The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

State Employee Faces Discipline for Looking at Porn Insulting Obama at Work

Posted on | January 1, 2010 | 88 Comments

Stereotypes are harmful and one would be promoting a sexist stereotype to say that women have a habit of forwarding “cute” e-mails, no matter how many times your mother-in-law does it. However, not all junk-mail is created equal:

DENVER, Colo. – A Colorado Department of Transportation employee could face discipline for forwarding an email with a photo depicting President Barack Obama shining the shoes of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
The 73-year-old woman, whose name was not released, forwarded the email to at least four co-workers, among other people, on Dec. 22 using her state email account. At least one recipient complained.
The person who originally sent the e-mail, who isn’t a state employee, wrote “It appears he (Obama) has found his niche.”

See, that’s just wrong. Maybe that photo is funny to 73-year-old women, but the rest of us? Blehh. If we’re going to get fired from our jobs for looking at pictures that depict people in insultingly demeaning roles, we’re going to get our money’s worth. Colorado state employees, consider yourself warned that you may be fired for looking at the offensive, degrading stereotype depicted below if you click “Read more.”

From Our Legal Department

If you are threatened with firing for looking at a scantily-clad French maid while at work, you could defend yourself in several ways:

  • This was intended as political commentary, and is therefore clearly protected by the First Amendment.
  • You are taking a night class in women’s studies at the local university, and this was research for your term paper on mid-20th-century misogyny.
  • The person who sent this to you was herself French, and obviously did not mean to suggest that all French women are domestic servants.
  • You are a deputy district attorney, and this photo is evidence relevant to an investigation.

When in doubt, “intentionality” is the way to go. It’s satire.

Category: Barack Obama, Colorado, Feminism, Racism, Rule 5, Sarah Palin

Comments

88 Responses to “State Employee Faces Discipline for Looking at Porn Insulting Obama at Work”

  1. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 4:35 am

    Take this quote by Reynolds:

    I’m against torture. I’m also against moralistic, dishonest, self-righteous preening about torture. Andrew is a repeat offender in the latter category, and it’s gone beyond embarrassing to pathetic.

    I agree with Reynolds 100% on that.

    Now, substitute “racism” for torture your choice of Charles Johnson or Patterico for Andrew and doesn’t the quote work perfectly? There is a reason Glenn Reynolds is the Blogfather!

  2. Joe
    January 1st, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

    Take this quote by Reynolds:

    I’m against torture. I’m also against moralistic, dishonest, self-righteous preening about torture. Andrew is a repeat offender in the latter category, and it’s gone beyond embarrassing to pathetic.

    I agree with Reynolds 100% on that.

    Now, substitute “racism” for torture your choice of Charles Johnson or Patterico for Andrew and doesn’t the quote work perfectly? There is a reason Glenn Reynolds is the Blogfather!

  3. Kilgore Trout
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 4:51 am

    You right wingers have clearly gone too far!

  4. Kilgore Trout
    January 1st, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

    You right wingers have clearly gone too far!

  5. Bob Belvedere
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 4:56 am

    No French gal evah — evah — looked that good: she’s All-American [and certainly smells better].

  6. Bob Belvedere
    January 1st, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

    No French gal evah — evah — looked that good: she’s All-American [and certainly smells better].

  7. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 5:12 am

    Perhaps Charles, Andrew and Patterico can address anti semitism from the left?

  8. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 12:12 am

    Perhaps Charles, Andrew and Patterico can address anti semitism from the left?

  9. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 8:56 am

    Little Miss Attila noted the Sully/Blogfather brew ha ha.

  10. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 3:56 am

    Little Miss Attila noted the Sully/Blogfather brew ha ha.

  11. Jaynie59
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

    Could this registered Democrat simply be a disgruntled worker who is mad at her boss? She’s a government worker. And she’s 73 years old.

    Um, I know this is probably a really dumb question, but why is the government paying a 73 year old? What are they paying her? Is she collecting a pension and Social Security while she is also collecting a government pay check?

    Is the economy so bad that 73 year olds have to work? Is she that desperate for money?

    Wow. If I were 73 years old and still had to work I’d be pretty disgruntled, too.

  12. Jaynie59
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 7:27 am

    Could this registered Democrat simply be a disgruntled worker who is mad at her boss? She’s a government worker. And she’s 73 years old.

    Um, I know this is probably a really dumb question, but why is the government paying a 73 year old? What are they paying her? Is she collecting a pension and Social Security while she is also collecting a government pay check?

    Is the economy so bad that 73 year olds have to work? Is she that desperate for money?

    Wow. If I were 73 years old and still had to work I’d be pretty disgruntled, too.

  13. serr8d
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

    When I first saw this go viral in e-mail a month or so ago, I didn’t like it. Not only because it seems a bit over the top as far as Obama is concerned (that’s my personal opinion, because the first real-live grown black man I ever saw, when I was a toddler, was a shoe shine man in downtown Phoenix in 1962 or ’63, and that remembrance troubles me) but because it depicts Sarah Palin as a racist.

    I can’t stand people who attack Sarah Palin! This could just as easily be an attack on Sarah, by a cunning moby who supports, say, Huckholio or Clinton.

    BHO has done enough damage to himself, with his bowing and scraping around the globe; there’s no need to dig up any old racial images or tired old racial suggestions with which to damn or mock him. He’s creating his own wealth of new fouls and breakdowns every day.

  14. serr8d
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 9:01 am

    When I first saw this go viral in e-mail a month or so ago, I didn’t like it. Not only because it seems a bit over the top as far as Obama is concerned (that’s my personal opinion, because the first real-live grown black man I ever saw, when I was a toddler, was a shoe shine man in downtown Phoenix in 1962 or ’63, and that remembrance troubles me) but because it depicts Sarah Palin as a racist.

    I can’t stand people who attack Sarah Palin! This could just as easily be an attack on Sarah, by a cunning moby who supports, say, Huckholio or Clinton.

    BHO has done enough damage to himself, with his bowing and scraping around the globe; there’s no need to dig up any old racial images or tired old racial suggestions with which to damn or mock him. He’s creating his own wealth of new fouls and breakdowns every day.

  15. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

    serr8d, I don’t particularly care for the image of President Obama shining shoes, but to go all faux outrage over it as some massively racist statement of the right (as CJ has done) is ridiculous too. Does it have a racist theme? Perhaps–I will grant that (although I do not recall shoe shines being regulated to blacks only). Just like attacks on Sarah Palin are often highly misogynistic. That is why the shot of Obama and Palin together works on a level beyond racism. It is a joke.

    But you are spot on, why fake shoe shining when President Obama embarasses us all by bowing and scaping to foriegn leaders all the time? Perhaps he thinks this helps America’s image, but it does not, it makes us look weak.

    But I have to say I enjoy the spectical of Patterico and Charles Johnson trying to out do one another in moral posturing. Add Excitable Andrew doing the same on this torture issues and you have the working of a perfect storm of outrage.

  16. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 11:58 am

    serr8d, I don’t particularly care for the image of President Obama shining shoes, but to go all faux outrage over it as some massively racist statement of the right (as CJ has done) is ridiculous too. Does it have a racist theme? Perhaps–I will grant that (although I do not recall shoe shines being regulated to blacks only). Just like attacks on Sarah Palin are often highly misogynistic. That is why the shot of Obama and Palin together works on a level beyond racism. It is a joke.

    But you are spot on, why fake shoe shining when President Obama embarasses us all by bowing and scaping to foriegn leaders all the time? Perhaps he thinks this helps America’s image, but it does not, it makes us look weak.

    But I have to say I enjoy the spectical of Patterico and Charles Johnson trying to out do one another in moral posturing. Add Excitable Andrew doing the same on this torture issues and you have the working of a perfect storm of outrage.

  17. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

    Patterico is now all upset that Charles Johnson unfairly banned him from LGF. Hmmm, I am sure there was a death threat in there somewhere to prompt that!

  18. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

    Patterico is now all upset that Charles Johnson unfairly banned him from LGF. Hmmm, I am sure there was a death threat in there somewhere to prompt that!

  19. Charles Johnson
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

    But this is funny!

  20. Charles Johnson
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

    But this is funny!

  21. Charles Johnson
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

    This is not funny, I am going to have to ban some more crypto racists for this!

  22. Charles Johnson
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

    This is not funny, I am going to have to ban some more crypto racists for this!

  23. keyboard jockey
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

    Democrats really feeling desperate putting out crap “photo above” to gain sympathy for a man who just vacationed in Hawai,i and phoned in his response to REAL terror Attack. An Attack that His Homeland Security Secretary had no idea how to spin. Really he leaves the mainland, and doesn’t leave his staff talking points. It’s sad she had to use old lame ones NO ONE will buy. I hope his golf game wasn’t interrupted 🙂 When has Obama ever engaged in manual labor of any kind in his life? Does anyone know what job he ever had where he had to get his hands dirty?

  24. keyboard jockey
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

    Democrats really feeling desperate putting out crap “photo above” to gain sympathy for a man who just vacationed in Hawai,i and phoned in his response to REAL terror Attack. An Attack that His Homeland Security Secretary had no idea how to spin. Really he leaves the mainland, and doesn’t leave his staff talking points. It’s sad she had to use old lame ones NO ONE will buy. I hope his golf game wasn’t interrupted 🙂 When has Obama ever engaged in manual labor of any kind in his life? Does anyone know what job he ever had where he had to get his hands dirty?

  25. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

    Now this is funny.

    This is funny too, because it is true.

    Can’t you people get a joke?

  26. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

    Now this is funny.

    This is funny too, because it is true.

    Can’t you people get a joke?

  27. smitty
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

    @Andrew Sullivan,
    As a teenager, I wore utterly tasteless t-shirts because I thought them funny.

    One grows beyond such.

  28. smitty
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

    @Andrew Sullivan,
    As a teenager, I wore utterly tasteless t-shirts because I thought them funny.

    One grows beyond such.

  29. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

    smitty, being me is never having to say I am sorry.

  30. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

    smitty, being me is never having to say I am sorry.

  31. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

    As usual Jeff cuts through the nonsense:

    .19 Comment by Joe on 1/2 @ 11:53 am #

    Meanwhile the various outrage [CJ] clowns [Sullivan] are trying to out due one another on who is the least racist [Patterico].

    Comment by Jeff G. on 1/2 @ 12:10 pm #

    @19:

    See, dicentra?

    The movements, they are so transparent. Next time somebody tries to point out that a certain somebody is behaving like another certain somebody, that first somebody will argue that such is NOT POSSIBLE, given that the second somebody banned the first somebody.

    And a bunch of commenters will pretend the argument has merit.

    – while taking care not to let the Emperor’s balls slap them on the nose.

  32. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

    As usual Jeff cuts through the nonsense:

    .19 Comment by Joe on 1/2 @ 11:53 am #

    Meanwhile the various outrage [CJ] clowns [Sullivan] are trying to out due one another on who is the least racist [Patterico].

    Comment by Jeff G. on 1/2 @ 12:10 pm #

    @19:

    See, dicentra?

    The movements, they are so transparent. Next time somebody tries to point out that a certain somebody is behaving like another certain somebody, that first somebody will argue that such is NOT POSSIBLE, given that the second somebody banned the first somebody.

    And a bunch of commenters will pretend the argument has merit.

    – while taking care not to let the Emperor’s balls slap them on the nose.

  33. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 8:09 pm

    You see smitty, my outrage is rich, think, and tasty, like crème fraiche! I looooove
    crème fraiche.

    Passive-aggressive partisan tool Glenn Reynolds fires back:

    NO, ANDREW, it’s that you’re a preening, hectoring, self-centered, unpersuasive bad writer.

    So Glenn’s point is that bad writing is responsible for the US becoming a torturing nation under Cheney. If I had been able to be a good writer, I might have made a difference in the fight against torture. Reynolds, in stark contrast, waged a far more effective campaign against torture by writing and saying almost nothing, except for occasional credentializing statements that he is against it, while remaining in favor of everyone who is for it.

    Yes, that sounds about right. Of course we are all imperfect writers. But that’s a subjective judgment and so I refer readers to my single attempt this past year to make the case as best I could in a single essay directed to the man ultimately responsible for the torture of countless prisoners, George W. Bush.

    Make your own mind up. I’d also link to some writing Reynolds has produced making the case against torture for comparison but can’t find anything more than a phrase here and there. Happy to post some if I missed one of his cris de coeur, and then you can make your own mind up as to who has been more effective in conveying the case against torture, me or Insta.

    And I will not be outdone by Charles Johnson or Patterico in the faux outrage department, I will go right after Reynolds.

  34. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

    You see smitty, my outrage is rich, think, and tasty, like crème fraiche! I looooove
    crème fraiche.

    Passive-aggressive partisan tool Glenn Reynolds fires back:

    NO, ANDREW, it’s that you’re a preening, hectoring, self-centered, unpersuasive bad writer.

    So Glenn’s point is that bad writing is responsible for the US becoming a torturing nation under Cheney. If I had been able to be a good writer, I might have made a difference in the fight against torture. Reynolds, in stark contrast, waged a far more effective campaign against torture by writing and saying almost nothing, except for occasional credentializing statements that he is against it, while remaining in favor of everyone who is for it.

    Yes, that sounds about right. Of course we are all imperfect writers. But that’s a subjective judgment and so I refer readers to my single attempt this past year to make the case as best I could in a single essay directed to the man ultimately responsible for the torture of countless prisoners, George W. Bush.

    Make your own mind up. I’d also link to some writing Reynolds has produced making the case against torture for comparison but can’t find anything more than a phrase here and there. Happy to post some if I missed one of his cris de coeur, and then you can make your own mind up as to who has been more effective in conveying the case against torture, me or Insta.

    And I will not be outdone by Charles Johnson or Patterico in the faux outrage department, I will go right after Reynolds.

  35. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

    You see smitty, my outrage is rich, think, and tasty, like crème fraiche! I looooove
    crème fraiche.

    Passive-aggressive partisan tool Glenn Reynolds fires back:

    NO, ANDREW, it’s that you’re a preening, hectoring, self-centered, unpersuasive bad writer.

    So Glenn’s point is that bad writing is responsible for the US becoming a torturing nation under Cheney. If I had been able to be a good writer, I might have made a difference in the fight against torture. Reynolds, in stark contrast, waged a far more effective campaign against torture by writing and saying almost nothing, except for occasional credentializing statements that he is against it, while remaining in favor of everyone who is for it.

    Yes, that sounds about right. Of course we are all imperfect writers. But that’s a subjective judgment and so I refer readers to my single attempt this past year to make the case as best I could in a single essay directed to the man ultimately responsible for the torture of countless prisoners, George W. Bush.

    Make your own mind up. I’d also link to some writing Reynolds has produced making the case against torture for comparison but can’t find anything more than a phrase here and there. Happy to post some if I missed one of his cris de coeur, and then you can make your own mind up as to who has been more effective in conveying the case against torture, me or Insta.

    And I will not be outdone by Charles Johnson or Patterico in the faux outrage department, I will go right after Reynolds.

  36. Andrew Sullivan
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

    You see smitty, my outrage is rich, think, and tasty, like crème fraiche! I looooove
    crème fraiche.

    Passive-aggressive partisan tool Glenn Reynolds fires back:

    NO, ANDREW, it’s that you’re a preening, hectoring, self-centered, unpersuasive bad writer.

    So Glenn’s point is that bad writing is responsible for the US becoming a torturing nation under Cheney. If I had been able to be a good writer, I might have made a difference in the fight against torture. Reynolds, in stark contrast, waged a far more effective campaign against torture by writing and saying almost nothing, except for occasional credentializing statements that he is against it, while remaining in favor of everyone who is for it.

    Yes, that sounds about right. Of course we are all imperfect writers. But that’s a subjective judgment and so I refer readers to my single attempt this past year to make the case as best I could in a single essay directed to the man ultimately responsible for the torture of countless prisoners, George W. Bush.

    Make your own mind up. I’d also link to some writing Reynolds has produced making the case against torture for comparison but can’t find anything more than a phrase here and there. Happy to post some if I missed one of his cris de coeur, and then you can make your own mind up as to who has been more effective in conveying the case against torture, me or Insta.

    And I will not be outdone by Charles Johnson or Patterico in the faux outrage department, I will go right after Reynolds.

  37. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

    Even Patterico’s supporters are starting to figure it out:

    202 “Joe goes around cutting and pasting bloggers’ comments and pasting them on other web sites, to start fights. That’s why I banned him. He is not happy unless he can set two bloggers against each other — like the platinum blonde who says to her boyfriend: “Are you gonna let him talk to you like that?!?!”

    Umm, Patterico, even though you know I sided with you in the end about Goldstein’s reprehensible behaviour by not only threatening violence on various people online (on a blog that discusses the application of force, to wit, self-defence matters)… and then reiterating stale old threats from months ago when you pointed out this bad hehaviour… for no good reason at all other than what I can only conclude was his emotional instability…

    … and I commented at Protein Wisdom off and on for years, either siding with Jeff G. over you or talking about other matters entirely, and was banned promptly once I started disagreeing with Goldstein about the above, and agreeing with you…

    … don’t you think it’s bordering on a wee bit childish to try to put the responsibility on Joe, myself, or anyone else for your continuing that online spat, which may have caused you grief in various ways?

    Maybe you were right about the initial debate re: your RS McCain comments, maybe not, but there is no reasonable interpretation that Joe, of all people, successfully goaded you, a public figure, a well-known major market media critic, and successful prosecutor… into continuing that feud.

    Unless that’s what you’re arguing, and is that what you really want to be arguing?

    Posted by: Christoph at January 02, 2010 03:22 PM (0fq7b)

    And that is the point, there is just not that much difference between Patterico, Sullivan and Charles Johnson anymore.

  38. Joe
    January 2nd, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

    Even Patterico’s supporters are starting to figure it out:

    202 “Joe goes around cutting and pasting bloggers’ comments and pasting them on other web sites, to start fights. That’s why I banned him. He is not happy unless he can set two bloggers against each other — like the platinum blonde who says to her boyfriend: “Are you gonna let him talk to you like that?!?!”

    Umm, Patterico, even though you know I sided with you in the end about Goldstein’s reprehensible behaviour by not only threatening violence on various people online (on a blog that discusses the application of force, to wit, self-defence matters)… and then reiterating stale old threats from months ago when you pointed out this bad hehaviour… for no good reason at all other than what I can only conclude was his emotional instability…

    … and I commented at Protein Wisdom off and on for years, either siding with Jeff G. over you or talking about other matters entirely, and was banned promptly once I started disagreeing with Goldstein about the above, and agreeing with you…

    … don’t you think it’s bordering on a wee bit childish to try to put the responsibility on Joe, myself, or anyone else for your continuing that online spat, which may have caused you grief in various ways?

    Maybe you were right about the initial debate re: your RS McCain comments, maybe not, but there is no reasonable interpretation that Joe, of all people, successfully goaded you, a public figure, a well-known major market media critic, and successful prosecutor… into continuing that feud.

    Unless that’s what you’re arguing, and is that what you really want to be arguing?

    Posted by: Christoph at January 02, 2010 03:22 PM (0fq7b)

    And that is the point, there is just not that much difference between Patterico, Sullivan and Charles Johnson anymore.