One of the screwier trends to emerge from Europe lately has been efforts to ban burqas and “burquinis” (and this is the United States of America–we know something about screwy); one column I saw somewhere in a US paper I forget where about Nice’s recent banning of the burquini was headlined something like “Leave It to the French To Outlaw Modesty.”
Der Spiegel attempts to understand the movement in Europe, and particularly in Germany, to “ban the burqa.” It concludes that the movement has little to do with religion and everything to do with domestic politics and attempts to co-opt the European far right. Here’s an excerpt, but I urge you to follow the link and read it in its entirety.
It’s because Hillary isn’t feminine or womanly, at least not in traditional ways. She doesn’t emote much publicly, she’s not spontaneous, she’s not touchy-feely. In short, she’s not vulnerable. And this is terrifying.
Women are emotional. Mothers are nurturers. Being a real woman means being spontaneous and responsive. Hillary doesn’t fit these stereotypes, and so she’s not a proper woman. This outrages many Americans, of both sexes.
This dislike and fear of serious, reserved women is particularly American.
When you hear questions framed like the ones in the video above, or you hear media allowing the frame that she is a “horribly flawed candidate,” allow yourself the space to consider that it is their perception only. It’s something they’ve invested in for 40 years now, and they’re unlikely to let it go anytime soon.
In The Des Moines Register, Reka Basu challenges Congressman Steve King’s statement that no “subgroup” has contributed anything to civilization matching the contributions of European Christians. With some help, she compiled a list of contributions from others:
Did Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Thiel really say, “It’s time to end the era of stupid wars,” as if it were Democrats who dragged Republicans into Iraq with promises of flowers strewn beneath American tanks?
Did Ben Carson really link Hillary Clinton to Satan? Did the crowd really chant, repeatedly and vociferously, for her to be jailed? Did at least two Republicans actually call for her execution?
Follow the link for more.
*Remember, in white-wing world, these are not examples of “terrorism.” These are examples of “putting them in their place.”
Catherine Rampell notes that, despite their small-government protestations, what Republicans truly want is a nanny state, one that mops their tears, protects them from the real world, and coos over their booboos, all the while keeping them swaddled in their bigotry and prejudice. A snippet:
They . . . want policymakers to bar transgender Americans from using the public bathroom of their choice, lest those in neighboring bathroom stalls feel vaguely threatened.
They want government to protect religious freedom, yet they also want government to expel holders of select religious beliefs — a policy that couldn’t possibly pass constitutional muster even if you could figure out a way to implement it.
They also want their small, spartan government to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, quickly and on the cheap, but “in a very humane way, a very nice way.”
Follow the link for more on the liturgy of white-wing whining.