I just watched former Alaska Governor and US Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on The Factor and it occurred to me, again, that one of the chief reasons why this woman drives not only all liberals, but far too many conservatives as well, absolutely crazy is that she is self-confident enough to wear eye-glasses publicly. Why, even the smartest woman on the planet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wears contacts, donchaknow?
"What an utterly superficial and pointless observation Sage," you say? Yea, just like most of the criticism regularly leveled at this woman WHO HAPPENS TO BE ON OUR SIDE.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
A Fightin' Franciscan
One continues to hear great things about this pugnacious priest, the Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver,
Read the speech he delivered just a couple of days ago to the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University and you'll know why. God bless him.
Read the speech he delivered just a couple of days ago to the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University and you'll know why. God bless him.
Shop Until You Drop
"Fecal Matter Found on 72 Percent of Grocery Carts"
When I first read that headline, I was reminded of a comment my late father made about 20 years ago to my dear wife. He was having dinner with us and she was then proceeding through (rapidly, thank God) a mildly "green" phase in her life. She reported to him with pride that the carrots he was enjoying were in fact organically grown. As he brought the fork to his mouth he said without missing a beat, "Really? You know, I swear I can almost smell the manure."
But I was wrong, that' not what the headline was referring to at all.
Rather, it was about a study done by researchers from the University of Arizona who reported that grocery store shopping carts were virtually covered with, well, with exactly what the headline says.
After remembering that interchange of long ago between my wife and my dad, my second thought was, "Oh no! What will liberal legislators do with this?"
Let's face it, you don't have to think very hard to imagine some Democrat politician like, oh I don't know, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, standing before an excited media gaggle, decrying this latest outrage and demanding that something be done about it...now!...for the children. "If we can put a man on the moon..." The speech would be followed very shortly thereafter with the introduction of the "Shopping Cart Control Act of 2011" Reasonable regulation they would argue, not outright prohibition.
You see at first, sensing an opportunity to stick it to Wal-Mart as well, Schumer and many other Democrats would have been moved to outlaw the carts altogether. But when a sympathetic reporter, from the New York Times perhaps, asks about the potential effect of such legislation on the homeless, a key Democrat constituency, cooler heads would prevail.
Ahh, the liberal mind at work. God help us.
When I first read that headline, I was reminded of a comment my late father made about 20 years ago to my dear wife. He was having dinner with us and she was then proceeding through (rapidly, thank God) a mildly "green" phase in her life. She reported to him with pride that the carrots he was enjoying were in fact organically grown. As he brought the fork to his mouth he said without missing a beat, "Really? You know, I swear I can almost smell the manure."
But I was wrong, that' not what the headline was referring to at all.
Rather, it was about a study done by researchers from the University of Arizona who reported that grocery store shopping carts were virtually covered with, well, with exactly what the headline says.
After remembering that interchange of long ago between my wife and my dad, my second thought was, "Oh no! What will liberal legislators do with this?"
Let's face it, you don't have to think very hard to imagine some Democrat politician like, oh I don't know, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, standing before an excited media gaggle, decrying this latest outrage and demanding that something be done about it...now!...for the children. "If we can put a man on the moon..." The speech would be followed very shortly thereafter with the introduction of the "Shopping Cart Control Act of 2011" Reasonable regulation they would argue, not outright prohibition.
You see at first, sensing an opportunity to stick it to Wal-Mart as well, Schumer and many other Democrats would have been moved to outlaw the carts altogether. But when a sympathetic reporter, from the New York Times perhaps, asks about the potential effect of such legislation on the homeless, a key Democrat constituency, cooler heads would prevail.
Ahh, the liberal mind at work. God help us.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Rights and Freedoms
With respect to the governor vs. the union showdown in Wisconsin, it occurs to me that there's some pretty sloppy talk about "rights" being employed.
While we enjoy the right to peaceably assemble, we have no similar right either to organize as a labor union or to collectively bargain as such. We have the freedom to do so, but not the right. A right, unlike a freedom, imposes an obligation on another.
Seriously, what does it even mean to say that I have a right to organize? Are my fellow workers now obliged to follow suit? Must they pay union dues whether they agree to or not? What about their right not to join? If, as a union, we become dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of our employment and strike, has our employer surrendered thereby his right to replace us all with employees who will work under those terms?
We are free to organize, if we can. We are also free to collectively bargain, again, if we can. But it seems to me we have no right to either.
While we enjoy the right to peaceably assemble, we have no similar right either to organize as a labor union or to collectively bargain as such. We have the freedom to do so, but not the right. A right, unlike a freedom, imposes an obligation on another.
Seriously, what does it even mean to say that I have a right to organize? Are my fellow workers now obliged to follow suit? Must they pay union dues whether they agree to or not? What about their right not to join? If, as a union, we become dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of our employment and strike, has our employer surrendered thereby his right to replace us all with employees who will work under those terms?
We are free to organize, if we can. We are also free to collectively bargain, again, if we can. But it seems to me we have no right to either.
"Racist" Budgeting
That's what the Congressional Black Caucus thinks of the budget cuts proposed by the new Republican majority. Moreover, in order to highlight the "racism", they find it convenient to make the point on the very last day of Black History Month.
In addition to celebrating the many successes of African-Americans in this country, the single most important purpose of Black History Month is to force us all to remember, and never to forget, the genuine suffering endured by this race during our nation's now regrettable period when slavery and segregation were both tolerated and legal. The Congressional Black Caucus is doing great harm to this cause.
By making such a baseless, fatuous, and irresponsible accusation of racism, in order, simply, to further their own partisan and ideological agenda, they continue to participate in turning what was once one of the most serious charges one American could level at another into little more than a vulgar, schoolyard-bully, epithet, the reaction to which is a mere roll of the eyes or shrug of the shoulders.
This is truly a crime and I pray it never comes back to haunt them. For our country's sake, not theirs.
In addition to celebrating the many successes of African-Americans in this country, the single most important purpose of Black History Month is to force us all to remember, and never to forget, the genuine suffering endured by this race during our nation's now regrettable period when slavery and segregation were both tolerated and legal. The Congressional Black Caucus is doing great harm to this cause.
By making such a baseless, fatuous, and irresponsible accusation of racism, in order, simply, to further their own partisan and ideological agenda, they continue to participate in turning what was once one of the most serious charges one American could level at another into little more than a vulgar, schoolyard-bully, epithet, the reaction to which is a mere roll of the eyes or shrug of the shoulders.
This is truly a crime and I pray it never comes back to haunt them. For our country's sake, not theirs.
Where Have You Gone "Phyllis Dietrichson"?
Speaking of the differences between men and women...
If you're familiar with this blog at all, you'll know that the Sage is a big fan of the movies, old movies at least. (There's just something about the ability of a black-and-white film to communicate seriousness, even if it's a comedy like His Girl Friday.) Anyway, let me recommend to you this near perfect piece about the Femme Fatale on the Silver Screen, what she is, what she represents, why she's with us no more, etc.
Because my mind is sometimes preoccupied with such things, I anticipated many of the writer's observations and conclusions. (That might also explain why I liked the piece.) Significant among them was that contemporary feminism is largely responsible for the death of the femme fatale.
It's true, as the writer points out, there's more than a little misogyny in the characterization of the typical femme fatale. But then, there's more than a little man-hating in much of feminism.
Ironically, contemporary feminism rests almost fundamentally on the image of woman as victim. In film, lately anyway, the omni-presence of these ridiculously hard-bitten, karate-chopping, gun-slinging female heroes actually serves to reinforce the point: Women, as women, are so essentially victims, that their only escape is to fantasize about themselves as men.
The femme fatale is almost always portrayed, at first, as a victim. That is how she attracts the attention of the male in the movie. (That and her long luscious legs and...oh, sorry, where was I?) But her victimhood is a pose. It's the way she lures the man in to do whatever it is she wants done, usually some form of dirty work, murder even.
What contemporary feminists don't like about the portrayal is precisely that the femme fatale is no victim at all. Not only that she is no victim, but also, this is important, that she succeeds as a woman. There is absolutely no equality of the sexes here, and no femme fatale would want it any other way. It is the precisely the differences between men and women, highlighted and exaggerated in film, that matter the most. It is the differences that put her in complete control.
Feminist scolds to the contrary, my experience has taught me that most women still admire, at least secretly, the femme fatale, both on the screen and in real life as well. When they witness any woman confident enough of her sex appeal to quite deliberately put it to work, it may make them roll their eyes, it may even tick'em off if they think they are more deserving of the object of that work, but they both understand and admire it nonetheless, and only wish they were similarly sure of themselves.
*"Phyllis Dietrichson", you'll learn if you read the article, is the name of the character played by Barbara Stanwyck in the film noir classic, Double Indemnity. Fred MacMurray as "Walter Neff" is her helpless-in- her-grasp lover.
If you're familiar with this blog at all, you'll know that the Sage is a big fan of the movies, old movies at least. (There's just something about the ability of a black-and-white film to communicate seriousness, even if it's a comedy like His Girl Friday.) Anyway, let me recommend to you this near perfect piece about the Femme Fatale on the Silver Screen, what she is, what she represents, why she's with us no more, etc.
Because my mind is sometimes preoccupied with such things, I anticipated many of the writer's observations and conclusions. (That might also explain why I liked the piece.) Significant among them was that contemporary feminism is largely responsible for the death of the femme fatale.
It's true, as the writer points out, there's more than a little misogyny in the characterization of the typical femme fatale. But then, there's more than a little man-hating in much of feminism.
Ironically, contemporary feminism rests almost fundamentally on the image of woman as victim. In film, lately anyway, the omni-presence of these ridiculously hard-bitten, karate-chopping, gun-slinging female heroes actually serves to reinforce the point: Women, as women, are so essentially victims, that their only escape is to fantasize about themselves as men.
The femme fatale is almost always portrayed, at first, as a victim. That is how she attracts the attention of the male in the movie. (That and her long luscious legs and...oh, sorry, where was I?) But her victimhood is a pose. It's the way she lures the man in to do whatever it is she wants done, usually some form of dirty work, murder even.
What contemporary feminists don't like about the portrayal is precisely that the femme fatale is no victim at all. Not only that she is no victim, but also, this is important, that she succeeds as a woman. There is absolutely no equality of the sexes here, and no femme fatale would want it any other way. It is the precisely the differences between men and women, highlighted and exaggerated in film, that matter the most. It is the differences that put her in complete control.
Feminist scolds to the contrary, my experience has taught me that most women still admire, at least secretly, the femme fatale, both on the screen and in real life as well. When they witness any woman confident enough of her sex appeal to quite deliberately put it to work, it may make them roll their eyes, it may even tick'em off if they think they are more deserving of the object of that work, but they both understand and admire it nonetheless, and only wish they were similarly sure of themselves.
*"Phyllis Dietrichson", you'll learn if you read the article, is the name of the character played by Barbara Stanwyck in the film noir classic, Double Indemnity. Fred MacMurray as "Walter Neff" is her helpless-in- her-grasp lover.
Grappling with Sexual Equality
Thank you Mona Charen.
By now you know the story of the young male wrestler who forfeited his Iowa State Championship match to his young female opponent. When this story broke a couple of weeks ago, I was very interested in the reactions of female talking heads and pundits. From the Left, one could hear the predictable screams of "I am woman, hear me roar!" coupled with outright contempt for the stand the young man took. (He was extremely gracious, by the way.) From the Right, however, the responses were mixed, and therefore more interesting.
Many of these women have benefited tremendously from what we used to call women's liberation and they know it. Therefore, on occasions like this they feel the need to offer at least two cheers for feminism, and so they do. Others, many others it seemed to me, were clearly uncomfortable with the story. They knew in their souls that there was something right about the young man's stand and something very wrong with forcing him to make it.
National Review columnist Mona Charen cuts to the heart of the matter with this question: "Are we really sure we want to obliterate the last traces of chivalry in young men — to stamp out every trace of protectiveness from the male psyche?"
The more radical equality between the sexes is pursued, the more women lose. Smart women like Mona Charen know this.
By now you know the story of the young male wrestler who forfeited his Iowa State Championship match to his young female opponent. When this story broke a couple of weeks ago, I was very interested in the reactions of female talking heads and pundits. From the Left, one could hear the predictable screams of "I am woman, hear me roar!" coupled with outright contempt for the stand the young man took. (He was extremely gracious, by the way.) From the Right, however, the responses were mixed, and therefore more interesting.
Many of these women have benefited tremendously from what we used to call women's liberation and they know it. Therefore, on occasions like this they feel the need to offer at least two cheers for feminism, and so they do. Others, many others it seemed to me, were clearly uncomfortable with the story. They knew in their souls that there was something right about the young man's stand and something very wrong with forcing him to make it.
National Review columnist Mona Charen cuts to the heart of the matter with this question: "Are we really sure we want to obliterate the last traces of chivalry in young men — to stamp out every trace of protectiveness from the male psyche?"
The more radical equality between the sexes is pursued, the more women lose. Smart women like Mona Charen know this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)