No Bull Mom

Sarah Palin Revealed -- Part 2

Assuming you caught any one of the recent, more friendly interviews with Sarah Palin last week, you may have noticed a different woman. That's because she's now "having that coffee" I talked about in yesterday's post. Sitting down and having a conversation with someone is far more enlightening than trying to figure her out in a five-minute segment while she's being talked down to by the media elite who think she's a fool.

Remember: I'm not arguing for or against Sarah Palin as a politician. I'm still making up my mind on that one, as there's no question she'll be running for some sort of office eventually. I'm simply pointing out the insane amount of attacks this women has endured. If I were a liberal, I would think twice about my party affiliation after witnessing the Sarah Palin fiasco.

Here's what you can be sure of, though: The more attention a person commands, whether the attention is positive or negative, the more the person has something going for her. If a person were a complete joke, no one would pay her any attention. Sarah Palin is so appealing that her appearance on Oprah and Hannity caused an enormous boost in their ratings.

My personal take on Palin is that she's purposefully (and, who knows, perhaps wisely) presenting herself as just a regular person. In this way the media elite can hammer her b/c she's not from the Beltway and she didn't graduate from an elite school. But Palin's banking on the fact that most Americans are not elitist and would rather have a regular Joe (or Joanne) in office.

Liberals also get their backs up over the fact that Palin "talks funny." Well, Jimmy Carter talks funny, too. So does George W. Bush. It is precisely -- in my opinion -- because Sarah Palin is a regular person like you and me that people are warming up to her. Looking at Palin alongside Obama -- an Ivy Leaguer who talks beautifully but is nevertheless a disaster -- makes Palin that much more appealing. Indeed, as Obama's ratings are going down, hers are going up. Add that fact to the right political philosophy (assuming you agree with it), and I believe Palin can only go up from there.

Sarah Palin still has a lot to learn, but she has plenty of time. And if she surrounds herself with the right people, she'll make it eventually.

MONDAY: Thoughts on Gay Marriage

Take a Look at America's First Female Evening News Anchor

Dear Ms. Couric: You're looking downright foolish next to Palin now. What do YOU read? Penthouse? And, pardon me, but is that a CHILD looking on? Good grief, woman.

Sarah Palin Revealed -- Part 1

All in all, Oprah conducted a fair interview with Sarah Palin – and certainly helped to sell Palin’s book. Oprah may be liberal, but she's fair. I truly believe she wants to understand people when she talks to them, regardless of their political persuasion. There was one part, however, that struck me: when she asked Palin, “So you really believe Katie Couric had an agenda…a political agenda?"

Oprah doesn't realize that she revealed her ignorance here. Not only is the question itself akin to asking, "So you really think lemons are yellow?", it was the way Oprah asked it – as though the idea of such a thing borders on stupidity, or is just an attempt to explain Palin’s poor performance during the Palin/Couric interview. I could tell Palin wanted to open her eyes wide and say something to the effect of, “You’re kidding, right?” Naturally, she couldn’t do this as a guest. Instead she politely suggested this might be the case.

The truth is, no matter how friendly an interview might be, the interviewer always has the advantage over the person being interviewed. While Oprah was honest, respectful, and certainly not “out to get” Palin the way Couric and Gibson were (and clearly doesn’t believe her contemporaries are capable of such behavior), her ignorance about the existence of media bias demonstrates a bias in and of itself.

Here’s what Oprah and most Americans don’t know because they’ve never personally been on the receiving end of media bias: When you’re a liberal Democrat and in the limelight – whether you’re an actress, a politician, a talk show host, an author, or just receiving your five minutes of fame – being interviewed by the mainstream media is like having coffee with a friend. It’s enjoyable, fun, and easy. When you’re conservative and being interviewed by the mainstream media, it’s an awful experience. There’s nothing fun, enjoyable, or easy about it. It’s like going into the den with a pack of wolves and you have to be ready with the perfect quip for every charge that’s hurled your way throughout the entire interview. That’s a whole different scenario, one I’m certain few Democrats could handle if the shoe were on the other foot.

Perhaps Sarah Palin doesn’t think well on her feet – or perhaps we just don’t know because we’ve never watched Palin in a true conversational exchange, the way we have whenever Oprah has Hollywood starlets visit her set. I don’t know whether or not Sarah Palin would make a good candidate for anything, quite frankly; but as someone who’s been on the receiving end of media bias, I have never questioned Palin’s intelligence based upon her performance during an interview. When my first book (about the importance of the traditional family) was published, my first introduction to the insidiousness of media bias was when Glamour magazine told its readers not to read my book. From there it was a steady stream of vitriol. CNN ambushed me in what was supposed to be a straight, friendly interview and instead brought on the program the CEO of Working Mother magazine to try and make me look like a fool – which I would have welcomed (not the fool part, but the debate) had I had the same heads-up the CEO did. Instead, anchor Carol Lin told me right before we went on the air that my book “stirred up all the women at CNN.”

Most Americans have no clue what goes on in the media behind the scenes – so they should reserve their judgment about Sarah Palin. If Palin were exactly the way she is – warts and all -- but were a Democrat, her 2008 media campaign would have been like one giant cocktail party. She would have been hailed as the ideal feminist specimen: strong, ambitious, and with a husband at home to boot! Instead she was thrown off guard at every possible moment. And the reality is, when people are trying to trip you up at every moment, most people are going to trip up.

I suspect Sarah Palin once thought as I did: I knew the media wouldn’t be on my side, but I couldn’t have imagined the extent to which they’d go. Once you realize the caliber of the people you’re dealing with, something happens inside you. You’re ready to fight back. In fact, you welcome the chance.

TOMORROW: Sarah Palin Revealed -- Part 2

What One Liberal Likes and Hates about Sarah Palin

Below is plucked from the Huffington Post, and I thought it'd be a good place to start this week, as I'm going to write several posts about Sarah Palin. This will be a short week, what with Thanksgiving and kids at home...Happy Turkey Day!

April Daniel Hussar is a committed liberal, but she wrote this honest -- though misguided -- piece last week. The lesson seems to be: being likeable sure doesn't hurt.

Like many people outside of Alaska, the first I heard of Sarah Palin was back in August 2008, when John McCain announced her as his running mate. My first reaction: Smooth move, John. We wanted a woman in the Oval Office, now you might be giving us one. My second reaction: How sexist and condescending can you get. We can't have Hillary, so any old female will do? And my third: Dear Lord, please don't let this woman end up in the White House.

So here's my confession: I was -- and still am -- an ardent Obama supporter. Politically speaking I'd say Sarah Palin and I are just about polar opposites. (You say, "Drill baby;" I say, "No blood for oil.") I shudder to imagine her holding a national political office. But, the thing is, well ... see, it's like this ... I kind of like her too.

Yep. As much as I hate to admit it, I can't help but find certain things about Sarah Palin admirable ... and, dare I say? ... almost role model-ish.

I roll my eyes at half the stuff she says; I wanted to strangle her when she kept winking during her debate with Joe Biden. Just the other day, I laughed out loud when she told Oprah it was not lucky but, rather, "providential" she kept all those journals as a kid (Yes, Sarah, God wanted you to write a bestseller)... but at the same time I admire her spirit, and her guts.

I don't agree with her pro-life stance (you say "Pro-life," I say "Anti-choice"), but I honestly commend Sarah Palin for living by her beliefs. She, as they say, doesn't just talk the talk, she walks the walk - in an area of life that is one of the hardest and most personal. And as a woman, and a mother, I take my hat off to her for that. It was brave and estimable of her to admit to wavering over her decision to carry her Down syndrome baby to term. And, while I'm thankful she actually got to MAKE a choice (oh the irony), I think the decision she made was full of courage. It couldn't have been an easy one.

I hate how she takes every opportunity to lambaste the "mainstream liberal media" (Sarah, I think it's called fact checking, not "opposition research."), but damned if I didn't applaud her mama bear approach to ripping into David Letterman for his nasty jokes about her daughter. Yeah, yeah I know David was talking about Bristol, not Bristol's younger sister, but either way I'd have wanted to scratch his eyes out, too. There's no such thing as below the belt when it comes to our babies.

And yes, I truly respect how she is able to accomplish so much and be a mother of five. Frankly, I'm a bit in awe.

It makes me tear my hair out when I hear Sarah spouting her "death panel" nonsense. But, at the same time, I can't help but admire how she is able to weather the continuous, venomous criticism that is directed her way. I have trepidations about putting my own name on this very article, knowing how rabid both lovers and haters of Sarah Palin get. Meanwhile, she takes hits all day and every day, and still she stays true to herself.

Which brings me, finally, to the thing I (begrudgingly) admire most about her. Sarah Palin believes in herself. To be sure -- I think a lot of the stuff she believes, and espouses, is, what's the word, whack -- but as a model of the power of ambition, self-confidence, and plain old dreams ... well, Sarah Palin sets an example.

Oh Sarah -- if only you weren't a creationist conservative zealot. You'd be my hero.

Would I vote for her?

No way in hell.

Would I like to take my daughter to meet her? You betcha.

TOMORROW: Sarah Palin Revealed -- Part 1

I'LL RETURN NEXT WEEK, THE 23RD

Clarification from a Reader

I received the email below yesterday from a reader. He corrected my facts on the numbers, and humbled me just a bit. Thanks, Timothy.

One thing, though: My comment about Portia was rather tongue-in-cheek. I have no idea if her homosexuality is a fact or a matter of confusion, as it was for Anne Heche. These days, with so much experimentation and confusion among the sexes, it's hard to tell anything anymore.


Suzanne,

I have two clarifications of fact for you.

First, you said.


That is factually incorrect. The CDC report released in 2005 (based on 2002 survey) is our most comprehensive and best source. It found that 4.1% of both men and women identify as either lesbian, gay or bisexual.

It also found that only 90% identify as heterosexual with some uncertainty as to how the remained identify (about 4% said "something else" and about 2% refused to answer).

Second, you said


It may seem to you that Portia (or perhaps Ellen) isn't really a lesbian. However, both have a long history of same-sex attraction, and it is that which defines who is and who is not lesbian. Having known a number of very pretty feminine lesbians (including a former model) who were quite content in their attractions, I don't think that being feminine or having long flowing blond hair tells us anything whatsoever about who is or is not a lesbian. So perhaps language other than "clearly is not" might have been a more accurate choice.

And finally, I think you are selling yourself short. You assume that you would not be touched by a same-sex wedding, that you would not tear up.

I believe otherwise. I think that if you were at the wedding of someone you know and love, someone you've seen establish, work through, doubt, wonder, come to trust, finally come to fully love, and then to make a commitment to their relationship, you would not care in the slightest whether it was a guy or a gal that they were marrying. We don't go to weddings and tear up thinking "ah, heterosexuality"; no we think "ah, love".

I bet you'd tear up too.

Thanks,

Timothy Kincaid
www.boxturtlebulletin.com

Politically Correct Talk Shows

So a day after the Joy Behar show, in which feminists rant and rave about Bart Stupak, Oprah has Ellen DeGeneres on with her new wife. Yes, that's right: wife. Portia de Rossi -- who was born Mandy Lee Rogers in 1973 -- and Ellen were recently pronounced...wife and wife.

I know gay marriage is a hot topic, but it shouldn't be. We have far more fish to fry in this country. Did you know that just 2.9% of Americans older than 18 identify as either lesbian, gay, or bisexual? Even if you factor in the folks who are reluctant to admit their sexual orientation, the figure still doesn't come close to way the media represents it. The media force gay marriage down Americans' throats as if there's some huge conspiracy against gay people in this country.

Personally, gay marriage is like the issue of abortion. I have feelings about it, but it's not something that gets me all riled up. I believe when it comes to these matters, the people -- via the states -- must decide.

Still. I couldn't help but be distracted by Oprah's program. I was actually flipping channels after the end of the only show I do catch during the day -- Barefoot Contessa on Food Network -- and stood there somewhat mesmerized. I tried really hard to be non-judgmental. I tried really hard to look at these two women -- one of whom is clearly a lesbian and one of whom is clearly not (just as I predicted Ellen's former love, Anne Heche, wasn't) -- like they were just another happily married couple. After all, that's what the media tells Americans homosexuals are: just like the rest of us.

They are not just like the rest of us.

Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be tolerant of gay people -- and by that I mean respectful. Quite frankly, homosexuality makes sense to me. To me, it stands to reason that 100% of any population won't come out exactly the same. It makes sense that there will always be people who get too much testosterone or too much estrogen. But there's very little concrete proof (that I'm aware of) about the whole nature/nurture issue re homosexuality. I just happen to believe some people are born gay.

But just because most people have a different reaction to watching Ellen and Portia get married than they do watching a man and a woman get married doesn't make them bigoted. You're just not going to see tears in viewers' eyes as they watch a woman walk down the aisle looking lovingly at...another woman. You're just not.

But that was Oprah's reaction, of course -- which demonstrates a clear bias toward gay marriage. Personally, I don't care what Oprah believes. But many people do -- which has the effect of making some people feel as if there's something wrong with them if they don't get that "Aw" feeling.

And that I do have a problem with.

Why Feminists Hate Fellow Democrat Bart Stupak

Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak has Nancy Pelosi-lovers' (read: feminists') panties in a bunch. He threatened to kill any health-care bill unless the House is given the opportunity to vote to extend the ban on taxpayer dollars for abortion. Last Saturday Ms. Pelosi relented. I guess she wanted to get the bill passed more than she wanted to fight Stupak. Thank God for politicians who stand on principle. "We won because [the Democrats] need us. If they are going to dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay," writes Stupak.

This should be an interesting fight over the next few months.

In the meantime, pro-choice feminists are irate. "President Obama promised during his campaign that he would protect a woman's right to choose. Why has he wussed out on that?" asks Joy Behar of Maxine Waters this week.

"The blue dogs have too much power in the House of Representatives and the progressives are losing," says Waters. "Women are going to have to go after some of these people. As for the President, the President wants a bill no matter what."

Then NARAL President Nancy Keenan chimes in: "Let's keep in mind who the real enemy is. The real enemy is these anti-choice politicians who wanted to hijack health-care reform."

Behar then asks the panel -- which also included Huffington post (a left-wing website) blogger Julie Menin (you didn't think the producers would include a conservative did you? This isn't FOX, remember) -- what they think American women should do in response to this travesty.

"They should write Bart Stupak," says Menin angrily. To which Waters chimes is that this is not the thing to do because "you aren't going to change Stupak."

"You need to be calling every senator across this nation and say this is unacceptable. Unacceptable. Unacceptable," laments Keenan.

Unfortunately for these women, none of this is likely to happen. America is a right-of-center nation, and while they don't want abortion to be outlawed (only 21% of Americans do), they also don't believe in throwing it down people's throats by making them pay for it -- particularly if they don't agree with it.

Feminists don't care one iota want you like or want. As Joy Behar's show indicates, they expect every American to see things the way they do -- and if they don't, too bad. You should be forced to do it anyway.

Gotta love those libs.

TOMORROW: Politically Correct Talk Shows

Don't Be a Snob When Judging Someone for Office

In last week's USA Today (hey, I was traveling) Michael Medved wrote an article titled "Judge the person, not the resume" about Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue. His message was this: If you judge Sarah Palin -- or anyone else for that matter -- solely by her education, youthful transgressions, or missteps with the media, you have misjudged and underestimated her.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm not a Palin devotee, but I certainly don't dislike her. But then I'm not one to judge a person by his or her resume, as Medved's article states. I don't care whether someone graduated from Yale or not. I don't care whether he or she is an orator like Obama or trips over his words like Bush. I don't care whether the person has an accent. I am many things (much of them not good, I admit) -- but a snob I am not.

The last conversation I had with someone (who happened to be a Democrat) about Sarah Palin, the only thing he could offer to say against her was the interview with Katie Couric. My response was that he has no idea what it's like to be on the receiving end of media bias. Democrats never have to prove themselves because 99% of the media is on their side. When the person interviewing you is on your side, it's like having coffee with a friend. When the person interviewing you thinks you're the devil (I'm using loose terms here), it's easy to get tripped up. The interviewer has the distinct advantage of poking and prodding to get a person to falter. I'd love to see the Katie Courics of the world have the microphone turned on them. Don't think for a moment they wouldn't get tripped up, too.

Moreover, where a person went to college -- or even if they went to college -- does not prove in any way, shape, or form whether or not a person is competent to lead. Being in a leadership position takes skills one can never acquire on a college campus. You either have it, or you don't. In addition, graduating from college is only one way to prove one is smart or capable. Some of the most successful people in America never graduated from college. "The public recently mourned the loss of three universally respected journalists -- Walter Cronkite, Rovert Novak, and William Safire," writes Medved. "No one questioned their brilliance, despite the fact that they all dropped out of college short of graduation. They don't boycott [Microsoft] because Bill Gates left Harvard without earning a degree."

And it isn't conservatives who are snobs. It's liberals. "The emphasis on intellectual elitism has become far more pronounced on the left than the right, despite the long-standing association of Democrats as "the party of the people." In 2008, Obama won the majority of those with post-graduate degrees -- not surprising for a candidate with credentials from Columbia and Harvard.

Because progressives attach greater significance to universities, it makes sense that they judge the educational backgrounds of candidates accordingly: In the past six presidential elections, every one of the Democratic nominees held degrees from Harvard or Yale."

The reason liberals depend on higher education to prove a candidate's worth is because they need something concrete to point to when they have no other recourse. Liberals don't appreciate that a person's ability does not depend on a piece of paper but on his character, passion, and work ethic. They believe a person's success depends upon whatever society doles out to him. A degree is something society doles out to you when you've done your homework. But doing your homework does not indicate whether a person will be successful later in life.

Sarah Palin's abilities have yet to be determined, and I have a feeling she may surprise you.

By the way, Palin will be on Oprah next Monday (Nov. 16).

TOMORROW: Why Feminists Hate Fellow Democrat Bart Stupak

Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer

For the insidiousness of political correctness, click HERE.

Addendum to Saddam Hussein Post

Opposing Views is a website with a similar goal as FOX: It's designed to bring Americans both sides of every issue so people can decide for themselves what they think. My blogs are sometimes posted on their site, and the last one they posted was the one about Saddam Hussein. The post wasn't very long, although it easily could have been, as the subject matter is complex. It was about a liberal's view of human nature vs. a conservative's. Here are two comments from OV readers:

"Suzanne Venker has clearly never met a liberal. She's too busy listening to the absurd parodies of other conservatives pundits who have never had any sort of intellectual conversation with anyone who self-identifies themselves as "liberal."

"How the whole liberal/conservative issue came about in this article was a stretch. No one is inherently good or evil but rather always capable of both. The concept of whether a person is inherently good or evil is somewhat irrelevant. We are inherently both."

The folks on OV are a lively bunch and often get their feathers ruffled. Rather than debate the issue constructively, they tend to throw daggers. Or worse, they completely misrepresent what I said.

Of course no one's inherently good or evil and we're all capable of both. My reason for discussing the concept of evil as a conservative/liberal issue wasn't to say one group is evil and the other isn't; that would be ridiculous. My point was to delineate between how a conservative and liberal each reacts to evil.

And since I can never top Dinesh D'Souza's analysis of this issue, I'll simply point to it instead:

"At root, conservatives and liberals see the world so differently because they have two different conceptions of human nature. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau's proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore, they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. The liberal's high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well.

Conservatives know better. Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature -- good and evil -- and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps bring out the best in human nature and suppress man's lower or base impulses."

To offer a great example, consider the Fort Hood killings. Dr. Phil -- your typical PC psychologist -- is one of the many liberal-minded Americans who suggests we don't rush to judgment about Major Hasan's "motives" for his killing spree. In response, Dorothy Rabinowitz writes the following in today's Wall Street Journal.

"To kill your fellow Americans -- as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred -- the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.

"With a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts. The thesis: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could."

This is a perfect example of the difference between the conservative and liberal mindset.

TOMORROW: Judge the Person, Not the Resume

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"The charge that (Nidal Malik Hasan, of the Fort Hood massacre) was harassed and he broke – Good, God… He’s been a trouble maker and a sad sack for a long time but because he was part of a protected species, a protected minority, the Army let him slide. Just re-assign him… It’s time to get rid of the P.C. culture in the Army, in society and the media.”. -- Col. Ralph Peters

Strong Women

I love strong women. Indeed, I come from a long line of strong women.

Unfortunately, people tend to associate strong women with power in the stereotypical sense: wealth, prestige, exposure. In other words, in order for a woman to be "strong" or taken seriously, she must be in the marketplace. The idea that women hold tremendous power at home is considered a religious or conservative idea. Take a look at this piece:

More About FOX

Interestingly enough, I've been in DC this weekend during this historical move toward government-run health care. The light has been on at the top of the Capitol, which indicates Congress is in session.

We're staying right around the corner and were in the Capitol half the day yesterday -- or, I should say, in the visitors' center below. The Capitol is like a city of its own: It has its own restaurants, barber shop, dry cleaning, and whatever else the rest of us might leave our homes for. Politicians essentially live there -- minus the sleeping part, I guess. What a life. Can't imagine.

So I've been watching FOX more this weekend than I usually do at home, and I wanted to add something to my earlier post. I think most people think only about Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the evening lineup when they consider FOX. FOX news programs are different. As my earlier post indicates, there are Democrats on board at FOX.

More importantly, however, is who the network has on its programming. People like Karl Rove -- who Americans need to hear from, whether they like him or not -- are on FOX. When was the last time you saw Karl Rove on ABC, NBC, or CBS?

Indeed, the issue is not whether or not broadcasters are conservative, it's what kind of programming a network offers that matters. And on the front, FOX clearly stands heads and shoulders above the rest.

Why People Watch FOX

Read HERE and note the following comments from Democrats Bob Beckel and Liz Chadderdon:

“You know how I know nobody watches CNBC?” said Chadderdon. “I compared the pope to my 11th-grade algebra teacher, and nobody sent me a letter.”

“I talk to more persuadable voters in a month than anybody on MSNBC and CNN talks to in a year.” (Beckel)

The reason these Democrats are open to working at FOX is because they find open-minded, non-ideological Americans there. The idea that FOX is a "conservative" station is fair game in that there are some openly conservative hosts who do commentary. But not everyone who watches FOX is conservative.

The terms liberal and conservative have become so skewed at this point that they're almost meaningless. If you're a reasonable person who's not driven to insult and not defensive, you will most likely watch FOX. Whether or not the broadcasters themselves are conservative isn't nearly as relevant as the quality of the news.

Americans can get information they would otherwise not get on other stations; that is why FOX is so successful. People crave truth. Whether the person providing the information is personally biased doesn't really matter. Americans overlook this part and are just grateful to know about the story.

TOMORROW: Strong Women

What Saddam Hussein Can Teach Us about the Liberal Mindset

Robert Ellis is a retired master sergeant in the Army Reserves who knew Saddam Hussein better than anyone else. For 8 months in his deployment at Camp Cropper near Baghdad, Robert was responsible for the health and well-being of the Army s high-value detainees depicted on the infamous deck of cards showing Iraq's Most Wanted. One of his charges was Saddam Hussein -- who was known by his code name, Victor.

In Ellis’s new book, Caring for Victor: A U.S. Army Nurse and Saddam Hussein,” Ellis describes the complicated relationship he had with the dictator. Marianna Riley, who co-wrote the book with Ellis, notes that “as cruel and demonic Saddam Hussein may have been as a human being, Ellis was still able to make a connection and a bond with him, which is the focus of the book,” writes Don Corrigan in The Webster-Kirkwood Times, a local paper here in St. Louis, where Ellis is from.

It was Ellis' job to “ensure all detainees received humane treatment." “All of them," he says, "and that included Saddam Hussein.” Ellis checked Hussein’s blood pressure and listened to his complaints. As time went on, the two became “more friendly and spent time together,” writes Corrigan, which was encouraged by Ellis' commanding officers. As a result, Ellis – and subsequently, his co-author Riley – got a lesson in good vs. evil.

“[Hussein] wasn’t evil 24/7,” says Ellis. “He did some good things. He provided free health care in his country. He got an award from UNESCO for improving literacy. He introduced Western-style banking and women had some clout in the Iraqi communities.” As his co-author Riley states, “I’ve had to try to internalize the fact that good and evil can exist inside the same person.”

I bring this story to light because it offers great insight into the liberal mind. The idea that a person can be bad, or evil, or no good (pick your term) is lost on modern liberals. Today's liberalism includes the belief that all people are intrinsically good. We are all essentially the same at heart. Thus, if someone (even Saddam Hussein) does bad things, it isn't because he's an inherently bad person. Rather, he's simply misguided -- or society put him in this unfortunate position. Such is the basis for all liberal thought. Conservatives, on the other hand, have no trouble reconciling the good/evil divide. They don't see Hussein (or anyone else) as evil some of the time. If you're evil, you're evil. There's no 24/7 or 14/3 about it.

Getting close to someone who's bad (remember Dead Man Walking?) is all fine and good. It's certainly a fascinating look (I enjoyed that movie) into human nature, and anyone who does get that close to evil will certainly see another side to the person. No doubt this experience would make it difficult to see the person as completely evil. Unfortunately, this has the unintended effect of "letting the person off the hook" -- which doesn't bode well for society. What I liked about DMWalking was that Sean Penn still had to suffer his fate despite being loved and understood by someone prior to his demise. In too many courts today, being loved and understood translates to the guilty party being let back in to mainstream society to do more evil.

Bottom line: There's a time and place to be tough -- when emotions shouldn't prevail. Saddam Hussein is a perfect example.

TOMORROW: Why People Watch FOX

What Being Open-Minded Really Means

One of the greatest misunderstandings of the 20th century is the idea put forth by modern liberals -- post 1960s -- that being "open-minded" means being "open," or accepting, of everyone and everything. As I'm sure you know, the liberal media -- think Hollywood, the magazine industry, and the mainstream media -- pride themselves on being open-minded; so do everyday Americans who believe in this idea and want people to think they're "nice." To many people in modern America, being open-minded is the hallmark of what makes a person...well, a good person.

Once again the Left has managed to persuade an entire generation of something that sounds good on the surface -- but isn't. Today, those who define themselves as liberal often do so b/c they don't want people to think they're judgmental. But being open-minded, or tolerant, does not translate into being non-judgmental.

Being open-minded means a person doesn't judge a person or situation at face value. It means he or she is open to looking at new ideas or situations. If the person then looks at this situation in its entirely and subsequently makes a value judgment about it, that doesn't make the person close-minded. It means he's looked at from its entire angle and made a decision about what he thinks.

Everyone does this, whether they admit it or not. It is human nature to study things and make value judgments about them. That is not the same thing as being a judgmental person.

Being close-minded is the refusal to look at a situation for whatever reason. It's living one's life according to a rigid ideology and not wanting to look at anything that's different from what you know. It's making a judgment without knowing the facts. The problem today is that people aren't allowed to make a perfectly sound value judgment despite having all the information. Anyone who does is automatically deemed judgmental.

In other words, the only way to be considered good, moral, nonjudgmental is for a person to accept anything and everything as morally acceptable. If you believe in boundaries of any kind, you're automatically pushed over into the conservative camp.

You can see why independents or moderate conservatives feel like they have no place to turn.

Bottom line: The Left doesn't stand on any principles whatsoever -- except for the principle that one shouldn't have any principles.


TOMORROW: What Saddam Hussein Can Teach Us about the Liberal Mindset

Why I'm Grateful for Obama

This summer there was an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Boomers to This Year's Grads: We Are Really, Really Sorry." Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, 60, tells the graduating class at Butler University that boomers have been "self-absorbed, self-indulgent and all too often just plain selfish." The purpose of the article was to demonstrate how baby boomers’ financial choices have hurt the economy, which is all well and good -- and certainly appropriate for a college graduation. But the real legacy of the boomer generation is its impact on American culture.

Neil Howe, an author and historian highlighted in the article, identifies the source of the problem. He writes that the social movements of the 1960s "caved in on itself" as boomers focused more on "their own inner voyage" and less on their obligation to society. Dinesh D’Douza makes the same observation in his book Letter to a Young Conservative. “Before the sixties, most Americans believed in a universal moral order that is external to us, that makes demands on us. Our obligation was to conform to that moral order and its commandments: work hard and try to better yourself, be faithful to your spouse, go when your country calls, and so on. But beginning in the sixties, several factions attacked that moral consensus as narrow and oppressive. They fought for a new ethic that would be based not on external authority but on the sovereignty of the inner self." Indeed, this myopic focus on the self, at society’s expense, is still with us today -- and we have baby boomers to thank for it.

Attempting to eradicate the universal moral order to which most Americans subscribed was not difficult to do. As John Malkovich’s character – he plays a reverend -- says in The Changeling, “Once you give people the freedom to do whatever they want as the Lord found them in the garden of Eden, they will do exactly that.” This is precisely what has happened in America since the 1960s. Before that time, freedom in America meant freedom from – tyranny, religion, oppressors, and so forth. But the counterculture of the 1960s introduced a new kind of freedom -- freedom to do as one pleases. That’s an entirely different kind of freedom than our Founding Fathers intended – and ever since Americans got a taste of it, they haven’t been able to resist.

Before the boomers came along to change the definition of freedom, America was a relatively unified nation. There were Democrats and Republicans, to be sure; but they were more alike than different. They disagreed about public policy, but they agreed on right and wrong. They agreed on familial duty and societal responsibility. They agreed on national defense and the military. This is no longer the case. Today we have a full-fledged culture war: on one side are modern liberals – who place the individual, especially his rights, at the center of society -- and on the other side are, to borrow Ann Coulter’s phrase from her piece in July on Sarah Palin, “normal people.”

Normal people represent most of America. Whether they refer to themselves as “conservative,” – as 41% of Americans do – or “moderate” -- as 34% of Americans do – they’re normal because their views represent an accurate understanding of human nature. It’s natural to think of personal responsibility toward others; it’s natural to think in terms of right and wrong; it’s natural to believe there’s something or someone greater than ourselves governing the universe. That 75% of Americans do not identify with modern liberalism proves how natural it is to think right-of-center. It just isn’t normal not to believe in right and wrong. And a good portion of the 21% of self-described liberals in this country knows this; they simply go along with their friends because it’s the “thing to do.” In addition to their steadfast belief in moral relativity, liberals also think everyone is the same at heart. When it comes right down to it, says the left, there are no real differences between people -- only misunderstandings.

The twenty-one percent of liberals in America are simply leftovers from the 1960s era. They either hailed from this generation (think Pelosi), or they were raised by parents who hailed from this generation. (Think Obama.) Either way, they’re of one mind -- and they are the reason for every social ill that exists today. They are the reason partial-birth abortion is not considered a travesty by 100% of the population; they are the reason parenting has changed dramatically – and for the worse; they are the reason divorce and single motherhood are touted as good things; they are the reason public schools are a disgrace; and they are the reason sex education has become a license for kids to have casual sex. Indeed, the result of Americans taking their focus off society and onto the self is mind-numbingly far-reaching.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans still believe in the real definition of freedom. Everyday folks between California and New York are busy taking responsibility for their lives and the people in them. People do tend to mature as they age – and consequently think less of themselves and more about society as a whole. Unfortunately, 21% of Americans have yet to grow up (as the jacket cover to Reb Bradley’s Born Liberal, Raised Right, says, “The future of America is threatened by adults stuck in their terrible twos”); and many of them have the microphone. They can be found in the White House, Hollywood, college campuses, and the media. Indeed, their voices are so loud they drown out the masses, resulting in capitulation. Normal people feel defeated, and thus remain silent.

Fortunately, there’s a new optimism underway – which is why I’m grateful for Obama’s presidency. I think he’s precisely what America needed. By having Obama in office, Americans get a glimpse of what liberal politics looks like – and we needed that. I don’t think most Americans, before the election, truly understood the difference between conservatism and liberalism. I don’t think normal people ever fathomed – they’re too damn normal to fathom it -- that there are people in the world who think like Obama and his cronies in Congress. Less than a year ago Smart Girl Politics, a grassroots organization dedicated to “engaging, educating, and empowering conservative women” was a fledgling website with less than 1,000 members; now there are 11,000 members. Less than a year ago people loved the idea of Obama; now they’re scratching their heads. Less than a year ago people didn’t believe an innocent young woman could proclaim her belief in traditional marriage and be pilloried by the media as a result; now they do. Less than a year ago normal people didn’t believe Democrats could think it’s okay to take people’s money away from them and give it to other people; now they do. I firmly believe, now that normal people have witnessed what modern liberalism looks like, that America will reunite. As Winston Churchill once said, "We can always count on Americans to do the right thing...after they've exhausted all other possibilities."

TOMORROW: What Being "Open-Minded" Really Means

GOP Wins VA & NY

"We can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

Breaking Into the Boys' Club

So there's more. Did you think I was kidding about the influence of The Shriver Report?

Last night Anderson Cooper aired a piece called "Breaking Into the Boys' Club" about "the gender wage gap at work" -- in honor of the hoopla re The Shriver Report. He interviewed Suze Orman, some female poker champion, Dee Dee Meyers (Clinton's former press secretary), and a female neurosurgeon -- of which there are very few in America.

But before the interviews, Cooper says, "But first, the facts..." at which point CNN's Erica Hill proceeds to report on the story. Here, she says, are the facts:

"Fewer than 3% of women are at the helm of America's major corporations, and the women who are make 58 cents for every dollar a man makes."

"There's no denying the road to equality is a long one. And there is much more work to be done."

Hill then interviews Carol Evans, CEO of Working Mother magazine (who, as it happens, CNN used to ambush me in a television interview five years ago), who says this: "The boys' club is still pretty much intact. You wouldn't see those differences between men and women at the top if there wasn't still an old boys' club."

Uh, yes, Ms. Evans, you would. The differences between men and women -- which, I'm afraid, play out in the workplace as well -- have been there forever and are the real reason for the wage gap in America.

After Ms. Evans, the show shoots back over to Cooper and the other ladies. Suze Orman's argument is basically that women are too "others" oriented. They don't make enough demands or speak up for themselves enough in the business world -- which I have no doubt is true. And Dee Meyers provides the standard liberal argument that "we must teach our girls to be proud of themselves" or whatever -- as if young girls are routinely dismissed and are "put in their place" at a young age.

But the neurosurgeon, Dr. Firlick, was the most interesting and honest woman on the panel. Cooper came right out and asked her why more women don't become neurosurgeons, and she basically said "because of the hours." Something like 100 hours a week are required (though lately it's been more "family-friendly" she said -- 80 hours!)

Essentially this doctor was admitting that more women don't choose this profession because THEY DON'T WANT THAT LIFE (without actually saying it the way I would, of course). But that wasn't enough for Cooper; he had to drill home the idea of discrimination, as all good Lefties do.

"But there's still a bias, isn't there?" he asks.

"There can be. Usually, though, it's a matter of first impression. Once you show you can walk the walk and talk the talk they'll see you as just another guy -- so to speak."

In other words, it is possible to "make it in a man's world" after all? Who woulda thunk it, in the 21st century?

Then the doctor goes on to say that if you do find yourself the target of someone who thinks you're not capable as a woman, you can "walk out and protest or you can have a sense of humor about it and come up with a funny rebuttal. I think that can be more powerful."

Indeed, what it really comes down to is attitude. There is nothing holding women back. There is no more "work to be done." There are simply women with the right attitude and women with the wrong attitude. And those with the right attitude will always succeed.

I have no doubt, of course, that this went right over CNN's head.

TOMORROW: Why I'm Grateful for Obama

Obama's Reaction to the Shriver Report Is As Expected

NBC ‘Nightly News’ Champions Obama’s Sensitivity to Women

By Brent Baker
Media Research Center
October 22, 2009

Tied to NBC's promotion of Maria Shriver's “A Woman's Nation” report, completed in conjunction with the left-wing Center for American Progress, Wednesday's NBC Nightly News showcased Savannah Guthrie's interview with President Barack Obama in which she trumpeted how he “has put women in high places in his administration and the Supreme Court. The first bill he signed, a pay discrimination law.” Plus, she assured viewers “the President says he gives a lot of thought to whether the women who work here in the White House feel they're being heard, whether there are those persistent subtle biases still around.”

NBC gave air time for Obama to pander: “When I think about policy, I'm constantly thinking about how can we strengthen families, how can we provide more resources, greater flexibility so that women can thrive, because I think if women are thriving everybody's going to be thriving.” How profound.

But no more banal than Guthrie explaining Obama sat down with her “to talk about the Shriver Report and its finding that a workforce that's half women 'changes everything.'” As if that workforce composition is somehow new this week. Indeed, the title is just that silly, “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.”

Addendum

• Sixty-eight percent of parents say child care is “not much of a problem” for their families and feel the primary responsibility of child care rests with them.
• For parents of children 5 and under, 67% believe career trade-offs, or reducing one’s hours at work to care for very young children, is “just how life works” -- and a choice they must make for themselves.

Those Darn Kids Sure Get in the Way

Today my six-year-old son is home sick. According to The Shriver Report, this is a wholly unfair circumstance in which I find myself. After all, parents have to work, and they need a place to put their kids when they get sick. I got a phone call about this very issue from Good Housekeeping earlier this year. They wanted some advice they could give their readers about what working moms can do when they're faced with this situation. (Apparently this editor hadn't done sufficient research about me and my work.)

I can tell you what I didn't say, though. I didn't say it's the government's responsibility (aka the taxpayers' responsibility) to offer working parents a solution to this dilemma. (GH never did print my answer, by the way. No surprise there...) But that's precisely what the Left wants. Remember this quote from John Podesta in The Shriver Report?

Schools still let kids out in the afternoon, long before the workday ends, and they shut their doors for three months during the summer, even though the majority of families with children are supported by a single working parent or a dual-earning couple.

They forgot to include the "what to do when kids get sick" in this particular sentence, but you'll find it later in the 450-page report. Indeed, by the time feminists are finished getting what they want from the government, there won't be any mothering left for them to do. Which is not a problem for them, since that's precisely what they want. Abortion on demand and government-run day care removes that little problem of babies getting in the way of one's career goals.

Kids being home sick is only a problem for parents whose priorities are out of whack. Taking care of sick children is part of what it means to be a parent. It's up to parents, not the government, to figure out how to tend to children when they're ill. The idea that I should be able to take my son someplace else when he's got a fever and is coughing all over the place is rather shocking, when you think about it. I mean, at the very least it isn't very nice. At worst, it gets other people sick.

Sick kids are a bona fide problem for working parents, I admit. Nevertheless, it's up to them to figure out a plan.

Why Men and Women -- Men Especially -- Won't Speak Out Against Modern Feminism

Below are examples of comments people have made about posts or articles I've written that expose modern feminism for what it is. This type of reaction is precisely the reason everyday men and women do not speak out against feminism. Problem is, that just gives feminists more power.

anonymous said...(This is from the blog on my website -- not No Bull Mom.)

your words make me ill. really, really ill. gross. how could you dismiss women's desire to not be dependent on men? you are an embarrassment to women. i can't believe that someone would say such things. what on earth is wrong with you? so women SHOULD be dependent on men? and NOT love themselves? based on my life experience, and all my amassed world knowledge, that is a recipe for depression and abusive relationships. i am still in shock about your words. your words are extremely dangerous to women! i urge you, with all my heart, to re-examine.

Kristi says...(in response to an article I wrote about an article a man from Forbes wrote about "career women.")

Perhaps my almost 21 year marriage is just an exception to this rule. Perhaps we've just "worked harder" at being married. Perhaps we're just exceptional at balancing it all. Perhaps we're just a statistical anomoly. Perhaps my husband has no idea how much money I earn. I don't know. I will tell you what I see dragging marriages into the ditch in my community is women refusing to work and help contribute to a lifestyle to which they feel entitled while still expecting their husbands to take on household and childcare duties so they can have a day at the spa or weekend away with friends to destress from their horribly taxing country club lives. I have no idea if men in general prefer non-career women. I can tell you from personal experience that the stress of carrying to full financial load can and does lead to resentment, marital discord and divorce. I'll take my career-loving husband any day of the week over a man who doesn't prefer who woman who can take care of herself.

Single Motherhood: A Feminist Utopia

There's a fascinating article in The Wall Street Journal titled "This Is Your Brain Without Dad" about the importance of having a father with respect to brain development.Now I admit I'm not much of a statistics girl. I read a lot, so I'm well versed in the latest stats; but I place my stock in common sense and experience. If you read this blog regularly, you know that. Still, this was interesting.

Apparently a German biologist is conducting research on this subject using animals that are typically raised by two parents as compared with one parent. When the animals were deprived of their father, the pups exhibit short and long-term changes in nerve-cell growth on different regions of the brain.

In the two-parent families, the mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways. When the mother was a single parent, the frequency of her interactions didn't change much, which means the pups experienced significantly less touching and interaction than those with two parents.

So I was thinking about this issue with respect to the faux "women's rights" movement - more specifically, how feminists have no problem with single motherhood. In fact they encourage it. It's part of a woman's right to become a mother in any way she deems appropriate: without a father, without staying home, etc. The idea of being married in order to raise children is almost an afterthought. And divorce is considered a fait accompli -- not something we should strive to avoid. Indeed, feminists are the reason there is now a whopping 40% of single mothers in America.

Not only are feminists responsible for this pitiful statistic, they want to support single mothers by adopting policies that encourage it. When Ann Coulter told the truth about single motherhood in her book Guilty, she was of course pilloried by the Left. Feminists don't like facts and statistics; it messes with their plan. But those with open and independent minds can handle the following information from Guilty:

"Of all single mothers in America, only 6.5 percent of them are widows, 37.8 percent are divorced, and 41.3 percent gave birth out of wedlock. The 6.5 percent of single mothers whose husbands have died shouldn't be called 'single mothers' at all. We already have a word for them: 'widows.' Their children do just fine compared with the children of married parents.

According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.

A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes 'are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.' Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.

The illegitimacy rate has gone up by more than 300 percent since 1970.

In 1979, only about 600,000 babies were born out of wedlock and one quarter of them were put up for adoption. By 1991, the number of illegitimate births had doubled to 1,225,000 annually, but only 4 percent were allowed to be adopted. By 2003, 1.5 million illegitimate babies were born every year, but less than 1 percent were put for adoption. Not surprisingly, unwed mothers who care enough to give their children up for adoption also come overwhelmingly from responsible backgrounds. They tend to have higher education and income levels and to come from intact upper-middle-class families with highly educated parents."

Finally, this:

"According to the US Justice Department crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women living with their husbands."

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move." -- Hillary Clinton, to a Pakistani newspaper reporter (Clinton was contrasting the lower tax rates in Pakistan to the U.S.'s and suggesting Pakistan raise its revenue rather than rely on the U.S.)

Change Isn't Coming...It Has Arrived

So have any of you been thinking I've overestimated the significance of The Shriver Report?

Friday night I was watching The Joy Behar Show and down in the lower corner of the program where they have a "slogan" -- like the slogan of Campbell Brown's program is "No Bias, No Bull" -- is the phrase "A Woman's Nation."

That's the subtitle of The Shriver Report.

John Podesta

I've also just learned that John Podesta, the president of the Center for American Progress who who uses The Shriver Report to argue for a new kind of America, led Obama's transition team earlier this year.

It's all one giant plan by the Left. They just use different masks.