BREAKING: Brief thoughts from an undisclosed locale!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2016

The New York Times, pondering hair:
As it turns out Andrew Lloyd Weber has a lot of explaining to do. In a column in yesterday’s New York Times, Julia Baird starts to lay out the charge, then poses some thoughtful questions:
BAIRD (2/26/16): In “The Woman in White,” the character Marian Halcombe is described as having “dark down on her upper lip” that “was almost a mustache.” Yet when Wilkie Collins’s 1859 story was adapted as a musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber in 2004, this aspect of her appearance was ignored so that the audience would not be “distracted” by her facial hair.

Why do we consider a mere hint of the hirsute such a disgrace for women when men can mooch about our cities with goatees, mutton-chop whiskers, navel-skimming beards and even “man buns” with little comment? We think of ourselves as liberated, yet it is still considered embarrassing and shameful for a woman’s upper lip to be imperfectly depilated.
Our view? All in all, that may have been the craziest column we’ve ever seen in the Times. It’s amazing to think that somebody wrote it, astounding that it was published.

In hard copy, it was published as the day’s most prominent column.

On the facing page to that column, an editorial was calling for Candidate Clinton to release the transcripts of her very important speeches. For reasons we expect to explain next week, we thought that editorial was pretty silly too.

That column by Baird is very strange. Because it seems to support a laudable principle, some editor couldn’t tell.

It’s now Potemkin all the way down in our journalistic/political culture. That said, the Times has been creating this culture for a very long time.

How did it ever get this far? We the liberals weren’t able to tell!

47 comments:

  1. Why is it crazy to focus upon the sexual double standard in grooming as applied to politics? The time wasted and money spent to adhere to the double standard are a burden all women must carry no matter what their occupation or social status. We don't find Baird's discussion bizarre, strange, silly or crazy. We think it is about time such topics were discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, Bob picks the paragraphs he thinks he can argue against because they, to him, are the most silly.

      He doesn't touch this part, which is essentially the essence of Baird's column:

      "Why do women need to be perfect? What do we expect from our political leaders? Why can we portray men in close-up and not women? Why are male blemishes signs of authority while women’s are signs of shame?"

      Delete
    2. Lena Dunham will never be considered attractive. You can't discuss or will it into reality.

      Delete
    3. Lena Dunham will always be considered interesting, even when you disagree with her. She will always be considered talented. You cannot obscure that by focusing obsessively on whether she meets some externally imposed standard of physical beauty.

      Men don't need to be attractive to be successful. Why isn't it the same for women?

      Delete
    4. Plenty of unattractive successful women. The most successful woman in America is Oprah Winfrey. If JFK weighed as much as Chris Christie he would not be lionized as he's been so there is not much of a double standard in politics although there is one socially because visual attractiveness is appealing to men and status is appealing to women.. Lena Dunham will be considered interesting and talented by some and so will Yoko Ono.

      Delete
    5. You seriously think JFK was just a pretty face? Women like looks too but women don't have enough power to impose their tastes on men or reduce men to sex objects. Men like status too. That's why they don't marry hookers.

      If you consider yoko less than beautiful, you are warped.

      Delete
    6. LOL, please. Where are all the bald Presidential candidates? Oh, right.

      Delete
  2. Photographers wield great power over their subjects. It's a privilege to portray another person. It is very easy to show the chinks in someone's armor, but it is a rude assault on the photographer's part to unmask the subject. The subject should be respected and not made to look pathetic. All photographers, male or female, must have a code of something like chivalry. Maybe the Eatern concept of Face. When you have control over someone's image/self-image, you better not be angling to make them lose Face. You need to understand and respect the values of your subject first. Journalistic photographers whose editors choose the unflattering photo are tools in a political smear. The writer of this article is naive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gore (suit buttons), Edwards (Breck girl) and more recently, Rubio (high heeled boots), were subject to smear by implying that they were taking as much concern for their appearance as women must. Palin got smeared for buying an expensive wardrobe at campaign expense, but Hillary's suits are scrutinized more closely than her policies. It is stupid that this happens, but looking closely at how and why it does happen is important to understanding how our political process works. Somerby acts as if Baird invented this. She didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While the media focus on the trivia of facial hair and Trump's toupee, they under-report important news. E.g., I had no idea just how many e-mails on Hillary's server contained classified information.

    Today the State Department released the penultimate batch of emails gleaned from Hillary Clinton’s illicit, private email server. The release featured another 88 emails that the government has determined contained classified information. Those 88 emails bring the total number of Clinton’s email that contain classified information to at least 1,818.
    https://www.americarisingpac.org/the-five-must-read-emails-of-the-latest-clinton-email-dump/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You keep forgetting that "The government" in this case refers to certain members of the intelligence community who are arguing with the state department about what requires classification. NONE of the messages were classified at the time they were sent. This determination is being made retroactively as part of a squabble that does not involve Clinton or her aides at all.

      Delete
    2. Get real, 2:58 PM.

      He doesn't keep forgetting. He's a bald-faced wingbat liar.

      Delete
    3. It's a puny excuse that the classification determination is being made retroactively. Ms. Clinton's was obliged to not have such messages on her private server, whether or not they had already been classified. A Secretary of State should have enough judgment to figure out which messages had information that should be kept secret. A President certainly ought to have enough judgment to do so.

      If she had simply followed White House instructions and used the government server, this problem never would have arisen. By willfully ignoring the rules, she set a bad example for the rest of government and all Americans.

      Delete
    4. DiC:

      Does that include emails containing information culled from newspaper articles?

      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/hey-have-you-heard-about-top-secret-us-drone-program

      Delete
    5. Make that a clueless bald-faced wingbat liar that believes that hindsight analysis is equally valid to one made contemporaneous to the event.

      Delete
    6. "It's a puny excuse that the classification determination is being made retroactively."

      David! Surely your wife's cousin has a best friend who has an in-law whose brother is a legal expert and knows what "ex post facto" means.

      Delete
    7. David, if your choice in November is Hillary or the Donald, what will you do?

      Delete
    8. Caesar -- First of all, I'll be horrified. Yet, that seems the most likely possibility. Sad to say, we got better candidates from the politicians' secret smoke-filled rooms than we're getting via democracy.

      If the election were tomorrow, I would vote for Trump. Neither of them is competent to be President IMHO. I think a Republican incompetent would do less damage -- at least domestically. E.g., a Health Plan created by Sarah Palin would have been even more flawed than Obama's. But, Palin wouldn't have foisted a health plan on the country. But Heaven knows what Trump would actually do as President. I don't believe a word he says. And, his knowledge of how government works is weak. BTW, I expect Hillary to beat Trump.

      Anon 1:54 Here's some background:
      The Classification Protocol in the U.S.

      ...Bottom line: information gets classified, documents get marked. And a document that contains classified information but is not marked is not an “unclassified document.” It’s just not marked properly.

      As the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives puts it, “In all cases, it is the sensitivity of the information that determines classification. An unmarked, handwritten page can just as easily contain classified national security information as a document containing classification markings.”

      A document might contain sensitive information at the level of “unclassified information that meets the standards for classification.” Unless that information is formally classified and the document properly marked as classified before it is released (i.e., sent anywhere including internally) then whoever created the document is violating procedures and his or her commitment to safeguard such information....
      http://spp3.com/WP/us-protocol/

      In other words, it was Hillary's responsibility to protect sensitive information, whether it was marked "classified" or not. The fact that thousands of documents from her server were subsequently marked "classified" shows that they contained sensitive information.

      Delete
    9. The link David posts above is to an anti-Hillary site using fake official-sounding characters.
      What they write about are protocols noting standard responsibilities for classified data, which they seem to be pretending are laws. Nothing there shows Hillary broke any law.

      Delete
    10. Unknown -- Yes Hillary may not have broken any laws. I don't know enough about the laws to say. But, it's obvious that sensitive information should be protected. Failure to do so is, at best, irresponsible.

      Delete
    11. 1. "I would vote for Trump.... But Heaven knows what Trump would actually do as President. I don't believe a word he says." In short, since you're a chronic CDS sufferer, you'd vote for an unpredictable liar to be President. Haters gotta hate.

      2. "...Palin wouldn't have foisted a health plan on the country." You know that how? Through your mad actuarial skills?

      3. From the hedge fund website you cited: "Obviously, if a document is not marked properly the recipient will not know how to properly handle the sensitive information it contains....Unless that information is formally classified and the document properly marked as classified before it is released (i.e., sent anywhere including internally) then whoever created the document is violating procedures and his or her commitment to safeguard such information." How many of the alleged 1,818 documents were created and sent by Hillary Clinton? Perhaps you should check in with your favorite information source, Prof. OttoYerass, for the answer to that one.

      4. America Rising? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!


      Delete
    12. "If the election were tomorrow, I would vote for Trump."

      No shit, David. You and David Duke also.

      No problem, the future President Hillary Clinton will not need your vote in California.

      Delete
    13. "And a document that contains classified information but is not marked is not an “unclassified document.” It’s just not marked properly."

      It's a good thing she was Secretary of State at the time and as such she had the power and authority to determine what is classified and what is not.

      Delete
    14. David is right. If material was "marked" or not, one would expect anything sensitive enough to be deemed classified before, during, or after the fact by the intelligence community would have been recognized as sensitive or classified or classifiable and if it wasn't, judgment is questionable whether illegal or not.

      Delete
    15. Secretary of State outranks "the intelligence community". It's funny, the CIA has a long history of leaking classified shit to their buds in the Washington Post and New York Times when it suits their purpose.

      I don't recall David getting upset when VP Cheney outed a CIA agent.

      Delete
    16. David is not right. He ignores the fact that time and context change and that whether something is sensitive or classified can change with circumstances. Something can become more sensitive due to events, and it can becomes less sensitive as well over time. Classification isn't an all or nothing, once and for all time matter. It depends on context. That's why the need for classification is reviewed and also why it depends on judgment.

      A piece of information that by itself wouldn't be classified can become classified when put together with a second piece of information.

      David wants to make this black and white because his goal is to criticize Hillary Clinton -- even though she was the recipient, not the sender of the info in question.

      Anyone who has worked with classified info knows that you are constantly trading off the need to protect info against the need to get the work done. One interferes with the other. Where that balance occurs is open to dispute and that's how these conflicts arise. This one is long after the fact and arose because of changes in the events involved.

      Clinton and her aides did nothing wrong. This is a politically motivated vendetta having nothing whatsoever to do with whether any secrets were compromised. It is easy to confuse stupid people like David but the only people who have leaked secrets at will are the Republicans. They seem willing to compromise national security to hurt political opponents, hence the leaky sieve that is the Benghazi committee.

      Delete
    17. Anyone who has worked with classified info knows that you are constantly trading off the need to protect info against the need to get the work done. One interferes with the other. Where that balance occurs is open to dispute and that's how these conflicts arise.

      Sorting out sensitive e-mails never would have been a problem if Hillary had simply obeyed White House instructions (and common sense) and used the government server for government e-mails. Hillary's decision to use a private server supports critics who assert that Bill and Hillary believe that the normal rules don't apply to them.

      Delete
    18. "Sorting out sensitive e-mails never would have been a problem if Hillary had simply obeyed White House instructions (and common sense) and used the government server for government e-mails."

      Once again, you're full of shit, David.
      Classified emails cannot be passed on the state.gov email system either. Or on Colin Powell's yahoo.com account for that matter.

      Delete
    19. David is the very last person to lecture others on common sense.

      He and his ilk have yet to produce any evidence at all that national security was ACTUALLY compromised and can only engage in speculation. When confronted with fats, David and these tribal zealots go from from Hillary Clinton committing a crime to her being irresponsible and exercising bad judgment. All of this is done in the absence of illegality, in hindsight, and in the absence of context of what her predecessors have done.

      In short, we're into our second decade of the Clinton Rules by people who can't even get their own political party in order despite a lapdog media and bazillion dollars of dark money. Their situation is so desperate that their financial backers are seriously discussing running a 3rd-party candidate against Trump if he gets the nomination.

      David has admitted he would vote for anyone before he would vote for Hillary Clinton, so his opinion of her judgment is pointless. Instead of his constant concern trolling, it would make COMMON SENSE for David in Cal to expend his energy and prodigious intellect on getting his own party's affairs in order before lecturing the Democratic Party.

      Delete
    20. "When confronted with facts" should be in 2nd para. My editor was apparently a little hungry.

      Delete
    21. Apparently speeches to Goldman Sachs are considered highly classified by some, while sensitive intelligence is not.

      Delete
    22. Goldman Sachs paid for the speech. What right does Hillary have to give it to you for free?

      Delete
  5. How To Get Your Ex Lover Back & Avoid Breakup or Divorce.! A very big problem occurred in my Marriage seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce. he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited. TEMPLEOFLOVEANDPROSPERITY@GMAIL.COM. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day. What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me, and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 7 months, gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back. So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there if you have any problem contact Dr Frank Ojo, i give you 100% guarantee that he will help you.. Email him at: Templeofloveandprosperity@gmail.com . My name is Amanda Bryan, me & my family live in Toronto, Canada. Thanks for reading .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Today's NY Times, in advance of Super Tuesday, is running a two-part hit piece on Hillary blaming her for everything wrong in Libya (as if she were President, Dictator and terrorist leader all rolled into one, with a desire to mess up the world, and not simply Obama's Secretary of State during a difficult time for the Middle East). Their coverage of her win is about how black women deserted her in 2008 and tells us Bernie must now work hard! They should be ashamed to pretend this is journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. From Daily Kos Feb 12:

    "It was back in 1990. Perennial candidate Bernie Sanders had yet to win state-wide office after trying six times. He saw his chance when Republican incumbent Congressman Pete Smith (R-Vt) happened to have a moment of clarity on the issue of gun violence. Congressman Smith decided to vote to ban assault weapons. This angered the NRA, and it gave Senator Sanders his opening.


    What came after that was an apparent alliance between Bernie Sanders and the NRA. Senator Sanders will not talk about what deal or deals he made with the gun lobby group during this election. His campaign clams up.


    Questions abound, however, including why Congressman, and then, Senator Sanders would vote for more than 15 pro-NRA pieces of legislation. Why has the NRA failed to donate a penny to a single political opponent of the Senator from Vermont? Why did he vote against versions of the Brady Bill 5 times? Why did he vote to give the gun industry immunity on two occasions?


    Then, there's the issue of hypocrisy. Why has the Senator been implying that Secretary Clinton is not being transparent, that she has been "corrupted" by the process, when he will not be transparent about his dealings with the gun lobby? "

    ReplyDelete
  8. The constant use of one's appearance to evaluate one's worth as a human being was part of the basis for the complaint that women were treated as sex objects. Being "attractive," by definition, refers to sexual attraction. Why should a woman who is married, unavailable, uninterested, and not offering herself for purposes of sex, be concerned about looking attractive to any and every male who chooses to look at her? Women do not exist to fuel men's sexual fantasies or brighten their days by reminding them of their virility. Women exist as human beings to participate in the many activities and pursuits available in daily life. Insisting that they look good while doing so is akin to insisting that they wear burkhas (so that men will be unable to fantasize about them). Men need to stop thinking about women exclusively in terms of sex and stop assuming that every women must pretend to be available to every man or else she is breaking social taboos. The sense of entitlement men have about this fantasy availability extends in pathology into rape culture. Women exist as people first. They don't exist to please men. That's why the endless discussion of women's appearances, no matter who engages in it, is a perpetuation of the second class status and social subjugation of women. It needs to stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women might not exist to fuel men's fantasies or brighten their days but for most men they do. Don't wear a burka, wear a bikini to prove your point that you should be able to without men viewing you in a way that offends you, but good luck with not being viewed that way. Men have a nature. Not only sexist but futile of you to insist "men need to stop" viewing anything in a way you don't like. Women will always be caretakers of youngsters because they like to be. Men will always grow up to view them as caretakers of them. Men will also view women as sexual objects because testosterone dictates this is so. That doesn't mean they will not be respected as people unless caretaking is not respectable in your world.

      Delete
    2. Everyone has a nature. Only men claim the right to indulge theirs without restraint. Men can and should exercise self restraint. They can control their farts, belches and spitting -- they can control their leering and groping too. Women do a hell of a lot more caretaking in this world than men.

      Delete
  9. I think this is worth reading again, except substitute Bernie for Obama in the equation, and subtract the African American support.

    http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html by way of Riverdaughter

    ReplyDelete
  10. God what a Gift from Dr happy, my name is Vicky Robinson . since 2 months I have witness what is called heart broken. my boyfriend that promised me marriage failed me and impregnate me and leave,he dump me,he stop calling" he stop picking my calls,and he no longer respond to me. I have be looking for solution,I fall into the hands of fake spell caster,they rough me off and took my money without help.I have cried,I have weep"and tears runs out of eyes. The silentness in my heart brought me to the deepest path of failure that I lost my job. Crying all day,because of my life was lonely. So thanks to happy that came into my life and brought me the greatest joy that was lost. I saw his mail while browsing and I contact and tell him what I am passing through with no doubt because what saw about him,was enough to believe. And I was given words of solution on what to do. I can't really help thinking about it I have tried to see what I can do, I manage to provide him some materials and he help me with the rest,after casting the spell, 2days after he came with rose on his hand and I was even about going out,i saw him in front of my door when he sees me he knee and said he is dying I should forgive him and accept him back he was crying,I can't wait to let him finish I quickly crab him and kiss him, just then" he said he is restless without me, just as the Dr has said he will be. He brought out a ring and put it on my hand. Our wedding day was scheduled,2week after we got married. today makes it 1 month and we are living happily I don't know how to praise him enough, he has done me a thing I can never forget. And I can't really share to myself alone, I want y'all to help me praise him because if it is wasn't for him I already plan of committing suicide. But right now I am now so happy more than I was before. And you out there crying for help you've already got one, Dr happy is the man that you need in all rampart. contact his address if you need his service, happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jordan Brand is pushing hard with the Air Jordan 5 Low in 2016 with a slew of new colorways inspired by Nike/Jordan Brand’s http://www.newjordansshoes2016.com past. This “Knicks” colorway may allude to Jordan’s ongoing rivalry with the New York new jordan shoes Knicks and Jordan 5 fire red perhaps his 49-point performance in 1990, or it could be an ode to Spike Lee’s devotion to NY. A release date hasn’t been confirmed so stay tuned for updates on this latest colorway new jordans of the Air Jordan 5 Low.
    December means one thing for Air Jordan collectors: the annual cheap jordans return of the Air Jordan 11. Instead of a returning OG colorway, this year we get jordan shoes the “72-10” edition of the iconic shoe, featuring a luxe leather makeover inspired by the historic jordans 2016 72-win season by MJ and the Chicago Bulls for the 1995-96 NBA season. In case you jordan releases didn’t hear, the release date for the shoe actually got pushed up a week early to jordans 2015 December 12th from their initial drop date of the 19th. That means they hit retailers tomorrow, jordan 11 so here’s one last detailed look at the full family sizing from men’s to crib and Air Jordan 4 Alternate 89 reminder for this year’s Air Jordan 11.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have to thank the one man that was able to restore my broken relationship, I have always taught that white are more superior to black in all aspect of life, But this powerful spell caster called Dr.Abazara proved to me that intends of spell casting that Africans are the best. That is the reason why i will be recommending the services of Dr.Agbazara to all those that have been heart broken because just through these details: agbazara@gmail.com Or call +2348104102662 i was able to contact Dr.Agbazara and today i am happy

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello, is good I inform all the men and guys out there, that sometime we all make mistakes in our relationship and made our relationship to be broken and is also our responsibility to make it work by seeking for solution to it, I'm very happy today to tell you little of my relationship problem, i cheated once on my wife and she caught me and she was ready to end our marriage because i truly love her i quickly seek for solution to stop her that is when i came across Dr.Ekpen temple who has help so many people restore their broken marriage and relationship i also contact him today my marriage is restored, I'm going to drop his contact so that does having the same issues can contact him for solution on (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or +2347050270218.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello, I'm here to introduce someone to you all, his name is Dr.Ekpen Temple a spell caster that help me restored my broken relationship, I saw an article on the Internet someone talking about him how he help her in her relationship, today I'm a beneficial of that article, so that is why I'm also talking about how he has helped me so that someone out there that is facing the same challenge can also contact him for help. Here is DR EKPEN TEMPLE contact info: (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or on Whatsapp number 2347050270218.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dr ekpen temple is a great man who is gifted with spiritual powers to help people who are facing challenges in their life.

    ReplyDelete