I’m the last person to defend Harry Reid. But between the mean-spirited, humorless Reid and the mean-spirited, humorless feminists, Harry is my man. Oh, am I allowed to say that? At issue was Reid’s praise (notice the word “praise”) of Kirsten Gillibrand for being the “hottest member of the Senate,” an apparent reference to her inclusion on The Hill’s Most Beautiful List. He also said some other nice things about her. So what do the feminists do?
The shrews high-minded ladies activists are outraged, demanding an apology. In the true spirit of the 1970s, when opening a door or standing up for a lady female would evoke not a smile or an appreciative nod but a cry a determined statement of feminists principles, these gals have nothing better to do than excoriate Reid. One pronounced, “He had a chance to clarify his comments and instead of clarifying it his spokesperson just said, ‘yeah, that’s basically what he meant,’ and in this day and age if that is the way he is going to refer to one of the seventeen women in the Senate, then you know he should just get back on his dinosaur and go back to Nevada and stay there.” Good impulse, bad reason.
This sort of hysterical fit disproportionate response over nothing remotely important is a sign that women have come very far indeed. As they say about academic politics, the feminists’ complaints these days are so bitter because the stakes are so low.
It would be great to see some of the children of the people the Weathermen killed. They could talk about growing up without their parent. They could point to Bill Ayers as a key person who caused their suffering. They could ask why, if Obama has so much empathy, he befriended the terrorist Ayers.
By the way, CNN said: “But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”
Yes, of course. We are all the same: Christian, Jew, Muslim. This is a script by Bill Maher (Religulous) that was edited by the likes of Karen Armstrong with technical advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And, of course, there are those (in)famous “root causes.” There is a root cause, if you are a believer in Original Sin: we, all of us humans, are a fallen species. Going beyond Christian theology, however, there is today but a single world religion that routinely sponsors terrorism. Its name in Arabic is Islam, or, in English, “submission.”
Root causes of poverty? Do we need to yet again state the obvious? The planners and plotters of 9/11 were middle class or better. As is Osama bin Laden. Well educated; doctors, engineers; professionals. What they all share is an abiding faith in Islam’s supremacy and the duty of all Muslims to subdue, convert, or kill the rest of us.
“Most often, though, it (the lack of “empathy”) grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”
Drivel. As soon as someone can explain to me why the poor wretcheds of the world who are NOT Muslim haven’t taken to blowing people up, then I might give the above sentiment a moment’s thought. Until then, I’ll label whoever says it as ignorant – willfully or otherwise.
The sub-text here is Marxist. (God what evil that man has wrought!) There must be a cause, because evil, a religious concept, cannot possibly exit. Now that we are all assured that evil isn’t real, lets replace religious language with medical language. Neuroses, psychosis, megalomaniac, and sociopath. Admit it guys, we’re all feeling much more comfortable now that the doctors have taken over. Oh, and if you’re not feeling comfortable, just make an appointment with your doctor. He’ll set your mind at ease.