Updates from fuzislippers Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • fuzislippers 11:14 PM on 04/26/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , femisogyny   

    Femisoygnists: The Women Scorned . . . By Women 

    I was responding to an excellent post [here] at Potluck by our fellow conservative blogger Just A Conservative Girl, and I went on and on.  And on.  So I thought it would be better to simply use that response, expanded a bit, as a post.  While the point of JACG’s post was more to do with the way our society has made “disposable” the idea and sacrament of marriage, my hackles were raised by the part about a Marie Claire (who reads that crap?  Stacy McCain, apparently.  Well, good on him, more men should read magazines whose target audience is women.) article about how women are hoodwinked by fairy tales of Prince Charming and movies about love conquering all and assorted “happily ever after” tales of romantic love.   This is a typical leftist lie, fostered, fomented, and foisted upon women (and men) who dare support traditional gender roles as a matter of choice.

    The disposable spouse mentality is a direct result of femisogynists hammering away at traditional gender roles, not with the idea of expanding their scope to make acceptable all sorts of life and career choices for women but with the direct and sole goal of eliminating the woman’s traditional roles.  This is why they attack and belittle women who choose Christian marriages, prefer to be stay-at-home moms, want to fulfill some or part of the traditional roles for women.  They don’t want women to have this choice, and they hold the women who do in utter contempt, accusing them of being brainwashed or otherwise impaired.  Any woman who chooses a traditional female role in the family or society can only be misguided, deluded, and brainwashed.   A thoughtless creature, really, for succumbing to the influence of a misogynist patriarchy.

    Is the irony of this indictment lost on them?  Oh, yes, a thousand times yes.

    Femisogyny is not about, and never was about, women’s equality or women’s right to choose her own path.  Women are too stupid and may choose the wrong path, a traditional path that doesn’t conform to the femisogynists’ idea of egalitarianism.  If you don’t want to be a butch man- and woman-hater, then there’s clearly something wrong with you.  They want traditional gender role choices for women gone.  Completely.  And to that end, their methodology has long been to attack anything and everything that fosters, romanticizes, or otherwise depicts these roles in a positive light (up to, including, perhaps especially, Judeo-Christian traditions).

    Rather than choosing to educate women about myriad choices, they target, demonize, and seek to destroy completely any concept of traditional womanhood. If these femisogynists really cared about women and women’s choices, they’d seek ways to add to the “woman’s sphere,” but they don’t.  Instead, they’ve chosen a path that explicitly belittles, cattily attacks, and brutally diminishes any woman who chooses a traditional role/s for herself.

    Feminists, the real ones who sought, fought for, and died for the right for women to vote, own property, etc., would be utterly appalled by this misogynistic band of hyenas who call themselves “feminists” but who actually loathe women and seek to diminish them at every turn.  Those first feminists were intent upon freeing women from being boxed in, being told there was something wrong with them if they didn’t feel maternal or if they felt no desire to keep house or to carry out traditional women’s roles as wife, mother, and helpmate.  These early feminists never intended that there be no other choice but to live their life as pseudo-men, draped in bitterness, envy, and hate, crowned with a sense of superiority and sneering disdain for women who prefer, by choice, to be wives, mothers, helpmates in a more traditional sense.  These early feminists, the real ones, didn’t belittle women who chose to be wives, homemakers, mothers; they simply tried to forge a path for those who didn’t find fulfillment in these roles.

    But for today’s femisogynists, it’s still about putting women in a box–but one of their choosing, and then insisting that everyone conform, using the same bullying, belittling, and “othering” tactics that they claim to disparage when used against women by a “patriarchal society.”  Femisogyny is about tearing down, not building up. It’s about shutting doors, not opening them.  It’s about destroying women, hating them, not restoring them and loving them.  It’s about alienating and ridiculing women, not embracing and supporting them.

    They say there is nothing worse than a woman scorned, and to femisogynists, there is no one more deserving of scorn than real women who reject their agenda of hate and disunity, of disdain and loathing for other women who refuse to be put into a box in the name of “women’s rights.”  Femisogynists lash out in hatred and condemnation at any woman who refuses to be packaged, labeled, shelved, and marketed in their image.  Our unwillingness to accept this ironic and deeply-flawed thinking makes us the target of their scorn, for no one, no one, feels more scorned than the femisogynist faced with a strong woman who not only chooses but happily embraces one or more of the traditional female gender roles.

     
  • fuzislippers 5:43 AM on 01/26/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , SOTU   

    The SOTU In a Nutshell: 

    Every progressive policy and additional governmental agency designed by progressives to “improve” America has made America “lag behind” in every conceivable area, particularly in education (K-12 and college, where we need graduation rate/diploma quotas because quotas mean excellence) and infrastructure (we need shiny trains that whistle!). 

    Faced with this reality–America’s lagging position in the world, what we need now are more progressive policies and additional governmental agencies designed by progressives to “fix” absolutely everything . . . from Washington.

    Central planning is good.

    Long live the king!

     
    • Jill 7:57 AM on 01/26/2011 Permalink | Reply

      So much for his ‘move to the center.’

    • backyardconservative 10:52 AM on 01/26/2011 Permalink | Reply

      This was the most pathetic speech yet. He’s such a clearly empty suit he needs a more royal setting than the people’s House to give his words any dazzle (fizzle) at all.

  • fuzislippers 3:13 AM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Wal-Mart, Obama, and “Fundamental Transformation” 

    Is anyone else wondering what is going on with Wal-Mart and the leftist BO regime?  All of a sudden, after at least a decade of being the target of leftist vilification and rage, Wal-Mart is being wooed by Obama and his traitorous horde.  DHS and FLOTUS are cuddling up to Wal-Mart . . . and Wal-Mart is spooning them right back.  Let’s not forget how Wal-Mart came out in support of BO’s government takeover of healthcare; that didn’t really seem to make sense at the time, particularly given Wal-Mart’s shaky history with its employees’ health coverage and poverty-level wages.  Oh, sure, the SEIU hasn’t received the memo and that marriage of convenience between the purple shirts and the yellow smiley face over health care is definitely not going well, but something is going on here.

    It seems to me, given Wal-Mart’s history of supporting crap legislation (like cap and tax and the aforementioned job-killing healthcare monstrosity), that Wal-Mart is more than happy to support anything that will push their competitors–small businesses–out of business.  Sky-rocketing health care and energy costs?  Sure, that’s wonderful . . . for massive Wal-Mart.

    The free market isn’t free (or much of a market) if the biggest players, abetted by the federal government, manipulate it through regulation and assorted under-handed, dishonest machinations that eliminate all (or certainly most) competition.  This seems pretty obvious, right?  And yet, one can’t help but wonder if this isn’t exactly what this regime and Wal-Mart are doing.   Using socialist progressives to further your own business interests at the expense of the middle class?  What can go wrong?

    The unanswered question: what’s in it for the Tyrant in Chief and how does this play into his “fundamental transformation” of our beloved country?

     
    • Yukio Ngaby 3:31 AM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think it’s more likely that Walmart supports Obama, and then Obama keeps most of the unions off its neck. Obama gets an odd, across the aisle (not really, but that’s how he spins it) endorsement, and it doesn’t really cost him anything.

      • fuzislippers 6:58 AM on 01/26/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Well, no. Walmart has become, like unions, an extension of this administration. What is that again when private business colludes with and is essentially run by the government?

    • just a conservative girl 4:00 AM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I am not a Walmart fan, I don’t like their business model and I have a real problem with the fact that they don’t seem to care that they get their merchandise from slave labor in some cases. But, I do understand that many need the low prices in order to survive. Personally, I shop at Target for those type of things. My local Target just added a food section that has some quality produce at good prices.

    • SignPainterGuy 1:18 PM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I like WallyWorld for the same reasons the late-great Paul Harvey did, but I have to wonder how much of the change mentioned here is the result of changes at the helm similar to that at Disney after Walt died !

    • BackyardConservative 1:56 PM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Walmart is trying to expand in Chicago. They are buying peace with this administration. I bet Michelle will be on their board after his term ends.

      • Yukio Ngaby 6:56 PM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Good bet. I didn’t hear about the Chicago expansion. Very interesting. I heart crony capitalism.

    • RightKlik 8:14 PM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Walmart abuses eminent domain as well. Walmart is not an example of a free-market capitalist enterprise.

  • fuzislippers 9:29 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    The “Perfect” GOP Presidential Candidate for 2012 

    I recently told one of my fabulous co-Potluck bloggers that I wasn’t looking for the “perfect” 2012 GOP presidential candidate, but I thought it would be fun to imagine what such a creature would like.  Here’s what I came up with (while responding to a post over at Big Government):

    We need someone with the mind and manner of Paul Ryan, the fierce patriotism and pride in American exceptionalism of Colonel West (our military certainly deserves a CIC they can be proud of), the principled and no-nonsense leadership of Governor Christie, and the foreign policy knowledge, skills, and experience of Condi Rice.

    No problem, right?

     
    • Janelle 10:20 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      That’s a lot of qualified shoes to fill.

    • zillaoftheresistance 10:37 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I’ve got West fever, as you know, he is THE ONE for me for POTUS. I have a feeling that people are going to find this aspect of me quite annoying in the next two years. LOL
      Allen West has a charming manner, he is an excellent speaker, he is no-nonsense, fearless and also a supporter of small government in addition to the obvious things that make him awesome, like the fact that he has a clear eyed understanding of the islamist threat and the importance of presenting a STRONG America on the world stage (unlike the weak and castrated America that Obama favors). He is a combat veteran who is not afraid to lead by example, you won’t see President West frolicking on our dime while the rest of us are suffering and struggling, unlike Barry. Also,I have a feeling that, much like Chris Christie, Allen West would not tolerate union bullying, he would not be in their pocket the way Barry is.
      I believe he’d decimate Obama in debates and as a bonus, we’d neuter the race-baiting left who says it’s RAAAAACIST to not support Obama.
      Heh.
      Allen West has everything I want in a president, and everything that the leftists and islamic supremacists would fear. He is the strongest man I have seen in American politics since Ronald Reagan.

      • fuzislippers 10:44 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

        I like West a lot, too. He’s still getting used to reporters and the way the left spins, but he’s got a year or so to work that out. I wouldn’t mind seeing him run; after all, he can always appoint Paul Ryan to something economic and beg Condi to come back as Secretary of State (she might do it, right?). Then Christie can finish mopping up that horrible mess in NJ and prepare to run in 2020 (after President West’s second term, of course). :)

      • just a conservative girl 2:37 PM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Zilla:
        The country already took a chance on someone with a slim resume. Why would they do it again? While I agree that the military gives many experiences, the reality remains that the general public will not see it that way. They will see a man who has held office for a brief period of time, with little less to back it up. He isn’t ready. Neither is Rubio. They both need more seasoning.

        Also, I would like to see West take some hard votes first. I don’t think he will go back on his words, but I don’t think the idea of trust but verify is bad thing here.

        • zillaoftheresistance 5:43 PM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

          No, the public elected a guy with NO resume, no past, no school records and no birth certificate. Congressman West is easily vetted and already well documented.
          People think Sarah Palin is a good choice (I don’t) but she only served half her term as governor.
          Honestly, I’ve had all I can stand from career politicians and ivy league lawyers and MUCH prefer REAL WORLD experience.

    • Jill 10:54 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I would add two more requirements:

      • a genuine commitment to the sanctity of life
      • executive experience — even beyond Obama’s running his big ’08 campaign!
      • zillaoftheresistance 11:47 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Would West’s command experience in the military count as “executive”? If not, maybe he can get a good VP to fit the bill. :)

        • Jill 12:00 PM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Yes, for sure.

          I love Mike Pence but I think he’s missing the exec. exp. But he’s certainly pro-life. Same for Marco Rubio.

          Jim DeMint, so loathed by the left for his social conservatism, has both. So does John Boehner.

    • Carol 11:29 AM on 01/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Ryan, West and Rice-oh, my! That would be a team, wouldn’t it! I see a lot of potential on the Republican side. I would echo Jill’s comment that we need someone who will stand up for the sanctity of life. I would like to see more executive experience but I am willing to look beyond just the various governors. Obama’s problem isn’t just that he’s never done much of anything but he has also surrounded himself with people who are more “teachers rather than doers”.

      I would add Marco Rubio to the above list. He wears his love and pride for country right on his sleeve where all can see. I could easily vote for a Ryan/West or Ryan/Rubio ticket.

  • fuzislippers 2:11 PM on 01/06/2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Obama’s Chicago-style Politics of Reward, Punish, Blackmail 

    Karl Rove’s “ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies” is a must-read.  The title hearkens back to Obama telling Latino voters to “punish our enemies.”  In the rest of that sentence, Obama–perhaps inadvertently–shared his own philosophy of politics:  He told them to think of the election in these terms:  “‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us'” [emphasis in original].  At the time, we all focused on the “punish our enemies” portion of this statement.  But the entire thing reveals a calculating, cynical, and unethical stance.

    We know that there had been, by early December, 222 waivers issued (who knows what that’s up to now), and we know that those went mostly to unions and other Obama supporters/contributors.  What Rove suggests is that this administration is likely to cross a line into potentially-illegal and certainly corrupt activities:

    The AARP and other Medigap providers can require a waiting period before seniors with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. Insurers covering those under 65 cannot.

    The AARP is also exempt from the new law’s $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit’s last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won’t pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

    It’s not hard to connect the dots. The Obama administration is using waivers to reward friends. On the flip side, business executives will be discouraged from contributing to the president’s opponents or from taking any other steps that might upset the White House or its political appointees at HHS.

    In light of the past two years of Obama’s horrendous hyper-partisanship, petulant attitude to anyone who disagrees with him (from the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to Fox News to American citizens, up to and including his own “sanctimonious” base), long list of backroom deals/bribes (including illegally offering jobs for political gain), and petty, dishonest attacks on any and all “enemies,” I think that Rove might well be on to something.  Using health care waivers to “leverage” opponents into . . . not being opponents (?!) is a despicable abuse of power.

    Mr. Issa may want to add to his already-lengthy investigation list, and I would add an investigation into the long list of illegal foreign contributions that flowed into Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  How many foreign friends is Obama “rewarding”?  And are these nations and individuals friends of America or only of Obama?

     
    • just a conservative girl 6:41 PM on 01/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well, I came across the below video today. What is interesting is that it was done in my neck of the woods. Progressive Central…………….. It is suprising to find some that wanted repeal, and none of those show up at the Alexandria Tea Party Meetings.

      http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hd6USUqGuz

      • fuzislippers 6:50 PM on 01/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

        We won’t get repeal unless we win the WH in 2012. Period. That’s why I’m so worried about the GOP prez candidate. There is no one right now that I would support in the primary (obviously I’ll vote for whomever gets the nom, but where is a top-notch candidate? –“decent candidate” or “acceptable candidate” won’t win.).

    • backyardconservative 10:21 PM on 01/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Great post. I just saw Powerline did something on this too.

      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028083.php

      • fuzislippers 10:27 PM on 01/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks (and thank God for time stamps; that post is eerily similar to mine).

  • fuzislippers 5:06 AM on 12/14/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Please Pray for Andrew Lawton (update) 

    Andrew is absolutely amazing as many of you probably already know.  He’s a Canadian conservative powerhouse (Strictly Right) and true dear, full of wit and wisdom that far exceeds his years.  Now, though, he’s seriously ill and in hospital.  You can get updates from Girl on the Right (also on twitter: @RightGirl )

    Andrew’s Twitter: @AndrewLawton

    (UPDATE)

    From Girl on the Right:

    I just spoke with Andrew’s brother. Andrew is still mechanically dependent, and the machines had to be turned up again today. Not to worry, apparently, because it’s natural for the body’s strength to fluctuate.

    For those of you asking about flowers, this is what I found out from the hospital:

    No flowers are permitted in ICU, but cards are welcomed by the family:

    Andrew Lawton, Patient
    Victoria Hospital, Critical Care Unit
    800 Commissioners Road East
    London, Ontario
    Canada N6A 5W9

    The family has started a separate Facebook page, because they do not have access to his passwords. The link is here. Please show your support. The family will attempt to provide updates, but their schedule is rather harried, as you would expect. Keep checking in with myself here and on Twitter (@RightGirl).

    Please continue to pray for this amazing young man (only 23) who blazed trails with the Canadian Tea Party and who worked to bring Ann Coulter to Canada.  He’s funny and wise and wonderful, and it breaks my heart that he is in critical condition.

     
    • nicedeb 9:48 AM on 12/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the heads up.

    • RightGirl 9:49 AM on 12/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Hey Fuzi

      I ran a google search this morning for “Andrew Lawton”, and was so moved by all the posts calling for prayers to his health. I hope that in a free moment, his family gets to read some of the tributes to him around the web.

      I am still awaiting my morning update from his family. I will post it to Twitter as soon as I have it.

      RG

      • fuzislippers 9:54 AM on 12/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

        He’s a treasure, and I was desperately sorry to learn that he was so ill. Thank you for your updates, as well (I’m keeping my twitter open so I get them immediately).

    • spot 8:58 PM on 12/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Oh, no – what an absolute shame to hear that Andrew is so ill. Best wishes and most-heartfelt prayers now winging their way up north from this Antipodean fan & follower, and from many others down here I’m sure.

  • fuzislippers 7:41 AM on 11/22/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Obama, Respectable Conservatives, and The Smart Kids’ Club 

    Jack Cashill offers some fresh insight into the mindset of Obama, his koolaid slurping fan clubs, and the “respectable” conservative media:

    Some of the juicier excerpts:

    Obama found his game once he hit the mainland, but he had to know that he was flying high only on diversity’s wings. Last [Jonathan Last who wrote last week's, I'm betting, most-read conservative article "American Narcissus"] does not get this. In recounting Obama’s glide through the worlds of law, literature, academics, and politics, Last accuses Obama not of fraud, but of vanity.

    This is something that “regular” Americans understood quite some time ago, many even before the 2008 election. The legendary, bigger than life, better than everyone Obama and what we were seeing and hearing just didn’t add up, something was “off,” even if we weren’t quite sure what it was.

    Back to Cashill:

    In easily the best moment on the otherwise-unwatchable new CNN show “Parker Spitzer,” documentarian John Ziegler confronted the RCM [respectable conservative media] princess on her pre-election affection for the would-be president. “You were duped by the media,” said the charming pit bull Ziegler.

    “No, I’m not going to say I was duped,” said Parker, but of course, she was — if not by the media, then by her own blithering self-esteem. Like so many on the respectable right, she envisioned Obama in the same smart kids’ club in which she saw herself.

    [snip snip]

    Respectable conservatives allowed themselves to be deceived much as their liberal counterparts were, but without the excuse of political self-interest. For conservatives, the interest has always been personal. By welcoming Obama into their club — and, in the same spirit, by keeping Sarah Palin out — they differentiated themselves from their red-blooded allies in what [Kathleen] Parker dismissed pre-election as “the right-wing blogosphere.”

    Intellectual snobbery, is not, after all, the sole province of the left.  Cashill’s final paragraph brings the point home with amusing analogy:

    To preserve their respectability, respectable conservatives have chosen to ignore what the blogosphere reports. As a result, when they look at Obama, they still see Michael Jordan and wonder why he is off his game. Out in the blogosphere, we see Stuart Smalley and wonder when the breakdown comes.

    Read the whole thing.

    The problem with Obama’s incompetence is not that Obama has suddenly, magically become incompetent but that he’s been incompetent all along. And the problem for respectable conservatives (i.e. those who set themselves above the unwashed blogosphere masses) is that to admit this may lead to uncomfortable questions about their smart kids’ club.

     
  • fuzislippers 6:18 AM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Schoen and Caddell Ask For the Impossible 

    Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell have written a very interesting piece for WaPo. Both men are democrats from the days of yore when being a democrat was still synonymous with being patriotic and supporting fiscal responsibility and denouncing socialism and communism, so it’s not surprising that their appeal to Obama to announce that he will not run for reelection in 2012 includes the following:

    This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

    And there’s the problem, Obama has shown again and again that he has no allegiance to America or to her national interests; indeed, he has repeatedly, relentlessly shown that the only allegiance he truly holds is to his over-inflated, baseless view of himself as an outstanding human specimen, truly gifted and better in every conceivable way than any other human being.

    Who can forget his bizarre declaration that no one on the left need worry about a repeat of Clinton’s 1994 losses because democrats have one thing now that they didn’t have then: him. Or as I guess that should be “Him.” And who can forget his assurance that placing him at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world will be looked back on as “the moment that the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” This is not a man who will put the best interests of the nation, let alone his party, ahead of his own.

     
    • rubyslipperblog 8:00 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Oh, would that the egomaniac would heed their sage advice. You’re exactly right, he will put his interests above any.

      • rubyslipperblog 8:06 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Also, if anyone is following Ulster Man’s White House Insider series, Ulster Man commented on this article on Facebook Here is one of his comments:

        One last thing to assist some in understading what is going on here – these two significant Dems don’t actually believe Obama will not run again – they are laying groundwork for a significant challenge against Obama from within the party. That is why this is so important – it is now coming together EXACTLY as Insider predicted. Obama may fight back and squelch this challenge – but it will prove very difficult for him. I now believe there are some Democrats who would favor a Republican winning in 2012 instead of four more years of Obama. Actually I don’t “believe” that – I KNOW it…
        Ok, gotta go now – forward this link people!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!

        Nice Deb has been following Ulster Man and I posted on the series a while back. Roger Simon thinks it is legit but really the insider would have much more credibility if he came forward instead of hiding behind anonymity

        • fuzislippers 8:15 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Heh, yeah, I’ve been following that series, too. It’s interesting if nothing else.

          Feingold and Bayh look like the primary challengers to me. Feingold has said as much, and Bayh (who I never thought was actually leaving politics and was just going to leave the Senate to put as much distance between himself and that nightmare admin as he could) wrote that piece in the NYT the day after the shellacking.

          It’s also clear that Bill Clinton is setting some kind of ground work for a Hillary bid (not sure about the insider’s view of her taking VP, but hell, maybe she would attach herself to that lunatic to get back in the WH . . . ish). The dems are coming apart at the seams, and it’s going to be socialist-progs against old-school dems . . . I’m betting that the old-school dems come out on top, but it’s going to be a bloody battle. I’m popping popcorn.

          • rubyslipperblog 8:39 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Oooh yeah, get that popcorn popping. I think you’re right about Feingold and Bayh. I would hope Hillary wouldn’t lend any credibility, such as it is, to get him back in the WH.

            If you read Game Change, a big offender in getting Obama on his way to run in 2008 was none other than Harry Reid. He is such a slime ball. Most of the people who were influential in his campaign have been damaged or thrown under the bus. Hillary could possibly prop him back up but she would ultimately drag herself down with the ship. I think she is smarter than that. I tend to think she will align herself with the old-school group but I am not positive she is as up for a run as Bill is. We’ll see, it’s going to be something to watch.

            • fuzislippers 9:57 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

              That’s the thing, too, I just can’t see Hillary *wanting* to prop him up even to save the party. Unless she knows that she can’t beat him, and that’s almost impossible to believe at this point. Everyone hates him. Well, except him, I guess.

      • fuzislippers 8:10 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, I wish that he would, too, but he won’t. He seems to sincerely believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he’s not lost one bit of his mojo. It’s mind-boggling that anyone can be that self-deceptive (or self-inflated).

        • rubyslipperblog 8:51 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

          It’s his narcissism that is working overtime to keep that inflated ego inflated. Jill linked that WS article earlier and I find the little anecdotes the most revealing about his ego. This one was enlightening:

          People have been noticing Obama’s vanity for a long time. In 2008, one of his Harvard Law classmates, the entertainment lawyer Jackie Fuchs, explained what Obama was like during his school days: “One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the ‘Obamanometer,’ a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class—he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers. ”

          He has been fed his whole life and the odds this guy is going to suddenly look in the mirror and say “yeah I am really in over my head” are slim to none – and you know which one just left town.

          • fuzislippers 9:59 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Yeah, I read that one, too, and you’re right, he’s not looking in the mirror to do anything but see how great his head looks when his chin is stuck out and up. He’s so frustrating. Geez, can you imagine being married to that man? (not that I feel sorry for MO, she’s just as bad, if not worse, than he is in every possible way. Well, he does dress better than she does. But so do blind, drunk homeless people.).

            • rubyslipperblog 2:21 AM on 11/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

              LOL, no offense to blind, drunk homeless people. He dresses better when he skips the mom jeans.

              I went to grad school with a few people who pontificated. I couldn’t take 2 hours in class w/ them let alone being married to any one of them. BO had to be really extreme to merit his own scale though, wow.

        • Yukio Ngaby 9:08 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

          As Shelby Steele has pointed out, Obama is the product the American ’60s counter-culture, posseses all that mis-placed self-righteousness (to steal a line) that entails. Yet, Obama also overcompensates to prove an authenticity that he does not possess and, in my view, has no right to claim.

          • fuzislippers 10:03 PM on 11/13/2010 Permalink | Reply

            BO’s something, and I suspect it goes far deeper than that misplaced self-righteousness of the ’60’s counter-culture (I think he’s got actual psychological issues that need to be treated). And I’d have to agree that “authentic” (in any sense of the word) is not it.

  • fuzislippers 7:31 AM on 07/26/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bill Kristol,   

    Refudiate Liberalism Now! 

    Bill Kristol responds deliciously to the crowing on the fringe left about Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” tweet.

    The case for linguistic innovation is this: We need a word that captures and conjoins the meanings of refutation and repudiation. And we need it now. To save the country from the ravages of contemporary liberalism, we have to refute liberal arguments and see liberal politicians repudiated at the polls.

    So the conservative agenda is, in a word, refudiation. Indeed, given the dramatic moment at which we have arrived, one might say that we now have the prospect of a grand refudiation of liberalism.

    This is exactly how you do battle with progressives: on their own turf. And better than they do.

    Read the rest.

     
  • fuzislippers 11:51 AM on 07/22/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Gynoguilt in Action: Journolist Femisogynist Recommends Bashing McCain’s Sarah Palin Selection as “Sexist” 

    Reading the recent release of the Journolist discussion on the day of Sarah Palin’s selection to be John McCain’s running mate, I was surprised by how un-surprised I was . . . until I got to the part at which Suzanne Nossel – chief of operations at Human Rights Watch and author of Presumed Equal: What America’s Top Women Lawyers Really Think About Their Firms (1998) – suggests one possible way to attack McCain and discredit Sarah Palin:

    “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

    To her credit, Nossel asserts that she at least believes this to be true, but her suggestion is met with enthusiastic support from her fellow femisogynist conspirators. Indeed, Jonathan Stein leaps on board by admitting that Palin’s being a woman is “the SINGLE thing that Palin brings to the ticket.” Context matters here, of course, and he’s saying this because a female VP pick would have appealed to feminists, including faux feminists on the left. Another woman being selected for vice president? Isn’t that what feminists should rally behind? Would normally rally behind? Did rally behind when the woman in question was a liberal? Yes, yes, and yes.

    So we have a leftist woman suggesting that gynoguilt should immediately be used, strategically so, to discredit Palin and to undermine the selection of a woman to be vice president. In this instance, gynoguilt is leveraging guilt associated with the historic repression of women and using it to cut down a woman to further their own political agenda.

    Read the rest.

     
    • rubyslipperblog 3:30 PM on 07/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Really well done Fuzzy. I particularly agree with your point on tokenism: “tokens” do not exist in the case of leftists; instead, they are “watershed,” “historical,” and reflect glory on leftists everywhere). Michael Steele? Token black. Sarah Palin? Token female.” We had some of our *supposed* female leadership chiming in with the left on this point as well. Peggy Noonan, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Kathleen Parker, to name a few, gave credence to the left’s attack Palin was a token with little else to offer. They were all hard at work attacking Palin immediately. Meanwhile the least qualified man ever to seek the highest office skated by without question. Journolisters made it abundantly clear that anyone roughing up Obama with tough questions had to go. They should really all hang their heads in shame.

    • fuzislippers 3:52 PM on 07/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Ruby! :) And that’s how gynoguilt works against women, just as white guilt works against blacks. It’s mass manipulation based in supposed feminism. And yes, can you believe that BO got a pass like that? Heck, I listen to Joe Biden and am amazed that anyone can dismiss Sarah Palin as unintelligent, and I listen to BO stammer and stutter and erm and uhhhh and am stunned that anyone can think her inarticulate. It’s downright bizarre.

  • fuzislippers 6:25 AM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    White Guilt and Gynoguilt: How the Left’s Culture of Victimhood Undermines Equality 

    As we all know, the Left and particularly its kudzu-like strangling of all aspects of academia is very fond of its “isms.” Feminism, racism, whateverism–all purportedly designed to “call out” the oppressive white male and to tear down sexist walls, crash through glass ceilings, and break out of the cycle of oppression.

    So imagine my surprise when, as a graduate student, I learned that I should not be teaching a particular female author in a Modern Literature class. She’s an excellent, if under-read and under-appreciated, modern writer, but the chair of my department explained to me that her work should be taught in “women’s literature” classes. It turns out that faux feminists were happy to perpetuate the idea that the term “modern writer” actually means “white male modern writer” and that because of this, a woman cannot be a “modern writer” at all. She’s a writer of “women’s literature.”

    “Women’s literature” classes are chock-full of readings by people whose only qualification as a “writer” is a vagina. The “literature” is often … well, let’s just say, not good. This isn’t always the case, but often enough that you have to wonder why it’s being taught at all (other than to fill in the entire semester’s reading list by dredging up every female writer who ever put pen to paper). This gyno-centric reading list and my being told not to teach a truly outstanding female author in a “traditional” lit class initially unnerved and confused me. But the real reason is actually quite clear, if rather sinister: if we started selecting excellent female writers and started teaching them as if they were “real” literature, we’d end the hate-fueled gravy train.

    Who or what would the leftist intellectual elite write their endless, repetitive, belly-button-gazing critical essays about? What would happen to their careers if they had no one to demonize and no one to treat as a perpetual victim?

    Read the rest.

     
    • pjMom 10:42 AM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Gynoguilt–perfect! Excellent post, Fuzzy.

      I would love to compare English dep’t grad school notes some day. I loved the program when I started, but by the time it ended, I realized I should have been a student before race/class/gender became the only discussion with merit. So much for asthetics. I thought I’d die the last semester… I just pulled out those books unpacking and were I not a bibliophile, I’d chuck every last one. They’re going to goodwill to rot on the shelf instead.

      (And I admit to being very intrigued as to who the mystery female modernist in question was!)

    • pjMom 10:43 AM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I can’t help myself. Willa Cather? Katherine Anne Porter? lol

      • fuzislippers 4:44 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I had a hard time, too, in grad school with all the isms and having to jump through the ism hoops was truly painful most of the time. We should definitely compare notes sometime.

        And LOL, it was Dawn Powell. I didn’t include her name in the post because she’s kind of obscure (and was a commie, didn’t want to get derailed on that one! But am safe here with my fellow English lit geeks :)).

        • pjMom 8:46 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I haven’t read her. But now I will add her to my list since you sing her praises so. I’m in a reading rut: I only have time for too much news, parenting books for sanity’s sake, and the occasional Dean Koontz to keep me happy. I had a hard time unpacking my books (finally) without reading this week. Though I did breeze through “Pale Horse, Pale Rider” during naptime. pjHusband didn’t understand why I couldn’t just … unpack the books. But I’m a virgo English geek: an American shelf, a British shelf, a European/historical linguistics/theory shelf, and a favorites shelf. And the pile to donate ; )

          • fuzislippers 8:49 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

            And all alphabetized, I bet? Mine are :)

            As for reading, two of my favorite novels are Thomas’ White Hotel and Hulme’s The Bone People. If you’ve not read them, they’ll get you out of that reading rut in a flash. :D

            • pjMom 9:23 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

              LOL. Birds of a feather. They aren’t alpha now, though they might be in a few months.

              I’m trying chronological instead ; )

              And thanks for the book recommendations! One of my all-time favorites is A River Runs Through It. Short, profoundly beautiful, magical prose.

    • Yukio Ngaby 12:22 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Great analysis, Fuzzy– and yeah, I clicked on the link and read the whole thing.

      It amuses and depresses me to no end how the Left has managed to split our society apart according to race and gander just when we were in the process of making real and quite rapid improvements in race and gender replationships.

      So, who was the author? And why keep her name a secret?

      • pjMom 3:16 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yukio, English departments have been “split” for a generation or two and churning out little lefties who only see the world in terms of who has been victimized and for how long, always by the hand of the great white evil. I was lucky to have one or two old-timers in grad school. They were both emeritus faculty.

        • Yukio Ngaby 4:43 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Yeah, my specialty is English and Literature and I know my way around universities’ English Departments.

          Nearly every post-structuralist theory for literary analysis is based along Marxist doctrine and Marxist theory. Deconstructionism, New Historicism, Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory, and Feminism (the liteary theory of feminist analysis– not the Feminist Movement itself) are all based around Marxism. I mean, Marxism is taught as literary theory. An essay by Leon Trotsky is included in “The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.” In between reading Foucault, Derrida and Tillie Olsen, students are assigned Homi Bhabha’s long essays that wave the Socialist flag. And there’s no coounterpoint any of it– and that’s a very real problem.

          The split I was referring to was in society at large and not merely English Departments. If the US took up after the English Departments (instead of basically ignoring them) this country would’ve collapsed back in the 80s, or maybe earlier.

          • pjMom 8:40 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

            ROTFL re the last. Yukio, I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t an English geek (though I didn’t know, and am in awe of your English geekiness–I wouldn’t have remembered that my Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism included Trotsky).
            But my point (that I didn’t make well) is that so go the English departments, and so goes the nation. Eventually. The product of churning out English majors who are forced to see the world through the race/class/gender lens only creates a society in which a large number of the literate folks are … well, jackasses who only view life through a race/class/gender rose-colored glasses. Not all of us end up that way, but the vast majority do. So I get your point of the fracture in society at large. But I’d still argue that the societal split is a result of generations of Marxism-worship taught at the university level, in English departments and otherwise.

            (Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish” was the first read in my last semester’s syllabus. I dreamt of quitting school with every page.)

            • Yukio Ngaby 9:23 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as defensive. I didn’t take any sort of implication from your comment.

              I’ve gotta disagree with your “so go the English departments, and so goes the nation” idea. Certainly, it’s correct that English Departments are intent on producing “English majors who are forced [encouraged I'd say] to see the world through the race/class/gender lens,” but I don’t see it as a terribly successful crusade. Yes, it works on some students, but most of these people were pretty much that way to begin with and ended up being part of the choir that’s being preached to.

              I think it’s more of an issue that what students might be looking for are not being addressed. Instead, you get the one-sided, indoctrination spiel and are left with the idea that there isn’t much else to the class– which there isn’t right now. Students aren’t left being myopic, literate “jackasses,” but rather are just bewildered and cynical.

              Back in the ’60s English Departments decided that print was dead and no one cared about criticism anymore. Soon after literary criticism simply became a vehicle to push Socialist theory and doctrine– as it had been in France and elsewhere. Derrida sped it along when (for reasons I still cannot fathom) when English Depts. decided to enshrine the work of an absolute failure of a Philosophy professor. Decontruction gave a vehicle to “prove” the meaninglessness of language, which then allowed language and literary works to be “controlled” and manipulated into being mere props for political agendas– which is, incidentally, what Derrida claimed was happening prior to Deconstruction…

              But print isn’t dead, people do read and think on their own, and the world has spun on despite the the English Depts’ best efforts. I think the only thing they have managed to do is isolate themselves from the world, and create a self-affirming, elitist world for themselves. And when reality intrudes (as it did dramatically for Gates, for instance) they have no real idea about how to act in the real world. I don’t see this as being a major problem far outside of academia.

              I’m sorry to hear you’re reading Foucault… but, we all had to go through it. He’s next to meaningless when taken out of a Marxist context…

              • pjMom 9:31 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Hmm. I guess I had the luxury of being an older student. And as such, I was able to see how quickly some professors were able to make mincemeat of convictions that weren’t tested and held with strength. So I have seen the end-state of a few years of Marxist-peddling-professors: and the vast majority end up bitter, disillusioned liberals, and yes, jack-assy as far as race/class/gender go: that’s why they all voted for Obama. He was THE ONE who would redeem them.

                Fortunately, my Foucault days are long over. ; )

                I agree

                • Yukio Ngaby 9:42 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  Well, if convictions aren’t held with strength, then they’re not convictions.

                  Bitter disillusionment is the inevitable finale of that nonsense. I mean, so much is based in existentialism. LOL. What did they expect?

                  These people love to talk up suffering and angst, but they don’t like feeling it.

              • fuzislippers 9:38 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Well, I wouldn’t dismiss out of hand the argument that univ. Eng. depts hold sway in society. They do, inasmuch as they trained (brainwashed?) an entire generation (or two) of k-12 teachers who go forth and spread the Marxist myth as gospel. Granted, k-12 teachers don’t really need to take that many credits in the study of English to qualify to teach in most districts (those that don’t require a masters), but they have had a huge impact in that inching, progressive way of theirs. ;) Have to get to the children, right? And how better to do that than to train their teachers to be sexist, racist schlubs who self-righteously and without any self-reflection go forth and parrot what they “learn” in college/grad school (or as you note without any challenge to the Marx-inspired “theories” that predominate in English departments). There’s a connection, but it’s obviously not the only one. The same creeping, sneaking strategy has worked equally well in our judicial system and government bodies.

                • Yukio Ngaby 9:56 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  I don’t know… I guess I have more faith in human nature then you do, Fuzzy (I don’t mean that as an insult or anything). I don’t see creeping Leftists converting people. I see people being busy and uninformed– and when people do educate themselves they generally make the sound choice– allowing Leftists to say what they want unchallenged.

                  I believe this is how Black Studies Depts., or African-American Studies Depts., or whatever these departments call themselves, came to be. I mean they’re teaching nonsense that’s easily shown to be absolutely false (Black Socrates, Black Egyptians, Black Cleopatra, Greeks took their culture from Egypt, etc.), yet people stay away, stay uninformed and don’t want to get involved. It’s just one of “their” things.

                  Yeah, the Left is put a lot of effort into controlling education– and that needs to be addressed and challenged– but I don’t see a wholesale conversion going on…

                  I think both politics and a person’s development happen well outside of academia and formal education. Thank God…

                  • fuzislippers 2:52 AM on 07/09/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Your faith in people is one of my favorite things about you. It’s too easy for me to become discouraged, so your hope and faith are refreshing. And give me hope.

      • fuzislippers 4:46 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks Yukio. That means a lot.

        It was Dawn Powell. I didn’t mention her by name for two reasons: one, I didn’t want to have to defend her work, though I can and will (heh), and I didn’t want to get bogged down in her politics. Neither was the focus of the post and both are potential “comment hijackers” — that said, hijack away :)

        • Yukio Ngaby 4:55 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I’ve haven’t read any Dawn Powell. I assume that she’s American?

          I kinda gave up on American Lit. after “Howl”– chronologically. I’ll read popular American stuff (genre stuff), but I don’t read American “literature” voluntarily anymore. That said, I’ve had to read Gass, and Morrison, and Dellilo, etc. Gotta keep up…

          • fuzislippers 5:14 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Yes, she’s an American, and she’s a relatively obscure writer, to be sure, but her novels, particularly her early ones, are great examples of modern American lit. Morrison’s writing is exquisite–she should definitely be rescued from the bowels of “women’s literature” and “African-American literature” and taught as the outstanding postmodern writer she is. Alas, that is unlikely to happen.

            • Yukio Ngaby 5:28 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

              To be fair, Morrison is taught in American Lit. classes (at least in Oregon and California), however she is always prefaced with the fact that she’s both a woman and Black– how anyone wouldn’t to be able to figure that out while reading “Beloved,” “The Bluest Eye,” etc. is beyond me.

              Personally, I have a hard time stomaching Morrison. She did tell off Oprah once, so that gets her some points with me…

              What I think is interesting is how Morrison replaced Alice Walker (a far more interesting writer in my opinion) in the New York publishers’ “Black Woman Author” spot after Black male critics were offended by “The Color Purple.” I mean Walker still wrote after her booting, but her books aren’t so easy to find anymore.

              • fuzislippers 5:41 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Good point, she’s also taught up here (Mass/New England) as a postmodern in many cases, but I guess my point is that while she is taught in mainstream courses, try getting a professor to allow any analysis of her writing that is not based solely in race and/or gender. So even when “mainstreamed,” she’s still treated as “other.” This happens in modern lit, too (more my area). Try reading Stein as a Jamesian or studying her contributions to modern form and style without focusing on her gender and sexuality. Hmph. That’s not to say that one’s gender and race don’t inform one’s experience and therefore one’s writing, it does (as does class), but pretending that all there is to a woman or minority is his or her gender or race (or class) is disingenuous and oppressive.

                • Yukio Ngaby 7:51 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  “I guess my point is that while she is taught in mainstream courses, try getting a professor to allow any analysis of her writing that is not based solely in race and/or gender.”

                  That brings up kind of an interesting point. When the writer herself (Morrison let’s say) wraps her work in gender and race identity, how do can you discuss it outside of race and gender? I mean if you take away Black identity from “Beloved” let’s say, what do you have left to discuss aside from generic side issues? Everything in it is predicated by Morrison’s idea of “Blackness.”

                  The issue of marginalizing writers according to their race or gender, as your post talks about, needs to be addressed, but when the writers do it to themselves by qualities consciously ingrained into their own work to separate themselves…

                  • fuzislippers 8:11 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Interesting stuff, as always, Yukio. I think that there’s a difference between a work of fiction that addresses issues of historically-accurate fact (like Morrison’s Beloved does slavery) and an all-out effort to marginalize women writers in the name of equality.

                    Many excellent critics somehow manage to talk about Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls without exclusive focus on his white maleness. The politics and historical moment are important, but even in a novel that is arguably political, this doesn’t overshadow the novel itself.

                    I don’t think I’m doing a good job explaining what I mean, but it is possible to have an intellectual discussion of a novel like Beloved without oohing and ahhing over the fact that a black woman wrote it. White writers write about race, too, including white, male writers, but we don’t shunt them out of the canon for it (Faulkner comes to mind immediately), nor do we teach his novels as if their sole merit is the depiction of race in the South.

                    • Yukio Ngaby 8:51 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                      “I think that there’s a difference between a work of fiction that addresses issues of historically-accurate fact (like Morrison’s Beloved does slavery) and an all-out effort to marginalize women writers in the name of equality.”

                      Now you know that I’m not saying that we should separate lit. solely according to race and gender…

                      My point is how would you teach Morrison’s work outside of discussions of race and gender? If indeed the class and teacher “ohhs” and “ahhs” because a black woman wrote it (and I know it happens), that seems to be an issue with the individual teacher and class and possibly the academic groupthink that spawned it– and not necessarily an issue of category and canon.

                      Remember Morrison is not writing history with “Beloved.” Even when dealing with a historical reality (as all fiction must do to some degree) Morrison is presenting (both by necessity and choice) a contrived view of this history. In the case of the slave history, if Morrison presented an accurate depiction of it, she’d be likely tossed out like Alice Walker and we’d have a new “Black Female Writer” in New York’s canon.

                      • fuzislippers 8:54 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink

                        No, no, no, Yukio. I didn’t mean YOU are separating them out based on race and gender, I was referring to the subject of my post. I know you are not at all in that narrow-minded, marginalizing group of leftie loons.

                        I think it can be argued that all novels are reflecting a contrived view of history (including For Whom the Bell Tolls), and that’s okay. But your implication that Morrison’s work is taught as “history” is certainly valid.

              • fuzislippers 5:46 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                By the way, I also like Alice Walker–there’s some real meat to her writing that is very fulfilling. Morrison, to my mind, has a wonderful way with the language, and in some ways her prose reminds me of Updike’s (heh, try making that argument to a liberal loon) in its imagery and smoothness. Not many writers prompt me to read sentences aloud simply to savor the prose, but Morrison is one.

                • Yukio Ngaby 8:21 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  Morrison is technically very proficient, and she’s a highly skilled writer. There’s no question of that. My wife likes Morrison a great deal.

                  As far as pure prose goes, I tend to like Raymond Chandler and his sense of rhythm. The last paragraph of “The Big Sleep” is gorgeous. Or Ray Bradbury, especially “Fahrenheit 451″

                  For me, though, the meat of the writing (as you put it) and the way in which it is tackled is extremely important for literature. I don’t like reading editorials in the form of fiction. I think that great writing examines rather than informs and allows the reader to be informed by way of observation, rather than to be “gifted” with the author’s preaching. There are always exceptions, of course. But not too many American exceptions for me.

                  I always get amused at the cliche of “write what you know.” How boring is that? Write about what you don’t know and then see where the story leads. When authors do that, you can get some really thought-provoking work. And yes, I’m talking about fiction only, and no, I am not talking the writer’s authority or researching the subject…

                  • fuzislippers 8:41 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Chandler and Bradbury are great, and so is Vonnegut for those read-aloud moments.

                    How interesting that you think American literature is preachy; I see what you mean, but that’s one of the reasons that I’m drawn to modern American writers, who seem to explore and reveal rather than pontificate and “teach.” More recently, Tim O’Brien does this, I think, with a stark, meaty, often elegant prose.

                    • Yukio Ngaby 9:37 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

                      Tim O’brien?

                      Hmm. I’ll have to re-read him. When I think of O’brien I think more of elaborate and, frankly, loaded metaphor then stark prose. But it’s been a while since I read him. I do remember Obrien’s prose being excellent though.

                      Lawrence Durrell is another one for great pure prose. The meat of his work isn’t too bad either.

    • backyardconservative 4:43 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      And sadly, this kind of thinking often extends down to high school, killing any real appreciation of literature.

      • fuzislippers 4:49 PM on 07/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It really does kill young people’s appreciation of literature to have to analyze and read it through the lens of gender and race . . . and being forced to read utter crap just because a woman (or minority) wrote it. That just breaks my heart. There are fantastic women and minority authors who deserve to be read as literature not curiosities.

  • fuzislippers 5:10 AM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    When Ideology Meets Reality, All But True Ideologues Adapt 

    Ross Douthat over at the NYT makes a compelling case for why Rand Paul stumbled on the Civil Rights question posed to him on MSNBC:

    No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.

    So true, Douthat, so true. Too bad Dothat can’t pry open his mind and consider that the president, an ideologue through and through, is almost daily confronted with his leftist ideology colliding with real-world politics. BO should heed Douthat’s advice to Paul:

    This was all that Rand Paul needed to admit, after his victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “As a principled critic of federal power,” he could have said, “I oppose efforts to impose Washington’s will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act.”

    Gee, if only BO would say something like “I strongly favor adhering to the rule of the law and believe firmly that we are a nation of laws and should not bend our principles in the course of ordinary events. As president of a country that was forever changed on 9/11, however, I would have to make an exception in our handling of terrorists.” Or how about: “While I believe, firmly, that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody, I have studied American history and her economy, and I need to correct course in order to respect and uphold American values and free market principles.”

    Douthat’s final paragraph also contains some wisdom that BO would do well to recognize before he’s completely divided this nation and destroyed our economy.

    And it shouldn’t come as a shock that [Ron Paul's] son found himself publicly undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.

    Hear, hear, Douthat. This could well be the final word on BO’s entire presidency, undone in what should have been a moment (or two terms) of triumph that he let slip away through prideful demagoguery. Too bad Douthat’s so busy (I think quite rightly) taking Paul to task that he doesn’t see how very well this applies to the Ideologue in Chief. In everything from ObamaCare to foreign affairs to the KSM trial to the Arizona illegal immigration law, he’s stubbornly (some say insanely) stayed courses that have no relation to reality . . . even in the face of repeated failures. He’s alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies, Iran’s getting nukes despite BO’s magically extending deadlines and empty threats, socialism always fails, and he’s divided this country as it’s not been since the ’60s. Epic fail.

    If only BO weren’t too proud to admit the limitations (and the failures) of his fanciful ideological approach to matters that really need a more realistic, more humble, more grounded hand.

     
    • Yukio Ngaby 8:26 AM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I have my doubts about Rand Paul. I’ll admit I don’t know all that much about him, but his dad is a Class A nutter who was predicting race wars back in the 90s, while advising his newsletter readers to head to the hills with guns. I’ve dealt with a few Ron Paulians both in person (shudder) and on the web. Their almost a cult– I remember Ron Paulian fellow writing about how we “would follow in the way that the good doctor has shown us.” That wasn’t creepy at all…

      Does Rand Paul have the same sort of following?

      Obama is so married to his ideology because he doesn’t know anything else. He’s never done anything. He’s lost in Washington, and he has no clue how to deal with foreign countries neither personally (bowing etc.) nor at the policy level. Asking Obama to behave like a statesman is like asking a toddler to run the 100m dash in the Olympics. He could do it… sort of… Just really badly.

      • fuzislippers 2:50 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I’m not sure if Rand Paul is quite the nutter with quite the cult following of his father, but he’s definitely not my cup of tea. I think that Douthat has this right. I just wish that these lefties would turn their occasionally thoughtful analytic eye to their own dear leader. That follow thing is definitely creepy, and I can hear people on the left saying that about BO. Heck, we have heard them saying stupid, creepy things like that about him. Between the leg tingles, Demi Moore pledging her “servitude” to BO, Woody Allen wishing BO could be a dictator, and all the other denials, blind eyes, and enthusiastic Mmm Mmm Mmm songs, BO’s also got his very own cult following. Pathetic.

        Heh, I like the toddler analogy. He is indeed marred (twisted, blinded, near insane) by his ideology. And he’s taking lessons from other ideologues and tyrants, unfortunately, many of whom were actually successful in their destruction of their countries. (How scary is it that BO’s plan to fundamentally transform America entails “greening” the whole nation? That’s what Lenin did in (to) Russia with his overhaul of that economy with “electrification.” Same thing here, same motive (“Communism is Soviet power combined with electrification”), different “new” power, but it’s all of the same ideology). This toddler in the WH is scary.

        • Yukio Ngaby 6:32 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Wow, I had almost forgotten the “I Pledge” video.

          “I pledge allegiance to Barack Obama, and to become a small part of his cheek bone, as he embodies all of our Collective Spirit. By getting to know my neighbor (Hollywood types love that), not flushing the toilet after peeing, and not flipping off people on the freeway, I demonstrate my loyalty to his reign.”

          Man, when that camera zooms out while everybody chants their praises to Obama… I haven’t seen something that powerful since the last PSA coming out of North Korea– you know the one where they showed people how to cook and eat grass because Kim Jong Il loves his people.

  • fuzislippers 9:49 PM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Do Dems Intend To Steal Elections to Retain Unprecedented Power? 

    Scott Swett over at American Thinker addresses a question that has been bothering me for months. Why are BO and his cohorts so completely unconcerned about the will of the people? Why don’t they care that the American people overwhelming think not only that we are on the wrong path but that BO’s entire agenda is bad for this country? Why so flippant with remarks like “that’s what elections are for“?

    Lest we forget, Democrats were not given a mandate in 2008 to nationalize General Motors, the insurance industry, and health care. Most Americans want government to be less expensive, less intrusive, and more accountable. Yet despite the looming prospect of electoral dismemberment in November, the Democrats continue pushing a radical agenda: piling up debt and creating new entitlements, with crushing tax increases inevitably to follow. Why the evident lack of concern?

    Perhaps they intend to cheat.

    Swett then goes on to outline the many and various vote fraud tactics that these people have used in the recent past and will likely use again this November. Read the whole thing, it’s enlightening.

     
    • Obi's Sister 10:36 AM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      That’s been on the back-burner of my mind as well. You’ve put one of my nagging concerns into words very well.

      • richard mcenroe 10:43 AM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Seriously: so volunteer as poll watchers or polling place workers.

        • fuzislippers 10:46 AM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I did this in January for the Scott Brown election. The trouble is that voter intimidation is not the only concern. As Stalin said, it’s not the people who vote who count, it’s the people who count the votes.

  • fuzislippers 6:39 AM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Snatching the Blindfold Off Lady Justice 

    I haven’t really been that interested in Supreme Court nominees since the Clarence Thomas debacle. Well, not until this current administration. My objections to the Sonia Sotomayer nomination were grounded in her decision in the Connecticut firefighter case and its subsequent overturning by the SCOTUS. That ruling, as we all know, was essentially what people are calling “reverse racism” but is actually just plain old-fashioned racism (where on earth did we get the idea that you can’t be racist against white people?).

    And if that’s not troubling enough, her decision reveals that she is not really interested in what people are calling “equal justice” (where on earth did we get the idea that “justice” is inherently “unequal” and needs a redundant qualifier?). That was the heart of the problem with her for me. She met BO’s bizarre “empathy” requirement for a justice of the Supreme Court: don’t be bothered with pesky things like the rule of law . . . when a minority, poor person, or other otherwise socially-, economically- or otherwise-challenged person is involved. In such cases, toss the law out the window and/or “revise” it via wild and faulty interpretation to make it unrecognizable (no minorities passed the firefighter test ergo the entire test must be racist). According to BO and Sotomayer, we are indeed a nation of laws–two sets. One for the white people in “upper income brackets” (like those multi-million dollar firefighters in Connecticut) and one for everyone else. This somehow translates into the epitome of “fairness” for this progressive nightmare of a president.

    This brings me to my current problem with the Elena Kagan nomination. Not only is she dismissive and derisive of the original Constitution (that quaint document from the stone ages), but she trumpets Thurgood Marshall’s

    declaration that “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’ … The Constitution today … contains a great deal to be proud of. ‘(B)ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality.'” Kagan said, “Our modern Constitution is (Marshall’s).” (source)

    Those pesky concepts of liberty, justice, and equality are sooooo outdated. They need to be redefined or “refined” as the progressives would have it. Justice isn’t just if it’s impartial: “Blind justice” is such a sophomoric concept, after all. Yes, she’s another fairness is treating different people/groups differently type who sees the role of the Supreme Court as providing “special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged.” David Limbaugh quotes her more extensively:

    Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Following Marshall’s death, Kagan wrote a glowing tribute to him in the Texas Law Review. Two passages from her article deserve particular scrutiny. She wrote, approvingly: “In Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.” Kagan said Marshall told her the other justices had rejected his proposal for a new Supreme Court rule: “When one corporate fat cat sues another corporate fat cat, this Court shall have no jurisdiction,” Kagan wrote. “However much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.”

    The new definition of “justice”: two rules of law, separate application of the law, “special solicitation” to one group over another.

    Limbaugh goes on to warn that we not gloss over or scoff at the “despised and disadvantaged” descriptor of those who should have a special set of laws just for them:

    But don’t just gloss over the leftist buzzwords “despised or disadvantaged.” What groups do they mean by “the despised”? Perhaps they mean those who don’t agree with their radical idea of unconstitutional wealth redistribution “despise” recipients of such extreme wealth transfers. Or maybe they’re implying that conservatives “despise” minorities. Don’t scoff. I’ve heard such toxicity before from leftists.

    Indeed.

    As Jonah Goldberg notes, “Obama and the vast majority of Senate Democrats believe that Lady Justice should peek from under the blindfold every now and then.” So much for being impartial. Or fair. Or just.

    Kagan appears to share BO’s vision of a fundamentally transformed America in which those who are not “despised or disadvantaged” (in their eyes) should be and that it’s up to the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to ensure that they are.

     
    • Quite Rightly 8:07 AM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The prospect of Kagan in the Supreme Court is one of the more frightening sci-fi aspects of Obama’s presidency. There is no sneer equal to that of a progressive lawyer in the process of disdaining the Founders’ “primitive” view of justice, usually from a perch on which the birds-of-a-feather tacitly agree that a knowledge of history is a quaint encumbrance in the “real world” that they inhabit.

    • Janelle 11:47 AM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      After appointing Kevin Jennings as our safe schools czar…….is anybody surprised by Kagan?

      • fuzislippers 5:18 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Ugh. Good point. At least Jennings will be unemployed as of January 2013, though, unlike Kagan with whom we’re stuck for decades.

        • Obi's Sister 7:37 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

          If she’s approved. We can only pray that she will be Obama’s Harriet Myers.

  • fuzislippers 4:44 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Obama Gears Up U. S. Army to Fight Tea Party Protesters 

    Completely unreal.

    From MAinfo:

    This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.

    The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party.”

    You read that right: “TEA Party”!

    The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by “Federal and local law enforcement” raids on a “White Supremacists Organization,” but “TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date.”

    Further, the intel advisory states, “Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.”

    In accordance with the exercise, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, “these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience,” and “a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    In response to the “immediate threat,” the exercise stipulates, “local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests.” Both the “QRF I and QRF II” are placed on two hour recall, and the “5-15 CAV” was ordered to “draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room,” and “coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR’s charged.” (my emphasis)

    Read the rest.

    More at Infowars.

     
    • Jill 5:52 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Here’s an update from Mark Alexander of Patriot Post, the originator of this report:

      “Publisher’s Note: This is neither a retraction nor correction, but supplemental information regarding my essay, Army Preps for Tea Party ‘Terrorists.’ I was contacted by senior Command staff at Ft. Knox on the afternoon of the date of publication. They confirmed that there was a security exercise at Ft. Knox this week, and that an officer in the security loop altered the scenario “in order to make it more realistic.” The fact that any officer would associate Tea Party folks with “white supremacists” armed with “military grade weapons” and “bomb making components,” and believe that association would make this scenario “more realistic,” is troubling, at best. The Command staff informed me that the alterations were not approved at the Command level and that the officer who circulated the scenario through official channels has been identified and will “receive appropriate counsel.” In other words, the officer who authored it is now subject to discipline. Further, Command staff at Ft. Knox have provided assurances this type of scenario would not find its way into official circulation again.

      The facts remain: The security exercise scenario was described in my essay, exactly as it was written and circulated at Ft. Knox to both military and civilian personnel with security responsibilities. A handful of Patriots, at risk to their careers, came forth with this information and expected us to handle it honorably and accurately, and we did just that.

      In regard to the verbatim scenario documentation we posted, even though those documents were not classified, Command staff asked that we remove them for specified security reasons. As our mission is not only to uphold our Constitution by holding those in positions of authority accountable to their oaths, but also to support our uniformed Patriots, I agreed to remove the documents from our Web site as requested.”

      Rea more at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/04/29/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists/

      • fuzislippers 6:35 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for this, but in light of the DHS memo of last year, I firmly believe that BO is chomping at the bit to not only classify us as “terrorists” but to have local and federal law enforcement take action against us. Time, of course, will tell, but with these disturbing reports coming out every so often, one can’t take for granted that this president will protect us or our civil and constitutional rights. I don’t trust him.

        Last year’s DHS memo: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf

    • primewords 8:13 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Your headline is misleading, but you meant it to be. Intelligence agencies monitor foreign and domestic groups when they find them to be a threat. George W Bush wouldn’t allow protesters near him. This is not a new stance by our government, it has always been in place. Remember the 60’s, how about the McCarthy area, and even before that. Fear and divisiveness, that the only weapon you have, but the problem is, people are starting to catch on.

      • fuzislippers 9:25 AM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I believe that “when they see them to be a threat” is the key phrase here. There has been no violence from Tea Party groups, none. What is the threat? Oh! Fostered not only by a fear-mongering left wing media but by a fear-mongering left of left wing president. The only fear being fostered in this country is being fostered by the left. Ditto the violence, come to think of it.

      • Yukio Ngaby 6:50 PM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        “Fear and divisiveness, that the only weapon you have…” Oooo. That’s scary, but you meant it to be.

        Divisiveness is the exact opposite of what is happening here and now, if you would care to notice. Like minded people are being brought together, united in opposition to a president and Congressional leaders who are pushing an unpopular agenda without the support of the American people. Take a gander at the support for health care “reform” or the dropping belief in global warming (gospel truth for so long). “Divisiveness” or simply people educating themselves and taking a stance? I read 5500+ pages of legislation (2 House bills, the Senate HELP Commitee bill) during the health care debate. I was a Poli Sci major in college for more than 3 years and I still never had read that much legislation. People like me are educating themselves to what’s going on in Washington and not liking what they see, and their voicing their views publicly. I’m sure that equals “fear” for people such as yourself.

        Theodore Roosevelt once said: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” More fear and divisiveness, I suppose…

        • fuzislippers 8:49 PM on 05/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

          This is a good point, Yukio. I don’t think I’ve ever felt as much a part of a social or political movement as I do of the opposition to this president’s agenda, and God knows the Tea Party is inclusive and that generally speaking conservatives are as well. Look at how conservatives have rallied around the HillBuzz boyz (even they are surprised they’re not being bashed and have stated several times that the worst they’ve heard from conservatives is that they–the conservatives–will pray for them; whereas, they hear truly vile things from the inclusive, tolerant left), and it’s not an accident or some fluke that black, Asian, Latino, etc. are just as patriotic and just as welcome as anyone else and have told that to anyone who would listen (i.e. not the fringe media). Heck, even atheist conservatives are being welcomed with open arms (that’s more shocking to me, frankly, than that “minorities” are welcome, but I guess it shouldn’t be, this isn’t as much about conservative “values” as about our country’s very foundation . . . and its future).

          But yes, I’d say that the conservative revival (or whatever you want to call it) is far more inclusive and doing more to unite than it is anything else. And yes, we are standing against what this president and his traitorous horde are doing . . . that’s not “hate,” that’s good old-fashioned American common sense. We’re not socialists, and the majority of us don’t want to keep down this path and are quite horrified by the actions of this president and Congress.

  • fuzislippers 2:16 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Simple and Comprehensive with a Side of Historical Exemption 

    Bill Whittle has offered up a recipe for ensuring the success of the people’s message, one that can be well applied to every new legislative shackle that BO and his traitorous horde try to clamp on us between now and January 2011:

    So, to the short term: everybody knows that Reid and Pelosi and The Lightworker himself, obviously, are all hoping to use this bill as the foot in the door for the stuff they really want:  A single-payer National Health System, or at least the “public option,” which is simply single-payer on the installment plan. We can’t let them get that. Going forward, we can’t let them get single-payer, or cap and trade, or amnesty, or any of it.

    We can learn some lessons here. We have to. One lesson is message discipline. What is message discipline? I’ll give you an example:

    What’s in a Big Mac?  Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun! That’s what’s in a big mac. We have got to understand that saying NO! to this socialism is admirable and essential, but that from now on there has to be a counter-narrative to what these Marxists are selling, because like it or not the human brain is wired for stories — that’s how we learn (and why the real fight is not for Washington but rather Hollywood — but that’s a story for another time.)

    If we want to win on health care, or any other issue, we need to have an answer to what they are selling and that answer needs to be as simple and comprehensive as the Big Mac slogan.

    Our position on health care?  Two tax incentives, health accounts, crossing state lines, tort reform, competition on an auto insurance bun. And if we don’t learn how to do this we will lose.

    Whittle’s final thought is a fine one for those of us who are still working through and toward being what he calls a “nation of steely-eyed missile men” (and women).  Some inspiration to achieve our steely resolve and focused eye on the prize:

    A final thought on this darkish day: much is said about the “inevitability” of these kinds of legislation, that once enacted they are impossible to repeal or roll back.

    This kind of thinking is self-fulfilling defeatism and has to stop. ANY law enacted can be repealed. We repealed a constitutional amendment, for God’s sake. From now on we must change our message from one of limiting goverment growth and spending and regulation to one of reducing it.

    It is true that no nation has in the past ever recovered from the cycle of entitlement, moral decay and aristocratic rot that we find ourselves in. But it is also true that no nation — not one in history — was established precisely in opposition to these cancers. It is also true that never before have common people– otherwise known as the Host Organism — had the means to speak directly to one another, as we are here. It is true that if there is to be an historical exemption to the Cycle of Civilization it is only here that it will occur, and it is also true that the concepts of Free Will and Destiny are antithetical to one another. One of them is true and the other is not. It is my belief that you can chose to abandon Free Will and chose to believe in destiny and historical inevitablity, or you can take the risk to believe instead that there is a new world populated by optimists and dreamers, but dreamers with rifles as well as quills and parchment… People who have never surrendered and for whom the very idea of defeat and dispair is anathema.

    That’s a choice I make every day. What we see before us is the result of lost elections and redemption will come from winning elections. Mark these words, my friends: We are going to whip these Marxists out of their little commie boots!

    Hear, hear!

     
    • Jill 5:20 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Hold the pickle. I mean, that was great!

      • backyardconservative 5:28 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes. Very helpful. I used that auto insurance analogy in my dialogue in front of schakowsky’s office.

        I won’t mention pickles, but when I asked this couple if they thought we should be forced under ObamaCare to pay for sex-change operations they were not pleased at the one-sized fits all expensive approach. But look!:

        http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:CHR52PP-ZycJ:blog.heritage.org/2009/07/28/sex-change-you-can-believe-in/+states+mandate+payment+for+sex-change+operations&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

        We all know ObamaCare will lead to rationing but it will most likely be seniors and un PC “diseases” that get short shrift.

        • backyardconservative 5:29 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Actually the ” ” should be around sex-change as a “disease”

          • backyardconservative 5:32 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

            If someone wants that, fine, but it just underscores the need for a private market. No pun intended.

            And I guess we can debate whether it is an optional surgery or not. That is for another day. But think about this micro level of resentment people are going to feel when the feel like ObamaCare is a zero-sum game.

            • backyardconservative 7:26 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

              And of course we know driving/buying a car is an option. The constitutionality of mandating health insurance is the question the states are raising, among others.

              • fuzislippers 12:48 AM on 03/23/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Not only can you choose not to buy a car, but you aren’t buying a policy for the whole country’s driving record. If YOU have a good record, you don’t have to buy a policy for a drunk driver. The healthcare mandate over reaches and is not at all comparable.

                You don’t have the IRS taking money from your bank account if you don’t buy car insurance or buy the insurance the government tells you that you must have to cover everyone else’s poor driving!

        • fuzislippers 12:39 AM on 03/23/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Yes, this is one of many things we will now be paying for. There’s a good list at Sharp Right Turn that includes some of the things everyone pays for: http://sharprightturn.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ibd-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedom/

          Sex changes, drug and alcohol rehab, you name it. Whatever, whenever. And we are being forced to buy this, not for ourselves, but for other people. I can’t see how that’s constitutional. If this is upheld, what’s to stop the government forcing us to buy everyone a house or a car or a computer. It’s ridiculous and deeply un-American in every conceivable way.

      • fuzislippers 12:39 AM on 03/23/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Heh, I thought you’d like the “potluck” title ;)

    • Quite Rightly 5:33 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is good. Whittle is on the right track. We are tired (very tired) of being the host organism, and if we have to start splashing a little antiseptic around, well, pass me the bucket. We come from honorable bloodlines of people who refused–seriously refused–to surrender to tyranny, and, contrary to popular belief among Progs, we are not the “mouth-breathing illiterates (McArdle) that we are made out to be. We need more than a “mission statement” answer to the Dems attacks, though. George Patton, who, despite his unpopularity, led troops with low casualty rates (relatively speaking) had this to say about defense:

      In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.

      • Carol 7:54 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Well said. I’m ready to go on offense. In my district the current Rep., Kathy Castor (D), is considered “safe.” We have a great candidate in Mike Prendergast and I am ready to focus my energy on getting Castor out of that safe seat and putting in a Conservative. The next battle is for Congress. I say we go for it.

        • Quite Rightly 8:44 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I agree: the next battle is for Congress. We have got to get rid of the Red Queen.

          I think we need to get rid of the 17th amendment, too, so that Senators report to their respective states, and not the President. I can think of about 38 states that might find that idea at least somewhat appealing right now.

        • Quite Rightly 8:52 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Oh, yeah, and we need a slew of the right kind of Republican governors, too, like Fuzzy pointed out below.

          • fuzislippers 12:45 AM on 03/23/2010 Permalink | Reply

            I really think this is vital to our offensive line. Changing Congress is an absolutely necessary defensive measure, but ensuring that we have a sufficient number of governors in place to amend the constitution is our best line of offense should this administration keep pushing its insane agenda AND if ObamaCare individual mandates are not struck down as unconstitutional. I’m okay with changing the constitution to protect individual citizens from being forced to buy anything at all.

        • fuzislippers 12:55 AM on 03/23/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Agreed, Carol. We can do this, and as Conservative Generation reminds us at Left Coast Rebel, there IS precedent for the people’s victory. http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/03/history-tells-us-that-yes-we-can-repeal.html

    • nicedeb 10:56 PM on 03/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I love Bill Whittle, but how un-pc of him to use the terms Marxists and Socialists to describe these Dems. What would Bernard Goldberg say?
      (That’s in reference to Goldberg’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor, tonight.)

  • fuzislippers 9:58 AM on 03/20/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Is the White House Sending Healthcare Propaganda to Federal Employees? 

    From CBS News (no, really):

    Federal employees are public servants not partisan foot soldiers for President Obama and shouldn’t have to decide whether a partisan White House request can be ignored without consequences.

    DeParle’s solicitation requests federal employees act on behalf of the President’s agenda by making this directive: “You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks,” read the March 11th email from DeParle.

    But what would happen if the federal employee doesn’t act in the way The White House is suggesting? Would there be retribution? Has The White House requested that another federal agency monitor who is acting on behalf of Obama’s health reform bill and who is not?

    Turning the President’s partisan agenda into White House directives to the federal workforce has crossed the line and should be stopped immediately.

     
    • Obi's Sister 10:44 AM on 03/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This reminds me of when a former employer got into the long distance business. The employees were pressed (heavily) to sign up for the service. Then they turned around and advertised “x thousands of subscribers added the first week alone! Sign up today!”

      You would expect the White House to have some integrity, if for no other reasons out of respect for the previous inhabitants. Obama must not care how he’ll be remembered through history, because after taking over the economy, he’ll take over education and rewrite all the history books.

  • fuzislippers 9:48 AM on 03/19/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Kuhner’s “Impeach the president?” 

    The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

    Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life – the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

    Kuhner sums it up neatly:

    He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

    Read the rest here.

     
    • Obi's Sister 5:54 PM on 03/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I especially liked this part,

      It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government – meeting the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If it’s enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

      (Emphasis mine, of course.)

      • fuzislippers 5:56 PM on 03/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Oddly enough that was my favorite part, too. heh

        • Obi's Sister 5:57 PM on 03/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I’m sharpening my pitchforks this weekend.

          • fuzislippers 6:00 PM on 03/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

            lol, mine are sharpened, am polishing them now.

            This loser is SO intent on the ends justifying the means that he’s bound to cross the line (I think he has already: Sestak. If he signs a bill that is “demon passed,” that’s that.).

  • fuzislippers 9:20 PM on 03/16/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Resistance: Targeting DNC Donors 

    We, the people, are outraged.  We’ve tried phoning, faxing, marching, and objecting in every peaceful way we can, but it’s not working.  As the delightful HillBuzz boyz lucidly warn their readers:

    You need to accept, as we do, that Democrats in Congress have stopped listening to their constituents and the American people.  Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama have built up a mental wall between Democrats in the House and reality.  Whatever they are telling these people, it’s working, because they have taken their office phones off the hook, have stopped looking at their mail, and have unplugged their fax machines, deleting all their email and closing the drapes to avoid seeing the mobs outside.

    What we are doing is not making enough of a difference, it’s not stopping the bill.  Yes, it’s delayed it a year, but this bill is not dead.  And it needs to be.  Keeping up the pressure on Congress is good, and I think vital, but we need to add more pressure, and where better to do this than on the DNC donors?  The idea was hatched by the HillBuzz boyz:

    Please read this article about what REALLY led to former White House Social Secretary (and Queen of her own deluded world) Desiree Rogers’ humiliating, kicking and screaming, ouster:  it wasn’t her incompetence at the Indian state dinner (where she inexplicably showed up dressed as Pocahontas, thinking it was “feather” instead of “dot” or “Cleveland” Indian time “up in there”).  It wasn’t her many trips to fashion shows, or the photos shoots she posed for, where she insisted on wearing “the ugliest clothes possible, so (she) can look completely like a low rent transvestite, which is styling right now”.

    No.

    She was fired because large, wealthy Democrat donors did not feel they were getting as many perks from the current White House as their donations deserved.

    Rogers left important people off the Christmas Card List, and those people then stopped writing checks to the DNC.

    We believe, in addition to contacting the Democrats in the House directly, that the public’s ire needs to be directed at the wealthy people who fund the DNC.

    The elected officials are just the puppets of these people anyway.

    If suddenly, socialites in Chicago start getting thousands of calls, emails, and letters a day, asking them why they are funding the rape of our Constitution and giving money to the DNC so that illegal bribes could be issued by the White House to force socialism on this country, we GUARANTEE you these wealthy women will scoop up their yorkapoos and pomeranians and run racing into their business managers’ offices to tell them to stop writing checks to the DNC.

    Read more here and here.

     
  • fuzislippers 3:40 PM on 03/04/2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Coffee Party to Repackage Ineffective Leftie Lies? 

    Left Coast Rebel is fast becoming the go-to place for Coffee Party updates. They’ve located an article from The Korean Times that outlines Annabel Park’s strategy in redirecting and repackaging the initially ineffective 121 Coalition.

    The proponents had originally argued that Japan, as a leading nation of the world, must deal with its past abuses against the peoples it had subjugated during WWII. However, such an argument was vulnerable to a counter argument that this issue was all about Japan-bashing by other Asian nations intent on taking some measure of revenge by shaming Japan. Therefore, U.S. lawmakers tended to be easily persuaded that Resolution 121 was not in the interest of the U.S., although the plight of the old comfort women was pitiful.

    In response, newly created network members reframed the argument in the following way. They couched the comfort women issue firmly in the language of human trafficking and wartime rape. Mindy Kotler, director of Asia Policy Point, made the following point in her testimony at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 15, 2007: “The most important tool in prosecuting/stopping sexual violence in war in the future is the precedent of past recognition of sexual violence, enslavement, and exploitation.

    As LCR notes, sound familiar? The Coffee Party, such as it is, will be searching around for a message that resonates with their bitter beans, something slightly more motivating than “we’re not going to take this tea crap anymore. let’s work for change!” (the delightful Annabel Park’s tweet, via Legal Insurrection).  As William Jacobson at LI notes,”It is very clear from Park’s background, and her own Tweets, that the Coffee Party simply is part of the perpetual Obama campaign, a means by which to subvert the real grassroots Tea Party movement by co-opting part of the message, but in a way which supports keeping Obama in power.”

    Now all they have to do is hit on just the right nerve, find just the right spin . . . .

     
    • backyardconservative 5:28 PM on 03/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t suppose they’ll espouse solidarity with Iranian women…

    • Yukio Ngaby 5:45 PM on 03/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Park is a professional shill/ activist for the hard Left of the Dem party. Of course she is going to repackage, that’s what Park does for a living.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,396 other followers