Superstition gets a pass in the New York Times

The Wall Street Journal regarding the outbreak of Ebola in Uganda notes:

The outbreak started and spread first within one family, said Rukia Nakamate, a spokeswoman for the Ugandan Ministry of Health. Initially, locals believed the illnesses were the result of an attack of evil spirits rather than one of the deadliest viruses known to man, and took the patients to a Christian religious shrine for prayers, where the first two victims died, she said.

“Some of the victims came into contact with many people, including churchgoers,” she said.

The New York Times article’s author appears to have crafted a dumb-downed rewrite (can we say plagiarism?) of the far more informative WSJ piece and in doing so chose to  leave this interesting factoid out (even though it could be germane to the spread of the deadly virus).

Monday Meanderings: Hoodoo economics, dead birds, and more

I realize a lot of people got Friday off, but for my company, today is the “observed” New Year’s holiday. I’ve got to put away the Christmas decorations, clip Nina’s claws (horrors!), and do research on sex ed curricula for my role on the LCSD Sex Ed Advisory board. But before I do that, here are some links for you.

We Are So Screwed (Pharyngula) For the espousers of voodoo economics, this makes perfect sense.

The Manchurian Candidate (Newsweek): He’s a moderate? Obama needn’t worry. The guy won’t make it out of the primary.

The Coming GOP War on Women (Alternet): I’ve got to wonder. Why do posts regarding the assault on choice in the “progressive” blogosphere rarely, if ever, mention the Democratic co-sponsor of the Smith-Lipinski bill? All you ever hear about is Bart Stupak (why this particular villain never seems to rotate out is beyond me). As you know, I’ve had this one on my radar screen since July.

The merger of journalists and government officials (Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com)

There’s just no difference in how they think, what their values and priorities are, how completely they’ve ingested and how eagerly they recite the same anti-WikiLeaks, “Assange = Saddam” script.  So absolute is the WikiLeaks-is-Evil bipartisan orthodoxy among the Beltway political and media class (forever cemented by the joint Biden/McConnell decree that Assange is a “high-tech Terrorist,”) that you’re viewed as being from another planet if you don’t spout it.  It’s the equivalent of questioning Saddam’s WMD stockpile in early 2003.

[ . . . ]

What an astounding feat to train a nation’s journalist class to despise above all else those who shine a light on what the most powerful factions do in the dark and who expose their corruption and deceit, and to have journalists — of all people — lead the way in calling for the head of anyone who exposes the secrets of the powerful.  

[ . . . ]

It’s extraordinary how — even a full month into the uproar over the diplomatic cable release — extreme misinformation still pervades these discussions, usually without challenge.  It’s understandable that on the first day or in the first week of a controversy, there would be some confusion; but a full month into it, the most basic facts are still being wildly distorted.  Thus, there was Fran Townsend spouting the cannot-be-killed lie that WikiLeaks indiscriminately dumped all the cables.  And I’m absolutely certain that had I not objected, that absolute falsehood would have been unchallenged by Yellin and allowed to be transmitted to CNN viewers as Truth.  The same is true for the casual assertion — as though it’s the clearest, most obvious fact in the world — that Assange “committed crimes” by publishing classified information or that what he’s doing is so obviously different than what investigative journalists routinely do.  These are the unchallenged falsehoods transmitted over and over, day after day, to the American viewing audience.

In the meantime, the media is trying to make something out of the “mysterious” death of blackbirds and drum fish in Arkansas. This AP article on the bird incident explains some plausible causes, but that won’t deter the conspiracy nuts.

Scientists are investigating whether fireworks, poison or bad weather might have forced the birds out of the sky, or if a disoriented bird simply led the flock into the ground.

[ . . . ]

Rowe said many of the birds suffered injuries from striking the ground, but it was not clear whether they were alive when they hit.

Blackbirds have notoriously bad eyesight. If startled at night, they could easily fly into the ground, Rowe said. A few grackles and a couple of starlings were also among the dead. Those species roost with blackbirds, particularly in winter.

Violent weather rumbled over much of the state Friday, including a tornado that killed three people in Cincinnati, Ark. Lightning could have killed the birds directly or startled them to the point that they became confused. Hail also has been known to knock birds from the sky.

[ . . .]

Rowe said poisoning was possible but unlikely. She said birds of prey and other animals, including dogs and cats, ate several of the dead birds and suffered no ill effects.

“Every dog and cat in the neighborhood that night was able to get a fresh snack that night,” Rowe said.

Sorry. I just had to include that last line.

You all have a good day. I’ll be checking in later.

The Press and Social Security – Why they continue to get it wrong, and what they can do to get it right

Most of us out here in the liberal blogosphere must feel like we’ve been pissing into the wind when it comes to discussing Social Security. I know I do. No matter how many times we insist that Social Security is not welfare (“entitlement”), that it does not add on dime to the deficit, and is not in any immediate danger of going belly up, the mainstream media ignores the truth and repeats the lie that Social Security is in crisis. It is, quite truthfully, baffling to me. The actuarial reports are there for all to see. Minor fixes would fix any long term (and by that I mean decades away) shortfalls, and yet, they persist. Why?

This  Columbia Journalism Review interview with Tim Greider discusses the abysmal reporting the press has done on Social Security by first discussing what and why the media gets it wrong and then moves on to what the press needs to be doing going forward.

TL: Let’s go back and put all this in the context of the press coverage of Social Security. What should the press be reporting that they haven’t been?

WG: Opponents of Social Security are deliberately confusing Social Security with Medicare; they are distorting reality. There are simple facts that should be reported: 1) Social Security never contributed a dime to the deficit; 2) Social Security softened the impact of the Reagan deficits by building up a surplus; 3) the federal government borrowed the money and spent it on other things; 4) the federal government has to pay this money back because it really belongs to the working people who paid their FICA deductions every pay day. The elites in both parties know the day is approaching when the federal government has to come up with the trillions it borrowed from the workers. That is the crisis the politicians don’t want to deal with, so they create a phony argument that slyly blames working people for their problem. That’s the propaganda they want the public to believe.

[ . . . ]

TL: Who is representing the public in this debate?

WG: The same people who rallied the public against Social Security privatization in the Bush administration. They have organized again. Some are the same players. Labor is on the barricades. Some righteous members of Congress. But in general the mass media don’t go to those dissenting voices. Instead, they are reporting factual errors as correct opinion.

TL: What do you want the press to do?

WG: I am daring reporters to go and find out the truth about this and report it. I’m not asking them to draw big conclusions or to assert their opinions. Just be honest reporters. It’s so frustrating to see the coverage. I’m not asking reporters to change any minds. I’m just asking them to do some real reporting. I mean, go to the facts—the actuarial records—and talk to a variety of experts. Reporters ring up the same sources and ask them how to think about Social Security.

TL: What does the public understand about what is happening?

WG: Not everyone understands what is happening. But most do. Most people know they have paid money into Social Security all these years and the money belongs to them, not the federal government. This is not welfare. It’s probably the best-understood program in the federal government. In fact, polls indicate in these troubled times the public believes people need increased benefits.

TL: Why hasn’t the press talked about Social Security as social insurance?

WG: My guess is that very few reporters understand what it is, or know that the concept of social insurance originated as a conservative idea—conserving social solidarity. It was first proposed more than one hundred years ago in Germany by Bismarck—not exactly a left-winger. Today’s critics style it as an entitlement program, and therefore reporters think that it’s like welfare. It’s not something the government gives to greedy old people. Alan Simpson has been relentless on this point. The press has picked up on Simpson’s language and made it sound like it’s a hand-out.

TL: A recent Bloomberg poll shows that two-thirds of those polled think the program should be means-tested. Has the press explained what that means?

WG: Social Security is by far the government’s most popular program precisely because it is universal. Everyone pays in; everyone is protected against catastrophe. The danger in means testing is that it really may turn Social Security into a welfare program—alms for the poor—and eventually doom it by destroying the broad political support it enjoys. That’s another aspect for debate the media has glossed over.

TL: Does Bismarck’s notion of social solidarity resonate in this country?

WG: The idea of social solidarity represents the core of our society. The belief that we’re all in this together has been trampled over in the last thirty years by conservative ideology. Good citizens and politicians have been sucked into believing that solidarity is not the issue. Until Americans rediscover the importance of solidarity, we’re going to be screwed up as a society. We will be trapped in brutal class conflicts and arguments over who gets more, who must be thrown over the side in the interest of business efficiency. I believe deeply most Americans do not want this dog-eat-dog brutality, but do not see much chance of changing it.

Via Crooks and Liars (H/T Gaius)

Holding up the mirror

Reno held it’s own satellite Rally to Restore Sanity at Nu Yalk Pizza yesterday. We had Lady Democracy handing out pocket Constitutions, a poster contest*, and three hours of cannoli, coffee, pizza, and fun.

Sweetie had originally planned on going with me, but he had carpentry plans (building a winter shelter for the dogs on the deck), so before heading out to Reno I set the DVR to Comedy Central, so if he decided to step away from the television, or things went haywire in Reno, we’d still be able to watch the rally together later (which we wound up doing anyway).

The rally did not disappoint. I think the best review I’ve read of it so far, has been Mary Elizabeth Williams’ spot on analysis over at Salon.com:

The most spectacularly memorable bit of the event came far too early, but it was still one for the books. It would have been enough had it ended with Stewart bringing out Yusuf, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, to lead a lilting rendition of “Peace Train.” But the ante upped when Colbert had the audacity to cut him off to trot out Ozzy Osbourne to thoroughly bring it with everyone’s favorite ringtone for their designated lunatic, “Crazy Train.” But then something truly amazing happened. Stewart cut the action off again, and somewhere in the distance, the sound of “People all over the world …” was heard. It was the O’Jays, a little vocally worse for the wear but bedazzled and funky as ever, to finish off the greatest train-song medley trifecta in recorded history. “Love Train” was a punchline, yes. But if you didn’t feel a lump in your throat watching thousands of Americans on the Mall soulfully command us to join hands, then I feel sorry, sorry for you. That sweet, funny moment was what the day was about. My fellow Americans, if we don’t have love, we’ve got zip.

Ah yes. The cacophony of the musical duel between Yusuf and Ozzy Osbourne was a pitch-perfect demonstraton of our current political discourse. It was hysterical.  And true.

But when Stewart and Colbert took their podiums for a mock debate, the message began to come back into focus. Stewart astutely pointed out that we can’t condemn all Muslims when “There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world,” but the point really resonated when he trotted out beloved basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to bring it home. Is Roger Murdock a terrorist? Then shut up, haters. Colbert then mock countered by unleashing a giant, Colbert-shaped “Fearzilla” to unveil a brilliantly terrible montage of mainstream media fearmongering. Suffice to say, the phrase “in YOUR town” featured heavily. Lessons learned from the Rally: Both your flip-flops and your television remote are trying to keeeeeeeell you.

I loved it that Stewart and Colbert pointed their laser beams at both the right and left media. With clips from NPR to FOX, no one was spared at least a grazing blow. 

Jon Stewart, in his closing remarks yesterday (video): 

And yet, with that being said, I feel good—strangely, calmly good.  Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false.  It is us through a fun house mirror, and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass shaped like a month old pumpkin and one eyeball.

So, why would we work together?  Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin assed forehead eyeball monster?  If the picture of us were true, of course, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable.  Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?  We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is—on the brink of catastrophe—torn by polarizing hate and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done, but the truth is we do.  We work together to get things done every damn day!

The only place we don’t is here [pointing back to U.S. Capitol building] or on cable TV.  But Americans don’t live here or on cable TV.  Where we live our values and principles form the foundations that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.  Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives.  Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do—often something that they do not want to do—but they do it–impossible things every day that are only made possible by the little reasonable compromises that we all make. 

Look on the screen. This is where we are. This is who we are.  (points to the Jumbotron screen which show traffic merging into a tunnel).  These cars—that’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high.  He’s going to work.  There’s another car-a woman with two small kids who can’t really think about anything else right now.  There’s another car, swinging, I don’t even know if you can see it—the lady’s in the NRA and she loves Oprah.  There’s another car—an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah.  Another car’s a Latino carpenter.  Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman.  Atheist obstetrician.  Mormon Jay-Z fan.  But this is us.  Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. 

And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30 foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river.  Carved, by the way, by people who I’m sure had their differences.  And they do it.  Concession by conscession.  You go.  Then I’ll go.  You go. Then I’ll go.  You go then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car?  Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay—you go and then I’ll go.

And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute, but that individual is rare and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst. 

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness.  And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey.  But we do it anyway, together.

“If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.” ~ Jon Stewart.

More Mary Elizabeth Williams:

What this crazy, not entirely well-thought out, quasi-free-for-all was about, it turns out, was we, the people. The proud, generous, spirited, non-yelling and non-bullying real Americans who know that “If we amplify everything we hear nothing.” Having 4Troops perform the national anthem and Tony Bennet belt out “America, the Beautiful” was not irony. Even Father Guido’s rambling benediction that ended with a “Thank you, and we really mean it,” was sincere. Because the ultimate metaphor for who we are, in the competent words of Stewart, is our nightmarishly daily, eminently Yankee commute. The NRA members and the Obama voters. The soccer moms and the immigrants. And somehow we all generally merge into one harmonious lane. It’s true that as Stewart explained, “Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. It’s just New Jersey.” But when we practice compassion and community, when we remember that the loudmouths are not a true picture of who we are, we can heal a nation, fly to the moon, and even get to work on time.

I’ve already read that some think Jon Stewart was calling for all of us to roll-over and compromise. I heard nothing of the sort. I saw him shine a true mirror back on us. He told us what we know to be true, even in the midst of this insane political season. The vast majority of us are sane, reasonable people who are just trying to get by and who can, believe it or not, talk to their Republican neighbor, or Democratic co-worker. Who can disagree and still manage to get on with their day and pull together that project that the boss is breathing down their collective necks to have on his desk by end of business.

Maybe I’m just a sucker. Maybe I’m too easy. Maybe I’m just sick of the screaming.

Here’s the thing. I live in a state that is this close to sending Sharron Angle to the U.S. Senate.  We are on the brink of sending to Washington a politician whose entire campaign has been one long “Harry Reid sucks and hasn’t done squat for Nevada” fact-deficient chain email.  Is Harry perfect? Far from it, and regular readers know I’ve certainly had plenty to say about him.  He’s far too conservative for my liberal-progressive-lefty-whatever-label-you-want-to-pin-on-me taste. 

However, I will not reward someone who can only throw stones; who says it’s not her job to create jobs and then hypocritically bashes Harry Reid for Nevada’s unemployment rate; will not tell me what she will do for Nevada until AFTER she is elected; has shown zero ability to work with others; will not speak to the press; who sees nothing wrong in bashing government, but has spent a great deal of her adult life at what she would probably refer to the  government trough: from her work as a substitute teacher, to her stint in the Nevada legislature, to her health insurance plan through the federal government. Don’t get me wrong. She has every right to partake of all those things, but she should not be given a pass when she is determined to turn around and pull up the ladder for anyone following behind her.

We’ve got big problems, and yeah, we are losing our country to the corporations who appear to own our media, our government, and our politicians lock, stock and barrel.  But the solution is to fight THAT, not each other. And if we believe that fun house mirror caricature of ourselves, we’re toast.

Jon and Stephen, thanks for holding up the real mirror.

*My prize-winning poster

Four paragraphs

Science Daily reports on a soon-to-be-published study that appears to show that the more body fat an older woman carries, especially on her hips (pear shape), the worse her memory problems are.  Note that the article goes from the study findings  in paragraph one to the study summary in paragraph two and the disclaimer in paragraph three.

The more an older woman weighs, the worse her memory, according to new research from Northwestern Medicine. The effect is more pronounced in women who carry excess weight around their hips, known as pear shapes, than women who carry it around their waists, called apple shapes.

The study of 8,745 cognitively normal, post-menopausal women ages 65 to 79 from the Women’s Health Initiative hormone trials is the first in the United States to link obesity to poorer memory and brain function in women and to identify the body-shape connection.

“The message is obesity and a higher Body Mass Index (BMI) are not good for your cognition and your memory,” said lead author Diana Kerwin, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine and a physician at Northwestern Medicine. “While the women’s scores were still in the normal range, the added weight definitely had a detrimental effect.”

For every one-point increase in a woman’s BMI, her memory score dropped by one point. The women were scored on a 100-point memory test, called the Modified Mini-Mental Status Examination. The study controlled for such variables as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

CNN makes it sound really, really bad.

A woman’s body shape may play a role in how good her memory is, according to a new study.

The more an older woman weighs, the worse her memory, according to research released this week from Northwestern Medicine at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

The effect is more pronounced in women who carry excess weight around their hips, known as pear shapes, than women who carry it around their waists, called apple shapes.

The reason pear-shaped women experienced more memory and brain function deterioration than apple-shaped women is likely related to the type of fat deposited around the hips versus the waist.

Nowhere in the CNN article do you see the disclaimer that says memory is still in the normal range. But you do see Alzheimer’s raised in the sixth paragraph.  You have to get to the eighth paragraph before you see that spectre raised in the Science Daily article. And, CNN appears to have cut and pasted from the Science Daily article, so there is no excuse.

On the other hand, belly fat is bad for your lungs. So pick your poison, ladies!

“…we live under an induced mass hallucination where spectacle replaces facts…”

Go read Joe Bageant’s post at Susie’s. I’ve already read it and will now go cry myself to sleep.

Every nation in the world is now party to at least one treaty that addresses health as a human right, including the conditions necessary for the delivery of health services. Healthcare is a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hell, even Saddam Hussein provided healthcare.

That Americans cannot grasp this fundamental aspect of human rights (but then we cannot even get child nutrition, or limiting the number of times you can taser an old lady in an airport, out of the starting gate) and join the civilized world and assure its people of such things is testimony. Testimony that we live in a vacuum exclusive of the accepted standard of mercy and decency common to civilized democratic nations elsewhere. Testimony that even we the citizenry would rather maintain and spread lies than accept truths such as most people in countries with universal healthcare would not ever give it up in favor of the U.S. system.

Most of all though, it is testimony that we live under an induced mass hallucination where spectacle replaces facts, information and common sense. In place of actionable information, we are served up screaming red faces … angry mobs manufactured for TV protesting “government interference in the people’s health care choices.” One must wonder what inchoate anger is really being tapped by the organizers of these strange “citizen protests.” As usual, the straw boogeyman of socialism is once more invoked. “Oh my god! I’ll have to give up my $1,100 a month insurance bill, which only pays 80% of my insurance costs AFTER I pay the initial $5,000 of those costs! If that ain’t Joe Stalin all over again, I don’t know what is! We get the false media drama of “death panels.”

And being captives of spectacle and hyperbole, we friggin’ love it. The idea of death panels plays to our childish attraction to the extreme and entertaining. Killing Grandma is far more entertaining to our imaginations than say, guaranteed access to chest screens and blood pressure medicine. Two generations into this national infantilization, it’s now the only national life we know — the ideological spectacle made real.

Susie on C-SPAN

Go. Watch! Susie rocks!

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Go here to read her take on being on TeeVee.

The joke’s on you

Methinks Somerby is being too kind by half when he gives Maddow the benefit of the doubt. I think she is neither “woefully clueless about domestic politics” though he may be right when he calls her “immature.” I don’t think so. I used to listen to her Air America show and she was entertaining, informed and informative. It saddens me that she’s sold out.

Somerby calls out Maddow (I think he’s given up on Olbermann):

Health costs are “bankrupting the nation,” Brooks says. But he knows he mustn’t state the obvious: Other nations spend half as much! By a manufactured consensus, the public is virtually never told that. And trust us: They don’t know!

Other nations are spending half as much. It’s stunning that a column could start in the way this one does, yet never cite that startling fact. But as we keep showing you: This manufactured consent/consensus is stunningly broad. Virtually everyone agrees not to go there. Telling the truth? Not allowed!

[...]

When people like Maddow keep handing you sex, her corporate owners have won. In the past, it was known as “bread and circuses;” today, it takes a somewhat sillier form. But whatever! Serial distractions keep the public from understanding the facts of their lives.

[...]

Might we explain how our politics works? The public tends to favor progressive positions, to the extent that they understand the real shape of our debates. For that reason, the corporate interest will almost always be served by a thrilling distraction. In this case, the public would be angry and deeply unimpressed—if they understood the nature of our bloated health spending. If they understood what that disparity in spending means—that massive amounts of “health care” dollars are being drained into corporate pockets.

The public would be upset about that. Maddow refuses to tell them.

But then, Maddow has become the consummate caddy, whether she understands it or not. For a bit of an analogy, see A. O. Scott’s review of Bruno in today’s New York Times. At the end of his review, Scott says this about the movie’s bad-faith humor:

“But the joke is on you.”

Regarding that new film’s humor, we plan to go and decide for ourselves. But the joke is very much on you when “progressive” TV stars, being paid millions, pimp you those sexy-time distractions. When they do that, you’re being handed a modern-day circus. For decades, this is how the public has been kept from forming progressive horizons.

Modern Day Pamphleteers

Chris Hedges:

Corporate ideology, embodied in neoconservatism, has seeped into the attitudes of most self-described liberals. It champions unfettered capitalism and globalization as eternal. This is the classic tactic that power elites use to maintain themselves. The loss of historical memory, which “balanced and objective” journalism promotes, has only contributed to this fantasy. But the fantasy, despite the desperate raiding of taxpayer funds to keep the corporate system alive, is now coming undone. The lie is being exposed. And the corporate state is running scared.

[...]

The battle ahead will be fought outside the journalistic mainstream, he said. The old forms of journalism are dying or have sold their soul to corporate manipulation and celebrity culture. We must now wed fact to rhetoric. We must appeal to reason and emotion. We must not be afraid to openly take sides, to speak, photograph or write on behalf of the disempowered. And, Ewen believes, we have a chance in the coming crisis to succeed. 

Go. Read it all.

Do you have our backs?

What is frustrating about this whole Palin-Letterman brouhaha is that there are so many people that want to make this Just About Sarah. It’s not. It is about all women.  Just so you know, we women can stick up for ourselves. Sarah can handle herself, and she’s proven it over and over again.  But yeah, we need you guys to have our backs too, just like Somerby does below. We need to know that you guys “get it.” 

Somerby on Olbermann, Palin, Letterman and sexual politics:

That same day, we had posted a fairly obvious comment, one we’ll amplify now. Most American liberals have very refined senses of “racial politics” (that’s good). Most people understand: There are painful, ugly ancestral insults which simply can’t be tolerated.

That’s good! But when it comes to “sexual politics,” many folk lack the first earthly clue. (Truly, it’s quite remarkable.) Olbermann and Letterman keep raising their hands to let Teacher know that they qualify.

Olbermann has been comically awful in this realm for years. No one loves insulting and ridiculing women—preferably, young women—quite the way this multimillionaire does. For our money, he maintained the cluelessness Wednesday night, even as he tried to showcase his lofty, high-minded good judgment.

[...]

Asked about the quip on a radio show, Palin, maintaining good humor, had pretended to scold: “Pretty pathetic, David Letterman!” Might we say what is blindingly obvious? For once in her year-long national life, Palin had something right! But how does Ole Massah respond to such matters? Olbermann played tape of her comment, then (Howard) sternly opined:

OLBERMANN (6/10/09): That is pretty much a tin-ear response from the governor. But frankly, was the word “slutty” really needed, let alone appropriate?

Too perfect! According to Ole Massah, it’s a “tin-ear response” when Palin speaks up, even in a good-natured tone. But it’s A-OK when Ole Massah himself instantly states the same judgment! But then, boys like Olbermann have behaved this way all through the annals of time. In their heads, the little ladies simply mustn’t complain. We Big Men will do all the talking.

How empty is this show’s “sexual politics?” Soon, Crawford was teaching the ABCs of gender insult to his slow-as-molasses host. Poor KO! Puzzling hard about which words are fair, he asked the world’s dumbest question:

OLBERMANN: The joke about the governor, which [Letterman] did not address apparently—we only had these excerpts from his taping tonight: Is it in fact appropriate to use that one word, “slutty,” in any joke about a woman politician, or should that be out of bounds?

CRAWFORD: I think it’s probably out of bounds. The global language monitor today—we learned the English language now has one million words. So there were maybe some others to choose, or maybe leave it out all together. Of course, it’s also an insult to flight attendants.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

Poor Craig had to tell our slowest boy that no, you can’t call women “slutty.” (Correcting Craig, who was probably trying to be polite: Since the whole point of the “joke” was to call Palin slutty, there really was no “other word” Letterman could have chosen.)

All this said, do you see what we meant in Wednesday’s post about the lack of any sexual politics? By now, everyone knows that people simply can’t toss racial insults around. Everyone knows what those words would be; for obvious reasons, liberals are quick to reject them. But Olbermann, dumb as a very cold rock, still doesn’t know about gender-based insults. Is “slutty” a word we can use? He wondered, on Wednesday night’s program.