Because he’s on Obama’s team, and if you’ve been paying attention, you know that‘s what they do…

This has been a constant. If the question is not convenient, there is something wrong with the person who asked it; something superlatively wrong. And then a sermon has to be delivered on the spot about how this is the worst person in the entire country or something…lots of halting sentences and theatrical exasperation, lots of play-acting like the situation is somehow multifaceted and nuanced and complicated when it really isn’t.

Catch an Obama administration member with his hand in the cookie jar, and you’re a terrible person for seeing it.

This business about you-must-respect-the-office-I-hold is like a perfect campaign theme for why this crowd has to get sent home. Respect the office…meaning, as long as I’m in it, don’t subject me to any scrutiny or criticism even if it’s reasonable. The correct answer would be, yes Attorney General we respect your office, if we didn’t we wouldn’t have these hearings. We respect your office and that’s why we’re so concerned that the wrong person may be occupying it.

This is a separate and distinct criticism from Holder actually being guilty. Which I believe he is — but logically, it’s quite possible for him to be innocent, and still doing something else entirely wrong by engaging in this sort of behavior, and if he were guilty, he wouldn’t necessarily have to be doing this. It’s a completely separate transgression. And what really rankles me about it is not him doing it, but the reliability of it. Jay Carney does it pretty much constantly. Question comes out, the person to whom it’s directed doesn’t appreciate it, and you get this phony-baloney Omigaw! This is the WORST QUESTION EVAR! In human history! I’m just…I can’t BELIEVE you said that!

See it for what it is. It’s a crutch.

And Peurto Rico is a real place. What was that about respecting offices?

So is that representing some kind of official position? OWS hates Catholics or something? Or is it the girls that the movement hates? Either way, there’s some kind of negative energy going on here:

Barth Bracy, executive director of Rhode Island Right to Life, said their rally had to be cut short after the Occupiers began screaming and refused to allow a Catholic priest to deliver a prayer.

“This is their idea of civil speech but we believe it’s an outrage,” Bracy told Fox News & Commentary “They started heckling, chanting and blowing whistles. They shouted down a priest.”

Last week’s rally was held inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence. Bracy said the Occupiers, along with some pro-choice demonstrators, infiltrated the crowd of some 150 pro-lifers. He said the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school.

“What kind of individual throw condoms at Catholic school girls,” Bracy asked.

I haven’t been able to find a story that describes whether these were used or not. I would assume it was the unusued kind…”box of condoms” sounds like you run into a drug store, buy a box, and there’s condoms in there ready for dumping out of a window (although I would think you’d want to tear the strips down into the individual items?). That does seem quickest.

I dunno…looks to me like, just general directionless left-wing-ish-ness. It’s rather absurd that half a year into it, we still need to be puzzling together what the beef of the OWS movement is.

I’ve noticed lefties have a tendency to come up with bullshit and then believe their own bullshit. Operative bullshit here would be: “The Tea Party movement is nothing but resentment against having a black man as president.” That belief was somehow carried into a war room someplace, where someone pointed out the lefties needed an answer to the Tea Party, and all assembled quickly fell upon the notion, just like a jackal throwing itself upon a half-eaten carcass, that there must be some appeal involved in getting a bunch of people outside marching, carrying signs, and talking to reporters. There must be nothing else required to make everything all fall in place because, heck, they couldn’t see anything in what the Tea Party was doing, and they were all-seeing and all-knowing, so there must not have been anything there.

Since then, they’ve been carrying their signs, yelling epithets at anyone who will listen, doing their camping, and hoping some message would congeal. They’re working from the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and have become something of a cargo cult.

That’s my operating theory about OWS, anyway. Throwing condoms on the Catholic kids, I think, is just part of a much older resentment.

Hmmm…this is interesting:

The Rage Behind a Woman’s Stare

Yes, this is the headline of a Washington Post column (you may need a subscription to view it) about–you guessed it–women who do too much (thanks to the reader who emailed the article):

Like our love, women’s anger — the simmering rage toward our families, our mates and assorted males that can turn even the calmest woman’s expression into The Death Look — is always there. Even when it’s the last thing on our minds….

Surprised by my sudden bitterness, I asked, “Why do we keep doing so much with so little help?” “Because no one else will do it,” Ilena snorted. “Because we can’t live in a house that looks like a cyclone went through it,” I added.

Because we’re the wife, we agreed. The mom. The girl.

Millions of Death-Look-wearing women ask, “What can I do?” yet few embrace the obvious answer: “Stop!” Stop with the cleaning, the arranging, the cheerleading, the shopping, the whole relentless shebang. Some who do stop see their homes’ disarray devolve into a chaos that’s unbearable — for them, not their families..

I wonder what a Male Death Look would look like? A desperate look that says “Stop with the body guarding, fixing the faucet, mowing the lawn, earning much of the living, the light-bulb changing, the honeydo list…. and on and on.”

But we’ll probably never know because what men do is not valued by most female journalists and the white knight males who support them in their sexism. In addition, men keep their anger against women to themselves as complaining will only serve to get them tagged as a misgogynist or whiner. This needs to change.

I don’t know if I agree with that last one. Men who insist on absolute equality with all things are whiners, aren’t they? And the same goes for the women. Vive la Difference. Besides, something tells me if men are elevated to share equal privilege in bellyaching about the opposite sex, this is going to start off a chain reaction of events that will culminate in some expectation that I’ll be expected to do half the housework. That, in turn, is going to result in an inevitable lowering of standards…trust me…you do not want to go down this road.

There is a rather complex power-sharing taking place here, one we are not allowed to notice in mixed company because the first observation to be made is this: Dudes can do things chicks can’t. We all know it’s true, and we try to bury the truth deep down in all sorts of logical fallacies. The most attractive and appealing among these is to compare the impressive feats of a selected female champion against the efforts toward the equivalent by an average male…think of Mia Hamm engaged in a one-on-one against an average middle-age guy, let’s say one who luxuriates on a couch watching mens’ soccer games and was caught saying something disparaging against womens’ soccer. She’d clean his clock, of course, and all the usual suspects would smirk until their smirkers got tired…but…how fast can the fastest guy run? How much can the strongest man lift? Can the gals compete? No, not only can’t they, but we know they can’t and we customize the athletic efforts and competitions accordingly. We divide them because we know we have to.

We’re different, and it’s a product of evolution. I see the writer of the Washington Post piece figured that out for herself on page two:

More than once, I wondered, “Why can’t guys see what needs to be done right under their noses?” One day, while picking up the 700th wadded-up tissue from the floor, I realized the answer:

Hard-wiring. Prehistoric men were hunters. Stalkers of prey needed laser-like focus to track their quarry; every unnecessary detail faded. Centuries later, guys in my house were similarly riveted by SportsCenter and Playstation 2. Women, I realized, are hard-wired to be multitaskers-or multi-seers. The hunter’s mate needed eyes that could sweep vast landscapes, assess her child’s, mate’s and elderly kin’s wellbeing while locating food, medicinal herbs, poisonous plants.

And so men are physically more powerful…and to compensate, women take power…are given power…in other places. We allow it to happen, not because we’re entirely ignorant of it, or that we think women are better than men and deserve it — although there is plenty of each of those going on — but the real reason is we know it is necessary as a compensation device. Something happens at dinner that ticks a woman off, it is implicitly understood that the dynamic has been changed for everybody. Unless the woman occupies a position of very little power…let’s say she’s the girl who brings the food out and clears the plates. But if she’s one of the guests, look out. She doesn’t even have to be the most powerful woman. If there’s a mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflict, everyone is affected. The “if she ain’t happy, he ain’t either” rule is activated.

The same does not happen at that dinner, if the males end up in conflict. They are merely asked to shush. And this is not a product of the femniist movement, it’s been going on at least since Shakespeare. Feminists absolutely hate to admit this, that females enjoyed any kind of power before 1920, but it’s true. Great-great-grandpa put his muddy shoes where the missus told him to, he didn’t dare put them anywhere else.

Men exert direct power, women exert indirect power. If it wasn’t true, the “death look” wouldn’t mean anything.

Making the rounds this week: How to be a really good climate change alarmist.

1: Be Condescending.

You are allowed to look down your nose at anyone who disagrees with you because you are SAVING THE PLANET! And, therefore, anyone who disagrees with you must be inferior because they don’t care about SAVING THE PLANET! You can be condescending in 2 ways; firstly, you can be avuncular and take the approach that you are dealing with people who are TOO STUPID to see your superiority and so must be guided gently but firmly into a proper subservient position. Or you can impersonate a dominatrix and whip and berate the idiots who disagree with you. For those who want to perfect this latter technique a few visits to the Open Mind and Deltoid blogs will bring you up to speed.

2: Be insulting.

Insults are allowed. And justified. Against those who disagree with you; because those who disagree with you are getting in the way of SAVING THE PLANET! Use comparisons; compare deniers to creationists, or tobacco addicts, or tobacco producers or anything to do with tobacco. You can say deniers are lackeys of big oil; or big coal; or big anything; except Big W, which doesn’t work. Use sesquipedalianisms; ‘Meme’ is good because Richard Dawkins uses it and he hates creationists and deniers; but be careful because so does Ian Plimer. Dunning-Kruger is also good but it can have blow-back, as can agnotology. Be personal; call Lord Monckton ‘monkey’ or ‘popeye’; it will reflect well on you; and it doesn’t matter what their qualifications are if, like Lindzen, Christy, McKitrick, they disagree with AGW and SAVING THE PLANET because their qualifications might as well have come out of a Cornflakes packet.

It stays that good all the way to the end. RTWT, as they say.