Speaking with Pravda this week, Zhirinovsky chastised Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.You can say he's simply crazy, but do you think there are not plenty of people in this country who think such things?
The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."
"If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear," Zhirinovsky ranted on. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.
"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention," he added. "Such women are very rough. … They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: 'Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian!'
"Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though."
१३ जानेवारी, २००६
"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention... Such women are very rough."
Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky on Condoleezza Rice:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
Zhirinovsky is a certifiable loon, however. He's previously talked about re-extending the Russian Empire to the Indian Ocean, is close friends with France's pseudo-fascist Jean Marie Le-Pen, and a slew of other oddities.
My favorite, however, was during the 2001 presidential campaign in Russia, when Zhirinovsky ran a commercial showing a couple in bed watching political figures in bed. They had nothing positive to say about his opponents, who were too old or weak-willed. But the appearance of Zhirinovsky made them rather amorous, which is a claim that I must admit has not yet been exploited by the American political establishment: Candidate X will improve your sex life!
Waiting for American self-styled feminists to publicly defend Secretary of State Rice and condemn Zhirinovsky's blatant misogyny...
What you must understand is that Vladimir Zhirinovsky is the Russian equivalent to a Fred Phelps / Jerry Falwell character. I've been aware of him since about 1994, and he is, as Steve said, a "certifiable loon."
On the other hand, I surely can't be the only one mildy interested by the attendant mental picture of Rice "be[ing] taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."
Doesn't "taken to barracks where she would be satisfied" carry implications of rape?
You're no doubt right, Ann, that many Americans, men and women, in their sexist hearts, have the same feelings about Rice. But unlike Zhirinovsky, they thankfully don't have access to mass media.
But one must wonder what proportion of our feelings toward people in public life is substantive and how much of it is visceral or prejudiced?
How many qualified people are denied our votes or our support because we don't deem them attractive enough, or because they're female, or whatever?
And how often do we, like Zhirinovsky, pounce on irrelevant personal attributes in order to repudiate another person's point of view?
And how often, for that matter, do we jump on somebody's bandwagon just because we like the way the look or talk?
I suppose that if I did an honest self-appraisal, my finger might as likely point to myself as others for thinking that's shallow, prejudiced, or illogical. I can be stash people in my own categories of choice and am apt to keep them there until the Second Coming. I'm not proud of that. But it's the truth.
But people do break free of our stereotypes or visceral and demographic straight-jackets. My brother-in-law, a late-40-something, divorced father, who works in sales and does house restoration on the side, sports a "Condi for President" bumper sticker on his truck. His mother, my mother-in-law, in her late-70s, is horrified at the very sight of the sticker, not because she has something against women in high office, like many women her age that I know. It's just that she's an ardent LibDem. We have interesting conversations sometimes.
Mark Daniels
I don't know what to say - it hasn't been that long since a pic of Condi in her high, black S&M looking boots was plastered all over....
Zhirinovsky understimates our beloved Condi: a barracks would not be enough. A full symphony of musicians, trained in triathalons, schooled in the classics, and fluent in four languages? Perhaps.
Sour grapes, Comrade. You only wish you had women as powerful as that in Russia!
LOL! That guy is a piece of work.
Poor Condi. I sure do want her to run in '08, but she's going to get it from all sides. I daresay if she ever becomes president, we'll look back at Bush-bashing with fondness.
Actually, Ann, lots of supporters of your boy Alito think these things.
Of course, "conservatives" have such limited courage of their convictions that Sam and his allies have tried to back away from all of his views lately
And you "don't really think that Roe will be overturned" huh?
It will be in your boy Sammy gets his chance. Which he will.
Beware of what you wish for, Ann.
"LarryK said...
Yes - some may even post at Eschaton and say they're being ironic."
Yep. When women write that they belong in the kitchen, they're being literal. They couldn't possibly mean the -opposite- of what they're saying, in an attempt to make fun of those attitudes.
No, they sincerely believe they belong in the kitchen.
Dishonesty is the new black.
Well, of course, he is crazy. Also, I don't think he counts so much as a "lefty," more as an extreme righty like LePen -- fascist racist nationalist. But then, the ends of the circle meet and join, don't they.
There may be people here who are thinking thoughts like that about Condi and other powerful women, but they are thinking them from a position of powerlessness, and post-facto panic at faits already accompli, so who cares?
Doesn't "taken to barracks where she would be satisfied" carry implications of rape?
Certainly not the way I read it, but if that is the implication of the statement, I would disassociate myself from my previous remark on the matter.
I think, however, that the concepts of "satisfaction" and "rape" are not only antithetical, but mutually exclusive when used together in a sentence. I read the statement as inescapably implying consensual activity, because I don't see how one could talk about gang rape, as others have inferred, as "satisfying" Rice.
I'm sure you'll be waiting a long time for those American self-styled feminists to come to her defense, Meade. A few months ago I heard a left-wing activist and writer, a single woman in her 50s, speaking ill of Condi and saying that she looked like "the saddest girl in the world." And I thought to myself, "if she looks like the saddest girl in the world, what do you think you look like?"
"I don't think [Zhirinovsky] counts so much as a "lefty," more as an extreme righty like LePen -- fascist racist nationalist."
This is completely correct - I don't think anyone could accuse Zhirinovsky as being a "lefty", not least because he himself has loudly and repeatedly comdemned the Communist Party. A more appropriate analog is indeed, LePen - Zhirinovsky is an extreme nationalist who seeks to restore not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire, prefereably with himself as the Tsar. And presumably Condi as Tsarina.
Without checking for mistakes, I dashed off my comments on this post earlier. Since then, I've noticed several grammatical and spelling errors, including "straight jacket" instead of "strait jacket." That sort of stuff makes me nuts! The comment has turned into a slightly expanded post on my site, hopefully corrected: http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/01/of-demographic-strait-jackets.html.
(I know that this stuff doesn't matter so much to others. But I hate to see spelling errors, which can be so easily corrected with spell-checkers, and grammatical mistakes, which look so ignorant! Errors like this make everything a person says suspect. At least, that's the impact they have on me. Condi Rice would never let mistake-laden draft emanate from her computer.)
Mark Daniels
"However, whatever the reason was that made me laugh at that joke will not negatively influence my opinion of Condi Rice."
I don't think it's necessarily out of bounds to comment on a public figure being sexually attractive (for example, I'm sure that Sens. Feingold and Clinton are well aware that their telegenic looks give them an advantage over other contestants for the '08 nomination), as long is its always kept in mind that such commentary is irrelevant once the dicourse turns to serious matters. I've commented previously, in what I think were appropriate contexts, that I think both Condi Rice and Judge Sykes are very attractive women, but at the same time, when the discussion has actually been about substantive matters of importance, the discussion appropriately excluded those matters.
Put in terms to capture the zeitgeist, I don't think that, just because Article III Groupie wrote the highly informal, inappropriate and frothy Underneath Their Robes, David Latt would be in any way less than appropriate and substantive should he be required to argue a case before the supreme court.
On the other hand, I think such discussion should still be offered under the rubric of "if you can't say anything nice"; it is one thing to offer compliments on our Fearless Leader's youthfull good looks, but perhaps less appropriate to make comments about Our Hero's appearence.
Without putting too fine a point on it, Simon, when Zhirinovsky rants, "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied," I don't think, by taken to, he means invited to.
I see Amba etc. got there first in terms of correctly placing Z. along the political spectrum. Also that he's a complete and utter loon.
Re "complex-prone":
That one sort of got--the word's not laugh exactly--an exasperated guffaw, maybe, out of me.
Because it can be read in a couple of ways: complex-prone, which is what I think he meant, and complex-prone, which is what I think is his real problem with Condi.
She just doesn't conform to his concept of the ideal woman: one who's "simple" and one-dimensional enough that even someone with his pea-sized brain and even smaller imagination can "understand." And keep under control, presumably.
[start OT] Mark: I know lots of people whose opinions I value and respect who are prone either to typos or outright mistakes. When I do it myself (especially in comments), it's very annoying, but in others not so much so. I'll bet a lot of people write straight into blogger etc. and due to their OS don't have access to a spellchecker etc. Comments strike me as more like "speech," where the standard is lower than in formal writing. Maybe that's the wrong attitude to take, but I'm sticking to it. [end OT]
Wouldn't it be great if there really were html tags to indicate OT comments? Heh.
Zhirinovsky sounds like the perfect Bush selection for the next Supreme Court vacancy. He could probably make Ted Kennedys wife, or one of his mistresses, cry.
Actually, Ann, lots of supporters of your boy Alito think these things.
Wow. That's offensive, irrational, and insulting on so many levels I think it might just have set a record. Someone notify Guinness/
Did someone say Guinness? Brilliant!
Simon: The implication is definitely gang rape.
Yes - some may even post at Eschaton and say they're being ironic. However, this is nothing new. The Left has been vicious towards Condi Rice for some time, and their hostility is only likely to accelerate as her political star rises.
And of course its only the left that engages in these kinds of comments, right?
Betty Freidan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinham -- no one ever said they'd be happier if they could get laid. Uh, uh...never.
Wait -- let me think a minute..who was it just said "I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement?" I'm sure that was penned by some loony lefty.
For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks -- CHILDREN!!
Don't dump this shit on the left.
flory - you need to spend a morning reading Michelle Malkin's hate mail. And then, you need to spend the afternoon contemplating what other opinions you hold because you've always held them rather than because they are correct.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a stupid clown who is probably impotent and sterile. He fully deserves this punishment for his idiotic statement.
Flory: Scroll up and reread amba's comment where she asks, There may be people here who are thinking thoughts like that about Condi and other powerful women, but they are thinking them from a position of powerlessness, and post-facto panic at faits already accompli, so who cares?
Do you care?
Sonia: If that is a picture of you, may I please ask you a personal question? As a child, were you ever abused, traumatized or abandoned?
andrew is right:
"Zhirinovsky is too marginal to be serious"
So is Pat Robertson. But I'm sure Czar Z's inane comment (or any similarly-irrelevant apology) won't be mentioned in every top-of-the-hour news update for the next 36 hours, as was the case ealier this week with Robertson's latest burst of intellectual flatulence.
If he doesn't like Rice, he might find himself on the floor after a punch from Uncle Ben.
Condi for President!
Dear Meade,
'Sonia: If that is a picture of you, may I please ask you a personal question? As a child, were you ever abused, traumatized or abandoned?'.
Yes, a little, you can read this to find out...
Ann Althouse said..."Simon: The implication is definitely gang rape."
njoriole said..."Think before you post!"
I didn't read the passage to imply that, and I think that one could only conclude that the implication was "definitely" gang rape if one can operate under (or at least, comprehend) the presumptions of someone who thinks in that manner. I make no bones about - and feel no shame in - finding a viewpoint that conflates rape and satisfaction as incomprehensible.
In any instance, when it became clear that I had misread (or possibly just missed) the inference other posters saw clearly, I posted a clarification disassociating myself from this interpretation, which I think is about as much as I can do. I suppose that's what I get for making a flippant comment about the Secretary of State being an attractive woman.
Thank you, Sonia. I guessed as much. I'm very sorry for your suffering.
Thank you, Meade,
It's all right. My weird blog is a great form of therapy for me...
I doubt it, Sonia, but then I'm not really qualified to say, so I'll just say - best wishes.
ex-democrat:
What does Michelle Malkin's hate mail have to do with my comment? Does the fact she gets hate mail negate what O'Bierne wrote in her book?
meade:
Do I care? Yes -- I care that the host of this blog can celebrate a rightwing author who disprespects liberal women on the basis of their sexuality -- or percieved lack thereof; and then turns around and feigns disgust when someone does it to a conservative woman.
Do you care about the...inconsistency...of that?
Waiting for American self-styled feminists to publicly defend Secretary of State Rice and condemn Zhirinovsky's blatant misogyny...
I'm sure you'll be waiting a long time for those American self-styled feminists to come to her defense, Meade.
Still waiting for any of the "enlightened" European or Muslim countries to speak out against this hate speech (ethnic and gender based). Or the NOW group. Or Hollywood?
Why don't you people do a little checking before you make such presumptuous comments? I first read about this story last night on a lefty/feminist blog that I frequent. But I suppose it's easier to just be smug than to actually base your opinions on any evidence.
flory: "Do I care? Yes -- I care that the host of this blog can celebrate a rightwing author who disprespects liberal women on the basis of their sexuality..."
What on earth does that refer to? I can't even think of a rightwing author I celebrated.
Yes, there are someone modern jackasses around who would agree--on left and right.
I also agree with much of your Alito coverage--especially on the job done by Kohl vs. Feingold. (Kohl, whom I otherwise like, was sometimes painful to watch...Feingold was feisty, informed and engaged.)
I haven't seen you address the key aspect of the CAP episode--doesn't it bother you at all that Judge Alito conveniently claims to forget why he joined this extremist group, when it as one of only 2 on his resume? Why not just admit--I was a bit of a hot-head 20 years ago? Also, whatever one's views, it's pretty lame to claim he can't address whether Roe is settled law. No?
Finally, nice job on radio. You and Rich Lowry do conservatives proud.
FP
flory - does anything "negate" the fact that leftists feel at liberty to hurl violently bigoted insults at Malkin simply because she's a conservative?
just asking.
faithful - ask any litigator: "settled law" is law that supports the argument you happen to be making at the time.
I initially did not read the comment as implying rape either ...
That said ... those poor soliders will they need counseling afterwards?
The last refuge of a scoundrel: she just needs to get l***.
You're so right, knoxgirl. I guess the vestiges of chivalry and politesse make attacks against women really distasteful. And I would extend this to people like Hillary as well. If she's running for office, why do media comment on what she's wearing or her latest hairdo?
"I do not see opposing affirmative action as being extremist. I see it as a mainstream, and perhaps even majoritarian, view. And it certainly does not infer racial animous. I oppose affirmative action, and I am not a racist-- in fact, I abhor racists."
Quite the contrary - it seems to me that, under the common definition of "racism" ("discrimination or prejudice based on race"), a person who supports affirmative action is more apt to accusations of being racist than one who advocates color-blindness.
"That said ... those poor soliders will they need counseling afterwards?"
I don't know about that. A cup of gatorade and a cigarette, certainly, though.
Zhirinovsky (who also once said that in WWII, Russians should have fought alongside Hitler's army against the West, and has also said that Russia should go to war against the United States to reclaim Alaska) is the candidate of the 'Drinks too much Vodka' party. But keeping in mind that he got 7% of the vote the last time he ran for President, he does indeed represent the views of millions in Russia.
And in Europe generally. We've seen it not only with Le Pen, but with Jorg Haider and others who sometimes get elected and embarrass their countries. Nazism showed what happened when the racist, over-nationalistic, xenophobic undercurrent that has always existed in Europe gains power over a country.
Whatever sins of bigotry we have to answer for in the United States (and the people who claim that there is no longer a race problem in the U.S. are wrong), we have never been as bad as Europe was, and if you could look into the hearts of millions of people, largely still is.
And coco: The ENLIGHTENED leaders in Europe have always spoken out against this kind of stuff. They know they have it in their country, and in Europe, WWII is not just something that you learn about in history books. They live with the survivors, all of them, on every side, every day. The reason Europe is as liberal as it is now is a direct result of the revulsion that people felt and recoiled from, once the crimes of the extreme right were exposed.
The evolution of modern European politics in light of both its recent and not at all recent history is a fascinating topic, but one that can't be addressed in a blog post.
Geoduck2 said...
"I'm still waiting for the Right to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog" when she was twelve years old."
I wasn't aware he had said that. If he did, he should retract those comments and apologize, and I hereby condemn Rush in the roundest terms for the inappropriate conferring of sexual characteristics upon a child.
Obviously - while getting a little fatter these days - I do not personally constitute the entirety of the right, and lack any kind of authority to speak for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (or as it's now known, "the Federal Government"), hopefully you'll accept a condemnation simply from someone who is on the right.
Geoduck2 also said...
"I would also note that Zhirinovsky is not an American. Why would NOW note offensive statements of Zhirinovsky, as oppossed to anti-feminist nuts in Pakistan, or anti-feminist politicians who populate the rest of the world."
Given NOW's legendary judgement of character - "STOP SOUTER OR WOMEN WILL DIE" - I'm not sure that a condemnation from them amounts to a whole hill of beans anyway. Where NOW is concerned, as Alison Krauss adequately formulated it, "[they] say it best when [they] say nothing at all."
Red, be careful, you're knocking down the rightwing commenters' little strawmen! I read this first on the same feminist blog you cite, but I think these guys here are expecting a feminist (dunno WHAT they mean by "self-styled") to actually call them up, as they clearly can't be bothered to go looking on their own!
Since when is some fascist Russion lunatic "The Left"? Another idiotic rightwing mantra.
I don't admire Rice's record, but I am in awe of her rise to power.
Gee, Simon, you must have that Stop Souter thing on a hotkey. It's the second time you've posted it this week.
Keith Whitley wrote, and first recorded those lines, by the way. Krauss' version is lovely, though.
I have to hand it to the Russian. He did the impossible and actually got me to think positively about Condi Rice. The man is a sexist fool,and I agree, Ann, that many people in this country might well believe the same.
And to all those folks who are taking this opportunity to slam feminists, I have to admit to being baffled. The Russian made a very sexist comment, and I am perfectly happy to defend Rice and be outraged about the comment.
I have no problem with the way our secretary of state looks. I am thrilled that a woman is secretary of state. My problem and anger and upset is with her policies and her support of George W. And yes, I am a feminist and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian
Why would NOW note offensive statements of Zhirinovsky, as oppossed to anti-feminist nuts in Pakistan, or anti-feminist politicians who populate the rest of the world.
Um, because it's directed at an extremely powerful woman who also happens to be at the highest levels of our government?
You mean, NOW's not concerned anymore about how women in high places are treated, and how that reality might discourage other women from reaching that high?
Uh-uh. I don't buy it. It's because we're talking Condi here and not any number of other women involved in high levels of government, but on a different side.
How is it misogynistic to say that a specific woman is emotionally colder than sufficient to hold the position of a superpower's top diplomat?
He blames this "coldness" on her unmarried status, for one.
What specific critiques of Rice's performance do you have, other than your list of "ifs"?
Your pediatrician analogy is silly. Are you actually arguing that a young person choosing a specialization in Med School should wait then until they'd reproduced to go into pediatrics? Would you not trust a psychiatrist who hadn't experienced a psychotic break? An oncologist who hadn't had cancer? I guess male gynecologists are untrustworthy, too.
Andrew's Letterman joke made me laugh too, and I'd be happy to have Condi as President.
Ann:
What on earth does that refer to? I can't even think of a rightwing author I celebrated.
Odd...I could have sworn I read something here in which you praised Kate O'Bierne's new book. I can't find it now so perhaps I was wrong. If so, and if you are as condemnatory of O'Biernes obnoxious comments regarding feminists as you are towards Zhirinovsky's obnoxious comments, then I apologize.
flory - does anything "negate" the fact that leftists feel at liberty to hurl violently bigoted insults at Malkin simply because she's a conservative?
just asking.
My comment concerned whether or not conservatives are as guilty of disrespecting women based on their looks and/or sexuality as Larry beleives Eschatonians are.
What the hell does Malkin have to do with that?
For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks -- CHILDREN!!
I always thought Chelsea Clinton was kind of cute.
Coco: Charles - the way you post this makes it seem as if these are the only folks/groups who should be offended by such comments.
Sorry, no, posting that X offends me doesn't imply that it exhausts the set of things that offend me.
Nice try, though. Don Pardo will tell you about your lovely consolation prize.
CAP was upset that an all-white male school was changing to let women and non-whites into the school. Not quite a simple debate about "affirmative action."
Which is why Laura Ingraham and Dinsh D'Souza got jobs with them.
Jeez, at least try to make sense.
Could Zhirinovsky be entirely unschooled about Rice's background? criticalobserver, on what basis do you infer that Rice "puts everything into her job because she has no life [and] is not a balanced person"? First, I'd argue that a person with such varied talents and interests as Rice is arguably not putting everything into her job, and second, her status as a single person frees her to put an inordinate - to a married person with children - amount of time and energy into that job, don't you think? If she were a wife and/or a mother, I feel certain, based on her pure-D devotion to and mastery of pretty much everything she's done, she'd be as conscientious in her performance of the attendant duties as she is in her work life.
Charlie,
Do you mean cute in a sugar and spice and everything nice way, or a John Derbyshire kind of way?
"For chrissakes -- you people thought nothing about going after Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton on their looks"
Us people? Gee, thanks for lumping us all together.
I've known conservatives and liberals, and although I sometimes heard nasty comments and jokes from conservatives they were *nothing* compared to the foam-at-the-mouth hate and paranoia I've heard from liberals.
"...and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian"
You say that as if you think we will be horrified.
"taken to barracks where she would be satisfied"
That reminds me of a Palestinian film that included the gang-rape of a female Israeli soldier in order to "make a woman of her." Perhaps that was what caused the local progressives to write such respectful reviews. /snark
Zhirinovsky is crude. To approach seeing him as a 'leftie, no rightie' begins analysis in a fumbling but correct tool set way. Kuenhelt-Leddihn in his book 'Leftism: From deSade..to Hitler..' says that leftism from the French revolution to communism amd nazism is an 'identitarian' demand. You must be part of the identified correct group or you are nothing, to be sadistically treated. Condi Rice is different from 'Z,' so different as, by this, to threaten him; thus his comments which both express the wish to subdue her, glorifying his identity, and accept her if she enjoys this (not).
As to her not being like the trusted pediatrician with children, her early memories as a child in Birmingham where her little friends were killed in a bombing supporting an identitarianism might have made the point to her that to 'have children' does not mean you 'have' them unless there is a political structure which allows some different to 'have.' Thus the importance of exemplifying and supporting this political right is impressed on her and she becomes an Esther, who is mother to more than her own.
pst314:
Must be a fictional film then, because I am not aware of any female Israeli soldier having been captured by Palestinians. The Israelis do an extraordinary job of preventing the capture of their soldiers, and when they are captured (mainly airmen who are shot down over, for example, Lebanon) they go to great lengths to get them back.
As for female Israeli soldiers (Israel is the only nation that has compulsory military service for women), that was originally due to their being hugely outnumbered by their enemies. However there was an incident in the 1967 (six day) war when they proved their value-- the Israeli men had been called up, and were fighting in the opening phases of the war in Sinai (they got up north a couple of days later), and a Syrian attack targetted a couple of Kibbutzes (collective farms) in Galilee. The defenders were a batallion of female reserve troops, plus a handful of old men. Anyway they held off a whole division of Syrian troops for almost a whole day until a regular army unit arrived and drove the Syrians back.
CriticalOberver:
Where did you get your ideas on what makes an effective diplomat? You sure don't seem to be describing Richelieu, Talleyrand, Bismarck, or any of the other diplomatic greats of history. Rice's job is to serve the interests of her country, not make foreign leaders feel good about themselves. A good diplomat is never unintentionally offensive, but one also never unintentionally takes offense; in both cases, it's a tactical matter.
Silver said: "And yes, I am a feminist and, oh my gosh, I'm even a dreaded lesbian"
you don't read this blog too often do you?
CriticalObserver: There's so much off about your comment of 5:40 p.m. last evening that I don't even know where to begin.
So many assumptions, so much pseudopsychological analysis ... and the conclusions! Wow. I wouldn't trust someone who thinks like that to ... well, never mind.
The pediatrician comment was hilarious, though, given the realities of med school. How's that timing supposed to work, such that every pediatrician has children before launching his or her practice? Do they start in another area of medicine and move into pediatrics only after they've had children?
Or, are they supposed to make sure they have their kids during med school, internship and residency, when would-be pediatricians have copious time and resources to devote to his or her offspring?
There's a little thing called imagination, you know. Combine it with intelligence and education and it's possible to know about all sorts of things not personally experienced.
I'll bet Condi excels at that.
Eli Blake said: Yes, the film was fictional, and I saw it about 20 years ago in a small theater that catered to "intellectuals" and "progressives". And just to be perfectly clear, the rapists were Palestinians. (But of course; otherwise the reviewers wouldn't have liked the film so much and the intellectuals would not have come to see it.)
flory - who cares? my question is about you and the difficulty you clearly have in responding in a straightforward way to a straighforward question.
George Bush has said, “Condi Rice is one of the finest human beings I’ve known,” and, “The United States is lucky to have her service.” There are many things about which I differ with the President. From what I know of Dr. Rice, however, I couldn't agree more.
We can have a discussion of a political figure’s personal life and what that says about him or her. We can also debate the traditional need for politicians to be married and whether that is an anachronism. We might look at the various double standards as they apply to female politicians. We could even consider whether a potential President of the United States has sufficient personal emotional support in his or her life to withstand the stress of the office.
To use the occasion of Zhirinovsky’s vile remarks about Secretary Rice to engage in any meaningful discussion of these issues is, in my opinion, complete humbug.
Zhirinovsky is not simply a “whackjob,” a “loon,” a “nutcase,” or any other such dismissive term. This is also not a matter of his being "right" or "left." We should see him for what he is and for what his words truly mean. He is evil.
For anyone, much less a public figure, to say such things in the modern world is sickening. The fact that the object of Zhirinovsky’s bile is a powerful, accomplished and talented woman makes it no less contemptible than if it had been directed at someone weak, helpless and foolish.
God help us all.
While there have been very nasty remarks made by people on the political right about liberal female political figures, I personally have never seen anything so vile as Zhirinovsky's statements. Kate O'Beirne goes after Hillary Clinton hammer and tong, but her partisan attacks are more or less what one has come to expect in political life.
Kate O'Beirne denies that there are specifically "women's" issues on which women should, as a matter of course, agree. She maintains that many women have differing opinions on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, etc., and that female politicians who purport to represent women as a group cannot in any honesty make such a claim. She delights in pointing out what she maintains is the hypocrisy and humbug of Sens. Clinton, Feinstein, et al., and, yes, she attempts to undermine respect for them. She wants people to vote them out of office.
Speaking of humbug, I hasten to add that much of what Kate O'Beirne writes falls in that category. She overstates. She distorts. She engages in every conceivable rhetorical trick to sell her point of view. I find her distasteful, like many another one-dimensional, stupid partisan writer.
That said, the fact that she attacks women politicians with whom she disagrees does not mean she is anti-woman. If women enter the political arena, they should find that they will, and ought as a matter of course, be criticized. The columns of Kate O'Beirne that I've read have all been in the rock-'em sock-'em tradition of American politics. I've read a thousand articles along the lines of Ms. O'Beirn's work attacking everyone from George Washington to George Bush. It seems to me that if male politicians have been obliged to take such abuse in our democracy female ones should too.
There remains, however, a huge moral chasm between spirited or even mean-spirited partisan attack and the suggestion of gang rape. The one may be distasteful and unfortunate, but the other is sickening and vile. I do hope we can see the difference.
The point of my comment was that ANY such attack as was launched against Secretary Rice is morally wrong and reprehensible. That such bile was directed against liberal political women in the past, and may be in the future, does not diminsh the point. The subject of this post is Dr. Rice. If it were Mrs. Clinton or "someone weak, helpless and foolish," I would say the same thing.
It is an error to confuse legitimate POLITICAL attacks, such as the Kate O'Beirne piece linked to in my previous comment, with the hideous personal insults exemplified by Zhirinovsky's comments. I tried to say that an excess of POLITICAL zeal is "unfortunate," but fantasizing about gang rape in public is VILE. There is a difference. A political woman should not be excused from controversy but should never be the subject of this venom.
What crosses a line between the political and the morally reprehensible? That is a subject we're not going to address adequately with one-liners in a blog comment. For me, Zhirinovsky's remarks are beyond the pale. I'm sure we can find many other examples about which we may or may not agree, but I think a bright line has been crossed in this case.
I have tried to present this in a non-partisan way. That may be a novelty for some, especially in the blog world, but nonpartisanship is one of the charms of this blog. I've tried to comment in that spirit. If people want to read the usual "left" or "right" categories into what I say, then that is very much their issue.
I'm a left-wing, bleeding heart liberal, and I'd be the first to help Condi out of her jam with the company of soldiers...I'll give her a condom so she doesn't get pregnant...and if that doesn't work I'll be right there defending her right to abort any fetuses so unfortunate to have her as a mother.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा