Can we have a moratorium

On snarky comments about Miers' appearance? Some here have commented on her eyeliner and generally "sleepy" look. Doesn't this seem petty to anyone? If she'd had an eyelift and a professional makeup artist, we'd be criticizing her for her shallow obsession with appearance. Hell, let's nominate Pam Anderson; I'm not a fan, but at least she spends time on her looks, right?

At issue isn't what she looks like but rather what kind of Justice she'll make if she's confirmed. Leave the petty grooming commentary to Joan Rivers.

We're better than that.

:crazy:

People can't choose things like whether or not to have bags under their eyes.

And how short their skirts are. All I'm asking for is a level playing field.

Please see my new George Bush thread and tell me how out of line it is to be mean to poor George. There's a double standard at work here. Women are not sacred cows when it comes to Republican bashing, so far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

missed your point.

This isn't about a double standard for women. I've made that clear repeatedly.

It isn't about free speech. You're perfectly free to do the wrong thing.

It's about too many people (including you apparently) on DU who want to be CHILDREN! Level playing field, my ass! The comments on this board regarding the personal appearance of people on the left AND right are straight out of the junior high cafeteria and People Weekly.

You want to keep the world functioning exactly the way it does and bitch about the fact that it doesn't favor your people. That's mighty progressive.

If you're tired of the pettiness, stop being petty!

If you're tired of the hostility, stop being hostile!

If you're tired of the unfairness, don't be unfair!

If you're tired of injustice, be just!

You "level playing field" seems to be about adding MORE of all the WRONG things to our society. Thanks for having the courage to look around at the rotten state of things and shout, "We need more SHIT over here!"

:rofl:

How have I not been civil and respectful to you? Simply telling you you're wrong is uncivil? Hmmm. Odd conception you have there.

It hasn't escaped my attention that several of your replies have been edited, and I appreciate the restraint you must have exercised.

Other than that, it would appear we've reached an agreement?

Nice try, though. But really, you're getting tiresome.

I have edited posts for typos, nothing more. If you want to imagine that I said something terrible to you and then changed my mind, be my guest.

I suppose you think this is civility:

It's about too many people (including you apparently) on DU who want to be CHILDREN! Level playing field, my ass!

Anyway, I'm really done discussing this with you. You don't get it. You're comfortably ensconced in your South American exile, while I ride the NYC subways everyday wondering if I'm about to get blown up because Bush's policies have enraged the world. And you'd like to tell ME to be a little nicer to the snakes in the WH? I won't do it. End of discussion.

It weakens our arguments against her based on her record. Criticizing someone based upon their appearance is childish. I could care less what she looks like.

Looks should be the last thing on the list.

We don't like it when they base their reactions on what the skin looks like; we sure as hell shouldn't be guilty of the same bigotry.

Go after her as a bush enabler with NO experience to justify a position on the SCOTUS. Go after the substance or lack there of.

Velvet Painting Poppin' Puppy Eyes, either.

And Bush's red nose. And Delays. Etc. ad nauseum.

A big bad Mullet and overdone/slept-it-it eyeliner are SELF inflicted ugly, and thus, fair game IMO.

Kucinich an Nader were both repeatedly roasted in the media for their "JC Penney" suits, and their views were never given an objective airing.

Miers faults and virtues should speak for themselves. She's not being nominated for the Ministry of Style, so her "style" is irrelevant.

& I'm sticking to the above post.

I'll make fun of every GD one of them all the livelong day...so put me on ignore--please.

PS--JC Penney suits helped get Raygun elected.

Too often on DU I see that any call for civility and maturity yields wise responses along the lines of "who made you boss?" If that's what we're made of, then Republicans have nothing to worry about.


And the last time I checked, Reagan was elected 25 (and 21) years ago. Media-priorities have changed, but if you want to advocate a comeback campaign based on memes a quarter-century old, then best of luck to you.

they will be spared NOTHING, and i don't care who puts me on ignore either. all's fair in love and war, and make no mistake about this - IT IS WAR!

Hit em high, hit em low, hit em hard, hit em again.

You don't notice the right policing each other when they too MEAN. Toughen up.

I'm dead serious, too.

Also, the fact that the crack team of HF stylists didn't arrive in time to spiff her up indicates to me that Bush may not be serious about her anyway--she may be a diversion.

I'm NOT joking. The HF is too smooth of a machine to have let that slip.

I think she's great. Apparently, you would have a problem with her because of her appearance.

But no, I don't have a problem with Ginsberg's appearance. She's quite tasteful and well presented.

Miers looks cheap--that's a weird mistake for W's handlers to have made.

Interesting, and sexist, observation. Can you supply a link to a picture where she looks "cheap" -- hopefully its a push up bra, fishnet stockings, the whole works...

onenote

Again--missed my point entirely, but whatever.

the cheap polyester ill-fitting suit, the black ringed eyes, and the bad hair with layers of hairspray are just bad.


powerful female lawyers that head prestigious lawfirms shouldn't be dressed like that.


outside of Alan Dershowitz, i can't think of a male "powerbroker" that presents himself in that way.

as for Ruth Bader Ginsburg - if she jsut got smaller frames for her glasses she'd be one classic beauty.

:D

:spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl:

seriously dislike this women on than just her looks.

or busy.

hope it's all family heirloom stuff (giving her an excuse here) & if it wasn't yesterday it is now.

IMo she's overdoing the flair. just sayin.

fair and square. But seriously if you just sit back and take the time to get to know someone there usually better reasons to make fun of them than thier looks and thier religion. :rofl:

lol

Big hair, big jewelry (and lots of it)..everyone gets older, but lots of women never change their look as they age:)

as seen in this photo from her short lived Comedy Central series:

Remember "Working Girl?"

Major learning curve for the heroine in that film.

This woman has worked in the governor's office and in the White House.

I think posters in this thread are trying to voice their (our) problems with the women George W. chooses to elevate to national/international positions of stature.

The Wal-Mart hairdo and Maybe It's Maybelline eyes speak volumes to the world.

Just my little old Fort Worth (TCU) opinion, y'all.

INCLUDING her looks. sorry! :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Good taste is timeless.

Heck, I know I'm not alone when I say I think she, Pickles, Condi, and Karen hughes are all little hotties. :loveya:

They're not my type, but hey, I'm not looking to date any of them. :)

On the other hand, I read over a dozen posts here about Miers' unsatisfactory appearance before I'd even seen a picture of her. That speaks poorly, IMO, of the avenue of discourse here sometimes.

I'm not joking; there are legitimate issues here.

No stylists were consulted prior to the announcement? That may seem frivolous to you, but I see some major worries with it, as such:

Perhaps she's a diversion. If this were a serious appointment, someone should have spiffed and especially SOFTENED her up at least a bit.

Perception does indeed matter, and there is no ignoring the flair--they either KNEW it would be talked about, or they aren't serious about her.

I don't like either possibility.

Those are the normal rankings of targets when we attack someone. As for actual policy beliefs... that's about 454 on the list.

And if you happen not to follow the prescribed order-of-attack, you are yourself subject to attack for (in no particular order):

1. Not being a true liberal
2. Not being liberal enough
3. Having a secret, pro-Bush agenda
4. Being part of a big, corporate conspiracy to silence dissent
5. Being too much of a pussy to fight the fight

Sometimes, especially when there's a same-day picture, comments about looks come out. Usually, the vast majority of comments on individuals are about what they say or do.

Sexuality is, I think, very far from the second thing attacked. Car . . . a joke?

There is plenty of discussion of substantive issues. There is also discussion of superficial matters. You don't have to join in. You are, of course, free to say what you think about others' comments.

You are :P

nyuk nyuk

Texas accent?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2130488

I say yes, as both are self-inflicted.

Dubya's pseudoaccent is a deliberate affectation intended to make him seem more like one'a them reg'lar guys. It's a calculated effort that's been designed to boost his saleability, and it's therefore fair game.

If I can be convinced that Miers' appearance is part of a concerted ploy to make her more marketable, then I'll agree that it's likewise fair game.

If it's just the way she happens to look, then shame on anyone who bases an argument on her appearance.

Look at how Roberts' was presented--perfect lighting, perfect suit, perfect everything--even to the wife and kids. Roberts was as spiffed up as a Miss America contestant--only he had much better lighting!

If they were serious about her, someone would have made a concerted effort to spiff her up a la JR--and it would have taken very little effort (trust me, I'm a bit of a glamourpuss).

I think she's a diversion, and her appearance TODAY is part of the reason why. Without the flair and the Marilyn Manson eyes, she's probably quite attractive, actually.

Maybe Roberts thinks appearances are extremely important and *on his own* he spiffs up or asks handlers to make sure everything is perfect during photo ops? I don't see that as particularly superior to a choice by another person that they refuse to play that game. Miers may just not care about fashion and makeup.

I couldn't help it.

I kept thinking of Flo



and June



and then....



Maybe... behind every good woman is a .... lurking man? a smirking man? a helpless man?

Okay, I'm done.
Sheesh... a little levity folks.

:rofl:

http://www.mtvla.com/shared/media/news/images/m/Manson,_Marilyn/sq-marilyn-manson-flower-diary-mtv.jpg

Okay, I really am ashamed of myself. :spank:

I wondered what all the fuss was aboot.

We are as superficial and catty as anyone else. But we don't think it's okay to torture in our name, start wars based on lies and then conduct those wars ineptly and screw over everyone in the process. We believe in rights for ALL Americans. Just because we can be shallow doesn't mean we can be deep. Just like some castigate anyone for watching TV, that doesn't mean I don't love to read. Just because I read the Enquirer doesn't mean I don't also read National Geographic and the New Yorker.

Her looks weren't the first thing on my mind. The fact that Bush nominated someone that's never been a judge was. Once again I can shock the husband before first thing when he gets up. And then we shrug our initial response-this is wrong! insane! and go out and live in this funhouse of horrors, Bushworld.

is how, there are rules already in place governing this community of thousands, but some still would like to tweak general board behavior so that they need never read anything here that annoys them or pushes their buttons.

I sometimes read things here that irritate, annoy or even anger me. For instance, I think the "Mann Coulter" comments are boring and immature. But I don't believe this discussion board is here to provide me with a calm refuge from the real world. I don't think it should be free of comments that annoy or anger me. I enjoy the mixture of ideas and irreverence and I laugh at some things that are pretty offensive. Striving to be inoffensive is an ideal way of achieving blandness.

I'm a big fan of profanity. Give me a volume of Bukowski, and I'm happy as a pig in shit.

And I don't come to DU for any sort of obscenity-free oasis, nor even as an island of maturity in a childish world.

But if we're discussing the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee, then I think that our arguments would be better served by a reasoned discussion of her qualifications, rather than speculating whether she applied her own eyeliner.

I guess what bothers me is that I've seen perhaps a dozen or so comments about her qualifications alongside hundreds of petty posts about her makeup sense.

I find it tiresome.

Obviously people are welcome to post in whatever manner they choose. But if, afterwards, a poster wonders why his argument isn't taken seriously, perhaps he should consider getting a haircut or an eyelift.

Thanks for your comments, but I think that you were missing the point of my objection.

Of course your comments have merit. It's just that I happen to enjoy some of the petty attacks. (However, I don't personally think eyeliner critiques are petty.) I also I think you're as entitled to make your comments as everyone else is.

for a woman over 50 ringing her eyes with kohl. especially when her eyes are blue.

it's just for laughs.. everyone knows (or should know) it's just some comic relief from all the heartbreaking BS of the last 4+ years..

Bush and his alky beat up face
Bolton and his mustach
Barb the ole Battle Axe
Robert's freaky eyes

all fair game in this brutal Bush world

If there were a counterbalance to all of the appearance-bashing, I wouldn't mind it a bit. But comments about Miers' makeup have all but taken the place of serious discussions of her qualifications.

Q: "Is she qualified?"

A: "Hell no! Just look at her eyeliner!"

"sexist". But, we already knew that one side of the ideological divide didn't have a monopoly on these traits, sadly enough.

to smite the various offenders

if you like being stupid, shallow, and sexist...I can't stop you.

Have fun.

(pobably on accounta my shallow stupidity) but I dimly feel that was an insult.

carry on with the smitin'.

And I totally agree! None of us can much help our looks... Besides, we certainly put up with Janet and Maddy (oops!) Looks aren't everything--I just want SCOTUS to DO the right thing.

And thanks for chiming in!

...and ya knew darned well when you clicked on it.

Edit your own head. I don't want to, 'kay? Mine's trouble enough.

Monitor that mousefinger!

that's all I need to have her voted down, Conflict of Interest!!

They can deny it all they want, but she has something to do with him on a daily basis, law wise.

Snarky bastard he is.

and, if we're not, we certainly should be...

and actually it is kind of sad that chit chat seems to get more hits and attention then actions sometimes.
I hate when some of the idiots on the far right make disgusting and stupid comments about Cindy Sheehan or Hillary etc. that have nothing to do with their stands on issues.

This is a weird nomination, overall I am just disgusted that these highest ranking judges and officials have such questionable qualifications.
Why when there are many qualified experienced judges around do we have the personnel lawyer of Mr. Bush- who may and should be indicted himself on serious charges, being considered for such a high level position?
Aren't we suppose to respect the Supreme Court Judges? Then why should they make such a mockery of the entire system?

The Supreme Court is too important to play politics with.
Think they will ever go for someone well qualified like JUDGE Ed Prado. I know there are well qulaified women around too. they just threaten us with well if you don't take this one you will get someone worse.

it's not my first instinct, nor my ONLY complaint/comment. I understand what Orrex is saying when I read a long thread filled almost exclusively with posts about the person's appearance. It sounds stupid and it sounds like people don't have any real reason to dislike the person.

It's one thing to say:

"She's another 'pro-life' right wing, lock-step crony of BushCo who helped him purge information out of his record and is insane enough to call him the most brilliant man she's ever met. She's never been a judge ANYWHERE and now she's going to be on the SCOTUS? Fuck that. She should take delusions and her bad eyeliner back to wherever she came from."

It's another thing to say:

"Nice eyeliner! Someone call Stacey and Clinton because this idiot needs to be on 'What NOT to Wear'!"

I agree whole-heartedly! I really don't care what anyone in politics looks like, but remembering how they bashed Hillary so mercilessly in the early years of the Clinton presidency, I cringe to think we are turning into the same kind of shallow monsters.

Measure her by her beliefs and worthiness to the post, not by her physical appearance.

KRONIE!

I think it was Anne Colter who originally put it together, that showed a bunch of pics of Liberal Women and Conservative women. It's been posted here at DU more than once as evidence of how ugly the attacks from the right are. All the pics of the Liberal women were very unflattering, while the pics of the Conservative women were ideals of what they find attractive. It was obviously selective and obviously stating that Liberals women are ugly. It is obviously a cheap and ugly attack on the wonderful liberal women that were portrayed.

Everyone in this thread who's arguing that it's fair game is missing the point that no matter how much you can justify it, you can't change the fact that it is a cheap, low blow. You can argue that turnabout is fair play, but you cannot argue that it isn't cheap. And you can't argue that to anyone who isn't as passionate about politics as we are isn't going to see it like that. Because I'm sure that many conservatives yucked it up about that picture I mentioned above. To us, it looked disgusting. And I think it's worth noting that there is no difference between that picture, and what we do when we attack them for their looks. There is no difference.

very much like a lot of mean, conservative women, and indicated that there was no way someone who looks like this could be anything but a freeper witch.

I'm glad I thought better of it.

but how they dress, make themselves up, and generally present themselves IS fair game in my book. Gawd knows I've made enough fun of Pickles for the sofa coverings she wears in place of formal gowns. Now, that being said, with the exception of hairpieces, that type of cattiness tends to be aimed mostly at women for one good reason; men, having rather more circumscribed standards of appearance (there's only so many ways to fuck up a suit and tie, after all), have fewer opportunities to look horrifically bad.

I reserve the right to make fun of the roadkill on the top of Trent Lott's head, the spackling paste on the front of Katherine Harris' head, or anyone who generally presents themselves in a completely inappropriate manner (Cheney in the parka at Auschwitz, anyone?). On the other hand, I think attacking basic looks is beyond the pale, and attacking someone on the basis of their sexuality is unforgivable. I could care less whether or not Ann Coulter is transgender or just skinny - either way, her INSIDES are fugly beyond belief. Ditto Miers. Her external presentation is painfully bad, but it's what's going on between her ears and what comes out of her mouth that really frickin' scares me.