The War on Women and Sense

Peter Daou points out that women have to take the brunt of men's negative emotions across the world. So it makes a sort of sense, I guess, that Republican men are trying to push American women back to where they have to take the physical compensation for a variety of unhealthy mental states that women elsewhere do. And, sadly, there are women who agree that they should be in that position. Or, as so often happens in politics, do they imagine that it's only the bad women who will be punished? History suggests otherwise.

But that wasn't the only thing I was thinking about in yesterday's post, nor is it the only thing that Troutsky's comment or the poems he's using refer to.

Blood-dimmed tide...how about Israel's dumb idea of starting a bloodbath across the Middle East? Or Iran's intransigence? There's a good side to this, in that plenty of people are pointing out that this is indeed a dumb idea in multiple dimensions, and it looks like the American government is trying to avoid a war.

And then there is, beyond the War on Women, the stupidity of the Republican nomination battle. Ignorant armies. Others have collected Mitt Romney's financier-frat-boy one-upmanship that is so engrained, he can't imagine that it's not working in the campaign; his funders love it. Or Santorum's sanctity. What I find most bizarre about that is so much of what he says is not Catholic but obviously pandering to the evangelicals he's expecting to vote for him. The saddest thing is that so many seem to take them seriously.

I won't mention the stupidity I'm seeing on a listserv that supposedly was set up to discuss communication strategies. It makes me wonder if there's any point in trying to have a discussion with anyone any more.

Added Later: Also the Wikileaks/Stratfor thing. I've felt for a very long time that Stratfor is far more hype than substance. The latest Wikileaks "revelation" supports that. Adam Weinstein lists the revelations so I don't have to read them.