Newshoggers, for example asks, "And how do we know she is a theocon wingnut extremist? Theocon wingnut extremist James Dobson is now onboard after saying for months he would never vote for John McCain."
Oh gee, Mr. Beasley. I guess then we can safely assume that Barack Obama is an anti-American, terror-sympathizing radical extremist because, not only are anti-American, terror-sympathizing radical extremists William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn going to vote for him, but they also have a rather close personal and professional association with him!
Glad you finally cleared up any remaining doubts anyone might have about how to assess such connections.
And, The Nation's Katha Pollitt puts it even more plainly:
Here's the reality: Palin is a rightwing-Christian anti-choice extremist who opposes abortion for any reason whasoever, except to save the life of the girl or woman. No exception even for rape, incest, or the health of the woman. No exception for a ten-year-old, a woman carrying a fetus with no chance of life, a woman on the edge of suicide-- let alone the woman who is not ready to be a parent, who is escaping domestic violence, who is already stretched to the limit as a single mother. She wants to force over one million women and girls a year to give birth against their will and judgment. She wants to use the magnificent freedom the women's movement has won for her at tremendous cost and struggle--the movement that won her the right to run those marathons and run Alaska -- to take away the freedom of every other woman in the country.
I must assume from Pollit's passionate screed, that women are dying in droves from back alley botched illegal abortions in Alaska. What? No? I would bet she doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up any of her assertions. And the "magnificent freedom" won at so high a cost by the women's movement? Is that by any chance the freedom to perpetuate eternal victimhood on us poor, helpless women? A scam today's "women's movement" has been getting away with for several decades now (even as they excuse and rationalize away real female victimization in the world).
Consider what Pollit's histrionic and fearmongering statement really amounts to: because Sarah Palin DARES to disagree with the idea of abortion, SHE MUST BE A RADICAL EXTREMIST who is going to "FORCE" millions of women to "give birth against their will".
What crap. They said the same thing when John Robert's was nominated for Chief Justice. They say the same thing when anyone who disagrees with them is on the political stage; and they swoon and wail when it is one of those gender-traitor Rethuglican women.
For the record, I also don't hold with the anti-abortion litmus test that some conservatives demand for all political purposes. IMHO, Roe v Wade has distorted and perverted the entire issue. We should be having a discussion about when life does begin (sorry, but making a judgement on this is not above my pay grade).
I happen to think women should have a choice and be in full control of their bodies (including deciding whether to have unprotected sex and perhaps get pregnant); but then they must deal with the consequences of their actions. Pollit's hysterical assertion is just the sort of tempered discussion on the issue we've come to associate with the so-called "reality-based" political left. These guys wouldn't recognize reality if it smacked them in the face. (But they do worship polls). Not only haven't we had a frank discussion about race in this country for some time (and never will if the left and its Messiah has anything to say about it--because that would be racist) but it is also definitely time to have a national discussion about unconditional abortion rights-- and responsibilities. This is a discussion we must have if we are to stand on the side of life as a culture (i.e. as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").
As I noted in a previous post:
What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for.
Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants.
Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement.
Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome.
Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.
After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?
This rather obvious fact, of course, goes a long way to explaining the rather peculiar attitude that the Left has toward any members of its various victim groups who actually escape victimhood and become successful, achieving and independently thinking adults! The previously altruistic and idealistic worldview is now merely a narcissistic one—and a malignantly narcissistic one at that—wholly preoccupied with the possession and retention of power for an elite few.What was once a concern that equal opportunity be afforded to all members of our society has run amok and is now a shrill, insistent demand that all outcomes be exactly equal... or else....
The main justification for the existence of the women’s movement these days is to support and expand the cult of victimhood that they have created among women. Modern feminists have become the mother, once happy to nurture her child and help her leave the nest and go joyfully off to lead her own life; but now extremely bitter and resentful about the fact that her daughter doesn't need her anymore. Feminists have now dedicated their lives to convincing women that they really don't have any power; aren't capable of living and working equally among men; and encouraging them in demanding the "rights" that will ensure women who embrace their party line will be regarded by any person of reason and responsibility as complete losers and whiners.
Because today "feminists" (and today, I use the term with contempt) have a strict party line. Apparently, if you are not a Democrat, or more generally, a person on the left side of the political spectrum, then you are not a woman who counts. If Rosa Parks made a statement for freedom today, and (God help her) she was a...Republican, well, you know what would happen. The same thing that happened to Condi Rice and is happening to Michael Steele....
If you are the Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and happen to be a woman--and not only that, a black woman, you don't count (as either a woman or a black). If you are a Republican nominee for the Judiciary and a woman—you don’t count.
In fact, it turns out that if you happen to disagree with them on any issue you don’t count and are instantly labeled a traitor to your gender; and their most vile and derogatory remarks are reserved especially for you.
Within days of her selection by McCain, Palin has been the subject of the most vile and obscene accusations. Reasonable people may disagree with the selection of Palin on a number of fronts (e.g, for EXACTLY the same reasons that a reasonable person might consider Barack Obama uniquely UNDERqualified for the job of President; or because they object to the whole diversity scam perpetrated by the left on women and minorities); but then, reasonable people don't hysterically shriek about protecting some primal need to kill unborn babies to ensure that women--what was it Pollit said? Oh yes--aren't forced to give birth against their "will and judgement".
Let me tell you about my own "triumph of the will" and a decision that led to what ranks in my own mind as the best example of my own abysmal judgement when I was young: when I was 16 years old, I had an abortion. It wasn't nearly as easy to get as it is today; and I didn't have the option beforehand of obtaining birth control to prevent the inevitable consequence of choosing to have sex. Yet, I chose to have unprotected sex anyway.
Now that I'm a grown up; and from the distance of many years, I find that I'm sick to death of the whole 'give me abortion or give me death' argument of leftist feminists today. In case they haven't noticed, abortions have steadily declined and reached their lowest rate in three decades this year.
It's not hard to speculate why--women (and girls) are more empowered and able to take effective action to prevent pregnancy. Women are smarter and savvier about their bodies and their choices. And thank God for that. My own daughter was born to a young woman who CHOSE to give the child up for adoption after birth (I was blessed to have the experience of being the physician who delivered her).
It turned out that I became infertile and endured multiple miscarriages primarily because of the therapeutic abortion I had 20+ years earlier.
Infertility was only the physical price I happened to pay for exercising my 'will' when I was a callow and insensitive young person. I won't bore you with the details of the psychological sequelae which took decades for me to come to terms, particularly after I went into a profession that strives to protect and preserve human life.
At any rate, nowadays I no longer see abortion as the be-all and end-all of Women's Rights--as most of the dead-end feminists and their metrosexual male pets do. And I have great respect for women who exercise their own will and judgement and chose differently than I did--people like Sarah Palin, for example. She had what amounts to a genuine medical reason--Trisomy 21, or Down's Syndrome--that supposedly would have made the decision morally easy. Instead, Sarah Palin chose life.
In my mind, that's pretty 'pro-choice'.
But because he happens to be a Conservative Republican, her choices and judgement and will as a woman don't count in the leftist 'mind'. In truth, she has shown more integrity and strength of character in that one decision, than most of those who are currently demonizing her have shown in their entire lives--or certainly than I was able to muster up when I was 16 years old and found myself pregnant due to my own irresponsible behavior.
I happen to think Sarah Palin will make an excellent vice president--she has, after all, excelled in everything else she has done in her life. But I wait with some excitement to see how she does. Why not let her and her running mate have a chance to make their case?
Meanwhile, the left will continue to do a Clarence Thomas on her (remember Joe Biden was a key player in that particular racial lynching; expect to see high profile feminists do an overtly sexist lynching on Palin--e.g., along the lines of Pollit's piece--without ever being able to see the irony and hypocrisy of their behavior).
In a post titled, "The Fantasy-Based Community and Their Messiah", Gagdad Bob reminds us that:
...the liberal -- if he wishes to gain power -- must necessarily revert to either conscious or unconscious distortion and trancemission. It reminds me of what movies were like before the sex could be shown explicitly. Instead, everything had to be suggested and implied. This can be done in an artless manner or in a masterful way that is obviously more powerful than contemporary films, because of the unconscious resonance. Most people will agree that the sexual tension between, say Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca, or Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity, is much more interesting than that between... I don't know, you name it. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. {shudder}
Now, the most primitive psychological defense mechanisms are 1) denial 2) projection 3) splitting, and 4) projective identification. All are related, and are actually necessary conditions of each other. For example, what is denied doesn't just disappear, but is split off and projected, usually into other people. Likewise, what is projected is necessarily split off. The group unconscious relies upon all of these mechanisms -- for example, scapegoating is just group projection.
When one engages in projective identification, one is necessarily in denial. (As the wiki article states, projective identification involves projection into another, followed by behaving toward the recipient of the projections in such a manner as to invoke in the other person precisely the thoughts, feelings or behaviors projected.)For example, the primitive Palestinians project all of their sadism into the Israelis, and then, when Israel responds, it "proves" to the Palestinians how sadistic and oppressive the Israelis are. Or, closer to home, the left projects so much hatred and viciousness into President Bush, that most anything he does or says is proof of his hatred and viciousness. (emphasis mine)
It is no coincidence that communist ideology--which was reponsible for the deaths of millions and the enslavement of millions more as they preached their gospel; as well as every Arab extremist organization that cries 'slaughter the jews!' also happen to support Barack Obama. When it comes to projective identification, the lunatic left is second to none.
Sarah Palin has unleashed a firestorm of projection by the political left. If I know the left, then the worse of the hatred and viciousness--unconsciously transmuted into the loving and compassionate discourse we've come to expect of them--is yet to come. Just wait and watch as the PDS ratchets up.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse tears into the "despicable, sexist trash" coming from you know who and suggests that they "stop prying into other people's vaginas." She has hit the nail right on the head when it come to exposing the psychological projection of these denialists.
No comments:
Post a Comment