The Tofu Ceiling
By Mitch Berg
The unmarried, “child-free” career woman is a Democrat, statistically speaking (women without children vote overwhelmingly Democrat; women with children tend to be Republican). And it’s an electoral truism that African-Americans vote left.
Feminists – both equity and identity feminists, and the distinction is a very meaningful one – flocked to the left, the Democrats, because of the left’s purported openness to women in non-traditional roles – like, for example, working women who choose career over family. The Democrats, the saw went, treated these women better.
Unless, of course, those minority, female overachievers aren’t Democrats.
Barbara Boxer took a swipe at one of America’s two foremost black working women, and the most powerful black woman in US government history, dinging Condi Rice – a woman who is in every way Boxer’s better – for not having children:
Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic – but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
On the one hand, it’s Barbara Boxer – one of the stupidest people to ever serve in the Senate, and with the departure of Mark Dayton perhaps that body’s biggest embarassment.
On the other hand – what’s it gonna be, Democrats? If women don’t have children, does it devalue them, as Boxer would seem to believe? Because you can’t have it both ways.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
How in Gods name is that a slam at Condi not having children? Boxer said that she’s not going to pay a personal price because she’s not serving in the armed services. Her kids are too old and her grandkids are too young to be serving.
And Cindi doesn’t have any children serving either so logically, she doesn’t pay the same price as a parent who’s kids are serving.
Devaluing children?
I don’t believe that even you are that stupid.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Doug,
Did you read or hear Boxer’s comment?
The context was unmistakeable, assuming you’re not a moron.
Y’know – big enough a moron to insult the proprietor of the website on which you constantly comment.
Catch my drift?
January 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Devaluing children?
When Mitch said “If women don’t have children, does it devalue them, as Boxer would seem to believe?”, he was referring to childless women being devalued.
By the way, who’s Cindi?
January 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
That’s what happened, Dougie. I knew either you our idiotclown would come running to Boxer’s defense. Its CLEAR what she said. Unless you are a fat-brained liar…oh…wait…Mister “Election Observer” Doug. YOU ARE!
January 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Here you go, Brain-dead Doug. Watch for yourself:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/12/video-boxer-gets-personal-with-condi-at-senate-hearing/
January 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Mitch:
I would argue that Boxer the Clown’s comments really fall into a different category. Its the “You can comment on XXX unless you’ve been an XXX” category.
Sorta of like how the liberal weenies love to play: “If you haven’t enlisted and gone to Iraq, you don’t know jack about Iraq”. Or “If you haven’t been a teacher, you don’t know about education”.
Boxer’s argument was quite clear. If you haven’t “paid the price” with your own children’s blood, you aren’t qualified to discuss the War. Its just the standard attack that liberals use, when they can’t actually offer A SOLUTION.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
On the other hand – what’s it gonna be, Democrats? If women don’t have children, does it devalue them, as Boxer would seem to believe? Because you can’t have it both ways.
Boxer’s comment was 100% asshat in nature, something one would expect from an Ann Coulter, Dan Riehl or some other pea-brained conservabot. Slinging such a petty insult during an inquest into the tragic blunderings of the Bush administration is like Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe telling Hermann Goering to “sit on it.”
January 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Get it through your thick heads.
Boxer, like Rice has no family in the service. Neither of them are going to pay the price that a family with members in the service pays.
Clearly, you’re blood boiling emotional spasmotic contempt for Barbara Boxer clouds you from seeing that Boxer stated that she and Rice were equal in not having the same sacrifice as families with members serving.
You can criticize Boxer for arguing against the Presidents policy decision using pure emotion. That’s justifiable but to suggest that Boxer was taking a swipe at Rice for not having children is just moronic.
And Dave, don’t you have something newer than the election observer crap?
January 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
your thick heads.
You are unqualified to make that call.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
No, Doug, you’re right.
Who AM I going to believe; my own eyes and ears? The reactions of people on both sides of the aisle (Tim included)? Or a guy whose sole oeuvre is the snarky insult complemented by unthinking party-line obeisance?
Who, oh who indeed?
January 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Mitch said,
“The reactions of people on both sides of the aisle (Tim included)?”
The people on my side of the aisle also heard the President say, “‘I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family” but we’re smart enough to know what he meant.
“Who AM I going to believe;”
Believe who ever you need to believe Mitch. After all, it was you and your pals who believed Kerry was insulting the troops in Iraq when he foolishly dropped the word US in his stupid joke at a campaign rally.
And since this whole firestorm is getting fanned by Murdoch’s newspaper and his television outlets, I’d say you’re more of a sucker for media bias and propaganda than you’re aware.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Doug wrote:
“After all, it was you and your pals who believed Kerry was insulting the troops in Iraq when he foolishly dropped the word US in his stupid joke at a campaign rally.”
Followed by:
“. . . I’d say you’re more of a sucker for media bias and propaganda than you’re aware.”
Which I believe needs no further comment.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Doug,
You’re getting uppity at your computer again. Don’t soil your screen.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:44 am
The people on my side of the aisle also heard the President say, “‘I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family” but we’re smart enough to know what he meant.
Right. One was a verbal flub from a person who is famous for them; the other is a bit of sneering condescension from a person famous for it.
Believe who ever you need to believe Mitch.
No, Doug, I believe whatever the truth is.
After all, it was you and your pals who believed Kerry was insulting the troops in Iraq when he foolishly dropped the word US in his stupid joke at a campaign rally.
See the Winter Soldier testimony. American troops are Jinjis Kahn, doncha know.
And since this whole firestorm is getting fanned by Murdoch’s newspaper and his television outlets, I’d say you’re more of a sucker for media bias and propaganda than you’re aware.
Riiiiight. Everyone else is dumb, ripe sucks for media conspiracy theories, and you’re above it all.
Gotcha.
What MUST it be like, always being the smartest person in every room?
January 13th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Mitch said,
“See the Winter Soldier testimony. American troops are Jinjis Kahn, doncha know.”
That would be the same Winter Soldier investigation where Mr. Kerry testified to what he had been told by other soldiers and your side turned it into “Kerry accused soldiers of…”
As for your Jinjis (sic) Khan reference, what John Kerry said was, “They (the Soldiers) told the stories at times they had razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”, again, testifying to what others told him but you’re apparently either not smart enought to comprehend that or you’re willfully repeating rightwing spin that has been bitch slapped across the room for years yet, you hold onto it like Linus Van Pelt clinging onto his security blanket.
What MUST it be like, always being the smartest person in every room?
I don’t know Mitch. I’ve never claimed that. All I’ve done is point out where events have been framed by FOX et al for maximum political damage and then illustrated where you and your buddies have latched onto it abandoning all logic and rational thought.
Also Mitch, thanks for an example of one of your most egregious strawman attempts: “On the other hand – what’s it gonna be, Democrats? If women don’t have children, does it devalue them, as Boxer would seem to believe? Because you can’t have it both ways.
Oh and Paul? Right back at ya sparky.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
My vote for best slap upside Doug’s thin-skinned, very thick skull:
“I’d rather slog through PB/JBauer’s barely readable comments than your dishonest, disingenuous, condesending, ignorance masquerading as thoughtful, logical contributions.”
That’s tantamount to expressing a preference for anasthesia free surgery. Bravo!
January 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Considering that Paul’s comments consist of nothing more than directing the “F” bomb at me and whining because he thinks I was mean to her er, I mean him, I put zero value in his petty little jabs.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Doug,
My 2 centavos worth on the back and forth between Mitch and you is that you are being disingenious to suggest that this wasn’t a slap at Secretary Rice by Senator Boxer. Your attempts to compare it any one of a number of President Bush verbal misteps or the Cr*p bomb that Senator Kerry dropped before the election is laughable.
I’d go so far as to say that Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry had highly public slips of the tongue. They may have intended to say something witty (to their audience) but ended up showing the utter disdain that they nuture inside their heart of hearts for those who have the temerity to disagree with their “enlightened” “progressive” ideals
January 13th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Here are a few highlights from Kerry ‘winter soldier’ testimony:
” would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….”
“We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.”
“We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.”
Still want to hold onto that precious idea that Kerry didn’t accuse American soldiers of committing war crimes? It’s lost its ‘truthiness’.
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
January 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am
It’s not a strawman, Doug. It’s an observation.
The Democrats tell gays they’re the only choice – but when the Gannon/Guckert “scandal” broke, who was out there drooling out the gay jokes? Democrats.
The Democrats tell women they’re the party for women and feminists – but when women attacked Bill Clinton, they attacked not the allegations, in many cases, but responded with tittering about Paula Jones’ nose.
They say they’re the party of feminism, but try to undercut a successful woman (one who’s achieved vastly more than Barbara Boxer) for not having a family.
And you, Doug, will look at it all through enabling, rose-colored glasses – because for all of your tittering about FOX news and conspiracies and what a bunch of idiots everyone who disagrees with you is, you’re the one who is marching in lock step behind your party, right or wrong, seeing hearing and saying no evil.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Chaos, It might be a slap at Rice but in the context of Boxers point, which was “who pays the price for sending more troops”, it was not about Rice being childless as Mitch suggests. It is at Rice because she is not paying the same price as families who have members in active service.
Which as Boxer is VERY clear to point out – neighter does she.
This false outrage over a fabricated conclusion is what’s laughable.
As for utter disdain for those that disagree, please feel free to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the usual gang.
And Chaos, the disdain isn’t because someone has the temerity to disagree with their “enlightened” “progressive” ideals. It’s because the President is once again leading us headfirst into another disaster.
Like I’ve said before, everyone of MY predictions before the was started have come true. Thousands of Americans dead and thousands more injured. Thousands of Iraqis dead. Billions of dollars wasted on reconstruction efforts that never happened. Civil war in Iraq. A new haven for Terrorists that didn’t exist before the war started and corruption that is worse than befor the war started.
Why in Gods name should I put ANY value on the Presidents plan when I’m right more than HE is?
January 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Mitch said,
when the Gannon/Guckert “scandal” broke, who was out there drooling out the gay jokes? Democrats.
Another strawman
The jokes weren’t about Gannon being gay. They were about a known prostitute with minimal if any press credentials who had access to the White House and the jokes were about the White House refusing (for reasons of national security, wink wink) to release the record of Gannons visits – specifically, when and with whom he spent time.
The Democrats tell women they’re the party for women and feminists – but when women attacked Bill Clinton, they attacked not the allegations, in many cases, but responded with tittering about Paula Jones’ nose.
Strawman.
They attacked Jones when the publicity and notoriety that the lawsuit gave her led to her getting a new nose and her 15 minutes of fame. There was also the fact that none of the allegations that Jones made were proven and there is also the fact that the troopers who were instrumental in bringing the lawsuit in the first place were paid. If you were being at all honest in your asessment of how Democrats responded to Clinton, you would acknowledge that most, if not all of us were as disgusted with his behavior and actions as you Republicans were. The difference is we didn’t think it was enough to justify the multi-million dollar investigation that eventually led to him lying and getting impeached.
They say they’re the party of feminism, but try to undercut a successful woman (one who’s achieved vastly more than Barbara Boxer) for not having a family.
And if they HAD tried to undercut a successful woman for not having a family, you’d have an argument but as I have clearly demonstrated, that’s not what happened.
And you, Doug, will look at it all through enabling… Blah Blah Blah…
Look back Mitch. I said, “You can criticize Boxer for arguing against the Presidents policy decision using pure emotion. That’s justifiable”
See, that would be me being critical of Boxer for using an emotional, non-reasoned counter to the Presidents plan. See, some of us aren’t afraid to be critical of and question our leaders.
You, on the other hand are marching in lock step behind the noise machine. You and your soon to be minority faction within the Republican Party can’t even follow your own party anymore because even they recognize what a complete disaster the President is.
Like I’ve said Mitch, you’re everything you criticize in others but you’re too arrogant to see it, too dishonest to admit it and too enmeshed to change it.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Mitch prattled: “The Democrats tell gays they’re the only choice – but when the Gannon/Guckert “scandal” broke, who was out there drooling out the gay jokes? Democrats.”
Yeah, it must be that Democrats are biased against gays. Cause what’s funny about the White House letting an uncredentialed right-wing man-whore into the press room to toss softballs to the president? I’m pretty sure Democrats hate senior citizens too. Otherwise why would they joke about Cheney accidentally shooting some old lawyer while he was hunting for wingless, farm-raised quail-tards?
Right-wingers worship authority. Comedy subverts authority. That’s why wingnuts never get the joke, especially when it’s on them.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Right-wingers worship authority.
Huh. Tell that to our mutual pal in that Florida US Attorney’s office. Because I seem to remember the two of you being exercised about tax protesters, homeschoolers, and pretty much anyone who doesn’t think government will cure everything from cancer to feeling bad.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Mitch, you’re everything you criticize in others
Doh! The old “I know you are, but what am I” gambit!
Please! Have mercy before you get to “I’m rubber, you’re glue…”, because I doubt I could withstand that!
Listen, Mr. Swollen Head: If you see arrogance on this site, you may be assured that it is thoroughly tongue in cheek. I am so much more humble than anyone you will ever know, it’s not even funny.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Mitch said,
“I am so much more humble than anyone you will ever know, it’s not even funny.”
That statement alone oozes with arrogance. Tell you what Mitch. Join me on my next trip to Sundance at Rosebud or Pineridge then tell me again how you’re more humble than anyone I know.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
That statement alone oozes with arrogance.
NO SHIT, GENIUS!
TA FUCKING DAAAA!
And they said you were unreachable. Hah!
January 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Join me on my next trip to Sundance at Rosebud or Pineridge
…and the residents and I will join together in laughing our asses off at “Mr Wraps Himself In The Misery of the Reservation On A Freaking Blog”.
Get over yourself.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am
You’re a saint, Doug.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Mitch claimed: “I am so much more humble than anyone you will ever know, it’s not even funny.”
Doug expressed some reservations: “ll you what Mitch. Join me on my next trip to Sundance at Rosebud or Pineridge then tell me again how you’re more humble than anyone I know.”
I think if you get into an angry blog war over who’s the world’s most humble person, you’re probably not the world’s most humble person.
It goes without saying, that’s a distinction to which Angryclown does not aspire.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Mitch said,
“Mr Wraps Himself In The Misery of the Reservation On A Freaking Blog”.
Is that what you think the Sundance is about Mitch? You’re as ignorant as you are arrogant.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Doug,
Dumbass.
I commented about your wrapping yourself in a couple of reservations. Whether Sundance is the Lakota ceremony, the film festival, or a bar in Mobridge where you sit at a corner stool and snif about how superior you are to the locals until someone hauls you into the bathroom and beats you with a longneck bottle, the context of my response was pretty clear to anyone who’s not into mindless self-glorifying nitpicking, which means I picked my audience all wrong.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Terry said,
“You’re a saint, Doug.”
No I’m not and I’m not making the claim that I am in any way as humble as the men and women that I am refering to.
What is pretty funny though is that in all of the months that I’ve come here, Mitch has had exactly ONE post where he showed any sign of humility and he destroyed all evidence of the post.
Too bad it was filled an equal amount of spite and bitterness.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Mitch said,
“the context of my response was pretty clear”
Yes Mitch. It was and since it was based on the incorrect assumptions that, first I was talking about myself and second that I was using the “misery” of the people at Pineridge and Rosebud to glorify myself, it was also very stupid.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I just have to insert my observation that Mitch is certainly not humble, at least not in a phoney, self-deprecating manner. I am certainly not the one to judge where the fine line between arrogance and assertive self awareness lays. I do however, have a large measure of contempt for self righteous martyrs who judge the mote in another’s eye while remaining oblivious to the all too obvious beam in their own.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Bravo Kermit! I’m demoting Doug from saint to self-righteous prig.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Doug,
Paraphrasing: “You think you’re humble? Come to the reservation and I’ll show you humble”.
Oh, no kidding?
You, Doug, are not well placed to judge others’ personalities in ANY sense – intelligence, humility, pretty much anything. You should really stop.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Kermit said,
“I do however, have a large measure of contempt for self righteous martyrs who judge the mote in another’s eye while remaining oblivious to the all too obvious beam in their own.”
Let’s review how we got to this point…
Mitch and the entire right-wing – now the main stream media, goes ape-shit over Barbara Boxers comment that neither she nor Condi Rice pay the same price as families that have members in the service. They, (you) JUDGE her (and in some twisted reasoning, all Democrats) as hypocritical because you ignorantly ascribe some meaning to her words that weren’t there, and then post references to Judging others.
Priceless.
You need to read your post again Kermit but this time read it while looking in the mirror.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:13 am
you ignorantly ascribe some meaning to her words that weren’t there…
According to you. And you’re wrong. I’ve seen Boxer deliver the line. The intention is unmistakeable, unless your hands are dutifully clamped over your eyes, mouth and ears.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
It is interesting to note that the only person I named was Mitch. That fact that Doug assumes I was referring to him speaks volumes…oops! Sorry Mitch.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Mitch said,
“According to you. And you’re wrong. I’ve seen Boxer deliver the line.”
And when asked about the incident, Senator Boxer said exactly what I’m saying.
Of course Mitch Berg, who IS apparently qualitied to judge, knows otherwise. Or it more of your thoroughly tongue in cheek arrogance?
And of course, neither FOX News nor that piece of shit rag you link to bothered to go and actually ASK Boxer what she meant. They just drew their instant conclusions and opened it up for tools like you to disceminate among the masses for another wave of Republican false indignation.
What got lost in this whole event was the fact that Rice got the piss beat out of her by Democrats AND Republicans and couldn’t answer many of the questions thrown at her INCLUDING Boxers question about how many casualties the military can anticipate after these 21500 troops head to Iraq.
…too arrogant to see it, too dishonest to admit it and too enmeshed to change it.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Mitch argued: “I’ve seen Boxer deliver the line. The intention is unmistakeable, unless your hands are dutifully clamped over your eyes, mouth and ears.”
Yeah, Doug, enough already. Stop trying to rob Republicans of their victimhood. Whether or not Barbara Boxer said something arch about Condoleeza, the wingnuts have clearly had a bad couple of months and are in dire need of a good cry. Don’t take that away from them!