- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Nancy vs. Sarah

A video making the rounds of the conservative blogosphere last week showed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mangling a fact that wouldn’t survive a high-school-level quiz about the United States.

In the video, the California Democrat says that “every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs,” which would be an achievement; the U.S. labor force is just about 155 million, and the entire population about 305 million.

The snark began flying: “Exit question: Which of the 57 states will be hit hardest by the downturn?” asked Allahpundit at Hot Air, alluding to a geography gaffe by President Obama. “Proving that leading Democrats these days really have a tough time with numbers, period, and not just taxes,” wrote Rick at Brutally Honest.

Obviously, Mrs. Pelosi merely had a mental burp — her mind torn between saying the equivalent (and accurate) terms “five hundred thousand” and “half a million.” Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit took the charitable interpretation, too, before twisting in the knife.

“I don’t know that this really makes Nancy Pelosi ‘dumber than soap,’” he wrote, referring to the title of the video. “But if Sarah Palin had said this, it would be taken as proof that she was unsuited for national politics.”


Amanda Marcotte is back on the “No Sexism” beat and making as much sense as ever in reacting to the California divorcee who artificially conceived octuplets to bring her child total to 14.

Miss Marcotte was quick to deny at her site Pandagon the patriarchy brainwash them into that idea.

“The theory that women have a natural urge to have babies is one that’s got a long and ignoble sexist history … None of that is to say that the urge to have children that some (but far from all) women experience isn’t real, and that’s my other giant problem with the ongoing preoccupation with [evolutionary psychology] theories to explain things that are cultural constructs … That something is a cultural construct doesn’t make it less real, it just means that it’s more changeable,” wrote Miss Marcotte, who was dropped as head blogger for John Edwards’ presidential campaign after an outcry over a series of vulgar blasphemies.

Conservatives were left clutching their heads and noting, among other things, how this understanding of sex as a changeable cultural construct sits alongside claims that homosexuality and transgenderism, which presuppose sex identity, can somehow be biologically given and unchangeable.

“Social construct theorists like Amanda are often trapped by inconsistencies in their own arguments which … are often selectively applied,” writes Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, who calls such theories “incoherent and frankly mind-boggling.”

“Deconstructing — and so re- conceptualizing — the ‘social construct’ that Amanda suggests was built up by patriarchal forces to trick women into thinking the desire to procreate and ‘mother’ is a biological imperative is, to her way of thinking, good. Reconceptualizing the ‘social construct’ that tricks homosexuals or the transgendered into thinking that their behavior is biologically driven, on the other hand, is, reductive, evil, and Christianist. In short, she wants to have it both ways - and she wants this precisely because it puts her in charge of deciding for everyone else what is right and what is wrong, socially speaking.”

Eligible for funds

Remember when the Obama administration reversed the Mexico City policy?

Story Continues →