House of Eratosthenes

In fact, what the GOP campaign managers really should do, is sit down in front of this one clip and see how many chinks in the left-wing armor they can find. These “gentlemen” are not just speaking for themselves.

My favorite? The thing at the beginning is tempting — it’s cute when liberals believe in God so selectively, as in “proof there is a god,” small-g, and then tacking on afterward as an afterthought, oh yeah, right, hope nobody gets hurt — but my mind wanders closer to the end. There’s a contradiction between choosing a woman as a running mate, and chuckling in tacit approval when Hillary is called a bitch? There’s hypocrisy there? How so? Where lies the logical contradiction in proffering the notion, presuming McCain did so proffer (which he didn’t), that Hillary’s more of a bitch than Sarah Palin?

I’m tempted to defend the notion just to make a show of how big a heap of evidence there is to legitimize it; but of course, in so doing, I’d be legitimizing the attack.

Instead, I’m inspired to think of an occasion yesterday in which I was called out by a leftward-leaning gentleman in Canada, for another one of my crass generalizations: “Liberals are sexists.” The usual retort — I know of more than a few liberals that aren’t. He does have a point, since it’s always an invitation to re-think when individual attributes are ascribed to aggregate entities.

But can it not be denied, that there is something to the liberal mindset that treats men and women differently? With men, I get to pick and choose where to fling my criticism, with surgical precision, and our liberals won’t utter a peep of protest so long as I don’t say anything nasty about liberals. That guy is a jerk; this guy over here is an asshole; that other guy over there is a slob. Liberalism, being the modern embodiment of all breezy, casual, weak and lazy thinking, sees all of womanhood as part of a common unicellular construct — and so by implication McCain called Sarah Palin a bitch when he chuckled along with someone else calling Hillary one.

Future generations of younglings will wonder why, in our day & age, there was something wrong with calling certain women “bitches” after they had labored for so long and hard to be thought of that way. I’m not talking about children-of-children-yet-unborn, or anything. I think the children asking that question at some future point, are already breathing and suckling and filling diapers right now.

And among the “ladies” who have renounced any right or privilege of indignantly demanding “how DARE you call me a bitch??” by laboring long and hard to be thought of in exactly that way…Hillary Rodham Clinton ranks sky high. It is her political identity. It is her schtick. It is what she brings to the table in politics. It has been her persona since Gennifer Flowers’ face was on the tabloids. In sixteen years, she really hasn’t had too much else to say about things or too much else to demonstrate to us about herself.

And don’t even ask which one, between Clinton and Palin, I’d prefer to hear talking about something for a couple hours at a time. The former First Lady makes my head hurt. Whoever’s been coaching her that she should talk like that all the time is probably responsible for saving the country.

Thing I Know #58. To insult a man says nothing about other men, but for some reason, anything said against one woman is perceived to be said against everything female who ever lived.

Update: Cassy has an excellent roundup at Right Wing News as well as at her own site, of some more leftist idjits jumping on this “wonderful that Gustav hits when it does” bandwagon. Including this.

And others.

It would appear a talking point got faxed out from some central location.

She offers a hat tip to Michelle, who adds,

God is not on your side, gloating sleazeballs.

And you should just see how, over the years, I’ve seen people work their cackles up when I dare to suggest that perhaps when liberal politicians measure their own policies in terms of how those policies would “help the least among us,” they’re setting themselves up to have a stake in more people falling into the demographic of those “least” — miserable…dependent…perhaps even endangered, or terminally sick. Supposedly “non-partisan” people just fly off the handle at the suggestion. How dare I imply that politicians and journalists might actually want people to suffer?

I’m pointin’ on up to the video clip…and I’m a-restin’ my case.

I would like you to expand #58 to explain why one woman is lovely, but three women are a Lord of the Flies level guerrilla war……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/31/2008 @ 12:54
In my experience, the three women remain lovely of countenance and sweet of disposition, so long as they don’t find out about each other.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2008 @ 19:33
That’s what I would like to see explained. We just lost a club at the store here because of that weird little effect. Fifteen years without a fight, finally get three women in the club at the same time, three weeks later, Boom, two guys who had been friends for years are in a fight, people are threatening to call the police on each other, and the club is DOA.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/31/2008 @ 19:43
Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

My theory is that the human genome is capable of handing down encoded messages sufficiently complicated, that they can carry “If-male-this, if-female-that” signals. And, that while humans evolved into the form you see them today, women took care of the babies in the cave, and men went out of the cave to hunt.

I use the word “theory” with deliberate care, here. Anytime I see men functioning one way, and women functioning a different way, I reconcile that dichotomy against this theory. The theory has never lost momentum through this; it has always gained it.

Now men, competing with other men, are somewhat territorial about things. The way hunters are territorial about turf. Motivated by opportunity but not by a feeling of entitlement.

But women are territorial in the presence of other women. The way a “cave-girl” would be, when she’s set up shop — hand-made cooking utensils, children, clothes, things that go in places & places for things…et al. This is a brand of territoriality that puts male territoriality to shame.

Once again, my cave-girl-and-hunter theory prevails. Your story is just another feather in its cap. Oh, and any man who wants to argue against it, is invited to move his mother into his house with his wife, and leave it to the two of them to “collaborate” on how to have dinner ready for him when he walks in the front door after work. He’ll be lucky to find the place in one piece.

On the subject of warfare and disproportionate responses, men could learn a lot from women.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2008 @ 19:52
If so, and it does fit the pattern, then Feminism, and treating women as equals in the public square, is doomed to fail. And doomed to be tried when men forget the last time it was tried, which again fits the pattern. Now if you can incorporate the herd mentality that women seem to have, despite the fact they don’t like each other, like with tramp stamps.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/31/2008 @ 20:28

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

An Ignorant ConversationSunday, August 31st, 2008

An Ignorant Conversation
Sunday, August 31st, 2008