« Judges Running Amok (Again) |
Blog Home Page
| Israel would not go quietly »
December 1, 2006
George Clooney: the Sexiest What Alive?
People Magazine's November double issue named George Clooney "The Sexiest Man Alive" for the second time (1997 was the first). While I like looking at Clooney as much as the next girl, when he opens his mouth, all I can see is Michael Moore.
If Michael Moore is a dumbed-down Noam Chomsky (and he is), George Clooney is a dumbed-down Michael Moore. Sorry, but that's not sexy.
Call me old-fashioned, but one trait I've always looked for in a man is that he be more intelligent than I am. And more manly.
But when I see George Clooney, all I can think about is that, in the midst of a jihad declared against us, his last two movies were a film about Joe McCarthy, and "Syriana" - which is being used as a recruitment tool for suicide bombers, as "Path to 9/11" scribe Cyrus Nowrasteh reported being told in Morocco. Incidentally, Nowrasteh is just as easy on the eyes as Clooney. (Handsome + not kissing terrorist butt = HOT.)
Men are supposed to be protectors, not endangerers, and not only does Clooney help recruit terrorists, but he's scared of the Second Amendment - which means he wouldn't even be able to defend a woman from an armed intruder.
The Power Line blog described "Syriana" as "mind-numbingly dumb," explaining it as taking the position that
Charles Krauthammer called the film "a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism."
If America is the ultimate cowboy state, and you're anti-American, that's just not masculine. Cowboyishness aside, one thing that real men know is that evil exists. But here's Clooney on evil:
They tell us we're going to war and no one's saying ‘Bullshit' loud enough. And the language! Listen to the language! ‘Evil.' ‘Evil'? ‘Nexus of evil'? ‘Evil-doer'? That's my favorite, ‘evil-doer'!
There may be room for debate on the current Iraq war, but someone who takes a dark view even of the first Gulf War that got Hussein out of Kuwait, as Clooney did with "Three Kings" in 1999, is just lame.
I know, I know: he's a lover, not a fighter, right? If I had to choose, I'd take the latter. A fighter is usually also a lover, but a lover is often not a fighter. And if a man can't form a fist when appropriate, then he shouldn't be allowed to form an erection either.
Add to the lover a desire for a more socialized America - a craving for a government that takes care of us cradle to grave - and what you have is an infant.
As a woman, I can't be attracted to a man of such inadequate endowment.
The fighting men who are out there risking their lives on America's side - and using guns to do it - would be surprised to know that a man who partially attributed John Kerry's 2004 defeat to himself not riding in the candidate's cross-country train is even the same gender. They barely see John Kerry as being the same gender.
I'm glad Clooney is "proud to be out of touch" with the country, as he said in his acceptance speech at the Oscars this year. Because any woman who appreciates a real man will stay out of touch with Clooney.