A new ad campaign that suggests milk may help alleviate the symptoms of PMS has some feminists acting like it’s that time of the month. My first post for Pajamas Media covers their hysterical accusations of sexism and “sexploitation.” I can only excerpt 100 words, so here’s a quick taste of how one feminist reacted to the ads.

The feminist reaction devolved into true absurdity with the milk boycott proposed by a Feministing blogger. She suggests five PMS-soothing calcium sources “that don’t involve milk.” Topping her list of ideas: “Eat other kinds of dairy products, like yogurt and cheese (mozzarella is particularly high in calcium).” Way to strike a blow against Big Milk by consuming products made from … milk.

Please visit Pajamas Media to read the whole thing.

Originally published at Frontpage Magazine
___________

“My name is Anthony Weiner and I stand for women!”

That’s not just a tailor-made caption for the indiscreet photo sent from the New York congressman’s Twitter account. Weiner proudly delivered that line twice during a rah-rah sisterhood speech to adoring fans at Planned Parenthood’s Stand Up for Women’s Health Rally in February. The only thing missing from his feminist cheerleading was a set of speculum-handled pom-poms.

But Weiner’s feminist rhetoric is far more tumid than the underwear-clad package he “can’t say with certitude” isn’t his — and just as susceptible to shrinkage. So here’s the cold water:

While the intended recipient of the lewd photo, 21-year-old Gennette Cordova, drowns in a raging media maelstrom, Anthony Weiner is using the only life preserver in sight as a hula hoop. Instead of ending the speculation about their relationship by asking law enforcement to investigate the alleged hacking of his Twitter account, Weiner spent the week tossing cagey Clintonian statements and erection puns to an increasingly suspicious press.

This is how Anthony Weiner stands for women.

Cordova and her family have been subjected to the kind of scrutiny, mockery, and even harassment normally reserved for public figures (and private citizens who vote Republican). Her candid party photos and off-the-cuff tweets are now front page news as bloggers and reporters rifle through cached social media accounts, hoping to shake out the single breadcrumb that might lead to a scoop on the young woman who denies “any inappropriate exchanges” with Weiner.

Continue reading at Frontpage Magazine.

Runnin’ Scared notes that Arianna’s April Fools’ Day jab at the New York Times is awfully similar to a post that appeared at The Monkey Cage … on March 20. In a fairly lame attempt to razz the Times for its new paywall, she announced:

Today marks a significant transition for The Huffington Post Media Group, as we introduce digital subscriptions for employees of The New York Times.

Yeah, yeah. In other news, she just flew in from the coast and BOY are her arms tired. Hardy har har. Here’s a snippet from the earlier post at The Monkey Cage:

Starting on March 28th (and immediately for any Canadian NY Times employees), we will begin charging employees of the NY Times $29.99/month to access the electronic version of The Monkey Cage.

The similarities don’t end there.

Not only did the blog Monkey Cage make the same joke two weeks ago — “Monkey Cage to Begin Charging NY Times Employees for Access,” as pointed out on Twitter — but even the bullet-pointed formatting of the joke is the same, complete with wild and crazy caveats. For instance:

From Monkey Cage: “Times employees who wish to leave comments on posts will be permitted to do so without charge, but only if the comments are essentially positive and invoke the words ‘insightful’ or ‘counter-intuitive.’”

From Arianna: “If you come in through Digg, you’ll be able to read for free all stories that refer to TV’s Erik Estrada.”

Now sure, it could be that the comedy stylings of Arianna Huffington were something she thought up on her own, perhaps during a late night coffee klatch with Van Jones and Nora Ephron. But this is hardly the first time The Huffington Post has been on the receiving end of content theft and idea theft allegations. And when she’s not stealing, she’s “aggregating,” or as Stephen Colbert recently explained, “HuffPo is famous for its extensive, comprehensive coverage of things other people produce and put on the Internet.” In his best Arianna accent, he asked:

Darling, I happened to cruise by your $300 million website and you know what I find? A whole lotta me, including clips from my show on your site’s dedicated Stephen Colbert page. You have achieved the impossible. You made me feel angry while looking at pictures of myself. Where’s my money, Arianna?

If even Stephen Colbert is mocking her reputation as a content thief with The Colbuffington Re-Post, is it beyond belief that she’d swipe her April Fools’ Day “joke”? Runnin’ Scared suggests she’s not a thief, it’s just that her ideas are “played out.” I’m not so sure.

Originally posted at NewsReal’s That’s What She Said

Every time news coverage of actress Anne Hathaway spikes, so does Berkshire Hathaway stock. At least, that’s the fantasy Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman promoted on his New York Times blog this weekend.

Why? The claim is that it’s the fault of robotrading algorithms, which now account for most of the market, and which sometimes rely among other things on trends in news coverage.

That’s the kind of dumb mistake human traders wouldn’t make. Unfortunately, they’d make other kinds of dumb mistakes.

“I, For One, Do Not Welcome Our Dumb Robot Overlords,” writes Krugman.

Where’s the evidence that Berkshire Hathaway shareholders are at the mercy of a half-baked fleet of starstruck retard-o-bots? Krugman cites The Financial Times, but the original source of this bizarre story is Huffington Post blogger Dan Mirvish, a media hoaxer the New York Times once called “a senior fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence.” On March 2, Mirvish wrote:

On the Friday before the Oscars, Berkshire shares rose a whopping 2.02%. And on the Monday just after the Academy Awards, they rose again, this time 2.94%. But it’s not just an Oscar bounce, or something Warren Buffett may have said in the newspaper, or even necessarily something the company itself is doing (i.e. rumors afoot to buy Costco). Just look back at some other landmark dates in Anne Hathaway’s still young career:

Oct. 3, 2008 – Rachel Getting Married opens: BRK.A up .44%
Jan. 5, 2009 – Bride Wars opens: BRK.A up 2.61%
Feb. 8, 2010 – Valentine’s Day opens: BRK.A up 1.01%
March 5, 2010 – Alice in Wonderland opens: BRK.A up .74%
Nov. 24, 2010 – Love and Other Drugs opens: BRK.A up 1.62%
Nov. 29, 2010 – Anne announced as co-host of the Oscars: BRK.A up .25%

Yes, the fearsome Hathaway Effect is based on eight dates in a two-year period analyzed by a professional media manipulator. But … but … studies show! Yeah, one “study” of a handful of data points.

I know, Paul. Markets are confusing, and math is hard. It’s been a while since you had to memorize all that information about sample sizes and correlation vs. causation for Stats 101. And it sure can be a hassle to RTFG. Fortunately, The Motley Fool cleared this up nearly three weeks ago:

Berkshire’s stock most certainly was up on Oct. 3, 2008, but there was more than an opening for Anne going on. Just two days prior, the stock had jumped almost 5% after Buffett got a dandy deal on perpetual preferred stock from General Electric (NYSE: GE ) .Meanwhile, on Feb. 8, 2010, did Anne Hathaway’s movie push up Berkshire’s stock? Or were investors anticipating the heavy buying from index funds that would be forced to add Berkshire to their holdings after it replaced Burlington Northern Santa Fe in the S&P 500?

The March 5, 2010 gain we can write off even more quickly, since the S&P gained nearly double Berkshire’s jump that day. What good is the Anne Hathaway signal if the stock still underperforms the rest of the market?

And of course, all good Fools know that the weekend of Feb. 27, 2011 something happened that was much more important than the Oscars — the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder letter was released. My wild guess is that the stock gains that Friday reflected anticipation about the letter, while Monday’s pop was due to Buffett’s bullish outlook in the letter.

Now run along, Paul, and check the inside of the fridge to see if a tiny Anne Hathaway turns the light on when you open the door.

Originally published on December 10, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal

Like any socially conscious steward of Mother Earth, I have minimum standards when it comes to sex. I want my hookers sustainable, my porn carbon neutral, and my sex toys handcrafted from renewable resources.

I don’t care if you’re heterosexual or homosexual as long as you’re eco-sexual.

Tell me that’s not hawt! Admit it, you’re totally turned on right now.

Hello? Anyone?

Sure, you might think the sex industry is inherently sustainable. But you probably don’t realize how many reasons there are to feel guilty about what you’re doing. No, I’m not talking about the porn ‘n’ hookers, silly! It’s the environmental and social impact of sex work that should have your certified organic panties in a bunch. Not to worry, though. Givers like Green Futures deputy editor Anna Simpson are working feverishly to ensure your eco-sexually correct future looks a lot like this (hat tip: Pirate’s Cove):

Feel like watching the latest Fair Trade-certified porn film? The actors all enjoy decent pay, health insurance, and pensions. The carbon impact of the set lighting and travel is offset through investment in clean, efficient cookstoves sold at affordable prices to women in rural Africa.

Perhaps you’d prefer a spot of ethical lap-dancing? You can be sure the performers are all willing and well-paid: It’s certified by Care and Consent, the highly reputable international certification body for ethical sex. You tip generously, knowing that 50 percent of the profits are promised to the local women’s community center.

Or, maybe best of all, you opt for an evening in with your sweetheart. You’ve got everything you need: condoms made from rubber tapped sustainably in Brazil, hand-carved FSC-certified sex toys, and delicious Fair Trade dark chocolate body paint.

Tempted? You’re not alone.

Yes, the Left has discovered yet another segment of society to, er, penetrate: the sex industry.

Does your brothel use renewable energy to power the vibrating beds? Do the actors in that porn video donate to sad and hopeless progressive causes like Kathy Griffin’s comedy tours? And what about your condoms? Are they made from sustainably harvested fair trade latex processed by one-legged widows with gold-plated pensions in Sri Lanka? No?! Shame on you!

Okay, I think I got the whole eco-sexual activist thing out of my system now. I don’t have the stamina to keep it up. (Heh.)

As William Teach observed, “Sheesh, it’d be just like liberals to take all the fun out of sex, and replace it with Social and Environmental Justice.” Indeed.

But as absurd and mockable as this is, we’re not just dealing with killjoys and spoilsports. And we’re certainly not looking at genuine concern for the ethical treatment of sex industry employees, as Anna Simpson would have you believe. “Eco-sexuality” is yet another feelgood lefty scheme designed to give hipsters something to boast about as they sip humanely processed eco-tinis at the next vegan dinner party.

Anna Simpson and her ilk feign concern for the exploited workers of the sex industry, but they continue to order Asian escorts (read: human trafficking victims) from the seediest pages of The Village Voice. And Simpson is happy to continue enlarging her own carbon footprint by playing “Two Girls, One Cup” on an endless loop (hypothetically, of course) because hey, she wrote a whole article about how the actresses should be driving Priuses to and from the set.

Gosh, women are awfully lucky to have the Left on their side.

—–

Follow me on Twitter.

by Jenn Q. Public & Lori Ziganto

———

It came as quite a shock to the leader of one women’s organization when Joy Behar, ostensibly a comedian, called Sharron Angle a “bitch” on the “The View” last month. Sonja Eddings Brown, president of The Kitchen Cabinet, told The Daily Caller, “We thought Joy Behar was a classier act than this.”

To which we responded, “Ha ha ha ha ha!” followed by, “HA HA HA HA HA!” When our laughter-induced wheezing subsided — and we’re not gonna lie, there may have been some giggle-snorting — the idea for this post was born.

Before the obligatory lefty panty bunching begins in response to this post’s title, you should know that it’s not the first time we’ve been called mean girls and name-callers, and it won’t be the last. But we have refrained from calling Ms. Behar the b-word, and that gives us exclusive claim to the high road here.

Also, we’re bloggers, not holier-than-thou television “personalities” who get off on squawking about how we’re better than you because we vote Democrat. And we may have had a couple of beers while writing this post. Our readers are important to us and we’re willing to go the extra mile. For you.

So, with all of the fanfare a class act like Joy Behar deserves, we bring you her 9 most inane statements, the ones that should have even the Left shuddering in embarrassment. (Yeah, we’re not holding our breath either.) 

9. Behar Says White Men Were “Traumatized” By Obama’s Election

According to Joy Behar, white men had a traumatic year due to President Obama‘s election. Perhaps Joy Behar was projecting once again. Because we are pretty sure that lots of men have been traumatized by her and the nails on the chalkboard sound that is emitted every time she flaps her pie hole.

On an episode of her show on HLN back in January, Joy Behar and her fellow harpy Whoopi Goldberg were discussing Chris Matthews‘ offensive, and moronic, remark that during President Obama’s first State of the Union address, he “forgot for an hour that he was black.” Behar and Goldberg made the following inane statements:

BEHAR: Maybe he needs a new TV. (Behar and Goldberg laugh) What do you think he was driving at there? Because he’s a lefty- you know, he’s liberal.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

BEHAR: And he likes Obama.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

BEHAR: And yet, he says something stupid like that- you know, I forgot he was black. He would never say I forgot he was white if he was looking at Bush.

GOLDBERG: No. Well, white people (laughs)- you know, this is- this has been quite a year for the white man. (off-camera laughs from unidentified person/people)

BEHAR: (laughs) Traumatic.

GOLDBERG: Traumatic in many ways because the things that people say now, you have to think before you speak. It sounded great in his head, I’m sure, because I know Chris and-

BEHAR: Yeah.

Of course, desperately trying to spin because Chrissy is a lefty, thus they totally heart him. And he likes Obama, so that makes him even more super awesome. It’s funny how the oh-so-enlightened lefties are the ones who only see color and race, always, isn’t it? And if you merely disagree with someone of a different race, you must be traumatized. Because they are so scary and stuff!

Well, Joy, we are not traumatized by having to think before we speak. See, we aren’t idiots, so we always try to think before we speak. We don’t allow others to think for us and then merely parrot their talking points, no matter how inane, like you do.

We also don’t focus on the density of a person’s melanin count. Therefore, we don’t couch our thoughts and opinions worrying about racial implications. We say what we believe, to whomever we believe deserves it, whenever it is deserved. It’s a thing called equality. We treat everyone the same way.

Post-racial; y’all should try it sometime. Perhaps that would be too “traumatic” for you, though.

8. “Isn’t it a little racist to call it Black Friday?”

After a long day of celebrating the racist discovery of America by genocidal maniacs — because nothing says slaughtering the natives like can-shaped cranberry sauce and football — Americans like to switch gears a bit and target another racial group. Enter that quaint tradition of racial hatred known as Black Friday.

This from the woman who said of Sarah Palin’s supporters, “a lot of her base doesn’t even read.” But clearly she has a vastly superior intellect — how else could she offer such keen analysis of the racial animus embedded in the phrase “Black Friday”? And don’t forget, Joy identifies as a liberal, and we know where she gets her “liberal” streak:

It comes from umm, from being smart.

So smart that she thinks Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, is a bad thing? We’d better not let this bobblehead know we’re dreaming of a white Christmas.

7. Behar, Obama and A Moronic Room With A View

In July, President Obama decided that appearing on “The View” was preferable to attending the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts. Which makes sense, I suppose. I mean, the Boy Scouts are just a bunch of kids that other people were “punished by.” Plus, it’s all American like apple pie and stuff, which we know he thinks is super icky.

We thought that perhaps Joy Behar might revisit her scintillating and insightful commentary wherein she accused white men of being “traumatized” by a black president. But, alas, she didn’t. We, as gluttons for punishment apparently, watched “The View” episode. Eyes glazing over and minds wandering off, we heard only hard-hitting questions like this:

“Do you know CPR? Because, you take my breath away”

“Would you say that you are The MOST Awesome, or THE Most Awesome?”

“So, about your ‘laser like focus’ on jobs … your eyes are *gorgeous*, by the way”

“It’s so awful that the “f**king NASCAR retards” don’t get all the nuance-y nuane of your nuance-iness, isn’t it?”

Additionally, Joy Behar tweeted the following on the day of President Obama’s taping:

Classy! Only, you know, with a “k.” And the Nazi reference with the Herr comment: so original, Joy! And by original, I mean totally tired and lame.

Another sign of the Apocalypse? That the president of the United States considers Joy Behar and her cohorts on “The View” to be an important source of information and news. Although, to be fair, they may be slightly more credible than most of the members of JournoList.

6. George W. Bush “has no business talking to Jewish people”

You know, the Left doesn’t really spend quite enough time connecting the Bush/Cheney cabal to Nazis. If only they’d thought of that a few years ago, maybe a George W. Bush impeachment would be reality instead of just the source of countless nocturnal emissions among Media Matters “fellows.”

Or not.

Joy Behar is among the worst violators of Godwin’s law. Her comparisons of Donald Rumsfeld to Hitler and the Arizona immigration law to Nazism are nothing short of obscene.

You can always tell when Joy is throwing down the Hitler card because her standard “blah, blah, blah” morphs into “blah, blah, Nazi, blah.” Of course, that means someone has to actually listen to what this door-stopper has to say, and for that, we say, “Thank you, Newsbusters.” From the May 19, 2008 edition of “The View”:

It’s very interesting and ironic that George Bush Sr’s, George Bush, this one, his grandfather, this one, the late, I don’t like to speak ill of the dead, but in this case it’s fun. [laughter] He was a United States senator, Prescott Bush, okay, he was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany, okay? This is his grandfather. He has no business talking to Jewish people when he’s got this right in his back yard, this guy.

The president of the United States should refrain from addressing 1.7 percent of the United States population because of charges that his grandfather profited from dealings with Nazis? The way Joy goes on, you’d think W. and his dad sit around at family reunions oohing and ahing over candids of Grandpappy Prescott and Uncle Adolf. Not to mention the way they gush over scrapbooked records of the family’s Nazi money laundering business.

Is there anyone on daytime television who consistently produces sound bites that make the viewing public stupider? This sapheaded ninnyhammer gets paid to give her opinion. By two networks.

5. Joy Behar Odiously Equates Arizona’s Immigration Law With Nazi Germany

Joy Behar likely doesn’t know what epistemic closure means (you know, because she’s a dum-dum) but she sure does take part in it. In one of her standard fits of hysterical and inane shrieking, she broke out the Hitler card. While I usually can’t in good conscience force one to be subjected to her, this video clip pretty much sums up her up in all her delusional and bitter old harpy glory:

On her April 26 broadcast, HLN’s Joy Behar suggested the new Arizona immigration law that would allow local law enforcement to arrest immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. is comparable to “World War II Germany.”

“Do you think it’s kind of – doesn’t it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” Behar asked. “I don’t want to overstate it, but ‘may I see your papers,’ you know?”

It’s not surprising that Behar is hyperbolic and clueless, as always. It is however, hilarious. Or it would be, if it wasn’t so vile. Why don’t you talk to people who somehow managed to survive Nazi Germany, Joy? See if they think having to enter the United States legally is the same as being rounded up, dragged out of your home, and thrown into concentration camps under constant threat of death. Of course, you can’t ask the 6,000,000 people who were killed during the Holocaust.

Silly us. Thinking of such things would require a brain, wouldn’t it? And a soul.

4. Having Multiple Children is Immoral and Irresponsible

As Justin McCarthy points out, when even Rosie O’Donnell mocks your eco-fanaticism, you’ve gone too far to the Left. On the March 24, 2008 edition of “The View,” Joy Behar, mother of one, criticized the morally unacceptable, socially irresponsible act of choosing to give birth to multiple children. We’d put the relevant parts in bold, but the whole thing is breathtakingly cretinous:

HASSELBECK: I love a lot of kids. I think it’s great.

JOY BEHAR: Don’t you think that, that’s a little bit- how shall I put this- inconsiderate of the fact that you’re using more energy, you’re using up more gasoline.

HASSELBECK: No, you use one pot for 17 kids as opposed to 17 pots of water –

BEHAR: Oh one pot– Joint you mean.

O’DONNELL: Joy was saying is it irresponsible socially or ecologically to have that many children?

BEHAR: I think it is. I think that you’re using more of the resources of the world. You can adopt 17, that would be morally acceptable, but to give birth to 17 children?

HASSELBECK: I think it’s fantastic.

ROSIE O’DONNELL: I do too. But this is Joy who was an only child and who has an only child. So this is her world view.

HASSELBECK: So, do you think Marie is socially irresponsible?

BEHAR: No because Marie adopted.

[...]

BEHAR: It is very hard and very expensive to raise children.

O’DONNELL: But if they can afford it why shouldn’t they?

BEHAR: Because, I told you why, they’re snorting up the oxygen.

O’DONNELL: All right. We’ll be right back after this break and Joy is moving to China where you’re only allowed to have one child.

Kids, you’re gonna have to do a better job of hiding your oxygen-sniffing habits, ’cause Joy Behar is so onto you. Do you even realize how much carbon dioxide you’re spewing into the air? Um, well, Joy isn’t exactly sure, but it’s obviously too much. Why do you hate Mother Earth?

According to misanthropic environmentalist Joy Behar, the world doesn’t have enough energy and oxygen to sustain large families, but hunting and drilling for oil ought to be off limits and that awful Sarah Palin is “very mean to animals.”

Hey, you know how we can save the polar bears and bolster Joy’s “pro-choice” street cred without taking a single extra gulp of sweet, sweet oxygen? Why not classify those filthy, oxygen snorting babies as pollutants?! Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide will throw a parade in her honor.

Joy’s thoughts on the human plague illustrate the Left‘s utter disregard for human life and demonstrate the bizarre suspension of disbelief required to swallow this anti-human flavor of environmentalism. Maybe instead of going after eco-criminals (aka, moms and dads), Joy Behar should aim for a little firsthand experience with the whole “oxygen snorting” thing.

3. To Joy Behar, Abortion is Hunky Dory. It’s Profits That Are Super Bad. Plus, The Baby Could End Up a Pedophile!

Last year, a Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, resigned after seeing an abortion on ultrasound. “The View” included the story in one of their “Hot Topics” segments, inexplicably calling it a “controversial” story. Although, we suppose in their collective minds someone not toeing the Planned Parenthood line is controversial. Joy Behar jumped into the mix to preach to all about morality and immorality. We know, we couldn’t stop giggling at the thought either.

Behar quickly denounced Planned Parenthood for making money off abortions. She called it “gross” and “obnoxious” before she stated, “I don’t see abortions as a profit-making industry. I think that that is the real immorality of it.”

The real immorality of abortion is the fact that the clinics profit. In Behar’s sad excuse for a mind, profiting is way, way worse than the killing of an unborn child. Of course, this cognitive dissonance, especially regarding abortion, isn’t new for Behar. When Focus on the Family ran an ad during the Super Bowl, featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Behar and her fellow travelers were all up in Stepford Feminist arms. You see, Tebow’s mom did not abort him, even though there was medical risk involved. The ads didn’t even mention that at all; the ads merely showed the great love between a mother and her son. But that, of course, still didn’t stop the idiotic screeching by the feminist Left.

Behar, grasping at straws – and strawmen – in a desperate bid to say something nasty about the ads, could only come up with the following:

The only argument against any of it is, that, you know, he could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile. I mean, you don’t know what someone’s going to be

Wow. A beautiful ad about the pride a mother has for her son, and all it conjures up for Behar is “But… but…. he could have been a pedophile.” Well, Joy, it’s true that you don’t know what someone is going to be sometimes. In your case, however, we do know. You will always be an irrelevant, bitter bint.

2. America Sucks Because We Can’t Fix Our Health Care System Like France, Denmark, & England

A few weeks before the 2008 presidential election, celebrated health care policy wonk Joy Behar channeled Michael Moore to outline her ingenious one-point plan for reforming the American health care system:

What they haven’t discussed in any of these debates is how other countries have solved this. France has solved it, Denmark has solved it, England has solved it. Why can’t we solve it? [applause] It’s ridiculous.

Omigosh, why didn’t Joy run for president? Better yet, why didn’t she just draft Hollywood’s favorite multi-millionaire neo-communist documentarian to run for the highest office in the land? With all those public policy lessons learned while filming “Sicko,” Michael Moore could’ve overhauled the health care system and still had plenty of time left over to topple capitalism.

But gee, maybe Joy does have a point. They’re awful sophisticated across that there pond. (Cue the banjo music.) Take the French, for example. They have wine. And stinky cheese. And berets!

Oh, and don’t tell anyone, but they’re looking to the filthy American swine for ideas on health care reform. Last year the Wall Street Journal reported:

As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

In recent months, France imposed American-style “co-pays” on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses.

That brilliant French model of universal health care has been operating in the red since 1989. Their solution was to kick the can as far down the road as possible. And now, their fragile health care system is buckling under the weight of unsustainable entitlement programs and social welfare benefits are being slashed. Hence, the enthusiastic protests (read: violent street riots) taking place across the country.

In ever so ideal Denmark, lucky citizens pay the highest tax rates in the world and enjoy below-average life expectancy compared with the rest of Europe. Health care solved!

And do we really need to recount the horror stories coming out of Joy’s beloved United Kingdom? Like the practice of “patient-stacking“:

Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.

Or the clever way the NHS deals with a shortage of anesthetists when pregnant women seek epidurals to ease the pain of labor:

Hundreds of British women are being denied epidurals to numb the pain of childbirth because there aren’t enough anesthetists to go around, and this has been going on for at least three years.

And why wouldn’t the British solution to dental care be the envy of every American?

Some English people have resorted to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot find — or cannot afford — a dentist, a major study has revealed.

Six percent of those questioned in a survey of 5,000 patients admitted they had resorted to self-treatment using pliers and glue, the UK’s Press Association reported.

Breast cancer mortality rates are 88 percent higher in the UK than they are in the United States, and British patients wait twice as long to see a specialist. So why wouldn’t Joy “The Brain” Behar want a heaping serving of what they’re having?

1. Joy Behar: For The Children ™ – Unless, Of Course, They Are Those “Demented” Homeschooled Kids

Joy Behar doesn’t just loathe people with minds of their own, she also hates their children. Excuse me, their “demented” children:

“A lot of them are demented when they’re homeschooled.”

Nice.

And wrong, as always. As Michelle Malkin notes, these “demented” kids have an excellent record of achievement. Of actual academic achievement and not made up stuff like “best recycler award” or, you know, community organizing. She goes onto say that homeschooled children are scared of other children. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, to be fair, Behar isn’t much familiar with truth.

I homeschool, Joy. My “demented” kid is two grades ahead. My “demented” kid is not afraid of other children; far from it. She plays with children of all ages, since she has not been indoctrinated to believe that she should only play with children her exact same age. Where, besides public schools, is anyone boxed into socializing with people of only their exact same age? That’s cuckoo pants. It would be similar to only working with, or caring about, people that share your lockstep mindset. Oh, wait.

Diversity of thought, freedom of individuality – those are concepts lost on Joy Behar. They are above her pay-grade, apparently.

If you want to see “demented,” Joy, take a look in a mirror. And stand back a bit, just in case it cracks. You’re welcome.

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

Joy Behar has said a lot of vomit-inducing things — Ralph Nader is “sexy” springs to mind — and spends plenty of time parroting the standard leftist talking points about everything from Christianity to the stolen election of 2000. But it’s her unrestrained asininity that makes us wonder why she’s on the air at all.

The answer, of course, can be summed up in two words: train wreck.

People tune in to Joy’s shows to see her make a fool of herself and to gawk at the drool and bile falling from the lips of this mouth-breathing numskull of a woman. And she rarely disappoints.

———

If you rely on the Reich-wing, Tea-tard propaganda machine for your information, you probably missed the news about the sexually suggestive gift Sarah Palin received from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio last week: pink panties!

But no worries, the unimpeachable left-wing blogosphere will bring you up to speed on all the relevant facts. Er, “facts.”

Under the headline “Sarah Palin Gets Pink Panties From Creepy Arizona Sheriff,” The Frisky‘s Jessica Wakeman shared the details of Sheriff Arpaio’s lecherous overture:

Great moments in “ewwww”: at a Tea Party rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Friday, infamous anti-immigration Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio handed Sarah Palin a pair of pink panties. Yes, panties!

Other left-wing bloggers piled on, delivering the incisive commentary we’ve come to expect:

Reporting on “the panty package,” a TPM blogger joked, “No word on how Todd Palin reacted to the news.”

“You know your attraction to women’s underwear is a little out of control when you do things like this,” admitted explained apparent panty fetish expert Charles Johnson.

Ed Brayton, a self-identified “journalist” at ScienceBlogs wrote, “Strange women flying about from Alaska receiving pink panties is no basis for a system of government.”

“This is SO messed up…please tell me this is a joke,” said Pam Spaulding.

Name It Change It, a project of the Women’s Media Center that tracks sexist incidents in the media, called Arpaio “really damn sexist,” adding that the Sheriff’s “use of a national female politician to delploy [sic] sexism as a publicity stunt is deplorable.”

John Cole at Balloon Juice described the sheriff’s gift as “just creepy and weird” (right after posting the creepy and weird panty pic above).

And the ever classy Gawker offered this Photoshop of the governor’s meeting with Sheriff Arpaio:

So why haven’t more of us heard about the sheriff’s inappropriate, sexually charged gesture? Hmm … maybe because it never happened.

After meeting Governor Palin, Sheriff Arpaio tweeted:

Just got done welcoming Sarah Palin to our County. Had a nice chat and gave her a pair of pink underwear.

Add “pink underwear” to the moonbat mixer, blend until frothy, and BAM!: the sheriff has a creepy panty fetish.

Hey, lefties: learn to Read the Freakin’ Google (and not just when it suits your political goals). The oh-so risqué pink undergarments Arpaio hands out as souvenirs are the same ones he’s famous for selling via his charity Web site, PinkUnderwear.com, and they look an awful lot like novelty boxers (pictured on the next page):

His site explains:

When Sheriff Joe learned that Maricopa County Inmates were stealing their jailhouse whites, he had all the boxers dyed pink. Inventory control improved, so the undershirts followed – then the sheets, socks, towels, and everything down to the handcuffs.

The boxer shorts are now sold online and at charity events to raise funds for youth mentoring programs in Maricopa County.

But of course, at the mere mention of unmentionables by a conservative politician, left-wing bloggers began to work their knickers into knots, praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Arpaio really did sexually harass Palin with a gift of pink lingerie. Hopes and prayers morphed into truth and facts, as often happens with this crowd, and the pink panty meme was born.

Writing at the fetid intellectual wasteland called Pandagon, Jesse Taylor delighted in using the sheriff’s tweet to analyze the psychosexual motives of the entire Tea Party Movement:

Not that I’m saying that the Tea Party may contain an incredibly disturbing psychosexual undercurrent focused on fetishizing powerful women that are still ideologically beholden to them, but f–k it, I am.

This is the sexually demeaning brand of “feminism” found at Pandagon and other left-wing feminist blogs. Souvenir boxers are an opportunity to sexualize and degrade politicians. Ideological opponents are smeared as sexual oppressors working to keep womenfolk enslaved and beholden. And the pleasure of sadism is the driving force behind conservatism.

But it’s the Tea Party Movement that contains a “disturbing psychosexual undercurrent”?

Oh, if only Tea Party women could be as enlightened as Jesse Taylor and his fellow bloggers on the Left. When will those dumb Tea Party broads get it through their thick, sexually fetishized skulls that Jesse knows what’s best for them. And he only hits because he loves.

—–

Follow me on Twitter.

———

Last week The American Prospect revealed an unsettling workplace trend. This discovery is completely unanticipated, so prepare to be shocked.

When female coworkers are out of earshot, men sometimes talk about them. Just awful, right? And guys aren’t just discussing the work habits of their female colleagues — occasionally they mention their looks!

This is the new “sexual harassment”: not the groping, fondling, and obscene comments of yesteryear, but “what’s said about [women] when their backs are turned.” According to the Prospect‘s Ann Friedman, “behind-their-back comments are also intimidation and bullying of a sexual nature.” And this indirect harassment is even worse than dealing with run-of-the-mill lewdness from male coworkers.

[G]iven that networking and reputation are keys to success in many professions, what people say about you is arguably more important than what they say to your face. If your professional contacts are talking about your legs rather than your résumé, you’re at a disadvantage. I know how to handle direct sexist comments. It’s much harder to think about how to shut down a conversation about me that I may not even be aware of.

Watch out, guys: if you’re hanging out at the bar after work, be sure to limit the leg talk to women who aren’t coworkers. Unless, of course, the owners of said legs are around to “handle” the comments. Got it?

Friedman describes some of the other conversations that would be off limits in her Utopian vision of a world in which men no longer talk about attractive women:

Some of the guys you talk to about women are our friends — and they tell us what you’re saying. That’s how I found out that a female editor I know had garnered a totally unwarranted reputation as a flirt. How I know that a certain male editor likes to make side comments about the bodies of female interns. How I heard about an older male co-worker who wistfully expressed that he wishes he were 20 years younger so he could hit on the young women at the office.

So, let me get this straight. It’s intimidation and bullying for a man to pine for his youth when he would have had a better chance with young women at the office. It’s harassment for a guy to talk to his office buddies about the way interns look. And gossiping about the flirty personality of a coworker is completely out of bounds (when men do it).

Where exactly is the chauvinism here?

There’s nothing sexist about guys digging chicks and vice versa. In fact, I’ll let Ann Friedman in on a little secret: it’s kind of how we keep the human species going. Simply talking about who’s hot (or not) is a common and harmless pastime, even when it involves one’s colleagues. And if Friedman was honest, she’d admit that talking about how coworkers look is something both sexes engage in. Equally.

But this isn’t about honesty, it’s about grievance mongering. Club Victimhood is open for business and Friedman is on hand to distribute all access passes. Dreaming up new classes of oppression and new categories of victimhood is how the so-called feminists on the Left build support for their movement. As with all flavors of Marxism, leftist feminism can’t exist without ginned up resentment among the “oppressed.” The social revolution will never come if the Left allows people to be content with their lives and secure in their equality as human beings.

And so we have the latest complaint for the perpetually aggrieved to latch onto: indirect sexual harassment. Have fun at work on Monday, fellas!

—–

Follow Jenn on Twitter.

———

Imagine: you’re paying $30,000 a year to send your kid to college and she calls to tell you her class schedule. “Monday and Wednesday mornings I’m taking ‘The Phallus’ and Tuesday and Thursday I have ‘Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music.’”

“You’re taking the what?”

These course titles aren’t a joke.

Women’s studies has long been a field in which scholarship takes a backseat to leftist activism and radical feminist politics. Although the discipline has “evolved” to encompass gender and sexuality studies, campus programs remain ideologically sterile laboratories designed to indoctrinate students into the ins and outs of the live-action role playing game they call feminism.

Typically gender studies departments are nothing more than vocational training programs for progressive activists. The political litmus tests and radical feminist indoctrination administered by these programs are well documented in One-Party Classroom by David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin. When students sign up for classes like “Introduction to Women’s Studies” at Penn State, they may not realize they’re getting a “course in (rather than about) the ideology of radical feminism.”

But not all gender studies classes have such innocuous titles. Here are 10 hit-you-over-the-head ridiculous gender and women’s studies courses offered by American colleges and universities, starting with The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie. 

10. Occidental College – The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States

Readin’, writin’, and RACIST!!! A smattering of white guilt, a dash of anti-capitalism, and fresh from the oven at President Obama’s alma mater comes this Marxist inquiry into Barbie’s unbearable whiteness. From the Spring 2010 catalog:

Have you ever said or thought “I don’t look like a Barbie!”? Join the crowd. However, the problem that Barbie presents is infinitely more complex than her supposed life-sized measurements. As the embodiment of complex discourses on race, sex and gender Barbie provides a central figure for this course in exploring broader themes, particularly those of race and social justice. Thus, we will cover a wide territory that ranges from an exploration of the ways in which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism. You’ll never play with your toys the same way again.

Oxy doesn’t have a separate gender studies major, so this one falls under the Critical Theory and Social Justice Department.

9. Berkeley – Pornographies On/Scene

Linda Williams, author of Porn Studies, offers this course through the Rhetoric Department at Berkeley. She cautions prospective students, “Please realize that curiosity about this course does not mean that you are actually prepared to look closely at a wide variety of explicit sexual representations for an entire semester.” Watching porn with your teacher? Ick. (Or bow chicka wow wow, if you prefer.)

This seminar will bring together debates about the nature of pornography with debates about the nature of the visual. Both will be considered in relation to the (mostly unwritten) history of American visual pornographies and with an eye towards imagining, and even contributing to this history. What, for example, is the canon of hard core pornography? We will concentrate on two moments in the history of moving image pornography: an earlier era of “obscenity,” in which explicit sexual images were kept off-scene for the consumption of private elites in the era of the stag film, and a more contemporary, and increasingly electronic era of “on/scenity” in which pornographies of all sorts become available to wide varieties of consumers, including those to whom it was once forbidden. Although moving-image pornographies will be our primary objects of study, this seminar will also consider the different rhetorics of still and image moving images which aim to arouse, techniques of arousal, and related popular images which also aim to “move” the bodies of spectator/users. Approximately one third of the class will be devoted to general readings in the growing “field” of pornography studies, another third to the question of what constitutes the canon of the stag era (here I will invite those interested to imagine a two disk DVD with notes arguing for what constitutes this canon) and another third to the burning question of electronic, interactive pornographies on small screens.

From the department of You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: the course requires active participation and an oral presentation.

8. Brown University – Che Guevara, the Man and the Myths

What gender studies curriculum would be complete without a course on murderous Communist thug Che Guevara? This class is cross-listed in the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Comparative Literature sections of the Brown University catalog.

Reads Guevara’s political and philosophical writings alongside the literary, visual and filmic representations that have made him one of the twentieth century’s most iconic figures and a symbol for vastly diverging interests. From a cultural studies perspective, compares the development of Guevara’s theories to posthumous uses of his work and image, particularly in and in relation to present-day Cuba.

I wonder if they condemn Che’s persecution of gays. Or maybe they spend some time discussing how he tear-gassed the grieving widows of the prisoners he slaughtered when they came to claim the bodies. Nah. That might intrude on their Motorcycle Diaries viewings and daily group chants of Viva Che!

7. University of Washington – Feminist Understanding of Victims

Surprisingly, this course lasts just one semester. I’m betting it’s a shallow survey, because it would take at least a year to really make a dent in the canon of feminist victimhood literature. Even if full embrace of one’s status as a victim is a prerequisite, that doesn’t leave much time for instructing students on the art of wallowing in victimhood, the science of reveling in victimhood, and of course, the socio-economic impact of rejecting victimhood. From the University of Washington Women’s Studies catalog:

Explores the meanings of the term “victim” within popular, religious, psycho-social, and feminist discourses and the implications these have for victims, people and institutions that serve victims, and scholars who are concerned with these questions. Examines the tensions between activist and academic understandings of the impact of “backlash”.

Is this a scholarly look at victimhood or yet another seminar designed to remind women of their perpetual status as victims of patriarchal oppression? After looking at a syllabus from an earlier version of the course, my money’s on the latter.

6. University of Michigan – How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation

Ah, the finest public education taxpayer money can buy now comes complete with lessons on how to be gay.

Before someone cries, “Homophobe!” let me make clear that I’m not interested in stoking the culture war over gay rights, and I’m not suggesting the professor, David Halperin, is evangelizing gayness to otherwise straight-as-an-arrow kids. My guess is that he’s simply a provocateur looking to rile up social conservatives. But really? Is a crash course in how to conform to existing gay stereotypes a legitimate academic pursuit?

Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn’t mean that you don’t have to learn how to become one. Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but often we learn how to be gay from others, either because we look to them for instruction or because they simply tell us what they think we need to know, whether we ask for their advice or not.

This course will examine the general topic of the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay male identity. We will approach it from three angles: (1) as a sub-cultural practice — subtle, complex, and difficult to theorize — which a small but significant body of work in queer studies has begun to explore; (2) as a theme in gay male writing; and (3) as a class project, since the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand.

Even Perez Hilton was taken aback by this one. His site classified the course as “wacky, tacky & true.”

5. Smith College – Feminisms and the Fate of the Planet

Mother Earth is on the brink and only one thing can bring her back: Ecofeminism! (Or should that be “ecofeminisms“?

We begin this course by sifting the earth between our fingers as part of a community learning partnership with area farms in Holyoke, Hadley, and other neighboring towns. Using women’s movements and feminisms across the globe as our lens, this course develops an understanding of current trends in globalization. This lens also allows us to map the history of transnational connections between people, ideas and movements from the mid-twentieth century to the present. Through films, memoirs, fiction, ethnography, witty diatribes and graphic novels, this course explores women’s activism on the land of laborers, and in their lives. Students will develop research projects in consultation with area farms, link their local research with global agricultural movements, write papers and give one oral presentation.

“We begin this course by sifting the earth between our fingers”? Is “sifting” some sort of scientific measurement now? That this Smith College professor wasn’t embarrassed to write that tells you everything you need to know about this course.

And in case you’re wondering what feminism and environmentalism have to do with each another anyway, here it is in a nutshell: The earth is oppressed and chicks are oppressed (by the patriarchy, of course). So naturally, the subjugation of women can’t end until we free the planet from her patriarchal bonds. It’s likely Cap and Trade is integral to the process.

4. University of Michigan – Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music

As bizarre as some of these courses are, the overt prejudice in this women’s studies class at the University of Michigan is particularly offensive. The notion that one’s sexual identity somehow dictates musical preferences is an absurd stereotype, not a valid basis for a semester of academic work. Note the elitist condescension in the course description:

What kinds of LGBT people listen, dance, and socialize to country music? And what kinds of country music appeal to LGBT people? The notion of queer country fandom clashes with popular images of both “queer” and “country.” Queer identity is often associated with gay men, and urban, bourgeois, coastal lifestyles. Country music is linked to heterosexual white, rural, working-class, Southern, and Midwestern cultures and has often been invoked as a symbol of “redneck” bigotry. This seminar therefore asks how music that to many people sounds homophobic and racist serves as a medium for multicultural queer social and sexual exchange. Assignments include country listening and readings in country music studies, social science and humanities literature on U.S. rural queers, and social theory on class.

In a way, this course description makes sense. Country music artists really do throw the N word around far too often, and the anti-gay lyrics are a little much. Oh, wait, that’s rap music, not country. If you’re going to go after a musical genre for homophobia and racism, is it really country music that’s the pinnacle of bigotry?

3. Hampshire College – Women’s Fabrication Skills

Technically this is an applied design course, but it was screaming to be included. What does a course in “women’s fabrication skills” cover? Maybe it’s a survey of women’s contributions to design? Or a look at the ways fabrication skills have impacted women’s lives?

No. It’s shop class … for chicks.

“Women’s Fab”, as it is commonly called, is an introductory shop course that is designed to provide female students with a shop environment that addresses their unique needs and concerns about learning new skills.

I mean, c’mon, how are women supposed to get their learning on when men are breathing the same air? If we ladies are going to work metal, we need to do it away from the watchful eye of the patriarchy.

Also, gender segregation in art classes is hawt!

2. Occidental College – The Phallus

This course offered by Obama’s alma mater topped a 2007 list of the most bizarre and politically correct courses.

A survey of psychoanalytic theories of gender and sexuality. Topics include the signification of the phallus, the relation of the phallus to masculinity, femininity, genital organs and the fetish, the whiteness of the phallus, and the lesbian phallus. The authors we read include Freud, Riviere, Lacan, Irigaray, Kristeva, Grosz, Gallop, Silverman, de Laurentis, and Butler.

In prior years, the syllabus also included sections on “the Jewish phallus, the Latino phallus, and the relation of the phallus and fetishism.”

1. Occidental College – Gender, Race and Gay Rights in the Obama Era

Yes, it’s one more course from Oxy, where they’re so proud to have Obama as an alum, they created a course on the Obama Era that has nothing to do with Obama.

This course is an introduction to the concept that gender, race, sex and sexuality (among other aspects of one’s identity) are social constructions. We shall examine the fight for equal citizenship for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Americans, commonly known as the “gay rights movement.” Using the period beginning with the birth of Barack Obama in August 1961 we will focus specifically on how notions of who can marry as well as the cultural, religious, legal and societal significance of marriage have changed as the country enters the era of President Obama. Our texts will be academic articles, court cases, popular media pieces and moving images. All students in this class will be using Web 2.0 tools such as blogging, twitter and web publishing to facilitate their development as both consumers and producers of intellectual content. No previous knowledge is required and technological support will be provided.

They really can’t get away with studying President Obama’s actual views on race, gender, and gay rights, considering how embarrassing his record is to the academic Left. They’d have to stay away from gay rights since Obama opposes gay marriage. Gender? Well, the Hyde Amendment still exists, so Obama hasn’t fulfilled the Left’s deepest wish. And on race? I think we can all agree we’re not living in post-racial America. Beer summit, anyone?

As far as I can tell, the use of Obama’s name in the course title is simply a marketing ploy to suck in 18-year-old Obamaphiles who want to be Part of History™. They’re probably the only ones who still believe this:

—–

Follow Jenn on Twitter.

“That’s not Sarah Palin. It’s a man, baby!”

Is there a new Austin Powers film hitting the theaters? No, that’s just the catty sentiment in Eleanor Clift’s oh so magnanimous Newsweek column welcoming conservative women into the “feminist” fold. And Sarah Palin isn’t just any man: she’s anti-Semitic Holocaust revisionist Pat Buchanan. In drag.

Desperate to contribute something new to the earthshakingly important national conversation on whether Palin and her “mama grizzlies” are allowed to call themselves feminists, Clift offers conservative women a grudging olive branch slathered in sneering contempt:

Thirty years late to the battle for women’s rights, they’re claiming the mantle of feminism.

It’s nice they’re embracing feminism after demonizing the term for so long, and I welcome them to the arena. Let’s see if they can do for women what their sisters on the left have done since the ’70s, breaking down the barriers for women in all areas of American life including politics.

I think we know where Clift can stick that olive branch.

Clift’s phony magnanimity doesn’t begin to mask the true purpose of her column: to continue the Left’s mission to destroy Palin with hateful smears and weaponized misogyny. Using an unnamed Republican as her mouthpiece, Clift opts for a bizarre twist on the tired “Bush in a skirt” attack:

A Republican source says Palin is nothing new, she’s really Pat Buchanan in drag—the same issues except that her reality show is a lot more gripping. The media went overboard for Buchanan in 1996 when he won the New Hampshire primary, defeating establishment favorite Bob Dole. But the insurgent campaign of a former Nixon speechwriter can’t compare with the ongoing soap opera of the Palins. Bristol and Levi together again!

When I ran the Palin-as-Buchanan theory past another Republican, a woman this time, she said that was an insult to Buchanan, who is deeply serious and has thought about these issues. She doesn’t agree with his conclusions, but he rode the rocket at a moment in time, just as Palin is poised to do.

When Pat Buchanan is stuck for a column idea, he regurgitates al-Qaeda propaganda or spews Holocaust revisionism and calls it a day. Sarah Palin is a tireless supporter of Israel. Buchanan compared the “Free Gaza” flotilla passengers to civil rights protesters. Palin denounced the “vicious thugs” for their staged provocation of our ally.

Pat Buchanan’s name is nearly synonymous with Nazi apologia. He defends Nazi war criminals, lauds Hitler’s “genius,” and rants about Jewish conspiracies. His vile, anti-Semitic columns are an embarrassment to the Right. (Is it any wonder MSNBC keeps him around?)

Anyone else having trouble seeing the similarity between Palin and Buchanan?

There’s no comparison. Eleanor Clift is simply playing the Left’s Mad Libs-style smear game:

[conservative woman we hate] is [nasty conservative man] in [something that confers faux femininity]

The blanks were there; Clift just filled them in:

[Sarah Palin] is [Pat Buchanan] in [drag]

This is an insult used time and again to delegitimize women on the Right by turning them into mannish faux women. Nikki Haley is “little more than Mark Sanford in drag,” Carly Fiorina is “Dick Cheney in a skirt,” and Sarah Palin is all of the above and more: George Bush in a skirt, Dan Quayle with an up-do, and of course, Dick Cheney in lipstick.

See the pattern?

Only “progressive” women qualify as Real Women; Palin, Haley, and other “mama grizzlies” are merely masquerading as female by decorating themselves with skirts, up-dos, lipstick and other trappings of womanhood. The goal of this misogynist attack is to dehumanize the target by casting her out of her very gender.

Clift takes this strategy one step further by smearing Palin as a sub par transvestite version of one of the most detestable men on the American Right. She pretends to welcome Palin into the leftist sisterhood, hoping Palin will take the bait and subject herself to a good ol’ fashioned hazing.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Sarah Palin and the nation’s conservative women aren’t looking for Eleanor Clift’s approval. We don’t need permission to use the feminist label that’s been trampled and abused by the Left during their multi-decade assault on women via Big Daddy Government. And we’re not fooled by thinly veiled contempt couched in condescending acceptance of mama grizzlies.

So, Ms. Clift, forgive us if we don’t accept a slimy little olive branch from the person who once named Cindy Sheehan “Woman of the Year.” We’re doing just fine without you.

Update: Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin.com reminds us, “This isn’t the first time the Palin-obsessed Clift has tried to tie her to Buchanan.” Read the whole thing at C4P.