... sorry for the slow posting, faithful readers (all 2 of you, hi mom and dad!) har har...
I've been trying to wrap my brain around this impending economic doom business; not being a banker, it's taken me quite awhile (and still is, I don't claim to fully understand it). Also there was the first pres debate; all fertile blogging ground which I have largely missed. Oh well.
Starting with the presidential debate last week. I don't know who won. I was so disturbed by the opening round in which both the candidates displayed zero leadership and zero grasp of the situation that I almost turned the dang tube off. A true conservative would have used the opening of the debate to defend free markets and capitalism and acurately describe this crisis as the product of social engineering and political correctness run amok. Instead we got regurgited populism from McCain, and apocalyptic incoherence from Obama.
At least I have the dim satisfaction of knowing I voted for the wacky Mormon in the primaries.
Briefly, on impending economic doom 2008 / New Great Depression, I am starting to wonder if this isn't a crisis a whole lot like global warming, as in -- one more excuse for a big socialist power grab. Weren't we all supposed to be roasting alive, choking on carbon dioxide, and drowning in the boiling ocean by now, anyway? Actually, you would think Democrats would be cheering this development. If the world economy grinds to a sceeching halt, they'll get their cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, no messy cap and trade scemes needed, and we will all be saved. Hooray.
Backing up my suspicions over this whole crisis is this quote from French president Sarkozy:
The idea of an all-powerful market without any rules and any political intervention is mad. Self-regulation is finished. Laissez faire is finished. The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's usually a good idea to do the opposite of whatever the French are advocating. Is the government really the all knowing, all powerful wise and benevolent force that is going to save us all? Call me skeptical.
Hysterical denunciations of Palin as an Anti-feminist and smears against her family continue to pour out of the media. Today's winner of the Palin Derangement Syndrome daily column contest actually hails from Canada:
She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.
Wow... how... um... enlightened.
It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.
My vagina is recoiling in horror at the thought that women like this claim to speak for all women. As far as Republican men being sexual inadequates... don't knock it 'til you've tried it, sistah. Additionally, I would bet good money that Todd Palin is more handy around the house and better help with the kids than BarackObama, John Kerry, and Al Gore combined. And John Edwards... Okay, okay, I won't even go there.
I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred.
... written without a slightest hint of irony...
Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too. John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly.
...and they wonder why they keep getting called elitist.
Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe... McCain nominated Palin cause he likes her stance on issues and her track record of reform. That 80% approval rating as gov prolly didn't hurt either. I'm just typing off the top of my head here, but what if... Republicans aren't the raging misogynists they are reputed to be. What if... they are so energized about a women candidate because they love seeing a woman with a family succeed at home and at politics -- like it justifies their belief in family values and personal responsibility, or something. Nah ... they were clearly trying an eeeevil ploy to pander to Hilary voters.
I'm counting down until Steinem, Mallick, etc. come out with the big "it was all satire, stupid Rethuglicans" line once they reread their own writing.
Sorry for the snark, but this is really starting to annoy me.
Every single last critique of the Palin pick has employed some form of the hysterically typed: Sarah Palin is soooo inexperienced and she is a 72 year old heartbeat away from being president!!!
SO WHAT?!? If Obama is elected then the inexperienced one will actually be president. And what if Biden dies? Obama will be really screwed then. It's really just a veiled way of saying, McCain is old... nyah nyah. Who cares? Biden is old too. Nyah nyah.
Besides, I don't understand the fetish with the youth vote. I would be much more focused on the old people vote. If P. Diddy's yoot vote was worth a bucket of dog poo than eighteen year-olds would be able to legally drink beer. Instead, they can get drafted; meanwhile, old people get money from the government just by virtue of being old. Who's got the whole voting thing down here?
The claws come out quickly and Steinem proves she can be every bit as catty as your average third grade girl:
This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.
She criticises Palin as an affirmative action pick, apparently completely unaware of the irony. Usually, it is conservatives opposition to affirmative action that liberals use to label them as racist of sexist. To be fair to Steinem, she does acknowledge the sexist slant to the liberal criticisms of Palin:
I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father.
However, Steinem displays a curiously lopsided notion of women's liberation when she spends most of her column smearing Palin as a tool of the "right-wing patriarchy" for holding conservative views. Apparently, it is inconceivable that a liberated, free thinking woman might sypathise with the socially conservative view.
Palin's main offense against Steinem's particular feminist sensibilities seems to be that she is pro-life. Steinem drips venom when she writes, "she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs." I don't completely agree with Palin on the abortion issue, myself, but I think it is disingenuous to characterise her views as supporting government control of women's wombs -- just as it would be unfair to claim that Steinem supports killing babies. No one advocates government mandated womb control or infanticide. The abortion debate centers around competing fundamental rights of two distinct individuals: the fundamental right of the unborn baby to live versus the equally fundamental right of an adult to control their own body. How you think these two rights should be balanced determines whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. To say that pro-choice is the only feminist option is absurd.
Equally absurd is Steinem's claim that disbelief in anthropological global warming is somehow an anti-feminist view point:
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming.
The creationism bit is pure MSM fabrication. When Palin's comments on the subject are taken in context, she supports a teacher engaging the class in a scientific discussion if a student should bring up the subject of creationism -- rather than telling the poor kid to shut up. Otherwise, she supports the typical libertarian sentiment that school curriculum should be determined by locally elected officials. Furthermore, one's opinion on global warming is based on their knowledge and interpretation of scientific facts. How, by any stretch of logic, does holding a different scientific opinion from the majority of women qualify as anti-feminist?
According to our feminist masters, if a woman rejects the Democratic party platform, she is not liberated. Conservative women are to be marginalized as poseurs or pawns; women are only valuable when they vote Democratic and promote socialist agendas. Women must be delivered from the cruel patriarchal clutches of their fathers, husbands, and ministers and into the open and liberating arms of the state. Steinem wants to paint Palin as a victim and pawn of the "right-wing patriarchy," but she fails to explain how she herself is no better than a toady for the left wing grievance machine.
We will have to wait and see if over the next weeks of interviews and debates whether or not she truly governs from a libertarian perspective. If she does consider herself a libertarian then she would have to be a "neo-libertarian" -- definitely the direction I would like to see the Republican party head.
First there was the Obama - Clinton DNC drama and a hurricane bearing down on the opening day of the RNC, I thought that was as exciting as things were going to get! Man, could I have been more wrong?
McCain unleashes Sarah Palin, his bombshell of a VP pick (pun totally intended - love the beehive and naughty librarian glasses). The leftwing blogosphere shifts into warp drive: She faked her pregnancy; Trig isn't Sarah's baby... he's Bristol's! Frenzied Daily Kos diarists published reports with highly scientific evidence 'debunking' the pregnancy like tiny pixelated pictures of the governor wearing all black and *gasp* she doesn't look preggo at 5mo! Michael Moore demands DNA evidence. In his blog, Liberaland, Fox News commenter Alan Colmes (of Hannity and Colmes) becomes completely unglued and suggests that Palin is an unfit mother and second guesses her obstetrician. Bloggers and the commentariat all over the left have asserted that because she has five children she cannot possibly be a good mother and VP. The Democratic party supports working mothers, but only if they don't have too many kids or get too ambitious.
Next plot twist, the Republican campaign announces that, in fact, 17 year old Bristol Palin is pregnant. Without skipping a beat, lefty smears about the youngest Palin are dropped in favor of the McCain-didn't-vet-his-VP meme, quickly followed by odd fantasies that 'evangelicals' will reject her. Alan Colmes has to pile on one more completely original smear:
In her speech in Dayton today, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she and her husband are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary, which means they were married on August 29, 1988.
On April 20, 1989 – less than eight months after they eloped – their first son, Track, was born.
I think I can guess the real reason why they eloped, and it wasn’t to save money on an expensive wedding.
Sooo ... Sarah Palin had pre-marital sex and then married the baby daddy? That's scandalous? What century is Colmes blogging from, the 1800's? Actually, marrying your high school sweat heart, finishing college, having five beautiful children, and celebrating a happy 20yr marriage, all while leading a blazingly successful career... those ARE conservative family values.
Interestingly enough, rap star P. Diddy offers by far the most balanced and least sexist commentary coming out of the left. Language alert, lots of f-bombs, it also might make you motion sick.
Diddy Blog #16 - "John McCain Is Buggin The F%^k Out'"!
Best quote:
Alaska, mother fucker? What is the reality in Alaska? There's not even no crackheads in Alaska. There's not even no black people. There's not even no, like, crime, or like foreign policies."
Yup. You heard the man correctly: reality = crackheads = black people = crime = foreign policy. That's Diddy's theory; not mine.
Whew. Did you get all that? I'm still soaking it up. I have to give a nod to Obama for doing the classy thing and issuing this statement:
I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.
It sounds like, suddenly, the left is afraid, very afraid. Last night, we got a little taste of why:
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
Ouch.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Jab. Jab. Right hook. Jab. Uppercut.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Knockout!
Personal disclosure: I was jumping on the couch and cheering about halfway through this speech. I was wondering what it was going to take to get me excited about the Republican ticket. Sarah 'Cuda just might be my hero.
Update Dangit! The P. Diddy video just disappeared from Youtube! Conspiracy!
