Moral Turgidity: Is Laura Ingraham a Slut?

Self-righteousness is the most shameless slut of all.
– Mason Cooley (b. 1927), U.S. aphorist.
City Aphorisms, Seventh Selection, New York (1990).

I’ve been offline involuntarily for a couple of days while an endless parade of trucks paraded down the street, disgorging men who climbed poles, unhooked wires, then another truck to remove the dead tree, then more trucks to reconnect the wires @ one truck per wire. The last truck, the high speed DSL truck, came yesterday and saw that the wire had already been taken down, and left. (Using that famous stealth knock, evidently, that is reserved for when you’re home all day and when you finally get to the door, there is a door-hanger saying they’d been here but nobody was home.)

Thus, I was unprepared for a very shaken Ed Schultz apologizing profusely for saying that his comments on Laura Ingraham were, variously, beyond the pale, lower than low, awful, terrible, etcetera and he begged for forgiveness. He invoked every reasonable touchstone of “exhibiting remorse” and then went off the air for some unspecified amount of time.

Very strange. Except, I had no idea WHAT those comments might have been. Sounded awful, though. But with no email or phone access, I would have to wait until this afternoon to find out what those HORRIBLE, INEXCUSABLE comments were.

But let the kerfluffers kerfluff the mainstream media. I know THEY’LL have premature ejaculations with all this prurience porn, whatever it is.

You know, sometimes I wonder how it is that you can dish out hatred, slander and low chops virtually 24/7/365 and THEN get the vapors over the slightest little thing. For instance, Michelle Malkin started SCREAMING about Ed’s “misogyny” (suggesting that was what the “M” in MSNBC stood for) while blissfully defending the assassination of physicians who provide abortions, while applauding the draconian measures taken in attacks on women’s choice that have been launched in 49 of 50 state legislatures this year, and have already produced the South Dakota law, perhaps the most draconian abortion law to lift its hideous head since the middle ages. But she can. Listen [emphasis added]:

Note the book she’s promoting. An actual book.

More misogyny at MSNBC: Neanderthal host attacks Laura Ingraham as a “slut;” Update: Schultz off air one week, apologizes

By Michelle Malkin • May 25, 2011 11:52 AM

In January, I published “The progressive ‘climate of hate:’ An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.”
Review it here.

Part IV was a section on anti-conservative female hate, with tons of links on the sexist rhetoric of the Left.
You’ll recall that the “M” in MSNBC stands for misogyny.

Here’s a new entrant in the race to the bottom, from syndicated radio host and MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz, via Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney:

ED SCHULTZ (02:52): And what do the Republicans thinking about? They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.

Listen:

The rant is from Schultz’s radio show, which is syndicated by Dial Global.
MSNBC’s parent company is NBC. NBCUniversal runs a women’s corporate initiative – Women @ NBCUniversal – billed as a “powerful combination of media assets reaching women across multiple platforms. This content and marketing initiative creates custom solutions for advertisers to connect with this desirable demographic through NBCUniversal brands, including Oxygen, iVillage, Bravo, TODAY as well as other female-skewing NBCUniversal programs.”
Email women @ nbcuni.com

And so forth.

Oh noes! Godwin’s Law! Godwin’s Law!

Here is the NBC/Universal statement in all its minimalist glory:

25 May 2011 5:51 PM
STATEMENT FROM MSNBC REGARDING ED SCHULTZ:

MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program. Ed will address these remarks on his show tonight, and immediately following begin his leave. Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

A Short Quizzical Interlude

How buses are made

Do you know what a “crime of moral turpitude” is? We turn to Wikipedia:

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.” It appears in U.S. immigration law from the nineteenth century. In other common law jurisdictions it is dated or obsolete.

The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” The specific acts that such a concept includes inevitably change over time, as general public acceptance or abhorrence of issues alters; for example, until recent times, a man engaged in homosexual behavior was still considered as engaging in “criminal behavior involving moral turpitude.”

The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude has significance in several areas of law. First, prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude (or in some jurisdictions, moral turpitude conduct, even without a conviction) is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may be used for purposes of witness impeachment. Second, moral turpitude offenses may be grounds to deny or revoke a professional license such as a teaching credential, license to practice law, or other licensed profession. Third, it is of great importance for immigration purposes, as offenses which are defined as involving moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into the U.S.

Colson today, preaching Jeezis and No Taxes

Now, the irony in this is that felons are regularly embraced by the Right wing kerfluffing crowd: Dick Morris (prostitute toe sucking), Oliver North (felonies reversed on a technicality), Geraldo Rivera (crimes against journalism), G. Gordon Liddy (convicted felon burglar, did hard time), Charles Colson (conspiracy to commit Watergaiety, also did hard time), George W. Bush (felony drunk driving, the first occupant of the White House to bring a felony in with him, but, alas, not nearly the first to leave his putative station trailing a string of felonies behind him), Senator David Vitter (hookers, diaper; reelected by the people of Louisiana, who, evidently find “values” candidates consorting with prostitutes for kinky sex as not an impediment to serving in the United States Senate — perhaps rightly so), Don Imus (nappy headed ho’s) formerly on MSNBC and now on FOX Business doing exactly what he’d been doing before) and so on and so forth.

For a bunch who insist on forgiving some of the most unrepentant criminals in the land, it seems odd that they would so singly-mindedly attempt to revive the fainting couch industry. (Hint: it was the corsets. Wear them, and you can literally get the vapors at moments apt and unapt.)

Not only not a slut, but teaching “abstinence-only”
for quick cash to support her single motherhood
— and plastic surgery and Phoenix house and …

“Slut.” Hoo boy.

I will deal with the actual meaning of the term below, but I want to get something off my chest about a couple of things that have bugged me about American politics ever since I was a wee Cub Scout in Laramie:

Fifth Grade Hartwork

First, how come the ne plus ultra of American politics is either the phony gotcha game of once you said it (and WE get to cut the sentence, like the Netanyahoo kerfluffing of Obama’s statement about the “1967 borders” neatly forgetting exactly what he himself proposed to a joint session of Congress) you can’t never take it back?

Shit, kids, we take making fun of people’s names to a level not often seen above the second grade in a particularly nasty elementary school.

Soemhow, as adults, it’s made a comeback in public policy and politics on a titanic scale — emphasis on “Titanic.”

Really? With all the dead people and the looting of the treasury by “privatization” contractors, and the recession and the jobless rate, making fun of names, and making “sly” aspersions reflexively (like, say, “Democrat Party,” “leftist,” “libtards,” “libs,” “liberals”) and regularly assigning ALL members of the class mental infirmity is not how adults approach serious life and death governance.

There are ENDLESS websites that reformulate and repeat Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” (Check it out sometime. Start with “Confederate Yankee.” )

But THAT’S OK, I guess, because it’s not “sexist.”

Or the continual, implicit argument that Republikkklans aren’t treating Obama with RACIST slurs. Why, hell, they’d slur ANYbody in the White House who isn’t a Republikkklan!

Oh. That’s all right, then. The idea was NEVER that you behaved like an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan towards EVERYBODY — which makes it an egalitarian kind of hatred and dehumanization — but, rather, that you NEVER behaved that way towards ANYBODY.  Or consider this:

If government is so big and awful, then why do you waste all your time in kindergarten posturing? (I mean YOU, righties.) Shouldn’t you spend your every waking minute PROTECTING the people from Big, Bad Gum’mint? Hmmmm.

A vast slander of talk radio and other twitterature bumperstickers the land with gutter slander. But you know, Ed Schultz said “slut.”

Oh sweet lawdy lawdy good gracious me oh my oy oy praise the lord allaha saladbar! He said A DIRTY WORD!

Feeding the imps

You know they’re blithely oblivious to and invulnerable to criticism when “Patient Alpha” of this blogswarm, the primary vector of diseased transmission, Brian something-or-other, the “Radio Equalizer” BEGINS the kerfluffing with this headline:

25 May 2011

Libtalker Ed Schultz Uses Vulgarity To Attack Conservative Host

DEPRAV-ED

MSNBC’S Schultz: Laura Ingraham’s ‘A Slut’

He continues:

Bye-bye, Ed Schultz.

We’ll especially miss your gigantic ego, unending rage and all-around delightful personality. Will Comcast tolerate this kind of behavior from one of its cable hosts, particularly on top of so many past antics?

From yesterday’s syndicated radio program:

ED SCHULTZ (02:52): And what do the Republicans thinking about? They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.

It was fun while it lasted. See ya.

Seriously, when you’re accusing someone else of disrespecting someone else, isn’t a tone of utter contempt and hostility just the wee tiniest bit oxymoronic?

(And note that I’m not checking the context, but am, instead, foolishly accepting the transcript at face value.)

Hell, ain’t it moronic, per se?

Mistranslation alert! “Lean Forward” supposed to read as “Bend Over”

I could cite the hateful glee of the unkind kindergarteners (the garden being poison trees), at endless length. Someone facebook’d my friend Tyrees this schadenfreudey glee:

I just got a snarky private message from a republican friend of mine asking me why I haven’t commented on the Ed Schultz thing.

It is a religion of slander, and it begins in earnest when Ronald Reagan’s Administration gets the “Fairness Doctrine” deep-sixed all the while pooh-poohing “wild, exaggerated” fears of what Rush Limbaugh became beginning in 1987. Name calling is a substitute for debate; slander and personal derogation a substitute for ever actually hearing what the opposition is saying.

But, you know, Ed Schultz said “slut.”

OHMIGOD! OMG! OMG! LOL! OMG! ROTFL! OMG! ROTFLMAO! SCHULTZ SAID ‘SLUT’!

Sometimes I am embarrassed to live in a society entirely free of adult supervision. It seems as though the entire playground is the dark corner where the teachers can’t see.

Today, they’re kicking Ed Schultz. Yesterday, it was Helen Thomas, and Keith Olbermann, and Dan Rather, and Don Imus, and David Weigel, and Al Michaels. The typical craven corporate pussying out, throwing anybody under the bus, rather than face the slightest criticism, showing a spinelessness that would impress a jellyfish. Like the Proctor & Gamble logo that was “Fundamentalist Conspiracy Theoried” out of existence.

(Gee. You’d think that Progressives would notice just how craven advertisers on Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are, and USE that same pusillanimous mechanism to cleanse our fouled airwaves, wouldn’t you? Naw.)

Oh, wait. Al Michaels quietly vanished. Then, when the smoke cleared he was back. Just like Dick Morris, a political advisor to Bill Clinton before the prostitute thing, and then magically reborn as a Rightie Tightie, inveighing against all Liberals and gratefully licking the boots of his new Masters at Faux Nooz.

And you probably don’t remember when Air America Radio was trying to make it against the near-monopoly of Clear Channel and Cumulus Broadcasting, how Mike Malloy was booted from the lineup over a similar case of the Rightie vapors. Of course, if you don’t recognize the symptoms by this time, you are probably reading this blog in Braille.

Dick Morris makes a calm, rational point at the Tea Party Patriots convention

But, if you doubt that my “take” on the sophistication of the national conversation veers anywhere near to the truth, consider this headline, picked at random from Google News’ front page a minute ago:

Mark Zuckerberg kills goats
Posted on May 27th 2011 by Emma Woollacott
TG Daily

That’s adults soberly assaying the challenges of a serious life. Fer sure. Fer sure.

Have some more poison, the serpent hissed hypnotically

And the other — bipartisan — thing that I can’t stand is the pornography of prudery.

That word “turgid” isn’t in the title by accident, or by afterthought. Consider what “turgidity” means:

World English Dictionary
turgid

— adj
1. swollen and distended; congested
2. (of style or language) pompous and high-flown; bombastic

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Word Origin & History

turgid
1620, from L. turgidus “swollen, inflated,” from turgere “to swell,” of unknown origin. Fig. use in reference to prose is from 1725.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Well, that’s what it is in both its dictionary and Freudian senses: there is something hysterically sexual about the prudish shriek; if phony self-righteous outrage were Viagra®, most of these clowns would be at least ten years past the “call your doctor” four hours of insistent turgidity.

Because what we constantly end up dealing with is the pornography of prudery, as the New York Post website is replete with bikini and semi-nude shots of famous actresses, and the Fox News website always has a generous gallery of beauty pageant photos, hot teachers who are accused of sex with students, and the obligatory pornography of gruesome crime: from Jon Benet Ramsey to little whats-her-name whose “party girl” mother is accused of murder, accuses her father of abuse, etc. or is a white girl missing in Aruba. Or O.J. Or whatever.

The question is not moral turpitude: it is the moral turgidity of those who revel in defining “turpitude.”

And somehow, Ed’s “slut” is the basis of a long, humiliating apology, a suspension, and the yowling of the howler monkeys of the “civilosphere.”

Here, watch as the “feminist” point of view is dragooned into condemning Ed Schultz for the Washington Post, somehow equating Laura Ingraham’s genital plumbing with the treatment of women, while discounting Laura Ingraham’s political positions in advocating the subjugation of women. The specialized turgidity of moral outrage*.

(* If your moral turgidity lasts for more than four hours, call your doctor immediately, as this may be a dangerous condition and can lead to permanent damage. In rare cases, sudden loss of conscience and soul may occur. If this continues, discontinue moral abuse and call your Proctologist immediately.)

The Washington Post‘s Pissed penperson posts:

Posted at 04:50 PM ET, 05/25/2011

Laura Ingraham, Ed Schultz, and ‘right-wing sluts’
By Alexandra Petri

I seldom listen to Ed Schultz. Life is too short, and I have Starbucks cake-pops to eat.

But recently he called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a slut on the air. His exact words were, “this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut.” As Mediaite points out, “talk slut” in no way improves on the phrase “right-wing slut.”

And in general, calling people sluts is not a good idea, even in the sense that one sometimes calls people cabs — “Oh, it’s past 8:00 p.m.; we should contact Mark.”

And if you want to be taken seriously, don’t use slurs in your political discourse. True, who wants to be taken seriously now? All we want is viewers and listeners. “I advise you strongly to land on the sun,” we say, racistly, donning capes that reveal our manly or womanly endowments and allowing people to hit us in the face with pies on our book covers. Anything for our Public!

by Hart Williams © 7-3-2010

“Racistly”? Even as a coinage, it’s zinc. But note the “I shall condescend to lower myself to THAT level and impart my deathless wisdom. Sniff. Sniff.” Or, as in Ian Anderson’s* lyrics to Jethro Tull’s  “Thick as a Brick” (*Gerald “Little Milton” Bostock was a character, not a real person):

I’ve come down from the upper class to mend your rotten ways.
My father was a man-of-power whom everyone obeyed.
So come on all you criminals! I’ve got to put you straight
just like I did with my old man — twenty years too late.

But we return to our text:

But besides the general degradation of discourse, there’s more at work here. Why would he pick this word in the first place?

Slut is not a gender-neutral term, yet. In spite of all the Slut Walks proclaiming that You Can Do What You Want And Wear What You Want And Society Shall Not Label You — which, really, didn’t anyone think this through beforehand?

[...]

And even were the word cut free of the misogynistic baggage, it doesn’t belong in the context of civilized political discourse — or what passes for it on the Ed Schultz Show.

If you are attacking someone’s politics, no need to be ad hominem, or ad womanem. Just make your case.

By Alexandra Petri | 04:50 PM ET, 05/25/2011 [sic Yeah. Redundant, I know.]

ha ha

Hahaha. So damned clever. And one wonders what hideous event must have put this woman in a coma she just now awakened from. “I don’t listen to his show, because my life is so important.” and “what passes for civil discourse” with the neat, elite, so effete little implication that the man she doesn’t listen to is a pig, anyway, and really, isn’t it awful SWELL that she should descend from her pedestal for but a moment to favor the Unwashed Ed Schultz with a precious pearl of wisdom that he really can’t understand ANYWAY, poor dear, and isn’t there something awfully morally TURGID about inflating one’s self-importance to Deity-like levels to Pronounce Judgment from On High?

THAT is the moral turgidity I am speaking about. The grand turgidity aroused and stroked lovingly by the kerfluffers until, in a high dudgeon of  Imperative Morality, the Grand Ejaculation of Common (or, rather, UNcommon) Wisdom can glacé the upturned visages so gratefully awaiting it?

It is the pornography of prudery.

Remember this?

moral turpitude
English

Noun
moral turpitude (uncountable)
depravity
(law) Any base or vile conduct, contrary to accepted morals, that accompanies a crime

To the crime of slander and lazy understanding of the World at Large, moral turgidness equals (although it is never spoken) moral turpitude.

intensely kerfluffing nothing

End of Quizzical Interlude (rhyme intentional, albeit not conventional.)

Which brings us to the fatuously right-wing media critic of the Baltimore Sun, who does what Andrew Malcolm does for the LA Times, only with the excuse of reviewing Television and suchlike:

MAY 25, 2011

MSNBC suspends Schultz – But is it enough?

Issues of ugly and unflammatory rhetoric continue to dog MSNBC even as it appears the cable channel is trying to move toward the center following its takeover by Comcast.

Wednesday night, MSNBC announced that talk-show host Ed Schultz would be suspended for one week without pay starting Thursday for calling conservative commentator Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” on his radio show Tuesday.

Here’s the statement from the cable channel: “MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpiad leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program…. Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

The action came after conservative groups and at least one women’s group denounced Schultz for the remarks and called on MNBC, which operates as part of NBC News, to make it clear that such language was unacceptable.

This is not the first time Schultz has said something coarse, crude, ugly and offensive. In September, he was reprimanded by the channel for calling New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie a “cold-hearted fat slob.”

Editorial comment: WHOO! That’s so COLD!! (Where was this outrage when Donald Trump called either all Chinese or the Chinese leadership “motherfuckers”? Seriously. No sense of proportionality, of course. Charlie Manson always equals your grandma, since both have four limbs, two eyes, ears, nostrils and committed crimes. Charlie you know about; your grandma once got a parking ticket. That’s ALWAYS the equation, friends, compare categories, rather than quantities or qualities. Thus can a mouse best an elephant, because (throwing aside size) the mouse’s tail is longer, his teeth sharper and he can move faster.

Sure, in a world of flying pigs.  The Critic continues:

See that in the video above. But the “slut” remark is far nastier and loaded with gender issues that suggest Schultz needs counseling — or a new job where his inability to control his impulses and tongue don’t offend mass audiences.

Jeebus. In a world of Rush Limbaughs, this ASSHOLE can unselfconsciously make such a bullshit armchair diagnosis and nobody bats an eye? This buffrontery is given a pass, but the thus-far innocuous comments of Ed Schultz (sorry, I haven’t heard no fightin’ words thus far. Crass, perhaps. But not the kind of acid bile that drips from the honeyed tongues of a thousand Rightie Talk Show hosts each and every day. When was the last time you heard a rightie talker apologize for ANYTHING? Or admit to being wrong about … anything?  The Baltimoron continues:

There is something else that I find problematic: The statement that he volunteered to take a week without pay. Doesn’t this sound like the chronic abuser who loses control and is then contrite and asks for a some form of punishment that will allow him to symbolically atone without really being punished by banishment?

Schultz has anger management issues, and there really is no place for a guy like this in live media — or any kind of media.

MSNBC once tried to bottle and package the kind of partisan rage Schultz exhibits. But it’s clearly not being controlled effectively.

Let’s hope the adults from Comcast now running this place see the problem and deal with it in a socially responsible manner.

Posted by David Zurawik at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (106)
Categories: MSNBC

This is just chilling. What I’m going to tell you next week  about rightie power grabs of still more media outlets ought to curdle your blood. But the opportunity to attack any “leftist” who strays from perfection has proven too delectable not to savor like a fine wine, like, say Thunderbird. (Thursday? That was a good day. Ahh, the bouquet!)

Kansas

The Pulse-Pounding,  Senses-Shattering  Über-Finale

(drops at midnight PDT. At 6,000 words, this was just a bit too long.)

[part ii is here: Moral Turgidity: Is Laura Ingraham a Slut? (conclusion) ]

Courage.

About these ads

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Moral Turgidity: Is Laura Ingraham a Slut?

  1. Mac McFadden

    I’m generally not in favor of name calling, but from my point of view Ed’s main problem was that he was inaccurate.
    I didn’t check with Noah Webster, but as I recall the definition:
    “slut”: a woman who f*cks (a lot) for pleasure
    (a man who does the same is a “stud”)

    Laura Ingraham is a media professional.
    She does what she does for MONEY.
    There is a different word for that.

    Mac

  2. Pingback: Moral Turgidity: Is Laura Ingraham a Slut? (conclusion) | his vorpal sword

  3. ZBK

    Laura is just another media slut with a stinkin pussy just like all the bitchez on tv.