Travesty Alert!

If I subscribed to either the Washington Post or Entertainment Weekly I'd be canceling both this week. Washington Post, I am retroactively rescinding every Pulitzer you have ever received. (See, also, rescission of any credit for progressive change previously achieved from Ralph Nader after the 2000 election.)


Not only, Washington Post, did you publish the editorial "Women Aren't Very Bright" (now with bonus anti-Latino racism!) which was both misogynist and so mind-bendingly idiotic in every possible way that even National Review criticized it, you actually tried to pull the "jeez, why can't girls take a joke" maneuver.



Perhaps I should not be surprised, Washington Post editorial board, that you thought publishing this excrement was a great idea given that you clearly do not understand such concepts as "satire" and "provocative." Allow me to explain.



1. SATIRE: It's not satire if the person saying it actually believes it. Would you publish an op-ed by David Duke claiming non-white people are stupid and try to pass it off as satire? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say no. Charlotte Allen works for an anti-feminist organization that thinks women should not have equal rights because they are inferior to men. She wrote an editorial for you saying women are inferior and, in case you missed it, smearing both presidential candidates who favor equal rights for women, and taking a bonus dig at Latino voters in Texas. She's not kidding, therefore, it's not a joke. (Also, jokes are generally funny.) The fact that think you can play this off as satire demonstrates that either you have no idea who is writing on a given topic that you are putting in millions of newspapers and cannot use Google, or that you, too, think women are stupid.



2. PROVOCATIVE: Once again, WP Editorial Board, you've got two choices. Are you too stupid to live independently? Or are you bigots? "Intended to provoke not offend?" Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell me? Particularly in the context of a newspaper's op-ed page, provocation has a particular meaning: to be provocative, a piece needs to challenge readers to re-examine common assumptions and uh, provoke actual thought. Sexism and racism aren't provocative, they are the default assumptions and staus quo of our society. Printing a sexist and racist op ed isn't provocative, it's sexist and racist. It doesn't make you brave, or transgressive, or a champion of uncomfortable truth, it makes you bigots, and assholes. While it's always good times to be reminded of both how much my culture hates me and how totally acceptable it is to be openly misogynist, the only thing this article provoked was an intense desire to kick John Pomfret. Repeatedly. In the crotch. With cowboy boots on.



Read it and weep:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992_pf.html



And now on to the sins of Entertainment Weekly. Characters on TV shows that you'd like to date? Excellent fluff, EW, and you very appropriately included V. Mars and Logan. However, how could you include "Men of the West Wing" and leave out Toby? Did you not see the episode where he ranted about the First Amendment, the one where he knew how many words were in the Gettysburg Address, or the pilot in which he smacks down fake Jerry Falwell? I'm pretty sure his defense of affirmative action was the closest thing to porn I've ever seen on network television for heaven's sake! Do you want to tempt the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing EW? DO YOU? Then I think a correction is in order.

I still miss Veronica Mars:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20181731_16,00.html