Why It's Not Smart to Call Women Conservatives 'Whores'

I disagree with the assessment that we Progressives shouldn't use words like 'whore' to describe Radical Right Wingnut women. It is precisely what they are. They sell themselves (and, by extension, their entire gender) out to be accepted by people who use them to prove that the GOP isn't just the Good Ol' Boys club anymore, all the while, the GOP is just Patriarchy As Usual. Malkin would even sell out her own ethnic group to achieve that end. And, like any other whore, they are calculating how much money they can make or power they can grab. I said it about Sarah Palin, too, when she complained that her kids were getting talked about in the media, but the Obama girls weren't. Well, where WERE the Obama girls during this last election cycle? In Chicago, with their grandmother, going to school, following their normal routine. Where were most of the Palin kids? Carted around the country like carnival roust-abouts. Sarah traipsed those kids across the stage like nobody's business. The middle kids lost time in school, that baby was passed around like a freakin football without even the comfort of a stroller, Sarah and Todd going "Look, make of us, an American family!" She whored the kids out like she whored herself. See, the problem I have with most Progressives is this: we bitch that our elected officials don't have a backbone among them, then we get all namby-pamby with language. Look, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, IT'S A DAMNED DUCK! No point in calling it a ham sandwich. We have to call them out for what they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that I also say the same of some of the men in the GOP. I think any African American male who sides with the GOP is a whore. Any gay person who sides with the GOP is a whore. They're seeking acceptance from precisely the sort of people who will, as they always have, use them and dump them by the side of the road when they're done. MAYBE they'll throw a few scraps at them in passing, but they're just being used.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the extra hatred of wing-nut women and the implication that they're whores comes from the same place as the hatred of black conservatives. You just can't believe they'd be on the other team voluntarily, considering all their people have been through, so to speak. Wing nuts are supposed to be fat, middle-aged white guys, not young, cute Filipino girls.

Of course, that's no excuse be any harsher on them than on fat, white, male wing-nuts--if that's indeed what Olbermann and others are doing--but I think that's where it comes from.

To be honest, I just think it's a matter of principal: staying on moral high ground, even as you criticize and make fun of your opponents. I don't think it's a matter of giving ammo to the other side, because we all know they'll find something nasty to throw at you, even if they have to make it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Men are whores just as women are whores. Politicians of both genders are whores. The word "whore" is not gender specific and I enjoy using it--more often to describe men rather than women. I use it mostly for men because it think it fits better to describe males who will sell their souls for anything in order to gain power and prestige (witness Michael Steele). Still, I am aware of the gender-specific connotation that the word carries; therefore, I rarely use it for women. Having said all of this, I think it is a word that can be over-used, as the word "fascist" or "fascism" is over-used--ironically (the irony being that their entire philosophical movement can historically be traced back to its roots in National Socialism), it is being bandied about by the republicons and the wing-nuts on the right like so much Halloween candy. Mocking someone like Michelle Malkin in the manner that Keith Olbermann did and then watching the reich-right republicons rise up and scream "SEXISM" is another irony, but Keith does go over the top sometimes. However, where the reich-right republicons are concerned, it is necessary, if only to grab THEIR attention because THEY are so busy screaming and ranting over their latest paranoic fantasy about Pres. Obama or the "socialist" takeover of America or the concentration camps in Nevada, etc. etc. I mean, forgive me for saying this, but the rare time I might use the word "whore" where a woman is concerned is Ms. Sarah Palin! Here is someone who quit her term as governor of Alaska two years early to take financial advantage of her political notoriety by signing a book deal for several million dollars. Very soon, upon the book's release (which date was sped-up because Ms. Palin's publisher was worried about how fickle and short the attention-spans of the American public are), Ms. Palin will be out on the book-tour circuit, hawking her book and continuing her media moment (which is all about the Benjamins where Ms. Palin is concerned). Now, if that doesn't qualify for someone to be called a "whore" then I don't know what does. Perhaps with the Conservipedia-sponsored "Conservative Bible Project" soon to give us a more "conservative" bible and more conservative translations of key words (you know, because all the available translations are too, um, "liberal"), we should think of using the word "bimbo" or "floozie" instead of "whore". Which will mean that we can now refer to the "Bimbo of Babylon".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good for you Spellsinger. I agree 100%. I can't think of much to add except to comment about the over use of the word "misogyny" & it's variations. Damn, I have hated that word since I was placed on an email list with a dimwit who used it relentlessly while writing some of the worst commentary I have ever read.

As for Alan Grayson, I wish we had a couple hundred versions of him in that spineless Democratic side of the Congress. We are constantly bombarded with the likes of Mitch McConnell, John 'Boner', Michelle Bachman, Lindsey Graham, etc, so why is it such a big deal when Grayson tells the truth?!!

Sorry Ms. Tana Ganeva, but you are just dead wrong on this issue. When Keith Olbermann referred to Malkin as a "big massed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it" he was being way too kind to that nasty little excuse for a human being. Ms. Malkin couldn't "ascend the feminist high ground" if her life depended on it.

I hope that Alan Grayson encourages a few more of those spineless wonders to speak out for We The People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe "wuss" is also a gendered signifier.

Wuss = wimp + pussy

A whore is a prostitute. And men can "whores" in this sense of the word. They can also be unscrupulous, which is an other meaning conveyed by the word, "whore."

Grayson's use of this word was not inappropriate per se.

Yet even if one gave Grayson the benefit of one's doubt it remains the case that he erred by giving his enemies a free and easy shot at his character.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He call a K-street Corporate Lobbyist a whore.
This is accurate and perfectly acceptable.

On American dies every 12 mins for lack of Health care. Anyone against changing this is a murdering whore

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a whole nest of whores that meets every so often in a pleasure palace at E Capitol NE and 1st ST NE, in Washington DC. You got all kinds to choose from...most of these poor creatures have been surgically altered in one way or another and are pretty much "nickle a ride mattress backs" of all sizes and shapes...mostly male and ugly as hell but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.
Of course, for those with more perverse cravings, you can grease up and knock on Congressman Barney Frank's door and get some of that sweet child flesh from the underage boy toys that he claimed his 'room mate' ran out of his town house without his knowing it (wink, wink, nod, nod) Isn't he with the banking committee?--good to know we have statesmen like 'Barnyard' Frank to look out for our corporate interests...I just can't imagine anyone trying to blackmail him.

Most of the whores in the world are male, I think, and a goodly portion of them are members of the 'second oldest' profession who just wanted to distance themselves from the first by changing their names. So, the next time you are in Washington stop by the 'Best Little Whorehouse' in Washington--The Demopublican--pick out one of the strumpets and enjoy...just stuff the cash in the G-string when you're finished...if you can find it under the rolls of fat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's always a chance they might have a change of heart and join our side, like Arianna Huffington did!

Hey, she used to be a real whore. She married a rich gay guy just for his money, and she used to say some really ludicrous Republican stuff. Now she's what passes for a prominent lefty.

As Alec Baldwin's (Republican) character said to Liz on "30 Rock": "You have a firm grasp of the obvious, telling me what I already know. You should write for the Huffington Post."

So there's hope even for Michele Malkin, I guess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The politically correct position espoused in this post ignores the reality of the republicans: they are whores. Why not call it like it is?

As long as the liberal weenies continue to squeak about words, we'll be ineffective. Go after these people. Make them pay a social price for their actions. Don't play the stupid game of "we can't sink to their level"; it is a losing strategy that ignores how people behave.

Grow up, liberals. Let's get after these republipigs in any legal way we can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what the author seems to be saying. You can call a corrupt, immoral, mercenary man a whore, but women must be protected from such accurate criticisms.

Another way she is saying this is by demonstrating her own craven feminine weakness in the face of the turbulence of political bickering; she wants all of us to cower in fear of what the likes of Malkin and Beck might do to us if we fight too dirty for their preferences.

Not only has she failed to make the case that political misogyny is unacceptable, she has done just the opposite; she has made the case that such contempt of women in politics is justified.

I've got half a mind to call her an ignorant slut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A 'political whore' can be a male or female of any sexual orientaton. It is not a gender specific word in this context. Given the class of people we're talking about, whore is a kind way to refer to them. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huffington was a victory for the Left.
Using sexist terminology to insult Malkin will assure that she will dump any good message because of the messenger's attitude.

Malkin, as a Filipina, comes from a country where 30% of the population lives on under $2 a day, where running water is a luxury most only dream of, where a US military base assured that, in a country colonized by the shamefully sexist Catholic church, the only way out of poverty for many of these families was, for sure, whoring their pretty, usually underaged daughters. And it was our military men who purchased and degraded them. Now that the base is gone, the majority of foreign women on chat rooms are Filipinas seeking American men.

Call Malkin a piece of meat and look like a reject male who can't get a woman. Call her a whore and make an enemy for life because of your nationality and your lack of understanding of the limited employment options available to women in Catholic countries, where whores, like Magdalene, are forgiven but where uppity working women are killed or ostracized.

If you have to resort to a sexist retort,
just shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For years, especially since the rise of the feminist movement but feminism is not the sole culprit, whatever passes for the "left" in this country has taken this "name calling doesn't do anybody any good" position, stood back and passively let its leaders and positions get be-splattered by the vilest invective the right can dish out.

In my opinion this business of dealing with a bully by trying to understand his "feelings" is crap! The best way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose. You may lose the fight in the short run but in the long run he'll leave you alone. In fact he may come to respect you because you stood up to him.

Before the Sixties progressivism and populism where tough, aggressive and the conservatives there truly what they are, the genteel upper class who wanted nothing but everything for them and serfdom for everybody else.

Well now the upper class still wants everything for themselves and serfdom for everybody else but they've re-modeled themselves as tough, masculine, rugged-individualists who get things done. And they have successfully re-framed liberals, with complicity from within, as soft, effete and ineffective wimps who won't fight back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I dont' like this kind of name calling under any circumstance EXCEPT for Ann Coulter. I truly believe she is evil and cannot understand who would listen to her or buy her books. She isn't even mildly entertaining in her stupid rants. Perhaps if she had a good meal she would be less annoying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I agree that Grayson was harsh, he was referring to the actions and words of a person, not really accusing her of selling herfemaleness - her sexuality. There IS a difference. This is the flip side - I recently tuned into Fox late one night. There were two women wearing very low-cut dresses or blouses and cleavage down to THERE. One woman's boobs bounced up and down when she laughed at how clever she thought hse was in her name-calling and accusations against Democratsand the healthcare reform proposal. So - here's what I gathered from this display. Fox assumes that their viewers like to watch boobs bounce and hear and see Fox personalities act like whores at work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Given the meager background of Malkin's people and the struggle they have each day just to live simply, she'd do well to drop the bimbo-nasty-hater personality and become a responsible, intelligent-sounding journalist, don't you think? Wouldn't that reflect much better on "her people?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a progressive female, personally I'm NOT mad at Olbermann! Whores, that's what they are, that's what the bought out Congress-people are, it applies equally! Whores are defined as people that sell themselves for money or as a venal or unscrupulous! Those wingnuts on the right are fulfilling both of those definitions! Every time the promote wage destroying, job killing policies that hurt the average Joe, every-time they are "funded" by the Oligarchs, every-time they say they are "working for" the average American, yet their promotion of policies and legislation that actually betray that - they are WHORING!

Maybe if they don't appreciate being called WHORES, they shouldn't act like WHORES! Frankly, I have more respect for the women that walk the street, at least they are straight up and honest about what they are doing (trying to survive)! A psychologist might say they have self-hate, but at least they are not betraying their nation, just themselves! These mouth-pieces have no such scruples as they push this ideology, they not only betray themselves they also betray their nation by promulgating policies that they have to see aren't working for most Americans!

WHORES THEY ARE, WHORES THEY SHALL BE CALLED!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe it is in the article, but I sure seem to have missed it (always possible) if it was.

For those who (possibly like me) also missed it, Grayson did apologize - abjectly.

Personally, I think he shouldn't have.

Ms Geneva - by implicitly denying the existence of millions of male whores - is the sexist here.

And simply because lipstick was mentioned, doesn't mean that Olberman's comment was sexist. It was gender specific, as it would have been if he referred to some guy as a "mashed up bag of meat in a jock strap" would have been. Sorry, "gender specific" is not the same as sexist.

I, for one, am really tired of this PC bullshit. There is real sexism out there to get "het up" about. This nonsense of pouncing on an incautious word or phrase simply distracts from the real issue, makes it all look a bit silly.

Why not write an article about sexism in the workplace instead, Ms Geneva? My wife has been banging her extremely competent head against a glass ceiling for years. Women are being brutalized because of their sex by the thousands (millions?) daily. I could name dozens of real, gut-wrenching issues that affect every woman - but especially poor women.

Instead, you choose to get your bowels in an uproar about what a couple of real allies to your cause have to say about a corrupt rich bitch.

And yes, I used the term bitch. Had it been a guy, I would have said bastard. Although there are technically as many illegitimate females as males, the insult "bastard" is almost exclusively reserved for male assholes, and "bitch" for the female.

Why not get in an uproar about something that matters?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whore n.v., whored, whoring
1: A prostitute -v.i.
2: to act as a whore
3: to consort with whores

Not a single gender reference in the whole definition. As a writer one would expect Ms. Ganeva to have some knowledge and respect for the the proper usage of the English language (or at least a dictionary to reference).

By definition Rep. Grayson did not say anything improper or wrong here, nor were his comments 'sexist'.

Your ignorance of the word Ms. Ganeva, is the problem here. You assign to the word 'whore' an incorrect, biased meaning. It is your ignorance that has turned this K-Street whore into a 'victim', at least in your mind, not Rep. Grayson.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to create your own definitions of words.

If an Alternet staffer responds with an address, I will send Ms. Ganeva a dictionary if she does not already have one. If she does, I hope she'll begin to reference it next time she chooses to twist somebody's words into something they do not actually mean.

Why this matters. It is no different than the Republicans turning 'liberal' into a dirty word. Look up the definition, there is no way any rational person would not want to be a liberal, by definition.

Words are important. Use them properly.

BTW- Prostitute reference both males and females. Yes, I looked it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male politicians of the Left should only use the term "whore" to describe folks who happen to be female only if they already have established a track record of having used that term for folks who happen to be men.

The track record should be a minumum of 3 times. A "three strikes" rule, if you will.

Female politicians of the Left should not be similarly encumbered. Why? because, frankly, it would be extremely entertaining to see, say, Barbara Boxer call say, Ann Coulter a whore - or worse. My kind of "distaff/distaff" action!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He said "corporate whore", which she is. She would have been even if she had been a he.

Would "corporate prostitute" work better for you, more politically correct? All of the above are accurate.

Sorry you can't get your gender goggles off but I back his statement, and the reality of our lobbying hijacking it represents, 100%.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supposedly ‘politically correct’ verbal wimpiness is killing the Left
By Logansafi

While I am not a fan of mindlessly decrying the Republicans as being stupid when they are not any more so than most Democrats, we on the Left side of the political landscape still run just as often into people telling us to tone it down. Don’t show hate in your voice, don’t shout, don’t use sexist language, and be polite with those we oppose, these centrist Blue liberal types will all always say. Who are they and what are they talking about?


The two most common types of these milquetoast PC fellows are those who are really are into their own supposedly responsible lobbying mindset of seeking to ’speak truth’ to Power. Adopt the polite, city council sort of vocabulary and volume of voice. Smile; don’t shout! …if you want to be heard and listened to…blah,blah,blah.

It’s all the sort of thing a Middle School counselor might tell a student who has an obnoxious teacher ruling over them. These counselors get paid to do that job, don’t they? But the professional PC milquetoast liberal is usually only aspiring to be listened to by Democratic Party reps in government. If they can hunt down a grant or two or a paid position for themselves, they must simply be the ‘polite’ type and they try to police those around them on it, too.

The other constant PC type on the the Left side are the religious pacifists who believe that turn the other cheek is about as ‘violent’ as one should ever get. They too are always seeking ‘access’ to Democratic Party government reps (POWER) and their supposed moral consciences though they never seem do, because they are way too wimpy milquetoast as they try to worship Jesus and Gandhi so endlessly and religiously. They simply don’t like it when they hear bad words in the church like ambience they try to always maintain.

Alternet has this article online right now, Why We Shouldn’t Call Women Conservatives ‘Whores’, and it has some discussion of this issue.

To this, I say it is not only OK to call Conservatives whores, but it is also OK to call Hillary Clinton a frustrated lesbian whore. Or just a lesbian or just a whore. After all believe me, in Hillary’s circles they call the common folk much worse than this! Trust me on this, won’t you? Time to get angry about it, too! And angry is never PC in some angst torn circles.

The whole problem with the ‘you need to tone it down’ PC types out their in our midst, is that this tone and mindset is totally wrong to use in confronting bullies, and our society is replete with bullies ruling from their perches. The rich bullies even hire profession corporate media bullies to verbally smash into The People. You going to say ‘purty please’ back to that? It simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t work with Police State bullies at all.

Right now, supposedly ‘politically correct’ verbal wimpiness has been killing the Left for some time. If we’re going to fight it out with The American Right we need to discard some of our pretty little manners, and to do it soon. That doesn’t mean that we will be acting like the Mindless Zombies that we oppose when we do so. It simply means we will stop acting like we are servile peasants asking our Lords for mercy. It simply don’t work. It never will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Source: Google Video: Penn & Teller--The First Amendment.


"...What universities are saying by these codes, special protections and double standards, to women, to blacks, to Hispanics, to gay and lesbian students is, 'You are too weak to live with freedom; you are too weak to live with the First Amendment.'

"If someone tells you that are too weak to live with freedom, they have turned you into a child."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quit trying to sanitize the language.
It's not what they say but how they mean it.

All K-Street lobbyists are whores, regardless!
I understand the point the writer tries to make here.
When a women is too aggressive in politics she's called 'a dragon lady' and if a man is it's called 'being tough and agressive'.
The double standards of course are quite glaring and the press traditionally injects a certain Freudian sexual innuendo into every political event.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mitigate what these weasels who subvert the "democratic process" do to suit the ends of their corporate clients and they aren't above sexual favors even if they're buying it for their favorite congressperson.
The even greater question is ...who is the biggest whore in Congress? Any GOP might get that one but for my money right now it's Max Baucus.

I eschewed the sexist attributions a long time ago. For instance, I have never refered to women as 'sluts'...but on the other hand I always thought 'all men are sluts'...let's face it... come on, dudes admit it, we're easy.
And I admit it,... I am most definitely a slut.

Just waiting for the right women to notice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The attitude that somehow you can't call a whore a whore because she only sells out her soul and country and not her body is pure LIBERAL BS.This is why as a Black man I chafe when someone tries to label me a LIBERAL. When you sell out you are a whore if you Steele or Malkin GET REAL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So now we're letting the sensibilities of the far right define what is sexist? Now, there's a winning strategy! Brush up on your Lakoff, Ms Geneva -- ya don't let your enemy frame the debate.

Don't you remember the Sarah Palin campaign? Any criticism of the candidate was decried as sexism and misogyny, just because it was aimed at a woman. (Unfortunately, they learned this trick from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign.) Letting yourself be sidetracked to debate whether it was or wasn't was exactly what they wanted.

Grayson is a brilliant man, and his genius lies in boiling things down to their essence. All K Street lobbyists - most of whom are men -- are corporate whores. Do we have to euphemize that simply because a given lobbyist is female? No, we don't. The right went bugfuck and demanded apologies when Grayson [accurately] described the Republican healthcare plan as "Don't get sick; die quickly". Are we going to let their hypertrophied sensibilities define civil discourse? Craziness.

Take it from a front-line foot soldier of the Second Wave of feminism -- these examples aren't sexism. And trying to be so perfect that the troglodytes of the right can't criticize us is a doomed strategy -- no one can be that perfect, not even their fellow "conservatives", as the upstate NY Congressional race has demonstrated. Save the feminist critique for the real issues, wouldja?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eight Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't think that Grayson was referring to women lobbyist, congressional suckups or whatever specifically, but using the word "whore" (as I do) to refer to the lobbyists, congressional suckups whoever they are and no matter what side of the coin they "affiliate" with; they are whores. The idea that he was dissing women, is, I think bs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if you call a woman a whore in a context in which you'd not say the same of a man, then that's likely sexist and probably not a good idea politically

but in politics the context is most likely unisex, and thus not sexist

my governor and senators are whores, and men

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tana writes, "...So there's obvious problem No. 1 with leftist firebrands dipping into sexist imagery and language to bash conservative women: nothing's more fun than highlighting the hypocrisy of your opponents. That's why when a family-values conservative gets caught doing prostitutes, guys or underaged pages, it's party time for progressives.

"Olbermann's gendered attack allowed the terrible Malkin, who called Clinton a 'gyno-candidate' during the presidential primaries, to ascend the feminist high ground: 'The "M" in MSNBC stands for misogyny', she happily announced on her blog."

%^)


Is this the same Michelle Malkin--anchor baby and conservative columnist of Asian descent--who defended Japanese internment and anti-Muslim racial profiling?

Hmmmmmm...

Is this the same Michelle Malkin who made her name opposing political correctness and identity politics, and now, suddenly, she's playing the [cough] victim card?

Hmmmmmm...

Does anyone else find it amusing that Michelle Malkin is attacking Kieth Olbermann FROM THE LEFT?

Hmmmmmm...

Am I the only person who recognizes how untenable--not to mention hypocritical--her position is?

Got logic?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is mostly that it's an insult to people - male and female - who are forced to sell their bodies to survive. they should never be lumped together with the likes of a lobbyist who tells lies for a big paycheck. i do also wish that if he had to start insulting whores this way he had started with a male lobbyist... i think some of those asserting here that this has become a gender neutral word are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. thanks for the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay I do understand my rights that the partnership is illegal for illegal trade but then what do we do when I pay rent and stay hungry and wear no underwear Collar hidden by scarf as it is dirty from 5 days no bath
I thank you
Firozali A mulla

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got a mailing today from DFA about a progressive effort to put together a one-day "money bomb" to let his enemies know the left has his back.

Here's the ActBlue website for the "money bomb" project, and here's what DFA had to say:

When Democracy for America endorsed Alan Grayson for Congress last year conventional wisdom in DC said Grayson was a long-shot at best. No one thought he would win. No one, that is, but DFA members on the ground who were working hard every day to deliver results.

Alan Grayson hasn't looked back since Election Day. He's not afraid to say what it takes to get the message across and fight back against Republican lies and misinformation.

Now, one year from today, Alan Grayson is up for reelection and Republicans have put a giant target on his back. It's pretty straight forward why -- they're afraid of him. They're going to pull out all the stops to defeat him. We can't let that happen.

So today, DFA members are joining with others across the progressive movement for a one-day contribution "money bomb" in support of Alan Grayson. If we raise $400,000 today, we'll send chills down the spine of every single right-wing blowhard around the county.

So why DO the Republicans hate Grayson so much?

Well, Republicans spent the whole summer yelling lies about "Death Panels" and how President Obama was going to pull the plug on grandma. And all August, Democrats in Congress went from town hall to town hall playing defense and trying to figure out what hit them. Alan Grayson had enough. There is no Republican plan on healthcare. They would rather do nothing, than fix it. Recognizing that over 42,000 Americans a year die because they don't have health insurance under our current system, Representative Grayson decided it was time to go on the attack and put the Republicans on defense.

"The Republican's healthcare plan: 1) Don't get sick 2) if you do, Die Quickly"
One sentence and Rep. Grayson reclaimed the debate. Everyone was talking about it. How many Americans don't have insurance? How many Americans die each year because of it? What actually IS the Republican plan?

Republicans aren't used to Democrats attacking back, but they immediately went on the war path. They demanded Grayson apologize. He was already a step ahead of them.

Rep. Grayson took to the floor of Congress and apologized to the dead. To every American who had died while Republicans held up the healthcare debate and Congress waited to enact reform. Suddenly, it's the Republicans who didn't know what hit them. First a Democrat stands up and then he won't shut up and sit down when Republicans yell at him? You can imagine their surprise.

Thanks to Alan Grayson, for the first time all summer, Republicans were finally playing defense.

But that won't last forever. Congressional Quarterly recently downgraded Rep. Grayson's reelection race from a "toss-up" to "leans Republican." That's why we need to have Grayson's back. If we raise $400,000 in one day, we'll send a message to Republicans nationwide they won't miss.

Sorry to be late in posting this -- but I'm sure they'll allow for stragglers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In almost every left thread you will find someone that is offended by some parochial or particularist idea they over identify with.

In short the left walks on eggshells hoping not to hurt anyone's feelings, that is why they were so roundly defeated IMHO. Too nice and too politically correct.

With so much at stake at least Castro and Che guevera knew where they stood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevera

Capitalism cannot be reformed without getting severe like those in the great depression knew and those who fought for the 8 hour work day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_hour_day

IMHO alternet should be publishing stories from those era's to inspire the left to get off it's ass and cause mischeif en masse.

Most current people on theleft are a ballsless generation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Along with the previous post on Oct. 28 by Adele Stan on this same subject there are a total of over 140 comments. Except for Ms. Stan trying to defend herself and Mr. Holland trying to defend his employee/friend(a pretty weak defense--"no, no, don't look at the original premise that using the word whore is always wrong but look at the premise that Rep. Grayson was wrong to use it because his opponents say so"--an argument that has the same scent as that of a teabagger trying to rationalize their absurd beliefs), there are NO comments that support the absurd premise that using the word whore is sexism.

The etymology of the word whore may have been associated more with one gender rather than the other in many cultures(but not all), and while today the word may have sexual connotations, that in itself does not make use of the word whore, sexism.

To call use of the word whore sexism is a personal/tribal judgment. What is so disappointing is the myopic view of inside the beltway reporters who seem to be trying to maintain the "official Washington liberal" point of view. Just because one parrots the absurdities of the word gender/sex police in order to stay in the good graces of "the right people" in Washington D.C. doesn't make it right.

Everything in this world is about the duality of sex. The world as we know it would not exist without sex; even the pollination and fertilization of plants is sexual(most of us have been taught about the birds and the bees). Though there are asexual beings/creatures/things they all exist in an essentially sexual world. The asexual have just found a niche in our fully sexual world. Trying to make everything fit into a completely asexual neutral world is unnatural.

Unlike the asexual right-wingers who have found their narrow niche in the taint of a teabagger, I would hope that the good reporters here at Alternet would stop trying to neuter their readers into an asexual liberal niche and support the overwhelming sentiments of their readers and commenters in the real world outside The Washington Beltway. The rich use of words, images, and metaphors in describing our world and the whores in it makes the planet Earth a better place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So someone one the left thought it was a productive use of their time to call out a politician for being un-pc in his criticisms of republicans, ridiculous.

Should we all have not used charged words like "redneck" with George W.? NO of course not, it means very little.

Women's rights should be at the forefront of the left agenda, but bitching (uh oh how sexist of me) about someone using the word "whore" in this context isn't really doing much for women's rights, it's just focusing on trivialities when there are much more important things to care about.

I can't believe that progressive journalists and pundits have the time to waste on this tripe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whores, accurately describes the majority of our Congress. Receiving money for services rendered is whoring. Our politics are a national disgrace and the source of much international derision and contempt.

We are seen as liars and hypocrites by much of the world, in our stated claim to being a democratic Republic, when in fact, we are a ruthless empire, that will brook no opposition whatsoever. We back dictators and assassinate those who oppose our imperialistic ventures. That's our record and it is not enhanced by the caliber of the scumbags we have in Congress.
As if the above were not enough of an insult to the electorate, we are expected to believe that all the money, which the lobbyists are spreading, like manure, does not in fact influence our "whores" to do their bidding.
Well, tell you what, the American people probably could use some help identifying party membership, or the home of record of these people, but they damn sure don't need help identifying WHORES!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, Virginia, there has always been male whores and there will always be male whores.
There's probably an unwritten book somewhere entitled "I was a male whore for the CIA".
Some of our male whores in Congress even go so far as to hire other male whores.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, folks, but you are defining feminism as Blue State Feminism. There is a Red State Feminism as well, which asserts you can be both a conservative and a feminist. This means that some of the time you will disagree with conservatives (especially the misogynist kind), but that sometimes you will disagree with Blue State Feminism's political agenda.

Feminism is a lot bigger tent than Blue State Feminists would like it to be.

Are you a Red State Feminist? Take this quiz and find out:
Red State Feminists Quiz

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It has been adequately noted in other comments that your head is up your . . . I mean, you are dead wrong. Whore is no longer gender specific nor specifically sexual. There are people of every gender whoring themselves in many ways all over the world. If that weren't the case, Rep. Grayson would owe the prostitutes of the world an apology for comparing them to something as sleazy as a K-Street lobbyist.

The problem is that progressive women like you and Adele jump in with both feet and reflexively buy into the gyno-American bullshit, thereby legitimizing it. You are always ready to make or acknowledge accusations of sexism in a fashion that implies the accusation alone warrants conviction.

You need to grow a pair.

Now, was that sexist? Or is it allowed because I have heard -- many times -- women being described by women as having 'balls' or being 'ballsy'?

This is sexist: My friend and I were arguing the other day. I said that I thought excess estrogen hindered intellectual development. He disagreed. He said the problem was insufficient testosterone.

See the difference?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

because I respect whores.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't like the word "whore", especially when used metaphorically (for people who aren't literally prostitutes) but even used literally.
It just seems too much like junior high school name calling.
I think it detracts from the important points to be made when criticising political opponents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... looked good in a mini-skirt.
More seriously: calling a conservative/right-wing politician a "whore" is galling and in one sense inappropritate: they're uniformly against promiscuity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]