Governor Scott Walker’s campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews finds herself on the receiving end of misogyny by feminists and leftist press.
Her crime? She waited tables at Hooters while going to college. Steven Elbow asks the penetrating question:
But to the direct question: Were you a Hooters girl? She said, “I was.”
Matthews said she waited tables for the popular restaurant chain — which features tasty chicken wings and waitresses in short shorts and low-cut tops –- while attending college at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
“So you guys want to write a story that I waited tables in college,” she said. “I’m confused as to why that’s a story.”
Well, she may have a point. What makes news is not always easy to pinpoint. But as we say in the biz: You know it when you see it. [Emphasis added.] And with a recall election looming in which she will often be front-and-center as Walker battles to keep his job, details that might otherwise be ignored become interesting.
Like porn? So, working at Hooters is like story porn? That’s the allusion that this writer made:
The phrase was famously used by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Obscenity is not protected speech under the Miller test, and can therefore be censored.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
The expression became “one of the most famous phrases in the entire history” of the Supreme Court.[1
But that’s just the beginning. Jezebel publishes a provocative picture of Ciara. Because, you know, conservative women get what’s coming to them.
And Ciara’s story comes on the heels of feminists doubling down on attacking Ann Romney.
Oh, and don’t forget Amanda Marcotte and the feminists over at Pandagon. Some women are more equal than others, just ask Amanda.
And then there’s Time Magazine’s Judith Warner piling on Ann Romney, too. Her implication is laughable. As though, she, Judith Warner, is somehow more touch with the suffering masses than Ann Romney.
On the positive side, one feminist, Wendy S. Goffe at Forbes, said this:
I thought of all this when the news broke recently about Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”
I don’t know Ann Romney, but as a working mom, I don’t know how she found the time to raise five children. And by the way, Ann Romney has multiple sclerosis. Her life sure sounds a lot harder than going to an office, where someone else makes the coffee, and I know my daughter is well cared for by a nanny that is the closest thing to Mary Poppins in the 21st century.
As a Democrat, I am simply embarrassed by that comment. Rightly distancing himself from Hilary Rosen, President Obama came to Ann Romney’s defense, and the defense of all stay-at-home moms, saying that “there’s no tougher job than being a mom. . . Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.” I am proud to have a president who is in touch with his constituents, regardless of political party or appearances.
I also feel privileged to have the job that I do and the ability to hire a nanny. Frankly, I don’t have the skills to raise five children.
Many liberals are wholly hypocritical about how they treat conservative women–whether they’re young, beautiful up-and-comer working outside the home women or middle-aged, working inside the home moms.
They hate conservative women and attacks are fair game.
That’s too bad because it seems to be the opposite of what the Women’s Movement was supposed to be about.
None of us lead the lives our appearance suggests. We each lie in bed at night with our personal terrors as to what life could be, or about what life is like right now, and whether we have the strength to get through it. Clothes and money rarely can make that go away.
The women’s movement loses all credibility with it’s “choices for me, but not for thee” and creating the abortion litmus test.
When conservative women are destroyed because they dissent from popular feminist opinion, all women lose. Why can’t liberal women see this?
Had a discussion with a liberal Texan who has not, in her adult years, experienced economic difficulty. That is, unlike me, she has not lived in an economically dying state (New York in the mid-90’s, Michigan in the late 90’s early 00’s) and finally, an economically dead state (NY and MI now). So, a few people at her place of employment have been laid off and she’s worried. She was supremely offended when I said, “It’s not bad yet and it’s going to get worse.”
Just as a citizen in Michigan and New York has a hard time fathoming how thoroughly boiled a frog he is, a Texan or Floridian has a difficult time fathoming how good he has it.
A Southern liberal also has a tough time comprehending the destruction the union mentality and heavy taxation brings to a state. Unions destroy productivity and detach performance from pay. This, ironically, interferes with individualism. As in, the individual defers to the whole and becomes less inclined to be the best he can be. His spirit is destroyed. So much so, that in absence of unions, many men (mostly men) sit and wait for salvation. They are used to the strength coming from without, not from within.
Heavy taxation does it’s own sort of damage. Businesses, bodies of people together, reach a point where the work load isn’t worth it. The companies either move or fold.
Texas has grown because states like Michigan and New York kill their business climate. And yet, a Texas liberal refused to hear the truth about taxes and unions while simultaneously lamenting lay-offs at her company. This kind of disconnect is disturbing, but revealing.
What liberals want is a guarantee. She wants no one to ever lose a job. She wants no one to ever to know economic discomfort. She wants the country to have Texas’ economy but tax and unionize like New York and Michigan. You can’t have it both ways. It won’t work, as California is now learning. The safety net, large and cushy, is its own sort of noose. Eventually it kills the golden goose. The goose dies or flies South.
The worrying thing is that if the whole nation operates like Michigan, New York and California, the economy everywhere will die. At a certain point, government money runs out. That can’t just keep printing it forever.
It’s a terrible thing when liberals get their way. The policies do the exact opposite of their intention. It’s not bad here in Texas. In fact, it’s still pretty good. Liberal policies won’t prevent disaster here. They cause them. I’m afraid not enough people know that.
The government can’t save you. But you can save you. Is life really that bad out there? I still don’t believe America is anywhere near the misery of the 1920s and 1930s.
I actually think Americans are still relatively wealthy. Even with cutting back, people have accumulated so much stuff, unnecessary stuff, that a couple year recession could take hold and people could maintain their currently obscene standard of living.
So, when there is talk of government bailouts and stimulus packages, what needs to be stimulated, exactly? People who are given something for nothing aren’t usually grateful for it. To quote Rihanna and TI:
Some move away to make a way not move away cause they afraid.
I’ll go back to the hood and all you ever did was take away.
Much to the chagrin of my friends, I enjoy hip-hop. This song is about making it, seeking after fame and money and the vagaries within. So a guy makes it, goes back, and people take. He counsels gratitude for what they do have, but no. They “chase paper”.
You know, the government will receive no more gratitude than a flush friend who’s generous should it decide to be the new Mommy Givebucks. People tend to be a whole lot more thankful for what they work for than what they’re given, no strings attached. This is not always the case. I’m reminded of the one (out of 10) blind men who came back and thanked Christ for restoring his sight. That ratio seems about right. Maybe 10% are grateful for what they’re given.
It is important for us, as citizens, to decide exactly when and how the government should be involved with being a safety net and what form that takes. A system that implodes under the weight of largess or steals from the next generation is not being generous but immoral. In order for there to be something around for later, those given to now should be deserving and actually helped, rather than be enslaved.
There are a whole host of government social programs, art funding, research projects and ego-enhancing public works. We don’t get something for nothing. Someone, you, is paying. What do you want to pay for?
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
So I tell a friend, I sure wish there was one place where all the liberal reporters admit their bias. And voila! He gives me a couple places:
Hi all! I know you can’t watch videos at work and I know this video is long. Still, you need to watch this. And for my liberal friends, please watch this too.
“The modern liberal has opted to become indiscriminate.”
“They reject rational thought as a hate crime.”
“They are incapable of rationally criticizing their own thought.”
H/T Black and Right
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
At Pajama’s today, I wrote an article about the conflict between the economy and the environment and that when the two crises compete, the economy wins. It is not an either/or problem, of course. It is possible and important, I believe, for conservatives to have a cohesive message and coherent policy regarding the environment. Currently, we have neither.
The Left has both won and lost the environmental argument. (More by Patrick Ruffini on Leftist ideas that are old.) They’ve won in that most people now are convinced there’s a problem. They’ve lost in that the solutions are more stringent than a Pentecostal’s sin list. So, people pay lip service to the environmental problem, do what little they can and tune out. This is a an opportunity for conservatives.
The fact is, there are many conservatives deeply concerned about how to care for and protect the environment while addressing the economic and human concerns. Tied into this issue is a general lack of restraint and a corpulent life-style now in America symbolized by our big waist-lines and mind-numbing debt top to bottom. Conservatives are for personal responsibility and grown-up thinking and discipline. Caring for the environment in concrete ways conforms to that thinking.
Part of the problem with this issue is that it’s not simple in the same way that stem cell research isn’t simple. Complex theories don’t make for simple policy solutions. That doesn’t mean the Left has a complex solution. They have simple logos and simple solutions: “Hurting the environment is bad” is simple. Do conservatives have a simple response? Can the argument be reframed right now, especially, while the economy struggles and there’s a tension between expensive pie-in-the-sky solutions and reality? Will “waste not, want not” sell right now?
Another problem is that conservatives are against regulation and government interference and nanny-statism. How can government policy encourage responsible behavior without seeming coercive and take away rights or economic freedom? I’m not a smoker, but I bristle at the punitive government behavior on legal activity. To me, that means tax breaks and lots of press for things considered good behavior. What good behavior do conservatives want to encourage? Well, why not tax breaks for efficient everything–hot water heaters, windows, etc. But again, these retrofits take money, money that people don’t have right now.
I’m seeing problems as I write this and think out loud. The “right” solution means identifying the real problem. With the science so shoddy, good luck figuring out what the best solution is for fill-in-the-blank environmental issue. The problem, of course, is that the Left accepts this shoddy science on faith and crafts punitive public policy. The Right must answer, every, single, time. And we must be preemptive.
The Left has co-opted the environmental message and managed to irritate a lot of people in the process. The Right can do better. The key will be to simplify the message and make it relevant to economic realities. And another thing before I’m done babbling. I think the environment will retreat as an issue should the economy continue it’s slide. The Right doesn’t need to end up being a day late and a dollar short on an environmental message only to miss the more important message that has been their traditional strength–the economy and changing the American culture of debt. In fact, part of what undid McCain was his seeming irrelevance. He was holding environmental talks, extolled the fundamentals of the economy and sounded seriously out of touch.
Conservatives need to remember that citizens expect the Left to be fou-fou about the details and expect the Right to be solid on the big picture. We lost the big picture in the last election, played to our weaknesses and forgot our strengths.
James Joyner has more.
The Left has become somewhat of a caricature: