SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2021
Disappear past examples of brilliance: In her utterly brilliant way, Associate Professor Cottom has now published three (3) essays concerning the fiendish brilliance of Kyrsten Sinema's fiendish wardrobe selections.
Rather, the associate professor wrote the three (3) essays; the New York Times chose to publish them. The paper has also published a fourth analysis of Synema's wardrobe "strategy"—an analysis by Vanessa Friedman, the newspaper' "fashion director and chief fashion critic."
Forests fell to enable the publication of these four (4) insightful essays. Inevitably, three right-wingers have now written a letter to the Times, hoping to silence this journalism.
The three right-wingers are right-wing senators—Collins, Murkowski and Shaheen. It's true that Shaheen is a mainstream Democrat, but long ago, Rachel brilliantly mocked and exposed her as a New Hampshire "ConservaDem."
(That was before Rachel learned not to pander to guests, right to their faces, before instantly mocking the guests when they're no longer physically present.).
Inevitably, the three right-wingers have attacked the Times' journalistic brilliance. As always, we had to chuckle at a claim in the opening paragraph of their letter:
To the Editor:
The Times has published four separate pieces analyzing the style and dress of our colleague Senator Kyrsten Sinema. We cannot imagine The Times printing similar pieces on the fashion choices of any of our male colleagues.
As Senator Sinema recently said about the commentary on her fashion: “I wear what I want because I like it. It’s not a news story, and it’s no one’s business.” We couldn’t agree more.
Senator Sinema is a serious, hardworking member of the Senate who contributes a great deal to the policy deliberations before us. Your repeated focus on how she dresses, rather than what she says and does, is demeaning, sexist and inappropriate.
In 1999 and 2000, forests fell so the New York Times, and many others, could spend months on end attacking the fashion choices of Candidate Albert Gore, a male candidate for president.
They attacked his boots, his suits, his polo shirts, the number of buttons observed on his suits, the height at which he hemmed his pants and the fact that he once wore earth tones.
His boots were too shiny, some skillfully said. Also, why would he wear them at all?
The attacks were endless and visceral. The attacks were widely tied to the claims 1) that the offensive candidate had "hired a woman to teach him how to be a man" (everyone in the mainstream press corps), and 2) that the "un-American" hopeful was "today's man-woman" (Chris Matthews and Chris Matthews).
(Elsewhere, it got stupider, uglier, worse.)
In our usual dimwitted way, we liberals let that brilliant journalism go. People are dead all over the world because our utterly hapless tribe was so lazy, so stupid, so deferential—so mindless, so daft, so inept.
(People are dead all over the world! We're so old that we can remember when our tribe, such as it is, used to pretend that we cared about things like that!)
Today, the right-wingers are pretending that the Times does this only to women. Their right-wing claim is false.