Breaking: Sarah Palin Silences The Atlantic’s Resident OB-GYN

Never again will there be any doubts about the awesome power and influence wielded by Sarah Palin.  Behold, the silencing of Andrew Sullivan (OB-Atlantic):

This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then.

The reason is Sarah Palin.

Citing his obsessive need to comb through every crevice of Palin’s womb, I mean, book, prolific blogger and renowned investigative gynecologist Andrew Sullivan has suspended his usual daily emesis of misogynistic rants, Palin-related conspiracy theories, and hermit photography.  There has been just one Daily Dish post today as Andy the Hysterical and his co-bloggers apply sophisticated content analysis to every page of Going Rogue. Sully explains:

When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it – and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided – is a bewildering task.

But make no mistake. Sully is providing a public service, and his “process of deconstruction” will be nothing but “fair.”

We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin’s unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning – specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy -  we feel it’s vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

There are only three of us.

And we have had the book for less than a day. We feel we owe it to you to get it right – or as right as we can – until we post or publish anything. As readers know, we also differ on some key issues and intend to air them and thrash this out until we are confident that whatever we publish is as fair as possible.

At some point, we will also go back and make sure we have not missed all the evidence of the other lies that Palin is now peddling. We won’t miss anything. But we ask for your patience.

There is a possibility here of such a huge scandal that we would be crazy not to take our time either to debunk it or move it forward for further examination.

We have only one commitment: to get this right. Please bear with us as we do the best we can.

Blah, blah, blah. More fantastic accusations and bizarre conclusions are on the way, and ever brave and righteous, Andrew Sullivan will bring them to you without concern for his credibility or reputation.

Mostly because he has neither.

Stacy McCain quips, “We look forward to Andrew Sullivan’s next book, Inside Sarah Palin’s Uterus: The Most Shocking Scandal Ever.”

In other Sullivan news, the excitable blogger told POLITICO’s Michael Calderone:

I never aired any conspiracy stories. It’s all on the record and, unlike Palin, I don’t lie about things that can easily be checked.

…

In fact, my blog never stated anything about Palin’s pregnancy and took her at her word. That’s why she decided not to sue me. She had no basis for any kind of suit. I simply asked her and the campaign to provide easily available proof that she indeed was the biological mother of Trig after her bizarre and incredible stories about her pregnancy and labor. She has failed to produce any such evidence. And she clearly never will.

I now return you to a temporarily Sullivan-free reality, courtesy of Sarah Palin.

November 18, 2009 · Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny, Sarah Palin

4 Comments 

New York Times: What’s Funnier Than Battered Women?

Oh, the jocularity of a good domestic violence punchline.  Will jokes about women getting smashed in the face with glassware ever get old?

Not for New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman.

Searching for an angle on the domestic violence conviction of New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate, Haberman and his editors decided they couldn’t go wrong with a little light-hearted levity about the slash wounds Monserrate left on his girlfriend.  The lacerations carved into her face by Monserrate’s water glass were so bad that the emergency room doctor notified police that a stabbing had occurred.

Are you laughing yet? No?

Well maybe you’ll get a chuckle out of Haberman’s report that Monserrate’s victim, Karla Giraldo, has agreed to marry him.  For Haberman, the jokes practically wrote themselves.

But if a wedding is in store, it is never too early to think about the bridal registry. As a service, we checked out glassware at several prominent stores. With this couple, you want to be sure that what you buy is sturdy.

Pottery Barn has tumblers for $10 apiece, part of its “Montana” collection. Montana certainly sounds rugged. Despite the name, the glasses were made in China. “Each piece is hand-blown with thick sloped sides,” a sign said. Thick sides are a definite plus.

If $10 is too steep for you, Pottery Barn also sells glasses for $2 per. They are less elegant than the Montana but more solid. They even come with “Made in U.S.A.” tags. How many things can you say that about these days?

Still other deals can be found at Gracious Home. Hefty glasses sell there for as little as $2.49 apiece. Bed Bath & Beyond does better yet, with slash-proof tumblers going for as little as $9.99 a dozen, taxes not included. They aren’t very pretty. But they are almost guaranteed to keep a squabbling couple out of court.

What reader wouldn’t be rolling on the floor laughing at those knee-slappers?  Because really, what’s funnier than a domestic violence survivor marrying her abuser?  Luckily she has the New York Times to offer up advice about what sort of glassware will be least likely to leave slashes the next time she’s bludgeoned.

If this is the New York Times strategy for rebuilding readership, the editors might want to give Sandra Bernhard a call.  I’m pretty sure she could use the work, and I hear she tells a mean rape joke.

October 20, 2009 · Filed Under Crime, Misogyny

7 Comments 

“A Big Mashed-Up Bag of Meat with Lipstick on It”

Brazen misogyny is alive and thriving at MSNBC, and as usual, Keith Olbermann is serving it up with his signature sneering contempt for women.  While honoring conservative author Michelle Malkin with the “Worst Person in the World” award, the frothing commentator ranted on Tuesday that without her “total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred,” Malkin would “just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

A big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.

Attacks like these are designed to dehumanize the target by casting her out of her very gender, rendering her less than woman, indistinguishable from a “bag of meat” were it not for the facade of womanhood she paints on with her lipstick each morning. Makeup is deemed the only thing that sets her apart from an inanimate sack of undifferentiated flesh.

Compare Olbermann’s malicious vitriol to the “Bush in a skirt” line used repeatedly to slur Sarah Palin.  “Bush” and “a bag of meat” are essentially interchangeable in the hateful minds of those attacking Palin and Malkin.  And a skirt, like lipstick, confers only the trappings of femininity to the wearer, not authentic womanhood.  The target is portrayed an “it” masquerading as female.

Olbermann’s vile attempt to reduce Malkin to a bag of faux feminine parts was only the latest episode in a career riddled with examples of rank misogyny.  Among the highlights:

Malkin responded to Olbermann’s latest diatribe with thick skin and a sense of humor:

In case you were wondering what kind of lipstick we big mashed up bags of meat wear, I prefer M.A.C. Lustreglass in Ornamental or Lipglass in Spite. Because nothing goes better with fascistic hatred!

Ridicule is a powerful weapon, but mockery alone won’t force Olbermann into the on-air retraction and apology Michelle Malkin deserves.  Here are the email addresses for MSNBC Viewer Services, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and MSNBC president Phil Griffin.  You know what to do.

viewerservices@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
phil.griffin@msnbc.com

Update: Hot Air, Stacy McCain, AOL News, and Protein Wisdom link.  Thanks, guys.

October 14, 2009 · Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny

36 Comments 

Hollywood Royalty and the Embrace of the Vampire Polanski

The reaction of Hollywood’s narcissistic bubble-dwellers to the arrest of Roman Polanski underscores the stark divide between moral relativists willing to romanticize the degeneracy of an artist and the rest of us. The capacity of these entertainment and media industry elites to justify, excuse, and minimize Polanski’s cowardly sexual violation of a vulnerable child is breathtakingly loathsome.

“It was something else but i don’t believe it was rape-rape,” insisted Whoopi Goldberg.

“Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” explained Harvey Weinstein, proud signatory of the Free Roman Polanski petition.

“We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece,” offered Debra Winger in a statement that criticized authorities for using “minor technicalities” to cause the suffering of the whole art world.

Polanski’s defenders plunged themselves headfirst into the sand, ignoring the plea transcript, refusing to consider his own flippant assessment of public reaction to his crime:

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!

Among those who have signed the “Free Roman” petition, the sexual predator is the victim, and the innocence and security of a single child stolen in an act of forcible sodomy is a price worth paying for the creation of art. They are unwilling to see Polanski any other way because it would challenge their insular, elite beliefs about the world:

Considered a genius, unencumbered by morality and the complete opposite of what Americans have long considered the ideal, Polanski challenges society in real life the way Dracula challenges Victorianism in Stoker’s novel. Were they better read, they would perhaps see Polanski not as the Gary Oldman version of Dracula, a tortured loved-starved creature punished by a hostile and puritanical God, but as I see Polanski. He is like the Don Juan of Tirso de Molina’s The Trickster of Seville, sinister, spiteful and ultimately damned. But to see that in Polanski is to look past the European trappings and artistic prestige, and to see the man as equal to all others and thus worthy to be judged. This is a step these self-appointed elites cannot take, lest they admit they too can be judged by their true equals, their fellow Americans.

We have our own royalty in America, the celebrities we build up and tear down as part of our entertainment industry. But there is something seductive in the royalty of Old Europe, the idea that a person could be considered worth more than another and never really have to prove it. We all have such pretensions if we admit it, and the best of us cast off this burden to meet the world and all in it as equals, and rise and fall according to our abilities, our sweat, and our blood. Polanski represents for some the easier way, the illusion of class and worth, the comforting lie of elitism. For those who embrace that outlook there is no action too wicked to defend if it props up the lie and reinforces the artificial distinctions between us.

Especially if it happens to those of us they consider beneath them.

Read the complete Dracula analogy in the Red Alerts piece, Elitism, Europhilia, and Roman Polanski.

Big Hollywood has the names of every morally bankrupt Polanski supporter who signed the “Free Roman” petition, as well as a counter-petition for those in the entertainment industry who believe Polanski should be held accountable for his crime.

In addition, The New Agenda has organized a boycott of all films the pro-Polanski “signatories have directed, produced, acted in or otherwise participated.” A Jail Polanski Petition is available on The New Agenda home page.

Have Hollywood elites finally alienated those who line their pocketbooks?

October 1, 2009 · Filed Under Celebrities, Liberal Absurdity, Misogyny

9 Comments 

An Insulting Question and a Pointed Reply

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked the following question by a Congolese student during a town hall event in Kinshasa yesterday:

Mrs Clinton, we’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country. The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton and what does Mr. Mutombo think on this situation? Thank you very much

Responding to what turned out to be an unfortunate mistranslation of the student’s question, our nation’s lead diplomat replied:

You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion I will tell you my opinion, I’m not going to channel my husband.

Watch the exchange here:

YouTube Preview Image

These remarks were followed almost immediately by a blogospheric uproar about Clinton’s “unprofessional” “temper tantrum.”  But I’ve watched the video more than once and I don’t see a “hissy fit” or “meltdown.” I see the highest ranking cabinet member demanding respect for her office and expertise.

The question, as translated, was entirely inappropriate and while the answer was not conventional enough for some armchair diplomats to swallow, it was not out of line.  If she had submissively accepted the insult or politely laughed it off, the same critics attacking her for “showing her true colors” wouldn’t be praising her for her tact, they’d be calling her an impotent pushover lacking the political chops to emerge from beneath Bill Clinton’s shadow.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a cabinet member.  She is no longer the first lady and should not be expected to play that role.

And if you want to know what my husband thinks about all this, you can ask him yourself.

August 11, 2009 · Filed Under Hillary Clinton, Misogyny, The Blogosphere

6 Comments 

Desire and Yearning, Burger King Style

I present you with reason number 247 to stay away from Burger King:

Others have noted that the woman in this ad resembles a blowup doll, but the problem with the image goes beyond the objectification of a woman by reducing her to a single orifice.  More disturbing is the juxtaposition of blatantly sexual ad copy with a wide-eyed woman who looks utterly horrified at the “Seven Incher” headed toward her open mouth. That’s not the look of a woman who’s happy to be there.

If you can’t quite make out the ad copy, here’s what it says:

Fill your desire for something long, juicy and flame-grilled with the NEW BK SUPER SEVEN INCHER.  Yearn for more after you taste the mind-blowing burger that comes with a single beef patty, topped with American cheese, crispy onions and the A.1. Thick & Hearty Steak Sauce.

Desire? Yearning? I’m not seeing it.

In addition, there’s the main ad copy: It’ll Blow Your Mind Away.  Not, it’ll blow you away, but it’ll blow your mind away when it’s shoved down your throat and chokes out the back of your skull.  This ad isn’t merely sexually suggestive; it’s evocative of sexual violence.

I’m not opposed to sexual innuendo in advertising, especially if the ad campaign is unlikely to be seen by children.  Depictions of sex don’t make something sexist. But I like my sexual imagery to portray all parties, men, women, and phallic sandwiches, as if they are fully enjoying themselves.  This ad doesn’t come close to cutting it.

Apparently Burger King didn’t learn from the widespread outrage and boycotts following their Spongebob/Sir Mix-A-Lot mash up.  Please let them know that their latest ad campaign isn’t an improvement:

Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Dr.
Miami, FL 33126
Consumer Relations (305) 378-3535, M-F, 9am–5pm EST
Investor Relations: investor@whopper.com

June 24, 2009 · Filed Under Misogyny

7 Comments 

← Previous Page — Next Page →