Time writes this on their website concerning Nancy Pelosi, runner-up for Person of the Year:
The highest-ranking woman in U.S. history (except for Oprah), she wields her power more effectively than any other House Speaker in modern times [emphasis mine - ed.]
Oprah holds no official titles or positions. She is powerful, yes, but she doesn’t “rank.”
Somebody needs to blow the lid off of the conspiracy to lobotomize journalism students before its too late, I tell you.
I run this joint. Follow me on Twitter here, on Google+ here, and friend me on Facebook here. Find out more about my upcoming book, The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind and Other Essays, by clicking here.
Previous post: Letting the lumpenproles out of the asylum
Next post: Another brilliant time waster
"That’s the central point of The 4-Hour Workweek – screw conventional wisdom and ethics to get rich. Leverage go-fuck-yourself Calvinist capitalism for your own benefit. Plagiarize other peoples’ work and pass it off as your own. Outsource your work to India like a good little free marketeer. Then spend all your newfound free time on vacation instead of raising a family, creating a useful invention, or otherwise contributing to society in any way..."
Daily Headlines from In Bona Fide
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Ferdinand:
Don’t you think this was just a little lame attempt at humor? “Queen Oprah” and all that? Even people who like Nancy Pelosi are capable of finding Oprah’s ubiquity humorous.
Have a look Escorts, if you want to?
____________________________
Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women- II
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/escorts-are-a-better-deal-than-real-women-02/
Master Dogen:
Dude, I am far too familiar with the mindset of the typical journalist to think that could be true.
Yes, it was a joke, i.e. “The highest-ranking woman in U.S. history (except for Queen Oprah, of course) …”
I would add that I can see how someone might mistake this for a literal attempt on the journalist’s part. There are so many errors made these days in the media that its sometimes difficult to tell if they are serious or joking. But in this case I think the way the author just interjected “except for Oprah” in parentheses without further elaboration and without including Oprah’s last name in such a formal/serious news article – is a giveaway that it was an attempt at humor, i.e. that like God, she only has one name which upon mere utterance is known and feared by all – an omnipotent being who transcends all rank.
“Dude, I am far too familiar with the mindset of the typical journalist to think that could be true.”
Is this just lame humor recursion?
{ 1 trackback }