home

Extreme Right Wing Ironic Stupid

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:33:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Wingnut Dan Riehl on President Obama:

He's an idiot. And a self-centered one, too. And that is always a dangerous combination. In a POTUS, it could be a disaster.

Indeed, it WAS a disaster. But the extreme right wing view of George W. Bush was (is?) this:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Oh BTW, Andrew Sullivan is still a sexist.

Speaking for me only

< Jaw Dropping Stupid | President Obama's Weekly Address: On Health Care Reform >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Extreme Right Wing Ironic Stupid | 203 comments (203 topical)
    Sullivan doesn't realize that his use of (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    that photo goes farther to de-legitimize his views with a lot of people, by telegraphing that no woman who would pose like that could possibly have anything credible to say, than it does to de-legitimize Palin's (as sad as it is, there actually are people who think she has legitimate views based in reality).

    That he either doesn't realize it, or thinks it's justified, makes his views about women suspect.

    Facts would seem to be a much better way to argue a point than what Sullivan has done.

    it really pains me (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    to see women jump on the "palin is an idiot" wagon. She does have legitimate views based on reality.  You just happen to disagree with them.  You and she take the same picture and see it differently.
    The problem is that so many women have decided that it is better to be part of the woman's auxiliary of the democratic party than real feminists. As a feminist the cartoon picture created of Palin is as offensive as it would be if she were a democrat who I agree with more.
    She is not stupid and you probably agree with her more than you know, but you never bothered looking beyond the picture the old boys club wants you to have.  
    Okay, want an example?  She thinks it is better to hunt and kill your own meat than to buy the carcass of some tortured cow who lived it's life in a feed lot.  I agree with her on that.  Of course I still buy my meat from the store.  But for the first time this year I am going to hunt and I will be glad that the deer I shoot at lived a full and beautiful life here in the Pa mountains before it died. And when I give the meat to a local family with lots of kids I will be even happier.
    I also finally understand that people who like to collect guns should not have to be punished because people in the cities can't stop shooting each other. That is also reality, it's just not one most liberals want to understand.

    Parent
    So she's right about hunting (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    and gun ownership; so is my neighbor Carl down the street, but he's not being foisted on us as an example of one of our-best-and-brightest in good standing with our grand lineage of statesmen and leaders.

    Parent
    try to follow (none / 0) (#205)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:50:05 AM EST
    I was responding to some one who said she was not right about anything.

    Parent
    I don't think I said I thought she was an (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    idiot, and my reference to there being people who feel she has legitimate views is to this:

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

    Is her view that people should not have to justify their continued existence legitimate?  Of course, but it is not legitimate to say that this is what health system reform will require people to do - that's just plain old scare- and fear-mongering and it is dishonest.

    Sullivan could have gone after her on that basis, and probably quite effectively.  Now, what he has done is take the focus off the dishonest nature of her comments, and put them on his sexism, and in some people's minds, given her comments the legitimacy they would not otherwise have.

    Parent

    You agree (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    with Feingold on the Second Amendment.  Thus, Palin agrees with Feingold on the Second Amendment.  But let's not point out that, or heads may explode. :-)

    Not that we would see a librul blogger post a beefcake pose of Feingold.  (Thank heavens.)

    Btw, I don't agree on this with you, with Palin, or with my Senator.  But you have explained your stand better than I have heard the others do!

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    I might actually enjoy a beefcake pose of Feingold.

    The only difference is that when it is a man in the pose (think Obama in swimsuit) the comments do not question the man's intelligence or reduce him to only a piece of fluff.

    Parent

    Yeh, I also thought (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    of the Obama beefcake-on-the-beach photo to use as an example, but that would get sidetracked here, too, by those who don't get it.

    Still, let's try it: Imagine TL's front page today, specifically the post on Obama's speech on health care, and instead of the video that is there now with the photo of Obama at the podium, TL had used the beefcake Obama on the beach. . . .  After all, he knew the photo was taken, and it was taken recently, and all the other defenses used here, blah blah blah.  

    Parent

    Poor Analogy Again (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:05:00 PM EST
    The Obama beefcake on the beach pic was taken by a paparazzi.

    Palins picture is part of Palin's campaign to clinch the 2012 GOP nomination. This is part of her own PR campaign, not some snap taken by a paparazzi.

    Parent

    Photos I saw then (2.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    and I just checked the source again, are attributed to Associated Press and/or Honolulu Press-Bulletin.

    Of course, I don't know where you find your news.  Frankly, I don't want to know.

    Parent

    OK Pro Paparazzi (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    The photos were distributed by Bauer-Griffin, a photo agency more typically found on the corners of Hollywood. Photographer Chris Behnke simply strolled along the beach to get the shot, said agency co-owner Frank Griffin.

    Obama "wasn't hiding. He was completely out in the open," Griffin said. "We didn't by any stretch of the imagination expect to get the images we got."

    Griffin said Behnke had gone to the beach to get general views of the estate where Obama is vacationing, but instead found easy access to a view of the first family hitting the beach. "We use the expression, 'He gave it up,' " Griffin said.

    [snip]

    He was on the November cover of Men's Health and detailed his workouts for the magazine: 45 minutes, six days a week, alternating between weights and cardio.

    [snip]

    And should we really be surprised?

    When John F. Kennedy was pictured shirtless, there were media accounts fretting about the threshold we had crossed as a country, said David Greenberg, a professor at Rutgers University who is working on a history of political spin.

    "There was John F. Kennedy by the beach, shirt off, this young, glamorous president," Greenberg said. "So in a way this is 48 years old now that we're having this."

    Since then we've had Lyndon Johnson lifting his shirt to show reporters his surgery scar and pictures of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in swim trunks.

    [snip]

    But such personal shots -- dropping the girls off at school, hitting the gym, practicing his golf swing -- also serve to humanize the president. Greenberg can see why Obama might allow the beach photos to be taken.

    Well you've come a long way baby..

    Palin now is up to date and on equal par with her male counterparts. For the first time in history a woman running for high office is allowed to be sexy, as well as powerful.

    This is quite progressive, imo. Too bad the rest of Palin's feminism, and other policy is so regressive.

    But back to the pic in the running magazine, Sully can't put her back in the box, because these are arguably Palin's official pictures, not analogous to pics taken on the beach by a reporter who is surprised to get so close to Obaam. These are early campaign pics of Palin carefully choreographed to send Palin message to potential voters.

    Parent

    You or your unknown link (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    are referencing other photos.  Unless you are claiming that the Honolulu paper, for example, claimed that its photographer took photos that its photographer did not take.  If so, it no doubt would have been sued by now for doing so.

    Here's a shocker: There apparently were lots of photogs taking photos of a president in a public place.  And it didn't take "paparazzi" zoom lenses (Behnke sounds more like a freelancer, anyway).  Obama also was photographed meeting lots of other people on the beach, shaking hands, being a pol. . . .

    Parent

    Squeaky's Link (none / 0) (#185)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:51:05 PM EST
    AP story.

    I got it from Breitbart.

    Parent

    See (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:29:56 PM EST
    this.  Among several other sources.  So what, so boring. . . .

    Parent
    Sigh. Trying again. See (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    this.

    Parent
    I don't think "palin is an idiot" (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    But I do think that she clearly demonstrated during the primary that she is quite ignorant and that many of her policies are also rooted in ignorance.

    She may be a hunter, but her environmental policies are anathema to anyone who cares about sustainability of the environment.

    I mean, George Bush and Dick Cheney like to hunt too.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#206)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:53:46 AM EST
    (and I am sure you do not mean the primary)  Of course you think she is ignorant.  You disagree with her and you are a victim of the astro turf campaign against her.  You believe everything the media and the democratic astro turfers and politicians said and implied about her.  But I am betting that like every other democrat I know except a few, you don't really know much about her.

    Parent
    The Cartoon Picture (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    I have of Governor Palin came during the VP debate when she was winking. I never 'got' that and yeah, it detracted from her seriousness as a legitimate leader as far as I'm concerned. And frankly, as a feminist I recoiled all the more from that performance.

    Had she come back from that to present coherent policy positions I'd probably think differently. But she hasn't.

    It has nothing to with her hunting etc.

    Parent

    Fyi, another blog discussing this (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    statement of Palin's accompanied it with the photo of the infamous wink.  Sullivan would have been wise to do so, as the discussion is staying on point of what Palin said.  (Then again, as sual, there are other reasons why the discussion went off here.)

    That wink said it all then, and it says it all still.

    Parent

    I Don't Need The Photo (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    to recall the strangeness of those moments and those winks.

    I was watching that night recalling Geri Ferraro's VP debate tour de force against HW Bush, and just felt very sad watching the winks.


    Parent

    So I would make perfect sense (1.00 / 0) (#172)
    by robert72 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    if I said that the snub of Hillary at the State of the Union said it all about Obama then, and it says it all still.

    Parent
    Well, I think a better example (1.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 08:38:29 AM EST
    may have been brushing the dirt off the shoulders, or brushing the dog-doo off the shoe.  Those pictures said it all for me.  But sure, your examples may work better for you.

    Parent
    as a feminist (none / 0) (#207)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 06:05:21 AM EST
    what appalls me is that male polititians and less attractive females can wink and it mean "you and I are on the same page and the others do not get it" but if Palin winks it must be sexual.  Why because the Obama media said so?  It also appalls me that women on the left think women on the right are not entitled to be feminists or to be defended against sexist attacks.
    And against just because you disagree with her doesn't mean her policy positions are not coherent.  I am guessing that again you do not know much about her or what she did in Alaska.  You have bought in to the hatred for her because that is what the men in the party want you to think and you don't know that you are merely part of the woman's auxiliary of the democratic party.

    Parent
    amen (none / 0) (#8)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:36:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    This photo that Palin recently posed for sums up the GOP position rather well.

    You can enjoy your sexy pinups as well as enjoying your reactionary beliefs of abstinence only, no abortions even in the case of rape, and creationism in the classroom.

    I think she is brilliant. GOod thing that her base of older white men is shriveling fast enough to be of no consequence at the voter boxes.

    Parent

    Hypocritical BS (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    The use of the photo is obviously sexist and you are being quite the hypocrite about this.

    Consider your own analysis of the Joker picture.

    Parent

    SHE posed for the picture (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    is reproducing it "sexism" or a commentary on her/their galloping idiocy?

    Parent
    She posed for the picture (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    for a RUNNING MAGAZINE.  Not for the NYTimes.

    My gawd, the hypocrisy from some of you is pretty amazing.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    But her subject matter is political. It is like saying that Huckabee in a golf magazine next month would have nothing to do with politics.

    Palin is considered the lead contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Everything she does from now till then is political.

    Doesn't have to be in the NYT, imo, to be fair game.

    Parent

    when you take the approach you do here (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    In my mind you forfeit the moral right to complain about acts of sexism and racism against people you approve of.

    Your attitude is completely based on you dislike, merited of course, of Palin.

    I just wrote that she was jaw dropping stupid.

    But I certainly felt no need to tie that judgment to the fact she is a woman.

    Sullivan on the other hand, felt compelled to do so.

    The very essence of a sexist.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    But I certainly felt no need to tie that judgment to the fact she is a woman.

    Sullivan on the other hand, felt compelled to do so.

    That is the problem here. You added a caption to Sullivan's post that was not there. He never called her stupid, in fact the only judgement he made about her was to say the photos are fantastic.

    I disagree that she is jaw dropping stupid. I have always argued that she is extremely smart, and quite a dangerous contender, because many underestimate her by writing her off as stupid.

    I think that this series of pictures is brilliant on her part, and in every way geared to winning the 2012 POTUS election.

    Sullivian on the other hand is an idiot, imo, compared to Palin.

    Parent

    Un effing believable (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    You added a caption to Sullivan's post that was not there. He never called her stupid, in fact the only judgement he made about her was to say the photos are fantastic.

    Are you joking? Did you actually read the post? Have you ever read Andrew Sullivan? On Palin?

    You are embarrassing yourself.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    I have not read anything by Sullivan on Palin. That is why I suggested that your comments about Sullivan being sexist have less to do with the particular link you posted, but more to do with your knowledge about Sullivan.

    On the face of this particular link, there is nothing sexist. Sorry to appear stupid, or naive here, because I am not familiar or interested in keeping up with Sullivan, but I was only responding to what you presented.

    If you want people to see your post in a greater context, please add something like, 'in the context of Sullivan's writings about Palin the latest link shows how sexist Sullivan is... '

    Parent

    BTD's use of ... (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    the word "still" covered this.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Still, I see no sexism in the post. Just a failed attempt, by a sexist pig.

    Parent
    What is your distinction ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    between an attempt at sexism and actual sexism?

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    Sexist would be offensive to the target. Sully in an attempt to embarrass Palin, only does PR for her.

    Parent
    So as long as ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    you don't reduce someone's popularity you're free to make sexist attacks on them?

    That's ridiculous.

    Parent

    How Is It A Sexist Attack? (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    He put up two pictures that are part of Palin's campaign 2012 and says nothing.

    Is it because Sully is usually a sexist?  Or is it that because he is usually sexist that this latest attempt is sexist?

    Sorry I do not buy it. I could be convinced that Sully was trying to be sexist, but imo he failed.

    Parent

    You clearly don't understand ... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    sexism.

    Take a course.  Read a book.  Talk to a woman.  Something.

    And when people who know a lot more about sexism than you suggest something is sexist, maybe you should examine that position carefully. Rather than just running off at the mouth.

    And, remember, just because something doesn't offend YOU doesn't mean it's not sexist.  And just because something is socially acceptable doesn't mean it's not sexist.  

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    I will ask you again. What is sexist about this? Seems to me you are ducking the question.

    Parent
    Oh, lord, it's ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    been explained a number of times in this thread:

    If you use a gender stereotype to demean or ridicule a woman's ideas that's sexist.

    In Sullivan's case, the photo is the only substantive criticism he offers.

    Now, rather than responding, go think about this for a day or two.  And, while you're thinking, examine why it was so important to you to claim it wasn't sexist?

    For a lot of people, sexism is like one of those 3-D images that on initial viewing resembles an abstract pattern.  But when you train your eyes to see it, it stands out in bold relief, and you can't believe you didn't see it in the first place.

    Parent

    Well as I've said (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    I don't see it either. I have more trouble with her comment accompanying the Runner's World article in which she refers to her political opponent as a male but the blogger who criticizes her as a female -- as if men run for office while women type. Reminds me of when she trashed Hollywood starlets in her resignation speech.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    And it backfired. This is Palin, quite strong posing as a modern day Betsy Ross.

    Parent
    Oh, good. Whites don't have to work (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    to end racism anymore, either, because it's only racism if it offends others of color.  

    Parent
    This Is A Campaign Pic Of Palin (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    The fact that she is a woman makes it sexist? If it were Bill Clinton in a running mag 2 and half years before his run it would just show what a hunk he is?

    Seems to me that there is quite a double standard going on here.

    Parent

    Excellent analogy. AP has a photo in (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    its files of Bill Clinton out for a jog.  Bill Clinton goes to N. Korea and successfully brings home the two female reporters.  Instead of a photo of Clinton in business attire, AP instead uses its file photo of Clinton out jogging.  Even if the photo is "the latest" shouldn't AP pick a photo more related to the report?

    Parent
    Depends (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    AP is a news agency, although with Ron Fournier running things there would be a right wing slant.

    My point boils down to this, there is a 300 pound gorrilla sitting in the room and no one seem to be noticing it.

    Palin is sexy, not ashamed of it and that is part of her campaign.

    Not AP, not some paparazzi, not some hack photoshop job, but Palin herself engineered this photo for a early high visibility campaign 2012 profile.  This is how she wants to bee seen, sexy, tough, and professional, just like her male counterparts have enjoyed.

    Sully has tried to use this as making her look bad, but it fails, imo. This sexy aspect of Palin's campaign is the most progressive part she has to offer. The fact that Sully fails to see this shows how sexist he is. The post itself is Palin and her message, imo.


    Parent

    No. The fact that I (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    have eyes to see it and a brain to think about why it was used is why I think it is sexist.

    I understand that you don't see, or don't think . . . so.


    Parent

    i too think (none / 0) (#95)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    that when someone is accusing someone else of something like sexism one should provide more evidence, you know, a pattern of behavior something.

    i think it's fair to ask for that or ask the person to stop making such accusations, don't you?


    Parent

    More Succintly (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    I believe you that Sully is a raving sexist pig, and do remember some of the truly sexist and moronic things he said about Hillary.

    GIven that I really believe that Sully's attempt here at sexism has utterly failed. He winds up looks like a moron to both sides of the aisle and reveals his pathetic desire to try and demean women, even more pathetic here because he fails.

    There is nothing sexist about Palin posing in a way that supports and compliments her message. I would welcome any Democratic woman leader showing off her sexual power as unabashedly and proudly as Palin does here. Maybe in fifty years  that will happen if we are lucky.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    The joker picture was a racist attempt to depict Obama as a criminal. This picture is by Palin. She is using it to win the 2012 election. Many GOPers respond to it in an extremely positive way.

    Some of the comments were, adoring. Here is a double entendre of sorts by Palin in the interview:

    [Q:] What about in a race? Could you beat the president?

    [A:] I betcha I'd have more endurance. My one claim to fame in my own little internal running circle is a sub-four marathon. It wasn't necessarily a good running time, but it proves I have the endurance within me to at least gut it out and that is something. If you ever talk to my old coaches, they'd tell you, too. What I lacked in physical strength or skill I made up for in determination and endurance. So if it were a long race that required a lot of endurance, I'd win.

    RW magazine

    Parent

    Probably true; unless she also smokes. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:44:45 PM EST


    Parent
    For various reasons (none / 0) (#179)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    at which I can only guess, there are women who cannot accept, and are therefore compelled to distort, the truth about active and passive misogyny in our society and in our media, including in the political blogs.

    But, lo and behold, today Bob Herbert, about as establishment a media figure as they come, is on my wavelength.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    Although he doesn't have to worry about libel because it is an opinion page. The regular news folk can only report it as anti-semitic, racist, or misogynist if they are reporting what the DA said or other authority.

    It is interesting that Herbert failed to mention that Sodini was also a racist and linked to white supremacist groups. Most, if not all the MSM did not report about his anti Obama rants.

    E&P's Greg Mitchell was first to point out the omission.

    In any case good for Herbert for giving the MSM a good lashing and pointing out the ubiquity of misogyny in our daily culture.

    Parent

    You continue to confuse (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:41:59 PM EST
    the ideology of misogyny, and structural misogyny in our society, with the motivations of individuals. An individual, without ever identifying as a misogynist or consciously claiming misogynist ideology, is perfectly capable of committing a crime that enacts structural and/or ideological misogyny. (The analogies with structural and de facto racism shouldn't even need elaboration.)

    For the record, you distorted my original comment on the killer in Pittsburgh with your assertion that I had said ABC news should have identified the killer in Pittsburgh as a misogynist. I never said that. I said more or less the same thing Bob Herbert did today:

    We have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that the barbaric treatment of women and girls has come to be more or less expected. We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. . . . Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female. . . . We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem. . . .


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:30:15 AM EST
    Your theoretical rant sounds really confusing. I am not confused one bit about misogyny in our society.

    As for misrepresenting what you have said about thinking that if the MSM would call out misogyny, all I said is that the news people risk libel if they opine that a crime is misogyny but the opinion writers can say what they want. I disagree with your thesis that if the news people call out misogyny it will have an effect on future generations.

    your words:

    if you're asking what would be the positive effect of seeing misogyny actually named in the news and entertainment media (in the same way that racism and antisemitism are named in connection with certain violent crimes), I have two responses.

    [snip]

    If the news and entertainment media actually named misogyny as a social pathology as they do with other forms of hatred against designated groups, instead of just continuing the current practice of describing and sensationalizing the effects of misogyny, then at least one generation of girls and young women might be able to grow up knowing that violence, sexual and otherwise, against women is not "normal.




    Parent
    That's untrue (none / 0) (#193)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 03:18:11 AM EST
    and just plain silly:

    the news people risk libel if they opine that a crime is misogyny

    And just the other day you said this:

    calling someone a racist, mysoginist, antisemite, bigot, homophobe, et al are libelous claims

    Maybe that's true, in some cases, when it comes to individuals. But it doesn't mean that a newspaper reporting on an incident or pattern of racism, for example (as opposed to calling someone a racist), is courting actionable charges of libel.

    The briefest of searches in the online archives of the New York Times turned up this article, published August 8, 2009. It is not an opinion article. It is a news article with a byline, reporting on the world of sports. The article reports on one man's battle against racism. The reporter uses the word "racism" right in the article. And the editors use the word "racism" right in the headline. Let me know when somebody sues the Times for libel (or for slander, as you sometimes incorrectly call it). The Times is not confused about the difference between calling names and calling racism by its proper name.

    I'm a graduate of journalism school, and I've worked for more than 20 years as a journalist. Have you? Your claims are pure nonsense, if not an outright fabrication served up to "prove" your silly point. This isn't England, where charges of libel against newspapers are invoked quite freely.

    Oh, and the fact that a search of the Times' archives turns up no mentions of misogyny in the news only reinforces my original point.

    Bob Herbert gets it. You don't. Apparently you don't want to. But if you don't want to educate yourself, at least stop making $h!t up.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 08:35:25 AM EST
    I saw the claim that misogny is a crime.  If only -- but then jail overcrowding would be far worse.

    It gets wearying to deal with such statements.  And on a legal blog, yet.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 11:57:54 AM EST
    It gets wearying to deal with such statements.  And on a legal blog, yet.


    Parent
    More BS (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    The article you refer to is reporting on one man's battle against racism.

    Please show me one news article reporting a crime where the writer or teevee reporter, opines that the crime is anti-semitic, racist, or misogynistic.

    Talk Left deletes comments where commenters call public figures racist, etc, because of libel issues. TL also deletes comments that call other commenters racist et al.

    You may not call anyone a racist or anti-semitic here. Name-calling is not allowed. It's also potentially libelous.

    TL


    Parent

    good effing god (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    News articles, by definition, do not "opine." And TalkLeft is not a newspaper. Sheesh.

    You continue to miss the salient point, all the while cluelessly making my original point (thank you).

    And, bless your heart, you just love to argue, apparently for argument's sake.

    Sayonara.

    Parent

    Excuse Me (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    Your point was that news articles should name violence against women as misogyny, just like they do for racism, anti-semitism et al. I disagreed on your premise and your claim:

    if you're asking what would be the positive effect of seeing misogyny actually named in the news and entertainment media (in the same way that racism and antisemitism are named in connection with certain violent crimes), I have two responses.

    Your theory was that if news agencies used the word misogyny the next generation of young women would grow up knowing that violence against women in not normal.

    I responded that news agencies cannot opine about a crime, and name crimes against women as misogynistic due to libel. I also pointed out that news reporters also do not regularly opine that a crime is anti-semitic or racist as you claim.

    I also do not believe that if news casters or reporters could use the language you prefer, that it would change the situation regarding violence toward women.

    My suggestion was that local intervention, and grassroots consciousness raising around community violence is the most effective way to go. I would also add counseling to the mix.

    Parent

    IOW (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    The reason Bob Herbert can do what you want news casters and reporters to do is precisely because he is an opinion writer, and not a reporter.

    If the DA classifies a crime as anti semitic, misogynist, or racist hate crime, the news can report it as such. Like this for instance:

    Anti-Semitic attack on teenage girl in Paris

    Fears that the conflict in Gaza could spark violence between Jews and Muslims in France have been heightened as three teenagers were arrested yesterday for an alleged anti-Semitic attack on a 15-year-old girl.

    An inquiry was launched after the victim said she was insulted, knocked to the ground, kicked and punched by a gang of 10 youths as she left Leon Blum school in Villiers-le-Bel north of Paris.

    Three of her alleged attackers - aged between 13 and 15 and all from her own school - were arrested on suspicion of 'aggravated violence and anti-Semitic insults', according to a police source.
    emphasis added

    That is not the case in the crime we are discussing.

    Parent

    Stop linking me to DK and Sully! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    Dammit.  Sucked me in again.

    We all see what we want to see. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:53:41 AM EST
    I see a vain, self-absorbed person doing all she possibly can to keep herself relevant and in the spotlight.  

    The troop banner on the window, the flag draped over the desk.  It is a glamour shot pandering specifically to your average winger.  

    Let's not forget that Sarah chose to pose for these pictures.  Nobody twisted her arm, nobody from the liberal media hiding in the bushes taking "gotcha" photos.  This is how she wanted to be photgraphed.  

    Does she not bare any responsibility in that?  

    Such BS (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    The photo itself is not the issue.

    It was taken for a running magazine.

    It is Sullivan's use of that photo in that post.

    My gawd you are all such a bunch of hypocrites.

    Parent

    Perhaps you could (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    ...explain why you think it is sexist instead of just saying it is.  

    I sure don't see it and just saying it is doesn't help my understanding.

    And please spare me the name calling.  I'm not a hypocrate nor clueless.

    Parent

    I have explained it (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    a number of times.

    That it needs explaining is telling.

    Parent

    Fail. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:09:24 AM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    You failed miserably.

    Parent
    Could I try please? (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    I think that BTD is focusing on the behavior of Sullivan, not of Palin. Yes, Palin posed for that picture for a running magazine - that is her behavior.

    But Sullivan is writing about politics and he chose to use that picture of her instead of a more professional one - that's his behavior, and it's hard to see it as anything other than trying to demean and/or marginalize her by bringing gender into it. It would be as if he were writing a political story on HRC, and chose to use a photo of her in a bathing suit or something instead of a professional one. Or, as if Dick Morris wrote a political story about Obama and chose to use a photo that emphasized racial aspects.

    In other words, Sullivan chose to bring gender into it instead of just writing about how effing stupid she and her politics are.

    (Take it with a grain of salt, of course.)

    :)

    Parent

    Reminds me of instances (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    in which the photo editor chooses the photo of Obama frowning as opposed to smiling.  

    Parent
    Or the worst photo of Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    I have ever seen, used by CNN in its coverage of his North Korea trip.

    I emailed them and objected bigtime to their editorial photo choice.  They stopped using it.

    Maybe there was a connection...maybe not...but they stopped using it.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    I do believe you are, on this matter, both a hypocrite and clueless.

    It happens to the best of us.

    Parent

    I can see you... (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    ...woke up on the horse's a** side of the bed this morning, so I'm done with you.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:13:08 AM EST


    Parent
    when was the last time... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    ...you were hypocritical and clueless in this major a way, tent?

    sorry, couldn't resist, though i would love to hear the answer.

    Parent

    Probably about (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    Charlie Rangel.

    I ignore his ethical lapses because well, I have a very soft spot for Charlie Rangel.

    Parent

    OK...I'll try...see my post below. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:13:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh, And she would bare (sic) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    even more responsibility were she to end up in Playboy.

    To quote a favorite SNL exit line, "It could happen!"

    Parent

    It's really a (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    pretty flattering picture of her.

    If I look that good at her age!  -- oh whoops I am her age. Okay, I'm depressed now.  Is 9:05am too early to drink? ;-).

    BTW, where is all the wild speculation about Martinez' plans after his sudden resignation.  You'd think people would treat him the same way they did Palin...oh whoops, I forgot he's a man.

    Where's that drink?

    Flattering? (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    That is an understatement if I ever heard one. She looks drop dead gorgeous.

    Parent
    Well...(meow)...I think the (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    pantyhose with shorts is a bit much, don't you?

    Very revealing, to coin a phrase.

    Parent

    Must Be For Running (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    I am not a runner, but I bet this is running gear, that she is modeling. My guess is that there are prices and description accompanying the article.

    Parent
    Uh...no. Pantyhose are not, (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    repeat NOT, running gear.

    Parent
    Or full makeup. But it gets (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:37:10 AM EST
    really cold in Alaska.

    Parent
    Well, then run indoors at the (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    gym...but NOT in pantyhose!

    Or makeup.

    Parent

    Ha. Have you ever done an early (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    morning organized run?  Always lots of females in complete makeup and jewelry.  Pretty funny.

    Parent
    Desperately sad. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:44:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Those look like (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    aerobics tights to me.

    Parent
    Freshly waxed (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    with perhaps a bit of makeup, since it was a photo shoot, to even the skin tones. She does use a tanning bed also . . .

    Parent
    Skin tone (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    could be photoshopped.

    Parent
    I did not speculate about Palin (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    Though I must say Martinez's resignation raises my eyebrows.

    Parent
    The entirety (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    of the liberal blogosphere did, to the point where.....was it Huffington? that was warned by Palin's lawyers to cease and desist(sp) with some of the "speculation".

    But true, you, BTD, did not.

    Parent

    If there is not much speculation about Martinez (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    I think it is because he is not exactly a household name, plus he is at the age where health problems are suspected for him or his wife. He is not in the prime of his life like Sarah Palin.  I don't see sexism there.

    Parent
    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    the speculation may not be fueled by sexism but the nature of the speculation certainly certainly took a sexist tone.  But that is because sexism is okay and hardly ever recognized where racism is imagined in everything negative said about an AA.  
    No I think the reason Palin is treated the way she is by the media, including bloggers is that the democratic party is afraid of her.

    Parent
    I'm also afraid of her... (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    who wouldn't be afraid of someone SO ignorant and hypocritical having power?

    I'm afraid of what it says for our country that she has a national voice...

    Of course we should be afraid of her...she could have the power very soon to further destroy our country in the way that 2 of the last 3 Republican presidents have already...

    I'm not sure that anything scares me more than a Creationist pusher being President...

    the only thing I'm more scared of is the people that will have the money to support her (like the hate-mongering Evangelical leaders)...

    Parent

    Well I'M afraid of her (none / 0) (#143)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    She is the avatar of a potentially violent movement of right-wing crazies, birthers, etc.  That ought to scare people.

    Her gender and appearance, except to the extent that the latter is part of her charisma, should not.  

    Parent

    Big Tent is right. This is simple. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    Thousands of Palin photos to choose from to accompany his post.  Why pick this one? He didn't comment on the photo as those here have...so why this one?

    Of course it's sexist.

    That so many of you are trying to 'splain it away just tells me how far we have to go....

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    the fact that the "why" has to be debated or explained is quite distressing.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    Thousands of Palin photos to choose from to accompany his post.

    These are from August 2009 magazine. Pretty up to date and current. Also in this photo caption from the magazine she states her BS hypocrisy about why can't we all just get along.

    We need more of that. [dropping the nasty politics]

    It is hilarious having that quote and picture alongside of her Hitler reference. What a hypocrite.

    Parent

    But...sigh...nevermind. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:24:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Even if your comment is right (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    and it is not, that caption is not in Sullivan's post.

    Hell, Sullivan uses that picture for many if not most of his Plain posts.

    Your contortions on this are just amazing.

    They remind me of the defenses raised for Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment on the day of the South Carolina primary. Hell, those defenses were more cogent in that Jackson did win the South Carolina primary. There was some level of relevance, though to me it was obvious what Bill Clinton was trying to do, and it was cheap, wrong, and despicable of Clinton.

    Parent

    that is because you supported Obama (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    it was clear to me that EVERYONE including Obama said he was going to win SC because of the large AA population.  It was part of their strategy. So it was not racist or trying to bait racism to say what everyone even Obama was saying.
    You know some black preacher in TX apologized to Bill Clinton about the race baiting and said it was only because they wanted to win so badly. To which Clinton responded that he understood.

    You've been played and you don't even know it.

    Parent

    Racism (none / 0) (#60)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    Is always with us.

    It's true if someone is convinced bill was being racist then one must see how sullivan us being sexist, too.

    Parent

    Silly (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    Go for it.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    If bill was being despicable then so is Sullivan.

    Parent
    Not what you wrote above (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    I certainly agree with this comment though.

    Parent
    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    Even if I didn't write it.

    Parent
    Context (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Well I do not follow Sullivan, and have only gone to his site following a link, mostly yours, so I have no idea about how many times he has posted this photo.

    Your expanded context is about Sullivan, and what you know about him.

    I am only responding to this particular link. Nothing about Palin being stupid, by Sullivan here.

    Parent

    Well, Jesse and I don't agree with (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    you but that's OK.

    Whatever Bill Clinton did or didn't intend, he shouldn't have said it.  Backfired.  Bigtime.

    Let's not revisit the campaign flubs until we run out of fresh meat, hmmm?  So many to choose from, tho, I can see why it's tempting on a slow news day.

    Parent

    intentions are kind of important (none / 0) (#119)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    and i can't think of any other instance where bill used racial antipathy to generate a political result.  no history there as far as i can tell.

    insofar as it produced a negative result, i'm sure he regrets saying it, whether or not he should take responsibility for the negative result remains open to debate.


    Parent

    Intent IS important but I don't (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    do mindreading.  Jesse and I take Bill at his word.  Big Tent does not.

    Either way, when your words, or your candidate's words can be used against you, those words were a mistake...politically speaking.

    Only wierdos think Bill is a racist.  I am confident BTD does not think so.

    Parent

    well if bill isn't racist (2.00 / 0) (#126)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    then it's clear someone else was using race to create a political result.  a positive one.

    Parent
    Bingo. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    Got anyone in mind?  Anyone who twisted the arms of AA superdelegates and threatened them for supporting Hillary?

    Uh huh.  I won't ever forget the treatment of John Lewis in this regard.  Never.  Never ever.

    Parent

    Bingo (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    It was all ACORN and the Black Panthers and the ghost of H. Rap Brown.

    Im glad someone finally had the guts to say it.

    Parent

    the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:31:56 PM EST
    and all their surrogates used both race and gender and I will not forget it.

     On the other hand I love Jesse Jackson for NOT race baiting when he ran.
    I saw him at a take back america conference in 2004 and he was a great speaker.  If he mentioned race then he mentioned gender too and poverty as reasons we should lift people up.  I voted for him once and would again. Though the right has been so good at vilifying him I am sure he would never get anywhere.

    Parent

    Bingo. (2.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:53:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Because it's worked so (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    well for all the blacks elected to office in the past.

    Parent
    Well, in Chicago, anyway (2.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 08:41:37 AM EST
    where it's politics as usual.  But it's a new day in America and all that, y'know.

    Parent
    double standard? (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    Hitler is reference by the left all the time.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    Sorry to be unclear.

    The hypocrisy is that the along with the picture Sully posts, is a quote by Palin talking about how nasty politics can be and that when running (sports) everyone is chilled and nice to one another, her quote:

    We need more of that. [dropping the nasty politics]

    But she is engaging in vile politics at the same time, Hitler reference ergo hypocrite.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    Please show me another serious woman Politician who has had the guts or been given the latitude to depict themselves as sexy.

    Male Politicians have always gotten a pass to run as sexy, women no.

    Apart from your justifiable contempt of Sullivan, I think that your puritanical sexist values are coloring your argument here.

    Parent

    And off we go. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:38:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Off We Go (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:51:30 AM EST
    Sorry oculus, this is not a BTD fan site, nor is my opinion in anyway off topic. If you have something other than veiled snark to add to the discussion that would be welcome, otherwise your BS is adding nothing to the conversation, imo.

    Parent
    This part necessary to the discussion? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    Apart from your justifiable contempt of Sullivan, I think that your puritanical sexist values are coloring your argument here.



    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    It is often hard for me to know what your are talking about when your comment is so oblique. I know it is your style, but directness is appreciated, thank you.

    That was not the best way of putting it for sure. Frustration and grasping on my part due to my mystification about the charges of sexism based on this link alone.

    It is clear that BTD is including, without direct reference, all of Sullivan's ranting about Palin, which I am unaware of.

    But on the face of this single post, I find no sexism, and think that the issue Palin presents is utterly fascinating. She has clearly broken new ground in politics, and the particular photo Sully posts is emblematic of it, imo.

    Parent

    I don't read Sullivan and I skim (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    BTD's posts re Sullivan.  But it seems pretty clear to me one must assume knowledge of the entirety of BTD's musings on Sullivan.  

    Parent
    Depicting herself is sexy is fine (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    Someone else Using that depiction to degrade her is not.

    Kind of like how African Americans can call themselves a certain word as a source of empowerment, and then when someone else uses that word it's kind of different, right?

    Parent

    Is there such a thing as (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    Puritanical values about racism??!

    Parent
    LOL...OK now THAT is funny! (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    If you knew how far "puritanical" is from my "sexist values" you wwould have to eat those words.  No salt or pepper, either!

    Good grief.

    Parent

    There's been worse pictures (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    Photoshopped pictures if women used.

    All i know is Sullivan is a man who exists in a sexist society.

    Sometimes, the thing to do (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    is to simply change who we're talking about to be able to see the problem.

    Let's say that a media outlet opts to do a story about lawyers in high-profile cases, and includes a woman lawyer -- but the photo is not one of many of that woman lawyer looking lawyerly but instead is of her on the beach, say, or maybe in running gear of short-shorts, etc..  Maybe it even is one of the most recent photos of that woman lawyer.  So what?  

    People here seem to understand the gatekeeper role of the media, the news filtering process, in terms of words chosen to bias stories.  You really don't think that photo selection does?

    Or maybe the story includes a male lawyer -- but the photo is a beefcake shot of him in Speedos.  Enjoyable as that may be for we women readers -- that is, if he's fit for Speedos -- I will go away from the story probably not thinking of him as a high-powered lawyer but . . . well, I won't go there.

    Apologies to BTD if there is a photo of him somewhere in Speedos.  

    Disagree (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    This is not some archival photo of Palin that Sully dug up, this is from August 2009 issue where Palin is clearly campaigning for 2012 POTUS.

    I think it is a great picture, and part of Palin's political message. Nothing wrong with a woman strutting her stuff. Men have done it forever in politics. Too bad that no Democratic women could break the sexual imagery barrier as Palin has done here

    Parent

    I understand that you think that (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    and that you can not help but bring it back to Palin, when the point of the comment was to do otherwise.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    To be more blunt your analogy is a non sequitur. This is a photo approved by Palin as part of her early campaign. She and Huckabee are considered to be the top two contenders for the 2012 GOP POTUS nomination.

    Palin is not some high profile lawyer out there. And this is not a photo dug up by her opposition that functions to show a shockingly disparate image which could derail the high profile case.

    This is an image constructed by Palin, part of her message. If anything Sully's attempt at being a sexist has utterly failed.  

    Parent

    Again -- (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    the point made by the post was not a point about Palin.  It was about Sullivan.  Therefore, I am speaking to the point, and you are raising the non sequitur . . . and raising the non sequitur . . . and raising the non sequitur. . .

    When you speak to the point in the post, you will have a reply to which it will be on point to reply.  Until then, I am not going to engage in the further subversion of the post's point.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    Your analogy was to the point of embarrassing a high profile lawyer by publishing a bathing picture or something of that sort meant to embarrass the high profile lawyer in the middle of a high profile case.

    Is Sully the high profile lawyer in your analogy? No, obviously Palin is. Your analogy was poor and not analogous to the act of Sully publishing Palin's latest PR picture.

    This picture does nothing to embarrass Palin. It is in fact Palin's latest PR for campaing 2012. Sully is, unbeknownst to himself, working for Palin here, even though he is trying to embarrass her.

    Parent

    So, part of Palin's political message is (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    one she stole from Paris Hilton - that she's hot?

    You are right that there is nothing wrong with a woman "strutting her stuff," but there's a reason there are no stripper poles in the well of the Senate, or on the floor of the House.  There's a reason why our women members of Congress do not appear for speeches and votes in Daisy Dukes and halter tops - and no, it isn't because no one wants to see Barbara Mikulski or Barbara Boxer in short-shorts, but because titillation is not the goal of being elected to office.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want my elected representatives - male or female - to work harder at providing any portion of the electorate with fantasy material than they do at working on good policy and stewardship of the republic.

    But, aside from the ridiculous notion you have put forward that women need to break the sexual imagery barrier, you are missing the point of why that particular photo of Palin is the one that accompanies Sullivan's post.  It isn't because it was the most recent one Sullivan could find, and it certainly wasn't to accord her any credibility: it was to showcase her as someone whose opinions cannot and should not be treated as serious.

    If Sullivan thought Palin was off-the-charts wacky, he should have destroyed the substance of what she said - that's how you take her down, not by giving her supporters one more reason to defend the indefensible because of its sexist origin.

    I'm not sure I have ever read such a collection of wrong-headed and perhaps unintentionally sexist comments as the ones of yours I have read today; they are, perhaps, more jaw-dropping than that photo juxtaposed against Palin's comments.

    Parent

    Running magazine, fine. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    Otherwise, not fine.

    Showing women as sex objects, not fine*.

    Posing with intent of capitalizing on oneself as a sex object, not fine.*

    .[Insert inappropriate wink here.]

    *Unless one is defining oneself professionally, as a sex object.  [See:  Grable, Betty.  Pin-ups.]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    I think it is fine for a Candidate to be sexy. Unfortunately that has only been allowed for male candidates. If Bill Clinton was photographed 2 and a half years prior to his run for POTUS in a running magazine, that would be considered cool.

    IOW- OK for male POTUS candidate (Clinton) to be a sex object, among other things.

    Not OK for a female POTUS (Palin) to be a sex object among other things.

    Granted Palin is doing something never done before by a woman running for high office, as far as I know.

    And it is BS to imagine that her profile in Aug 2009 RW magazine, is some irrelevant side thing, that has nothing to do with the fact that she is one of the top contenders for the 2012 GOP ticket.

    Parent

    Teresa in PA (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your take on Palin's wink and your characterization that for women to be sexual means being cheesecake.

    That is a regressive and puritanical view that is a throwback to the virgin bride mentality.

    Bill Clinton is a walking sex machine. As candidate and POTUS he flirted with women on a regular basis. This was considered perfectly normal behavior for a male leader of our country, and he was never cheesecake because of this.

    Cheesecake connotes, nothing in the bank but sex. Your use of the term is a sexist reflex, imo.

    Part of Palin's political power is her sexiness, not all of it as in cheesecake. This is something I have never seen in a woman candidate who is now considered the top contender for the GOP 2012 ticket. This is a good thing. The bad thing is that Palin is regressive on almost all the rights women have fought for to date.

    I find it hilarious that the puritanical sexist grip on both seemingly progressive women and men disallow for a strong woman leader who also has a powerful sex appeal. Not just cheesecake, as you put it but using sexual energy among other things.

    Strong male leaders have been using their sexual power, among other things, for centuries. It is about time that women get to unleash their equally powerful sexual energy as part of their political appeal.

    George W. Bush worst president in history. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:54:00 AM EST


    Yes I Agree - Bush was a genius (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    whose "extraordinary vision and brilliance" was overlooked by the public.

    Perhaps we can redress this injustice by doing something that will give Bush the credit he truly deserves.  May I suggest naming every sewage treatment plant in our country, coast to coast, after George W Bush.

    Parent

    How about just naming (none / 0) (#100)
    by mg7505 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    the sewage after him?

    Parent
    Sullivan (none / 0) (#2)
    by NealB on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    I can't see why that post reveals that Andrew Sullivan is sexist.

    Really? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    You can't?

    Can you explain the purpose of the photo Sullivan uses?

    thank you for demonstrating what I always say - most people are clueless when it comes to racism and sexism.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    It is one of the most current photos of Palin out there. It is from the August 2009 interview she did with runners world.

    It is interesting to compare the current quotes. There is the Hitler one and the one that accompanies the photo Sullivan uses  shows quite a bit of hypocrisy on Palin's part.

    Sullivan is no doubt sexist, although this jusxaposition does not appear to be doing more than deconstructing basic GOP hypocrisy.

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

    "It doesn't matter your background, your demographics, your race, your political affiliation, it's such a uniting, healthy, fun, awesome activity. It cracks me up going to some running event and seeing some dude who campaigned so hard against me, or a lady who's been blogging some mean comments about me. But we're all there together and we're smiling and we're having a good time because we're going to do something healthy and active. We need more of that."

    link


    Parent

    Bullsh*t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    Try that BS with someone else Squeaky.

    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    Your blindspot here, imo,  is that you know how f'ing sexist Sullivan is and you have lost objectivity. On its face it is not sexist, in the context of Sullivan's position about women, it is.

    This is how Palin has just depicted herself, and the wingers love it. I think it is brilliant on Palins part. Clearly these photos are bait to tempt the Democrats to write sexist captions.

    You imagined Sullivan's caption, imo. He on the other hand showed uncharacteristic restraint.

    Parent

    Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    Is always with us.

    Parent
    Give me one REAL good reason (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:58:46 AM EST
    for the use of that photo? Latest available is just BS. It is not even true.

    Hell, Sullivan himself links to a slideshow of Palin photos.

    I would have been fine with linking to, say - the Palin farewell speech/Shatner spoof.

    The use of THAT picture in that post was out and out obvious sexism and it takes either willful blindness or hypocrisy not to see that.

    Parent

    I don't see it as sexist (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    and I don't think she does either since she posed for it for Runner's World. It's a photo of her in athletic gear with the flag draped on a chair. It's who she is. She's attractive, fit and a right wing nut case.

    Parent
    And, I think Palin's comment was more sexist (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    why is the politician who runs against her a male while the blogger who criticizes her a female? Males run for office while females sit at home typing?

    Parent
    Well, I guess we can be glad, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    that she didn't pose for Playboy, because then Sullivan could have used one of those shots.

    Had her comments been in the article in Running World, I can sort of see using one of the photos that accompanied the article, but her comments were posted to her Facebook page.

    So, while it was her choice to pose for Running World looking all fit and healthy, it was not her choice to have Sullivan use one of those photos to accompany his denigration of her opinions.

    So, why this photo?

    I see it this way: Sullivan did not want to give credibility to Palin's comments by showing a photo of her looking all gubernatorial or vice-presidential, in a business suit - he wanted the reader to see a cheesecake photo and conclude that the opinions made by Palin were just as fluffy and not credible.

    In fact, the post was so short - three lines? -  it's hard not to conclude that he was letting the photo do all the talking.

    He could have factually destroyed her comments, but he didn't.  He could have posted her comments with his and no photo, but he didn't.

    If not outright sexist, major sexist overtones.
     

    Parent

    does she always run with an American flag? (none / 0) (#163)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    just curious...
    I'm not looking at the pictures, not something I'm interested in...I care about the policies of my politicians, not whether they look good in running shorts...

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    It speaks a thousand words about GOP hypocrisy for one. It is current, for two. And quite hilarious considering the caption juxtaposed to her Hitler quote, which Sullivan did not include but linked to.

    Also it is a quintessential Palin photograph, and fascinating from a sociological point of view regarding Palin's power and McCain's (the GOP) choice of running mate against Hillary, and it contradicts the historical taboo for women in Politics to not be sexy, clearly a double sexist standard.

    I believe that a liberal woman Politician would be trashed for depicting herself as Palin did. Only a GOPer with the veil of Family values BS could do this, and it is a first, imo.

    Parent

    Hypocritical how? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    Being a runner demonstrates hypocrisy how exactly?

    What is the relevance?

    Parent

    Hypocritical Because (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    The party of family values is a sham. It gives a wink and a nod to enjoying sexy pin up style pictures, which I have no problem with,  while arguing that women cannot be allowed to control their own bodies. It pushes forth a regressive agenda for women, not an empowering one, imo.

    If Palin were the sort of feminist that was arguing about women taking back their sexuality from men, and running with it as an example of women's power, I would embrace it. This picture, coupled with Palin's political views is highly hypocritical, imo.

    Parent

    She's (almost) wrapping herself in the flag (none / 0) (#99)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    I think Sullivan is a jerk and I don't understand why people link to him, but if anything, I think that here if anything, he is showing how she is wrapping herself in the flag.

    This is how she depicts herself.  Soccer mom, runner, attractive, youthful, wrapped in the flag, red girl in a red state.

    Sullivan didn't take that photo and it's a recent photo that Palin believes represents her.

    I don't see the sexism.  If you do see sexism, I wish you would clarify why and where and not just tell people who disagree that they are proving your point.  Maybe they are not proving your point.  Maybe you are just wrong.

    Parent

    first of all (none / 0) (#204)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:43:54 AM EST
    unless you have an email or letter from Palin saying she is running, you have no such knowledge.  You can speculate but that is not what you are doing.
    2nd, third wave feminism is an oxymoron.  What it really is, is the undertow.  Power in anything but entertainment is NOT gained through cheesecake. For you to insist that this is what she is doing is sexist and insulting to her and that is not cool even aimed at Palin who I understand is my fellow democrats latest obsession.

    Parent
    Not sure, (none / 0) (#7)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    If it's totally sexist or not. I think the picture represents his vile hatred toward Palin and by having her in that pose (BTW, she does look good IMO) he wants to marginalize her. I also think there is a little bit of elitism in the use of the picture - as in "No serious intelligent person would ever pose like this".

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    (BTW, she does look good IMO)

    [snip]

    I also think there is a little bit of elitism in the use of the picture - as in "No serious intelligent person would ever pose like this".

    You comment proves that Palin is smart and intelligent to depict her self in pin up style. It is just that her appeal of being sexy and intelligent is it being pitched by Palin to right wingers like you.

    Parent

    Partially sexist? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:51:02 AM EST


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    Yeah that is like being partially pregnant..

    Parent
    All by itself (none / 0) (#80)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    It wouldn't but he's a man living in a sexist society.

    Parent
    Dont (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    expect conservatives to understand. I point this type of stuff out to them constantly and it goes over their head. Obama is spying on us they scream! Me: why didnt you have a problem with this bill when Bush was President? Crickets. And on it goes with all kinds of subjects. They're just a bunch of knee jerk government hating fundamentalists.

    Sorry, that quote is not stupid. (none / 0) (#49)
    by steviez314 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    "Dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago" is stupid.  "The Sun revolves around the Earth" is stupid.

    Her comments are another level--deliberate lies intended to incite anger and hatred and foster political aims.

    Far more despicable and far more dangerous.

    do men do stupid sh*t...? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    ...strictly on the basis of their gender?  do women do stupid sh*t strictly on the basis of theirs?

    sorry to be blunt or crass, but i am genuinely curious to hear responses.

    no (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    stupid sh*t is learned.  it is not gender based anymore than it is based on race.

    your question is offensive actually.  and if you recontextualized your question in a racial context you would know that.


    Parent

    I wonder. At the riski of being (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    even more offensive, I've been trying to think of any instances where women have gone postal on men in their rage and disappointment.

    It's not because we don't have access to guns.  Is the media ignoring such stories and not giving women wackos equal time and attention?

    Or...?  Testosterone levels seem to have an effect on behavior, no?  

    Parent

    perhaps for the same reason (none / 0) (#121)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    why we've never seen a report of an african american cop beating up a white kid.

    i mean.  are to assume that has never happened at all?

    Parent

    Good question. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    It cannot be common, tho, in either instance or we wouldn't have to do research.  We would immediately recall the instance if we knew of it...local, state, national or international.  I can't think of any.  Can you?

    Parent
    i normally don't rule out the existence of (none / 0) (#131)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    something just cause i have not heard about it or witnessed it myself.

    my assessment is that such things are quite rare, but probably have happened at one point or another.

    the universe is just that random.

    Parent

    Well....I suppose. But back to the (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    main question.

    Domestic violence (Lorena Bobbitt notwithstanding) is primarily a case of violence by men against women and children.

    When men are required to wear burkas or be accompanied by their mothers, wives or daughters to leave the house or when men are stoned to death or have acid thrown in their faces for dishonoring their families or when a woman breaks into the Elks Club with an uzzi and wipes out the "Exhausted roosters"....well, then I might say you have a real point.

    But not yet.  There may be a genetic component to sexism as well as cultural/learned behavior.  The evidence seems to point to it.

    Parent

    the question is relevance (none / 0) (#155)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    and what you mean to accomplish by your comment.

    there's a genetic component to everything.  race.  sexual orientation.  liking creamy instead of extra crunchy peanut butter.  

    phhhhhtttttppp.

    but when someone harps on it, i tend to think it's because they're trying to suggest nothing can be done about the things we think are wrong.

    so my point stands.

    the learned part is more relevant and productive to discuss at this time.

    not to suggest we didn't come from a gene pool of course, right?  that would be silly.

    Parent

    You point above was that (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    stupid sh@t is learned.

    I'm saying that both nature and nurture seem to have a role.

    I'm not saying that nothing can be done about the things we think are wrong.  Obviously, there is something to be done.  What is learned can be unlearned...generally speaking.  What is nature can be sublimated...or changed, perhaps, with genetic recoding.  If genes for violence exist, perhaps they can be modified in the future.

    Just because you say "the learned part is more relevant and productive to discuss at this time" doesn't mean that you are correct.  More than one thing can be addressed at once, I hope.

    Multitasking is life and survival...as any mother knows!

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#188)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    unlearning stupid things i learned is easier at this time than recoding my genes.

    though i would like to try.  might like a little less male pattern balding to go along with the more introspective bits too while i'm at it.

    by all means.


    Parent

    Heh. Uncle. n/t (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:26:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Mmmm, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:17:30 AM EST
    better say: Aunt.  To be genderly fair and balanced and all. :-)

    Parent
    parent's sibling (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 01:06:45 AM EST
    parent's sibling.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    Not strictly based on their gender.

    But the Darwin awards often have stupid sh*t done by men in the company of other men more often than the same done by women in the company of other women.  That's a social phenomena, not a physiological phenomena.  Men seem to encourage other men to do risky things, foolish things and stupid things.

    Parent

    Like....boxing...football....bungee (none / 0) (#138)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    jumping...

    Ducking...please!  No violence!

    Parent

    Fatal bungee jumping (none / 0) (#194)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 06:39:16 AM EST
    is listed in the Darwin awards.  One was...never mind, the details are too grisly.

    Parent
    I remember that one...sheesh...n/t (none / 0) (#199)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:34:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I imagine they do (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    the relevance of your question to Sullivan's post is not apparent to me.

    Parent
    You're turning into (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    the Al Sharpton of sexism (directed at powerful women.)

    Meanwhile,using Iraqi women and children for clusterbomb fodder has never even been worth commenting on.

    Parent

    well at least this al sharpton of sexism (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    can be commended for speaking out about racism too.

    as far as i can tell.

    Parent

    so really the only question left is (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    can al sharpton be commended for speaking out against sexism?

    Parent
    Gender is always filtered (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    through mental constructs which aren't strictly based ongender, IMO.

    Parent
    You want me to tell the truth? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    Yeah sometimes I say and do stupid sh*t strictly on the basis of my gender.

    Parent
    Sexism (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    So Sully is a sexist pig. I do not see the sexism by him in this particular post, although he is looks like a fool, because Palin lovers are drooling over it.

    On the other hand, I personally am really glad to have seen this interview and accompanying pictures. Clearly Palin has broken new feminist ground in politics for GOP women, ironically her views regarding women rights in other areas are extremely regressive.

    No Democratic woman could ever go there, which is also deeply ironic. The party who is progressive on women's rights, has to also maintain a sexist regressive standard regarding sexual power  as part of the package for its leaders. IOW sex appeal is OK for men, but still taboo for women candidates.

    Edit (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Democrats are still maintaining a sexist regressive double standard for its leaders.

    Parent
    So Queen Andrew is catty: (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    this not exactly a new cultural,or sub-cultural phenomenon.

    And, Im still not buying for one half-a-second that dewy, naive, unworldly Sarah had no thoughts at all about getting her image "out there" in the political sense, when she posed.
     

    Parent

    Sure the righties love the Palin picture (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    One aspect of sexism is using women for how they look and not who they are.  I expect this will be a popular picture since Sarah Palin has reduced who she is to an ex-governor publicity hound.

    If Sarah Palin thinks this picture thinks it says 'Hey, I'm smart AND sexy"....well, she has not yet proven the first part.  Yes, she is very pretty. So what?

    This picture reminds me most of the joke picture Stephen Colbert shows of himself lying on a bearskin rug draped in nothing but the flag.

    I'm late to this party, but those are my scattered thoughts.

    Sullivan was a sexist conservative hack long before he embraced Obama. Can't wipe that slate clean, and I view all his actions in that light.

    About time you weighed in! (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    More material for fall curriculum!

    Hi, oldpro. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    I'm not here as much these days, what with . . . well . . . plus I'm amid a late-summer course now.  So it's more material for the current curriculum.:-)  But we know that we can count on there being even more material for the fall curriculum.  The stoopid that hurts will keep hurting, and especially because so many "libruls" don't get it, either.  Or don't want to get it.

    Parent
    looking good (none / 0) (#154)
    by wilco on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    Well, she does look really good.  I have to admit.  Not sure how smart she is.  Her body looks like it has a very high IQ.  Close to genius.  Would love to see Palin and Maddow in a wrestling match.

    "in the red corner we have Sara "the beast slayer" Palin....in the blue corner we have Rachel "the sexy leftie" Maddow.

    It could happen.

    Please refrain from commenting (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:54:48 PM EST
    in my threads.

    All your comments from now on will be deleted.

    You are free to post in Jeralyn and TChris' threads and in Open Threads.
     

    Parent

    He's going to be on probation in my threads (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    I just deleted one of his comments for crudeness. Wilco, come back another day, you are over limit now. And not as funny as you think you are.

    Parent
    maybe this could be Palin's next (none / 0) (#166)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    publicity stunt...

    she's always on the look-out for the next one...

    Parent

    Sullivan (none / 0) (#156)
    by wilco on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    Sullivan is an opportunist.  thats all.  Our political landscape is full of them.  On the left there is Gore, Jessie Jackson...and on the right are Limbaugh, Hannity.  Just a thought.

    Extreme Right Wing Ironic Stupid | 203 comments (203 topical)