In his opus about French, Rule 5, and Alyssa Milano, Stacy McCain asks this question regarding The Film That Will Not Be Named:

What is all the more shocking is that The Movie I Will Not Name was directed by a woman, Anne Goursaud. You cannot tell me that Goursaud, whose primary career is as a film editor, could not have cut that scene down to eliminate its awful creeptastic lingering quality.

If it creeps me out? Yeah, it’s just plain wrong.

So here was young Alyssa Milano, just a couple years past Who’s the Boss? and trying to break out of the dreaded Hollywood child-actor career trap, no doubt hoping for a breakthrough role that would get her noticed as capable of starring roles in serious dramatic films. Instead, she gets subjected to this dreadful exposure — by a female director?

We sort of expect a French dude to display Valérie Allain’s assets. We expect James Cameron to give us Kate Winslett naked. This we can explain either by reference to the ordinary impulses of human nature or (if we are feminist ideologues) as the typical oppression of the patriarchy. But I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone could explain Anne Goursaud’s treatment of Alyssa Milano in that movie.

[Emphasis mine] For all of Stacy’s shenanigans, he’s obviously never eavesdropped on girl talk. So let me explain the obvious: Anne Goursaud Epstein started directing films in the 1970s.  The internets are silent as to her exact date of birth, but she had to have been at least 45 when she directed The Movie That Shall Not Be Named.  Alyssa was twenty.  She’s now 40 and is still absurdly hot.  This is a semi-recent picture of Anne Goursaud.

In case anyone needs it spelled out even more explicitly, some older women can be complete twats to younger women.  I’m not Anne Goursaud; I spent the early ’90s in middle school, on the science team and not in Hollywood; but, having been around the block a few times, when an aging women gratuitously exploits or degrades a younger woman, it’s  jealously.  Aging Anne Goursaud, who was probably never half as lovely as Alyssa, apparently couldn’t resist the impulse to take the young beauty down a notch.  Other directors may show off women’s lovely bodies to get ratings, or to throw a bone to men who are dragged to Titanic by their girlfriends, but Goursaud’s exploitation is nothing but jealousy – the jealousy of someone who competes by degrading the opposition.

Leave it to others to decide if this is a remnant of the patriarchy, evidence that sexism is okay, or some other twaddle.  I’m just here, as the resident thirtysomething, to point out that older women can be dreadful to younger women.  (Heavens, some of them will write in national publications about how they can’t handle aging.)  I think it’s an individual thing – not a woman thing, not a patriarchy thing, but a conscious choice by certain people to be ugly inside.  Because, after all, the world is also full of middle-aged men who hate young, successful women.

FALSTAFF: My King, my Jove, I speak to thee, my heart!

KING: I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.

Henry IV Part 2 Act 5 Scene 5

One of the most frustrating things I run into regularly are people in complete denial. I see it in the church often, folks who go to Mass who are devoted to prayer who absolutely insist that the party of Abortion, Gay Marriage and the Obamacare mandates against the Church are not against Catholics because JFK was president and they simply can’t believe the party of Kennedy could possibly be against the church.

In the Jewish community I see the same. They look at the president Obama and his team and because of their historic connections to the Democrat party they can’t bring themselves to believe that the words he has said about Israel could be false and his support of the Jewish state could be hollow no matter what his record was.

Which Brings us to Chuck Hagel

Hagel nomination for defense was still just a rumor Glenn Reynolds linked: to this piece by Jen Rubin at the Washington post that said

President Obama believes in tough sanctions against Iran; Hagel does not. The president insists that he wants good relations with Israel (and thereby can influence its decision-making with regard to Iran); Hagel has displayed a poisonous animosity toward the Jewish state. Hagel has advocated direct negotiations with Hamas; Obama has never gone this far. The difficulty in articulating to foes and friends our positions on an array of issues is greatly magnified when a critical cabinet officials has a long track record of disagreement with the president, or at least what the president says is his current policy.

Well it appears the Chuck “Let the Jews pay for it” Hagel nomination is no longer theoretical.

Now if a GOP president nominated Hagel for this post Jewish Democrats would not hesitate to go after the pick as a slap in the face to Israel, with Obama making the same pick the reactions on the left should be…interesting.

I would cry for the American Jewish community but they willingly voted for Obama and thus are getting the government they deserve. I’ll give the last word via insty this to Powerline:

It was to be expected that, in a second term, Obama would show more clearly his true colors. In fact, he promised the Russians to do so.

And there is something to be said for the kind of clarity Hegal’s selection will bring.

I’d say American Jews were playing Falstaff but in fairness Obama isn’t turning from his former self, he’s always been this way.

Update:  It’s now official and I cleaned up the opening sentence that got away from me.

Update 2:  Ed Koch says something interesting:

Koch explained to The Algemeiner why he decided to back the President’s re-election even though he says he suspected that Obama would backtrack on his pro-Israel overtures. “I did what I thought was warranted and intelligent,” he said, “He was going to win! There was no question about it. I thought it would be helpful to have a Jewish voice there, being able to communicate.”

So Ed Koch suspecting Obama’s promises to Jews were BS decided to support him because he thought his victory was inevitable?  It’s a good thing England didn’t think that way in 1941 or there would have been no living European Jews to liberate or that Lincoln didn’t think that way in 1862 or there would be a Northern & Southern president right now.

Even more interesting is this:

Does anybody believe that Hagel regrets what he said about gays? I don’t think so. In fact, did he ever say anything (apologetic) between whenever that incident (when Hagel opposed an ambassadorial appointment on sexual orientation grounds) occurred many years ago until his name was discussed as secretary? Undoubtedly, one of his friends said ‘you better get the gays off your back,’ but they don’t believe it, they don’t believe it at all. If he really believes what he says today, he would have said it a long time ago, not today.

This, if true, means the Gay community doesn’t care if Hagel actually hates their guts as long as he gives them the demanded lip.

Update 3:  It gets worse via Yid with Lid

ADL Head Abe Foxman, ever willing to suckle at the teat of any progressive leader. Back in mid-December (before Lew began his “Love Chuck” calls) Foxman said this about a possible Hagel pick:

“The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”
His comments yesterday were much tamer:
National Review says the Jewish Community is “outraged”, I suspect if Jewish leaders are outraged it’s only for being shown as dupes to the people in their community even before the president’s 2nd term begins.

BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!

FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.

BRIAN: We mustn’t fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!

EVERYONE: The Judean People’s Front?!

Life of Brian 1979

Sire, you risk having no Spain at all!

Ed Cid 1961

This is just foolish:

I was just disinvited from a scheduled speech by the Utah County, Utah GOP because — after a special meeting to discuss the subject — I was deemed “too controversial” because of my support for gay rights. Er, okay.

Having an unpaid speaking gig (which I seldom do anymore) canceled is no hardship. And people are welcome to believe what they want to believe, and invite whom they want to speak — but as the GOP looks at why they’re viewed as intolerant, well, this kind of thing might be part of it. “Big tent” or teepee? Your choice.

Now if the speech had been at a Mormon or a Catholic Commencement I can see this (he is in favor of Gay Marriage & unless I’m very much mistaken Abortion) but this is a speech to a GOP group Glenn & Instapundit has been one of the smartest and best voices on the right over the last 10 years. He has treated the GOP better than it deserves Any GOP or Tea Party group that would exclude him are fools.

On a personal level I’m very Catholic, very against the narcissistic nonsense that is called “gay marriage” and about as anti-abortion as you can get. I don’t make a secret of it and I’m sure Glenn and I disagree strongly on these issues and would be happy to debate him (or any one else) on these issue publicly or privately.

Yet Glenn Reynolds been kind enough to answer my letters before I blogged, promoted my links when they are worthy, hit my tip jar when it is needed and correct my grammar when I’ve missed it and more importantly thrown me the occasional word of encouragement…and we’ve never even met each other in person.

Glenn’s not Catholic (I don’t even know if he is Christian) but he seems to be operating under the following rule:

 ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.‘ (Matt 25:40)

I’m lucky he doesn’t operate under the standard the Utah GOP does.

Update: The Utah GOP in Action!

No wonder they couldn’t get Mia Love elected

Update 2: Apparently not everyone in the Utah GOP is clueless:

Good for him.