“CNN should consider banning its anchors from appearing on “Celebrity Jeopardy” after the humiliating defeats of Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O’Brien.”

So says the NY Post.

Wolf was blitzed last month, coming in last with minus-$4,600, behind comic Andy Richter, a past winner who racked up $68,000 for charity. “Desperate Housewives” star Dana Delany came in second. This month, it was O’Brien’s turn against NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael McKean, of “Spinal Tap,” “Laverne & Shirley” and “Saturday Night Live.” McKean, a previous winner, ended with $24,800, followed by Abdul Jabbar with $8,800 and O’Brien with $6,200. A CNN insider defended the journalists: “They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated. It’s not activated until Alex [Trebek] finishes the last syllable of the question. If you hit the button too soon, nothing happens.” 

I love Jeopardy, and I especially love the celebrity ones; they give me a great ego boast since the questions are so easy.  I caught the episode with Wolf, and I told my husband at the beginning that he should absolutely nail it; after all, half of the Jeopardy questions are things that appear in the news, like current events and pop culture.  Even if he did nothing but just get exposed to these things, he should do great.  Boy, was I wrong!  (Andy Richter, however, was almost KenJenningsishly great.)

And I love the excuse at the end: Well, the buzzer is complicated.  I mean, it’s not like any of the other contestants who kicked these folks’ bottoms had to deal with the super-complicated buzzer.


Do Blonds Have More Fun?

It’s really strange how much people base their identity around a single physical attribute, like hair color, as the writer of this piece reminds me:

Though I rarely saw it, my natural color had darkened to a medium brown, so my roots were obvious. Not that anyone was really under the illusion that my flaxen hair was natural, though I argued that I was “a blonde inside” and God or the gene fairy or whoever had made a mistake with my dark locks.

Looking back, I don’t know what being blonde “feels like” or, for that matter, what it feels like to be a brunette. I just know I associated being blonde with being beautiful, but also with being something. Some people are sporty, or creative, or adventuresome. I, for some reason, wanted to identify as a blonde, perhaps because I hadn’t yet figured out what else I was of value yet. I projected a weird sort of confidence in being a blonde, but that confidence was about as genuine as the hair on my head.

A few weeks ago, I caught an episode of What Not to Wear (yeah, I know, guilty pleasure) where they begged and pleaded with a tall blond to darken her hair.  She agreed with them that it would look better (I don’t remember whether the blond was natural or not), but was in tears over the idea of not being a “tall blond bombshell” anymore. 

Ironically, when I was a kid I always wished for long, straight, dark hair; I thought that it would be dramatic and beautiful.  My hair was odd and clashed with the pink that was so common for little girls.  I remember getting a cheap dark wig for Halloween one year, and trying it on in front of the mirror over and over again, trying to get it to match the picture in my head of the perfect hair. 

Now, of course, I’ve come to appreciate the uniqueness of being a natural redhead, and of course, I’m pretty used to myself this way now (though I still feel like I have trouble finding make-up I like).  My use of the redhead name is intended to be cute, but I don’t really focus on it that much in real life.  I’m pretty uncreative with naming things, so it was really the best I could do.  Sometimes I like to kid around about being a separate race, but it’s tongue in cheek to demonstrate the silliness of the societal concept of race. 

This is not commentary; this is inanity

Joy Behar has another intelligence-insulting column at CNN. 

First, there’s this:

It’s no surprise the Glenn Becks of the world have been attacking Obama since the moment he stepped into the Oval Office. Beck and his  “>blathering buddies on the right — you know, the stinky kids in the coatroom who eat their own boogers. Always pick on the kids least likely to fight back.

CNN should be ashamed of itself for allowing this incredibly immature woman to comment.  Now, to be clear, I’m not irritated because she insulted Glenn Beck; he’s plenty insultable.  I’m writing because a major news organization, with worldwide reach, read by millions, allows a person to write for them who thinks that clever contribution to news analysis involves calling people with whom she disagrees stinky booger-eaters. 

This is not commentary.  This is not analysis.  This is not even a Dave Barry book.  It’s just plain stupid.  

But don’t worry, the stupid doesn’t last long.  It quickly gets replaced by the scary.   

Back to the schoolyard, where Barry Obama is being bullied. You know what? He’s big, he can take it. You know why? Because not only is he right in his beliefs, but he knows that if push comes to shove, he can lay out the rest of these runts with a couple of good smacks of his presidential pen.

It’s not time to panic, but President Obama needs to size up one of these twerps, cock back his arm, and take a swing soon, because the Democratic majorities in Congress won’t last forever.

Now, I have no idea what, exactly she means by “take a swing,” but the presidential pen line indicates that she is referring to legal action.  Let me repeat that: Ms. Behar, who writes for CNN, is advocating that the president pass a law that would prevent people who exercise their First Amendment rights against the president from doing so. 

More evidence that four years of college education has been rendered useless

Ann Althouse discusses a debate on her college campus over “hip-hop studies.”  Her reaction to a student who stated that not having hip-hop studies would offer an incomplete education because it has “permeated American culture.”:

The answer, Ms. Herron (Merron?) is precisely that pop culture permeates the world of young Americans. Why pursue even more of it in college? Learn new things. Get what you can’t get just living in the world soaking up the things you naturally love and enjoy. What is the point of going to college?

What’s the point, indeed?


I’m Sick of Liberal Misogyny

A few days ago, Keith Olbermann declared conservative blogger Michelle Malkin to be a “big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick.”  Think about that for a moment.  This is not a phrase people use, like Barack Obama’s foolish, but, I think, innocent, “lipstick on a pig” reference from last fall.  It is an incredibly, sickeningly, violent image; one cannot hear it and not briefly imagine Ms. Malkin’s body, beaten until it is almost literally nothing but pulp, or “meat.”  And, of course, it is impossible to miss that she is a woman; after all, even when reduced to a mashed up bag of meat, her defining feature is still “lipstick.”  Ironically, Mr. Olbermann used this phrase to describe her “hatred.”  

But, disturbing statements about Ms. Malkin are only the tip of the iceberg for many liberals.  Disagree with something Ann Coulter says?  Well, you could dispute her facts or analysis, but why bother when you could just attack her sexuality by suggesting that she’s a man, instead?  Oh, and don’t forget to remind us all that she’s a “bitch.”  President that you like turns out to be a serial sexual harrasser, who abuses the power he holds over employees and treats his wife like a doormat?  Well, sexual harassment laws really shouldn’t apply to that case, should they?  A woman can handle one free grope, after all.  Another favored politician left a woman to drown while he walked away?  Well, what good was her life, anyway?  I mean, maybe she would have thought that it was worth it.  And, you know, rape, well, that’s certainly comparable to having to give up a home because you didn’t fulfill the obligations of your mortgage contract, at least according to Michael Moore.  Beauty contestant is asked a question, and politely gives an answer with which you disagree?  Spend several minutes joking about breast implants, congratulate each other on using obscene words to describe her, and snicker that she used to be a man before she cut off her penis.  Of course, however, the fact that you don’t like what they say doesn’t mean that a woman is no good for her body; after all, Playboy enlightened us beautifully with their article charmingly discussing “10 Women They’d Like to HateF**k.” (Playboy did hear the outrage and pull the article, but the fact that the certainly several people who go into putting a Playboy article online didn’t see that this was a major problem speaks volumes.)

And don’t even get me started on the shameful treatment of Sarah Palin.  Now, I’m not talking about legitimate policy disputes, or questioning her record in office; these are certainly fair political game.  I’m not even talking about misrepresenting statements as being from her when they actually came from a Saturday Night Live sketch, or about claiming she was a bad parent because her 17-year-old daughter had sex (or even about the attitude that she should not dare to take on a demanding job while she has kids, while ignoring Mr. Obama’s obligations to his two cuties- I’d chalk that up to sexism and hypocrisy, but not misogyny). 

I’m talking about proudly wearing t-shirts calling her an obscene name. Or selling sex dolls based on her. I’m talking about making “jokes” (a word I’m using in the loosest possible sense) about her being “gang-raped by [Sandra Bernhard’s] big black brothers” should she dare to approach Manhattan.  About the obscene comments,  found at Politico basically any time Ben Smith gets around to mentioning anything Ms. Palin is up to, stating, for example, that she has STDs, is a “pig,”, is a “pseudo-woman,” and hoping that she gets eaten by a bear.   I’m talking about making a crack about her “slutty flight attendant look,” a joke which doesn’t even make sense; you may not like the woman, but her look is hardly “slutty,” unless your standard for revealing clothing is a woman who wears too snug of a burka. 

Now, I’m not worried about the conservative female commentators all that much; they’re pretty tough.  Heck, Michelle Malkin regularly publishes the deranged hate mail that she receives.  And I’m (obligatory, but likely futile, attempt to guard against accusations that I don’t support freedom of speech) certainly not arguing that even the most deranged misogynistic speech should be shut down by force of law.  What I’m most concerned about is the fact that they keep getting away with this garbage, and are only rarely called out for it.  Can you imagine if a commentator had made a similar comment to many of the ones above, but about race?  Think Imus or Macaca.  These things have ended careers.  But somehow, some way, the left has collectively decided that women, or at least conservative women, are completely fair game, and open to the most vile sexually based attacks.   And some how, they get a pass to consider themselves supportive of women.

Why I put “feminist” in quotes

Readers may have noted that, in my previous post on anti-contraception mythology, I put quotes around the word “feminist” in the context of writers who mistakenly or dishonestly accuse anti-abortionists of being anti-contraception. 

I didn’t want to get into it there, because it was off-topic, but I’d like to address it.  There are some, in fact, probably many, who assert that one cannot be a feminists and take a position against abortion.  (Check out this fascinating article which addresses this issue).  I not only disagree, but I will go so far as to take the near-opposite position: One cannot be a feminist and support abortion. 

Here’s the definition of a feminist:

feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests — feminist n or adjfeministic adj

Embedded in that definition, specifically, the second part, is the implication that one cannot work against human rights issues that affect “women’s rights and interests.”  I don’t think that there is a credible argument that girls, even very, very tiny ones, are not counted as women in this definition. 

Abortion destroys life, both that of boys and girls.  Life is unquestionably a right and interest of the live-er.  Therefore, abortion is anti-feminist. 

Now, I’m exaggerating a little bit for effect.  I understand that there are some people, including the writer I cited above, who disagree that a fetus is a life.  I can’t, in good conscious, lump that belief in with the above (although I will assert that it is both entirely wrong and requires the believer to over-look an absurd amount of evidence to the contrary).  The argument that even if it is a person, it is still OK, is, however, deserving of the quotes.

Just another liberal myth. Anti-Abortion Does NOT Equal Anti-Contraception

Slate’s allegedly feminist site peddals the myth that attempts to demonize anti-abortionists:

The anti-choice movement’s hostility towards contraception is an open secret; most people on both sides of the debate know about it, but anti-choice activists also know better than to flaunt their hatred of contraception when trying to woo people on the issue of abortion.

 OK, this impression/myth/assertion frustrates me to no end.  I’m a life-long Catholic; I live in a very conservative part of the country; my family is very pro-life.  I have literally never met ANYone who is actually against contraception.  My mother, who is a single issue voter and completely single minded on the subject, had her tubes tied and has never expressed any objections to my use of the pill (and believe me, she would). 

I’ve met a few people who assert that it is not the choice for them and practice natural family planning (which, with modern science, is actually just barely under the pill in success-rates).  But, even in my (Catholic) pre-marital counseling, they only suggested NFP; they said that it was a choice, not a sin, to decide against it. 

 The only places that I have ever seen stories against birth control use come from leftist or “feminist” writers who are anxious to characterize anti-abortionists as “anti-choice” (my choice is the pill, thanks) or to paint every last person who values life as a clinic bomber.  

(This is, as I’m sure you know, but I’m guessing that Slate’s readers will conveniently not notice, not to say that anti-contraception-ists do not exist, only that they are extremely rare and not in any way representative of the anti-abortion movement in general, to the point that they are simply not worth worrying about.)