Sunday, April 11, 2010

Sunday Papers -- Something to Offend Everybody Edition

Elizabeth "The Anchoress" Scalia on Sarah Palin:

For all of her weaknesses -and she has them- I have said from the start that if Sarah Palin had brought precisely the same life-story into politics (middle-class woman who worked her way through school, who married her high school sweetheart, owned a business with him, and met payrolls; a mom who started in politics by going to PTA meetings and became the Governor of an energy-rich state while raising kids; a women who could shoot and dress a moose, a runner) plus carried a D after her name, and not an R, why she’d be the toast of the Democrat party, today, the very model of the “do it all, have it all, self-sufficient woman.”

But since Palin does carry that R after her name? There’s nothing admirable there, nothing to see. And it’s perfectly alright to objectify her, sexually, even unto violence.

I think that's right. And there's more -- read the whole thing, including another link to an equally provocative observation on la Palin from Camille Paglia.

Meanwhile, there's this from Ann Althouse, about a hard-to-imagine fun couple, Oprah Winfrey and John Tesh:

But let's assume Tesh and Oprah were lovers. Oprah has said they went on a date together, so there is probably some connection. What connection? In the years since the 1970s, both Tesh and Oprah have led the "New Age" movement — Oprah by seducing millions of TV-watchers into believing all manner of pseudo-scientific notions and Tesh by composing that innocuous music. Perhaps the music is not so innocuous. Perhaps Tesh has been softening the very brains into which Oprah has planted her noxious seeds. Conspiracy theory anybody? (Crack?)

I am amused.


Anonymous said...

I'm a little slow, so you gotta explain this one to me. You said "And it’s perfectly alright to objectify her (Palin), sexually, even unto violence." You then linked to an article that is extremely critical of Sandra Bernhardt for doing what you had noted, and which cites 5 other articles that roundly castigate the alleged comedienne for the same. I don't see ANY evidence whatsoever of support for Bernhardt (outside of one defense of her 1st Amendment right to say something deplorable). So how does this make it 'perfectly alright'? Am I missing something?


Gino said...

rich: i wont answer for mark, but to me it displays that such a public display of vitriol was perceived as acceptable within the sphere of the left, amonst their own, to begin with.

would sandra have said something as equally vile and racist toward obama to the same crowd? no. becuase she knows that stuff is not acceptable.

but she runs with this crowd. these are her people. she knows what they talk about across the table, or over drinks, when its just them.
so she said it. and it wasnt criticized for several days or weeks when somebody had finally made it public.

what if she said a racist thing about obama? would you have heard any cheering in the crowd?
would sandra have even made it home safely?

Anonymous said...

I have read these links that Mark posted:
Sandra Bernhard Articles
* Did Comedienne Sandra Bernhard Cross The Line With “Gang Rape” Joke About Palin?
* Sandra Bernhard - Has Issues
* Hollywood Palin Bashing Alert - Sandra Bernhard
* Sandra Bernhard Laughs Herself Out Of A Job
* Was Sandra Bernhard Ever Funny?

and I haven't found any evidence of the alleged support for Bernhardt's sick attempt at humor. Like I said, maybe I am missing something. One of the articles notes that her joke didn't go over well, so it sounds like she THOUGHT that such a public display of vitriol was perceived as acceptable within the sphere of the left, and she was wrong.

Bernhardt is a provocateur who has inexplicably weasled her way through life by saying outrageous things that most sane people don't pay any attention to. Kinda like Ann Coulter on the Right. When you guys start getting your panties in a bunch about Ann Coulter's incessant jokes about all the supposed hairy, stinky, leftist lesbians, I will take you seriously. On second thought, I don't think I have ever seen Sandra Bernhardt on MSNBC, whereas Coulter is a regular contributor on FOX.


Gino said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. D said...


I didn't say "it's perfectly alright to objectify her (Palin), sexually, even unto violence." Scalia said it, making the point that too many people let it slide. Obviously I don't think it's "perfectly alright." But maybe your snark meter was turned off when you read this.

My point in quoting Elizabeth Scalia's piece was really about her conclusion, that if the Democrats had a woman on their side with even half the star power that Palin possesses, you would be see her every day and would be reading enconia about her. Sorry to have confused you.

I'm not real crazy about the seeing the n-word in my comments section, Gino. I'm going to let it stand, because I understand the point you're trying to make, but I'm going to nuke it the next time.

Gino said...

no problem Mr D.
I'll clean it up this way::

rich: still looking for the video. i saw it at the time, and the audience applauded.

so, there is your support.

but you havnt addressed my point: she felt it was OK for a reason. why did she feel that way?

even a blatant racist wont whisper the n-word unless he thinks he's among his own.

Anonymous said...

without seeing the original video, all I can do is take your word for it. But I can't really judge if it was 'enthusiastic' response, or a handful of vocal idiots. Just about anywhere there is a crowd larger than 10 people, there is a handful of vocal idiots, so I don't think it is fair to tar either side with a brush loaded up with paint from a small minority of idiots. So unless you want every conservative to be lumped into the same small group of idiots who gay bait Barney Frank or hurl racial epithets at Rep. Lewis, then give it a rest.

Here is what I do know: The reaction in the wake of the comments has been notably anti-Bernhardt and she has been getting cancellations on other appearances. In fact, the reaction from the left has probably been more vocal than from the right. This hardly reflects poorly on the left. Quite to the contrary. So, outside of trying to get into Bernhardt's head, which is not a place I ever care to go, I have answered your question.

Now, please explain to me why Ann Coulter routinely gets a pass for similar behavior, while remaining a regular contributor to Fox News.


Mr. D said...


You don't have to defend Sandra Bernhard. Really.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

So unless you want every conservative to be lumped into the same small group of idiots who gay bait Barney Frank or hurl racial epithets at Rep. Lewis, then give it a rest.

Nice to slip that in there as if this was established fact. I think it's pretty well established at this point that Rep. Lewis was lying for political gain.

But as for your actual point, yes. Tarring broad groups on scanty evidence is a vile tactic.

Gino said...

i wont get into defending ann coulter as she is a GOPer, and i am not, so she aint necassarily my babe, if you know what i mean.

but i'm not so sure she has ever called for the interracial gang-rape of any female from the other side.
or made jokes about their children being raped by jocks?

has she?

if so, i absolutely condemn such vitriol.

my name is Amanda said...

Since when does Scalia speak for what Democrats admire in a politician?

The descriptions of Palin she listed describe a whole hell of a lot of women I knew while growing up, and today, except for the governor part (but a job's a job). Do I admire these women? Well - that's based on their personality, and the kinds of things they support and fight for in life. Respect is different, and anyone who fits that description - the description of a "decent citizen" - has my respect, as that. Admiration needs something more remarkable.

And so there is a supposed dearth of female Democrat politicians who haven't owned their own businesses, gotten married, or worked while raising children? Since when did these characteristics alone qualify women to be admirable politicians? What's being missed here is that this description is being applied to Sarah Palin because *there are no other nice things to say about Sarah Palin.* She's not a star because she possesses some magic charisma missing in the female portion of Dem party. On the contrary, she's grating and insultingly simplistic in content and annoyingly folksy when she's making speeches. No, she's a star because her presence on the political scene, the very inappropriateness of it, is outrageous. Also, because she's pretty.

That really is all it comes down to.

Mr. D said...


Where did I say that Scalia speaks for Democrats? She speaks for herself. I happen to find her argument compelling. You don't. No surprise there. Read her argument again -- she's saying that if someone who had Palin's background were running as a Democrat, that individual would be celebrated. You dislike her because you disagree with her. Presumably someone with Palin's background that shared your worldview would be a big favorite on the portside. Right?

my name is Amanda said...

Scalia wrote that if this woman - because of the description she listed - were a Democrat, then the Democrats would be crazy about her.

That is Scalia speaking about what Democrats ought to like.

Now that I think more about it, though, no, I disagree with Scalia that the Dems would LOVE to have Palin on their side. If she were a D, she'd still be spectacularly unqualified to speak to national (and certainly international) interests, due simply to her inexperience and education (which doesn't cancel out the possibility of her gaining in either - but she doesn't seem to be headed in that direction). Besides, the premise of Scalia's point is that the Dems do have the Dem-weakness-hiding media on their side - a particularly whiny, and blatantly untrue, Republican complaint.

And before someone requires me to "prove" in the comments section of a blog that the MSM isn't "Liberal," please feel free(anyone) to go ahead and prove that it is. For every Conservative storyline that doesn't make it to CNN, there is an equally CNN-ignored Liberal storyline shivering in the shadows of the internet.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

"What is truth?"

CousinDan54915 said...

All the above comments aside, I think Rachel Maddow needs a leash. Or at least some distemper shots. I don't watch MSNBC much but I did the other night and that woman needs a mental health checkup.