ONE MUST PITY MAUREEN DOWD, SHE IS A MISERABLY UNHAPPY WOMAN

One must pity Maureen Dowd.

She is a miserably unhappy woman.

As far as I can tell she has been a miserably unhappy woman all her adult life.

She throws a lot of blame around for her condition,

but never finds the source of it.

She should look into the mirror.

Naturally, the miserable hate and envy the happy.

The mere existence of happy and well-adjusted folks

drives the miserable into fits of snark and rage.

And Dowd is filled with snark and rage.

Her latest object of hatred is this chick.

You can read Dowd’s writings on Palin here and here.

All through you will be subjected to her condescension,

her arrogance and her cattiness.

This is what passes for wit and wisdom over at The New York Times.

Poor Maureen can never admit what really drives her batty about Palin.

It is so obvious.

Dowd has the envy the empty wombed have for the fecund.

I remember an unintentionally revealing piece that Dowd wrote some years back

called What’s a Modern Girl to Do?

It pretends to be a lament on the decline of feminism but is really a heartbreaking insight into what is—and what ever shall be—a lonely and embittered woman.

Like all such women Dowd blames her ills on others, and has an unpleasant view of her own gender—at least, those women who are not New York Times columnists and their acolytes—and simply cannot understand why she is still single. Her conclusion is that the modern male is frightened of the modern female—the modern feminist female that is. A male associate of hers

confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating. Men, he explained, prefer women who seem malleable and awed. He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who uses her critical faculties.

Dowd then asks

Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?

She should have asked Sarah Palin this question.

So Dowd cannot get a man—she means a husband—because she is ’successful and uses her critical facilities?’ Well then, what of her non-feminist sisters—you know, all those millions and millions of moms and wives who ignore what the New York Times thinks of ‘Life, the Universe and Everything’—are they unsuccessful imbeciles? Dowd cannot see the real causes of her unhappiness and so chalks it up to being so smart that men are afraid of her.

And why is Dowd so miserable? Part of the reason is that she hangs out with others equally as miserable and equally as clueless as she:

A few years ago at a White House correspondents’ dinner, I met a very beautiful and successful actress. Within minutes, she blurted out: “I can’t believe I’m 46 and not married…”

The self-blindness startles. How many ‘beautiful and successful actresses’ have loving husbands and children? The usual ‘lifestyle’ of a ‘beautiful and successful actress’ is not one that lends itself to marital happiness and stability. One need merely consult any newspaper or People magazine to find any number of ‘beautiful and successful actresses’ indulging in sexual antics, adulteries, multiple divorces, all sorts of addictions and dressing as prostitutes. Someone should inform that ‘beautiful and successful actress’ that a man would certainly bed her but would never consider her anything other than a useful and attractive whore.

Dowd would have done better to avoid anyone connected with Hollywood. She herself was once the consort of actor Michael Douglas. He never married her nor gave her children—why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? When Douglas tired of her he left her arms to woo the young and fetching—and fertile—Catherine Zeta-Jones. Say what you want about Zeta-Jones, she knew what to do to keep her man: she presented Douglas with children. They since have married. This sad and grotesquely cruel sentence says it all:

Catherine Zeta-Jones Expecting Again
(Maureen Dowd remains bitter and childless)

Dowd consoles herself by seeking out those who move in her own rarified circle. She seldom makes a personal connection with those outside of it. Her view of men and women is derived from spending her entire life with folks just like her:

A friend of mine in her 30’s says…Anne Schroeder, a 26-year-old magazine editor in Washington…Marc Santora, a 30-year-old Metro reporter for The Times, says…One of my girlfriends, a TV producer in New York…When I asked a young man at my gym how he and his lawyer girlfriend…At a party for the Broadway opening of “Sweet Smell of Success,” a top New York producer…A few years ago at a White House correspondents’ dinner…John Schwartz of The New York Times…Or, as Craig Bierko, a musical comedy star and actor who played one of Carrie’s boyfriends on “Sex and the City,” told me…A Harvard economics professor, Claudia Goldin…Kate White, the editor of Cosmopolitan, told me that…Cynthia Russett, a professor of American history at Yale…Helen Gurley Brown, Cosmo’s founding editor told me…Felix Dennis, who created the top-selling Maxim, said…”I have been surprised,” Maxim’s editor, Ed Needham, confessed to me…

From this miserable, wretched and morally bankrupt crowd it is no wonder that Dowd has a miserable, wretched and morally bankrupt view of marriage—and of men:

By the time you swear you’re his,
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying -
Lady, make a note of this:
One of you is lying.

Someone should inform Dowd that a man does not enjoy being called a liar at the outset of the marriage.

Something else a man would not enjoy is a woman known for her ‘acid wit’ and ‘tart tongue.’ We males have a word for such a woman—and it rhymes with ‘rich.’

The simple truths about men are unknown to Dowd. She would have been better off consulting Dr. Laura and reading Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives than fact-checking with the noisome and elitist neurotics who inhabit the byways of Washington and New York.

Dowd tells us more about this motley throng of associates than perhaps she intends:

…as more and more women embrace Botox and implants and stretch and protrude to extreme proportions to satisfy male desires. Now that technology is biology, all women can look like inflatable dolls. It’s clear that American narcissism has trumped American feminism.

This then is one of the results of feminism among the New York and Washington elite: women who chase after Botox and men who chase after inflatable dolls.

And what about Dowd claiming expertise about how to ’satisfy male desires?’ How would she know? She should have consulted Sarah Palin about how to do this. Dowd herself laments about being unable to do any such thing. Else, why the bitterness?

And Dowd, demonstrating that misery loves company, predicts dire consequences for those women who abandon the feminist mystique and retreat into motherhood:

It’s easy to picture a surreally familiar scene when women realize they bought into a raw deal and old trap. With no power or money or independence, they’ll be mere domestic robots, lasering their legs and waxing their floors – or vice versa – and desperately seeking a new Betty Friedan.

So there it is, the feminist ideology all wrapped up: What a woman needs is power and money and independence to avoid becoming a slave to man. But then, why does Dowd complain? She has all of those things in abundance.

And Dowd actually believes that those women who today choose babies over boardrooms will tomorrow lament for a new Betty Friedan—in other words they will seek out the same grotesque ideology that has brought Dowd and her sisters such intense and permanent unhappiness. The results are obvious to those with eyes to see: empty wombs, empty beds, darkened hearts. And poor Dowd would infect all women present and future with the same disease that is killing her.

The sad reality of the life of Maureen Dowd and the lives of all like her—the Gloria Steinems and Betty Friedans and Simone de Beauvoirs—is that they chased the false goddess of feminism. They came to see marriage and children as a form of slavery, and the only way that a woman could be truly free was to pursue a professional career—that of writer, academic, executive and lawyer. But during all that time spent avoiding the misery of marriage and children their own biological clock was tick-ticking away, until that terrible moment when their ability to bear the next generation had passed forever.

This is the horrible pain and the terrible pity of Maureen Dowd, that she suffers for her children that never were and can never be. She rages against the dying of the light that she herself has extinguished.

---

The Emptiness Of Maureen Dowd

Posted on July 6th, 2009 by Scipio

***********************

While doing the research for the Maureen Dowd essay [ABOVE] I came upon other writers who had read Dowd’s piece and wrote their own commentary. They are not pretty to read. All are from women. That is why they are not pretty to read. Woman can be more cruel to other women than to any man. If you do not know this then you do not know women.

From Catholic blogger Amy Welborn:

Dowd’s piece was just too…personal in a creepy, almost pitiful kind of way…It strikes me even her question – Why am I not married? is decidedly un-feminist, a betrayal of the sensibilities she claims to be defending…Her central thesis – that feminism has failed because men don’t like smart, ambitious women and want to marry the maid instead is just stupid. What’s missing from Dowd’s analysis is simple, and takes one word to say: family.

From Ann Althouse, concerning Dowd’s preference for hanging out with the high, mighty and well-connected rather than engaging in the tough work of being a wife and raising a family:

Ah, who needs to get married if you can go to the White House correspondents’ dinner and hang out with a beautiful actress!

From Slate columnist Katie Roiphe:

Dowd pushes every statement to its most exaggerated form; her column occupies a space somewhere in between the other columns on the New York Times op-ed page and the political cartoons that sometimes run there…It would be one thing if Dowd were writing pure, straightforward polemic, ranting against the people she feels the need to rant against. But Dowd is pretending to cover cultural trends with journalistic accuracy, and it is this pretense that gives her arguments a shoddy feel.

And finally from Kathleen Parker’s Feminism’s Devolution from Hoaxers to Whores—an essay title that says much:

Dowd, herself unmarried and childless, wonders whether being smart and successful explains her status…Men haven’t turned away from smart, successful women because they’re smart and successful. More likely they’ve turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men…As far as I can tell, real men don’t have a problem with smart, successful women. But they do mind being castrated. It’s a guy thing. They do mind being told in so many ways that they are superfluous.

Reading those girls, I almost feel sorry for MoDo. Almost.

She is in pain but does not understand why. So she strikes out at men—all men, the suave and the crude—for not performing as she would want. But Dowd is—as are we all—a collection of life choices: the Good ones, the Bad ones, the Ugly ones. She is what she chose to be, and pays today for yesterday’s decisions. She struggles against the bonds of what economists—a remarkably unromantic bunch—call ‘opportunity costs.’ Time and resources being finite, the true cost of a thing is what you sacrificed to get it. Dowd sacrificed marriage and children to become a successful writer and now laments that she is alone.

Be careful what you wish for.

---

When Hens Attack

Posted on July 6th, 2009 by Scipio

******************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens