Monday, December 13, 2010

Night Of The Not-So-Long Knives

As Cubachi has pointed out, moderation has gotten the GOP nowhere. The media loves to make saints out of moderate Republicans, but it also loves to turn them into martyrs the minute they have to go against a Democrat. So, when I read this over-the-top article from Politco, I thought it'd be a good object lesson in why conservatism and Republican party discipline are going to be key in winning future elections. There will be a test on this! (In 2012, that is.)

First, some background: Republican Tom Emmer just conceded the Minnesota governor's race to Democrat Brave Sir Mark Dayton (who likes to run away). The Minnesota GOP decided to do something about the fact that a former member of their party, Tom Horner, siphoned off 12% of the vote that could have gone to Emmer. So they voted to punish 18 moderates that had supported this third-party candidate. Politico is shocked that the GOP would try to reform its own party to gear up for the next election. Cue the horror-stricken writing!

The stunning purge, narrowly passed by the state Republican central committee last weekend, suggests more than just a fit of pique: by banning some of the state’s leading moderates, the Minnesota GOP moved toward extinguishing a dying species of Republican in one of its last habitats.

Species usually die out because they cannot find a place in the ecosystem or adapt to it. What we seem to have here is both, and Politico cannot resist writing a swan song for its precious, precious moderates. When a state party realizes that its state has only voted for the party's presidential nominee once in the last half-century, that party must adapt if it wants to survive. The Minnesota GOP chairman, Tony Sutton, seems to have realized that, as well as the central committee. As a former Iowan, I'm obliged to shake my head at the Minne-soh-tans with their heads in the snow, but I'm also cheered by the fact that change seems to be in the wind. That wind may have a blizzard or three in it, but it's definitely got some change.

This piece also has plenty of blustering, as the moderates attempt to defend their position in unintentionally hilarious ways. (Moderates trying to be firm is always a good source for humor.) For example, Al Quie starts out big

“The Republican party is trying to become … you would call it introverted totalitarianism.”

and then goes small.

“It’s just plain dumb on their part."

Unfortunately, the facts do not bear out Quie's observations.

Sutton’s candidates seized control of the state House, which the party lost in 2006, and the state Senate, which the GOP has not controlled since it became a partisan chamber. A conservative insurgent also toppled 17-term Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar

Yes, it is sheer stupidity, in the view of a moderate, to lead a party to historic gains. Moderates need to be able to eschew party principles and undermine the party without having to pay the consequences. They're sainted moderates, after all! The media says they're the future of the GOP! And their candidate worked so well for the GOP in 2008!

Kudos to the Minnesota GOP chairman for ignoring the philosophy espoused in the previous paragraph. The movers and shakers in the national party ought to be taking notes from his performance here. No more Mr. Minnesota Nice Guy!

“I think a lot of these people are not relevant politically,” Sutton said. “They represent a bygone era, sort of the era of the Country Club Republican – when we weren’t opposed to big government; we just said we could manage it better. This is [now] sort of the Reagan Era of the Republican Party.”

“It’s funny we’ve had more success since we moved away from a lot of these folks,” he added. “You can argue we’ve become more successful as we’ve become truer to our principles.”

The moderates seem to argue that losing the four statewide races (governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and attorney general) does not mean success overall, but what part of historic don't they understand? All of it, I suppose.

“Maybe it would be more beneficial if Tony Sutton left the Republican Party and took his philosophy elsewhere, and we could get a chairman who knows how to grow a party,” [Arne] Carlson said.

Carlson seems to know a lot about leaving the Republican Party behind. Not only did he endorse Horner and a Democrat this year, but in 2008, he didn't even back the moderate GOP candidate, John McCain. He voted for Barack Obama. Maybe, just maybe, he should have seen this coming?

Over to you, Chairman Sutton!

Sutton, who technically didn't take a position on the resolution because he chaired the meeting, made his feelings clear by expressing befuddlement at what he calls the “faux outrage” over the temporary bans.

“I don’t understand people who are upset by it. You claim to be a member of a political party, of a team, and you’re supporting someone on the other team,” he said. “This isn’t a tickle contest. This isn’t ninth grade civics, where you’re running for class president. This is pretty serious business.”

Yes, it is pretty serious business. But what is the horrendous punishment for those being shoved aside? What awful, Soviet-style consequences await those who have fallen afoul of The Party? With the tone of this piece, one might suspect gulags and waterboarding are in the future of these 18 moderates. However, that is not the case. It is not a light punishment that was handed out, but surely these moderates can overcome being banned from party activities for two years and the 2012 Republican National Convention. Oh, the humanity!

Even after the 2010 elections, Politico can't write a story about the machinations of a state GOP without wringing their hands that the party's not going the "correct" way. We've got a long way to go.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Hypocrisy: It Ain't Just For Hippos

I hate feminists.

I'm starting out with that as a disclaimer because I just want everyone to know where I stand with this group. Yes, I'm a traitor to my gender, I have no empathy, I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for them, blah blah blah. Except those things are all lies. I have never believed that women were the exact same as men, so how is it traitorous to embrace the difference and live my life as a woman created differently than a man? I have plenty of empathy for the women who were sold on the false hope that they could be just like men. And as a happy housewife, how am I beholden to feminists for my position when women have been doing this for thousands of years?

Feminists have ruined the lives of men and women alike. (See? Equality at last!) Women and men find themselves alienated from each other. Men are painted with a broad, villainous brush while women find that being empowered to do anything they want isn't all that empowering. The family structure of this country is crumbling, and feminism is rooting for failure.

Feminists certainly have done a lot of damage. But they're never called to account for it. Any time their lies and hypocrisy are exposed, they scream about oppression and their supporters flock to them. Everyone else just shakes their head and gives in to the screaming, thereby ensuring the cycle will repeat itself.

Well, I've had it. It's time for women to stand up for being who we want to be and not who the feminists have forced us to be. When a woman does not worship at the shrine of feminism and embraces the role God gave her (whatever that may be), she is called a traitor and either ignored or screeched at.

Take Laura Bush, for example. She wanted to help the women of Afghanistan get back to the lives they had before the Taliban took over. So she pushed for literacy in a country that both the women and the men would benefit from the effort. But the feminists couldn't stand that she wasn't pushing for abortion as well, so they buried her efforts and continued to demonize her. Her husband helped curb AIDS in Africa, saving millions of women's lives, yet he did it in a non-feminist fashion so it, too, was ignored.

History will most likely view the Bushes more kindly than the feminists, so all their ear-covering will have been in vain. But the reason I'm writing this post cannot be ignored. It has worldwide implications and is another nail in the feminists' coffin. I want to ask you a question, feminists.

What about the woman who accused Julian Assange of rape?

For years, feminists have told us that no woman ever lies about rape and that every accusation should be taken seriously. Men are predators at heart, we're told, and their victims need to be protected by secrecy laws. And men who rape women (or are accused of it) deserve the harshest treatment possible.

Yet feminists have been silent about the trampling of their closest-held beliefs because of Assange's beliefs. There has been no outcry from them as his victim has been named, her past writings dragged out into the open (apparently she's a die-hard feminist!), and liberals have dismissed the charge as false. Feminists are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own on the altar of liberalism.

As for me, I think Assange aided and abetted a traitor to America. However, I don't care what his beliefs are when a district attorney in Sweden charges him with rape. He should stand trial and is innocent until proven guilty. That is an American belief, to be sure, but I'm ashamed that feminists don't seem to hold it. In fact, feminism is in a sorry state in general, and women need to take it out to the trash. I'm sure men will be all too happy to drag that trash can to the curb!

Friday, November 5, 2010

We Maaaay Look Like Paaaaansies....

With the exception of our excellent military, Americans are a pretty soft bunch. This isn't an all bad thing, however. Whenever a disaster in the world happens, we get busy sending money. We have a network for taking care of disabled people that unrivaled throughout the world. Charities know that all they have to do is show an American an emaciated child, and the American will open their wallet.
But when it comes to politics, it is not a good thing for Americans to be soft. We are buying into the message that "civility" must trump the truth because we've lost the toughness that made this country great. We are horrified by "negative" or "attack" ads that candidates put out that in fact do nothing more than tell the truth about their opponent. Television personalities that make millions from pontificating about politics decry the channels that make their profession possible because these channels supposedly foster incivility. Our own President does everything he can to be seen and heard every day by every American, and then bemoans the "24/7 news cycle" that puts him on their airwaves.

Americans should not put up with this. The issues we need to talk about are being obscured by politicians trying to get the most positive media coverage by looking like the "civil" candidate. And look where that got us: John McCain, the media darling for years, ran a campaign that avoided asking the hard questions about Barack Obama and his policies, and Obama cruised to victory. We don't want to talk about Social Security's insolvency because the Democrats have made sure that any discussion of the subject is automatically characterized as frightening to older people. Americans, especially the Republicans, are being cowed by the very idea that they might be seen as uncouth when tackling the hard issues that we face.

This is unacceptable. Our Founding Fathers engaged in duels over political ideas. They put their lives on the line for the principles of this country. And they absolutely savaged each other when running for office. Don't believe me? You want proof? Here you go!

Keep this in mind the next time you hear that this election cycle was the most negative ever (which seems to be the meme every election year). We're pansies compared to our Founding Fathers.

Thursday, November 4, 2010


Well, everyone and their cat is opining on the Tea-nami, so I guess I'd better too. If y'all are jumping off a cliff, I should be at the bottom to catch you! Also, just as a side note, cats really don't like tea.

Any analysis at this point must take into account that 2 Senate and 10 Representative seats have not been officially called (according to's results tracker). Three-quarters of Washington's mail-in ballots are in, and things are not looking good for Republican Dino Rossi (again). Alaska's returned ballots are at the same point, with a large number of absentees (which would most likely be military) still to be counted. For the sake of decent politics everywhere, I hope Daddy's Little Brat doesn't get to keep her toy-er, seat. And I hope that Alaskans realize that the only reason the Republicans in the Senate let her keep her powerful positions (which was her only platform) is because they wanted to play nice. What a disgrace.

That being said, the Republicans did well Tuesday night. A sweep of the House that will go down in the history books. Taking back several Senate seats. Goading a Democratic president into admitting his policies didn't work (and giving Ed Morrissey a week's worth of Obamatuerisms). And although not every single Tea Party candidate won their race, the movement as a whole did well as they saw their platform of fiscal conservativism validated by the voters. (If you're keeping score at home, Sarah Palin is currently 52 for 82 endorsements, or 63.4%.)

Everyone's also got their "lessons" from Tuesday night, but I haven't seen mine yet. And my takeaway from this significant exercise in democracy is this: If you're a politician, you serve all the people, not just your core voters. In Marco Rubio's victory speech, he pointed out that not only would he serve the people that had voted for him, but the people who had not voted for him as well. The Democrats who (and some of the Republicans who got booted in the primaries) learned the hard way that Rubio's principle is a foundation for our democracy. Your representatives, whether you voted for them or not, have an obligation to listen to you once they're elected. And if they don't, we have the American tradition of "Throw the bums out!"

And, on that note, this guy is no longer representing the district we live in. Yee-haw!

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

How (Not) To Make Popcorn Shrimp

Popcorn? Check.

Adult beverages? Check.

Slurpees? Working on it.

It's time for the Ultimate Tea Party!

Friday, October 29, 2010

Losing My Mittens

Today is not the best day ever. I got a call from my dad that my 16-year-old cat, Mittens, "zigged when she should have zagged" as my mom came home last night. She was mostly deaf, didn't move as fast as she used to, and was supposedly retired from her hunting days. But she still stalked the birds and rabbits, "helped" my dad grill, and cuddled with anyone willing to sit outside in the cold with her. She was my Babycakes, and I'll miss her.

Her cousins down south never got to meet her, but they are busy keeping my life interesting.

Bel likes to block my access to my computer by sleeping in my chair after she's read my books.

Hex likes to "supervise" my Twittering. Cubachi seems to get the most sniffing.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

PG Theatre: Please Don't Feed The Trolls

One line from this installment of PG Theatre actually happened. The rest is a typical conversation with a liberal toll. I'll let you guess which is which.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Get Smart!

"Are you stupid?!" No one likes to hear that. But after November 2 this year, we all might want to ask ourselves that very question. Did we vote smart or stupid?

Democrats have relied for years on a strategy that assumes its base is stupid. Their party is a loosely held-together coalition of one-issue voters. They've got the environmentalist wackos, the rabidly pro-choice, the job-killing unions, the hardcore socialists, the anti-war agitators, and other various groups that don't care what happens as long as their precious issue is maintained. Because the media skews toward covering the Democrats favorably, we don't get to see what happens when one group disagrees with another. The Democrats are very, very good at keeping their base together by constantly demonizing Republicans and entrenching themselves in governmental positions. The first tactic is their public face, and the second is the secret to their longevity. They gin up fear and hatred, making their base believe that all Republicans are the scum of the earth while they slowly take over the bureaucracy that runs the country. This strategy only works so long as the base doesn't realize that the Democrats are intent on running the country into the ground.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a different strategy but still, at times, underestimate the intelligence of their base. There are a few single-issue voters in the GOP, but for the most part, Republicans recognize a handful of principles that they want to see elected officials espouse. Time after time, however, the GOP props up elected officials who don't hold those principles but manage to bring in the beloved "moderates." The GOP base is told that we're too stupid to nominate a conservative that can win in certain areas of the country. It would never work, they say, so leave it up to the party to do the "smart" messaging. Never mind that these RINOs, when campaigning, lean as far to the right as they possibly can. And, of course, when these certain areas nominate a true conservative, it's an "anomaly."

When a grassroots movement springs up that leans towards the GOP, the GOP would dearly love to swallow it up instead of being held accountable by it. When such a group refuses to be embraced by any party, both parties start to get nervous. If there is ever a serious independent challenge to the two parties, not only does it take votes away from the established parties, it also is a serious threat to the establishment itself. The Democrats need all the kooks on the left to vote for them, and the GOP needs all the "bitter clingers" on the right to vote for them. As soon as anyone starts making third-party noises, both parties do what they can to silence those little squawks. Their very survival depends on it.

So what is the best way to prove that we, the voters, are not idiots? Simple: Keep doing what the Tea Party is doing. They refused to be swallowed up by either party, put forth candidates of their own, and continue to push fiscal conservatism to the top desired principle of candidates. Sure, there's a national unrest over the economy, but would the GOP have tacked hard right if the Tea Party hadn't sprung up? Even with Obama's popularity, traditionally, a president's party will lose the midterm elections. However, after losing the 2008 presidential election, the GOP was flooded with advice that its moderate candidate was not moderate enough. The GOP seemed to be taking that advice, and I don't believe that the Tea Party's rise at that time was a coincidence. What the Tea Party did next was brilliant, shocking all the analysts (probably cousins to the economic "experts" who can't forecast their way out of a department store) with their political savvy in changing the political landscape. The Tea Party has given the GOP an ultimatum: Adhere to fiscal conservatism or find yourselves deposed in 2012. Will it work? For the good of the nation, I hope so, because we cannot sustain our current path of fiscal liberalism.

Hopefully this video will put all of this in perspective. (This song is a blast to perform, by the way!)

Tuesday, October 19, 2010


What did your father tell you when the kids taunted you at school for flubbing that swing? What did your mother tell you when your sister kept trying to poke you in the backseat? What did your parents mutter to each other when you all got really annoying? We all know the answer (or we should, if our parents were half decent). "IGNORE THEM!" "Don't give them attention, it's just what they want!" "Break her finger!" Oh, wait, that last one was from my brothers. Once in awhile, they had good advice.

Ignoring negativity is a lesson we all tried to learn. Some of us were better at it than others. But we all know, deep down, that giving positive attention to any behavior reinforces it. And, in some cases, giving any attention to the offending party is not a good idea.

So why does the right wing of the blogosphere have a stroke whenever Meghan McCain opens her mouth? Don't they know that giving her attention is all that she wants? Perhaps, but then again, it's the right wing of the blogosphere, where the truth is paramount. Meghan McCain is a favorite target for the right wing not only because they want to correct her ignorance, but because we don't want her. She tried to be one of us, and failed miserably. So what does she have besides a chip on her shoulder that she can market? All she wants, like our cat Bel, is attention. Bel couldn't care less if you're calling her the dumbest cat ever as long as you're paying the slightest bit of attention to her.

Meggie Mac relishes the "feuds" she starts, cashing in on them whenever she can. Notice how she never picks fights with establishment Republicans. Also, notice the gender of who she attacks. She seems to know that the media will really eat up a fight between the daughter of the last losing presidential candidate and the female part of his base. It's the only trick up her sleeve, and she's playing it for all she's worth. I hope she saves the money she's getting from her poor book sales, because the media's support of her is going to last only as long as they can use her to get attention. Sooner or later, like her father, Meggie Mac is going to find out that the media are perfectly willing to shove people that they've previously supported completely under the bus. When that happens, I hope, with all sincerity, that she learns from it. I doubt that will happen, given how much her parents prop her up, but hey! We're in the age of the Obamessiah!

So, what should we do with Meggie Mac? We really should ignore her, but she is just plain wrong. If nothing else, we need to point out that she's not actually 26 years old. On Saturday, she will be, but as of this Sunday, after some idiot decided to book her on ABC's "This Week," she was only 25. I wouldn't even mention it, but the quote that made the biggest impact started out, "I speak as a 26-year-old woman..." so I was duty-bound to point that out. If conservatives hold the line and only correct Meggie Mac's mistakes, eventually the media will not be able to tie the albatross of Meggie Mac around our necks.

This is relevant, I swear!

Monday, October 11, 2010

Paying Tribute To My Scandinavian Heritage

Today is a federal holiday, so I'm pretty busy enjoying Pooky's day off. Whether you fervently believe if was the Native Americans, Leif Ericson, or Christopher Columbus who truly "discovered" the Americas, you have to admit that this is pretty funny:

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Beware Of The Pink Furry Monsters!

What does it mean to be an American citizen? Well, in most cases, you're born here. Even if your parents aren't American, thanks to an extremely liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you can be an American simply by being born on American soil. If you're not born here, we have an extensive, albeit somewhat inefficient, system for becoming a citizen. I've seen the process, helped people take the test, and shared their pride as they were sworn in as citizens. You have to fund the government through taxes, and the means of how the government taxes you outside of the income tax may surprise you. But that's a post for another day. If you're an 18-year-old male, you have to sign up to be drafted into the military should Congress and the President determine our country needs it. Our Founding Fathers set up a nation that does not require you to purchase anything to be a citizen. Well, until now.

ObamaCare, the monstrosity (sorry, Monster) passed against the will of the people through Congressional shenanigans "so we could find out what's in it," has in it a provision requiring all Americans to buy some form of health coverage. Almost before Obama's signature dried, states were filing suit, with that provision at the forefront of their complaint. Liberals argued that RomneyCare, one of the main reasons we (hopefully) will never see a President Romney, had the same provision in order to make it work, so why shouldn't "health care reform" have it?

RomneyCare is Massachusetts' dirty little secret. Stories pop up every few months of the lumbering wreck of RomneyCare stomping its way around the state, killing off insurance companies, state revenue, quality of health care, and the general economy. Yet, because it was touted as a model for the entire nation, the liberal media tries to squelch the body count. All the bugs haven't been worked out yet, we're told, and there were some... "unintended consequences."

Have you ever noticed that liberals' grand schemes never work out as intended? It couldn't possibly be because liberals don't really understand cause and effect, could it? Who could have possibly foreseen that skyrocketing the cost of having a health care insurance business would make companies shut down and leave? Conservatives, that's who. We warned about the costs of forcing everyone to buy health insurance, and now we have proof of our forecasting, despite the media's desperate attempts at gluing pink fur onto the RomneyCare monster. They'll have things running smoothly in no time, just you wait! Take a pain pill and have a Snickers bar, because you're not going anywhere for awhile.

This provision is necessary, however, for a government takeover of health care. In order for the government to shove private insurers out of the market, they force everyone to be covered, shooting costs upward as the high-risk people who have not been in the market get into it. Private insurers cannot bear the cost of everyone and his cat jumping into the pool (poor, wet kitty!) as well as the constrictions the government places on them in providing health care. And if you think the government can do it better than a private insurer, take a good look at the United Kingdom. In fact, look at our own Medicare as it goes broke trying to keep up with the small swells preceding the large Baby Boomer wave that's about to drown it.

All of this is a distraction, however, from an essential question: Is it constitutional to force Americans to buy something? Push all the cost-benefit analyses aside. Ignore the tales of woe of the uninsured. Tune out the demand for "reform" at any cost. Did our Founding Fathers intend for us to have to purchase something in order to be Americans? Sure, you used to have to be a landowner to vote, but at the time of our founding, it seemed to be fair as they were the ones paying the taxes. They had a vested interest in where their money went. As landownership and taxation expanded, slavery was abolished, and the women's suffrage movement came to pass, we passed laws granting everyone over 18 who wasn't a felon the right to determine our government.

The mandate in ObamaCare that we must all purchase health insurance is not only a step backward, but it seems to stray outside of the Constitution's enumeration of Congressional Powers (Article 1, Section 8). A federal judge in Michigan disagreed on Thursday, using an expansive view of the Commerce Clause found in that section to justify forcing people to buy health insurance because we all use medical care sometime in our lives. Also in the decision was this little gem:
While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.
Pretty harmless, right? It appears he's just analyzing the federal government's view of the Commerce Clause versus the view of the states. But what he's essentially saying is that because we all participate, the federal government can decide for you how the services that we all are going to use eventually are going to be paid for. Even if you're not doing anything but breathing, the federal government wants you to pay for something they think you're going to use. This is terrifying territory for any freedom-loving American, because the government wants to regulate inactivity, not activity.

And that regulatory power is just the beginning. When Congress determines that sugary foods are costing taxpayers millions in health care dollars, what are they going to do about it? Or when Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity reaches its fruition and it's determined that fat kids are costing us all money, what is President Obama going to advocate for? When Congress takes money from Big Pharma (or whatever they're called these days), and Big Pharma is pushing a miracle cure that guarantees to cut costs, what will Congress do? You know the answers to these questions as well as I do.

We're heading for centralized planning for all our health care decisions unless the Supreme Court or the Republicans stop it. Given the Supreme Court precedence that the judge in Michigan cited in his decision, it looks like it's up to the Republicans to listen to the people and kill off ObamaCare for the good of the nation. Will they have the guts to do it?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

The Epic Demolishing Of Meghan McCain

The Dodgers' season is over (at least we went out on a win), and so that means a return to quiet nights at the ranch, with the occasional rooting for the Hawkeyes and Falcons. So, I have to hit up The Right Scoop, Cubachi and The Real Mir Cat for blog fodder, and boy did they deliver today! By popular demand, I now give you the deconstruction of Meghan McCain's (hereafter known as Meggie Mac, per Allahpundit) piece, "My Palin Problem." I am only doing one paragraph from the excerpt at Hot Air as a consideration to my poor, long-suffering readers. Here we go!

Everyone knows there is a media obsession with Sarah Palin, but I don’t know if everyone has quite realized that the obsession has become a fetishization.

Meggie Mac graduated from Columbia University with a bachelor's in Art History. This means that at some point, she took an English class. In this class, they would have taught her that if you want to be taken seriously as a published author, you should use words from the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, Encarta, or another respected dictionary. All of the dictionaries I've listed are available at That is where I found out that the word "fetishization" does not exist in the dictionaries Meggie Mac's professors would have recommended, but in 5 online slang dictionaries. Even if "fetishization" was a word, she's using it wrong. A rewrite of this sentence would be: "The media's obsession with Sarah Palin is obvious, but I am unsure if people have realized that the obsession has become a fetish."
The further I got into my book tour last month, the more paranoia set in as I started questioning the idea that the only thing that made me interesting to some people was my association with Sarah Palin.

As an editor, you learn quickly not to tear your hair out when looking at sentences such as these. People look at you funny if you have bald spots where you used to have long hair. I would have sent this piece back to the writer, demanding a rewrite before I accepted any more submissions. Let's move on before I go bald, shall we?
After dropping the "fetishization" bomb, Meggie Mac does not back up her use of that word with appropriate evidence. She steamrolls on to her own "paranoia" that the only reason people pay attention to her is that she was associated (albeit briefly) with Sarah Palin. What a surprise that people would want to know more about a governor and vice-presidential candidate who is changing the political landscape than a narcissistic 25-year-old hanging on to her father's political coattails! But I'm getting ahead of myself here. This sentence, if Meggie Mac wanted to retain her dignity, should read: "As I got further into my book tour last month, I began wondering if the only reason I was interesting to some people was my association with Sarah Palin."

Sarah Palin, not my father John McCain.

Flashing red lights. Loud honking noises. Kitties running for cover. These are all signs that my "Fragment!" alert has gone off for this sentence. Aside from the pouting tone that comes through even in these six words, there's not much else to deconstruct, because... it's a misplaced fragment. So, let's revise: "As I got further into my book tour last month, I began wondering if the only reason I was interesting to some people was my association with Sarah Palin, not my father John McCain."

And for that fact, it seems that the only thing that gets any kind of major media attention when it comes to women in politics is either Sarah Palin or her numerous impersonators.

Here Meggie Mac does not refer to a "fact," but a suspicion of hers. I think the phrase she was looking for was "for that matter," which I would have struck from the sentence entirely to try for a more serious, professional tone. The combination of the words "only," "either," and "or" in the same sentence makes me cringe. Also, there was plenty of media attention when Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2007. Meggie Mac may claim she's too young to remember the media proclaiming 1992 "The Year Of The Woman" as several Democratic women won Senate seats, but I'm five months younger than this daughter of a national politician and I remember it. I'm going to change the plain "women" to "Republican women," because the women on the Democratic side are getting plenty of attention, and it's not pretty. I think a better word for what Meggie Mac is trying to describe would be "copies," not "impersonators." An impersonator would try to look exactly like Sarah Palin and try convince people she was the real deal. In other words, Tina Fey. Let's bring this suffering sentence to a better place. "It seems that Sarah Palin and her numerous copies are the main focus of media attention when it comes to Republican women in politics."

These are the people that are creating and dominating the political narrative for women in this country.

Is Meggie Mac referring to the media or the Sarah Palin "impersonators" here? I'm leaning toward the "impersonators," but it is ambiguous enough to make my red pen hover over this sentence. Now, I am not arguing that Sarah Palin or the women who she's inspired don't make headlines. But Meggie Mac seems to suggest, once again, that no women were on the national political scene before Sarah Palin showed up. If that were the case, wouldn't someone like Meggie Mac be singing her praises? But that's not Meggie Mac's problem. It's Sarah Palin herself, and the horror of more people like her. The whining and disdainful tone of this sentence almost makes me want to erase this post and leave the internet forever. But someone has to stand up for mature, grammatically correct discourse online. The best revision that matches my previous ones that I can come up with is: "This attention has dominated today's political narrative of Republican women."

In the Nashville airport in the midst of my book tour, I picked up the recent “Mama Grizzlies” cover of Newsweek which asks this very question. Why are only women like Sarah Palin getting nominated for elected office and receiving all of the media attention?

As long as you didn't actually buy it, Meggie, I'll consider calling off the air strike. Surprisingly, the first sentence could almost be left as is. Except that the last part, if it weren't for the next sentence, would imply that the previous sentence had asked a question (it didn't). Once again, someone should be handing me some cheese to go with all this whine. I'm trying not to encourage a run-on sentence here, but the best revision I can think of is: "While in the Nashville airport on my book tour, I picked up the recent Newsweek that featured the 'Mama Grizzlies' cover which asked this question: 'Why are only women like Sarah Palin getting nominated for Republican elected office and receiving all of the media's attention?'"

This is the question that has been plaguing me since the release of my book.

Here's a hint, Meggie Mac: Don't use the word "plaguing" when whining about someone else's media attention. It only conjures up negative images in people's minds about you, which I assume is not optimal. I could be wrong on that one, but it's best to err on the side of caution. The Black Beast of Ammmmmmmbiguous rears its ugly head again, and it is up to me to slay it. (Here I don my husband's +20 Shirt of Smiting!) Is the question that she's referenced in the last three sentences "Why are these women getting attention?" or "Why am I not getting any attention?" Given her accusation near the beginning of the paragraph that some people only were interested in her association with Sarah Palin, it's a mystery which "question" she is talking about here. With what I know of Meggie Mac's personality, along with the tone and title of this piece, I am going to say that the question is, "Why is Sarah Palin getting all the attention and not me?" I can see why that would trouble you, Meggie. Let's be merciful, and attempt to elevate this piece: "The question that Newsweek posed has been troubling me ever since I released my book."

If you've reached the end of this piece, you may gladly join me in consuming copious amounts of "adult beverages," as Rush likes to call them. You also have my gratitude for sticking with me this long. I apologize for the epic nature of this post, but you all know my sense of duty would permit me to do no less.

Edit: Apparently the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Grammar Police takes exception to my drafting methods, so two mistakes have been corrected.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010


I've been in plays and musical performances. My sister-in-law (who I'm blogrolling now that I've just thought about it) is a costume designer for a college. So I've had experience in the debate about what is proper on the public stage. I'm also a military wife, as you all know, and how the military is viewed in the public eye is also an interest of mine.

Last night, on Dancing With The Stars, Audrina Patridge and Tony Dovolani did a waltz to the song "Let It Be Me," which they admitted they did as a tribute to "armed soldiers." You think I'm joking!

Now, I do not have a problem with a popular program trying to honor the people who make the freedom of this country possible. I do, however, have a problem with the misuse of the military uniform, which, in this case, is a Marine NCO dress uniform. I'm an Air Force wife, but I feel it is my duty to defend the military whenever and wherever I can.

Note that Tony has three stripes on his sleeve, designating a Sergeant, an E-5. Therefore, it is proper that Tony's uniform have the classic blood stripe on it, because the rank he's wearing is an NCO. It is not proper, however, unless you have served, to wear a uniform with that branch's insignia. It appears that Tony is wearing the Marine insignia, and he has never served.

These may seem to be minor or trifling points, but I feel it is important to state that the uniforms of the U.S. military are not to be treated as mere costumes. It may look "cool" and fit a story to be decked out in Marine NCO dress uniform, but Marines have to earn the enlisted NCO's blood stripe. They don't hand it to you after Marine boot camp, which is the longest of all the armed services (13 weeks) and is no cakewalk. (There's a term Tony ought to be familiar with!) You earn the rank of E-5 (the second enlisted rank you may wear the blood stripe) by competing for that particular slot and serving a minimum of two years in the Marines, who are fondly known in the other branches as the "bullet-catchers."

And as for the insignia, it is common knowledge that you, as a civilian, can wear a uniform as long it does not have distinct characteristics of a particular branch (insignia, badges, tabs, service medals, etc.). In a theatrical or motion picture production, actors are allowed to wear a military uniform. (10 USC Subtitle A, Chapter 45, Section 772 [f]) However, this was not a play or a movie, but a ballroom dancing show. Tony wasn't portraying someone specifically. He was a generic Marine lost (presumably in war) who was coming to dance with his love. Also, Marine Corps Uniform Regulations (11004[d]) state that actors may not discredit the Marine Corps while wearing the uniform. That one is more subjective in this case, because although the judges loved it, I don't think Tony danced all that exceptionally.

The bottom line is that Tony should have taken off the insignia and foregone the blood stripe completely in order to honor the uniform. The uniform is not a costume to do with whatever you wish. Look, I have to wash and dry clean Pooky's uniforms constantly (a load in the washer and a load in the dryer right now). I'm thankful that ABUS do not require ironing. Show some respect, and double-check that it's okay to wear it before you put it on. What Tony did is not technically illegal, but it's in such a grey area that he should have erred on the side of caution.

And if the judges are going to award Audrina's wooden face, they shouldn't have taken Bristol Palin to task for her concentration in portraying a snobby-turned-fun character. Good grief, look at that girl's footwork! In heels, no less!

H/t to Cassy Fiano for her eagle eye on this one.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Reality Meets Gaming (Yet Again)

I'm a gamer. Not an uber one, but I'm still a gamer. That's why videos like this one make me drool. Awesome graphics, good story, blowing stuff up, and Linkin Park. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, according to the perpetual-panties-in-a-wad bunch, plenty. In the newest Medal of Honor game, you can play as the enemy our military is fighting against in Afghanistan-the Taliban. This is not a new concept. There always has to be someone playing the bad guy, and while sometimes it's the computer, a good chunk of the time it's another player.

I agree that when we're fighting a war, it's not in good taste to glamorize the enemy. I'm looking at the hardcore Left more than EA Games on that point. How is constantly whining that we need to "sympathize" with the people trying to kill us morally superior to playing that enemy in a fantasy world? What has done more to push the very ideology we're fighting against: Agitating to adopt the tenets of that ideology through "multiculturalism" or experiencing the full consequences of when the American military forcibly disagrees with you?

AAFES threatened to not stock MOH, which is probably the biggest reason EA Games waved the white flag and changed the Taliban in multi-player mode to... "opposing forces." It's a cosmetic change, to be sure, but I have to give credit to both sides here (sorry for the show of unity, Dan Riehl and Ed Morrissey). AAFES has a right to say that they won't stock something they feel denigrates the military, and EA Games has the right to make changes to their game in response to their audience.

I have a proposal that would please both sides even more. I know that the game is based off of a story from 2001, but let's make it even more realistic. If you play the "opposing force," certain things should happen to you. Whenever you start off a mission, your leader is taken out by a drone. Suicide bomber vests have a 2% chance of going off inside your own encampment. Your old equipment that's been sitting in a musty cave for decades has a 5% chance of exploding every time you use it. Your hideout has a 10% chance of being under bombardment. Sound like you want to play that side?

In truth, American gamers are itching to get their hands on this game because they want to kick some ass and emulate our military. I'm aware that mercenaries are a factor in this game, but they're still acting on behalf of American interests.

Am I going to buy this game? Probably not, but that's because I'm not good at first-person shooters (yeah, I'm pathetic!). Am I going to look forward to cool videos from it and play "The Catalyst" over and over as I play other games? You betcha!

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Seeing Red Again

Warning: Strong language ahead.

When you're a military wife, you're caught between a love for your country and an anger when the government takes the military for granted. The latter often happens when there's a Democrat in the White House. And this administration is no different.

Bob Woodward is putting out a new book called Obama's Wars, and in cleaning the bathroom, I happened to hear parts of it on Sean Hannity's show. I was livid, to say the least. Obama is shutting out the generals, coming up with his own little plans and throwing temper tantrums when things don't go the way he wants. In the 2008 campaign, he kept talking about bringing the focus back to Afghanistan instead of the war the Left considered unjust, Operation Iraqi Freedom. But when it came to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief, he didn't want to fight a war. He wanted to get out of it as soon as possible.

Now, these are things that conservatives knew going into the election. We warned that Obama didn't have the mettle to carry things through, that we needed someone committed to the global war on terror, and that the McCain/Palin ticket, for all its flaws, answered those challenges. But the voters were swayed by a smooth operator, and we wound up with the least qualified president ever. He's running our economy into the ground. He's trashing America abroad and alienating our allies. He doesn't know how to buy apples. Most egregious of all these things, though, is his refusal to win.

The president's oath reads as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To defend the Constitution of the United States means that you defend it when it is under attack, as it is now by Islamic extremists trying to take down America. They hate our Constitution. They don't understand its rights and protections because to them, Sharia law worldwide is their goal. Our President refuses to acknowledge this, and thereby aids the terrorists when he downplays the role that religious extremism plays in their efforts. Yes, I realize that, when forced to, he talks about Islamic extremism. But we have to drag him kicking and screaming like a little child who doesn't want to got to bed when he's been up for 18 hours. He'd rather be out having fun with his friends than think about the men and women dying for freedom.

Here comes the strong language.

We are not in Afghanistan to safely run away. We're there to kick the ever-lovin crap out of al-Qaeda because they did the unthinkable and went after our civilians. Our civilians, who were forced to plummet over 100 stories to their deaths because their lungs were giving out after al-Qaeda smashed planes into the place in which they happened to work. Our civilians, who held onto each other in terror as their planes went down with al-Qaeda at the helm. Our civilians, who refused to leave the stairwells of the World Trade Center as they helped others get out to safety and died for their bravery. Our civilians, who charged the al-Qaeda-held cockpit in a desperate attempt to save lives other than their own.

That's why we're in Afghanistan, Mr. President. Our enemies will not wage war on us in the nice, clean manner you envision. Those days are gone, and it's time to kick ass. "We win, they lose," said Ronald Reagan, a man far greater than you will ever be. Unlike you, he knew that the purpose of our military is to kill people and break things, no matter whose feelings might get hurt in the process. We have the greatest military in the world, damnit, and it's time to use it. Give Gen. Petraeus what he needs to win this war. We're going into the heart of darkness and we don't need your namby-pamby rhetoric about sensitivities or false posturing about fiscal responsibility as you're slashing the military budget. Our enemy, the scum of the earth, uses civilians as shields and children on the battlefield. There is going to be collateral damage. Suck it up and take it like the men and women you're sending into harm's way. Let us win, Mr. President, and do your freakin job.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Oh, Where Do I Start?

President Obama had a town-hall meeting yesterday, and someone asked him about the Tea Party. I could spend all day going over that appearance, but I just want to address one statement.
"America has a noble tradition of being healthfully skeptical about government. That's in our DNA." (Obama-bots, surprisingly, applaud.) "We came in because, uhhh, the folks, uhhh, over on the other side of the Atlantic been, uhhhh, oppressing folks without giving reputation."
Where did Obama learn his U.S. history?! Indonesia? Oh wait, he probably did. His grasp on history is tenuous, at best. Sure the Puritans came over here because they wanted a place to practice their religious freedom, but others came over to start a new life. But that's not the problematic part. The "no taxation without representation" (not reputation!) did not come until the American Revolution, over a hundred years later, when we were already here! We revolted not only because we were "skeptical of the government," but because they weren't listening to the people. Which is why, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave the people the power to tell the government what we think. Government works for the people, not the other way around, and that is an American principle. We're skeptical of the government, but that's not why we've got the best democracy in the world. We've got it because of freedom.
The problem with the debate that's taken place, uhhh, and, uhhh, with some of these Tea Party events I think they're misidentifying who the culprits are here. We had two tax cuts that weren't paid for,
Rush went nuclear on the idea that tax cuts need to be "paid for," and I agree. When taxes are cut, the economy grows, and government gets more revenue. It's called the Laffer Curve, and it's been proven correct because of human nature, not pie-in-the-sky academic analysis. Obama might know about such things if he or anyone in his administration had private sector experience. The money people make does not belong to the government. The money people make belongs to them, and the government taxes them to pay for services for the people. The reason liberals hyperventilate about tax cuts is that they think that all wealth belongs to the government and that tax cuts means the government gets less revenue. They then spout rhetoric like Obama did, hoping that everyone gets as panicked as they do when the idea of a smaller government gets floated around.
two wars that weren't paid for.
When the Right points out all the services that could be trimmed, the Left demands that we cut back on war spending. This is baseless. The war in Iraq cost less than the failed stimulus of early 2009. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing, so we don't have the numbers for that yet, but we do know that Obama did not want to commit resources in the form of troops as his generals asked. Why is it that whenever the budget gets cut, the Left goes after the Pentagon? The military has a Constitutional imperative to protect the country, and the Left does everything they can to undercut them. There is no Constitutional imperative for Social Security, Medicare or government-funded housing, and as painful as it would be, Americans know deep down that those programs need to be trimmed.
We've got a population, uhhh, that's getting older. We're all demanding services but our taxes have actually substantially gone down,
But we don't have money for anything. Before the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, we had a deficit, but we were trying to get things under control. Then the Blue Wave came, and spending went through the roof, compounded by Congress' refusal to do anything about the ticking time bomb of sub-prime mortgages. The Democrats are hoping to rewrite history by blaming the recession on the Bush tax cuts, which makes no sense whatsoever. What does increased federal debt - which they claim is from the Bush tax cuts (which is false) - have to do with the economy taking a dive after the markets tanked? That's pure Keynesian thinking, and it's ridiculous. The reason the economy took a nosedive is that the government, because of the Democrats, forced banks to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back, and then the whole scheme collapsed. Barack Obama doesn't want you to know about that. He wants you to think that Bush waved an eeeeeeevil magic wand and the recession happened. Oh, and have you heard that the government will still help you get a home even if you can't pay for it?
and so the -- the challenge I think for the Tea Party movement is to identify specifically: What would you do?
They've told you what they want to do! TEA originally stood for Taxed Enough Already, because the American taxpayer is fed up with high taxes and a byzantine tax code. They want Washington D.C. to stop spending and putting their grandchildren into debt. Read their signs, Obama! Unlike the idiots that Andrew Breitbart confronted, they'll stand by their signs and explain them to you, and even make fun of the media for obsessing over their signs.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Channeled Rage

Even though I was in the middle of an intense ICC 10 raid last night, I still managed to watch Sarah Palin's speech to the Iowa GOP and Sen. Lisa Murkowski's announcement of a write-in campaign. One of them lifted me up, and one of them made be so angry that we took out two bosses I'd never been able to defeat before.

Sarah Palin's speech started out fast-paced. I think she was a little nervous because she'd drawn record numbers to the dinner and it was being carried by C-Span and Fox News. But she slowed down halfway into the speech, making a clear case for the cause of conservatism and the need to win in 2010 (candidly talking about ducking 2012 questions, natch!). She called for unity in the GOP, reminding us all that the primaries were over and we needed to back our candidates.

After her speech, interestingly, her mike was kept hot as she walked off the platform to the back hallway to make her exit. Even though you couldn't see what was going on, Palin was mobbed by media and well-wishers. She handled both gracefully, posing for pictures, signing items, and accepted a tape someone gave her, all while fielding questions from the media she'd just ripped a gaping hole in for not exercising their military-protected right wisely. Palin came off well, demonstrating fantastically Reagan's "happy warriors" of conservatism.

I wish I could say the same for Lisa Murkowski. After the "independents" (more on one of those later) came out and asked her to run, she went on for 20 minutes in a pathetic ego-fest. She threw her family aside, saying it would have been easy to bow out and spend time with them, but she looked in her heart and decided to run anyway. She invoked the ghost of Ted Stevens, essentially saying that Ted would want her to run. She condescended to the voters, saying she was going to educate them on how to spell her name after her family has spent decades in the Alaskan spotlight. She outright lied, saying Alaskans need a "senior Senator" to bring home the federal dollars (which is somehow not pork, by the way), when it's unlikely she'll keep her position in leadership and ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She admitted that she was breaking her own pledge that she would abide by the primary results, but supposedly that was because Joe Miller ran a "smear campaign." In other words, his shoestring budget did the unthinkable and told the truth.

But that's not what made me channel my rage into Festergut and Rotface. It was one of the people who preceded Murkowski and implored her to run. I'd like to address her below:

Dear Katie,

I'm not even sure if this is your name or not, because when I asked the people who were watching this rally with me to double-check, they told me that your name is Katie and you hadn't specified a last name. If you did this to retain anonymity, you should have realized that as a person contacted by Murkowski's campaign to speak on national television, you opened yourself up to public scrutiny.

You began by stating that you were a military spouse without identifying the branch or unit your husband served in. You said that you had come to Alaska in 1996 and you now considered Alaska home. First of all, in order to be a "military family" that had stayed in one place for 14 years, your husband would have had to get out of active duty and enlist in the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is considered an overseas assignment, and to even get back-to-back 4-year tours there would be rare, much less a 14-year assignment. The National Guard being what it is, in general, spouses specify that their significant other is in the National Guard. In fact, almost every military spouse I've met proudly identifies what branch their spouse serves in. (Go Air Force!) So, this leads me to believe that your husband did not re-enlist, retired, or, heaven forbid, was kicked out. This means you are no longer a "military family." You may think of yourself as such, but the label no longer applies. It does not lend any credibility to your endorsement of Lisa Murkowski's quixotic write-in campaign when your self-identification is in question.

Then you proceeded to say that you spoke for all military families in endorsing Murkowski. The military does not endorse candidates, and cannot ever been seen as doing so. They have regulations making it very clear that military members are not to run for office or publicly use their military status to endorse a candidate. If a military spouse endorses a candidate, they must make it very, very clear that they are doing so as a personal decision.

You do not speak for me. Where do you get the authority to speak for all military families? What organization do you head that has the backing of the families of over two million military members? I take offense at anyone saying that they are speaking for all military families, especially when they're endorsing a power-hungry lying vindictive politician like Lisa Murkowski. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your husband did not serve so you could use his service to promote a career politician. Your husband served so that you could state your endorsement of this spoiled brat as an American.

An Air Force Wife

Friday, September 17, 2010

Obligatory Gamer Dr00l Post

Yes, I'm stealing headline-writing from Allahpundit. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :P

I'm also cheating on blog content, so there.

My apologies for the smallness of the video, but Blogger is constraining me.

Vescere bracis meis!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The Time-Wasters Of My Life

I got a request the other night to make this a "Conservatives on WoW" blog. I don't think that would get me very far, because a) Most gamers are libertarians, not conservatives, and b) I cannot talk numbers like Pooky can. So I'll just write a short post on it.
Tipper Gore's campaign against violent media helped shove a lot of geeks into the libertarian camp, and I still see them fighting the automatic assumption that video games make people violent. As for the blogs that talk about gaming, there is no way I could do that. When I'm on my paladin in a raid, I am (literally) blowing everyone away with my damage per second, but I can't tell you the numbers behind what I'm doing. My gaming style is more about instinct than math. And I like whacking things. Lots and lots of things.
I told a friend the other day that WoW, Guild Wars and Twitter are the bane of my existence, but lately, it's become clear that WoW is the biggest time sink mankind has ever invented. It takes you months to get to level 80 (and they're upping it to 85 soon), and when you do, you have to dungeon grind to get the gear you need to raid. After that, it's all about the tons of achievements WoW has come up with. And don't even get me started on the professions you have to slog through!
Guild Wars is time-consuming, but the biggest chunk of time is getting through the missions in the campaigns. Fighting Shiro at the end of Factions is an extremely short mission, but it is so incredibly intense that you almost feel that it is real. There are dungeons in the Eye of the North expansion, and I don't do those as much as most players do because unless you have a lot of people you know in your group, errors tend to compound themselves. I've heard people gripe about the 15% death penalty you get for dying, but you can work it off with XP and if things are going to the Realm of Torment in a handbasket, you can zone and start over. The ability to create customizable characters and play them through a coherent storyline has inspired me to start a fan fiction that maybe, just maybe I'll get finished with someday. And I'll have you know that I was working on mine a year before these guys!
Overall, what I like about MMORPGs is the ability to enter a fantasy and have fun. Pooky's uncle had his WoW account hacked last week (they were even so cruel as to delete almost all of his characters!), and he had to keep telling himself, "It's just a game. It's just a game." It took a week for Blizzard to get him some of his characters back, and even then, they couldn't recover the gear that had been stripped. The guild pitched in, and we were able to get him most of his gear back. Experiences like that can make you want to quit, but then you meet the vast community of people who just want to have fun and are willing to help out others. Or, if you happen to be a cute female, you get lots of help and gold. :P
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to level my mining and engineering on my level 67 shaman. And farm some icy humps by beating up a bunch of Ettins. And try to keep up with people on Twitter.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

It's Time

It's time.

It's time to say goodbye to one of the greatest men I've ever known, who shaped me so much that I can't even begin to describe it.

It's time to say goodbye to the man whose loss still makes my chest seize up and tears come to my eyes. It's taken me five months to even get to the point where I can write about it and not break down.

The epilepsy attack happened a few years ago, the major heart attack a year ago, the move into the nursing home at the same time. And still I wasn't ready to let go.

I don't think I'll ever stop missing you, Grandpa. Every day I see your bow tie on the bookshelf and remember the scientist, the professor, the philatelist, the die-hard Cubs fan, the man of God, and the man who loved his family.

The wonderful, touching slideshow of Grandpa's 86 years that Jack made won't load, so I took some stills.

He and my mother were incredibly close.

Ah, the glorious bow ties!

Grandpa never stopped teaching.

I'm afraid I wasn't terribly cooperative for this picture.

The family he loved.

He found that even more fun than being a grandpa was being a great-grandpa!

He got to watch his great-grandchildren grow. (Yes, those are the same boys!)

He and my grandmother used to argue the particulars of historical battles, sometimes late into the night...

We got married on their 59th anniversary, and this is a moment I will cherish forever.

PS-One of the last things Grandpa said to me was that he thought the next GOP presidential nominee would be Sarah Palin. If I ever get the chance to talk to her, I'd like to tell her that both of my grandpas adored her.

Are We Ready For A Woman President?

The Right Scoop, in last night's battle of the Twitter Sexist Wars, unknowingly gave me some blog fodder. We were talking about sexism and Sarah Palin, and whether America was ready for a President Palin. Cubachi and TRS think so, and I gave a yes on the condition that it's what she wants to do. All of this speculation two years out rarely comes to fruition, and I trust that Palin will think long and hard before getting back into putting her name on the ballot. As I alluded to yesterday, she's been effective as a consultant, but the savaging of her family was unprecedented.
Is America ready for a woman president? America was inundated in 2007 and early 2008 with fretting about the conservative side of this country supposedly unwilling to accept a woman president. We're hostile to women's rights, we're fundamentalist Christians who think that women are unfit for anything outside the home, we only look at women as sex objects. Well, maybe that last one is somewhat true, because I've heard more than once "The Right has hotter women than the Left!"
"Women's rights" is code language for wholly endorsing abortion. The Left is perfectly okay with embracing a culture of death, but the Right continually and wholeheartedly embraces life. I'm pro-life, a "traitor to my gender," and I'll tell you why.
Many years ago, I heard a young woman talk about the dream she'd had her entire childhood. She would be sitting in a closet. There would be someone next to her. Then the door would open briefly, the other person would be yanked out of the closet, and she was alone in the dark. It bothered her for years. She had to go into counseling for some other issues, and she described the dream. Her mother finally confessed that she had had an abortion, and didn't realize until afterwards that she'd been pregnant with twins and her daughter had survived. I want all those women screaming for "reproductive rights" to tell this young woman that she shouldn't be alive. That when she was a "blob of tissue" she wasn't aware of her brother next to her. The Right is trying to take back the feminist movement, and we do that by supporting life. Abortion hurts women, and the Right recognizes that while the Left uses women for their own agenda.
Part of the discussion last night also hit on the religious aspect of women in leadership roles. I come from a very conservative Christian denomination, where "women in church office" is such a hot-button issue that whenever the leadership in the top even considers it, yet another congregation splits off and joins an even more conservative denomination. There's Biblical evidence for not allowing women to preach, and as for them serving on councils, my mother pointed out that whenever women sit on a church council, "the women do all the work." But I've never heard my denomination say that we should never vote for a woman in a public office. Even if they had, one of the tenets of the Reformation (sorry, Cubachi) was "Sola Scriptura- By Scripture Alone," which means that we look to Scripture before the doctrines of men. Christians are called to work in this fallen world, and if that means having to put ourselves on the ballot, so be it. Christian women across the nation are entering the political spectrum because we've got a lot to lose. Our religion, the way of life of our families, and our identities as Americans is all coming under attack. It's time to be a Mama Grizzly and fight back!
Finally... Of course the ladies on the right are hotter! We actually know how to dress!
And we smile a lot because we love this country and know how to have fun!
We know the guys love looking at us, and we wink at them!

Yeah, we're ready to have a conservative woman occupying the White House!