Chuck Taylor Hi-Tops For Me

I had meant to critique a column I read today, but I couldn’t find a link for it. Oh well, luckily this Guest Opinion appeared in the Courier Times today from teacher Robert Chesbro (yep, continuing to dump on Dubya…so many reasons).

I almost keeled over in my Eggs Benedict when I read Suzanne Fields’ “Reviving middle class values.” Although difficult to discern after several reads, Fields’ premise was that middle class values are in decline, apparent by the clothing choices of some youngsters today, and that this has certain negative affects on black communities and society as a whole.

Her case in point is the foot attire adorned by the Northwestern University women’s lacrosse players on their visit to the White House. I agree with Fields that even in the presence of the former drug and alcohol abuser that 49 percent of us tolerate as our “mandated” president, I would at least look somewhat respectable. Although if ever there were a president deserving of inappropriately dressed guests it would certainly be Bush.

I agree with Fields that certain clothes should be worn for certain occasions. For example, I would not wear my flight suit to a photo-op promoting the end of a war if the war were not over, and I would not wear my fluffy L.L. Bean down jacket with the detachable fuzzy hood to an Auschwitz memorial as our vice president did.

Her argument breaks down when she insists that Bush must have more credibility than Clinton because he keeps his coat on in the White House. This is like saying a fish likes water if it wears a hat; it makes no sense whatsoever. Fields, in her right-wing diatribe, should apply the same scrutiny to members of her party as well as Clinton.

Fields would undoubtedly advocate proper public behavior and must therefore apply her rationale to Jenna Bush’s antics, who was seen sticking her tongue out to reporters in St. Louis. She must also apply this rationale to the parents that raised this child, the father of whom was recently seen extending his middle finger to a camera, or mumbling to his cohort the infamously distasteful description of a reporter at a press conference years ago. And what about Cheney’s use of the f-word on the Senate floor?

What is most offensive about Fields’ piece is that she ignores the elephant in the room. Has Fields failed to see that the administration of Bush has launched some of the most immoral tactics in the history of politics, all shamefully capitalizing on the aftermath of 9-11?

Bush also coerced Congress into a unilateral approach to international policy by which a prescribed war in Iraq was launched on the premise of phantom weapons of mass destruction. What’s more immoral: lying about sex with a White House intern, or lying to 600 million people to the tune of nearly 2,000 American bodies and $184 billion, and then smearing the credibility of those that demand more integrity?

Fields should be scrutinizing the antics of the White House residents, not its guests. Shouldn’t the Bush Administration be setting examples for moral conduct, like trustworthiness and acceptance of alternative viewpoints, especially if they use moral values and education as a political platform?

With the pathetically immoral corporate criminals that comprise the quasi-fascist regime controlling the United States, it’s no wonder values are declining. What’s the point of adhering to sound moral principles when nice guys finish last, and Karl Rove walks away clean? In the words of Fields: “It’s so sick.”