Meant to post this sooner … slipped my mind.
Via the Jerusalem Post:
Days after calling Iran a “stabilizing” force in the Middle East, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy issued a statement harshly criticizing Iran’s call on Thursday to destroy Israel.
“I totally condemn these words,” Douste-Blazy said on France-Inter radio, in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement Thursday that the solution to the current Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel.
“Peace and security in Lebanon and its borders has to be preserved by the Lebanese government and people. Deployment of foreign forces is not acceptable in any shape unless it is just, based on UN rules and preserves the unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon,” he said.
The words are “absolutely unacceptable on anyone’s part, especially from a head of state,” Douste-Blazy said.
What he said just a few days ago:
“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran – a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region.”
I’m glad he’s finally come to his senses, although it should have been obvious to him before now that Iran was anything but a ‘stabilizing’ force in the region. Examples are below:
It used to be when you talked to a woman and asked her what the definition of feminism was, the general answer would be “equal rights.” Once upon a time, that was exactly what the feminist movement was about – they pushed for the right to vote, equality in the workforce …
Somewhere along the way in the 60’s, when the resurging feminist movement really started gaining momentum, the group splintered between women who wanted to continue to fight for that equality and women who wanted to go even further in order to be ‘liberated’ from society’s ‘constraints’ (like marriage and traditional family, for example – remember the quote commonly attributed to Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?). Women’s libbers of the late 60s and all through the 70’s pushed that theme, and we’re seeing the fruits of their ‘labor’ even today (more people choosing to live together than marry, women ‘choosing’ to be lesbians because men are such ‘oppressors’, children being born out of wedlock, etc). In other words, radical women’s libbers from the era earlier mentioned have essentially been a bane to a mature, responsible social culture amongst women.
A young attendee (Samantha Soller, Bucknell University student) to a recent NOW annual conference found out first hand just how far (out) the women’s lib crowd from the 70s had come from their days of bra-burning and filed this report, which I’ll excerpt (caution: some language/terms might not be suitable for young folks to read):
In a workshop designed to determine why young people are hesitant or resistant to identify themselves as feminists, participants were asked to describe what it means to be a feminist. Responses to the question of what a feminist is included “a recognition that men and women are not politically, socially, or economically equal” an acknowledgment that “women are better than men” and an “undermining of certain constructions of gender.” The woman leading the exercise admitted she wasn’t a feminist, “but a womanist, since [she’s] a woman of color.” Boisterous applause filled the room with each description of feminism.
So, why are young women hesitant to call themselves feminists? The instructor told us that feminism is very political, and the negative backlash is “due to a threat to the power struggle.” She also said that “the stigma to feminism is attached to homophobia.”
Amidst NOW’s “soap opera of feminism” which included braless women, booths with banners declaring “I love female orgasms” women who used to be men, current and former prostitutes, open displays of intimate affection, people referring to NOW President Kim Gandy as “my leader” and an affirmative reply to a question asking if clothing is optional, the “veteran feminists” just couldn’t seem to figure out what was scaring off young people.
The “I’m Not a Feminist, butâ€¦” Workshop was designed to explore feminist stereotypes. The audience determined that the average person thinks feminists are butch, sex-crazed, pro-abortion lesbians who never want to get married or have babies. If NOW members want young women — and the rest of the world — to respect them and their ideas and not accept these stereotypes, they ought not to perpetuate them.
Based on my exposure to feminists at Bucknell, the Conference, however, was exactly as I expected it to be. Women with spiked hair and tattoos walked around clad in tee shirts reading “I love my vibrator.” They detailed inane grievances, like the fact that men get more magazines than women get in prisons. Many also showed their age by expressing anger that back in the ’60s, everyone did drugs and that generation turned out fine, but now people spend years and years in jail for using illegal substances.
The NOW feminist leaders praised women’s studies classes that focus on activism, and denounced people and groups that did not see a “rainbow of genders.” I even learned some of their language and which words are taboo: guys = bad; girls = good; ladies = bad, women = good; gal = always bad; babe = good if hippie singer/songwriter Ani DiFranco says it. Statistics were cited, like those regarding the number of women abused by the sex trade, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear the speaker announce that “the numbers are not reflective of the current status.” At least now they’re admitting their “facts” are, well, not facts.
Even while tackling tough, important issues, the feminists turned them around. We were discussing the horrors of human sex trafficking and “sex tours” and although the oppression and degradation of women was mentioned, many women in the room were more outraged that the services cater to men, the enemy!
I’ve come across a similar attitude as well on the issue of sex, when talking with the few modern day feministas who will actually have anything to do with a repressed conservative held-back-by-men woman such as myself. Here’s how a typical conversation usually goes:
Feminist: “I think it’s outrageous the way men can get away with having multiple sex partners [note from ST: not at the same time!], but when women do the same, they’re considered ‘loose’, and frowned upon.”
Sister Toldjah: “So what are you saying? That you think it should be encouraged that men refrain from having multiple sex partners so the standard for men and women on that issue might one day be the same?”
ST: “What do you mean, then?
F: “What I mean is that I want to feel like I can have multiple sex partners, come in and talk about it at my work on Monday amongst the gals, and not have the guys nearby look at me like I’m loose.”
ST: (perplexed) “So you’re saying you want the standards for women to be lowered?”
F: (blinks) “Uhhm, well – no. I just want to be able to sleep with who I want, when I want, be able to talk about it, and be treated just like men are when they brag about it.”
ST: “In other words, your answer to my prior question was ‘yes, I do want our standards lowered.'”
F: (becoming agitated) “No, that is not what I’m saying. I just want the playing field leveled.”
ST: “Yes, you’re saying you want it lowered to be on the same level we have for any male who is promiscuous.”
F: (huffs) “You’re putting words in my mouth.”
ST: (chuckling internally) “Nope – just following what you’re saying to its logical conclusion.”
F: “How’s that?”
ST: “By saying, in terms of sexual encounters, you want women to be treated in the same way men who have lots of casual sex are. Do you think that standard we hold for men on promiscuity is a high one or a low one?”
F: (no answer)
ST: “That’s what I thought. Instead of setting the standard higher for men, you want to lower it for women. Sorry, but if being ‘liberated’ equates to being able to go in to work on Monday to brag about how many sexual partners you had over the weekend, count me out.”
Usually around that point I get accused of being a subservient ultra-right winger who doesn’t appreciate what ‘women before me’ have done to help pave the way for the woman I am today. Which is entirely wrong. I appreciate the women of yesteryear fighting for the right of women to vote. I appreciate the women of yesteryear pushing for equality in the work place (real equality, not the affirmative action stuff). What I don’t appreciate the latter-day uber-fems of the late 60’s and 70’s doing is 1) denigrating the very thought of responsible sexual behavior, 2) not understanding that men are not the root of all evil, 3) encouraging women who became pregnant from irresponsible sexual behavior to abort their ‘inconvienience’, and 4) rejecting the concept of marriage along with the traditional two parent family. I think all of the above have had disastrous consequences on society and (with the ‘aid’ of the “Great Society” programs from the 60’s) have led to so many of the social problems we see today (which I noted earlier). As far as I’m concerned, radical feminists from that era didn’t “pave” any roads for modern day women. They bulldozed them.
Sadly, today’s uber-feminists don’t seek to moderate or tone down such attitudes and/or behavior. As Soller notes, it’s only getting worse. Which is why ‘subservient ultra right wing women’ like myself must never give up the fight against them.
Update I: Wanted to add some book recommendations that discuss this subject more in depth:
– The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (also by Tammy Bruce)
(Scroll down for updates)
Ever seen the movie Stroker Ace? Ok, probably not unless you’re from North Carolina (it was filmed right here in Charlotte at Charlotte Motor Speedway – before they started selling Speedway name sponsorships – in 1982/83). In the movie there is a scene towards the end that I was reminded of today when I read about Lieberman opponent Ned Lamont’s big lie regarding his relationship with certain lefty bloggers.
The movie, starring Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Jim Nabors, and Loni Anderson, is about a race car driver named Stroker Ace (Reynolds) who signs on with Clyde Torkle (Beatty) who, in turn, sponsor’s Ace’s car. Torkle owns a chain of southern fried chicken fast food restaurants, and Ace spends most of the movie trying to get out of the contract with Torkle (in addition to trying to get – ahem – closer to Anderson’s character Pembroke) after Torkle makes him do promotional things like dress up in a chicken suit and circle around the track on top of a giant egg. Towards the end of the movie, one of the characters in the movie (name I can’t recall) is asked by Ace to pretend to be a representative of a big company and meet Torkle to negotiate a deal where he (unnamed character) buys Torkle’s company. The underlying goal (which the character doesn’t mention but the viewer knows) is that if Ace’s friend can convince Torkle to sell his company, Ace can get out of his sponsorship contract with Torkle (for Stroker Ace history buffs – all two of you – please correct me if I got any of that wrong [Note: Check the comments section of this post for a clarification – I may have gotten the particulars wrong re: the negotiation between Torkle and Ace’s friend – but the main part, where I mentioned Ace’s friend lied by acting like he “knew nothing” is correct]).
Before the big meeting, Ace trains his countrified friend to speak just a few sentences, the main one being “I know nothing. I am only the messenger.” So everytime Torkle asks him a question at the meeting, the guy replies “I know nothing, I am only the messenger.” He’s trying to hide the fact that he’s a country boy and friend of Ace’s, as well as the fact that Ace is using him to try and get out of his contract with Torkle.
Now that I’ve thoroughly bored you, here’s the quote from Lamont that reminded me of that line from Stroker Ace. In response to questions from reporters about his relationship with Jane Hamsher, the infamous proprietress of the blog Firedoglake as well as the gal who posted the altered photo of Lieberman in blackface, candidate Lamont answered:
Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: “I don’t know anything about the blogs. I’m not responsible for those. I have no comment on them.”
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. As Maguire clearly points out in detail (as does Malkin) candidate Lamont most certainly does know something about the blogs. A lot, in fact. For starters, there was lefty blogstar Markos “Screw them!” Moulitsas aka Daily Kos – who starred in a Lamont campaign ad back in May. Maguire and Malkin note more extensive ties to Kos as well as Hamsher at their respective blogs.
Thanks to lefty bloggers like Kos and Hamsher, Lamont saw his popularity rise considerably. Now, it may be the cause of his downfall, perhaps by being (as I noted in my earlier post on Hamsher) his Wellstone-memorial-turned-political-rally moment. On a more national note, ST reader and friend Les wrote in response to Hamsher’s stunt:
This is the Blue political cult’s Gettysburg moment. If they are defeated in CT, it is as far as they will ever advance.
I think he’s right. Or more to the point, I hope he’s right. Hamsher’s stunt was bad enough, and Lamont’s Stroker Ace “I know nothing, I am only the messenger” lie moment only makes it worse for him.
This has been your Southern-fried recap of the latest on l’affaire de Hamsher.
Sidenote I: I wonder if the NYTimes, who this past weekend endorsed Lamont over Lieberman, will weigh in?
Sidenote II: Speaking of the NYT, I just read where they actually reviewed Stroker Ace back in 1983. LOL …
Friday PM Update I: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers!
Friday PM Update II: ROTFL – Today, Fox Sports, in honor of the new flick Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (opening today) has posted their list of “must-see” NASCAR movies … Stroker Ace is on the list at number 9
The Oliver Stone-directed movie World Trade Center will open next Wednesday in theaters nationwide. There has been a considerable buzz about the movie in the MSM, and conservative pundits like Cal Thomas and Brent Bozell are giving it high marks.
The MSM buzz and conservative punditry praising the movie hasn’t impressed ST reader and blogger extraordinaire Cavalier X, who explains in a moving post why he won’t be standing in line to see the movie:
Regardless of the movie’s bias or lack of same, it was made by notorious anti-American director Oliver Stone, who never met a Communist dictator he didn’t like, and who referred to the terrorist attacks as “the revolt of September 11th.” The movie also features actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, who believes the United States is “responsible in some way” for 9/11. People like that don’t deserve a dime of my hard-earned American cash, nor do the anti-American causes which some of that money will ultimately fund. I don’t need to watch Hollywood half-wits faking shock and sorrow they may have felt for perhaps a few seconds at best before they began blaming America for being the victim of terrorism.
My memories of 9/11 have not yet begun to fade. I almost wish they would. I will be able to see those people falling — or worse, jumping — out of those windows any time I close my eyes for the rest of my life. When I travel to north New Jersey or New York City, I’m still unable to stop myself from searching the now-unfamiliar skyline for towers where none now exist.
He’s got some video recommendations for anyone who shares his opinion on Stone’s latest movie venture. Make sure to check ’em out.
For the record, yours truly hasn’t decided whether or not she’s going to see it yet. The jury is still out. I’d planned on seeing United 93 when it came out this spring, but I never could bring myself to go to the theater to watch it. Honestly, I didn’t think I would be able to handle it emotionally.
Will you be seeing the World Trade Center movie?
Related: Michelle Malkin has info on some BBC ‘comedians’ who apparently think things like 9-11, and terrorism in general, are ‘funny.’
Via the AP:
SEATTLE – The man accused in last week’s shooting rampage at the Jewish Federation office that left one woman dead was charged Wednesday with nine felony counts, including violation of the state’s hate-crime law.
Naveed Afzal Haq is charged with aggravated first-degree murder in the death of Pamela Waechter, 58, director of the Jewish charity’s annual fundraising campaign. Five other women were wounded.
Prosecutors have 30 days to decide whether to seek the death penalty.
“Make no mistake, this was a hate crime,” King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng told a news conference. “The attack on these women was an attack on the Jewish community, not only in Seattle but throughout our nation and the world.”
The gunman broke into the charity’s building on Friday. According to court documents, Haq talked to 911 operators from the office, identified himself by name and said: “This is a hostage situation and I want these Jews to get out.”
He later added: “These are Jews and I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”
I hope prosecutors decide to seek the death penalty.
Jihad Watch notes a factoid that AP reporter Gene Johnson (deliberately?) left out of his article:
In this AP story on Naveed Haq, “Man charged in Seattle shooting rampage” (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist), Gene Johnson of AP leaves out Haq’s declaration, “I’m a Muslim American, I’m angry with Israel.” He does quote, however, Haq’s statement, “These are Jews and I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”
This omission makes his grievance seem purely political — one that any self-respecting Leftist would share. This is compounded by the fact that Johnson also neglects to mention that Haq is Pakistani, thereby leading the reader to the impression that when he says “our people,” he must be Palestinian or Lebanese. After all, he couldn’t possibly mean “Muslim people,” could he? Everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace!
Chuck Colson, writing for Townhall.com, explains the real deal behind the ‘cutting edge science’ medical researchers in Britain are touting that would supposedly eliminate autism:
British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not “curing” autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people.
There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome. As I have previously told “BreakPoint” listeners, that testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population. By some estimates, 90 percent of these people—who, if allowed to live, can live happy and healthy lives—are aborted.
In the absence of such a test for autism, researchers at University College Hospital London are settling for what they call a “close enough” solution. They have applied for permission to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, to screen out male embryos in families with a history of autism.
Their “logic” is that since 90 percent of all autistic people are males, their testing would allow families with autistic children “to have a daughter free from the condition.” Of course, they would have also killed males who were not autistic. Talk about wholesale gender cleansing.
The critics are not convinced. Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People drew the what-should-be obvious inference: “Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued.” In the brave new world of the researchers, it is reasonable to fear “that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted.”
Here in the states, bioethicist Ben Mitchell said that “if unborn children are being eliminated for a genetic disposition to autism, no one is safe . . . Today autism, tomorrow intelligence below 70 I.Q., the next day male pattern baldness. When will this madness stop?”
With the way things are going in the UK, one day women who are found to be pregnant with less than perfect children may be able to abort that child in the privacy of their own home.
It’s all about convienience, isn’t it?
My friend John Hawkins, along with a few of my favorite bloggers, has come up with an answer to left-wing blogosphere’s (Netroots) endorsement and campaign fundraising for several Democratic candidates in House and Senate races all over the country. The answer is Rightroots. Lorie Byrd, one of the bloggers who helped John select the group of candidates to support, explains:
John Hawkins enlisted Mary Katharine Ham, Erick Erickson, Patrick Hynes, Ed Morrissey, Robert Bluey and me (on behalf of Wizbang and Wizbang Politics) to help him compile a list of 18 candidates in competitive Congressional races across the country who could use the support of our readers to make the difference in holding the House and Senate for the GOP.
Incumbents, because they already have name recognition, a good amount of money and support, were not included. We also decided not to wade into any primary fights, so no primary candidates appear on the list. Gubernatorial candidates are subject to different campaign finance laws, so they were also excluded.
Great idea. On the primary front, maybe in 2008 they could get involved in some competitive Republican primaries where challengers to incumbent Republicans who haven’t been doing their jobs would receive some significant support? Just a thought …
We decided to keep the list somewhat short so that maximum attention could be directed to each of the 18 very competitive races, so please don’t be surprised or offended if your favorite candidate is not included. There are literally hundreds of deserving candidates across the country, but we tried to zero in on those congressional races in which we believed our readers could make the most difference.
To see a list of those candidates, click here. Next to their names is the amount that has been contributed so far by Rightroots supporters.
Here’s more about the candidates, and how you can help out.
Disclaimer: I am not being paid to say any of this.
Unrelated to Rightroots, but following on the theme of supporting candidates in competitive races, I would once again like to encourage readers to help support Senator Joe Lieberman in his bid to be re-elected in Connecticut, who is facing an unexpected challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont (whose supporters include prominent lefty anti-war/hate-Bush bloggers Daily Kos and Jane Hamsher) in the upcoming CT primary (the primary is August 8th).
Lieberman is being demonized by the cut and run crowd in Connecticut for refusing to budge from his position on the Iraq war. In my opinion, a Lamont win in the primary there would galvanize the anti-war crowd across the country as never before. Let’s not allow that to happen.
Vital Perspective has video of a Hezbollah terrorist dragging a rocket into a house and firing it. An Israeli airstrike later fired on the house, and presumably killed the Hezbollah terrorist who fired the rocket.
Hat tip: John at Powerline, who writes:
Undoubtedly the dead terrorist was counted as a “civilian casualty,” and who knows how many actual civilians he endangered by launching rockets from inside a house?
To the MSM, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that an Israeli airstrike may have hurt or killed civilians, and the circumstances behind the airstrikes (or ground offensives) are secondary to pushing their idea that the Israelis are indiscriminate killers.
Read the latest developments on the conflict in the Middle East here.
Update: Tom Gross in Canada’s National Post writes about how the media are in Hezbollah’s corner:
LONDON – Large sections of the international media are not only misreporting the current conflict in Lebanon. They are actively fanning the flames.
The BBC world service has a strong claim to be the number-one villain. It has come to sound like a virtual propaganda tool for Hezbollah. As it attempts to prove that Israel is guilty of committing “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” it has introduced a new charge — one which I have heard several times on-air in recent days.
The newscaster reads out carefully selected “audience comments.” Among these are invariably contained some version of the claim that “Israel’s attack on Lebanon” will serve as a “recruitment” drive for al-Qaeda.
But if anything is going to win new recruits for Osama bin Laden and his like, it will not be Israel’s defensive actions, which are far less damaging than Western TV stations would have us believe, but the inflammatory and one-sided way in which they are being reported by those very same news organizations.
Read the whole thing.