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.
| 117 |
| Vote |
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
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
Marriage Bits
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
Yes? Congratulations. You have had an abortion.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Once some takes up a fanatical ideology they will bend all logic to make it fit they own dark desire.
Ruby does care one iota about women.
Women must do what she says or they are not allowed to be free.
Circular argument based upon false premise that she has exclusive rights to define feminism.
Very stupid line of argument.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And yes, it is still an abortion. Since an abortion is simply an synonym for an aborted pregnancy. Miscarriages happen to be natural abortion.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Try something else. You are boring me. At least SL mixes it up a little. And doggone it, I can't help liking the old lass.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Sorry, Ruby. This new argument rings hollow, too. The term "abortion" has become the catch word for baby killing. Miscarriage is a whole 'nother thing. God allows miscarriages, he doesn't support abortion. Or are you now taking over His job as well as that of "Feminist in Chief?"
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Fine we won't call it abortion. But my point remains the same. Many fetus's for whatever reason, fail to implant. Why? If every fertilized egg was so precious, why would this happen?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But the crux of the issue is this. Most miscarriages occur without the women even knowing she was pregnant. Thus, the tragedy, if there is one, lies in the reaction of the pregnant woman. If she miscarries without knowing she was pregnant or miscarries and is relieved because she does not want to be pregnant, then the world carries on and no-one is any the wiser. No one mourns the loss of the fetus. (The fetus itself is unaware of its own existence, so its not as if its going to miss anything).
If on the other hand, she wants to continue with the pregnancy, then she will mourn the loss of her future child. Because she wanted it. Wanted to experience the pregnancy and motherhood. It is her loss that hurts. It is her pain that we identify with. Not the 'death' of the fetus itself.
But if a woman falls pregnant and does not wish to be and she chooses to abort the pregnancy, then why is the loss of this fetus suddenly more potent to other people (ie pro-life groups), then the loss of fetuses which abort naturally?
Remember, the woman herself does not feel that the abortion is a tragedy. She did not want to carry it inside her.
So why do pro-lifers pray for this fetus and not for the ones that are lost everyday through natural means?
(And yes, I know you mourned your loss when you miscarried. But I don't see any tributes or monuments or websites dedicated to naturally miscarried fetuses, the way I see for people who die in natural disasters or car accidents. And the way I see for fetuses who were aborted by the women who carried them).
And no Damo. I am not interested in hearing your opinion on this.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Your specious argument is based entirely on the selfish aspect of it. You don't want the baby. You feel glad it's dead. You are happy with your "choice." You, you, you. Sort of like a serial killer who preys on teenagers, isn't it? He enjoys it, he feels good about it, he has no regrets. What about the victims? He can pretend that they are only there for his amusement... sort of the way you feel about a pre-born child, Ruby. Your feelings matter, the victim doesn't.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Not in the first trimester when abortion is legal.
Sort of like a serial killer who preys on teenagers, isn't it? He enjoys it, he feels good about it, he has no regrets. What about the victims?
Not, it's not really the same thing. The difference is that the victim of a serial killer is a fully sentient human being. She was aware of her life and most likely her impending death. And that is where the tragedy lies. Not to mention in the pain of her family.
Also the victims of serial killers do not generally grow inside the bodies of their killers. A serial killer can let his victim live without it impacting his life in any direct way. Their is no conflict of interest here. But a fetus growing inside a woman is going to have a huge impact on her life. And that impact can sometimes be negative.
Women do not get abortions because they hate babies and take pleasure in the procedure. They get them because they do not want to have a baby. They do not want to give birth. They do not want to be pregnant. As I have said on another post, there is no law or human rights declaration that states that anyone be forced to hand over their own bodies for the sake of another. But that is what women who are denied abortions are forced to do. Hand over their bodies for the sake of another.
So we have a situation where in order for the fetus to live, the woman must give up her rights. Whose rights come first? The fetuses or the woman's?
You choose the fetus. I choose the woman.
Plus, you didn't answer my question. Why are there no memorials dedicated to the 40% of pregnancies which result in spontaneous abortion?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I'm going to church now, Ruby and I'll pray for you and that you are never able to get pregnant. You might like the idea for the first few months, then change your "mind" at six or seven months. I wouldn't wish that on an innocent victim. May you be forever sterile.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes, I know, you've said that already. But my point is why don't pro-life groups in general view these as a tragedy? I never hear any of them mention it. Surely, if all those fetuses were worth as much as you or I or the fetuses that are aborted, then they would make more of a song and dance about it? Could it be that it's not really the fetuses they care about?
I'll pray for you and that you are never able to get pregnant. You might like the idea for the first few months, then change your "mind" at six or seven months.
SL, you know as well as I do that late term abortions are illegal except in cases where the health of the mother is under direct threat. This is the case both in the USA and in Australia.
Besides which, in the unlikely event I do fall pregnant (yes, I do use contraception), then I'll most likely abort it as soon as I find out.
Or maybe I'll keep it. Who knows?
Either way, It's up to me.
It's my choice.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
It's a baby. And protecting a baby is more important than protecting the freedom to kill it.
Feminism is about women's issues, their health, safety, and freedom. It DOES NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE, the freedom to harm yourself:
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Abortion opponents like me are just as concerned about the woman having the abortion as the baby. While you might not think at 22 that you want a baby, having an abortion makes you twice as likely to miscarry. It causes psychological trauma that you may no feel when you are first relieved not to be pregnant, but later when you have had a baby.
Understandably not all women end up feeling bad about their abortion and regretting it, but according to this study, only 2.1% of women felt liberation, while 61.3% felt guilty. Notice that in every negative emotion, the responses are high.
Our definition of feminist is just more inclusive than yours. We value a woman's health over their "choice." Yes, birth control fails. Yes, women get raped. I'm OK with the morning after pill, because conception and implantation in the uterus can take up to 72 hours after the insemination. I'm not OK with being six weeks pregnant and deciding to have an abortion for the health of the woman and the health of the baby.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Thank you for commenting, Jonathan. Yes, there are many womens issues that have nothing to do with killing babies. Breat cancer, cervical cancer, heart disease, just to name a few. Real feminists care about the real issues, not just how many babies they can kill with impunity.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Doctors do no kill full term babies on a whim. And how little regard you have for your fellow women if you think so many of them will proceed with a healthy pregnancy only to abort it at the last minute. Come on. No only is that irrational, it is against the law. You can't just abort a seven month fetus because you feel like it. That's not the way it works.
Jonathan, I believe I have already stated how little regard I have for the opinions of men on what I can and can't do with my uterus.
But you know, go ahead and call the pseudo-feminists by any name you want. It does not change the truth. Some people call themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish. And some people call themselves feminists even though they don't care about the rights of women. Nothing I can do about that. Except to state the obvious. They are not feminists.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Using insults as way to shift the ground away from her blatant dictatorial attitude.
So the queen of what all feminists are allowed to believe in choice.
Yet should a women decide to be pro-life than the queen will have you expelled from her metal kingdom.
Elitists and dictatorial her? Never.
She cares so deeply about choice as long as no makes one that she disagrees with.
Why watch television when we have such great comedy here.
I am sorry that I do not have any passages from her recent posts on the Oxymoronic site called ThoughtZone because I never read it.
However for a person who does not care what I have to say why would she bother reading what I write?
Sorry laughing so hard I have to go for a walk.
All hail Queen Ruby ruler of what feminists are allowed to think.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
As for Tiller, Ruby, don't believe what you read. It was obviously a pro-abortion site. He has been under charges repeatedly for killing full term babies that he ripped from their early teen aged mothers. The law saya he was supposed to report statutory rape, but he doesn't pay any more attention to that law than he does to the ones that say you can't kill full term babies. And I repeat, he's only the most famous of the slimy bunch, hardly the only one.
And just FYI, Ruby, not one single woman, ever, has been saved by the horrific crime of partial birth abortion, Tiller's specialty. Not ONE, EVER!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
My metal kingdom?
Well yes, I have always wanted to rule with an iron fist.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
As for Damo, do you think you could sound a little more bitter and jealous? I think there may be one or two people left on Orble who don't think you have some sort of weird personal vendetta against me.
And of course, the question begs to be asked, How do you know Thought Zone is Oxymoronic (with a capital O no less), if you never read it?
Just askin'.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You have nothing that I want.
Your tactics are as shallow as your motives.
Red herrings in the form of a spell check and insults. Kids can come up with better. That's right you don't have any so you would not know.
However I digress.
Your argument is flawed and you have nothing left but you usual line of sarcasm, insults and mantra's gleaned from websites.
Please continue as would love to read who else's freedom you wish to protect by crushing it.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And I have clearly stated why a pro-life stance is incompatible with feminism. You have yet to give a single reason why it is not.
Oh apart from denigrating me that is. You try to tear me down, thinking it will take my arguments down with me. Haha. Epic FAIL Damo. Epic fail. Try again.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
How thou dost twist and turn history to suit thy self.
It is ye who insult women with your demands to tell them what to do and what to to think.
It is ye who gave Thoughzone its secular bigoted agenda.(oxymoronic is a real word look it up before making a fool of yourself.)
It is ye who continues to look for more red herrings to shift the ground away from the central issue.
You demand that feminists must do what you demand they do.
And if you wish to dispute that fact then I suggest that you contact this site Really Long Link
Also you could call late Ms Bhutto's widower and tell him the same thing.
Here is an idea why do you go the PPP convention and give here a real blast for being anti-feminist?
Ah, but true to form you will now be off Googling the internet for some left-wing site that has a hatchet job already written for you to mindless repeat.
And you don't read Green Left Weekly? I am surprised.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Funny, I don't see you addressing Shout's arguments and insulting them, why is that? Is it because it is me and not my argument you have a problem with. Hmmm. What was it someone was saying about online bullying and stalking?
Secular bigoted agenda. Well I guess that settles the question of whether you read Thought Zone or not. Oh yeah, walked into that one didn't you?
I have backed up my arguments with clear points. The best you can do is ask me to call Benazir Bhutto's widower? Are you joking? Wouldn't that just be quoting an irrelevant authority?
Honestly Damo, I'm over this silliness. You are acting like a moron. Give it up.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Ruby, what I find dismaying with your responses is what you're not saying, and maybe I'm reading too much into things, but why so much anger. I mean raw, and almost unmitigated anger on behalf of positions that are merely excusing legal extermination; i.e. abortion. It's the vehemence.
I'm pretty vehement about some things, too; but there's an edge not only in your arguments, but in so many that I've heard from women defending abortion in the most strident terms. That's what alarms me most. Even Hillary Clinton who was not on the "right side" on this issue from a purely legislative/political sense, had over the years changed enough to the point that I can honestly believe her over Obama et al a million times over when she talks about wanting to make it as rare as possible.
She worked with Mother Teresa in the aftermath of what both Clintons agreed that they mishandled when Mother addressed the WH's annual "Prayer Breakfast." That's why there's a Missionaries of Charity House in Bethesda, MD., largely thanks to then First Lady Hillary Clinton's efforts to reach a greater understanding and help the nuns and most important, the unwed children the Sisters could help save.
A couple of days ago on my way out of Mass, I noticed a pamphlet published by Priests for Life, headed by Fr. Frank Pavone. He drew an interesting (and quite haunting, too) parallel between Christ's words at the Last Supper, "This is my body, which will be broken for you" and a woman stubbornly saying "it's my body, period." But Christ died for all of us. But a baby can be put to death for the sake of the mother's convenience if she so desires.
That's probably the underlying rub and argument for the pro-abortion arguments. They fit in neatly with what I heard a man recently call a "conscience of convenience."
Sadly, the arguments in favor of doing whatever one wants with her or his body, kill a yet-born child, eat, drink or smoke onself to death, even commit suicide -- God forbid -- they are often defended with a host of excuses given on behalf of "freedom" that can all fall rather neatly under that big umbrella term I mentioned above: "a conscience of convenience."
Terms like freedom ring hollow; and "consciences" shaped by convenient circumstances are as shallow as April ice compared to what's really at stake:
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I am not writing for your benefit but to entertain others.
I just love logical fallacies to death.
And you are a factory of them.
You first logical fallacy come from the belief that you are the final authority on what all feminists are allowed to believe.
That translates directly to all feminists must believe what you say that they must believe.
ie: "Only a true patriots agree with me."
Same argument and just as fallacious.
"Only true feminists will agree with Queen Ruby."
As I have said before I had ceased reading the tripe that you serve up in ThoughlessZone as the few I have read months ago was little more than your excuse to vent bigotry. Such site do not interest me as they have no intellectual quality at all. Just yellow journalism and they eventually discredit themselves. Urine art? I can see that taking off.
Your other common fallacy is your naive belief that you can pull the victim card out endlessly. Boho I am liberated girl being picked on the nasty Misogynist etc.
Your next logical fallacy is that you start flinging up red herrings. Why don't I respond so one else? You are a misogynist , the local theologian (that one is kind of funny at how stupid it is). However I am still waiting for the 'Male chauvinist pig' to come out of your bag of poo. I almost forgot about your delight in encouraging cyber stalkers. It is just another diversionary tactic by an amateur.
So despite the fact that you think I am writing this for you, it is in fact not. Your lame diversions and evasions only confirm what you are tying to disguise.
You demand that all feminists must believe what you say.
Totalitarian mindset from you?
Never.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
If I am angry it is because I believe that the contents of my uterus are an issue that is best left to a discussion between my doctor and myself.
That pretty much sums it all up for me.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't like to be misquoted.
That's all. Carry on. I love it when people prove how little they think about me by spending all their time thinking about me.
Oh yea,. if you are going to pretend not to read my blog, best not to make constant references to the things I write about in my blog.
And if your aim is to discredit me so that no-one here visits my blog, then I am afraid it is an exercise in futility for you. These people are not exactly my bread and butter you know?
But please, don't let me interrupt your preaching to the choir and all that.
Oh and you still have not addressed the actual issue. Are the feminist and pro-life ideologies mutually exclusive?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But given the circumstances, I may one day resort to having an abortion.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And even if it were, I would consider it self-defense. I will be defending my body and my life against an unwanted pregnancy.
Ultimately it really doesn't matter what you think. Even in countries where abortion is illegal millions of women still have them.
I suggest you just accept it. You won't make it go away.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
She's the one killing all the babies you know!!! MURDERER!
Chandrika Kumaratunga got nothing on this piece of work! hahahahahahahahaha
Damo, go fall on a knife
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Keep speaking out against it then. Then harder you fight, the harder we will fight back.
Vive la Feminism!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I wonder if any of these people have jobs or a life.
Probably not since they have all day to play comparative school yard taunts.
After all those attempts to distract with pointless red herrings her attitude is still the same.
Ruby's Dogma is clear.
She is dictator of what feminists are allowed to think.
Viva la Ruby. Self appointed thought police for all feminists.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
(Damn this is the best post ever.)
Shit_ed is here I am so impressed with his ability to cut and paste names from the Internet.
Has your mummy changed your nappy yet?
If you have one that is.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
*sigh*
Has your mummy changed your nappy yet?
If you have one that is.
Damo is an idiot!
P.s. Damo, unlike Sri Lanka, those of us whom reside in Australian's are afforded with indoor plumbing rather than the latrines I'm sure your all to well acquainted with
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Baby boy stalker.
Is that where you get you ideas from because you talk effluent fluently.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't tell feminists what to think. I do however expect those who call themselves feminists to actually be feminists. Anyone can set up a website and call themselves by any title they choose. it does not mean they actually live up to that title.
How much more can I simplify this for you?
If. You. Want. To Control. The. Bodies. And. Lives. Of. Other. Women. Then. You. Are. Not. A. Feminist.
Prolifers. Want. To. Control. The. Bodies. Of. Women. Hence. They. Cannot. Possibly. Be Feminists.
You. Cannot. Be. An. Atheist. And A. Creationist. Likewise. You. Cannot. Be. A. Pro-lifer. And. A. Feminist. They. Are. Two. Opposing. Ideologies.
In the words of Youth Group;
You can't serve two masters.
You can't take two sides.
So pick a side ladies. Because you can't hate women and pretend to be a feminist.
Not because I said so. But because that is the way it is.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
It encourages women to be promiscuous, which can be a fatal mistake (AIDS for one shining example). It encourages irresponsibility among women ("if I fall pregnant I'll just have an abortion. Problem solved.") It demeans women by devaluing the youngest among them. How many female "fetuses" do you think die every year? It takes the one totally female attribute, that of childbearing and motherhood, and cheapens it into an ugly "business" for abortionists.
Pro-life people really care about women, in contrast. We want women to value themselves and not be promiscuous. We care if their "freedom" allows them to catch fatal diseases. The murdered baby girls matter to us, because we don't "hate women." We want women to live up to their full potential both as women and as human beings, killing their children doesn't accomplish that. We believe that family is important for men, women and children. Killing part of the family doesn't serve to make a happier family, just a smaller and sadder one. Valuing all life is valuing all women, too. Considering anyone "disposable" removes the value, it doesn't increase it, Ruby.
So you must not be a feminist, right? Perhaps you could get some counselling for your hatred of women. Maybe it would help...
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
How about you just accept the fact that some women don't want kids?
Can you get that?
Some of us don't want kids.
But shock horror...we still like having sex for fun. Yes! Sex can be fun. Amazing isn't it?
And sometimes accidents happen.
So we abort the pregnancy and carry on with our lives.
Can we drop it now?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
How very typical of the dictatorial mindset.
Now I am out for the rest of the day but I will be back later to count the comments and see who really has not got a life or a job for that matter.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
That pretty much sums it all up for me.
Like a lot of things in life, Ruby, it's never that uncomplicated, especially when there's some li'l body involved, too.
Which is exactly what the rest of us have been trying to say as well. Just too bad your conscience of convenience isn't so easily troubled. If you're as protective of your children as you are of your uterus, your kids won't have to worry about a mother exposing them unnecessarily to harm from an unfeeling world. And yet you don't see how minutely close you are to turning the page.
I might be a royal pain in the ass right now, but you let a window open -- a window I could tell that was waiting to be opened all along. And I'm not saying that to be patronizing or even proselytizing. Sure, I'm pulling and prayin' for you, but not in the overly sweetly sentimental kind of stuff I'd hear from some evangelical Christians (who meaning well) come across very insincerely, because you really wonder if the old "I'll pray for you line" given as they walk away is the newer, if not worse, version of the old "I'm having a bad hair night" line gals would give guys when they wanted to brush them off.
We're arguing and bantering ideas back and forth, becaause we do care, and not with all that "love bombing," crap. Uh uh. You're getting it straight from us, even though to you it looks like a "scrum" as you'd call it in Austrailian football, I presume. We call it "piling on" with a flurry of penalty flags -- not to mention a few beer commercials thrown in while the refs are looking at the instant replays.
Wait a minute! Even I'll agree there's no "call" to make on this! All in all, Ruby. S.L., Damo, Jon and I care.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
a) You are really slow. Like really, really slow.
b) English is not your first language.
or
c) You get off on being an irrelevant annoyance.
If it's a), then you have my deepest sympathies.
If it's b), then I can forgive your lack of comprehension for what I have been trying to say.
If it's c), then that disqualifies you from any further contact with me.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
As for Steven, I have already made my point. I don't think the contents of my uterus are any of his business. EVER.
And I really do suggest you all do a course in feminism 101. If for no other reason than to discover what it actually is.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Feminism once stood for equality and has been twisted and warped into a crime against humanity with its enthusiastic support of murder. It is a sick philosophy that is only followed by sick or stupid people. There are probably plenty of women who consider themselves feminists in the old tradition but who don't approve of or support abortion. You and the other baby killers have stolen an idea and changed it into something hideous.
If equality and equal pay were still important to "feminists" of today, abortion would be considered the crime that it is. Equality and murder are NOT the same thing, Ruby.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
I came to a post about the republican V.P. candidate and find myself in the midst of a shitstorm--and me without my umbrella.
Mind if I throw my two cents in to the effluvium?
1. I hear good things from Alaskans about their governor, but as usual I'm keeping my own counsel till I can gather up more facts.
2. I'm way way done with the abortion issue, but wanted to mention that my beliefs are at odds with some here whom I nonetheless like and admire; therefore I'm not going to go there with them.
I've yet to see any of these arguments end with someone saying, "Hey, you convinced me! I'm changing my beliefs right now. Thanks!"
Some debates are a waste of time.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
I think there are way too many grey areas in the abortion issue to make a black-and-white law about it. (cut, paste)
I know Damo, whom I like very much, believes differently.
Ergo, we don't discuss the subject because we both know neither one of us will change the others' mind.
D. Armenta
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Not that I have any illusions about changing people's minds here, only that as the pro-life movement gathers more momentum, I think it's important that people who support women keep speaking out.
See this isn't just a matter of agreeing to disagree. This is about one group of people actively attempting to eradicate the human rights of another group of people. 50% of the population in fact.
Because reproductive rights are human rights. And I won't give mine up without a fight.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
D. do you actually believe that killing your children is a right? I pity you. It must be terrible to have no core beliefs that you can stand up for. It must be as awful as believing that murder is acceptable...
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You and I do not discuss this matter that is true.
Yet we still find so much more to agree on without getting all hypo about highly controversial subjects.
You are still one of sane ones left on Orble.
Blogs have no power and have never changed anyones mind on anything as far as I can see.
That is why I am laughing my head off over this post.
It keeps going and going.
Comment by AnnefromTN
Comment by AnnefromTN
I have worked with several women in the same field. Some used the "I am woman" tactic to attempt to get ahead. Most of the time, this backfired. These women did not know what they were doing and ending up getting hurt. The ones who knew what they were doing did not have to use those tactics and were paid as well as the men, if not better.
At this time, I am actually the highest paid where I am. The figures used in these charts are for ALL women in ALL fields compared to ALL men in ALL fields. If you compare apples to oranges, you get junk, and that is what that is.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Ruby-Yep, people do change their minds about issues-- through personal experience.
Not through blogbluster, though. I've yet to see that.
For instance, do you think something like this
is going to supersede all of my own experiences in life that have led me to believe in what I do now?
I keep my own counsel. I'd say most mature adults do.
Oh SL, you little rascal you--I'm just not in the mood today. Some other time, I promise. You know I'm usually up for a good rhubarb.
Damo, my thoughts exactly.
For the record, I happen to know that Damo isn't pro-life because he wants to control women, or because he thinks they are inferior. If you browse through some of his archived posts that mention his wife and her career, you can see that for yourself.
At this middle stage in life, I do my homework and try not to be judgmental.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
I believe in not judging until I have all the facts.
Now stop, ya little shit-stirrer. I have to pack up my drums and hit the road for a few days.
See y'all next week.
Comment by Anonymous
That is why I am laughing my head off over this post.
It keeps going and going.
Wonderfully put, Damo. I thought I wrote some other window-breakers around the same time. Geezh, I became a part-timer "weekend warrior" blogger and I'm afraid I might have to go back on active duty or call for a surge. In that case, Adsense is gonna to cough up for my full-body armor (all heavy duty plastic guaranteed against all bull-fecal material. Has to include a hoodie, too.)
Take if from a Southern college educated American from New England, y'all have had some good times with this post!