This is the first scandal all week that couldn't be blamed on the babelicious Jasmine MacDonnell (Chronical Herald). Lose a few, lose a few.
6.09.2009
What Do You Mean F*ck Me, F*ck You!
Straight from minister Lisa Raitt and her glowing hot pants, comes this new bit of Tory disdain for Canadians, from the Toronto Star.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
6 comments:
Interesting link, but I'm pretty sure if I used the word "babelicious" to describe someone in the news, I'd be called all sorts of unflattering names by fellow bloggers mostly. Some of them writing for the PD...
Not by me, you wouldn't. Well, I might remark on it if they were un-babelicious in a socio-politically loathesome way. Like if you called Ed Stelmach "babealicious". Or Ann Coulter.
What about you guys? Carle? Rosie? Greg? Emily? Paul? James? Jorge? Shane? Etc? Can Saskboy call newsworthy people "babelicious" without fear of Dog Blog reprisal?
I know: I wondered that myself.
It’s just that what Lisa Raitt said on the tape was so crass and opportunistic, frankly, so unladylike.
Except for the false concern about Leona Aglukkaq, who comes from a “cooperative” government (gasp!) and therefore wouldn’t be able to survive in the rough and tumble world of the cabinet, the poor dear -- that was totally ladylike.
The rest of the story is a kind of warped, post-feminist alternate reality, right down to the gorgeous assistant, who seems to have a kind of I Love Lucy “Oops! Butter fingers!” way of dropping files and recording devices willy nilly around Canadian media outlets. Like Lucy, she takes her lumps when the scheme falls apart, so the real people can go on running the world again.
Too bad for us Jasmine MacDonnell can only be fired once. I would far rather follow her and Lisa Raitt in their political sitcom than the badly written, staged version of Canadian politics that is Question Period.
In a weird way, Lisa Raitt scored one for the feminist team, by showing us the naked, ungendered soul of a true politician in all its malignant glory.
Thanks to her, I feel I can say that Jasmine MacDonnell is babelicious. Plus she's hot.
First of all, I do not find the woman in question all that 'babealicious.' Then again, my taste runs towards cougars than pasty-faced political wonks.
Secondly, I find the discussion disconcerting, as if we're supposed to think that just because the woman in question is considered attractive in some circles, there seems to be some idea that she's competent in some fashion. It's the Sarah Palin phenonmenon.
This woman should never work in PR or on the Hill again.
I dunno, it just seems like we want it to be Julie Couliard all over again, like we didn't get enough of her the first time. If the press had photos of Minister or ex-aide in a swimsuit or low cut shirt, it'd be THE stock photo like the one of Couliard with What's his name Minister. There's just a double standard is all I'm pointing out. If a man says something about the physical appearance of a newsworthy person, then he's being sexist. But if a woman says it, is it still sexist? Funny? Catty? We have all sorts of opinions on that in our society, and I'm not really concerned if it's any of those for women to do it, but for men we have a shorter leash that's all. I'm just envious of that freedom I suppose.
First off, I've never seen a picture of Jasmine MacDonnell, but if Carle says she's babelicious, then that's good enough for me. Babelicious she is.
Second, where double standards are concerned, guys generally make off like bandits. So if women are on the winning side of this one, I'm okay with that.
Third, I thought this post was about what a frothing-at-the-mouth, psychotic bully John Baird is? Why does he keep getting a pass?
Post a Comment