Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
They wrestle with that thorny question…
Confusion was the word of the day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this morning when the panel questioned why so many women have been drawn to the Tea Party movement.
Co-host Mika Brzezinski, The New York Times’ Sam Tanenhaus, CBS’s Lesley Stahl, columnist Mike Barnicle, and Newsweek’s Jon Meacham were initially stumped when Stahl prompted the discussion.
“I wanted to ask all the gurus here, why so many of the Tea Partiers are women. I find that just intriguing and don’t quite understand why that has happened,” Stahl said.
To which the panel replied: “I have no idea.” “Sarah Palin?” “I don’t know.” “I don’t know either.”
:
Tanenhaus eventually surfaced with an attempted explanation. “You’ve been talking about the economy, who runs the household economy in America? The classic Greek work for economics means ‘home economy.’ Who’s paying the bills, who’s worried about the kids and college loans?” he offered.Barnicle took a stab at the riddle as well. “It could be women, as we all know, are smarter than men. And they have better instincts than men, and they know — off of what you just said — that the government or the household, you have a checkbook, you can’t start writing checks for things you can’t pay for, the checks bounce. We’ve been bouncing checks as a government for twenty years.”
Yet another position of responsibility we should all be grateful is not being occupied by my fine self. And I should be among the grateful…oh goodness, what kind of riot would a Panelist Freeberg start.
“I got an answer. Because women aren’t clueless morons? Because when something is on fire, women can see just as well as men that it’s necessary to put it out?”
It’s a classic case of can’t-see-forest-for-trees. A bunch of ivory tower elites who very rarely are backed into this kind of corner, being forced to comment on the difference between men and women. And they can do this only in a limited way — women more sociable, women smarter, women more mature, women more compassionate. Ask them “how come women are in the Tea Party” and it’s like asking a paraplegic to lick the back of his own knee.
The poor helpless dears.
There isn’t even any call to talk about differences between men & women; men are in the Tea Party, women are in the Tea Party. It is a band of concerned citizens fighting unchecked liberalism, trying to stem the damage. It is a gender-neutral calling. End of story.
I recall a Dilbert cartoon where Wally was bidding everyone good night, getting ready to pull an all-nighter…take one for the team…burn the midnight oil…that was when Dilbert made an interesting observation. He had spent the day — with three others (men and women) — fixing the problems caused by the “work” Wally had been doing the night before. And then, a few minutes ago, the four of them got together and decided to duct tape Wally to his chair.
That’s why people are in the Tea Party. Wally is one of the left-wingers in charge right now, doing the damage. The Tea Party is the duct-taping party.
Being a woman has nothing to do with it. It’s a matter of seeing what needs to be done, and doing it. This needs doing.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s a classic case of can’t-see-forest-for-trees.
Leftism in a nutshell. Of the many, many things that bug me about leftism, I think the most vexatious is this: they simply cannot grok to the concept that we actually have a case for our ideas.
I used to have great fun in grad seminars making the leftists’ case for them, then exaggerating it past the point of absurdity (i.e. I once argued that since the corporate media is so obviously biased in favor of big business — witness their endless propagandizing in favor of corporate America’s best buddy, George W. Bush — what we really need to do is nationalize all information outlets under the control of a Commissar of Information). Since “exaggerating leftist ideas past the point of absurdity” is the high road to tenure, I found the suffering to be exquisite. But anyway: heartless reich-winger me had no problem grasping that the leftists had a case for their proposals, and even that their case was “valid” according to an internally coherent set of presuppositions about the way the world works.
To the leftist, however, there simply IS no case for conservative “ideas,” since conservatives by definition don’t have any — we’re just mindless reactionaries, bitter clingers in thrall to our prejudices and the latest diktat from the 700 Club. Thus the proposition “there are women in the Tea Party” is literally meaningless, since women = victims and victims = democrats (also women = good and good = democrats, or more accurately women = good and Tea Party = evil, therefore women /= Tea Party). When they’re forced to maneuver outside the elaborate Habitrail of their multiculti dogma, the best leftists can do is fall back on crude instrumentalism until they can wend their way back to a familiar, comfortable stereotype: “it’s, uhh, about money, ’cause women, ummm, balance checkbooks, and, ummm, oh yeah! RethugliKKKans love money, because they’re all so greedy! Yeah! That’s it!”
Or they could just say “false consciousness.” It’s too bad our rabid Marxists never actually read Marx, since the ol’ murderer did have a way with a phrase sometimes….
- Severian | 10/19/2010 @ 10:04Leftism in a nutshell. Of the many, many things that bug me about leftism, I think the most vexatious is this: they simply cannot grok to the concept that we actually have a case for our ideas.
You gotta be kiddin’. I’ve never seen such a scenario played out, ever, anywhere.
Oh, maybe once now that I think of it…….
- mkfreeberg | 10/19/2010 @ 10:17Yeeeesh… I read about 10 posts of that thread before I had to give up in disgust. You know, one might be able to write a pretty good pop-history book charting the rise of brain-dead liberalism against the decline of the formal logic course requirement at universities. For instance, I’m utterly flabbergasted by this:
So…according to Public Policy Polling, the right wing would support the building of a strip joint two blocks from the WTC site more then it would support building a mosque.
Yep, that’s real family values there and real concern for the honor of the victims.
Just two sentences, and you’ve already got a category error, an invalid inference, and probably three or four other fallacies that would make Aristotle’s head explode.
But again, I get the leftist case here. I really do. Americans have property rights, the freedom of religious expression is not to be infringed, and those two things are absolute. (That they’re only absolute when the leftist desideratum of annoying conservatives and/or propping up the leftists’ multiculti bona fides is maximally satisfied is another story, of course).
The conservative case — that possessing the right to do something does not entail that it should, or must be done — completely escapes them, since, you know, conservatives are all Islamophobic racists.
I’ll give ’em this, though — lots of liberals are almost as smart as they think they are, since it takes a lot of brainpower to be that obtuse.
- Severian | 10/19/2010 @ 10:37That’s Ed Darrell’s blog. Sort of a “Bizarro Eratosthenes”; public school teacher in a red state (Texas), whereas we’re a software engineer in a blue state. Our blog persuades people to look at things, his persuades people to look away. If you want to know what Cognitive Bias looks like, look at Ed and his friends. How much do they read? It doesn’t matter; they could soak in all kinds of information all day long, and it wouldn’t matter because it is only absorbed if it agrees with what they were already thinking.
I made the comment earlier that he’s my designated poster-child for Thing I Know #330. But he & his sort of remind me more of TIKs #183 and #276.
They’re very important people…the same way Joy Behar is important. Lots of people like this.
- mkfreeberg | 10/19/2010 @ 11:21I think there’s a quite simple answer for the Tea Party’s attraction for women. Women handle the finances in a large number of households and “deficit spending” doesn’t get it in a rational workaday world. Ergo, your domestic engineering types, with the requisite minor in finance, turn out for the Tea Parties in droves. Of course, one COULD speculate it’s all about NOT bein’ a Lefty. YMMV.
- bpenni | 10/19/2010 @ 11:21But the problem with that is, there has long been a sustained gender gap in American politics, most prominent and influential under Bill Clinton.
I’m of the mind that women and men are uniquely interested in different parts of a process. Blondie really doesn’t give a rat’s behind whether Dagwood fixes the sink or the plumber does it; she just wants it done. Dagwood, of course, is concerned about the money the plumber is going to charge — and he wants to fiddle with the pipes in his house if they need fiddling-with. Women are more practical that way, more focused on the outcome.
I think in the age of Obama, the financial matters have drifted into the female zone because it has taken on a palpable and tactile feel, all the things we will not be able to afford because of this money that is being spent. The line on the unemployment graph looks block-ish; it sprang up to 10 percent and has now been pegged there for about a year. We know WE are paying for this party RIGHT NOW. We cannot afford to pretend someone richer is paying for it, or our kids are footing the bill after they start earning way more money than we ever did. It has become personal, something in the here-and-now, and the laser-like focus of the female logic node has kicked in.
With us guys, it’s more theoretical. With Bill Clinton, we “knew” this was making America into a softer, less capable, more squishy and muddled-thinking nation. We didn’t have to be impacted by Clinton’s new marginal tax rates in order to feel the effect. But it wasn’t that we were looking further down the road, we were just more sensitive to what was going on because it was, at core, an insult against manhood.
- mkfreeberg | 10/19/2010 @ 11:35I think in the age of Obama, the financial matters have drifted into the female zone because it has taken on a palpable and tactile feel
There’s a line of argument (which I don’t necessarily endorse) that would go even further than this. It suggests that the gender gap in voting is largely attributable to the government stepping in as the ultimate beta-male provider — Ally McBeal or whomever can have the lifestyle and the career and the kid and make partner and take six months’ maternity leave and not lose a step on the promotion or tenure ladder and have six weeks’ paid vacation a year etc. etc. because the government is there to either a) pick up the slack or b) force companies to consider 6 months’ maternity leave to be the exact equivalent of six months’ regular employment or c) both. If one were to buy this argument, it would follow that the ladies are finally starting to cotton to the fact that not even the American government’s resources are inexhaustible, and that reality requires one to choose between incompatible desires.
Or it could simply be that lots of people are starting to finally realize that Democrats are not the nicey-nice people they claim to be — which is the other reason unreflective chicks of both genders vote Donk — but are actually kind of pricks.
- Severian | 10/19/2010 @ 12:37One of the first explanations I saw from the Left is that it was poor women who had been brainwashed by their husbands, who were — to borrow from a recent HoE commenter here, “in thrall to the reified paradigmatic hermeneutic cisgender phallocentric neo-colonial praxis”. (sorry, I still think that is brilliant satire) 😉
I know a lot of it is about not bein’ a lefty. There are a lot of conservative women out there and always have been. But the Left can’t imagine this any more than they can fathom conservative blacks, who are all supposed to be beholden to them for all the wonderful things the Left, as represented by Democrats, have done for them.
They, like we their male counterparts in the movement, have simply had enough of being quietly polite by biting their tounges when some Lefty rants on about how being a stay-at-home mom, or even being a wife and/or mother at all, is a form of “slavery” — when they love their husbands and are dedicated to and proud of their very important jobs making a home and raising their children to be stable, well-adjusted, self-sufficient Americans.
Fact of the matter is, and I did speculate about this back around the time of the election — is that Obama being elected may have actually been the best thing for American Conservatism. It really woke us the hell up and made us realize that America does not run on autopilot. There are those who want to take it and “Fundamentally Transform” it, and take it they will if we just sit by and let them.
The other thing is there are a lot of stay-at-home moms in the movement, or moms with part-time jobs who have more time to devote to the movement. This is a good thing, because most of the people in the movement come from families that actually have a breadwinner outside of Uncle Sam and have to work at least 40 hours a week.
- philmon | 10/19/2010 @ 12:58Philmon,
thanks for the compliment! After umpteen years in academia I’ve learned to write like them (and argue like them too). If I thought my satire skills were up to it, I’d love to try a Sokal hoax of my own sometime.
Fact of the matter is, and I did speculate about this back around the time of the election — is that Obama being elected may have actually been the best thing for American Conservatism.
I must confess to having this thought too. More often, however, I have its dark corollary — that depending on how 2010 and 2012 turn out, the terrorists might have won after all on 9/11. They were aiming to fundamentally transform America and weaken us as a world power. George Bush had all the makings of a caretaker president — no serious chops, nothing even approaching a mandate, a recession on his plate even before the towers fell. His vigorous response to 9/11 lead directly to Dear Leader. If he manages to hang on, or if the Republicans do anything other than blitzkrieg him and repeal everything he’s ever done in toto, he will have altered the country forever.
Given the Republicans’ well-documented ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, let’s just say I’m not optimistic.
- Severian | 10/19/2010 @ 13:24Yeah, you just got your own post on my blog, by the way 🙂
Yes, I have considered your darker corallary as well.
I was hoping last weekend the Missouri Tigers would beat Texas A&M … but I was not optimistic.
The Tigers won 30-9.
Maybe I’ll hang my hopes on that 🙂
- philmon | 10/19/2010 @ 13:29This is reminiscent of a bit in one of my favorite books from my childhood, “The Phantom Tollbooth”.
Our fearless trio is travelling along the shore of the Sea of Knowledge, and they casually notice a beautiful island a ways off shore. One by one, each makes separate casual assertations that could be considered “jumping to conclusions” (“it certainly couldn’t be a nicer day”), and in turn they each sail out of the car toward the island and land on it.
The island, it turns out, is The Island of Conclusions, and when you’re actually there, it looks nothing at all like it does from the shoreline.
And the only way back is to swim … through the Sea of Knowledge.
Milo and Tock both emerge back onshore, driping wet and soaked to the bone. The Humbug, on the other hand, merely smooths his perfectly dry clothes.
It turns out that some people can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and come out perfectly dry.
- philmon | 10/19/2010 @ 14:02I think in the age of Obama, the financial matters have drifted into the female zone…
Sorry, but MY experience, gleaned in the age of frickin’ Carter and beyond… and well before, say Truman and Eisenhower (where my Mom was known to exercise a financial veto and otherwise manage the family budget)… is different. History didn’t begin and will not end with The One… things are as they usually WERE. Women have always had an active role in family finances; it’s only natural in this day and age they’d be drawn to fix what the current regime has so thoroughly fucked up.
- bpenni | 10/19/2010 @ 16:21Right you are, Buck. Many do seem to focus too much on The One. This whole drift toward statism has been going on in at least some earnest for about 100 years. Barack is only the latest one to get through on the 16 year cycle that Morgan has pointed out on these pages before, and he is about as bad as FDR. We can certainly survive him — but we need to wake the hell up and start arguing and convincing our fellow Americans that this is not a path we want to go any further down, and make sure they understand why
My Dad, certainly an old school Man’s Man, always handed his paycheck over to my stay-at-home mom, who ran the finances along with the household. And I’m pushing 47 here, so this isn’t terribly recent.
- philmon | 10/19/2010 @ 17:14I’ll defer to my elders on this one. All I can say in my defense (even though I’m historicizing, which I hate when the left does it) is that things do seem to move faster in the Age of Obama. Bill Clinton liked to call us racists, too, for instance, but I seem to recall he had three or four other charges with at least some minimal plausibility he’d trot out before playing the race card on his opponents….
But then again, the left used to actually have arguments — before the media/ teachers’ union/ ivory tower echo chamber, they were forced to engage with conservatives on some level. Now they’re the community-based reality and beyond the reach of empirical debate. (That’s my foolproof (to me, anyway) argument to prove liberal media bias: how is it, I ask my leftist acquaintances, that I can make better arguments in favor of your positions than you yourselves can, yet you don’t have the first clue about mine? Could it be that you have to go light-years out of your way to find a conservative opinion, whereas all I have to do to find the liberal talking points is watch tv for five minutes? That they can’t answer this –and that it doesn’t bother them in the slightest– tells me everything I need to know about the intellectual rigor of modern liberalism).
PS Philmon thanks for the kind words on your blog.
- Severian | 10/19/2010 @ 17:28My counterpoint is not so much a contrary statement, as a question:
Where were the chicks when Bubba came along? Why no tea party then?
I distinctly recall a substantial male/female divide, with the more masculine of the species wailing into the wind that the nation was being dragged the w-r-o-n-g way.
- mkfreeberg | 10/19/2010 @ 17:31“Where were the chicks when Bubba came along? Why no tea party then?”
Morgan,
Are you suggesting that America in in the ‘90’s is the same as 2010? The deficit, nationalized healthcare/auto companies, cap & trade, bailouts of banks, insurance co‘s and over their head home owners…the same???
I’m afraid you don’t understand the Tea Party anymore than the dolts at MSNBC. (Like blind squirrels actually touched on the correct answer) There are more women involved. It may be a “a gender-neutral calling” but woman, by my own personal experience, no stats to back me up, make up a larger percentage of Tea Partiers and 9/12ers than men. And the leaders are overwhelmingly women. End of story.
Don’t let the battles in the feminazi blogs taint your reality. Who cares why it is so, just be glad someone, in this case female, are actually doing something.
- tim | 10/20/2010 @ 06:39If I had to venture a “guessplanation” (hey, I made a new word!), I’d say it had a lot to do with what tim brings up … yes, Clinton had a similar agenda, though more of a baby-step approach, and Hillary Care was discussed out in the open (Obamacare advocates were determined not to make the same mistake) … but in large part because of this:
Rick Santelli’s rant. Rick managed to explain, passionately, in terms regular Joes could understand, what was going out with the bailouts and how what that meant, logically, to you, me, and our neighbors.
It started with:
Bing. Hammer. Nail. Head. Guy sitting by his grill after work with a beer in his hand gets it. Wife does, too, by the way. Maybe better because she’s handling the finances.
He said a lot more that really boiled it down to good horse-sense as well.
How did Reagan win with his Conservative message? He articulated it well, and succinctly, before people’s eyes glazed over. We conservatives have a problem in that our message isn’t sexy (and a big part of that is probably the fact that it doesn’t promise something for nothing, but there is more.)
We need to connect with people with the promise of our founding ideals and why it makes sense — not on a deep philosophical level (though we should do that for ourselves so that we have a good foundation to draw from).
BTW, Severian, I wasn’t trying to imply that there aren’t maybe more women handling the household finances now, just pointing out that it’s nothing new and that was the way it worked in most households I knew of growing up. I have seen a few where it probably shouldn’t work that way, but ….
Anyway, I’m glad that women are heavily involved, and in a lot of cases actually carrying more of the water in the Tea Party Movement Leadership than the men. I’ve said it before … they’re better at making the social connections that are so important in a grassroots movement — but mostly I think I like it because it twists liberals into knots like this since it just doesn’t compute in their worldview.
And I like to watch them squirm.
- philmon | 10/20/2010 @ 07:04Think about it.
Women not being liberal, plus being “allowed” by their slope-headed Bible-gun clinging husbands who beat them regularly — to go out of the house and speak passionately about the conservative ideals and help organize groups and plan events to promote them …. and more slope-headed Bible-gun clinging men …. follow them!!!
How can this BE???? Women are OUR voters! WE bought them!!!! We defined their values to everyone via the media!!!!! How dare they disagree!!!!!
Sputter! … Sputter! … Sputter!
- philmon | 10/20/2010 @ 07:12Tammy Bruce weighs in
- philmon | 10/20/2010 @ 09:42small-tee tim,
I don’t claim to understand this much better than the dolts at MSNBC…just posing questions here. For the record, Buck’s description of the male-female home dynamic matches up with my upbringing. Dad finds out there’s $300 left in the checking account and says “Hey, this is great!” not readily comprehending the concept of outstanding checks…Mom says, with no small degree of exasperation, “No…NO…that’s not how it works…”
With my grandparents it was in the other direction, from what I’ve heard. My grandmother ended up being a single mom. Grandpa did his bit to support, but the lady of the house was a bit of a free spirit and the finances were in turmoil. Of course these were challenging times and I’m no sure financial savvy was all that was needed for more order in the household finances. But from all accounts, on the question that matters to our discussion, whether she had this quality or not — she didn’t.
My own experience forming households with women, has generally matched Grandpa’s. My current girlfriend has this fiscal maturity in spades. But I must tell you, when I repeated to her what Buck said, she LOL’d. See, she’s been helping out with my various challenges dealing with “Kidzmom” who is more of a free-spirit type. Yes, I’ll agree there’s girls that squeeze the dollar and make it holler. B-u-u-u-t, there are others who simply don’t give a damn, and just want their stuff. I will agree they are handily matched by the gentlemen who have the same problem.
I do think you’re all going off the deep end denying the existence of the gender gap that has been a driving force in American politics since about the early 1960’s. Without the female vote, Barack Obama wouldn’t have made it. There would have been no Florida recount…and you never would have even heard of the name Bill Clinton. I should also add these are, demographically speaking, single females pulling voting levers to conjure up that magical government genie, to take the place of a husband in the subsistence department. That’s a whole different animal from the married female. All single females are not like Condoleezza Rice. You’ll notice these ladies you see leading the Tea Party movement, generally, are married.
I’m glad we have a nice long comment thread on this. It’s a really important issue — what drives people to crave security at the expense of opportunity, and what subsequently provides for them to see what a sham this is, and retreat from the cul de sac in the direction opposite from what led them into it? I see some reports that in elections, the female voter tends to be a late decider. Perhaps that is the reason we are being motivated to discuss them here. They’ve figured out the same things us guys have figured out, just took longer to do it.
- mkfreeberg | 10/20/2010 @ 11:37Oh, I’m not trying to deny the existence of a gender gap. All I’m saying is that the financial shit has really hit the fan this time around, so it’s not surprising that women, many of whom are handling the finances for their homes, have been woken up by it — especially when it got put as bluntly as Rick Santelli put it — are taking a major role in the charge and by some accounts actually leading it.
Your point about single vs married females is actually a help in explaining it.
Married females are more likely to be 1) more mature, 2) mothers, and 3) of a conservative bent than unmarried ones. Note I’m not talking at all about a rule, just a tendency. Maybe it’s 54-46 or something like that, even.
But younger people are more likely to be liberal than conservative, especially in the adolescent and brief post-adolescent parts of their lives, and conservative women are less likely to consider marriage a form of slavery, and mothers are concerned about their childrens’ futures. I liked one mom’s sign I saw. “My childrens’ future is not your blank checkbook” — or something along those lines.
No doubt females in general tend more toward liberalism than do men. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of conservative women out there. They are strong, counter to the stereotype of the subservient wife to the slope-headed redneck male. It is absolutely no surprise to me that they are out in front of this.
Most of the women in my local group are married, widows, or at least mothers. There are a *few* single women. But all this says is the Left’s ideology has no monopoly on females.
- philmon | 10/20/2010 @ 11:53Philmon,
there you go using that “Earth logic” again: But all this says is the Left’s ideology has no monopoly on females. To the Left, their ideology does have a monopoly on females, because anyone who doesn’t agree with them isn’t a real woman, no matter the state of her reproductive apparatus. They, and they alone, are the arbiters of “authenticity.” Also “intelligence,” “benevolence,” etc. All of which, of course, are defined as “agreeing with this morning’s New York Times editorial.”
I honestly think the spectacular arrogance of the Obamatons has more than a little to do with this new wave of female enthusiasm for the GOP. Women are much more concerned about appearing “nice” than men are, and the Democrats are the Nice Party – after all, they Care About the Children.TM Youngsters of all ages may be completely baffled as to why their insurance is all of a sudden charging a lot more to cover a lot less (I actually had to sit through a meeting on that this morning), but even the most estrogen-addled dimbulb is starting to realize that Holy Man and his party are nasty pieces of work.
However, I have the utmost confidence that the idiot Republicans will focus like a laser on DADT and abstinence-only education, since the only thing dumber than a Manhattan liberal is a Republican elected official.
- Severian | 10/20/2010 @ 18:24PS when I say “estrogen-addled dimbulb” I don’t mean that as a slur against women, obviously. I love women; I have all their albums. I’m referring to the type of person — of whatever gender– who privileges feelings over facts, and who replies to any of the zillion logical and factual objections to Dear Leader’s policies with “there’s just Something about Him.”
- Severian | 10/20/2010 @ 18:36Severian:
Heh. I didn’t think for a minute you intended any slur against women, because I’m not constantly looking for things to become offended over on their collective behalf.
I myself love and adore women, always have. And I loved your “I have all their albums” reference … since I’m a guy with about 1,200 vinyl albums and probably 800 CDs. Yeah. I love the John Coussak movie “High Fidelity”. No, I’m not as bad as the characters in that movie, but I definitely understand them and …. yeah, the mix tapes, the alphabetizing of the collection …. I even worked in a used record store through a lot of my college years.
Your points about “real” women, “authenticity”, “intelligence”, etc and the Left are, of course, spot on, and you probably have something there about women, niceties, and our arrogant leader(s). And sadly, as well, about the freakin’ GOP. Me, I’m voting for “Not Carnahan”… because I really don’t want to vote for Blunt, but I will anyway. Because it’s the only way to vote for “Not Carnahan”. At least Roy won’t vote with The One and his ilk most of the time, especially on the issues that are most important to me.
I am well aware that the left thinks they have a monopoly on women … that’s why they’re in knots over the predominance of women in the Tea Party. Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian conservative (I linked in a previous comment above) has their heads virtually exploding, I’m sure.
- philmon | 10/20/2010 @ 19:17As a gender? Um ..no, SOME are demonstrably dependent on teleprompters to
project what they are TOLD to.
Mr.Ried’s query of inability to understand why ANY Mexican would vote Republican was amusing. Too bad Mexicans can’t vote for Democrats, only Americans can.
I think it’s now safe to say that NAACP (et al) racist chauvinism has been caught dealing cards from the bottom of the deck too many times to be given any more consideration by any but the eternally desperate.
And NOW the NYT posits(10/21) that ( those evil-rich-white-male-republican-conservative-actual tax sending-gun and bible clinging-unenlightened by certificates of attendance with approved “communications”, “journalism”, or “humanities” professors) “Tea Party” folk tend to be more skeptical of
the global warming based wealth redistribution justice scheme than
MOST folk.
Than most folk? What, like, a majority…?
I dare say that the “MOST folk” bloc are not sympathetic toward NYT/Newsweek/MSNBC/KOS/ Soros/ “interpretations”, mostly thanks to
high speed mass communication alternatives to self proclaimed “gold standard” monopolies.
Consider to volunteer as a Poll Watcher this November, and especially November 2012, because increasingly desperate people do increasingly desperate things.
- CaptDMO | 10/21/2010 @ 06:27I have all their albums.
Heh. I have quite a few myself, but I skipped over all those in the Helen Reddy and Gloria Gaynor genre(s). The work of those two women constitute a litmus test for “women to avoid.”
- bpenni | 10/21/2010 @ 06:35Morgan,
Hell, I don’t think anybody truly understands completely why the large numbers of women in the tea party movement. But it there, can’t be denied.
You point on single women was answered very nicely by Philmon.
And sorry, I tend to get a tad mouthy, it’s a character flaw and I’m working on it.
Great discussion, loved reading everyone’s comments.
- tim | 10/21/2010 @ 06:51” I skipped over all those in the Helen Reddy…”
Buck,
My sister was a big Helen Reddy fan back in the day, so natually I had to listen to her. (Delta Dawn, what’s that flower you have on…)And now, to make this post/comment come full circle, she’s a big deal in the 9/12 project. So there ya’ go.
Little early for you isn’t it, or have you been up all night?
- tim | 10/21/2010 @ 06:59I was up all night. I HATE it when that happens. 🙂
- bpenni | 10/22/2010 @ 09:58