…I obviously didn’t expect or want to be a focal point of the piece, and I really just appreciated the photo of me at the top of the article placed alongside my late night contemporaries that featured my new haircut — the feedback has been overwhelming. What bothered me was that when I was listed in a paragraph with the late-night hosts, I was the only name put in parentheses. Mr. Carter wrote, “(The only female host in late-night is Chelsea Handler, 38, on E!).”
I wanted to confirm what a parenthetical suggests, so I looked up the definition. The first few definitions that came up were: incidental, subordinate in significance, minor or casual.
The particular paragraph I was mentioned in was about the competition Jimmy faces for younger viewers. Depending upon whose research you look at, I share the distinction of having the youngest average viewership with Colbert, The Daily Show and Conan. So from a purely statistical standpoint how, in this paragraph, could I only be mentioned as an aside? Was it because I’m a woman?
"Some people think it’s insensitive," Goldsmith said. "I can’t address that. That’s what practicing law is."
Wrong Jan and you know it. Pervasive surveillance of a private citizen is not what “practicing law is” for government officials when those officials openly admit that their government client hired a “dirtbag” cop who harassed this woman. Excessively titillating descriptions of ordinary behavior (“kissing and hugging her boyfriend in public; attired in shorts and bending fully over … on several occasions”) filed in official court (government) records is not what “practicing law is” for government officials who admit that their client hired a “dirtbag” cop who harassed this woman.
Quit acting like an ambulance-chasing bottom feeder and start acting like a City Attorney who knows what “practicing law is” in the context of the duties of a government lawyer.
If you find this kind of slut shaming by an elected official objectionable, tell Goldsmith - don’t forget to cite the source article.
Huckabee: Women “helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them … birth control because they cannot control their libido”— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 23, 2014
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said that contraceptive coverage proves that Democrats think that women are helpless and can’t control their own libidos without help from the government.
How ridiculous! Of course women aren’t helpless. But birth control is expensive. The Obama administration’s no-cost birth control policy makes contraception affordable, and it’s not funded by the government.
We’re going to hear this lie and these inexcusable stereotypes from now until Election Day if we don’t call our opponents on it. Tell Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to reject Huckabee’s false and offensive statement.
Mike Huckabee’s comments about the contraceptive-coverage policy were way out of line and false—and you should reject them. Ninety-nine percent of American women use birth control at some point in their lives to be responsible and be healthy. And let’s be clear about the facts: the contraceptive-coverage policy is covered by premiums collected by insurance companies and isn’t related to government spending.