The Army recently nominated Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody for a promotion, which would make her the first female four-star general in the United States. Dunwoody's comments to the press not only reveal her strength of character but also a stark difference between those who see America as an unjust and hateful place and those who understand why America is the greatest nation ever to exist. Said Dunwoody:
"I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement. I grew up in a family that didn't know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career-that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform."
Contrast that with Hillary's comments when she suspended her campaign.
"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time."
Void of any humility Hillary's comment betrays a typical strategy of liberals: blame any failure or lack of success on barriers and 'injustices' of society. Instead of believing that America is a country where dreams are accomplished and that those who work hard are rewarded for their efforts, it is portrayed as a place of rampant injustice where honest people cannot succeed. (Conveniently, liberals would like to fool you into believing that only THEY can fix the 'injustices' of society and that Americans are helpless without government intervention). Could Hillary's defeat have been the result of her husband's horrible and disgraceful 'service' as President? Could it have been that Hillary is seen as way too liberal to be a viable candidate for mainstream Americans? Could her numerous ridiculous ideas, her poor public image, or sorry political decisions have lead to the loss? Could it have been that Barack ran a better campaign? Apparently not to Hillary. According to her it is everyone else's fault-but most importantly it is America's injustice that is at fault.
Maybe, Hillary, you lost because you blame others for your own shortcomings.
5 comments:
Amen Jordan ... amen.
Have you heard of halfsigma.com? You might want to check it out. He talks a lot about politics and gender and race and econmics and law and politics and stuff. You might like it. I enjoy a lot of what he writes.
I think he's a lawyer too, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
That is a good blog. Thanks for the recommendation. I have really enjoyed your blog. Tell the family I say hi.
I can't deny that things like "glass ceilings" are a definite reality. I mean obviously there are certain norms as far as what society will or will not accept that do restrict us, but those only make things difficult, not impossible. Obviously Hillary thinks it's more of an impossibility than just a difficulty. I also love the fact that she uses this "glass ceiling" as why she didn't win. I mean I think it says far more that the Democratic party of America was willing to look past the "glass ceiling" felt by much of the black community in such a way as to elect a man from a race that was once seen as merely slaves and only 3/5's of a white man. Honestly, does she feel like the "hatred" and "bigotry" directed toward women is more than what is directed toward blacks? Then don't even get me started on the hatred that was directed toward Romney because of his Mormon faith. It's ridiculous of course, but it's good we have individuals like Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody who believe more in the hope to rise to any heights rather than be oppressed by "glass ceilings".
Don't get me started on the whole 3/5th deal (which was an attempt to punish the South and its slave holders-not a claim that America viewed Blacks as worth less than a White person).
As for glass ceilings-they do exist. This is especially true for certain religious groups or persons with unpopular (or strange)ideological beliefs
The United States has been ready and willing to have a woman or minority as President. Statistics and quality choices have been the only impeding factors. Whites are a majority of the population. Among Whites, men are several times more likely to have long lasting political careers (because women choose to be stay at home mothers which greatly reduces their numbers in the work force and politics). Minorities (the exception being Asians) are disproportionately undereducated than the White population, which means they are less likely to participate in politics or to have higher level jobs that push them in that direction. In the end, because of career and educational choices, women and minorities come out under represented in politics. (Note: I don't know about Asians, but their educational achievements would indicate to the commonsensical mind that they are well represented).
I would like to add that just because several women and minorities who have achieved successful political career, doesn't mean that they were automatically accepted as viable presidential candidates. There are MANY long serving, high ranking politicians (Senators, Governors, and Congressmen/women) who would not be successful in a presidential bid. This consideration further reduces the number of women and minority politicians who would be realistic presidential candidates.
Post a Comment