Smarter Than Thou!

A LEGALLY MANDATED BEAUTY

   GLORIA Allred is a radical and/or feminist attorney, as the two categories are the same.  She takes on lots of causes, if they will yield her being on TV as a guest commentator.  She is usually outraged, being un-manned, and shrill (which is her only truly feminine characteristic).  She also dresses all in red, but, as only women notice such things, I have not.  Recently she was on the Phil McGraw show.  Phil is a “doctor” who tries to help people, if their cases are gossipy enough to engender a female audience, and thus high ratings.   

   This show’s issue was people who had suffered ‘injustices.”  The cases were “serious”(?).  One guy was bothered by a neighbor’s dog who… barked every now and then.  Gloria’s case involved a woman who was “fired.”  At least this was the way it was presented to the audience.  Here are the “facts,” as presented by Gloria. 

   This woman worked as a bartender.  She gained weight and, as a result, was fired.  The actual facts were these:  the bar is an high-class bar which caters to young rich men and hires girl bartenders based SOLELY on their appearance and appeal to these men.  The bartender was NOT fired, but was transferred to another bar within the same premises, with no cut in pay.  She has since refused to go to work, and is suing for… for something. 

   There was some other lawyer in the audience who pointed out that, as the girl was hired as a “performer,” her physical appearance is essential.  This is precisely the same as not hiring an actor who can not sing for a role in a musical.  Or, if the actor loses his voice, then he can properly be dismissed.  And, again, the woman was NOT fired.

   This is all background to the comment which Gloria made.  She insisted that the case was important because… get ready.  It was important because this would show that, once and for all,  (this is a close paraphrase) “we are not going to allow men to determine what is attractive in women!”  I am not kidding.  I presume that Gloria was not either. 

   Gloria wants some legally definable standard (or perhaps no standard at all!) on sex appeal, which would have nothing to do with sex, male preferences, or even how one looks!  Considering how attractive to men Gloria is, I can understand her lust for such a bill.  Maybe she was the one barking who disturbed the other fellow. 

There is not yet any legal obligation to subscribe to the A&E, but there should be.  Comply voluntarily, before it is too late.  

AL GORE'S ANIMATED BLINDNESS

RECENTLY I saw part of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” This is a movie made by Al Gore. I did not see it at a theater, as I would not pay money to him to see it. It is now on TV.  I have commented on it before. It argues that we are actually living on the surface of the Sun, and we shall all die unless we expunge electricity. It was not badly put together. However, its validity is another issue. 

Gore argued that there was a “scientific” study which showed that polar bears are dying in a certain way, and this “has never happened before.” Can you imagine that? I can not. This new way of death is that the bears die because they now swim "60 miles or more" to find ice. Unable to do so---and we had a cartoon showing a drowning bear unable to climb up a small iceberg   ---they drown. How do these “scientists” know how far the bears have swum, before they die? Do they (the bears) leave dying declarations behind them? Do they (the bears) fill out “log books,” like long distance truckers? Or are there witnesses (other bears) paddling along in kayaks? Then we should have films, made by other, i.e living, bears, and not only cartoons. 

Cartoons? Does Al think that his audience can not conceive the image of a swimming bear without having someone animate it? 

A lot of the movie shows Al standing in front of charts, which show that the Earth is melting, and the sky is falling (into the fire, and out of the frying pan), because a piece hit him on the head, strongly. Of course, as there was no explanation as to the methods by which these charts were created, there is NO way to know if any of the data is valid. It could be all fabricated. And this means that everything depends upon your Gore’s competence and willingness to see and to recognize. That is, it ALL depends upon his character.  

Recall that this is the same guy who could look at the sonogram of a 6 month old fetus in the womb and NOT recognize someone who should not be murdered upon a whim of his mother. Thus Al can not be trusted. Maybe if someone drew a cartoon of an unborn child trying to avoid the abortionist’s knife then he would finally recognize reality. 

The A&E does not contain cartoons of polar bears, but it is highly animated.  Subscribe.

SHOULD MEN BE IN THE MILITARY?

Some time back the discussion began regarding the “fitness” of women serving in the military. Specifically the subject was whether women could effectively be almost fully integrated into the up-to-then all male parts of the institution.

Let me first specify that much of the work of the military can be equally well, or badly, done by male or female. Sorting mail (or males), keeping records, frying eggs, and so forth, require neither testosterone nor its lack. It is the uniquely distinctive aspects of the military which seem, at least to some, threatened by a feminine psychology. Is this fear justified?

I answer, no. The simple fact is that the military is already far more suited to the female than the male. Even he---or she---who has never had any personal experience with the armed services will realize this, if he but thinks upon it for a moment. First, military behaviors are based upon, literally, silly, and otherwise meaningless, rituals, where every move and aspect of dress is dictated in advance by purely arbitrary rules. In other words, military ceremonies are much like weddings And women love weddings, while men hate them… unless there is lots of drinking.

The military is divided, and sub-divided, and sub-divided again, and mandatorily so, into “ranks” (literally, social divisions and sub-divisions) of extreme, i.e. petty, precision. This is also exactly what women will do naturally if or when grouped by either social or professional circumstances. Often the soldiers may be asked to do what appear to be irrational acts, blindly and without explanation. Women are far more at home with the irrational than we men are. This same obligation requires the military to be submissive and not independent. Women are more inclined by nature to be this way.

 Women are less inclined towards violence, and the military, being exceptionally dangerous, needs those who will be disinclined towards violence, until the ultimate moment of truth. Shooting too soon can be far worse than waiting too long.

The military requires an (for males) excessively ridiculous degree of cleanliness, neatness of dress, material order, and promptness. None of this is masculine in nature. At the same time, responsibility, which women find burdensome, is imposed only upon the highest ranks, The rest are free of blame, no matter what happens. The vast majority of the military is irresponsible. The vast majority of the military is required to be so, That is, the military emphasizes security rather than freedom.

The real question is whether men are fit to serve in the military or not. We already call it “service,” which is what women provide, naturally. Although we simply do not want to admit it, the military is already highly feminized.

Research shows that both women and men enjoy reading the A&E. So should you. Subscribe; $30 per year. Current issues are dealing with predictions of Tribal Leader Obama's first reign.

NOT QUITE GONE WITH THE WIND?

I swear that NONE of this is a joke.  This really happened.

The View” is a women-only talk show.  I watch it, sometimes, for material and humor. Whoopee Goldberg, an alleged comic , often acts like the hostess.  I do not like her, at all, but she often does a good job, being reasonable, polite, moderate, etc.  As you may know the former John McCain (the original having evolved into an effeminate imitation of himself while on the campaign) was on the show a while back.  Whoopee later commented on an issue which the two of them discussed. 

 

Whoopee mentioned that if McCain appointed “conservative” justices to the Supreme Court and they might---I am NOT kidding!---reinstitute racial slavery.  According to Whoopee, McCain acknowledged that this was a legal possibility.  And he had no “escape” from this unpleasant policy, which he could foresee and which he was willing to accept. 

Whoopee then commented that she did not want to be a slave.  And, again, that this was a real possibility, because the Constitution authorizes it.  And then she faced the camera and shouted at the audience, “And don’t tell me to read the Constitution, as I have read the thing.  YOU are the ones who have not read it.” 

I have heard this before.  Among a number of younger Black males there is a very, very strong belief that they will be enslaved, legally, and  rather soon.  However, Whoopee did not explain how it would be re-established.  The old system was based upon kidnapping (free people from Africa) and/or being born to enslaved parents.  Simply being Black did not make a person unfree.  There were free Black people in the USA long before, and after, the Revolution.  So if the same system were reestab-lished, Whoopee would be safe, unless she moved to Africa, and was particularly careless while running around in the jungle. 

And, again I am not kidding, the Constitution specifically forbids slavery.  The amendments are also a part of the Constitution.  Whoopee apparently stopped before she got to that part.  Who knows what she thinks she read? 

And people like she actually can vote… and it counts as much as yours. 

Become a slave to self-improvement, and subscribe to the A&E.