A Little Feminist Outrage, Please

The citizen journalist expose of ACORN has revealed that the liberal front of "Community Organizers" is no friend to women. ACORN workers failed to condemn the objectification of women through prostitution. To the contrary, ACORN employees advised how to evade the tax and housing laws to allow a pimp to maximize his profits through illegal government subsidies.

Even worse, ACORN workers expressed no shock, no qualms about the importation of illegal immigrants, including children, to perform sex acts that could include abuse. That is, the ACORN employee confronted the possibility of conduct that was not just prostitution but a form of enslavement.

Where are the feminists? Why are they not rising up to condemn ACORN's willingness to aid and abet the exploitation of women and young girls?

Calling Gloria Steinem

Still waiting for the feminists to rise up in outrage over the Sarah Palin mannequin hanging from a noose outside a West Hollywood home.

If the effigy were of Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem et al would demand the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the hate crime. But once again, feminists demonstrate that the freedom they would bestow on women does not include the freedom to disagree with feminist orthodoxy.

How about Joe "I Wrote the Violence Against Women Act" Biden -- surely he will denounce lynching Sarah Palin in effigy. Just as soon as he peels off the duct tape.

Awaiting Feminist Outrage

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez revealed himself to be a male chauvinist pig when it comes to Gov. Sarah Palin, but no feminists have denounced his hate speech.

Chavez characterized Palin as: "poor thing;" "beauty queen;" "figurehead;" "she knows not what she's saying."

Venezuela depends on its oil income, which means it depends on foreign countries to import its oil; Venezuela supplies 11 percent of America's oil.

Sarah Palin has made clear that she would drill now to make America energy independent while renewable fuel technologies become commercially available. In fact, Palin would go further than Sen. John McCain on domestic drilling by allowing drilling in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Palin therefore poses a bigger threat to Venezuela's oil market and Chavez's stronghold than anyone else on either ticket.

Sen. Joe Biden opposes drilling in ANWR but boasts that he is the champion of women because of his role in the Violence Against Women Act. It would follow that Joe the Gaffer will denounce Chavez's sexist comments about Palin. But first, his staff will have to rescue Veep wannabe from his undisclosed location and peel the duct tape off his mouth.

The More Things Change . . .

Feminism hasn't changed much. Back in the '60's, feminists burned their bras. Now they decorate them, fly them on flag poles and sell them in silent auctions. As Kentucky Women: Power, Passion, Politics blog writes,

Cincinnatians are encouraged to decorate bras and drop them off at any Greater Cincinnati Panera Bread location, or the Havana Martini Club downtown on Fifth St. between Race and Vine Sts. Havana Martini Club is offering $4 "Ta-Ta-Tinis" to those dropping off a donation. Panera will provide free pink ribbon bagels to any group that reserves a meeting room to decorate bras*. Donations will be accepted from Oct. 1-Oct. 22.

Now, raising money for breast cancer research is a laudable goal, no question. The means, however -- maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think under garments are meant to be kept under clothes. I also think bras are meant to be worn, not burnt and not decorated. (The only time they should fly from a flag pole is before sunrise, when seized in a fraternity panty raid.)

There was a time when women hid the fact that they had breast cancer. First Lady Betty Ford, thankfully, did much to remove the stigma of the disease by announcing her diagnosis, just weeks after her husband became president. She deserves our gratitude for that.

But decorating and flying bras from flagpoles, it seems to me, crosses the line from promoting awareness of a disease to a sort of exhibitionism. We don't see people who advocate screenings for prostate cancer or colon cancer engage in these stunts, though their diseases are serious and their fundraising goals worthy.

It's a question of means, not ends. Feminists like Gloria Steinem never understood that their means were off-putting to many people who might otherwise agree with them to an extent. Feminists can send me all the ugly emails they like (they just prove my point). If these women really want their message to succeed -- if they really want to forge a consensus -- they will reconsider their tactics.

Mo Dowd on Palin

The selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee has stimulated Maureen Dowd's creative juices (which stopped flowing once Bubba left office). Mo can't quite decide how she feels about Palin.

On the one hand, she calls it a "cynical pick" and "affirmative action." Note the upper crust East Coast elitism:

Obama may have been president of The Harvard Law Review, but Palin graduated from the University of Idaho with a minor in poli-sci and worked briefly as a TV sports reporter. And she was tougher on the basketball court than the ethereal Obama, earning the nickname “Sarah Barracuda.”

In one fell swoop of her mouse, Mo insults every voter who went to a state university instead of an Ivy League college. Who says the New York Times and the Obamas are snobs? They're just misunderstood by the little people -- the ones who are writing checks to McCain-Palin by the pick-up truck full.

In her book Are Men Necessary?, Mo obsesses about plastic surgery, and whines that feminism lost out to narcissism. Imagine her ambivalence then, about a GOP candidate who not only thrills conservatives for being literally right on the issues, but looks great, too. (And without the intervention of Dr. Liposuction.)

Sarah is a zealot, but she’s a fun zealot. She has a beehive and sexy shoes, and the day she’s named she goes shopping with McCain in Ohio for a cheerleader outfit for her daughter.

As she once told Vogue, she’s learned the hard way to deal with press comments about her looks. “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots,” she said. “A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.”

Dara Torres wasn't supposed to be an Olympian as a 42 year old mother. She was said to be too old -- older than most of the swimmers she ended up beating. (And if she hadn't trimmed her fingernails, she would have won gold.) Palin, opponents complain, is too young. Sure, one sought to change the history of swimming and the other seeks to change the history of America. Both refuse to be put in a box, by the feminists or their competitors.

Mo's complaint that the choice of Palin is "cynical" or "insulting" is itself cynical and insulting. If Palin had aborted her fifth child and was running as a Democrat, Mo would be weeping with joy. Palin is relentlessly right on the issues, and she cannot be manipulated by the sages at the Times. That's what terrifies Mo and all her Democratic buddies.

Congratulations, Gov. Palin

John McCain's decision to ask Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to run for vice president was inspired -- and inspiring.

Palin's speech today was better than those of us who don't know her could have hoped. She is articulate, telegenic and genuine.

For those conservatives who've been sluggish about supporting McCain, Palin's selection not only reassured, it reinvigorated the Republican base. (It was always a liberal fairy tale that values voters would sulk and stay home, but now the base is motivated to give money.)

Palin is raising five children and yet works, as Governor, no less. Her husband stays home to help with the kids and housework. Feminists should love this working mom, but they will deride Palin because she rejects the feminist litmus test on abortion.

It's easy to talk the conservative talk. Palin walks it, as well. Her youngest son, not even a year old, was born with Downs Syndrome. Palin knew this in advance; prenatal tests now reveal the presence of Downs Syndrome in the first trimester. But she did not abort him. And she said that when she looks at him, she sees "perfection." Palin's commitment to honoring the dignity of every human being, even the unborn, is particularly striking, given that the number of Downs babies is dropping because the majority now get aborted.

Her speech sparkled with all sorts of symbolism. Her candidacy was announced on her 20th anniversary -- which helped her keep a promise to her husband (high school sweetheart) that she'd give him a surprise. All her children were present except her eldest son. He enlisted in the Army on the anniversary of 9/11 and will deploy to Iraq on 9/11. Even the setting was telling. Whereas Obama gave his speech in the rock star venue of Mile High Stadium, Palin announced in the heartland of Dayton, Ohio.

She is strong on the second amendment and is an avid sportsman and athlete. She has fought against government waste -- as Governor of Alaska, she said "no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- and she has fought for lower taxes. She has battled corruption.

Obama last night promised to give every child the same education he and Michelle were fortunate to receive. Princeton, Columbia and Harvard Law -- imagine the tax hike to pay for that promise. And he pledged to recruit an army of teachers. This former law professor appears ignorant of the fact that local school districts -- not the federal government -- hire teachers. Obama's utopian world view cannot be constrained by constitutional doctrines like federalism.

And then there's Palin, a PTA mom who has personally run local and state government, the entities charged with education in our federal system. She's balanced a budget for a household with five kids. She's balanced the budget of an entire state.

Her attitude toward public service is refreshing, as well. This mother of five entered local politics via the P.T. A. -- again, to cut government waste and to reduce taxes. She emphasized the importance of bringing "a servant's heart" to public office. That stands in stark contrast to Obama-Biden, who have made a career of running for president

For Obama, the presidency is the culmination of ambition, the cherry on the top of a carefully orchestrated career. For Palin, the vice presidency is simply an act of submission to a calling.

Bruce Panders to Feminasties

Bruce Lunsford has become a cliche of Old School Liberalism. First he coddled the labor unions -- the only group that will give him any money to speak of. And now he is courting the feminists, in a manner that demeans women and the office of U.S. Senate he seeks.

From Page One, we learn that Bruce will "will unveil his plan for a Kentucky Women’s Bill of Rights on September 25 in Lexington. Carrick House, 312 N. Limestone, 7:00 P.M." This might be worth attending, just for the humor value.

After all, when else do we get to see a candidate with such a weak grasp of basic civics that he thinks that a U.S. Senator can dictate a "bill of rights" for a state? His failure to comprehend basic concepts of federalism would flunk the social studies portion of the CATS test for fifth graders.

But that's just the mechanics of Bruce's agenda. He is wrong on the merits, as well. The web site that is promoting Bruce's feminist outreach, Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics, promises that Bruce's "unveiling" of his new "bill of rights" will be "absolutely breathtaking." Be still, my heart.

The so-called "Lunsford '08 KY Women's Outreach Program" expects Bruce to do their bidding on such issues as the "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE); a critical program which gives 10 percent of all federally financed contracts to women and minority-owned companies." The feminists are enraged that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell does not support the program.

The DBE is a fancy form of welfare that should be repealed. It rests upon that central fallacy of feminism that mischaracterizes women as victims. Then it seeks to reward and perpetuate their victimization by bestowing upon them a chunk of the taxpayers' money.

Any businesswoman worth her salt would be insulted to accept this handout, which assumes that she cannot make it without Big Government intervening on her behalf. And any woman-owned business that needs to be propped up by a government subsidy does not deserve to stay in business.

And then there is the all-defining issue for feminists: abortion. Bruce Lunsford told the Courier-Journal last May that he's for it -- says he'll do all he can to keep it legal. Given Lunsford's desire to expand the federal government's role in the health insurance industry, feminists undoubtedly hope that Lunsford would back using tax dollars to pay for abortions. Lunsford's pro-abortion position also means that he would vote to confirm activist judges of the sort who created the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" out of whole cloth.

McConnell, in contrast, won the endorsement by Right to Life. He also voted to confirm Justice Samual Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Lunsford may not lean as far left as many in his party. Indeed, the Demo-blogs were outraged that he won the nomination, because he is not "progressive" enough. But make no mistake: he favors abortion and the activist judges who gave us that tragedy. McConnell has defended the sanctity of life and judicial restraint for years.

And McConnell understands that it demeans women -- a majority of the population -- to carve out special subsidies that do nothing more than discriminate against men. And unlike Lunsford, McConnell has read and understands the Constitution.

Hillary Would Exempt Illegal Aliens With Ovaries

The heat of the Nevada sun is starting to impact Hillary. No, she hasn't cried, but she's advocating an immigration policy that guts the rule of law.

Take this exchange, as reported by a Nevada paper and linked by Drudge:

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.

This is absolute nonsense. It suggests that in addition to letting illegal aliens -- who happen to be women -- bear their "anchor" babies, we're going to give these women immunity for breaking the law.

It's hard to square Hillary's assertion that "No woman is illegal" with her supposed commitment to "strict but fair enforcement of our laws." Exempting a segment of the population from our immigration laws, based solely on their gender, does not sound fair. It sounds like sex discrimination.

Imagine if a male candidate promised to exempt men from the immigration laws. No secret service agent could protect that man from the wrath of Hillary and her feminist gal-pals.

The Crying Game

Nobody channels the Clintons like Maureen Dowd:

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

What's peculiar is how well the tactic worked on those women voters over 65. (I can think of a number of ways to characterize that group, but resist the temptation with the fear that if I do, I won't live to join them.) This group has been driving for roughly half a century. They know first hand that the fastest, easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to grow misty-eyed. The prospect of tears intimidates more than the actual crying. Consequently, this group of voters should have been the quickest to spot Hillary's manipulation.

Perhaps the mature women voters sympathized with the Hillary tears that we never saw: those that must have flown every time Hillary learned that the Boy President had cheated on her.

Feminist Blowhard for Clinton

I wonder if they issued a "stop the presses" order at the New York Times -- not to inform us that Gloria Steinem is supporting Hillary Clinton, but rather to correct Steinem's mistake in her op-ed. (The Grand Dame of Feminism erroneously wrote that Senator Ted Kennedy had endorsed Hillary.)

The Times should have redacted the entire Steinem op-ed, entitled "Women Are Never Frontrunners." But then we would have missed Steinem's explanation of why Barack Obama can overcome racism but Hillary can't overcome feminism:

because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

In sum, Steinem gives us the particular blend of psycho-babble and victimization that epitomizes Old School Feminism.

Steinem's influence on Hillary has been longstanding and not just limited to feminist issues. Indeed, photos of Hillary at Yale and in the years following showed that Hillary aped not only Steinem's rhetoric but also her hair, glasses and style of dress. So it's no surprise that Steinem would support her protege, though her reasoning is startling:

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.

Oddly, Steinem's only logical point -- that Hillary has more Senate experience than Obama -- is exactly what sunk her in Iowa. And the notion that she obtained "on-the-job training in the White House," as an unelected co-president is beyond "unprecedented": it's undemocratic. But Steinem's most curious rationale for picking Hillary over Obama is her "courage to break the no-tears rule." That point confirms what most suspected: Hillary's weeping was no spontaneous show of heart; it was calculated manipulation.

Steinem correctly concludes that at the end of the day, Obama and Hillary will steer the country in the same direction -- left. They will change government in the same way -- make it bigger and more expensive. "Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time." They may not look alike, but intellectually, Hillary and Obama are twins.

The Lady and the Tramp

Two headlines in USA Today demonstrate two paradigms for young women. First, the sad news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan. Then, the word that "Britney Sizzles Up Celeb Chart," and the subheading, "She's bald head and shoulders above all the other headline hotties."

They are different stories about very different women, but both are tragic: Bhutto's life was taken away with violence, and Britney is frittering away her life with hedonism.

As USA Today, notes, for Britney Spears to win the "heat index," she had to beat Angelina Jolie, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and other celebutantes. These are the women whom our culture touts as role models.

That's why Benazir Bhutto was so extraordinary. To be sure, as a politician, she had her flaws; to some, she symbolized corruption.

As a woman, however, she gave a counter-example to little girls around the world that they could aspire to be more, to do more than Britney and Paris.

Bhutto showed that beautiful women can be smart; she never "played dumb," or hid her intellect. And she showed that beauty need not degenerate into narcissism. She was tough enough to compete with and stand firm against some of the world's worst thugs. And yet she was never, to allude to Barbara Bush's description of Geraldine Ferraro, that word that rhymes with "rich."

Britney and Paris made headlines for failing to wear underpants and then flashing the paparazzi. Bhutto, in contrast, epitomized that quaint term, "ladylike."

But most of all, we will miss Bhutto's bravery, her willingness to risk her life for the sake of her country. She demonstrated how to live life by the courage of one's convictions. Britney, on the other hand, illustrates a life devoid of any convictions.