.
h/t: Breitbart TV
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Raw Feminism
I'm reproducing some of an excellent post from Stop the ACLU.com.(http://www.stoptheaclu.com/) I could summarize by saying never again believe anything a feminist says they believe, just pay attention to what they have done and said since Gov. Palin's nomination announcement.
September 3, 2008
I have learned more about feminism in the past 48 hours than I had in the previous 40 years
I do not believe I can unlearn what I’ve learned in the last two days. At some point our nation’s attention will be drawn to something or someone other than Governor Palin, and then American mainstream feminists will expect to be taken seriously, as if the last few days never happened, and I will not be able to do so. I cannot unlearn what I have learned.
I’ve learned that the reliably profane Ace O’ Spades is much more of a genuine champion for womens’ autonomy and choices than is, say, Maureen Dowd. I’ve also learned something that I really should have seen decades ago, but never had it thrust in my face so blatantly as it has since Governor Palin was announced as the GOP vice-presidential pick.
As a man, I trust I’m not going too far out on a limb to suggest that I don’t completely understand women, and that’s just fine. That is, I don’t completely understand most women. America’s mainstream feminists, at least those in the punditry business, however, have proven to be nearly 100% predictable. What they are is obedient and submissive. I mean that. It’s not tongue-in-cheek. It’s not meant to elicit the response of “oh, I see how we’ve overreached a bit on Palin, and the point’s taken.” No, I mean it. Liberal feminists obey. They do what they are told.
When the New York Times male writers Patrick Healy and William Yardley take the lead in refusing to refer to Governor Palin as “Governor”, or even “Mrs.”, but with a dismissive “Ms.” or simple “Sarah”, the feminist blogs not only remain silent on that slight, but submissively follow suit.
When Markos Moulitsas allows his website to jump on and push the derisivness-dripping fantasies of “ArcXIX (whom I have reason to believe is also male)”, the feminists don’t respond with an expected, “wo, there pal”, but obediently follow Markos’ lead. Same thing with regard to the sexist fantasy posts of Andrew Sullivan recently.
When the Washington Times writer Paul Kane does a horrid job of journalism (if he meant to do a good job) and publishes an assertion ridiculously easy to disprove to mean the opposite of what he thinks it means (he calls a increase in funding for a shelter for pregnant youth a “slashing” of the budget — it’s been debunked all over the place, I just went to the shelter’s website and compared year-to-year budgets), the feminists compliantly repeat the male writer’s false assertions without regard for accuracy.
When various news sources label some mysterious thing as “troopergate”, feminist women on the ‘net don’t question, they parrot. They obey. Most recently it was listed as a black mark upon the Governor by the nation’s newspaper of record. In another context, and with feminists interested in the facts, the New York Times today would be fearing for its future existence, funding some womens’ endowment to the tune of 9 figures, and sending all the editors to sensitivity training for fear of the backlash. In this context, they have nothing to fear, because America’s feminists will easily submit to the lead of the male writers at the New York Times — that’s not even in question.
And what is “troopergate”. Well, it has a -gate on the end of it, so that’s all any woman needs to know, right? The thing is, the facts are pretty well documented. Let’s recap, with a nod to this news article written by a woman one month before the Governor was announced as VP candidate. Before Mrs. Palin became Governor, her sister was married to a guy with what seems like a temper problem. I did my own research, I’ll provide this link so you can do yours as well if you care. The man in question, Trooper M.W., was reprimanded for at least three serious breaches of his duty as a cop, for 1) tasing his stepson for fun, 2) drinking and driving in a patrol car, and 3) threatening his wife who was divorcing him that he would shoot his wife’s father if (the father) helped his wife get the assistance of legal counsel. He was disciplined in his job for that — a short slap on the wrist suspension — and even his union said it was legitimate discipline.
As for the tasing incident, my reading of the known facts don’t prove to me that the man meant to be abusive, only moronic, but it is important to note that the mother of the child he tased was yelling at him not to do it when he did, but he did it anyway. It traumatized another young female in the home who witnessed it (I already know what the feminists think of that other young female). This doesn’t bother America’s blogging and commenting feminists, though, not one bit. The fact that two different judges granted Palin’s sister a restraining order — otherwise known as an injunction against domestic violence (one in case # 3AN-05-1327CI, and a final “no contact” order in the divorce at case # 3AN-05-6838CI) is of no consequence to the feminists. I thought that domestic violence injunctions created some sort of sympathetic response in feminists; I was wrong about that. The male writers at the NY Times don’t tell them that Governor Palin saw what appears to be a documented abusive man, stood up to him and sought justice for her sister (before she was even Governor) and then later used her position as a woman in power to hold people accountable for their lax treatment of an abusive man with a badge and serial failed marriages. No, the male writers just tell our submissive feminists that this a scandal, a -gate, and our feminists go along with what they’re told to think instead of what they should be doing, which is picketing the NY Times
September 3, 2008
I have learned more about feminism in the past 48 hours than I had in the previous 40 years
I do not believe I can unlearn what I’ve learned in the last two days. At some point our nation’s attention will be drawn to something or someone other than Governor Palin, and then American mainstream feminists will expect to be taken seriously, as if the last few days never happened, and I will not be able to do so. I cannot unlearn what I have learned.
I’ve learned that the reliably profane Ace O’ Spades is much more of a genuine champion for womens’ autonomy and choices than is, say, Maureen Dowd. I’ve also learned something that I really should have seen decades ago, but never had it thrust in my face so blatantly as it has since Governor Palin was announced as the GOP vice-presidential pick.
As a man, I trust I’m not going too far out on a limb to suggest that I don’t completely understand women, and that’s just fine. That is, I don’t completely understand most women. America’s mainstream feminists, at least those in the punditry business, however, have proven to be nearly 100% predictable. What they are is obedient and submissive. I mean that. It’s not tongue-in-cheek. It’s not meant to elicit the response of “oh, I see how we’ve overreached a bit on Palin, and the point’s taken.” No, I mean it. Liberal feminists obey. They do what they are told.
When the New York Times male writers Patrick Healy and William Yardley take the lead in refusing to refer to Governor Palin as “Governor”, or even “Mrs.”, but with a dismissive “Ms.” or simple “Sarah”, the feminist blogs not only remain silent on that slight, but submissively follow suit.
When Markos Moulitsas allows his website to jump on and push the derisivness-dripping fantasies of “ArcXIX (whom I have reason to believe is also male)”, the feminists don’t respond with an expected, “wo, there pal”, but obediently follow Markos’ lead. Same thing with regard to the sexist fantasy posts of Andrew Sullivan recently.
When the Washington Times writer Paul Kane does a horrid job of journalism (if he meant to do a good job) and publishes an assertion ridiculously easy to disprove to mean the opposite of what he thinks it means (he calls a increase in funding for a shelter for pregnant youth a “slashing” of the budget — it’s been debunked all over the place, I just went to the shelter’s website and compared year-to-year budgets), the feminists compliantly repeat the male writer’s false assertions without regard for accuracy.
When various news sources label some mysterious thing as “troopergate”, feminist women on the ‘net don’t question, they parrot. They obey. Most recently it was listed as a black mark upon the Governor by the nation’s newspaper of record. In another context, and with feminists interested in the facts, the New York Times today would be fearing for its future existence, funding some womens’ endowment to the tune of 9 figures, and sending all the editors to sensitivity training for fear of the backlash. In this context, they have nothing to fear, because America’s feminists will easily submit to the lead of the male writers at the New York Times — that’s not even in question.
And what is “troopergate”. Well, it has a -gate on the end of it, so that’s all any woman needs to know, right? The thing is, the facts are pretty well documented. Let’s recap, with a nod to this news article written by a woman one month before the Governor was announced as VP candidate. Before Mrs. Palin became Governor, her sister was married to a guy with what seems like a temper problem. I did my own research, I’ll provide this link so you can do yours as well if you care. The man in question, Trooper M.W., was reprimanded for at least three serious breaches of his duty as a cop, for 1) tasing his stepson for fun, 2) drinking and driving in a patrol car, and 3) threatening his wife who was divorcing him that he would shoot his wife’s father if (the father) helped his wife get the assistance of legal counsel. He was disciplined in his job for that — a short slap on the wrist suspension — and even his union said it was legitimate discipline.
As for the tasing incident, my reading of the known facts don’t prove to me that the man meant to be abusive, only moronic, but it is important to note that the mother of the child he tased was yelling at him not to do it when he did, but he did it anyway. It traumatized another young female in the home who witnessed it (I already know what the feminists think of that other young female). This doesn’t bother America’s blogging and commenting feminists, though, not one bit. The fact that two different judges granted Palin’s sister a restraining order — otherwise known as an injunction against domestic violence (one in case # 3AN-05-1327CI, and a final “no contact” order in the divorce at case # 3AN-05-6838CI) is of no consequence to the feminists. I thought that domestic violence injunctions created some sort of sympathetic response in feminists; I was wrong about that. The male writers at the NY Times don’t tell them that Governor Palin saw what appears to be a documented abusive man, stood up to him and sought justice for her sister (before she was even Governor) and then later used her position as a woman in power to hold people accountable for their lax treatment of an abusive man with a badge and serial failed marriages. No, the male writers just tell our submissive feminists that this a scandal, a -gate, and our feminists go along with what they’re told to think instead of what they should be doing, which is picketing the NY Times
1992 Democrat Convention Refused toAllow an Antiabortion Speaker
this is a post from this blog http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1161
A Vote for Sarah Palin
By Suann Therese Maier
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:51 AM
Three memories have shaped my approach to this year’s general election.
Here’s the first. In the late 1970s, during a two-year break from teaching to raise our second son, an adopted child, I found myself at a Los Angeles dinner party filled with DINKs, the “double income, no kids” crowd who were just emerging as a self-aware and upwardly mobile social group. I fell to talking—or more accurately, listening—to a chatty young female attorney who said she was putting in eighty hours a week as a junior associate on a variety of important cases.
After twenty minutes or so, she finally noticed my silence and asked me what I did with my own time. So I told her. I told her about the young couple that had asked my husband and me to adopt their baby if we covered their hospital expenses. I told her about waiting outside the delivery room for our son to be born. I told her about the bureaucratic maze that came with finalizing the adoption of a newborn. I told her about borrowing money from friends so we’d look more solvent than we actually were to Social Service inspectors who checked our accounts.
“That’s wonderful dear,” she said. “You’re so lucky not to have a real job.”
Here’s the second memory. I remember my fourth child, our son Dan, being born one winter evening, purple and struggling for breath. I remember my husband pouring water over his head as we baptized him in my arms. I remember the young Filipina doctor rushing Dan to intensive care. I remember the ten days of his fighting for life. And I remember Dan’s diagnosis, when it finally came in: Down syndrome.
Here’s the third memory. I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.
As I draw on those memories now, I reach certain conclusions. As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.
In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.
Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.
That’s the real tragedy of this election.
Suann Therese Maier, the mother of four and former director of non-profit support organizations for pregnant women and children with disabilities, is a teacher in Colorado.
A Vote for Sarah Palin
By Suann Therese Maier
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:51 AM
Three memories have shaped my approach to this year’s general election.
Here’s the first. In the late 1970s, during a two-year break from teaching to raise our second son, an adopted child, I found myself at a Los Angeles dinner party filled with DINKs, the “double income, no kids” crowd who were just emerging as a self-aware and upwardly mobile social group. I fell to talking—or more accurately, listening—to a chatty young female attorney who said she was putting in eighty hours a week as a junior associate on a variety of important cases.
After twenty minutes or so, she finally noticed my silence and asked me what I did with my own time. So I told her. I told her about the young couple that had asked my husband and me to adopt their baby if we covered their hospital expenses. I told her about waiting outside the delivery room for our son to be born. I told her about the bureaucratic maze that came with finalizing the adoption of a newborn. I told her about borrowing money from friends so we’d look more solvent than we actually were to Social Service inspectors who checked our accounts.
“That’s wonderful dear,” she said. “You’re so lucky not to have a real job.”
Here’s the second memory. I remember my fourth child, our son Dan, being born one winter evening, purple and struggling for breath. I remember my husband pouring water over his head as we baptized him in my arms. I remember the young Filipina doctor rushing Dan to intensive care. I remember the ten days of his fighting for life. And I remember Dan’s diagnosis, when it finally came in: Down syndrome.
Here’s the third memory. I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.
As I draw on those memories now, I reach certain conclusions. As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.
In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.
Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.
That’s the real tragedy of this election.
Suann Therese Maier, the mother of four and former director of non-profit support organizations for pregnant women and children with disabilities, is a teacher in Colorado.
Labels:
abortion,
Catholics,
Democrats,
Palin,
Saul Alinsky
Olberman Is Easily Scared
The main thing I take away from this is that reasonable arguments against Obama on MSNBC do not get replied to. Olberman knows his limitations. He had more sense than to even speak to Gingrich. But after Gingrich moved on Olberman planned to attack him. No one has ever accused Olberman of having courage or intellectual depth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
