BuggBlog

Lowering the punditry limbo bar

When some bloggers began criticizing a Commentary column that criticized Barack Obama for choosing orange juice (a "childish" drink) over coffee ("bitter and bracing"), I kind of assumed that too many people were reading a joking column as a serious rant. Then I went to read it for myself.

And it really is about the stupidest thing I've read this campaign. It may even be stupider than Fox News talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Scary thing? There's plenty of room to go even lower between now and November.

Oh, the shame of heritage

Via Andrew, a Kentucky Democrat voices an opinion to The New Yorker on Clinton v. Obama:

"I really don't want an African-American as President ... I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did ... There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people," - a Clinton supporter in Eastern Kentucky, to George Packer of the New Yorker.

I'm not sure what's sadder, the attitude represented by the thinking or the fact that my home state seems determined to be as embarrassing as possible these days. Perhaps I could take refuge in that I'm only half-Kentuckian if you look solely at my paternal lineage.

Unfortunately, my maternal lineage is in Indiana, and Hoosiers have their own problems lately.

Wednesday willies

My sister just e-mailed that they found a scorpion in her office near her work area.

Her office in Kentucky.

Surely, a sign of the apocalypse. I expect the rain of frogs by 2 p.m. In the meantime, I'm working with my legs well out from underneath my desk.

Howard Kurtz and Brian Williams have dirty, dirty minds

Howard Kurtz tosses one off at the end of his Post media column today, noting NBC anchor Brian Williams consternation at all the sexy, sexy stuff in recent issues of the New York Times.

Finally, Brian Williams turns media critic on his NBC blog, questioning (without quite saying so) whether the New York Times is out of touch with mainstream America:

"It's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking. Consider this: the Sunday Styles section lead story on April 13th was 'Scavengers on the Urban Savannah' (people buy things at flea markets!), and promoted on Page One was 'A Sex Chair Becomes A Battlefield.' Alrighty then.

"This Sunday's lead story was 'Through Sickness, Health, Sex Change . . . ' in a section that included the essay, 'Was I On A Date Or Baby-Sitting?,' and 'Let's Say You Want To Date A Hog Farmer' (and who among us hasn't?).

"The magazine cover story this week was 'The Newlywed Gays!' (happy gay men in Massachusetts who are married outdoor grilling enthusiasts!) . . .The lead story in the Travel Section? The rise of vacation resorts catering to nudists."

All the sex that's fit to print.

You know those stories about young gay men getting married and, in many cases, committing to monogamy -- nothing but sex, sex, sex!

Really, given that it looks like neither one of them bothered to read the Newlywed Gays story  -- I did, by the way, and it's pretty good overall -- it makes me wonder what pictures go through Williams's and Kurtz's heads when they hear the word "gay." And if they did read the story, well, ingrained bias is an ugly thing.

It's not Scottish, it's a wrap

A kilt as a part of Scottish formal wear? Kinda hot:

Kilts worn with worn, nondescript American t-shirts? Kinda not:

(Appy-polly-logies to Jimbo, from whom I cruelly stole the action shot.)

That's MISTER Pansy to you

In a strange day of political developments, I'm struck by the reaction to the far more minor eruption in North Carolina where Gov. Mike Easley made his endorsement of Hillary Clinton more newsworthy by tossing out the loaded word "pansy."

But what strikes me more than the utterance itself is the blog posts and e-mails I've been watching that defend Hillary's defender because "pansy" isn't really an anti-gay term, or because Easley's just a humor-impaired old straight guy, or because "OMG, I didn't even know 'pansy' was a gay insult!" And, no surprise, some gay Obama supporters have been pushing the story, while some gay Clinton supporters have been pretending it's no big deal. Both of which are useless pursuits.

Anyone who votes against Clinton solely for this Easley flap probably shouldn't be voting anyway because it kind of indicates a lack of any sort of critical thought about either candidate; the same goes for anyone who votes against Obama because of Rev. Wright or some other supposed "surrogate." There are far bigger issues at stake, and far better arguments for both candidates.

But. But, but, but.

As a 40 year old gay guy with strong memories of how homosexuals were verbally degraded in my rural Kentucky hometown -- faggot, queer, pansy, homo, etc. -- and even stronger memories of those words and others being used against me in college and beyond, the dismissal by some of a pretty nasty little word strikes me as a pretty egregious case of granting an exception for political purposes. I've watched the gay community over the past few years rear itself up with righteous dudgeon over the use of the word "gay" by pre-teens. Yet the 50-something Democratic governor of a southern state gets a pass with a wink and nod? Isn't he the one who should know better? Isn't he the one we should be holding accountable?

Maybe we should come up with a list of words that are acceptable and those that are not. "Pansy" = okay. "Faggot" = off limits. "Cocksucker" = depends on the context.

The idea that Clinton should have reacted immediately and cast Easley aside to give some soul-stirring speech denouncing the history of the word pansy is, frankly, silly. But the idea that we as a community should react with no more than a laugh and a wave of the hand is disheartening.

No surprise here

I generally spend a fair amount of time reading "conservative" web sites, mostly just to keep up with what's going on, etc. But as of late I've taken a breather, given that the Democratic race seems to have driven the right wing to out-and-out insanity. That and the pope's visit proved that Katherine Jean Lopez really could get stupider.

But I cruised by tonight, curious to see what was up in winger-land after Obama denounced Wright today. Right at the top was this excrescence from Kate O'Beirne, under the title "October Suprise?":

An interview with Jeremiah Wright during which he recounts past conversations with Barack Obama about the young aspiring politician's views on race and whites and his mixed feelings about his country.  i.e. Don't Democrats have to sweat out this angry, arrogant wild card who could destroy the Obama campaign at will?

If they're this unhinged and desperate in April, imagine what they'll be like come September. It's going to be a long, long summer, whether or not Hillary pulls off her heist.

Paradise calls, and she ain't cheap

Settling in this morning for the first Roger Federer v. Rafael Nadal final of the year, this is one of the  tournaments where you can appreciate the beauty of the facility as much as (or even more so) than the quality of the play. Really, if you were to die and go to tennis heaven, I'm pretty sure you'd find something like the Monte Carlo Country Club (though maybe with a hard court, depending on your preferences). The view is gorgeous, and I imagine the smell of the the water coming in over the stands would only accentuate the experience.

Of course, it would be easier for me to pass through the eye of a needle than to be rich enough to enter this particular kingdom of heaven. Lucky for me I'm an agnostic.