The Sociopath Has Something To Say

So the liberal blogs are getting all fussy about Jesus-loving socialite Sally Quinn's "The Party" column being pushed out of the print edition of the Washington Post and into what Gawker refers to as "the journalism ghetto"--i.e. online.
For those who don't know, I feel that it is my job as a blogger to let you know who the fuck Sally Quinn is, and why any of this actually matters. Quinn is the wife of former Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee, who gave her her original job at The Post because he had the hots for her. I don't mean this in any kind of joking way, either. According to Time, legend has it the job interview went down like this: "Can you show me something you've written?" asked Managing Editor Benjamin Bradlee. "I've never written anything," admitted Quinn. Pause. "Well," said Bradlee, "nobody's perfect."

I could call this nepotism at its finest if they had even known each other at this point. They didn't. That freaks me out even more.

So now the question is "Why now?" Well, there has recently been some controversy with Ms. Quinn's column. Quinn's sloppy family life came out in a recent column that I would link to if it hadn't been cleverly hidden by WaPo's insidious paywall to protect them from embarassment. I did, however find her much tamer article describing the situation.

The Awl has (rather amusingly) described why nobody should be stupid enough to read Sally Quinn at all: "But. Could anybody have anything worse to say about Sally Quinn than Sally Quinn does? The column is like a particularly unhinged and confused letter to an advice columnist, only no advice columnist ever shows up to point out how self-deluded and wrong the letter-writer is. It is the Garfield Without Garfield to Ask Amy."

Once again, why the hell are this woman and her ridiculous column important? Well think about it this way: layoffs at every newspaper in the country, print editions of historic newspapers going the way of the Dodo and pay cuts and freezes for the majority of all professional journalists. That's the environment we're in. Writing a 1000-word story about how you're an idiot who can't arrange a calendar and getting paid for it is not what the public, nor the community of journalists needs right now. Quinn's self-indulgent column will still have a life online (it'll just be even MORE Jesus-y there). According to Quinn, she has no regrets. That's good. I'm sure the hundreds of journalists who have lost their jobs and thousands of students who won't have jobs when they graduate because newspapers have to pay the dinosaurs also have no regrets about the field of work they got into. Hopefully. I sure as hell know I regret it every single day of my life.

I apoligize for just how truly awful this vlog is... Clearly MSNBC should not hire me as a commenter... kinda like Fox News shouldn't have hired Sarah Palin... ZING! However, I did feel that it was important to include this aspect of blog culture because with the advent of YouTube, vlogging has become relevant, and rather quickly. (It doesn't require people to read, so some people like it more.)

By the way... this is totally not my fault because I spent an hour tinkering with MovieMaker to get it right, but when I say to pause, I also said to look at the video underneath... simple enough. MovieMaker cut it out. Blame Bill Gates.








Gawker Story, Other Story
NYT Blog
El Pais (en Espanol)

UPDATE: And I cannot even begin to express my gratitude to Gawker commenter ToVoPro for creating this image alteration just for me:
 

So I could shit all over Michelle Malkin for the second post in a row. She does deserve it after completely shitting all over John Murtha's reputation with a bunch of her conspiracy theories "facts," but at this point if I have to think about that internment-loving bag of hot air (get it?) for another second, I might spontaneously combust..

Instead, I am going to talk about someone we all knew and loved and miss just oh so much. Not Michael Jackson, Joe the Plumber. He is BACK, BABY!

According to The Hill's blog, Joe is back and he is pissed off. Joe says John McCain and Sarah Palin used him, royally fucked up his life and he now craves REVENGEEEE! 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Everyone on the internet today is talking about Sarah Palin and her inability to memorize her "own" ideas without the aid of middle school vocabulary test cheating tactics. Yes, folks, the former Alaska governor has resorted to writing her speech notes on the palm of her hand:


Wait... Maybe Michelle is talking about how Obama has broken his legs being the "fallen savior" and needs those ubiquitous crutches to hold him up? Nevermind, I give up. I can't be this playful anymore. Michelle! The Left likes to make fun of Palin because she's stupid! I like to make fun of you because you are stupid! There. Easy.

By the way, if you can't read Palin's hand, the three things written on it are: "Energy, Cut Tax and  Lift American Spirits" The last one means she wants to steal hipster cigarettes... clearly.

Update: Oh look, Robert Gibbs made a funny...
 

So the Tim & Pam Tebow ad I discussed previously aired last night. It was easily the most surprising ad of the night. Where were the right-wing crazies shouting about how you're killing babies? Where were the pictures of Pam Tebow getting an ultrasound and shouting at her doctor that no, she will NOT get that abortion. Where was the documentation that her uterus was touched by Jesus. Where was THIS:
Angry pro-choice liberal feminists got royally fucked last night when Focus on the Family gave them almost NOTHING to complain about: It's like the creepiest eHarmony ad ever. The ad is just a woman talking about "being tough" and worrying about her son's health... and then she gets TACKLED! PRICELESS! Not only am I not as outraged as I was expecting... I actually LIKE this ad. It's cute. It's funny. The Tebows are good-looking, and as a queer, quasi-feminist, pro-choice, libertarian atheist, I can say that even though the ad has a much darker underlying message that I find patently offensive, what was presented to me during the Super Bowl was a nice little fluffy ad that was so sanitized to prevent complaints that the message was almost lost altogether. Works for me!

So... What are the blogs saying? Very little. Among others, Malkin and Sullivan didn't even bother to post. HuffPo only provided the video with no real comment other than "They do not contain any overtly pro-life message and are tamer than many may have expected." (Not so) conservative blog The Daily Beast included it in their list of the best ads of the night, simply stating:"Depending on your politics, you may have been among those who was ready to be angry at this ad, but it seems to have come and gone without much controversy."

They're right, and that's why this isn't causing much of a stir... well... Except on Jezebel:
"Focus on the Family was able to dominate a news cycle with stories regarding the ad, with controversy brewing and expectations being raised ever higher as the day of the actual airing arrived. And now that the ad's been delivered, in spite of all of the intense debate that went on regarding its airing, we're left with a fairly vague, very cutesy ad that presents Focus on the Family as a sweet, good-natured group that's had to battle the raging masses just to present the story of a mother and a son (along with an anti-choice message) on Super Bowl Sunday. It's an interesting tactic--we'll have to see how it plays out with the public."

As commenter Woodsey pointed out: "This is incredibly effective. It works because it's so tame making the protests feminist groups/people made against look like the hysterical rantings of an abortion-loving minority. I can't help thinking that is exactly what was intended."

She's right. The pro-choice side of the debate was duped into making total assholes of themselves. Somewhere deep down in the back of my mind I thought this might happen, but I wasn't expecting Focus on the Family to be nearly as cunning as they were. They made us look like assholes. Score one for the Right.

By the way, I'd like to congratulate the Saints. They weren't the better team, I was rooting for the Colts, but they deserved this win after being one of the most consistently good teams in the NFL for a few years now. The Colts will be in the Super Bowl again before we know it.  

Well when asked "Saints or Colts" by one of CNN's more illustrious journalists, Candy Crowley, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped a bombshell:



This is probably one of the Madame Secretary's most feminine statements since she cried... that one time... But alas, Hillary. I know you're trying to convince America that you don't have a penis, but denying the rabid Colts fan inside is not the way to go.

Have a fun Superbowl, y'all. COLTS ALL THE WAY!

If you were pro-choice, gay, a feminist or a member of the United Church of Christ this week, then you had lots of reasons to get pissed off--and most of them stemmed from CBS' decision to air evangelical powerhouse Focus on the Family's anti-abortion Superbowl ad featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow (and his very very lucky mother whose uterus was apparently touched by Jesus or something.) In another controversial move, CBS also denied gay dating site ManCrunch.com an advertising slot. Whether that whole thing was actually just a publicity stunt is a whole other story. Unlike the controversial abortion ad which nobody has seen, yet everyone is scrutinizing, the ManCrunch ad has been available from the get-go. decide for yourself if the whole controversy was just a (really damn successful) marketing tactic:


So what kinds of crazy things are people on the blogs saying? Surprisingly little if you don't work for ladyblog Jezebel, who has been covering every last detail that suits them. Commenters on these blogs, however, love nothing more than to bitch each other out until kingdom come. Let's take a look at some random samples.

On (not really all that) conservative blog The Daily Beast, while most commenters tried to hold a sensible debate (and surprisingly enough, the pro-choice side was well-represented) some users like timeisnow took this story as an opportunity to try and trick people into thinking scientists have taught chimpanzees to use computers: "You both are two of the Biggest Losers I have ever seen. I am so glad that CBS has the B@lls[sic] to Air this Pro Life strory. [sic] Abortions [sic] is Killing Babies"

Meanwhile, over at Jezebel, commenters gave their typical overly-long, well-written and and mildly to moderately outraged responses. User fishbear gave a short (for Jezebel), simple and "kinda upset" reply: "Crazy right-wingers of all stripes (tea-partiers, etc.) have been really, really successful in the past decade or so at exploiting Americans' impulse against injustice by claiming that they're being unfairly oppressed (by being, for example, "censored"). I'm disappointed with the NYT Editorial Board for not providing the important context that needs to be given in this debate."

User CynicalPink on the other hand, managed to go straight past the level of moderate outrage and directly into full-on bitchfit mode: "....Bitch, your son throws a fucking BALL. Don't act like you made the world this miraculous new place because you chose not to abort. I know this isn't the fight we're supposed to be fighting, but I'm getting more and more pissed off by the second over the arrogance of this ad. Tebow isn't curing a disease or helping third world famine. He throws a fucking ball! We're supposed to wind the clock back on 40 years movement toward personal autonomy because you and your fetus managed not to die and now the fetus is a guy who throws a ball? Fuck you, Tebow mom!"

They tell us not to judge a book by it's cover, but what about judging a blog by its comments? Regardless of the content of an article, what IS more important: the content itself or the people who choose to read it? From what I saw across the blogosphere comments on this controversy surprised me. On conservative blogs, there were people agreeing and dissenting with the articles. On liberal blogs, the majority ruled and any brave dissenters were quickly snubbed out. Does this mean that liberals read both sides, while the conservatives stick with their own kind? I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say "OF COURSE!"

Update: There is a new best quote about Tebow. The best part is: it has nothing to do with his views on abortion. Wait, I lied. The BEST part is that it was written by his teammate, Uche Nwaneri:
"5. He cant throw. PERIOD.
4. He cant read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man cov. PERIOD (the only cov. in college lol)
3. the QB wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD
2. He doesnt know how to take a snap from center, nor is he even comfortable enough to.
1. HE CANT THROW. and thats really something you either have or not, never seen a qb who couldnt ever throw, just all of a sudden beable to throw just because hes now in the NFL."

Nwaneri is probably just jealous that his mother's uterus wasn't touched by Jesus... typical.