“Well, slap me around and call me Susan!” I think that was a line from In Living Color–not sure, but I’ve always liked it, and it fits my orbital focus.
Meghan Daum throws down a gauntlet, of sorts, giving Sarah Palin room to claim the “F-word”. No, not the one that rhymes with “truck”; The F-word she means is Feminist. Ooooh… A pull quote from Sarah Palin, feminist:
“The word in question, of course, is ‘feminist.’ It may be the most polarizing label on the sociopolitical stage (it makes “environmentalist” or even ‘gay-rights advocate’ seem downright banal), but Palin seems to have stopped dancing around it and finally claimed it as her partner. Granted, this is a conditional relationship; there’s a qualifier here as big as Alaska. She’s talking not about your mom’s or Gloria Steinem’s feminism but, as she put it, an ’emerging, conservative, feminist identity.'”
This one is about as good as the sportswriter Sally Jenkins telling NOW that they were the intolerant ones (and looked really stupid) over their snit fit regarding the Tim Tebow ad airing during the SuperBowl. While I’m still not ready to embrace the label, she does offer food for thought for Gen X and Millenial women who tacitly avoid the term because of its image and associations. Take a read.
Another interesting read is an article by Jason Whitlock in the Kansas City Star. Whitlock admits to being one of Bill Maher’s “biggest fans” (go figure), but calls Maher out for his blatant religious bigotry and intolerance.
I wonder what planet Whitlock’s been on for the last 10 years that he’s finally come to realize what Maher’s non-fans have known all along. Maher targets religious people not because he has any valid points, but because it’s convenient and Maher has an axe to grind from some egregious sin done by a religious figure or leader in his childhood. I’ll take off the armchair psychologist hat now, but come on, it’s fairly obvious.
Whitlock does some hyperbolic stretches, using terms like “fearless” and “iconoclastic” to describe Maher’s style. Puhleaze. He’s just another liberal hack comedian who parrots the same old talking points and hits the typical targets. Nothing fearless, iconoclastic or original about attacking Sarah Palin, folks.
Then Whitlock compares Maher to the late Mike Royko. As one of Royko’s biggest fans and who I also credit as an inspiration to become a writer–I don’t think so. However, the heart of his points make sense, and it’s interesting seeing someone who is a self-professed fan come around to seeing the blatant emptiness and ugliness of Maher’s soapbox. Whitlock’s conclusion:
“Faith is not the enemy of thought. The lazy and unethical way many of us have been taught to practice religion is.
I thought Maher was smart enough and honorable enough to make this distinction.”
And the media whore that is May-V finally came up for air in the middle of kissing Washington’s ass in order to comment on Arizona Corporation Commission member Gary Pierce’s scathing response to the Los Angeles City Council’s boycott of Arizona. You see, Los Angeles gets at least 20-25% of its power from Arizona, so Pierce merely intimated that if L.A. truly wants to boycott, Arizona will gladly turn off the juice.
Smilin’ Tony “brushed off” what he terms as a threat to cut off power and reiterated his support of the City Council’s boycott. Can you say, “pawned” boys and girls?:
“‘If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation,’ he wrote in the letter. ‘I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands.
“‘If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.'”
Our useless leadership hoisted on their own petard. Read the rest if you can stand it. No light, just heat, in Arizona’s threat to cut off power…