Two tangents from the Week That Was Imus Week:
I miss Lars-Erik Nelson, O great Zeus on Olympus by Gojira’s cleansing fiery (and minty!) breath how I miss Lars-Erik Nelson. Yesterday, Editor and Publisher ran an item about Nelson’s column on — get this — Imus’s long bilious trail and (for extra added bonus points) Joe Lieberman’s sanctimonious hypocrisy. The column was written in 1995. Nelson died of an apparent stroke on November 20, 2000. His last published piece appeared in the December 21, 2000 issue of the New York Review of Books; it was a typically eagle-eyed takedown of a fawning biography of Henry “Scoopâ€? Jackson, the father of today’s “liberalâ€? hawks. You know how exasperated I used to get on my old blog whenever I read Richard Cohen or Peter Beinart? Right? Well, Nelson was basically the opposite of those guys. Whip-smart and constitutionally unhoodwinkable. It’s no surprise to learn that Nelson was the person to break the silence and explain to Gwen Ifill why her colleagues thought that Imus “had a problemâ€? with her:
I was covering the White House for this newspaper in 1993, when Mr. Imus’s producer began calling to invite me on his radio program. I didn’t return his calls. I had my hands plenty full covering Bill Clinton.
Soon enough, the phone calls stopped. Then quizzical colleagues began asking me why Don Imus seemed to have a problem with me. I had no idea what they were talking about because I never listened to the program.
It was not until five years later, when Mr. Imus and I were both working under the NBC News umbrella — his show was being simulcast on MSNBC; I was a Capitol Hill correspondent for the network — that I discovered why people were asking those questions. It took Lars-Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, to finally explain what no one else had wanted to repeat.
“Isn’t The Times wonderful,� Mr. Nelson quoted Mr. Imus as saying on the radio. “It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.�
I can’t confirm this, but I believe that at the time, Rush Limbaugh blamed Imus’s “cleaning lady� remark on soul music, noting that Betty Wright had recorded the song “Cleanup Woman� in 1972.
Anyway, here are a few snippets from Pete Hamill’s eulogy for Nelson at a Columbia University memorial service in early 2001:
He has been gone only a matter of weeks, but oh, how we need Lars now.
If, as seems clearer with each passing hour, we are once more entering what Auden long ago called “a low dishonest decadeâ€?, the loss of Lars-Erik Nelson is even more unacceptable than it already is. In the midst of so much televised mediocrity, so much vulgar manipulation of base imagery, we need that deceptively elegant style, with its lucidity and grace. We need the eye and ear of the man who wrote that prose, his ability to see what too many Washington journalists miss, to hear what too many don’t want to hear. We need his blunt common sense. We need his nose for the smelly political lie and the wormy platitude that disguises the lie. We need his intelligence. We need his moral toughness. We need his sense of irony, which is to say, his sense of proportion. And we need his ability — always carefully rationed — to get madder than hell.
. . . Lars did not write his columns and essays in order to get invited to dinner parties in Georgetown. Nor was he interested in becoming a professional talking head on television, nattering away in some cartoon version of a reporter. Nor would he become a star turn on the lecture circuit by coarsening his opinions, or distorting the facts that shaped those opinions, or take the shilling from the people he was supposed to scrutinize.
A low dishonest decade: hey, good Auden call, Pete! And the bit about getting madder than hell . . . hey, that reminds me. Where did Editor and Publisher find that wonderful little 1995 column of Nelson’s, anyway?
Why, chez Digby, of course! Where else but at the blog of Nelson’s heir?*
I spent some time crawling around in the Intertubes yesterday and learned to my dismay that Lars-Erik Nelson does not even have his own Wikipedia page. Could someone fix that right away? Thanks very much.
_______
* This is a joke. Digby is not literally Nelson’s heir. Everyone knows that Digby is a being from another planetary system, sent to Earth to try to foster intelligent life once it became clear that the whole “mysterious-black-monolith-in-the-African-plains� gambit didn’t work out so good.
_______
In combing through Media Matters’ indispensable rap sheet, “It’s Not Just Imus,� which details the various discursive crimes against humanity committed by the denizens of the fever swamp that passes for radio/TV “commentary� in this low dishonest decade of ours, I came across this surreal item from the man who may be the answer to the classic brainteaser, “can there be a wingnut so stupid that the other wingnuts might realize it,� Glenn Beck:
On the August 24, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck claimed that Braille on walls (used to identify rooms for blind people) “drives me out of my mind.” When he made his comment, Beck was discussing the “politically correct world we live in.” He then said, “Just to piss them [blind people] off, I’m going to put in Braille on the coffee pot … ‘Pot is hot.’â€?
I knew about Beck’s spittle-flecked Islamophobia and his misogyny and his racism and his murderous little fantasies and his kinda pathetic attempts to proposition attractive women on the air (see also “misogyny,� above), all of which are duly catalogued by Media Matters. But somehow, I’d missed the bit about Braille driving Beck out of his mind.
Now, those of you who’ve read my work over the past three years know that I’m not usually given to the coarse, national-fabric-fraying lexicon of the liberal blogosphere.
But what the fucking fuck? Seriously, what kind of fucking sick fuckwad gets his Speedo in a bunch about fucking Braille signs?
Everyone knows it’s OK to hate on people with disabilities, after all, but the hating has to take the proper form. And for almost two decades now, the proper form is this: (a) complain that the staggering cost of installing wider doors and bathroom stalls will be catastrophic for American business, on the grounds that making workplaces disability-accessible cuts into the eight-figure stock options, bonuses, and severance packages that American CEOs need to stay competitive with each other; (b) complain that the creation of “handicapped� parking spaces often requires “normal� people to walk an extra twenty to thirty yards to Wal-Mart’s front door, and is therefore a violation of the Constitutional right to drive a car and to pull into the most convenient parking space available. Hating on fucking Braille signs, which involve no imposition whatsoever on anyone, and fantasizing about burning the hands of blind people, is just beyond batshit crazy, beyond too-stupid-to-breathe.
I’m not saying that Glenn Beck should be fired. By no means. It is vitally important that CNN give this man a platform to say what no one else in American media has the courage to say, and I hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future Mr. Beck will expand his critiques of “political correctness� and point out how oppressive it is that people can’t just tell a good joke anymore about using a quadriplegic child as second base. (I heard that joke in my childhood! Did you? Good times! But you won’t hear it very often these days, thanks to political correctness!)
Thanks, CNN! Keep up the fine work. And Mr. Beck? Next time you’re in the bar, checking out the game on a distant TV, take a moment to be grateful that you still have your sight. And if you’re following the commentary by reading the closed captioning, thank a deaf person.
63 Responses to “Blindness and insight”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
How many Glenn Becks does it take to screw in a light bulb?
there have to be more comfortable places to screw than in a light bulb, but I’ll bite. How many?
He’s that much of a wanker…
One. Duh.
Please. No more evil Glenns. ok?
Am I the only one how has suspected that our new crop of wingnut overlords is some kind of Moonie conspiracy to make The Washington Times look respectable?
Oops. “who has suspected”
How many Glenn Becks does it take to screw in a light bulb?
This is a trick question. Glenn Beck doesn’t screw in light bulbs, because he read the warning label, “light bulb is hot.”
It is vitally important that CNN give this man a platform to say what no one else in American media has the courage to say,
To quote John Stewart, Beck is the guy brave enough “to say what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.”
Glenn Beck probably got his rant about blind folks from the pseudo joke asking why drive up ATMs had braille. Glenn Beck also needs to join Imus and crawl back into the cave with the rest of his neanderthal buds. I’ve sent CNN a couple of notes; first commending them on their Imus coverage then excoriating them for their continuing to put Beck on the air. Like it’s done any good.
I miss Lars-Erik Nelson, too. He was the author of one of my all-time favorite quotes: “The enemy is not Republicans, and the enemy is not Democrats. The enemy is bullshit.” And bullshit is exactly what Glenn Beck is spewing….
Oh, for god’s sake, he objects to the very presence of Braille? That’s just all kinds of fucked up.
Another great Lars-Erik Nelson quote (re: political coverage that limits itself to discussing the state of the public relations war): “That’s not reporting, that’s theater criticism.”
And what exactly does “politically correct” mean in the sense that Beck used it in his anti-braille rant?
I wish I weren’t able to come up with an explanation of this attitude as readily as I am, but his hostility makes a certain sense in the context of the diseased mind of an entitlement junkie. These guys have spent so long being hostile toward things like affirmative action and sexual harrassment policies that at this point it’s simply a knee-jerk reflex to be opposed to any measure taken to help anyone who isn’t them, even when those measures can have no conceivable effect on them personally (viz. gay marriage).
Or, to put it more succinctly, Beck is an utter asshole.
I like both paragraphs of that explanation, Sycorax. Because I was kind of at a loss to answer Ben’s question. . . .
Heh,so Beck hates the mere presence of Braille eh?
It’s probably good I don’t work at CNN or wherever he does his radio show from then. Because I’m afraid,smart ass that I am,that he’d be finding Braille EVERYPLACE I could put it. I’d label his office,his car,his snacks,anything I could find that he came into contact with.
What an odioous,miserable bastard.
“And what exactly does ‘politically correct’ mean in the sense that Beck used it in his anti-braille rant?”
What it usually means, Ben: the extension of the minimum of civility and decency to people who are not affluent able-bodied heterosexual white male Anglophone Protestants.
Beck truly stands athwart common sense yelling ‘Stop!’
If we weren’t all strapped into the same hellish rollercoaster with the likes of Beck, it might be amusing. As it is, it seems terminal…
Just one. But to *change* a lightbulb, it takes 2,356.
2000 to whine about the politically correct need to supply light to *other people* who aren’t paying for it, and why can’t everyone be responsible for their *own* light?
300 to come to the conclusiong that the bulb is, in fact, not working
50 to figure out how to replace the wall switch, after the repeated attempts to flick it on and off finally broke the switch off
5 to read and translate the instructions for changing it
and one to stick the bulb in the socket, and expect the world to revolve around him, thus screwing in the bulb.
Spot on Lars-Erik Nelson quote on Bill Buckley
And if that is not about the most apt characterization of the vast majority of the right-wing “think tank” agenda, you can scratch my back with a hacksaw. And which agenda, in turn, has done much to enable the “mainstreaming” of reprehensible low-lifes like the subject of Tangent 2.
I sense the whole Imus controversy has been cooked up to distract the easily distractable American public from
Republican misrulethe escalation in Iraqthe decreasing popularity of all Republican Presidental candidatesthe state of Annika Sorenstam’s back and the threat posed by Ochoa to America’sbarely legal hottiesh.s./coed-age sweethearts. (Just because I like my conspiracy theories LPGA-related.)Seriously, is Imus taking one for the team (much like I argued Japanese PM Abe did with his the March comfort women commentary)? If so, how long will we be satisfied with the occasional sacrifice here and there before we demand accountability from the tops down?
And shouldn’t it be “by Astaroth’s lack-of-nipples” or “by Gojira’s cleansing fiery (and minty!) breath” at the beginning there, oh Chairman-for-Life?
I MUST steal that statement. It’s just too perfect.
And shouldn’t it be “by Astaroth’s lack-of-nipples� or “by Gojira’s cleansing fiery (and minty!) breath� at the beginning there, oh Chairman-for-Life?
Why, yes it should! And so shall it be. I’ll take Gojira this time around, because we don’t want PZ getting all nasty on us again about the ipplelessnessnay.
I have serious question, and it is one I do not intend as some sort of crap stirring or attempt to launch a flame war. If it strikes you as that kind of question, please ignore or delete this, because I am both extremely serious and sincere about this. If Nelson though that it was problematic that Imus referred to Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady” was problematic, do you think he would have found it problematic that TBogg referred to Condolezza Rice as “pouty Brown Sugar”? And if not, would the distinction be based on the fact that she is identified with the right, and do you think that is a legitimate reason to refer to her in that way? I realize that Rice is a government official, whereas Ifill is a member of the press, but TBogg makes equally racist and sexist comments about right wing female pundits. Homophobic ones too. I’m not linking to anything at Tbogg here because I am NOT trying to start a flame war, but I can easily support these statements with a host of links if you doubt the truth of them.
Bloggers at Sadly, No quite publicly and avidly supported Tbogg against right wingers who equated Tbogg’s words about Rice with those of Imus. Has anyone on the left criticized Tbogg, or is everybody reading this of the same mind as Sadly, No? I’d really like the answer to this, because I often wonder whether or not a should call myself a liberal, and that would pretty much answer that question with a definitive no.
Digby said of Imus:
Digby got this absolutely correct. I don’t think Digby is Nelson’s heir, however, because Digby seems quite happy to link to and even sling commentary that disparages others based on race and gender, and to rhetorically feminize men in ways that seem gay baiting, when there is political disagreement. Again, I can provide a lot of links to support this assertion.
Over a year ago I got in a flame war with the bloggers and commenters at Sadly No over their repeated use of the word “ho” in a post about the Duke rape allegations. Their opinion was that they were making a joke and I was censorious and humorless. I never questioned their RIGHT to use the word ho, I wanted to challenge them on the meaning and value of using a word so loaded with gender and racial implications in that particular context.
They don’t need to do call people hos to say something meaningful, because, as I would be the first to admit, they are very smart, talented satirists. So is Tbogg, for that matter. Smart liberals don’t need racim or sexism to communicate effectively. I have to conclude they use it so frequently because they LIKE to use it. They deeply enjoy making and laughing at comments like “pouty brown sugar” in reference to an African American woman. That conclusion depresses me a lot.
I also see a pretty close nexus between the questions I raise here and the debate going on here: http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2007/4/14/173236/544
The posts and comments threads at blogs like Eschaton read a lot like the comments threads at TBogg and Sadly, No - lots of white male dominance reinforcing put downs linked to gender, race and sexual orientation.
I’m not calling for any sort of speech code, or asking anybody to be nice. I think most of the posts here at Pandagon do a pretty good job most of the time of calling out the moral bankruptcy and assholishness of the right without resporting to racism or sexism or homophobia. I used to think most liberals were basically well intentioned, and they would come around and step down things like sexism if you explained to them why it was a problem. The blogosphere has made me doubt that this mightily. Blogs like Pandagon help keep hope alive in some respects, with the crucial limitation that the bloggers here seem largely untroubled by stuff that I obviously think is a big problem. I’m sorry this comment is so long and self absorbed. I was a Nelson fan too, and I think he would be saying things that desperately need to be said if liberalism is going to foster a positive social movement across race, gender and other differences. Or maybe he’d be flaming and skewering me for this, I guess that’s possible too. Bet he wouldn’t have called me a cunt, Heather, seventh grade girl, bitch, slut, bimbo or a ho though, no matter how much he disagreed with anything I’ve said, setting him apart from so many liberal bloggers and commenters.
I don’t think Digby is Nelson’s heir, however, because Digby seems quite happy to link to and even sling commentary that disparages others based on race and gender, and to rhetorically feminize men in ways that seem gay baiting, when there is political disagreement.
Well, Ann, sometimes you and I don’t see things quite the same way, and this is one of those times. Digby is one of the left blogosphere’s most eloquent critics of conservative gay-baiting and rhetorical feminization. I think you’re misreading her.
Hi Ann, I’d say the dreaded “context” is needed in assessing TBogg’s “pouty Brown Sugar” comment on Secretary of State Rice vis-a-vis that of Imus on the Rutger’s women’s basketball team.
First, the facts: TBogg was commenting on the Wolfowitz / Shaha Riza pay scandal. He was commenting on a WSJ blog story that says Riza now makes more than Rice. He claims that Rice is so miffed at this insult that she will ask “Daddy” (=Bush) to “buy her another pair of Ferragamos. Or invade another country.”
Now, some interpretation. In calling Rice “pouty Brown Sugar,” TBogg alludes to the very common rumor that Rice is Bush’s mistress as well as to the Doonesbury cartoon that has Bush using that nickname for Rice. (Trudeau is there mocking Bush’s sophomoric penchant for nicknames rather than Rice, IMO.) In appending the “or invade another country” TBogg is saying that the Bush administration’s foreign policy is so arbitrary, so callous with regard to war, that it could just as well be driven by petty personal jealousy as by rational calculation and that it places human lives lost in war at the same level as high-end shoes: that is, as symbols of its power.
Last, for the differences between the TBogg situation and Imus.
1. Imus is a major media personality with huge political connections; TBogg is a B-list blogger. 2. America political commentary often involves the mocking those in power; Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State, and TBogg was mocking her and Bush in order to make a political comment about war. 3. The Rutgers women’s basketball has no real political power, and Imus was not making a political commentary when he insulted them.
Summary: TBogg used a racist / sexist term to mock the Secretary of State in order to make a political comment about war. Imus insulted relatively powerless women in an example of sheer bullying. One insulted up while commenting on war, the other insulted down as part of his commercial shtick. I think this explains the difference in the left blogosphere’s reactions more than a right versus left litmus test.
It is certainly possible. Why is this post called “Mean Girls”?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/mean-girls-by-digby-ezra-took-jonah.html
Am I misreading Tbogg too?
NB: Here are the first two stanza of “Brown Sugar,” by the Rolling Stones:
Ann, yes, you’re misreading Digby. Really. As for the header “Mean Girls”: Mean Girls is the title of a movie written by Tina Fey. Citing it is not anti-feminist, any more than the film Heathers, and its subsequent citation by people criticizing the cliquishness of the media elite, is anti-feminist.
The number of main stream movies made about women is proportionately fairly small. Why is using the epithet “Mean Girls” so satisfying, when men are being criticized in a post? It is not as though Mean Girls was about journalists. Nor was Heathers primarily about cliquishness. It was about privileged and attractive girls who thought they were really powerful and important, but after they got murdered, it turned out that no one cared about them at all.
What about this post: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/clinton-rules-redux-by-digby-man-are.html
E.g. calling the DC press corps as “catty little …snots� who “squealed like schoolgirls,� and “spite girls� who “missed their fast times at DC High� and writing:
You don’t spot any sexism or homophobia?
The dynamics described in her post - schoolyard taunts, sleazy gossip - are the very essence of the Tina Fey movie. I can’t think of a counter-example, especially not one released in the two years prior to Digby writing her post.
Ann, because of moderation my 12:09 pm comment was held until after your 12:18 pm comment, so you may have missed it. As it addresses the main point of 11:17 am comment, I wonder if you’d address it, before the topic completely changes to Digby.
Shorter Ann:
“But hip-hop artists say it all the time - why isn’t anyone criticizing them?”
Auguste, that is completely unfair.
Oh, I get it. Since jokey question #1 was “How many Becks does it take to screw in a light bulb?”, jokey question #2 must be “What’s the difference between Tbogg (read: Digby, who is Ann Bartow’s real target) and Don Imus?” (Seriously.) Seriously, jokey question #2 is so absurd that it serves as its own punch line; all the same, to echo MAJeff, I’ll play.
The difference (as Digby himself as quoted by Ann Barstow herself) has already perfectly transparently elucidated, is that Imus made his career out of nappy-headed-ho remarks and their equivalents. At bottom, he never had anything else to say. Racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny were honestly all he was ever about. Subtract the palaver about nappy-headed this-or-that and about cleaning ladies and delete all the similar nonsense Imus made it a practice to spout from the Imus show and you’d be left with dead air & a mute Imus. Now it’s true that Imus, who seemed to realize that his schtick was a low-rent kinda schtick and who also seemed fitfully to harbor aspirations toward Better Things, would once in a while hook in & insert an up-market interview so as superficially to sweeten the flatulent aural stink he otherwise delighted in producing. To my mind, though, that doesn’t render Imus any the less nasty: what it does is render Imus nasty and pretentious.
So—about that TBogg. What TBogg did is make one remark about Condoleeza Rice; an ill-judged remark, a not-nice remark, a remark of which I personally don’t approve. What TBogg did not do, what TBogg thus far has refused to do, is habitually pass sexualized, condescending, or sexualized-cum-condescending comments about 1) Condoleeza Rice, 2) women as a group, or 3) blacks as a group. There is a reason TBogg does not do this, which is that TBogg has got other things to talk about. TBogg has got other things on his mind. TBogg may have insulted Condoleeza Rice in manner that raises many hackles, but insulting Condoleeza Rice on the basis of her sex or her race or for any other reason than her mediocre performance as Secretary of State or her fangirl adoration of George Bush is not germane to TBogg’s act. Consequently he isn’t likely to make a religion out of it. One can’t make the same claim on behalf of Don Imus.
A thought experiment: suppose the Imus show, during all the years it was broadcast, had been as squeaky-clean and as issues-based as TBogg’s column usually is. Then suppose that Imus, staggering, say, under a motherload of a hangover, had unexpectedly characterized the players in the Rutgers women’s basketball team as a bucha hardcore tat-wearin’ nappy-headed hos—do you think Imus would be in the same amount of trouble he now faces? I don’t. Imus would, under those circumstances, have been able to apologize and move on to the next thing, because under those circumstances there would have been a next thing for Imus to move on to, because (under those circumstances) Imus would not have constructed his entire career around a specific variety of diss.
About that Digby: this one is easier. It’s easier because TBogg did indeed insult, and gratituously insult, Condoleeza Rice, whereas Digby, so far as I know, hasn’t ever insulted anyone on anything other than their strict merits. Digby slings commentary formulated so as to disparage people for racial or gender-based reasons? Not so far as I can tell. I’m a regular Digby reader, and I’ve never come across anything of the kind. Occasionally Digby may officially notice that white guys are white, but that’s about as far as Digby ever goes. And this may be what Ann Barstow means when she claims that Digby “rhetorically feminizes men” (translation: frequently calls bullshit on a certain breed of pasty-faced conservative male commentator) “in ways that may seem gay-baiting”. (Please observe that Ann Barstow dares not claim that Digby disparages said anonymous fellows in ways that are gay-baiting, because she knows that Digby’s whole thing is to call bullshit, not names.)
P.S.: (cat alert) Question: How many Becks does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: None, because the likelihood is that Beck doesn’t screw at all. He has the cleaning lady attend to that kind of thing. (”As for living, our servants will do that for us”—le Comte de Villiers de l’Isle-Adam.)
John, I appreciate your effort to contextualize the specific remark, but the larger issue to me is why gender and race and sexual orientation have to come into it at all. Rice is lousy at her job and her values are appalling. Using “pouty brown sugar” was a choice that I think TBogg enjoyed making, and he makes those kind of choices a lot.
Digby is not my “real target.” Berube wanted to talk about Digby, so we did. I don’t have a target. I’m tired of gender based, race based and sexual orientation based slurs. I like to think at least some liberals are better than that.
Ann, I thought you were alleging liberal hypocrisy in the left blogoshere’s not responding to TBogg the way we responded to Imus. But the charge of hypocrisy would only hold if the cases were similar. I maintain the cases were not similar, and that while TBogg’s remark used racist and sexist language, the differences in context (and the gravity of the insult, something I didn’t mention at first) explains the lack of interest in his remark versus that of Imus. I was not defending TBogg, merely trying to adduce other reasons than that of hypocrisy for the different reaction.
Auguste, that is completely unfair.
I don’t think it is. I think that when members of an oppressed group co-opt the language of oppression for their own purposes, they automatically deserve more, if not INFINITELY more, leeway. I also think that your seeming refusal to acknowledge context of Digby’s, and, to a lesser extent perhaps, Tbogg’s (who is NOT in the oppressed group, of course, but is also much more backed up by context) is very similar to the refusal to compare contexts between Imus and any number of young African-Americans.
Again, I don’t think liberal need to be nice or not aggressive. Quite the contrary. I just think there are ways to insult men that do the job just as well as calling them girls as a pejorative. Or implying they are gay, as a pejorative.
Auguste, I may have misunderstood you, I’m not sure. High profile hip hop artists are overwhemingly male. Some use a lot of sexism in their lyrics. I thought that was what you were referencing.
I don’t think it is. I think that when members of an oppressed group co-opt the language of oppression for their own purposes, they automatically deserve more, if not INFINITELY more, leeway.
Also, my focus was white male liberal bloggers, so I don’t understand how I am failing to give oppressed people leeway. Has Digby come out as a woman? Or a POC?
But what about the threat posed by Ochoa and the Mexifascistdhimmiliberalfeminazi hordes her ascension to the top of the Rolex Rankings after her win this week will unleash?
And, btw, FHP, I’m 99% convinced you’re right on that 2-person-race not-bet we didn’t have going.
John, I really wasn’t alleging hypocrisy, so much as expressing hopelessness about a liberal community that thinks this kind of terminology used against an African American woman is perfectly acceptable, indeed hilarious and wonderful, in some contexts.
I’m logging off, and won’t be back today, due to personal obligations. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation.
Ann, I accept that. In re-reading your 11:17 am comment I see that I am mistaken that you were alleging hypocrisy. Sorry. I saw so much of that claim in the last week that I put your comment into a category in which it didn’t belong.
However, I would say that the lack of condemnation of TBogg does not mean that the left blogosphere thinks his remark is “perfectly acceptable, indeed hilarious and wonderful.” I think it means it didn’t rise to the level needed for widespread condemnation, because of the context and gravity of the insult. As opposed to that of Imus, which clearly did hit that level.
Dear Ann:
Apparently the difference between simile and metaphor escapes you, as does the difference between simile, metaphor and asseveration.
Case in point: Digby never claimed that the members of the Washington press corps gave Newt Gingrinch a real blow job. If you are willing to read Digby in good faith you will find that he said is that the members of the Washington press corps kissed up to Newt with such an intensity that their collective obsequiousness could figuratively be characterized in metaphorical terms as a blow job. Similarly, and this time employing simile instead of metaphor, Digby has likened the internal politics that can be seen to prevail within 1) the talking-head bleached-hair-and-teeth MSM, and 2) the right-wing noise machine—to the internal politics that can be seen to prevail within an ingrown girls’ clique in junior high or high school. Digby directed the attention of his readers toward a certain similarity; he never tried to parlay that similarity into an identification.
Now come on. You know these things. Please get a grip. I realize that fun is fun and that we all just wanna have fun, but this is getting foolish. Pretty soon we’re all going to be reduced to mugging at each other and repeating: “It’s not like there’s anything wrong with being gay” in dopey Seinfeld voices.
Ack, I really need to run… Sorry if this is flakey or abrupt. I never meant to suggest widespread condemnation of anything or anyone. As it happens I am in favor of lots of condemnation of most Republicans. I just think it can be done without leveraging gender, race, or sexual orientation. I think this is the way liberals are supposed to condemn. It makes being liberal alot more attactive to me, and i don’t think I’m alone in this, though perhaps I am here in this thread.
Ann, at 11:17 am you say:
I take that as calling for criticism of TBogg. It’s a false dichotomy to say that if one has not criticized TBogg it’s because one agrees with Sadly, No. It could be that many people have not criticized TBogg because you have to pick your battles and that what he said didn’t reach the level needed for writing about.
. . . is just beyond batshit crazy, beyond too-stupid-to-breathe.
Ya know, Michael, when Rove rays and Norquist particles get amplified by Gonzales gremlins and Imus incubi, the results are nasty beyond anything imaginable. Only the GNF can deal with such a mess.
I think Ann is bringing up a valid point when she says, “I just think it can be done without leveraging gender, race, or sexual orientation.” I’ve lost interest in a lot of liberal blogs because while I may find most of the writing interesting, those sorts of insults are heartily embraced and completely other those who may identify with that gender/race/orientation/body size/whatever.
Note the way that in the memorial service quoted above, the behavior of the DC press corps was crtitiqued without any mention of gendered insults. It is possible! When it comes to snark, I prefer using names like “kewl kidz” instead of “Heathers” or “mean girls” or catty bitches or whatever else people like to say.
I don’t read Ann Bartow (and in fact rarely read Pandagon before this week—astonishing, I know!), but want to chime in here and say:
Pish-posh! So much defensiveness! Repeat after me: “No, we don’t like it when writers, bloggers, or commentators resort to name-calling by painting men with the womanly or gay brush, or use other racist, sexist, or homophobic constructions. And we’ll try not to do it ourselves, either.” No matter who the target is—not the vulnerable, not a white male right-wing public figure with plenty of power, not Rice, not anybody. Imus and probably at least 250 million other Americans talk this way far too often, and it’s toxic.
I take Jamie swimming for a few hours, and wow! the thread takes off. Thanks, John, for contextualing TBogg’s citation of Doonesbury, because I thought “pouty Brown Sugar” was a bit much and was about to have him fired from CBS and MSNBC.
But I did want to suggest, Ann, that you’re reading Digby unjustifiably uncharitably, and in the case of Heathers and Mean Girls missing the point rather substantially. To say that Heathers is not “primarily” about cliquishness is to throw a great big red herring into the discussion, almost as if I were to say that Hamlet is not “primarily” about betrayal and revenge. Why, yes, these texts can be read as being “primarily” about other things, but the point remains that when elite Beltway journalists are referred to as Heathers, the reference is to the cliquishness of the Heathers in Heathers; it is not an antifeminist swipe at every woman in the world, or even every woman named Heather. (The defamation suit brought by the Heather-American Anti-Defamation League in 1990 was summarily dismissed, if I recall correctly.)
We can disagree politely on this. That’s OK. Because when you say
— I think that’s a sensible recognition that there is, in fact, no unanimity on the left as to what kind of utterance rises to the level of a discursive crime against humanity. That is why we must all work together to find some provisional common ground in mocking Glenn Beck.
And now for this blog’s resident LPGA concern troll — perhaps, indeed, the only LPGA concern troll in all of blogtopia (yes! jane blalock invented that phrase!):
Good thing you didn’t commit 100% to that one, TC, because I am so totally wrong: don’t look back, Lorena and Laura, Britanny Lincicome might be gaining on you.
If I were Jesus’ General, I would be praising God for ebing a Republican right now. As it is, I’m sick to my stomach. And SO wishing someone in Japan would show
highlowlights. WTF happened? (Note civility.)Or give me a shot-by-shot play-by-play over here and here. (Which also goes some way toward explaining FHP’s and my in-jokes today–and proving that I was only playing an LPGA concern troll on
tvBerube’s old blogue and here today. I’m the best LPGA blogger without the Golf Channel in blogoramaville.)Well, of course you can get the scores mailed to you in the Intertubes, though they might block your email. Basically, when Ochoa shoots a final-round 77 and Davies shoots a 79 and Gulbis (four shots back when the day began) fires an 80, Lincicome’s even-par 72 will be sufficient. Though now we should begin to discuss why the purses in the LPGA are less than half the size of the men’s.
How many times do I have to say that it’s not a purse, it’s European?
Tennis has finally seen the light, but golf? Maybe once Nancy Lopez is an Augusta member. (She has expressed interest to the powers-that-be there, she revealed in a pre-tournament interview.) Or when enough A-list bloggers start LPGA blogging (hint, hint)…. Or when Imus starts mocking the Yellow Peril from the Far East Threatening America’s Sweethearts in his no-doubt-upcoming satellite radio gig?
The Tiger effect has actually made the gap worse, despite the Annika effect pulling LPGA purses up markedly this decade. We’ll see if there’ll be a Wie effect commensurate with the corporate hype, or if even without it sponsors will start to realize that people enjoy seeing tournaments where anyone among the top 25 can winand the outcome is always in doubt going into the final holes, in addition to or maybe even instead of Tiger and whoever happens to be playing out of their skull in the tournaments he enters.
Gentle jungle Jesus.
How horrific, that this guy has to live in a world where he might have to look at accomodations that are for people other than him. While we’re at it, let’s try and outlaw signs in other than English–hell, people talking on the street other than English–wait, no, having read the Media Matters link, I see we’ve already gone there, haven’t we?
I wonder how much of his rage is directed here simply because he can’t understand Braille, and it makes him feel stupid? It’s like the paranoia toward people speaking Mandarin and Spanish in earshot–oh God, I bet they’re talking about me. On account of I’m white. And them folks, they hate me, I bet. It’s not just bigotry and nastiness toward non-English-speakers or the blind; it’s profound narcissism, distilled. It’s not for me, and I don’t get it.
Ties in well with the whole anti-evolution thing, for that friggin’ matter. I don’t get it, so I shouldn’t have to listen to it. And screw anyone who disagrees.
Or, for that matter, All those gay guys are gonna hit on me, I just know it.
…huh.
…huh.
Well, that’s interesting.
Also, Ann:
What’s this ‘all you liberals’ nonsense? You know better. Especially when you’re surrounded by ‘liberals’ in a place you’ve already declared a shining beacon of hope. This is like calling for every Muslim ever to put out a press release denouncing terrorism or risk having the lot declared sympathizers. Just because not everyone tosses out a blog post when one of our supposed own is a moron doesn’t mean there’s a general racist, homophobic nastiness pervading The Liberals.
People, little light is on the money; Ann is a troll. She started with that Mean Girls schtick a few weeks ago.
Just ignore “her.”
I am pleased to say that the UK has a far more grownup attitude to people with disabilities that your blog suggests the USA has. Wide doors help many people not just those with a mobility handicap. Ramps, accessible buses, accessible trains, lower shelving in shops and plenty of dropped kerbs are positively helpful to a much wider community.
I can only agree with one thing that you say and that is that braille signs are no imposition to anyone. In the UK all pedestrian crossings have special paving for those with partial or no sight.
Grow up and face the fact that people with disabilities are a large minority and ‘easy access’ benefits many others within the community. Maybe you should try spending 24hrs in a wheelchair, it might open those prejudiced eyes of yours.