And that's a good thing...

I have been asked whether I was sarcastic when I claimed Martha Stewart responsible for empowering women. Now as often times as I utilize sarcasm here in The Cave, yesterday's comment about Martha was not one of them. (If O'Reilly can call his show "The Factor," I can call my blog "The Cave." It's ultra hip!)

See that aside? THAT was sarcasm.

Martha Stewart has made the concept of the home a valid arena for empowerment and self-expression. Martha has broken new ground—a brand of stealth feminism similar to Helen Gurley Brown, publisher of Cosmopolitan.

Feminists in Brown's time resented her magazine for catering to a "male fantasy" of the sexy, no-strings woman. Critics said it embraced women as nothing more than a sex object. But much like the critics who don't see Martha's positive effect, critics missed the point of Cosmo. Brown's aim was to reclaim sex, to derive pleasure from something once considered a woman's duty. Martha does the same, reclaiming and deriving pleasure from domesticity.

Beneath the veneer of Brown's sex talk and seduction advice was steel. Brown was not teaching girls to be geishas. She was teaching them to be bosses. Likewise, beneath the veneer of Martha's faux-finishing advice, there's more than steel wool. Stewart is not teaching women to be shrinking violets or stay-at-home moms. She's encouraging them to reclaim the home using 2-by-4s and a rotary saw.

Her ideas are so very empowering to average women. She makes them feel their chores and household drudgery could be transformed by creativity into something glamorous and unique. Those who compare her to a dutiful `50s wife and mother are mistaken; Martha is no nurturer; she is a skilled craftsman. When she proclaims a project "perfect," it's because she's satisfied herself, not a husband or child. That's feminism. Or at least a certain brand of it. And Martha's brand name (she's a capitalist as well!) represents just that to an awful lot of women.

I find it difficult to understand women who disregard Martha completely. Not your cup of tea? Fine. Not really like her? All right, though I think that is based mostly on a narrative of the press than anything. But I don't get those women who refuse to respect her accomplishments. It's the same type of personality of women that hates Hillary Clinton. Strong women get a bad rap from the public at large for being too "bitchy," and while that says a lot about our society, I would hope other women wouldn't internalize that misogyny.

Just because she comes off as a bitch in the press does not mean that she is not a pioneer. She has created her own opportunities and succeeded in the traditionally male-dominated world of business. She was writing books and publishing her magazine and doily-ing her house on TV well before this currecnt era of home design shows and food how-to's ever existed. She has taken the domestic activities and has made them honorable by building a multi-million dollar industry with them. Martha is a woman in charge of her own destiny, or at least she will be again when this whole prison thing finishes up.

The same day we start planning our festive autumnal gathering...

This morning Martha Stewart reported to prison, a minimum security facility in West Virginia, to begin her five month sentence. Finally justice can be done. Because Martha's freedom really flew in the face of all we hold dear about our legal system. Well that and Ken Lay and Dick Cheney. But they are old white MEN, you see. It's the women folk we need to keep in line.

On the bright side, the prison that Stewart will be serving her sentence, though not in Conneticut as she hoped, resembles the campus of Bucknell University. This all-female penitentiary was the brainchild of a young lady by the name Eleanor Roosevelt. You may know Mrs. Roosevelt as our first lesbian president, but she was also a great humanitarian and feminist. Now, I'm not saying that Martha is on any level with Mrs. Roosevelt, but she has done a lot towards empowering women and turning traditionally "woman's work" into something to be proud of, which incidentalyis also enormously profitable.

Now I know that Martha asked to start her prison term as soon as possible in order to get it over with, but I find it horrible that she will be locked away during the entire holiday season. That seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to the utmost degree. Who will teach us the perfrect recipe for cranberry stuffing or champagne cocktails? Who will explain to m the importance of doily making and decorative candellabra centerpieces? How am I going to make me own Christmas wrapping paper without some sort of direction from the domestic goddess? What thread count is best when using bedsheets to hang myself on November 3rd if Bush steals the election? Why have you abandoned us, Martha? Now, when the world needs you most?

I just hope this doesn't harden her warm, fuzzy demenor...

Lying Scumbag or Forgetful Old Coot? You decide...

But in Cheney's defense, Edwards was wearing an Invisibility Cloak for the entire three and a half hours they sat with each other.  

Well, he only heard about this new-fangled Internet instrument last week...

During last night's debate Cheney urged the audience to go to FactCheck.com to get the "truth".

Turns out that FactCheck.com was a spam site. At least during the debate last night it was. At some point during the night Georege Soros bought the domain name. So now it directs you to gerorgesoros.com. Brilliant!

He probably meant FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan site. But even if he meant that, look at the top headline from the site last night:

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan

Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.

This is Cheney's defense? Ha! This morning the site is having busy server problems. Maybe George Soros is trying a buy-out as I post.

It's only a matter of time before he tries to buy The Matt-Cave. Gulp!

It's official, I'm in love with Elizabeth Edwards...

One of the comments that stuck with me last night was Cheney's claim that he had never met John Edwards before walking out onto the debate stage. It was an obvious pre-scripted barb that he shoe-horned into a question about Israel and Palestine peace talks. (I guess they don't have much a record to run on there, huh?) I figured this was an easy enough thing to check out and I hoped that someone would tell us if this was the truth. For some reason I'm predisposed not to believe the claims coming from this administration. Maybe because of all the lying.

But we didn't need to wait for the spin to begin to find out the truth of this one. Elizabeth Edwards to the rescue!

She came up onto stage and reminded Mr. Cheney of the times they had met. One of those times in fact, they sat next to Mr. Cheney for three and a half hours. In February 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast. (Someone has GOT to find a picture of this!) Edwards aides also said the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied, Elizabeth Dole, to her swearing-in by Cheney in January 2003. Edwards spoke about his wife's gutsy and dignified move at a post debate rally.

"The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edawrds was tonight when we walked on the stage. I guess he forgot the time we sat next to each other for a couple hours about three years ago. I guess he forgot the time we met at the swearing in of another senator. So, my wife Elizabeth reminded him on the stage. She reminded him about the truth and come November, we're going to remind him that the American people do not want four more years of George W. Bush."

Finally, we have a Vice-President's wie of consequence.

UPDATE: I found the picture of Edwards and Cheney sitting down together via our friends in the blogosphere. Will post as soon as I get to work.

Let the spin begin again...

Edwards: "He voted against Head Start. He voted against banning plastic weapons that can pass through medical detectors. He voted against 'Meals on Wheels' for Seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela."

Cheney: .............


Let's be clear, I don't think Edwards did as well as he should have. I'm actually a little disappointed in his performance, but still he looks much better sitting next to a snarling Dick Cheney.

I think Cheney's tacticc of passing on a chance to fight back or respond or say anything at all at times was a strange tactic. Perhaps it is in direct response to last Thursday with the President constantly asking for more time wih nothing to say. Cheney let attacks go without so much as a deflection. For anyone to argue that not saying anything at all after an attack as massive and legitimate as Edwards did above is fooling themselves. But I promise you'll get enough damn silence after November 2.

I do wish Edwards had also responded to the pointed attacks and lies being through his way. Too many times he neglected to hit back and opted rather to steer the conversation back to his talking points. Edwards was trying to keep the nation focused on his message rather than the charges being brought by his opponent.

Long story short I think people, bored by the policy discussions (not all that interesting) aren't going to come away with an altered view of either vice-presidential candidate. Edwards went to great length in talking up Kerry, which was a major goal of his for the night. Cheney on the other hand acted as if Bush hardly existed at all. So we'll see. No clear winner. Very spinnable. A cable news pundits dream. Let's hope, like most other things in this counrty, they go with the guy they think is prettier.

A f-@#$-ing trial lawyer...

The Vice-Presidential debate is tonight and there is no way for the Bush camp to win it. No matter what happens they lose. If Cheney comes off as an snarling baby-eating monster and Edwards a folksy bright pretty boy with a good head on his sholders, well obviously that's not good for the Republicans. It can only help to solidify Kerry's momentum.

But conversely, if Cheney is able to seem more in command and paints Edwards as inexperienced, then it will only highlight how poorly the president did last Thursday. Bush can very well be diminished even further, by providing yet another contrast between Bush and an actual grown-up. (The call is coming from inside the house!)

With Cheney occupying a truly essential position in the administration, a sort of co-president, this debate has the potenial to be the first Vice-Presidential debate to ever be significant. Will Cheney come off more or less out-of-touch than the President? Hard to say. If Bush's massive failure was a result of being hidden in plain sight for the last 3 years and never coming under any true scrutiny, then what will Cheney's love of undisclosed loactions bring us?

And Edwards has so many openings to attack on. His connections to and favors for scandal-ridden Halliburton, his role in lying about Iraq intelligence, his disingenuous ongoing campaign to link 9/11 and Saddam, his preference for energy task force mtgs over terror task force mtgs.

What does Cheney have on Edwards? A trial lawyer? He's a self-made man fought for the underserved against big business. Inexperience? Well, I think the last person to run for national office with only six years in political office was George Bush, so by all means, Mr. Vice-President, please go there.

I have faith in Edwards. He's gone up against evil bully fat cat lying businessmen for a living and he's always done well. And Cheney does have a history of getting rattled and letting the profanity loose.

Besides, Edwards is just so gosh darn pretty.