In Michigan’s legislature on Wednesday, an extraordinary exchange took place. To discuss an authoritarian repression of women’s sexual and reproductive rights — the state’s latest anti-abortion legislation — Rep. Lisa Brown took to the floor. She ended her remarks this way, and then the Speaker responded [starting 0:25]:

BROWN: Judaism believes that therapeutic abortion, namely abortions performed in order to preserve the life of the mother, are not only permissible but mandatory. The stage of pregnancy does not matter . .

. . Wherever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child, Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother. The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother. I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours? And finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.

SPEAKER: [gavel strike] Members, I do ask you to respect the decorum of the House.

The Speaker gaveled and then rebuked Rep. Brown. Apparently, the normal word “vagina” is a grave insult to him. And also harrumph to self-appointed civilization, but to Republicans especially.

“What she said was offensive,” said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.”

Vagina, vajeena: there’s something wrong with these people. How roughly the six letters do strike them. Imagine, in Michigan, saying something truly Viking, like “pussy.” They’d surely hang you from the tallest flagpole, i.e. One For The Wangs.

Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, determined Brown’s comments violated the decorum of the House, said Ari Adler, spokesman for the Republican majority.

And armed with that, the documented utterance of “va-gi-na,” today they blocked Rep. Brown from speaking in the Michigan House.

“If I can’t say the word vagina, why are we legislating vaginas?” Brown asked Thursday at a hastily called Capitol press conference. “What language should I use?”

Brown noted “vagina” is the “medically correct term.”

“We’re all adults here,” she said.

Speak for yourself, ziiing.

He should ask questions. None of this has been fair after all. Women always get the easy pass in life. Never receiving the kinds of ridicule or scrutiny that we do, yet there they are in business, in government, at the Old Towne Mall. They’re everywhere. It’s as if the tender of equality weren’t fairness, but say *burp,* or the scrimshaw of slaves.

We should do something. You know what we should do? Even the score. Let’s get someone to subject women to criticism. I’m spitballing here, but Rush Limbaugh maybe? He could be interested.

What is Hillary doing at the Time ’100 Most Influential’ bash? Exactly how influential is Hillary Clinton? What has she ever accomplished as Secretary of State?

What the hell has she done? Two wars, getting out of one, trying to extract ourselves from the other, the Egypt thing, the Qaddafi thing, the Arab Spring and getting it right over and again but, what c’mon? Hang on, Rush. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson (retd.) and Ollie North and Alberto Gonzales and Laurita Doan and Scooter Libby and Harriet Miers and government criminals and brain-disableds by the bushels you call ‘friends’ will drop by so you can altogether laugh at Hillary. Sixteen times the most admired woman in America. They don’t make losers like that. Do they?

And now Hillary has reached the pinnacle, and all she is is a secretary. She’s the Secretary of Defense – State, whatever. But still a secretary. I don’t know. The left has the strangest definitions of success.

Why this reminds me of a story. Once upon a time a warthog was invited to dinner. A dinner so special, he blogged it from his Excellence In Digital Slop trough:

American Exceptionalism Still on Display at Horatio Alger Dinner
April 12, 2010 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

RUSH: I have to tell you what I did over the weekend. I was invited to attend the Horatio Alger Association dinner on Friday night at Constitution Hall in Washington.

What made it so ptew! ptew! special? The featured guests. Their towering American achievements before the face of impossible odds made them figures of mythical stature. Like each was some crazy successful guy, from a silly story, that never existed. Except they did exist. Oh, yes, friends, they *sniff* very did:

I was overwhelmed, and I have to tell you why. Condoleezza Rice was inducted this year. There were a number of people — in fact, all of them, every one of this year’s honorees — stood up and spoke of this country in ways I haven’t heard a government official speak of this country in years . .

. . and you look at the commemorative something or menu, and there she is. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. You can just imagine goodlord where she must have started from if becoming all of a secretary made Limbaugh weep and pee his pigtail. Maybe sleeping on a steam grate all deaf and dumb with an empty bottle of Thunderbird for a wubbie.

Conservative writer S.E. Cupp waited a few days to weigh in on the Hilary Rosen/Ann Romey debate. Between the lovely mansion mommy and the lesbian grotto shrew, S.E. favors mommy. Actually, she favors mansions — more on that later.

But let’s cut to the chase, friends. S.E. Cupp is a fool. Facts are facts. It’s frankly boring she’d love the Romneys so well because she’s paid for the support. The way she loves Ann, however, is terrifically bimb-tertaining.

We could have predicted it. S.E. frequently finds ways to make readers wince. This, below, was a face-palmer of hers from a couple years ago:

Manhattan Love Story
Help! I am a hip, young New Yorker. I am not supposed to have a crush on Mike Huckabee.
By S.E. Cupp| Slate | Dec 5 2008

There he is on the front page of his eponymous Web site, lovingly fingering his bass guitar in the gently worn leather boots of a man who lives to rock. Over the past few weeks, he’s been crisscrossing the country in a fully appointed tour bus that delivers him to throngs of adoring fans and groupies who eagerly await an autograph, a photo, and—if they’re lucky—maybe a few licks on the guitar.

That’s Cupp’s habit. She shocks her true cosmopolitan with a pedestrian reflex here and there. On the way to an Icelandic/Argentinian fusion tapas tasting, she’ll land at McDonald’s. “Here I am with Chicken McNuggets! Can you believe it?” Her mind and instincts are as sharp as any Columbia professor’s, you should know. If only the academics were as hungry to know the limits of the world. She walks old absinthe gallery reading rooms, polishing anti-Bolshevik propaganda with an X-Acto and a pen. But when Mike Huckabee picks up an electric bass . . *squeal*. Really, she’s more surprised than you. She’s from New York, you see.

. . I fantasize about tripping tourists who insist on walking three-wide, arm in arm, at a glacial pace on a narrow sidewalk. I routinely have cereal and paper towels delivered, and I haven’t seen the inside of a washing machine in a decade. I’m also in my late 20s, which, coupled with my hip address, ensures that my taste is well-seasoned, appropriately edgy, and probably better than yours.

As if the glasses weren’t a hint.

I will obsess over anything Ricky Gervais does. I can name at least 10 boutique vodkas. My music interests are sufficiently sophisticated that I can condescend to most other age groups with authority. Finally, I’m also a grad student—at NYU, no less—so I’m supposed to be one of those cosmopolitan academics who have designer eyeglasses, a subscription to Artforum, and a ready collection of aphorisms to quote from the likes of Foucault, Derrida, and Sartre.

The Derrida aphorism bimbo. What a gift. Thanks, Republicans, for this newfangled thingamaperson you’ve invented, the uppity airhead. Thank you for Sarah Palin who lectures us about Paul Revere so that we may edit his careening Wikipedia entry. Thank you for Michele Bachmann brandishing glass-eyed chootspah and reminding us that slave owners worked slave-like to end slaveishness. Thanks, thank you, thanks a jillion.

More of the Cupp magic?

Generational Racism is Old and Tired
S.E. Cupp | Townhall |Sep 23, 2009

Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.

. . We talk about race in blunt and unthreatening terms when race is an issue. And when it isn’t an issue, well, we don’t pretend it is.

Not so with the aging liberal cognoscenti, which, as of late, would be better labeled the “ignoscenti” for some of the baffling oddities they’ve uttered. For them, race is simply everywhere. It is hanging from the trees and falling from the sky. It’s in the air, in the water, it is both viscous and fluid, and permeates every willing orifice of every fertile sponge.

Sponges are a horny sentient lot, I know. Talking is Cheaper than Doing . .

“It’s one of those feel-good things that divide liberals from conservatives. Liberals want to talk. Conservatives want to do.

John McCain’s jaw-dropping afternoon statement Wednesday that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and work on fixing the country’s economic crisis sounded like someone drawing a saber, getting ready to charge the enemy, yelling ‘Who’s with me?!’ . . it should have forced Obama to mount up and join McCain.”

Alaska is the New Kansas . .

“But the values there — self-reliance, a respect for the land and its resources, and independence — are ridiculed by liberal outsiders who want to paint them as out-of-touch and backwards, with the kind of ethos embodied by an oinking Ned Beatty or a tire-burning Dale Earnhardt Jr., Sarah Palin refuses . .”

Quote Sarah: “Squeee . .” Quote S.E.: “Left-wing women: Stop impaling Palin.“ Southern hospitality confuses.

Much of life is confusing, for most of us. What to think of Ann Romney? What about her? Heck, that’s a no-brainer. That’s why S.E. likes her so darn much:

The smartest choice Ann Romney made
There is no shame in marrying up
S.E. Cupp | N.Y. Daily News |Apr 18 2012

As a thirtysomething, city-dwelling, hypereducated, independent-thinking woman, I suppose I should recoil at the idea of one day getting married, quitting my ultracompetitive job and staying home to raise my brood of germ-carrying moochers.

But as I sit in a cramped New York apartment, surrounded by bills, drowning in a sea of deadlines, the conventional life of a stay-at-home mother actually sounds pretty nice.

I’m so amazing. But I’m so, like, amazing isn’t for me. What a surprise.

. . while liberal women may praise Ann for (at least) getting herself an education, where is the praise for Ann’s best decision of all — to marry well? . .

If Democrats insist that women need Obama to take care of them, then why shouldn’t women also feel compelled to consider how their future husbands will take care of them? What’s the difference between the feminists’ political marriage to Obama and Ann’s marriage to Mitt? Both choices are predicated on who will be the better provider.

Let’s just admit that politics, money and love are all the same. S. E. sounds like your typical lazy urban intellectual catwoman. Bring it home Zsa Zsa:

The feminists may wish otherwise, but little girls want stability and security, not state-sponsored welfare. For choosing a life partner who could give her that, Ann Romney is a great role model.

This is S.E.’s big point. It seems to be the point of her whole career. The apotheosis of the post-modern woman’s hopes and dreams would be a little girl.

The political partner of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, takes to her blog. She means to warn the good and righteous citizenry of an impending moral hazard. There’s a slavering political whore loose amongst us, she says. You might cover the kids’ eyes, closet your husbands, and batten down the marital aids. Here comes the Democratic recall challenger to Walker, Kathleen Falk:

” . . you would think she might rely on her own record or values or grassroots support to propel her in her desperate race for progressive recall glory. But instead of pulling out the greatest hits of her own resume, or digging into a reserve of grit and resilience, instead of building a campaign around her own ideas, Kathleen got a sugar daddy.”

I can’t recall a political attack quite like this one. Kathleen spends her free time on her back pleasing some rich jerk? Very classy, Rebecca.

“The big unions got together and decided that, if Kathleen promised to veto a budget that didn’t bring back expensive union entitlements, they’d give her their money and endorsements. She exchanged her political promise for money and influence. It is scandalous, and it reeks of the dependent, fragile woman leaning on a big, strong arm . . “

She’s banging the labor unions? Is that what you’re saying? Admirably despicable gender politics, woman. You’re so very far above a rival female politician who plays straight-up politics. You’re the type to bat your eyes and pretend that politics is the furthest thing from your mind. Next thing the voters know, their watches and wallets are missing. The creepy one-handed hotel clerk is banging on the door, but you’re already in the shower at the YWCA. Aren’t you the wholesome one?

“Hi voters. My name is Rebecca. I’m just your average person, of no import or significance, here with a humble message. Did you know that representative politics is dangerous and destructive? That’s right, it’s very awful and horrible. Why? Because when you choose to recall somebody, like our Governor, your signatures strangle all the bunnies and kitties across Wisconsin. Is that what you’re about? Murder? Maiming? Democracy?”

“I didn’t think so. Please, think of the children, and the ponies. Don’t you feel better now? I know I do. This has been Rebecca Not-the-Lieutenant-Governor-who’s-also-currently-being-recalled.”

BTW, Becky: If you want to avoid looking like a shameless woman who peddles lurid trash in order to pick the voters’ pockets, you could go easier on the makeup. Sheesh.

Seems like recent times. Not so long ago. We thought Sandra Fluke being called ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ had something to do with conservatives’ views on contraception. Apparently, we didn’t understand what was really going on at the time:

Birth-Control Agitprop
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review

. . “Let’s admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception,” Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to “the Dark Ages . . . when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to.”

That’s what I thought. No?

The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s health care decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.

It’s all so breathtakingly mendacious.

Nope. We’ve been lying shamelessly, and Goldberg’s been gasping for air. Fortunately, we went on our merry way to build a Sanger monument, and Jonah opened a window.

He had tried to tell us the truth. That this was only about the evils of abortion, nothing more. So many tried to tell us. Over and over: Contraception is a personal thing, abortion is homicide. If you want to go on the Pill, we don’t care. That’s a personal, not a criminal, matter, and conservatives are loath to mess with those.

Really, if anything, our conniption over contraception was something of a conspiracy. By shifting from their cultural indictment to a popular perception, from the evils of abortion to the benign reality of contraception, we filled the atmosphere with smoke. All the ethicists and scholars have been bumping into each other ever since, trying to find where the infanticide went:

Liberals, media try to shift debate from abortion to contraception
by Jill Stanek | jillstanek.com

I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.

. . so pro-life Jill details how Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and others got hip to the conspiracy. Look how Rush figured it out:

“Do you remember – ’cause this is a setup for what’s coming – do you remember, we were all perplexed here. George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Romney on contraception. It had not come up, nobody had said anything about it, and we were all confused, as was Romney, what the deal was…

That’s what Morris’ theory is about what happened last week, trying to get abortion off the table because it’s a loser for the Democrats. And now instead of Republicans want to ban abortion, they want to ban contraception…

So that’s the paradigm shift here, at least so goes the theory, and it does explain why Stephanopoulos was talking about something that was not even an issue.”

Contraception was never an issue. Gee, aren’t we sneaky?

By comparison, we’re amateurs. We make the occasional penny fall out of your ear, you guys palm manhole covers. Arizona State’s news reports on new Republican legislation:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

What does this legislation mean? It means Republicans are giving Arizona businessmen the ‘OK’ to prevent women from getting the Pill through their insurance. That’s what it means.

If you’re a Catholic man who owns a factory with 500 female employees, you can deny them contraception. While it’s not against your beliefs if a worker uses the Pill to treat polycystitis, it is against your beliefs if she uses it to prevent pregnancy. So you get to deny her that coverage. And just to be sure, if you figure out an employee is using the Pill, you can demand she produce a medical reason for the prescription.

One man’s religious conviction trumps perhaps thousands of employees’ needs. If you buy Arizona politicians’ arguments, “Freedom of Religion” is no longer about the choices you make for yourself. It’s about the choices you make for others.

But, wait, it gets potentially worse. While I can’t affirm Erin’s contention, it doesn’t seem impossible. It seems entirely plausible:

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills
Erin Gloria Ryan | Jezebel

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result.

So, to recap: Based upon his private religious beliefs, your employer could deny you and hundreds of others normal access to contraception. He could do this, even though it saves you, your insurance company and your employer money. He’d be allowed, even though everyone knows it produces healthier babies and more stable families. If you did qualify for the Pill by other means, he’d have the right to vet your medical condition. And if his intuition told him you were just another ‘Sandra Fluke,’ he could fire you. And this is only a fight over abortion.

That tawdry wrestling infomercial on an endless loop, the conservative, wasted everyone’s time this week scolding America about contraception, abortion, sex in and out of marriage, and the reason why he threatened to deport his immigrant boy-toy after ramming a horny-butt deejay into some poor lady outside a disco tickle dangle, but, no, it wasn’t me.

That reminds me of a joke. It goes like this: neckbeard.

The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion
By ROSS DOUTHAT | Op-Ed Columnist

AMID the sound and fury of the latest culture-war battles . .

These people. Will. Not. Shut. Up.

Even the most pro-choice politicians, for instance . .

No sane human being wants to hear Ross Douthat weigh in on anything like sex, abortion or contraception. He’ll do it anyways, of course, because he’s the New York Times conservative. A.K.A., the kid with enormous keyboards of clay.

Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on.

It’s late in the column, and the kid is really bringing the heat. The liberals want to make it okay for people to have abortions. But you know what happens next? MORE ABORTIONS. Bet you didn’t realize that, buddy. This is why the Times hired Ross. He can tie his shoes — can you? Your shoes, I mean?

“Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

Because Oregon has more abortions than Oklahoma, liberals have failed in the ‘choice’ wars. We are hypocrites, unable to deliver on our abortion mission statement. In an ideal world, we’d stop women, like young terrified conservatives — whose fathers will kill them — from having abortions. In an ideal world, Ross would know the word ‘ideal.’ We’re done here, everybody back to the abortion factory.

But wait — do you know where ‘choice’ is truly ‘Safe, legal and rare’? Kansas. And how many abortion clinics do they have? Two. Maybe one. This is the reality Ross uses as a baseline to shame us into admitting failure. We allow more abortions than Cro-Magnon Kansas. We shoot fewer doctors, too, and these facts may be related.

For the rest of the editorial, the Gray Lady’s ace is nowhere near being interested in the history of abortion in America, our evolving attitudes towards sex, the current attacks on sex education, the propping up of abstinence-only efforts in the face of permanent failure, or in the record low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Or in women. Final paragraph, now we’re really almost done:

At the very least, American conservatives are hardly crazy to reject a model for sex, marriage and family that seems to depend heavily on higher-than-average abortion rates.

Shoot. So there’s only the one alternative: make abortion illegal. Okay. Thanks, Ross, well argued. Could you append a little comment about the happiness of American women in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Here’s a strange, sad bit of news.

A woman who defied a driving ban on female motorists in Saudi Arabia has died in a car crash.

Another was hurt in the crash in the only country in the world where females are banned from getting behind the wheel . .

They were in a four-wheel drive on Saturday evening in the northern Hael province when the accident happened.

‘One woman was immediately killed and her companion who was driving the car was hospitalised after she suffered several injuries’ police spokesman Abdulaziz al-Zunaidi told AFP.

How does news like this strike you? A tragic end for a brave person? Saudi Arabia remains a f*cked up nation? You hope her death be received with some kudos in the Arab world?

Those sentiments would be far from the minds of conservatives:

Those geniuses are thinking, “What a typical chick.”

Women, you know how they are. They’re a certain tragic, comical way. It’s true.

I would double-check Vox Day’s facts. Pretty much anyone who calls himself a “Superintelligence” on the banner of his crappy blog deserves as much, but what a chore. Where’s the official list of “female pioneers”? Once I find that, I guess I could compose and compare actuarial death tables against those of “women who are actually trying to commit suicide.” Right. Also: the driver survived, and that roundly defeats the post. Still, women are lame.

NRO’s John Derbyshire with more of his reader e-mail. Here we go again. More misogyny to spread around, huzzah, just less of it Derb’s.

I’ve been theorizing a bit about the psychological forces at play in the vast right-wing world turning away from Mitt Romney and toward the “definer of civilization,” Newt Gingrich. How about we now listen to the people themselves? The fresh fans of Newt? Why they have embraced him? Here we go. And thank you, kind reader, for not sending me crap like this:

Derb:

[...]

I also think you hit on something in last week’s Radio Derb episode when you said that Newt has won the “bitter ex-husband” constituency. So the sanctimonious “marriage is sacred” crowd thinks Newt’s affairs are unacceptable. You have to wonder what world these people live in where they have never been in a relationship with a pain-in-the-butt female. Lots of things can happen after you commit to someone. They let themselves go, get fat, etc. These broads can drain you emotionally and physically with their endless demands and grievances. People change over time, and divorce is a messy business, especially when there’s money involved. Affairs are biologically natural, when one is separated from their mate for a significant period of time. They are even more natural for the male, whose biological goal in most respects is to impregnate as many females as possible, no?

So Newt the “broads” dumper is a feel-good candidate. His story’s the same as any regular guy in American life. We bang chicks until they start putting on pounds and begin griping about everything, and then what? We do what we gotta do. He’s classic.

One other reason I’m inclined to root for Newt is that he just makes for such a great villain. His narcissism, grandiosity and megalomania have all the makings of a bombastic antagonist, perhaps in the mold of someone like Drax from Moonraker. Even his name, “Newt” lends itself to this narrative (a salamander?) I could easily see him as one of the Alien leaders from V — the original miniseries (1983 version, not the crappy remake.)

There you have it: if you’re into sci-fi and misogyny, and think narcissism is underrated, you’ve gotta go with Gingrich.

. . though he’ll probably kill a few children in an attempt at world domination. Still, you gotta love a guy who parks his car under a volcano.

I wish I could be sillier about this, but I can’t. The takedown is sad: Barack Obama, seemingly normal person, has somehow run away with conservatives’ balls. They’ve tried to oppose him, hate him, belittle him, recast him, to call him a n*gger over and over, but how has he reacted? With a lotta nothing. He never notices. And just look at the pompous son of a bitch. He’s actually favored to win. It’s as if they, hellish racism and all, never existed.

But Gingrich? The disgusting mistress-juggling, ethics-breaking, black-baiting troll? Now there’s someone who would hump Obama’s goat. Hell, just look what he’s doing to Romney — it’s practically a crime. And it’s been easy. Newt will drive the snotty professor to epilepsy, they hope. Comments to follow:

One can’t help but be impressed by the bit of campaign pop culture Newt’s invented. He’s got a big hit on his hands: “Just A Guy” b/w “The Man Who’ll Shoot Uppity Menace.” It’s the sound of today, apparently. Mitt has no familiarity with either of these tunes, so he’s all squaresville.

Don’t you think it’s a good idea to call someone an ‘ugly bitch’? I do. It’s a smooth move. And it reflects well upon your candidate:

No, it’s not a hoax, I checked. See for yourself.

ADD: Good job by the DailyKos people, but it’s not a hoax because this isn’t a PAC. It’s a ‘PAC.’ As ‘bunker’ sites and ‘headquarters’ pages are not actually caves or buildings, this is an aggregator site for pro-Cain posts and media run by a fan(s). If anyone mistakenly believed Herman Cain himself were behind the post (really?), I apologize for that.

This is a post collected and then re-posted on the site. Original poster MP traces back to his MofoPolitics site, a real Conservative politics site, ads and all. Here’s the original post. Here’s MP’s Twitter page, with 13,000 plus tweets. I checked on MP’s site and saw the OP and other posts going back a year and noted his penchant for ‘eww gross’-ing on liberal women, so I posted the image. Unless the Herman Cain Pac site was specifically and only put up to bury an obnoxious post by a real person on page two of the site, this is exactly what it always appeared to be: the misogynist graffiti of Cain fans.

Mike Tyson recently had a few crude, juvenile things to say about Sarah Palin’s supposedly having sex with a Black man. Why should we care? Why would almost anyone care, considering it’s Mike Tyson?

Here’s the thing: we wouldn’t. He’s an animal human being, a convicted rapist, riffing on a rumor. Tyson played out a lurid scenario for shits and giggles on Las Vegas sports radio, big deal.

“Glen Rice is a wonderful man,” Tyson said. “He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up … in there . . Let’s get that donkey in here now. Just imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping. Yeehaw!”

I post some of his comments [others are more gratuitous] so you can get the sense of what the pug/clown was trying to do. There’s no sophistication there, no real point of view, there are no politics in them. It was Tyson being, we assume, Mike Tyson.

So why is Tucker Carlson’s Conservative politics site, The Daily Caller, publicizing this sort of locker-room crap? We presume they don’t want to embarrass or denigrate the potential Republican presidential candidate. So why reprint the comments on a well-traveled, supposedly well-respected home for right-wing news and commentary? Why post the audio, additionally?

It’s ‘news,’ he thinks? Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren called Carlson out:

She warns Tucker he can’t “hide behind” the excuse that his website is simply reporting on comments made by someone else. “This denigrates women. He knows that, I know that, you know that,” Van Susteren writes.

“I am suspicious his website is not doing well and this is one quick last breath to create buzz to keep it afloat,” she adds.

I’m not sure Mike Tyson’s stupidity “denigrates women.” But the comments are crude enough that no one would want to be associated with them. So — why did you do it, Tucker? Why’d you feature them on the front page of your site?

Had Tyson used this language to attack virtually any other person in public life, he’d be vilified on the front page of the New York Times. But you won’t read these quotes in the Times. We believe they deserve public scrutiny and condemnation.

Tucker thinks Mike Tyson is a rapist that the public takes seriously. He’s a reasonable enough person that his comments “deserve public scrutiny.” And, in this particular context, obviously, they’re particularly noteworthy. Aren’t they?

Well, I’ll certainly do your bidding, Tucker, as you’re a thoughtful person who runs a serious blog. I condemn Mike Tyson’s statement that Sarah Palin . . “met the wombshifter” . . as your site pointed out. If comments like these aren’t publicized and held up for proper scrutiny, as I’ve just done, they could become associated with the target. Or worse: they could be ignored. Forgotten.

Here’s a crisis, if ever there were one. What would happen to America should someone on TV claim to be one thing but actually be another? What if someone claimed to be straight but were actually gay? What if someone claimed to be Indian but were actually Italian? What if someone claimed to be clever but were actually stupid?

I can hardly imagine the consequences. The television is no place for mere appearances. TV was invented to bear the steely truth about people right into your homes, citizens. Right down to their fricking DNA.

Of course, you knew that. So you won’t be surprised by the reaction of that clever guardian of television, Brent Bozell. He bolted upright from his chair when he heard the Pulitzer committee’s media annex, Dancing With The Stars, will include Chaz Bono in its next season.

How can they do that? Don’t they know who Chaz really is?

Dancing With the Lecturers
Brent Bozell | Sept. 9, 2011 | Townhall.com

. . Once the cute little blond daughter, Chastity, that everyone of a certain age remembers from the old “Sonny and Cher Show” on CBS is now the female-denying Chaz Bono.

ABC didn’t name Bono because “he’s” known as a dancer. They named “him” because he’s well-known as an LGBT activist, with an emphasis on the “T.”

Everything about this stinks, doesn’t it? “He,” as if. When will the media liberals figure this out: TV shows are too important to be messed with? And yet, here they go again. Putting on a woman (or maybe a “it”?) who’s an obvious liar. This is awful.

. . no one should have any doubt that Chaz Bono is going to be instructing America about the need to overcome their “transphobia” — on the show and everywhere else.

I don’t need your bullcrap education. I just wanna watch the stars dance. Okay?

ABC and the rest of the media universe can do all the pretending they want, but that’s not going to make Bono a real male. It’s not a completely inaccurate stereotype for people to say so. Silly, old-fashioned me; I’m stuck on human beings made as males and females.

Right. Other than those folks with Turner’s and Klinefelter’s and undescended testicles and Testis Determining Factor translocations, mutations, or a host of other conditions, syndromes and realities, everybody is male or female. Hulloooo ABC. It cut off its breasts, fer chrissakes.

Despite “his” low voice, and his sideburns and his awful decision to amputate his own breasts, Bono remains a woman.

Thank you. Exactly.

It’s good when dudes kill a terrorist. But it’s a bummer to have women in power. And you certainly don’t want them on the front page of your Jewish Orthodox newspaper:

Der Tzitung, out of Brooklyn.

Where the hell did Audrey Tomason go?