Your writing is very engaging. Even though I don’t agree with hardly anything you wrote, I still found myself compelled to finish the entire article. Your presentation and logical flow are almost flawless. You’re really a good writer. Too bad I can’t say the same for your ideology.

First of all: you say Palin is an anti-feminist – while lamenting that men won’t vote for her because of the possibility that she might be one heart attack away from being the leader of the free world. Sorry – but you can’t have it both ways, no matter how hard you try to dodge the failure to reconcile these two intertwined points.

She didn’t decide to not have an abortion with her Downs Syndrome son just to be Ronald Regan’s poster-girl. She did it on principal, without ever knowing that she would someday be John McCain’s pick for veep. In other words, she walks the walk – even when walking the walk is difficult. By portraying that decision as nothing more than a political opportunity to make herself the poster-girl for the Reagan Revolution is a hit below the belt, if you don’t mind me saying so.

If she would have had an abortion – then ran on a “family values” platform, you’d be howling – and rightfully so. Which is worse: the fact she sticks to her beliefs even when no one is looking – or being a hypocrite? I think we both know the answer to that.

To say that anyone who supports abortion is actually for less government intervention is a red-herring falacy. Apply the same logic to other planks in the left’s platform to weed out hypocrisy.

Why is it that by and large, the left is all about keeping the government out of the business of making decisions regarding reproductive health, but “It takes a village” any other time? What does, “It takes a village” actually mean? It means Big Brother is there to provide for you (whether you like it or not) from cradle to grave. This business of responsibility to others is simply code for communism. Any time the government becomes involved in trying to compensate for the evils of society, in all of their good intentions, the government’s cure, is oftentimes worse than the ailment itself.

Sara Palin is scary, but not for any of the reasons people have talked about. She’s scary because she talks about “balancing the budget” as though that’s a good thing. If she’s from the party of “less government,” then why would balancing the budget be a good thing? If they truly want less government, wouldn’t it be better if government was constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, so it can’t grow, even if it wanted to?

Let’s face it: the Republicans are the party of big government; the Democrats are the party of bigger government. The blur between distinguishing characteristics doesn’t stop there: in reality: they’re the same party! We get so squirreled-up over what we call, “hot buton issues,” that we forget one thing: how many actual differences are there, in the way the 2 parties are administered? Doesn’t that make you wonder right there, if they’re run the same – maybe they are the same!

Before we get all teary-eyed over comparisons of Bill Clinton to JFK, let’s not forget who pushed for NAFTA, and let’s not forget – he not only pushed it – he signed it into law – enthusiastically.

If Bill was the “champion of the middle class” as he likes to portray himself, why didn’t he use that natural gift for speech-making and his smarmy personality to charm NAFTA out of existance? It’s because the Democrats and Republicans are the same party, after the same things – and the thing that prevents us all from seeing this, is what magicians like to call, “misdirection.” This misdirection comes in the form of “hot-button issues” that keep us forever yammering on and on about issues that are so deeply engrained in our own personal psyches, we’ll never change the other person’s mind about them.

Hopefully Palin is just what this country needs – a reformer who doesn’t know that she shouldn’t try to shake up the status quo, and start making the distinctions between the 2 parties real again!

Bottom line: Palin might just be the one to turn this one-party monopoly into a two party system, once again!

Point taken. Great blog. How’s that? I really mean it. I’m kind of new to this whole blog thing, but yours is interesting. I like to see what the other side is thinking. Who knows? Maybe they’re thinking the correct thing. I haven’t seen it yet (or more accurately, very few instances) but that doesn’t stop me from looking altogether.

If Palin was ugly, would the Left hate her less? I’ve noticed something about CNN: unlike Fox, they do hire commentaters who aren’t beauty queens. That’s not to say they don’t have beauty queens, but they don’t hire beauty queens exclusively, like Fox does.

What if Palin’s looks were in the same league as Janet Reno’s? Would that make her more beloved – or is it strictly the politics?

I know it sounds like a petty question, and maybe on the surface it is, but when you show Sara in a bikini toting some kind of gun and the caption is, “take the top off sweetie,” I wonder. Yes, you said that was actually a comment posted by a Republican – and that doesn’t surprise me that a Republican would say something like that.

Which brings me to my last point: is she hated because she’s attrative, and the whistles from the gutter don’t seem to bother her?

OK – I just read your post to my comment. Palin isn’t a real feminist, because she’s too “mom-like” in the “traditional” sense. I admire and appreciate your honesty.

Wearing a skirt is implied consent to a man’s “on-demand” sexual advances, so dad is always in a good mood – or at least he has fewer reasons for being in a bad mood, correct?

“Who needs to think when mom is in the room?” “If mom doesn’t defend you from that very teacher, who will?” So, is mom bad? I’m wondering. Aren’t these good qualities?

I’ve read Lakoff’s texts, and it makes me wonder: just whose job is it in the family? He says it’s both parents, if they’re both present – but he doesn’t explicitly state. He’s implying that it’s the job of both parents to decide, I’m sure. But what about situations where both parents decide on the “traditional” model? Then what? Are they out of touch?

Also: looking girly and pretty – and being aggressive is only to advance a man’s notion that female aggression is only good when it’s for sex, correct? Any other type of female aggression is wrong – at least that’s how the S.P.s think the elephants view female aggression, correct? If a woman is aggressive to promote her own power &/or agenda, she’s seen as a “bitch,” correct?

Isn’t it true that men are generally more generous than women? I mean: have you ever worked as a waitress? If so, I’d imagine that it didn’t take you long to figure out that men are far better tippers than women, correct?

So when a woman pursues power for her own purposes, she’s only doing that for herself – where’s the gain for society as a whole? Just look at the model of voluntary tipping!

When men seek wealth, as long as you’re their buddy, everyone “in the circle” benefits. But when a women attain wealth, is it my imagination, or do they come off as being a little greedy and don’t they tend to be percieved as hording the wealth they’ve amassed?

I wonder why child support is such a huge percentage of a man’s income? Could it be, the state recognizes, that if the percentage was “just enough” to adequately contribute his share of the burden, it still wouldn’t be enough, as it could be generally percieved that unless it’s a really huge amount of money, mom will spend the “support” on her habits – on her extravagent lifestyle – and on her boyfriends?

In other words, it seems to me that the higher-than-needed percentage covers mom’s vices – it if mom’s vices aren’t covered by the support – mom’s vices will be covered – to the detrment of the children, no?

So men are bled dry financially, because the mom generally hoards the wealth – unless there’s more than enough to go around, and the state recognizes this fact, don’t they?

So if what I said has even a smattering of truth, then I can’t understand why people complain when women are seen as overly-selfish when they attain power for themselves. Just work as a waitress, and see the difference in how wealth is spread – man vs. woman. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

I used to be a waiter. Men would tip me for good service – and I’m also a man. Women? Rarely! And only if it was the “company’s” money, and it had to be spent, or given back.

I’m sure that if any “feminist” has ever worked as a waitress, she would begrudgingly agree with at least some of what I’m saying here.

The inevitable MILF designation. This cracks me up: if a feminist is pretty – and knows her beauty to be an advantage, she won’t think twice in capitalizing on it. But, let someone with a different ideology do the same, and that woman is an empty head who screws her way to the top.

The inevitable MILF designation highlights the pettiness of the “Ying/Yang” political model of our one-party system. One party, catering to two specific opposites. You have to be one of the opposites; you don’t have a choice. Are they our views, or simply a choice between the lesser of two evils that produces the closest match to our views? Do we define the party, or does the party define us?

The guy selling the book: The Political Brain. He’s right on the money! Yes! Figure it out, Dems! It’s all emotion! The wholesome, grandfather type who has weathered many storms, lending the wisdom he’s attained along the way to help protect us; who cares if he naps in the afternoon, or lets his wife meddle in national affairs with the help of astrologers? We know that when push comes to shove, he’ll wake up and do what’s right. His hand is on the helm, and that’s all we need to know. “Michael Gorbachov, tear down this wall,” is what we all remember. And it happened – and that’s why we remember it.

Gender politics may be the business some of us are engaged in – and for those whose business gender politics is, it’s extremely, extremely important. But what about the rest of the nation? Do they view things in terms of gender politics, or do they know the only reason the pig has all the food it can eat, is that some day, it will be slaughtered, and the heavier the pig, the more money the farmer gets? Does the pig know this? Of course not! Do all the people who want to live off the fat of the government – are they aware they’re no different than the pig on the farm? They have no more of an idea of what they’re actually for, than the pig does – and they will both suffer the same fate.

“Well, what do you mean? People aren’t pigs on a farm? How could you possibly say the two are the same – and will suffer the same fate?”

I don’t like Republicans any more than I like Democrats, but I think Ronald Reagan said it best: We are the shining city on the hill. Don’t take my word for it. Ask any Mexican or Cuban, or anyone from an Asian country who paid dearly and risked his or her life to come over here. Why would they do that? Is it because they have dark skin and don’t know any better, or do they recognize what we take for granted? We are the shining city on the hill – and that makes us a prize.

In international maritime parlance, a shot across the bow is the international signal to “heave to, and prepare to be boarded.” Don’t forget what happened on 9-11. That was our shot across the bow, in every sense of the word.

So when we become dependant on the government to feed us, while we hold down jobs where we “ring bells, and listen to bells being rung,” don’t be surprised when we get really fat -and really dependent – that we aren’t boarded, and suffer the same fate as the pig on the farm, because just like the pig on the farm: we freely eat from the trough, with no thought or expectation of having it any other way – but we have no idea the REAL reason we’re being fed – or what we were bred for – and neither does the pig.

There’s a difference between those who need help, and those who think of a life-time of assistance as an entitlement – like air or water, or something. It seems like we have had multiple generations in this country who feel if someone is rich, the rich person owes them. Kind of like the classic, “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine,” type of thing, you know?

Those who need help should definately get it. Those who need their fat, lazy ass kicked off the couch – need that too. There’s a HUGE difference between the 2.

In the Midwest: people around here are smarter that those on the coasts think. We don’t need a Disney cartoon to tell us in song, about the “cycle of life” or whatever, we see it on the farms everyday.

Here’s my point about the pig: the pig has no idea why the farmer is feeding him. These people who spend generation after generation on whatever public assistance they’re handing out at the time – have no idea why the government is doing that for them. They think it’s because “Uncle Sam” is benevolent. Yes – any and all governments engage in benevolent behavior – but not for the reasons the free-loaders think.

Get generation after generation to vote for a “benevolent government” and what the socialists have, is a guaranteed electorate of free-loaders.

Also: in a country full of freeloaders, just how seriously do you think our enemies will take us? This whole country is turning into the cast of “Dude – where’s my car?” and we think it’s funny. So do our enemies – but for a different reason. (Our enemies help fund every endeavor that helps us turn into the cast of “Dude, where’s my car”!)

So we get Middle-Eastern royals to help fund far left advocacy groups who demand more and more socialism – and they get it – and we don’t know why the pig is allowed to eat freely from the trough. The pig thinks the farmer is benevolent. The farmer is benevolent alright – but in his own interests – not the pig’s. The pig just can’t figure that out – and it doesn’t matter.

I don’t know about trying to tie biology to benevolence – that’s a little beyond anything I’ve ever been exposed to, but biology wasn’t my point. My point was this: men – generally speaking – are more benevolent. Sure, there are exceptions that go both ways, but by and large, men usually are more benevolent.

A man is much more likely to “give back,” even if it is only to his cronies – but at least he does that.

The unwanted sexual advances are clearly a sign that the guy is a pig – unless they were an innocent, hassle-free invitation to a date made by a guy who – for whatever reason – thought you might be interested in going out with him – but that probably doesn’t qualify as a sexual advance as far as I’m concerned – but a rude comment about your body or any touching that couldn’t be qualified as “incidental” (sometimes accidents do happen – but they are rare) but anything besides that is, pig-like behavior.

How many times have I been propositioned as a waiter? Quite a few, but I never minded – unless it became stalker-like behavior, which happened a few times – but I guess that’s the price you pay for dealing with the public. I’m no worse for the wear.

The arguement that women don’t tip as well because they make less money: I’d be willing to bet that if you did a study where you had middle-class men and much, much richer women – both groups as patrons in a restaurant, I’d be willing to bet the middle-class men still tipped better than the rich women. I’d almost be willing to bet the ranch on that!

If women don’t want to be slammed for being ambitious like quite a few women like to complain about, then maybe women should consider making generosity part of a “women’s studies” cirruculum, so that it can be discussed.

You see, benevolence isn’t just financial. I’ve worked for a ton of male bosses, and I’ve worked for a ton of female bosses.

There are exceptions to what I’m about to say that go both ways, but by and large, as long as the work is done, the men tend to leave things alone. If you can figure out a better or faster way to do your job, and you take advantage of the time savings by taking longer breaks, then generally speaking, the male boss won’t say a word.

In the same scenario, a female boss will demand even more work. It seems as though they take the incentive out of efficiency by making those who can do things faster and better, and making those people pay the price in the form of even higher expectations.

In other words, female bosses seem to generally be “micro-managers.” Male bosses tend to be “delegaters.”

There are definate drawbacks to both styles. The “delegaters” tend to have a much higher tolerance for inapprpriate behavior – the micromanagers seem to create more friction – in the form of uneccessarily high expectations – than is necessary.

It’s too bad both men and women can’t incorporate the best of both genders’ traits, while getting rid of the worst behaviors of both genders’ traits – rather than trying to make the bad traits seem like they’re somehow good qualities for the sake of petty bickering – which both sides are equally prone to do.