Comparing Barack Obama to Royalty

No, the post does not refer to the endless and erroneous comparisons to Camelot, the closest America has had to even a hint of royalty.

The comparison is to Princess Di and it came in one of the 2 columns referenced here.

Both of these pieces ran in the UK’s Daily Mail, quick someone cue up Paperback Writer!

One piece is written by Peter Hitchens (below)

The night we waved goodbye to America… our last best hope on Earth

peter-hitchens
To paraphrase Brian Giles, “his brother’s Christopher”

Whether or not Mr. Hitchens’ laid it on a little thick with the column’s title can only be ascertained after reading his opinion. I thought he made a couple of keen and dispassionate observations.

Here’s the intro to the column,

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It can be argued that Obamamania hasn’t been described any better than this.

The second piece is by Liz Jones and it focuses on our future First Lady, Michelle Obama.
Read more of this post

Advertisements

Words from a “Female male chauvinist”

Found this fascinating article in the Daily Mail,

“I’m a FEMALE male chauvinist – and proud of it: In a deeply provocative confession, one woman defies the sisterhood”

Though not her stated intent the writer will undeniably ruffle a few feathers, though this need not be the case if her argument is looked at as objectively as possible.

She manages to critique current presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton,

Why, for example, aren’t the women of America bulldozing all opposition and sending Hillary Clinton to the White House as the first credible female candidate in history?

Could it be that Mrs Clinton’s mannish trouser suits and selfaggrandising, policy-driven speeches smack of the masculine touch – and what heterosexual woman wants fake machismo in power?

The writer ends her column with what some might perceive as ghastly and appalling words,

The fact is that when we women are tired, weak, compromised, in need of sympathy and vulnerable, nothing beats the strong arm of male capability and its implied protection.

There always should be and will be female soldiers, surgeons, airline pilots, world leaders.

To these highly skilled and talented women, I salute your success. But perhaps I’m even more grateful to those who don’t get right to the top.

Thoughts?