These people need to be stopped from being allowed to claim that they are speaking for Christianity as a whole, right about now.
I am horrified that this is actually a serious advert, though not surprised. I am sick of the way that this kind of thing makes a lot of militant athesists assume that this is what I think and believe just because I’m a Christian. I’m sick of the way the Christians who believe and promote this kind of thing get to tell me I’m going to hell because I don’t think like they do. And I am absolutely disgusted by things like Focus on the Family’s Letter from 2012 which not only misinterprets Obama’s policies and views and the amount any president can get done in one term, but which seeks to make people vote based on fear, and which condems young evangelicals for voting for Obama.
It is way past time for those young evangelicals to reclaim their faith from these people, and to say, “No, I think you’re getting it wrong.” It doesn’t have to be a condemnation of the beliefs – though it certainly should be of some of the methods of spreading them – but an explanation of why we believe what we believe, and why it’s ok for us to believe it. Kudos to Jim Wallis and Co. at God’s Politics and Sojourners who try and drag Christian social concerns into a non-partisan-specific but politcally active field. We need to stop the fundamentalist religious right from dictating the discourse about the Christian faith. They don’t speak for all of us, and they shouldn’t be allowed to.
The frustration of many over the inability of the US debates monitors to actually guide and focus the debates has been fairly clear for the last month.
Last night, the BBC’s American editor got a leeeetle over excited: “2117: Yippee! Schieffer actually interrupted Obama to point out that he had to answer the question – not sure he did answer it but it was a brave effort. He did it again with McCain. He’s already earned his 1000000000 billion dollar salary.”
He’s been yearning to unleash Paxman or Humphrys on the candidates for weeks…
Maybe if the BBC insists on cutting the wages of some of its journalists, the likes of Paxman, Humphrys and Marr could start an interviewing school for other nations who lack the benefit of their skillz.
I never really jumped up and grabbed the feminist tag. I always associated it with people like Germaine Greer, who I never really liked, and I never wanted men to be doormats, ‘cos that would be no fun. But, Oh, My, Dearest, Life. This article by someone called Noemie Emery, who I’ve never heard of before, and who I assumed was a man (not recognising the name) until I googled them, because seriously, a woman could come up with this shit?
“There is something else that Palin brings to the table, that may be an unspoken source of this angst. She is the first woman near the very top level of politics who really looks and behaves like a woman, a woman whom men want to look at, and other women may want to look like. She has cheekbones to die for, movie-star hair, and has mastered the delicate dress code of looking both stunning and powerful.”
This is what you think a woman should be? You think all women want to look like Sarah Palin? Like they have 1000 pins in their hair, a poker up their backside and a nervous twitch masquerading as a flirtatious wink. Go away and find a suitable cliff to jump off.
And appart from that – you think all men want to look at Sarah Palin? Surely the popularity of the very different Scarlett Johanssen and Natalie Portman is testament to the fact that that is Not True.
I am aware that we live in a ridiculously shallow age, where FDR might not get elected because of his polio, and where Hillary Clinton gets mocked for her pant-suits and Sarah Palin commended for her hair, and where this matters in politics. But surely the role of any halfway decent political commentator is to debunk this and call it for the crap it is?
“The less fetching army of liberal women may feel something like this. And thus be a little put out.”
I am liberal and therefore I am ugly? I am ugly and therefore I am liberal? Hillary Clinton is ugly? Sure, she’s not Kate Moss, but she’s hardly disfigured. Nancy Pelosi is ugly? And may I once again call up on Scarlett Johanssen (who I can hardly be said to adore, as I think she has got less interesting as she has got older, in terms of the role’s she has picked), who is very definitely Not Ugly, and is an Obama supporter to an almost embarrassing degree.
I don’t vote with my eyes, or thinking about the vision of me I wish I saw looking back at me in the mirror when I look into it. I know no woman who does.
Sarah Palin “survived” (Emery’s words) the debate. Fabulous. All women seek just to ’survive’ the struggle of daily life. And we all want to see a leader on the world stage who ’survives’ from day to day, wildly, desperately, flailing in response to the events around her, rather than going out, being curious about the world and what she might achieve within it beyond, ‘Oh sure, it’d be nice to have all that power, to you know, do stuff with.’
I don’t like Margaret Thatcher. I don’t like her policies. I don’t like what she did to my country. But at least she had policies, she cared, she could do more than survive. And I can respect her abilities even if I don’t like the way she used them. I have no respect for Sarah Palin at all.
I feel ill, having read that. And I hope that if Noemie Emery has or ever does have a daughter, that daughter will tell her just where to get off.
“I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers…”
Thank you Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live.
They say every cloud has a silver lining, and the only one in the potential election of John McCain is more of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. But it’s still not worth it, America.
