Saturday, November 15, 2008

The Pile-on Is Getting Tiresome

Mr. Cavett:

All that you say in your column on Ms. Palin is true. And yet I begin to feel protective of her because of the pile-on, which you have now joined.

I don’t see how her presidency could be any worse than Bush’s were the McCain-Palin ticket elected. Could she do worse than lie the nation into a war that has killed over 4000 of our troops, maimed many more, and killed uncounted civilians? Has she called off all the regulators so that the financially greedy could rape whatever financial instrument they had access to and plunge the country into financial jeopardy? Could she do worse than endorse torture behind the scenes and continue Gitmo?

I am beginning to think that Palin’s being a woman has something to do with her condemnation. Men get away with utter stupidity as part of the male affirmative action plan and have done since the Ascent of Man with the cover excuse of “he’s just a guy.”

I know there is sexism in this trashing of Sarah somewhere if I could just track it down.

I suspect Sarah’s being beautiful is a big part of the hostility toward her. The attitude seems to be “How dare a woman that beautiful think she can have a piece of power in addition to an exquisite face and good legs? Isn’t it enough for her that she is a knockout l and shapely? That’s purely greedy on her part to want political power too.” Only men get to be greedy. Women must be self-sacrificing.

I know Palin’s reproductive attitude is awful and that she shoots baby wildlife from helicopters. But every time I see her toting Trig around on her hip as she deplanes somewhere to harangue her loving fans, I can’t feeling positive toward her. And then she has that doting, attentive husband. I know he wants Alaska to secede, but he carries Trig around as much as Sarah does without losing his masculinity or his movie-star good looks.

And to top it off, Todd is his wife’s Number One fan. How many men could stand their wives being the center of attention instead of them? Todd stands modestly in the background on stage, outdoing Cindy in self-effacement. Speaking of Cindy, why doesn’t’ the press and public pile on her? She wears tacky, gaudily expensive clothes and jewels and looks like a female android from Dr. Spock’s home town. Yet nobody criticizes her because she defers to her husband obsequiously and puts up with his infidelity with a lobbyist as recorded on the front page of the NY Times. Such a rich, servile ditz who wears her improbably blonde hair starlet shoulder length despite her being 54 years old is the country’s ideal woman.

I want you to lay off Sarah for the duration of her place in the sun. Take your snide preciosity to another target. One shrinks back to think of the caricature of herself as portrayed in the press that poor Sarah may become in the future. I hate to think of the chortling observers when she crashes and burns, and they have to look around for a new freak.

In Sara’s defense, I will correct two of your comma errors below.

The ones she resolves to splinter and bulldoze her way through upon glimpsing the opportunities, revealed from on high.

You have cut off with a redundant comma a restrictive past participial phrase. You speak of the opportunities revealed from on high, not the ones revealed from hell.

…affecting the sense, if any.

The comma after “sense” cuts off a restrictive elliptical adverbial clause (if there are any).

Give Sara a rest, sirrah.

(ms) lee drury de cesare


Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many men could stand their [wives being] the center of attention instead of them?

In Dick's defence, I'll request that you correct this one according to your own standards.

12:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

free webpage hit counter