Mar 23 2011

Whatever NOW

Too little, too late.

On his HBO show Friday, Bill Maher made up some crap to make Sarah Palin look bad and tacked on a rather offensive term at the end: “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami.’ I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you…”

Thru most of Tuesday, the National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep even told FOXNews.com it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News to explain their silence on the subject.

Later Tuesday when it was not just FOX News they were ignoring, it was also their own membership along with every other news agency on the planet, NOW finally decided to step up and say something.  Unfortunately, they didn’t actually chastise Maher or his specific insult, they didn’t mention his show or HBO, hell they didn’t even mention Maher at all:

NOW communications director Lisa Bennett changed the organization’s tune later in the day, writing on a NOW blog: “Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs.”

She also chastised the press for bothering NOW with questions about derogatory language toward women

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend, Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

Sticking up for well known American women that have been publicly defamed on national television is not a “productive way to fight for women’s equal rights?” Wouldn’t that actually be one of the most productive ways to quickly and easily draw the most attention to the problem and condemn it all at the same time? Or is it just that she’s a conservative?  Nope, says Lisa, who prefaced her comments with a warning shot — “we are on to you, right-wingers” (apparently it’s only conservatives who care about the use of the term?) — and then said:

As usual, you’re looking for any way to discredit NOW. You claim we care and work only for liberal woman, but that’s a LIE. We have defended Sarah Palin and other conservative women from sexist attacks. Maybe not on your schedule, but we’ve done so. And by the way, all those laws we advocate for — we don’t ask that they include a clause saying only certified liberal women can benefit from them. Conservative women benefit from them, too! Just because we don’t open up a Palin wing on the NOW website doesn’t mean we don’t think that every single woman — right, left and in-between — deserves equal pay, full reproductive rights, justice in the courts, etc. So knock off the facetious whining that right-wing women are not represented by NOW’s work.

Well, that sets my mind at ease, Lisa.

Tell me, Lisa … if Bill Maher (or anyone, for that matter) had made that same statement about, say, Michelle Obama, how loud would you be screaming?  Would your condemnation include his/her name and the name of their show?  Would it include a specific rebuke?  Would your chastisement happen in a timely manner or would it take four days to materialize?

Since Maher, “Real Time,” and HBO weren’t even mentioned in Lisa”s condemnation of this event, there is absolutely no negative consequence for him, his program, or the network that airs it. As such, there’s no reason for him to stop what he’s doing, and no reason for HBO to tell him to.

As Jack Marshall writes on Ethics Alarms:

If he thinks it is OK to call Sarah Palin a dumb twat, then the only thing stopping him from calling Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton or my sister or your mother a twat is that he likes her or doesn’t know her. This is anti-woman rhetoric, no question about it. Even bitch, which is sufficient to sustain a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace when used by a man to describe a woman, is less denigrating than twat…and Maher knows it. The question is, will the feminists let him get away with it?

And not just the feminists. Calling a woman a twat as a means of political criticism should offend Andrew Sullivan, because it is no different from calling a gay public figure a fag. Calling a woman a twat should outrage Al Sharpton, because it is the equivalent of calling a black public figure a nigger. Are these men, both previous guests on Maher’s show, going to endorse his brand of hateful, humiliating discourse because Maher endorses their politics? If the dedication of progressives to civility and their rejection of misogyny and hate are suspended for Sarah Palin, they have no integrity.

Bill Maher needs to be held accountable. Until he is, any guest, from any part of the political spectrum, who agrees to discuss politics with a man who calls women..or any women– twats on HBO is enabling hate and incivility.

I’m with Jack: from now on, I’m taking names.

FOX News: NOW mum | NOW responds


Mar 6 2010

Pentagon Shooter

In answer to a comment …

Earlier today, “Kievan Rus” left this comment on a thread about global warming:

OFF TOPIC NOTE TO BLOGGIST:

I notice you don’t bother to mention anything about the gun toting wingnut that went off at the Pentagon the other day.

If it had been a liberal who did the shooting you would be all over it, though.

I’m surprised. Not.

This is my response to “Kievan Rus” which is far too long for a comment window.
Continue reading


Feb 2 2010

Keep forgetting to post this

Found it in my drafts folder today

This is a few days old now — it’s from January 26 and 27 — but still worth publishing IMHO.  Found it over on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site:

Fact Check: Reich Claims Non-Existent Fox News Led Conservative Charge in 1994

Former Obama economic advisor, Clinton Secretary of Labor, and Berkely Prof. Robert Reich claimed yesterday in his column at Salon.com that Fox News played a role in the conservative resurgence of 1994:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

But Prof. Reich overlooked one minor detail: Fox News Channel’s first broadcast wasn’t until October 7, 1996.

The plan for FNC wasn’t even outlined until January of 1996, so what could explain such a patently false claim?  Is the professor suggesting that even in 1994, Fox News’ imminence did in fact play a role in the political upheaval of that year?  Or is this a moment where Fox Derangement Syndrome enters the realm of full-blown paranoia?

Either way, where was Salon on this one to save Reich from himself?  And would Prof. Reich tolerate fact-checking this poor from his college students?

This man is a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley.  And we wonder why California turns out so many nutjob LLLs?

Incidentally, as noted on Big Journalism –

Update 1/27 4:47pm PST: Salon corrected the mistake.  Reich’s article was cross-posted at Huffington Post (yet to be corrected) and at RobertReich.org, where the professor took out the error and replaced it with a dig at Fox News.

I’ll update that to note that Huffington Post corrected it as well — they removed “and Fox News” after the mention of Newt Gingrich.

Big Journalism


Jun 3 2009

Michelle Malkin Doesn’t Need Me To Defend Her

And neither do any of the other nine ladies

But I’d like to deliver a few swift kicks in the ass to Guy and Bonnie on their behalf.

A “man” (and I use that phrase loosely) named Guy Cimbalo recently penned an article for Playboy called “So Right It’s Wrong.” The fact of the matter is that Guy is at best a misogynistic prick. I’d post a link to this article, but Playboy has taken it down. Personally, I think the people who approved it should be fired, right along with Guy, but I’m mean like that. Before Playboy took it down, though, they were apparently so proud of his work that they actually sent out a press release about it to conservative bloggers, including the women named in his article.  Nice move, ehh?

So anyhow, Guy’s article starts out thusly:

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship—a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate fuck. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.

Now for starters, I went and looked up the term “hate fuck” just to be sure I wasn’t somehow misunderstanding the term.  It’s not exactly a part of my everyday speech and for all I knew it wasn’t at all what it sounds like.  I wasn’t misunderstanding.  The Urban Dictionary has multiple definitions for it, but all of them involve having sex, especially in a rough manner, with someone who one finds physically attractive but personally loathsome: “The act of fucking a person that you despise. Such an act is typically characterized by name calling, roughness, and immediate departure after the act” is one of the mildest of the lot, while another is “a sexual act resulting from one’s pure hatred of a person or person’s character, creed, religion, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation.” No matter how you look at it, it’s not “nice” and if it’s not akin to saying you want to violently rape someone it’s sure as hell got to be about the closest you can get to it.

So, the ten women are identified, a little bit is told about them, a “How Could You” question is posed (and answered) and a “Hate Fuck Rating” is assigned to each.   The women are:

  • Megyn Kelly (whose “y” he abhors) — “You need to flagellate your genitals for wanting to fuck this woman.”
  • Mary Katherine Ham — “You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant.”
  • Amanda Carpenter — “This foul temptress is a walking, talking Faustian fuck bargain.”
  • Elizabeth Hasselbeck — “You’re better served sucking off Regis Philbin.”
  • Dana Perino — “The second she says “no comment,” your testicles are going to retract back into your body.”
  • Laura Ingraham — “Vagina dentata would be an improvement.”
  • Pamela Gellar — “This shrieking harpy is willing to entertain any and every anti-Islamic sentiment you’ve got, then give it prominent play on her website.”
  • Michelle Bachman — “Chemical castration has begun to look appealing.”
  • Peggy Noonan — “Imagine fucking your grandmother.”

And Michelle Malkin … who made the place of honor on his list … (Google’s Cache)

  • Who: This highly fuckable Filipina is a massively popular blogger who is known to dress up like a cheerleader on occasion (see video). She’s also a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, “Do me!”
  • How Could You? Beelzebabe is as bad as it gets. To wit, her book defending WWII’s Japanese internment camps, her abetting death threats against a student protest group, and, of course, the frothing idiocy she publishes daily on her eponymous website.
  • The Hate Fuck Rating: Worse than fucking Eva Braun.

Now in answer to Guy’s little HateFuckFest, Teri Christoph over at Smart Girl Politics blogged:

Knowing that Bonnie Erbe, a blogger at USNews, was a passionate defender of liberal women (such as Nancy Pelosi), I wrote to her in the hope that she would use her pulpit to rally to the defense of her right-leaning sisters. Instead of refuting the noxious ruminations of Cimbalo, Ms. Erbe piled on with more of her own.

Sure, she decided that some conservative women are worthy of being defended from the hatred, but the more opinionated of us (as symbolized by Michelle Malkin) are apparently not. What I infer from Ms. Erbe’s writings is that the more we conservative ladies challenge the status quo and question stale stereotypes, the less she will defend our right to do so.

So of course I went to see what Ms. Erbe had to say.

Teri Christoph, whom I have never met, asked me to stand up for conservative women who were maligned by an online article on Playboy magazine’s website. The article has since been taken off the site, but the gist of it was, indeed, disgusting, sexist, of course pornographic, and demeaning to conservative women. The article contained a list of conservative female media commentators whom the author said men would like to, er, have sex with but hate at the same time, or something nonsensical like that. Ms. Christoph sent me a link to a cached page of the now-removed article.

A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org’s agenda–I know I disagree completely with the group’s position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her “routine” are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

Lastly, I want to note Playboy is past its time and should just fold up and go away.

Wow, thanks for nothing, Bonnie.   I can’t help but believe that if the subjects of this “article” had been liberal women Bonnie’s reaction would have been much less dismissive — men would like to, er, have sex with but hate at the same time, or something nonsensical like that – I’ve seen her work up more of a froth over people objecting to Nancy Pelosi’s waffling on torture.   How come she can’t just condemn the article?  Oh wait, because the women are conservatives.  Silly me.

And why are caveats necessary?  Why does she have to point out that she’s pro-abortion?  What does abortion have to do with the article?  How can you claim to be non-partisan and then start picking sides?  Turns out that Bonnie thinks abortions are a great option during a recession so she’s just making sure we all know her stance.

But hey, even though she disagrees with SGP, she’s willing to defend her sisters.  Well.  Except Michelle Malkin, who deserves it, because she invites it by being venomous.  I wonder if Bonnie was walking down the street in a short dress with some cleavage showing, would she dismiss being raped because she “invited it” by dressing provocatively?

Michelle Malkin has a few words for Bonnie, too.

The Activist Conservative Blog had screenshots of all 10 pages of Guy’s HateFuckFest, but their site has gone down.  Posting the link just in case they come back up.
—————-
Now playing: Randy Travis – Better Class Of Losers
via FoxyTunes


May 14 2009

Spin-Doctoring a few more double standards

Lather-Rinse-Repeat as necessary!

It doesn’t much matter what the subject is these days, there’s two sets of standards: one for the left and another for the right.  Want examples? Look through this category for a few.  I can give you more.  Bunches.  The economy?  The budget?  War?  Death penalty?  Torture? Global warming?  Religion?  Race?  Gender?  Sexual preference?  It truly doesn’t matter, you’ll find two levels of tolerance from our oh-so-tolerant liberal base.

Let’s illustrate the point and add some more media bias to the ever-growing pile.  Allow me to quote Noel Sheppard:

When the Labor Department announced employers had shed 539,000 workers from their payrolls in April, the Obama-loving media actually reported it as good news.

We really are in Camelot now.

Not only are you forbidden to make jokes about the new king, errr, president, but all news, no matter how bad, must now be reported as good.

Tourists planning a vacation to our nation’s capital this summer should also be pleased to know that from this point forward, July and August cannot be too hot.

Of course, Washington, D.C., wasn’t always such a congenial spot, for when it was announced only five months ago the economy lost 533,000 jobs in November, the press viewed it as so cataclysmic it was necessary for all Americans to immediately support president-elect Obama’s stimulus plan or suffer the most dire of economic and financial consequences.

So it came to pass that virtually the same exact economic data hailed as apocalyptic when Bush was president was now a sign the economy is improving.

Yet, this shouldn’t be at all surprising, for the media never wanted to admit things were ever good during Bush the Second’s reign.

First, his recovery was “jobless.” Then, it wasn’t producing enough new hires to keep up with the growth in the labor force.

Finally, when unemployment really began declining in his second term to levels rarely seen in the post-World War II era, the media claimed the jobs created were all low-paying or part-time.

What a difference an “O” makes, for now that a man the press adore is in the White House, over a half million Americans can lose their jobs in a month, and it’s a sign things are getting better.

As one of my readers marvelously quipped last Friday, for eight years the press bemoaned the emptiness of the full glass, and now they are praising the fullness of the empty glass.

Makes you wonder what’s going to happen when the recession really ends, and the first report showing an increase of even one job is released.

They’ll probably throw Obama a parade which certainly won’t be inconvenienced by inclement weather for rain isn’t allowed to fall till after sundown now.

In anticipation of this event, comedienne Wanda Sykes has already been booked as the Mistress of Ceremonies.

I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but that’s how conditions are.

Noel Sheppard on FOX FORUM

—————-
Now playing: Sinead O’Connor – The Emperor’s New Clothes
via FoxyTunes


May 11 2009

Double Standards

Liberal Comment=Comedy, Conservative Comment=Hate Speech

If you needed any proof of the double standard, here it is.

You’ll recall my post about David Feherty’s joke about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  CBS Sports distanced itself from Feherty’s writing, saying it was “an unacceptable attempt at humor and is not in any way condoned, endorsed or approved” by the network.  The PGA Tour also criticized him for an attempt at humor that “went over the line.”  Keith Olbermann said that Feherty was the “worst person in the world.” Over a joke.  Except it’s not a joke to Them™.

Now, wishing that Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys would fail?  Calling him a treasonist?  That’s funny!

Check out these comments from the routine of comedian Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner: 

“Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails,’ you’re like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason,” Sykes said.

“He’s not saying anything differently than what Usama bin Laden is saying,” she continued, before addressing the guest of honor, President Obama. “You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight.”

The crowd groaned, Obama smiled and Sykes may have noticed a little discomfort in the room.

“Too much?” she asked.

But then she piled it on:

“Rush Limbaugh, ‘I hope the country fails’ — I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? … He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

Obama joined the crowd in laughing at the crack about Limbaugh’s “kidneys.”

Now, if you want to know the truth, I don’t really care about what she said.  I can ignore it, I don’t have to listen to her.  Free speech and all that, right?  Far as I’m concerned it goes both ways.  Whatever floats her little boat, you know?  But why is it that Feherty had to apologize and Ms. Sykes is laughed at for even worse?

Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center said that the relatively low-key coverage of Sykes’ joke in mainstream media underscores the “slanted take on what’s hateful and what’s not. When a conservative says it, it’s an utter outrage. And when a liberal says it, it’s a knee-slapper.”

An editor with Britain’s Daily Telegraph who was at the dinner wrote that liberals will give Sykes a pass, since her target was a right-wing talk show host. And he marveled at Obama’s response.

“That’s way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama’s reaction to it was astonishing,” wrote Toby Harnden. “Imagine if a comedian ‘joked’ that Obama was a terrorist who was guilty of treason and should be tortured and allowed to die. There would justifiably be an outcry.”

Yeah, imagine that one.

FOX News.
—————-
Now playing: Tracy Lawrence – Sticks And Stones
via FoxyTunes


Apr 29 2009

Oh gosh, it’s the hundredth day!

Quick, quick, alert the media!

Let us rejoice for the great and mighty O has been in office for 100 days now!  The One ascended to the throne 100 days ago!

Everyone’s shows are being pre-empted tonight to let The One speak.  Except Fox.  They’re planning on running the regularly scheduled show:  Lie to Me.

Irony.   It’s what’s for breakfast.

—————-
Now playing: Irish Rovers – The Unicorn Song
via FoxyTunes


Apr 26 2009

Swine flu has made it to Ohio

Yay

I liked things much better when it was further away than Elyria.

Look at the Dayton Daily News piece on the matter:

swineflue

Seriously, look at it.  We have such quality journalism here.  Our editors and proofreaders are second to none.

—————-
Now playing: Weird Al Yankovic – Jerry Springer
via FoxyTunes


Oct 8 2008

Biden falls short on facts. Again.

And the media doesn’t notice.  Again.

When Sarah Palin stumbles over defining the “Bush Doctrine” (of which there are at least four definitions which vary depending upon who is talking about it), the media is all over her ass.

When Joe Biden misses the fact train and, on national television, says “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” almost no one notices.  (Once more for the folks at home: The stock market crashed in 1929, and no one in America had a television. Herbert Hoover, our 31st President, was in office from 1929-1933, so he would have been the dude making these revelations. Franklin D. Roosevelt, our 32nd President, held the office from 1933-1945. Incidentally, just as an aside, FDR was known for his “Fireside Chats” that brought families together around the radio.)

The “unbiased” media watchdogs also haven’t leapt upon the fact that a 36-year veteran of the Senate doesn’t know what the Vice President of the United States does. Here’s what he said during the debate:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

It is, indeed the Executive Branch. Problem is, it’s Article II of the Constitution, not Article I. But maybe that’s being nitpicky.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Really? The only authority he has is if there’s a tie vote? Not so, Joe. According to the Constitution, which states only the minimum responsibilities of the job: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” In fact, the vice president (aka President of the Senate) interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators. But hey, what difference does it make if the guy who wants the job doesn’t know what the job entails? He can learn on the fly, right?

The media also didn’t notice (or care) that Palin got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches, she also noted that:

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

John R. Lott, Jr., the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, writes, for FOX News:

Continue reading