This blog broke all of it’s records yesterday thanks to WordPress featuring the Sarah Palin post on it’s homepage.  The amount of traffic and nutty comments on a post about a politician bordered on ridiculous, especially given the typically apolitical nature of the blog.  I’ll confess though, it was pretty fun to watch all of the unexpected (and often bizarre) comments show up throughout the day.

Not that all of the comments we’re silly.  A number of folks stuck to the question of whether the Newsweek cover was sexist without devolving into tired partisan name-calling.

• BJH had perhaps the most helpful perspective on whether the choice of photo for the cover was appropriate.  Photographers have always tried to push photos like this, but 10 years ago, editors at responsible major newspapers would have rejected it as a front-page political photo. Standards were very high, and a roomful of editors might debate the merits of competing front-page lead art. Everyone would have rejected this in a political context.
• A couple of people, including Gary Morgan, suggested the cover was chosen symbolically, something I’d not even considered.  Not that Sarah is one of my favorite “political” figures, but, could it be that Newsweek was simply trying to provocatively call attention to the fact that Sarah Palin might be “running” for a political office?
• Perhaps the most insightful- to me- comment came from ksdksdksd. It seems as though every culture group will protect their own and view discrimination through a similar lens. Someone can see racism in an inappropriate picture of an Africa-American but not see any offense in the photo and vice versa. Until we all make a concerted effort to attempt to view the other person or group’s point of view with sincere empathy we will always have offensive events like the photo.
• Ladyplumley’s comment could have been a blog post itself and you should read the entire thing.  If it were a picture of another discredited recent governor of a state, say like Rod Blagojevich, posing in running shorts on the cover of the magazine, would this be a discussion topic? No. It is without doubt an issue because we, as a society, believe the power of sexuality that women have is one they are neither supposed to use nor acknowledge.

Thanks again for all of the comments, especially those that stayed even remotely on topic.

Maggie and I are off to Arizona today to attend a church planting event so the blog will be mostly quiet for the next few days.  It probably needs the rest after all the action yesterday.