RUSH: Now, moving on to some of these stories I referred to at the top of the program as well. It used to be the lighthearted social Stack, the wacko Stack. It's not what it is. It's still the Stack, it's still wacko, but it isn't fringe. It is indicative, and has been all along, of where we are trending culturally.
For example, Salon.com: "Women Who Post Sexy Photos to Social Media Are Seen as Less Competent -- A new study finds the virgin/whore dichotomy concentrated in a new place: young women's profile pictures. If a young woman thinks she looks hot in that chesty selfie she just set as her Facebook profile picture, chances are another woman thinks she looks incompetent.
"Well, maybe not entirely incompetent, but certainly less capable than if she were wearing a buttoned up button down, a cardigan and classic Levi’s. According to a new study published on Tuesday, girls and young adult females who post revealing photos of themselves on social media are received by their peers as being less attractive -- physically and socially -- as well as less competent, in general. 'There is so much pressure on teen girls and young women to portray themselves as sexy, but sharing those sexy photos online may have more negative consequences than positive,' Elizabeth Daniels, the study’s lead researcher and an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Colorado, said in a statement."
Now, they think this is new. They think women looking at other women and critically judging them is something new and unfair, and it isn't. Snerdley, how many times have you heard me say on this program in the last 25 years that the most ingrained envy and jealousy is woman to woman. Men never see it. Well, not never. I mean, sometimes husbands are made aware of it. But it manifests itself this way. You and your significant other female are walking down the street, and across the street is a hot babe, and you're looking at the hot babe, whatever your reaction is, but so is your spouse, and your spouse is looking at the hot babe.
She's not seeing a hot babe. "How dare she think she could get away with wearing a shirt that short! Who does she think she is?" There's all sorts of negative assessment and criticism going on. It's vicious. It's vicious and it's been around for a long, long time. Now, these people think they're on to something new. And it's not new. It's been around forever. But to these people it's new.
Women who post racy, sexy pictures on Facebook, bottom line, other women resent them, pure and simple. But they're not gonna say they resent 'em. They're gonna say, "You know, she looks like a whore. She doesn't look competent. Why would she want to make herself look that way?" But she just resents. She's jealous, envious, or what have you. Come on, Snerdley, don't doubt me on this. He's in there applauding. Everybody knows this is true.
I'm gonna get to the sound bites, yeah. You know me, I don't like to make the program about me. There's enough of 'em here. I'll get to the sound bites about me. 'Cause they're good. Actually they're good. These I don't mind. I mean, the Eric Holder, purposeful out of context stupidity, but it is what it is. So, yes, I'm gonna get to those.
But I've got this Stack here. What used to be stuff we would laugh at and put over there in the sandbox of fringe is no longer the sandbox of fringe. It is, if you listen to it, an indicator telling us where we're headed.
"The US Patent and Trademark Office isn’t the only federal authority that has taken a stance against the name of the Washington Redskins. A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling last week that purposely did not contain the team’s name, which has been described as an offensive slur against Native Americans.
"US District Judge Peter J. Messitte, who is presiding over a lawsuit that former New York Giants linebacker Barrett Green brought against the Redskins, issued a 21-page ruling with this footnote on the first page: 'Pro Football’s team is popularly known as the Washington "Redskins," but the Court will refrain from using the team name unless reference is made to a direct quote where the name appears.' Instead, he wrote, the team will be referred to as 'the Washington Team.' The note comes months after Messitte ordered attorneys in the case not to use the team’s name in his courtroom, according to one of the lawyers."
Now, is that not prior restraint of speech which is unconstitutional? "Last month, the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ passed a resolution that calls on its members to boycott the football team." That's the Reverend Wright's denomination, by the way, so you know they're very, very severe about racism, except black racism. Snerdley said, "How can the team get a fair shot if he's this biased?" My question is different. I'm gonna have trouble articulating this. I've tried articulating this for months now.
Let me try again. We went for however long the team has been called the Redskins. We went for however many decades that's been with nobody caring, and then one day we heard a couple people cared and were offended, and then all of a sudden this year it has become a political cause. It is said to be hurtful and irritating and demeaning.
Well, why wasn't it for 80 years, then? People then said, "Well, it was; we just didn't say anything." Oh, really? See, I'm on thin ice when I say this. This is the kind of stuff that the left likes to harp on. I just don't believe this. I think this is being used as a springboard to all kinds of other stuff. If somebody is really, really just so self-absorbed that they can't function because the name of a football team, then something is not right.
I'm not defending the name. It's not the point. What we are presented as an issue we ought to care about is really never the issue, is my point. This is being used by the left to advance other aspects of their agenda. It didn't bother anybody for who knows how long, and now all of a sudden it's become this bandwagon every leftist has to get on? It just doesn't pass the legitimacy test with me.
Now, I can hear the critics.
"Rush, what you're missing is that the country is changing. These kinds of changes have been happening all the time. What used to be acceptable a hundred years ago no longer is. It just happens, and you've got to change with the times." I understand all that. But when I suspect that the changing times are not evolutionary but because of the left trying to advance their political agenda, that's when I do my William F. Buckley Jr. impersonation and stand up and say, "Stop!"
I also realize a very small minority of people see this as a political issue, but it is. And you can ascertain that by looking at the people promoting it and moving it forward. We didn't play the sound bite yesterday, but even Eric Holder came out. Now a federal judge? How many times in this guy's courtroom has the name "Redskins" been said, and he didn't care.
Now all of a sudden in June/July 2014, you get upset about it? How does that happen? Did you have to be talked into being upset about it, or did you come to realize that you were a racist in the past and you don't like it and you don't want to be a racist now, so to get rid of the racism in the past, you come out against the name?
How does this happen? How does something nobody had a problem with for years, for decades, in less than six months become something this big? I just don't believe it's evolutionary, and if I suspect that the left is behind it to advance political agendas, I'm gonna be suspicious, pure and simple.