Who needs heels?
September 5, 2008, 9:29 am
Filed under: Current Events | Tags: , , , , ,

My mom has an extra vertebrae in her back. If I was a med student, I’d probably be able to tell you which one. But I’m not. I just know that it’s one of the big ones in her lower back, so it actually adds quite a bit of height. It also gives her back problems. Just like dachshunds have problems because they are a long tube perched on stubby little legs, my mom is a long tube perched on even longer legs.

This is probably why she’s 6 feet tall.

When you’re 6 feet tall by age 14, and a girl, your teen years are pretty hard for you. She towered over everyone. To top it off, she was in high school right around the development of Title 9, so her high school was actively trying to build up girls’ sports. Like basketball. If you were a basketball coach trying to build a girls’ team, and you saw a 6 foot tall girl walk past you in the hallway, you’d probably piss your pants with excitement, too.

Too bad this woman has fallen off a curb, standing still, stone-cold sober, with nobody near her. She doesn’t possess the grace of a gazelle, let alone the reflexes of a cat. She works out ferociously at the gym, and she ran cross-country until I was born, but neither of those things require contact with other people, or, God forbid, flying objects. She was not meant to be a basketball player, despite the extra vertebrae. The coach was understandably disappointed.

But, as most people do, she outgrew high school. She took her time, but she grew into her height. Now, when she grunts and groans in her aerobic weight lifting classes, she’s doing it to protect her bones as she ages, so she doesn’t lose even a centimeter of height.

She married a man who is 3 inches shorter than she is. Consequently, she produced a daughter who is 4 inches shorter than she is. She picks on me for it, but she always reminds people that her wise grandmother told her when she first hit her height that she should think of her daughters: don’t marry a tall man.

It takes guts to be married to a woman that much taller than you. It takes self-assurance and grace to be comfortable around someone that much taller than you. She judges people, particularly men, based on how they react to her height. Due to her job profession (administration in social work) she is in contact with Suits a lot: doctors, lawyers, local and state politicians, various High Ups in State Government. Many of these people, mostly men, are offended by her height when she soars over them. They stand up straighter. If they could surreptitiously stand on a stool, I’m sure they would. Holding the higher ground is necessary to their self worth.

Essentially, their egos smart from it. A tall woman is an affront to their sensibilities. Women are supposed to be subservient, short, and silent. These men are Big and Powerful and Important, and their height shows that. Even if they say they believe in equal rights, and women in the workplace, they certainly don’t want to have to look up to them, figuratively and especially literally. This reaction is a weakness in my mom’s eyes. One ought to have enough self-confidence to not be unended by a tall woman in the room.

Why am I talking about this?

Obviously, it’s because my mom is totally awesome.

Actually, it’s because of Sarah Palin.

I have been closely following both the conservative and liberal reaction to her, through my Facebook friends and their status updates, and popular bloggers and actual pundits. The conservatives are drooling over because, well, she’s hot. Oh, and she hunts. And she’s hot. She’s a hot hunter!

The liberals have taken a turn for the batty. I can understand them disagreeing with her: she is a conservative Republican, and they are liberal Democrats. The disagreement is part of the definition, and that’s understandable. I disagree with many things that Joe Biden says and does, but you don’t see me getting my panties in a knot over him. Obama was going to pick an old, Catholic, white man with a long track record in Washington. Joe Biden makes sense for that. My disagreement with his policies doesn’t make me angry that Obama picked him.

To take Palin’s positions and say, “Look! She’s conservative! And Republican! AND WE HATE HER MORE THAN WE’VE EVER HATED ANYONE BEFORE BECAUSE OF IT!” is a really strange leap of logic. You are allowed to dislike a Republican because of their views. You are not allowed to point to her views and declare her worse than everyone else. Nor are you allowed to say, “Republicans, you deserve so much better. You’re so screwed up because you picked Palin.” If Republicans agreed with you… well, they’d be Democrats, wouldn’t they?

I guess what confuses me the most is the loud fervor of their hatred. Obviously, Democrats would have disliked anyone that McCain picked. But it just seems so strange for them to be so riled up.

Perhaps, like my mom, a woman like Sarah Palin is an affront to their sensibilities. She has more executive experience than any of the candidates combined, even if it was ‘just’ as mayor of Wasilla and governor of that state that is on the other side of Canada. She got where she is without having to marry Bill Clinton. She got where she is despite marrying young (probably knocked up, no less), despite having a passel of babies including a late-age Down Syndrome baby, despite having a knocked-up teenage daughter, and despite not being part of the Washington political culture. Her success up until now is not because of anything; it is in spite of those things. I do agree that McCain picked her over Jindal because of her plumbing, but before this week, it’s been all her.

She is female and is still pro-life. She is female and she still hunts. According to the Democratic mindset, she is an aberration, because women are always pro-choice, and they are always part of PETA and they are always in lockstep with the party line. Her presence plus her success are a surprise and affront to everything they believe.

Just like the Suits who stand up straight and are consternated in my very tall mother’s presence, these people are consternated by the very presence of Sarah Palin on stage.

Now, I’m not saying that Sarah Palin is going to cause McCain to win. I still think this is a Democratic year, and I’m more surprised than anything that Obama isn’t doing better than he is. He ought to be sweeping it, and he’s fighting to stay in the lead.

I do think Palin just made a grand entrance onto the political stage, and win or not this year, she’s going to be around for a long time.

I wish that the liberal voices would stop yelling so much about her. You’re not making any sense. We already know that you don’t agree with her: screaming about it isn’t changing that message. By hating someone purely because they have political differences with you that everyone already knew about, you just make yourself look ridiculous.

Don’t lose sleep over Sarah Palin. Your behavior? You’re doing it wrong. It’s making us judge you, and you look ridiculous. You’re no better than the men who are offended by a woman taller than them. It’s nothing you can change, and having a smarting ego over it is a sign of weakness and lack of self-assurance.



Substance (Abuse) for The Weekend
July 18, 2008, 8:53 am
Filed under: Pittsburgh | Tags: , ,

Ok, “Math Major” (HA! He’s actually a ‘Music Recording Technology’ major or some such nonsense), I’ll give you substance.

I have come to the startling conclusion that Pittsburgh is one of the most conservative cities, anywhere.

Shocking, right? I know! I was totally dumbfounded when I thought of it. Considering that about 80% of residents are Democrats, we haven’t had a non-Democrat mayor since before World War II, and the exceedingly liberal Post-Gazette is the only newspaper I see on the T in the morning, you would think that Pittsburgh wouldn’t be conservative, right?

You would be wrong.

What does it mean to be conservative? Merriam-Webster defines it as such:

1: preservative 2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative 3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners 4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism”

We can ignore 4, for obvious reasons, even though we do have a large conservative and Orthodox Jewish population. I bolded the definitions that I feel are the best descriptors. Conservatives are cautious about change. This is why I maintain that housepets and children (I might be redundant there) are absolutely conservative. Conservatives do not trust change for change’s sake. If change needs to happen, it needs to be careful, deliberate and not to be rushed into heedlessly. Conservatives are reactionary: that is why they wait until change NEEDS to happen before instigating it, because unnecessary change can cause more problems than it fixes (Carter overthrowing the Shah of Iran is an example of this. We got rid of a moderately corrupt government and replaced it with a crazy, radical corrupt government. Hello, Ahmadinejad!)

Conservatives? They like things to stay the way they are unless they have to change. If the status quo works, why mess with it. Don’t fix what ain’t broke! Even then, they will probably dislike it, and will probably resist change despite all evidence that it needs to happen. If you’re really honest with yourself, you’ll realize you’re the same way in your day to day life. I know that if someone takes your parking space or disrupts your morning schedule, your whole day is thrown off. YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE. I’M LOOKING AT YOU, ROOMMATE.

Gee, does that sound like anyone in Pittsburgh?

Guess what. It’s not a giant taco stand. In fact, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Potato Patch fries are still there, the rides are just as awesome, and I bet everyone has forgotten that it’s not owned by the original families.

  • Remember when the Rooney brothers started talking about selling the Steelers? Remember how Pittsburghers near and far reacted the same way they did to Kennywood being sold? Oh wait, that’s happening RIGHT NOW. Hair being pulled, clothes being rent. Doom, gloom, blah-di-blah.

Guess what. The Steelers will still be just as awesome. If they aren’t awesome, it won’t be the owners fault. Frankly, not having ownership become a battle between the many, MANY grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the prolific Rooneys is better for the organization. Less in-fighting, more Super Bowl rings. I think all Pittsburghers can support that idea.

  • Remember how Pittsburgh hasn’t elected a Republican since 1926?** Let’s be straight here. Pittsburgh city government is hopelessly corrupt. The finances are awful, the debt is huge, and the services are non-existent despite all that money. Lord Lukey Pants likes to do fun things like use police SUVs acquired via Homeland Security funds for his own personal use, use public funds to pay for his entertainment, and then play the hero when he ‘chooses’ to go to the Stanley cup games on his own buck. They supposedly consolidated the Row offices 2 years ago but nothing has changed. We would be better off standing at the Point, throwing twenties into the Ohio. Why is it so corrupt? Because the Democrats know they have no competition. They can get in there, do whatever they want, steal Pittsburghers blind and STILL GET REELECTED.

This is not a dis on Democrats, per se. If the Republicans had been in office for that long, the same situation would be here. Hell, if the Anarchists were in office for that long, NOTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT. Governments work best when you don’t allow it to do anything. That can only happen when you have an equal amount of opposition on every side. Pittsburgh does not have that.

Why, you ask, does Pittsburgh not have any political opposition? Because Pittsburghers are conservative to a fault! (Yes, I did just say that). They vote Democrat because thats what their daddies did. Their daddies voted Democrat, because thats what their daddies did. Despite all evidence showing that the Pittsburgh Democratic party is hampering this city, and may in fact, have been part of the decline in the past 40 years, Pittsburghers still vote for them, because change is evil and to be avoided at any cost. The real election happens in the primaries; the actual election is a mere coronation of the Chosen Democrat.

The next time I hear a Pittsburgher try to tell me he’s a liberal, I’m going to laugh my skinny ass off. I’m more liberal than all of you, and I read the Trib! ON THE T! IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE!

**Seriously, click that link to the list of Pittsburgh mayors. Go look at Joseph Barker, mayor from 1850-1851. He ran as an Anti-Catholic (in Pittsburgh? Really? He would be startled and horrified by the number of Catholic churches all over Western PA now): “elected while serving a year in jail after protesting the Catholic Church, he was illiterate but popular during a xenophobic time in the nation. Uniquely he is probably the only mayor in history to meet his death by “train decapitation”.”

That, my friends, is hilarious. And I wish they would provide a schematic to explain what exactly that means.

Reading Material for the Weekend:

You might not find this funny. But you would be wrong.

If by ‘depression’ she means ‘Munchausen’s By Proxy’, she would be right.