The War on Women

Old Begger to Clouseau: "I'm a musician and my monkey is a businessman. He doesn't tell me what to play, and I don't tell him what to do with his money."*

Apparently, the so-called "Republican War on Women" has created a seige mentality among some on the left. A great many seem on razor's edge, ready to question the motives of a women expressing anything other than orthodox liberal views. Then, the floodgates of intolerant sexism open wide.

Take, for example, former CNN and NBC anchor Campbell Brown's op ed in the New York Times. She makes some valid points, expressing dismay at the condescending attitude President Obama inclines toward about women. She offers an analysis about importance of a strong economy to women, and deems matters of contraception (and who pays for it) remarkably secondary. She discloses that her husband is a Romney advisor, but asserts that she is an "independent journalist." She ends by supporting Obama in part, disagreeing in part. I found her essay to be remarkably balanced and even-keeled. I was, apparently, alone.

One need only read the vitriol that followed in the comments section to truly get a feel for how far away from her "script" she had strayed. The most understandable (many seemed of the "Jane, you ignorant slut" variety) called her, variously, a "typical Republican wife," "lower than the lowliest dogs" (I'm paraphrasing) and invited her to take her children and divorce her husband as a way to bolster her credibility.

Really?

I was reminded recently by a good friend that liberals are an inclusive political movement, whereas Republicans shun all manner of disagreement with the party, that is the most conservative, line. I offer the comment's section of Ms. Brown's essay as Republican's exhibit one as a case where my friend's thesis is...weak.

I don't know about anyone else's relationships, but I know my own. One would have to hold a gun to my wife's head to get her to write an essay parroting my point of view if she did not share it (we do not often agree politically). In a very real sense, She is the musician and I am the businessman. I would never tell her what songs to play.

Neither of us would have it any other way.

*The Return of the Pink Panther, 1975.

Oh, That E-Mail

“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” the chief justice asked Mr. Verrilli, who agreed. So reported the New York Times.


On April 24th Chuck Shumer, Senator from the Great State of New York (where I grew up), used a Senate hearing as a thinly-veiled swipe at police officers everywhere, announcing that if the US Supreme Court doesn't rule his way on the Arizona immigration case, he intends to offer legislation that would nullify the decision. Whatever it is. Et cetera.

My mom lives in New York and she says Senator Shumer has done a lot of good things for his constituents. Fair enough. But if one opens an on-line dictionary to the word "demagogue" there is surely a picture of President Obama with his arm around Senator Chuck.

With zero chance of ever becoming law - WTF?

Apparently, it was yet another opportunity to libel law enforcement officers. Senator Shumer allowed as how states "are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with the mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant."

Really.

I do not, for a second, advocate such a law for Colorado. Fundamentally, it makes police services harder to deliver because it creates a class of people who face deportation if they are the victim of a crime and call the police. Sound like a good idea? But, if the legislature of Colorado decides it's in the best interest of the citizens of our state.... I'm obligated to enforce it, and I'd also defend my state's right to act in our interest, regardless of what the Obama Administration believes is "just."

And I'm enthusiastically, deeply offended by the notion that I or anyone else I know would "target" someone based on race. If Shumer thinks differently he can drag his dumb ass to Colorado, ride with me for a day or two and watch how grownups deal with people.

Given the above statement delivered in open court, it seems reasonable to conclude that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was not sent to the Supreme Court to slander law enforcement in Arizona, or elsewhere. He was sent to argue the technical aspects of Federal Law's supremacy. Bravo for the Obama Administration. Either they have decided to have Senator Shumer be their attack rodent, creating a sort of plausible deniability, or.... He missed a memo.

Either way, the Senator owes cops an apology. I'll take mine "to go."