Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Melinda, thank you for your heartfelt and eye-opening post on being a pro-life Democrat. I get frustrated enough being put on the defensive for being a women who is pro-life, without the added angst you have of feeling excluded from your own party. I've been trying to come up with a response to further the debate, but you put everything so well--enough with the fund-raisers and the noisemakers on both sides--and it's a little dull to write a post saying "Yes, I agree!"
But I am bothered by a broader problem related to the intolerance you've encountered. If we can't even be nice to the people on our own side when we disagree with them on one or two things, how ever are we supposed to start getting along with those whose worldviews are vastly different? I feel like, with the proliferation of Internet news and blogs and 24-hour news channels, we are subjecting ourselves to so much information that we have to be more selective than in the past, and many of us are winnowing out any information that doesn't mesh with our own ideology.
-
sponsorship
Today's the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month and some bloggers are arguing that the ubiquitous "pink-ribbon" approach has gone too far. (See the second panel.) Over at The Assertive Cancer Patient you can find a critique of the relentless "awareness" approach: Sather is giving out awards to readers who nominated the tackiest and most trivial products sold in the name of breast-cancer. The prime offender?
Grand Prize: to the blogger Dubutant, for her entry: Jingle Jugs for Life
Jingle Jugs sells life-size boobs, or "racks," that bounce in time to the song "Titties and Beer." Its market? Frat boys.
From the Jingle Jugs Web site: "Our newest version of Jingle Jugs comes with a pre-recorded breast cancer message. A second re-recordable chip allows the user to record a message of his or her own choice, such as a favorite song, your favorite team's fight song, a romantic message, a political commentary . . . all to which the Jugs will dance and move in synch." (http://www.jinglejugsforlife.com/)
Debutaunt's comment, in a letter to Komen: "... Honestly, I can't see in any good conscience how you can justify accepting money from this vulgar company. They sell a product that is so putrid and heinous, but are justifying it since they donate a ‘percentage' to breast cancer organizations -- then show proudly their giant check to Komen."
Now, the original Jingle Jugs product sounds totally ridiculous, and this "Jugs Across America" tour is juvenile at best. (Traveling Breast Museum? Please.) But the vilification of the company's breast cancer product raises some questions in my mind: Is it really all that bad for the makers of this yucky product to preach a philanthropic message to their customers, however self-serving it may be? Is this product purely a shameless attempt to win some easy PC-points? Or is it indicative of the fact that we now live in a hard-headed post-feminist age where we accept that the objectification of women will always exist, but ensure that at least now people who buy gag items like this know (or are reminded) that women aren't just objects, they're people who can get sick too? I lean toward thinking the latter. But I can imagine that if I had breast cancer I'd be grossed out.
Check out Sather's write-up of the worst pink-ribbon products here.
-
sponsorship
On Obama-bama-bama ...
Apropos of your great post on Hillary and toughness last night, Meghan, it’s worth contrasting the whole “manly-girl = scary-girl” Hillary narrative with the other big campaign story this week: Barack Obama needs to stop being such a wuss. Here’s just a smattering of the recent suggestions to that effect.
I was at the huge rally for Obama in Charlottesville, Va., Monday night. Organizers claim it was the largest paid crowd he’s drawn anywhere as a presidential candidate, and close to 5,000 people showed up. Excellent local coverage here, here, and here. I confess to being less certain than my colleagues that the speech really lifted off. It was good, but it didn’t soar, and I have seen Obama soar. I think where he wobbled was at the moments where he tried to do outrage: He’s pacing the stage, giggling at his own jokes, calling back to the people in the crowd who yell “I love you!” and then he takes on this mask of aggression? Why?
The moments at which he did lift off were vintage Obama: telling the crowd that he needed them to feel powerful enough believe in their government again. He is pitch perfect when he reminds us that government is fixable; that the missteps and lawlessness of the past seven years can be turned around; that democracy itself will lance the wound. Maybe I’m wrong, but if America is one-tenth as sick of the hissing and snarling that passes for political discourse as I am, the whole anger-as-theater thing is not the way to campaign. Don’t get me wrong. I am angry, too. But I have seen what seven years of unhinged political rage achieves. I want less of that, not more.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?