AR alerted me to this story by Abbie Boudreau, an investigative reporter for CNN. Boudreau has been working on a report about young conservatives, and set up an interview with James O’Keefe. You probably remember O’Keefe because he is just that idiotic — but hopefully you don’t. Suffice it to say that he calls himself an investigative journalist, but when journalists write about him they have to use phrases like “self-proclaimed ‘investive journalist’ O’Keefe . . . .” You get the picture.

So O’Keefe decided to “punk” Boudreau by inviting her onto a boat for their interview and then taping a mock-seduction of the reporter. CNN obtained documents that appear to be plans for the event, including a list of “props” (a condom jar and dildos) and other “equipment” (lube, hidden cameras, posters & paintings of naked women, and porn). This was all designed as a means of paying Boudreau back for what he describes as her efforts to “seduce” him into an interview.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen O’Keefe, but it’s probably been a while since he was seduced into anything more than an interview. Which could explain why the Boat of Seduction was supposed to stocked with “stamina pills” and playing “80s romance songs, things that are typically James.”

Um.

Thankfully, Boudreau discovered the plan and cancelled the interview. And she was rightfully angry. O’Keefe’s plan had nothing to do with criticizing CNN, and everything to do with belittling her as a female reporter.

Let me explain, lest I get accused of that most inane of the critiques of feminists — that I can’t take a joke. I actually have a modest sense of humor (for a woman), but here’s why O’Keefe isn’t funny.

First of all, he’s a young conservative. That’s not funny ha-ha, that’s just funny weird. There is a reason why most people aren’t that interested in taxes and welfare until they’re older, and I assume it has something to do with not having sex as much. (?)

More importantly, though, O’Keefe was trying to rattle a female reporter by treating her as a sex object. This would upset her, he figured, because she is trying to work, and he is pointing out that she is a woman, and therefore she has sex. With men! And he is a man. Ergo, it is physically possible (however implausible) that she could have sex with him.

As Boudreau describes in her report, this is nothing new, which is exactly the point of the prank. O’Keefe’s gimmick would have no real sting if women didn’t still have to deal with sexism in the workplace.

My point is that although some humor gets its power from its hyper-realism – Stephen Colbert‘s recent brand is just one example that comes to mind – O’Keefe’s is not that type of humor. His sexism isn’t in the service of something funny. It’s not, say, exposing this CNN reporter as a hypocrite. It’s just using sexism the way it’s always used – to try to belittle a woman.

Which is not to say that there is nothing funny about this story, especially since Boudreau did not end up going on the creep-o boat. I personally enjoyed that O’Keefe planned to have “posters and paintings of naked women” on the walls of the boat. I get posters, although that seems a little college dorm-y for a boat, but paintings of naked women? Where was he going to find these paintings, exactly? Are we talking, like, blacklight paintings? Or more like Botticellis? Either way, that’s funny.

-AS

In fairness to Robertson, his job as a pastor is not to take sides in America’s culture wars, but rather to interpret and spread the word of Christ.  And I believe his remarks here are taken almost verbatim from Jesus’ Sermon to the Sadducees, commonly referred to as the “Lighten Up, Toots” sermon.

-AR

This discussion demonstrates part of what makes Palin such a frustrating public figure. There are many fascinating questions about sexism and elitism surrounding the media’s coverage of and the country’s reaction to Sarah Palin, but she was so spectacularly and uniquely unqualified for the position to which she was nominated that these issues are almost impossible to analyze. There’s simply no basis for comparison: even Dan Quayle would have had more engagement with most issues of national importance in his first week in the Senate than Palin appears to have had in her entire life up to the time of her selection.

This reveals what a deeply cynical choice Palin’s nomination was in the first place. I suspect one reason the McCain campaign felt it could choose Palin without doing anything close to a proper vetting is because it thought it could answer any attacks on her, regardless of the merits, by charging sexism. This would have the added benefits of portraying liberals as hypocrites (since, you know, liberals are supposed to care about sexism) and maybe winning over some disaffected Hillary voters. Which just shows how poorly conservatives understand racism and sexism: only someone who sees all charges of sexism as equally meritless could fail to see a distinction between the treatment of a highly qualified and accomplished public servant like Clinton and an incompetent like Palin.

-AR