A Message for the White House from Thomas Jefferson

“I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter.”

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 24, 2009

1 Comment 

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.

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 20, 2009

7 Comments 

Judging Meghan McCain

Freedom of speech is guaranteed to all Americans.  Freedom from judgment is not.

Consider the great décolletage debacle of ’09.

Meghan McCain threatened to delete her popular Twitter feed Wednesday night after receiving a torrent of comments about the revealing photo she posted.  Although many reactions were complimentary, some were negative and offensive, calling the Daily Beast columnist a “slut” and admonishing her for displaying considerable cleavage.  She wrote:

so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is … why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment … I am going to take some more time to think about it but seriously I was just trying to be funny with the book and that I’m a dork staying in … when I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a “slut”, I can’t even tell you how hurt I am

Calling Meghan McCain a slut is infantile and idiotic no matter how skimpy her tank top.  It’s a nasty, overused pejorative that only reflects poorly on people who fling it around. Much like calling a woman a mashed-up bag of meat, it has no place in polite discourse.

But Twitter isn’t prime time television and there’s no promise or expectation that every interaction will be polite. For the famous and infamous, it’s a vicious celebrity gauntlet, not a genteel afternoon tea party.  Every tweet, every Twitpic, is an open invitation asking other Twitter users what they think of you. And sometimes they think you’re a slut.

Meghan McCain knows this.  In fact, that’s why celebrities like McCain use Twitter.  It’s a gargantuan, interactive global advertising platform offering unlimited promotion for the low, low price of $0.00.

I’ve followed Meghan McCain on Twitter for the better part of a year.  She’s done a brilliant job of building a large following she can leverage to promote her upcoming book.  In part, she does well with Twitter because of her penchant for oversharing, and for spitting invective at conservative bloggers and commentators.  She’s not afraid to dish it out, but can she take it?

Apparently not.  And that’s fine.  No one is forcing Meghan McCain to endure the trials and tribulations of fame.  Living in the media spotlight requires a thick skin.  Hell, even writing a blog with open comments places you in the line of fire.  Whether it’s your ideas or your body, when you put yourself out there for the world to see and hear, you’re going to get criticized.  A lot.  Plenty of it will seem unfair, and some of it will make you want to bring up your lunch or crawl back into bed.  Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s the price we pay for participating in the marketplace of ideas.  There’s no invisible rider on the First Amendment that promises to protect the thin-skinned from vile and demeaning criticism.

I’d love it if no woman had to suffer the stinging indignity of having her virtue called into question based on the size of her breasts or the way she dresses.  Been there, done that, and it sucks. If a public figure like Keith Olbermann had something foul to say about Meghan McCain, I’d be dialing up MSNBC to complain.  But there’s not much to be done about lonely strangers tweeting insults as they masturbate to the thought of Meghan McCain crying into her cleavage. She can ignore them or ridicule them, but they’ll always be there.

Meghan McCain has two choices: toughen up or drop out.  Expecting the world to stop judging her is not an option.

Update: Sister Toldjah and The Other McCain link. Thanks!

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 16, 2009

12 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.

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 14, 2009

36 Comments 

South Carolina: The Fox News of States

It’s no secret that President Obama and his administration have attempted to sideline Fox News, openly punishing the highly rated cable news channel for failing to promote the White House agenda.  Fox was conspicuously shut out of Obama’s five-network Sunday talk show blitz in September, and the White House has already determined that the president will not grant any interviews to Fox anchors during the remainder of 2009.

Alienating the millions of Americans who watch Fox is strategic buffoonery of the highest degree. But why focus on solid strategy when you can engage in some good ol’ fashioned spite?  And why settle for popular news networks when you can make your petty resentments known to an entire state, like say, South Carolina?

U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Friday that a conversation with White House staff left him with the sense that a hostile environment in South Carolina is keeping the first lady from visiting.

The high-ranking South Carolina Democrat said he has received more than 100 invitations for Michelle Obama. But this summer when he brought one of those requests to her staff on behalf of his alma mater, South Carolina State University, Clyburn said her security was an issue.

The conversation came after former Richland County GOP activist Rusty DePass suggested on Facebook in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors. DePass’ comment was coupled with a remark in July from U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican. DeMint said that beating the president’s health care plan would be a ‘Waterloo’ moment for Obama.

Congressman Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’ outburst during Obama’s joint address on health care reform last month didn’t help either, Clyburn said.

‘A lot of it has to do with the fact that the climate in South Carolina just is not good, and that’s a shame,’ Clyburn said at a roundtable discussion at his Columbia office.

‘I do believe it is keeping her away from this state,’ he said.

Emphases mine.

Yes, a moronic South Carolina GOP grunt wrote something shameful about the first lady and a couple of politicians made bold statements about the president and his policies.  How do those comments indicate a statewide climate hostile enough to jeopardize Mrs. Obama’s security?

Simple answer: they don’t.

The White House isn’t keeping Michelle Obama out of South Carolina to protect her from assassins in white hoods.  South Carolina is being kept off her itinerary to send a message: embarrassing the president will not be tolerated.  (Are you listening Joe Wilson?) Dissent will be contorted into proof that racist backwater bumpkins in the south are undermining Obama’s presidency and endangering the very life of the first lady with their dangerous coded rhetoric.

Who cares about smearing the people of South Carolina?  After all, it’s just a red state.

Update: Michelle Malkin links.  Thanks, Michelle!

Update 2: My very first Instalanche. Thanks, Glenn!

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 13, 2009

62 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?

Published by Jenn Q. Public on October 1, 2009

9 Comments 

← Previous Page — Next Page →