Kudos to KO!

For not allowing himself to descend into the depths on Miers nomination. Too much of the public carping is, I feel, directed at her because she is a woman. I think if she were a man they would be more circumspect and the criticism more respectful, more focused on her qualifications. In other words, she would be accorded the benefit of a doubt. You don't have to be a judge to sit on the Supreme Court and many Supreme Court justices who were'nt have gone on to be our greatest justices. Would that Bush had nominated a woman not right of center because the Court could sure use someone who knows how the average American lives.

1) we don't know what she's going to do, judicially. (Gee, we didn't know this about Roberts, either, but that didn't seem to bother the conservatives. :freak: OTOH, he's supposed to have a brilliant legal mind. Should we then infer that Ms. Miers is, by comparison, a dim bulb?)

2) comments about her personal appearance and/or sex life (or lack thereof). Who gives a rat's ass. The only comments along those lines that have given me pause is the assertion that she's a Bible literalist. If true, I'm concerned that her judicial temperament might be extremely hard-shell fundy and she might be willing to undermine Roe and Griswold and who knows what else. Some people sort of park their religious beliefs at the curb when they go to work, realizing that their beliefs are their beliefs and they shouldn't impose them on others any more than they'd wish to have someone else's beliefs forced upon them, but the Bible literalists I've met usually don't "get" this philosophy.

because it has shown how thin Mr. *'s political capital truly is.

His own adoration society is positively incensed that he has chosen what they consider to be an unknown quantity for this position. And it's hilarious to watch them squirm.

And it's even more hilarious to hear Howard Dean make references to playing hide-the-salami.

those who are using the (2) argument have almost shut up on DU. i got so tired of the single woman = lesbian posts. :grr:

dg

Sometimes people who think of themselves as "liberal" can be SOOOO narrow-minded.

but it wasn't based on his marital status.

dg

that this kind of thinking has always followed any woman who found herself in a position of leadership and authority. Plus, for some, it's a gay-rights issue - if she really is gay, then she should be proud of it and not hide it. So some people are looking for a lesbian figurehead, and others are simply trying to destroy a powerful woman.

Believe me, I speak from experience on this. Try being a woman preacher in the South - the rumors just kept flying around. I just couldn't figure out if it was because I was a woman, I didn't "know my place" as a woman, or because I didn't have a penis (either my own, or someone else's handy.) After all, women are only capable of being viewed as sex objects. :eyes:

:rant:

Now, saying all that, where's Sparky? :evilgrin:

the idea that she might be a 60-year-old virgin as if that automatically makes her a gargoyle. Her business, not ours. As was said upthread, for a "progressive" board, DU can be very narrow in its broadmindedness at times. It's apparently okay to champion the rights of those who want to have sex with members of their own gender but people who don't have sex at all are automatically considered untrustworthy freaks? Isn't this just turning some fundy attitudes about sex on their heads (they'd praise the virginity and consider the homosexuality freakish) without being any more "enlightened" than they are?

on edit: and Rev? it's not just woman preachers in the South. I think it's single women in any predominantly masculine profession. If you don't have a man on your arm, you must be a dyke. 'Course, if you date too many men, then you're a slut. I have no idea how many "too many" is. Apparently, the only safe course of action is to get married right after high school graduation. :eyes:

Unfortunately there are some DU'ers who seem to think that:

1. gay Dems are OK; gay Repugs are just obscene

2. people who just aren't HAVING sex at all are abnormal weirdoes.

I got no problem with taking down most-likely-gay Repugs who are being in the closet about it and pretending straightness; that's just denouncing hypocrisy. But to imply that any unmarried person of an advanced age is either gay or a freak...well, put it this way, it makes SOME of us feel damned unwelcome.

It's exactly the same way some treat Christians around here. And that's all I'm going to say about that (for now).

Empathy and mutual respect should be the name of the game.

It's human nature. Not saying that's GOOD, mind you, but I think that's just people.

with what's being said in Freeperville at any given moment? There are some DUers who must spend more time there than they do here. Guys, when you going to get over your ex-wife? ;-)

& on more than one occasion, 99.99999% asked by men:

"how come i never see you go out with any guys?"

"because they don't ask me out." DUH! :crazy:

dg

"Because it's more fun to stay in with them." or better yet,

"I can't. It's a condition of my parole."

:evilgrin:

but i think the "condition of parole" line would scare 'em off instead. :(

dg

and line #2 if you want to scare them off. :-)

maybe that's what i'm going wrong.... :freak:

dg

"why don't you ever introduce me to interesting guys?"

good come back & a great burn at the same time!!! thanks! :thumbsup:

dg