Who Said It?
Leftovers, Re-runs, and Usual Suspects Edition
Because I'm tired and have a headache, I have a special treat for you today: an edition of "Who Said It" using mainly stuff that I have accumulated during the week and didn't use (but there's also some new material from people we've looked at recently, as well as some quotations from some Wo'C favorites). Have fun!
1. From a recent newspaper profile:
"I don't want to be a protester. I want to be a statesman," [Mystery Guest] said Wednesday between media events announcing his 2006 campaign.
A statesman??? Yeah, I can see that happening.
"I'm in my mid-40s. I've mellowed. Hopefully I've matured. [...] I'm just not angry. I was an angry young man before. I'm a more musical young man now. I'm not middle-aged yet."
Vote For Mystery Guest: Now with fewer arrests, less gay bashing, not as much praying for the deaths of others -- plus, more music!
2. From a column our concerned, womanly Mystery Guest penned last summer:
On a recent plane trip, I watched a real-life Sex and the City vignette unfold in front of me. While I was waiting in a gate area of a Florida airport, a very confident, well-dressed and handsome 40-something Mr. Big entered and sat near me. His expensive country-club clothing and self-assurance set him apart from the other travelers -- many of them waiting in jeans and t-shirts. Shortly, he was joined by a lovely, equally elegant woman around his age.
She was not a jaded sophisticate; neither was she an angry, hard woman. Instead, her demeanor was diffident and uncertain. I watched as he looked everywhere but at her; aloof and detached, he never even glanced in her direction. She, on the other hand, would glance at him and then look away. She would lean toward him and make a hesitant, brief comment with a slight, tentative smile. He would nod, but never did even turn in her direction or make eye contact.
And they weren't wearing wedding rings.
So, what can an astute social observer deduce from this?
She had traveled a boulevard of sexual freedom to a relationship cul-de-sac where there was emotionally neither a way out, nor a way to turn back the clock. Their future as a couple was now totally dependant upon his whims.
She may have been yearning for permanence and a future together, but to all appearances, she'd have to settle for merely that vacation in Florida . . . such are the paltry rewards of sexual freedom.
Yes, the woman, not being jaded and hard, obviously wants to settle down with this man and bear his children -- but since she put out before marriage, he thinks she's a cheap 'ho, has no respect for her, and will dump her for someone younger shortly. And then she will spend her waning days alone. THAT'S what an astute social observer can tell from the fact that he didn't want to talk to her right then.
Sure, somebody else might have speculated that he had a headache, and she was worried about him (and that they were married to each other, and just didn't like wearing rings). Or perhaps they'd just had a fight because he wanted to get married and she didn't, and now she was worried about his tender, masculine feelings being hurt. Or any number of other possible scenarios.
But those would be wrong, because the lesson is always that women who travel the boulevard to sexual freedom get screwed (in a couple of senses of the word).
Next time we can look at the column where our Mystery Guest predicts that her waitress in a diner will get dumped by her boyfriend and have a sad and lonely future -- all because the woman mentioned that they like snowboarding.
And here, ladies, is the lesson you should take from this:
Sexual competition is still a young woman's playing field. But apparently many of today's young women, playing around with Mr. Big, aren't aware that they should be competing to find "Mr. Right" before their fertility runs out. Most of them don't realize that, after college, their marital options greatly shrink at the same time that their window of opportunity for children is closing.
Young women need to hear the whole truth: by focusing on career over marriage and family in their 20's and 30's, they strengthen the likelihood that career is all that they will have left in their 40s
If you are over 25 and still aren't married, no one will ever marry you, you will never have children, and you will die alone. And even though Carrie ended up with Mr. Big at the conclusion of the series, he undoubtedly dumped her shortly after the ep ended, and married a fertile college coed.
3. From one of this Mystery Guest's delightful movie reviews:
Spielberg said "War of the Worlds" is a parallel for 9/11 and serves as a "prism" through which to view 9/11, the War on Terror, and our presence in Iraq. The movie makes that very clear. People running from exploding and falling buildings, walls and kiosks covered with "missing" signs and pictures for those looking for lost relatives, people giving blood -- these are all 9/11 references.
But the message is: Don't fight terrorism. It will miraculously go away if you leave it alone and it breaths our air and culture. Puh-leeze.
Of course, if you read the Baltimore Sun article that our MG links to, you learn that Spielberg DIDN'T say that his movie is a parallel for 9/11. No, per the Sun, "Spielberg said that he wanted the movie to operate not as a message movie but as a 'prism, with each facet providing a different interpretation of catastrophe." Although our MG is a genius, I guess reading comprehension isn't one of her strong points.
And, of course, Spielberg has said that he wanted to make a faithful adaption of Well's novella. And in the novella, the aliens are killed by the Earth germs present in our atmosphere, since they don't have any acquired immunity to our bacteria and viruses. But that doesn't convince our MG that the movie is all part of a Hollywood plot to get us to take no action against terrorism.
And magically, the invaders eventually die and go away at the end of the film because, as narrator Morgan Freeman says, they could not handle the bad things in our air, our environment, our culture. Our "spirit" won out over them.
But "spirit" alone does not beat terrorists. Fighting them does. And that involves going on the offense. Terrorists don't just give up and disappear. They are not aliens who can't handle our air. Hello? They live among us--they're of the same species.
Mystery Guest, the movie may evoke 9/11 because that is the large-scale disaster that most Americans are most familiar with, but that doesn't mean that this movie is an allegory about terrorists. It's actually about alien invaders, and the movie is sci-fi, not a policy recommendation. Hello?
4. Some Biblical advice about why you are sinning if you choose not to breast-feed. It's from one of our favorite marriage (and womb) experts, a woman who also knows a lot about kinky stuff.
In this scripture, God spells out the consequences of women who turn away from the way that He has created us, including the biological function of breastfeeding. Now please don't get me wrong. I know that some women have not been successful with breastfeeding because of lack of knowledge or even physical disabilities (through ignorance I wasn't totally successful in my first attempt either.). But it is when we blatantly refuse to nurse that we go against nature and God's plan for us as women. It goes on to say that when men saw women turn away from their God given function, they turned to unnatural lusts. The rejection in our hearts of our womanly functions of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing is a root of homosexuality.
Yes, bottle feeding your children can turn you into a lesbian. (If you already are a lesbian, I guess breast-feeding can turn you straight -- so take whatever course of action you deem appropriate.)
5. From a hissy fit:
Lately, liberals have been avoiding issues in favor of childish insults and food fights. [...]
I happened upon the following from some highly intelligent and serious commentators on Salon.com the other day in regards to one of my Zero of the Week performances on Doug Giles’ Clash Radio.
[Snip unlinked and unattributed four-paragraph quote from a blog post from last year -- so it wasn't actually that recent]
Obviously, this guy can’t stop drooling over my photos long enough to form an opinion on anything other than my bra size or hair color. I’m eternally grateful to him, however, for pointing out what a hypocrite I am for referring to myself as “blonde”. I guess I should come clean.
(((deep breath))) I am a natural brunette.
No duh.
I really could care less what idiots say about me, but I can’t sit by while some depraved reprobate picks on my peeps. Rush Limbaugh and Doug Giles are gentlemen and I am proud to know them both.
But she probably should care more about how she uses the language.
And while I may be a depraved reprobate, I have never used illegal drugs, sold illegal drugs, or been arrested for burglary. I've also never been investigated for money laundering or doctor shopping, never spent time in a clinic to deal with drug addiction, and don't have three divorces to my discredit. Oh, but I did drool over this Mystery Guest's photo (the one of her in the too-tight one-sleeved T-shirt), because it really shows off her brains.
Liberals, like our Salon.com friend, are desperate for you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain so they harpoon and accuse the closest conservative of meaningless tripe to distract you from their real problem. They've got nuthin'
As opposed to this MG (and Doug and Rush), who never indulge in meaningless tripe (or digs at liberals), since they spend all their time extolling brilliant ideas that are sure to lead us into a new golden age.
6. From this MG's interview with the Chalcedon Foundation (which is basically Dominionist Central):
"Restless guy that I am, I started reading the old Puritan writers, and they led me to modern Christian writers like Gary North, David Chilton, and Ken Gentry [who writes regularly for Chalcedon, ed.], and finally R. J. Rushdoony [Chalcedon's founder]. I still keep Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law on my desk where I work."
As you probably know, Rushdoony called for the execution of homosexuals, atheists, and pagans; believed that democracy is a "heresy" ("Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies," he wrote); and preached that Christians should take over the government so it can be turned into a theocracy, ruled by the aristocracy of God, using Old Testament law. And Rushdoony favored segregation (and slavery), basically denied the holocaust, and was against women's rights, labor unions, and sanity.
You can read more about Rushdoony and his book here, here, and here.
But back to our Mystery Guest:
In his columns, [MG] has repeatedly called for "injecting some testosterone into the church" and taking God's law seriously—a position that has caused him to be savaged on left-wing websites like Salon.com.
"Obviously we can't legislate Biblical ceremonial law in America today," he said. "That's what liberals always accuse of us wanting to do. It's just a knee-jerk criticism on their part. They're afraid of morality and afraid of prosperity."
Yeah, it's because liberals are afraid of morality and prosperity that they make fun of this Mystery Guest, and not because of his awful alliteration, horrid metaphors, or camping trips.
6:14:58 AM 
|
