Less Clothes Please

  LESS CLOTHES PLEASE

A necessary comment  seems appropriate regarding our current TV consumption, especially involving athletic contests.  I, being a male who enjoys watching athletic contests, particularly appreciate the latest effort in bringing female commentators on board.    The appearance of women on athletic talks shows has indeed become more frequent and this is due, of course, to the view that women should have equal time.  After all, I'm a feminist and fully approve of this effort.  And, more importantly, this effort is being accomplished in a correct manner. 

Have you noticed, you must have, or else you are completely oblivious, how people are dressed at these events and presented.  This applies not only to athletic events but so-called news events and all special events, but athletic contests specially.  All men are fully clothed and all women are partially nude.  A fully dressed female is simply not marketable; bare shoulders and arms, low cut dresses, and short skirts (if currently in style) are mandatory.  Males, on the other hand, should be fully attired with suit, nice shirt, and tie.  

Now I, for one, being a man and all, think this is perfectly fine and dandy.  The women I see on the TV screen should wear the fewest clothes as decently possible.  This is called marketing.  Sporting events are primarily intended for male audiences and  professionally dressed men look professional and are clearly competent to give us their opinion on what we just watched. Women can be professional and competent as well, but only if they clearly reveal some cleavage.  That's competence.  They know their audience and they give it what is expected - - no cleavage, no opinion.

It's all ratings folks.  I understand this and approve.  The market demands semi-nude female announcers and fully clothed male announcers and this is the way it should be.  We live in a capitalist society and market share is the sole criteria of success.  So just quit complaining and go with it.  These continuous protestations of sexism and other isms that we hear are just sour grapes after all.

Richard E H Phelps II

Our Very Own

 OUR VERY OWN

I have often lamented over the lack of intelligence evinced by Representative Feenstra and Senator Ernst, but I must say that Representative Marianette Miller-Meeks, although believed to be somewhat of a different caliber, has now descended into abject nonsense with her latest editorial in this newspaper.  Presumably a staff member has written it, but that is simply a presumption.

Representative Miller-Meeks makes numerous claims in a small space:  National security, sovereignty, and economic prosperity rely on a secure border.  Our lives are in jeopardy due to fentanyl and Biden's dereliction of duty having only visited the border twice since being president.  Safe borders are the answer, and she is working to see that they are indeed safe. 

The question that must be asked:  Does our Representative or her staff believe that the piece in the Newton Daily News actually has a receptive audience?   They must!  If it is true that there are members of our community who accept as truth whatever comes out of the office of Representative Miller-Meeks, we are doomed.  There is no help for us and we might as well fold our tents now.

This piece by our Representative has no content other than to obtain a reaction; to reinforce the idea that democrats are bad and republicans are good.  One may certainly think that, but it is not because Biden has gone to the border only twice since he has been president.  In the minds of our Representative and her staff, the level of intelligence of her electorate is zero.  This is the only possible basis for her piece to appear in the opinion section of the Newton Daily News.

Representative Miller-Meeks indeed operates on this presumption:  that her electorate are idiots without the slightest inclination to think.  She is not alone in this presumption as I have pointed out numerous times with Senator Ernst and Representative Feenstra.  The case of those two individuals is somewhat different, however,  in that they are in fact examples of what they believe the general public to be - - completely deficient in understanding.  Hence, their general behavior is somewhat more understandable than that of Miller-Meeks.  Miller-Meeks is purportedly educated having three degrees.  She is a military veteran and has been a practicing ophthalmologist.  One presumes her to have thought processes consistent with such a background.

So if we can conclude that our Representative is an intelligent woman, we can also conclude that this intelligent woman believes that the people who elected her are not.  There is simply no escaping the conclusion that our elected officials believe that the people who have elected them and who will continue to elect them are ignorant and have no inclination to be otherwise and cast their ballots without even a microscopic amount of thought.   It could almost cause one to be despondent. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo