Monday, June 28, 2004


Hillary Clinton and Teresa Kerry: strong intelligent women. Laura and Barbara Bush? Well who knows? L. and B. aren’t out there risking much, allowing anyone to really get to know what they think as compared to their husbands. You gotta ask—are they or their husbands the weak ones? So the question remains: why are Republican males so angry at women who are strong and intelligent and able to get out there and mix it up with the men, to fight back rather than to be solely the helpmate of an insecure and sometimes unintelligent male?

I have nothing against housewives who nurture their husbands and are economically well off enough to stay home with the kids and hubby, cooking, cleaning, running the cab business, bucking up the battered male ego, etcetera. Good on them. But, unlike weak conservative males, I admire strong, intelligent women too. I don’t feel the need to be out there attacking women in the work force or strong political women with opinions and minds of their own. I’m a you go, Hillary, sort of man. Besides, many women can’t afford the luxury of remaining at home, and, of course, they gotta toughen up to be in the work force full of weak males who always need someone to beat up on in order to feel the least adequate themselves.

I think weak, conservative males are so fearful of losing their female props that they hate (i.e. fear) any woman whose life might encourage their female prop to get out there and do likewise. Sometimes that fear gets out of hand too. How many conservative males do each of us know who have felt it necessary to beat a wife who threatened to leave them? I know one right here in Spokane. It tires me to think of him.


We continually hear how Bush started his war in Iraq because he had bad intelligence. (Never mind that his intelligence is bad.) We’re told he didn’t have men on the spot, people on the ground, doing intelligence. This is another Bush lie to justify his war.

We had people on the ground in Iraq, people right at the source. We had weapons inspectors on the spot who repeatedly told Bush and the U.N. they could find no weapons of mass destruction. Now why didn’t Bush believe the most solid information he had, besides his ideological and irrational dislike of the U.N.?

I still don’t know why we actually went into Iraq. Do you? I mean, really, factually? Bush seemingly ignored the best intelligence he had, so this whole adventure he started us on seems ever more irrational, and the more I think about it, the more I think we’re in Iraq for the hidden religious purpose of a simple-minded fundamentalist president. I believe he’s trying to preserve Israel and, thus, do his part in bringing about the conditions that are supposed to prevail before Christianity’s imaginary second coming is to happen.

I don’t think Bush made a mistake that time he called his war a “Crusade”. It’s religious imagery. It was a slip of his hidden purpose into his conscious dialogue. Most of the time he’s lying to us and himself about his war, and, evolutionary psychology tells us, the most effective liar is the liar who believes his own lies. Bush is an excellent liar and fundamentalists are notoriously bad at seeing through a lie.


Poor Jack Ryan, the Illinois Republican, who surrendered his Senate bid because he likes to watch, all because his personal libido gets a kick out of voyeurism. He took his wife to sex clubs all around the world and asked (pressured) her to perform sex while strangers watched. She refused or she didn't refuse (hard to tell from either report I read) and nothing or something happened. Even if something had happened, sex is not illegal. Yet, Jack has to give up a Senate bid because, like so many American men, hooked on advertising which sells everything with sex, Jack is a bit of a voyeur.

Well, Jack, that’s part of what you get when your base is fundamentalist Christians. I think many unimaginative, unlearned, emotionally dead Christians would be surprised at how many husbands get off on the fantasy of watching their wives do other men. More than likely, the more Christian a man is, the more likely it is that something like voyeurism might turn him on. Unable to imagine or accept anything but their own unimaginative, dead way of doing things, fundamentalists label anything “different” from their way as “evil” and turn on it like a pack of rabid dogs on a wounded rabbit. But in tearing up the poor rabbit, they get a taste for it themselves. Poor Jack rabbit. His dogged constituency bit him in the end.

"I enjoy dating married men because they don't want anything kinky, like breakfast." —Judi Rodgers

No comments: