This comes by way of HotAir and makes clear that whatever the left touches, it destroys:
This brings to memory two quotes that bring the point home, a point that a reader on my FaceBook blog pointed out:
- “Hopefully the first person she has to LIFT out of a burning building will be a feminist…because obviously it will not matter, that she is unqualified.”
If there is indeed a social revolution under way, it shouldn’t stop with women’s choice to honor their [own] nature. It must also include a newfound respect for men. It was New York City’s firemen who dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The death tally of New York City’s firefighters was: men 343, women 0. Can anyone honestly say you would have wanted a woman coming to your rescue on that fateful day?
Suzanne Venker & Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011), 181-182.
There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)
The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.
We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.
But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….
….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….
….”Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….
…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the proprietor a bad business decision.)*
Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.†
* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”
† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.
David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 12
And here is some good commentary by Julie Borowski:
…The young woman couldn’t complete the job-related obstacle course in that allotted amount of time. She only completed the course once after multiple attempts and it took her 22 minutes.
She failed and she shouldn’t be graduating.
This shouldn’t be about sparing feelings.
Look, nothing against her personally. Being a firefighter clearly isn’t for everyone. It’s physically demanding work. A firefighter who doesn’t meet the stringent physical standards could put other firefighters and civilians in harm’s way.
….It doesn’t help them that the FDNY is hiring women who, frankly, aren’t capable of performing the job because they didn’t pass the test. I’m sure the 44 female firefighters in New York City aren’t too pleased about their work being devalued.
Physical fitness tests are not sexist. It is sexist to hire someone based on their gender, though.
I think Rush did the right thing in apologizing. He said it best in saying by talking about them he became them. We need to hold ourselves to a much higher standard in this dialogue (often times a monologue). And point out times of the media and the left holding a double-standard. Kirsten Powers, a liberal I admire, because she is honest as well as being thorough, writes and speaks about the about the issue at hand:
Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.
Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.
Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.
But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.
Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews “is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?
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!”
Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.
Laura Ingraham talks about her example of a double standard with persons like Barabra Walters giving a liberal women the time of day but merely “laughing off” her won mistreatment:
What this shows is a complete lack of concern for women via the left. It is proof that you must be a certain kind of woman in order to engender the National Organization of Women to come to your defense. Alternatively, you have to be a certain type of man in order to engender hatred from feminists and their organizations. Liberal and conservative, respectively.
A great example comes from Bill Clinton. You never heard a peep out of the left in regards to his behavior and all the WOMEN who complained about his behavior. Could you imagine if this were a conservative man, what vitriolic anger we would never hear the end of from the media:
Former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey told CBS’s 60 Minutes that she was groped by the President when she went to ask advice about her financial difficulties. Ms Willey, 51, said he hugged her, touched her breasts, and put her hand on his aroused genitals.
Mrs Jones is a former Arkansas state clerk who alleged that when Mr Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1991, she was summoned to his room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, by a state trooper. She has said he then dropped then his trousers and, alluding to his genitals, asked her to “kiss it.” She claims that she refused his offer and was then told to keep quiet about the incident. She said that she was later demoted at work as a result.
This 23-year-old former White House aide is the youngest of the President’s women to emerge. Paula Jones’s lawyers discovered her after they spoke to a number of his female aides, in the hope of establishing a pattern of sexual behavior. Ms Lewinsky was an unpaid intern when it is alleged that the President first took an interest in her. It is claimed the two had an affair which lasted a year and that they had sex in the White House.
Ms Flowers is a former nightclub singer who became the focus of attention during Mr Clinton’s 1992 election campaign. She alleged at the time that the she had an affair with Bill Clinton for 12 years while he was governor of Arkansas. She sold tapes of their telephone conversations and said that he offered her a job in local government in exchange for sexual favours. These accusations prompted Mr and Mrs Clinton to admit on national television that they had experienced problems in their marriage.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, 37 a former Miss America, told the New York Daily News on March 31 1998 that she had had consensual sex with Mr Clinton in 1982. Her statement followed allegations that the President, then Governor of Arkansas, had forced her to have sex with him.
Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, who has alleged that she had a sexual relationship with Mr Clinton in 1983. She said that the Arkansas state troopers used to escort him to her house and then wait outside while the two were meeting.
Dolly Kyle Browning
Finally Dolly Kyle Browning, an old friend of Mr Clinton’s from Arkansas has also said she had an affair with him. She claims he tried to start up another relationship with her in 1994.
This doesn’t matter however. Another example from a recent conversation I was having. I posted on my FaceBook an RIP to Andrew Breitbart and mentioned that attacks were surely soon to follow by the Left. Almost immediately an acquaintance of mine posted that Andrew didn’t deserve the respect afforded to a person after his death because Andrew didn’t afford the same to Senator Ted Kennedy when he passed. To which I had two reactions — an initial response and then one later as an afterthought:
Unlike Ted, however, Breitbart didn’t contribute to the rape of one girl and the drowning of another while for years fighting against the Civil Rights Act that was largely supported by Republicans. One does not deserve a “legacy” (as Think Progress says), the other does — at least as the king of new media.
An afterthought. Layla really is beholden to an ideology rather than care and concern for women. This is in fact the case with her linking to a story about a Kennedy’s “legacy.” Ted and John and other Kennedy’s were chauvinistic monsters (I also reference the wonderful book, “Paper Genders,” documenting of the lobotomy Sr. ordered for their [the Kennedy’s] daughter), forcing themselves on girls 16-year olds. Only someone who reveres modern day feminism (really genderism) can post like this. For instance, I posted a response in Zooey Deschanel blog on Rush this:
There are many things to say about the article, but I will comment on just one of them, quote:
“…SPARK brings together some of the brightest, badass women on the planet (like Women’s Media Center co-founder and feminist royalty, Gloria Steinem).”
This is just another example of the women on the left getting undue rewards for being extremists of the 60′s, to wit: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” ~ Steinem
It isn’t about women, its about anti-capitalism. There are women in the business world who practice such principles found in business… they are of no consequence however, since, [quoting from my book] these feminists consider heterosexual relations (a male and female marriage) rape:
Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” Let us allow Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, to set the stage with the following praises about her contemporary, Andrea Dworkin, “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” Why preface Andrea Dworkin? Because she has this to say about men in general: “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
But these are heroes of the left?! Good job. I think with blanket praise of the “Steinems” in the post above is ample proof that the author knows nothing about modern feminist ideology… nor have they read any Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce, Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schlafly, Marybeth Hicks, Kate O’Beirne, and the like.
And I will confidently assert here that Layla, in all her studies, reading of articles on “feminist icons,” and the like – LIKEWISE hasn’t read a single thing from the short list I give. She is concerned, blindly concerned with painting a conservative one way, even if it means using men who rape and kill women. What an odd dichotomy. Which is why — I presume — Republicans chase out of D.C. those who sleep with pages while Democrats give three standing ovations to, and important committee positions to. The Left never ceases to amaze me.
This same thinking applies to this situation. For instance, you see here a few media`ites sounding off on Rush, but they were obviously silent when liberal men attacked women:
All these people are no where to be found when the woman who needs some representation is a conservative or the man attacking the female is a liberal. Ideology IS religion, it IS dogma. It blinds the person to the obvious hypocrisy of how they frame the issue when compared side-by-side with how they frame others. To us it is self-evident, to them, unimaginable.
IBD has an article by Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who almost single handily stopped radical feminists from great strides decades ago. Here, she makes a great point about why Kagan shouldn’t be allowed into our judicial system at such a high level:
…Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will “break free” from the Constitution and join him in “fundamentally transforming” America. That’s the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it’s long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.
When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.
The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “all legislative powers” are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should “make” and “create” law, assume “a role in the legislative process” and give statutes “new meaning that suits new social needs.”
Barak wrote that a judge “is subject to no authority” except himself, and he “must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it.” Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?
Despite Barak’s weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her “judicial hero.” Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan’s praise of Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself.” Bork said that Barak “establishes a world record for judicial hubris.” He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that “there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern.”