Hilarious!! A Parody of a Crazy Liberal Interpretation...

A Pre-reading of “Snakes on a Plane”
Posted by Amardeep Singh on 08/18/06 at 02:31 PM

Note: the following is a parody.

Though I myself haven’t seen the film, it is almost impossible not to think that Lacan had watched Snakes on a Plane, because his conception of alterity is so closely aligned with the film’s revolutionary mise en scene. Indeed, my reading below is deeply invested in resisting the tired old “grand narrative” of “actually watching the film,” which essentializes “experience,” and delegitimates the kinds of liberatory theoretical praxis I have memorably justified elsewhere.

The eponymous “snakes” here are clearly the wild slithering irruption of the Real, while the “plane” is the Phallus that operates in the angular, metallic register of the Symbolic. The film thematizes the rebellion of the Real (the resisting third world subaltern, who also represents the death-drive) over the tyrannical, inscribed authority of the Industrial-Aviational Master. Note that the deadliest of the snakes on this particular cinematic plane is the “Monocled Cobra," mainly found in India, which despite its Cyclopean insignia strongly suggests the film be read as a subaltern allegory of “Multitudes,” arrayed in a heterogeneous composite Coalition of the Venomous against the complacent bourgeois “passengers” (nearly all of whom are fated to die), who have sanctioned the postmodernist military adventurism of President George W. Bush. The Snakes therefore represent the unthinkable limit in the neo-colonial discourse of the War on Terror, the exotic, “illegal” cargo that will, inevitably, bring down the brittle American frame that is the body politic in this era of the cybernetic gaze. Samuel L. Jackson is portrayed as the heroic African American man (the phallogocentric “actor,” whose agency is always-already scripted), who ostensibly represents the forces of the Airplane against the Snakes, but it’s clear that his true sympathies are in fact with the Snakes. Note that he insisted on leaving the word “snakes” in the title of the film, and opposed Pacific Air Flight 121, the vanilla title preferred by the studio, suggestive of nothing other than the institutionalized discourse of Air Traffic Control

Moreover, Agamdeep Darshi, as “Ipod Girl," lies between the Phallic Plane and Counter-Phallic Snakes, and deconstructs the binary between them; her holy feminine/maternal/musical energies pacify the wild terror of the Snakes that are colonized by the white hetero-patriarchial gaze, which ethno-objectifies her in the production of the discourse of cinematic pleasure. The snakes will reveal themselves to be not a counter-Phallus, but rather an expression of the rage of the Medusa, the radical queer postcolonial feminine. What is at stake here is not a battle between “snakes” and the “plane,” but rather the contest between transgressive Oedipalized subjectivity (memorably described by Jackson’s line, “there’s motherf---- snakes on the motherf---- plane") and the anti-Oedipal, serpentine, body-machine complex. The plane, in short, is a snake that will eat itself.

A Liberal Professor--straight from the donkey's mouth

I’m one of those left-wing teachers, but I’m not too concerned about that affecting the way my students think, though I’m sure it does if only minutely. I’ve had some pretty right-wing students (a self-described member of the Klan for instance) who I was able to disabuse of some notions (that Thomas Jefferson had children with/by at least on slave). I make no apologies for my being a liberal at all and I don’t attack students for conversative views. I teach in an Air Force town with a lot of students from rural farming and ranching communities and these students come in with a pretty conservative, and often ill-formed, view of the world (like about any recent high school graduate who doesn’t attend an elite high school) because that’s what they’ve grown up with. They may see things a little differenlty once they’ve had me, though I doubt I could ever turn them into card carrying lefties even if that were my goal.

By the same token, I teach what might be some conservative texts. Last year the core text for my first year composition class was Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and this year it’s Lockes Treatises on Government. We’ll tie these texts into current events as much as possible, which I think we can readily do. I don’t necessarily teach any particular conflicts, nor from any overtly pc texts, and I hold my students to the same standards. They can’t write from a so-called liberal perspective and get away with sloppy work anymore than I beat up on someone who writes from a conservative perspective. I suspect most good teachers are this way, whether they are liberal or conservative.

Now, I don’t know if this is the case, but my sense is that education is populated by more liberals than conservatives because liberals are more willing to work for the common good whereas conservatives are more likely to take care of themselves, invoking their notions of personal responsibility, taking care of themselves as they expect others should do as well. Liberals are more likely to maybe work for less if they can help students get on in the world. I’ve no evidence for this, and may not have expressed myself well, but would be interested in what others think. And when I talk about helping students get on in the world, it means with as much understanding of how the world works as they can muster, which often means holding the statua quo and dominant powers and paradigms up to examination so students can see for themselves how well this status quo serves their needs, who wins and who loses in the various equations. If that’s liberal or pc, so be it.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 9:30 pm EDT on August 22, 2006


So basically, "Brad" advocates spurring the students to discontent so they will demand more for THEMSELVES--so much for selfless liberals.

A very interesting interpretation. Its odd that since most kids come out of high school know less about government, civics and history than they know about how not to get pregnant, that Brad (surfer dude no doubt,) would consider such an education Conservative. No, in fact, its the opposite.

If Conservatives ran the schools:

Students would know the three branches of government, their functions, and their history.

Students would understand the constitution as an enduring record of our god-given freedoms and rights as expressed in the best government in the world.

Patriotism wouldn't be a dirty word--and would not be conflated with Jingoism.

Honesty, morals, and a personal effort at improving oneself are the cornerstones of education.

Children are not delicate flowers, they need structure and standards to live up to. No outcome based education.

Students would learn that our cultural and philosophical heritage is worth defending. Yes, the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian tradition.

Neither mandatory teacher run prayer, nor "be a Muslim for a week" programs would be allowed.

Non-classes such as "drivers ed," "home-ec," and "sex-ed" would be left to the parents. They would be replaced with Latin and Greek.

Debate and speech would be required. Not because of its confidence building capacity, but because it is important to learn to research, compress, and convey an argument effectively whether you're a doctor, a lawyer, or an IT guy.

Sports teams would be funded by the families of the students who choose to participate (as a per-semester fee.) The money saved would be used on programs in the arts.

The curriculum would be rigorous, demanding and rewarding. If you can't keep up, stay behind a year. We aren't going to cheat you by graduating you if you're illiterate. Literacy (in the true sense of the word) would be close to 100% in our graduating classes.

Our graduates will be ready to take their place in society as proud and thoughtful American citizens.

Some lightheartedness--Levin's Liberal Theme Song

Whatever It Is, I'm Against It
By Harry Ruby (music) and Bert Kalmar (lyrics)
Performed by Groucho Marx in "Horse Feathers" (1932) (Sound file here.)

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it -- On general principles I'm opposed to it!
Chorus: He's opposed to it! In fact, in word, in deed, He's opposed to it!

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And I've kept yelling since I commenced it, I'm against it!

Scary.

Making the World Safe for Shari’a? http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23945

By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com August 21, 2006

[Andrew Bostom's journalistic colleague Diana West coined the very apt phrase, “Making the world safe for Shari’a”-- The Editors].

Today (

8/17/06), in response to my expressed concerns about the much lionized Ayatollah Sistani, I received enlightening comments from a very thoughtful military analyst. Here is what I wrote:

Ayatollah Sistani is an irridentist Shi'ite cleric who believes in najis—one of the more despicable belief systems in all of Islam which imposes ugly restrictions on “infidels” due to their supposed physical and spiritual “impurity” [I have written about najis here, here, and here]. Go to http://www.sistani.org/, and then as my colleague Hugh Fitzgerald notes: “If you click on "Muslim Laws" on the left, and then, once a list comes up, click on "najis things," you will get a list -- #84 -- and if you then go a little further, and click on the menu where, among those unclean things, the "kafir" (which is to say, the Unbeliever, that is to say -- You and I) you will get a further discussion of how, in the wonderful, "moderate" Islam of the al-Sistani variety, the Unbeliever, the Infidel, the Kafir (guilty of "kufr" or "ingratitude" for failing to receive the Revelation of the Last of the Prophets in the right, accepting, submissive way) is viewed[.....]”

And this is what Sistani writes about gays: His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority for Shi'ite Msulims in Iraq and worldwide, decrees that gays and lesbians should be killed in the worst manner possible, according to this news article from a London-based gay rights group. A rapid search through Sistani's official website turns up this page, translated as: “Q: What is the judgement on sodomy and lesbianism? A: "Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.” Thus opines the Shi’ite cleric who was nominated by Iraqis for the 2005 Nobel Peace prize.

Sistani also “wishes” for Sharia to be imposed in Iraq. He's a patient fellow though knowing demography is on his side…

To which I received the following reply from this military analyst:

I could very well be wrong on this. If we can put these obviously unacceptable throwback sentiments aside, would it still be true to say, as some sources do, that Sistani supports a quietist form of Shi'a Islam, one that does not seek political power as such? I'm thinking for example of early Puritan sects in American history, which believed things we don't consider acceptable today, but which, in competition with other beliefs, ended up with a shared culture that ultimately turned out to be very workable for the US.

Both the casting aside of supposed mere “throwback sentiments”, and the analogy with Puritans in America, are fatuous. Shi'ite sects in major population centers—Iran, Iraq, and Yemen—have never behaved in a manner analogous to the Puritan settlers of the United States (despite 13 centuries of unimpeded opportunities to demonstrate any similar leanings given the complete dominance of Islam in those regions), i.e., been willing to create societies even remotely resembling the pluralistic, traditionally liberal democratic society that the US has become. Instead they have all opted for Shari’a societies—stifling theocracies, the very antithesis of American liberal democracy, where hurriyya “freedom as perfect slavery to Allah” prevails, not freedom as described by John Stuart Mill.

And there is a widely prevalent canard about what Iran was in the ~425 years between 1502-1925 (barring an ~ 70-year period of Afghan invasion, internecine warfare, and Sunni rule in the 18th century from approximately1722-1794, until the restoration of Shiite rule under the Qajars in 1795): Persia/Iran was a strict Shi'ite theocracy, whose leading ulema were not the least bit “quietist”, and in fact were very much like Ayatollah Khomeini. (I have written about this rather morose history, especially for the non-Muslims under Shi'ite rule, at considerable length here)

The great scholar E.G. Brown (who was quite favorably inclined towards Persia I should add) summed up (A Literary History of Persia, vol. IV, Cambridge, 1930, p. 371) the role of the Shi'ite ulema in the period before 1925, as follows:

The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

I support removing odious and acutely threatening Muslim thugocrats (whatever their personal religiosity) in the post 9/11/01 era—which is why I supported the lightning and relatively low (albeit still awful) cost (in lives) campaign required to remove Saddam Hussein (having accepted the flawed intelligence on Iraq). But to invest unlimited blood and treasure which effectively gives electoral sanction to more Shari’a—as the Algerian jihadists of the 1990s put it so forthrightly “Islamic state by the will of the people”—is a tragic and dangerous delusion. And we have failed miserably in this regard in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, we should have refused as Paul Bremer did refuse initially (despite his other arguable administrative failings), to give our imprimatur to constitutions that are subservient to the Sharia, rendering them incompatible with universal human rights. This bedrock principle—still unheeded by our policymaking elites—was articulated eloquently by the Muslim Senegalese jurist Adama Dieng, while serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists in 1992. Referring to the Cairo Declaration, the Shari’a-based “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (UDHRI)”, Dieng declared that under the rubric of the Shari’a, the UDHRI,

...gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms..; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

The Rahman “apostasy” case in Afghanistan should have been a stark wake up call. But even in Iraq there was an early, concrete sign (February 2004) of things going awry: the refusal of the interim Iraqi government to allow its ancient, historically oppressed (often brutally so) Jews to return in the wake of the 2003 liberation. Singling them out was agreed upon absent any objection except for the dissent of one lone Assyrian Christian representative in the interim government, who knew well what such bigotry foreshadowed: the oppression and resultant exodus of the Assyrian community, which is now transpiring. And last spring came this harrowing story about Shari’a and Sistani-supporting women in the Iraqi Parliament: (Iraq's women of power who tolerate wife-beating and promote polygamy):

As a devout Shia Muslim and one of eighty-nine women sitting in the new parliament, she knows what her first priority there is: to implement Islamic law. When Dr Ubaedey took her seat at last week’s assembly opening, she found herself among an increasingly powerful group of religious women politicians who are seeking to repeal old laws giving women some of the same rights as men and replace them with Sharia, Islam’s divine law.

We have a moral obligation to oppose Shari’a which is antithetical to the core beliefs for which hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have died, including, ostensibly, 3000 in Iraq itself. There has never been a Shari’a state in history that has not discriminated (often violently) against the non-Muslims (and Muslim women) under its suzerainty. Moreover such states have invariably taught (starting with Muslim children) the aggressive jihad ideology which leads to predatory jihad “razzias” on neighboring “infidels”—even when certain of those “infidels” happened to consider themselves Muslims, let alone if those infidels were clearly non-Muslims. That is the ultimate danger and geopolitical absurdity of a policy that ignores or whitewashes basic Islamic doctrine and history, while however inadvertently, making or re-making these societies “safe for Sharia”—as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, and now, likely, an Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon.

Witch Hunt

GA Tech Student Endured Threats
By Andrea Jones
Atlanta Journal-Constitution August 21, 2006
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23968

After Ruth Malhotra and another student filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Georgia Tech in the spring, the outspoken member of College Republicans said she expected some negative reaction.

She was surprised, though, by the death threats and personal attacks.

Some fellow students threatened to choke her between classes. Others said they would throw acid on her at Tech's graduation.

Someone stuffed her campus mailbox with Twinkies snack cakes — implying that she was yellow on the outside (Malhotra is of Indian descent) but white on the inside.

Her lawsuit challenges Tech on its campus policies aimed at protecting students from intolerance.

"It was disappointing and disconcerting," Malhotra, who is readying for graduate school, said Wednesday. "If anything, [my critics] showed who was really being intolerant."

This week, Tech backed off on its tolerance policy for campus housing, rewording sections that Malhotra's lawyer, David French, argued were unconstitutional.

Now, she and Orit Sklar, her fellow plaintiff in the case, are headed back to Tech again to face their critics.

Sklar, from New York, is a rising senior, and Malhotra, from Atlanta, is beginning graduate school in the School of International Affairs.

Malhotra said she and Sklar are excited about coming back, but nervous, too. Their lawsuit is still winding its way through federal court and several issues raised in the case remain unresolved.

"There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the upcoming year, how we'll be treated by administrators and professors," she said.

The suit, one of several similar ones around the country, challenges Tech's policies that suppress intolerant or offensive behavior.

Anti-harrassment policies like Tech's were penned on many campuses in the 1980s with the aim of making college communities more welcoming for women and minorities, said French, the director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the Alliance Defense Fund, which is backing the Tech case.

French said the policies are so common that about 70 percent of the top 400 schools in the country have them on the books and he argues they're all unconstitutional. Judges have agreed in cases in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.

Malhotra hadn't shied away from controversial topics in the past.

Her group's "diversity bake sale" — which charged students different prices depending on their race and gender to protest affirmative action — garnered a visit from the Tech police.

And protests at the feminist play "The Vagina Monologues" also landed her in hot water.

Still, Malhotra insists she's fighting for the rights of all students — not just those who share her beliefs.

"I've engaged in a debate about ideas," Malhotra said. "It's never been about attacking individuals."

While the Tech suit has elicited strong responses from certain student groups, the debate hasn't dominated the campus.

This week, as incoming freshmen wandered around the school and returning students started to drift back, few were talking about free speech.

Michael Kim, a fifth-year senior majoring in management, said students have other things on their minds.

"I agree that you shouldn't have to limit your speech," Kim said. "But it seems a little overboard to sue."

Its sad, but I wonder why she is surprised at the death threats? Being a conservative on campus is like being a witch in Salem

My apologies

The writer of this blog has recently come into a patch of good luck in which she has secured employment. She is currently adjusting to her new schedule, and wants to assure you that more entries are forthcoming.

When I saw these images on Sept. 11th, I thought it was some colossal joke. It felt like War of the Worlds.

Discrimination!? Damn Straight!

Since when was discrimination a bad word. When a man has the ability to discriminate, we once thought him to have good taste. It is the art of separating one thing from another. Sure this ability shouldn't be used to oppress innocent people, but when it means the lives of thousands of people, I think a little discrimination is our moral obligation.

Today, we are on our highest terror alert level as a result of a supposed Al Qaeda attack on continental airlines. New York and California were targets. Multiple mid-air explosions were meant to take down the aircraft. Liquid components were to be combined in the air to create an explosive. "9-11" the second. "It was the big one that we have been dreading."

Also, today in Dearborn, Michigan, two young muslim men have been arrested. The two had purchased dozens of disposable cell-phones, had guidelines to airport security in their car. Discrimination? Damn I hope so.

Memoirs of a dark-eyed houri

Hello, I am named Aisha. I am 12. I am from Qana, but I don't know where my family is. I hope they're ok. The last thing I remember was a loud bang, and I heard the building where they put me in the basement falling on me. I think of it like a dream that happened. Before they let me into Paradise, I saw myself being pulled from the building many times, put back in, and pulled out again. They took lots of pictures of me. I am proud that they took care to make sure they got just the right picture. Maybe that's why they dressed me in lots of different clothes and posed me in different ways. I hope my daddy will see them and be proud of me.

I remember when the Israel rocket hit the building. I remember when I heard another explosion many hours later, and it fell down on me. I wanted to get out when the rocket came, but they didn't let us go. Its all a part of Allah's plan because now I'm in Paradise.

There are lots of girls here, but are are all naked, so I have to take off my clothes too. After I got all my blood cleaned off of me, a very handsome man put a chain on my neck and took me to the marketplace.

I had heard about the market in the Koran, but I didn't know how beautiful it was going to be. There were lots of pretty boys who were naked too, and more girls there. Lots of pretty colors, scents and sounds. I saw my cousin Ahmed over there. I wanted to hide my eyes because I saw him naked, but when I realized I was in Paradise, I knew that it was good to be naked. I waved at him, but he didn't recognize me. That made me sad.

But at the market there were all sorts of fruit and wine and lots of things for pleasure. I was so thirsty, but I couldn't have anything yet. I had to wait until I was taken by a martyr for his special companion. And then I wouldn't be thirsty or hungry again. Pretty soon there were lots of men, sitting on rugs and smoking hookahs on the street. I guess they're the new martyrs.

The men who were leading us up onto the platform wrapped our head in a scarf before we were taken up so that we would not offend Allah. I was nervous and scared because I was never in front of so many people. Then I was matched with just the right martyr. His name was Mohammed, and he was 45 when he took the path of the martyr. He took my chain in his hand and led me off the platform. He smelled a little.

I was hoping that in Paradise I would have all the turkish delight I could eat and lots and lots of doggies and kitties to play with. That's what mommy said was in heaven. But praise Allah, I know that He knows what is right.

Allah knows what is right, and so he chose me to be a virgin for the martyrs. I feel honor for my family, but I also feel sad because I want to play and make wreathes of flowers and make songs, like my cousin Ahmed and I did when we were little. I think its better the way that Allah wants it.

In Mohammed's house, there were lots and lots of other girls and some boys too. Everyone here has a mansion of his own. Allah takes good care of martyrs who die for him. Most girls were younger than me, but some were older too. I didn't see any women but the girls who are houri. Maybe they have a separate Paradise with lots of boys to make them happy. We pray in different parts of mosque, why shouldn't we have a different Paradise too?

I'm so happy to be here. I know that when Mohammed chooses me to be his mattress for the night, I will be honored. In the meanwhile, I'm getting excited about Paradise. There's lots of food, and I'll never have to poo. There's lots of wine but I'll never have to pee. They don't even have toilets here. People even urp perfume, so its pretty stinky with perfume. Mohammed is always eating so he always has a cloud of perfume around him.

I've got to go because today I'm learning how to serve meals with the other girls. I would like to sleep now. Its been a long day, but I know that the better I can serve the martyr, the happier he'll be, and the happier Allah will be.

Prologue to "Memoirs of a Dark-eyed Houri"

WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran's Ahmadinejad May Have 'Cataclysmic Events' In Mind For August 22
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET

In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton's Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers."

"In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

So what we have on our hands is a doomsday cult who will soon be in posession (if they aren't already) of a nuclear bomb. But what we've got to remember is that terrorists are people too. Religious fanatics are just misguided. What they practice isn't "true" Islam.


If Charles Manson had his hands on a nuclear bomb, paradise would have been ushered in by now. What are we afraid of? Maybe they're right! Have you taken a look at the Islamic paradise? Doesn't sound too bad!

I could definitely spend eternity servicing Mohammed and Mahmoud as a dark-eyed virgin. Presumably I'd be 12, and so I'd always be innocent. I would have any thoughts of my own but thoughts of sexually pleasing Mohammed and Mahmoud. In fact, I'm so in love with the idea that I've decided to explore the issue in full in my first ever "Memoirs of a dark-eyed Houri."

Feminism and Femininity

How feminism destroyed real men
16:27pm 4th August 2006

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=398998&in_page_id=1879


...I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.

My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.

Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.

They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.

This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.

In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.

But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.

They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.

The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.

Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood....

It seems to me that although I'm inclined to agree with this man, I don't appreciate being condescended to. I'm by no means a feminist, but his later comment on controlling women by orgasm is disgusting. Must we choose between men like this, who seem reasonable but are freaks and namby pamby liberal whiners?

Most of the women I know here at University prefer wimpy types. One of my friends said "heroin-addict chic with a touch of emo" is what she wanted in a man. That, and someone to buy her things. I've never been one of those, or if I were, it was for a very short time.

My fiance is nothing like Nirpal Dhaliwal's stereotype of the "new man," yet he is patient with my silliness and, on occasion, nastiness. He takes everything I say seriously. If he does not always take it literally, then he takes its tone seriously, and well he might, because I am right 95% of the time.

I don't pretend to be emotionless, but I don't cry at sappy movies. I would be disappointed if my fiance did. I don't bring him into drama. In fact, my life is fairly dramaless.

Best of all, conversation is by far the single most enjoyable part of our relationship. Its also how we spend about 80% of our time together. Being able to approach eachother as intellectual equals is important to us. Even so, I don't pretend to be equal to him in every way. His bravery is notable--he's an army veteran (volunteer,) a former sniper, and a holder of a PHD in English Literature. Do these things need to be mutually exclusive? Can a man be strong and secure in his masculinity while allowing himself to feel the humanity in Phaeto? Certainly!

All I'm saying with this is really....Jack Bauer anyone?

I Love Her, but Sometimes She Doesn't Go Far Enough

MORE OF JOHN KERRY'S RETROACTIVE CAMPAIGN PROMISES
July 26, 2006
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

But wait a minute — Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?

Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad — just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein. But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.

Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is. America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al-Qaida and certainly not just Osama bin Laden.

Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:

— November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

— 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

— April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

— October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

— December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

— September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

— December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

— June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

— October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

— December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

— April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

— December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground. (Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)

— February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

— Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

— November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

— June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

— August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

— October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

— Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 — as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

So what?

Women rule in Upstate course
For the first time, a summer research program at the medical center is all female.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
By Nancy Buczek

http://www.syracuse.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-5/1153905457325550.xml&coll=1

I'm so sick of this surprise that women are allowed equal treatment. I only hope they got those positions because they were indeed the best. If this is a PR stunt, I swear I'll...

Oh Sir, You Said it. Amen.

In Response to LADIES FIRST: More women than men graduate from colleges here and across U.S.
By Kathryn Gill, Freeman staff
07/30/2006

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1769&dept_id=74969&newsid=16985523&PAG=461&rfi=9

Boys will be boys.
My son told me the same thing when he graduated from Rondout. He said female teachers, the feminist sort, ignored boys raised hands and only called on the girls. In class boys are ignored and treated like dumb. The football team and other boys sports are degraded for touchy feely entitlements. Even Boy Scouts were criticized and voted against by the School Board. Boringly stupid.In order for a boy to keep their mental health they have to not care. Single family moms raise their sons with their feminine values and put down fatherhood and even the need for men. Cloning will replace intercourse. What do boys have to look forward to? Even the army gets bashed by the local liberal mindset; shut up and die boy. No wonder boys have no interest in participating. What guy in his right mind wants to wear a dress and be told masculinity is over rated? In a way by not caring, boys are preparing for the future, when it all comes tumbling down, a boy can always play king of the rubble. Don’t need brains for that.
Bill Dukas, Kerhonkson, NY

Very Very Important Studies By Very Very Important Ethnic Studies People

UCSB Professor Wins W.T. Grant Scholars Award for Research on Improving the Lives of Young Latinas April 17, 2006

http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1434


(Santa Barbara, California) – A faculty member at the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at UC Santa Barbara is one of five young scholars nationally to be named one of this year's William T. Grant Scholars.

Laura Romo, an assistant professor in UCSB's Gevirtz School, will receive $300,000 over five years from the William T. Grant Foundation to support her research on ways to improve the life chances of young Hispanic girls.

The highly competitive awards support the professional development of early career scholars who have had demonstrated success in conducting high quality research on improving the lives of young people aged 8 to 25.

Through her research, Romo seeks to develop effective ways to teach the mothers of young Latinas to be more comfortable and effective in discussing pregnancy and HIV prevention. In addition, her project will encourage mothers to foster their daughters' educational and career aspirations.

A specialist in the study of social, cultural, and cognitive influences on health behavior, adolescent sexuality, and women's reproductive health, Romo will collaborate with Girls, Inc. of Greater Santa Barbara. Working with Kary O'Brien, director of program services at Girls, Inc., Romo will tap into the agency's curriculum and adapt their pregnancy-prevention program to meet the specific needs of young Latinas by adding cultural and contextual themes relevant to Latino families.

"The rates of teenage pregnancy are declining, but Latinas still have the highest birth rate compared to other groups," said Romo. "Pregnancy prevention teaches about birth control, but for low-income Latina girls, pregnancy prevention requires much more than information about contraception. Many girls from disadvantaged backgrounds typically don't get the message they can do something with their lives other than having babies. They don't see a different future for themselves."

In a series of studies, Romo watched several hours of videotaped conversations between 120 Latino mothers and their daughters on topics including dating, sexuality, and AIDS. She sought to identify the factors that contribute to effective communication. She found that 70 percent of the mothers encouraged their daughters to make education a priority in their lives.
For Romo, that debunked the myth that Latino families don't value education for their daughters. "But at the same time, they don't know how to help their children access it," she said. "They don't know about financial aid, for example, and may not encourage their children to consider college because they know they won't be able to pay for it."

The goals of Romo's project–to teach pregnancy prevention, foster a desire for education, and enhance mother/daughter communication–support one another, she noted. "Educational aspirations and sexual outcomes go hand-in-hand," she said. "If the girls are highly motivated to go to college, they also will be highly motivated not to get pregnant. And if they don't get pregnant, they'll be more likely to see college as an option."

Romo's research interests include child and adolescent health, adolescent development and sexuality, and family processes. She came to UC Santa Barbara in 2002 from the University of Texas Medical Branch, where she served as an assistant professor in the obstetrics and gynecology department.

The W.T. Grant Scholars Program has a 25-year history as a stepping-stone for early career researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. "The goal of this program," said Robert C. Granger, president of the Grant Foundation, "is to identify exceptional early career scholars and give them the financing, mentorship, and interdisciplinary experiences to make them even better."

I wish I could get 300,000 by making suggestions on how minorities can improve their lives. The lady is a Latina (or is that Chicana or Hispana. I can never keep them straight,) so one supposes she has first hand knowledge of the "community." I could imagine putting 300,000 dollars into programs which help "educate" young women on their personal image and contraception issues, but to research the need? The researcher has already come to her conclusion, and that's why she's getting the money.

Also, her "research" is all about "how to not get pregnant,"but might as well be "how to get un-pregnant" I thought the liberals had abortion for that, and isn't it taught in every kindergarten across the country? Seems like Latina women just aren't taking advantage of that "opportunity" like the rest of us. Maybe because they're, in proportion, much more religious than the rest of us? Could it be that said researcher thinks that this religious streak is responsible for "keeping the women down" because it believes abortion is a sin? Could Be.