<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Boy Trouble</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/</link>
	<description>Making the World Safe for Liberalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:11:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Raenelle</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267543</link>
		<dc:creator>Raenelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267543</guid>
		<description>I just found this great quote by Simone Weil, written in September 1939:  &quot;. . . we need first of all to have a clear conscience.  Let us not think that because we are less brutal, less violent, less inuman than our opponents we will carry the day.  Brutality, violence, and inhumanity have an immense prestige that schoolbooks hide from children, that grown men do not admit, but that everyone bows before.  For the opposite virtues to have as much prestige, they must be actively and constantly put into practice.  Anyone who is merely incapable of being as brutal, as violent, and as inuman as someone else, but who does not practice the opposite virtues, in inferior to that person in both inner strength and prestie, and he will not hold out in such a confrontation.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just found this great quote by Simone Weil, written in September 1939:  &#8220;. . . we need first of all to have a clear conscience.  Let us not think that because we are less brutal, less violent, less inuman than our opponents we will carry the day.  Brutality, violence, and inhumanity have an immense prestige that schoolbooks hide from children, that grown men do not admit, but that everyone bows before.  For the opposite virtues to have as much prestige, they must be actively and constantly put into practice.  Anyone who is merely incapable of being as brutal, as violent, and as inuman as someone else, but who does not practice the opposite virtues, in inferior to that person in both inner strength and prestie, and he will not hold out in such a confrontation.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: felicity</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267483</link>
		<dc:creator>felicity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267483</guid>
		<description>Some time back I read that Cheney&#039;s over-the-top hawkishness is because many Repubs he admires basically called him chicken for aborting Desert Storm when he was Sec of Defense under Bush I.  

The image has nagged at him for years - besides which he thinks it will make him look bad in the history books.  Could it be said that Mr. Cheney has a masculinity problem to the point where he&#039;ll launch a whole bloody war to prove he&#039;s not chicken?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some time back I read that Cheney&#8217;s over-the-top hawkishness is because many Repubs he admires basically called him chicken for aborting Desert Storm when he was Sec of Defense under Bush I.  </p>
<p>The image has nagged at him for years &#8211; besides which he thinks it will make him look bad in the history books.  Could it be said that Mr. Cheney has a masculinity problem to the point where he&#8217;ll launch a whole bloody war to prove he&#8217;s not chicken?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bonnie</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267468</link>
		<dc:creator>Bonnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267468</guid>
		<description>That also seems to explain why they want Hillary for the Dems.  They believe that &quot;Mommy&quot; couldn&#039;t possibly get elected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That also seems to explain why they want Hillary for the Dems.  They believe that &#8220;Mommy&#8221; couldn&#8217;t possibly get elected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RT Firefly</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267464</link>
		<dc:creator>RT Firefly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:09:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267464</guid>
		<description>Whenever I hear the pundits casting Republicans as “Daddies” I immediately think of Sylvia Plath’s poem Daddy. That poem seems to describe them quite nicely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whenever I hear the pundits casting Republicans as “Daddies” I immediately think of Sylvia Plath’s poem Daddy. That poem seems to describe them quite nicely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ken melvin</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267449</link>
		<dc:creator>ken melvin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267449</guid>
		<description>What is it?  I&#039;ve no doubt that many women (see Maureen&#039;s on her sister) voted for GWB because they found him attractive (I&#039;ve  know women who married one after another who looked like GWB), but, more importantly, so did many men vote for him because of his looks.  What is it with this southern republican men and John Wayne, Ronnie, .... televangelical looks?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is it?  I&#8217;ve no doubt that many women (see Maureen&#8217;s on her sister) voted for GWB because they found him attractive (I&#8217;ve  know women who married one after another who looked like GWB), but, more importantly, so did many men vote for him because of his looks.  What is it with this southern republican men and John Wayne, Ronnie, &#8230;. televangelical looks?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raenelle</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267448</link>
		<dc:creator>Raenelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267448</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s see.  Who else fetishized masculinity?  Who else dripped with contempt for the more feminine virtues of compromise, tolerance and mercy?  Who else mocked the indecisiveness and weakness (flip-flop) of parliamentary democracy, scraps of paper like treaties and constitutions, international law, and notions of human rights against the state?  Who else charged off on unprovoked wars of aggression because of some delusional belief in their country&#039;s superior right/calling to dominate the world?  I can&#039;t think of another example.  This must be new.  Let&#039;s at least hope, when this-all has run its course, that no permanent damage to US power, prestige and wealth has been done, and that we and others learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s see.  Who else fetishized masculinity?  Who else dripped with contempt for the more feminine virtues of compromise, tolerance and mercy?  Who else mocked the indecisiveness and weakness (flip-flop) of parliamentary democracy, scraps of paper like treaties and constitutions, international law, and notions of human rights against the state?  Who else charged off on unprovoked wars of aggression because of some delusional belief in their country&#8217;s superior right/calling to dominate the world?  I can&#8217;t think of another example.  This must be new.  Let&#8217;s at least hope, when this-all has run its course, that no permanent damage to US power, prestige and wealth has been done, and that we and others learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WereBear</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267440</link>
		<dc:creator>WereBear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267440</guid>
		<description>Sorry, I meant &quot;moonbat&quot; who wrote the post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I meant &#8220;moonbat&#8221; who wrote the post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WereBear</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267434</link>
		<dc:creator>WereBear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267434</guid>
		<description>If Freud hadn&#039;t existed, we would have had to invent him, just for the Modern Republican Party.

Projection, denial, displacement and reaction formation, anyone?

At this point, we have the 25% or so who have proven themselves dangerously immature, we just need to figure out what to do with them, as Maha points out.

Unfortunately, even with extensive therapy, these people don&#039;t change. I say we build a big &quot;Ronny Raygun&quot; amusement park and let them live there.

Could they tell the difference?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Freud hadn&#8217;t existed, we would have had to invent him, just for the Modern Republican Party.</p>
<p>Projection, denial, displacement and reaction formation, anyone?</p>
<p>At this point, we have the 25% or so who have proven themselves dangerously immature, we just need to figure out what to do with them, as Maha points out.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, even with extensive therapy, these people don&#8217;t change. I say we build a big &#8220;Ronny Raygun&#8221; amusement park and let them live there.</p>
<p>Could they tell the difference?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: myiq2xu</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-267348</link>
		<dc:creator>myiq2xu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/31/boy-trouble/#comment-267348</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s sick, pathetic and scary at the same time.

These are some sexually confused cowboys over in Wingnuttia

Reality means nothing, imagery is everything.

The adulation of zeros over genuine heroes.

Take a look at how many GOP leaders served in the military - especially in a combat zone.  Very few.  McCain would be pretty lonely at a GOP veterans caucus.

Then look at the Democrats.  The list of genuine war heroes in the Democratic Party is fairly long.  And yet it&#039;s the GOP that is perceived at the pro-military party, the &quot;Daddy&quot; party.

A better name for the GOP would be the &quot;He-man Woman Hater&#039;s Club.&quot;  At least it would be partially correct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s sick, pathetic and scary at the same time.</p>
<p>These are some sexually confused cowboys over in Wingnuttia</p>
<p>Reality means nothing, imagery is everything.</p>
<p>The adulation of zeros over genuine heroes.</p>
<p>Take a look at how many GOP leaders served in the military &#8211; especially in a combat zone.  Very few.  McCain would be pretty lonely at a GOP veterans caucus.</p>
<p>Then look at the Democrats.  The list of genuine war heroes in the Democratic Party is fairly long.  And yet it&#8217;s the GOP that is perceived at the pro-military party, the &#8220;Daddy&#8221; party.</p>
<p>A better name for the GOP would be the &#8220;He-man Woman Hater&#8217;s Club.&#8221;  At least it would be partially correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
