It begins with Eve.

She was God’s creation but Adam named her. He chose a name that means darkness, that which makes things unknowable. God had named every thing until that day; he had named the earth and the day and Adam himself. The name Adam chose was Eve. At that moment, God began to worry for Adam; he seemed too wise, already instilled with some dark knowledge that God didn’t equip him with.

God had planned to kill Eve a thousand times but the first to die, as recorded in the Holy Bible, was Abel – but perhaps that is merely a technicality. Who would be most grievously destroyed by the death of Abel? Eve, of course. Abel was the first entirely human child, Eve’s creation. Eve had carried him in her body and birthed him and nursed him.   She knew the flower-scent of his skin and the the sweetness of his honeylips.  She knew his tiny fingerprints and the wild darts of his pupils when he saw a butterfly. She knew his nose and his belly as round as a piglet’s.  Knowing this, it would have made no sense to allow her to die.   Instead, God had to allow her to see how truly awful she had made the world by her mere presence. So God chose to allow the death of Abel by his brother Cain. He punished her twice: she’d not only lost her son – the first son of the whole world – but she was forced to bear the knowledge that he was killed by his own brother, thus corrupting the purity of her love for Cain.

When God allowed this to happen, he bestowed upon the world the knowledge of how to punish all women. You take away their children. You take away their ability to create something and hold it – to project it into the future. If man doesn’t do it, God will. He will do it randomly enough that every woman is born with the fear of it in her bones, it creeps into her dreams, it torments her, and then it happens to her. This torture is far worse than death.

This is how you control the world. Use that fear, to make that a reality, to forever force women to be ruled by a heartbeat outside their own bodies.

The Bailout Backlash

My Wallstrip column about the bailout is live.

Pink Rage

I know I’m going to hell for this but I can’t contain my disgust any longer: I hate the Susan Komen Foundation and I hope every regional office, every pink ribbon, every piece of crap Race For The Cure literature blows away in a huge hurricane-slash-earthquake-slash-wave-of-pestilence (or just for the irony, AIDS). Every September, we start to see the pink stuff everywhereand everybody is wearing their stupid pink ribbons. It started with some flyers in my mailbox about a Race For The Cure, which I moved from the mailbox to the trashcan with the cool efficiency of someone who has discovered anthrax spores on the mail. Then yesterday I breezed into the market and -bam- first thing any shopper saw was an enormous display of pink “Susan G. Komen” pink cupcakes, rice crispie treats with pink icing, pink cookies, and whatever else – probably things that are not recommended for fighting cancer. I didn’t stand there and stare because the mere sight of it filled me with rage so violent that I had to dig my nails into my wrist to keep from uplifting the table and sending it hurling across the baked goods section with a scream of triumph ripped from my white throat and the look of a marauder who barely stops seething enough to ask, “Who is next?”

I realize the Susan Komen people don’t want me to feel this way. They want me to support women with breast cancer. They want me to feel up my boobs in the shower and then donate a coupla bucks to their (very worthy if completely insane) organization. They want to instill in me a feeling of purpose when I see pink cupcakes and pink ribbons, all Adult Purpose like George Washington crossing the Potomac.

In reality, all I see is a bunch of nutcases who just do not know when to quit.

Must they oppress me with their presence everywhere? I tolerated it when they came into the shower with me with their little ads and their little “Check yourself for tumors like we all live in Chernobyl” voice. But some things are sacred. Like cupcakes. Do not market to me on my cupcakes. Doesn’t that seem queer to you?   I do not want to think about breast cancer when I am trying to enjoy a cupcake, just like men probably don’t want to think about testicular cancer as they’re enjoying meatballs. Just doesn’t work. Fails on every level.

The night of my market rage, I made the mistake of grabbing my Self Magazine to take with me into a long, hot bath. There it was, on page 24, the pink. My cerebral cortex began to swell and itch. Calm down, I told myself. There’s little chance I would encounter the Evil Pink two times in a single day.

Lo, it is BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH and boy oh boy, Self Magazine is going all out. Every page is pink. Everything in it is about breast cancer. Not cervical cancer or leukemia or brain hemorrhaging – which is what I really needed an article on at this point. Just breast cancer because, as we all know, breast cancer is the only disease that is worth losing your flipping mind over. Apparently the Susan Komen Foundation had simply bought the entire magazine for the whole month. So you know I’m not overreacting, here is the proof (and keep in mind my pink rage was so acute by this point I stopped about 1/4 of the way through the magazine; I simply had pink saturation; I could not endure another pink page or the word “cancer”. Also, I only took pictures of the first page of the article – so basically every page here represents three or four more pages of pink.)

This is too much in a single publication. But it doesn’t stop there. Walking into a women’s sports store these days is like being mobbed by the ghost of every woman who ever had a cancer scare in her life. There are posters on the walls and displays and pink bras and pink Race For The Cure branded sneaks and shorts and watches and water bottles and energy bars. They will not leave me alone. They’re with me when I buy my cupcakes, when I run to burn off the calories from the cupcake, and when I go into the shower afterwords.

I don’t even know what they’re hoping to accomplish anymore. It doesn’t even seem to be about raising money, just infiltrating every corner of every woman’s life with a pink breast cancer traffic signal. I will never, ever donate a dime to the foundation – not because it’s not worthy (it certainly is) but because it fills me with such violent, choking, paroxysmal fury that if I have a choice between giving a charity dollar to the Susan Komen Foundation and any other organization, even if its for male pattern baldness, I will give it to the other one. I will not only give it to someone else, if I have the chance I will actually steal money from the Susan Komen Foundation to give to some charity that deals with childhood diseases. After all, these predatory marketing professionals have obviously lived long enough to not only survive but annoy the living bejeesus out of all of us who have never had the disease. Might as well give the kids a chance to at least grow up.

I believe the Susan Komen Foundation has become actually disgusting. Its coffers must be insanely fat to fund all the Self Magazine layouts, the local and national races, all the pink cupcakes and other branded merch, all the crap that they throw out there in the blind hope of raising awareness. It’s not even about the cancer victims anymore; I don’t know what Komen does except advertise itself and instill in me a hatred for all things related to this charity.

They can’t even fix it now.  The hatred is so entrenched in my soul that even if I were stricken with the disease tomorrow, I would plead with my friends to have nothing to do with this self-important jagoff organization. I would be ashamed to be associated with it. It would be as horrific as being associated with NAMBLA.

If you’re a cancer victim and Susan Komen has done great work for you, then I’m pleased. Obviously all the pain they’ve put me through has resulted in some goodness. But I’ve had enough. I am reclaiming my breasts and my shower-time.

Join me, people. Free yourselves from the Pink Menace! The pink ribbon has bound you! It is time to free yourself, to walk bravely into the daylight.

Not for the Cure.

But for your own peace of mind.

Scrappleface: McCain: Bailout Deal Hingest On Length of Perp Walks

Scrappleface nails the bailout with the headline, “McCain: Bailout Deal Hinges on Length of Perp Walks”. (As you know, the perp walk is one of my favorite subjects so naturally I laughed like a hyenna when I read this.)

Sen. John McCain said reluctant Republicans would sign on to a $700 billion federal bailout of “Big Finance”, as soon as Democrats agree “to require criminally-negligent Wall Street CEOs and their enablers in Congress to perform a videotaped and broadcast perp walk, of not less than 10 yards per million dollars squandered.”

The 11th-hour negotiations were said to focus on whether Sen. McCain would concede to Democrat demands for “handcuffs and business suits”, or if he would stubbornly stick with his original proposal to require full shackles and fluorescent orange jumpsuits as the perpetrators walk to court to face federal fraud and racketeering charges.

“Of course, we all have a sense of urgency about this deal,” said Sen. McCain, “Because, once the perp walks start, there’s no telling how long Congress will be able to assemble a quorum.”

Oh it’s nice to laugh again.

Sarah's League

Though Kathleen Parker’s critical essay of Sarah Palin received a lot of attention, it was not the only article that week to push the idea that Sarah Palin is out of her league. I personally read four such articles, and maybe there were more. It was almost as if a talking point had been issued and journalists and bloggers dutifully wrote their “Sarah is not prepared” screed.

One such screed was an opinion piece in the New York Times that likened Sarah to the fictional Legally Blond character, Elle Woods. She gets by on her looks and her moxie, the writer said, and managed to accomplish her goals without doing the work.

The truth is the writer was totally correct about that.

Sarah Palin hasn’t done the work to be elected to the White House. She has not spent the last eight years surrounding herself with advisers who will help her get elected. She hasn’t come onto the national stage showboating about the middleclass or the environment or whatever cause is in vogue in any given week. She’s been a wife and mother and governor of an important state, quietly going about her life with the kind of drudgery and triumphs that we all share.

Sarah’s not polished, and that’s one of the reasons I like her. She doesn’t have every one of John McCain’s votes memorized; why would she? She’s been in Alaska, not in the Senate chambers hammering out legislation.

When Katie Couric snidely asked why she just this year got a passport, Sarah said she wasn’t from a background that included going on a world tour after college; she was working and being a mom. How many of us can relate to that? And isn’t it interesting that she would be the first VP candidate who couldn’t necessarily afford to travel all over the globe? In other words, she doesn’t appear to come from a rich, well-known family; she is the middleclass.

In another article published this week, a female writer says that she recognizes herself in Palin, in those horrible moments when you realize that you’re out of your league (again, same phrasing) and you rely on girlish giggles and bullshit answers just to get through whatever exchange you’re having.

I have met world leaders. I have met Obama and George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and even the Queen of England. I have met CEOs and Cindy Crawford and Madonna. I have met some of the most celebrated people in America. I have never, ever, felt out of my league. I’ve felt the same usual nervousness that you feel when you meet anyone new, but I’ve never thought of one “class” of person as inherently more worth my time or attention than any other; likewise, I’ve never thought myself unworthy of someone’s serious consideration just because I’m not a Rothschild. So when I read that Sarah Palin is out her league, all I can think is that the writer is a typical liberal who views the world divided into groups, some of whom are better than others. The rich/elite are better than the average/middleclass who are better than the poor.

When these writers describe Sarah as out of her league, one must think that really are viewing her as a bumbling middleclass girl who Elle Woods-ed her way into the attention of President Hamid Karzai and Henry Kissenger and who-ever else. If a man were to say this, it would be called Sexism. But because a woman is saying it, its a kind of independent statement of the facts.

For the ultimate irony, those who say they relate to her are doing so precisely because of their Elle Woods theory. Why, its almost as if they’re proclaiming to the heavens that they too are frauds, they too are far out of their league.

But luckily, Sarah isn’t out of her league. She’s operating perfectly within her purview, and I expect that as the campaign progresses, she will become more polished (unfortunately), and she’ll be better able to stay on McCain’s watered down message (unfortunately). She’ll give better interviews with better prepared answers.   The media may or may not give her credit for that, but at least Sarah will fit in with their vision of how a female vice president should act – however dubious an accomplishment that may be.

When she’s elected Vice President, Katie Couric and those other women who scoff at her will marvel at how a hick from Alaska has become the VP.   They will never stop the meme, however, that she’s unqualified. Three years from now, after she’s met with every important leader on the globe, Sarah Palin will be discussed as if she were a hopeless twit party governor. No matter her accomplishments, she will always be just a pretty girl who tripped upstairs.

She may have an advantage in that her womanhood may protect her from the onslaught of liberal criticism. Not because she’s too frail to take it, but because they may not believe she’s actually strong or smart enough to be devious. Their criticisms will focus on her verbal slips, her lack of polish, her bluntness. The media will be relentless. Their hearts will beat the song of envy.

A Moral Suicide

This article in Townhall argues that people do not have the right to suicide, and especially do not have the right to ask others to help them kill themselves. If this is a traditional Conservative viewpoint, I diverge drastically. I can’t even respect his argument:

At the heart of Lady Warnock’s comments (and, indeed, the entire euthanasia movement) is an atomistic, subjective, utilitarian view of life. Once one becomes dissatisfied with the quality of their life or determines that they have outlived their usefulness, the door is open for them to end their life. They are the sole arbiters of whether their life is worth living. And if they are unable to “do the deed” themselves, they should be free to select a proxy to do it for them.

This “freedom” ignores the duty and responsibility people have to their families and communities. As John Donne famously said, “No man is an island.” Perhaps the greatest modern lie is that every person has the right to do with themselves whatever they please. This lie fuels the selfish desires of every person: the elderly person who is too proud to let themselves “be a burden” to others, and those “others” who don’t want to have to care for a person suffering from dementia or physical maladies.

I take exception to the idea that I am somehow unqualified to decide for myself whether or not my life is worth living. My responsibilities to my community? I don’t believe I have any other than to obey the rules; I owe nobody anything. And the responsibilities to my family – one could argue that the value one has to oneself must exceed the value one has to one’s family – or any other entity – in order for that value to be fully derived.

This thinking that one must stick around because you owe somebody something is wrong headed and silly. You own your life. If you or I or anyone else wakes up in the morning and decides that today is their last day on earth, then so be it.

The issue gets a little more clouded when one involves others in the death of a human being. My gut instinct says that if you’re certain you want to die, you should be clever enough to find a way to do it without seeking a professional. I do think there is something to be said for allowing the dignity of self-administered death with the aid of another as opposed to say, shooting oneself in the head. Perhaps it is these extreme, violent measures that signify we need professionals to help people die quietly, serenely, in their own homes. I don’t know, I’ll have to think about that some more.

But the idea that we’re not entitled to die at a time of our own choosing, for whatever private reasons we harbor,  is ridiculous – and insulting to all of us who feel we have a better than average grasp of own consciousness.

New York By Water

Allegations Against Sarah Palin

– Bristol Palin is the mother of Trig.
– Sarah Palin is a bad mom because her daughter got pregnant.
– Sarah Palin is making Bristol marry her boyfriend; the boyfriend didn’t want to.
– Sarah Palin is a terrible mother for not staying home to be with her children, particularly Trig.
– Sarah Palin was irresponsible for having a Down Syndrome child; she should have aborted Trig.
– Todd Palin has sex with his daughters.
– Sarah Palin failed miserably in her interview with Charlie Gibson.
– Sarah Palin failed miserably in her interview with Katie Couric.
– Sarah Palin is scared to talk to the press.
– Sarah Palin is anti-woman.
– Sarah Palin has no foreign policy experience.
– Sarah Palin is going to lose big time in her debate with Biden.
– Sarah Palin is dumb for not knowing the complete reform record of John McCain off the top of her head.
– Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Veep.
– Sarah Palin used a stylist for her speech at the Republican convention, therefore is a phony.

That’s it for the first twenty-eight days of her candidacy, averaging out to a new accusation every 2.15 days. On paper, she’s already worse than Saddam Hussain.

It’s fun to make the moonbats crazy.

Suspended: Campaign vs. Crisis

Today Barack Obamaccused John McCain of pulling a “stunt” when the Republican nominee suggested the first presidential debate be postponed while the Washington leadership worked to resolve the economic crisis. Blogs and left-wing media immediately echoed the Senator’s comment – and the real issue was nearly drowned out.

I have a lot of problems with this bailout plan but one thing I know for sure – and this is why I am voting for McCain – is that John McCain does love his country and he honestly wants to do what’s best for America. He and I have a lot of disagreements about what is best (I don’t have these qualms with Sarah Palin; I am betting my vote that Palin will act as a conservative weight to the McCain administration.) But I don’t doubt for an instant that he is a man of integrity and patriotism. I do not believe McCain is even capable of a gimmick. He’s too authentic to be false even for the sake of an electoral advantages. So I believe without question that he really does see the “financial crisis” as a crisis – something that must be confronted immediately.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to be a political robot. Just fill him up with liberal cliches, wind him up, and let him go. Obama flatters himself that he frightened McCain into postponing because he didn’t want to expose himself to the rapier tongue of the man who believes we have fifty-seven states.

So instead of showing that he could “work together with Republicans”, which was the whole premise of his campaign when he first announced his candidacy (remember the song and dance about unity?), he instead rebuffed McCain and instead hurled insults and questioned his character.

The whole set-up stinks of politics as usual – an impression that works to the advantage of neither candidate.

Where is Obama’s priority? On talking about foreign policy to the American people at the debate. But how much weight does foreign policy really have right now if there is such an urgent crisis at home? Wouldn’t it have been smarter to get the bailout done (as much as I despise it) then appear victorious in Mississippi? Wouldn’t such a success advance both McCain and Obama’s strong positioning as candidates who will reach across the aisle to do what’s right for America? Apparently not. Obama’s opinion seems to be that the crisis can wait, where there’s a camera there’s an opportunity to look good on teevee which is all that seems to matter to him.

I guess it comes down to the old cliche, who would you trust to watch your kids? I would have to say McCain because I think he’d know what to do in an emergency. I think Barack is probably a pretty good father but I am not sure he’s the guy I’d want playing Disney videos for a four year old. He seems distracted by his own ambition. (Also: isn’t it difficult to have two children and run for President of the United States? How would he manage being a dad with being the Commander in Chief? Was it really responsible for him to have children in the first place, knowing he was going to run for public office?)

McCain is showing character here by asking to suspend the debate. It puts him in an awkward position because he will either have to cede to Obama and show up in Mississippi, thereby allowing Obama to appear to have gotten his way, or he can decide not to show up and be the first presidential candidate to ever ditch a presidential debate. Either way, it’s minus one for McCain. But I have a feeling that once they do debate, that point will be recovered, with many to spare.

Obama Wants "Final Solution"

Responding to President Bush’s request that Obama return to Washington to hammer out the details of the bailout plan, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democratic presidential contender “will continue to work in a bipartisan spirit and do whatever is necessary to come up with a final solution.”

Oh. A final solution. (Note to self: Write Mr. Burton a memo and suggest he ask around, he might have a coupla Jewish friends who have heard that phrase before.)

I realize I might be considered picky here, but this is just careless; no politician should use that phrase in any context. It’s just ugly and there are better words.

I’m not offended, and I don’t think he’s going to start rounding up the Jews (yet) but I do think it’s just one more clumsy statement from a campaign that can seem to make only clumsy statements.

%d bloggers like this: