Mustachioed douchebag. That's how The Stranger's Bradley Steinbacher described Michael Medved Weds. on Slog.
Steinbacher was trashing The Wizard of Culture & History (as he was once known on the local airwaves) for a column he wrote on Salem Communication's wicked, winged site, Townhall.com.
Medved (KTTH m-f, 12-3p) was busy trashing fags, as always, but this time he was comparing them to another group of pariahs he's obsessed with and makes jokes about- fat chicks. he wrote:
The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.
This was a little out of right field- a stretch in an attempt to say something original about the Tim Hardaway I-hate-gays-story.
But If you listen to Medved, you know he talks a lot about fat people; never failing to mention someone's girth- especially if it's large and they're a Democrat. (Rep. Jerrold Nadler is Jerry Waddler, etc.)
Michael hails from Los Angeles where beach culture is strong and the cult of too rich and too thin has many devotees; including, apparently, your Cultural Crusader. Considering his time spent at Venice Beach, we've in general ignored his fat-baiting. (It's not quite politically incorrect yet to single out fat people, and besides, Michael doesn't like political correctness- unless it disses Christians. Patriotic correctness is more his style).
Don't ask us how we know this: but Medved once entered an eating contest in New Haven and consumed more than two dozen large donuts within the allotted one-hour time limit and finished second in the State of Connecticut.
This has all been leading up to the story of our first experience with Michael Medved, and his charming, (and svelte!) wife, Dr. Diane. It might shed light on the Medved household and the environment in which Medved's body image obsession thrives.
In the mid '90's, we organized a panel for the late, great Seattle bookfair, Bookfest when it was still down on the waterfront. It was a pro-con debate on the 1960's. (We, of course were all for them, and still are- believing those halcyon days were a welcome renaissance that happened just in time to free up us and the human race from panty girdles and weekly haircuts; and a crucible for such important cultural markers as the Happy Face, and the bra-less weekday).
We arranged for a distinguished flurry of pro-'60's liberals like Tom Robbins, Walt Crowley, Paul Dorpat, Jean Godden, Dr. Stephanie Coontz, some others. It was balanced with high profile conservatives- John Carlson, Michelle Malkin, (she was at the Seattle Times) and Michael Medved.
For some reason lost in memory, Michael couldn't make it and sent instead, his wife, Diane, a psychologist and author of a long-remaindered book she co-wrote with Dan Quayle, a long-remaindered politician who shone dully but briefly in the late 1980's.
This august discussion was well attended, what with the star power of Robbins, et al. Panelists came loaded for bear: the liberals, many of whom had been anti-war radicals and civil rights activists defended their salad years and the great equalizing civil upheaval that brought drugs, the no sox lifestyle, and free sex.
The conservatives argued that the '60's were the end of discipline, morality, respect, education, sobriety, order, civility and brought drugs, the no sox lifestyle, and free sex.
It was quite spirited, with Tom Robbins fiercely eloquent; Koontz had
just published a book busting the 1950's; Carlson came in on his pink
salmon-colored Harley; Malkin pissed everyone off by bitching about the indulgences of '60's civil
disobedience while she was obviously enjoying its fruits by being a woman of
color sitting on the goddamn editorial board of the Seattle Times!
In the middle of all this heady generational discourse, Mrs. Medved's opening statement was that she could still fit in the cheerleader's outfit she'd worn in high school in the '60's. And to prove it, she was wearing it, short little skirt, pom-poms, and all!
This revelation was met with dead silence for a few moments- then came an eruption of laughter from the incredulous crowd. Her prepared remarks congratulating herself on being the same size as she was in high school was met with the same mirth. It was embarrassing to the other conservatives; and uncomfortable for us. (Later in bed, Malkin wouldn't talk about it- although that might have had something to do with the ball-gag we had in her mouth).
Diane Medved, who is not a shallow person, was non-plussed and apparently unaware- even after they laughed at her- of how trivial she seemed to the audience. It was peculiar.
gross...especially the part about Malkin.
I need to take another shower...yechhhhh.
Posted by: sparky | February 22, 2007 at 07:25 AM
I wouldnt kick Malkin out of bed.
Posted by: God | February 22, 2007 at 08:40 AM
"I wouldnt kick Malkin out of bed."
Does God have sex? If so, would he use birth control? (How would Jesus feel about having a bro or sis) Maybe he/she could die for the Republicans' sins.
Just askin...as 'people' want to know.
Posted by: Secular Sinner | February 22, 2007 at 09:34 AM
I hope Michael sues you- and Michelle too.
Posted by: sandra | February 22, 2007 at 09:40 AM
I guess this answers the question, Does Michelle Malkin swallow?
Posted by: Toucans | February 22, 2007 at 09:42 AM
Whats worse, Michael and his BDSM fetish or Peasant talking about taking off her cloths.
Posted by: Steve | February 22, 2007 at 01:37 PM
you screwed michelle malkin . . . I'm aghast . . . :o (that's what michelle looked like in bed)
Posted by: joanie | February 22, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Well, now that I'm over that shocking revelation, whatever happened to Bookfest anyway? We are a city that reads but no bookfest anymore? Did it die when it moved to Sandpoint? Maybe the soon-to-be empty key arena would be better.
We really should have a book festival. That is more important than sports.
I saw some of probably the last bookfest on C-Span and wondered why our representation was so small.
We have great writers here . . . don't understand why bookfest failed.
(never liked it being in October . . . may through aug would have been better)
Posted by: joanie | February 22, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Steve, you got it bad for Sparky. Peasant? Is that your fantasy . . . she's taken but good - better 'n you. Find another one.
Michael . . . look what you've unleashed here.
Malkin? Thought you had better taste.
Posted by: joanie | February 22, 2007 at 01:50 PM
Check out the picture on the on-line NY Times - Bush pretending to be a scientist.
He seems to enjoy costume changes . . .
BTW, my favorite '79 Sonic died today.
Posted by: joanie | February 22, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Amen on that...we agree! RIP DJ !
Posted by: Duffman | February 22, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Message from BW Source enforcement:
Sources required before further respect given...
"If you study (Ritter's) comments in some relative depth, you will see that while he was somewhat accurate in his recall of facts, he was prone to drawing incomplete and 'inaccurate' conclusions"
Posted by: mercifurious | February 22, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Whats worse, Michael and his BDSM fetish or Peasant talking about taking off her cloths.
News flash, Steve. Malkin's ignorant yap gives everyone BDSM fetish.
Posted by: mercifurious | February 22, 2007 at 02:33 PM
I guess Steve showers with his clothes on...hahahahahahhahahaha
Posted by: sparky | February 22, 2007 at 03:00 PM
this is lame
Posted by: meisha | February 22, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Joanie, I emailed you regarding something off topic.
Posted by: Liz | February 22, 2007 at 04:45 PM
I'm more aghast at the thought of Malkin on the editorial board of the Seattle Times than anything else. Now that is a thought worthy of a shower.
Robinz
Posted by: Robinz | February 23, 2007 at 06:19 AM
hahaha, funny, Robin. Totally missed that aspect and totally agree.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I called Michelle on that hypocrisy years ago. She did not respond, to the e-mail, except possibly grit her teeth. I know she reads everything written about her.
Posted by: Mike Barer | February 23, 2007 at 12:30 PM
"I'm more aghast at the thought of Malkin on the editorial board of the Seattle Times than anything else."
Well, that's the result of affirmative action and civil rights: people get promoted based on race and genter rather than talent and qualification.
As to Medved - what's the surprise here? He's a JEW. what esle do you expect?
Malkin is a Uncle Tang. She should be serving beef n brocoli in a Chinese dump.
Posted by: tom | February 24, 2007 at 04:35 PM
That's pretty harsh.
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Tom
A couple racist remarks reveal you all to well.
Why does Medved's religion or Malkin's ethnicity have anything to do with their views. Attack their opinions but leave the racist crap at the door.
Pretty Snarky talk.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 24, 2007 at 06:12 PM
interesting that all of the 'liberals' here let some fairly racist talk go on without comment.
i guess its okay when racist talk is thrown on to someone you dislike.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 09:19 AM
"gross...especially the part about Malkin.
I need to take another shower...yechhhhh."
why can't a woman of color be beautiful Snarky?
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 09:26 AM
In regards to Medved, during his year at Yale Law School he was friends with Hillary and -to a lesser extent- Bill.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Malkin is quite beautiful--on the outside.
Posted by: sparky | February 25, 2007 at 04:49 PM
I'd like to fuck her in the head- give her some brains.
Posted by: cinco | February 25, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Snarky
Wow. What caused the turnaround? Been living life on the 'downlow' on the sly :)
You've come a long way from this earlier post.
"Point taken, chucks, but WHY WHY WHY do you guys think Malkin is attractive. ...What on God's Green Earth makes her attractive????
Posted by: sparky | December 06, 2006 at 02:28 PM"
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 06:32 PM
Havent changed my feelings at all. Beauty on the inside is what counts for me.
Outwardly she is attractive.
Inside...she is still ugly..the kind that surpasses gender and race.
My opinion. Doesn't have to be yours.
Posted by: sparky | February 25, 2007 at 07:10 PM
The Peasant really put her foot in her mouth in that last post.
"Malkin is quite beautiful--on the outside."
"Havent changed my feelings at all. Beauty on the inside is what counts for me."
Which one Peasant, outside or inside.
Posted by: Steve | February 25, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Geez, puts, you must be one super bean counter . . . you organize and file all our posts?
Michael, remember when you lost some archival stuff. . . well Puts' has it . . . he's got it all. A compulsive saver, are you puts?
If you ask nice, he might send it to you . . .
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 09:44 PM
nope. just got a good memory for crap that doesn't pay me a dime.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 09:51 PM