About Me

Name: Doctor Poddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Politicizing Bhutto's death

I have two essays on Bloggernews.

I know little or nothing about Pakistan except a lot of Pakistani docs came to the US with their families and a lot of pakistani businessmen run hotels all over the US in rural areas.

Why? Lack of opportunity. Yet a lot of these guys come from middle class families.

So I see Pakistan somewhat like the Philippines, a country in transition.

But most of the US news analysis is nonsense. Stick to the UK sites and Strategypage.

My first BNN essay was about how much of the discussion about Bhutto's death is "Evil Musharref/it's Bush's fault" versus "evil Islamicists/it's oama's fault.

Essay one points out the chaos as normality there. Bhutto was not the first Prime minister who was assasinated, and Pakistan's history of strong men using assasination to gain power long predates Bush, or even the British Raj.

Essay number two points out the "invisible man" :The middle class. The best hope for peace.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save the cheerleader

I posted this on Bloggernews, and am crossposting here for the two or three people who read this blog.

Personally I can't support Clinton because she is pro abortion (not just tolorant of abortion) but unlike Obama, who is young and inexperienced, she is a lousy politician, and can't even fake genuiness like her husband could.
-----------------------

Softer, nicer Hillary? I prefer her Lean, mean, and ready to take on the bad guys.

December 17th, 2007 by Nancy Reyes

Watching Mrs. Clinton go campaigning looking like a centerfold, it makes me think: This broad is nearly sixty. Where’s the wrinkles?

Presumably this is part of her campaign to be seen as likable.

Do we really want a cheerleader as our president?

Photo: SpencerGreenAP USATODAY

Women tend to be bitchy against other women in this way, but Ann Althouse got it wrong in her comments about this Drudge Photo

Althouse writes:

We make high demands on women. A picture like this of a male candidate would barely register. … We need to get used to older women and get over the feeling that when women look old they are properly marginalized as “old ladies.” If women are to exercise great power, they will come into that power in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. We must — if we care about the advancement of women — accommodate our vision and see a face like this as mature, experienced, serious — the way we naturally and normally see men’s faces.

You mean like this one? BrittanicaPhoto

She has lots of wrinkles and looks mean enough to face down a couple million screaming Arabs…

Or maybe this one:  She helped tear down the wall.

Or how about this one? 
She helped found the UN…

Or how about this one? 

CNNPhoto…For you youngsters, that’s the QueenMother visiting the bombed houses of London during the blitz…complete with hat and heels. The royal family stayed in London despite the bombs…. A lot of younger reporters were astounded at the turn out when the old Lady died, but some of us remember.

Actually, only those those who pick leadership for trivial reasons will think that wrinkles alone will lose votes.

What the “wrinkles on/wrinkles off” looks mean to me is that she is calculating about running for president. She is not being genuine, and unlike her husband (or Obama), doesn’t really like people or really understand them. It’s all about image, not reality. And this is more disturbing than a few wrinkles.

Here in Asia, the war on terror has been going on for twenty years, and although there have been a lot of succeses, the last thing we need as president is a glitzy lady who exudes glamour and niceness.
Give me a wrinkled Indira any day.
I agree with the Volokh conspiracy Blog:

I think it just makes her look more down-to-earth: Less carefully put together and more lived-in, an older professional woman on whom time has taken its toll — as it does on us all — but who has acquired the advantages of experience in exchange.

Come on, Hillary, drop the blond lock and the botox and get genuine.

If we wanted to elect a cheerleader, we’d vote for Claire

———————————–


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hate women? Gynephobia in the news

Like many of my longer essays, I posted this on Bloggernews, and will cross post it here.

One of my "beefs" with liberals is that they moan Islamophobia but ignore the 900 000 Filipino OFW (80 percent Catholic) who aren't allowed freedome of religion in Saudi....and then there are 600 000 Keralan Christians,/...
Two years ago, a Keralan catechist/preacher was deported. Yet if you google there are few stories about these people...
And the Jesuits, who smuggled priests into Elizabethan England and communist Russia, don't seem to worry about the Catholics in Saudi...
and the bigotry is not a Muslim thing, since they are allowed to worhip in Dubai, and Kuwait.

And the girl lashed in the essay below was one of the Shiite minority in Saudi: they also aren't allowed mosques...
--------

December 3rd, 2007 by Nancy Reyes

Well, at least the NYTimes editorial page has gotten around to chastising the gynephobia of certain regimes that profess a religion that cannot be named.

Muslims who wonder why non-Muslims are often baffled, angered, even frightened by some governments’ interpretation of Islamic law need only look to the cases of two women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan threatened with barbaric lashings.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman who was gang-raped was sentenced to 90 lashes. The reason? Before the rape, the woman, who was then 19, had been in a car with a man who was not a family member…In Sudan, a British primary school teacher was originally threatened with 40 lashes, a fine, or six months in jail after her class of 7-year-olds voted to name a teddy bear Muhammad….

Hmmm…seems like a pattern here.

It’s called: Gynephobia.

Defined as “a persistent, abnormal, and unwarranted fear of women”, each year this surprisingly common phobia causes countless people needless distress.

To add insult to an already distressing condition, most gynephobia therapies take months or years and sometimes even require the patient to be exposed repeatedly to their fear. We believe that not only is this totally unnecessary, it will often make the condition worse. And it is particularly cruel as gynephobia can be eliminated with the right methods and just 24 hours of commitment by the phobic individual.

So there you have it.

We’ll just put all those narrow minded mullahs and judges on Prozac, and then place them in a “desensitization” program, starting with Bollywood musicals and expanding to Deep Throat and Girls Gone Wild…

Seriously, the NYTimes is correct in noting that there seems to be more outrage about a teddy bear than the genocide of Muslims in Dafur.

However, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, they have carefully funded their fifth column in “think tanks” of major universities who are willing to shill for the worst atrocities and blame them on the West.
Take this article, in the “On Faith” section of the Washington Post (the “on Faith” area has a wide discussion of faith matters, and if you read it often enough, makes you want to drink a shot of ipecac and then read Christopher Hitchens as an anecdote).

Why look, it’s written by two professors from a Saudi funded think tank at Georgetown.

Well, after all, why not? The Jesuits have a long tradition of promoting intellectual discussions and promoting social justice. And, of course, the $20 million bucks (”the largest single gift to the university”) didn’t hurt either.

The two fifth column professors paint the Teddy bear story as merely an overreaction to the bigotry of the west:

At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists and extremists from the Far Right in Europe and America, the judiciaries of Sudan and Saudi Arabia have managed to reinforce the vilification of Islam and used Islamic law as a weapon rather than a yardstick for justice…

The problem: Before Dafur, the Sudanese government waged a series of genodical wars against Black tribes (animist and Christian) in their south: phase one, starting in 1955, and phase two, starting in 1983, killed almost two million people, and caused millions of refugees. After they made a truce in 2005, they started working against the Muslim blacks in Dafur…

Similarly, the Saudi royal family allows extremists to impose their version of Sharia law so that the royal family can stay in power.

But their outdated version of Islam –which thanks to Saudi oil money is being exported all over the world via Saudi funded mosques and mullahs– has little in common with the easy going “sufi” Islam that converted much of non Arab Asia: an Islam that stresses the mercy of God, not the need to follow a million dehumanizing rules to pacify an angry deity.

Finally, I am happy that the Saudis have hired apologists for their 8th century version of Islam,but if the purpose is to “build stronger bridge of understanding between the Muslim world and the West as well as between Islam and Christianity”, then why didn’t the Jesuits propose a similar “think tank” to promote understanding of Christianity in a Saudi University?

Nope, a million Catholics live in Saudi Arabia, but the nearest church is in Dubai; and my cousin was forced to throw her rosary away when she arrived to work there as a nurse.

Jesuits used to support people’s search for civil rights, but I guess 20 million bucks is more important than defending poor Asian and African overseas workers from being exploited in Saudi Arabia.
Where is Christopher Hitchens when we need him?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »