Tammy Bruce: Social Commentary Archives

Social Commentary Archives

Happy Conservatives, Miserable Liberals

This week's "Lexington" in "The Economist" was inspired by a new book entitled "Gross National Happiness".

Mr Brooks [the author] proposes that whatever their respective merits, the conservative world view is more conducive to happiness than the liberal one (in the American sense of both words). American conservatives tend to believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed. This makes them more optimistic than liberals, more likely to feel in control of their lives and therefore happier. American liberals, at their most pessimistic, stress the injustice of the economic system, the crushing impersonal forces that keep the little guy down...the American left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved.

These are important points. Without their misery, the Left loses its (pardon my French) raison d’être. Tammy has told us how, back in the days when she was a Leftist insider, her mentor explained the necessity of rubbing salt into the collective psychic wounds in order to keep the movement alive. Tammy had been of the naïve opinion that they were working to solve problems rather than to lock people down and create a perpetual power structure.

Thus conservatives have greater potential to achieve happiness. But it would be an oversimplification to say that becoming conservative is enough in itself to make one happy.

I'll offer a few more thoughts on happiness for you hardcore philosophers...

Posted by Maynard · April 1, 2008 10:48 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Cultural Commentary | Leftists | Maynard Post | Social Commentary

Obama and His Racist, America-Hating "Pastor"

The very cozy Obama and Wright.

**Television programming note**: Gateway Pundit is noting that Major Garrett will have Barack Obama tonight on Hannity & Colmes/Fox News to discuss the Wright situation. They also have the full collection of Wright video spew. Perhaps now we know the real reason the Obama campaign has been desperate to paint Hillary and her supporters as 'racist'--to distract from their own ugly, racist underbelly.

After working feverishly to ignore the extraordinary racist, hate-filled comments by Barack Hussein Obama's "pastor", Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., they finally have been forced to admit he exist. Initially, Obama refused to outright condemn comments that ranged from urging black Americans to sing "God damn America," to proposing the theory that America engineered the AIDS virus to genocide people of color and deliberately distributes drugs to me of color, and that America is a terrorist nation. When you hear these remarkably paranoid assertions Michelle Obama's paranoid and America-hating rants make a lot more sense. After all, this is the man who has been Obama's mentor for 20 years, married the Obamas, and baptized their daughters (which means those two bright little girls are exposed to this racist, hate-based insanity.

Ron Kessler, who is associated with the McCain campaign, provided an opinion piece in today's WSJ, the first national newspaper to address this remarkable relationship between the leading Democrat candidate and a hate-monger:

Obama and the Minister

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school's Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006...Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." [...]

As for Mr. Wright's repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be "provocative."

Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

The WSJ piece follows ABC News and their coverage of Wright stating we were to blame for 9/11 and that blacks should condemn the United States. Finally, of Obama and his racist mentor. Finally, Obama responds with a little fluff piece, on the lefty hate blog Huffington Post of all places, which once again waxes on about how great the 'pastor' is but Obama rejects his comments. He skips over the intense relationship they have, including the fact that it was Wright with whom Obama consulted when he was deciding whether or not to run for president, and then "prayed" with him as he decided to do so. Obama also thanked Wright prominently when he first won his senate seat. Yet Obama claims, absurdly, that Wright was never a mentor, and that he never, ever heard this man say anything at all ever close to what has been revealed in the past few weeks.
Yeah, sure.

This last week has been rather priceless--here we have Obama and his minions still pushing the absurdity of the entire Hillary campaign as racist, including the smear against Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro leaves the Clinton campaign, and HiIllary apologizes to every black person on Earth for everything that ever happened. Yet the stench of racism and hate emanates from only one place--the Barack Obama campaign, his closest friend and adviser, and arguably from Obama himself and his wife. Yet no one has apologized. In fact, big news has been made of the fact thatWright stepped down from one Obama campaign position he held yet the Obama campaign insists he will stay on as a "spirtual adviser." I guess that would be the Racist, Hate America First fort of spirituality.

The next question needs to be, does Hillary and Co. have what it takes to demand an apology from Obama and his minions for the racism and hate they've been spewing? Will she demand Obama apologize for Wright, and that Wright be banished from his campaign entirely? If she doesn't have the cajones to face down a bunch of political thugs and a depraved, paranoid, how can we expect her to deal with the world's tyrants?

This is a test for Hillary. I noted weeks ago, that with all we detest about th Clintons, it's safe to say they do not hate this country. Now we know the Obamas truly do.

« Close It

One Child Left Behind

In Miss Teen USA South Carolina, I think we have either a) the next panelist for The View, or b) an eventual U.S. of America ambassador to the UN, that is if Hillary doesn't nominate Billy Jeff. (HT to Defamer).

Posted by Tammy · August 27, 2007 05:59 PM · Permalink · Comments (14)
Education | Social Commentary

What is Burning Man?

**UPDATE: This post is originally from last year about this time, but with the 2007 Burning Man slated to start on the 27th, I thought this post from Maynard was worth sharing again.**

Maynard points out a fascinating and insanely escapist event

Every year, the week leading up to Labor Day is the occasion of the oddball Burning Man festival in the remote Black Rock Desert of northern Nevada. Here, for the week, something like 35,000 people will set up shop for total immersion into in an experiment in controlled anarchy. It's a temporary community of participatory art and/or psychodrama on a grand scale.

Burning Man started as a personal cathartic exercise in 1986, when a few friends built and burned an 8-foot tall wooden statue at Baker Beach in San Francisco. They liked it so much that they came back to do it again the following year, and it became an annual event. The size of both the crowd and the statue grew, resulting in relocation to rural Nevada in 1990.

The construction and incineration of the Man is the central theme of the week, but it's really not about him at all. The event is an exercise in imagination run wild, with the expectation that every attendee is a participant rather than an observer. There are almost no commercial transactions, and even bartering is discouraged; it's more like a huge pot luck picnic in which everyone brings something to the table. There is enough law enforcement to assure that a few basic rules are followed, but beyond that, pretty much anything goes. There are sights, sounds, food, drink, and just about any experience that can be made available. Then the week ends, the Man burns, and everyone cleans up and goes home.

No, I've never been there myself. I find the notion intimidating, going to a place where there is nowhere to hide. But it sounds completely fascinating as a brief, experimental escape from the framework that dominates our lives. Broadly speaking, I believe we require that our social structures be somewhat rigid, lest we descend into savagery (as in Lord of the Flies). But those who understand the necessity of rules in a civilized society can probably survive a week of this madness. Do we have any burners (as the attendees are called) in the audience? Anyone planning on going next week?

Burning Man has been the subject of a number of documentaries, such as Burning Man: The Burning Sensation and Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock and others. Visit their official web site or check out the Wikipedia entry for more information.

Posted by Maynard · August 25, 2007 05:02 PM · Permalink · Comments (12)
Cultural Commentary | Maynard Post | Social Commentary | Travel

After Affair, Villaraigosa Gets Booed at Beckham Event

Tony Villaraigosa, the mayor of my lovely town who made Los Angeles a Sanctuary City, and attended and encouraged the illegal alien marches, has been in a bit of hot water. In June I posted about his impending divorce. What we didn't know at the time was that he had been carrying on an adulterous affair with Telemundo reporter Mirthala Salinas. Salinas, with a void of ethics all her own, continued to report on the mayor's activities, including his divorce (!) without disclosing that she was having an affair with the man, and the probable reason for the divorce (in addition to the now estranged wife no doubt getting tired of being married to an apparent sexual compulsive). Obviously, Villaraigosa and Salinas have a lot in common--neither one of them operate without integrity, dignity, or principles. Yep, a match made in heaven.

The good news is, I'm thrilled to report Los Angeles isn't as cynical about issues of ethics and values as you might think. While appearing at an event welcoming new Galaxy player David Beckham to Los Angeles, Villaraigosa got booed, big time. Pretty darn sweet to see and hear people reject such a smarmy guy. I'm proud of us.

Politicians. With very few exceptions, they're all scum.

Posted by Tammy · July 13, 2007 06:16 PM · Permalink · Comments (8)
Corruption | Death of Right and Wrong | Just Wrong | Social Commentary

Is Spiderman Gay?

Too bad Spiderman wasn't around when we messed up in Eden

Maynard's cinematic philosophizing

I finally got around to seeing Spiderman 3. The reviews were mildly positive, but the only opinion that matters is mine, right? And I mostly agree; the movie is good but not great.

An underlying theme is a vaguely metaphorical battle between the masculine and feminine faces of humanity. Aunt May speaks up for the one extreme, as she constantly urges Peter to turn the other cheek and abandon his anger. (The deceased Uncle Ben seemed of a similar mindset; I am beginning to develop a theory about why this couple was childless.)

On the flip side, there's that cool black suit, which releases all those nasty testosterone-driven urges. Hoo Hah!

It's not surprising that this movie, emerging from the liberal bias that infests Hollywood, tilts strongly femme. But take heart; there's enough arse-kicking to make this castrated ideology forgivable if not forgettable. The words may reinforce the pussycats, but the deeds back the tomcats. I guess in that sense, it's a philosophical smorgasbord. Or maybe this is just Hollywood manipulation, or pandering, or confusion, or even genuine ambivalence. Or all of the above.

I'm flashing back to the Team America movie, with its infamous "There are three kinds of people" soliloquy. Now there was a solid worldview! It was wrapped, of course, in the characteristic South Park cocoon of vulgarity. This was a dramatic plea for collaboration between the masculine and the feminine, that they may muster their resources in the essential battle against evil. I think this is how God would have us behave. (This is not to opine that God would wholeheartedly endorse South Park, you understand. But the world is a complex tapestry.)

Yes, Team America is what you might call "fair and balanced", whereas Spiderman has something of an agenda. Well, that's okay. I appreciate that Spiderman is a conflicted guy. This makes him more human and accessible to us.

Or am I taking this all too seriously?

Posted by Maynard · June 12, 2007 02:50 PM · Permalink · Comments (8)
Hollywood/Films | Maynard Post | Satire/Absurdity | Social Commentary

Liberating Paris

A post by Maynard

Did you catch the anguished scream interrupting the Superior Court spokesman's announcement that Paris Hilton was headed back to the pokey? It's the climax of this CNN newsclip:

ALAN PARACHINI: The judge heard arguments, he heard out the County Council's Office, representing the Sheriff, he heard the defense, he heard the City Attorney. He ruled that he was remanding Ms Hilton to the Sheriff's custody to serve the remainder of her sentence at the Century Regional Detention Center.

MAN (yelling): No, no, no, no, no, no!

WOMAN: Shut up!

The gentleman who yelled was waving a sign proclaiming, "Liberate Paris". It turns out he's a writer for late night TV talk show host Jimmy Kimmel. He'd injected himself into the press corps, awaiting the opportunity to satirize the proceedings. The resulting chorus of groans and "shut up!"s might indicate that some of the participants took this farce a tad more seriously than a sane person would.

In Maynard's humble opinion, this event is a circus, and it highlights some of the deficiencies of our criminal justice system. I'm not holding my breath waiting for reform to happen, but it's worth remembering that things aren't quite as they should be.

Posted by Maynard · June 8, 2007 10:54 PM · Permalink · Comments (2)
Corruption | Crime | Maynard Post | Satire/Absurdity | Social Commentary

Divorce Rate Lowest In 37 Years

Some see this as good news, others bad. What could be 'bad' about the divorce rate going down? Well, it's not necessarily 'divorce' that's the problem, it's the disintegration of families with children. Some stats indicate that the divorce rate is at its lowest since 1970 because more and more people are just living together, but breakups still happen. Children, you see, don't know or care about 'divorce.' All they know is their lives are changing, and mommy and daddy are breaking up. Read the whole article. There is a legitimacy to both sides of the argument on this one. It also goes to show you that sometimes statistic aren't what matter, but what's going on behind the numbers.

U.S. divorce rate lowest since 1970

By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

Yet Americans aren't necessarily making better choices about their long-term relationships. Even those who study marriage and work to make it more successful can't decide whether the trend is grounds for celebration or cynicism...

Some experts say relationships are as unstable as ever — and divorces are down primarily because more couples live together without marrying. Other researchers have documented what they call "the divorce divide," contending that divorce rates are indeed falling substantively among college-educated couples but not among less-affluent, less-educated couples...

The number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960; the marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in past 25 years; and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970.

Adding such factors together, Patrick Fagan of the conservative Heritage Foundation sees a bad situation.

"Cohabitation is very fragile, and when unmarried parents split, for the child it might as well be a divorce," Fagan said. "Among those who are marrying there's increased stability, but overall the children of the nation are getting a rawer and rawer deal from their parents."

Posted by Tammy · May 11, 2007 02:51 PM · Permalink · Comments (1)
Children | Relationships | Social Commentary

Paris Hilton Wants Pardon Because She "Enlivens" Your Mundane Life

Paris Hilton: Mugged by Repercussions

Actually, I always viewed her as someone to remind people about what not to become, and how we can all feel better about ourselves for being...ourselves.

Paris 2.0: An online plea for sympathy

Paris Hilton, socialite, sometimes actress, singer, and heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune, is using the Web dig up a get-out-of-jail-free card.

PC World reports that a link to this online petition has been posted to her MySpace page. The petition urges California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to pardon the socialite who was recently sentenced to 45 days in jail for driving with a suspended license. She has been ordered to report to the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, Calif. on June 5.

It's not clear who the source of the petition is, and to describe it as over-the-top would be putting it mildly. A sample of the reasons she should be granted leniency, according to the petition:

--"She provides hope for young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives."

--In addition, she "is notable for her leading roles on the FOX reality series The Simple Life and in the remake of the Vincent Price horror classic "House of Wax".

--And besides, "Paris Hilton did not hurt, injure, or kill anyone or anything."

Nah, actually, she just drove drunk, and then did it again, with a suspended license and her lights off. At night. But nobody got hurt. Actually, I think the internet discussion is getting it right with her real panic at her 45 day jail sentence for violating her DUI probation is that her TV show may have to change its name from "The Simple Life" to "The Simple Lice." Yes, it's awful and just the sort of thing, I'm sure, she thought her 'position' would protect her from.

Just as the outraged British were reminded when President Bush winked at Queen Elizabeth, we aren't anyone's 'subjects' and there are no class lines here to shield the vapid from fairness, honesty and the non-'royal' experience.

Every now and then it would be nice to get proof of that.

Posted by Tammy · May 9, 2007 04:56 PM · Permalink · Comments (12)
Celebrity | Crime | Justice/Judiciary | Social Commentary

Even the French Know To Not Like Themselves

In fact, they hate themselves more than anyone else, including us. Who likes them the most? The Germans of course. The French, after all, were so accommodating in the middle of that last century of ours.

French said to outpace Americans in French-bashing

PARIS (Reuters) - The French dislike themselves even more than the Americans dislike them, according to an opinion poll published on Friday.

The survey of six nations, carried out for the International Herald Tribune daily and France 24 TV station, said 44 percent of French people thought badly of themselves against 38 percent of U.S. respondents who had a negative view of the French...

Looked at from another perspective, the Germans have the highest regard for their neighbours, with 73 percent saying they had a positive view of the French.

All kidding aside, this is what the left works to achieve--a population that loathes itself so much, the citizenry retreat and engage in other destructive behaviors. It's how the left feels about humanity, and how better than to condition people to do your bidding. After all, if you can make everyone hate themselves as much as you hate yourself, then you're not strange anymore, are you? Your destructive, MalNar behavior becomes the 'norm', by default.

The French have a great chance to reject this on May 6 when they choose a new president. For their sake, and ours, let's hope they choose Sarkozy and leave behind decades of their miserable self-loathing (projected onto the United States via envy and jealousy) and rejoin the family of nations.

If you're not sure about Sarkozy, here's the one thing that tells you he's the one: the Islamist thugs who have burning France, rioting, and causing genral havoc, have a slogan--"Anyone but Sarkozy."

Does that help? ;)

Posted by Tammy · April 27, 2007 12:35 PM · Permalink · Comments (4)
Internationalism | Leftists | Social Commentary

David Limbaugh: Confronting the Donkey

We're at a point in time when we're all looking for some political clarity, and I have someone for you. As Democrats run roughshod over the president, the Bush administration doesn't think enough of itself to take charge of the situation, and other Republican leadership either saying nothing or actually siding with the malevolent Democrat leftist cut-and-run crowd, David Limbaugh is a man whose website offers his regular commentary and columns on the inexplicable situation we all face. If you don't already, with all the Usual Suspect sites we visit regularly and so much at stake, it's time to add David into our mix.

While I disagree with him on certain social issues, it's fair to say David and I, like all of us, find common ground in concern for our nation, the shocking lack of fortitude and commitment by Republicans leadership for genuine Reaganistic policies, and the unchecked power the Dems seem to be exerting over President Bush. All of these things cast a dark cloud over the future of our nation, and we must take control of the situation. David's current column is an example of his willingness to speak the truth about what we face and his clarity about the matter at hand.

Confronting the Donkey

I simply cannot believe President Bush withdrew Sam Fox's nomination for Belgium ambassador. When will he confront congressional Democrats with the same resolve he brings to the war on terror? He doesn't need to get down on their level of stridency and sniping, but he should scrap the illusion that they are operating in good faith and want to work collegially or constructively with him.

If the last six years prove nothing else, they show that Democrats are unwaveringly hostile to this administration. Bush's cordiality in return has only emboldened them to new heights of incivility...

But I am suggesting he stand up to these politicians who have made him their sworn enemy and that he go on the offense in getting his message out -- as passionately, unapologetically and relentlessly as the Democrats have. I am suggesting he challenge every one of their lies with the indignation they deserve...

Unless he [President Bush] devotes some energy toward making his case and defusing the Democrats' propaganda and slander, he'll make less headway in Iraq and the war on terror, and on domestic policy across the board. He'll do little to regain credibility with those who have bought into the lies about him, he'll further dispirit the conservative base, and the foundation for a conservative victory in 2008 will continue to erode...

Please read the entire column and distribute. David sets out what the president needs to do, and address the absolute absurdity of Defense Secretary Gates suggesting we close down Gitmo, as well as the Gonzales feeding frenzy.

David's call is a demand that Republicans, conservatives, and everyone who cares about this nation, must heed. It's a demand that we stand up and protect this nation from the nihilistic and destructive left. That we recognize the left's failure-based cult of victimhood is not in any way, shape or form a legitimate option let alone a morally superior preference.

Suze Orman Knows Money, But Not Men

And just when you thought the celebrity news couldn't get any more personal or surprising. Boy, were we wrong. For some reason, Suze Orman, the world famous money guru, not only announced herself a lesbian to a New York Times Magazine reporter (that I can understand if one is asked and does not want to lie), but then went even further. She noted she's never, ever been with a man, and then labeled herself a 55-year-old virgin. I've been hesitant to blog about this only because I'm probably the last person who should comment on an adult's sexual admissions. But I do know some of you may want to chime in, so here goes.

First, I have a brief Suze Orman encounter story. I had always heard rumors about her, and my gaydar was always off the chart with her, but I never really thought about. Then, in 2003 when my book, "The Death of Right and Wrong," was published, I was booked (for the first and apparently last time) on "The View." There's an entire story with that, as you can imagine, but it will wait for another time. This was way before the Rosie O'Donnell train wreck.

Suze Orman was booked for the same episode and as I was waiting in the green room she walked into the room with her hand outstretched, introduced herself, and had very nice things to say to me. She then outed herself, by introducing her "partner" to me and my publisher's publicist. When she left the room, the publicist, still in some shock, said, "Well, you learn something every day." Yes, indeed we do.

During all of Orman's public life, she has clearly been discreet about her personal life. She's in a business where talking about sexual preference isn't necessary. My work is a different story. Gay politics intrudes in our lives virtually every day. If my being gay wasn't relevant to my perspective on some issues, I would prefer to lead as discreet a life as Orman has. And while I could argue that the focal point of her work transcends gay politics, one indication of why she may have come out now is revealed in the subject matter she addresses next--the financial cost to her and her partner because they are unable to marry.

In the preview article linked to this story, Orman makes a point about estate taxes:

Orman says they'd like to get married, and both "have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."

Now, I'm not sure if it was arranged ahead of time for her to come out to the NYT, or if the NYT decided it was going to out her, but it will be interesting to see how people react to her admission. Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a group that will have the same opinion of her you did before this. It will be interesting to see how Americans in general respond, and what tack the discussion takes.

Posted by Tammy · February 24, 2007 12:06 AM · Permalink · Comments (18)
Celebrity | Money/Capitalism | Relationships | Social Commentary

"Protecting Children"...Yeah, Right...

A rant by Maynard

This is a story that's hard to miss--how states are making new laws to prohibit parents from exposing children to cigarette smoke.

You're also probably aware of numerous laws in a similar spirit, requiring, for example, that children be strapped down in child carriers when in a car.

What's wrong with this? The obvious problem is the Big Brother-type government intrusion into private affairs and onto private property without any compelling reason. Yes, it might be nice if children were never exposed to secondhand smoke, but does it really have to be a law?

But even more importantly, any moron can see that the problem facing children today isn't cigarettes; it's the lack of parents. Children have become a disposable commodity, growing up without a consistent adult presence to guide them into becoming decent human beings. Is it too much to expect that a child be born into the care of a mother and father who are committed be there for him, financially and emotionally, in the years to come?

But no, that's too much to ask, so the activist solution is to demand more government-sponsored day care. Great idea! Leaving a cluster of kids warehoused for 10 hours every day under supervision of a minimum-wage attendant will do wonders for their development...Not! Oh, and the schools will also feed your kids for you, because we can't expect parents to rustle up two slices of bread and some peanut butter and jelly.

Our laws show us how we've become fanatical enforcers of irrelevant trivia while turning a non-judgmental eye to the vital aspects of upbringing. We punish parents for meaningless infractions while enabling and even encouraging them to perpetrate major sins. We cheat our children in despicable ways and then congratulate ourselves on our excellent stewardship. This, and not secondhand smoke, is the true crime of our era.

Posted by Maynard · December 1, 2006 01:15 PM · Permalink · Comments (2)
Big Government | Maynard Post | Social Commentary

Perplexed by Men's Underwear Mystery Ad

Despite what some of you may think, I've seen plenty of men's underwear, and I am not generally perplexed by or, at the very least, offended (gasp!) by it. Now, let me just warn you. This might be in bad taste, but that is, in part, the point here. The issue confronting us is a men's underwear ad from J.C. Penney online. This was sent to me by a friend because he was surprised by it and didn't know if he was turning into a prude and wanted my opinion. I told him not only would I be his Prude-O-Meter, all of you would be, too.

His concern is the fact that in this men's underwear ad, little is left to the imagination about what exactly is under the underwear. For me, upon seeing that sort of ad, especially in the newspaper junk mail, my imagination has never really kicked in anyway (okay, well, except for the Victoria's Secret underwear, but that really doesn't even count as real underwear).

I took a look and while surprised at the, uh, obviousness of what is underneath the briefs, I was even more taken aback by what appeared to be a, well, spot, on the briefs. My general assessment--overall, this is an okay ad which is honest about what the product is for. And yet, was it just a nutty photog and a sloppy model to blame for the other issue?

One of the strangest things about this is I do now have to warn you about clicking through this link. It's certainly not obscene, but it may be a bit too much for some of you. Am I wrong to even warn you? Do I think you are uptight and you're really not? Is my friend a prude? Will cats and dogs ever become true friends? What does Ahmadinnerjacket want for Christmas? Oh, yeah, he doesn't celebrate Christmas. So, with that, here it is.

Men's Underwear Ad

Posted by Tammy · November 29, 2006 09:20 AM · Permalink · Comments (19)
Shopping | Social Commentary

The Difference Between Men and Women

This elusive, up-until-now completely unknown information has finally been discovered after what is clearly Nobel-prize worthy research and insight. How they finally came up with the answer is beyond me, and gives me a new-found respect and admiration for research geeks. Here is the core of their stunning doscovery revealing how men and women differ in relationships and sex:

Overall, women favoured "someone who cares about you" as their top quality in a partner, while men rated most highly that that special someone "enjoys sex".

Amazing, isn't it? Personally, I'm still in shock. I thought this was one of those questions that wouldn't be solved in my lifetime. Now that it is, I think I might not even need my half-a-Tylenol PM tonight, and maybe the world can now turn its genius on curing cancer. But I'm really glad they solved the Man-Woman problem first.

Hey, wait a minute. This discovery was made in Australia, where everything is upside-down. Could that mean that in this hemisphere men favor "someone who cares about them" while women are the ones who rate most highly someone who "enjoys sex"?

Hmmm...

Posted by Tammy · November 28, 2006 10:00 PM · Permalink · Comments (4)
Relationships | Social Commentary

Hungry? Nah, You Just Have 'Very Low Food Security'

Federal bureau-rats have a new euphemism for us when it comes to hunger. Instead of being "hungry," you actually have "Very Low Food Security." I guess that's one way to erase hunger. Just like opening the borders completely eliminates "illegal immigration."

US bureaucrats erase American 'hunger'

The US government has tweaked its terminology in referring to the nearly 11 million Americans who face a constant struggle with hunger to refer to them as people with "very low food security"...But unlike last year's report on hunger in America, which labelled families who don't get enough to eat as having "food insecurity with hunger", this year's report referred to them as having "very low food security".

The change in terminology has angered groups that fight hunger who say it is aimed at hiding a stark reality.

This confuses me even further. Considering obesity is at epidemic proportions (we all see it every day), where are these 'hungry' people? Is being hungry every now and then necessarily a bad thing? How is 'hunger' classified? Simply as not feeling full all the time? Really--just what does this mean? What are the parameters of what this one 'hunger' advocate is talking about:

"There are 35 million people in this country who are struggling with hunger, no matter what you call it," he added. "And there is no way ultimately to obscure the fact that we're an incredibly wealthy country with 35 million people who are struggling with hunger."

Notice, the word 'starving' isn't used by these people, because no one is starving in this nation. It's also safe to say, in our culture of excess, that the definition of 'suffering from hunger' should be specifically defined. Because at the rate we're going, it very well could be people who aren't 20 pounds overweight.

Posted by Tammy · November 21, 2006 09:59 AM · Permalink · Comments (5)
Big Government | Food/Drink | Social Commentary

The Toad Less Traveled

Lady contemplates her addiction

The private life of a cocker spaniel is, well, more sordid than we could ever have imagined. This is indeed a cautionary tale for all who will listen.

The Dog Who Loved to Suck on Toads

"We noticed Lady spending an awful lot of time down by the pond in our backyard," Laura Mirsch recalls. Lady would wander the area, disoriented and withdrawn, soporific and glassy-eyed..."Then, late one night after I'd put the dogs out, Lady wouldn't come in," Laura Mirsch says. "She finally staggered over to me from the cattails. She looked up at me, leaned her head over and opened her mouth like she was going to throw up, and out plopped this disgusting toad."

It turned out the toads were toxic -- and, if licked, the fluids on their skin provided a hallucinogenic effect.

"We couldn't keep our dog's addiction a secret any longer," Laura Mirsch says. "The neighbors all knew that Lady was a drug addict, and soon the other dogs weren't allowed to play with her."

In the end, Lady seems to have found a way to manage her problem.

"She seems to have outgrown the wild toad-obsessed years of her youth," Mirsch says, "and now only sucks on weekends."

Wow. Do you think it was her horrible childhood? Low self-esteem? Being teased all the time for being a "dog"? Or perhaps, do I dare suggest it? She just liked the feeling and there was no good reason whatsoever to be a drug addict except for the fact that she was bored, had nothing else to do, it was fun, and knew someone else would take care of her? Lady could have just said no, but she didn't. Say no that is. She did--say no to no. She said no to the wrong thing is what I'm trying to say. She said "yes" to toads, "no" to, uh, no.

Yes, you see, this is the end of the toad, er, road for those who have absolutely no reason to develop any personal responsibility or independence. Lady's childhood was fine, even idyllic. She was confident and happy. Until she put a frog on her mouth. All it takes is that one time. And then you'll be reduced to being thrilled about doing it "only" on the weekends.

Isn't that the way it always happens?

And one last thing--dogs weren't getting high until George W. Bush became president. Think about that.

A Relatively Unrelated Post:

Legends of the Green Faerie

British Air Allows the Hijab, But not the Cross

As the English continue their surrender to the Islamic mob, they punish those who demurely display their commitment to Christ. (HT Janet)

Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross

A committed Christian said today she planned to take legal action against her employers British Airways after the airline ruled that displaying her crucifix breached uniform rules

Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA's dress code...

Miss Eweida, who has an unblemished record during seven years at BA, is suing her employer for religious discrimination after being suspended from work without pay for two weeks.

She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone "diversity training" - including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace...

She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA's Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs.

Miss Eweida said last night: "I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus. British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel.

"Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith. I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens."

So there you have it--there is to be tolerance for everyone except Christians. I think we can also presume that if Miss Eweida had worn a Star of David the result would have been the same. Heads up, my friends, as the British help facilitate the new Caliphate.

Posted by Tammy · October 15, 2006 12:04 PM · Permalink · Comments (3)
Death of Right and Wrong | Orwellian | Religion | Social Commentary | War on Radical Islam

"Careful What You Wish For"

A post by Maynard

It sure would be nice if money could buy happiness. Too bad it's not that simple. Money is like fire. If you don't have the maturity and wisdom and character to control it, it may destroy you. Even so, we all want it. And with valid reason: Money may be hazardous, but neither is salvation to be found in poverty.

Here's an interesting story that's the latest instance of an ancient tragedy. A petty criminal in England won the lotto, taking home more than $18 million (£9.7 million). So he turned his life around and lived happily ever after, right? No, not quite. As the UK Sun reports, the man (editorially referred to as "the lout") blew through almost all the money in 3 years of wild orgies and booze and drugs and sex and every other imaginable indulgence. He lost his girlfriend and was taken advantage of by his other "friends". And now he's back in jail for "affray" (a fight or violent disturbance in a public place).

The "lout", a.k.a. Mikey Carroll, has written (or had written on his behalf) this book, Careful What You Wish For. (This isn't a recommendation that you buy it; just a note that it exists. Might make a nice gift for a friend who expresses a frequent wish to win the lottery. But they probably won't appreciate it.)

Within the bounds of a relatively free society, the essential battles we face are often against our own demons. When those demons control our lives, no amount of good fortune can save us.

Posted by Maynard · October 7, 2006 03:07 AM · Permalink · Comments (0)
Maynard Post | Social Commentary

My Answer About the Use of "Torture" Against Terrorists

This little gem came from this post about the shock from the international community about the "torture" the CIA has listed it wants to use. Even the horrific example of pulling on a terrorist's shirt to get his attention. I know, I haven't been able to sleep for weeks about that one.

In the Comments section this little ditty was indeed just submitted. I thought it a good opportunity to counter the sophomoric arguments against persuasive measures to get mass murderers to talk about their next plan, especially because those arguments are seeping with moral relativism and sick self-obsession. Personally, I am sick and tired of this puerile tripe, Malignant Narcissism and nihilism masquerading as "progressive politics" and "concern for American values." My comments are bracketed and bold. I have also redacted this Commenter's name and email to save him/her any further embarrassment. You know who you are.

Tammy,

I can't believe that you are being honest in this article. Do you really believe that we should advocate torture?

You make fun of the types of torture that the CIA would like to administer, comparing it to a night out at a night club. That is sad.

[Believe it, it's the truth. You need to get out more].

Let's say that the CIA only wanted to tap a terrorist's forehead with a number 2 pencil. Would you make fun of that? Would it be funny if after tapping the terrorist's forehead for 4 days that the terrorist became psychotic for lack of sleep? Would it be funny if after a week a hole was tapped in his head and became infected? Would it be funny as the terrorist lied there shaking from the fever and chills of the infection from the hole?

[Let's see...tapping a guy with a pencil...an infected sore and a fever while trying to get a mass murdering terrorist to reveal the next plan. Let me think....wait...Yes, I'm all for that. But actually, I'm more all for water-boarding which doesn't take four days; it takes two minutes to work].

How funny would it be if a CIA (under a different regime) decided that you were a terror because of your "revolution book."

[Remarkable. You cannot, or refuse, to distinguish between actions we take to get information about the next mass-murder plan so we can save lives, and a tyrannical regime’s punishment of a writer because they don’t like what’s been written.

This is like saying a husband and father who, when a rapist/killer enters his home to rape and kill, beats him up to stop him, is equal to the neighbor who goes outside and for no reason pummels the paperboy. Young person, and you must be young considering your insipid position, these situation are not the same. One is justified, the other is not. They are not morally equal. They are not morally relative.

What a world we live in when this still has to be pointed out.]

I guess my point is this. In my America we don't justify torture, we give everyone due process and avoid cruel and unusual punishment, because those are inalienable human rights, that come from both the Constitution and God.

[That's for American citizens, not foreign mass murdering terrorists who are enemy combatants. As a matter of fact, if you were to suggest to the world that our Constitution and Bill of Rights be adopted by every country on Earth, you'd be laughed out of the room. To give the benefits of our law to foreign murderers who exist to kill us is an insult to every American who works hard to make this country great. Our rights are not to be spread around to anyone who will take them like yesterday's expired blueberry muffin].

I want my America to be a shining example of what government by the people can be. That we can stand strong in the face of terror, because we know deep down that freedom, and fairness are rights given by God not man. And that in the end they will prevail over terror.

[Aww, that's very nice and sweet, and such a lovely sentiment, but sentiment won't uncover plots of mass murder or get savages to talk. Now go look again at the people jumping from the 80th floor of the WTC. Nice cuddly, happy feelings are wonderful. I want this government to be all it can be as well. But in order to have that you first have to believe that you are worthy of defending, and then implement that defense].

I just don't like to see those principles cheapened.

[Here's the cheapened principle: your desire to feel morally superior coming at the cost of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives. You and I are different--I am less interested in the way I am perceived than I am in making sure we do everything, everything possible to make sure we get all the information we need to save innocent people from dying. That includes the 2 minutes of water-boarding applied to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad which gave us the details of at least 12 planned attacks against the United States innocent civilians, including the plan to fly an airplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles.

The "cheapened principle" is not considering the thousands of people dead in order so you (or we?) can argue and be somehow seen as "fair"? Fair to whom? When does "fair" kick in for the murdered, when making a terrorist uncomfortable for two-minutes (water-board!) would save their lives, but you don't want that because it would irritate your idea of you being decent. The indecency is allowing more people to die so you can think good thoughts about yourself. Now that's sick, self-obsessed, and contrary to everything it means to be an American.

Now, just for good measure, here's a picture from the Beslan School Massacre. Because for people like you this is all about theory as opposed to real people at risk, real people targeted and real people dying:

Now, I would use water-boarding, or even tapping a guy on the head with a pencil for days on end to stop this. You, you freak, wouldn't. Now *that's* sick. In fact, I would do even more. And considering you're appalled by my support of shirt-tugging and sleep-deprivation, I won't give you nightmares with a description of what I would support to get a terrorist animal to talk so we can save innocent lives. But if you or your family ever, God forbid, gets hurt or killed in a terrorist action, the first thing you're going to wonder is, Did we do enough to stop this? Now that water-boarding is banned, the answer will be "no, we didn't," and it is then, when you are holding a dead loved-one in your arms, you will wish this was the United States of Tammy].