“Do As I Say”, Post-Olympics

The Olympics are over, but it still seems to be the season for politicians outdoing themselves to show their hypocrisy and how they mean for their rules to apply to everyone else, but not them.

In the first half of this week, we have two examples of hypocrisy, one from each major political party, just to show that hypocrisy is a shared character trait, apparently.

Continue reading ““Do As I Say”, Post-Olympics”

(More) “Do As I Say” Olympics

It seems the news of politicians deciding that their rules are for everyone but them will not end.

The latest is John Kerry, who was President Obama’s Secretary of State and currently serves as President Biden’s ‘climate czar’. Kerry has said that people are not doing enough to fight global warming, that we must dramatically cut our use of fossil/carbon fuels and that climate change is “an existential threat” to the world.

Yet when Kerry received an invitation to President Obama’s 60th birthday party today, he took a private plane to fly to Martha’s Vineyard.

Kerry also owns a private jet that his family uses regularly.

So if the use of fossil fuels is a threat to the existence of the world, why would someone whose sole job function is to combat that threat take a private jet, much less own one? Well, it is either that Kerry doesn’t believe what he says and just makes money off it, or he believes he is better than the rest of us and the rich are exempt from every inconvenience.

Do you think that Greta Thunberg will call him out?

Corporate Hypocrisy

Some companies with ‘Woke’, politically correct leaders are increasingly jumping into the world of politics.

Such is the case with Coca-Cola, a Georgia company who came out strongly against Georgia’s election integrity laws, saying they suppressed voting rights.

Yet Coca-Cola is sponsoring the Beijing Olympics in China where more than a million people have been forcibly relocated to work camps.

So the conclusion we can draw is that, to Coca-Cola, having to provide a picture ID to vote is of more concern than forcing minorities from their homes and shipping them off to camps to work for the government.

(Hypocritical) Quick Takes

In this weekend’s edition of quick takes, we take a look at stories in the news that show how consistency and intellectual integrity seem to be in short supply (which is a nicer way of saying that hypocrisy is plentiful).

Continue reading “(Hypocritical) Quick Takes”

Thanksgiving At The Cuomo’s

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is among several state governors who have issued new restrictions on gatherings for the upcoming holiday. Among those guidelines, he has limited the number of people that should be in any home to celebrate the holiday.

Later, when doing a public interest story, a reporter asked what his plans were for the holidays. Gov. Cuomo shared that he was having a bunch of extended family over for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. But…oops, the plans he shared with reporters exceeded the restrictions that he said everyone else should follow. Bad move to tell that publicly, huh? Well, like so many other governors that ignored their own restrictions for everyone else, Cuomo apologized and said he would change his plans.

Not to worry, though, because the FDA is reviewing approval for vaccines that hopefully will allow things to get back to normal soon.

But…no, no wait….after Cuomo repeatedly criticized the Federal government for not having a coordinated national strategy for the pandemic, Cuomo has decided that individual states should take more control after all and said he wouldn’t trust anything coming out of a Trump Administration. So he’s going to have New York state health officials look at the vaccine and review the FDA’s review of medical data before he allows it to be used in his state. So, New Yorkers, you will have to wait a bit longer. Sorry.

But have some more turkey. Cuomo says you can be thankful that he’s your governor.

Key Qualification For Female Justices? Their Dress, Apparently

During the last election, when a member of the media would even mention in passing what Hillary Clinton was wearing, the outcry would be swift and sure:  only women are judged by their appearance and its discriminatory to have that be a focus. Fair point.

Yet, it’s so interesting that all that changes when the woman being spoken of is not considered a liberal.

Such is the case in the first day of hearings on Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett is a law school professor and current Federal Judge, and is a judge whose record is one that defers to the legislature, meaning that she interprets laws and believes that laws are to be made my elected representatives, which is different than the philosophy of liberal jurists.

Since all bets are off when a woman doesn’t have the certain required beliefs, liberal columnist Alaina Demopoulo wrote a whole article about Justice Barrett’s dress-a whole article. She contrasted Barrett’s dress with the dresses of the Democratic Senators. 

“Barrett’s dress made a statement. So did the Democratic women lawmakers at the hearing.   Senators Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Mazie K. Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar all wore bright      blue blazers, the color of their party.”

Barrett wore a pink dress. 

“It was a pretty dress, maybe even stylish… Her outfit radiates a maternal warmth, an easy comfort. It masks the harm she has the potential to enable once confirmed against women, LGBTQ people, all of those with Obamacare, and victims of voter suppression.”

“The dress labored overtime to quell certain fears.”

You can get all that from a dress?!

But more importantly, how was dress linked to qualifications. What value did that lend to the discussion on whether Barrett has been a good Federal judge or would make a good justice for the Supreme Court? And if it was sexist to talk about Hillary Clinton’s appearance, why isn’t it sexist to focus on Amy Barrett’s appearance?

Well, frankly, we know the answer. Because the standards don’t apply when the woman involved isn’t a liberal. A woman who does not follow the pre-determined stereotype is to be opposed by any and all means. Even if it means doing the exact things you said you opposed….because the ends justify any means, apparently.

Equal Opportunity For Women, But Only Certain Women

Current Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett would seem to be the rare individual who does it all, the embodiment of the successful woman who has somehow managed to juggle multiple priorities and be good at each.

A former law clerk for Supreme Court icon Antonin Scalia, law professor at Notre Dame, US circuit judge and now a Supreme Court nominee, Barrett has climbed to the highest levels of her profession.

On top of a busy and successful legal career, she has a supportive marriage and is mother to seven children (two of whom are adopted). As she said when accepting the nomination, “Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am a judge, I’m better known back home as a room parent, carpool driver, and birthday-party planner.”

Continue reading “Equal Opportunity For Women, But Only Certain Women”
%d bloggers like this: