Kyrsten Sinema – at home moms are leeches (reprised)
There was more information on Kyrsten Sinema’s ravings about stay at home moms being leeches/poor quality feminists/general failures in life in today’s East Valley Tribune (See pg. A2 – Gay marriage debate sparks a feminism battle). After the folks at the Center for Arizona Policy & United Families International came out against Sinema’s anti-family rhetoric, Sinema started backtracking and running away from her initial stand by claiming she had just been joking around. However, her comments showed serious contradictions in her core philosophies.
Cathy Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy characterized Sinema’s comments as,
pull(ing) the veil off the opposition to the initiative (Sinema is the Chair of Arizona Together, the primary opposition to AZ prop 107 – the Protect Marriage amendment). “They have kept their ultraliberal agenda hidden – until now,” she said. “I think it’s about a culture in which marriage means nothing or anything goes. The liberal point of view is that marriage does not contribute to society and it’s meaningless and pointless in our culture.”
Nancy Salmon, state chairwoman of United Families International charged
“This is the most hateful thing I have ever heard from a state representative,” … She said evidence shows that the children of mothers who stay at home are better adjusted and have better values than those placed in child care
Sinema has replied to her critics by suggesting that she was just having some “light-hearted” fun. (C’mon guys, it’s always fun to beat up on stay at home moms! Wheee! After we verbally attack them, let’s get a stick and hit them until they run away. Yippeee!!!). She then offered other examples from her interview as proof that calling homemakers “leeches” was just good natured ribbing. In one example, she noted that she didn’t go to bars because she was “short and fat.” (Isn’t this great!!!)
The best part of her defense was an admission that she has put little to no serious thought into her core governing philosophies. This came about in her self-description as a “Prada socialist.” and the discussion of her,
seven pairs of glasses and wardrobe … (Sinema said that) people can still believe in fairness and justice “and still have fabulous accessories.”
Her words provide us with the superlative case study of the limousine liberal mindset. She is the personification of the coddled socialist, who has everything (and more that) they need in life and who has been crippled by debilitating remorse over the fact that they have never really done anything to earn their way in life. They have never started a successful business, or created real jobs (and no, tax-funded work programs do not count). They have never produced anything of any real, lasting value and they are going to make sure that neither they, nor anyone else will be able to escape their guilt. So they start into life as a social activist or left-wing elected representative and demand, as penance for their guilt, that the productive people in society fund their “progressive” social programs.
Along that theme, Sinema’s comments reminded me of an encounter that a friend and I had on the campus of the University of British Columbia (see if you can remember this guy Kevin). We were walking out of the Student Union Building, toward the Book Store and came across one of the local Trotskyist League trying to flog their “power to the people/down with the bourgeoisie” pamphlets. He tried to force some of his tired rhetoric on us and, in response, Keven told him that he needed to “go get a job.”
He stood there kind of stunned for a few seconds, so we continued on our way. After we had made it about 7 – 10 feet, he came out of his self-protective coma and yelled at us,
I’ll have more money than either of you will ever have!!
We turned back and began to explain to him that, as a good and pure supporter of Trotsky and the true communist ideal, he should have been aspiring to a life of mediocrity and poverty – for the “greater good.” However, he didn’t seem to understand what we were telling him. He was unassailably devoted to the notion that the Trotskyist’s brave new world would allow everyone to be wealthy beyond belief and, as part of the leading force in the battle for the great economic leveling, he would (of course) be granted an extra share of society’s largess. (How else could he have “more money” than two unrepentant capitalists would ever have?)
Sinema’s description of herself as a “Prada socialist” gives evidence of this same confused and ultimately untenable mindset. These coddled socialists are first and foremost thoroughly ignorant of basic economics. They refuse to understand that state sponsored socialism has never and can never work. Secondly, they euphemise away the fact that their preferred form of government is just another form of slavery; they will willingly steal from productive people to fund their latest definition of “fair” and “just.” Worst of all, they typically believe that, as a member of the enlightened class, they deserve to make decisions for you about how you should or should not spend your money. They argue that a tax cut is the government giving something to you, as if your wages are actually theirs. They also believe that, given their roles as society’s architects, they deserve to have access to Prada accessories while the rest of us should eat potatoes and boiled meat and stand in cues for our toilet paper. They deserve to have primary access to our paychecks and time and lives because they know better than we do and their tireless efforts to fix all those nasty market externalities make them worthy of certain special perks.
One would hope that Arizona’s voters would be willing to vote out Sinema’s “Prada socialist” world view, and soon. That way she could go back to being just another face in the crowd with no more power and influence than anyone of the rest of us in the proletariat.