I got some bugs up my butt. I know this may sound really odd coming from a person who is a super advocate of women-only education but I am so tired of all the women only organizations, committees and blogs out there. I was just reading SCORE’s newletter and saw the following list of links:
- Women’s Blog
- Ask An Expert Blog
Women’s Blog? Why? I clicked on it and there’s nothing there that wouldn’t apply to men too. Why exclude men? And think of how horrifying it would be if there was a link that said, “Men’s Blog.” Or is that the expert’s blog? Ouch! Why can’t we get beyond this separation for certain groups? Women and blacks but not white men. I can understand in the beginning needing something that might pertain to women only but we’ve come a long way, baby. I think it’s time we start smoking Marlboro’s.
The other bug up my butt is women who somehow find it empowering to pose nude or scantily clad. I went to the C4L Regional Conference last week and swam in a sea of literature and speeches that proclaimed INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES! We don’t support African American rights, Gay rights, Women’s rights… WE SUPPORT AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHTS! There is no need to separate ourselves into groups because we are individuals first and foremost and we own ourselves! Lovely. I loved it. I really did. And then I walked around the vendors’ tables and came upon LOLA: Ladies of Liberty Alliance. They were selling a calendar featuring their prettiest members in various states of undress. WHY? WHY? “It’s empowering!” No diesel is empowering, this is just stupid. I am sorry. I support your right to do this but I have to question your sanity. Pose nearly nude and sell calendars— fine. Do it. I don’t care. But do you have to do it in the name of Liberty? Do you have to do it here? This is a political movement. Can’t we rise above this crazy urge to shake our boobies at all the unkempt Libertarian men? Do it on your own time. You want to raise money for the Liberty movement? Sell baked goods. Sell paintings of pug dogs. Sell some bars of soap. (God knows some of these people need it). Let’s just be people and come together and do the right thing.
OH, so you are doing this because women are shy and they are afraid to come to regular meetings and learn more about the Liberty movement. Well, I doubt these shy ladies are going to seek you gals out because of your sexy calendar. The more I think about it, it’s just a way to separate and splinter ourselves more. And it’s a great way to sexualize and objectify (and even insult) the few women who are in the movement.
Yeah, so in conclusion, I just don’t agree. It’s your right to do as you please and you are certainly not trampling on any of my rights. (And judging from all the guys wearing LOLA stickers at the conference, I am clearly in the minority here) I just wish you ladies could have come up with a better way of raising money and awareness. Shake your boobies someplace else. (Sorry, for that last sentence, I just like using the word boobies).
I feel better now. I am all ranted out. Thank you .
Julie Andrews felt empowered (okay, maybe her character was drunk, not empowered).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkxtcubQSA
I remember when Jan Stephenson’s golf calendar caused such as stir. “How dare this woman demean the game of golf!” the critics cried. Now please point out a attractive contemporary female athlete who DOESN’T pose suggestively in magazines.
Sex = $. Hey, that’s America 2009.
I don’t have much of an issue with athletes or models or actresses posing sexily. My problem with this situation has to do with the context. It was a political educational event. It just didn’t seem right. But you are correct, sex = $.
That was going to be my comment too–sex = $
Your comment about baked goods reminded me of that scene in “Revenge of the Nerds,” where they were selling pies for that contest and the other fraternity couldn’t figure out why their line was around the corner, and it turned out they had naked pictures of the sorority girls pasted to the bottom of the pie plates.
Oh, anyway, women are still under-represented in political movements. Even in commentary–I have to watch “The View” if I want to see an all female show, and Laura Ingraham was the only female radio host on the Phila talk radio station and since her slot got replaced by Mike Gallagher, there are none!
The most appealing conservative political commentator IMHO is Michelle Malkin…BAR NONE. She is untouchable…attractive, super intelligent, and highly articulate…and she proves that conservatism isn’t based on race or ethnicity…it’s based on principle.
I’m a big Laura Ingraham fan, too. Looks and intelligence are a winning combination, and has always been (e.g. John Kennedy). Why are all the best conservative spokespersons TALK SHOW HOSTS? Why is the Republican leadership full of starched shirts who look like accountants and credit union presidents? No wonder Democrats win elections…
I lived in Fargo, ND for awhile and Laura Ingraham was replaced by Dennis Miller on local radio there. A brilliant constitutional lawyer replaced by a smart aleckly SNL alum. Another inexplicable move.
Michelle Malkin doesn’t get any respect from me. She’s a shill. When Ron Paul was campaigning she was critical beyond critical. She’s really not much different than the democrats. I think she needs a lesson on the federal reserve and what it means to be a real conservative and not a neocon.
Audra– can you really watch the View? The few times I have put it on and watched, my head started to feel like it was going to explode. Those women are horrible! I hate to think they represent women at all. Let’s put them into a totally different gender category. You can name it.
The View has some good guests on. If I don’t like any of them, I just watch the “Hot Topics” in the beginning. Yeah, they do annoy me with how liberal they are and Elizabeth, their token conservative is like Combs was to Hannity. She is completely overridden by Whoopi and Joy. And I don’t like when Barbara is on because she is so pompous, all she does is name drop.
Feminazi Boobie Shaking sounds like the beginnings of a great song!
It’s hard to think of any major commentator that isn’t a “shill” for a political party. The one that comes closest to being independent is Michael Savage.
On June 19 the House of Representatives voted 405 to 1
to condemn Iran’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators. The only person to vote against the resolution: Ron Paul. He’s the ultimate gadfly, and that’s why it’s hard to take him seriously.
Ron Paul said: “I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives”. That’s a sweeping statement that lets every dictator and tyrant in history off the hook.
I agree totally with Dr Paul. We simply don’t have the money to police the rest of the world– and even if we did, it’s none of our business. Thomas Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” Look, if you personally are upset by Iran’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators– go! Form a group of like-minded individuals and fight it yourselves. Or hire people to do it for you. I believe our military should be here protecting us on our soil.
And if you say, “I can’t go to Iran and risk my life!” Why do you want to send someone’s son or daughter to do it for you?
While I commend Dr. Paul for being an independent thinker, the reality is that majorities get the job done. He won’t get anything accomplished by being relentlessly on the fringe.
Ron Paul is originally from Pennsylvania and moved to Texas in 1968. Being a native Texan myself, I applaud his good judgment (you know we Texans are an obnoxiously proud bunch).
Dr. Paul has many admirable qualities. He is far superior in intellect to his liberal opponents.
I object to any politician who acts like an isolationist. The US doesn’t have to police the rest of the world, but it needs to pay attention to threats around the world. Wouldn’t it have been in the best interest of the US (and Western Europe) to “police” Nazi Germany before 1939? Stopping Germany in its tracks before 1940 would have saved 406,000 American lives. That’s my main objection to Dr. Paul…he doesn’t have a realistic concept of what foreign policy is all about. If we had simply waited for Nazi Germany to bring the war to America, the war would have been lost (with Russia, France, and England defeated, do you think the US would have prevailed? VERY DOUBTFUL)
I remember an episode of the Andy Griffith show in which
Barney Fife tells Andy that “We’ve got to nip it in the bud”. Nip it in the bud? What does that mean? It means to stop a problem before it blooms. Dr. Paul needs to
brush up on his Andy Griffith episodes.
Pingback: dustbury.com » Each and every day of the year
That is one point on which I just can’t agree with Ron Paul, just on a morality basis. I don’t consider it a morally correct stance.
“He won’t get anything accomplished by being relentlessly on the fringe”
A: Ronald Reagan received no support from the Republican party when he first campaigned for President in 1976. He was considered “fringe”. Ironically, a Ron Paul was one of only 4 members of Congress to endorse Reagan in ’76 when all others “towed the party line” for Ford.
“I object to any politician who acts like an isolationist”
A: There is a difference between the word “Isolationist” and “Non-Interventionist”. They are not mutually exclusive. They have vastly different meaning. A reluctance to drop bombs on innocent civilians hardly qualifies as an isolationist. Perhaps a statesman, humanitarian but certainly not isolationist.
“Wouldn’t it have been in the best interest of the US (and Western Europe) to “police” Nazi Germany before 1939″
A: A review of history shows that intervention by the U.S. and Britain during WWI led to harsh economic sanctions and reparations being forced upon the German people at Versailles. Subsequent 1923 hyperinflation caused untold suffering among German civilians after the war. Civilians, not just the government. Records show Hitler capitalized on German anger caused by the Treaty of Versailles to roust popular support for his “radical” reforms. Hitler met strong resistance from the opposition parties when he campaigned to become leader. The economic sanctions convinced enough Social Democrats to consider his “economic reforms” to restore prosperity to the German people. If the U.S didn’t intervene in WWI, there’s a strong chance Hitler would never had succeeded being elected in 1932. Curiously enough, I heard Hitler could have been stopped dead in his tracks before 1939 because the Luftwaffe aircraft needed a certain type of synthetic oil to fly their planes. It was only manufactured in the USA. Withhold the oil, no Hitler war machine! Oh, and we didn’t enter WWII because Jews were being exterminated, we went because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor! Ron Paul supports using force when attacked.
And regarding a morally correct stance… Americans have been conditioned to believe we must be the policemen of the world. More often than not our interference causes more harm than good. Besides, if you support a cause– you can personally give money to support it. Or you can go and try to make a difference yourself. I myself believe it is immoral to send someone else to do something you yourself wouldn’t do.
You can read more about this here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/foreign-policy.php
I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. I saw Reagan in person during a campaign appearance in 1976 in Dallas when he ran against Ford. Reagan was not considered a “fringe” candidate…he came close to knocking off an incumbent President (Ford) in 1976. Ford was a weak, appointed leader. Reagan was, after all, the governor of the second largest state (California) in America and had been governor for eight years. That hardly qualifies him as a “fringe” candidate. You’re speaking as someone who doesn’t know history from first-hand experience.
The US dropped bombs on innocent civilians routinely and almost indiscrimantly during World War II. The US annihilated civilians by the tens of thousands in Germany and Japan during that war. The US should not apologized for this…it’s the cost of waging war. Would Ron Paul apologize for using these WINNING tactics? Probably…but practically no PATRIOTIC AMERICAN did back in the 1940s. In comparison to WWII, the US is conducting the wars in the Middle East with surgical precision…and still this isn’t enough to satisfy Mr. Paul. Our strategy is so “surgical” in fact that we’re mired in a situation seemingly without an end. Does Mr. Paul want the US to be continually threatened by Muslim extremists…or does he want our country to prevail? The jury is certainly out on that question.
The reason “harsh” sanctions were imposed upon Germany after WWII is that Germany was a brutal regime bent on dominating Europe. The mistake that America and Western Europe made was in not monitoring that mischievous country and keeping it under control…
Are you actually suggesting that the United States should have let Germany conquer our allies in Western Europe during World War I? That MY country should have done nothing to prevent that debacle? What country do you live in, Donna? If Ron Paul only supports American intervention when America is attacked, HE’S A FOOL. The way you cure cancer is to attack it in its early stages, not after it has invaded all your bodily tissues. Ron Paul is a dangerous fool.
America’s “interference” won World War I and World War II…it prevented an anti-semitic Attila the Hun type culture from dominating the world…is that a problem for you? Ronald Reagan would be completely embarassed by Ron Paul’s lack of foreign policy sense. It was Reagan that kicked the communists out of Grenada…it was Reagan that bombed the hell out of Libya. Reagan didn’t wait for the US to be attacked…Reagan LOVED America and did everything in his power to protect it.
As much as I’d love to continue this exploration of US foreign policy there is simply not enough room on this site to accommodate. We should move on and maybe revisit it at another time – possibly after you’ve had a chance to calm down and read up on this subject. First, you should read the U.S. Constitution – start to finish. Pay careful note to the part that explains wars must be formally declared by Congress. That hasn’t happened since 1941. This wonderous document also contains remedies for dealing with terrorist threats, and they DON’T involve an expansion of the militray industrial complex. I’ll leave it to you to discover what it is.
Also, Dr. Paul authored an excellent book entitled “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” (you said he doesn’t know much about a subject he authored a book about?) It’s an excellent start. Then visit http://www.campaignforliberty.com. There are a ton of articles on the subject of foreign policy. You seem very interested in the subject, you should learn from sources other than Fox News.
Let’s move on…