A Republican Judge

[IBCoupe]

I dont think this had been your week, Telco.

[telcoman]

Since you brought up Pakistan it is not on my list of places to visit.

Your loss.

Many from Pakistan here in the US drive cabs, own small businesses and are very nice and polite people
Too bad they come from such a fvcked up place

It is really too bad that you believe everything the media has to say - it is in their interest to only show the extreme situations. A mind that is closed is such a terrible thing to see wasted!

Yeah, there is good and bad in any country, but generalizations are so easy to make when you don't have a clue, do you? On either side, by the way!



For you, the Pakistanis here may be polite cab drivers. Over there, the Americans are considered ruthless killers. For many of the rural Pakistanis, all they see is the rain of cruise missiles and pilotless drones that have killed so many innocent civilians - more than were killed in 9/11. And these have continued even after your favorite, Obama, took office, by the way.

The crime and murder rate in the US, particularly in Washington DC, is given so much media attention there that I am occasionally asked when visiting, whether I consider it safe to go out at night in the US.

Such a f***ed up place, indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-XI19Wy_rk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwHQ9LiMekU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etb8w29_ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51LiUJfL ... re=related

Please do stay away from Pakistan, telcoman! That country can do without bigots like you.

Z

I am not a bigot.

I had a co worker from Pakistan that went home for a visit, got into an accident and never was able to return to the US
Nice guy

We need to lighten up



Telcoman

[szh]

I am not a bigot.

Really? You certainly have me fooled!

Please re-examine your earlier posts and tell us again why we should believe this denial in the slightest bit.

I had a co worker from Pakistan that went home for a visit, got into an accident and never was able to return to the US
Nice guy

And just what is the relevance of this statement above? Is it supposed to be one of those "I am not a bigot, some of my best friends are black/gay/younameit" type of classic bigotry denial statements?

We need to lighten up

Sigh ...

Let's see what you just did. Claimed you were not a bigot, made a classic "some of my best friends ..." denial, told us to "lighten up" (your previous bigoted posts are also "jokes", right? ) and then immediately followed up with a cartoon that demonstrates exactly why you are indeed a bigot.

You have absolutely no credibility whatsoever ...

Z

[AZhitman]

It's no surprise. I mean, he worships a misogynist:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/26/maher ... wo-bimbos/

Maher calls women "bimbos" and "dumb twit"... yet there's not a peep from the left. It's pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

Speaking of misogynists... His other "hero" (Stern) has quite a track record for demeaning women. I see a pattern here.

[telcoman]

Where was the problem when Democrats demanded that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from anything to do with Obamacare or other similar instances?

Goose, meet gander.

Sux when you have your own feces slung back in your faces?

http://carolynspreciousmemories.com/elvis/hounddog.html

[srellim234]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/26/maher ... wo-bimbos/

Maher calls women "bimbos" and "dumb twit"... yet there's not a peep from the left. It's pure, unadulterated hypocrisy...

Nor should there be. He calls two specific women "bimbos." Demeaning, yes, but a statement made to shock and grab attention within the context of a stand-up comedy program. It would be a lot different if it he was Walter Cronkite on the 6 p.m. news on CBS. Your complaint in this context is every bit as wrong as the right's making a huge deal out of the Dixie Chick's complaints about George Bush.

The problem is that people fail to differentiate between comedy, good or bad, and serious news and programming. Both sides of the aisle are way too intolerant.

[IBCoupe]

For good measure:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE[/youtube]

[szh]

http://carolynspreciousmemories.com/elvis/hounddog.html

Huhn?!?

What is the relevance of this link here?

Z

[telcoman]

http://carolynspreciousmemories.com/elvis/hounddog.html

Huhn?!?

What is the relevance of this link here?

Z

I saw just saw Elvis

[telcoman]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/26/maher ... wo-bimbos/

Maher calls women "bimbos" and "dumb twit"... yet there's not a peep from the left. It's pure, unadulterated hypocrisy...

Nor should there be. He calls two specific women "bimbos." Demeaning, yes, but a statement made to shock and grab attention within the context of a stand-up comedy program. It would be a lot different if it he was Walter Cronkite on the 6 p.m. news on CBS. Your complaint in this context is every bit as wrong as the right's making a huge deal out of the Dixie Chick's complaints about George Bush.

The problem is that people fail to differentiate between comedy, good or bad, and serious news and programming. Both sides of the aisle are way too intolerant.

Oh yes there is

http://www.dailykos.com/


Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:00 PM EDT.

Why we must defend Sarah Palinby Kaili Joy Gray .

Roger H. Goun/Wikimedia Commons


Let's be clear: I don't like Sarah Palin.

She is, as I have said before, hyper-partisan, painfully ignorant, pathologically dishonest, chronically unethical, intellectually unconscious, and jaw-droppingly stupid. And those are her better qualities.

But that does not mean that sexist attacks on her are immune from criticism. Last week, on his show Real Time, Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "dumb twit." This was, of course, his typically politically incorrect shorthand way of saying that Palin is, as many have said before, and justifiably so, an idiot. But his use of the word "twit" to describe her raised the ire of Lisa Bennett, Communications Director for the National Organization of Women, who released this statement in response:

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. OK? Can you do that, please? If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so, but try to keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women.
This is not a new criticism. Many feminists believe that using words such as "twit" or "****" are gender-specific slurs that, intentionally or not, degrade women and women's anatomy by using them as an insult.

On her Facebook page, Palin appeared to agree with NOW, calling Maher's comment "personal, vulgar, sexist venom." But Palin also had a message for NOW. In an interview on—where else?—Fox News, Palin said, "By the way, I need NOW's defense like a fish needs a bicycle. I don't want them to defend me."

Certainly, NOW took no pleasure in defending Palin. In fact, in 2008, after John McCain picked Palin as his running mate, NOW took the unusual step of issuing an endorsement—for the Democratic ticket:

Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.
Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.

What was, not surprisingly, lost on Palin, was that NOW's response to Bill Maher wasn't really about defending Palin. In fact, since Palin's rise to prominence in 2008, many feminists have defended her against what they perceive as sexist attacks. As Melissa McEwan at Shakespeare's Sister explained immediately after Palin's nomination, and continued in her ongoing series "Sarah Palin Sexism Watch" (which has more than two dozen posts):

For the record, there is plenty about which to criticize Palin that has absolutely f***-all to do with her sex. She's anti-choice, against marriage equality, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, and loves Big Business. (In other words, she's a Republican.) There's no goddamned reason to criticize her for anything but her policies.
And I'll go ahead and put it right in the f*** inaugural post in this series: I will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I like or support her, but because that's how feminism works.

And that, of course, is the point. The fight for women's equality, and specifically, women's fair treatment by the media, isn't about any one woman. It certainly isn't about Palin. It's not even about Maher's use of "dumb twit" to describe her.

It's about fighting to change an institutionalized power structure that disadvantages women. It's about changing the cultural assumption that men are the baseline of normal, from which women are a deviation. In the debate over health care reform, Sen. John Kyl perfectly exemplified this assumption when he argued that health insurance should not have to cover maternity care because he doesn't need it. Sen. Debbie Stabenow famously responded, "I think your mom probably did."

We have witnessed, countless times, the double standards applied to female politicians, who are asked whether they can effectively govern and raise a family, a question male politicians with children are never asked. The media obsessively analyzes how female politicians dress or style their hair or whether shedding a tear proves that women are, indeed, too emotional to lead. Male politicians are exempted from such analysis. And it is that double standard that feminists and advocacy groups, like NOW, fight to end, even when the target of such sexism is someone who does not share the goal of ending sexism.

Palin is certainly comfortable denouncing sexism when it suits her. What she doesn't do is stand up to sexism when it is directed at those with whom she disagrees. When the Minnesota GOP posted a video calling Democratic women ugly, Palin was silent. When a woman was assaulted at a Rand Paul rally last year, and her attacker claimed she deserved it and demanded an apology, Palin was silent.

Palin also opposes virtually everything that improves women's lives, from paycheck fairness legislation to women-dominated unions to reproductive health care to funding for teen mothers. (Yes, really.)

In Palin's response to Maher, and her rejection of NOW's defense, she also said that she is "through whining about a liberal press that holds particularly conservative women to a different standard, because it doesn't do any good to whine about it."

And Palin has certainly done plenty of whining about the liberal press and its treatment of women Sarah Palin. She's previously attacked women's advocacy groups, specifically NOW, for an alleged double standard. She even offered this advice:

NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick.

However, that was in the context of criticizing NOW for condemning CBS's decision to air a "pro-life" ad during the 2010 Super Bowl. Having demonstrated its single standard of calling out sexism regardless of the target, Palin doesn't want NOW to do any such thing.

Before Palin discovered the joys of decrying sexism, she criticized Hillary Clinton for—that's right—"whining" about sexism, insisting that it "doesn't do us any good."

But Palin isn't the arbiter of media sexism. That she has apparently returned to her original position that women ought not to complain about sexism does not mean that those women and advocacy groups who have always taken a stand against it should follow suit. Quite the opposite. Those who want to end sexism must take a stand and hold the media accountable for its treatment of women. All women. Even women who reject feminism, or use it as nothing more than a campaign slogan. Even women who fight against women's interests. Even women who attack other women for "whining" about sexism. Even women who remain silent when attacks are directed at women with whom they disagree. Even women who criticize other women politicians and then misquote their Starbucks cup to say that women who don't support other women are going to hell.

That, of course, is why NOW released its criticism of Bill Maher. That, of course, is why feminists admonish the media for using gender-specific slurs and attacking Palin on the basis of her anatomy rather than her heinous political positions, her laughable gaffes, her made up vocabulary, or her pathetic crib notes. It is because of the very simple understanding that sexism, on the left or the right, harms all women. When we remain silent in the face of it, every woman suffers. And equality cannot be achieved only for some women. None of us are equal unless all of us are.

That's not something a woman who fights against women's equality can be expected to understand, of course. And, to be clear, her positions deserve no defense. It isn't necessary to support Palin's politics. It isn't even necessary to refrain from calling her an idiot. But sexist attacks on women have no place in our political discourse, regardless of who is attacked. We will not bring an end to sexism by selectively defending only those with whom we agree. And that means that even Sarah Palin, whose very politics is anathema to the cause of women's equality, deserves defense against such attacks. Even if she doesn't want it. Even if she doesn't understand it.

Let's just call her dumb and leave the sexism to Sarah.
permalink 631 Comments

Discuss

[AZhitman]

Both sides of the aisle are way too intolerant.

That I'll agree with.

Again, I don't know that *I* personally have an issue with the statements. I take issue with hypocrisy.

What if Beck called MO a "bimbo"? Or, a "nappy-headed ho"? (Hmmm, remember THAT?) Would we say, "Oh, people fail to differentiate between comedy, good or bad, and serious news and programming"?

Maher is a comedian? I thought comedians were supposed to be funny.



Howie, good link - that's a WELL-written article, and I agree with 99.9% of it.

[srellim234]

He said "tw*t" on a premium cable channel on a late night program. Vulgar? Yes. Sexist? Yes. Just like the Comedy Central roasts of individuals that are every bit as disgusting or more. Using the same language and more. I'm not about to waste my money watching them or give them a whole lot of influence in my life either. Why are we allowing a crude comedian to influence how we treat women or how we feel politically? He's a comedian! He has as much influence in our lives as Chris Rock, Lisa Lampanelli or any other foul-mouthed wonder out there.

Again, people are not disconnecting between the worthless vulgar junk that passes for humor on premium channels late at night and what should be prime time reasonable news and discourse. If enough people don't watch the junk they'll take it off the air. Keep talking about them in any context and people will tune in to see what the hubbub is all about.

If we had an independent press in this country that had a shred of responsibility to their journalistic code people wouldn't be looking to Comedy Central for their news.

[srellim234]

AZ- If Beck wanted to call MO a bimbo I don't particularly care. The first definition in the dictionaries I've looked at refer to bimbo as an attractive but empty headed woman or the like. I don't put bimbo on anywhere near the same scale of insult as the others. Same thing with twit, which is not gender specific. Tw*t is and refers to something else entirely.

If Beck wants to call MO a "nappy headed ho" on a late night premium channel comedy program where the audience is expecting that type of vulgar insult and reference and the viewers have to pay extra to see it, let him have at it. I won't waste my money on that, either.

[AZhitman]

Steve - Like you, I don't care what someone calls someone else. What I oppose is the "do as I say, not as I do" crap I hear from the so-called progressive left.

Why put restrictions on time, expectation and opt-in status? Why can't he do it on his daytime show?

BTW, I've said it before - I don't support ANY of it, because I don't watch TV.

[srellim234]

The restrictions on time, expectation and opt-in status are geared more toward allowing parents to shield their kids from being exposed to that junk. My kids aren't up that late (usually). We don't pay for those channels, but we know where we need to go to find that kind of lousy programming if we as adults wanted to watch it. Those restrictions keep a lot of impressionable kids who aren't of age yet from being exposed to it, whether we as parents are there at the moment or not. That programming simply doesn't belong where kids have easy access to it.

[AZhitman]

I don't disagree. But lots of people scream "censorship" when we say things like what you just said.

[srellim234]

As a father with a son in the USAF and two preteen girls at home, I say, "Let "em scream." I don't want kids to have access to it.

[IBCoupe]

I like this conversation, but I wanted to note that I use "twit" and "twit" to insult everyone, regardless of gender. "Bimbo" not so much.

[AZhitman]

As a father with a son in the USAF and two preteen girls at home, I say, "Let "em scream." I don't want kids to have access to it.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it seems, common decency is a casualty of political correctness and that nonexistent Amendment guaranteeing "freedom of expression".

[IBCoupe]

Ahem, "political correctness" is just code for "common decency" employed by those who wish not to observe it.

Political correctness and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom from government limitation on what you can say are two marginally related things, but are ultimately very different.

[AZhitman]

I respectfully disagree (with the first statement).

I think PC and "common decency" can be very different things, regardless of whether one observes either.

"Domestic engineer" is PC. "Housewife" doesn't run counter to "common decency".
"African-American" is PC. "Black", "Colored", "Negro" aren't outside the realm of "decency".
"Happy Holidays" is PC. "Merry Christmas" doesn't qualify as "indecent".

[IBCoupe]

"Domestic engineer" is PC. "Housewife" doesn't run counter to "common decency".
"African-American" is PC. "Black", "Colored", "Negro" aren't outside the realm of "decency".
"Happy Holidays" is PC. "Merry Christmas" doesn't qualify as "indecent".

Context is everything, Greg. You're judging these terms in absolute terms, and I think that is inadvisable, especially if we take the last one as an example.

Telling a group of Christians "Happy Holidays" or even using the phrase towards a person who is Christian might be awkward. Saying "Merry Christmas" to an assortment of people, some of whom see absolutely no value in Christmas, perhaps because they celebrate some other winter holiday can be rude.

You might not get that, and I can understand that. But I'm often a minority in a group (by any measure) and I can understand how being politically incorrect/insensitive/impolite/rude can put people off.

Some might say it's the intent of what is said that matters, but I must reply that the only person privy to the intent is the person speaking, not the people hearing. Being considerate of other people's feelings isn't being politically correct, it's being polite.

[AZhitman]

I'm fine with that. Somehow, this statement...

Ahem, "political correctness" is just code for "common decency" employed by those who wish not to observe it.

...struck me with almost the exact opposite meaning the first time I read it. Tired brain is tired.

[IBCoupe]

Hehe, sort of a brain-twister there. I was doing my best to make it controversial by taking the words from your post. Usually, I just say "politeness" when I rant about the myth of political correctness, but I might start using "common decency."

[AZhitman]

Totally.

I was like, "That sumbitch best not be accusing me of not observing common decency!"

For the record, I think political correctness is gay. Wait... I mean... ah, nevermind.

[stebo0728]

I usually try to avoid political correctness. I do try to conform to common decency of course, but I consider political correctness to be a general form of masking what everyone knows, but doesnt want to say. In many cases it goes beyond mere euphemism, and completely changes meanings.

[IBCoupe]

I think most of the uproar about political correctness is much ado about nothing. Does it really play that large a role in anyone's day? Anyone at all?

[telcoman]

Your loss.

Please do stay away from Pakistan, Z

I intend to

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

Telcoman

[szh]

As always, the media doesn't show anything that does not cause people to cringe.

The NYTimes is bad in this regard - particularly more so than others.

Z

[telcoman]

As always, the media doesn't show anything that does not cause people to cringe.

The NYTimes is bad in this regard - particularly more so than others.

Z

Are you saying what The NY Times printed is not true?

Don't get me wrong Z
No disrespect to you or the people from Pakistan

It's just that right now it appears to be a f ed up place and I wouldn't spend any money going there.

Americans are now visiting North Vietnam now where 40 years ago it was just as f ed up as Pakistan is now.

Telcoman