Posting a bit slow

... 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.

Anyhoo... here is a music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vzrfkg-HY

*shudder*

From the transcript of last night's presidential forum on CNN, in his own words, here is yet another good reason NOT to vote for Obama:

And so part of my job, I think, as president, is to make government cool again.

Go back to sleep children; don't worry, being a government tool will be soooo cool.

A wee bit of sanity

Red-State Feminism

by Kay S. Hymowitz

Feminist Cat Fighting

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:

A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention
By Heather Mallick

Here are some juicy tidbits.

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 Barack Obama, 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.

No, it's not from the Onion

Hippies Mourn Dead Trees

Just Asking

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?

Okay, rant off.

Feminist Face Off

The self proclaimed feminist elite aren't happy with Sarah Palin's VP nomination. Gloria Steinem writes yesterday in the LA Times:

Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Time

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.