Politics, et Cetera
A publication from The Political Forum, LLC
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
They Said It:
Observation fully conﬁrms what reﬂection teaches us on this subject: Savage man and civilized man differ so much in their innermost heart and inclinations that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair. The ﬁrst breathes nothing but repose and freedom, he wants only to live and remain idle, and even the Stoic’s ataraxia does not approximate his profound indifference to everything else. By contrast, the Citizen, forever active, sweats and scurries, constantly in search of ever more strenuous occupations: he works to the death, even rushes toward it in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality. He courts the great whom he hates, and the rich whom he despises; he spares nothing to attain the honor of serving them; he vaingloriously boasts of his baseness and of their protection and, proud of his slavery, he speaks contemptuously of those who have not the honor of sharing it.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Second Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, 1755.
OF HASHTAGS AND HALLUCINATIONS.
On the off chance you hadn’t heard, conservatives throughout the media-entertainment complex have had a field day picking on the Obamas and their allies for the hashtag – “Bring Back Our Girls” photo that the office of the First Lady released in the hope of aiding the effort to convince the Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram to release the 250 girls it had kidnapped and threatened to sell into slavery. Fox News has been merciless. Rush Limbaugh was his usual flippant but trenchant self. And even the inimitable and recently absent Mark Steyn got in on the act, penning a long and damning essay titled, fittingly enough, “#BringBackourBalls,” the gist of which went as follows:
It is hard not to have total contempt for a political culture that thinks the picture [of Michelle Obama with the “#Bring back our girls sign] is a useful contribution to rescuing 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist savages in Nigeria. Yet some pajama boy at the White House evidently felt getting the First Lady to pose with this week’s Hashtag of Western Impotence would reflect well upon the Administration. The horrible thing is they may be right: Michelle showed she cared – on social media! – and that’s all that matters, isn’t it? . . .
There’s something slightly weird about taking a hashtag – which on the Internet at least has a functional purpose – and getting a big black felt marker and writing it on a piece of cardboard and holding it up, as if somehow the comforting props of social media can be extended beyond the computer and out into the real world. Maybe the talismanic hashtag never required a computer in the first place. Maybe way back during the Don Pacifico showdown all Lord Palmerston had to do was tell the Greeks #BringBackOurJew.
As [Daniel] Payne notes, these days progressive “action” just requires “calling on government” to act. But it’s sobering to reflect that the urge to call on someone else to do something is now so reflexive and ingrained that even “the government” – or in this case the wife of “the government” – is now calling on someone else to do something.
This is good stuff. And more to the point, it’s dead-on. The West has indeed lost the will to do anything, leaders and followers alike. Westerners like to talk about what they’d like to do or what they think is important. But when it actually comes to doing something about the things that matter, it’s a heckuva lot easier just to sit back down on the couch and switch the channel to something less thought-provoking . . . or thought-inducing, if you prefer. Why do you suppose our fearless leader himself, by all accounts, spends countless hours a day watching SportsCenter?
As biting and keen as this criticism is, though, we tend to think that it misses a much larger issue and thus a much graver concern for the West, and especially the United States, over both the short and the long term. Apathy and cowardice are indeed issues, but as far as we can tell, they are the symptoms of a far greater malady, that being a serious moral collapse.
We had planned to avoid this issue. After all, as we noted above, the entire conservative commentariat has piled on the First Lady and the rest of celebrity-Left for believing that radical Islamism can be countered effectively with hashtags. But then, over the weekend, we saw something that jogged our memory a bit and reminded us that there is something more at stake here than merely the submissiveness of the West and its neutered leaders. And that something was Mavis Leno.
Mavis Leno, you see, is the wife of Jay Leno, the former host of “The Tonight Show.” And she is also a celebrity feminist. Just this week, Mrs. Leno made news, when she and her husband took a stand against Islam’s treatment of women. They hit the bastards right where it hurts – in the pocket book. Sort of. Al-Jazeera explains:
US television star Jay Leno has joined a growing list of celebrities vowing to boycott the Dorchester Collection, a luxury hotel chain linked to Brunei’s sultan, after he introduced the first phase of a controversial Islamic penal code last month.
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah announced last Wednesday that he would continue with further implementation of the law that will eventually include tough penalties such as death by stoning.
Former late-night talk show host Leno, speaking at a small protest outside the sultan-owned Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles on Tuesday, said: “What is this, Berlin, 1933? This doesn’t seem far off what happened in the Holocaust.
“Come on people, it’s 2014. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing.” . . .
The US group Feminist Majority Foundation said it had also pulled its annual Global Women’s Rights Awards, co-chaired by Jay and wife Mavis Leno, from the Beverly Hills Hotel in protest.
Aha! Take that Sultan! The rest of West may be too lethargic to do anything about anything, ever. But the Feminist Majority sure isn’t! They’ll beat the snot out of you by taking business away from a hotel you don’t even know you own, thereby punishing hotel employees who have never even heard of you, much less Brunei. That’ll show you!
In all seriousness, though, this is a noble enough sentiment on the part of the Lenos and the Feminist Majority and the rest of the Hollywood types. They’re unhappy about the Sultan of Brunei, and in the context of the current societal unhappiness with Sharia-supporting Muslims, they’re doing something about it. The question, of course, is whether or not this “something” will serve any purpose other than to make the celebrities in question feel better about themselves. In short, we doubt it.
As it turns out, this is not the first time that Mavis Leno and her Feminist Majority have been the subject of our commentary. Just over fifteen years ago, she and her husband were battling another nasty regime, doing important work on behalf of the oppressed half-way around the world. On March 29, 1999, the Washington Post told Lenos’ story this way:
Last August the compassionate, concerned, dedicated women of the Feminist Majority – a small group of activists based in Hollywood and Washington – were utterly miserable.
It had been eight months since Mavis Leno, wife of Jay and member of the board, had declared her intention to take on the cause . . . Eight months of letter-writing, of networking, of power-lunching, and she’d gotten plenty of sympathy but no real action.
The average American remained blissfully unaware that women half a world away were being repressed . . . that women were to be hidden beneath full-length shrouds in public and denied them education, freedom of movement and the opportunity to work. Women who resisted were beaten. Women suspected of offenses like adultery were stoned. To death.
“It was clear to me,” says Mavis Leno, sitting in her West Hollywood headquarters, “that if women in the West didn’t do something pretty spectacular, these women were lost.” She is dark-haired and articulate, with a vague resemblance, strangely, to her famous husband. She goes on, “It would be like the German and Polish Jews, like the peasants under Stalin. They’d be swallowed by history. And I didn’t want that to happen while I was alive.”
We said the following at the time:
According to the Washington Post, Mavis Leno, wife of talk-show mega-star Jay Leno, and her pals at the Feminist Majority organization decided recently that it was their lot in life (for that week, at least) to alleviate the suffering from something they called “gender apartheid” of women in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
So Mavis Leno did what any good Hollywood liberal would do when faced with an humanitarian tragedy of such stupendous, Holocaust-like magnitude. She took “the proceeds from Jay’s pay-per-view wrestling match with Hulk Hogan,” called up feminist icon Eleanor Smeal at the Feminist Majority, and set about planning the biggest party you’ve ever seen.
Along with “Friend of Bill” Linda Bloodworth Thomason, Leno arranged a huge media event at the Director’s Guild for the evening of March 30. According to the Post, the “official coming out of the Afghan women’s cause,” was a “must-attend happening, gathering perhaps the largest number of celebrities for a single cause since the “We Are The World” campaign 14 years ago.”
Anyone who is anyone in Hollywood (and wasn’t already booked to save Tibet, the Rain Forest, the whales, or some other previous cause du jour) showed up to pledge their support for the oppressed Afghan women and to protest the truly barbarous behavior of the Taliban militia. The guest list included Vince Gill; Mrs. Phil Donahue (Marlo Thomas, for the un-au courant); Winona, Ashley, and Naomi Judd; Lionel Richie (who, of course, donated a song to the effort); Paula Abdul; Christine Lahti; Alfre Woodard; Gillian Anderson; Candace Bergen; Mary Tyler Moore; Whoopi Goldberg, Rene Zellweger, and Lily Tomlin, to name just a few.
The members of Feminist Majority basked in their successful effort to demonstrate how much they cared for their oppressed sisters half-a-world away. “For a human rights situation,” Mrs. Leno said, “this is unusually simple. The Taliban are spectacularly villainous.” After all, agreed Feminist Majority board member Kathy Spillar, “there is no ‘other side’ to this issue.”
Unfortunately for the ladies of the Feminist Majority and, more precisely, for those they purport to help, there is, indeed, another side, namely the side that is influenced by “the structure of reality.”
In fact, according to the Post, “several specialists on Afghanistan disputed some aspects of the picture painted by the Feminist Majority . . . . They expressed concern that the Hollywood activists are distorting the reality of the current conditions . . . .” In the words of Judy Benjamin, head of the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, the “awareness raising” campaign engineered by the Mrs. Leno, et al, “is a terrible snow job. It’s amusing almost, but sad.”
Leila Helms, a Westernized Afghan-born woman who, along with her husband, has worked in Afghan refugee camps for more than decade, noted that the lot of women in Afghanistan has actually improved considerably since the Taliban replaced Muslim Brotherhood as the country’s ruling faction. “For twenty years,” she pleaded, “there has been no law, no order. We lost nearly two million people to the Russians. Finally they have peace, and the people of America find religion on the issue of women in Afghanistan?” Echoing this sentiment, Ms. Benjamin noted that “in most of Afghanistan, people will say the Taliban have brought peace and security.”
And Andrew Wilder, director of the Afghan relief operation of Save the Children chided, “Those who are speaking out now are well-intentioned, but they don’t have the full story. . . . It’s misleading to the point where there’s more and more of a movement from human rights groups and the Feminist Majority to say cut off all aid, which is a real misunderstanding of the situation and will only hurt the very groups these women want to help.”
Needless to say, then, in that case, as in the current one, the Lenos weren’t exactly sure that they were doing the right thing. They didn’t know if they were operating on the right information, if they had all the facts, or even if their efforts would have unintended consequences, perhaps hurting – albeit unintentionally – the very women they were trying to help. But no worries. They knew that their hearts were in the right place, and to them, that was all that mattered. As the Post noted in conclusion:
But Jay Leno has the final say on this matter: “They’re shining a light on the problem. If this all turns out to be wrong, if it’s a huge mistake – and there seems to be an awful lot of proof in the other direction – nobody did anything for the wrong reasons.”
Way back then, we used the above-cited article to illustrate some of the same issues we have been discussing in these pages over the last several weeks, namely the moral absurdity of the Gnostic Dream World. Jay and Mavis Leno didn’t know what was going on. They didn’t know if they were part of the problem or part of the solution. And in the end, they didn’t really care either way. Their intentions were good. As we noted, what better example could one hope ever to find of a world in which “nonrecognition of reality is the first principle,” and where “types of action which in the real world would be considered as morally insane because of the real effects which they have will be considered moral in the dream world because they intended an entirely different effect.”
The same criticism applies in the current cases, of course. There is no evidence whatsoever that boycotting the Beverly Hills Hotel is going to have any positive impact on anything in Brunei. Certainly, it’s not going to convince the Sultan not to impose Sharia. Indeed, there is always a chance that the effort will actually backfire, burnishing the Sultan’s erstwhile questionable Islamist bona fides. The Christian Science Monitor notes that some experts on Islam and Brunei believe that, with the Sultan’s Islamic credibility on the line, the Hollywood protest will all but certainly help him, rather than hurt him. Among others, the Monitor cites Kecia Ali, an associate professor of religion at Boston University, who argues that “the purpose of this law is to bolster [the Sultan’s] credibility [at home] by surrounding himself with the aura of religious legitimacy,” which is to say that imposing Sharia law “in the face of Western outrage,” will only aid his cause.
The same can likely be said of the more high-profile and more political protest against the Nigerian group Boko Haram. Michelle Obama is involved in the war of “hashtags” against the Nigerian kidnappers, which is to say that ol’ Boko – whose actual name is “the Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad” – are suddenly the biggest name in global jihad. Al Qaeda, you say? Yesterday’s news. The future is in Nigeria!
It has been reported that the girls in question can no longer be “brought back” since they have been sold, but what’s to stop Boko Haram from doing the same thing again, and getting the Westerners to tweet and twitter about them again? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, we’ll be surprised if they don’t. If you want to be a big time player in the global jihad game, then getting the President of the Great Satan to turn his weekly radio address over to the Mrs. so that she can complain about you and say your name over and over (and over) again, isn’t the worst strategy we’ve ever heard. Certainly, it’s better than blowing up the Twin Towers on George Bush’s watch.
Or is it?
Think about it. The country in question at the time of the first Mavis initiative was Afghanistan. And the Lenos were going to save the women of that backwater nation from the brutality and tyranny of the Taliban. And while these American feminists had to fight the entrenched global bureaucracy along the way, they had a secret weapon on their side, namely the United States military. A mere twenty months after that article was published, lamenting the appalling conditions imposed on the Afghanistan’s women by the Taliban, the U. S. Army and Marines, under the guise of Operation Enduring Freedom, swept the oppressors from power, thereby bringing freedom to that country’s women and girls and accomplishing the chief goal of the Feminist Majority. Hooray for Uncle Sam!
And just how are Afghanistan’s women faring today, some twelve-plus years into their liberation? Funny you should ask. In 2009, ABC News reported that “A controversial bill that Afghan President Hamid Karzai promised to review before implementing quietly became law last month, allowing police to enforce language that stipulates a wife’s sexual duties and restricts a woman’s ability to leave her own home. Karzai had promised to send the bill to parliament before it was published, but this week women’s rights advocates learned it had already become an enforceable . . . .”
In 2013, NBC News reported that “Death by stoning for convicted adulterers is being written into Afghan law, a senior official said on Monday, the latest sign that human rights won at great cost since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 are rolling back as foreign troops withdraw. ‘We are working on the draft of a sharia penal code where the punishment for adultery, if there are four eyewitnesses, is stoning,’ said Rohullah Qarizada, who is part of the sharia Islamic law committee working on the draft and head of the Afghan Independent Bar Association.”
And only a few weeks later, Professor Phyllis Chesler, a noted feminist author wrote the following:
Hamid Karzai’s government is considering bringing back stoning for adultery — and imposing 100 lashes (which is a death sentence) for unmarried people who have had sexual relations.
Thus, Afghan men can marry female children, keep male children as sex-toys, maintain four wives, and visit prostitutes from dawn to dawn.
But it is a capital crime if an Afghan man dishonors another Afghan man by having relations with his female “property;” and, if he has raped the poor wife, she is also to be stoned. Worse yet, if two young Afghans meet and fall in love on their own and have sexual relations, but do not marry — they, too, will be committing a capital crime.
Sharia law, you see, which has Hollywood up in arms these days, is part of the Afghan constitution and has been for roughly a decade – since the new post-invasion constitutional assembly finished its work. Indeed, articles 1-3 of the first chapter of the Afghani constitution read as follows:
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state. . . .
The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law. . . .
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
What does all of this mean? Well, among other things, it means that the world’s lone remaining super power took all of its military might and know-how and went into Afghanistan, killing several thousand of those evil, woman-hating Taliban folks, replacing them with more enlightened leaders – of America’s choosing. And women (and gays and children and Christians and . . . etc., etc. ad nauseam) are no better off than they were before.
Worse still, all of this Sharia-building has been done on the Americans’ watch! Let us put this bluntly: WE STILL HAVE TROOPS THERE. Technically speaking, Barack Obama is still running the show in Afghanistan. It is, more or less, an American protectorate. And yet conditions in the country are notably worse than they are in Brunei. Unfortunately, we suppose, Hamid Karzai doesn’t own any hotels that the glitterati can boycott.
Of course, it’s not just Afghanistan. Here is our old friend Daniel Pipes, writing a full decade ago on the “progress” of post-Saddam Iraq:
In Iraq, what ought to be the role of Islam and its legal system, called the Sharia? In theory, this topic should be the subject of a soul-searching debate in America and all the other countries whose forces are occupying Iraq, for how it is answered will likely influence Iraq’s future in profound ways.
Views on Islam’s proper role reflect how one understands the purpose of the war in Iraq one year ago:
Islamic law should be prohibited . . .
Islamic law should be permitted . . .
This has the makings of a deep argument over the purposes of invading Iraq, long-term coalition goals in Iraq, and whether the Sharia is or is not inherently reactionary, iniquitous, aggressive, and misogynist.
Unfortunately, the debate is already over, before it could begin: Iraqis have decided, with the blessing of coalition administrators, that Islamic law will rule in Iraq.
They reached this decision at about 4:20 a.m. on March 1, when the Iraqi Governing Council, in the presence of top coalition administrators, agreed on the wording of an interim constitution.
Back to the present: last fall, the Iraqi government introduced a Sharia “personal status” law. And this spring, the government went a step further, proposing to legalize pedophilia. In March, Reuters reported the following:
[A] draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet . . . would permit the marriage of nine-year-old girls and automatically give child custody to fathers. . . .
[T]he cabinet voted for the legislation, based on Shi’ite Islamic jurisprudence, allowing clergy to preside over marriages, divorces and inheritances. The draft now goes to parliament. . . .
It describes girls as reaching puberty at nine, making them fit for marriage, makes the father sole guardian of his children at two and condones a husband’s right to insist on sexual intercourse with his wife whenever he wishes.
The legislation is referred to as the Ja’afari Law, named after the sixth Shi’ite imam Ja’afar al-Sadiq, who founded his own school of jurisprudence.
The draft was put forward by Justice Minister Hassan al-Shimari, a member of the Shi’ite Islamist Fadila party, and approved by the cabinet on February 25.
Again, we should reiterate here: these are the people whom thousands of young Americans fought and died to put in charge. The abominations in Iraq may not all have taken place on America’s watch, as in Afghanistan, but make no mistake about it: these people are in charge because the Americans put them in charge and left them in charge.
How did this happen? How did the great wars of liberations against the “evil doers” end up as wars for Sharia? How did George Bush’s great and noble cause of making the Middle East safe for democracy wind up instead as American-sanctioned abuse of women?
As with most such questions, this one is complicated. There are many partial answers, including the lack of American will, the absence of Western confidence, and the desire to see self-government be actual self-government.
Likely the biggest reason, though, is the fact that the people of the West – and especially the Americans who sat by and watched Sharia being imposed on the people whom they’d supposedly just “liberated” – have no solid foundation upon which to decide between right and wrong and good and evil. As we have noted countless times before, the destruction of the traditional moral code in the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment eras left the Western world in a state of moral disorder. The traditional code was subverted, but nothing replaced it, leaving chaos, confusion, and a moral subjectivism. And this moral subjectivism, in turn, has produced a moral ethos that is devoid of reason and logic and posits, contrary to evidence and common sense, that there is no truth, no reality, no basis for evaluative judgments outside of the power and its application. This, in brief, is the postmodern moral code.
Over the last several weeks, we have focused extensively on the work of Eric Voegelin in explaining the Left’s moral fantasies and their real world implications. Indeed, we mentioned Voegelin’s thoughts again this week. But Voegelin was not alone in analyzing the flaws of the “civic religion” of the West. Regular readers will recognize that we have long been fans of Voegelin’s contemporary, the eminent British historian Norman Cohn, who also explained how the religious notions of Western history became corrupted and disjointed in the post-Enlightenment period, fostering secularized, quasi-religious factions that replicated the fervor and the passion of the heretical Millenarian movements.
Cohn argued that perhaps the most persistent social myth in Western civilization is one which he termed the “egalitarian State of Nature,” which posits the belief that man’s natural, pre-historical state was a “Golden Age” “in which all men were equal in status and wealth and in which no one was oppressed or exploited by anyone else; a state of affairs characterized by universal good faith and brotherly love and also, sometimes, by total community of property and even spouses.”
This myth, of course, is not only preposterous but dangerous as well. The irrational, fantastical belief in a utopian State of Nature underpinned the greatest threat to global civilization in the last century. You see, the great egalitarian heresies, i.e. Communism, socialism, and fascism, were “state of nature” illusions passed from the religious, through the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to the Gnostic pipedreams of the 19th century German fantasists.
The utopian State of Nature is also the foundation for the myth of the “noble savage,” the ideal man who lived an idyllic life free from the burdens of man’s institutions – and especially his religious and political institutions.
In the opening line of Emile, Rousseau, declared that “Everything is good in leaving the hands of the creator of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man.” Rousseau’s critique of modern society and his lionization of pre-societal man are his most powerful and far-reaching contributions to political philosophy. And unfortunately, they are also the foundation of the contemporary Left’s self-doubt with respect to the value of Western institutions.
The Left’s fetishization of “primitive man,” its persistent desire to see Third World revolutionaries triumph over Western imperialists are all, at least in part, tied up in Rousseau’s notion of the noble savage and antiquity’s fantasy of a Golden Age. As we noted here three years ago, in the midst of the so-called Arab Spring:
The great “peasants revolts” of Russia, China, and especially Vietnam were revered for their “authenticity” and their pre-modern and anti-modern character. The left cheered on the Algerians in their war against the French. It cheered on Mugabe and his thugs in their Rhodesian rebellion against the Commonwealth. It cheered on Allende, Castro, Ortega, and every other Latin American thug who opposed American inﬂuence. It cheered on the Khomeinists in their revolution against the American “puppet” Shah. Most notably, it cheered on the Palestinians in their struggle for self-determination and “dignity.” And, most recently, it cheered on the Muslim Brotherhood, among others, in the riots in Tahrir Square aimed at deposing a critical American ally.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, what all this meant is that the American invaders were especially cautious not to be seen as . . . well . . . American invaders. And so they bent over backward to pay homage to the god of multiculturism and to respect and even to elevate the “indigenous” desires. As it turns out, the people of the Muslim world kinda like Sharia law. According to the Pew Foundation, roughly seven in 10 Iraqis and Afghanis think that Sharia law is the “divine word of God.” And they are happy to abide by that law. And the Americans, not wanting to impose their own culture on them, were more than willing to let these Sharia-loving people love their Sharia. In fact, they were insistent.
On September 12, 2001, the day after the worst terrorist attack in history, the columnist Ann Coulter declared that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” The American leaders – from George Bush to Dick Cheney; Condi Rice to Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama to Joe Biden – all fretted that they would be seen as following Coutler’s advice. And so they made certain that no one could ever seriously accuse them of doing so by bending over as far the other way as they could without falling over. And why shouldn’t they? After all, one culture is as good as another. And who, after all, are we to judge?
In the end, then, we were left with two American protectorates in which the law of the land – by the Americans’ own decree – treated men and women radically differently, criminalized homosexuality, legalized physical abuse and child marriage, and a whole host of other moral abominations. In the West, we ourselves believe such things to be wrong, but lacking both moral fortitude and a belief in universal truths, we flatly refused to ask our subjects to behave as 21st century men and women should be expected to behave.
Mark Steyn, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest believe that the picture of Michelle Obama holding a sign demanding that medieval terrorists bring back our girls is the height of fecklessness and frailty. And while it is that, it is, more importantly, yet another sign of the moral anarchy that pervades Western civilization. Michelle Obama is upset about Sharia law, you say? Well, where has she been for the last five-plus years, while her husband has been the world’s greatest and best-armed guardian and defender of Sharia, better even than the Saudi “Custodian of the two Holy Mosques?” And where will she be tomorrow?
Moreover, where will Mavis and Jay Leno be? Will they be protesting outside of the Beverly Hills Hotel, creating a minor inconvenience for a third-rate petro thug? Or will they be out on Pennsylvania Avenue, in Lafayette Square, raising their voices against a far greater and far more serious promoter of Sharia law?
Do we even need to ask?
The West today is in sad shape, but not because it is unwilling to do anything to defend its values and beliefs. It has no idea what its values and beliefs are or what they should be. And so it – and leaders – will continue to stomp about the globe imposing whim and fancy.
Sell a few girls into slavery? That’s an outrage!
Sell a few into marriage? That’s just multiculturism! And it’s the American military’s job to facilitate it.
As Jay Leno might say, it’s really no big deal. After all, nobody did anything for the wrong reasons.