FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

-Fox News Online

The current attempt by the right to emasculate Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards is repulsive and should be stopped immediately. Equally repulsive are his tired excuses and explanations.

I am no fan of John Edwards. He is about as dangerous as a tax-and-spend liberal can be. However, if he expects to be able to have a serious debate about alleviating poverty, his central campaign issue, he needs to grow a spine and prove that he is a worthy contender for the office-- first by defending his wealth and then by explaining to his campaign contributors, to their satisfaction, why he required a $700 day of beauty at the spa.

After 2 full days of continuous news covering the horrible VTU killings on Monday, by Wednesday most news stations started to spend a few minutes each hour reporting on other current events- the war in Iraq, the pending Alberto Gonzales testimony, etc. Most news stations, that is, except for The Fox News Channel. At approx. 5:50, Brit Hume tore himself away from the grisly bloodshed in Virginia to report that John Edwards had been caught spending $400 on haircuts and $300 on hour-long massages at a women's spa called the Pink Sapphire. Additionally, at the end of this "special report" they played a video of Mr. Edwards looking less than presidential, primping his hair while "I Feel Pretty" was dubbed in.

The childish teasing continued on the Fox Radio morning show "Brian and the Judge" with Brian Kilmeade and Chris Wallace joking about how a man could get an hour long massage, and opining as to weather Mr. Edwards preferred a male or female massage professional.

[Full disclosure: For all it's problems, I am a fan of The Fox News Channel and a regular listener to the Fox Radio morning show "Brian and the Judge". I have always respected Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade, though I could do with less of Brit Hume. I am shocked and disappointed at their commentary on this point.]

The message behind all of this: John Edwards is effeminate. John Edwards is a hypocrite. John Edwards might even be a little gay. At the heart of it all, however, is a bunch of good ol' boys perpetuating the myth that masculinity is preferred over femininity, and femininity in a male makes him suspect to being homosexual.

If it had been a slow news week, I would probably not have paid much attention. In fact if it had simply diverted my attention from the endless Imus news stream of the previous week, I would have welcomed the diversion. But this nonsense is what Fox News deemed appropriate to air at this particular point in time?

I'm not defending Mr. Edwards. He should explain how his $700 day at the spa fits into his "two Americas" campaign. But instead, we have heard numerous excuses, mostly from the stylist and spa owners. But the kind of "debate" that Fox News engaged in is tantamount to childish school ground name calling.

John Edwards could use this opportunity to show that he is Presidential material. He could, and should say:

"I have lived the American dream. I want that dream to be attainable for everyone. Yes, I am a wealthy man. But a wealthy man can still be a champion for the poor. In fact a wealthy man could do much much more for the economically disadvantaged in our country than a poor man could. And I will continue to fight for the lower class, regardless of the sexist, homophobic, classist attacks from the right.

I don't believe this will gain any kind momentum. To the best of my knowledge, no other major news source has picked this up, although many bloggers are having a field day with it. But Fox attempted for several days to turn this into a story. They seem to have failed. So far. If this is the kind of reporting we can expect from the "Fair and Balanced" news station this early in campaign season, we are in for a nasty 19 months!

"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor,"

“If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is a flame retardant. You take action."

- Al Gore, Testifying before Congress

And if Big Ol' Dr. Al tells you that the planet has a fever, and the only remedy is for the federal government to coerce and extort billions of dollars from U.S. citizens, you better listen! There is not enough time for debate! No time to review or even consider the scientific evidence that refutes Big Al's claims. "Congress must act now!" he said.

Never mind the mounting dissent, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Never mind that ordinary Americans are doing more than any other citizens of any country to combat global warming. Never mind that Big Al's 10 point plan would hurt the U.S. economy and put many Americans at a grave disadvantage [pdf] . You must submit, or face humiliation (like being compared to a holocaust denier!), professional or political retribution, or even death threats.

I have never believed much of the global warming hype. However, I will submit that there is little doubt that the planet is warming, and that the warming might change the way we live. But the weather has been changing for millions of years, with greater temperature shifts than we are worried about now. Despite the rhetoric, 2 facts remain: Man might be responsible for 5% of the "greenhouse gas" C02 (a gas required to sustain life on this planet!). Natural resources (animals, vegetation and volcanic activity) are responsible for the remaining 95%. And man, especially the U.S. alone, will not change the projected temperature variance.

Man has survived the harshest conditions: ice ages, droughts, heat waves, etc. If any of the hype is real, shouldn't we be focusing our energy on learning how to adapt and face the challenge? More importantly, shouldn't all voices be presented in this "debate"? Yes, I know, the debate is over. But not because science and reason has triumphed. The debate is over because the politicians have silenced the dissenters to the best of their abilities.

I do strongly support reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the interest of national security. However, that is a long road that most Americans are unlikely to enjoy. I will address that issue at a later date.

And for those of you who believe that global warming is the threat that that Big Al proposes-- do you really want to turn the fate of this planet over to the federal government? And by government I mean the people who brought you the compromised levees in New Orleans, the fiasco that is Ground-Zero, the crisis at Walter Reid Hospital, and a failure to stem the tide of illegal aliens flowing into this country daily?

I thought not.

Once again, I have found myself in the madding position of having to defend my political viewpoints. Time after time, after time, after time... friends express shock and dismay at my perceived political leanings. "How can you support a party", they ask, referring to the hot-button issue of gay-marriage, "that wants to take away your civil rights?" Please accept this post as my final statement on the matter.

In general, people assume I am a liberal Democrat. I assume they assume so due to the fact that I am a gay man, living in Boston, Massachusetts. In all fairness, I generally keep my opinions to myself and rarely speak up at times when the conversation turns to politics. However, when I do, and it becomes clear that I am not a liberal Democrat, I am often faced with the inevitable comments such as "Now you sound like a Republican!"- meant as an insult. It is usually an attempt to shut me up, because, as a Republican, I clearly can't be taken seriously. I have, in fact, lost friends simply because I expressed a viewpoint in direct contradiction to their own.

I am not a liberal Democrat. I am not a Republican. Strictly speaking I am an independent. I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Republicans. In most cases, I find myself supporting the candidate who I feel will do the least damage to my personal freedom. In most cases, that is the Republican candidate. I can assure you that my life will not be ruined if I am never granted federal protection for my marriage. I will always fight for equal protection, but I will not allow my true civil liberties to be eroded as a result. (For the record, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of sanctioning any relationship at the expense of others.)

On the other hand, there are several very real threats to my well being and to those I love: national security, taxation, the welfare state, expansion of the federal government into our personal lives, government corruption, local and state politicians who pass laws that abridge our freedoms, etc. All of these are real problems that have a serious impact on our lives.

And to my liberal friends who ask how I can support a party that would deny me equal protection of my marriage, once again, I ask the same of you:

Defense of Marriage Act- Signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton

Don't Ask, Don't Tell- Signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton

And John Kerry?

"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts and appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman"

Barack Obama?

"I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free  --  ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Mr. Cheney made this statement on national television during a campaign season. Mr. Cheney's statement is the perfect expression of a philosophy that includes everyone and excludes no one. If gay marriage is such an important issue, it looks like a lot of liberals are on the wrong side.

"You know it's hard out here for a pimp (you ain't knowin) / When he tryin to get this money for the rent (you ain't knowin) / For the Cadillacs and gas money spent (you ain't knowin) / Because a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain't knowin) .... "

"Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin bullets everyday / Niggaz hatin on me cause I got, hoes on the tray / But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water / Couldn't keep up with my hoes, that's when shit got harder ... "

2006 Oscar Winner, Best Song from a Soundtrack, It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp

Ann Coulter's watershed moment at the CPAC conference last week released a firestorm of condemnation from the left (here, here, and here) and from the right (here, here, and here). Freedom of speech being what it is, Ms. Coulter is, of course, free to express herself verbally in any way she sees fit, and the rest of the world is free to respond as they see fit.

However, once again, the victicrats are out in full force feigning offense, making money, and diverting our attention from the very serious issue that Ms Coulter attempted to raise. Andrew Sullivan insists that the statement and, the audience reaction, was "designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised." He may very well feel that way. However, I doubt very much that such collusion is possible. Most likely, the crowd's true feelings about John Edwards had found a voice and their passion was unleashed (isn't that what language is for?).

The immediate reaction from the public was understandable. "SHE SAID WHAT?" Condemnation was inevitable and justified, just as it was in the Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington affairs. However, once the dust settled and it became clear that Ann had no intention of calling John Edwards gay, and that the term was meant to express the idea that her feelings about the millionaire liberal are so profoundly negative that any public discussion of him would be impossible given the current climate of political correctness.

And she was right. The media and public reaction proves it. Instead of focusing on the very serious issue of how political correctness marginalizes our public discourse, everyone is rallying around the far simpler accusation of hate-speech.

Let's not forget that the liberal left embraces all forms of expression in art and culture, while struggling to limit the free speech of ordinary citizens. Last year, the song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" won the Oscar for best song in a movie. At a glance, the lyrics are odious and vile. However, ultimately, the song makes a very strong, and noteworthy, statement about life in America for African-Americans. The artists were rightfully recognized for their performance. The same deference should be extended to the rest of us.

Ms Coulter could not have made her point less eloquently. But the reaction could not have been more misguided:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Witless? Maybe. Pointless? Absolutely not.

-JHB