Conservababe calender
Wow--what an honor to be chosen as one of the "Conservababes" by Right Wing News--I guess I would be the May calender woman. Just one problem--I am not really a conservative--unless supporting the war automatically makes one a conservative. I am an independent/libertarian and would probably be an anarchist if left to my own devices.
posted by Helen at 5:58 PM
42 Comments:
I have mixed feelings on this calendar, but Helen is a very pretty woman. Not that I wouldn't trade her for (both) Bush twins, mind you...
Sort of sounds to me like you just described yourself as a Conservative, just not of the Maude Flanders variety.
It's rather contradictory to condemn liberals day after day, then insist that you aren't conservative. Maybe you could be some combination of libertarian and conservative. In order not to be conservative, you would have to find common ground with liberals at least sometimes.
It is also true that the war in Iraq is not remotely libertarian. Neither is the death penalty. Those two issues have already been covered here. That leaves, among other contemporary issues, immigration and assisted suicide.
Greg,
If it makes you feel any better, I am prochoice (but can understand the prolife side). I am also for legalizing certain drugs and for stem cell research. As for the war issue, this is where I break from libertarianism--in an ideal world--other countries would leave us alone and vice versa. But given human nature--this apparently is not going to happen. This is why I lead towards being an independent. Anyway, times change and as liberals become more like the nanny state--perhaps I will solidly shift into Republican territory.
"I am an independent/libertarian and would probably be an anarchist if left to my own devices."
I couldn't have described myself better!
(Anyone who calls me a "conservative" ought to ask my conservative friends what they call me....)
"Just one problem--I am not really a conservative--unless supporting the war automatically makes one a conservative."
You're close enough =)
Greg -
There's more to politics than liberal/conservative. I attack liberals because I consider them a greater threat to the values I hold dearest. I'm certainly not enamored with the Republican Party.
Here's an article from U.S. News and World Report that discusses 7 different voter types (types of political thought).
Robert Heinlien, reflecting on the occasion when his wife, Ginny, successfully smuggled multiple cartons of cigarettes into a Communist country by secreting them on her person, to avoid paying duty, suggested that all women had the heart of anarchists.
His tone, incidentally, was one of breathless adoration mixed with the appreciation of the infuriatingly dunderheaded risk members of the distaff sex occasionally take, when they refuse, on some principal we men are equipped to neither appreciate nor fathom, to take the council of their spouses.
Helen: I certainly don't have any strong feelings about your personal political views. It's a free country. But I do think that a lot of people aren't very honest with themselves when it comes to politics. Self-deception is a corrosive force in politics. Certainly the United States does not have nearly as much self-deception as, say, Egypt, and I will also grant that liberals are just as amenable to self-deception as conservatives. But conservatives, or more precisely quasi-conservative Republicans, run the federal government at the moment. So I see rather more to fear from Republican ideology and propaganda at the moment than from Democratic ideology and propaganda. Two-party control would probably be best — it isn't pretty, but it would be better than what we have now.
Certainly one way to fool yourself is to believe that you are an independent thinker, but then to reflexively distrust and oppose liberals and Democrats and vote Republican every time. I think that if you call yourself an independent, you honestly want to be an independent thinker. Most people do. But wanting to think independently is a lot easier than actually doing it.
I think that two acts of independent thinking would be very useful for those who vote Republican these days. First, that the very reasonable slogan of "limited government" has been abused by the Bush Administration. They have used it for one overriding purpose, to replace upper-bracket taxes by government borrowing. Except for that one sea change, they have done more to break the limits on government than to impose them. Second, that the war in Iraq is an absolute betrayal of libertarian ideals, not only as a short-term expedient, but in the long term as well. It is the complete opposite of getting Islamic radicals to leave us alone.
Jonathan: I agree with you about labels, and I don't exclude anything as a topic of discussion, certainly not "assumptions". But I will say that some people instinctively trust Republican or Democratic assumptions, regardless of their abstract values,. Labelling those people as Republican or Democrat is a useful summary of their assumptions.
In particular, yes, the war in Iraq is more about assumptions and facts than about values. It is all well and good to defend ourselves from barbarians, or in this case from Islamic radicals. However, exposing American troops as perpetual targets for Islamic radicals is not the way to do it, even if the troops fight back. It is particularly unhelpful to take sides in a civil war between two sets of Islamic radicals. It would be better to remember the libertarian principle of avoiding foreign entanglements.
Then there is the fact that the war in Iraq has cost $225 billion so far, and will probably cost at least twice that before the end. There is nothing at all libertarian about government spending on this scale.
Sigh. Is there any subject at all that GK doesn't know just everything about? Now it is determing political affiliation.
Dear GK: a newsflash for you. YOU don't get to assign people their own categories---unless you don't mind if others do the same to you, based on a few posts on the internet. We know you don't like that, based on previous posts. Nor should you. People are complex---just as you are.
So just relax and let people talk.
Me, I don't believe I can fit my political beliefs onto a bumpersticker, and I doubt most people can.
Dr. Helen can be a libertarian or anarchist or anything else. And just because she picks on SOME leftist blowhard---even "day after day"---doesn't mean she is reflexively opposed to all Democrats....any more than every registered Democrat is forever welded to agree with (for example) whatever hypocritical nonsense comes out of Ted Kennedy's mouth.
Ah, leave Greg alone. He is a long standing member of the Contrarian Party. That is the one political school where you can always be consistent.
Seriously, it's no big deal. He probably can't speak his mind around campus, and he can online.
I'm sure he thinks that he keeps other people "honest," and maybe he does for some folks.
Median: I don't think that I keep anybody honest. If only I could! But I can offer my opinion, which in politics is more interesting when the other person disagrees. It's not really contrarian, because there are a lot of informed people who have already thought of everything that I have to say.
On campus, I don't want to impose my views on undergraduates. It's not because it would somehow be unfair. Rather it's because I already lecture about mathematics (which is part of my job) and I think that politics would distract them.
But I can and do talk about politics with other faculty members. Just not with the megaphone types, because they don't really listen to others anyway.
Thanks for your pleasant answer, sir.
Dr. Kuperberg writes:
"But I do think that a lot of people aren't very honest with themselves when it comes to politics."
Well, that is certainly true...even for professors of mathematics at UC-Davis.
"It's rather contradictory to condemn liberals day after day, then insist that you aren't conservative."
It's also contradictory to claim to NOT be a knee jerk Leftist and yet act like one. It's fine to question others. It's irritating to place yourself above self-criticism by the same rules.
Don't be so quick to pass judgement on other people's politics without being critical of yourself and your own consistency, Dr. Kuperberg.
I suggest you consult with Matthew 7, verse 3.
I always thought Mike Royko's remark about government to be independant libertarian verging on anarchist.
"Lets list the things the US Government does well.
1/ Wage wars.
As you can see, it is a very short list.
A self described libertarian, I have no support for the Democrats nanny state. Regan's remark describes it perfectly, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me!"
Ann Coulter, watch your back. :)
"suggested that all women had the heart of anarchists."
One libertarian blogger has done a pretty thorough analysis of shifts in voting patterns as countries have granted women suffrage and the gender voting patterns where tyrants have been voted in and concludes that they have the heart of fascists.
It is a sliding scale, the more of a babe you are the less conservative you have to be.
How did a Tech-Law nerd get lucky enough to land you anyway?
Hey, it all comes down to this:
Government should say out of our bedrooms, and out of our wallets.
Trouble is, the Government - as in regulations, rules, decrees, laws, and ordinances... IS in our "bedrooms" and every other aspect of life as it is, and will only get MORE involved as Liberals gain power via elections or (more likely) favorable courts.
You might enjoy sex like the freest hedon on earth and if that's all that you care about, you're happy. But virtually everything else in life is controlled, from how far apart you can space electric outlets, to how many gallons can flush in your toilet.
As for "stem cells" to date NOT A SINGLE disease or malady has been cured using embryonic stem cells, but literally dozens of illnesses have been cured using umbillical cord or adult stem cells. I fail to see how it's "science" to pin one's hopes and billions of tax dollars on the pie in the sky, unproven hope that ONE DAY the benefits of killing an embryo will produce a cure for someone else. If the Medical community is so sure that embryonic stem cells are the holy grail, why can't they attract the billions without tax dollars?
If you get past the bias and cliches, you'll find most conservative positions are based on rock solid evidence, science, and logic, NOT on "bible teachings" or "faith-based opinions". Whereas most liberal positions start with "well I just feel like..." or "giving up X habit would be difficult for me so..." or "We don't really know when life begins (assertion without proof) so let's agree to disagree".
Being conservative (or rather, converting to conservatism from liberalism) requires solid thinking, not no thought.
Royko must have missed the Vietnam war. And a lot of other wars as well.
Since people here like war so much: In my view, it is all well and good to give war a chance, but only if we win. There is no chance of that in Iraq, because Iraq has a civil war in which both sides are against the United States.
"There is no chance of that in Iraq, because Iraq has a civil war in which both sides are against the United States."
There is NO proof (only wishful thinking) that Iraq is about to implode into civil war. It's not whole clans and tribes that are gearing up for war...virtually all attacks are with IEDs by small groups of mercs (not "freedom fighters").
And for the record - WE didn't start this war. Conservatives would never have called for any war had the Middle East not come calling a dozen times since 1990. 9/11/01 was a declaration of war on us. Had Osama not ordered that attack, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq today.
Jim Dunnigan says that there is a civil war in Iraq. Austin Bay says that there is a civil war in Iraq. I agree with both of them.
The terminology of the White House is that the war on terrorism is "the war", while the war in Iraq is "a preemptive action". I agree with Bush that the war in Iraq is preemptive, which is to say, the United States started it.
Dear Professor Kuperberg:
I have been lurking here quite a while. I think that you can and do make useful comments. But I do not see why you have to be snide and/or inflammatory. That latter item is probably why you get called a "troll" frequently.
Really, Professor, writing things like "...Since people here like war so much..."
You KNOW that isn't true. And it is insulting.
I am trying to be polite. Why can't you? A politer approach might actually get you a more receptive hearing.
Unless you really are a "troll," and don't care about discourse.
Heck, Greg. Folks like you think that the United States starts EVERY war anyway!
As far as I know, I agree completely with President Bush as to which wars the United States did and did not start. The only difference is that some of the entities that I call "wars", he calls "actions", "theaters", "operations", and so forth.
lurkerlou: It is much easier to believe that you are against war than to actually oppose it.
Are you kidding me?
Dr. Helen makes this post and all y'all can talk about is political labels and war? Did no one actually look at the link? 'Cause if ya hadn't, you're missing out on the very important point that this calendar is filled with some serious hotness. (Yes, Doc, you too are a hottie, and I mean that in the most professional & respectful way possible)
This calander is a great idea.(Except the Ann Coulter thing. I don't know why she's considered so attractive...but I can see why all the other ladies were included.)
If there's any political point to be made at all is that my side of the aisle only wishes we could get something together like this. But I'll tell you right now, you ain't gonna see a Hillary July or a Pelosi October any time soon.
And May used to be such a beautiful month.
Patrick: I don't really see the point. I agree that Helen looks very good in these photos — she looks closer to 30 than 44. But I thought of that as a personal matter, especially since she's already married. Is the point that political circles are really social milieus, and questions like war and taxes are abstract and interchangeable?
I also don't think that it's quite fair to pass judgment on Nancy Pelosi's looks, since she is after all 65 years old. If you want a left-of-center woman who looks great, even at age 50, try Susan Sarandon. Again, I am not sure why this is a pressing need, but if you want great looks, there they are.
ronin1516: A lot of women are smart enough not to let on their political views, if they think that that will alienate you from them. So you might not count them as liberal (or conservative or whatever) if you simply don't know. That said, your description fits Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin (who are both in this calendar) as well as anyone else. I'm not going to call them ugly, because that's neither fair nor constructive. They do like to vent hatred, which for me rather negates physical attraction.
I suppose that Susan Sarandon might not look as good without make-up. Here is still a from the Rocky Horror Picture Show with minimal make-up; she still looks pretty good. But I don't even care, because she's not my type. In fact, I am happy with the family that I have.
Sorry, the picture is here.
Careful with the "venting hatred" business, friend. I can think of certain academics who appear to vent some pretty unpleasant attitudes.
The Biblical quote above is apt: be careful about suggesting how others improve themselves without using that ability on yourself.
Unless you view yourself as perfect, of course.
Hi gk:
" It's rather contradictory to condemn liberals day after day, then insist that you aren't conservative."
See Mickey Kaus, who criticizes liberals all the time, in my view, to strengthen the Democratic party and the liberal position.
"Certainly one way to fool yourself is to believe that you are an independent thinker, but then to reflexively distrust and oppose liberals and Democrats and vote Republican every time."
I think that's a fair point. Many people are emotionally honest when they vote, but not necessarily intellectually honest. Part of the problem is an overabundance of information on candidates and legislative matters. It's too much for busy people to process, so they often go with their gut.
Speaking of faith-based politics, you have a lot of faith in your vision of the future:
"In my view, it is all well and good to give war a chance, but only if we win. There is no chance of that in Iraq..."
I'm sure you've done plenty of research and reading up on history, etc., but we can only guess as to what will happen. My guess is that you're wrong.
Nancy: I didn't say criticize, I said condemn. Certainly if you hold a "liberal hypocrisy contest", that goes way beyond useful criticism. That's going out of your way to find liberals to tear down. It isn't consistent with any political philosophy other than outright conservatism.
No, I can't predict the future very well, and I'm not trying to. I do not know whether the Seahawks or the Steelers will win the Superbowl. But I can predict that the Miami Dolphins won't win, because they aren't on the scoreboard. Even if they invaded the field, they still wouldn't win. And that's my point about the war in Iraq. There isn't anything left in Iraq for the United States to win. Probably the Shiites will eventually win, but the United States won't. The United States is on the field, but not the scoreboard.
Huh. Well, I didn't read that post, so I can't comment. I don't check in daily, but I've noticed Dr. Helen to have strong opinions. On the face of it, I don't know why highlighting hypocrisy is not useful, per se. Perhaps it's taken as mean, but perhaps it's the honesty you were looking for in your earlier posts on this thread. I shouldn't speculate not having read. But I think I would have noticed her doing it day after day.
Re the war: so you don't buy the self-defense argument or say the spread of democracy bettering the world, or do you not think democracy will hold?
Nancy: The link is here. I agree that "day after day" is a rhetorical exaggeration, but still. It would be one thing to address liberal hypocrisy; I agree if done carefully, it could be constructive. There is nothing careful about a liberal hypocrisy contest, in which you invite anonymous testimonials of how bad liberals are. The only advice to liberals in that is that they should get lost. I could equally well organize a Christian hypocrisy contest, or a Republican arrogance contest, except that I'm not that anti-Christian or anti-Republican.
I do not buy the self-defense argument or the democracy argument in the specific case of the war in Iraq. (Afghanistan, for example, is a totally different story.) These are not arguments that are always automatically true. For example, democracy can be anything from a molehill to a mountain, depending on how you mean it. Big-D Democracy means a clean system of law, civil order, private property, individual rights, and democratic elections. Little-d democracy just means holding elections. Elections by themselves in some foreign land might not protect America and might not make the world a better place.
One basic test of whether elections are leading to something greater is to look at who wins them. Everyone understands that Palestine is in deep trouble, even though it held elections, because Hamas won the elections. In Iraq, the single most powerful political party is called "The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq". They control the Interior Ministry and they sacked the Mayor of Baghdad. Just the name of this party places them on the other side of the war on Islamic radicalism. That and the fact that the party was formed in Tehran and controls a fearsome Shiite militia. They are simply not on the same side as the United States, yet we are empowering them, at a cost of at least $60 billion per year to ourselves.
You know what? I have a liberal friend who takes a yoga class at a church and writes off what it costs as a charitable donation--shahahahahaha! Oh, I have conservative hypocritical friends too. Who doesn't?
(Sorry, I'm feeling loopy.)
Well, thanks for your comments. I'll stipulate that democracy is a journey not a destination, and every democracy starts somewhere, even ours. I can't go any further with you than that, but I'll certainly look at the news keeping what you wrote in mind.
"Certainly if you hold a "liberal hypocrisy contest", that goes way beyond useful criticism. That's going out of your way to find liberals to tear down. It isn't consistent with any political philosophy other than outright conservatism."
Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Oh, my.
Let me catch my breath....
Excuse me, sir. Have you lost your mind? Perhaps the leftist blogs have failed to have the benefit of your perusal?
Aside from the fact that the tactic is hardly unknown on the left, it is universal in partisan discourse.
The thing that should worry you is that the rightists don't have to make up their material at this point in the Democrat Party's history.
The Democrats need to have a serious realignment with the mainstream of American thought or go the way of the Whigs.
This doesn't mean becoming conservative, this means jettisoning the extreme left wing of the party and running them out of the leadership positions.
When minority constituancies become so high maintenance that you cannot serve your majority constituancies it's time to part ways.
I had thought that the result of two Clinton terms would have been a stronger Party Leadership. Instead, we have a leadership crisis at the national level with folks trying to out leftist each other.
That won't play in Peoria and at some point the blue collar and middle class Democrats are going to walk, leaving the Party as the home of former (and current) communists, environmentalists and animal rights activists.
And, for what it's worth, I don't get the Coulter = babe thing either. She isn't ugly, but she does have odd proportions.
Ann Coulter is not attractive and I don't think she is a model of conservatism.
Jenna Bush (the blonde) looks much better than her twin sister.
I've listened to Laura Ingraham before and she can definitely be controversial, but sometimes that is entertaining.
Moxie is very attractive.
Congratulations Dr. Helen, even if you think your political views don't qualify.
Namrata Singh Gujral is really hot.
Is "Caufield" a typo? If he means the actress that is cool that she is a conservative and she looks really good too.
It's hard to tell what Laurie Dhue looks like from the profile view, but from what I can tell she looks pretty good.
Greg K said: "Maybe you could be some combination of libertarian and conservative. In order not to be conservative, you would have to find common ground with liberals at least sometimes."
Libertarians are not fans of liberals and their policies either, but I think you make a good point that they would agree with liberals on some issues. I am quite conservative but nonreligious and I think on the issues of flag burning and evolution, liberals are generally right and conservatives are generally wrong.
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home