As IF Times

link Miss Universe 2011: Is the Contest Racist? – International Business Times.

It was only a matter of time before the R word came to be an issue in a beauty contest.  We see this type of claim so often in the news, it has lost all credibility.  Years ago, it was determined by some that such beauty contests were white dominated, so someone started a Miss Black America contest.  They even have a Miss Asian America contest.  Well that’s all nice.  You can make a pretty good case that the last two contests may be racist, but even so, in both cases, the contestants are adhering to the ‘western’ ideal of what is attractive.

So is the Miss Universe Pageant racist?  The author of this article claims that women in these ‘world’ contests overwhelmingly have western features to the exclusion of other cultures and races.  The author, Jamie Blair is only partly correct.  For some reason, there are those that think captivating eyes, perfect teeth and shapely figures are attractive.   First of all, let’s consider who sponsors the event.  It’s a gaggle of Western advertisers who are selling beauty products.  The sponsors are typically Maybelline, Max Factor or some other cosmetic company or business connected to the beauty racket.  Does that mean women worldwide who buy these corporate products are complicit in racism?  Wake up Jamie Blair, they’re hawking goods, not creating legacies.  For this reason, Purina Pet Foods or McDonalds are seldom major supporters of such shows.

The success of this type of show is all about capitalizing on the insecurities of young women and the prurient interests of men.  Boy, talk about shooting fish in barrels!  It’s no coincidence that since the advertising is geared towards western tastes from predominantly western companies, that the contestants would reflect western ideals as well.  This is actually harder than it sounds.  If the author were to only look at the average woman on the street, he or she would know that the attractive, tall, emaciated and pneumatic ideal perpetrated by beauty pageants is pretty rare even in the western world…especially in cheese friendly Wisconsin.  If the author thinks the contests are racist, what does that say to the vast majority of western women who come closer to looking like Mr. Universe rather than Miss Universe?

Secondly, is it reasonable to expect that the majority of the intended audience, already established as being western, would find certain beauty attributes of all cultures attractive?  For instance, the women of the Maasai tribe in Kenya are determined to be beautiful by having elongated necks from wearing a series of rings worn to stretch them.  Would that sell in Peoria?  Probably not.  Do we include Pygmies?  Albinos?  What about the famed proclivity of European women to prefer a more natural, hirsute appearance?  I think it’s pretty universally accepted that uni-brows and hairy upper lips aren’t going to sell any makeup.

The author’s sentiments are wildly misplaced.  The feminine ideal as portrayed by beauty contests owes much of its standards of feminine comeliness to gay men! That’s right, most of the costumes, makeup and hair involve the efforts of the gay community. So if there’s any complaining about unfairness, take it up with Perez Hilton.  Finally, there is the nonsensical bleat about such contests being inclusive of ‘inner beauty’ etc etc.  We all know this is as much fantasy as global warming.  If inner beauty had anything to do with the contest outcome, L’Oreal would be out of business and Mother Teresa would have been a winner 5 or 6 times in a row.

Unfortunately, as far as what or who is considered beautiful, life is unfair.  Unlike money, you can’t just even it out among everyone.  Deal with it.

link The Years of Shame – NYTimes.com.

Some may be aware of the writings, or more correctly the rantings of Paul Krugmann.  By profession, he is an economist, yet somehow his unhinged opinions on politics is where he derives most of his notoriety these days.   In the most recent missive published in the New York Times, the true depth of his insanity is on full display for the world to see.

Even as the U.S. rightly commemorates the September 11 bombings from ten years ago, Krugmann fires some vile shots at Messrs. Bush and Giuliani for the heinous crime of happening to be in charge when the terrorist acts took place.   He calls them false heroes who capitalized on the incident to aggrandize themselves.  As I’ve said numerous times, everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how out of touch with reality they may be.  The greatest benefit of living in a free society is that any and every idiot is allowed a voice.   Only by comparing these opinions with actual facts can  people determine whether or not to listen to these idiots. 

Years ago, a golfer savant named Moe Norman was recognized for his genius in doing one thing; striking a golf ball.  Other than this very narrow area of human achievement, he was essentially unable to communicate with people.  As long as you didn’t expect anything sage from his unintelligible utterances, you could admire his innate skill.  Apart from his ball striking ability, you couldn’t depend on his opinion on whether or not the sun came out much less on a topic of any kind.  Certainly, no one would seek his opinion on the state of fiscal balances in the economy.

Krugmann seems to fall into this same category.  Although a past winner of a Nobel prize in economics, it’s worth noting that Al Gore and Barack Obama are also Nobel winners, so this in itself is not a validation of other-worldy brilliance.  Unlike Mr. Norman, Krugmann has the soapbox of The New York Times to express his nonsense and that’s where it gets evil.  There are those people out there that still think the Times is a legitimate news organization.  Over the past 30 years and increasingly in the past 10, the opinions espoused in that circular are more conspicuously out of sync with reality.  It’s as if they lived in their own delusional bizarro world where reality is an inconvenient nuisance.  To them, gravity is the product of some capitalist monopoly.

There will always be a market for this kind of ‘journalism’, but increasingly, that niche market of leftist drivel is shrinking as subscription levels prove.  According to their own statistics, the Times circulation has fallen to just about 830,000 in 2010,  a decline of 5% from a year ago which was also in decline from the year previous.   When they publish the opinions such as Krugmann’s it serves to marginalize them more and more from sane people.  Even Moe Norman would wince.