. Today's Drudge Report contains two seemingly unrelated
that I discovered, by accident, to be strangely connected. One has to
do with the flap about Lindsay Lohan's letter to the family of Robert
Altman. A news story yesterday
The 20-year-old actress, who scored a
part in Altman's last movie, A Prairie Home Companion, made the
interesting decision to go public with a condolence letter she wrote to
the Altman family in the wake of his death from cancer last week.
Unfortunately, the letter was riddled with misspellings and grammatical
errors, a fact which somehow surprised professional journalists from
whom the sorry state of America's public school systems had been
nefariously concealed. The article cited an example:
Patt Morrison, a columnist with the Los
Angeles Times, begged to differ, calling the letter "alarmingly
incoherent" and questioning what it was Lohan had learnt at the Long
Island schools that gave her straight As.
For my part, I find Patt Morrison alarmingly ignorant, and I
question where in the hell Patt has been for the past couple of
decades. Howsomever, the starlet has clearly perceived the coverage of
her epistle as a gross public humiliation. A counterattack
Actress Lindsay Lohan's publicist fired
back at the media on Thursday, saying journalists had crossed a line by
mocking a heartfelt letter the screen star wrote following director
Robert Altman's death last week.
Spokeswoman Leslie Sloane said the note
-- which one columnist suggested was composed by Lohan on "one of her
legendary party benders" -- was instead dashed off by the distraught
20-year-old actress on a Blackberry, moments after she learned Altman
The phrase "crossed a line" is especially interesting. That's where the
Drudge item comes in. The headline reads 'Hollywood's Most-Hated Web
Site' Faces Lawsuit Over Photos.' The story is about a website called
Perez Hilton, which among other outrages:
...routinely posts the most salacious
celeb shots - like this week's panty-free Britney Spears - without
crediting the photographer or agency. The ripped-off lensmen say the
site, which bills itself as "Hollywood's Most-Hated Web Site" routinely
fails to pay for use of their pics.
Oddly -- or not so oddly -- the photographers who make a living by
crouching beside the cars of female celebrities to shove zoom lenses
up their skirts as they exit are morally
by the fact that another show biz parasite would
recycle their crotch shots without crediting the "lensmen" by name.
Enough said about that.
The relevant point here is that thanks to the paparazzi, the internet,
and the sartorial habits of the U.S. starlet population, you'd have to
be living on another planet (or female) not to know that Lindsay Lohan
is still not as famous for her illiteracy as she is for being
repeatedly photographed without underwear from distinctly unflattering
angles. Yet I've been unable to locate an equally splenetic tirade from
her publicist about
the nickname "Firecrotch," which has been applied to Ms Lohan as
recently as the past week.
Calling her illiterate crosses a line, and calling her Firecrotch
doesn't? Is this some twenty-first century perversion of the feminists'
obsession with being admired for their beautiful minds rather than
(im)perfect bodies? Or has the attention-getting power of the female
body's most intimate locations been smoothly incorporated into the
current feminist paradigm: "We can flaunt it, but if men look at it,
they're filthy sexist pigs, and thus we prove our superiority and exert
I would have let this go as a transient musing (Lohan seems to have
"issues" after all) if it hadn't been for a recent curious development
in InstaPunk's site traffic. Two weeks ago, The Headhouse Gang posted
an entry on this site about "The
New Speaker Broad
," which pointed out that among her other firsts,
she was the first Speaker of the House to boast "breasts the size of
canteloupes." Since then, there has been growing search traffic by
internet surfers looking for references to Nancy Peloi's bust. When I
clicked on one of these search queries for more information, I found a
google list of staggering size, of which the first and most
popular link was to a site called Politits
There, it was obvious that the blogger had made a blatant and
definitive grab for the Number One spot on this topic. The entry title
Nancy Pelosi and her Big Rack, Juggs,
Tits, Implants, and Bra Size.
Several interesting discoveries followed. The blog is the creation of a
woman who calls herself D-Cup and whose site photo of herself is this:
So far so good, right? An uninhibited woman who is happy to celebrate
her natural endowments along with those of other members of her sex,
including Nancy Pelosi. Not so fast. It's more complicated than that.
Her bio tells us:
A lover of all things blue. If my
mother told me not to, you can bet I did it. Except for vote
Republican. The stories I could tell, and often do. INTERESTS: Sex,
Politics, Justice, Writing.
"All things blue." An interesting pun, which contrives to suggest that
the blue-state left also owns, by virtue of a color accident, the
subject of sex. I'm not making this up. The tone of her Nancy Pelosi
entry confirms that she is scornful of those who are googling the
Speaker's breasts, and she is particularly scornful if she has reason
to suspect they are Republicans:
They are still at it. And now Donald
Rumsfeld's getting in on the act. I'm still getting lots of hits from
people who have committed Google and Yahoo searches, among other more
obscure searches, on some variance of the word breast and Nancy Pelosi.
I have a question for these people...Do you really think you'll find a
picture of the lead Democratic knockers on the internets?
Alert the Fundies - They Still Have
Some Work to Do
The searches come from all over the world, but mostly from the
"Christian" United States.
Suffering from Short-Timer's Syndrome
Donald Rumsfeld Surfs the Internets
Many of the searches are coming from the DC area, but the most
interesting one today came from the Pentagon at 1:24p.m. on a
Wednesday. This person was looking for "nancy pelosi big rack." Donald
- we're on to you...
What Is Wrong with Kansas?
I'm guessing some rightwing radio douchebag had something to say about
Madame Speaker's hoots today. I've had a lot of action from Kansas.
You see, this entry isn't D-Cup's only one on this particular subject.
It's her eighth
. You can see
for yourself. Perhaps the strangest one is this, which simultaneously
derides men for looking and satirically(?) encourages women to raise
money for their favorite politicians by selling photos of themselves:
So, girls, screw oil, screw big pharma,
screw those damn lobbyists....you can do this on your tits alone! Add
photos of your bootie (for the bigger dollars) and your pink parts (for
the really BIG money), toss in some video (for the super-special
billionaire donors) and you've got your warchest (no pun intended).
And the beauty of my plan is that you don't ever have to deliver beyond
a peek. You can leave the real prosititution[sic] to the boys in
Despite her obvious quest for traffic, she pauses at one point in her
Pelosi blogging to say this:
Now I can remove my bra and rest.....
Finally, a note to Ms. Pelosi - your breasts really should be
your business, and your business alone. My apologies for, um, taking
part in this free-for-all. I look forward to your leadership in the
House and am, quite frankly, glad that we're getting this juvenile
stuff over with now.
But it's not over with yet. She posts three more times on the same
And we're left with that truly incredible assertion ringing in our
ears: "Your breasts really should be your business, and your business
alone." Huh? If breasts -- and Pelosi's breasts in particular -- have
an explicit meaning in the political context for the reactions they
inspire in (evil) Republicans, then they are no longer strictly
Pelosi's business.They are a political and philosophical issue.
Otherwise, there's no point at all
in posting on the subject eight times.
This is where the new mind-body problem comes into play. It's vividly
display in another peculiar D-Cup entry responding to a male commenter
wrote, quite rudely, "You should stick to showing your tits and let
those of us who
can actually reason do the talking." She had this to say (in part) in
I’m thinking I ought not take much
stock in his opinion.
Nevertheless, it gives me an opportunity to explore the idea that women
who think and express their opinions threaten the notion of order for
this guy. He’s cut from the same cloth as the old boss who called me
DCup. He’s the guy at meetings who spouts his opinions and bristles if
everyone else around the table doesn’t concur. He’s the guy who’d
prefer that anyone not blessed with a penis stand by quietly until it’s
time to f**k [asterisks mine--IP]
– oh, yeah…and while you’re over there can you fetch me my…….cook my
…….wash my…… raise my....
These guys happily support the Republican Party which has eroded
women's rights in the last several years. They’re Republicans because
they fear. They fear women, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, gays. Even
though they control the largest amount of wealth, land and power in the
world – they fear. It reminds me of a line from M*A*S*H where Margaret
Houlihan says to B.J. Hunnicutt, something like “you only fear losing
so much because you have the most to lose.”
She proceeds to question the commenter's own sexual endowments and
then, startlingly, concludes
by posting a carefully faceless photo of herself in the nude, with tiny
pictures of Bush and Cheney covering her nipples.
It's hard not to see such weirdness as a kind of bifurcated
exhibitionism arising from two divided parts of the self, a mind that
desperately wants attention and resents being ignored in favor of
secondary sexual characteristics, and a body that desperately wants
attention period, regardless of what anyone, including the body's
. This war
fragments of fractured identity (the portmanteau monicker Politits is
perfect, isn't it?) has to be acted out in terms of politics, where
disrespectful men are symbolized by Republicans, and the blogger's
compulsion to reveal her body to all and sundry is disguised as a
rational mechanism for, ahem, uncovering
the deficiencies of the reactionary
male. By such tortuous logic we arrive at a scenario in which it is
praiseworthy for women to thrust their private parts into the public
eye as a demonstration of female power which confirms their superiority
regardless of the reaction. If men humbly worship at their sexual
portals, women are triumphant. If men ignore or object to the display,
they are impotent hypocrites and women are triumphant. If men eagerly
seek out and coarsely salivate over the display, they are inferior idiots with
one-track minds and women are triumphant. Hence Lohan's apparent
unconcern about her genitals emblazoned in closeup across the internet
and her simultaneous outrage about being ridiculed for spelling errors.
Likewise, D-Cup's belief that she is intimidating critics by posting
nude pictures of herself, which is an incontrovertibly backward proof
-- satisfying only to her -- of the equivalent force of her intellect.
The man who criticizes her mind or body is, ipso facto, a loser in both
But the problem here is not so much with men as with women like
D-Cup, in which one half of the self wants to own the cake in
perpetuity, and the other wants to eat the cake down to the last crumb.
In the chasm between these two poles, they fail to see that if men like
to look, they're only able to in the first place because women like to
show them. D-Cup wants us to look, needs us to look, enjoys showing it
off, and has no integrated identity so long as she ignores or
misrepresents these facts about herself. Anonymity may be one reason
for her faceless photos, but facelessness is also part of the problem
that confronts her in the mirror. Who is she today? The razor-sharp
intellect that slices through groundless Republican fear of innocent
(if woman-killing) muslims? Or the sexual bombshell who can command
absolute attention merely by popping out of her bra?
There is a final proof of the identity schism. She lists her favorite
sites besides her own, and they embody the split in perfect detail,
including ranting female leftists on the one hand and gossipy,
double-entendre laden immersions in fashion, pop culture tartlets, and
artsy exhibitionism on the other. (Take a look for yourself at Unmentionables
, Go Fug Yourself
. The last is
outstanding for this
, which presumes to put Mark Steyn in his place for daring to
put down all those oppressed Euro-Muslims. Sheesh. I'll bet Steyn is
quivering in fear
Yeah, I know. This whole post is an exercise in taking an elephant gun
to a flea. But there is
serious fault-line in the feminist worldview of the 21st century, and
if women won't look at it, someone else has to. The new icon is the
slut-queen who transcends all criticism and automatically displaces
2,000 years of western cultural tradition with semi-conscious paganism.
If true, it's a notable development. I think the muslims already
know how they would deal with it. And if they get the chance, I'm
pretty sure D-Cup would start feeling nostalgic for us evil Republicans.
I could be all wrong, of course. If you think so, take a try at
explaining it yourself.
La Malkin is all over Britney for the same wardrobe offense(s)
committed by Ms. Lohan. She's also offering advice
I'm pretty sure isn't wanted. You be the judge.UPDATE 12/07/06
The author of Politits has responded
to this entry in a very ladylike way. I applaud the tone of her
argument and though I disagree with her on multiple issues -- you can
read my comment at her blog -- I withdraw much of my charge about dual
identity. In truth, she's as frank as I could hope for. Now, if we can
just adjust her political perspective...
Yes, we do
finally have what
you're looking for. Pictures. You'll find the link here