Monday, June 05, 2006

The Left are the intolerant ones

Students and faculty attending New York's New School commencement ceremony stood last weekend with their backs facing Senator John McCain and hissed and booed as the senator from Arizona encouraged a revival of civil discourse in our national affairs. These students and faculty embarrassed the historically liberal school by protesting Sen. McCain's speech, which encouraged them to be "respectful of the goodness in each other." But who can blame them? They are enlightened college graduates from "a legendary, progressive university," after all....

But of all the angles to this story, the most intriguing is the one that contrasts the attitudes of these putatively open-minded progressives with those of the close-minded bigots at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, to whom McCain delivered a commencement speech only a week prior. One might expect that the unpleasantness between McCain and a group of students would have occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia. After all, Sen. McCain did refer to the Rev. Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" while campaigning for president in 2000. And the senator did imply that the Revs. Falwell and Pat Robertson were "evil" for taking offense to his signature campaign finance measure (perhaps these were the youthful indiscretions Sen. McCain expressed remorse about in his speeches). And yet here was the troglodytic minister after McCain delivered the exact same speech in Lynchburg that he did at the New School:

"My intent was to say that John McCain and I are friends, that I respect him and that there are no problems with yesterday."

Therein lies exhibit, oh I don't know, 4,972 of the bizarre upside-down-ness of our national politics. George W. Bush and the Republicans are said by their detractors to be dividers, not uniters. And yet it is the fringe left (also known as mainstream Democrats) who can't stop fighting with everyone. Some more examples?

The Republicans are said to be overtly partisan. And yet it is the other side who has made politics a way of life, even lusting over the financial ruin of stores (Wal-Mart) and restaurants (McDonald's) in pursuit of political purity.

The Republicans are said to be intolerant of dissent. And yet it is the so-called progressive movement that literally seeks to silence the opposition.

Iraq is said to be in complete disarray; an utter failure. And yet Iraqis have held three successful elections and set up a new government in three years.

We have an economy that is by almost every measure stronger and more vibrant than the economy of a decade ago, which pundits called the most prosperous time in human history. And yet a plurality of the people has been convinced by an administration-hostile media corps that we are on the edge of ruin.

We are living in "Bizarro America." On a bad day I might come to believe I've forgotten to take my crazy pills. But then three things hit me:

First, a liberal blogger friend of mine confessed to me recently that he used to like and respect John McCain but he no longer does because McCain doesn't still hate George Bush for the ugliness of the South Carolina primary in 2000.

Second, a liberal loved one insisted in my very kitchen that Howard Dean would have performed better against George Bush than did John Kerry had he won the Democrat nomination in 2004.

And third, an animated film called Ice Age II provides a more reasonable treatment of "global warming" than the film featuring a former Vice President of the United States giving lectures on the subject.

It is then that I conclude I am fine; perfectly sane. But the other side is howling mad. And the thought of them running this country after 2006 makes my bowels clench.

Source



THE CONFUSED FEMINISM OF TODAY

Some comments by a British male feminist of the old school

In every possible way we try to stay attuned to the strategies and signals of feminism, even though these can change in a bewildering manner. In the 1970s and 1980s, the image of a feminist was someone whose boiler suit, cropped hair and absence of makeup repudiated centuries of obligation to pander to men. The difference in the 21st century was recently described by the American feminist Ariel Levy: "Thirty years ago, our mothers were burning their bras and picketing Playboy magazine. Now women are getting breast implants and wearing the Bunny logo as symbols of their liberation."

Levy says what I, as a would-be feminist, cannot: that female independence nowadays is expressed in clothes that might be thought to pander to men in the ultimate degree. Those skimpy see-through tops, those generously exposed midriffs, those heavy ornamental belts just grazing the pubis, all seem copied directly from Hollywood fantasies of Arabian Nights harems. The modern twist is that men must not betray by the smallest word or gesture that they find such things attractive.

Women's clothes, in fact, are a continuing test for me and my kind to keep our feminist credentials. The main instrument of this daily viva voce has been the thong. Who could have imagined that something once associated with pin-up magazines and seedy strip clubs could turn into a vital accessory for almost every female under 50? Or that a garment designed to be an erotic secret could turn into a public statement, peeping over the rear of low-rise jeans? Was I the only man for whom those stringy T-shapes seemed to take on a malevolent life of their own, alternately semaphoring "Look at me" and "Don't dare look at me"?

That particular fashion now seems to be past and a new daily test is imposed by plunging necklines. Before I became a feminist I probably would have said that the thong is ended but the mammaries linger on. Now, with Frostrup breathing down my neck, perish the thought.

Recently the American writer Norah Vincent subjected modern manhood and womanhood to an extensive re-evaluation by spending 18 months disguised as a man called Ned. What she discovered was that traditional gender stereotypes seem to have turned upside-down. Almost all the men she encountered had the supposedly feminine qualities of warmth and inclusiveness, while almost all the women showed the supposedly masculine ones of coldness, awkwardness and repression. Most crucially, she found that it is men rather than women who now suffer the most consistent and extreme sexual stereotyping.

I did not have to listen to Lette during our debate to be aware of this. A few months ago, when the Winter Olympics were on television, I was surprised to find my nearest and dearest taking an interest in the curling finals. I remonstrated with her that, surely, curling is the most mind-liquefyingly boring sport ever devised. She replied that she had been attracted by the unusual spectacle of "men sweeping up". I was so angry that I almost dropped my dustpan and brush.

Once, Britain's national sex stereotype joke was about women drivers. Now it's about men and toilet seats . . . I don't know what it is about a raised toilet seat that causes women such unfathomable horror. Female children are somehow programmed in the womb to go almost mad with despair and disgust when they see a toilet seat left in the upright position.

The more extreme branches of feminism used to regard every man as a potential rapist; now every man is regarded as a potential toilet seat offender. I would point out that raising a toilet seat is infinitely more mannerly and considerate than not doing so. It was the great Jonathan Miller who once said that the old train loo sign "Gentlemen lift the seat" was not an instruction so much as a moral judgment.

No one would deny that stubborn redoubts of male chauvinist resistance still hold out like Japanese soldiers who don't realise the second world war is over. There is, for instance, the refusal of many men to let a woman pay the bill in a restaurant. One well-known actress (oh my God, sorry) so resents this situation that whenever it happens she threatens to start taking off her clothes until the bill is passed to her. (If she's reading this, I'm free for lunch any day next week.)

A few men also still persist in the archaic, unegalitarian habit of holding doors open for women or getting up when they enter the room. I happen to be one such dinosaur - and in admitting it in last week's debate, I suppose I helped to destroy my side's whole argument. But no woman in my experience, however fierce a feminist, however stern a monitor of male chauvinism, has ever complained.

Source



KEYSTONE COPS TELLING EATERIES TO LOSE BUSINESS

Fat chance! (Forgive the pun)



Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way. The government is trying to enlist the help of the nation's eateries in fighting obesity. One of the first things on their list: cutting portion sizes. With burgers, fries and pizza the Top 3 eating-out favorites in this country, restaurants are in a prime position to help improve people's diets and combat obesity. At least that's what is recommended in a government-commissioned report released Friday.

The report, requested and funded by the Food and Drug Administration, lays out ways to help people manage their intake of calories from the growing number of meals prepared away from home, including at the nation's nearly 900,000 restaurants and other establishments that serve food. "We must take a serious look at the impact these foods are having on our waistlines," said Penelope Slade Royall, director of the health promotion office at the Department of Health and Human Services. The 136-page report prepared by The Keystone Center, an education and public group based in Keystone, Colorado, said Americans now consume fully one-third of their daily intake of calories outside the home. And as of 2000, the average American took in 300 more calories a day than was the case 15 years earlier, according to Agriculture Department statistics cited in the report. Today, 64 percent of Americans are overweight, including the 30 percent who are obese, according to the report. It pegs the annual medical cost of the problem at nearly $93 billion.

Consumer advocates increasingly have heaped some of the blame on restaurant chains like McDonald's, which bristles at the criticism while offering more salads and fruit. The report does not explicitly link dining out with the rising tide of obesity, but does cite numerous studies that suggest there is a connection. The National Restaurant Association said the report, which it helped prepare but does not support, unfairly targeted its industry. The report encourages restaurants to shift the emphasis of their marketing to lower-calorie choices, and include more such options on menus. In addition, restaurants could jigger portion sizes and the variety of foods available in mixed dishes to cut calories. Bundling meals with more fruits and vegetables also could help. And letting consumers know how many calories are contained in a meal also could guide the choices they make, according to the report.

Simeon Holston, 33, called more disclosure an excellent idea as he lunched on a sausage-and-pepperoni pizza at a downtown Washington food court. "OK, I am going to eat junk food regardless, but let me eat the junk food that's going to cause me less damage," said Holston, an accountant. "A lot of times, presented with information, you will make a better choice."

Just over half of the nation's 287 largest restaurant chains now make at least some nutrition information available, said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "If companies don't tell them, people have no way of knowing how many calories they are being served at restaurants. And chances are, they are being served a lot more than they realize," said Wootan, adding that Congress should give the FDA the authority to require such disclosure.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, the agency's acting head, said the only place where he has seen calorie information listed on a menu was at an upscale restaurant in California. Still, the agency will not seek the authority to force others to follow suit, he said. "At this point in time, it's not a matter of more authority, it's using the authority we have," von Eschenbach said.

More here

No comments: