Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Gerard explains the most degrading interpretation possible of Obama’s “fish” comment, to those who need it explained, and it stands a fair chance of being the correct one.
But let there be no mistake about it. The above clip and quotes are two sexist jokes with a soupcon of a dirty joke thrown into the last one.
And I say that as a former professional in field of dirty jokes.
I say professional because, for several years in a previous life, I was responsible for the editing of the Jackie Martling “Jokeman” page at Penthouse Magazine. It was one of about five areas I had to edit at the time and it was my least favorite, but I did it because it was part of my job.
:
And by linking the “Pig with lipstick” reference to the stinking fish reference, Obama gets to ooze out some filthy and sexist humor with maximum deniability. He’ll go the “Who? Moi?” route on this one. Already, in classic Obama fashion, he’s claiming that he meant something else entirely. John McCain, I think.Of course, it could be claimed, as it will be claimed, that he simply wasn’t aware of how what he was saying would sound. For a man whose foreign policy rests on the assertion that he can literally talk his way to world peace, that’s even more unnerving.
Last week, I explained how our sexism voucher program worked. It recognizes that some post-modern feminists have built an entire worldview around this myth of men, running around, scared stiff of female authority. Well, now that this has been exposed as a myth, the sanity of these post-modern feminists is in peril. So this cap-and-trade scheme of sexists offsets, addresses this by allowing sexists to purchase the “right” to say nice things about Gov. Sarah Palin and other worthwhile ladies — we do this by paying someone else to do sexist things on our behalf. We can do this. We can come together to bring the pollution of female flattery, under control, and make sure it is “offset” so the net female-flattery footprint (FFF) is under control.
Know what?
I think Barack Obama may very well have a whole armload of sexism vouchers to sell into the system after that one.
Simply…amazing.
Further thoughts from Rick here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, since I found out in the comment’s section in Cassy’s blog the other day that “uppity” is now a racist term, I guess we should all be looking for other things we can define to be off limits.
Frankly, I wish we could get away from rhetorical “gotcha’s” like this — unless it is clear that that’s what the speaker meant. It’s cool to point it out as a double-standard, but if we do it, too, there goes the double-standard argument.
Now referring to her as a pig is beyond the pale, for sure. And if you’re going to make a metaphor with a rotten, stinky smell — you need to spell out what it is you think is rotten and stinky. You know, facts. Details. And be prepared to back them up. Or else it’s just “rotten fish smell” coming out of your big, eloquent, masterful-orator pie-hole.
- philmon | 09/10/2008 @ 08:31Well, since I found out in the comment’s section in Cassy’s blog the other day that “uppity” is now a racist term, I guess we should all be looking for other things we can define to be off limits. Frankly, I wish we could get away from rhetorical “gotcha’s” like this — unless it is clear that that’s what the speaker meant.
Hey, I resent that. Uppity is a sexist term, at least as much as it is a racist term. And I use it quite frequently in contexts much like this one, in which the speaker’s intended meaning is plainly to be a sexist. As a parody, sure, but still that’s the meaning. Therefore, sanitizing the language would entirely defeat the purpose. How am I supposed to behave like the sexist people expect me to be, if any of the words I can use to be a sexist, are made unavailable to me?
I think whoever’s pointing that out needs to get her fat ass into the kitchen and make me a pie.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2008 @ 11:26Can you provide a link to the comment thread? A Google site search yields four results for “uppity” at Cassy’s place. They’re all non-ironic usages of the word — racists, I guess — and none of them have to do with scolding anyone for using it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2008 @ 11:27Sure, that thread is here and the topic is similar to this post. (I actually defended Obama on it. I’ll do that where it’s appropriate.)
Mind you, I know what the rationalization behind it being racist or sexist is. But it’s rationalization.
“Uppity” has always meant to think too much of onesself. I know that sometimes it’s used to imply that said “uppity” person is acting above some percieved station in life, but that’s a matter of intent, and doesn’t change the general meaning of the word.
Of course, those who think it’s “racist” or “sexist” term think that any time it’s used to describe a person who is a member of a “protected” group that the speaker is implying that the intent mentioned above is obviously implied. If you call a woman “uppity”, you obviously believe she thinks she’s better than a woman is allowed to be. Same with, say, a person of African decent with dark complexion. Man, it’s getting difficult to even specify what group you’re referring to (when you try to refer to that particular group) without “offending” someone.
If someone said something about a whole demographic getting “uppity”, the case for the inference can be more plausibly made.
But to me, referring to an individual, (or maybe a group of related individuals) as “uppity” just means you think that person thinks to much of him/herself, and it has much more to do with how you think of yourself than what the implied intellctual or prestiege “cap” is to your particular demographic. It’s a really, really generic term.
I hate it when people try to tell me what I mean when I say what I say.
- philmon | 09/10/2008 @ 15:40My understanding is it has racist connotations because of historical use, and has sexist connotations for the same reason.
I have *never* been sympathetic to this argument, because to presume malicious intent based on historical use, you have to presume anyone who uses a word has to be taking responsibility for all historical use of that word. Obviously, this would have to mean anyone with a decent vocabulary they actually use, should have an encyclopedic command of the English Language, on par with an English major, or his professor. The argument disintegrates from its own structural silliness.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2008 @ 16:13No disagreement here. I suppose if that word had been EXCLUSIVELY used in those contexts, maybe I’d be a little sympathetic toward the argument.
I know in the past some black people have been called “idiots”, and yet (so far) “idiot” isn’t racist. Women have been called “dumb” in the past, and yet “dumb” isn’t (yet) sexist. Men have been called “dicks” and … um … well what are we talking about? Calling men names can’t be sexist anyway, let’s get back to the real issues!
- philmon | 09/10/2008 @ 16:30Ummm… I’m late to the game here, and I don’t want to get uppity or anything, but I come down on the Democrats’ side on this one. The Right-wing reaction to the lipstick thingie is conspiracy theorism on a par with the frickin’ Troofers. “Lipstick on a pig” is common in the vernacular, I’ve used it myself… as has every other swingin’ dick (and female counterpart, whatever that may be) in the IT industry, since 1994 or thereabouts. There may even be video of me using it from around that time; there’s certianly tens of Powerpoint presentations I created using the term extant. The term became a frickin’ cliche in the industry in short order and spread throughout the culture. EVERYONE’S used it.
Obama was most definitely taken out of context. The only contributing factor to the life of this sorry episode was the clue-free crowd’s reaction to the perceived slur. I frickin’ dislike The One as much as anyone, but I really don’t believe he’s this goddamned stupid.
The Republicans, OTOH, make me frickin’ SICK by assuming the mantle of The Perpetually Offended. That’s the LEFT’S schtik… and a sorry one it is and always has been. To watch the McCain campaign play this game turns my stomach. Besides that… Palin has ZERO need for a frickin brigade of White Knights riding to her defense…damsel-in-distress style. That woman can more than take care of herself, so let her do it. If she chooses to.
The Left was doing a wonderful job of imploding, and then WE come along and help them recover with this idiotic and dumbass move.
Way to go, McCain campaign. And shame on all you that have bought into it.
/rant
- Buck | 09/10/2008 @ 23:39I said it stood a fair chance of being correct, and I stand by it.
I’m looking at it this way. Supposin’ it was McCain/Lieberman versus Obama/Hillary, and McCain ridiculed the Obama/Clinton ticket for taking on the title of Changemeister, using this idiom involving aquatic wildlife………………………
See, there’s a funny thing that takes place when the democrats demand the exclusive right to “assum[e] the mantle of The Perpetually Offended.” The funny thing that happens, is they GET that right. And then the other side can’t say anything at all. Because, of course, it’s all offensive.
Am I in favor of sucking horrified breath in with theatrical indignation, left-style? HELL no. Am I in favor of recording this in the archives, so that when President Obama starts accusing people of being racists for not supporting this-or-that initiative, the loyal opposition can then say “this coming from the guy who in September of ’08, said…”? Yeah, I am. This guy’s got a great shot at becoming the most powerful man in the world, and let there be no mistake, he will brook NO backtalk against His Messianic And Divine Programs once he’s in. He seeks a government in which leaders scrutinize and criticize the citizenry, rather than the other way around. And unless people start taking notes on him, and fast, that’s exactly what we’re all gonna get.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2008 @ 00:44I said it stood a fair chance of being correct, and I stand by it.
Dis-a-frickin’-gree, as far as the “fair chance” thing goes. Have you watched the entire Obama sequence in question? And I don’t know what to say if if you respond in the affirmative…coz it’s VERY clear to me that The One was off on a rant about McCain’s policies, NOT Palin. Palin’s “lipstick/pitbull” comment at the RNC became an instantaneous part of the American vernacular, and every single person who is politically in tune with this campaign recognizes that. The One’s audience made that association immediately when Obama made his comment, and Obama was the fortunate/unfortunate (you choose) recipient of a moment of serendipity, which, by definition was unintended. Excuse me, Morgan, but ya gotta be either somewhat thick or partisan beyond belief to miss that point. I’m partisan, and I know you are too. I do NOT believe you’re thick, so I really am at a loss as to why you’ve jumped on this ludicrous bandwagon.
As far as getting The One on the record… there are SO many OTHER vapid things he says and does that this lil pimple on his rhetorical ass is just that: a pimple… or much much less. My whole point: we can and SHOULD do better than this, and McCain & Co. made an egregious tactical error. I’m VERY disappointed in you for jumping on the bandwagon.
I intend to publish Brit Hume’s roundtable discussion on this point as soon as it becomes available, because Charles Krauthammer… a pundit I have deep respect for and whose views converge with mine 90% of the time… is on the same page as I am, although HE brushes it off with a “cut ’em some slack” vis-a-vis McCain being correct MOST of the time, but wrong HERE. You could easily do the same (i.e., use the “cut ’em some slack” approach), but I’m not that frickin’ charitable. Today. Which, using the familiar language of caveats: May be void in certain jurisdictions and subject to change on a whim.
You can come clean on this anytime you like. I’ve heard you say you’ll admit when you’re wrong. Ergo: money… mouth. 😉
- Buck | 09/11/2008 @ 01:47Oh… BTW. Regarding my combative attitude. I’m on some pretty good pain drugs tonight, and they seem to be affecting my otherwise sunny and oh-so-affable disposition. And perhaps my judgment. But I really don’t think so, regarding the latter. 😉
- Buck | 09/11/2008 @ 01:55Buck,
I’m really not sure what we’re debating here, and I’m not altogether sure you know either. If we’re debating whether Obama is a human like the rest of us and therefore there is something inappropriate about holding him to a standard of perfection, then okay, consider the olive branch extended. If we’re debating whether the same episode can happen to me some day, or has, then ditto. If we’re debating whether some of the theatrical horrified breath-suckers in the McCain camp have overreacted, and perhaps damaged the chances of the McCain/Palin ticket by doing so, then I’ll join you there too, for I am not with them.
If we’re debating whether he’s flawed to the point that anyone who imagines him fit for the nation’s highest office needs to wake the f*ck up, with me saying that’s so, and you saying it ain’t — well then, on this one I’m gonna have to stick to my guns. Being “articulate” is a lot more than managing to put out some syllables with a magical lilt to your voice and pronouncing new-clee-ar correctly. You’d agree with that, wouldn’t you? And what has Obama done to demonstrate any real leadership AT ALL, other than convincing a crowd (through means, as yet, unstated) that the crowd would like to hear the next handful of syllables, like a crowd of ditzy girls wanting to hear the next stanza coming from Johnny Fontaine. The point to be made — and it stands, even if this was an innocent screw up — is this. Obama has nothing to offer besides an ability to speak in public. And he doesn’t even have that.
Now, I understand and respect that out of all the ways President Obama would suck large, he’d suck worst as a Commander in Chief, and your personal investment there raises the stakes for you in ways far above & beyond how this would effect the “average” American. I think you’re working your way through this situation with a little bit too much tactical flair — it seems you’re saying, since Republicans haven’t been using this schtick of being obsequiously offended, and the democrats have, it seems Republicans are lowering themselves to the other guys’ level by breaking out the same weaponry, and by doing this they might lose the ability to distinguish themselves from the other guys and therefore lose the election.
Well YEAH. Anything’s possible. But since you’re (in my opinion) debating this like a chess player, trying to figure out how to keep the other guys from winning, I think you need to put a little more attention on why these accusations fly around in the first place: They WORK. Larry Craig taps his foot in a toilet stall, he’s out. Damn hypocrite. Womens’ Rights Defender Bill Clinton abuses and oppresses women for his sexual gratification…aw gee, that’s okay. Nothing hypocritical about that.
People don’t react to reality. They react to accusations. Your chess strategy, the way I see it, is based on the perception that when the other guy tries to win by accusing you of bullshit things, and you’re above this, people notice and rally around you. You are wise, experienced, and sane, and therefore must have some personal experience to back this up. How I envy you for that. But I am also sane, and I’m gonna have to see some of that for myself before I believe in it. And I haven’t. From what I see, in politics as well as in life, people bullcuse, and right after that they get exactly what they want.
To REPEAT — I am not suggesting anyone use this offensively. I think they should use it defensively. He’s stepped in something. If he wants to come out swinging next time Republicans step in something, he has a perfect right to do so…he just can’t do it as a squeeky-clean Messiah who’s above it all. That’s really all I’m saying within the chess player realm.
In that other realm, in which we try to figure out what t’heck happened here, you’re confusing moderation with extremism. I’m the moderate guy — Gerard’s interpretation has a fair shot at being true. It really is the oldest game in politics after all. Plausible deniability. Think of it as my way of giving The Chosen One credit for what he really does have going on upstairs. Admit it — he is *plenty* sharp enough to deploy this as a weapon.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2008 @ 08:14If we’re debating whether some of the theatrical horrified breath-suckers in the McCain camp have overreacted, and perhaps damaged the chances of the McCain/Palin ticket by doing so, then I’ll join you there too, for I am not with them.
That was and is my point, exactly. And I’m oh-so-glad to read your clarification in this space. I’ll also give you max points for pointing out that perception is reality, and I’ll give points to the McCain campaign for the mis-leading but effective ad they put out yesterday that contrasted Sarah’s RNC quote against Obama’s. Masterful execution, and designed to affect the opinions of the uninformed. But the implicit and explicit danger is what happens when the uninformed become informed? Perhaps that won’t happen and I give more credit to the Great Unwashed than they deserve.
An additional unsaid position… til now… is the fact I believe McCain damaged his credibility with the campaign’s position on this non-issue. McCain has made much of “character” in this campaign, and rightfully so. I truly believe the man has more integrity in his proverbial little finger than The One has in his entire body and soul. I’m just greatly disappointed that McCain took the advice of his campaign to strike Obama in this space. If you have the time, you might want to browse the Archives at The Corner on NRO… there are some very good alternate approaches the McCain campaign could have taken posited there, and I’m in tune, for the most part, with what they have to say.
Peace, Out. 😉
- Buck | 09/11/2008 @ 11:51I’m late to the discussion, but I don’t see anyone bringing up “Macacca”, that vile racist slur that took down Senator Warner. Yay or nay, “lipstick on a pig” is more of a slur then “Macacca”. So I don’t see what the problem is, unless you hold the Democrats in such contempt that you do not expect, in fact demand they don’t, live up to the standards they demand of everyone else.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/11/2008 @ 18:27Exactly my point.
The only issue we should take with this is the — and I can’t put it better than Robert did –
Otherwise, we should be the adults in the room and not be whiny about it.
- philmon | 09/11/2008 @ 20:41And there is a *world* of difference between whining that someone hasn’t fit into some cookie-cutter of an ethics code you just pulled out of your rear end — and recognizing scum for being scum, and calling it out as such.
A world of difference.
In fact, I would argue much of the conservative/liberal split is about exactly that.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2008 @ 20:52You won’t get an argument out of me there, Mr. Freeberg.
Hey, good luck tomorrow!
- philmon | 09/11/2008 @ 22:29