Red Rover...

The door is open

The Absolute Mystery That Is Woman

Or rather, women.

But let's be more specific.

The real mystery is CONSERVATIVE women.

Why are there so damn many of them?

I mean, we want them, we approve of them, they're great, and all, but...

Let me back up a bit.

I will say, starting out, that I am personally hard to pigeonhole politically. This is because I try (granted, I don't always succeed, but I TRY,) to follow the ideas and theories I believe to be correct to their logical conclusions, and make my decisions based on whether or not I would want to live in the resulting world.

This may not be the best way to make decisions, but it's the one I've got.

Ayn Rand once said (loosely quoted,) that if you reach a contradiction, you should check your premises, because one of them is wrong.

Yeah, that.

So.

The political positions I espouse are usually not those of the masses, largely because I find overall that the moral premises from which I make my decisions invalidate AT LEAST SOME of the platform of each of the major political parties.

Like the Constitution Party... "small government, low taxes, less government interference, individual liberty, freedom, respect for and tolerance of others, God hates fags."

You had me going for a minute there, chief, but it kinda fell apart at the end.

I would say something about the Greens, but having read their platform I gather their basic idea is that we should all be living in mud huts (but getting along with everyone, which from history didn't happen even when we DID all live in mud huts,) and hoping an asteroid doesn't hit us anytime soon.

There are the Republicans: "small, limited government, low taxes, less government interference, individual liberty, freedom, we can spend all we want, God hates fags, the government has a right to tell you who you can and cannot marry."

There are the Democrats: "big, annoying government, high taxes, we can spend all we want, individual liberties as long as the government says you can have them, gay marriage is fine, we like to kill babies."

Who VOTES for ANY of these fuckers?

So we're starting to, as a nation, gradually figure out that the political parties don't actually represent anyone but the political parties themselves, and more specifically the nepotistic budding hereditary aristocracy our Congress is rapidly turning itself into, which means that as a movement, we're starting to see more and more people trying to figure out their OWN political philosophies, rather than signing on with the team that's least annoying to them.

I so want to say this is a good thing, but seeing as our education system as a whole has totally destroyed the education of millions (we rank behind the Czech Republic, people. That's just sad,) and we are a nation of ignorant, frightened sheeple, letting them wander around like the stunned, headless automata they truly are is probably a bad thing.

Just look at Massachusetts.

But all that notwithstanding, we have some die-hard faithful, on both sides.

The die-hard Republicans think the die-hard Democrats have blinders on and are burying their heads in the sand to avoid the realization of just how badly their ideas have failed when they were tried.

The die-hard Democrats seem to think that anyone who agrees with the other team is actually crazy, and they are mystified by how anyone can possibly believe such crazy things as "I want the government to leave me the fuck alone" and "my goddamn taxes are too high, you thieves."

Which brings me, like the circle of life, back to my title.

See, women are a mystery to the Left, even those of the Left who are also female, because they keep on doing batshit crazy things like joining the Tea Party or the Republican Party, and since women aren't crazy and those things are crazy, the people doing them aren't women.

Or at least that seems to be the thrust of their thinking.

The numbers of women in both the Tea Party and the Republican Party are growing steadily, as are the numbers of everyone else in the country; right now, the Democrats have alienated just about everyone, and thus the ranks of the Right are swelling across all demographics.

That said, the people who seem to be traumatizing the Left the most is the women. For some reason they are totally unable to envision a woman actually thinking that keeping babies alive is ok; they can't envision a woman thinking that success can be defined in a traditional gender role; they can't envision a woman thinking that just maybe she doesn't really want to climb the corporate ladder, working 80 hours a week, to get a corner office and a middle management job; and they can't envision a woman who DOES climb the corporate ladder, busting her ass along the way, who isn't also a rank-and-file leftist.

This mystification extends so far that they actually have been known to say that women who aren't leftists aren't really women; that conservative females are unable to think for themselves; that women cannot be both feminist and conservative because the two words together are an oxymoron; that right-wing political candidates who are female aren't there on their own merits, but merely as a sinister machination on the part of the chauvinist right-wing reactionary overlords; that women who don't vote Democrat are betraying feminism; that women who don't believe in on-demand abortions have been brainwashed; that any real woman has to vote Democrat; that any woman who doesn't vote Democrat is an Uncle Tom, or rather an Aunt Jemima...

...OK, I made that last one up, but it fits in well, wouldn't you say?

...Oh, wait, no I didn't; that's what they said about Dr. Condolleeza Rice.

See, the problem the Left has is that they really believe that they are right. Not just right but Right; theirs is the only view that matters, because theirs is the correct one, and anyone who disagrees is so obviously insane that their opinion doesn't matter.

And therefore, women who don't vote Democrat aren't women.

Which is why they are now unable to understand why so many women aren't voting Democrat.

See, in lib-land, women are unable to think for themselves.

You know it's true, because when women DO think for themselves, they get accused of everything under the sun including not actually being women.

Because part of thinking for yourself, you see, is the possibility that I might not agree with you.

Which means SOME women who think for themselves are going to disagree, no matter what your position.

Which means if you think they can't both disagree and still be female, then you believe women are unable to think for themselves.

And yet the Democrats are the party which loudly trumpets about women's rights.

Let me ask you this.

If women are in fact, as the Democrats seem to think, sort of a warm-blooded houseplant with genitals, then why are they bleating about rights for them at all? If they're non-sentient, they don't need rights.

Only sentient beings - those able to think for themselves - need rights, or can take advantage of them; which means that liberals are in a Catch-22 of their own making; either women can think, which means they need rights but might disagree, or they can't think, which means they all vote Democrat like the soulless robots they clearly are but have no need for niceties like malls because they only like what you tell them to like anyway, and you can just tell them to like living in mud huts (oops, sorry, Greens again,) wearing fresh animal skins and chewing roots with their teeth to make stew.

I guess basically what I'm getting at here is that Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and all the other women entering politics on the Right, and those voting on the Right, are a giant stick in the eye of the clowns who've co-opted feminism, and regardless of whether or not I agree with the political stances of those women individually, I cheer wholeheartedly for what they represent...

...The idea that women can think for themselves just fine, thanks - even if the process by which they do so is occasionally a little strange to me - and are partners in life, not cargo to be carried along to some imagined goal line.

You Dems ought to be ashamed.

A Tale Of Woe, Agony, And Disappointment

So today, my coworker ________ from Giant_Retailer_00, comes in looking tragic.

I want to make this clear; she didn't look tragic because of her clothing, or her grooming; no, she looked like someone had just kicked her puppy.

Hard.

Now, this particular individual is someone I like fairly well, although she seems (based on her reaction anytime I talk to her) to think I am basically made from some kind of horrifying mixture of toxic waste and flaming weasels with anthrax, but since I am the Kinder, Gentler Dave, I tried carefully to stay out of her way and not say anything.

I couldn't avoid overhearing her complaining about something.

I was going to say something about her new haircut, which looked good, but decided that I didn't really want to get the "how-soon-can-I-scrape-this-off-my-shoe" look again, and thought better of it.

But after a while, I realized that what I was overhearing in bits and pieces, while she complained to other coworkers, was a tearful rant about...

...Her new haircut.

...Wait, what?

What's wrong with it?

So, unable to restrain myself anymore, I asked.

After the expected glare, I was informed that she went and got a haircut, and it was so awful that she cried all the way home, and it looks terrible, and...

...Errr...

Ok, for background, I would expect that as a totally normal response to a haircut IF the girl in question had had waist-length hair that was suddenly cut to her shoulders; that's commonly traumatic, and so totally understandable.

Well.

Ok, understandable to the extent that my plumbing kit allows.

Anyway.

In this case, however, while I grant that her hair was SOME longer before, and SOME shorter after, it wasn't the kind of disastrous cut that makes bystanders cringe, children cry, and dogs bark furiously.

"Um... What's wrong with it?"

Now, this is an honest question. I thought it looked cute; fit her features well, all that. So I was totally mystified by the drama surrounding it.

I was, however, totally unsurprised to receive another glare and a disdainful snort.

Well, fine; I accept that I am a guy, and therefore totally unequipped for subtlety, and incapable of telling good from bad, or having any fashion sense whatsoever, but this still doesn't answer my question...

..."What's wrong with it?"

Apparently, her hairdresser - or, I suppose, ex-hairdresser, given that she referred to the offender as "that awful bitch" several times - attacked her with a chainsaw followed by a bath of rabid pitbulls.

So, yeah.

I give.

I am too much of a guy to grasp what the flaw was in it.

For the record, I thought it looked good.

But *shrug* yet another reason to file away to not comment, mention, discuss, or even look at women's hair, until they indicate - usually by insults - that they wanted you to compliment them on it.

*Sigh.*

Returning, As Is Only To Be Expected, With An Angry Rant.

...But first, a video!

Right.

All that STUFF.

All that extremist, nut-job STUFF.

That, ladies and gentlemen - although perhaps I do myself too great a service in assuming there will be more than one of each kind - is Representative Jan Schakowsky.

She represents Illinois' 9th Congressional District.

To give you a good starting place, before I start swearing, this, folks, is the 9th Congressional District for the state of Illinois:

Gee, that looks perfectly natural, and not at all gerrymandered, doesn't it?

For those of you who may be wondering, "gerrymandering" is the process by which electoral districts are drawn specifically to encompass specific groups of people in the hopes that those districts can then perpetually be relied upon to vote for whoever did the gerrymandering in the first place.

Considering Illinois' 9th District has not only elected Ms. Schakowsky six times, but in fact has elected Democrats in every election since 1949, it must be working.

Since 1949.

The last Republican elected from the 9th District was Robert Twyman, in 1947. Then the 9th was gerrymandered, with what seems to be the greatest possible success, and has stayed so solidly Democratic since then that it voted over 65% for the Democrat for President each of the last 3 times.

So, map notwithstanding, what's IN the 9th District?

Evanston: median income $69K. (11.1% below poverty.)

Skokie: median income: $57K. (5.4% below poverty.)

Morton Grove: median income: $72K. (2.7% below poverty.)

Park Ridge: median income: $110K. (2.2% below poverty.)

Norridge: median income: $57K. (3.9% below poverty.)

Lincolnwood: median income: $83K. (2.9% below poverty.)

By contrast, let's see how Minneapolis-St. Paul (home to 6 of the Top Ten Places To Live In America this year, thanks look:

Minneapolis: median income: $44K. (21.5% below poverty.)

St. Paul: median income: $48K. (15.6% below poverty.)

So, Ms. Schakowsky represents a carefully chosen selection of people who make more money, and have fewer poor, than "the most literate city in America," a place that - between the Twin Cities - contributes over 68% of the total economy of the state of Minnesota, who vote for Democrats every time, reliably as clockwork.

And yet the REPUBLICANS are "always for the rich?"

You lie through your teeth like that, lady, they're going to turn black and fall out, and you'll have only your own tongue to blame.

I haven't touched on the cutesie nickname she uses for anyone who thinks that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is actually important, "tenthers."

Guess what.

I'm a "tenther."

I think I'm going to get a fucking T-shirt made.

Because the founding principle upon which our government was built, the idea that government should be the servant of the people, not their master, is not "old stuff."

It's not "stuff."

It's the soul of our nation, and it's how we got so big and cool in the first place.

Ms. Schakowsky clearly not only doesn't care about that notion, but knows full and well that her constituents don't either; after all, THEY won't be affected by her disastrous political and social positions; they're rich.

Of course, the nicely poetic irony here is that when society collapses under the weight of the burdens the chosen and duly elected representative of the 9th District has helped impose on it, the residents of that 9th District will be among the most ill-equipped to survive the ensuing anarchy. How many Democrats do you know with any actual survival skills?

I can survive if you drop me naked in the woods with no clue where I am and no tools.

Of course, if you do that, I will walk out of the woods at SOME point later on and stick a handmade spear between your ribs because dropping me naked in the woods is a really good way to piss me off at you.

But that's not the point. (The point has to be held parallel to the ground, you know, for humans; they walk upright, so their ribs are sideways. For deer, the flat side of the blade should be perpendicular to the ground.)

Don't let me get sidetracked with minutiae, here.

Ms. Schakowsky has the most liberal voting record in Congress.

She represents a district richer - and more yellow-dog Democrat (I'd vote fer a yella dawg if it ran ez a Democrat!) - than the nation as a whole, but also more of both than the Twin Cities, a carefully manufactured voting district narrowly engineered to select particular communities so they could, all as a group, vote for Jan Schakowsky.

She considers our Constitution "stuff," and refers to those who support it as extremists.

You clowns in the 9th, you're getting what you pay for.

I wish you the joy of it; when you discover the inevitable results of your purchase, you will find none, to be sure.

But it occurs to me that the 9th District does NOT contain the "most literate city in America."

And therefore it dawns upon me that I should use smaller words.

Anyone who holds an elected office in this nation who displays this kind of cavalier disdain for the founding principles of our government is publicly admitting that they are a traitor; to this nation, to its principles, to the oaths they swore upon assuming office to protect America from the very things they're doing now, to its most fundamental laws.

Under the new laws our lovely pet Obama has spawned for dealing with terror suspects, a traitor can be shot.

Obama also remains convinced that he has somehow acquired, as President, the mantle of not only sufficient authority to, but sufficient Solomon-like wisdom to decide which U.S. citizens he can order assassinated without trial.

I can't wait to see our next President use that on Ms. Schakowsky.