"IF THERE is to be a future, it will wear the crown of feminine design," said Sri Aurobindo.
But will it? The Congress and its conservative majority are trying to end Roe vs. Wade, decimate Planned Parenthood and fight the abortion fight all over again. They are openly waging war on America's women. This caused one Roll Parnell who sent me the above quote,
to add: "Unless we awaken to the mystery of the sacred feminine, and allow it to glow, irradiate, illumine, and penetrate every area of our activity - to create in them all harmony, justice, peace, love, ecstasy, and balance--we will all die out and take nature with us."
Now everybody has heard everything about every single person of prominence in America. There are no secrets. So I was amazed this week in the beauty salon when, without work or a book, I picked up the magazine InTouch. This "thing" is nothing but stories of women, famous but mostly semi-famous or merely well-known and passingly mentioned. The thesis is how they are one and all, being dumped on by guys!!!! Are women stupid? Are men that bad? Is it so utterly one-sided? Can't anyone be faithful or doesn't it matter? (I guess it doesn't really matter-- these people aren't exactly Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton or Kate Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. That's when love affairs were truly fascinating.)
Incidentally, the one interesting story in InTouch contends that Jennifer Aniston is working on a $150 million pre-nup for her marriage to Justin Theroux. And there, just the other day I read that she wasn't asking him to sign a pre-nup but would take her chances romantically. (I say, Jen, get the pre-nup!) Aniston, by the way, has been designated the ultimate cover-girl "victim" of these and other gossip mags. The publications are trying to be happy for her, but long ago their editors decided that this appealing, attractive, talented young woman was going to pine forever over her divorce from You Know Who. I don't think she's pined for a long time. And her current fiancé is a hotter specimen than her baby-burdened ex. These weeklies will make her a victim again somehow, but you can almost hear the gnashing of teeth during editorial meetings as she prepares to wed.
Correcting history is always unpopular and hard to do. Belzer is trying. His most interesting point made in the opening to this controversial book is that the mainstream press falls down on its job when it comes to "official and often false" resolutions offered by governments, small and large. The book cites "media propaganda from U.S. Intelligence agencies." Belzer believes that your everyday journalists don't examine the facts closely. And so, true revelations aren't really forthcoming because those who object are called, derisively "conspiracy addicts." Belzer goes on to show that when we speak of "conspiracy," we are probably misusing the term.
Belzer's theory? "The real-world definition of conspiracy is simply; two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime. So Richard believes that many of those examining "conspiracies" are calling them by the wrong name. "Dead Wrong" is startling, rich with detail -- for instance, there are many things I have long believed myself. Take the theory of Aristotle Onassis instituting the death of Bobby Kennedy. I have long believed the facts over the accepted verdict. On the other hand, in his chapter on Marilyn Monroe he sources, among others, a female "friend" of Monroe. Yet there is no proof that this woman ever even met Marilyn! (This woman's incredible tales are now generally accepted as fact, except by the most scrupulous, accurate biographers.) I highly recommend Richard Belzer's fascinating book from Skyhorse Publishing.