Social and Political Pandering

…or “Chum in the Water”


Most of us are familiar with the dangers of pandering to dictators bent on world domination, of the Legacy of Neville Chamberlain, and so on.  It’s very simple.  Show the enemy that you’re a chump, that it can control you, and you get pounced.


I think that Mitt Romney is probably a very nice guy, trying to do the right things.  Doing the right things, and getting people to like you, are however very different, often contradictory, goals.


When he decided he needed to hire him some womens (you know, so people couldn’t accuse him of not hiring enough women, because hiring based on a person’s potential value to the company without regard to sex or race, would be….stupid?  Unfair?  It wouldn’t please the communists?) he apparently failed to understand that he was throwing chum in the water.  Condition white.  Sharks cannot resist a little chum.  When the feeding frenzy erupted last week then, no one has any excuse for not having predicted it.  Sharks have a habit of acting like sharks.


HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!!!!  HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!!!!  (“What kind of pervert is this guy!?” they don’t say).  I wonder if he has (GASP) BINDERS FULL OF BLACK PEOPLE TOO!  Oh, the horror– someone trying to hire black people.  RACIST!!!  He wants to put y’all in BINDERS!


No, Grasshopper; don’t pander to insanity.  That way insanity will have nothing on you.  You pander to it and it gets encouraged.  Evil will try to nudge you into doing stupid things.  You’ll want to do them to make it happy, to get along, to take some weight off your shoulders, but it’s always a trick.


So I’m making fun of the evil-crazy, right back, but the important thing is to be able to see it and watch it.  It can’t stand the light of day.

4 thoughts on “Social and Political Pandering

  1. “Binders full of women” trivializes women. Answering a question about equal pay with that story shows someone completely out of touch with what working women go through.

    But you don’t get it either, do you?

  2. Ubu -so how DO top management keep track of people applying for different jobs? Rolodex? Pushpins on 3×5 cards? Or are you saying that he SHOULD NOT care what the gender of his employees are, and should go for the best and brightest, even if that happens to mean they might be all male? Or SHOULD he explicitly pass over more qualified men to hire women?

    But seriously, addressing things like unequal pay for OBAMA STAFFERS might be a real story. Oh, wait, it already was.

  3. @ubu: I don’t get it, either. Please, be kind and explain exactly how “Binders full of women”, when taken in context, trivializes women. Try educating us, rather than berating us.

  4. “BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN” does trivialize women, but not in the way the ubus of the world want us to think. People apply for jobs because they want jobs, and those binders are prospective employees, but of course everyone knows that.

    It trivializes women in the same way that Affirmative Action trivializes people of African descent– it trivializes because those binders are attempts at hiring women solely or largely on the basis of their sex, which is what the left has been pushing for over the last several decades. Hence it is the left doing the trivializing. As was the whole point of the post; We too often fall for such tricks and go along to get along, only to be chastised for it by the very people we were trying to appease.

Comments are closed.