Well, you had to be there, but to this day, many moons later, mere mention of this incident causes great mirth among Wonker and the Wonkettes (are we violating anyone's copyright here?) It was simply hilarious to Wonk and sister #1 that sister #2 should be so dumb that she had no clue as to milk's secret origins.
But the point of this seemingly pointless story is to serve as a lead-in for this one which arrives via TigerHawk:
Pamela Anderson has finally realized that UGGs sheepskin boots are made of... sheep! From her "diary" entry of February 21, 2007 (photo at right for purely illustrative purposes):
I'm getting rid of our Uggs - I feel so guilty for that craze being started around Baywatch days - I used to wear them with my red swim suit to keep warm - never realizing that they were SKIN! I thought they were shaved kindly? People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend - yikes! Well lets start a new one - do NOT buy Uggs! Buy Stella McCartney or juicy boots - I'm looking for alternatives myself for my boys and the men in my life! I'm designing some right now for my family and will try and have some available on my website soon.
It's what I grab by my door in the mornings to bring my kids to school or walk my dog on the beach at 6am or anything early - I've definitely over used them - and that's it!!!!
Again, let's go over this. Sister #2 was flabbergasted to discover that milk actually came from cows. But she was 6. Pamela Anderson, who must be nearing 40, had no clue that shearling sheepskin is just that: the skin of an actual sheep that retains its wool. Which, of course, is why it's called "sheepskin," right?
With the latest tiresome Oscar gasbag fest now blessedly a thing of the past, we need to remind ourselves that it's often been the likes of Pamela Anderson, clearly a member of Hollywood's intellectual class, who have been hectoring and lecturing us ad nauseam lately on topics as diverse as freedom of speech, the evil of our Global War on Terrorism, and, of course, America's Satanic central role in the destruction of our precious planet via "global warming," particularly that personally caused by George W. Bush and anyone who voted for him.
Pam Anderson, in short, except for her surgically-enhanced silhouette, is typical of the "intelligentsia" in the entertainment world that the MSM has anointed as our new scholarly class. They do bring a certain glamor to the table, I'll admit, when compared to genuine scholars and policy wonks. But the problem is that the depth and breadth of knowledge emanating from these giants, as illustrated in this example, is somewhat less impressive than that of a naive and gullible 6-year old from flyover country many years ago. Why these self-appointed scholars are given such mighty press coverage and praised to the skies for their obvious ignorance about everything except serial monogamy once again illustrates the triumph of, er, form over substance when it comes to the American left. In La-La land, all you have to do is proclaim your ignorance loud and proud and you're an instant sage, like, well, the latest addition to Tinseltown's Groupthink Tank: His Royal Smugness, the Goracle himself, the latest proud holder of the Oscar granted annually to the "Most Polished Piece of Socialist, anti-U.S. Propaganda Disguised As a Documentary."
BTW, speaking of form, TigerHawk's entry is somewhat more attractive than ours as it features a mini-photo of Professor Anderson for the edification and amusement of his readers. If you must, you may link to his entry here.
2 comments:
This post is in a similar vein to a previous one I commented on. I've given much thought to your response that 40 years of socialist rule of the educatocracy has helped propel public demand for policy statements by elites from the glamor world.
I think you have a good point there. But I also think that there are multiple other forces that have helped promote the importance of the glitz and glamor class and other gramscian ideaologies as well.
As recently as six decades ago, most kids could tell you what the seven deadly sins were, and they at least had some idea why they were significant in society. Today, not only does nobody know what these seven moral code elements are; our society often glamorizes, promotes, and glories in doing them. That's marketing success for the gramscian school.
Dear Reach,
I couldn't agree with you more. Problem is, in a blog, if you run too long (which I often do) you risk losing readers. And few today (yourself excepted) have patience anymore to read longer stuff, since most generations after myself have become increasingly visual in orientation and lack the patience to grapple with the world of ideas in prose. (Again, perhaps, more Gramscianism via the educrats, keepin' 'em dumb and emotional so they can't use reason?) This is a generality, of course, but you can see it every day in action.
There is, as you indicate, more nefarious stuff afoot here as well. The glitzy stars who preach at us are essentially hypocrites, but they're pitched to us as great sages by the MSM since they're so "famous" and therefore must be really smart. Most of them are, in fact, shallow hedonists with a brilliant, highly-paid talent for convincingly impersonating other people. ("I'm not an intellectual, but I play one on TV.") Their outward glamor has somehow been equated with intelligence, and the entire system has been totally inverted. Which, of course, gets quite nicely to your 7 Deadly Sins thesis which I'll buy as well.
There's a book in me on this stuff. But having to slug along with the rest of America's honest working stiffs who don't live in La-La Land and actually have to earn a living 9 to 5, I'm not sure I'll ever get to it until I'm using a walker. In the meantime, folks get bits and pieces.
Have a good one. We shall overcome. Although at times, I am left wondering exactly how.
Post a Comment