The “C” word sure seems to be used a lot this election cycle.

First, we saw these shirts (I personally saw one at a public event last spring):

Next, we heard rumors that McCain might have called his wife the “C” word in public some years back.

And now we see (yes, see) that some Obama supporters are wearing shirts that say, plainly and clearly,

“SARAH PALIN IS A C–T”

I have to say: I’m the most disgusted by the third example. Rednecks and hotheads have name-called since time began, but ya just don’t expect the (often self-righteous) liberals to make sexist remarks to get a laugh, especially in a year where a strong, successful and brilliant woman was very nearly their candidate of choice.*

I’m queasy about sharing a candidate with the people who thought to buy or make shirts like this, just as I’m sure most middle of the road Republicans are pissed that they share one with violent bigots.

* Update: Just found out that the people who made and wore the shirts are staffers of WOW and are self-described libertarians who happen to be supporting Obama.

Here’s what Politico’s Ben Smith had to say about this:

“I mentioned the shirts in passing earlier, and one of their creators, emailing under the name Rhiannon Volpe, objected to my suggestion that she was a Democrat:

I personally am a registered Libertarian, supporting Obama this year. Palin is the last woman I want to hold a political office right now. Her lack of common sense, cruel treatment to animals, and just plain ignorance to what we (Americans, and even women) really care about is absolutely frustrating. The point of wearing the shirt to me is just a bold way of saying that she certainly is not liked or one of “us.” To play the gender card is irrelevant, because I am a woman who wears the tshirt anyway.

She added that McCain had, allegedly, used the word himself, “so is it really that offensive?” And she said none of the people pictured were Democrats.”

Huh. I’m not sure how the story changes just because they don’t happen to be Democrats, and I also think it’s ridiculous to say that sexism can’t be perpetrated by women.

One of the common criticisms of Palin - though I can’t speak for the WOW folks - is that her views represent a step backward for women. Another is that she’s unprepared on virtually every issue so she’s focusing on attacks to make her case. It’s troubling that people are using sexist, personal attacks, and not arguments about ability or readiness, to make the case against Palin.

Thoughts? Am I making too much out of the use of a word?

GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin

If you’re a Vice Presidential candidate, and your campaign is shouting from the rooftops about your sexist treatment by the media,

and you’re battling the perhaps unfair perception that you were chosen because of a cynical political decision based on you being an attractive woman,then maybe, just maybe, the best way to combat these issues is NOT

posing for Vogue magazine
(even if your pose is all tough gal in the wilderness.)

I mean, seriously: Vogue? Of all the magazines, you chose Vogue, whose sole purpose is to glorify fashion?

Sure, it’s a coup for the formidable Anna Wintour, who wants her magazine to show strong women.

But what do you get out of it? What motivation would you have to pose for Vogue other than to play up your gender and chicness? What message are you sending to the public?

In January, Democratic contender Hillary Clinton declined to pose for Vogue:

A Vogue spokesperson says: “We were told by Ms. Clinton’s camp that they were concerned if Clinton appeared in Vogue that she would appear too feminine.”

[Insert joke here] but Hillary impressed people by running as a tough candidate, not as a tough woman candidate. She did pose for Vogue in 1998 while she was the First Lady, which is more appropriate for that role than for a candidate running for the highest (or second-highest) office in the nation.

Look, sexist coverage is just plain wrong, no question. But capitalizing on gender appeal while loudly complaining about sexism is wronger.

I’m just sayin’.

(I had planned on writing a completely different post today assailing the jerks who made these and advocating better coverage of Palin, but I somehow lost my appetite for it.)

Signed,

A disappointed & embarrassed woman

What happens when a citizen, concerned about the environment, reduces his trash output to nearly zero through recycling, conscientious buying, composting and feeding scraps to his dog?

Does he receive an award? A tax rebate of some sort? A high-five?

Nope. Mr. Eddie House gets freaking sued by his city for canceling his trash service. His city in CALIFORNIA, the second most tree-huggy state in the nation. (Oregon gets top billing from me on this, based on scientific data semi-ignorant stereotyping.)

The lawsuit, filed by San Carlos Deputy City Attorney Linda Noeske in San Mateo Superior Court on Jan. 22, seeks a permanent injunction forcing House to maintain garbage service. City officials are also seeking to recoup from House the costs of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims House broke the city’s municipal code requiring all residential, commercial and industrial properties to contract with Allied Waste for pickup at least once a week — a standard requirement in most cities, San Carlos Deputy City Manager Brian Moura said.

So let me get this straight. He saves landfill space, uses fewer resources since the trash truck doesn’t have to stop at his place or haul his rubbish to said landfill, increases the quality of soil and recycles prodigiously (not to mention makes his dog happy)- and for this he gets slapped with a lawsuit? For not wasting time, resources, and money?

Look, I understand that when big companies bid on services like this, they can only offer cheap rates if they can be guaranteed lots and lots of customers. I get that. And, it’s probably understandable if the city assumed he was just dumping his trash in neighbors’ trash cans to get a free service, but it’s pretty clearly not the case here.

It’s absolutely wrong for the city to punish Mr. House for violating this agreement. Shame on you, San Carlos!!