post the other day from Tommy Christopher of AOL’s Politics Daily. He rightly ripped Playboy for putting up a graphic piece about the author’s desire to have hateful sex with 10 conservative women. After that, says the conservative Newsbusters, AOL deleted the piece, fired Christopher and refused any further mention of the article (which Playboy took down by day’s end). Christopher says AOL claimed to have yanked the piece because it was too profane. No explanation so far for the firing.

Meanwhile, the same Playboy author, Guy Cimbalo, uses the B-word in attacking Michelle Malkin and says she has “mental problems.” And to think I once told people I read it for the articles.

The entire series of events was described aptly by Newsbusters’ Stephen Gutowski:

The evidence is stacking up quite high that AOL News fired liberal writer Tommy Christopher today due to his repeated attempts to get coverage of the Playboy attack list on AOL’s Politics Daily. Christopher had first attempted to post this criticism of Playboy’s sick list the day it was published on their website. However, he was surprised to find that shortly after putting his article on Politics Daily it was deleted by an editor.

His surprise stemmed from the fact that in his two years of writing for the site not one other post had ever been deleted by an editor.

This issue won’t go away.  Not with a boycott.  Not with canceled subscriptions to Playboy, or AOL.

There are moral absolutes.  Guy Cimbalo and his ilk are free to choose how they live, write, and speak.  Free to behave immorally.  But that does not mean the behavior is acceptable.  Or moral.  It is not.

Until rape – or “hate sex” – are decried, in a real way, across the board by Establishment Democrats… they do not get to claim the high ground.  From Rwanda to Darfur, on rape and Female Genital Mutilation, Democrats have done little more than pay lip service to the most heinous of crimes.  They can keep their righteous indignation.  They must turn to voices, in their own camp, like Tommy Christopher – and be honest with themselves about the seriousness of speech as a gateway to action.

UPDATE: Tommy Christopher goes on the record about AOL, read it HERE

—Media Lizzy

follow me on FACEBOOK, or @Twitter!

Poor old Gordon Brown; it seems like he can’t do anything right. Labour’s panacea to an unpopular Tony Blair has generated even more antipathy then his controversial predecessor. Less than two years into the job, Brown could end up having served one of the shortest reigns as Prime Minister. Yes, he bears responsibility for Labour’s disastrous polling and cataclysmic electoral performances but he’s been unlucky in his political fortunes too and this is fatal for any politician.

Westminster has been reeling from an expenses scandal that shows no sign of ending. MPs have been claiming for duck-ponds, moat cleaning, second homes no-where near their constituencies, teddy bears and trouser presses. It’s been a shaming experience for a parliament that’s always seen itself as a cut above those corrupt continentals. Yet it’s Labour who are getting the blame more than the Conservatives for this petty corruption and greed. The two main parties have been up to their necks in milking the system, yet Brown is feeling most of the heat.

Most of the problem lies in the contrast in style and perception between Brown and David Cameron. Brown’s cerebral, Cameron’s verbal: one is tainted as ‘ancien regime’, the other represents the new. Cameron is seen as a man of action, Brown as hesitant. This may not be the reality but they are the perceptions. ‘Dour Scotsman’ is proving to be an impossible label for the Prime Minister to shake off.

Up until comparatively recently, Gordon Brown was starting to make a come back. His success at macro-management of economic responses to the global recession and his organisation and direction of the G20 Summit was garnering him plaudits in the international press and brought him to within five/six points of the Tories. He was winning support as someone who didn’t panic during a crisis and played the long game. And then the smallest of incidents tripped him up. Two of his political cronies were uncovered plotting to spread rumours on the web about Tory opponents. The mood of the Press changed overnight. All momentum from the G20 was lost and the ‘Daily Telegraph’ started printing story after story about sleaze in parliament. His fight back collapsed.

The Obama factor has had a negative impact on Gordon Brown too. Obama is young, vibrant and hip in European and British eyes. Brown is not. The contrast is cruel but then politics has never been about fairness. The much vaunted hope that some of Obama’s charisma would rub-off on Brown has not come to fruition; David Cameron, product of an elite background and education looks more likely to benefit from the ‘outsider’ anti-establishment candidate tag than Brown does.

Brown shares a large part of the blame for the depth of the economic recession in the UK. His reliance on ‘light-touch’ and ‘Principle-Based’ regulation, i.e. minimal regulation, had disastrous consequences for the taxpayer after the City gorged itself on its freedoms. A large part of his growth model proved to be illusory – he will leave Britain in debt for years to come and with social justice, a sine-qua non of the Labour Party, as far away in some sectors as it was in 1997 when the Tories were booted out. Yet, Bill Clinton and other ‘Third-Way’ politicians were believed in the same creed and acted in the same manner. He was a product of, as well as a maker of, his times.

The forthcoming European parliamentary elections will see Labour hammered. British voters will swing to the fringe parties, including the fascist BNP. And there will be calls for a swift coup to replace Brown – his allies in the ‘Guardian’ have deserted him. He is in a very lonely place. If Labour tanks spectacularly, the sharks will move in for the kill.

Brown has come out fighting but it’s the fighting of a man being battered against the ropes. His proposed parliamentary reforms may have merits but the electorate doesn’t want to listen. His re-shuffle will replace key personnel with new faces or familiar faces in new roles. He is preparing his responses to the expected electoral calamity. Gordon Brown is no more corrupt than Tony Blair, John Major or any Prime Minister before him; he runs the risk, however, of having his administration scoured with muck of political venality.

No, I am not kidding.  A few minutes ago, I checked Twitter - and saw a link from one of my favorite writers, progressive Tommy Christopher of AOL’s Politics Daily.  Tommy is without a doubt one of the nicest, brightest, and most genuine guys around the political journalism beat.  He loves women.  He calls a spade a spade and is intellectually honest when he writes. 

After clicking through to So Right it’s Wrong, my inner editor went ballistic.  (Because the rest of me felt total revulsion)  He isn’t a good writer.  There is no witty reparte.  Just a laundry list of gorgeous, conservative women who would never be attracted to this bottom feeder – not as a friend, not as a lover, and certainly not as a mate. 

Here’s the setup, from Guy Cimbalo:

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship-a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f***. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.

Recently, I wrote Beautiful, Successful and Hated.  Little did I know that Obama’s hope-n-changey fans would resort to rape fantasies.  I have never been a big fan of Hugh Hefner, nor Playboy but – this episode with Guy Cimbalo, well… it just defies description.  He cloaks his inner rapist by using the endearing term “hate F#%k” — as if that somehow qualifies his vicious S&M fantasy satire.

UPDATE: And now the article has disappeared from the website.  Gee, I wonder why.  For the record, I am not sure what is most offensive – the article, or the “error page” that replaced it.

UPDATE2: Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey weighs in HERE

UPDATE3: Jezebel has the highlights of Cimbalo’s sick writing HERE

UPDATE4: Politico puts the list up, AS IS, miinus the vulgarity,  without noting the clear misogyny or the fact that #tcot Twitterati are going ballistic over Cimbalo’s embodiment of the Democratic ideal

UPDATE5: Salon stays classy with Screwing Michelle Malkin (you can’t make this stuff up)

UPDATE6: Per Tommy Christopher – Politico has taken down article referenced in Update4 -

While a few people left comments pointing this out, it wasn’t until another wave of re-tweets suggesting that folks call this out that the count went from 28 comments, to 96.  Michelle Malkin also called Politico out. Politico has now taken down the list, with the following non-apology apology:

The Playboy article linked to on this blog listed 10 conservative women “they love to hate” adding their reasons why. The blog included the link but only used the names of the women listed. But the Playboy article also included an offensive section that was not included in the blog, but has caused outrage in some readers who believe the blog agrees with all of Playboy stances. This is not true. So the blog has now taken down the link and greatly apologies. No ill will was meant.

While Politico deserves credit for responding to readers’ concerns, their apology creates a classic straw man.  Nobody suggested that “the blog agrees with all of Playboy stances,” but rather that Schroeder definitely whitewashed the offensive content of the list she published, which indicated either tacit agreement, or something else.

They also fail to mention that the list was so vile, it was taken down by Playboy.  Lest anyone think, by the way, that Playboy’s editors just missed it the first time around, note that they sent emails to conservative blogs promoting it!

As someone who writes 120 articles a month, I recognize the possibility that this was innocent, that Schroeder said “Oo! A list!” and just culled together the names, without reading the blurbs.  We’ve all been caught taking a shortcut here or there.  If that’s the case, they should say so, and actually apologize, instead of acting like people who are offended by violent sexual fantasies about unwilling subjects are just reactionary boobs.

I contacted Anne Schroeder for her side of the story, but I haven’t heard back yet.

—Media Lizzy