printThe salient thing about “conservative” chicks is how unconservative they are. Sexism, racism, homophobia—these concepts are engraved in their inherently liberal minds. The concepts are, of course, poisonous arrows in the quiver of left-liberal identity politics.
So it was that The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck was a prime mover behind the persecution of Imus, for politically unpalatable speech, alongside race hustlers Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, neocon sister Amy Holmes, and other sundry sorts of the left (Whoopi Goldberg, Maya Angelou, Naomi Wolf).
Palin is always shouting sexism, and has intensified her hissing ever since Newsweek published an appealing cover of her in running gear. Hasselbeck has been complaining about the sexism to which Palin is allegedly subjected. She did so recently on The View. Clearly, a liberal worldview is not the only malady to inflict conservative women. They are never original (other than Coulter, who is sui generis, and I have a soft spot for the Michelles Bachmann and Malkin).
Update I (Nov. 18): Another of these harpies’ trade marks is to conflate a love of war—any war waged by the US—with the conservative position. Does this pertain equally to neoconservative and so-called conservative men? You tell me.
Wait a sec, I already “told me”:
“… never once have the war harpies and their hombres in the ideological trenches indicated they comprehend how and who is paying for all this. I know they believe we’re not being taxed in lieu of the debt, a faith they base on Bush’s promise not to raise taxes. [A “promise kept by Barack, Bush’s loyal successor.]
Pro-war pundits, women especially, think that government can spend what it doesn’t have without any economic repercussions. They’re a lot like babies prior to acquiring object permanence: what isn’t visible doesn’t exist. However, government spending more than it collects in revenues is the cause of the deficit.
And ultimately of inflation.
However, there is no question in the small minds we’re discussing that a blind support for the experiment in “Eyeraq” is as American as apple pie. Ditto Democratizing our toothless, poppy-smoking Pashtun with smart bombs. The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans “tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war.”
Don’t expect an understanding of economics with your “conservative” harpie/hottie of choice. Palin was given a pass by the equally compromised Bawbawa Walter when she said that the bailout bill she supported in her capacity as a VP candidate didn’t work out well. Who would have known!!
Bachmann and Malkin have firm positions for fiscal conservatism; the rest go with the financial flow.
Update II (Nov. 20): Some comments posters have alluded to my mention of first principles in the new WND column, “Weapons For The GOP Punditocracy.” I note that first principles and GOPiness do not mix.
Even less so do first principles and foxettes go together. Individual rights are subsumed in FP. You would be hard pressed to find a woman who thinks less of the paramountcy of the individual over the collective than a foxette.
She got uncontrollably (and repulsively) hot for “Murder with majority approval”—i.e., the war in Iraq—and oversaw the decimation of the population there (including an ancient Christian community).
She promoted through the argument from cleavage the specious, wicked, individual-averse idea of collateral damage. That collectivist calculus was a feature of the war cheerleading done by the freedom-loving Fox New foxes.
All the networks were complicit, but no where was the morally repugnant zeal more pronounced than on Fox New where words like “Breaking Baghdad,” “Decapitation,” and “Shock and Awe” were the order of the day.
So far war.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Martha MacCallum, one of the more rightist ladies, mull over the need for national healthcare and a national data base where bureaucrats can access private healthcare information. I’m sure readers who understand liberty (which is inseparable from philosophical first principles) will provide more examples (accompanied by hyperlinks) for Foxette fascism.
With few exceptions, Fox News generally favors the rights of the police—backed by the power of the state—in altercation with helpless individuals. When “Andrew Meyer, a journalism student, was pounced upon by campus police, tasered, detained overnight, and charged with violently resisting arrest (a felony), and disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor),” Fox beaus and bimbos had a good laugh at his expense. O’Reilly was in stitches.
The Drug War: It is the very crucible of the fight for individual liberties. Show me a Foxy Lady who sympathetically covered any prominent case (such as the one of the granny gunned down in her home by DEA agents because of alleged “drugs”). And don’t start me on the medical marijuana fear mongering at Fox.
They are never original (other than Coulter, who is sui generis, … IM
And what am I, chopped liver?
Sexism, racism, homophobia—these concepts are engraved in their inherently liberal minds. IM
Neither here nor there if practiced privately. I personally prefer the opposite sex, Irish or German redheaded women and I would be uncomfortable if unarmed and outnumbered by homosexuals.
Am I personally correct? I believe so but even then I would never use government to inflict my beliefs on others or their children. This is where conservatives and “liberals” err; their desire to force their beliefs on others.
Since we apparently live in a world of petty tyrants, the solution IMO is to devolve decision making to the lowest level so people can vote with their feet.
I, a heterosexual male, admit that I don’t understand the phenomena of women who spend hours primping up their appearance while crying “sexism” when men “leer”. The rightwing “hotties” also hate the gays who are apathetic of their sexual charms. Only their compulsive need for attention stops the Carrie Prejeans of the world from dressing up modestly. “Look at my body and obey!”
Living as a libertarian, ethnic Jew, and scientific atheist in a socialist, non-Jewish, supernatural-believing world- that I am perfectly comfortable being surrounded by 99% of people with alternative viewpoints. However, the “conservatives” seem extremely discomforted by homosexuality in others as if they believe in some sort of
“Gay Van-der-Walls Force”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
whereby if Barney Frank loves Perez Hilton, this “Gay Force” will compel me to become sexually attracted to Dick Cheney!
Hence, conservatives pine for a Crusading Nanny State where the government erects monuments to Jesus everywhere, instructs children on abstinence and prayers, bans booze-drugs-tobacco-sex-gambling-“sin”, and wages war on illiterate 3rd world idolaters to spread the Gospel of neocon Democracy via “our troops” and Reaper drones. All of this, invoking “Liberty” and counterfeiting deficit money.
A public image without any discernible talent back of it is a difficult thing to manage. Having so large a personal stake in the image – a job for which you are monstrously overpaid and delusions of fame and significance – naturally makes kissing every au courant derriere an easy requirement to fill.
Then again I may be over-thinking this. “You want me to be your conservative spokesperson? Sure hon, but it’ll cost you $_____ bucks”, may be all there is to it.
It’s unclear to me why Palin is shouting “sexism” about the Newsweek cover, given that she earlier provided the photograph to another magazine for its use. Yes, I could understand the charge if this was just a picture privately e-mailed to a friend who subsequently sold it to Newsweek for profit; but that is not the case here. Does Palin not realize that as a public individual, every photo she publicly offers is fair game? Further, might it be possible that one reason Palin has received wide publicity is because of her good looks and trim figure? I’d wonder whether former Arizona governor and current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would receive similar attention if she published a picture in running gear.
In the current media climate, looks count, and those who play that card shouldn’t be surprised when it is subsequently played by others, perhaps for a different purpose.
Call me crazy but i love it when SP says to Ms. Wawa when making her points ” By forcing health care reform down there throats”, ‘Backassward’ Gotta love that spunk ( i guess it takes one yahoo to understand another yahoo lol )BTW big fan of the two Michelle’s here also
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9114243
However, the “conservatives” seem extremely discomforted by homosexuality in others as if they believe in some sort of
“Gay Van-der-Walls Force” Myron Pauli
I am personally conservative but radically libertarian. I have no political problems with sodomites EXCEPT when they attempt to use the government schools, for instance, to recruit among children. But that would apply to any group.
In a truly free country, the normal checks and balances of society would tend to make all of us lead sober, respectable lives. Private discrimination is an altogether good thing.
Re M.B.’s comments. The Founders knew what they were doing in the First Amendment. They would most likely be appalled at both the Right and Left in their insistence of dragging the government into Kultur-wars whether it is “coerced tolerance” or “coerced morality”.
I have to add a huge “Amen,” to Myron’s comment, above. I also believe that the Founders knew what they were doing. Additionally, I see nothing in the Bible that leads me to believe that Jesus was interested in forcing a state-sponsored moral code on anybody.
I don’t know why everyone is getting down on the Conservative Chicks, or the Fox Babes. So what if they are not geniuses – many are pretty smart. And even if they can’t discuss conservative/libertarian ideas from first principles, they mostly have the right instincts: less government, free market, individual dominance.
[This amounts to giving a pass to Bush statist babes, b/c you prefer their form of state worship. My archives are replete with examples of the lethality of neocon groupies.]
And I’d like to add an “Amen” to what George Pal said, above.
When the method for deciding truth can be chosen from a smorgasbord, who will decide which is correct? The group with the biggest guns usually gets to pick the true truth.
I am continually impressed by the characteristic refusal by conservatives to see what they do not like. Point out disturbing facts about war history, and they’ll hurl insults and irrelevant accusations. Attempt to frame a discussion of “just war” in terms of individual rights, and they’ll charge anti-Americanism. Conservatives exhibit what I can only interpret as stupidity.
Western culture is in the advanced stages of disintegration. This cultural pathology has afflicted nearly everyone, including conservatives,
“objectivists”, “Austrian anarchists” and everyone on the Left. [Astute observation about the all-encompassing nature of the disintegration.]
People are losing the ability to think. I notice this frightening intellectual disintegration in every field of inquiry about which I am even a little conversant.
On your reference to Vox Day, one of his readers referenced a article written on Bad Eagle.com “http://www.badeagle.com/2009/11/19/the-palin-plethora/”
David mentions that the reason for the “Conservative Chicks” is the lack of male leadership. Something I have no disagreement with.
“This cultural pathology has afflicted nearly everyone, including conservatives, “objectivists”, “Austrian anarchists” and everyone on the Left.” Mark Humphrey
Well, you are being a little unkind to the anarchists to lump them with such losers. The only problem I have with anarchy is that it might be unstable and lead to tyranny. However, note that the Hebrews in the time of the Judges and 1st Samuel had no central government till they got stupid and demanded one.
Anarchy is not really disorder. It is a dynamic form of order that rapidly adapts as needed.
I suggest we all follow Ron Paul back to the Constitution and fight for our differing visions via Constitutional Amendments from there. 50 states allow for a lot of experimenting.