Friday, January 12, 2007
Dipshit of the year?
It's early yet, but so far the lead horse has to be California Senator Barbara Boxer, who apparently cherishes the idea that childless women are not competent to make decisions regarding the national security because of their insufficient fecundity.
I, for one, eagerly await the reaction of the National Organization for Women.
MORE: Wow. The field is already getting crowded. Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie has outed himself as an opponent of affirmative action. Regarding Secretary Rice:
Yesterday, Abercrombie was particularly critical of Rice, the former national security adviser, whom Abercrombie described as "the most overrated, underperforming individual in executive authority that I have ever seen."
"She constantly gets a pass. Who knows if the whole question of race and gender come into it, but ... I can't account for it, except to say she isn't up to the mark," Abercrombie said. Rice is scheduled to testify before the Senate.
It is hard to say whether Abercrombie is dumber than a bag of hammers, or just a pig.
I, for one, eagerly await the reaction of the NAACP.
But I'd settle for the New York Times.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Jan 12, 05:44:00 PM:
Some of the dumbest people on earth become mothers. It is easy - just lie back and enjoy. Come to think of it some of the dumbest people on earth become US Senators and Reps. Those brave folks doing our fighting in Iraq are protecting those dumb people and their grandkids.
By 
allen, at
Fri Jan 12, 05:49:00 PM:
As a Republican, Dr. Rice can neither be a woman nor black, Silly.
By allen, at
Fri Jan 12, 05:55:00 PM:
Anonymous,
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
___Twain
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Jan 12, 08:21:00 PM:
"who apparently cherishes the idea that childless women are not competent to make decisions regarding the national security because of their insufficient fecundity."
But of course, that's not what Boxer said. Standard RWNM tactic - assert that when Democrat says X they meant Y. Assert that Y is horrible. Attack Democrat for Y. (TH, you rarely stoop to scribe the faux news talking points - this is disappointing).
Of course the right wing noise machine is having a hissy over this. Because the next observation after noting that Condi doesn't have kids who are at risk of being consumed by decisive ideological struggle of our time is to note that the Decider has two children who, also, are not at risk of being consumed by the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
Of course the RWNM has contrive this outrage - what do they want to talk about, the escalation plan? war with Iran?
And of course, now that Mr. Kagan (author of the escalation plan) has called upon the administration to call upon the youth of America to volunteer for the military - since the military desperately needs cannon fodder for the decisive ideological struggle of our time, the chicken hawks can't squawk when their critics note that the White House's silence is both deafening and telling.
Rhetorical analysis note - do you really think attacking anyone's intelligence in a discussion about Condi Rice is effective? Particularly when Dr. Rice's most recent public comments include the bon mot:
“It’s bad policy to speculate on what you’ll do if a plan fails when you’re trying to make a plan work.”
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 12, 08:34:00 PM:
Pudentilla, Boxer said what Boxer said, which is easy to interpret in accordance with my characterization. Having said that, I do not disagree with your point, that she certainly merely intended to make the traditional "chickenhawk" argument (as Ezra Klein correctly points out). Having said that, the chickenhawk argument is so idiotic that mocking Boxer for her faux pas is surely in-bounds (see Andrew Sullivan, who is quite good on this point).
In any case, I hinted at a thought experiment in my post: It is easy to imagine the vastly louder outrage from the chattering classes if Republicans had said either of the things that Boxer and Abercrombie said.
By allen, at
Fri Jan 12, 08:44:00 PM:
re: cannon fodder
Battle of the Somme: 1 July 1916 (Day One)
British Expeditionary Force (BEF) launched attack using 750,000 men.
BEF casualties 58,000
BEF KIA 19,300
Battle of Somme: 1 July 1916 – 21 November 1916
BEF casualties 420,000
French casualties 200,000
German casualties 500,000
Aggregate average casualties per day = 7,133
At deepest penetration, the Allies advanced 7.2 miles.
Actual Cannon Fodder
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 12, 11:12:00 PM:
"since the military desperately needs cannon fodder"
I can only adequately express my indignation at this comment and the... mindset... behind it in Arabic, because words like 'shame' and 'ignorance' just aren't strong enough in English.
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Jan 12, 11:25:00 PM:
casualty rates:
"The casualty statistics make clear that our nation is involved in a war whose intensity on the ground matches that of previous American wars. Indeed, the proportional burden on the infantryman is at its highest level since World War I."
TH, I'll answer your rhetorical question after I read your post about Laura Bush's comments - now where is it...
"Do you think there's anything a woman would do differently with the Presidency?....
Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn't easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job. "
For those who don't like the term "cannon fodder" you might want to read a bit about the casualty rates that the US military believes urban warfare entails. I suppose it's easier to express outrage at the term than to consider the consequences of the policies (30% of the 21,000 soldiers?) you support.
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 11:41:00 PM:
The dumbist persons on earth join the demacratic party and vote for tax and spend and more tax and spend then shoot off their big fat mouths while supporting gun control
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jan 13, 07:24:00 PM:
Pudentilla, I can't tell if you actually don't understand the comments or are just trying to manufacture ammunition from whatever anyone says, or conversely, refuse to see a clear possible meaning that doesn't support your view.
"Family" in Laura Bush's comments does not imply a need for children, especially as she specifically mentions parents and siblings. The First Lady is making the observation that family support is needed for a president. Fairly unremarkable.
Sen Boxer's comment while certainly not a direct "you don't care because you have no children" comment, certainly does try to conjure images of people with children and grandchildren - not just friends and relatives - who will be at risk, contrasting that to Dr. Rice, who, in her characterization, has less moral right to support war thereby.
It is further ironic because liberals have little more than half as many children, and send a smaller percentage of even those into the military, than conservatives and moderates. Those are the folks who voted for Sen. Boxer, and it's not their kids at risk, generally.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jan 14, 01:22:00 PM:
That Slate article is a load of garbage, playing statistics to try and prove a pre-determined point. If you read it closely, they include 'artillerymen' and the like with 'infantry' because they perform 'infantry-like duties.'
Well, don't forget the MPs, Intel, Armored Units, clerks, Psy Ops, Transportation, et cetera. Everyone goes on patrols. Everyone gets ambushed.
For the first year of the conflict the worst attacks were against convoys. i.e. truck drivers and supply guys. They started receiving infantry escorts because the presence of combat troops actually discouraged attacks. Some of the most dangerous missions draw heavily on intelligence personnel, especially of the HUMINT variety.
And finally, comparing Iraq to, of all things, World War I, demonstrates a level of historical ignorance and/or blatant deception of near-record levels.
Call me the next time an entire battalion of infantry is wiped out in a single engagement.
