This video from the NRSC slams Barack Obama for his first 100 days in office. They don’t leave any issue untouched. I’m waiting to see how quickly Democrats will attack and smear this video, because it is a powerful one:
Hat Tip: Hot Air
(9 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading ...Those oh-so-tolerant liberals have a funny way of showing their beloved tolerance. They love to crow about how compassionate and caring they are, how much they value free speech and compromise, that they love bipartisanship and teamwork… and then they do shit like wishing Michelle Malkin would get shot:
She then tried to cover her ass:
Of course, no one is that stupid to believe that she meant that she hoped Cheney would miss. What would be the point? “Oh, gee, I don’t want Michelle Malkin to actually get shot, just shot at,”?
Now, she’s whining and making dumb jokes about Michelle. And as Michelle herself points out, what’s got this twit so up-in-arms is that she was actually called on her hate speech. She’s a journalist! And a liberal! She’s supposed to get a pass! She’s not supposed to get CALLED on her intolerance! And while she’s allowed to say whatever she wants, people on the other side of the aisle are never, ever allowed to call her on it.
I guess this is just another tolerant, compassionate, bipartisan, peaceful liberal wishing death on someone whom they ideologically disagree with. And somehow, we are the hateful ones.
Why don’t you all go ahead and let her editors know just what she’s saying and see if they approve. And remember — be civil and polite.
Living/Fashion/Food
Living Editor: Alison Uncles
Phone: 416-869-4015
Fax: 416-869-4410
Email: living@thestar.ca
Managing Editor: Joe Hall
The main newsroom phone number is 416-869-4300; fax 416-869-4328; email city@thestar.ca
General inquiries can be sent to:
Editorial Department
Toronto Star
One Yonge Street, Fifth Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5E 1E6
(7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5) Loading ...Just a sample of Michelle’s column this week; make sure to read the rest.
Come on, who’s surprised? The White House-engineered photo-op of low-flying Air Force aircraft that caused terror in New York City this week epitomizes the Age of Obama. What better way to mark 100 days in office than with an appalling exercise in pointless, taxpayer-funded stagecraft.
The superficiality, the unseriousness, the hubris, the obliviousness to post-9/11 realities: They were trademarks of the Obama campaign and they are the tattoos on his governance.
He never leaves home without his teleprompter. All the Obama world’s a stage. Or a world ready to be staged.
So, is it any wonder he would staff his White House Military Office with a clueless paper-pusher who saw nothing wrong with spending inordinate government resources – and recreating 9/11 havoc — to update Air Force One publicity shots? And who planned, believe it or not, to do the same in Washington, D.C., next month, where 53 passengers and 6 crew members on board American Airlines Flight 77, and 125 military and civilian personnel inside the Pentagon were murdered by the 9/11 jihadists?
All for some damned publicity shots.
(7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5) Loading ...OK, OK… I think I’ve been pretty good in my blogging career about not begging for money or gifts or anything. I’ve had an Amazon wish list on my blog but I never beg for gifts (except on my birthday, of course!) and I’ve hesitated a lot about getting a PayPal donation button. But, I finally decided to just go ahead and do it. And now, it’s there. Don’t worry, I’m not going to be reminding you guys to throw some change in the tip jar every week or anything, but I would really, really appreciate your help in keeping this totally amazing blog going. (Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek.)
So, I just wanted to throw up a quick post so you’d all know it is there and meekly ask you to maybe help out now and again if you’d like to. I would appreciate it more than you know. And in these tough times, it would mean even more because I know no one has a lot of money to be throwing around. And now that I’ve pointed it out, I won’t mention it again, except on special occasions… like my birthday.
(5 votes, average: 3.40 out of 5) Loading ...So, the big news yesterday was that Arlen Specter was changing from an (R) to a (D). Specter will be running for reelection against Pat Toomey as a Democrat.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania provided a boost to President Obama’s ambitious legislative agenda yesterday by abandoning the Republican Party in the face of shifting political realities at home and an aggressive courtship by the White House and party leaders.
In an announcement that shocked colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Specter said he had become increasingly uncomfortable as a moderate in a party dominated by conservatives and would join the Democrats. He bluntly admitted that his decision was tied to his belief that he could not win reelection as a Republican next year.
Although he said he “will not be an automatic 60th vote” for Democrats, Specter’s decision left Democratic Party leaders jubilant. The addition of Specter to their ranks, coupled with the likelihood that the Minnesota Supreme Court will name Al Franken the winner of that state’s disputed Senate race in the coming months, means that Democrats are all but certain to control a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the chamber for the first time in about 30 years.
The news came on the eve of Obama’s 100th day in office, and in a phone call shortly after he was informed of the party switch, the president promised Specter his “full support” in attempting to secure another term in 2010. Specter will appear with Obama and Vice President Biden, who helped lead efforts to bring Specter into the party fold, at the White House this morning.
What’s funny is the claim that people were “shocked”. No one was shocked. This could possibly be the least shocking news this year. And frankly, I’m happy about it. Let’s get rid of that traitor.
It does show, though, what kind of man Arlen Specter is. Were he not losing in the primary polls to Pat Toomey, he wouldn’t have left the Republican party. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. This isn’t about principle for him — it’s about revenge. If he can’t be a Republican and keep his seat, then he’ll be a Democrat. Just back in March, Specter swore he wouldn’t switch parties. But when his seat in the Senate was threatened, he broke his promise and dropped any principles he had remaining in order to try to hang on.
This move could also give Democrats the 60th vote, too. And let’s face it — while he’s saying he won’t do anything the Democrats want him to do, he will. He’s pretty much done that already as a Republican, and as a Democrat he definitely will.
This whole thing just goes to show what a small, unprincipled, vindictive, cowardly man Arlen Specter is. He could’ve simply fought to keep his seat in the primary as a Republican, and if he was so confident in his moderate-conservative principles, then why couldn’t he have? He didn’t switch out of principle either. Had Pat Toomey not come along to challenge him, Specter would’ve been all too happy to keep that (R) by his name. So he did this out of cowardice and vengeance, as a great big f*** you to the GOP, but mainly out of desperation. And I’m not interested in having a piece of shit like him with an (R) next to his name anyways. The Democrats will warmly embrace him, so let’s just let him feel at home with his fellow unprincipled, morally bankrupt brethren. No need to weep here.
Here’s hoping that Pat Toomey wipes up the floor with him. Let’s get started now, shall we? Here’s Pat Toomey’s website. Visit often. Donate. Let’s set this spineless, two-faced hack Arlen Specter packing for good.
(6 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5) Loading ...This article, on why marrying young is a good idea, has Jessica from Feministing “skeeved out” and pissed off. Why? Because it, at its core, brings up the uncomfortable truth that many women who put off marriage and childbearing until their later years tend to regret it, because women’s fertility sharply decreases as they get older.
The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That’s up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren’t pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn’t be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well. The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years. I used to think that only young men — and a minority at that — lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.
In my research on young adults’ romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they’re at least in their late 20s. If you’re seeking a mate in college, you’re considered a pariah, someone after her “MRS degree.” Actively considering marriage when you’re 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it — it’s that scandalous.
… This is not just an economic problem. It’s also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it’s not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. Marriage will be there for men when they’re ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women’s “market value” declines steadily as they age, while men’s tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies — and endless anecdotes — reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women’s fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s — their most fertile years — only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s. Although male fertility lives on, it doesn’t hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple’s chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers.
Of course, there’s at least one good statistical reason to urge people to wait on the wedding. Getting married at a young age remains the No. 1 predictor of divorce. So why on earth would I want to promote such a disastrous idea? For three good reasons:
First, what is considered “early marriage” by social scientists is commonly misunderstood by the public. The best evaluations of early marriage — conducted by researchers at the University of Texas and Penn State University — note that the age-divorce link is most prominent among teenagers (those who marry before age 20). Marriages that begin at age 20, 21 or 22 are not nearly so likely to end in divorce as many presume.
Second, good social science pays attention to gender differences. Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government’s National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women. We may all dislike this scenario, but we can’t will it away.
Third, the age at which a person marries never actually causes a divorce. Rather, a young age at marriage can be an indicator of an underlying immaturity and impatience with marital challenges — the kind that many of us eventually figure out how to avoid or to solve without parting. Unfortunately, well-educated people resist this, convinced that there actually is a recipe for guaranteed marital success that goes something like this: Add a postgraduate education to a college degree, toss in a visible amount of career success and a healthy helping of wealth, let simmer in a pan of sexual variety for several years, allow to cool and settle, then serve. Presto: a marriage with math on its side.
Too bad real life isn’t like that. Marriage actually works best as a formative institution, not an institution you enter once you think you’re fully formed. We learn marriage, just as we learn language, and to the teachable, some lessons just come easier earlier in life. “Cursed be the social wants that sin against the strength of youth,” added Tennyson to his lines about springtime and love.
… Today, there’s an even more compelling argument against delayed marriage: the economic benefits of pooling resources. My wife and I married at 22 with nothing to our name but a pair of degrees and some dreams. We enjoy recounting those days of austerity, and we’re still fiscal conservatives because of it, better poised to weather the current crisis than many, because marriage is an unbelievably efficient arrangement and the best wealth-creating institution there is. Married people earn more, save more and build more wealth compared with people who are single or cohabiting. (Say what you will about the benefits of cohabitation, it’s a categorically less stable arrangement, far more prone to division than marriage.) We can combine incomes while reducing expenses such as food, child care, electricity, gas and water usage. Marriage may be bourgeois, but it’s also the greenest of all social structures. Michigan State ecologists estimate that the extra households created by divorce cost the nation 73 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and more than 600 billion gallons of water in a year. That’s a mighty big carbon footprint created in the name of solitude. Marriage may not make you rich — that’s not its purpose — but a biblical proverb reveals this nifty side effect: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work.”
Jessica balked that the article didn’t contain enough statistical evidence and did contain too many “sweeping generalizations”. Ever the intellectual heavyweight, she disproved the author’s theory by giving the follow mature response:
Countless studies? Endless anecdotes? Well color me convinced. *Eye roll*
I guess telling women that they better stop with all that work nonsense and get to the baby-making never gets old for some people.
… I have to say, outside of how problematic the anecdotes and sweeping generalizations are, this article simply skeeves me out.
Feminists do love to ignore those uncomfortable truths, don’t they? It’s so easy to brush things like this off as anti-feminist. But it doesn’t make it untrue. Like it or not, women do tend to mature earlier than men, and their fertility does decrease with age. Men, on the other hand, do mature more as they get older and age has little to no effect on their fertility. Does this FACT make science sexist now, too?
Now, no one is saying that women should be forced into marriage if they don’t want to be married. What the author is saying, though, is that it might be wise for women to think hard about the choices they are making and the effect it will have on them in the long-term. A woman who knows she wants to have a big family one day, for example, would be wise to not put off marriage and child-bearing until she is in her thirties in favor of sleeping around or bar-hopping or career-building. Regardless of how feminists like Jessica love to pretend the world is, reality is often quite different. And the reality is, in life, you sometimes have to make trade-offs. No, being a high-powered career woman does not automatically mean you will have to give up marriage and a family. Yes, it does mean you will have to make some sacrifices, sacrifices that may or may not include a woman’s dream of having a family as well. An article like this, one that I read and agreed with whole-heartedly, is simply advising women to think about the decisions they are making and how they will affect their lives in the future. Jessica would undoubtedly sneer that women already do that, but plenty of women don’t. It’s becoming more and more common for high-powered career-women to publicly lament the loss of opportunities to bear children, regardless of how much feminism tells them they don’t need to worry about it.
Again, life is full of trade-offs. Tough decisions sometimes have to be made, and for some (men and) women, that could include the decision to marry young and give up a potentially lucrative career, or to put off marriage and children until later in favor of a career.
And really, by pretending that women can’t deal with making such decisions, isn’t that in and of itself sexist? Personally, I think Jessica’s outrage has more to do with the fact that feminism these days is more concerned with shunning anything resembling traditional values than actual sexism present in the article.
But hey, why bother with a well-reasoned argument, when you can have someone who simply tells you it’s sexist and that it skeeves her out? That’s MUCH more convincing, right?
(10 votes, average: 3.40 out of 5) Loading ...Gordon Brown shouldn’t take Obama’s lack of class personally. Apparently, Obama’s classlessness extends to everyone, including the school his daughters attend, Sidwell Friends. The Clintons sent Chelsea there, and raked in some big bucks for the school. The Obamas? Not so much.
When Chelsea Clinton was a student at the Sidwell Friends School, the same school the Obama girls attend, the Clinton family’s involvement with the school’s annual benefit brought in big bucks. In 1996, a round of golf with Bill Clinton went for nearly six figures; another year Chelsea Clinton offered up her babysitting services to the highest bidder.
This past weekend was the Obamas’ first chance to participate in the Sidwell Friends School Dollars for Scholars benefit, and some families who remember the Clintons’ support are disappointed in the Obamas’ first showing.
According to a source with ties to the school, the only items up for bid from the Obamas included a signed copy of the Rolling Stone issue featuring the president and a signed copy of the January Vogue that featured the first lady.
“There were expectations that they might donate something more personal, like the Clintons did,” said another source who knew about the auction. “Lots of people were disappointed.”
A spokesperson for the Obamas said, “We have no comment on this.”
Chelsea Clinton remains involved in the event — this year she and a fellow alumna Nicole Davison donated a “lunch or brunch” in New York City. The value, according to the bidding materials: “priceless.”
A couple of signed magazine covers? That’s it? So I guess it was possible to put less time and thought into gifts than the ones given to the Browns.
Also, it seems to be yet another gift showing the Obamas’ arrogance. Not only are the Obamas stingy and classless, they’re completely narcissistic. When Bill and Hillary come off as more generous and less arrogant than you are, then you should know you’ve got a problem.
Man, I’m so proud to have these two in the White House. So, so proud.
(7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5) Loading ...Gay marriage became legal in Iowa today:
Same-sex marriages became legal in Iowa Monday, but non-Iowans likely won’t have the same rights in their home states as heterosexual couples, observers said.
Because Iowa’s law lacks a residency requirement, out-of-state, same-sex couples may join Iowans in seeking marriage licenses, the Des Moines Register reported.
State law requires a three-day waiting period before the license can be used, but judges can waive that provision.
However, gay rights advocacy groups warn that most states won’t recognize same-sex marriages that take place in Iowa.
“It’s one of the first things we told couples,” said Rick Garcia, a spokesman for Equality Illinois, a Chicago gay rights group. “It’s a great ruling, and we’re thrilled for Iowans.You can get married in Iowa … . But when you get back to Illinois, in the eyes of the law, you are strangers.”
Marital law attorneys and scholars said they think the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage eventually could spawn other court cases that could either clarify or muddy the issue, the Register said.
Now, when it comes to gay marriage, let me just clarify my position here. I, to this day, honestly don’t know how I feel about gay marriage. It’s not very high on my radar, for one — I think we have much more pressing issues than whether or not two guys can marry each other. I really can go either way on the issue, although I think I’m a little bit closer to the “against” side. In any case, the big problem I’ve had with the gay marriage issue across the country has been the judicial activism. That pisses me off. I’d be a hell of lot more inclined to accept gay marriage laws if they were voted in by the residents of these various states. But when you’ve got Supreme Court justices making up laws, rather than enforcing them, you’ve got problems. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide what is and isn’t allowed. Their job is to enforce the laws present in the Constitution, no more. This is a gross abuse of power by the Supreme Court justices in Iowa, along with the several states that came before them, and that is the issue for me. The whole reason we have three branches of government is to keep that power from being abused. And the judicial branch is not there to create laws. The voters can, and the legislative branch can. That’s it. And what we’re seeing in the Supreme Court is extremely worrying to me. Because if they can get away with this, what will they move on to next? And I’m not talking about marriage provisions. I’m talking about justices deciding that they suddenly can govern however they want to. What will they decide next? We really don’t want to be starting down this slope, and we need to be keeping these justices in check.
This is judicial activism, and that’s what worries me… not so much the fact that now two guys can go get married.
Meanwhile, Republican spokeswoman and intellectual lightweight heavyweight Meghan McCain is all for it:
Big shoutout to Iowa today for legalizing gay marriage which can now officially be performed today! Gives me lots of hope for the country!
Perez Hilton was very pleased with her statement.
(3 votes, average: 1.67 out of 5) Loading ...Since there are no other news stories that the AP could possibly focus their team of crack journalists on, they’re doing a story on a bird’s nest. Robins, specifically. And these robins are special… because they’ve nested at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. These robins apparently knew somehow that they’d chosen a special place, and they somehow knew that they were in the company of the Anointed One.
Sadly, I’m not kidding. See for yourself:
This is a story about a fledgling family at America’s most famous address, an inspiring saga about new beginnings, the audacity of hope and perhaps even dreams from a father.
More specifically, it’s about a robin’s nest.
Associated Press photographer Ron Edmonds first spotted the bird, flitting into and out of a bush immediately to the left of the main door to the White House press briefing room — the room seen on TV most days, the one with the bright lights in which Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gets his daily grilling.
It’s a hugely high-traffic location, with reporters coming and going at all hours, and camera crews traipsing past, lugging tripods, lights and other heavy equipment out to the North Lawn.
Yet the female robin seemed utterly oblivious to it all — fearless, even. And soon, Edmonds, who heads The AP’s White House photo staff and is a Pulitzer Prize-winner with an eagle eye (sorry about that), figured out why. This red-breasted mom was moments from hatching half a dozen chicks.
So Edmonds set up his tripod early one morning and took a series of remarkable photographs. They show the pale blue eggs cracking and the chicks emerging, squinting, into the spring sunshine.
What motivated this mother robin to choose the White House grounds for a home — let alone this particular bush among the thousands of shrubs and trees on its 18 acres? Was it the closeness to the seat of power? Getting a bird’s-eye view of history (sorry again)?
… Meantime, the father seems somewhat less audacious. In fact, Edmonds reports, he’s hardly been seen. Is it too much to wonder if the chicks dream his dreams, too?
Soon, spring will turn to summer, the chicks will fly the nest and the robins will move on. But as robins are creatures of habit and instinct, this one will likely be back in the spring.
Helen Thomas, the veteran White House reporter, likes to tell the presidents she covers, “You guys come and go. We stay.”
So, it would seem, do the robins.
I’m sure this is the first time in the entire history of the White House that a bird has ever nested there. Ever. And it’s all because of the Obamamessiah. The robins sensed his power, his giftedness, and just had to be close to it.
This is propaganda from the Obama-worshipping media at its finest. I just hope that God somehow is able to save us from this nightmare.
Of course, this isn’t the first time such extreme propaganda has emerged. As was pointed out at Sweetness and Light, Hitler was rather fond of it:
Of course it is not entirely unprecedented.
After his election in 1933 the euphoria for Mr. Hitler burgeoned in a similarly unrestrained fashion.
Anticipating Mel Brooks by several decades, the author W. Beuth prefaced his heroic story of Hitler’s seizure of power – ‘The German Hitler Springtime’* with a poem of pseudo-religious piety:
Now has us the Godhead saviour sent,
Distress its end has passed.
To gladness and joy the land gives vent:
Springtime is here at last.[*Der deutsche Hitler-Frühling. Die Wiederaufrichtung Deutschlands durch den Volkskanzler des Deutschen Reiches Adolf Hitler, Frankfurt a.M, 1933.]
Hat Tip: Moonbattery
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5) Loading ...The RAAAAAAACIST!! brigade is at it again, this time with Disney’s upcoming animated feature, The Princess and the Frog. Controversy is swirling, with Disney being called racist for its depiction of their first black princess. The “princess” franchise is a lucrative one for Disney, and includes the princesses Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. Princess Tiana will be not only the first black princess, but also the first American princess.
There have been a number of accusations of racism against Disney with this film, from the fact that the prince appears to be white, to the heroine’s original name and occupation, and where the film takes place.
WALT Disney’s first black princess is steeped in controversy, with the studio changing her name and job, but still facing claims of racial insensitivity.
Following claims of racial insensitivity, the studio — known for its wholesome and predominantly white family values — has made several changes to its first African-American princess, Tiana.
Voiced by Anika Noni Rose, Tiana is the star of a new animated film to be released this Christmas, titled The Princess and the Frog. Tiana’s mother will be played by talk-show host Oprah Winfrey.
Disney has changed the profession of the princess to an aspiring restaurant entrepreneur, instead of being a chambermaid.
It has also changed her name — Tiana, instead of Maddy. Critics thought Maddy was too similar to Mammy — a once-common term for black female slaves in white households.
The controversy has intensified after it was revealed the film would be set in New Orleans and Tiana would find love with an almost-white prince.
His skin has been described as olive-toned and he will be voiced by Brazilian actor Bruno Campos.
“What? No black prince? What’s up with this?” blogged James Collier on Acting White, an anti-racism website.
“Perhaps Disney doesn’t want the future mothers of dwindling white America being imprinted so early in their lives with the notion of a black suitor.”
Another blogger, Angela Helm, complained to the Black Voices website that even though there was a real-life black man in the highest office in the land, Disney seemed to think a black man was not “worthy of the title of prince”.
… Executives at the company have tried to play down the controversy. During the development of any movie, it was common to change titles, character names and story points, a source told the London Times.
“The name Tiana evolved with the character. She’s a strong role model for everyone. She pursues the American dream of starting her own business and she does that with a strong work ethic,” a source said.
As for the claim the New Orleans setting and voodoo themes play on black stereotypes, the source said: “New Orleans is an ideal setting for an American fairytale set in the jazz age — it’s all part of the fabric of the story.”
So, Disney is racist for all of these ridiculous reasons. I’m sure it will be said that I couldn’t possibly understand (because I’m white), but I don’t care. This is one of the most ridiculous accusations of racism I have ever read.
Apparently, the biggest issue is that the prince is “white”. Well, here is the white prince:
Maybe it’s just my take, but he doesn’t seem outright “white” to me. He definitely is olive-toned, as Disney has said, and you could arguably say that he could be a light-skinned black man, a hispanic man, a dark-skinned white man, or even a biracial man. And in any case, does it really matter? Aren’t we supposed to be living in a post-racial world now, where skin color no longer matters? I would think that, even if the prince is supposed to be white, that it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Wouldn’t it be a positive to show that a couple can fall in love and live happily without the barriers of race?
The answer is no, it’s apparently not a positive for the race-baiting crowd. I would actually hazard a guess that Disney would’ve been criticized regardless of the skin color they’d chosen for the prince.
What really floors me are the accusations of racism over her original name and occupation. The character was originally named Maddy, which is supposedly RAAAAACIST!! because it’s similar to the slave name “Mammy”. Nevermind that Maddy was short for Madeleine, a French name. When you think about the French roots in New Orleans, doesn’t that make sense? And considering that her original job, a maid, is exactly the same as two white princesses, Snow White and Cinderella, can you really claim there’s racism there as well? The maid-to-princess story is classic. It’s not like Disney threw only Tiana into a job as a maid, while the rest of the (white) princesses led charmed lives. Only four of the princesses even started out as princesses (and only two of them were white!): Aurora, Ariel, Jasmine, and Pocahontas. Snow White, Cinderella, Belle, and Mulan all came from humble upbringings, and all of the princesses had to overcome adversity to win the heart of their respective princes.
Lastly, considering this movie has been in the works since 2006, I highly doubt it came about in an effort to cash in on the Obama presidency.
I personally think that all of the yammering from the RAAAAAACIST!! crowd is actually more racist in this situation. To automatically assume that race is a factor in everything is racist in and of itself, yes? It is not racist for a black woman to be a maid, nor is it racist for a white woman to be a maid. It’s a job. The name Maddy is not racist. Hell, a (WHITE) friend of mine has a daughter with that name. And if skin color is just that and nothing more, then why does it matter if the black princess ends up with a black man or a white man? Two Disney princesses went inter-species, for crying out loud. If Ariel and Belle could fall in love with someone of a different species and find ways to overcome that, then what is really so bad about dating someone of a different skin color?
These race-baiters need to grow up and move on. Racism is not lurking on every street corner, in every movie, and in every white person you see. I can guarantee, though, that if that’s what you’re looking for, you’re bound to find it every time.
(26 votes, average: 4.35 out of 5) Loading ...
