Tag Archives: Huffington Post

How do you spell (and define) “bimbo”?…

Jon Huntsman is officially off my Christmas Card list.

Commenting on Herman Cain’s calvacade of scandals, the presidential candidate (yeah, really, he’s still in the race) told the Boston Herald that “We’ve got real issues to talk about, not the latest bimbo eruption.”

What the hell is that?

Here’s a real issue, for you, Mr. Huntsman: Why don’t we discuss the casual disregard for women you display by throwing around the word “bimbo” like you’re someone’s 90-year-old grandmother using the word “colored.” “Oh, what? They don’t like to be called that anymore? It’s so hard to keep up. I liked that Nat King Cole, though. He was a good one.”

Checking the dictionary, “bimbo” is defined as “a generalized term of disapproval especially for an attractive but vacuous person” or, more offensively, a “tramp.”

So, who are these bimbos erupting from Cain’s now practically dormant volcano?

Sorry, Jon, no bimbos there, either.

The Huffington Post kindly provided a slideshow of Cain’s accusers. First up is Karen Kraushaar, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, who “was an employee at the National Restaurant Association during the time Cain was head of the group.” OK, nothing particularly bimboic about that. The second woman remains anonymous —  The Huffington Post curiously chose to depict her using the image of what appears to be a thinly disguised Portia de Rossi — but we do know she that she also worked at the National Restaurant Association and is currently employed at a New Jersey lobbying firm. No bimbo readings there.

We know little about the third accuser, other than her having worked at the National Restaurant Association and charging Cain “with making sexually suggestive remarks and gestures, even inviting her to his corporate apartment for a private visit. She described his behavior as aggressive and inappropriate, similar to the claims made by the previous accusers.” I tend to err on “innocent until proven bimbo” so let’s move on to the fourth woman, Sharon Bialek, a professional woman and mother, who was the first to make a public statement and whose treatment by Cain’s camp and the conservative media arguably initiated the trickle-down creepiness that led Ginger White to come forward this week.

It’s possible Huntsman was confused by the smear job the Cain people put out on these women, which attempted to paint them as modern-day Evelyn Nesbits. Maybe he was just referring to Ginger White, the only one of the party of five to state that a consensual sexual relationship took place, rather than sexual harassment and sexual assault. It might be a little judgmental to call an Atlanta businesswoman a “bimbo” just because she had an extramarital affair, but I’m sure that’s the same pejorative used for Congressmen who troll for women on the Internet or who dress up in tiger suits when not fooling around with the teenage daughter of campaign donors. What? No? Well, that’s peculiar.

Huntsman is not even capable of original insults. “Bimbo eruption” dates back to the 1992 presidential campaign when political consultant Betsey Wright used it to describe the inconvenient women with whom Bill Clinton most likely had sex. I’m sure Ms. Wright is awfully proud of the mark she’s made in history and for women’s rights.

Sorry, Jon, I tried to find these “bimbos” for you but no luck. If it’s any consolation, I do know where to find a big jerk.



Posted by on November 30, 2011 in Political Theatre, Social Commentary


Tags: , , , ,

Recurring Feature (at least until I tire of it): “What’s the point of this?”…

The Huffington Post thought it necessary to publish the following:

After widespread allegations that Ashton Kutcher strayed from his six-year marriage to Demi Moore, his alleged temptress, Sara Leal, is speaking out to Us Weekly, saying that she and Kutcher did have unprotected sex. Leal claims that she slept with Kutcher on September 24th after a night of partying — including a naked hot tub jaunt — in the actor’s Hard Rock hotel suite in San Diego.

Is there any public interest in this? OK, I should rephrase that: Is whatever public interest in the tawdry lives of celebrities necessarily something that the media should enable?

“Widespread allegations” that Kutcher cheated on his wife? Is this Iran Contra? Is Kutcher going to have to suspend taping of “Two and a Half Men” to testify before a Senate subcommittee? Why does anyone need to know about this?

Although Kutcher has not outright denied a relationship with Leal, he has taken to twitter to urge the public and his fans to not put any weight into the things that they read as well as to continue to support his wife via the 140 characters or less venue.

The latest? Kutcher tweeted a link to a pair of cufflinks with the abbreviated words “Cntrl” and “Esc” on them writing, “if we are not looking for one we are looking for the other Ctrl Esc.” Could this be Kutcher’s way of saying he lost control and now cannot escape or might it be his wishful thinking that he can control or escape the media?

Really? So-called journalists are now deciphering a TV star’s tweets as if they are complex passages from James Joyce?

I noticed that HuffPost offers readers the chance to “contribute to the story” — send in corrections and tips. I know unemployment is high but should people really spend their free time serving as unpaid and mostly unreliable Deep Throats? Do I at least get college credit? Sure, it would probably be community college credit, as it’s meaningless celebrity gossip, but what if I write an especially compelling essay explicating Kutcher’s tweets from his gothic period?

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2011 in Pop Life, Social Commentary


Tags: , , , ,

The Protect Life Act…

The House just passed the Protect Life Act, which true to its name ensures that all U.S. citizens have access to affordable health care, nutritious meals, and safe housing. It also eliminates capital punishment and reduces our military presence abroad. No, wait, I confused the U.S. with a first world country; the bill actually does the following:

Limitation on Abortion Funding-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion…

So, what’s the point of this? House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says it’s to “ensure that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”

Cantor must think we live in some sci-fi movie in which everyone, after their birth from a futuristic gestation matrix, is assigned a career with no option to choose something else — such as the vegan who got randomly assigned to the slaughterhouse that specializes in cute animals. If you are distinctly anti-abortion, it might behoove you to consider a career in which it will never come up. It’s not that hard. I have friends who are real estate agents and accountants. To my knowledge, they’ve never had to participate in an abortion — even when the market was at its worst.

The bill does make the usual exceptions for “rape or incest,” so apparently the life is less worthy of protection if the father is a bastard and the mother did not actually enjoy the sex that led to conception. There’s also an allowance if the woman might die. However, that only gets her through Level 1 of the government-approved misogyny video game. Level 2 is still the potential refusal of the service if it offends the sensibility of medical provider.

OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as–

‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using–

‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

I’m not a lawyer but basically, if you’re rich, you can still have an abortion — just have your butler hand over some gold bars to the doctor. This seems to put abortion on the same medical footing as a nose job and breast enlargement.

There is a section the prevents “nondiscrimination on abortion,” but that actually is intended to protect medical providers who are anti-abortion and don’t wish to perform them (sort of like the dentists who don’t like root canals):

‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions

I think this is how you ban abortion while people are too busy watching primetime TV to notice. Who needs to bother with Roe v. Wade? Reading this bill, it seems a woman has a better chance blowing up the Death Star than getting an abortion.

Laura Bassett from the Huffington Post reports further:

H.R. 358, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), goes beyond the issue of taxpayer dollars to place actual limits on the way a woman spends her own money. The bill would prevent a woman from buying a private insurance plan that includes abortion coverage through a state health care exchange, even though most insurance plans currently cover abortion.

An even more controversial aspect of the bill would allow hospitals that are morally opposed to abortion, such as Catholic institutions, to do nothing for a woman who requires an emergency abortion procedure to save her life. Current law requires that hospitals give patients in life-threatening situations whatever care they need, regardless of the patient’s financial situation, but the Protect Life Act would make a hospital’s obligation to provide care in medical emergencies secondary to its refusal to provide abortions.

I suppose the bill is appropriately named after all: Its stated desire to “protect life” certainly is an act.


Tags: , , ,