Dear Mark: Well, well, well, the Obama administration is releasing a classified memo to a few congressmen justifying their use of drones to kill not only suspected terrorists but also American citizens who somehow can be connected to terrorist organizations. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of killing terrorists, but doesn't this reek of hypocrisy with a huge sprinkle of Big Brother government? -- Not Paranoid, Just Saying
Dear Not Paranoid: First, let me state that I applaud President Obama for using drones to kill as many terrorists as possible. But let's get to my bone of contention, which is the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by President Obama, his followers and the media. During the Bush years, then-Sen. Obama along with his liberal brethren savaged George Bush for his war on terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretaps and Bush's enhanced interrogation policies.
In 2006, Obama tried to make his case against Bush with the following story: "And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever." Obama also went onto say, "This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism."
Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even went so far as to pass legislation to outlaw enhanced interrogation back in 2008, which Bush fortunately vetoed.
"Democrats will continue working to reverse the damage President Bush has caused to our standing in the world, Reid arrogantly and ignorantly proclaimed. Let me get this straight: Blowing suspected terrorists and their possibly innocent companions to smithereens is more humane than Bush's anti-terrorism policies and, to use Obama's words, "is how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism"?
Liberals with their Bush Derangement Syndrome cried rivers about pouring water up terrorists' noses, but today they gladly support President Obama when he shoves Hellfire missiles up their butts? Where's the liberal outcry, where are the protests, and where is the legislation from Pelosi and Reid?
Oh, that's right -- one has to have intellect in order to have intellectual honesty.
Dear Mark: Television is disgusting these days, with too much sex and violence even during the early hours when children could be watching. Unfortunately, award shows have gone down that same path trying to outdo the others with all sorts of salacious performances.
With that in my mind, I applaud CBS, which announced this week that "breasts, buttocks and genitals" will have to basically be completely covered at this year's Grammy Awards. I'm sure the stars will find some way to circumvent this memo, but don't you think that at the very least this is a good start? -- Classy Lassy
Dear Classy: The memo you are referring to came from CBS's "Standard and Practices" department, which after watching some of their shows, I didn't think existed.
According to a story in USA Today, "The advisory, sent to the production staff that deals with talent, advises them to 'be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered.'" Specifically, "thong-type costumes" and "bare sides or under curvature of the breasts" are deemed "problematic." Visible buttock curves or "buttock crack" are also a no-no, as is "sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples."
I'm confused. Was this memo sent from CBS to the Grammys, or did Harry Reid send this to New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez concerning his trips abroad?
Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to firstname.lastname@example.org. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM