self-hating woman writes for washington post

read this bullshit. isn’t it incredible how self-hating the woman who wrote that article is? she has got to be the most sexist, pro-male, anti-female person ever. and the article is from sunday’s washington post! i mean, ann coulter, a so-called “woman”, says that women should never have gotten the right to vote, among many other ridiculous things she has said. but this lady at the washington post really puts that paper to shame. not that the washington post was ever that good... it has always been fairly right-wing, supporting the war in iraq, having many conservative columnists writing for it. and people complain of a “liberal media”! sure, the new york times endorsed hillary clinton, but hillary clinton was the most right-wing out of all of the democrats running for president in 2008: more right-wing than barack obama, john edwards, dennis kucinich, joe biden, chris dodd, bill richardson, and mike gravel. hillary clinton ran on “inevitability” and a bullshit claim of “35 years of experience” that had no basis in reality, and her top campaign staff was always infighting and was woefully unprepared for any of the contests after super tuesday. and hillary had to fire her campaign manager (someone she had known and trusted for years but who was unqualified for the position of campaign manager) because the campaign manager, patti solis doyle, lied to her about the financial situation of the campaign and said they had plenty of money when they were basically broke, forcing hillary clinton to loan $5 million to her own campaign just to keep things afloat. but up until barack obama’s upset win in iowa, the media was trying to force-feed hillary clinton to us, saying that she was inevitable and nobody else had a chance. of course, after iowa, things changed a lot, since hillary clinton came in 3rd place there! after that, the media decided they liked barack obama best, and they wanted to finish hillary clinton off in new hampshire. hillary won there by crying and getting the sympathy vote, and then the media was all like “wtf?” since obama had been ahead in the polls in new hampshire. since then, the media has been perpetually confused about things; they decided that women all should vote for hillary and black people should all vote for obama, and kept raising issues of racism and sexism. and for a while, anyone not supporting hillary clinton was sexist and anyone not supporting barack obama was racist, at least according to the memes propagated in the media. that sort of delusional thinking in the media started to fall apart in late january, and the media started to get more realistic about things around the time people voted in florida. but the media was now really buying into a new argument, the change versus experience argument, which is a bullshit argument, for several reasons: john mccain has the most experience out of the 3 candidates left (him and the 2 democrats), so if hillary tries to win the nomination on the basis of experience, she is done for in the general election. barack obama introduced the meme of change and every single other candidate in both parties decided to copy him and talk about change, including all the other democrats, as well as all the republicans. change happens all the time whether we like it or not and there is good change as well as bad change. the idea of change is bullshit. but barack obama brought it into the debate and everyone else copied him, including hillary clinton, and she ought to have known better than to fall for that. also, change versus experience is bullshit because of another word barack obama decided to emphasize: judgment. usually he uses this to discuss his opposition to the war in iraq before it even began, and how hillary clinton, john mccain, and george w. bush all supported the war in iraq. hillary clinton’s position on the war in iraq has gradually changed over the years from 2002 to 2008, which i have observed as a new yorker having her as my senator. and in the 2006 election to re-elect her to the senate, i was very unsatisfied with what i had heard from her regarding the war in iraq, and she was still unapologetically pro-war. i voted for her anyway, but voted against her in the democratic primary for united states senate, since there was a real anti-war democrat running against her named jonathan tasini, and i knew all about him and voted for him instead. but in the general election for the senate in 2006, it was either hillary clinton, a conservative republican, or some wacko 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning, so i voted for hillary clinton, very reluctantly, only because she was a democrat. anyway, since super tuesday, barack obama has won 11 primaries and caucuses in a row, and hillary has won 0 contests since then. zero. and while the media does bring this up, they ought to make a much bigger deal about it than they do, because it is a fact, and it matters, and it is the truth, and the voters are speaking loud and clear. and the message from the voters is: after observing all of the campaigning from iowa all up through super tuesday, and all the debates, and being better informed than people who voted earlier since more information is available now than before, they chose barack obama over hillary clinton. barack obama is ahead of hillary clinton in total delagates, and has a wide lead among pledged delegates. it is almost impossible for hillary clinton to win at this point, since the democrats use proportional representation in caucuses and primaries, instead of the winner-take-all system. so even if hillary clinton wins ohio, texas, and later pennsylvania, a 51% or 52% win just isn’t going to cut it, because it will do very little to decrease barack obama’s delegate lead. she has to win those states by wide margins to win the majority of pledged delegates. so this leaves 2 more tricks: either let florida and michigan send droves of hillary clinton supporters to the convention, or have the “superdelegates” overturn the will of the people by overwhelmingly supporting hillary clinton after barack obama wins most of the pledged delegates. or, hillary clinton could simply do the honorable thing and drop out of the race, once it becomes mathematically impossible for her to win the majority of the pledged delegates. but this article in the washington post, written by a woman, about how women are inferior to men, it is just ridiculous nonsense to me. i think the author of that article is correct about herself when she denigrates women: she personally is mentally inferior, not only to most men, but also most women. but as for other women? i don’t think so. i think when women show they are willing to support barack obama instead of hillary clinton, they are showing true signs of intelligence: they are willing to vote for the best candidate even if he or she is not one of their kind, not from their group. the majority of college students are now women, and someday, the fact that more women than men will be well-educated will mean women will dominate in high-paying professional jobs. that is unless men catch up and more of them start going to college too, or if discrimination keeps women from getting high-paying jobs. but as for hillary clinton being better qualified than barack obama? completely untrue. being first lady does not count as experience, nor does being on the board of wal-mart while not having a day job and being the wife of the governor of arkansas. barack obama has spent more years in elected public office, you know, as an actual politician that people voted for. now john mccain has both of them totally beat on this experience question. but when it comes to judgment... john mccain thinks good judgment means supporting the iraq troop surge and supporting 100 more years of war, as well as other wars that will also come. and when it comes to change... john mccain agrees with president bush on pretty much every major issue, including illegal immigration, abortion, the war in iraq, taxes, and everything else. so electing him would not be a change at all... it would be more of the same crap we have been getting from bush. but back to what i started with... the author of that article at the washington post is a prime example of how that newspaper is full of completely idiotic editorials. now the washington post is nowhere near as bad as the washington times, the wall street journal, the weekly standard, or the national review, when it comes to really really bad right-wing bullshit editorials. but the idea that men are inherently superior to women, that is a typical right-wing, conservative position, and it is the position that bible-believing christian fundamentalists all have to believe, if they interpret certain key bible verses literally instead of explaining them away. sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination based on religion, and many other forms of prejudice are actively promoted as good things in several key bible verses. and modern conservatism is basically jesus wrapped up in an american flag, holding a machine gun, taking bribes from rich people who tell him which foreigners to torture and then kill. so william f. buckley, jr., the man who wanted to tell history to “stop!”, who was opposed to desegregation (and thus a supporter of racism and oppression of black people), the founder of the national review, a man born into wealth and luxury as the son of an oil baron, he is a prime example of why conservatism is wrong. and he is dead now, and let us hope that conservatism dies along with him, soon, because conservatism is a morally bankrupt ideology of hatred, greed, prejudice, fearmongering, warmongering, and oppression. when the civil rights act was voted on by congress over 40 years ago, a higher percentage of republicans than democrats voted in favor, because republicans had not yet been taken over by conservatives, and most southern conservatives were actually democrats at that time. conservatives were on the wrong side of history then, and they still are now. the only difference is, now the conservatives all support republicans and oppose democrats, whereas, several decades ago, there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. of course, some right-wing nutballs like rush limbaugh and ann coulter like to pretend they support hillary clinton, as some kind of sick joke to gain publicity. but really, they are conservative republicans and they will vote republican no matter who the candidate is, and they are lying if they say otherwise. and if not, they are even stupider than i thought they were, because by helping to destroy their own republican party, they are helping to destroy the conservative movement. and the washington post has proven to be another right-wing rag by publishing such sexist tripe, and the author is basically trying to be another ann coulter. 1 ann coulter is already 1 too many. if women want to be sexist, i would prefer them to be “feminist” sexists like gloria steinem who support hillary clinton just because hillary clinton is a woman, rather than sexists like ann coulter or this woman at the washington post, both women who think men are superior to women. why? because i think it would be more interesting if women rose up in open revolution against us men than if they all decided to stay subservient to us men and do whatever we say. i do not know what would happen, and it would be very interesting to see if women succeed in overthrowing men and then installing themselves as a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy, and have all of the great presidents, inventors, and business tycoons of the future all be women. i would be willing to let that happen, to let women take over everything, without resisting at all, because i have such a great sense of humor that i think it would be the funniest and most ironic and unlikely thing ever. and whoever is in charge of things at the top, regardless of their gender or race of whatever, it does not really impact me personally at all, since i am just a lowly peon, a peasant, a commoner of no great import. i am not a wealthy aristocrat like william f. buckley, jr. was. the united states is turning into a 3rd world country, our economy is collapsing, and the world is more chaotic than ever. turkey has invaded northern iraq, israel has invaded the gaza strip, colombia has invaded ecuador, venezuela’s dictator is vowing war against colombia, iran’s dictator is best friends with the iraqi government, north korea’s dictator just enjoyed a show put on by the new york philharmonic in pyongyang, pakistan’s american-backed dictator might be forced out of office by the newly elected parliament, and russia just had a sham election to choose its new dictator, a mindless drone who will do whatever vladimir putin says. in iraq the surge seems to be working, only because militia leaders like muqtada al-sadr have ordered their followers not to fight for the time being, to blend in with the civilians, in order to wait for u.s. troops to leave so they can have a really bloody civil war. we did not defeat the enemy in iraq; they just decided to temporarily stop fighting and become civilians. and many of them are actually joining our side, temporarily of course, and getting weapons and training from us, but they have no real loyalty to us and may very well use those same weapons against our soldiers someday. and this chaos and destruction is what you get in a world ruled by men. would women do things any differently? probably not. not if women like margaret thatcher are any guide. but really, this is a generational divide, not a gender divide or a racial divide or a religious divide. the world is ruled by old people and middle-aged people, and they have screwed things up completely. it is time to let some of us younger people screw things up even worse. it’s not like things are going to get better any time soon. that reminds me of that other word barack obama likes to use, besides change and judgment: hope. hope is not something that i have much of at all. i hope that barack obama will win. but i am not hoping for much. i think our country is already totally screwed no matter who the next president is, and we just need to focus on choosing someone who will at least partially solve a few of the problems we have and avoid creating too many new ones, instead of making the problems we already have much worse and also creating lots of new problems, as george w. bush has done. i am proud to be an american, in the same way that a passenger on the titanic is proud to be on that sinking ship, a ship that everyone thought was the greatest ship ever. and it is people like the author of that washington post article that help convince me that the united states is a sinking ship like the titanic. if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! that means, do not vote for anyone who voted in favor of war in iraq, or else the united states will get even more screwed up than before, and we will also screw up as much of the rest of the world as possible too, with our delusional foreign policy, our brain-dead “intelligence” agencies, and our overextended military might. as a whole, humanity is headed down a path towards extinction, and the united states is leading the way. does mutual assured destruction work on terrorists? we will probably find out someday, when humanity destroys itself. it is only a matter of time. but according to people who study the drake equation, humanity will almost certainly destroy itself within a few thousand years, possibly much sooner. i learned that in an astronomy class at cornell, the same course that used to be taught by carl sagan. and having idiots write complete garbage at newspapers like the washington post does not help our chances for survival. we should have a woman president. someday. but it has to be the right one. and i have not been pleased with the junior senator from new york. but there are other women in politics who are very good, like house speaker nancy pelosi. anyway, that is enough for this blog post.