Statists Still Don't Get They're The Problem; Sarah Palin Edition

You heard that right, folks, statists don’t get that they’re the problem when it comes to sexism and racism. Oh they like to say they stand up against those things; but even when they appear to do so, it usually falls so short as to appear farcical.

Case in point, Salon harridan Joan Walsh tries to take Newsweek to task for the sexist cover with the picture of Sarah Palin on it:

Hell freezes over: I agree with Sarah Palin. Newsweek’s out of context short-shorts cover was sexist

I mentioned it in passing yesterday, but Newsweek’s Jon Meacham gets America’s Top Clueless Male award for taking a photo Sarah Palin shot for Runner’s World, and using it on a serious news story about her role in the GOP. Palin denounced the photo selection as “sexist and degrading” on her Facebook page, and she’s right.

She goes on:

Meacham told Politico: “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

Really, Jon Meacham? Did you really want to say that? OK, then, let’s deconstruct the cover entirely. The photo of the lovely, bare-legged Palin is paired with the headline: “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” For those too young to recognize the reference, it’s from a “Sound of Music” song, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?” about a young novice who is too cute and flighty to be a nun (“she’s a flibbertyjibbit, a will o’ the wisp, a clown!”). That’s a great way to describe our first GOP vice-presidential nominee. Not sexist at all…Oh yes, Jon Meacham, your answer is proof-positive that there was no sexism to your imagery. Fail.

It sounds like Walsh is pretty ticked, right? Fuhgeddaboudit. Reading the whole piece, Walsh isn’t really willing to point out a few things. Oh sure, Walsh is upset up to a point; just not all that upset. Because the left is always ready, willing, and able to defend and be what they say they hate, sexists and racists, if it advances their agenda. Look how the statists defended, and still defend, one of the ultimate misogynists of recent memory, Bill Clinton. Destroying Sarah Palin is part of that, even if done in the dishonorable method the left has been using since Palin hit the national scene. Even as Walsh chastises Meacham for his ridiculous explanation, she never once characterizes Meacham or others (especially noted OB-GYN specialist Andrew Sullivan) for being the misogynists they are. Neither Walsh, nor others she cites in the piece, call for Meacham’s removal as editor of Newsweek, or even a boycott of the struggling magazine, because Meacham is one of their own, one of them.

It does look like Walsh was not a happy camper, and I have no doubt she was angry; but, she’ll get over it. The left will accept Meacham back into the fold, without an apology or an admission that what he or Newsweek did was wrong; he or some other editor of one of the leftist rags will do something similar, and this whole dance will be played out again. Remember, it is many, if not most, of these same statists who still believe Dan Rather got the short end of the deal for trying to influence the 2004 Presidential election, believing Rather instead of the evidence.

Ticked? Yes. Outraged? No. It’s just the typical faux outrage of the left.

(Hat tip: Lucianne.com)