Steven P. BarrettMcCAIN'S SURPRISE PICK OF SARAH PALIN CHECKMATES DEMS (LINK)
August 29th 2008 17:53
By Steven Barrett
Earlier this morning while getting up I was resigned to the prospect of my former part-time and mindless "governor," Mitt Romney getting McCain's nod to be his VP running mate. That plus watching Obama's surprisingly more specific and aggressive address, well ... let's say I thought it'd be very long day.
The prospect of the flip-flopping and mindless Mitt the mangy mutt as Biden's counterpart in the dogfight role of VP nominees didn't set very well.
After all, when you read the pundits and see stories about Romney's toothy air-filled head popping up all over Denver, offering gaseous stale jokes and very inastute "observations" -- and getting good copy, well ... let's say I wanted to crawl back under the blankets and call it at least a half-day before heading down to my basement woodshop: "man-cave." Oink, oink.
Ahhhh, but upon hearing a caller on CSPAN mentioning he heard McCain picked Gov. Palin of Alaska, well ... my eyes were opened wide, my heartbeat picked up a bit and hopes seemed rekindled that I'd have at least some reason to take the mile walk to my precinct station to cast a presidential vote this fall.
I'll admit to having been somewhat in the dark about Palin. Let's face it, hearing any connection between Alaska and the GOP was enough to quickly jar me back to earth thinking the Dems will have a field day harping on the welfare state the GOP thanks to Ted Stevens, managed to become in the past half-century. Then I though, "No way, would McCain pick a woman from Alaska unless she was 'purer than Caesar's wife.'" That's a miracle in itself given the way things look up there.
Turns out she's pretty close on this score when it comes to bucking the boyos who've managed to make Alaskan politics look like a cross breed of Tammany Hall and Boris Yeltsin's Russia. You'll be reading a lot of tributes coming her way from Alaskan pols, (who like New Jersey's pols that hated Woodrow Wilson with equal vehemence) will be all the more overjoyed to see her out of Juneau.
Sarah Palin has led an anything but a "go along, get along" and "play by the (local) rules" life. She's proved that a woman can indeed be a "ProLife feminist" -- take on the boyos who robbed Alaska (and the rest of us) blind -- by slamming them into the walls of a hockey rink --yeah gals and guys, she plays the game! -- hard, too, I understand.
The Dems won't know what to do with this kind of woman. They won't get it, to use one of their favorite cliches against McCain who obviously got it a lot more than they gave him credit for. In one fast move, McCain effectively checkmated Obama on abortion and other social issues, not to mention oil, energy, etc. Oh, he'll get it for putting a governor with little federal experience, etc. on the ticket, saying he can't go after Obama for his relative lack of experience and judgment.
But this is can be a loser issue when you think about it from either party's perspective. What it comes down to is personal character and temperament. Compared to Hoover's record, FDR's resume was pretty thin, but who had the better presidency? On the other hand, no matter how long Senators Obama and Biden have sat on the Foreign Relations Commttee, and they deserve credit for their service here, especially Biden. On the other hand, and this is not a criticism of either men, but neither of them have McCain's fighter pilot and POW experience. And what seldom gets mentioned, surprisingly enough, is McCain's role in helping to put out the worst super-carrier fire in Navy history when he flew off the U.S.S. Forrestal. In some (technical only) respects, I'd even have to call this even an "unfair advantage" McCain holds over Obama.
Being a relatively untested female politician/mayor of a small town in Alaska, and able to take one of the most intractably male chauvinistic machines in the nation and beat the old boys at their game -- that takes something only armchair and faculty club tenured women's issues professors in our Ivies can only stand back and watch with a considerable amount of envy. They'll be seeing green alright by the time this woman gets rolling. And it won't be the "green" Al Gore has in mind.
What'll really kill them are her views on those "social issues" ever so dear to their hearts: abortion and "gay marriage," and Palin has at least two aces in the hole here. The Feministas know this, and they know they've played their hands already. All they can do is hold their breath and pray the election doesn't even come close to being decided on these issues.
This woman's taken on a dangerous pregnancy in her early forties, gave birth to four other children, covered sports, plays hockey as well as watches it, hunts moose, flies float planes, and proves that indeed a "Good hearted woman" can indeed take on the worst grizzlies in American poltics and succeed. And according to Wikipedia, she made sure she could legally take the steps she chose to keep "gay marriage" from becoming law in Alaska. (Not that she wanted it or believed it in either. However, she didn't bully her way on this issue much unlike the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Legislature (with help lately Obama's buddy in Boston, Gov. Duval Patrick). Nor did she take any precipitous actions like the ham-handed mayor of San Francisco and a major of some Hudson River town in New York state.
Palin consulted first with her state's AG. Omigawd: somebody who believes in following the spirit as well as letter of the laws of her state's constitution. What's this world coming to? An orderly sense of community? What next? Respect for the people who want them respected and followed? Such "lack of respect "for political muscle and the notion that opinion polls justify whatever means can that be used to shove legislative and judicial social "novelties" down the majority's throat for the "protection" of an otherwise very well-esconced and financially protected "minority" -- well, let's think of it as a long overdue cross-check and jam of our more liberal friends against the glass wall. Sarah Palin plays hard, but fair. It's the latter that worries the Democratic social experimentists the most
I'm a Democrat, but I've learned never to be worried about a person, regardless of what party she belongs to, who plays by the rules. People can call for "change" all they want, but they'd be doing themselves a bigger favor by looking deeper into the details of the "change" their "leaders" have in mind but won't divulge until it's too late.
Earlier this morning while getting up I was resigned to the prospect of my former part-time and mindless "governor," Mitt Romney getting McCain's nod to be his VP running mate. That plus watching Obama's surprisingly more specific and aggressive address, well ... let's say I thought it'd be very long day.
The prospect of the flip-flopping and mindless Mitt the mangy mutt as Biden's counterpart in the dogfight role of VP nominees didn't set very well.
After all, when you read the pundits and see stories about Romney's toothy air-filled head popping up all over Denver, offering gaseous stale jokes and very inastute "observations" -- and getting good copy, well ... let's say I wanted to crawl back under the blankets and call it at least a half-day before heading down to my basement woodshop: "man-cave." Oink, oink.
Ahhhh, but upon hearing a caller on CSPAN mentioning he heard McCain picked Gov. Palin of Alaska, well ... my eyes were opened wide, my heartbeat picked up a bit and hopes seemed rekindled that I'd have at least some reason to take the mile walk to my precinct station to cast a presidential vote this fall.
I'll admit to having been somewhat in the dark about Palin. Let's face it, hearing any connection between Alaska and the GOP was enough to quickly jar me back to earth thinking the Dems will have a field day harping on the welfare state the GOP thanks to Ted Stevens, managed to become in the past half-century. Then I though, "No way, would McCain pick a woman from Alaska unless she was 'purer than Caesar's wife.'" That's a miracle in itself given the way things look up there.
Turns out she's pretty close on this score when it comes to bucking the boyos who've managed to make Alaskan politics look like a cross breed of Tammany Hall and Boris Yeltsin's Russia. You'll be reading a lot of tributes coming her way from Alaskan pols, (who like New Jersey's pols that hated Woodrow Wilson with equal vehemence) will be all the more overjoyed to see her out of Juneau.
Sarah Palin has led an anything but a "go along, get along" and "play by the (local) rules" life. She's proved that a woman can indeed be a "ProLife feminist" -- take on the boyos who robbed Alaska (and the rest of us) blind -- by slamming them into the walls of a hockey rink --yeah gals and guys, she plays the game! -- hard, too, I understand.
The Dems won't know what to do with this kind of woman. They won't get it, to use one of their favorite cliches against McCain who obviously got it a lot more than they gave him credit for. In one fast move, McCain effectively checkmated Obama on abortion and other social issues, not to mention oil, energy, etc. Oh, he'll get it for putting a governor with little federal experience, etc. on the ticket, saying he can't go after Obama for his relative lack of experience and judgment.
Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin
Checkmate Barack!
Meet McCain's queen to your pawn.
Checkmate Barack!
Meet McCain's queen to your pawn.
But this is can be a loser issue when you think about it from either party's perspective. What it comes down to is personal character and temperament. Compared to Hoover's record, FDR's resume was pretty thin, but who had the better presidency? On the other hand, no matter how long Senators Obama and Biden have sat on the Foreign Relations Commttee, and they deserve credit for their service here, especially Biden. On the other hand, and this is not a criticism of either men, but neither of them have McCain's fighter pilot and POW experience. And what seldom gets mentioned, surprisingly enough, is McCain's role in helping to put out the worst super-carrier fire in Navy history when he flew off the U.S.S. Forrestal. In some (technical only) respects, I'd even have to call this even an "unfair advantage" McCain holds over Obama.
Being a relatively untested female politician/mayor of a small town in Alaska, and able to take one of the most intractably male chauvinistic machines in the nation and beat the old boys at their game -- that takes something only armchair and faculty club tenured women's issues professors in our Ivies can only stand back and watch with a considerable amount of envy. They'll be seeing green alright by the time this woman gets rolling. And it won't be the "green" Al Gore has in mind.
What'll really kill them are her views on those "social issues" ever so dear to their hearts: abortion and "gay marriage," and Palin has at least two aces in the hole here. The Feministas know this, and they know they've played their hands already. All they can do is hold their breath and pray the election doesn't even come close to being decided on these issues.
This woman's taken on a dangerous pregnancy in her early forties, gave birth to four other children, covered sports, plays hockey as well as watches it, hunts moose, flies float planes, and proves that indeed a "Good hearted woman" can indeed take on the worst grizzlies in American poltics and succeed. And according to Wikipedia, she made sure she could legally take the steps she chose to keep "gay marriage" from becoming law in Alaska. (Not that she wanted it or believed it in either. However, she didn't bully her way on this issue much unlike the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Legislature (with help lately Obama's buddy in Boston, Gov. Duval Patrick). Nor did she take any precipitous actions like the ham-handed mayor of San Francisco and a major of some Hudson River town in New York state.
Palin consulted first with her state's AG. Omigawd: somebody who believes in following the spirit as well as letter of the laws of her state's constitution. What's this world coming to? An orderly sense of community? What next? Respect for the people who want them respected and followed? Such "lack of respect "for political muscle and the notion that opinion polls justify whatever means can that be used to shove legislative and judicial social "novelties" down the majority's throat for the "protection" of an otherwise very well-esconced and financially protected "minority" -- well, let's think of it as a long overdue cross-check and jam of our more liberal friends against the glass wall. Sarah Palin plays hard, but fair. It's the latter that worries the Democratic social experimentists the most
I'm a Democrat, but I've learned never to be worried about a person, regardless of what party she belongs to, who plays by the rules. People can call for "change" all they want, but they'd be doing themselves a bigger favor by looking deeper into the details of the "change" their "leaders" have in mind but won't divulge until it's too late.
| 98 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Smooth Political
As woman I find this choice insulting. A former model and beauty queen? Reeeally?
Isn't she currentlyl under investigation by an independent investigator hired by a legislative panel to determine if she abused her power when firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan? Wasn't she just on the school board a couple of years ago? Does being Governer of Alaska for a year or two make her qualified to be VP? School Board, Mayor of a small town, Governor, now VP?
It's like the Republicans just threw a stick at any young woman and it hit here.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Obama's idea of change is himself with no experience at all and a long time senatorial joke who is almost equally liberal. At least McCain has someone who doesn't owe their backside to the Washington Beltway gang.
You're up a tree, Smooth Political, and you can't get out of it. Mrs. Palin has many more times the experience that even Hillary has, she is a woman, and she makes the Democrat candidates look like the lumps of nothing that they are!
Comment by Tiffeany Roderick
Smooth Political
Comment by Smooth Political
Not to mention Obama has more education than Palin. Your argument of less experience definitely doesn't fly in this case. It's simply NOT accurate. I noticed you didn't do your research regarding Palin being under investigation for abuse of power.
Simply put SL, put her resume next to Obama and it looks pretty bad. The Republicans just needed a woman..and she was the only one who hadn't been born long enough to have a history of corruption.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Mrs. Palin has actually BEEN ELECTED to something when she ran against an OPPONENT! She is the Governor of Alaska and has had the experience of running a state. Obama hasn't even run a small company, for goodness sakes!
Comment by Smooth Political
Are you counting Palin's school board position as a job? Mayor of a city with 100 people? How hard is for a beauty queen to be elected in a state made up of mostly men? Hmmmm.
Getting through law school and passing the bar are not easy things to do SL. You still over looked all of the other jobs experiences of Obama. I've proven you wrong. Line by line on actual qualifications Obama has more qualifications
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Shout Politics
I take offense to your insinuation that pro-choicers kill deformed babies. You perpetuate this sick image of "liberals" taking daggers to their ugly babies after they're born. The only person around here who sounds crazy enough to take a sharp object to a living person is you S.L.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Well! Let's hold rip our shirts and start chewing the rugs: this former beauty queen, turned mom, politician comes from Ted Stevens' land of "bridges to nowhere (which isn't quite true if you look at the map of Juneau and its plans, zoning and otherwise. The cost was outrageous; but so was Boston's Big Dig and you haven't heard a peep about that lately.) And supposedly there's a "messy" look-see into her personal and poltical life. Given the cynicism of the Bergtholds of this world, you'd think they'd like this as pre-Beltway training. You watch, they'll pounce on this faster than a former TarHEEL's personal miscue lately.
Would this also be what you're getting at "Smooth Political"? I honestly don't know. Let's step back here a bit and ask ourselves how many people are sitting in legislators and governor's offices and in Washington who violated some personnel matter. If it involved sexual harrassment, well, that's clearly another matter and lead to McCain's version of an Eagleton repeat(albeit for different reasons.)
On the other hand, I've worked for some people whom I thought gave me a raw deal and had me fired. Yet, while I think they gave me a raw deal, I'm not going to say all of them were unqualified, professionally or even temperamentally at all times. We all make mistakes. All of us. When I step into that voting cubicle and start making my marks, how a person handles or mishandles personnel disputes (or just plain office catfights) is the least of my concerns, unless the office is pretty local and I personally know the person. I might be tempted to play payback.
But what if the person I have a personal beef against is the best candidate to represent my views overall on key issues -- and I know that person's a royal SOB -- but compared to the do-gooding, blah, bland and utterly banal candidate who supports every thing I loath. Hell,it's not even a pick. I'll pick the SOB anyday. As FDR said about the elder Somoza dictators of Nicaragua, "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch." That candidate whom I might never have forgiven personally, nevertheless became my sonfabitch, and he's in MY DEBT.
I hated to use this parallel example, but politics isn't smooth. It can be raw, it can be personal and it can turn you inside out. But that's why only adults are allowed to vote. Adults know public elections aren't the same thing as high school or college popularity elections, at least in theory. Hell, I'd raise the voting age back up to 21. IT wouldn't make any difference anyway since the kiddos consistently leave pols who've campaigned their hearts out left as usual at the altar on election day -- only to get stood up again and again. I didn't vote for him, but I can't help but to feel some understanding for John Kerry's frustration in '04.
If I believed in everything Obama stands for (and there are a lot of good points he raised last night though I'm supporting McCain/Palin) and suddenly found out that Obama verbally harrassed his employees and let loose with expletives, but didn't grope anyone or committed anything way out of line, none of that would nor should stop me from voting for the man. We're voting for human beings to take proper stewardship of a civic body, our national government. Your local precinct isn't the Sistine Chapel and you're not voting for a Pope or on a petition for a person's sainthood.
Harry Truman belonged to the Pendergast machine. I'm Catholic and I'm not a supporter of Freemasonry. Truman was a Mason and Pendergast was a Catholic backroom political kingmaker who ran the Kansas City machine. Shall we get all huffy about the past "sins" imagined or otherwise, of our politicians (and by defaut discourage future would-be interested candidates) -- or take their records in-toto and go from there?
Let's turn the clock back some 2000 years but add in our modern 4th estate and academics for some flavor. The eggheads and talking heads on the tubes would make for wonderful Pharisees and of course the scribes ... they'll be quenching their thirst at boyos wearing the togas' "hospitality suites" only to feign their "objectivity" later after they've slammed and jammed them with judgmental and biased coverage.
Human nature doesn't change with time or newer means of doing the same hatchetwork.
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
For crissakes, watch "Good Will Hunting." I used to hang out at Charlies Kitchen, a Harvard Square eatery and one time some Harvard kid (this was in the mid 70s when the place didn't have any core curriculum, nada.
He was bragging on and on about what a great education he was getting out Harvard. So I asked to see his catalogue, which was roughly the size of the Cambridge/Somerville/Medford directories. I couldn't believe my eyes at this cafeteria of goodies a kid at Harvard could take and not have to suffer through a lot of the basic and damned more difficult courses I had to take to graduate from a much lesser known Catholic college in Miami, FL which at the time wasn't even 20 years old, no less. But you know something, I bet I received a FULL EDUCATION compared to what that pampered ninny received and at a much lower cost.
By the way, one of the worst profs I had at Biscayne College, now St.Thomas University, was a "Harvard man."
My parents were of the generation that bought into the hogwash and myth of Ivy and northeastern college excellence and I'd get hammered back down when I'd challenge it. It was unthinkable, until I started taking some classes at Mount Holyoke College where I worked in the library to fill in some holes in my transcript I'd need if I wanted to meet MA teaching cert. requirements. Shortly before my dad died, I had the biggest laugh with him when I could finally convince him the Ivies weren't so vaunted after all. And they still aren't. I have no complaints about the courses, but they were no more challenging than what I took at Biscayne. Not at all.
Do you want to continue buying into that old and musty myth? That doesn't sound like "change" to me.
Back to Harvard: , while it's as hard now as it was back then to get in, it was as it is now, damned near impossible to flunk out of. Harvard dumbed down? Sure as hell, and it shows over and over and over. No change there.
Just because Obama e/a went to Harvard that makes them automatically "more intelligent" or "more qualified." Some of these Harvard and other Ivy grads will tell you how disgusted they are by their classmates' snobbery and social amnesia when it comes to remembering who pays a lot of Harvard's bills we do through our tax dollars in the form of grants and low-cost student loans. BTW, lots of wealthy Democrats take advantage of the same damn tax break welfare deals for fat cats as Obama was correct to mention last night. No change there, either.
Closer to my home, I'd love to see some change coming out of the predominately Obamaite local colleges, particularly in the form of disinvestments of more land owned by no less than the Vatican, and perhaps the Vatican, Monaco and some other small Italian states combined. All tax free. And I'm not referring to the state university, UMass, but Amherst, Hampshire, Smith and Mount Holyoke Colleges. When places like this which supply so many of these ever so-smart grads with all sorts of world-problem-solving ideas crammed in their heads (and egos) want to divest and help out even the middle class property owners by selling their vast acres, then I'll listen a bit more intently. By the way, how much land does the Univ of Chicago own that it's holding on to. Any rent controlled apts occupied by profs that Obama turned a blind eye to?
I can guarantee you this Tiffaeny, everytime the Obama camp or its local lieutenants wnat to play up to Obama and his supporters presumed higher levels of intelligence, all I we need to do is point them in the direction of Boston so they can ask Michael Dukakis what good it did his campaign. Unlike Obama, the Duke will tell you it didn't do him any good at all. It killed his campaign.
Go ahead and keep making that mistake. Just like Adlai Stevenson, too.
Bill Clinton made some awful person decisions, but at least he learned from them. But in his favor, he also learned how to reach out to people by lifting them up no matter where they stood socially or economically. Hillary got that part down too. Too late, but she did it and she earned her votes in the big primaries and eating your guy's lunch in the process. Obama was clever enough to stick with his kind of folks, the smart set, the profs who use politics as a hobby and then sneer at others who feel edged out by their snobby attitudes and lose interest in getting involved in electoral politics. Can't say I'm neither surprised or unwilling to suspect it's been planned all along.
That friend, is subversion. It's undemocratic and purposefully elitist. It's one thing to slide into an elitist position without even knowing it. That happens in politics too often. [B]But rarely do we get to see such an bare fanged campaign as Obama's in this respect.[/B]Keep it up and I hope you'll get to used to McCain/Palin.
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
You provided a good example of this mindset, no doubt unintentionally, when you introduced Palin into your argument as "this woman, pound for pound." I understand how you're trying to frame your point, but the way it came across, was both sexist and a put-down. It's like that old "you people" line. That line never fails to get all of us people riled up and unnecessarily so. It demeans your chosen nominee as well.
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Of course Sarah Palin should be thanking Hilary Clinton for her nomination. Had Hilary not achieved what she did, McCain would not have tried to win women over by choosing as his running mate. That's how feminism works.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Smooth Political
Please list Palin's accomplishments and list Obama's. Please list her education, then Obama's. Prove me wrong.
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
For all Obama's noise about "change", he chooses a long time establishment hack like Biden and you "brilliant" people rave about what a great idea it was. He wants the same old thing that Democrats always serve up. Higher taxes, lies, bull dookey neck deep in the promises they make and never keep. Their care for the "public" only lasts until the day after the election. By all means, Google the Nasty Pelosi congress if you doubt me. The only "promises" she kept were the wimpy little softball things that meant nothing. At least Sarah Palin cleaned up the corruption in the whole state of Alaska, Republicans included. Not one of your precious Democrats has that kind of nerve, to buck their own party when they find wrong doing. Did Biden vote to impeach Clinton and remove him from office? Ha!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It's like being a Republican but saying you care about the poor. And the sick. Not likely.
Comment by Smooth Political
Go Sarah Palin she will go down in history as a flop. Especially if those charges she's being investigated for stick and she's impeached
Comment by Anonymous
Tiffaeny, if memory serves me correctly, that was exactly one of the biggest complaints the Clinton camp had against the Obama crowd. Look, I live in the Five College, Inc. area of western Massachusetts, which has one of the largest concentrations of self-centered egotistical and intellectual snobs per acre than you can imagine. I see this every day. It's pervasive and corrosive. I say corrosive because it eats at the ability of so many otherwise really decent people who don't see it sinking into their thought proceses and lifestyles until it's too late and by that time they've accomodated themselves to the whole schmere that they couldn't possibly imagine associating themselves with anyone but the hoi poloi they work with in the various colleges around here.
And when they get involved with politics, you'd be both sickened and shocked to see otherwise intelligent and caring people all of a sudden pull up sociological and emotional drawbridges between the academic haves and the "rest" of the people. Even though the "rest" of us still pay their salaries directly through our taxes to UMass Amherst, or indirectly through the various government grants and other goodies that these well entrenched and overly protected, not to mention, scandalously financially wealthy private schools have socked away in their untoiuchable endowments. And they have the cohones to call themselves "non-profits.
And, oh, you should've seen how some of these people behave when they sit on school committees and stick it to the lowest and hardest working people in the local public schools, cafeteria workers; i.e. lunch ladies. Thankfully my wife's department was able to keep their benefits, minus their annual increases, but what a wringer those poor women were put through;and all by the same caste -- yes, CASTE -- of people who were also trying to institute a new curriculum to bring more "social justice" into the public schools in Amherst.
You want to to toe-to-toe with a person who's lived with this most of his life, fine, but start another thread lest this goes on forever in this vein. But I don't think you want to do so with a guy with a lot of memories. Not grudges, but memories. I've been blessed in life, but it pains me to no end to see so many others put down, ignored and cast aside all because of a "lower rank" in places and institutions where so much talk is expended (wasted actually) about "social justice."
Here's a true local anecdote that I'll carry with me to my grave. It didn't involve me, but I'm familiar with the persons involved and where it occured. Two professors were looking for another to hold a meeting, whatever, and they were calling out to each other, and when one was asked if so and so was in a particular office, he said, "Nobody's in here."
Bullshit. There was a secretary typing away at some assignment.
And I know GD'd well those profs will be pulling the donkey's tail on election day. I am NOT the kind of person you want to go to the ring with about academic and political elitism, not with nearly fifteen years of working in academic libraries, most of them as a circulation assistant.
As I'm getting older, I find myself getting younger when it comes to wanting to fight more and more for the people who, like that secretary working in the office that treated as a "nobody" -- the lunch ladies -- and so many other people the snots like to TALK about -- but won't lift a finger to help. No, they're too busy writing their grants to line up their tax funded travel and sabattical and exchange program grants, etc. Or they get a "nobody" to do the dirty work for them.
[B]For your sake and that of your hero's, the great talker for the downtrodden -- but just that -- a great talker -- don't mess with people like me with real memories of what elitism is all about and what it means in real life.[/B]
Comment by Anonymous
should read
You want to go to toe-to-toe ...
My eyes aren't what they used to be. (LOL)
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
That is what you call a moron statement.
Elitists and bigoted all in one.
What a stupid argument.
Sorry I wasn't going to bite into this but jeez when people what to start dictating what a feminist is...
Damn that is funny.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Not as funny as Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Like all subject that you seem to want to pontificate about Ruby you expose your utter ignorance.
You have no idea who Chandrika Kumaratunga is at all but it is your fault that all you have is Google.
Nor do you have any idea what is so funny about your statement that: "you cannot be a "pro-life feminist""
Let me allude to your obvious flaw in the hope that perhaps you won't make the same mistake again.
Who died and made you queen and self appointed door bitch of who is and who not a feminist?
Now whilst you go off and find quotes from irrelevant sources of authority I will continue to laugh at that statement.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
No one made me queen of anything. But I have enough intelligence to know that you cannot support legislation that deprives women of bodily autonomy and freedom and then claim to support their rights.
Now let me ask you something, If you think I am so unimportant why do you insist on addressing my comments? Even when I have shown no interest in addressing you?
I repeat: You cannot be pro-life (and thus anti-choice) and be a feminist. It's like saying calling yourself an atheist but worshiping Jesus. It's like calling yourself a socialist but championing the economics of Milton Friedman. It's hypocrisy. And it contradicts itself. But I shouldn't expect you to see that. Hypocrite.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't care what you call yourself. But you are not a feminist.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Let's dispel some myths.
If a woman with a 4 year degree and a man with a 4 year degree are both are both working are both clerking at a law firm, doing the exact same work, John McCain thinks they should get paid the same. However, if the woman is a better negotiator of salary and plays more hardball with the employer and gets more, he thinks bravo! So stop the equal work for equal pay standard rhetorial speach garbage that democrats giving speechs repeat every single time whether it's true or not until . . . well people start believing it.
You don't have to be pro-abortion to be a feminist. To use your example it's like me saying only Southern Baptist can be Christians. Webster's definition:
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
No, she's not today's feminist, but she does prove that women can do anything they put their minds to, and she's done it so well that she's the most popular politician two years since her election ever in the history of American politicians.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
This whole thing about the equal pay for equal work sounds real nice until you look a little deeper into where it comes from: a political boiler room operation cranking out political talking points. I used to attend a few Democratic Issues Conventions in Mass. years back and that issue was always brought out like the proverbial war club it was used for. It was just like the old ten-percent rule for establishing the number of homosexuals in the general population. And evangelicals make the same genralizations when the Barna Inst. out in California says that only 4 percent of the population leads a so-called "Bible-based lifestyle" -- but guess what, that same figure showed up in a cleric's assessment of religious practice in Western Mass just after he chaperoned a group of kids at a local Aqcuire the Fire rally.
Coincidences can also be the devil's way of lurking anonymously in the shadows and details.
Let me go back to the equal pay issue. It's easy to point to a gov't statistic showing that on the whole women get paid less in A or B or C occupation if that's all you present or look at. It's child's play. What involves more homework and honest is when you break down the reasons and circumstances why x amount of wome doing the same job at the same posted pay rate are "earning .70 for every guy."
Could pregnancy and the years taken off to raise children until they reach a certain age have something to do with these figures? Could a person's job history have something to do with these figures being off-balance? Just keep going on down the line and you'll find a lot of different reasons why the numbers look off-kilter. BUT this isn't what the demagogues are telling the people because it's too "complicated" to explain in the same relative time it takes to get a message in a soundbite or commercial.
Campaign managers won't admit to this half-lie. But how else could it be?
It hurts like hell to see so many women being misled and have their hearts and minds manipulated over this issue when for only a little bit more time taken to tell the full truth so many of us might be using our mental gifts to finding creative ways to help more women earn and keep more money without such patronizing claptrappery and perinnial demagoguery.
I agree that wages should be higher; who doesn't? But how about hearing more from the pols about finding ways to SAVE money instead of merely earning it to just get by.
The New Deal was unfairly criticized by the GOP for providing "make work" jobs. They never complained about the hope workers regained, the additional money people had to not only spend and put back into the private economy -- but also educational programs designed to help people learn how to hold to their money, esp. before SS came along. That's what's missing nowadays.
Obama's right in lashing out at the "ownership" notion of W's and the GOP. Somethings are beyond our capacity to exercise "ownership" over; a catastrophic illness, the loss of one's home value due to a rash of house foreclosures down the street which led to arson and so forth. Individuals shouldn't have to "own" these kinds of problems and people with wealth shouldn't say, "well that's too bad, I'm able to get by."
On the other hand, Obama has no business raising false hopes and using slide -rule calculations to establish rapport with the voters, etc. Bill Clinton was a wonk, but he was a sentimental wonk who'd spend real time with people and sure, the "I feel your pain" sounded corny and overly sentimental to the pharisees in the temples of high government, media and academia, but to the people affected by real economic woes, he was anything but overly sentimental when they knew what he grew up in. And he could look at people straight in their faces and emphathize with them:.
Not so with the Obamaites; most of whom in his inner circle, (lots and lots of whom are academics) when they achieve status and tenure -- forget where the hell they came from and damn quickly,too. Obama, an academic, too, talks the talk, but how long has it been since he really got back into the gritty work where he started from?
TIme to run!
Comment by Shout Politics
The anti-choice issue is one of many large ideas that compose the feminist paradigm. When you disagree with one of the major issues that defines feminism, that is a woman should not be told by the government what she can do with her body, then you are, at best, a pseudo feminist.
Just as Biden believes he still is a Catholic despite being pro-choice, I'm sure there's a handful of pro-life women that consider themselves feminists. However, the core of the feminist movement would say otherwise, just as the core of the Catholic church would say Biden's not a Catholic.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I said anyone who does not think a woman has a right to control her own body is not feminist.
There are many people out there who are personally opposed to abortion but who do not fell they have the right to impose their will on other women. That's pro-choice. That does not discount the possibility of their feminism.
Now, I could care less about your religious argument and what makes a Catholic or a Baptist or a loyal follower of Bozo the Clown.
But If you don't think women have the capacity to make their own choices, then you are NOT A FEMINIST.
If you would force a woman to give birth a baby she does not want, then you are NOT A FEMINIST.
If you think that the very second a woman gets pregnant she ceases to be a human being in her own right with her own desires and her own thoughts and her own rights, and is nothing more than a giant walking uterus, then you are NOT. A FEMINIST.
End of story.
Comment by Shout Politics
I used the Biden example to point out to pro-lifers that much like being pro-choice means you're not completely catholic, being pro-life means you're not completely a feminist.
Sorry if my argument was confusing.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
So despite the loud elitist shouts there was at least one feminist who not pro-abortion.
Of course we could mention Feminist for Life that have existed for decades.
I actually like their motto: "Women deserve better than Abortion"
But in the Ruby universe she speaks for all feminists and women.
By definition that makes her misogynist.
Condemned by her own elitism.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
I've been following the Biden/Pelosi flubs about abortion and Catholic teachings very closely since this issue hit the fan last week. (God I miss Tim Russert, he would've straightened out both of those knuckleheads!)
Nowhere have I ever seen any mention of either person being "thrown out of the church" for their erroneous views. They've been rightly and roundly criticized for spreading misinformation and taking it upon themselves to act like their own magisterium. They know they lack this authority. They know it damn well. It's their sin of pride that blinds them to see just how far off they've strayed and are at risk of causing others to stray from doctrinal truths that have been established since the time of Christ.
If they are finally denied Holy Communion at the altar, which I believe is an appropriate sanction, because they are not in full communion with the Church on essential teachings/not to mention deliberately and arrogantly disdaining the hiearchy's sole authority to teach Catholic doctrines/dogma -- that does not mean they've been thrown out of the Church.
The denial of the Sacrament is a temporary sanction, which can be instantly lifted upon the full coming around of the sanctioned individual (confession, repentance and acceptance of Church teachings and Authority.) They are not prevented from attending Mass, nor are they shunned (like some smaller and even more stingently more disciplined Protestant sects.)
The Episcopal Church has taken even stronger measures -- and with greater rapidity -- not to mention a considerably diminished spirit of charity -- to enforce the acceptance of Gene Robinson's consecration as New Hampshire's bishop. Priests have been summarily defrocked, fired and yes, excommunicated with prejudice. That means forever folks.
Compared to what happened to many disgruntled traditionalist Episcopal clerics across the country who (dared -- dared??? -- I can't believe I'm having to write it like this! -- to stand up for ancient Christian truths and teachings against the forces of political correctness) Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have been treated with far greater leniency than what many Catholics feel they deserve, myself included.
Catholicism is not a democracy. Jesus didn't start a democratic institution. And He only started ONE Church, with one vicar (Peter.) That fact is well established the very moment -- (after Peter acknowledged Christ as the Messiah and received the keys to the Church because Peter could've only received this revelation from God) -- yet Peter made the human mistake of countering Christ when Jesus said they were off to Jerusalem where he'd be killed, and Peter said "no way." At that moment, Christ let it be known once and for all that the Church was never to be a full democracy. It never could have been and stayed in existence for so long. It is only a binding "democracy" when it picks its leader, the Pope, Peter's direct successor. Dissent was squashed by Christ at the very inception for one simple reason: man is a quarrelsome being by nature. Just look at what happened to the Anglican Communion lately.
But no, nobody has been fully kicked out of the Catholic Church. If they leave, it'll be of their own accord. But they shouldn't be allowed to receive the Sacrament if they can't abide in the Authority left behind by no less than Jesus Christ.
Comment by Shout Politics
I wasn't making any points about religion, I was only using this example to show the counter argument to the pro-choice not a feminist deal.
As to where I found this gem, a Catholic bishop was on (you guess it! Fox News) talking with Hannity about how Biden is technically not a Catholic and shouldn't receive communion because he is pro-choice. Thats all I said by the way, I NEVER said that he was being thrown out or excommunicated.
My point is just as the Catholic church (and you too by the way...) say that Biden is technically not a Catholic because he is pro-life, one can reasonably argue that a woman is not technically a feminist because she is pro-life. That doesn't stop the person, be it Catholic or feminist, from insisting that they belong to said group. I myself am Catholic but am a liberal too. I still consider myself a Catholic even if the church doesn't.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
They haven't been thrown out, but they have forfeited their ability to receive Communion. It's pretty simple: if you're not in comm union with a church, you shouldn't receive their communion, even if they, like the Episcopalians, and Baptists, allow any baptized Christian to do so. I did it until I realized how wrong I was. I held on to a lot of dumb ideas when I was younger. But as I grew older, looked at the rest of the world as it was falling apart and saw that no matter how many human flaws that plagued the Catholic Church, I had to return because it was the only Church founded by God and the only one that still teaches the same truths now as it had 2000 years ago. And for me to diminish my faith through false (but feel good ecumenism) or countenance the half-baked notions of the Bidens, Hannitys and Pelosis ... I'd be flat out wrong.
As one of Biden's late colleagues, Sen. Moynihan said, "You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to make your own facts. The same goes for how one practices his or her faith, especially within Catholicism. And for these public figures to flaunt their personal dissent the way they do, it constitutes scandal against the Church's unity (which Jesus prayed for the night before he was crucified), thus they have rightfully been denied until they come around.
Of all people, Hannity's the LAST guy among the conservatives I'd bank on for good info on Catholicism. When it comes to the church, he's nothing but a parasite who brags about his Catholic upbringing to demonstrate he's just another middle class guy who grew up with a solid Catholic background, yadda yadda yadda. It's packaging, plain and simple. I've lost all respect for him because of this.
In fact, though I sadly shake my head at what Biden and Pelosi have said, nevertheless I have more respect for them than a slick media self-promoting multimillionaire who sees no problem using his Catholic roots for self-promotion. And since I'm NOT a fiscal conservative, only a social one, I find Hannity's bogus "conservative" notions cheap, mean-spirited and outrageous at times.
It's one thing to call for trimming wasteful fat that'll come back to haunt the programs you want to save to help needy people; it's another matter to just sneer and snipe at the "government's waste of tax payers' dollars" when no matter how much he gets hit on taxes, he's still got a ton of dough left to live on. And he just reads the wires and goes from there. He's not a policy expert or government accountant.
It's late and I'd better stop at Hannity! Biden and Pelosi have been egregious enough, but outside of abortion, I at least believe they don't have a cheap n' mean steak compared to Hannity.
I know you meant well, and I should've made that clearer, but I was too interested earlier in trying to clarify what I thought was a common misunderstanding. Sorry if I went overboard. Sometimes I do.
Comment by Ravens
Perhaps if you are able to do so one day, you'll be man or woman enough to vent your bile in her presence, so that she has an opportunity to defend herself.
Cowards hide behind a cyber persona to excoriate someone that is not in a position to defend herself; but then again, your comments are as an odoriferous syntax, and as such, wasted breath.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It's not about "elitism". It's about two opposing viewpoints. Pro-life in the political sense means criminalising abortion and forcing every single woman who got pregnant to give birth.
Since feminism is about allowing women to make their own choices and decide for themselves when and if they want to have children, by taking this choice away from them you are actually limiting women's choices and options.
Thus you cannot be a feminist.
It's like saying you believe in civil rights but still think that blacks should sit on the back of the bus.
Now I know some pro-life groups have cropped up and tried to inject their nuttiness into the public consciousness by identifying themselves as "feminisits", but to anyone who knows even the slightest thing about the feminist movement, that just does not wash.
To speak in terms that even you can understand, you can't be Christian unless you believe in Christ. And you can't be a feminist unless you believe that women are capable of making their own decisions. And that includes decisions on reproduction.
Pro-life=anti-choice=NOT. A. FEMINIST.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Once upon a time women wanted equal pay, the right to vote, and several other rights that we now take for granted. The early feminists fought for those rights (personally I don't think they've all turned out to be blessings...) and ultimately won.
What used to be a "noble cause" has degenerated into a disgusting group of hatefilled creatures who want all the rights and priviledges with no responsibilities attached.
If you don't want children, Ruby you can either keep your pants on, use birth control or get your blinking tubes tied. It's not at all complicated. If you really want to be able to "control your own body and reproductive abilities" then do it! Killing your children because you were too lazy to use birth control or too selfish to care about anything but your own pleasure is still murder. You can't put lipstick on a pig like that! It is NOT feminism, it is dispicable.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Do you get that?
I will have an abortion.
And to hell with people like you thinking you have some sort of ownership over my uterus.
You will not limit my choices.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
(That and being a walking example of logical fallacies and mindless leftwing mantras.)
The bottom line is Ruby: Who died and made you queen of the feminists?
Answer: No one.
However like many of your ilk you hold fast to your totalitarian mindset and appoint yourself to that role. Then again hardcore ideologues do not care about human rights. Even less about those that they claim to be defending.
I know a good many feminists who would find your demand that they adhere to your dictatorial definition as utterly offensive and insulting to their intelligence.
Perhaps if you slow down for a moment and stopped quoting Green Left Weekly, or what ever it is you subscribe to, you might realize that you just shot you self in the foot.
However since you are still in mindless mantra mode I would doubt it.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Feminists For Life. Hahahahaha.
That's almost as good as Vegetarians for McDonald's.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone