"A lecture from Pamela Anderson... about fascism and fireflies, that boomed around the uncompromisingly ugly black box..."

"... of a show venue, didn't add to the joy of the occasion. Nor did a finale that looked like a scene from Day of the Living Dead, with sad models drifting around the bleakly-lit space."

I'm perusing "Paris Fashion Week: Pamela Anderson sits front row at joyless Valentino show" (The Telegraph).

This model best exemplifies the mood. Look what fascism is doing to people!

Bones and silk, for that awkwardly bumpy look. 

Anyway, was the venue at the Valentino show "uncompromisingly ugly"? That's a judgment call. I really want to know the facts about what Pam said about "fascism and fireflies." I like alliteration. I envision an alphabet book — illustrated by A.I. — that has "fascism and fireflies" for F.

What can we do for the other letters? A is for anarchy and angel food cake....

But I end up using A.I. to figure out what Pam actually said, and — I'll cut the snark — it was quite eloquent.

"Pamela Anderson and Liam Neeson had fans eating up their flirty press tour, but behind the scenes, it was all a PR 'bake-off'...."

TMZ reports, based on "sources with direct knowledge."

I had some trouble understanding the expression "bake-off," since there was no competition, only collusion, pretending to have found love together. But...

A big slice of the stunt involved Pamela claiming she was baking muffins and sourdough bread for Liam -- something he even played along with in interviews leading up to the premiere. It makes us now assume that was also part of the strategy ... pure role-play PR, not reality.

So some literal baking was involved, but there was no literal or figurative bake-off.

Actors promoting a movie are still acting. Why not act as if they'd fallen in love? 

If you go searching into the term "bake-off," you'll probably quickly arrive at something called the "First Lady Bake-Off." That's something that began in 1992, and it was an unwholesome alliance between the press — Family Circle Magazine — and the Clinton campaign. Wikipedia explains:

Golden Globe nominations are out.

 See the list at People.com.

I don't care other than that "A Complete Unknown" is thought to be good. It's nominated as best drama motion picture and Timothée Chalamet is nominated as best male actor in a drama (in the role of Bob Dylan) and Edward Norton is nominated as best male actor in a supporting role in a drama (playing Pete Seeger). 

Tim will need to compete with the actor who plays Donald Trump in "The Apprentice," and Ed will need to compete with Jeremy Strong, who plays Roy Cohn in "The Apprentice." 

And I love seeing that Pamela Anderson is in the running for best "female actor" in a drama. She's got to compete with Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, Tilda Swinton, Kate Winslet — all famously great at acting in big dramas. You've got to root for the underdog there, but then there's one more nominee, Fernanda Torres for something called "I’m Still Here." I don't know anything about that, so... whatever... Pam or Fernanda. But I will watch Angelina Jolie in "Maria," because it's already on Netflix, starting Wednesday. That probably suggests it's not that good, but it costs nothing in time/money to take a look.

After her makeup artist died, Pamela Anderson decided "it’s just better for me not to wear makeup."

I'm reading "Jamie Lee Curtis 'floored' by Pamela Anderson going makeup-free at Paris Fashion Week: 'Courage and rebellion'" (NY Post).

It's not the most stunning show of courage in the history of the world, but it's something a lot of us will love. Here is Pamela Anderson — famously beautiful when seen in her youth through heavy makeup  — showing up now at glamorous events without makeup and openly old — 56 years old.

 

 

 

Yes, her eyebrows look radically plucked, the roots of her hair indicate somewhat recent bleaching, and there was whatever plastic surgery there was, but she's bold to present herself so differently. People will talk about how she looks, and it's nice to see her getting positive attention, especially to the extent that people are saying she looks great like that, and not just that she's displaying "courage and rebellion."

Ivanka laughed at Jane Fonda's plan to use sex as a weapon.

I'm reading "The Star Power of Jane Fonda’s Climate-Change Arrests" (The New Yorker):

After the 2016 election, Fonda was initially optimistic that Trump could be flattered into taking on the cause of battling climate change. She wanted to invite several “voluptuous” female activists (including the environmentally minded actress Pamela Anderson) to brief Trump on the dangers of relying on fossil fuels. Fonda spoke by phone to Jared Kushner, who told her to speak to Ivanka Trump, who laughed at the idea and said she’d follow up. Fonda never got to meet with Trump.

So it's okay to treat women as sex objects if it's a means to an end? This belongs in the same category as "I'd be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal" ("I" = Time correspondent Nina Burleigh, "him" = Bill Clinton).

Are we taking a break from Trump-hating?

Here are the "Editor's Picks" on the front page of the NYT website this morning. Click to enlarge (not that you need to enlarge Pamela Anderson's breasts, but you can make the small print clearly readable by clicking):



1. "How the ‘Baywatch’ Swimsuit Became a Summer Classic/Athletic. Flattering. Red. Who needs a string bikini?" Yes, ladies, it is okay and maybe even cool to wear a one-piece bathing suit. But don't expect support from Pamela Anderson: "Ms. Anderson said modesty was not an issue for her but confirmed that the suits were pretty fitted. 'Some people bring me bathing suits to sign autographs on and they are these big bathing suits and I say, "Listen, my bathing suit was tiny. It just stretched and pulled onto your body,"' she said." If you want support, get a structured brassiere.

2. "They Met on the Court. They Both Won in Love. Eric Wankerl and Paige Marquardt first connected in 2013 during a Special Olympics event in Minnesota." This article could be #1 on the all-time list of feel-good stories in the New York Times. If you're hoarding your free reads for the NYT and you have any heart at all or you just want to try to have one, click through to this wedding story. Tears are running down my face as I give you this advice. Excerpt from the article: "We were told he’s never going to be the doctor or lawyer or engineer that you might have hoped for, so prepare yourself.... His dad and I had to go through counseling, this sort of grieving stuff where they tell you, 'This is the child you were given.'... I thought, the more people who are seeing him in town, the more people who are going to know him and look out for him. And that turned out to be true." Beautiful wedding photos.

3. "The Week in Books/Téa Obreht’s new novel, Barack Obama’s summer reading list and more." Oh, my lord! It's time for Barack Obama's summer reading list again! Topping the list is the collected works of Toni Morrison, so that's some serious homework for you. Or is that what he's reading? The book on the list I think he's most likely to actually be reading is the one that I've read, "Men Without Women" — the Haruki Murakami one. There's also an Ernest Hemingway collection with the same title, and that's actually the audiobook I've been walking to this week. Excellent performance by Stacy Keach. Recommended!

"My heart is broken. You can give your kids everything they could ever want in their entire lives and they can still turn against you."

Wrote Tommy Lee, formerly the drummer for Mötley Crüe and formerly the husband of Pamela Anderson, the mother of the son who punched him in the mouth that looked brutally swollen in the photograph Lee captioned with that quote.

My reactions, in order:

1. After reading the quote out loud, I said, out loud, "Maybe you shouldn't have given him so much."

2. Maybe you should have given him something other that what you think is "everything [he] could ever want."

3. Lee is such an asshole to take his swollen lip out of context and whine about his relationship with his son to the world even as he is further damaging the relationship by disparaging the son and defaming him as violent. Tommy Lee himself has had violence problems. He spent 6 months in jail after pleading guilty to beating up Pamela Anderson. And the son — Brandon Lee, 21 — says that he hit his father in self-defense. So it's at least complicated. Don't take it public and hurt your own son in a self-serving effort to enlist fans on your side!

4. Was Lee influenced by the #MeToo movement, in which some women have successfully used photographs of injured faces to bolster their credibility? Most notably: "Rob Porter's ex-wife Colbie Holderness is pictured in a photo from 2005, when she says Porter gave her a black eye on a trip to Italy."

5. The incident happened right after Pamela Anderson did a TV interview and talked about the old abuse. It's possible that the dispute with the son was related to that. Perhaps the son intended to aggravate the father into doing something stupid that would elevate Anderson's story. But Brandon also defended himself with a punch (it seems) and that left a mark that enabled Tommy to make a social media move that's more commonly associated with women.

"In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy..."

"... how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest."

That journalistic encounter in Italy.

"[E]arlier in the week at the Venice festival, an Italian journalist stripped to his skivvies, declared himself gay and begged a clearly ticked-off [George] Clooney for a kiss. Ewan McGregor, who co-stars in Goats, told USA TODAY earlier in the day,'It was a waste of everyone's time, really. When you have these big press conferences ,the trouble is, that’s it. You get the half an hour, 45 minutes, and for a lot of journalists, that is it. I don’t know what his deal was. Later on, he was following him around in a boat. I saw him later." Perhaps he was inspired by Borat's stalking of Pam Anderson.'"

About that Pamela Anderson ad.

Has it been troubling you? Today's the last day, so if you don't want to see it anymore, you have only to wait a few hours. By the same token, this is your last chance to click through. It's not about sex, you know. It's about the welfare of chickens. (Image from the ad preserved here.)

Anyway, the click-through rate on that ad is so much higher than on any other ad I've run, it's pretty funny. It definitely got your attention. You know you ignore most of the ads.

Should I have rejected that ad?
	Yes.
	No.
pollcode.com free polls

Ben Stein hates Borat.

Let's see why. I should say first -- and before reading Stein's comments -- that I saw the movie a few weeks ago. Why didn't I write about it? I started to, actually, but never got past the first sentence. I liked the movie well enough, but I much prefer "Da Ali G Show," with its short Borat segment, mixed with just enough Ali G and Bruno. I'm happier with disjointed sketches than with a long, connected narrative. It must be the blogger in me. Really, I didn't need the narrative frame involving the cross country road trip and Pamela Anderson and so forth (although I took advantage of it in concocting a fact pattern for my Civpro2 exam). As for the little encounters that were stuck in the frame, I've seen many Borat segments on "Da Ali G Show" that were just as funny or funnier.

But let's see what Ben Stein says:

1.) The auteur and star of the movie, Sacha Baron Cohen, is a Jew of high degree in England and now in Hollywood. But much of the movie is viciously anti-Semitic. This includes not just some but many "jokes" about killing Jews, about how Jews are the devil, about how Jews will kill for money, about how Jews are like cockroaches (the last a direct steal from Joachim Goebbels, who compared Jews with breeding rats and insects). This is in a world where we just lived through an anti-Semitic holocaust with the same themes and another is promised by the terrorists in Iran.

These are not funny jokes. These are really just old-fashioned sickening racism disguised as hipness. It's also a smug joke by Sacha Cohen which is basically his endlessly saying, "I hate Jews, too, even though I'm Jewish, and hey, I guess I don't look Jewish because I can say all these horrible Jew hatred things and no one says, 'Hey, what are you doing? You're a Jew.'"

It's repulsive.

Clearly, Cohen means to lampoon anti-Semitism. You could say that it's ineffective, because there really is nothing to force anti-Semites to look critically at themselves and feel chastened. They can sit back and laugh heartily at the anti-Semitism.

I remember the first time I saw Andrew Dice Clay, before I heard all the outrage at his sexism. I thought he was brilliantly lampooning sexism. So I may not the best person to judge.

Back to Ben:

2.) Much of the movie is about Borat making fun of people who have been completely kind to him. This is just infantile and narcissistic oppositional disorder. It's also rude, and it's not very funny. Maybe it is if you are five.

Well, the key question is whether it's funny. But I can see feeling that it's wrong to laugh if he's being rude to people who are trying to be nice to him. But it's awfully straitlaced. All sorts of practical jokes and teasing are sort of mean. You could object to everything going back to "Candid Camera."

3.) Much of the story is mocking and belittling Southerners as a group....

It is a bit cheap to target Southerners.

4.) It has a genuinely nauseating mockery of a woman just because she happens to be black. Why aren't people getting upset about that? It's pure, unadulterated KKK type racism. You have to see it to believe it.

She happens to be a prostitute as well. Actually, I thought the movie got politically correct about the black woman. In the end, Borat goes back to her and marries her. It was more sympathetic than it needed to be. If anything, the movie targeted white men.

5.) Worst of all, it has acute mockery of Christians. There is a long scene mocking Christian fundamentalists, in which Borat makes cruel fun of the idea of Jesus as Savior...

I agree that this was a pretty cheap target. It wasn't so much Christians as rural Southern Christians.

A close friend who saw the movie the same night I did said, "It makes you laugh, but then you want to take a shower after you've seen it."

I think he's being way too prissy about it. What do you think? Is this just a matter of taste or is there a serious moral question here?

"I don't want my gobblegook nonsense 'Romantic' cathartic unstable keening published."

Writes Courtney Love in her book of gobblegook nonsense "Romantic" cathartic unstable keening that gets a pretty good review in the NYT today. The reviewer, Emily Nussbaum, confesses a fair amount of love for Love.

There was a moment — let’s say 1989, since that’s when I discovered her — when Courtney Love seemed like the solution to every girl’s problems. A brazenly feminist punk rocker with big hips and a sloppy grin, she was the first female celebrity in a long time who wasn’t embarrassed to take up space.

Nussbaum's right! I've long specialized in approving of Love when others are out to get her. Read my old posts:

Untitled. I regard Love's wild behavior on the Letterman show as an actor's performance, playing a character, and quote what she says about judges: "The thing about judges that's cool is they're a lot like rock stars. They just get their own damn way."

"About a girl." I tell you to leave her alone, as she attends "American Idol" with her beautiful daughter.

"Courtney and the Pamela Anderson Roast." Again I defend a wild performance that other people trash: "So the show was utter crapola but somehow everyone wrote about Courtney, because apparently it's so fun to attack her. Interestingly enough, it turned out that Courtney had the best control over how to do a celebrity roast right. Everyone was holding a drink and badly faking high spirits, but she outdid them all, convincingly displaying a roasty attitude. When it was her turn to speak, she did her part perfectly. She played the rocker who deigned to stop by to give Pamela real rock cred because she loved her. She did her lines and her moves and then she kissed Anderson's high-heeled foot. Well played, Courtney! Chez Althouse, we love you!"

Is it legal to fire a woman because her breasts are too large?

Here's a lawsuit charging sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal -- in the very particular case of a dancer hired for a role in an ensemble, whose breasts later became enlarged. It's the reverse of the story of the dancer in "A Chorus Line" who sings the song "Dance, Ten, Looks, Three," about not getting hired until she got herself enhanced. In this case, it should be noted, the dancer, Alice Alyse says she did not have surgery.

Musical theater is an entertainment outlet that routinely depicts women as sexpots, curvy dimwits and window dressing -- so if you believe Alyse's account, the hypocrisy is evident. Allegedly getting fired for the prudish-sounding sin of busting out of one's costume is even more surprising given that Tharp's all-dance spectacular bumps and grinds from start to finish. With Joel's rock-and-roll framing a Vietnam-era loss-of-innocence tale, the show ["Movin' Out"] rides on an orgy of go-go.

But the dance world doesn't necessarily view such firing decisions as hypocritical; they are merely business as usual. The Body Police enforce specifications that have nothing to do with the ability to perform. Some women have resorted to breast reduction to conform with the slim standards of ballet. Anastasia Volochkova, a leading ballerina at Moscow's Bolshoi Ballet, made headlines two years ago over a similar issue, when she was fired for being too fat (at a reported weight of 110 pounds). She sued for damages and was unsuccessful, though she did get her job back.

Alyse is fighting back with a $100 million lawsuit that names Tharp, the production stage manager and the show's producers among the defendants (though not Joel). And if the dollar amount weren't attention-getting enough, Alyse has hired onetime Washington gadfly Larry Klayman, a notoriously combative attorney who, judging from his record, relishes a scandal. Klayman, founder of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, became famous for suing the Clinton administration over numerous alleged coverups and conspiracies. More recently, he has taken on top Republicans, including Vice President Cheney, over his secretive energy task force.

Oh, that's rich! I really didn't expect to find Cheney in this article. Or Judicial Watch. Apparently, they're watching out for things watched more commonly than judges.

In the suit, [Klarman] reconstructs the alleged comments of production stage manager Eric Sprosty when he first saw Alyse outside the wardrobe fitting room after she returned to the show. Such as: "We hired you at a size C and now you're a [expletive] D!... You need to lose those boobs now!"

"He was screaming at me and I was apologizing," Alyse says of her run-in with Sprosty, her forehead crinkling at the thought. "I was being apologetic that I had boobs. I thought, 'I'm going to lose my job -- and I'm still skinny!' "

"It's a virtue to have bigger breasts on Broadway, in my expert opinion," Klayman observes one balmy evening, over dinner with Alyse at a seaside restaurant called Bongos.

Wait a second... I need to laugh....

Yet big breasts cannot truly be said to be a virtue for a dancer, unless her routine includes thigh-high boots and a pole. The Ziegfeldian hourglass shape has flattened out over time. On current stages, in the view of many directors and choreographers, a B cup might be just sexy enough, while a D may be too much. From ballet companies to Broadway, the preferred look is slender, long-stemmed and minimally jiggly. Especially when we're talking about fitting into a group, whether a kick line or the corps de ballet.

Yes, come on. It's distracting. It's an aesthetic judgment.

God forbid anyone should stick out. Prevailing theater wisdom warns that an ensemble dancer must not distract, and in many shows, that means buxom chorines no longer need apply. A D cup, according to Roberta Stiehm, a musical theater veteran, could commit the major no-no of pulling focus.

"I want to stick up for this girl," said Stiehm, a Maryland ballet and Pilates teacher who had featured roles in "Cats" and "A Chorus Line." "But I have to tell you, what if Pamela Anderson were a great dancer? You couldn't use her.

But good thing there are fancy lawyers willing to stick up for those who stick out.

Wow, this article goes on and on. Washington Post articles have a way of doing that. And how often do you get a chance at a subject like this? It's very complex, with lots of angles, and it's about big breasts!

But read to the end. The dancer is actually quite sympathetic.

Setting up a million "bust" jokes.

Pamela Anderson has taken arms against a bust:

Television star Pamela Anderson is leading a campaign to have the bust of Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Harland Sanders removed from the Kentucky state capitol.

In a letter to Gov. Ernie Fletcher, the former Baywatch star says suppliers for the fast food chain, now called KFC, engage in cruel and unusual treatment of chickens, including tearing the heads off of live birds, spitting tobacco into their eyes and spray-painting their faces.

Anderson wrote the letter with the help of People for the Ethical Treatment of animals. In a statement issued by PETA, Anderson said, "The bust of Colonel Sanders stands as a monument to cruelty and has no place in the Kentucky state capitol."

I'm sure PETA has its choice of celebrities whenever it launches a campaign. It's not as if Anderson is from Kentucky -- or even the South. She's not just northern, she's Canadian! I've got to think they deliberately sought publicity but cuing up the easist possible jokes -- comedy for dummies. It's a challenge, a taunt: Leno, we dare you to keep your hands off this bust!

Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism.

Atrios links to my post asking feminists to care about the sexual harrassment of women -- specifically in this case, me -- on the web:

I saw this the other day because my Google Desktop is for some reason obsessed with Ann Althouse. Waaah! Why won't feminists speak up for me!!! wahhh!

The underlying issue is, of course, a real one. Critics across the political spectrum (and of both genders) are quick to jump to use sexist and sexual language when criticizing women. Still, the "I can ignore it until it happens to me" game is annoying.

My question is why Atrios assumes I haven't been a feminist all along? Did he read enough of my work to make this assumption? It's quite wrong and offensive. I'd like him to prove to me now that it isn't the case that he's an example of the sort of person on the left who thinks that women who don't hew to liberal dogma deserve sexual harassment. These are the people who sold out feminism to protect Bill Clinton not so long ago. People of the left ought to see the need to prove to people like me that they actually care about feminism, as opposed to partisan politics, which, for Democrats, is concurrent with feminism often enough that they may imagine that their lack of real interest in feminism won't show. In my case, I don't care about partisan politics, but I do care about feminism, and I have a long record of writing to prove it.

Atrios, who doesn't deign to link to my blog as he discusses me, sets off a spate of comments that is now over 800. Let's see how his folks respond, and perhaps we can get a sense of how the left really processes feminism:

Feminism is OK in its place.

Feminism is OK in its place.
in the kitchen.

Feminism is OK in its place.
in the kitchen.
Hey, yeah! Fetch me an eclair!

"Remember back last February when Kevin Drum wrote about why there are so few women in political blogging?"
Because mainly ugly chicks and dudes are interested in politics. Pasty greasy faced (I saw the picture here and shivered in revulsion) fish belly white thighs and guts are not attractive.
That is why Pam Anderson can play a ditz and ROLL in cash.
Plus most Democrat women are real bow wows. One thing the Republicans have is a whole stable of hot blonde white women they can roll out for tv.
Who really wants to f**k her for her mind anyway?
But as an old black buddy of mine told me " Put a flag over her head and f**k her for old glory!
That's patriotism!

Hey, yeah! Fetch me an eclair!
You have to remove your pants first before I entertain that command.

Feminism is OK in its place.
So are Negroes. Once either gets uppity there's gotta be hell to pay.

but she looks like a man

It's pretty f**king awful to be a feminist, actually. You get called names by Rush Limbaugh and friends, you get to be ridiculed in the mainstream media and if the wingnut sources are anything to come by you are responsible for white women disappearing in Aruba, for the falling birthrate, for every divorce that has taken place and the demise of the Western civilization. You are even responsible for increased alcohol use among young women and male depression. In fact, you are pretty goddamnawful.
Yeah, but Echidne, every so often you get to use the Courts to beat the sons of bitches senseless and make them give you large amounts of money for having screwed you over. And that counts too.....

Well, I'm not one eighth of the way into Atrios's comments, and no one has shown up to beat back this sexist crap. Atrios managed to summon up worse misogynists than Charles Johnson did. I hope he's proud of his people.

Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care at all about feminism.

UPDATE: Atrios has now linked to this post, but he doesn't answer my questions and doesn't correct his false assumption that I have only recently adopted feminism and only to serve my personal interests. He doesn't condemn his despicable commenters. He just says I'm missing the "irony." Yes, yes, I lack an appropriate sense of humor. Sexist jokes galore, and I ought to just learn to laugh about it. He seems to lack a shred of sensibility about how pathetically retro-male chauvinist that is. I'll say it again: Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care at all about feminism.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Atrios (AKA Duncan Black) adds some more material his post that links to me:

...to answer Althouse's question, the reason I assumed that she hadn't "been a feminist all along" was because she wrote:

Are there any feminists around to see when it's happening and say a little something?

Meaning, quite clearly, that feminists are other people. Had she written, "as a feminist, I think it's important to point these things out" or something similar taking ownership of the label I (and proud feminist Echidne) wouldn't have responded the way I did.

That's a weak attempt at a close reading argument. If that were true, if I wrote "Doesn't anyone care?" it would mean that I didn't care. Both Edchidne and Black didn't pick up the allusion in the title of my post. "Can I get a feminist?" was meant to invoke "Can I get a witness?" Those who say "Can I get a witness?" are themselves also witnesses.

More from Black:

I of course haven't devoted my life to reading the entirety of Althouse's body of work, on her blog and elsewhere, though I certainly am no stranger to it. If Althouse would like to point me to something she's written which, for example, happened "say a little something" when it wasn't directed at her I'll happily make the correction.

I could send him three law review articles. Or I could spend three hours going back over the blog to put together the argument that I've consistently and frequently taken feminist positions on this blog. Or I could get affidavits from people who know me personally avowing to the fact that Althouse has been openly feminist as long as they've known her. What is this, discovery?

The point is that Black chose to make an assumption about me and assert something about me without checking it. I could shout triumphantly: Duncan Black doesn't fact check!

Or I could return his treatment in kind and assert: Duncan Black is an anti-feminist! Because I, of course, haven't devoted my life to reading the entirety of Duncan Black's body of work, on his blog and elsewhere, though I certainly am no stranger to it, but if Duncan Black would like to point me to something he's written which proves that he isn't an anti-feminist, I'll be glad to issue a correction.

Is that how we're doing assertions of fact about individuals now?

Black adds something that substitutes for chiding his commenters:

I agree that it's understandable if people find ironic jokes about racism or sexism genuinely inappropriate or offensive. Sometimes those jokes are almost indistinguishable from genuine racism and sexism, no matter the intent of the person making them, and I'm not going to tell people what should or shouldn't offend them.

That's the old sorry-if-you-were-offended faux apology. I'd like to ask Black to do one more thing. Compare the comments made after he did his post calling attention to me for crying about something with the comments made on the post he made one day earlier laughing at a Roger L. Simon for crying about something. I called attention to that post of his:

Atrios has unleashed the commenters on Roger. I can almost empathize. It's actually a good opportunity to compare the behavior of lefty and righty commenters. The lefties, in this sample, are all over the place, in "open thread" mode, despite the assigned topic.

The righty commenters referred to were those at Little Green Footballs, who were extremely viciously toward me in blatant sexual language. Now, we can see how the Atrios commenters acted in two similar situations, with the difference being the sex of the two chosen targets. Look at the difference, Duncan and all those of you who think the left adheres to feminist values.

I repeat: Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism.

IN THE COMMENTS: Commenters strain to distance Atrios from his vile comment thread: "Atrios can only do to his comments what Haloscan allows him to do. And when he has a dayjob and a blog and a family, there is only so much he can do when he is regularly gets 300+ comments to a post."

I answer:

You and others are missing the point. I am asking him to condemn the sexist comments, not monitor or censor everything. I'm asking him to show that he cares, that he is some sort of feminist. I'm just sick and tired of liberals and lefties who assume it's taken for granted that they care about feminism. Atrios is a channel for putrid sexist invective. It's irrelevant that the commenters had a smile on their face when they wrote it or think they are cute when they say it. Try living in the real world and speaking like that. It doesn't work. The fact is Atrios and his defenders are more interested in getting him off the hook than in looking to the infection of bigotry in their own house. Why is he not appalled that this is the "community" he's nurturing on his blog? My theory is he doesn't care about feminism, only his side of partisan politics. I'm calling him on that, and he and his defenders have yet to respond to that. The lack of response is in itself instructive. He doesn't care! Feminists, disaggregate yourself from these folks. Why don't you?

Take note of a serious rumor.

I wasn't going to mention it, but Eric Muller writes "I just got a hit to this blog via the google search 'Is Samuel Alito Jewish.'" Muller chuckles over what he's perceiving as one clueless Googler. But look at my Site Meter's ranking of recent search words. I've been getting numerous hits from "samuel alito jewish" and "alito jewish" in the last two days. Here are my current top hits:

36 ann althouse
27 althouse
11 samuel alito jewish
8 rapex
5 kate moss naked
4 therefore symbol
4 pamela anderson roast
4 ann althouse blog
4 althouse blog
3 seamus farrow
3 alito jewish
2 wsj photos halloween
2 tyler durden sunglasses
2 sexy comedy
2 sexplay
2 sam alito jewish
2 pajama media
2 oogle
2 let it be dvd
2 kate... naked
2 judge samuel alito
2 federalism
2 ann althouse wisconsin
2 "ann althouse"

Put my name aside, ignore my usual traffic over "kate moss naked" and the "therefore symbol" (what this blog is all about, right?), and you can see that the question whether Alito is Jewish is a web trend of the last 24 hours. There's a serious rumor churning up out there, I would guess. Where did it originate?

Courtney and the Pamela Anderson Roast.

I finally got around to watching the Pamela Anderson Roast I'd taken the trouble to TiVo. As you may remember, I wanted to watch it because of the fuss that was made over Courtney Love's behavior. Well, the show was excruciating, with second rate comics making one bad anatomical joke after another. It was supposedly a charity event for PETA – man, I remember when a politically correct operation like that would not sully itself with rank sexist material – and many, many of the jokes connected the kind of animals PETA cares about with the animal names that are used as slang for a woman's genitalia. So the show was utter crapola but somehow everyone wrote about Courtney, because apparently it's so fun to attack her. Interestingly enough, it turned out that Courtney had the best control over how to do a celebrity roast right. Everyone was holding a drink and badly faking high spirits, but she outdid them all, convincingly displaying a roasty attitude. When it was her turn to speak, she did her part perfectly. She played the rocker who deigned to stop by to give Pamela real rock cred because she loved her. She did her lines and her moves and then she kissed Anderson's high-heeled foot. Well played, Courtney! Chez Althouse, we love you!

UPDATE: Putting Pam and Courtney side-by-side made me want to spin out an analysis similar to the comparison between Jackie Kennedy and Liz Taylor in "Jackie Under My Skin" (by Wayne Koestenbaum). You have two icons and one is pure and idealized, the other is tainted and dirtied. In the Pam/Courtney comparison, both represent sexuality and self-indulgence, but Pam has some how made what was dirty into something utterly polished and glossy – essentially fulfilling the Playboy dream. Courtney is the real-life version of sexual indulgence: this is what trying to live that fantasy will really make you look like. Well, now I'm thinking of another book.

Looks like the Celebrity Roast of Pamela Anderson is a must-TiVo.

And not because of Pam. Because of Courtney:

With Ms. Love thrashing around, it can be hard to remember that it is Ms. Anderson's night. Smoking cigarettes, Ms. Love heckled the comedians and flipped people off, regularly flashing her underwear and pulling up her top. When not lurching toward center stage in raw bids for attention, she slumped so far down in a white sofa that some of the male comedians - particularly the M.C., Jimmy Kimmel - appeared to prop her up. Toward the end of the roast, she reclined entirely.

"How is it possible that Courtney Love looks worse than Kurt Cobain?" the comic Jeffrey Ross asked. Is that line even legal?

But when people joked about Ms. Love's history of substance abuse, she would respond slurrily, "I've been sober for a year!"

"If you're not on drugs," Mr. Kimmel shot back at one point, "you've got problems."

In other Courtney news. She didn't commit suicide. She failed a drug test. And she's got a new boyfriend, to whom she wrote:

“It’s so weird and wrong and good and sweet and evil being with you…You are beautiful my little baby and by the way, I love you too.”

We love you too, Courtney! Good luck!

Actresses 'n animals.

Two items from SF Gate:

1. "Emmy-winning actress Drea de Matteo is so concerned about the treatment of animals when they fly, she wants to start up her own airline for pets. ... 'We wanna have an airline called Pet Jet. My boyfriend wants to do that. We looked into it. No one else is doing it. I wanna do it.'" Imagine that! No one else is doing it!

2. "Animal lover Pamela Anderson [is] urging Queen Elizabeth II to banish the bear pelt hats her guards wear. .. PETA pal Stella McCartney has already got active on the back of the new campaign -- she has offered to design new hats for the guards, providing samples of fake fur to the Ministry of Defense, which is considering the switch."

Checking in with Tommy.

I read the the NYT "Fashion & Style" article about Tommy Lee. Here's a list of things I learned:

Why the spousal abuse that made Pamela Anderson call the police and led him to plead guilty wasn't, per Tommy, really as bad as you might think: he was wearing Ugg slippers when he kicked her.

What jail was like for Tommy: as a celebrity, he was put in "a K-10, a keep-away ... so you're ... in solitary, basically, for months."

What Tommy said to himself while in solitary confinement: "I'm going to take advantage of the silence in prison and just chill and check in with Tommy."

Name of the memoir that emerged from his period of reflection, which is also the name of his house: "Tommyland."

Additional product of his voyage of personal transformation, because a memoir is no longer enough for a celebrity of a certain dimension: a six-part network reality show, in which he goes to college at the University of Nebraska.

How the NYT indicates that the word Tommy Lee just used was not "dating": "the term he used was a bit more brusque."

Crude expression the Times doesn't mind using: "the career is in the toilet."

Person Tommy is considering working with who has toilet problems of his own: Lenny Kravitz.

Quote from a professor: "You lose whatever identity you have and become an appendage of Pam Anderson, or an appendage of all the infinite references to your name. You become the empty center of all those references."

Quote from Tommy: "I was like, dude, I've done it all. There's really nothing else to do. I mean, unless they come out with something new I haven't tried. Which I doubt."