Oh, she plays softball….

wsjkagancover

When asked why they chose to run a 17 year old photo of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan playing softball on their front page, editors of the Wall Street Journal said, somewhat mater-of-factly, “Because we didn’t have a picture of her fucking a woman.”

Of course they didn’t really say that. But the implication was clear. They used a photo of our Solicitor General playing softball because it was the easiest way to make her sexuality an issue while still maintaining plausible deniability. Some, if you can believe it, seem to really think that it was unintentional. I guess they think it’s common practice to run 17 year old photos of people on the front page. But it seems pretty obvious to me. I haven’t attempted it yet, but I think that you’d be hard-pressed to go back a year and find the Wall Street Journal using a 17 year old photo of someone who didn’t either die or go missing 17 years ago. And how often do they show potential justices engaged in sports? On that subject, there was a great quote from Cathy Renna today at Politico:

“It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It’s just too easy a punch line,” said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant. “The question from a journalistic perspective is whether it’s a descriptive representation of who she might be as a judge. Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?”

And, as long as we’re discussing this, does anyone remember back, as Rupert Murdoch was preparing to buy the Wall Street Journal, how people said that he wouldn’t drag the historic paper down into the muck with FOX News? Well, guess what?

And, for what it’s worth, I hope she is a lesbian – a giant one – and I hope the next time there’s an opening on the high court that Obama appoints her lesbian lover, and I hope that they wear rainbow robes, make out while court is in session, and together seduce the cold and hollow wives Thomas, Alito and Roberts. And, I hope those sessions are videotaped and shown to school children across the nation as a part of a coordinated gay recruitment initiative. And, I hope it’s wildly successful – so wildly successful, in fact, that no human babies are ever born again, and we can be done with this whole mess once and for all, leaving the world for the dolphins to destroy.

[Tonight’s post is dedicated to all of you right wing brothers out there.]

This entry was posted in Media, Other, Politics, Rants, sex and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

25 Comments

  1. Posted May 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    I enjoyed this post. I would more than thrilled if she did happen to be gay. It will bring some much needed diversity in the perspectives currently present on the court.

  2. dragon
    Posted May 12, 2010 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Well, that’s the least of her offenses. She apparently went to a picnic, and according to an eye witness, “scrinkled her nose” at a grill full of bratwurst.
    But in her defense, Eliot Spitzer has first hand knowledge of a ‘college buddy’ who got to third base with her and let him smell his finger. So there’s that. What to think, what to think.

  3. EOS
    Posted May 12, 2010 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    I’ve read in several places where they speculated that she might be a lesbian. Then I read that Obama’s administration strongly denied that she was. But, since seeing the photo, I’m sure she is not. A real lesbian would never need to choke up on the bat!

    Really, the whole media deal about her sexual preference is a manipulation to demonize anyone who might not support her. It’s not like we haven’t already had homosexual justices. The real issue is how she interprets the constitution and whether she supports the slaughter of the weakest and most vulnerable people in our country.

  4. Posted May 13, 2010 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Colbert had a bit about this the other night, and the legal expert from Salon.com pointed out that there have been several “suspiciously single” older women and men on the court recently– Sotomayor and Souter, for example (though Sotomayor is divorced). If that’s all the lunatic fringe has got to go on….

  5. Knox
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    EOS, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the Obama administration is behind the placement of the photo, as they want for the discussion to be about her sexual orientation? How does that work exactly? Does Obama call Murdoch and tell him what to run on his front page?

  6. EOS
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    No, No, ? , No

  7. Rex
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Mark, your pro-dolphin agenda is really starting to make me question your objectivity.
    Everyone knows that dolphins kill porpoises for fun and will rape and torture anything they can get close to.

  8. the injector
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    oh, and the word strapped is conveniently placed next to the pic…now I keep picturing her in whitey tighties with a giant strap on and a baseball bat.
    and the ‘plug’ placement –shit. maybe, i just have a naughty sex toy mind.

    nice post; made me laugh out loud.

  9. Edward
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    I agree with EOS that Obama is behind this, and that it’s all part of his plan to kill more babies.

  10. Tim
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Today’s WSJ front page has a dolphin with a mullet playing softball.

  11. Oliva
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    I sincerely enjoyed this post too and think the passionate unleashed emotion of the last paragraph is special indeed. Made me smile and be grateful!

  12. T Whale
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Obama wanted Rosie O’Donnell, but she was busy.

  13. 2 Cents
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    This made me smile and laugh out loud! It was a great way to end a crazy week!

  14. Alice
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The week’s not over yet.

    And I think the dolphins would fuck things up too, if given the chance.

  15. Peter Larson
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court’s sole function is to kill babies.

  16. Robert
    Posted May 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    I like that they used a 17 year old picture. I wish it was even older. We shouldn’t ever have to look at anyone older than 40 unless they are unusually hot.

  17. Posted May 13, 2010 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    We need to figure out a way to make lifelike robotic babies before our population begins to plummet due to gayness. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will have none to kill.

  18. Jules
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    That last paragraph is my favorite of everything I’ve ever read on your blog.

  19. ko
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Hilarious. I never write comments, but the end of the world as imagined here makes me almost wish it might happen its so funny!

  20. Schneb
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Just gotta say I think it’s a nice pic–it has me thinking, she’s a regular person–I might not like her legal philosophy, or maybe I would, but I’d probably be glad to find out her kid was in my kid’s class–going to school functions might not be so bad if you were sitting next to her. Or whatever. At the very least, based on this pic, I am fairly certain she’s not going to turn to be Cheney’s duck hunting partner, or suddenly blurt out that something about a pubic hair on her beverage container. That’s a good starting point for deciding whether she’d be a good s.c.j. I’m with you as far as the WSJ being just another Murdoch rag and running this pic with a the intent of discrediting her, but I think it’ll backfire.

  21. Chris
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    ok, I know you know this but….gay people have babies too. Regardless, that is some damn fine writing my friend. Rainbow robes LOL

  22. Chris
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    the other day my friend remarked, “because she is clearly gay”. I was offended by this, but was stumped regarding a reprimand as my friend is a lesbian.

  23. GayGuys'Baby
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Chris, why would you want to reprimand somebody for calling a person “gay”?
    Offensive? I don’t understand your comment.

  24. genericreg
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    I love you, Mark Maynard.

  25. Chris
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Hey Gayguy’s baby, if you’re still out there. It was offensive bc she was assuming someone’s (Kagan’s) sexual preference, as per the content of Mark’s post. So, um, no, I do not have a problem with the adjective “gay”, just the apropos of nothing (save that of a stereotype)assumption of someone’s sexuality.

    I do, however, have a problem with your seeming lack of reference material (again, Mark’s post) when making a knee jerk comment at my expense. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative VG 3D