Elizabeth: ”Gee. And I thought I was an uninformed bimbo.”*
****
update: “Which reminds me, did I ever tell you that Judith Butler once called my breasts ‘Gaia’s glorious, nipple-studded bounty?’”*
Elizabeth: ”Gee. And I thought I was an uninformed bimbo.”*
****
update: “Which reminds me, did I ever tell you that Judith Butler once called my breasts ‘Gaia’s glorious, nipple-studded bounty?’”*
Just thinkin’ aloud here: Wonder if Jill had any dearly beloved relatives on any of those planes, or in the WTC or Pentagon?
She’ll never attract a man with posts like that!
I debated putting this post up—bimbo is certainly demeaning to women, though I hardly need remind people that I’m using a surrogate “narrator” here, and so am engaging in a bit of satire—but then I read some of the comments attacking Malkin on such a visceral level, and I lost my fear of being misunderstood.
That these progressive idealists would argue that 911 was not an act of war because, semantically speaking, it is difficult for US to declare war on an amorphous, non-“national” enemy—and to do so even when its perpetrators went through the trouble of formally declaring war (granted, they scratched it into the skin of a dried date or some such)—is absurd on its face and suggests that they refuse to take the enemy serious. But to compare it to Oklahoma City (and act of domestic terrorism committed by US Citizens against their own government) and so turn it into a law enforcement problem, is to close your eyes and HOPE the problem doesn’t gather and explode under your watch.
i heard this same crap on the radio this morning.(it was a caller, not the host) and they added that it was the republican party that decided to go to war. uh huh. so thanks to that jerk i only got like, five hours of sleep, because i was awake after that. guy seemed dissapointed that war entailed killin’.
But Jeff, can’t you see? The 9-11 victims didn’t die fighting in a war, because they weren’t professional military and the terrorists weren’t either, and besides, it’s not like Congress had declared war against Al Qaeda at that stage anyhow. Using the same logic, we can’t call Hiroshima memorials or concentration camp memorials “WWII memorials” because the people killed didn’t die fighting in a war. For that matter, Vietnam memorials can’t be called war memorials either, because as we all know the Vietnam Conflict was an illegal police action, and not a true war. See? It’s obvious.
On another note, now I want to start a “let’s kick some ass, yay war!” campaign. Who’s with me?
yeah, this guy kept saying that since the FBI investigated it, it’s a law enforcement issue. we should just arrest everyone involved. just completely ignore the fact that those responsible call it a war, and it wasn’t just 9/11 remember the Cole? the embassy bombings? grrrrrr.
I have for some time now flirted with the idea of having a bumpersticker made up that says “Turns out war really was the answer, after all.” Alas, I live in Boston, and that’d probably get my car vandalized.
Apparently the line referencing ‘the shores of Tripoli’ was about amphibious policemen since the Barbary ‘states’ weren’t technically ‘nation-states’ in a strict post-Westphelian sense and the ‘Barbary pirates’ were ‘non-state actors’ and hence no ‘war’ ever really occured to rid the world of them.
That post and the comments were very, very enlightening.
I found out that you can question someone’s morality then call them a fâ–ˆcking câ–ˆnt (Pat, I’d like to buy a vowell. Is there a U?) and not have your head implode from the irony.
AH… the phrase was stâ–ˆpid câ–ˆnt, not fâ–ˆcking câ–ˆnt.
Guess didn’t win the 2005 Town & Country and the years’ supply of Dinty Moore Beef Stew.
First, “Jill” is my real name, so I’m not sure why you have it in quotes.
Actually, I was in New York on Sept. 11th, and watched the whole thing out my window. I didn’t have any relatives in the towers, but know plenty of people who did. It’s an event that I don’t particularly like to discuss, and I certainly don’t use my presence in the city or who I happen to know as some sort of evidence that my opinion is more valid than yours. So that’s not a good card to pull.
I guess I’m lucky that I don’t blog for the purpose of attracting men. (I’m also hoping you were being sarcastic here…)
My point wasn’t that the memorial shouldn’t be erected; I was simply saying that it’s not appropriate to create a war memorial for Flight 93 when you aren’t memorializing a war. Saying that it was an act of terrorism doesn’t make the event any less important. I believe I emphasized that a memorial should be built, and that it should recognize the courage of the passengers on board that plane. I just have a problem with using that tragic event as a pro-war centerpiece, which is what Malkin was trying to push.
And by the way, it usually helps to argue based on the facts instead of making your point by saying, “She’s a bimbo.” I could say, “He’s an asshole,” but it doesn’t really have the same gravity as actually proving that you’re wrong, does it?
Regis: “You are, baby. But with a rack like that, who cares?”
Shannon Elizabeth has breastseses.
Yeah, except most Americans think we are in a war (hint: they’re right!) and a memorial to a group that was the first to resist the attacks that day ought to maybe, you know, emphasize that.
At the end of the day, this is one more in a long string of exemplars of the difference between the right and the left, both politically and aesthetically. The left wants a warm, fuzzy, multiculturally sensitive “memorial”. The right wants something a bit more robust and which emphasizes the spirit and motivations of a small group of American men and women who huddled in the back of a doomed airplane and took a vote to charge that cockpit with the certain knowledge that their efforts might well lead directly to their deaths.
Actually, just remembering those facts has made me quite angry about the shape the “memorial” planning is currently in.
What is wrong with the left today? So eager to infantalize us all and remove any memory of bravery, courage and yes, fighting spirit because you’re afraid that it tends to make people think you’re political opponents might have a point?
Damn.
Bah, they’re shaping it like that because they know that they can call those who disagree racists and automatically win the media battle.
Bastards.
The passengers on Flight 93 resisted attacks from Iraq? Well, I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks for clearing that up, guys.
At the risk of bringing in a precedent, the memorial to the battleship Arizona doesn’t bristle with anti-aircraft guns.
Of course, it doesn’t look like a rising sun either.
site
Oh dear—you have attacked the delicate, sensitive female feminists at Feministe. Expect a puff-alanche of snippy comments from Proud Singlemom Womyn™ demanding Culturally Diverse communities in which they can safely raise their quadriracial children in a non-violent, non-misogynistic, secular atmosphere where they won’t have to hear about icky male phallic things like War!, Jesus, and rednecks in pickup trucks.
This is a declaration of war. The men and women of Flight 93 were killed as part of a war act.
Not difficult.
This is why it truly is pointless for left and right to try to engage each other. Jeff and I have talked often by e-mail of how the two sides seem, almost literally, not to speak the same language anymore. If, after four years, they can’t or won’t accept (a) that there’s a war and (b) that its parameters extend well beyond Iraq, then there’s really no point in debating them. As a wise man once said, wherein one cannot speak, therein one must remain silent.
Andrea, I love you.
So, now you’ve cleared it up. You don’t like the idea of a war memorial for Flight 93 because you are against the war in Iraq. Why don’t you just say that. If the war in Iraq had never occured would you still have an objection to the memorial? If not, then why would the events in Iraq have any bearing on the actions of the passengers of Flight 93? Did Beamer scream “Let’s Roll to Bahgdad”? Do you blame Flight 93 for ingniting the desire of the country to invade Iraq?
Um, you do Saddam Hussein is not connected with Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with with 9/11 attacks, right? So, the passengers were not actually, you know, resisting Saddam’s regime. I mean, even if you want to call the attacks a war, they are still not the same war that we are in.
Oh. Mah. Gah.
I’d suggest that Jill should ask Bin Laden whether or not he considered it an act of war. Seems to me his opinion would be pretty relevant.
My advice, though? Wear a burkha, so as not to offend his cultural sensibilities.
I will say, it’s highly amusing to see the commenters over there call Malkin a “cunt” and then, in the latest thread, dismiss Andrea’s point on grounds that she’s “bitter and lonely.” This, on a blog called “Feministe.” Wow.
Hissy Cat seems to have swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Saying Hussein had no connection to 911 is one thing; asserting he had no ties to the perpetrators of 911 is another. Asserting that the passengers on Flight 93 were not resisting Saddam’s regime is a truism, but it’s also quite irrelevant. If she must use an actual ground war to wrap her mind around this memorial thing, she might substitute “Afghanistan” for “Iraq” whenever her tiny little mind comes to that point in her recitation of anti-war talking points that calls for her to insert the name of a country. Just to help guide her through the tough times.
Later we’ll work on Allah’s point, and try to point out to her that, while she may not agree with the Iraq war, there is clearly no doubt that the war was thought of as part of the larger War on Terror.
But that’ll take, like, Powerpoint presentations and such, and I just don’t have the time today, so busy am I spreading my invidious misogyny.
This is gonna be the last comment from me (I know you’re all relieved).
I love the idea of a memorial for the events of Sept. 11th. There should be multiple memorials; they should certainly be exclusive to the series of events that happened on that day. The memorial for Flight 93 should of course include a gesture to the bravery of the people on that flight.
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with my view on the memorial (kinda like it also has nothing to do with the events on Sept. 11). I brought it up in response to the comment that most Americans would agree that we’re currently at war. They would. But I think most of them would be thinking of the war in Iraq. That’s all I meant. I wasn’t saying that we aren’t simultaneously fighting a “war on terror” or trying to dismantle Al Qaeda, but it’s not exactly the war du jour.
I don’t like a war memorial because I think it politicizes the event in an inappropriate way. I think Malkin’s comments that it’s somehow a sissy-memorial to focus on healing and contemplation are overblown and ridiculous, since (a) it was a tragic event that many people are still healing from, and (b) most war memorials also focus on healing and contemplation. That’s all. I’m not arguing against a memorial, just making the case for one that represents the tragedy that happened, not a particular political viewpoint.
Gosh, mind telling me why it is we aren’t going after the guy who started this war with us–namely, Osama Bin Laden? We’re in a war, but here’s a hint, it’s with IRAQ, a nation that did not attack us.
And BTW, there are plenty of surviving relatives of the 9/11 attack who do not buy into the neo-con vision of kill any Muslim in the name of fighting terrorism.
Y’all are so cute when you spin.
See what I mean? Where do you even start?
The answer is, you don’t. Debate over.
Shit, did we stop going after Usama? Somebody tell those special force kids over on the Pakistan ridge they need to come home! My tax money is paying for this shit, and I don’t need them taking extended vacations in the Kush on my dime!
I’m with SHEELZEBUB!
STOP THE NEO-CONS! MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE, TOO!
Sorry, asswipe, I didn’t get that memo.
And Y’all are so cute when you bury your head in the sand and state with no sense of irony, or apparently history, that Saddam did not attack us. We really are so brutish to have gone after the lovable thug who never shot at American pilots, tried to kill an American president, financed civilian American deaths in Israel (to say nothing of the Israeli’s), etc., etc. But hey, those aren’t really attacks and have nothing to do with, ya know, 9/11 and stuff.
I know, such spin that is. Maybe I should put it on a t-shirt having to do with pro-choice issues and it will become more palatable to y’all.
I guess that whole ‘Arizona’ notion wasn’t apt.
So, how about keeping the current ‘Crescent’ plan, but making some slight alterations:
1. Shift the thing 5 degrees so that the qibla points to Jerusalem … or, more correctly, if the qibla was part of the design, which it isn’t, would point to Jersualem, but it doesn’t matter because, hey, it’s just a semi-circle.
2. Add some largish pyrotechnic mortars set in various crowd safe locations to the design. Throughout the day, a randomly selected mortar will detonate — Ka-BOOM — thus illustrating the random nature of being targeted by terrorists and startling the crowd back to reality.
Once the threat of random death due to terrorism abates, the mortars can be deactivated.
Sheelzebub brings us the political disconnect with a fairly standard issue left wing argument that we’re fighting the wrong war even though we’re not really in a war and NEO-CONS!, etc.
Jill brings us the aesthetic disconnect with her argument that sure, memorial OK, but make sure it isn’t too much about icky stuff like fighting back because that’s, you know, political and stuff.
Allah’s right. A lefty friend of mine and I have actually decided to discontinue any futher conversation about politics and just focus on other topics cause the conversation was getting so caustic. Thankfully, that decision was made before the Katrina fiasco, which has taken political discourse to previously unheard of new lows.
I’d really like to see an Iwa Jima type statue of a group of passengers charging down an aisle pushing an “up-armored” beverage cart, armed with fire extinguishers and wine bottles. Something about 50 feet tall… and with PIE.
Let’s try it this way:
It’s not the “Iraq War”, it’s the “Battle of Iraq”. Just like, coming soon, the battles of Syria and of Saudi Arabia.
They are all part of The Global War Against Islamic Facism.
This may help in getting the connections made for the left.
I’m impressed that you’ve been able to maintain the friendship. I have no lefty friends anymore, for pretty much the same reason that I don’t have any friends who don’t speak English. Just too hard to communicate.
The fist military land action by the United States of America, was against a NGO of Muslim Terrorists known at the time as the Barbarry Pirates.
The Congress of the day, Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton discussed whether a Formal Declaration of War was required.
They concluded that while a Formal Declaration of War was required to
a War, since our Shipping (the merchant marines were civilians I might add) and our Sovereignty had been attacked we were already in a STATE OF WAR
with the Barbarry Pirates so no Formal Declaration was required.
Under the International Accords Customs and Laws of Land War at that time and today, A State of War ensues when either an attack occurs or a Declaration of War is issued.
Al Queda has declared Holy War upon the United States of America and has attacked us on our soil, and has attacked us elsewhere in the world.
There is now, and has been for some time, a State of War between us, there is Constitutional Precedent as I stated above for this claim.
Now I await your arguements on the
Old college buddy. Too much water under that bridge to ever stop talking entirely, thank God.
But, yeah. Different languages when it comes to politics.
Gosh, mind telling me why it is we aren’t going after the guy who started this war with us–namely, Osama Bin Laden? We’re in a war, but here’s a hint, it’s with IRAQ, a nation that did not attack us.
And BTW, there are plenty of surviving relatives of the 9/11 attack who do not buy into the neo-con vision of kill any Muslim in the name of fighting terrorism.
Y’all are so cute when you spin.
Posted by Sheelzebub | permalink
on 09/14 at 04:12 PM
*************************************************
As I stated above A State of War comes into existance when a Nation is either attacked or had a Declaration of War issued against it.
A State of War ENDS upon the signing of a Peace Treaty.
Armistices or Cease Fire Agreements per the Hague Conventions the Laws and Customs of Land War are mutual Accords binding only at the discretion of the Belligerants and can be ended at the same discretion. The only stipulation is that if the ending of the Cease Fire is Sudden and without Warning, Just Cause must be given, if there is Warning there is no requirement under the Accords for Justification.
Iraq declared War upon the United States in 1991, that initiated a State of War between the United States of America and Iraq No Peace Treaty between the Beligerants has ever been concluded a State of War is still in force.
Iraq on numerous occassions violated that Accord.
There was in fact NO Cease Fire, low level combat continued during the following decade.
The United States gave amply warning that it was ending the Armistice and initiating General Combat, this was not required by the Accords but was done.
PS Germany never attacked the United States, but they did Declare War on us, during our responce we overthrew the legitimate government of France, another nation which had not attacked us.
OK, enough head scratching and navel gazing about “the state of our political discourse”.
Jill?
OR
Lauren?
It’s sort of like the “Betty or Wilma” or “Mary Anne or Ginger” connundrums.
Me? I like the surf and the turf. Feel me?
Well, first off, it’s your. Secondly, it never ceases to amaze me at nearly everyone’s insistence on grouping everyone on either side of the political spectrum in one group. But it’s so much easier to demean an entire, faceless group.
And don’t get me wrong–lefties do it too.
We have nothing against bravery and fighting spirit–we just prefer to see them coupled with honor. Honor to not attack a nation when said nation has not attacked us. As the most powerful nation on earth, we have the responsibilty to use our power wisely, or at least consistently.
I freely admit that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, and likely deserved much worse than whatever he ends up getting. That doesn’t change the fact that we were deliberately mislead into a war that had more to do with a personal political agenda than it did with safety and freedom.
We have freed the Iraqis from a repressive regime. …So, when are we going after all the other oppressive regimes in the world?
Really though, I think you’re all arguing over something quite silly. I’d agree that it’s not a WAR memorial. But it’s just a matter of semantics.
As for the crescent thing…seriously, guys. It doesn’t MEAN anything. You’re worse than my English professor–“Now what does this rock in the corner of Act III symbolize?”
Lordy, I a moron somedays. You’re is correct. Apologies for that.
Sigh.
No, you had me dead to rights on the incorrect use of “you’re”. It should have been “your”.
I do that all the time. I think its like a tic or something.
Your prize? The “School Marm of the Day” award. Congratulations.
I live in the sticks…I think I KNOW a school marm…
So… we were attacked by a rogue organization that was, at the time, mainly based in Afghanistan (with the support of that country’s gov’t), we retailiated with our military, took out the organization and the supporting gov’t, and yet that is not considered war?
What was it – a pissing contest?
I don’t know if calling someone a “stupid cunt” is immoral, per se. But it certainly isn’t very feministe.
(This is after all a site where one of the feministas said that Jeff “used a gendered word.” Guess Goldstein better make his way to the principal’s office.)
I can pretty much guarantee these ladies / girls / women / wymyn / people don’t want to goad me into a debate on feminism and identity politics…
Judith Bulter once compare my male nipples to the move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Damn. Got me there. I was going to send more money to New Orleans victims when I saw that post. I though “Oh, shit! I’m not able to give to every needy person!”
Thankfully, you saved me a few bucks by realizing the futility of trying to do the right thing even if you can’t do ALL the right things.
ROFL. I come home from work to find that I’ve been called ”bitter and lonely” by so-called feminists. I love it when people act like little clichés.
What’s funny is that, despite my [insert disparaging names here] liberal views, I can still carry on conversations with all my intelligent conservative friends.
From a male feminist who hangs around feministe and doesn’t care whether you spell “women” with a y or not. Or whether or not you’re a cunt.
What a craven coward Jill is.
I refuted her post by simply providing a link to bin Laden’s declaration of war, and I made an observation that uniforms and a brass band do not an army make; many wars have been fought by those without color-coordinating outfits including many on this continent (Native Americans, anyone?).
Instead of trying to refute that post (which was #17) she deleted it.
What an intellectual coward.
And Allah, I agree, it’s a different language. I’m surrounded by lefties (hardcore, Regime Change 2004 bumperstickers on their BMWs and all! Or the best? No War for Oil on a Ford F350 King Cab!).
They talk amongst themselves and I have to put on headphones because I’ve realized the folly in trying to have a legitimate conversation with them.
Molly,
So those were imaginary tracers streaking up at our jets in the no-fly zone?
BTW: I’m with you on the crescent thing. But Saddam? He was never in the right. He didn’t abide by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire for a day. We had casus belli from the get go.
Perfectly sound reasoning! Can’t help everyone, better not help anyone. So, since I’m a moronic liberal, please explain how your personal donations to Katrina victims has anything to do with our country waging war on the oppressive regimes of the world?
Of course, if we hadn’t been defending America’s freedom by invading Iraq preemptively, maybe we’d have a heck of a lot more resources to help said hurricane victims.
Fred,
I’m more of a Ginger man myself. But define the stakes for us. Who’s Ginger and who’s Maryann in this debate?
Before you go calling Jill a coward, she moderates the comments on her posts. If you’ve never commented at our blog before your first comment is automatically thrown into the queue.
But nice try.
Also, I call dibs on the Ginger comparison.
Have to admit complete and total ignorance on that one. Alas. Wouldn’t it be nice to know everything?
Well, I guess that settles it. I’m more of a Lauren man, myself.
TW: Appear. As in: that may appear to be a sexist, objectifying comment.
…And if we hadn’t preemptively attacked Germany in WWII, we could have had plenty of money to build NO on big shiny hill, where lollipop plants grow, and all the cows shoot Guinness from their utters! Then Hurricane Katrina would have just left behind a refreshing wading pool!
Jesus. Since when were “liberals” cut from the same isolationist cloth as Pat Buchanan?
(Oh yeah. Since Bush started acting on all their historically tough talk about spreading freedom and democracy around the globe…)
Your feminist trackback doesn’t like me (or maybe it’s just uncooperative because it’s bitter and lonely) so here. And now if you’ll excuse me I must curl up on my bed and weep salt tears of loneliness into my pillow because I don’t have wonderful friends like Jill and Co. to lead me down the path of righteousness.
Oops, I mean, here.
Andrea, don’t get pissed that I mention what you cop to on your own blog.
Let me see if I’ve got this right–we’re spreading democracy and freedom around the globe…but only where it’s economically and politcally convenient?
I think that if we’ve got the hubris to assume that we have to right to interfere in someone else’s business that we should do it all the time. Sudan, for example. You know, where little kids are getting slaughtered everyday?
Hey, Lauren, I’m just reacting to your disrespect. It’s all about the root causes ‘n’ stuff.
Seriously. The tagline of that blog should be, “So hot, yet so wrong.”
Their Roberts post today made me cringe, too.
Note to Karl: we’ve got another one that’s okay with invading Sudan.
Gotta keep track. For the
draftpolls. Yeah.Well hey! Worked in Iraq didn’t it boys? Stay the course. Spreading freedom and democracy, and to hell with the consequences!
Alas, a chemistry paper is calling my name. Terribly fun chatting with you gentlemen and ladies. Feel free to drop me a line anytime–the only things I like better than arguing are cheesecake and groundwater!
Make fun of my son and I’m going to point out the obvious: people who go after kids are fucked up. And complain about being isolated on their blogs. Wonder why.
Don’t be all surprised when I tell the truth about why you come out swinging. It’s attention-getting behavior (says the armchair psychologist). You must be eating this up since you’re so lonely and isolated and all.
Uh oh. I’m trapped. How will I ever extricate myself from this logical conundrum?
Oh, yeah, right. Our own interests and those of others aren’t mutually exclusive—and in fact can converge in convenient ways.
As for the “hubris” of interfering in someone else’s business, why, I think we’re reaching common ground here, Molly: US OUT OF THE UN NOW!
Er… Lauren, what are you talking about? I’ve never met your son, nor even knew that you had one. You know, everything isn’t just about you.
I’ll refer you back to your original comment on this thread since you’re too wrapped up in self-righteousness to remember it.
I can’t believe you can name your blog something like “Least Loved Bedtime Stories v. 2.0— Because sometimes you have to be cruel” and write it without a trace of humor or irony.
And they say feminists have no sense of humor.
For all Jill’s intellectual faults, she does have decent taste in books; I quite like Skinny Legs and All, and have taught both Another Roadside Attraction and Still Life with Woodpecker.
Seems to me Jill might be better off modeling her feminism off of Sissy Hankshaw or Princess Leigh-Cheri than anything she might have learned at NYU’s gender studies program, but hey, what do I know?
Incidentally, Robbins’ “leftism” is more a strong libertarianism muddled with the consciousness-raising social gobbledook of the 60s that has no doubt stayed with him. But though Robbins might purport to hate Republicans, were he really honest with himself he’d recognize that the soul-robbing homogeneity of identity politics is pretty much the exclusive province of the left these days.
But be that as it may.
Favorite Robbins books is probably Jitterbug Perfume. For Pan. And the beets.
As long as our neighbor has not attacked us, let him beat his wife and children to death,
Strange version of honor that. You suggest it as a responce to domestic violence?
As for the crescent thing…seriously, guys. It doesn’t MEAN anything. You’re worse than my English professor–“Now what does this rock in the corner of Act III symbolize?â€Â
Posted by Molly | permalink
on 09/14 at 05:30 PM
*************************************************To the families on the seleciton jury the term Crescent in the Title Crescent Embrace denoted Islam, they asked that the term be changed to circle or arc.
They most have been dealing with someone just like you, it appears there wishes were ignored, I wonder if they were ridiculed as well?
You mean consequences like free elections, people not being shoved into shredders, terrorists getting waxed at a prolific rate?
Damn those consequences!
One of the several oddities of the “why haven’t we attacked EVERY oppressive regime?” argument is its implicit assumption that no one but the US can ever attack oppressive regimes. So a good snappy answer might go along the lines of “We attacked Iraq because, out of all the tyrannies that can be taken out without doing more harm than good, it was the toughest nut. That leaves the rest of you defenders of freedom to take on jobs nearer your own size. The Janjaweed would be just about right for the Canadians, while the French and Germans could team up to deal with Mugabe.”
Well, so far they don’t seem to have a well-developed one. But leaving that aside… Of course, I was not making fun of anyone’s children, but of mothers who use those children as objects in various arguments from pity to deflect criticism or get something they want. I also think it is amusing how so many feminists today are willing to use the old male chauvinist “mothers are sacrosanct” idea, as well as the “unmarried, childless women are bitter and lonely” notion with which to attack their opponents. I guess it beats actually having to think up an argument based on reason.
My last comment aimed at Lauren’s last comment. Must type faster…
Sudan, for example. You know, where little kids are getting slaughtered everyday?
Posted by Molly | permalink
on 09/14 at 06:33 PM
************************************************
Well that was happening in Iraq too. Promise not to change your mind after we go into Sudan?
BTW Iraq and Afghnistan are mutually supporting theaters of operation, they outflank Iran on two sides and Iraq has borders with 6 different nations for almost 10,000 years it has been THE most strategic location in the Middle East.
You might want to study some History and Logistics before you start spouting off nonsense,
Oh and as for Sudan? Go Complain to the Chinese and Canadian Oil Companys who footed the bill for all that slaughter, their hands are just as dirty as the Jihadists.
Instead of trying to refute that post (which was #17) she deleted it.
What an intellectual coward.
Posted by Confederate Yankee | permalink
on 09/14 at 06:16 PM
************************************************
Odd that my comment did not appear either, but my trackback to her website did.
The comment just had my reply here copied the trackback was title
Isolation of the Dodo.
Tell me where I said that. If you have read anything about parenthood on my blog you’ll know I argue the opposite. But it’s so easy to paint with a broad brush, isn’t it?
You said it, not me. I don’t think you’re bitterness and lonelieness have anything to do with your parenthood or marital status. It’s entirely about you as a person. It’s quite easy to discern why you’re so isolated given your attitude.
Dan, I have no idea why WordPress does that. Trackbacks are not moderated unless there is some plugin or option I have missed.
I find cat fights uninteresting unless I have pictures of all the combatants. Andrea, so far, you’re the only one without a picture easily accessible to me. So, I’m visualizing Angelina Jolie in the “Tomb Raider” get up. Close?
And for the record, I didn’t think Andrea was referencing anyone’s actual child since (a) it doesn’t seem like it would be her style to stoop to left-wing tactics, and (b) the use of “quadriracial” isn’t realistic as an actual descriptor.
tw: “personal”.
And yes, Lauren, I saw you as the “Ginger” character as well. Jill is soooo Maryanne. And that’s a good thing.
Damn. As Allah wrote elsewhere, this is where the healing can begin. Where opponents from both sides of the political divide can come together and just…dialogue.
Excellent.
Asserting that the passengers on Flight 93 were not resisting Saddam’s regime is a truism, but it’s also quite irrelevant.
Well, gee, in that case you don’t need another monument – the ones for WWII or Vietnam will commemorate the Sept. 11th attacks just as well. Granted, the conflicts are not related, but that, as you say, is quite irrelevant.
The US was attacked on Sept. 11th by a terrorist organisation. Whether or not this was a “war” is an interesting question – but I think it is fair to assume that it was. The US response of declaring a “War on Terror” was foolish – not only did it not make sense (a “War on Flanking Attacks”, a “War on Tactical Air Support”?), all it did was make you look hypocritical when you supported terrorist groups (The Northern Alliance) and murderous dictators (Uzbekistan) in the course of it.
The war on Iraq was an aggressive invasion and occupation of another country unrelated to the Sept. 11 attacks. It was not related, save as a propaganda exercise by the Bush administration for domestic consumption. And you appear to have bought into it. I refer you to the Gleiwitz radio station.
As regards your war against Al Qaeda, you know, the people who <b>actually attacked you</a>, the major battlefield for this is in the minds of teh 1.3 billion Muslims who haven’t made up their minds. By all means, fight Al Qaeda – but when invade and kill unrelated countries, such as Iraq, you hand bin Laden a victory on this battlefield he could never hope to gain otherwise. He says “America is attacking Islam”, and, lo, it comes to pass!
Recommended reading: Imperial Hubris.
I just posted this at feministe. I feel better already.
Why is it when the left on this planet disagree with someone point of view they end up hurling invectives like “cuntâ€Â. Do you wonder why you haven’t won an election in awhile. People read this tripe and figure out that the people who act like this shouldn’t be running a country. I’ll agree to disgree but you’re not helping yourself or your cause with this attitude. My humble opinion is you don’t really like the US but you’ll hide behind all the freedoms given to you by the blood sweet and tears of others.
Also, I haven’t heard the term “male chauvinist” in awhile. I thought it was dead terminology that people who know nothing about feminism use. Thanks, Andrea, for the lesson on contemporary feminist theory.
Way to Dowdify the quote! But no worries: anything that ends with an appeal for me to read Imperial Hubris is pretty much ignored. As is anybody who argues that fighting back against Islamic terrorism is a victory for terrorism.
Um… yes! Yeah, I pretty much look like that. Pinky swear. Well, okay, I don’t wear my hair in a long braid. I keep it short, so it can’t be pulled. If anyone’s gonna do any hair-pulling around here it’s gonna be me.
Oh, okay okay. Maybe I’m just a little bit shorter than Angelina Jolie. And, well, a bit wider. But if you squint and turn your head sideways and bang yourself on the head real hard I look just like her.
This isn’t much of an argument considering it’s posted on a site that had 1001 ways to refute Jill’s points and decided to rely on Bimbology 101. Smarmy is as smarmy does.
Actually the “cunt” thing was what made me write the post.
And it was Shannon Elizabeth who called Jill a bimbo, not me. I’m just the medium…
Jeff, it looks like the “cunt” comment came from a commenter over there, and there was nothing like that in the subject post. I don’t think that fairly leads to making a “bimbo” comment.
Well, you’re certainly entitled to that opinion, Hubris. But I was actually making fun of the fact that feminsts probably think Shannon Elizabeth an uninformed bimbo. And I noted early on in the comments here that I debated putting the post up, but since I’m an intentionalist and am not a misogynist, my conscience is clear.
“probably think”
Telling.
No, Lauren. What’s “telling” is that I knew putting a “gendered” word in the mouth of a movie actress best known for talking off her top would get rise out of you folks.
I don’t go in for Hubris’ kneejerk chivalry. You either like the joke or you don’t. But as I said before, my conscience is clear.
Beg pardon? Why we would get worked up by a B-movie actress is beyond me.
I stick with Bimbology 101.
Great boys :
FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS = limewire = Free Music Downloads
http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html free music downloads :: http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm LIMEWIRE :: http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html free mp3
[url=http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html]MUSIC DOWNLOADS[/url] .. [url=http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm]limewire[/url] .. [url=http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html]free music downloads[/url]011a2b4657669817ddc3fb7447f865be
Hi boys! :
music downloads = free limewire = music downloads
http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html Free Music Downloads :: http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm free limewire :: http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html free mp3
[url=http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html]FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS[/url] .. [url=http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm]limewire[/url] .. [url=http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html]mp3 music downloads[/url]0f8f40fbf6c3cdd2aa7e52afa9d91923
YOU HAVE GOT SOME KIND OF CLASS IN THIS SITE. Good to see you up and around!