Comments:

In class comments:

Yoyoyoyo

iThink

Greater Omaha

Out of Class Blogs:

Hillary Clinton Farts

Hallaway

Turnblom

Achieving that “Man Smell”

News of this year’s election is buzzing.  You hear about the newest gossip in the supermarket, at work, at the salon.  Everyone has their favorite and, by now, you probably have yours.  This election is playing out to be one of the country’s most interesting.  We have a woman, a black man, and a liberal-minded Republican to choose from.  The election can go almost any way and still we’ll have something new.  We’ve got a potential first.  We’ve got history-in-the-making on our hands here.

One news source, the Aspen Times Weekly, claims that “each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups.”  The article points out the fact that candidates now petition to new groups of people so often left out of the political race—homosexuals, mothers, and children of illegal immigrants.  This new election, this modern election is changing the nation’s traditional ways of conducting politics.  Another news resource, which discusses the election at Blogspot.com, claims that this election “is the most unique presidential election in all of history.”  New doors are opening for Americans and American minds are opening up to other Americans, diverse Americans. 

But as some minds open, others remain shut tight.  Mr. Hubbell, of the Aspen Times Weekly, does, as earlier noted, point out the new reality of candidates speaking directly to minority groups, but he soon after declares that “there is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man.”  He goes on to give a sprawling description of the ethos, intentions, and mannerisms of the “Angry White Man” (about 900 words worth of ethos and intentions, actually).  The Aspen Times openly solidifies the underlying presence of a group of people desperately trying to hold on to power—white men.  I think they realize that they might be losing some of their hold on politics, on the country even, this year.  Hubbell claims that “[the Angry White Man] knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.”  Hubbell later articulates the idea that “the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton” but “it’s not that she is a woman.”  Sounds like Hubbell might be first questioning the validity of a woman and secondly covering up his curiosity so as not to offend anyone.  He says he doesn’t despise
Clinton because she is a woman, but prior statements lend to support contrary arguments.  Perhaps the Angry White Man is simply afraid of a powerful woman?  He claims that the AWM hates her “poor me” attitude, but maybe her “poor me” approach is simply a pathos pulling devise misinterpreted and immeasurable to a man. 

Granted, the candidates should probably appeal to the group described in Hubbell’s blog, as they hold some serious voting muscle.  But, perchance, Hubbell’s group should open their minds a bit and accept the fact that a woman president, if not this election year, is soon coming.  They should work democracy through a woman rather than promising to “[beat] her like a drum” (an especially ironic statement coming from a group claiming they “open doors for women” and say “ma’am”).     

Dirty Laundry

America is a country of equality for every kind of person, no matter their color.  But it is not only a place of racial equality.  It’s a place of equality for both sexes.  According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers…to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.”  According to federal law, a woman can succeed in the same way a man can.  Employers can not deny a woman a job simply because she is a woman.  It’s even illegal to ask a woman if she plans on getting pregnant during a job interview.  The U.S. Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau claims that “women comprised 46% of the total
U.S. labor force and are projected to account for 47% of the labor force in 2014.”  According to statistics, nearly half of the people working in
America are women.

The woman of today is independent.  She might be raising a family.  She might be starting a career.  She might be getting married—or she might not be.  Women stand alone economically, so they don’t have to rely on their husbands to provide for them.  They can choose to stay single.  They can live alone.  Some even attend school, work, and raise babies all at once.  The juggling act of the modern woman is unimaginable.

Heidi Fleiss is the epitome of the modern woman.  According to Elle Magazine (February 2008), she owns her own business, wrote a book, made millions of dollars, and has a unique personality.  She is independent.  She told Elle, “I’m single and I love it. I’m not one of these girls who needs a guy to survive.”  She doesn’t need a man to back her up or support her.  She recently opened a laundry mat in
Nevada, which she hopes will “clear $30,000 a month.”  Her face on television and in print nation-wide, she’s even a celebrity.

But Heidi isn’t exactly the average girl next door.  She was once a madam, working in
Hollywood, living in a mansion.  She spent time in prison after being busted by the L.A.P.D for involvement in the “sex industry.”  She is planning to open a “Stud Farm” in Nevada (outside of
Las Vegas where prostitution is legal), where women can buy sex from men.  Heidi has forever changed the definition of “working woman.” 

Even by today’s loose standards of morality, Fleiss is in the wrong.  Women today must be independent, outspoken, free.  But women must also rise above the wrong in the world and maintain their maternal purpose.  They should be teaching their families, their husbands, the world the difference between right and wrong.  Society has thrown traditional views of women—working in the home and having babies—out the kitchen window.  But the traditional teaching of ethics should still be a priority.  Ladies, if we don’t get the job done, who will?

Bambi: A Lesson in Hypocrisy

The crunch of the frost bitten ground underneath your boots, the sting of the cold morning air on your flushing cheeks, and the soft whisper of wind and wild beast all flood your senses.  You smell the fresh quality of open air.  You feel the excitement of complete solidarity with your uncivilized surroundings.  You understand the collective edge in your voice.  You wait.  You watch.  You listen—intent for any movement, any sound, any disturbance within the perfect calm.  Suddenly, it’s there.  The adrenaline is pumping, fueling the rapid beating of your heart.  Still undetected, you see the beautiful creature coming towards you.  The experience is exciting, fulfilling—thrilling.

The good people at idausa.org, an anti-hunting group, claim that hunting, “the stalking and killing of animals,” is unjustifiable.  But they are righteously wrong.  They say that “the stress that hunting inflicts on animals… severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter.”  But hunters provide sources of food for animals that might otherwise starve.  They plant food plots, put out supplements, and generally improve nutrition on a whole.  Without hunting, animal populations would grow too quickly.  The animals would run out of food and space.  Disease would run wild and inbreeding could result.  The number of animals hit by cars and the number of drivers injured by animals would go up steadily.  Hunters are conservationists, meaning that they keep the animals around for future generations.  In a recent publication by Robert M. Poole called “Hunters for the Love of the Land” in the National Geographic, Poole points out the fact that hunters gave 280 million dollars in 2006 for conservation causes.  Ducks Unlimited generated 162.1 million dollars in ’06.  Hunting licenses produce, on average, 1.22 billion dollars in revenue, which “helps state wildlife agencies acquire, maintain, and improve fish and wildlife habitat through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and other programs.”  Without hunters, many common animals would already be history, just like the dinosaur.  Idausa.org also points out that “cruelty [is] inherent in all sport hunting.”  But all superior huntsmen understand the importance of fair chase.  They adhere to the laws enforced by the Game and Fish Commission, which keep hunting just.

Non-hunters, while choking down a quarter-pounder and all but forgetting the animals waiting in slaughter houses across the country, are quick to point out the cruelty of hunting, the inhumane slaughter of animals, the barbaric methods of torture employed by hunters.  Hunters understand the thrill of the hunt, the same feeling one feels at the end of a big game.  Hunters understand the ethics of the sport, the same kind of sportsmanship enforced by referees across the country.  Hunting is a sport.  But, it means so much more than any other sport.  The players of this game provide food for animals, control animal populations, and in many cases, prevent extinction.  Hunting is natural. 
Poole claims that humans have been accepting the need to hunt for more than a million years and are “still programmed for the chase.”  Perhaps all the anti-hunters out there should take a good look at their furry friends (if they ever even journey outside to see them) and decide if they want the animals to be in the world tomorrow.  If they do, they should probably put a stop to their duplicitous anti-hunting crusade.

Cry Baby

News stations broadcasted Hillary Clinton, on the campaign trail for the 2008 election, crying during an interview.  241,798 people tuned in to watch just one of the many videos of the incident circulating sites like YouTube.  Hillary spoke of how tired she was on the road, the help she received, how personal the situation was to her.  Criticisms immediately began to fly.  Hillary is too tired.  Hillary is emotionally incompetent.  Hillary is only a woman.  HillaryClintonFarts, a prominent blog following Hillary’s every move, claims that Hillary only “cries for herself” because she is “losing to Obama.”  CafePress.com markets “Cry Baby” t-shirts and “Vote for Me or I’ll Cry” buttons.  FreeRepublic.com thinks that “Americans are getting a pretty good [negative] sense of this woman just by listening to her.” (more…)