Friday, September 29, 2006


Enough already, Arianna Huffington! We get it. You hate the Clintons. For all the time you have published your blog and even before in your columns, you have consistently taken every opportunity to trash both the former president and the New York Junior Senator.

Well of course you have every right to your opinion but stop pretending to be a Democrat/Progressive and own up to what you really are and why you have a blog. You hate the Clintons. You want everyone to hate them. You want to bring them down.

We do not know what happened in the past to create and nurture your hatred. Did they snub you in some way? Did Senator Clinton wear the same pant suit you owned? Did Bill fail to cuddle with you?

Whatever it was, for the country’s sake, GET OVER IT if you really want to help the Democratic causes and get Bush et al the hell out of office!

Go back to being a Republican if you can’t stop your bloviating against the Clintons because nearly every one of your columns provides Karl Rove with fuel to use in damning and condemning the last Democratic administration.

Don’t you realize that Rove and his minions are searching around for every grain of nastiness they can find to use in campaign ads? You’re columns are fertile fields for him to plow, embellish and then sow that excrement in campaign ads.

This week Bill Clinton stood up and stuck it to Fox. His bravery electrified the base of the Democratic Party and alerted the rychus righties and fence sitters that the Democratic Party was back with gusto and guts.

You, on the other hand, wrote a line or two agreeing that Clinton was right to twist the Fox’s tail but then went into your usual diatribe criticizing everything Clinton as you have done for many years.

You need to read the September 28th posting on our blog by Keith Olbermann and learn the real meaning of fearless:

Now you are touting your book telling people how to become fearless, and when asked in an interview on AARadio by Randy Rhodes what you thought of Clinton’s action, you briefly agreed it was a good thing to do and then, true to form, you kicked his ass in contemptuous tones about something else.

And from your previous conduct, we predict you will do the same thing in every future interview. With so called friends like you the Dems don’t need any enemies.

Wise up please. You have made your point. We all get it. You don’t like the Clintons. Deal with it but stop helping the GOP and please stop inflicting your hatred and purulent wordage on us.
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment:

or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW!

Visit the GenderGappers link page:

GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site:

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Oberman's "A textbook definition of cowardice

A Textbook Definition of Cowardice
By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown

Monday 25 September 2006

Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview.
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a
monkey posing as
a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has
described his
predecessor's tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an
administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's
marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that
Rose would've quit.

Nonetheless. The headline is this:

Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.

He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin
Laden. "That's
the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are
attacking me
now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and
action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his
action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five
long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin
Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration did not try.

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current
and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for
incompetence and
malfeasance in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs - some
of them,
17 years old - before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for - if not the Great Depression
itself - then the
disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil
War -
though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this president.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would
someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight
that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we
should simply
sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys

Except for this.

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts - that he was
president on
9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr.
Bush has
now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing
and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency
since James
Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate
would be
released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is - not a check
on terror,
but fertilizer for it.

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its
hyenas at Fox
need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired - but a

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies
distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and
reward the

And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the
yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence,
perhaps criminal
negligence, about bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment
surrendered all my
credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I
would have gone
home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to
9/11." Of that
company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone
there enabled
an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica
Lewinsky scandal,
Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this
slapdash theory,
is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it - who try to sneak it into our
consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news
interviews - have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin
Laden in 1998
because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud
for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that
For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri - the future attorney general -
echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky
who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?

Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the
analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very
hour, on
this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to
attack us,

Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, "All
Monica All The

Who distracted whom?

This is, of course, where - as is inevitable - Mr. Bush and his henchmen
prove not quite
as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three
administrations, possibly

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all
about the
distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that
your minions
may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured,
and lovingly
executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected

Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in
office on
9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of
designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months
in office, we
are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since - a statement that might range
from zero, to 100 percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you
have kept
us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los

Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have
felt; what so
many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of
the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair - writing as
George Orwell -
gave us in the book "1984."

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar
to you, as it
has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in
the good of
others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes
revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is
torture. The object
of power… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far
context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton
Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence.

He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps
enabled us, even
at this late and bleak date, to save our country.

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us - then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless
war in Iraq
which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which
doesn't work
anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only
humiliates our
country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let

And there it is, Mr. Bush:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

Friday, September 22, 2006


Of course it had to happen. John Philippe Rushton, who “proved” that intelligence is influenced by race now claims that men are more intelligent than women.

He asserts that the 'glass ceiling' is not due to discrimination or lack of opportunity but to inferior intelligence. This is based on university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes.

Just as in his race studies, Rushton has based his findings on a selective group being tested with questions about the world as it is delineated by white males. But there is much more than this available to declare his findings bogus.

We have the whole history of the world to look at. And while there was a Leonardo da Vinci and an Albert Einstein, there was also a Marie Curie and a Rosalind Franklin. Both were limited in their accomplishments and the credit for them by gender - not theirs, the male gender.

A woman cannot become a giant when she is caged and/or her work stolen, not only by her colleagues but by the false or inadequate recording of history.

However the best and most reliable History is what we are living today – that is if we observe our leadership rather than being taken in by the propaganda of fear it continually feeds us.

No matter whether a person has a smidgen of intelligence less than the next guy, s/he must be aware of the corruption in government, and more recently, how the males in the U.N. are conducting themselves.

We are not just talking alph-males here. Bush is an alph-nothing and no one would ever think him intelligent and certainly not erudite. None-the-less he and Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, carried on a very public pissing contest which flooded the halls of the U.N. last week with Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez, barking counterpoint.

No one can deny that it’s a man’s world, so, is the way the world runs today the result of “superior intelligence”? Men are the big dogs in every country but few exhibit intelligence that rises above that of the average woman.

We watch these big dogs perform and think they are more like petulant puppies. Their intelligence is measured more by the paucity of voter intelligence than by student performance scores.
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment:

or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW!

Visit the GenderGappers link page:

GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site:

Friday, September 15, 2006


We are all sick of the non-stop pro-war propaganda barrage masquerading as reverence so this article has nothing to do with all that. This is about a person who took the lemon life handed her and made lemonade out of it.

This story did appear in the back pages of a few papers but it was just too full of woman empowerment to survive the ultra-testosterone atmosphere that has constantly permeated the media this week.

Kyle Paxman, living and working in California, had planned to have her wedding in her home state, Vermont. She had hired the posh Basin Harbor Club in Ferrisburg for the ceremony and reserved many rooms for guests.

Then a man she had never met came to her office, with e-mails and other evidence, to inform her that her fiancรฉ was cheating on her – with the informer’s girlfriend -- and everything got turned upside down.

Preparations for the wedding were completed and “180 guests had tickets from all over the country and the Virgin Islands to come and make a weekend of my wedding”, said Paxman.

But it was not to happen – she called her mother to have her cancel the wedding, then she caught a plane for Vermont where she joined her parents for a week. It was there that a plan developed. She realized that she could “turn something awful into something wonderful.”
Since they could not cancel the reception room and block of guest rooms, they “turned the wedding into a charity benefit where strong women will be celebrated.”
Kyle and her parents invited 125 women to partake of the cancelled reception goodies who would contribute to the Vermont Children’s Aid Society and CARE, USA.
She chose CARE because of a powerful advertisement on TV showing hundreds of women from various countries crossing a desert; four of them stare into the camera and declare, “I am powerful.”
A narrator says: “She has the power to change her world. You have the power to help her,” and it spoke to Ms. Paxman. “It was the most powerful commercial I’ve ever seen,” she said. “I knew then that I had found my other cause.”
“If you think about it, she’s not only empowering herself, she’s reaching out and helping to empower other women,” said Bibiana Betancourt, a fund-raising executive at CARE. She said Ms. Paxman’s plans were the most unusual she had encountered in her seven years raising money for CARE.
A few days later, Kyle and her mother left on what would have been her honeymoon trip to Tahiti, Bora-Bora and Moorea. “I’m going with the strongest woman I have ever met.” Kyle said about her mother, Patty Carbee.
And here and now in a crucial political time for women, we too must empower ourselves and throw out an administration that has been so unfaithful to our Constitution and so destructive – not just to American women but to the whole world of women.
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment:

or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW!

Visit the GenderGappers link page:

GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site:

Friday, September 08, 2006


Lots of buzz on the tube about a film showing Bush being assassinated but not only the Republicans are upset. The media is torn between trying to appear horrified and secretly delighted at the possibilities for stories.

Now we all know that there are many all over the world besides the terrorists who would not be disappointed if the incident really happened. Bush is not popular but the reason we are not hearing cheers at the prospect is that most realize the horror of a President Cheney.

Even many Republicans would not be happy to have Cheney in that office but what scares them out of their wits is the good possibility that the Democrats may win the House in November.

They are aware that Cheney has had many cardiac problems and if he should succumb, the Speaker of the House would become president and that is Nancy Pelosi.

So it isn’t the assassination film that terrifies them; it is the prospect of Pelosi becoming Speaker. What they fear most is that both Bush and Cheney will be impeached and then she would become president.

Yup, it’s really true that Democrats and even some Republicans are fed up with the Bush/Cheney attack on our Constitution and the way they have gotten us into a preemptive war that has drained our country in both our youth and our economy.

The news that polygamist leader, Warren Jeffs, has been returned to Utah to face felony sex charges make everyone happy. He is now lodged in the Purgatory correction facility in Hurricane to answer for his crimes of complicity in the rapes of young girls.

We can only hope that Jeffs won’t get off lightly in Purgatory; as for Bush and Cheney, we long for their arraignment, trial and punishment for their many felonious acts against our Constitution and the world.

Despite the efforts by Bush to have Congress pass a bill that makes all of his transgressions against the Constitution legal, he and Cheney must be judged and punished for the many years of felonious assault on this country.

Purgatory would be too good for them. We hope the future honest replacements in our judicial system will sentence them to hard labor and send them both straight to Hell … Hell’s Half Acre …Wyoming.
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment:

or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW!

Visit the GenderGappers link page:

GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site:

Saturday, September 02, 2006


GenderGappers 2006 – 036


One of the more fascinating things observed over the years both from history and personal observation is the ritual of hand shaking and permutations thereof.

We read that the custom may have started, in effect, to disarm each man as they came close to each other since neither would be able to reach for his sword if his hand was clasped by a stranger or his enemy.

Actually the early handshakes were really wrist or arm shakes as the lower arm was grasped. But who really knows if this was consistent throughout the world at that time. We mostly go by the art and writings of certain area historians.

Certainly there is some evidence of secret religious societies having a coded way of shaking hands to discover anyone who pretended to be a member. It persists to this day in the Masons and Knights of Columbus just to name two.

Women have never been involved in handshaking to any extent. Early on the noblest born extended her hand for a man to respectfully kiss or press his lips against in lieu of shaking.

Most women, however, just got the back of men’s hand and no respect at all. This has changed slightly in more modern times but it seems women are supposed to submit to a cheek kiss when introduced to or greeting a man now-a -days.

In recent times some of the old-time ritual handshakes and new-time gang ritual from street to sports have become openly practiced and imitated by many. These have gone through a myriad of changes.

Especially interesting are the non-shaking ones such as the knuckle touch, the fist thump and the elbow poke. If there is distance between the two then the finger point comes into play.

Before those became popular the handshake was replaced by the ritual slapping of the palm of the other’s hand, which was returned. There are many variations of this, the “give me 5” delivered at different points in space.

So as different parts of the body come to be used it was inevitable that the macho chest slam would emerge. Here the new version of “high 5” is the whole body of both men jumping up and in to slam their chests against each other.

Despite the huge entertainment value of these boyish games, they have in the past and do in the future, bond men together as an entity separate and apart, whether as a gender, an athletic team, a military unit or a gang.
Tradition is preserved as well.

Even though some women’s sport teams may emulate these handshakes, they do not have the force of tradition since women are not allowed a tradition.

Remember the World Champion women’s soccer kick a few years back that won the cup? Tradition was that the kicker removes his shirt but when the woman kicker took her shirt off, she and her team were chastised by most of the country, its sporting groups and of course the media.

Lack of one’s own tradition and denial of male sport traditions may be one of the reasons why CHICKS are paid 70 cents for every one dollar MEN are paid. o tempora, o mores: Alas for the times and the manners.
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment:

or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW!

Visit the GenderGappers link page:

GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: