Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Fran’s Sunday Ruminations: The Still Point |
»
|
|
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Elephants, Egos, And Chicks With Big Knockers
Fran here. It's 4 AM, I've been awake for two hours already and am seriously pissed off about it, and of course, you, Gentle Reader, are about to, ah, "reap the benefits."
By way of the worthy Ace of Spades, we have this tidbit of Americana to brighten our morning:
SCARLETT JOHANSSON has slammed US PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH for his staunch conservative views on sex, criticising the Republican for being too unrealistic in his opinions on the topic. The LOST IN TRANSLATION movie star last month (10OCT06) boasted about being so "socially aware" she gets tested for HIV twice a year. A staunch Christian, Bush is vehemently anti-abortion and is seeking to have the operation made illegal in all US states. During his time as Governor of Texas, Bush overhauled the state's sex education system and high school students were taught abstinence was the only way to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Johansson says, "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. "Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions."
Now, if there's a coherent thought anywhere in there, I've been unable to find it, and believe me, I've got the best detectors on the market. "So 'socially aware' that she gets tested for HIV twice a year" -- ? Don't you mean "so heedlessly promiscuous," Mr. "Reporter?" Alongside that, there are plenty of us "staunch Christians," including folks like me who absolutely deplore abortion at any time and for any reason, who are not seeking to have it criminalized under all circumstances. There might be a correlation between Christian adherence and a strict pro-life stance, but the causal connection to a specific legislative agenda is weak at best. And regarding Miss Johansson's assertions about President Bush, perhaps she should stick to reading from scripts written by (marginally) saner and more intelligent others.
Well, I suppose it's de rigueuer these days to rebroadcast the inanities of celebrities. The esteemed Moxie recently commented sourly on it. Being an Angeleno, she would know.
The whole BLEEP!ing mess descends from the Cult of Celebrity: our tendency to grant an ear to the opinions of persons to whom the national media have given air time. Why do we do this? Because the national media have the ability to magnify a man to larger-than-life stature by their attention to him. Their focus is like any other focus: it leads one to ignore what's outside the aperture of their cameras. We adopt their attitude of awe and deference almost without thought; we forget to ask ourselves, "Why am I listening to this idiot when I could be laundering my cats?" When their subject is a fabulously beautiful woman with a spectacular bustline, a room-temperature IQ, and no minder responsible for gagging her at the appropriate moments, the consequences can be...well, as you see them above.
Scarlett Johansson is an entertainer. She acts in movies. To the best of my knowledge, she has no other claim on anyone's time...well, apart from that bustline. Anyone who takes seriously anything she says on politics, economics, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, or the proper way to mount a toilet paper roll on the spindle is, in an old and lamentably under-appreciated phrase, going to the goat's house for his wool.
But the significance of this outburst goes well beyond its stupidity. Conservatives have been fighting an uphill battle for the allegiance of the two post-Baby Boom generations for one giant reason -- the one highlighted by Miss Johansson's scurrilities about President Bush:
The perception that political conservatives are eager to return the nation to Puritan sexual mores enforced by law has a lot of otherwise sensible people too badly spooked ever to pull the Republican lever. It's not all about the legality of abortion, which isn't a debate about sex anyway. Indeed, it would appear that GenX and GenY are more open to the suggestion that some currently legal forms of abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion, should be criminalized or strictly regulated than the Baby Boom cohort. No, it's about the spectre of "cameras in the bedroom."
Our small coterie of "party conservatives" such as P. J. O'Rourke and the co-creators of South Park aren't nearly enough to countervail the leftist media's promotion of that nightmare. Tirades such as this one don't do much more, though they do help me to feel better for a spell.
According to the most recent census data, 74% of Americans self-identify as Christian. No doubt the majority of us are at least troubled by the rash of contraceptive abortions. God knows, I've counseled my stepdaughters about the horror of the thing often enough. But other surveys seem to indicate that the fraction of us eager to ban abortion completely is a small minority -- a minority, incidentally, of which I am not part. As for the reintroduction of laws against "fornication" (sex between unmarried persons), "vice" (sexual acts other than standard genital intercourse), and contraception, perhaps five percent of Americans would support such an initiative -- and not because the rest of us are hypocrites who fear that we'd be hailed into court to answer for our own sins.
We've simply accepted that sex between consenting adults is not a fit subject for legislation.
In this regard, the foofaurauw over President Clinton's misdeeds has redounded heavily to the Left's advantage. Their relentless "it's just about sex" drumbeat completely drowned out the far more significant aspects of the Lewinsky affair: Clinton's misuse of a vulnerable young woman, his abuse of power in the aftermath, and the lies he told to Congress to escape the rightful consequences of his shamelessness. No, for the media and the Left, the subject was sex, and by relentlessly hammering at that aspect of the thing they succeeded in reviving the canard that the GOP and American conservatives were determined to Calvinize the United States.
These slanders are beyond disgusting. Only the media's traitorous treatment of the War on Terror has been worse. And of course, the truly stupendous irony of it all, that sex is the only subject on which the Left even nods to individual freedom, is completely drowned by the cacophony.
I submit that sex is the field upon which conservatives have their toughest row to hoe. We'd bloody well better get to work on it. In particular, we'd better think hard about how to separate our political posture from our personal convictions about the morality of private sexual acts, and in such a fashion that the Left and its Old Media allies can no longer deceive the public about the cleavage. Speaking of cleavage, here's my favorite chick with big knockers:
Have a nice day.
Comments
groooooooooaaaannnn.
Good to see you. Thanks for the giggle. Been worried about you.
Posted by og on 11/21/2006 at 09:08 AMThe trouble with that is that you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say you’re not seeking the criminalization of all abortions, since you’re an observant Catholic and current church policy is that holding any opinion on the matter other than “the full power of the state must be used to stop abortion in all circumstances” makes you unfit to receive communion.
How you’ve reconciled this in your conscience is your business, of course. Plus most bishops are lax about enforcing the rule, and if one isn’t a public figure it’s harder for the bishop to see into your soul anyway…but it does tend to undermine the “just because we’re against abortion doesn’t mean we’re for all-out state prohibition of it” message.
Posted by Matt on 11/22/2006 at 12:54 AMMatt, why do I have to explain this to you, of all people? Christianity is a religious faith, and faith is always an individual matter. It’s not Islam, an explicitly political ideology masquerading as a faith; it’s a set of beliefs and moral codes the individual chooses, or refrains from choosing, for his own observance.
The temporal Church is a human institution, and therefore is flawed. One of its most important flaws is the tendency of its clerics to go beyond their proper authority. That’s not an unknown sin for persons raised to “a little brief authority,” of course, but it’s particularly distressing in view of the Redeemer’s explicit words:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
To the extent that the teaching of the Catholic hierarchy departs from the words of Christ, I will always ignore the Church in favor of the Lord. One who does otherwise is a “Church partisan,” just as one who blindly pulls the Republican lever regardless of the merits of the candidate is a Republican partisan. I prefer to remain a Christian.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/22/2006 at 05:47 AMFWIW, I agree with you about the relevant distinctions. The trouble is, the hierarchy doesn’t. And in addition to the occasional personal and spiritual issues that’s caused for me over time, I’d assert that it’s also a leading cause of exactly the sort of public-relations problem your post is talking about.
Posted by Matt on 11/22/2006 at 05:59 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
