Via Wonkette comes this story from Fox News about how Colin Powell's speech about his African heritage at a London African music and arts festival, and his subsequent impromptu "hip hop" dancing onstage at that festival means he is about to endorse Obama.
But truthfully, I’m not sweating it. Because if the fire burned through ten miles of dense LA suburbs to reach my house, I’d have a whole lot more to worry about than the fire reaching my house.
Poor Spooney, however, is plagued by the annual Santa Ana-fueled airborne nasties. Which reminds me, the next time I am inspired to make a mental list of things that keep me from wanting to shuffle off this mortal coil, I must remember to put “do not suffer from allergies” at the top of the list.
One thing I’ve been wondering recently is, now that Sarah Palin has let down her hair, is she going to whip off those glasses in dramatic sexy fashion next? It sure would make the whole winking thing she’s got going on a lot more effective. Also, it would make her transformation into repressed Republican sex symbol complete, don’t you think? You betcha!
I’ve noticed that Cindy McCain has let her hair down as well, no doubt to soften her image, which is a tad on the Ice-Queen-from-those-Narnia-books-ish. I have to say, however, that her down ‘do is not flattering. I mean, okay, is it wrong of me to think that women of a certain age need to not do this:
Blech. Who’s her style icon, Loni Anderson? And another thing: that cut is just too young for her. There, I said it. Revoke my feminist credentials if you can, but with women like Palin calling themselves feminists I doubt that the membership qualifications can get any lower. And who among the conservatives would dare criticize me for talking about Palin’s hair, anyway? The same people who hit the talk shows in full battle cry over the fact that Newsweek did not airbrush Palin’s cover photo?
Although, I have to ask myself, if I ever made the cover of Newsweek, would I expect to be given the benefit of the brush? Please, baby, it would be the first clause in the contract, just like Barbara Walters’s rider stipulating the thickness of the Vaseline on the camera lens for her Oscar specials. However, if women want to be taken seriously as viable leaders of the so-called “free world,” we should maybe stop thinking of Photoshop as a birthright.
Meanwhile, McClain is flailing like a, well…like a McCain. His McCampaign is now resorting to flinging all manner of poo at that electoral fan, hoping and praying that something, anything will still be sticking to the brains of voters on the morning of November 4. They’ve tried to paint Obama as a black nationalist, as terrorist-adjacent, as left of Kucinich, hell, the only thing they haven’t tried is having Palin start up a rally chant of “Obama and Ahmadinejad, sittin’ in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!”
The Republicans chose to run on “national security,” and yet no matter how many times Tom Brokaw says that we are going to vote on that issue, voters insist on their own agenda, mainly that they’re worrying less about buildings falling down and more about whether the company they work for will even exist anymore when they get up to go to work in the morning. I recently have even dared to think that the voters might be coming to the conclusion that sending American troops to die on the sands of distant oil-rich lands might not be the best possible foreign policy.
And it’s funny, because if McCain had run the same campaign he ran in 2000, he probably would be winning right now. I wouldn’t vote for the motherfucker, because for one thing, he seems to no likey the women so much, but I bet a lot of people would’ve fallen for it. But he had to go and drink the Rove-flavored Kool-Aid, adopt the scorched earth tactics, kiss up to the power-hungry Christian douchebags, throw red meat to the bigots and jarheads, and appoint a semi-functional local weathergirl to his #2 spot. In other words, he packed his campaign with bile, and he’s fucking choking on it. So it’s no wonder he shuffled and mumbled around the stage at the last debate like Tim Conway on the Carol Burnett show. He blew it, the glory is behind him, and even if he manages by some strange event or election day mischief to pull out a win, his best days are gone, daddy, gone.
In 1998, he formed a political alliance with William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, who became one of his closest advisers. Randy Scheunemann — a hard-right lobbyist who was promoting Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi — came aboard as McCain's top foreign-policy adviser. Before long, the senator who once cautioned against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" had been reborn as a fire-breathing neoconservative who believes in using American military might to spread American ideals — a belief he describes as a "sacred duty to suffer hardship and risk danger to protect the values of our civilization and impart them to humanity." By 1999, McCain was championing what he called "rogue state rollback." First on the hit list: Iraq.
Privately, McCain brags that he was the "original neocon." And after 9/11, he took the lead in agitating for war with Iraq, outpacing even Dick Cheney in the dissemination of bogus intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Obama totally eats white babies.
Geez, McGeezer, project much?
I know the campaign’s not going well, especially since Obama’s lead has now inched beyond the margin of error, but you really should try to not be so defensive, and face your deficiencies honestly, without trying to pawn them off onto other people. I think that finally all the lies about your record on the issues, and all this nonsense about legitimate concerns being spun as “gotcha” journalism, is starting to take its psychological toll. Remember John, that as Nietzsche once observed, “when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”
-When the first words out to her mouth were “Nice to meet ya, can I call you Joe?” I thought, uh-oh, here we go. She’s going to try to force him to call her Sarah, something his handlers have told him not to do. He’s supposed to refer to her only as “Governor Palin,” to show respect. But then she ended up letting him call her that all night, while she called him “Joe.” So, that’s kinda rude. If I asked to call someone by their first name, I would definitely extend the same offer to them. Whatevs.
-By the way, did you notice how the microphones picked up her voice during that exchange, even though they weren’t miked and they weren’t at the podiums yet? Lord, she has a loud voice.
-The
-Palin: When McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, he meant that the American workers are awesome! Also apple pie and puppies! Hockey mom! 6 six-pack!
-Palin: I may not answer the questions the way you want me to, or at all, because to tell ya the truth, it is darn hard keeping all these index cards straight! You know, I have about 10 different cards just for code words I’m supposed to use when I talk about minorities. Here’s one: personal responsibility! That’s a good one! Here’s how ya use that one, according to those guys that coached me there: home buyers need to take more personal responsibility and not buy houses that they can’t afford. See! Wasn’t that good?
-Palin said “I’m not one to attribute every activity of man to global climate change,” and it’s not the first time she’s said it exactly that way, either. I so wanted her to do that Willie Wonka thing and say “Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.”
-Did she actually correct Biden (who said “Drill, drill, drill!”)on the “Drill, baby, drill!” chant? She did. She corrected him. Because in a vice presidential debate, it’s so important to be precise when quoting the scary meatheaded rantings of fanatical mobs.
-Biden is just a refute meister, isn’t he? Refute! Refute! Refute! Good for him.
Palin: I HAVE GAY FRIENDS!
Biden: Sorry, Democrats, but if we say we’re for gay marriage, we’re sunk.
Palin: I THINK SOME OF THEM MIGHT HAVE A CRUSH ON ME!
Biden: We will, however, gay people, do our best to protect you from the Christians.
Palin: GAYS LIKE ME BECAUSE I’M SO CUTE! DID I SHOW YOU HOW I WINK YET?
-Does anyone care about this whole “meeting evil world leaders without preconditions” deal? Anyone? Seriously, is the McCain camp really trying to hang their Obama-no-good-at-foreign-policy hat on that?
-I guess someone forgot to write the word “nuclear” out phonetically on Palin’s index cards.
Biden:
Palin forbids anyone from judging McCain on his past actions. Because that’s not what mavericks do.
-Palin: 2nd Holocaust! They told me to say that!
-I’m loving the statistic that Biden repeated about how 3 weeks of war in
Palin: It’s so obvious that I’m a
Palin asserts that we “need a little bit of Wasilla,” the meth capital of
Palin: I’m just going to say the word “maverick” until my time is up on this one, Gwen. Maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick maverick….
Palin said that “John McCain knows how to win a war” like that is a verifiable statement. Wait a minute, does she think we won
Palin: Say it ain’t so, Joe! There you go again! Where’s the Beef? Tastes Great! Less Filling!
Palin’s cute and folksy “shout” to the 3rd graders is so obviously scripted within an inch of its life. I feel like I’m watching Romper Room.
Biden needs to stop speaking of his deep and abiding love for John McCain , I mean, unless he WANTS to hear Chris Mathews’s old “
Palin: Is it too weird if I say “Drill in ANWAR!” and then wink? Will people think I might mean something dirty?
-I have to say that when Biden almost choked up, it really moved me. I was not expecting him to address the whole mommy-worship of Palin in such a personal way:
But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand.
I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it's like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They're looking for help. They're looking for help. They're not looking for more of the same.
-The hello, Freud? moment of the evening came when Palin said about McCain, “he is the man we need to leave – lead in these next four years”
-When Palin said she would like to expand the legislative powers of the vice president, I thought I heard the sound of a hundred pundit’s heads exploding all at once.
-The debate is over, and the families come onstage. WHY ISN’T THAT BABY IN BED?
-Are they seriously going to drag that poor baby in front of the camera every time there’s a national audience? The cameraman can’t help but keep cutting to Palin with the baby in her arms. It’s obviously a planned photo op. To which I say, hey, if you want to bombard the American public with images of the veep candidate mothering an infant, then you deserve whatever that strategy brings down upon your head. You better be real sure of those yokels you’re trying to appeal to, lady. Real damn sure.
In St. Louis, Washington University students stand in for Biden and Palin.Palin asserted on Sean Hannity’s radio show that she is eager to debate her views, because the press has been “censoring” her.
No doubt she was referring to the fact that CBS cut out a part of her interview with Katie Couric wherein she demonstrated that she could not name another Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade, and only aired the exchange after its existence was anonymously leaked. I would say that CBS’s actions most definitely fit the definition of censorship. It’s not the usual kind of censorship, wherein dangerous or unpopular ideas are prevented from being exposed to the public by government or corporate (I presume a distinction) entities. It’s the kind of censorship where…CBS couldn’t really plumb the bottomless depths of her ignorance without looking like a big meanie.
As an added bonus, the clip also reveals that Palin doesn’t understand the hook upon which Roe V. Wade hangs its hat, nor indeed even the basic premise of constitutionality:
COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
COURIC: The cornerstone of Roe v Wade.
PALIN: I do. And I believe that --individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.
In other words, the states can’t write laws that defy the United States Constitution, except when they can. Sigh.
But (as I thank the universe for every morning) it’s not my job to make sense of the words that dart from Palin’s mouth and run in circles above her head like so many startled squirrels. That job, at least for tonight, falls tonight to Gwen Ifill, a PBS news anchor and correspondent who’s also in the process of writing a book about the history of black political candidates since the civil rights movement. To a reasonable person, that last bit might elicit a response such as “Wow. She sounds incredibly well-informed.” To the right-wing brain, however, it means SHE IS IN LOVE WITH OBAMA, and they want her out. McCain has taken a slightly less bloodthirsty tack than the likes of Michelle “I heart the Japanese internment camps” Malkin, saying “I think Gwen Ifill is a professional,” and “I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional,” and “I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job.”
I hope that my source for those McCain quotes is using the quotation marks because it’s grammatically correct, and not because McCain was making those little air quotes with his hands while he was saying it.
McCain’s campaign for a grumpier America could not let the issue go by, however, without taking at least one stance worthy of their increasingly curmudgeonly candidate; mainly, that regarding the moderator of tonight’s debate, they wish a different choice had been made. One might argue that, 1) her book was public knowledge when she was suggested for the job – which I guess means that McCain’s not the only one in his campaign who doesn’t know how to work the internets, and 2) the debate’s number one sponsor is Anheuser Busch, source of the Cindy McCain fortune, and you don’t hear Obama whining about it, and 3) when the campaigns agreed, as McCain’s did, to the choice of moderator, the choice became their choice as well. It may sound like semantics, but perhaps the larger point is that it’s hardly the kind of niggling that becomes a man who wants people to think of him as “presidential,” as opposed to “Walter Matthau-esque.”
Which brings me to McCain’s latest “get off my lawn!” moment:
As [Obama & McCain] shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.
So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.
He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of
McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.
Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”
Obama got the message. He shook hands with
Hardly surprising, given McCain’s behavior toward Obama at the first debate, where he couldn't bear to even look him in the eye. Some people I’ve spoken to have suggested that McCain’s inability to be civil toward his opponent is because he’s…um…not exactly comfortable with people of color. To be fair, I think his ill-manners can be attributed to a more obvious character flaw: he’s a sore loser. Remember when he and Obama were merely senators, and he wrote that sarcastic smack-down letter to him, because he thought Obama showed up him up? And then he made the letter public?
But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Yes, good luck to Senator Obama. And to Senator Biden as well. Hell, I’ll even wish good luck tonight to Governor Palin , and remind all her detractors that the title “Governor” in front of one’s name does tend to raise expectations, perhaps unfairly. And if you don’t believe me, perhaps it would be wise to bear this former Governor in mind:
A couple of weeks ago, I called you out for some comments you made during the Republican Convention, after the Republicans showed their hateful little “if you don’t elect us, we’ll take our 9/11 and go home” video:
Tom Brokaw, on the other hand, revered mother superior of NBC, could have responded to the Republican’s little video by pointing out that it was an odd message for a party whose president had been in office for over 7 months when 9/11 occurred, or that the Republican’s president had been warned that the attack was coming and yet failed to act to prevent it, focusing instead on more desirable oil-producing targets.
Earlier this year you went to the network and pressured them to pull Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from the anchor seats during debate coverage, relegating them to commentator status instead.
Why? Because they are, in your opinion, too biased. You said this:
“Keith is an articulate guy who writes well and doesn’t make his arguments in a ‘So’s your old mother’ kind of way,” Mr. Brokaw said. “The mistake was to think he could fill both roles. The other mistake was to think he wouldn’t be tempted to use the anchor position to engage in commentary. That’s who he is.”
Commentary? Do you mean commentary like when, at the end of a debate, the debate moderator pulls a non-existent poll from his ass in order to spin the ending to favor one candidate over another?
Because you did that. Remember? It was just two days ago, when Obama spokesman David Axelrod was sparring with McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt on your show:
AXELROD: What has happened is, as Sen. Obama predicted from the beginning, that we got distracted in
BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I’m just going to end on one note and that is that we continue to poll on who is best equipped to be Commander in Chief, John McCain continues to lead in that category, despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC/WSJ poll.
I mean, wha?
I could understand if you wanted to give the McCain shill the last word, and then not correct his lies, since that was your M.O. up until then, but it really is quite remarkable that you went so far as to actually adopt Schmidt’s roll as McCain cheerleader.
And p.s., Tom, I find it a little hard to swallow that you didn’t know that the latest NBC/WSJ poll didn’t even cover the question of “who’s best equipped to be Commander in Chief.” Nor do I buy that you are unaware that McCain does not continue to lead in the polls on that issue. And neither do I believe that it was an accident that the poll you were citing was taken weeks ago, right after the Republican convention, and is as obsolete as McCain’s $500 Ferragamo moccasins.
And p.p.s., Tom, you might want to rethink your modest assumption, as you described in loving detail in the NY Times, that the McCain camp wants you moderate the NBC debate because you are the most “fair.”
Oh, and sorry, but…p.p.p.s., Tom, all the really great newsmen said what they thought was the truth and didn’t give a damn what the campaigns for either party thought. So, do you want to be one of the great ones, or do you want to retire to
And Newman is nothing less than heartbreaking in it. Somehow, in the decade since he’d done Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and The Sting, he had acquired some lines on his face and a profound weariness. It’s like he didn’t care what the world thought of him anymore. He had done a pretty good job in the previous year’s Absence of Malice, but his co-star in that movie, Sally Field, was just out of her depth and I found that very distracting. But in The Verdict, Newman as alcoholic, down-on-his-luck ambulance chaser attorney Frank Galvan, owns the whole movie, and when you’re up against Jack Warden, James Mason, and Charlotte Rampling, that’s no mean feat.
So what better way to honor the passing of one of this country’s greatest actors than by watching him at the top of his game? This is a movie that will slowly warm you from the inside out, like a tumbler full of whiskey.
(Please to ignore foreign subtitles. This is the only vid of this scene I could find.)
Although at this point, I’m ready to have government just take over the
In other words, readers,
They drink it up.
Ditto their corporate brethren in the financial sector, who while insisting on their government cheese with one hand, are using the other to slap the wrists of homeowners who “were greedy” and “made bad decisions” regarding their mortgages. It seems that only the Fortune 500 is allowed to takes risks in the hope of a payoff. American homeowners are most definitely NOT allowed to buy on spec or aspire to turn around an asset in order to make a profit, because then they are irresponsible and ruining the economy. I mean, how dare they assume that mortgage companies, and the companies that buy mortgage-backed securities, would act in a fiscally responsible manner? Greedy fucking house-buying bastards.
What’s an honest, tax-paying American to do? It’s getting so bad up in this US of A mug, that I would move to
But, on the bright side, I learned that locally-brewed Lug Nut Lager is good for what ails ya.
Ditto pig racing.
Also, there’s not much wrong with bunnies, skinny-ass roosters with crazy feathered feet, Hampshire lambs, goats of any size or shape, and beautiful fawn-colored gentle
And if they want to charge you $5.00 to slide down the 3-story monster slide on a hunk of burlap, it is well worth the price, readers. Well worth the price.
Because Angelinos don’t scare easily. If we did, blah blah blah insert joke about the 405 Freeway. Seriously, if we did, we’d still be locked in our houses. And perhaps this has something to do with the fact that we are overwhelmingly Democratic. Yes, finally scientific, or at the very least, pseudo-scientific research has discovered that contrary to popular belief (but right in line with mine), conservatives are, fundamentally, big ole’ scaredy pants.
But I knew this. And readers, make no mistake, so do the Republicans. Something the Republicans have always realized and exploited is their hunch that about 90% of the decisions that the voting public makes happen at the lizard brain level, and that voters then use their intellect, such as it may be, to justify that choice.
How else do you explain Hillary supporters voting for McCain/Palin? Given the chance to vote for a candidate whose positions are, for all practical purposes, identical to Hillary’s, they instead make vague noises about “not trusting” Obama and pledge their support to a duo that negates Hillary’s entire platform. Frankly, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which their dislike of Obama can be described as anything other than skin deep.
But this is to be expected in a world where roughly half of us advocate the status quo, no matter how screechingly awful it may be, where half of us believe that a machine hack with a talent for sucking at the government teat is a “reformer,” and where a deregulation groupie, former Keating 5 influence peddler, and lobbyist lover can remake himself as someone who’s going to get tough on Wall Street and change the way government works.
There may be a sucker born every minute, but that sucker ain’t me. When the sign on the fake façade says that the giant steer is “alive”…
I know better. That big boy is long gone, my friends. He may have walked the earth long ago, but his body’s been stuffed full of saw dust, and his feet have been nailed to the plywood floor, and anyone who lays down a buck because they want to believe that he really does exist, deserves to kiss their moola goodbye.
And I try to feel fortunate that I can experience such contentment ever, and not sad that those feelings are ephemeral, and as easily dissipated as the flicking on of the television dissipates the quiet, or the opening of the Wall Street Journal Online dissipates my self-composure.
Or, to the point, I hate being told why I hate someone, especially by the Wall Street Journal.
Look, you know, WSJ, I appreciate that your grasp of feminism is tenuous at best, but I just don’t think that you should take these kind of wild stabs at the issue of why feminists have a problem with Sarah Palin. It makes you look like some kind of New York elitist publication whose only real interest is in making sure that people with money become people with more money, which I’m sure is not your intent at all.
Still, a lot can be learned about a society by looking at the faces that it chooses to present.
When motion pictures first started to appear in theatres all across this country, blacks had to content themselves with film representations that portrayed them as servile, stupid, fearful, lazy, and corrupt. I imagine that while it must have been thrilling for a black moviegoer to see the rare black actor on the screen in their local theatre, that thrill would’ve likely been tempered by a great deal of bitterness at the unfairness of that representation.
Similarly, until gay characters appeared openly in film, which is a very recent occurrence indeed, gays would’ve had to learn to embrace the bigoted portrayals of their closeted selves, and also the cinematic plots that more than likely made gay characters the victims of degradation, violence, and suicide.
Richard Pryor once challenged the black community for lamenting that then-heavyweight champion Leon Spinks, mentally and dentally challenged as he was, was not a suitable representation of black
But times have changed. A lone black sports figure no longer has to shoulder the entire mantle of black citizenship. And women no longer have to settle for an Uncle Tom in lipstick.
This is a point lost on Cathy Young of the Wall Street Journal, however. She begins her article by denouncing “left-wing feminists,” but then immediately abandons the phrase in favor of, simply, “feminists,” which frankly, says more about her than I could ever manage to summon here, long-winded though I be.
She also manages to conjure a sexist stereotype of feminists in record time, contending by only the second sentence that Palin’s candidacy has left us “unhinged.”
Oh, if only I were merely “unhinged.” What I am, bitch, is fucking pissed.
What she hasn’t considered, perhaps, is that it’s not Palin herself who has invoked such a strong reaction among feminists, it’s the absolutely dumbfounding event of Republicans 1) suddenly deciding that sexism exists, and 2) accusing the Democrats of being the primary culprits of its perpetuation!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in a similarly stunning turn of events, Ms. Young places the blame for sexism in the 2008 election squarely at the feet of…feminists. I’m not kidding:
You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
Oh, is it feminists who suggest that she’s a bad mother for having a career? Are you sure about that, Ms. Young?
And do feminists say she’s bad for working mothers not because her policies don’t support working mothers, but because “she’s just too good at having it all”?
Is Young saying that feminists are jealous of Palin? If not, then what the hell IS she saying?
Well, don’t look for the next paragraph to make her thesis any more credible:
Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?
Oh my god, I love that 2nd sentence. It’s so awesomely intellectually retarded in, mmm, just so many ways. Because where women are going wrong, apparently, is not making good enough “choices” when it comes to their partners. See, if I had just picked a dude like Todd Palin, I also could have five kids and a political career! So, choose better, bitches!
Ms. Young then takes issue with an opposing viewpoint from Katherine Marsh of the
[Not to] Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government.
Um, the last time I looked, the government was the one making the laws.
In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."
I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.
Oh, my lord. I’ve got to start making lists now.
1. Look at the first sentence above. Young is asserting that federal subsidies are big government, but tax breaks and regulatory reform are small government. Can anyone please explain this to me? Oh, and by the way, feminists don’t oppose tax breaks and regulatory reform.
2. No self-respecting economist blames the gender gap primarily on discrimination? Well, it all depends on what the meaning of discrimination is, don’t it? Is discrimination limited to cases where two people doing the same job are paid unequally, or does is also mean that a woman never even gets a chance to do that job? Because I guarantee you that both instances are alive and well in this country, no thanks to John McCain, by the way, who opposed equal pay legislation named after the woman for whom the gap could most definitely have been legislated away. I guess self-respecting economists forgot to speak to her.
3. And again, who are these feminists, who are opposing part-time and flexible jobs? I think they must exist only in this writer’s imagination. Maybe she’s becoming unhinged.
4. See how quickly she breezes right by “abortion rights”? It’s just “abortion rights,” that’s all. It’s just that they don’t want women to have abortions. Such a little thing, when you think about it. Just no abortions - it isn’t that much to ask, really. Especially when there’s no rape involved. Although if there is, just to be clear…still no abortions. Okay? That’s all. Stop talking about the circumstances of your life, because you seem to not understand that they have no bearing on the issue. Just no abortions, and carrying every child conceived inside your body to term, no matter what your physical or mental circumstances, or whether your life is endangered, or whether it’s the child of a man who raped you, or was your father, or both. Just no abortions, okay? Are we all on board yet?
And lastly, Young warns feminists that by rejecting Palin, we are writing off multitudes of pro-life and small-government women. That is such an understatement! There are so many other groups we are writing off as well! Groups such as:
-Mothers for Shotgun Weddings
-The
-The Russia-adjacent Neighborhood Council
-Earmark Lovers of
-Abortion Clinic Protesters Anonymous
-The Ladies Auxiliary Reichstag for Book Banning, and their sister group Librarian Harassers Local 31
-The Fraternal Order of Gay Haters
-Kappa Kappa Kreationism
And the list can only grow from here, readers.
*Except my boyfriend’s band, of course.
Prof: Vikkitikkitavi, please explain the significance of Pomponius.
Me: Well, Pomponius was a playwright in ancient
Prof: What themes would those be?
Me: Uh, love, and…um, life. And of course death.
Prof: And what was his contribution to Stoicism?
Me: Oh, he was definitely a member of the movement of Stoicism, and he wrote his plays using the principals of Stoic literature. His heroes were, um, Stoic as well in that they adhered to Stoic ideals.
Prof: It sounds as if you believe that this rather minor comic playwright is one of the pillars of classical Stoicism.
Me: Oh. I…um… I wouldn’t say that.
Prof: What would you say, then?
Me: Well, um, that being a minor comic playwright, of course, his take on Stoicism…is different than what, you know, a major tragic playwright’s take would be. But still an important take, you know, just different. Because he’s a comic playwright, I mean, a minor one, but still.
I bring up this rather painful and humiliating memory because it reminds me of watching Sarah Palin in her first television interview since being named the Republican VP candidate. Watching Charlie Gibson prod her through some fairly cringe-inducing lapses, it struck me that she resembled nothing so much as a student trying to bullshit her way through an oral exam. Witness this exchange:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Here’s another classroom tactic on display as she tries to defend her suggestion that
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that
Yeah, when you only have one thing to say, just keep repeating it. If you emphasize different words each time, no one will even notice.
Also, I noticed that the Governor has resorted to the Bush affectation of pronouncing the word “nuclear” as “nuke-ular.” No doubt the campaign is not anxious to invoke any Bush/Palin foreign policy parallels, which might explain why, during the Republican convention, the word “nuclear” was spelled out for her phonetically on the teleprompter as “new-clear” in each place where it occurred. True.
Some other notable events of the interview, in which Palin:
-reversed her opinion that the jury was out on whether humans contribute to global climate change…so now they definitely “could be”
-decided that maybe she is not privy to God’s day planner after all
-advocated defending
-believes that proximity to
-definitely does not know what the word “hubris” means
And readers, as anyone who has studied their classical playwrights knows, it’s that last one that gets ya.
Whew! I am so glad that is not in my job description.
I watched every hour I could force down of both conventions, and I watched it all on MSNBC, so I can tell you that yes, the coverage of the Republican convention, at least as far as Olbermann & Mathews were concerned, was much more cynical than the coverage of the Democratic convention. But you know, it’s funny to me when people get worked up about Olbermann being chosen, as if it were a choice based on anything other than his ratings. Olbermann is the biggest star MSNBC has; who the fuck else are they going to get to boost the viewership of those week-long U! S! A! flag orgies, Al Roker? It’s all about the $$$ for the network, which is a concept you’d think Republicans would understand. Or aren’t they so hot on capitalism anymore?
Perhaps MSNBC does have an obligation to have a more neutral anchor, but I’ll be damned if I can think of one. Every anchor has his or her own political bent – it’s really all in how you look at it.
For example, let’s look at that fairly inflammatory piece of Republican video rhetoric that features footage from 9/11. I believe the message of that video could fairly be summed up to be “Democrats = another 9/11.” Olbermann responded by rebuking his network for showing it, saying that for him and many others, the footage used was a reminder of deeply personal loss, and he felt it was offensive to many viewers to see it used in such a fashion.
Yeah, no matter what you think of Olbermann, you have to admit that he gives good tv.
Tom Brokaw, on the other hand, revered mother superior of NBC, could have responded to the Republican’s little video by pointing out that it was an odd message for a party whose president had been in office for over 7 months when 9/11 occurred, or that the Republican’s president had been warned that the attack was coming and yet failed to act to prevent it, focusing instead on more desirable oil-producing targets.
He didn’t. Instead he responded by delivering a mild discourse on how Barack Obama would have to prove his “defend
Now, isn’t Brokaw’s reaction politically biased? Doesn’t it, as mild and yet authoritative as it sounds, still betray Brokaw’s personal point of view, which is that the Democrats, against all evidence to the contrary, have to prove themselves when it comes to national defense?
Why wasn’t Brokaw called out? Because although Olbermann made the fuss while Brokaw played it cool, wasn’t Olbermann the one closer to fulfilling the roll that we have relegated to the press, which is to call bullshit when politicians lie?
Or, in other words, what is the value of neutrality when one side dissembles and the other reaches toward truth? The Swiss have been neutral for almost two hundred years, and what is their big contribution to society? Instant cocoa and cuckoo clocks. What is the point of the press standing in the middle and saying to the American public “There! We provided you with both points of view!” when one of the points of view is morally arid?
I reject the notion that there is value on both sides. I understand the Republican point of view. Hey, I like to keep my money too. But when it comes to making sure that human beings move toward making this a better world, I think that most of the time, the Democrats are right, and the Republicans are wrong.
And I think it’s a shame when the intelligent members of our press corps pretend otherwise for the sake of this charade they’ve married themselves to, that their mission is to be unbiased, instead of to be right, and to be good.
