Jason Hayes

Libertarian thought, policy, religion, the environment, tech, coffee, and Tabasco – the stuff of life
This is my personal blog - the thoughts and ideas expressed here are posted on my own time and are mine and mine alone.

Google+
Archives
Jason Hayes Social Feeds

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.

8 Responses to Kyrsten Sinema – at home moms are leeches (reprised)

  • TE Lenz says:

    I have tried most of my long life to condense down the wealthy liberal’s mantra into a short, understandable excerpt. Thank you so much for doing it for me.

    It seems to me that the liberal politician’s goal in this century is to figure out a way to tax only conservatives to ‘support’ their ‘programs’. It these liberals could only find a way to tax beliefs instead of income and assets, the world would be a better place for them and their rich friends.

  • Jason Hayes says:

    No problem, glad I could help.

    You are dead right about only taxing one portion of society. However, they do that largely because the portion they associate with is the non-productive portion. They end up taxing conservatives and working stiffs because their main constituencies are the ones with their hands out, demanding that everyone else take care of them.

    The conservatives are busy working, earning a living, and keeping things running. So, naturally, they are the ones that get stuck with the bills for the liberals’ grand utopian schemes.

    I would disagree with your notion of taxing beliefs though. For the simple reason that the liberal/socialist mindset and beliefs that drive it are backward, bankrupt, and corrupt (how else can you describe a philosophy that believes it is acceptable for some paternalistic government to force you and me to pay for whatever thought pops into their mind). If they started taxing their ideas, they would be broke in a matter of days.

    It’s the minds, work, patience, and generosity of the productive people that make their cushy lives and positions of “authority” possible.

  • jordan says:

    This Sinema woman is nothing more than a shrew amazon. I am utterly astonished at the blatant anti-patriotism that she condones. I am a 23 year old Navy veteran who just recently moved back to Arizona to find out that this bulldike is in cohoots with crappy, nappy Napolitano. Talk about a couple of s**hitcans who should simplycommit a dual suicide. This bitch called stay home moms “leeches” implying that the human race has been wrong for thousands of years in the way that it domestically structures itself. Well, I have news for you Ms. aspiring feminist, non-child rearing e-patriot. You are wrong, and your soul is as dark and disgusting as Nappy Napolitanos’ Pepe’ fu**in’ Lepeu haircut. Go to hell!!

  • Jason Hayes says:

    Jordan. First, thank you for your service!

    Second, don’t hold back. Let us know how you really feel. Heh!

    Not much to like about Ms. Sinema, is there?

  • misa says:

    Jason, thanks

    I didn’t realize what a selfish snot she was but to criticize me for taking care of my family is beyond nasty. In fact, my husband and not Kyrsten should decide if he feels “leeched” off of.

  • Jason Hayes says:

    Misa, if you’re in Arizona, remember that Ms. Sinema is a candidate for Arizona’s 9th Congressional District in the November 2012 election.

    Everyone in that District should ask themselves if they want a “Prada Socialist” who calls stay at home Moms “leeches” representing them in Congress.

    I know I wouldn’t.

  • Lawrence in PHX says:

    You’ve got to be kidding. I came to this website expecting at the very least a logical explanation of why a candidate has been accused of something, in this case supposedly calling stay-at-home moms “leeches.” All that’s here is conjecture, an accusation of the leech comment (from 2007) without an actual quote, and six comments from four people in five years. I’m not the biggest Sinema fan myself but c’mon. If you’re gonna accuse someone of something, there should at least be a reason besides typical Arizona partisan nonsense.

  • Jason Hayes says:

    Sorry folks, my initial comment was not terribly polite – tired and out of sorts tonight – so I have edited it.

    Lawrence, I wrote this post in 2006, so that’s why the comments go back to 2007. I had added a hyperlink to my first post on the Sinema quote near the top of this post. To help you out. The link is http://www.jasonhayes.org/kyrsten-sinema-stay-at-home-moms-are-leeches/ and the quote is

    “I’m worried that we’re (women) regressing. For instance, this supposed New Feminism. these women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing their checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life.”
    — Kyrsten Sinema D-Phx (East Valley Tribune, Oct. 25, 2006 p. A14)

    Sinema has been accused of calling stay at home mothers “leeches” because she did. That’s not partisan, it’s just a fact.