Justice deserved

So, as expected, US President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, succeeding David Souter who was widely seen as liberal, is a woman, and a Latina at that.

The choice of Bronx-born Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor, 54 and of Puerto Rican descent, was widely seen as a shrewd and careful first leap into the realm of legacy appointments that will shape American law for years to come.

If confirmed by the senate, Sotomayor will show the female face of Hispanic America from the country's highest court; yet she was first called to the bench by a Republican president – the elder George Bush – and her moderate judicial history suggests a worldview unlikely to shift the Supreme Court sharply to the left.

Hailing his nominee as one who possesses "a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law," Obama emphasized Sotomayor's rise beyond a raft of societal challenges that in many ways mirrored his own.

"Even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her," said Obama.

"What Sonia will bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey."

Raised in a Bronx housing project to parents who moved to New York from Puerto Rico during World War II, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University, where she was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the university's highest honour for undergraduates. Sotomayer later served as editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Politics and sex issues aside, it's not an inspired choice, really. Nor is it really very daring.

At least not according to Marjorie Cohn,  president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, CA.

It is significant that President Obama has nominated the first Latino to the Supreme Court and Sonia Sotomayor will bring to two the number of women on the high court. She will be a solid liberal but will not change the political balance of the Court since she will replace Justice David Souter. Although she will likely be called upon to review Obama’s decisions on interrogation policies, preventive detention and the state secrets privilege, Sotomayor’s views on executive power are largely unknown. But with this pick, Obama has missed an opportunity to tap a liberal intellectual giant like William Brennan who will have a major impact on the Court for years to come. George W. Bush didn’t hesitate to choose two unabashedly right-wing justices. Obama could have chosen Pamela Karlan, Harold Koh or Erwin Chemerinsky, who would have provided a true progressive counterweight to Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

Despite that, the right-wing talking heads -- armed with Republican talking points -- have already started their predictable squawking. More. More. More.

Now, it's fair to judge Sotomayor on her decisions, on her record and her resume. But you know that that's not the way it is going, at least not completely.

For example, this morning Fox News' Bill Hemmer described her ''domineering in her oral arguments'' and obsessed ''with marginal details.''

Hmmm. ''Domineering?'' Stupid broad obviously doesn't know when to shut up, unlike men who would be ''forceful'' in their arguments.

As for being obsessed with ''marginal details,'' well, all I can say is, if I were facing charges, I would like to think that the judge is keeping track of all the evidence. 

But that's just me.

So look out everybody. Sotomayor represents the end of justice for white men in America.

OH NO: WHO WILL REPRESENT WHITE MALES ON THE COURT?

Sen. James Inhofe:

In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh [Sonia Sotomayor's] qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven't you heard?

White guys just can't get a break.

Mind the gap

This is an American event/organization but it's still worth a pointer.

Today is Equal Pay Day in the U.S.! 

No, this doesn't mean women have achieved pay equity. It just means they're still waiting.

According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007 the ratio of women's and men's median annual earnings reached almost 78 cents on the dollar for full-time year-round workers, up from just under 77 cents in 2006. This is the narrowest the wage gap has ever been, but it's only an additional one cent on the dollar. One cent is chump change. It isn't real change.

And:

To match men's earnings for 2008, women have to work from January 2008 to April 2009 — an extra four months. In recognition of this inequity, Equal Pay Day will be marked on April 28, 2009.

Of course, women may show big gains for 2008 and 2009 because the economy is hitting male-dominated jobs harder than women's. But that looks like just a temporary blip.

Anyway, the sponsoring website has tons of research, which the usual suspects who complain when I post about pay equity should read before they start on their usual men-are-daredevils-who-deserve-more-money lectures. 

By the way: The pay gap in Canada is much wider. Women here are worth 71 cents on the male dollar, Canadian.

Why I am a feminist: Chapter Sixtyhundredeleventy

A wowser of a front-page story by Living (yeah, I hate that too) section colleague Susan Pigg.

Looks like women who are pregnant are the first to get the pink slip during these depressed economic times.

Human rights advocates are seeing an alarming surge in cases of pregnant women being fired by "Neanderthal" employers across Ontario, who claim hard times are the cause.

What's especially stunning, they say, is how brazen some bosses are, almost 50 years after Ontario enacted the Human Rights Code to prevent such discrimination.

"We actually have an email from one employer saying, `Sorry, but with your little bundle, I don't think we'll be able to (re)hire you. We want a permanent solution,'" says Consuelo Rubio, manager of client services for Ontario's Human Rights Legal Support Centre, an independent agency funded by the province to provide free legal services to people experiencing discrimination.

The firings are in all sectors: "It's happening to women in senior positions and women in minimum-wage jobs," says Katherine Laird, executive director of the centre, who says she hasn't seen this level of discrimination through two previous recessions and 30 years in the human rights field.

"It's outrageous and illegal," Laird says.

The spike in calls from pregnant women who are frightened for their jobs, can't nail down return-to-work dates or have been told there will be no job waiting for them at the end of their maternity leave, started last fall. But they hit "nightmare" levels in January, says Rubio, and are now averaging 10 to 15 calls a week – accounting for about 10 per cent of all calls from workers inquiring about their rights.

<SNIP>

The centre is also fielding more calls from injured workers and disabled people – who have always accounted for the vast majority of inquiries – and are seeing troubling signs on that front as well, especially among people who work for hard-hit auto-parts manufacturers, some of them unionized shops.

Human-rights advocates are investigating a Peterborough firm that produces car bumpers and other plastic parts. It laid off 18 workers back in January – every one of whom had at some point claimed disability benefits or were on modified work assignments to allow them to do less strenuous work to cope with their injury.

Meanwhile, 18 "healthy" workers were called back from layoffs.

"The Human Rights Code is supposed to be about recognizing the worth and dignity of every person – and sometimes the real test of an employer's commitment comes when economic times are tough," says Kate Sellar, a lawyer with the centre.

"Bad economic times aren't a licence for employers to discriminate against pregnant women and workers with disabilities."

Especially alarming to me are a few of the nearly 100 comments (so far) on the Star's main web page. It's as if the writers want to roll back the calendar back to the days when public school teachers were fired for ''showing.''

In 1975, in Toronto, I applied to a well-known ad agency for a position as a copywriter and was told point blank that there was  no point in hiring and training me because, as a newlywed, it was inevitable I would end up pregnant and gone. That incident helped shape my politics.

But now leaves/benefits are the law. No discrimination.

Canadians have fought hard for these rights, which can be shared (to some extent) by both the mother and father. (It was the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who nailed these benefits after a 42-day strike, bless 'em, back in 1981.)

But, of course, fathers don't ''pop'' at about four months. And it usually falls to women -- who make less than men -- to stay home with the baby, particularly if nursing is part of the plan. So, of course, it's women who get screwed ... again.

Soul man

First he sells out women, by allowing Stephen Harper's New! Unimproved! Conservatives to get away with a budget that offers little or nothing for women.

No childcare. No stimulus for industries that employ women. No changes in Employment Insurance rules so women can get their fair share. No pay equity guarantees.

Then Liberal leader Michael ignatieff puts a bow on the merchandise:

Grit insiders say the federal Liberals are unlikely to nominate one-third female candidates in the next election and that the new Liberal leader’s main focus is finding winnable candidates rather than focusing on gender.

<SNIP>

In the last election, former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) promised, set and delivered on running a slate of one-third female candidates.

But as of last week, neither the Liberal Leader's Office or the party headquarters would make any firm public commitment on meeting the target this time, however several Liberals told The Hill Times that the new leadership under Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke Lakeshore, Ont.) is focusing on winning more seats than meeting the one-third target.

The sources said the Liberal Party is not officially making any firm announcement because it would generate negative media attention.

Well, we'll see if it does. I'm not holding my breath.

To continue:

In the last federal election, the Liberals fielded 113 female candidates out of 307 candidates. The NDP had 104 female candidates in 308 ridings, the Conservative Party fielded only 63 women candidates in 307 ridings and the Bloc Québecois ran 21 female candidates in Quebec's 75 ridings. The Conservatives elected 23 female MPs, the Liberals 19, the Bloc 15 and the NDP elected 12 female MPs.

<SNIP>

Sen. Smith said the leader will retain the ability to appoint candidates, however he prefers “proactive encouragement” to get viable women to run.

“If you have an open nomination, which most of our nominations are, they’re level playing fields. Where you’re sometimes proactive is encouraging women to jump in and go for it, whereas without encouragement, some of them might not have. I think that’s a legitimate and totally bona fide thing to do, but once you’re in a race then it’s a level playing field,” said Sen. Smith.

April Reign nails it:

A level playing field? Sen. Smith is either badly out of touch or deliberately falsifying the facts. A woman is much more likely to face obstacles in relation to family, finance and fairness. One only has to look at the way Hilary or Palin were treated to see that there is a very different aspect to the way media and politicos alike react to female politicians. There is much more emphasis on style, on aggressiveness [seen as a negative in women of course] and ability/experience. A green female politician is somehow seen as greener than a male politician.

A male candidate is much less likely to have to consider such things as childcare both for running and after a potential win. And a male politician is unlikely to be told to stick to his knitting or to go see a ‘doctor’ when forcefully pushing the opposition on bad policy.

More from Challenging the Commonplace and. especially, The Regina Mom.

What’s a girl to do?  Sure, quotas are the only answer.  But hello?  Have you read any research about the impact on women’s and children’s lives when at least 1/3 of the movers and shakers are women?  It’s huge!  It’s as though women’s lives suddenly matter, as though women finally get taken seriously.  Does Iggy know anything about CEDAW?

It appears that, no, he does not.  He’s too busy cosying up to the big boys in the sandbox, those who don’t want to share their toys with half the population.  Like I say, Liberal, Tory, same old story.

Come to think of it, Iggy has sold out much more than women.

Will you still love me tomorrow?

Because a girl can't go on writing only about pay equity and the right to choose ...

Today's treeware column marked last week's sad passing of Estelle Bennett, one of The Ronettes.

The thing about The Ronettes, and all the other (mostly) African-American girl groups of that early Rock'n'Roll era is,even on oldies shows, I never hear them except on my own iPod. And yet these ladies busted down doors not only for women artists but also for black ones. They were style icons too!

So here's my column, with links and the occasional musical interlude:

Estelle Bennett sank with barely a ripple last week.

The U.K. press gave the ex-Ronette's death at 67 major play but, in her native U.S., where she helped create the rock 'n' roll industry, there was barely a back-up chorus.

But first, a little music herstory for those of you to whom "girl groups" means Spice Girl lip-synching and Pussycat Doll-writhing.

The Ronettes, along with The Marvelettes ("Please Mr. Postman"), The Shirelles ("Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow"), The Chiffons ("He's So Fine"), The Crystals ("Da Doo Ron Ron"), The Exciters ("Doo Wah Diddy"), Martha and the Vandellas ("Love is like a Heat Wave"), The Dixie Cups ("Iko, Iko'') and so many more, owned the pop charts in the early '60s.

What's more, their songs, including those they wrote without credit, were covered by music giants such as The Beatles who had them front and centre as opening acts on their tours.

In fact, The Ronettes' huge hit "Be My Baby," produced by (now accused murderer and certifiable eccentric) Phil Spector who Svengali'd the group, influenced drumming in songs by Green Day, R.E.M., the Beach Boys, ELO and countless others.

If The Ronettes still mean nothing to you, think of the opening scene in Dirty Dancing.

As for Estelle Bennett, whose sister Veronica (Ronnie) fronted the group, and whose cousin Nedra Talley did back-up, she's the one who invented rocker girl fashion, including that big hairdo last seen on Amy Winehouse's ratty head.

Maybe it's because so many older baby boomer journalists have been laid off or taken early retirement that Bennett's death went unmarked.

Maybe it's because in this time of Britney Spears and Pussycat Dolls pop tartism, nobody takes girl acts too seriously. (And really, who can blame them?) More likely, though, the story of rock 'n' roll is written mostly by men, while commercial radio has long been dominated by men.

But let me tell you: You ain't never heard "Hound Dog" until you have heard it belted by Big Mama Thornton, who recorded it before Elvis did.

Motown pioneer Mary Wells ("My Guy'') never made it to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

And yet, all these women broke ground – and not just musically.

Almost without exception – The Shangri-Las, notably – the girl group girls were African-American.

They mostly grew up in poor urban areas, and got together in their homes to put their acts together. (Unlike male singers, who could hang out on street corners Jersey Boys-style, girls had curfews.)

And yet, they still managed to break down doors and the barriers, which would pave the way on the charts for their black brothers whose music was often sanitized for white Middle American airplay by the likes of Pat Boone.

Along with the girl groups, came Motown.

However, Motown founder Berry Gordy often neglected or mismanaged them in favour of his obsession, The Supremes.

Not that I am suggesting the music industry comes easier to men.

We've all seen the movies based on their lives: Walk the Line (Johnny Cash), Ray (Ray Charles), La Bamba (Ritchie Valens), The Buddy Holly Story, Great Balls of Fire (Jerry Lee Lewis), etc.

But, aside from fictional froth (Dreamgirls), there are no movies, no plays, no tracking the tears and triumphs of the girl group pioneers. Come on. It's not as if Hollywood doesn't have Beyoncé's and Jennifer Hudson's talent to draw on.

Reviewing the lives and loves of The Ronettes, it's hard to miss the gold in them thar trills.

Not only did Ronnie marry Spector, but the group toured with the Stones. Estelle "dated" Mick Jagger and George Harrison. How can that miss?

But, sadly, the girls get no R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

RIP Estelle.

And with that, this one is dedicated to my niece Stephanie who is getting married tomorrow night:

Broad jump

More than a year after I first blogged about this, women ski jumpers are STILL being barred from   competing in the Olympics.

There is no other way to describe this. It's blatant sexism.

Here's the latest from one political party taking a stand on this.

ONLY ONE YEAR LEFT TO INCLUDE WOMEN’S SKI JUMPING

Dawn Black demands Conservatives and IOC include sport at Vancouver Olympics

OTTAWA – With only 365 days before the Vancouver Olympics, New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) is demanding the Conservative government intervene in the International Olympic Committee’s decision to exclude women’s ski jumping from the 2010 Games.
 
“Ski jumping has been an Olympic sport since the start of the Winter Games in 1924,” said Black. “Isn't it time we allow women, who are already competing at the international level, to finally compete at the Vancouver Games?”
 
Ski jumping is the only Olympic sport which does not allow women’s participation. The IOC has argued their decision to bar women’s ski jumping from the Olympics is based on “technical merit.” However, these athletes are not convinced. Since Vancouver was awarded the Games back in 2003, the women ski jumpers have taken their case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to the BC Supreme Court.
 
“The values of the Olympics reflect fair play and respect – where is the fairness and respect for the women who want to participate in these Olympic games, and represent their countries?” asked Black.
 
While both VANOC and the IOC refuse to change their positions, the federal government has flip-flopped on its commitment to stand behind this important initiative.
 
“In the past, Ministers for Sport and the 2010 Olympics publicly supported this campaign. We want the current Minister of State for Sport, the Hon. Gary Lunn, to address this issue immediately before it’s too late.”
 
Black concluded:  “The world will be watching the Olympics in Vancouver. Therefore, Canada should be a role model and a leader by demonstrating the true spirit of the Olympics. The exclusion of female ski jumpers is an affront to both Canadian law and Canadian values.”

 

You'd think others would be squawking too, since a gabillion Canadian tax dollars are paying for this shindig. But there's only silence from the Liberals who, need I remind you, last month got under the covers with the Conservatives to screw women on pay equity,employment insurance and childcare.

Meanwhile, look who piped up today:

Any decision to include women's ski jumping in the Winter Games rests with the International Olympic Committee, the federal minister of state for sport said Thursday.

Gary Lunn said he has not raised the issue of adding women's ski jumping to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver with either the IOC or its president Jacques Rogge.

"I have not," he said.

Lunn's comment's seem to reverse the stance of Helena Guergis, the former minister of state for sport, and come as a disappointment for women ski jumpers on the anniversary of the one-year countdown to the 2010 Games.

"We need to be very clear, this is solely a decision of the IOC and there is a very clear process on how a new discipline becomes an event in the Olympics," Lunn said in an interview. "I can't add anymore to that."

A group of former and current women ski jumpers from Europe, the U.S. and Canada will go to court April 20 to argue that preventing them from competing at the 2010 Games violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I can't believe this issue STILL has not been resolved.

Let me check my watch. Er, what century is this again?

Hi-ho, Hi-ho, it's off you go

An oldie but goodie:

This would explain how, of the only two female characters, one was an evil stepmother/wicked queen/ugly crone and the other one a virgin.

It's not clear if the letter is real but it's true that women were only used for colouring inside the lines, so to speak.

World War II changed that.

Bitch-v-Bimbo

Now that Senator Hillary Clinton is said to be slated to join President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet as Secretary of State, the right-wing sexists (including women who denounced liberal women for calling Sarah Palin an airhead) have pulled out all the photoshop stops to paint her as a ugly old monster. That despite her total hawkishness.

As for Palin, well, what can I say? She did turn out to be an airhead, who nearly destroyed her party.

But, I must be honest. I think Palin got a rough ride, although it was different from Clinton's.

Palin's appearance and attention to her family (or lack of it, depending on how you saw it) worked against her in that she was stereotyped in certain ways. Clinton on the other hand was attacked for the same things, even though she is no beauty queen and, although a mother, and a very good one, was not surrounded by an ever-expanding brood.

In this week's New York magazine, Amanda Fortini examines how, despite all the breakthroughs made by women in politics during the 2008 election campaign, women were still confined by the not-so-good old fashioned stereotypes:

In the grand Passion play that was this election, both Clinton and Palin came to represent—and, at times, reinforce—two of the most pernicious stereotypes that are applied to women: the bitch and the ditz. Clinton took the first label, even though she tried valiantly, some would say misguidedly, to run a campaign that ignored gender until the very end. “Now, I’m not running because I’m a woman,” she would say. “I’m running because I think I’m the best-qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running.” She was highly competent, serious, diligent, prepared (sometimes overly so)—a woman who cloaked her femininity in hawkishness and pantsuits. But she had, to use an unfortunate term, likability issues, and she inspired in her detractors an upwelling of sexist animus: She was likened to Tracy Flick for her irritating entitlement, to Lady Macbeth for her boundless ambition. She was a grind, scold, harpy, shrew, priss, teacher’s pet, killjoy—you get the idea. She was repeatedly called a bitch (as in: “How do we beat the … ”) and a buster of balls. Tucker Carlson deemed her “castrating, overbearing, and scary” and said, memorably, “Every time I hear Hillary Clinton speak, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

<SNIP>

Palin was recast as the charmer, the glider, the dim beauty queen, the kind of woman who floats along on a little luck and the favor of men. In a recent issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer recounted how a handful of conservative Washington thinkers became besotted with Palin during a trip to Alaska and subsequently began to promote her in Washington: The National Review’s Jay Nordlinger described the governor as “a former beauty-pageant contestant, and a real honey, too,” Bill Kristol called her “my heartthrob,” and Fred Barnes noted she was “exceptionally pretty.” While it’s obviously not Palin’s fault that men find her attractive, it is fair to criticize her for campaigning on a platform of charm rather than substance. In what Michelle Goldberg called a “brazen attempt to flirt [her] way into the good graces of the voting public,” she waved and winked and smiled—even during the debate—and called herself “just your average hockey mom.” (Never mind that it’s impossible to imagine a male candidate mentioning fatherhood as the source of his readiness to be the nation’s second-in-command.) Her running mate called her “a direct counterpoint to the liberal feminist agenda for America,” and her “Joe Six-Pack” fans seemed to appreciate her nonthreatening approach. To quote a former truck driver named Larry Hawkins who was interviewed by the Times at a Palin rally: “They bear us children, they risk their lives to give us birth, so maybe it’s time we let a woman lead us.”

<SNIP>

(A)mong the darker revelations of this election is the fact that the vice-grip of female stereotypes remains suffocatingly tight. On the national political stage and in office buildings across the country, women regularly find themselves divided into dualities that are the modern equivalent of the Madonna-whore complex: the hard-ass or the lightweight, the battle-ax or the bubblehead, the serious, pursed-lipped shrew or the silly, ineffectual girl. It is exceedingly difficult to sidestep this trap.

And it's not going to get any easier because the die has been cast.

The fire this time

Here's (PDF) what one McCain-Palin ''pro-woman'' group is circulating right now.

Preventing them from controlling their lives and destinies seems to be the only thing the ticket has to offer women.

It's as if the right can't talk about anything else but how abortions are murder without offering women anything else to reassure them that, if they have babies that they can't care for, the government will be there for them.

The Republicans show no interest in equal pay for equal work, decent health care, education or help for working families...unless they work for Joe the Plumber.

Anyway, a very smart journalist friend, who prefers to remain anonymous, emailed the other day from her post thousands of miles away:

Sarah Palin is an inadvertent friend of the women's movement!!!

How?

She has single-handedly rallied millions of women who may have been otherwise silent. She has single-handedly revitalized discussion of women's issues and rights that have long been taken for granted.

Did you know there is a growing presence of pro-life groups on University campuses in the US? And so many young women, who are not remotely aware of what their mothers and grandmothers fought for, have nothing to say about it all. They take their rights for granted. They assume they will always be there. And they're so disengaged, they think the fight is over.

But they'd have to be living in a cave not to have seen the reaction to Sarah Palin. I wonder how many women who assumed it was entrenched, realize now that Roe V. Wade is indeed under attack?

Sometimes it takes a Joe McCarthy for people to buck against a government witchhunt. And sometimes it takes a Sarah Palin to awaken women about how tenuous progress is (and that women like her still exist and still have power).

The alarm has gone off and for American women, it's time to get up.

I wonder if any of that would have happened if Sarah Palin hadn't been on the ticket?

Although I agree with my friend in a general way, I think a lot of it would have happened anyway because so many women were furious after the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton. I must add that I believe that Palin was also a victim of sexism, only her attackers played on her good looks instead of her age.

That said, I concur that Sarah Palin did serve as a lightening rod -- but her candidacy did not shed much light on women's issues.

Did it result in informative debates on the threat to women's rights? Not that I could see. Did big media turn out reportage of the anti-choice and anti-family measures introduced in some states? Nah. Did we see any mainstream journalism about what each ticket represented to women? Nope.

Anyway, it was Obama-Biden -- and not John AIR QUOTE women's health AIR QUOTE McCain  -- that put these issues on the table.

As for McCain-Palin, they're so grateful to Clinton for cracking the glass ceiling:

What better way to honor Hillary “No way, no how, no McCain” Clinton’s historic race for the Democratic nomination than by electing John McCain, who selected - based on her looks, her status as a vagina owner, and her far-right ideas - as his running mate an embarrassingly inexperienced and underqualified failed local sportscaster and failed beauty queen runner-up who was found to have unlawfully abused her authority as Governor, opposes choice for women with zero exceptions, even in cases of rape or incest - and even if her own daughter were raped; believes we are living in the “End Times” and that the Apocalypse will start in the Middle East, the war in Iraq is a “task from God”, and we “might” have to go to war with Russia; believes dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time in a world that was created 6,000 years ago, because she saw a picture of a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside it this one time; believes it hasn’t been proven that humans have any part in the cause of climate change; believes creationism should be taught alongside the “theory” of evolution in public schools; and is mocked by McCain’s own top campaign advisers as a “diva“, a “whack job“, and someone they “devoutly hope…would never be tested” because they “don’t think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency“? After all, it only took the Republican Party a quarter century longer than the Democrats to nominate a woman for the vice presidency. What’s not to be inspired about?

It's not so much, as my friend maintains, that Palin brought these issues out into the open. But she's absolutely correct to say that Palin has mobilized hundreds of thousands of women.

They're angry, and they're getting organized.

The movement is stirring again.

A picture is worth 1000 words

(Click to enlarge!)