« Holder Speaks Out on Torture | Desidero's Blog | Rihanna and Driving While Female: The Defense Rests »
Rethinking Palin, Closing the Book on Gitmo
With all the insults hurled at Sarah Palin, she got called up on national stage with little warning (a week? a few days?) and knocked it out of the park. Yeah, she ran into some problems with interviews - somehow honing a fine-tuned stock Republican answer on all the world's problems might not be the same issues that you deal with as Governor of Alaska (which she'd only been for 1 1/2 years). [Pssst - Barack, the Germans invented the car, go ahead, google Otto, Daimler, Benz, not Henry Ford. Thought Merkel would have briefed you on that at the Victory Column, but you can blame it on an aide.]
Oddly, I chanced across the bio of someone the other day whose background does parallel Sarah's a bit, someone who played an important part in the presidential campaign, who would be Oprah Winfrey. Beauty Queen as a teen, parlayed a scholarship into a communications degree, talking head on local TV. Of course they diverge a bit after that - Sarah's a bit younger and hasn't yet put that media empire together or the political dynasty (imagine, 5 Palin kids to find governorships for? Perhaps the Bush family can explain how you do this).
But anyway, just had a chuckle over Jindal's performance the other night. Because it was frequently stated that Jindal was the rising star of the Republicans. If McCain had chosen him, the logic went, it would have brought fresh blood and confidence into the party. Uh, well, think again. Looks like if we'd had a McCain-Jindal ticket, there would have been a run on No-Doze and a noticeable spike in basement meth labs across the country. Nope, Sarah kicks Jindal's ass. She has a bit of regrooving to do, but then again, Obama couldn't even win a House seat in 2000. But let's see, Jindal was already in Iowa back in November, so he's been actively running for President longer than Palin's whole campaign, and she gave a much better speech to a national audience after 3 days of preparation, in both style and substance. Any other challengers out there? Vitter? McConnell? Gregg?
PS - we're still torturing at Guantanamo, as Thera kindly reminds us. As do Glenn Greenwald at Salon and typically Marcie at EmptyWheel. But Jindal/Palin-laff-a-thons are always more fun than considering what new juicy ways we're figuring out to torment other humans. Should we throw the book at Gitmo or just close the book on it. Decisions, decisions. Maybe Bagram has some free space and we can kick this decision down field.
Oddly, I chanced across the bio of someone the other day whose background does parallel Sarah's a bit, someone who played an important part in the presidential campaign, who would be Oprah Winfrey. Beauty Queen as a teen, parlayed a scholarship into a communications degree, talking head on local TV. Of course they diverge a bit after that - Sarah's a bit younger and hasn't yet put that media empire together or the political dynasty (imagine, 5 Palin kids to find governorships for? Perhaps the Bush family can explain how you do this).
But anyway, just had a chuckle over Jindal's performance the other night. Because it was frequently stated that Jindal was the rising star of the Republicans. If McCain had chosen him, the logic went, it would have brought fresh blood and confidence into the party. Uh, well, think again. Looks like if we'd had a McCain-Jindal ticket, there would have been a run on No-Doze and a noticeable spike in basement meth labs across the country. Nope, Sarah kicks Jindal's ass. She has a bit of regrooving to do, but then again, Obama couldn't even win a House seat in 2000. But let's see, Jindal was already in Iowa back in November, so he's been actively running for President longer than Palin's whole campaign, and she gave a much better speech to a national audience after 3 days of preparation, in both style and substance. Any other challengers out there? Vitter? McConnell? Gregg?
PS - we're still torturing at Guantanamo, as Thera kindly reminds us. As do Glenn Greenwald at Salon and typically Marcie at EmptyWheel. But Jindal/Palin-laff-a-thons are always more fun than considering what new juicy ways we're figuring out to torment other humans. Should we throw the book at Gitmo or just close the book on it. Decisions, decisions. Maybe Bagram has some free space and we can kick this decision down field.
Advertisement
The scales have fallen from my eyes. Clearly, Sarah is an intellectual powerhouse who is exquisitely qualified. Or will be once she's had a year or to to study up a bit.
February 26, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you go. She's a quick study, don't you fret.
February 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I am understanding your choice of avatar images now.
February 27, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The business of America is business - that's why every few years, the company takes a look at the sales force and decides who among them is best able to sell the product.
February 26, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, FYI, I think there is something wrong with your links. Maybe I'm missing it because I'm PDA dependent today, but I'm now seeing where Thera, Greenwald or Marcie say we're still torturing at Gitmo at the linked pages.
February 26, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera's at
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/02/justice-sneaks-in---on-little.php
Marcie's at
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
Glenn you can find in Thera's post if you don't already have him bookmarked at Salon.
February 26, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strangely, I did not have the negative reaction to Jindal that appears to be the expressed norm. But then, I also did not like the way that Palin was treated some of the time and felt empathy for her for those times when it actually felt (to me) that she was being hunted. But then, neither was I rabidly or otherwise opposed to Carolyne Kennedy's appointment as NY's senator. It has been during these strange junctures and at times like these when I wonder about the motives of the progressives and the liberal left and what girds their scorn. Just saying.
As for Gitmo -- fucking throw the book at that canker on our souls, our honor and our eyes already!
Rec'd.
February 26, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1diINTLyxvM&feature=related
February 26, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think Jindal came out as a dud. He'll have opportunities to repair his reputation, but Palin's first big splash was a positive one. Easier to come back when you had a good first impression.
Caroline Kennedy I simply couldn't fathom. She helps a Republican raise money for his school program and what else has she done? Entitlement at its worst. (I'm equally unimpressed with Geithner, being son of guy who dealt with Obama's mom. Or Burris getting his kid a job through Blago. Or a variety of other nepotism and cronyism that will exist long after I'm dead and buried.
But anyways, let's talk about Socks.
February 26, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I'll admit Sarah made a big splash on intro. If you'll admit the stuff she was saying was unadulterated BS geared to strictly firing up the rabid right wing base. And while she might be a quick study, I am awaiting proof, what she believes goes against everything not only Hillary believes, but any Democrat that didn't jump on the misguided PUMA bandwagon.
February 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you'll admit that much of what Obama was saying or people attributed to him was unadulterated bullshit.
Change we can believe in? End to Washington DC partisanship? Better represent women's interests? Vote against FISA? Yada yada yada.
February 26, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. It is not a negotiation. There is a difference between campaign sloganeering and dirty campaigning. Sarah Palin actively distorted facts and stoked anti-intellectual sympathies. There is a difference between being fed bromides and being fed gunpowder. One is politics and the other is demagoguery.
Your false equivalence doesn't pass the smell test.
February 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sympathies did Obama & Axelrod et al. stoke? Just because you want to frame politicking your way doesn't mean that's the "correct" way.
February 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between appealing to the better angels of our nature and to our demons. Sarah Palin and John McCain frequently appealed to our demons.
I don't understand your apologism for Mrs. Palin. She is the worst sort of huckster.
And finally, all you do in TPM is frame politics in your way. You want to have your criticism of Obama and your apologism for those who fell in defeat. Exactly how much of the past do you wish to rehash and revise before finding a new hobby?
February 26, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about going back to the primary wars.
FISA most of his supporters were and are still disappointed (putting mildly) and against it.
Bi-Partisanship you can reach out your hand, but it does mean they are going to take it. In the end the Rs are looking bad not Obama, at least according to the polls. I know not in your mind.
Representing women's interest I'm ill placed as a man to say if he is doing a better or worse job. Suffice it to say Emily's List, NOW and others women's groups seem initially pleased with the first 30 days. Yes, I know the Alegres Corner, The Confluence, Texas Darlin and the rest of the PUMA dead enders are not. Call me unconcerned about 250 people in a circular firing squad.
Finally if you are seeing no change from the last eight years than it is because you choose not to. Is it perfect, no, but there is substantial change especially considering it been one whole month.
February 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, so the worst administration of the last 120 years is our litmus test for the new one? I'm disappointed in a number of areas where real change is extremely watered down. (Afghanistan, the stimulus - making the same mistake as 2001, etc.) I remember particularly claims that Obama would represent women's interests better than Hillary would. Ain't gonna happen, watch the legislation. Anyway, that's life, just folks getting upset at Sarah for framing things as a politician while everyone else frames things that way? Obama was talking about balancing the budget not that long ago. Makes me think of spacemen.
February 26, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually what I recall is this. SP was named by mcShame. And promptly was placed under cover for nearly a week - while she practiced a speech and got gussied up. Then, the big showcase of the speech! And repubs went ga-ga over her. Back into he deepfreeze she went - except to give the speech - over and over, the same one with the same lies. As a drumbeat continued... when would she face the press? Etc.
Still... at least SP, with a week's practice, could give a speech. I'll give her that!
But yes, how much easier it is to focus on the small stuff. People don't want to think about the horrors we caused. They don't want to bend their minds to figure out how they were hoodwinked in so many ways. They just want entertainment - soft and squishy, like the kind of toilet paper that Americans prefeer - the kind that wastes trees:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html?scp=1&sq=soft%20toilet%20paper&st=cse
February 26, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
sp = prefer
February 26, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's not like Joe Biden was out making a big splash as VP candidate, and look at him post-election - may give Cheney a run for his money. Sarah spent a week aligning image and learning her lines? Time well spent. As for the interview, well I didn't see it, but I wasn't so critical for one very good reason. I wouldn't have known what "the Bush policy" is - torturing people in foreign countries in the name of terror? Ignoring diplomacy for the sake of rushing to war? Firing any generals who disagree with you? Splitting off half of the military budget as special allowances for marauding adventurism? Oh wait, the question about was pre-emptive military action. (Didn't we do that in Kosovo?). Anyway, I think she would have done better not even worrying about it. Her base didn't want the hands-on expert manager, it wanted the inspirational guiding manager. The Reagan type, set the tone and delegate. You can argue whether it's the type of manager we need right now, but it's certainly a valid management style.
February 26, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right; he did come off as a dud. What I've always liked about your posts is that you have focused on what people said and did and that has always been the focus of your critiques.
The last sentence of my post was not aimed at you. I've been around the hothouse liberal blogs and I've seen people making fun of his ethnic first name, his approach and look etc, things which I feel should not be on the table for critique. How is this any different than the troglodyte Repubs who made fun of Barack Obama's first name and began all that nonsense about his nationality, his religion and whether he is black or not etc. Crap. I hate that shit.
And then I have to retreat into the smaller blogs written and managed by people from my home state just so that I can rediscover that people are indeed sane. ;)
Now, what Bobby Jindal said is a whole different thing and should be an ample target for a take down, no? Just my sense of things, is all.
I loved your comment on my Socks Clinton thread. :) Loved it!! Thank you so much for coming by. I always look for your posts. ;) Wish you did more often. Really.
February 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Steele's "Slum Love" comment sounded rather racist coming from a black man. Jindal's talk about his heritage and parents' immigration would be interesting if he actually learned something from the experience - his existence and health was threatened because health care was hard and expensive to obtain when he was being born. Platitudes about giving the money back to "people" - well, it's not the people that went belly up, it's the markets, the banks, the mortgage funds, and wishing that cutting taxes will solve all these problems through some kind of economic populism is nauseatingly childish at a time when even experts with good ideas like Soros are quick to say they're not sure, that we're in uncharted waters. But hey, just come up with a motto with a message, "It takes a hedge fund to raise a broker", "No financial institution left behind (but get those damn hippie people off my lawn)", "A rising tide floods all boats (but a bailout might keep them from sinking as quick)", etc. Simply, people pegged Jindal as having no ideas of what to do, and picking out a USGS project to mislabel or making up an emergency Katrina anecdote (where are those folks who picked apart Gore on his fairly accurate FEMA story?) just doesn't respond to Obama at all. "We fucked up the last 8 years and left you in a prime mess, but now we're going to be smug and say to just cut taxes, as if the trillions in tax cuts we already did had a positive effect". At least Sarah could honestly say somewhere in Alaska you can see a piece of Russia.
February 26, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response, Desidero.
Thought you might like to see this ----
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6944
February 26, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Effing brilliant. I don't want to put Fitz on a pedestal (his handling of Blago seems mixed), but the reason he stopped on Scooter/Cheney where he did seems to be that he knew it was into political land and covered up executive privilege land. If the DoJ and White House return a bit to semi-cooperativeness, where subpoenas are answered and documents are provided, then yes, we can deal with specific actions rather quickly. Of course the whole previous administration was encumbered with illegality, but I don't recall the last time we said, "Oh, there are too many crack dealers, we start prosecuting one, we'll have to prosecute the whole bunch, let's skip it"
February 27, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
DES,
I don't know... rethinking Sarah, means she had to be Thinking at some point...
OK I admit "It sounded better than it reads"
☺
February 26, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out, even if you make her into Baba Yaga, you don't want to be alone at night.
February 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Gomer could always kick Goober's ass.
February 26, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for an obligatory gratuitous Earnest T. Bass reference.
February 26, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll leave the keys to the cell right here. You can let yourself out in the morning... after you sleep it off.
February 26, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We got two rules here at the Rock - first one is, "Obey all Rules". The second one is, "No gum."
February 26, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rules? We dun need no steeenking rules!
Rules? Rules are fer sissies! Ya know... dem dat sound all intellectual-like. You got you too much book learning son!
We in Wasilla and N'arlins don't cotton to that kinda thinkin'! You won't be hearin' nuthin' like dat stuff from Sara and our Guvner! You know... dat Middle Eastern lookin' dude who sounds like a little retahded boy. Nope, not 'round here!
February 26, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Mayberry we don't know nothin' about Wasilla, unless that's some kind of sarsasparilla.
February 26, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm speechless that you had the cojones to compare Sarah Palin to Oprah in any way. Sarah Palin is not worthy of such a compliment. Sarah Palin is no victim. She wasn't called to the national stage like a soldier is called to war. If she had any knowledge of politics and the media, she would have told McCain, "thanks, but no thanks."
Oh she read that speech very well. She projected all the bitterness and jealousy that the audience felt because they didn't have their own version of Obama. As a woman, I was disgusted and infuriated at the way pundits applauded her debate performance. I had a debate class in high school, if I had stood there and winked at my classmates, refused to answer questions, and passed over facts in favor of catchy one liners, I would have gotten a straight F!
She has lowered the bar so far for women that a porn star thinks she has a chance at politics IN the Republican party. I am absolutely truly stunned that anyone thinks Sarah Palin can be trusted to run this country. Americans deserve candidates who can effectively handle the problems in this country not someone who can just win. NO Palin, ever. I would rather have W back for another term than have a President Palin.
February 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is real life politics, not high school debate class. Hillary won her debates, and that got her a prime position as also-ran. Chimpie already proved that the president doesn't have to be coherent or involved to have the country limp along badly. (Reagan kind of proved it already). But no, I'd rather have President Palin than President Bush, thanks. Sometimes not having lots of money, tony connections and a pedigree tatoo on your ass is a better option. Not that I in any way want to come to that choice.
February 26, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - for someone who's "speechless" you certainly write a lot ;^)
February 26, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Viva, you have to understand that everything Des says is all about the fact that Hillary is not President. It's all so unfair! The voters are so stupid! Everything else is chaff, thrown to the wind.
Palin is suddenly looking good because it suits the narrative that Des likes to promote...Barack is a poseur and if only Hillary had gotten what she deserved we would all be soooo much better off one month after the inauguration.
Palin is just a ruse. Do you know anyone who couldn't have handled Katie Couric's interviews better? --- What do you read to keep yourself informed? "Anything. Everything. All of them."
Yes, Palin is a genius, Des, but Hillary is doing a great job as Sec. of State, and Barack has things pretty well in control, all things considered.
Egad! Can anyone imagine if it were ANGRY McCain and "I can insult anyone with a smile on my face" Palin, in charge? The thought makes me shudder.
February 26, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Palin a genius? Decidedly no. But she has some natural talents. Funny, but McCain's answers on a lot of serious questions were more ridiculous than Palin's - why don't we remember that? (Iraq-Afghanistan border?) And he looked feeble and uninspiring to boot. "Hi, I'm Jimmy Carter without the ethics and compassionate ideas". Somehow I think not. I guess the advantage is that McCain's been around and knows where the keys to all the offices are, but sometimes that's not an advantage, as seen by his Keating dealings and Liberty University groveling.
February 27, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with the premise that Sarah knocked it out of the park. You could say the same about Pat Buchanan in 1992. The crowd was raucous, the base was motivated, but none of what she spoke had a net impact on the campaign. None of the criticisms held, and some of them (the community organizer schtick) backfired. This is a speech that will be frequently referenced but never quoted or shown. Sarah Palin was not ready for primetime, and when she is simply will not have the crossover appeal necessary to be a general election threat. Her Eagle Forum feminism will end her candidacy before it take off.
And ummm... the links did not say that we are still engaging in torture. They do imply that Obama is defending and covering for the Bush administration. I disagree with that, and wrote about it in Thera's thread. The Obama administration is taking steps to close Gitmo, while Congress is taking steps to investigate torture, wiretapping, and other abuses of power. There is a clear delineation of checks and balances. Until Obama begins squashing Congress' investigations and turning insular and unitary, I am inclined to see the picture from my view. You, on the other and, are a predictable and rather buckshot nay-sayer.
February 26, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. But that happens a lot. ;) Are you saying that Gitmo should not be investigated by congress? Or are you saying that the separate functions of Pres. and Congress should remain thusly, separate?
February 26, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gitmo should be investigated by Congress. Every Bush, hell every executive act that potentially crosses ethical and legal boundaries should be investigated by Congress. Legislative oversight is crucial to a functioning government.
I also want a separation of powers. The DOJ should be involved when Congress determines grounds for prosection. What seems to be expected in the left wing blogosphere is a politicized DOJ that will punish the Bush administration for breaking the law.
But what I don't want is a politicized DOJ that is perceived as persecuting the Bush administration. That will only embolden the opposition by inciting feelings of martyrdom. I also don't want the courts to reinvigorate frivolous lawsuits that seek to do Congress' job.
February 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Looks like if we'd had a McCain-Jindal ticket, there would have been a run on No-Doze and a noticeable spike in basement meth labs across the country."
Palin is one of the dumbest people I have ever witnessed on the national stage and I watched w for eight years. Her intellectual level is the same as Joe the would be plumber.
But the same people that would smash watermelons on the WH front lawn would vote for anyone.
February 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no "rethinking" re Palin here. Desi always had a swoon on about the sociopathic grifter gal.
Sarah's not a quick study about anything of importance like say, policy. She's a quick study on manipulating the less than intellectually rigorous and those who think with their dicks, among others. BFD. America's celebrity culture fosters her ilk.
For someone who is such a fan, Desi is surprisingly ignorant of Sarah's history and the fact that the neocons at the Weekly Standard were on her like shit on stink since she hosted them in June of '07. Sarah sought THEM out; she's hardly the little naif of myth who had "(a week ?, a few days?)" to prepare her debut. The particular venue was new, the performance itself simply a variation of a familiar theme. Bill Kristol, McCain man ca. 2000 and Fred Barnes began pushing her on their return to DC.
The neocons are politically stupid and thought that "blank slate" Sarah's appeal to the GOP sheeples and Hillary deadenders would do the trick. Karl Rove, who is the acknowledged master at mining the religious rightwads knew better and fought against her annointment. Rove understands the numbers.
Sarah Palin is the Paris Hilton of politics with a ravenous appetite for power at her core.
Jindahl's bad taste in ties and lousy performance are more easily overcome than is the limited intellectual capacity of Palin. He actually has substance. The political reality of Louisiana is hardly analogous to Alaska and anyone trying to make them comparable is indulging in some radically delusional wishful thinking.
Bobby Jindahl has the time to cure the political zit eruptions, Sarah Palin's case of acne is chronic, systemic and debilitating.
February 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, Paris Hilton--good point
February 26, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool, you brought up Paris Hilton (surely you meant to bring up my gal Rihanna at the same time, they make such a lively pair). Ravenous appetite for power at her core? Gee willikers, sounds like the makings for success.
Regarding "thinking with their dicks", what organs were Obama fans thinking with? I've heard enough talk of people finding him luscious - isn't that just part of politics? He was the young, fresh candidate, more fuckable than the rest you know.
February 26, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
False equivalence. Again. I think that is the only trick in your rhetorical bag.
"Well yeah their side did it... but your side DID TOO! So there!"
Sexploitation is part of some politics, yes. But... the GOP set up Sarah Palin is the de facto symbol of the archetypal feminine. Her womb was politics, her body was politics, just about everything was politics except her politics, which were suspiciously off limits. You don't have to believe me... simply listen to what her media supporters had to say. Over and over again, her attractiveness was made front and center, as if that was going to dazzle the populace into rapt numbness.
February 26, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the difference to me...
Remember the movie "Shallow Hal" w/ Jack Black and Gweneth Paltrow? Shallow Hal had a little spell cast over him which made him see everyone for how they were on the inside rather than how they were on the outside. Therefore, the beautiful people he saw who were, on the inside mean and self centered so he now saw as grossly ugly, while the overweight, the burn victims, the ugly people who were sweet and loving were seen as beautiful. Once the spell was removed and he could now see them as they REALLY are, he had a whole new perspective on beauty.
Using that spell, Sarah would be an ugly troll, and President Obama would still be a hunk.
Sarah Palin is attractive on the outside, but the inside doesn't match. President Obama, on the other hand, is attractive inside and out. She is an empty shell, he has the whole package. She is a phony, he is the real deal. I was impressed with him before I even saw what he looked like...if I had to listen to her voice for 4 years (let alone what she was saying) I'd confess to anything to make it stop.
February 26, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still: I agree that the sound of Palin's voice would be torture.
And, yet. I spent a year researching the difference between messages rendered in a voice below Middle C, versus the same message rendered in a female voice, well above it. The most convincing opinion I read was by a French feminist, Julia Kristeva, who has made it her life's work to study the female voice, which she has labeled "the chora."
Kristeva makes the argument that the female voice is dismissed simply as a result of two things: a) its tonal range, which is culturally associated with maternal carping (aka, mothering); and, b) the fact that women tend to communicate in a circular, rather than linear pattern.
The irony I see in Palin is that her voice is perceived as stereotypically, and therefore dismissively, female.... when in fact, were it not for the specific note she strikes when she speaks (please, may I have a musician identify what note that is, precisely?) we would, in fact, perceive her correctly as communicating a male message, all about testosterone, shooting wolves from helicopters, etc. .... which has nothing whatsoever to do with an authentic female voice from the heart.
I ramble, without footnotes (lost in the hurricane tidal surge) but, if you doubt me, read all about it:
http://www.egs.edu/resources/kristeva.html,
a summary which also discusses her later work on broader subjects.
February 26, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great Belle, just great. I can laugh a little. I like Clinton, I like Boxer--a lot--I like Feinstein, I like Mrs. Obama, All these women, graduated from the bewt of universities, brilliant, fighting the good cause.
And they read and write regularly and do not shoot moose.
Your analysis is really technical.And it deals with areas of the no so conscious in all of us, especially men.
If Palin came out for a one payer health system--hey I would listen more closely.
But I believe she is not very bright.
February 26, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick: I cannot tell you how important this subject is to me, as it has dogged me, in my career, in my personal life, forever. Women -- in cultures in which to say something out loud means being judged by the clef note one strikes, rather than being evaluated for content -- are languishing to be heard, for merit, not music.
February 26, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Belle, I think there is a new wave comin. I really do. Not just old crotchety men like me, but the younger generations. I knew those movies about blond idiots sell a lot of tickets.
But when I was in law school we had the first wave of female students 20 or something out of 200 seats. The year before it was 3. Now there are more than 50% nationwide, in law schools.
When I had catarac surgery the female did a better job on my right eye than the guy did on my left eye 5 years before. It never occurred to me, hey, this is a woman. Besides that she was Indian with an English Indian accent and her hubby had a foot 'shop' down the road.
I do not think kids think, hey, that is a woman, I do not want her treating my zits or my broken leg. Way different 50 years ago.
Funny thing, they god rush on the radio (shown on MSNBC crying because women do not like him). This feminazi stuff. What the hell does he think the reaction is going to be?
Is sexism dead? No just buy one of these hip hop thingees. bitch bitch...what the hell is that.
But I have a daughter and two step daughters along with my son. Surrounded by women most of my life. I wish I still was sometimes. hahahahaha
The times they are achangin. But I know you will stand up and object when you see nazi behavior.
February 26, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Belle, that is so interesting! I really thought her voice would eliminate her from the get-go, and I could hardly believe the adulation. Then I saw old clips of her when she was a sports announcer. She had a completely different voice! It was modulated and lower, and (still sporty) not at all obnoxious!
I wonder if her use of this grating voice is a form of challenge for the knuckle-draggers, who have to always ignore reality. Maybe it is a sign!
February 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Belle, I also have a kid with speech problems, and see what are good ideas or good fun dismissed because she sounds funny. And have watched a believable foreign dissident debate a Ari Fleischer-like foreign government rep and watched the dissident dismissed simply because his English wasn't fluid. (Yeah, he spent his time in jail rather than going to an American University).
That we dismiss a whole gender because of the dynamic range of their voices is rather horrid. Understandable - nature does some weird things to us - but it's time we tried an antidote to anti-survival natural traits. Of course reason and listening and rational evaluation could be one way we overcome this impediment, but looking at the kind of TV we promote, I don't see that as happening soon. (On the other hand, the Germans got Merkel, so there is some hope).
In any case, yes, I agree, I think much of the reaction to Palin was simply she had a female voice with female speaking patterns.
February 27, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be interesting for people to keep this focus on female voice in mind as they listen to and evaluate female politicians (or whomever) in the future.
Hillary, as we know, was often dissed for her laugh which, though not great, was certainly better than McCain's. But no one ever mentioned his, while making fun of Hillary's.
Jackie Kennedy (and Marilyn Monroe,ironically) had what some critics referred to as a "baby" voice, or whisper. Yet no one criticizes Bill Clinton for his hoarse whisper or, for that matter, his underlying faint whine, even though sometimes one has to strain to hear what he is saying.
Nancy Pelosi has a speaking voice that most people would agree is easy to listen to; yet, she is still belittled -- I think unconsciously -- in part because her voice has a Maryland born and bred softness to it that is, even now, culturally antithetical to a public perception of suitability for power....if one is female. It is a plus for southern men, but the opposite for southern women. (I'm favorably biased in Pelosi's case, I suppose, as her voice is similar to my own in tone as well as in accent.)
The point, really, is that women should be evaluated for the content of what they say and not for the tone in which they say it.
So we should abhor Palin for her wingnut politics and her apparent lack of ethics, but not for her voice -- although throwing a barb or two her way for her manipulative use of flirty winks seems fair enough.
February 27, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero: How old is your daughter? I have a reading list about female voice, etc. that might be of value to her. And the timing is good. I have a ten day break beginning tomorrow so it would be possible for me to find it.
February 28, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
AFAIK Rianna is some chick who sings and got the crap
beat out of her by some other singer. Are you implying
that the grifter Dude beat up your 2nd favrave female
politician?
I dunno about those who think with their dicks having
a crush on Obama...you are talking about gay guys,
aren't you? From the ones I know, hotness wasn't a
factor in their favoring him.
In fact, gays weren't using their dicks to determine
which candidate they liked. There were some other
pyschological projections going on that didn't involve
wanting to schtup the object of their their adoration...
more like a 21st century version of the Judy
Garland syndrome.
PS. Joe Biden is a dunce. So there.
February 26, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rihanna beating saddens me to no end. Just another example of how no woman is safe from violence at any time, because most times it's coming from the guy right next to her, behind locked doors, in privacy, the guy who'll come home to her the next night in most cases. And if she does do something severe to protect herself as everyone always suggests, the courts in most cases hand out severe punishment.
Shakesville summarizes the fallacies of the "defend yourself" advice, well worth a sickening read. And an update, where battered women who use violent means to defend themselves are being convicted/plea bargaining at a rate of 75-83%.
February 27, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a TV show, "Snapped", that covers women who kill.
They really could do a spin-off show entirely on women who defend themselves against domestic violence. The women profiled on that show take abuse far beyond what any man would take, and yet they still have to fight a legal system that seems to only engage domestic violence when it results in death.
February 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henry Ford invented the mass-produced, affordable car.
While we're at it the first Diesels ran on peanut oil, and early Fords ran on ethanol.
February 26, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically he invented a production system, not a car. Might as well have been washing machines.
February 27, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If one needs to "rethink" Palin, one wasn't thinking in the first place.
Palin didn't "knock it out of the park." she gave a rehearsed speech -- better written by someone other than her (and we know this because her ad libs are as incomprehensible as her normal speech patterns) -- filled with fits and starts, peaks and valleys and other verbal gymnastics that were just as annoying as Jindal's strange amalgamation of SNL's wannabe candidate "Tim Calhoun", 30 Rock's Kenneth the Page, and PBS' Mr. Rogers.
Palin -- as bad as she remains -- looks good in comparison to the fresh "badness" of Jindal. But neither is the antidote to what ails the Republican party. But hey, once that Michael Steele "hip-hop makeover" kicks in, the Republicans will be the cat's pajamas, or the bee's knees, or sexier than Al Jolson croonin' Swannee River on the old Victrola.
February 26, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is that Palin's schtick is no wannabee youth/next generation rap or whatever. She's got all these vibes internalized, she doesn't have to reach in the social area.
Look, Reagan really hit the national stage in 1964 with Goldwater. It took him 16 years to become president.
Palin's got time. Go read "All the King's Men", when Willie Stark gets played by the local pols as a dumb rube to help the other candidate win.
The thing is, when I showed up on this blog, Billy was still around talking about the people supporting Obama because they missed out on Vietnam, wanted to punch their protest and revolution ticket, wanted their own Woodstock. The difference with Palin is I think many Republicans like her naturally, not so much through projection.
February 27, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, isn’t that PALIN a GREAT LADY!!!!!
Elect Palin - Rumsfeld 2012!!
February 26, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah is the women. All those on the left just do not want to believe how good she really is but in comparison to other governors and even obama she has more experience and will do a better job for this country if we still have a country that is in 2012. Go Palin in 2012
February 26, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, at this point, its almost obligatory: is there any chance that, at some point in the next four to eight years, its going to stop being about Hillary?
February 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not with Des! EVERYTHING is ALWAYS about HILLARY.
February 26, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this one was about torture and Palin and Jindal. Readjust your glasses.
February 27, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want the GOP to pick Jindal over Palin, for one reason - there's a real risk as we go into the shitter that the Right is gonna rage holy populist/fascist hell. And as a potential leader of that, Jindal's the weaker. Comparisons to regular elections, balanced views on sexism or racism vis a vis anyone else - they aren't even in my head. Palin's a threat, but to more than electoral hopes.
February 26, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if, what if. How about we deal with what is.
February 27, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I am dealing with "what is."
People talk about Palin or Jindal as GOP spokespeople or leaders for the 2010 and 2012 elections. (After all, their relevance doesn't come from actually leading the Senate or the House Republicans today, right?)
And that leads us BOTH into a world of "what will the situation be in 2010 or 2012?" I think anyone who imagines those elections will be more like "traditional" election cycles is off their rocker, and has quite weak evidence to base themselves on. Remember "It's the economy stupid?" Well, if the economy has any weight in elections, then the only 20th Century elections worth thinking about - in imagining 2010-12 - are those in the 1930's. And while we revere FDR now, the actual political forces in play had truckloads of socialists, communists, fascists, populists, plots and jails and general madness.
Make sense?
February 27, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, makes sense. What's gotten into you?
February 27, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Temperature went down to -40 again today. The mechanic says when that happens, my "molten-insanity lithium ion warp core" freezes up, and all I've got left is this pathetic "limp home on residual good sense" battery.
Kinda sucks.
February 27, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try one of those batter warmers shoved up your nasal tubes. Will get you hopping around like a crazed monkey in no time. (Of course that brings about its own dangers, but you're a grown dude, you'll know how to duck when the time comes)
February 27, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"batter" = "battery", talk about brain on slow molasses mode. Odd, from my childhood I always carry jumper cables with me.
Slightly off-topic (is anything slightly off-topic in this whacky bloggy world?), wondering when self-trepanation will merge with self-tasering as the cerebral sport of the thinking class? More on self-trepanation here (really like the kid's game, and hadn't known the Lennon stuff before - "Fixing a Hole" takes on a whole new meaning).
February 27, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You honestly believe ANY of the dynamics from the 30's are going to apply in 2012? I don't see it. We live in a different world. History is important, but sometimes there isn't a corollary despite a snappy slogan Carville invented back in the 90's.
I agree with you that the nation would be better off with Jindal running - because he WON'T ACTIVELY EXHORT REPUBLICANS TO COMMIT HATE CRIMES. That's hardly an endorsement for rethinking Palin's utter lack of qualities needed to be commander in chief. Anyone who asserts she's "more experienced than Obama" is a fucking moron or spitefully disingenuous. Can you imagine how screwed we'd be if Palin were President right now?
February 27, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey KGB. I can't stand Palin, and think she'd be a disaster in normal times, a nightmare in bad ones. She's thick, she's vindictive, and she's power hungry. Des will say, "So are a lot of male politicians." And I agree. I just don't want ANY leaders who have charisma leading the GOP pack if they come baying. And it's hard to see a male GOP leader with any charisma, while she DOES have it, of some sort. It doesn't work for me, but it's clearly there for some. I think Jindal has almost zero charisma, so I'd prefer him to lead the GOP.
As for the 30's resonances, I'd say we're already getting them, and are gonna get more - in spades. Right now, this crisis is still largely within the financial & housing sectors. As it rolls out into more and more unemployed, and then the duration of that unemployment extends, the mood will be very different. Right now, we're all excited - and so are 70% of American apparently - about Obama's first 30 days, the big bills, waves of hope, etc. But even if they HIT their unemployment targets, we're going to be worse off a year from now. We've got all sorts of other political-social parallels and worries as well, from a deeply nasty, xenophobic, happy-to-hate right wing core... to some fairly ugly political leaders abroad... to the fires being stoked against "socialism" at home... etc. But that discussion's mostly for another blog I suspect, so just some quick hits here.
February 27, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, my point is that the conversation rests on something to happen in 2012. We are losing our opportunity to do things now by focusing on 2012. It is similar to the objection to Jindal taking the TV time to promote himself for 2012. We need to do things in this moment, which means getting the programs running to jump start the economy without losing sight of Gitmo and FISA and all of that. Jindal swung and missed. That suggests at this time, there are no contenders.
My biggest question, if we want to play who's up in 2012 is where is Jeb Bush and his charaismatic cousin/nephew, the Latino who spoke so well a few years back. That's the one we should get ready to fight. These Steele and Jindal offerings are just ways for The Party to develop an acceptance for people of color. If I was a praying man, I would want Jindal/Palin in 2012. They are already going down in flames, but I think in the next couple years another star will rise. Jindal and Palin are not real stars, although I guess that's never stopped them from putting anyone up front anyway, Bush, McCain, Quayle.
February 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink