Disturbing misogyny

A number of things in the presidential race media coverage have struck me. There are two that I found particularly annoying.

First, the double standard of an already disturbing misogyny. A conservative radio personality reacted to a D.C. college student's complaint that she needed help paying for birth control. He called her a slut.

Okay, I don't know much about that student--and I suppose neither did he--so the name calling was unacceptable. I guess he has since apologized, but the liberals and their accompanying media went nuts. As though they had no idea he ever said anything controversial.

Then something really interesting happened. A liberal woman wrote a column saying that the liberal left was just as bad--maybe worse--at misogyny and racism. She named names and gave examples. A news commentator/entertainer has repeatedly demeaned Hilary Clinton, referring to her as a "she devil," "Nurse Ratched," and "witchy," among other things. A liberal radio personality said Sarah Palin "set off a bimbo alert" and called Laura Ingraham "a right-wing slut." Another (whose name you would recognize) said that a conservative commentator "should have been aborted by her parents." The same man called Michelle Malkin "a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick" and thought it appropriate to discuss Carrie Prejean's breasts on his MSNBC show.

I pulled a paragraph from her article:

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

The author of the article is Kirsten Powers. You can look the whole thing up if you are interested.

I wonder if these men say these things about their wives and daughters. I also wonder why there is so much difference in the reaction of those who hear it. When is it ever okay to debase women just because they are female?

My second annoyance will have to wait until my next post. This is enough for one day.

Sometimes I just have to

Occasionally I just need to pass along a very good article, so those who don't take the paper, or don't get the chance to read it, can appreciate the wisdom or humor presented. I may comment and I may just hit the main points, but there are some very articulate and thoughtful writers out there. This particular article is written by Thomas Sowell and talks about "social justice."

The idea of social justice is a favorite of the liberals. After all, it sounds right--we all believe in justice. Right?

Some would argue that it is not the fault of those that were born into families that didn't value education or hard work, or to dysfunctional parents who didn't prevent self-destructive choices. But now it's not a "social" problem any more, unless one believes that it is society's fault that different families and communities have differing habits and values.

I have had numerous experiences and encounters, made multiple small decisions that have determined the course of my life. I don't blame, nor give credit to, "society" for any of them. For better or worse, they were my own.

Sorry, my teacher side is coming out now. If you want a peek at a different kind of society, read The Giver, by Lois Lowry. Many of my sixth grade classes have discussed it.

9-11

Charles Krauthammer:

Church and State

An odd connection just came to me. The Constitution of the United States states that the government should stay out of religion: the separation of church and state. It actually was written to keep government from forcing its citizens into any certain belief--one of the reasons the pilgrims left their homes to come here.

The intent of this amendment has been warped by government--mostly liberal and the ACLU--to oppose any and all religion. We have heard about the lawsuits to prevent nativity scenes on public property, the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings, and even the term, Merry Christmas. Locally, a district court just ruled on a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists from Texas. Apparently, the white crosses along side Utah roads showing where Highway Patrol troopers died, show a preference for Christianity. It is ludicrous enough to be almost funny. What other kind of a monument would signify that someone had died? Some atheist speeding along the highway would be worried that he wouldn't be treated fairly because troopers' families paid for memorial reminders?

Then, there is the media brouhaha about the building of a mosque close to ground zero. Much of the liberal left have been calling for tolerance, fairness, religious freedom. Don't they get the hypocrisy? Where are the atheists now? What if a place built for the religion that led to the deaths on 9-11 offends the people who pass it? Not the same thing? Why not? Does it depend on who is offended?

Finally, Islam has NO separation of church and state. It seems strange that the same leaders who make such a huge deal out of ours, don't seem to be concerned about that.

Apologies all around

I just saw a news blurb that Tiger Woods had his worst round of golf....in a long time. It made me remember his odd news conference where he apologized for his past poor behavior. Thomas Sowell put it in better words than I can:

He calls the tendency for public apologies "mushy thinking," and I think he has a very valid point. I agree that it comes with the loss of personal responsibility. What Tiger did was the fault of his fame, his money, his popularity, the conditions surrounding him, blah blah. If that were true, then wouldn't everyone who watches golf or spent money on anything that added to his wallet be responsible? Golf lovers everywhere were the cause of his demise? Hardly.

I contend that it was Tiger's own arrogance and narcissism that led to his troubles. I certainly didn't suffer anything and did not need to be apologized to.

The problem is bigger than Tiger Woods or the governor of South Carolina or whoever. The idea that society or our surroundings cause our misbehavior, or is responsible for our crimes, tries to diminish the notions of self-control and responsibility. Again, I defer to the words of Thomas Sowell:

Until next time, I'm sorry that my political attitude is one of choices and consequences, and it might not fit with your ideas about the evils of a "society." Wait, no I'm not sorry at all.

The Mallard Fillmore comic had another take on the same idea:

Go Arizona!

Are you as tired of the Arizona bashing as I am? The state is having some real problems caused by people willfully breaking the laws, and being vilified for trying to find a solution.

In an article written by George Will of the Washington Post Writer's Group:

I admit to having been pulled over by police. Was I required to show my identification? Yes, I was. Did I think it was fascist or--gulp--racist? No.

I am very, very tired of the liberal left trying to find hate, intolerance, hostility, and--sigh--racism everywhere. Their entire agenda seems to be to find fault with this country and inflame discontent. They seem happy only if they can find problems under every rock.

Arizona's troubles with illegal immigration is seen as unimportant in the hallowed halls of DC. After all, Washington doesn't have scores of people sneaking across their borders in the dead of night, leaving trails of trash and destruction. If they did, you can bet something would be done.

Part of the desert between Mexico and Tucson, Arizona. Nice huh?

Media Bias, oh yeah.

It is illuminating to pay attention to the differences in the way the general, mainstream media treats President Obama compared to its treatment of President Bush. Every time President Bush made a verbal slip (like everyone does) the major newspapers and television networks made fun, derided, and generally fileted him. Not so President Obama.

The differences, naturally, apply to the rest of us. Those who seem to be in agreement with this administration and supportive of its fiscal policies--or lack thereof--are off limits for taunting or deprecation. On the other hand, those who raise questions, voice concerns or displeasure, or seem to lack the appropriate awe at the liberals' greatness have targets on their foreheads.

One more for today. See if you don't find the truth in this too.

Sick of political correctness!

I just hate to think what I'm going to have to go through the next time I want to fly to visit the grandkids. Can someone please forget this politically correct nonsense and do some decent profiling? How many elderly couples or young families have to pay because some man was permitted to buy a plane ticket with cash, pass through security, and get on an airplane to fly to the US without luggage? Nobody thought that was the least bit odd? Or, did no one dare say anything for fear of being.....impolite? intolerant? racist?

Even worse is the fact that he was on a watch list, his father had tried--more than once--to alert authorities, and it was known that he had been speaking with a radical cleric. Yoo Hoo!

Charles Krauthammer, from the Washington Post Writer's Group, identifies a real problem within the current United States administration:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Barack Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterter­rorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama ban­ishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

If it weren't for a faulty detonator and some passengers, more than 300 people would likely be dead. And Obama's administration is calling this man a "suspect" and sent him to a jail where he quickly lawyered up and stopped talking.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on to say:

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdul­mutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is just nuts. I'm going to carry on some more tomorrow.