At the MMoCA.

An explanation of the art -- which I'm not very interested in -- is here.
Labels: art, Madison, museum, photography
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:02 PM 2 comments 
Saturday, October 11, 2008

An explanation of the art -- which I'm not very interested in -- is here.
The Featherweight Café.
Where everything is light and airy. If your concerns are ponderous or morose, I must direct you back to The Willow Lounge.
Labels: café, photography, plants
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:32 AM 53 comments
"Sounds to me like the classic what-if about killing Hitler has been put into practice."
Richard emails this.
ADDED: Obit:
AND: "The last time I saw Joerg Haider, just under two weeks ago, he was being serenaded to Queen's hit 'We are the Champions'."
ADDED: Obit:
Austrian far-right politician Jörg Haider, who was killed in a car crash in his home province of Carinthia very early on Saturday morning, was his native country's best-known person, his sharp and perpetually tanned features ubiquitous on television and magazines. He was also Austria's most polarizing figure, with an impact far beyond that country's borders. During a long and checkered career, Haider stood out from the crowd of post-war Austrian politicians with his good looks, athletic lifestyle and devilish talent for provocation. But he was also a populist and demagogue who played on and amplified his homeland's native anti-immigrant and anti-European Union sentiment, courted Western pariahs like Libya's Muammar Ghadafi and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and even at one point praised Adolf Hitler's "orderly" employment policies.
AND: "The last time I saw Joerg Haider, just under two weeks ago, he was being serenaded to Queen's hit 'We are the Champions'."
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:56 AM 37 comments
"The Parallax View."
A famous sequence from the highly esteemed political movie (which you can see tonight, free, at Cinematheque, in Madison):
Glenn Erickson has a lot to say about this part of the film, which constitutes an audition and a psychological test (for Warren Beatty, at his hunkiest).
This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
Glenn Erickson has a lot to say about this part of the film, which constitutes an audition and a psychological test (for Warren Beatty, at his hunkiest).
Labels: movies, politics, Warren Beatty
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:09 AM 16 comments
Is it Greenspan's fault?
Peter S. Goodman has some clearly written analysis:
Economists from across the ideological spectrum have criticized his decision to let the nation’s real estate market continue to boom with cheap credit, courtesy of low interest rates, rather than snuffing out price increases with higher rates. Others have criticized Mr. Greenspan for not disciplining institutions that lent indiscriminately.
But whatever history ends up saying about those decisions, Mr. Greenspan’s legacy may ultimately rest on a more deeply embedded and much less scrutinized phenomenon: the spectacular boom and calamitous bust in derivatives trading....
“It seems superfluous to constrain trading in some of the newer derivatives and other innovative financial contracts of the past decade,†Mr. Greenspan [wrote in his memoir "The Age of Turbulence"]. “The worst have failed; investors no longer fund them and are not likely to in the future.â€...
“In a market system based on trust, reputation has a significant economic value,†Mr. Greenspan [said in a speech]. “I am therefore distressed at how far we have let concerns for reputation slip in recent years.â€
As the long-serving chairman of the Fed, the nation’s most powerful economic policy maker, Mr. Greenspan preached the transcendent, wealth-creating powers of the market.
A professed libertarian, he counted among his formative influences the novelist Ayn Rand, who portrayed collective power as an evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals. In turn, he showed a resolute faith that those participating in financial markets would act responsibly.
Much more at the link.
But whatever history ends up saying about those decisions, Mr. Greenspan’s legacy may ultimately rest on a more deeply embedded and much less scrutinized phenomenon: the spectacular boom and calamitous bust in derivatives trading....
“It seems superfluous to constrain trading in some of the newer derivatives and other innovative financial contracts of the past decade,†Mr. Greenspan [wrote in his memoir "The Age of Turbulence"]. “The worst have failed; investors no longer fund them and are not likely to in the future.â€...
“In a market system based on trust, reputation has a significant economic value,†Mr. Greenspan [said in a speech]. “I am therefore distressed at how far we have let concerns for reputation slip in recent years.â€
As the long-serving chairman of the Fed, the nation’s most powerful economic policy maker, Mr. Greenspan preached the transcendent, wealth-creating powers of the market.
A professed libertarian, he counted among his formative influences the novelist Ayn Rand, who portrayed collective power as an evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals. In turn, he showed a resolute faith that those participating in financial markets would act responsibly.
Labels: economics, financial markets, Greenspan
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:47 AM 48 comments
"His priorities were cigarettes, Dr Pepper, hot Cheetos and, once a week, he would buy C batteries."
"He never asked for money, but people gave him money... Poor man, may he rest in peace."
"He was Mr. John," [an old woman] cried out in Spanish. "I don't even speak English, but I would say, 'Hi, Mr. John, happy today?' "...
"Karma is coming," [one man] said. "Karma is going to come and get whoever did this."
"Karma is coming," [one man] said. "Karma is going to come and get whoever did this."
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:38 AM 17 comments
"Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers."
The NYT reports:
A 263-page report released Friday by lawmakers in Alaska found that Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, had herself exerted pressure to get Trooper Michael Wooten dismissed, as well as allowed her husband and subordinates to press for his firing, largely as a result of his temperament and past disciplinary problems.
Lots of us like Sarah Palin and have high hopes for her in this election and the next, but let's resist the impulse to slough off this report. It means something.
Labels: Sarah Palin
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:28 AM 255 comments
"No, no ma'am. He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."
John McCain, interrupting a woman who began her question "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist...," from a Swampland blog post titled "McCain Denounces Pitchfork-Wavers."
ADDED: Video:
AND: The video shows that Ana Marie Cox did not transcribe the quote correctly. It's not: "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..." It's: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not he's not he's a uh he's an Arab." "Terrorist" is simply not there. The McCain quote is a bit off too. He says: "He's a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have some disagreements with on fundamental issues." Don't pin "terrorist" on the little old lady in the audience, and don't pin "whom" on the presidential candidate.
AND: Note that Time's Cox (or whoever did the transcription) not only added "terrorist" but also substituted "scared" for "can't trust." What does that say about the mind of the transcriber? It suggests the press is looking for evidence of fear and fear mongering. I think we're seeing a grasping for more evidence to justify blaming the campaign for deranging the minds of McCain's supporters. But if this woman's concern is that Obama is an Arab and that you can't trust him because of that, then it has nothing much to do with the Ayers connection that the McCain campaign promoted this week. So spike the quote with "terrorism" and "scared."
BUT: If she only said "he's an Arab," why did McCain say "no" and "He's a decent family man citizen..."? "No" makes sense as a simple correction of fact, but why "He's a decent family man citizen" as if Arab-Americans are not decent citizens who care about their families? I think McCain blurted out an accidental, implied ethnic slur.
ADDED: Video:
AND: The video shows that Ana Marie Cox did not transcribe the quote correctly. It's not: "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..." It's: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not he's not he's a uh he's an Arab." "Terrorist" is simply not there. The McCain quote is a bit off too. He says: "He's a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have some disagreements with on fundamental issues." Don't pin "terrorist" on the little old lady in the audience, and don't pin "whom" on the presidential candidate.
AND: Note that Time's Cox (or whoever did the transcription) not only added "terrorist" but also substituted "scared" for "can't trust." What does that say about the mind of the transcriber? It suggests the press is looking for evidence of fear and fear mongering. I think we're seeing a grasping for more evidence to justify blaming the campaign for deranging the minds of McCain's supporters. But if this woman's concern is that Obama is an Arab and that you can't trust him because of that, then it has nothing much to do with the Ayers connection that the McCain campaign promoted this week. So spike the quote with "terrorism" and "scared."
BUT: If she only said "he's an Arab," why did McCain say "no" and "He's a decent family man citizen..."? "No" makes sense as a simple correction of fact, but why "He's a decent family man citizen" as if Arab-Americans are not decent citizens who care about their families? I think McCain blurted out an accidental, implied ethnic slur.
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:24 AM 54 comments
Friday, October 10, 2008
"This is most certainly not the finest thread that has appeared on Althouse."
Said Roger J., here.
That set me wondering: What was the finest thread?
ADDED: "Thread" = the comments section. I'm trying to collect links back to memorable old comments threads.
IN THE COMMENTS: The return of the long-lost Titus!
If you're too new to remember him, you can read this old thread, which reader_iam identified as one of the finest.
That set me wondering: What was the finest thread?
ADDED: "Thread" = the comments section. I'm trying to collect links back to memorable old comments threads.
IN THE COMMENTS: The return of the long-lost Titus!
If you're too new to remember him, you can read this old thread, which reader_iam identified as one of the finest.
Labels: blogging, Roger J. (commenter)
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:13 PM 68 comments
"I have just never been interested in sex."
"I imagine there is a lot of hassle involved and I have always been busy doing other things."
So says Clara Meadmore, Britain's oldest virgin. She is now 105 years old.
So says Clara Meadmore, Britain's oldest virgin. She is now 105 years old.
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:08 PM 33 comments
The Willow Lounge.
Pour a glass and weep.
ADDED:
This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
Labels: photography, water
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:01 PM 62 comments
"Web Therapy," with Lisa Kudrow.
I love this new web show. Boing Boing says:
Anyway, as you know -- or could learn by clicking the "Lisa Kudrow" tag -- I adore Lisa Kudrow. Not from "Friends," which I never found interesting enough to watch (other than that one time when Brad Pitt was on). I loved "The Comeback," which I consider the best TV comedy of all time.
Now there's a new entrant in the genre of "webcam narrative": Web Therapy starring, co-written and co-produced by the brilliant Lisa Kudrow. But Web Therapy as the name might imply, is not another one-sided windbag borefest, it's -- hello -- actual two-way conversations that purportedly take place in real time (just 3 minutes per session!) over dual webcams between annoying psychologist Dr. Fiona Wallace and her exasperated patients. What a simple, yet clever idea! One that makes sense that it occurs over webcams.
Dual webcams and annoying people? That's Bloggingheads-y. I mean, it's like what Bloggingheads could be if everyone didn't feel such a need to preserve their dignity and professional standing... and was allowed to create fictionalized conflicts....Anyway, as you know -- or could learn by clicking the "Lisa Kudrow" tag -- I adore Lisa Kudrow. Not from "Friends," which I never found interesting enough to watch (other than that one time when Brad Pitt was on). I loved "The Comeback," which I consider the best TV comedy of all time.
Labels: "The Comeback", Bloggingheads, Brad Pitt, Lisa Kudrow
posted by Ann Althouse at 5:11 PM 21 comments
Harry Shearer likes "making these guys walk around." ("These guys" = Obama and McCain.)
You will know them by their walk. Of course, Bush had the better walk in 2000 and 2004.
ADDED: Want to see some debate walking? Watch the last 30 seconds of this clip from a Bush-Gore debate. Gore does the stupidest debate walking I have ever seen, and Bush's reaction to it never fails to make me laugh out loud.
And check out the clueless look on Gore's face at the end. So pleased with himself. He thinks he's doing so well that he triumphantly re-intones the magic phrase "Dingell-Norwood."
Labels: Bloggingheads, Bob Wright, Bush, cats, Gore, McCain, nostrils, Obama
posted by Ann Althouse at 4:57 PM 26 comments
Visualizing political bias.
An extension that color-codes the blogs at Memeorandum.
Memeorandum is my favorite place to start when looking for political stories to blog about. It's a (somewhat lazy) way to see what everybody's talking about at the moment. With this extension you can see... well, what exactly are you seeing?
Memeorandum is my favorite place to start when looking for political stories to blog about. It's a (somewhat lazy) way to see what everybody's talking about at the moment. With this extension you can see... well, what exactly are you seeing?
The colors don’t necessarily represent each blogger’s personal views or biases. It’s a reflection of their linking activity. The algorithm looks at the stories that blogger’s linked to before, relative to all other bloggers, and groups them accordingly. People that link to things that only conservatives find interesting will be classified as bright red, even if they are personally moderate or liberal, and vice-versa. The algorithm can't read minds, so don't be offended if you feel misrepresented. It's only looking at the data.
The Moderate Voice notes its dark blue identification. And I come out bright red. [CORRECTION: I'm merely pink. I MEAN: I'm at the mid-level of redness.] So, what to do with this information? Maybe I'll try, when I go to Memeorandum, to pick more "blue" stories...
Labels: blogging, Memeorandum, Moderate Voice, partisanship
posted by Ann Althouse at 4:10 PM 13 comments
Take a mid-afternoon break at The Fuzzy Thinking Café.
Riffs. Chatter. Free association. Nobody ever gets to the point at The Fuzzy Thinking Café. Come on! Feel the fuzziness.
Labels: café, photography, plants
posted by Ann Althouse at 2:16 PM 68 comments
Democracy and the secret ballot.
Here's George McGovern opposing the "card check" bill, which Obama and many Democrats support, on the ground that keeping one's vote private is fundamental to democracy:
Via Gateway Pundit, via Mickey Kaus.
Interestingly, Obama is the Democratic nominee precisely because of the lack of private voting. His winning strategy was all about the caucus states, where your friends and neighbors see where you stand.
This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
Via Gateway Pundit, via Mickey Kaus.
Interestingly, Obama is the Democratic nominee precisely because of the lack of private voting. His winning strategy was all about the caucus states, where your friends and neighbors see where you stand.
posted by Ann Althouse at 1:21 PM 47 comments
Saying "He is also a lefty. I am not," Christopher Buckley endorses Obama.
Why would a conservative back Obama?
Is Buckley not right?
I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian....
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind...
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for†silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
By comparison:But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind...
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for†silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed.... A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.†Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?
His positions change, and lack coherence....Is Buckley not right?
Labels: Christopher Buckley, McCain, Obama
posted by Ann Althouse at 1:12 PM 214 comments
The Connecticut Supreme Court finds a right to same-sex marriage.
WaPo reports.
Labels: Connecticut, law, same-sex marriage
posted by Ann Althouse at 11:03 AM 86 comments
"George Bush has probably had the hardest administration since Lincoln. I feel for him."
"But his speech on the economy just now was lackluster."
Lackluster!
He's lost The Corner!
ADDED: Wonkette live-blogged:
Lackluster!
He's lost The Corner!
ADDED: Wonkette live-blogged:
10:28 AM — So far he has explained why everything sucks, and told people not to freak out too much about everything sucking....
Labels: Bush, economics, financial markets, Lincoln
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:58 AM 32 comments
So the financial crisis has some "lefty-artsy" university types stockpiling food?
Instapundit thinks we may be seeing the merger of economic panic and the mainstreaming of survivalism.
I think the lefty-artsy university types should be buying bottles of champagne and celebrating, because the crisis -- if it really is at the panic-y, food-stockpiling level -- will drastically cut back consumption, fighting huge, intractable problems that they dreamed of solving through regulation: global warming, mass obesity, crass materialism, suburban sprawl...
What does it take to make these people happy? They're addicted to gloom! Even vast economic collapse won't satisfy them.
I think the lefty-artsy university types should be buying bottles of champagne and celebrating, because the crisis -- if it really is at the panic-y, food-stockpiling level -- will drastically cut back consumption, fighting huge, intractable problems that they dreamed of solving through regulation: global warming, mass obesity, crass materialism, suburban sprawl...
What does it take to make these people happy? They're addicted to gloom! Even vast economic collapse won't satisfy them.
Labels: economics, emotion, fat, financial markets, food, global warming
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:36 AM 33 comments
"It was a strategic mistake to send Sarah Palin out on the stump as warrior girl. Mr. McCain is war-y enough."
Writes Peggy Noonan. I don't know about that. We like our warrior girl... some of us. Those that don't like Palin the Warrior aren't going to like Palin the "social conservative who is for diplomacy, for an easy-does-it approach to foreign affairs," are they? But I agree with Noonan about this:
Noonan has a way with words. Note that she wrote "meanderings" where many writers would use "maundering." Here's the American Heritage Dictionary on "maundering":
Interesting! Noonan rises above the dialectical variant.
Both campaigns, in the closing stretch, seem not fully worthy of the moment. We are in crisis—a once-in-a-century event, as we now say. And what we got from the candidates, in this week's presidential debate, was a bunch of gummy meanderings—smooth, rounded sentences so full of focus-grouped inanities that six minutes in viewers entered a kind of trance in which we almost immediately gave up on trying to wrest meaning from what was being said and instead focused on mere impressions.
***
Noonan has a way with words. Note that she wrote "meanderings" where many writers would use "maundering." Here's the American Heritage Dictionary on "maundering":
1. To talk incoherently or aimlessly. 2. To move or act aimlessly or vaguely; wander.
Sounds exactly right, no? But then:Interesting! Noonan rises above the dialectical variant.
Labels: language, Peggy Noonan, Sarah Palin
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:10 AM 39 comments
McCain/Palin supporters are an angry mob. That's the virulent meme this week.
To my eye, it looks as though the MSM is anxious to squelch any enthusiasm. WaPo has a big feature called "Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally." And to be fair, it's the "most viewed" page on the WaPo website right now. It's what the readers want to read, not what the WaPo wants to cram down our throats. (Or are you one of those people who think the newspapers lie about what's "most viewed" and "most emailed"?)
The dateline on this piece, written by Michael D. Shear and Perry Bacon Jr., is Waukesha, Wisconsin. Oh, come on, now. If there are angry mobs, surely they are not in Wisconsin. I'm feeling huge doubts. But let's read:
Or are Shear and Bacon -- good name for a barbershop/diner -- saying there is something different about the enthusiasm of this rally? Perhaps Obama did not draw on the energy of his crowds. (He's almost always kept cool.) Perhaps Obama's crowds surged with love for their candidate and never hate for the opponent.
It may be that the McCain/Palin crowds feel distinctly different... or do they just feel distinctly different to the reporters whose don't share the crowds emotions?
The dateline on this piece, written by Michael D. Shear and Perry Bacon Jr., is Waukesha, Wisconsin. Oh, come on, now. If there are angry mobs, surely they are not in Wisconsin. I'm feeling huge doubts. But let's read:
There were shouts of "Nobama" and "Socialist" at the mention of the Democratic presidential nominee. There were boos, middle fingers turned up and thumbs turned down as a media caravan moved through the crowd Thursday for a midday town hall gathering featuring John McCain and Sarah Palin.
So they were giving the press the finger? Isn't that the classic method of preventing the press from getting a usable picture of you? It looks as though there are 2 different things going on: disapproval of Obama and hostility toward the press. There is plenty of reason for McCain supporters to hate the press, and yet the press ought not to react with an okay, then screw them. The press should redouble efforts to be neutral and professional."I'm mad! I'm really mad!" [a] man said, taking the microphone and refusing to surrender it easily, even when McCain tried to agree with him.
"I'm not done. Lemme finish, please," he said after a standing ovation. "When you have Obama, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run the country, we have to have our head examined.
"It's time that you two represent the rest of us. So go get 'em."
The crowd burst into loud chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Standing at the center of the crowd, McCain and Palin drew on the crowd's energy as they repeatedly trained their fire on Obama.
"Trained their fire"? That's not a good metaphor. And there is nothing wrong with candidates attacking their opponents or crowds becoming enthusiastic. That's the idea of a rally. Perhaps political rallies in general are distasteful, but surely, the WaPo doesn't take that view across the board. How did they cover the big Obama rallies? Isn't it worse to chant the candidates name, as is done for Obama, than to chant the name of the country?"I'm not done. Lemme finish, please," he said after a standing ovation. "When you have Obama, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run the country, we have to have our head examined.
"It's time that you two represent the rest of us. So go get 'em."
The crowd burst into loud chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Standing at the center of the crowd, McCain and Palin drew on the crowd's energy as they repeatedly trained their fire on Obama.
Or are Shear and Bacon -- good name for a barbershop/diner -- saying there is something different about the enthusiasm of this rally? Perhaps Obama did not draw on the energy of his crowds. (He's almost always kept cool.) Perhaps Obama's crowds surged with love for their candidate and never hate for the opponent.
It may be that the McCain/Palin crowds feel distinctly different... or do they just feel distinctly different to the reporters whose don't share the crowds emotions?
Labels: journalism, McCain, metaphor, Obama, WaPo
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:27 AM 120 comments
I get email.
This just arrived:
I'm posting this as evidence of my cruel neutrality.
IN THE COMMENTS: Pete the Streak is moved to point us to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks.
And Marcia said...
Ann;
I literally stumbled on your "blog" last night and tried to actually read some of it, feeling as though I was reading some highschool girl's diary to her girlfriend, complete with buzzwords and inside jokes. I assume that your writing is meant for a very small circle of friends who know or think they know what you're talking about.
"The debate was bad in ways that debates are often bad. The ultra-badness comes from being bad now."
What better example of liberalspeak.....meaningless even while at best it seems to suggest a negative reaction to the "debate!" Huah!
Ann, yours is the kind of spoiled silliness that Americans in flyover country have trouble understanding. I suspect that like Obama, you teach fringe elements of law school, more the liberal indoctrination theme, and I cannot possibly imagine you holding anyone in suspense over whom you will vote for in November!
You're certainly in the right place....Madison has more than their share of ding-a-lings!
Sincerely,
Charlie
(I added the link.)I literally stumbled on your "blog" last night and tried to actually read some of it, feeling as though I was reading some highschool girl's diary to her girlfriend, complete with buzzwords and inside jokes. I assume that your writing is meant for a very small circle of friends who know or think they know what you're talking about.
"The debate was bad in ways that debates are often bad. The ultra-badness comes from being bad now."
What better example of liberalspeak.....meaningless even while at best it seems to suggest a negative reaction to the "debate!" Huah!
Ann, yours is the kind of spoiled silliness that Americans in flyover country have trouble understanding. I suspect that like Obama, you teach fringe elements of law school, more the liberal indoctrination theme, and I cannot possibly imagine you holding anyone in suspense over whom you will vote for in November!
You're certainly in the right place....Madison has more than their share of ding-a-lings!
Sincerely,
Charlie
I'm posting this as evidence of my cruel neutrality.
IN THE COMMENTS: Pete the Streak is moved to point us to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks.
And Marcia said...
Sounds like Charlie's a bit grumpy.
Then again, I would be too if I had "literally stumbled on your 'blog.'"
Ann, you really shouldn't leaving it out like that. Someone could hurt themselves.
And you know, there is also a blog dedicated to the misuse of the word "literally": Literally, a Web Log. (The top post right now is about Biden: "I don’t know who this guy is. I don’t know his politics. But anyone who can use literally that many times in one speech has my vote.")
Then again, I would be too if I had "literally stumbled on your 'blog.'"
Ann, you really shouldn't leaving it out like that. Someone could hurt themselves.
Labels: anti-Althousiana, biden, cruel neutrality, language, Madison, Marcia (the commenter), Pete the Streak
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:19 AM 47 comments
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The Gold Liquid Café.
It's time to unwind. Drink something gold. Tell me what you're thinking about.
Labels: café, photography, water
posted by Ann Althouse at 5:24 PM 183 comments
It's getting ugly, but is it getting racial?
The new McCain ad hits Obama hard on the Ayers connection.
That's unpleasant for Obama supporters, but is it unfair? Is it racist? From the SF Chronicle:
By the way, there is a new Gallup poll in which the vast majority of voters say race has no effect on their decisions. Yes, of course, people often won't admit it or don't realize it. But the few who do say it will affect them report positive and negative effects that are close to balanced, and yet the positive effect in favor of Obama seems to have the edge. That said, the unadmitted effects are probably much more likely to be negatives against Obama.
Pushing back, we've got James Carville trying to guilt-trip or scare white people into voting for Obama:
That's unpleasant for Obama supporters, but is it unfair? Is it racist? From the SF Chronicle:
While Obama's campaign has fended off racially rooted attacks since its inception, analysts say the ones surfacing in the past few days have been more overt, arriving as many undecided voters are making their final decision. They are part of a recent stream of attacks on his background, including his religion and his connections to a former '60s radical.
"It is the Willie Hortonization of Obama," said University of San Francisco associate professor of political science James Taylor....
Instead of using a grainy photo of a grizzled convict [like the Willie Horton ad used against Dukakis], the current attacks, analysts say, are embedded in "coded" language. They cite as examples Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin portraying Obama as a cultural outsider and friend to terrorists and the dismissive way his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, referred to Obama at their Tuesday night debate as "that one."...
Regardless, some attending McCain-Palin rallies are responding to this kind of incitement. The Secret Service is investigating press reports that someone might have said "kill him" after Palin tried to connect Obama to former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers. Some attending McCain's rally Wednesday in Pennsylvania interrupted him with shouts of "socialist," "terrorist" and "liar."
Earlier this week, Palin told a group of donors in Colorado that "this is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Obama, Palin said, "is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," a reference to Obama's connection with Ayers... Conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh echoed this attack by referring to Obama's "mentorship" by Ayers....
Why is it racial to stir up doubt about whether Obama is a mainstream Democrat? Most of the argument seems to be that because he is black, any doubts about him have a synergistic effect with any racism that happens to be out there."It is the Willie Hortonization of Obama," said University of San Francisco associate professor of political science James Taylor....
Instead of using a grainy photo of a grizzled convict [like the Willie Horton ad used against Dukakis], the current attacks, analysts say, are embedded in "coded" language. They cite as examples Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin portraying Obama as a cultural outsider and friend to terrorists and the dismissive way his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, referred to Obama at their Tuesday night debate as "that one."...
Regardless, some attending McCain-Palin rallies are responding to this kind of incitement. The Secret Service is investigating press reports that someone might have said "kill him" after Palin tried to connect Obama to former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers. Some attending McCain's rally Wednesday in Pennsylvania interrupted him with shouts of "socialist," "terrorist" and "liar."
Earlier this week, Palin told a group of donors in Colorado that "this is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Obama, Palin said, "is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," a reference to Obama's connection with Ayers... Conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh echoed this attack by referring to Obama's "mentorship" by Ayers....
By the way, there is a new Gallup poll in which the vast majority of voters say race has no effect on their decisions. Yes, of course, people often won't admit it or don't realize it. But the few who do say it will affect them report positive and negative effects that are close to balanced, and yet the positive effect in favor of Obama seems to have the edge. That said, the unadmitted effects are probably much more likely to be negatives against Obama.
Pushing back, we've got James Carville trying to guilt-trip or scare white people into voting for Obama:
Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are -- bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.
But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.
Some -- e.g., Rush Limbaugh -- think Carville was envisioning riots. Limbaugh observes:
But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.
Now, I want you to imagine if, say, I said something like this or some other conservative anywhere, said, "Yeah, if Obama, if he loses, you know, there's going to be riots out there. The blacks are going to riot." This is what James Carville said. You tell me where the racism is in this country. It is on the left. Here's Carville trying to scare America. He's doing two things. He didn't accidentally come up with that 5% figure. These guys are worried to death about the Wilder Effect. They are worried about the Bradley Effect, meaning they are worried that people are lying to the pollsters, saying they will vote for Obama.
But because they are really racists and don't want to admit that to a pollster, that they get to the voting booth in private, will vote for the white guy, Yosemite Sam instead of The Messiah. So that selection of five points, that's key. I've told you if Obama is not up by ten or so, it's going to be a much closer race than everybody thinks. But for James Carville to suggest that the political immaturity of the majority of the black population of this country is such that they will take to the streets and riot, I hope all of you African-Americans listening to this program understand how that means the Democrat Party sees you.
In fact, I might go so far as to say -- not about Carville, I don't know -- but there might be some of the Democrats that wouldn't mind seeing some riots if Obama loses. Nevertheless that's what they think of you. You are going to take to the streets, going to be Rodney King and South Central Los Angeles all over the country. So there's a fright factor here. There is a bigotry factor here, and of course there is racism on parade all over the place. And once again the racism originates and comes from the Democrat Party.
But because they are really racists and don't want to admit that to a pollster, that they get to the voting booth in private, will vote for the white guy, Yosemite Sam instead of The Messiah. So that selection of five points, that's key. I've told you if Obama is not up by ten or so, it's going to be a much closer race than everybody thinks. But for James Carville to suggest that the political immaturity of the majority of the black population of this country is such that they will take to the streets and riot, I hope all of you African-Americans listening to this program understand how that means the Democrat Party sees you.
In fact, I might go so far as to say -- not about Carville, I don't know -- but there might be some of the Democrats that wouldn't mind seeing some riots if Obama loses. Nevertheless that's what they think of you. You are going to take to the streets, going to be Rodney King and South Central Los Angeles all over the country. So there's a fright factor here. There is a bigotry factor here, and of course there is racism on parade all over the place. And once again the racism originates and comes from the Democrat Party.
Labels: advertising, Ayers, Dukakis, Obama, racial politics, Rush Limbaugh
posted by Ann Althouse at 11:41 AM 325 comments
"Le Clézio stood out as an ecologically engaged author."
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:21 AM 43 comments
Did you know my cruel neutrality is being monitored?
Over here, by Monitoring the Cruel Neutrality, which just the other day finished analyzing my posts from March 4, 2008 (the date I took a vow of cruel neutrality) through July. A summary:
Does it surprise you then to realize that I'm almost surely going to vote for Obama -- the chances are about 89% -- and that through the entire period of the vow it has been more likely than not that I would vote for Obama? It shouldn't!
McCain negative (5)(6%)
McCain Neutral (71)(82%)
McCain Positive (11)(13%)
Obama ignored (1)(0%)
Obama negative (42)(15%)
Obama neutral (223)(81%)
Obama Positive (10) (4%)
July alone:
McCain Neutral (71)(82%)
McCain Positive (11)(13%)
Obama ignored (1)(0%)
Obama negative (42)(15%)
Obama neutral (223)(81%)
Obama Positive (10) (4%)
McCain negative (0)(0%)
McCain Neutral (19)(90%)
McCain Positive (2)(10%)
Obama negative (7)(13%)
Obama neutral (46)(82%)
Obama Positive (3) (5%)
I'd say I've displayed impressive neutrality, being far more likely to stay neutral than to go either positive or negative. But when I did go negative, it was much more likely to be against Obama, and when I did go positive, it was more likely to be about McCain.McCain Neutral (19)(90%)
McCain Positive (2)(10%)
Obama negative (7)(13%)
Obama neutral (46)(82%)
Obama Positive (3) (5%)
Does it surprise you then to realize that I'm almost surely going to vote for Obama -- the chances are about 89% -- and that through the entire period of the vow it has been more likely than not that I would vote for Obama? It shouldn't!
Labels: cruel neutrality, emotional Althouse, McCain, Obama
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:05 AM 84 comments
"Invisible Man: How Ralph Ellison explains Barack Obama."
David Samuels has a piece in TNR with that title. This is one of those things I decide to blog about before reading, or, to be more accurate, after reading 1 or 2 sentences. Here are the 2 sentences that grabbed me:
Anyway, now I will try to read the article, or enough of it to determine whether it's brainless or -- ! -- flatulent.
ADDED: Swampland calls the article "compelling and challenging." (Challenging ≈ branless?)
It is one of the more interesting facts about Obama the writer that the father he chooses to represent, and whose legacy he chooses to embrace, is a bona fide monster--a scary polygamist who abused his wives and children and drank away his intellectual promise and his career, then crippled himself in a car accident that left him with iron legs, and finally wrapped his car around a tree in a second accident that luckily proved fatal to no one other than himself. Dreams is a book about Obama coming to terms with this troubling monster and creating a workable self out of the ruins of his father's life.
Then I see the first comment over there:What a load of branless bloviation!
Ha ha. Branless. Why not braless? As long as we're subtracting letters and creating new meanings...Anyway, now I will try to read the article, or enough of it to determine whether it's brainless or -- ! -- flatulent.
While I don't know the candidate personally, I feel as if I do, in part because he was at Harvard Law School when I was at Harvard, and he lived a few blocks away from me in a "transitional neighborhood" in Manhattan where rich people brought their dogs to poop. I know where the candidate is coming from, I am thinking, as I watch the fluffy white clouds float by my airplane window in a sea of antidepressant Obama blue.
Oh my. Samuels does sound insane. If those dog owners are so rich why are they walking their own dogs? What sort of dog owner treks to another neighborhood to deposit shit? Who looks at blue sky as "antidepressant" rather than simply cheerful?It is hard not to like the idea of a writer becoming president...
Oh, no. That's so wrong. The writerly mind is exactly what you want to watch out for. There's plenty of writerly mind on display in this long article, which you may or may not like. Let me know.ADDED: Swampland calls the article "compelling and challenging." (Challenging ≈ branless?)
It is at once a book review, a comparative literature exercise, a rumination on race, a candidate profile, and a magazine feature. Its central idea is that Barack Obama has internalized the thesis of Ralph Ellison's classic novel, Invisible Man, which Samuels summarizes as the notion that "the symbolic and actual baggage of race makes it difficult if not impossible for a black man to ever realize his full humanity in the eyes of anyone."
Labels: David Samuels, dogs, excrement, Obama, racial politics, writing
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:29 AM 35 comments
The Reel Geezers tell you what political films to watch.
This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
ADDED: A quote: "Every political movie about the electoral system shows that it's corrupt." Is that true? And why is it true? My favorite political movie about the electoral system -- that's how the geezers narrow the category for discussion purposes -- is "The War Room," the documentary about the 1992 Clinton campaign. I love rewatching that. (Buy it here.)
Another quote: "Frank Capra was basically a fascist."
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:10 AM 7 comments
"Barack Obama, Socialist?"
Asks Power Line, with evidence that Obama ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996 as a member of the New Party. Was he a member or was he simply endorsed by the Party, which had a strategy of endorsing Democratic Party candidates who were sufficiently left wing?
In any case, I don't think it's right to call the New Party "socialist." I remember this party. One of the founders was UW lawprof Joel Rogers. They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as "socialist," but let's not be inflammatory.
I found an article in the LA Times, January 27, 1997, called "Life of the Party, Joel Rogers, Recipient of a MacArthur 'Genius' Grant, Helps Guide the Fledgling New Party and its Campaign to Provide Educational Opportunity and a Living Wage." (No link, because the LA Times website is inadequate.) Excerpt:
IN THE COMMENTS: One of my favorite commenters, Chip Ahoy, calls this "Simply the most incoherent post I've ever read here." He goes on:
AJ Lynch, another commenter with a fine reputation here, calls Chip's post "the best comment of the month." He adds:
In any case, I don't think it's right to call the New Party "socialist." I remember this party. One of the founders was UW lawprof Joel Rogers. They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as "socialist," but let's not be inflammatory.
I found an article in the LA Times, January 27, 1997, called "Life of the Party, Joel Rogers, Recipient of a MacArthur 'Genius' Grant, Helps Guide the Fledgling New Party and its Campaign to Provide Educational Opportunity and a Living Wage." (No link, because the LA Times website is inadequate.) Excerpt:
Imagine, [Joel Rogers] says, that in 2000 the Democrats run Al Gore for president and the Republicans offer, say, millionaire Steve Forbes....
A mad taxer might, instead, "vote his values" by poking the ballot next to Gore's name--not where he is listed as a Democrat, but beside his New Party nomination...
Either way, the vote would count toward the candidate's total. And the candidate, says Rogers, would get a sharp reminder that a certain percentage of his votes came from people who think a certain way--like New Party "progressives," for instance.
Which leads to the question of just what this New Party stands for, and how popular its "populism" would really be....
"If you ask, 'Do you think all kids should have an equal start in life,' 80% of the population would agree with you," he says.
Next he shoots out a rhetorical filament about declining incomes and wage disparity--reflecting the party's vehement support of "living wage" campaigns.
"People really don't think it's fair to work full time, 2,000 hours a year, and get such lousy pay that they can't even raise a kid on it," he says. "That has electoral promise, that sentiment. . . . You can't inflict this much damage on people's expectations and not see it show up somewhere in voter volatility and anger.
"When you say, 'It doesn't seem fair that Michael Eisner makes $ 75,000 an hour,' people respond to that."
The party also supports progressive taxation, international workers rights, environmental protection, urban renewal and the public financing of elections....
If anything bugs Rogers, though, it is the suggestion that his dream is a new playground for political hobbyists and pinko pointy heads.
"I think it would be unfair to characterize it as just a marketing strategy for old defeated socialists. . . ," Rogers says. "It attaches much less weight to the state--much less than even conventional liberalism."
It's not fair to call the New Party "socialist," and it's really not fair to paint Obama as a crypto-socialist today because of his association with it.A mad taxer might, instead, "vote his values" by poking the ballot next to Gore's name--not where he is listed as a Democrat, but beside his New Party nomination...
Either way, the vote would count toward the candidate's total. And the candidate, says Rogers, would get a sharp reminder that a certain percentage of his votes came from people who think a certain way--like New Party "progressives," for instance.
Which leads to the question of just what this New Party stands for, and how popular its "populism" would really be....
"If you ask, 'Do you think all kids should have an equal start in life,' 80% of the population would agree with you," he says.
Next he shoots out a rhetorical filament about declining incomes and wage disparity--reflecting the party's vehement support of "living wage" campaigns.
"People really don't think it's fair to work full time, 2,000 hours a year, and get such lousy pay that they can't even raise a kid on it," he says. "That has electoral promise, that sentiment. . . . You can't inflict this much damage on people's expectations and not see it show up somewhere in voter volatility and anger.
"When you say, 'It doesn't seem fair that Michael Eisner makes $ 75,000 an hour,' people respond to that."
The party also supports progressive taxation, international workers rights, environmental protection, urban renewal and the public financing of elections....
If anything bugs Rogers, though, it is the suggestion that his dream is a new playground for political hobbyists and pinko pointy heads.
"I think it would be unfair to characterize it as just a marketing strategy for old defeated socialists. . . ," Rogers says. "It attaches much less weight to the state--much less than even conventional liberalism."
IN THE COMMENTS: One of my favorite commenters, Chip Ahoy, calls this "Simply the most incoherent post I've ever read here." He goes on:
Why not call a socialist a socialist? Don't tell me not to call a spade a spade or a club a club, I'll call them as I see them.
Everything about this post speaks to socialism, jealousy, income redistribution, class war. Joel Roberts [sic], whether or not he likes to hear it, is a socialist. There's nothing else to make of peeling off the most left of the left.
I didn't bother with the word clouds presented here earlier, but I recall hearing the word "fairness" a lot by both Obama and Biden. Now there's a word that grates. There. is. no. such. thing â—¯ <--- emphatic period. What is an attempt to achieve fairness through social engineering if not a yearning for socialism? Bah. This was all so very interesting the first time we read about it in Animal Farm. Yes, Obama is socialist. In his bones. As socialist as allowed in American politics with himself at the control levers. Joel Rogers is attempting to stretch that allowance. I'm in poor spirit this morning. I fumbled boiling water and burned my leg. So I'm really not in any mood to be instructed how to redefine my native language. I spent too much time learning these words [than] to have somebody I don't know tell me they actually mean something else so that it becomes easier to slip proven-to-fail economic policies into American politics under another name.
I'm sorry you burned your leg, Chip. And I'm not speaking to the question whether Rogers is a socialist. But I think the New Party project was meant to be more mainstream ... left, but mainstream. I think candidates that were endorsed by the party, as it followed its supposedly clever strategy, were just very liberal Democrats.Everything about this post speaks to socialism, jealousy, income redistribution, class war. Joel Roberts [sic], whether or not he likes to hear it, is a socialist. There's nothing else to make of peeling off the most left of the left.
I didn't bother with the word clouds presented here earlier, but I recall hearing the word "fairness" a lot by both Obama and Biden. Now there's a word that grates. There. is. no. such. thing â—¯ <--- emphatic period. What is an attempt to achieve fairness through social engineering if not a yearning for socialism? Bah. This was all so very interesting the first time we read about it in Animal Farm. Yes, Obama is socialist. In his bones. As socialist as allowed in American politics with himself at the control levers. Joel Rogers is attempting to stretch that allowance. I'm in poor spirit this morning. I fumbled boiling water and burned my leg. So I'm really not in any mood to be instructed how to redefine my native language. I spent too much time learning these words [than] to have somebody I don't know tell me they actually mean something else so that it becomes easier to slip proven-to-fail economic policies into American politics under another name.
AJ Lynch, another commenter with a fine reputation here, calls Chip's post "the best comment of the month." He adds:
I suggest you let them sink in Ann.
Peter snarks:Let's not be silly. Of course Obama is a socialist!
The real question is this: Is Ann Althouse a socialist?
I'm just a humble citizen of Madison, Wisconsin, an observer of political things who is not herself political. I come from the world of art, and I sojourned into law, where I did not really belong, but I got ensnared in a career here, and blogging is my reemergence as the real person that I truly am. I have met many interesting people here in Madison, including many lefties, including Joel Rogers. They are the normal people around here -- here, where I feel so comfortable, where I have lived for a quarter of a century, even though I in no way belong here. Have some pity on me, dear readers.
The real question is this: Is Ann Althouse a socialist?
Labels: AJ Lynch, Chip Ahoy, class politics, Joel Rogers, New Party, Obama, Peter (the commenter), poverty, Power Line, socialism, University of Wisconsin
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:33 AM 174 comments
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"How to write a bogus trend story..."
"Start with something you wish were on the rise. State that rise as a fact. Allow that there are no facts, surveys, or test results to support such a fact. Use and reuse the word seems. Collect anecdotes and sprinkle liberally. Drift from your original point as far as you can to collect other data points. Add liberally. Finish with an upbeat quotation like 'My cat takes priority over the new relationship. Realistically, unless there's something absolutely amazing about [the woman I'm dating], he wins.'"
Slate mocks a ridiculous NYT style article, sets out the formula (above), and requests reader email. Can we outdo the Slate readers? I think so.
Slate mocks a ridiculous NYT style article, sets out the formula (above), and requests reader email. Can we outdo the Slate readers? I think so.
Labels: cats, journalism, nyt, writing
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:02 PM 18 comments
That was the worst debate ever.
Says Politico:
How the hell did candidates manage to be so timid and uninspiring at a time when American troops are in two problematic wars, the world financial markets are in scary free fall and the Dow has lost 1,400 points since Oct. 1? This is a moment history rarely sees — and both men blew it.
The debate was bad in ways that debates are often bad. The ultra-badness comes from being bad now.
Labels: debate, McCain, Obama, Tom Brokaw
posted by Ann Althouse at 5:00 PM 93 comments
Debate word clouds.
McCain's words, processed into cloud form:
(Enlarge.)
Obama's cloud:
(Enlarge.)
Observations? I'll start with a few:
1. I wish I could exclude all the boring words like "going."
2. McCain is much more likely than Obama to say "America" or "Americans."
3. McCain says "friends" a lot more, but I don't think it's because he loves us more.
4. As I noticed live-blogging last night, Obama has the quirk of labeling things "important."
5. The most interesting words -- like "Jell-O" and "corpse" -- were only said once and stay off of their clouds. I'd like a program that makes a graphic of all the words that only appear once. They're especially... important.
(Enlarge.)
Obama's cloud:
(Enlarge.)
Observations? I'll start with a few:
1. I wish I could exclude all the boring words like "going."
2. McCain is much more likely than Obama to say "America" or "Americans."
3. McCain says "friends" a lot more, but I don't think it's because he loves us more.
4. As I noticed live-blogging last night, Obama has the quirk of labeling things "important."
5. The most interesting words -- like "Jell-O" and "corpse" -- were only said once and stay off of their clouds. I'd like a program that makes a graphic of all the words that only appear once. They're especially... important.
Labels: debate, language, McCain, Obama, word cloud
posted by Ann Althouse at 11:21 AM 51 comments
Camille Paglia, still a big Obama supporter, loves Sarah and Todd as "powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism."
She writes:
Back to Paglia:
Paglia speculates that Sarah Palin may be part Native American and savages the people who think Palin might be dumb. I'll skip some of that and get to the part about feminism:
In a similar vein, here's what I said about why Palin is great for feminism:
... Todd and Sarah Palin... have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class cred, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism.
... During her vice-presidential debate last week with Joe Biden (whose conspiratorial smiles with moderator Gwen Ifill were outrageous and condescending toward his opponent), I laughed heartily at Palin's digs and slams and marveled at the way she slowly took over the entire event. I was sorry when it ended! But Biden wasn't -- judging by his Gore-like sighs and his slow sinking like a punctured blimp. Of course Biden won on points, but TV (a visual medium) never cares about that.
Paglia says the anti-Palinists have "behaved like snippy jackasses." Snippy jackasses! Don't you hate when jackasses get snippy?... During her vice-presidential debate last week with Joe Biden (whose conspiratorial smiles with moderator Gwen Ifill were outrageous and condescending toward his opponent), I laughed heartily at Palin's digs and slams and marveled at the way she slowly took over the entire event. I was sorry when it ended! But Biden wasn't -- judging by his Gore-like sighs and his slow sinking like a punctured blimp. Of course Biden won on points, but TV (a visual medium) never cares about that.
The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin's brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don't we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality.
Quivering green Jell-O mold? Is that what Obama had behind his ear? (Transcript: "Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible.") Or what McCain was trying to nail to the wall? (Transcript: "Well, you know, nailing down Sen. Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. ")Back to Paglia:
And where is all that lurid sexual fantasy coming from? When I watch Sarah Palin, I don't think sex -- I think Amazon warrior! I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal.
Paglia must be overjoyed to have a real-live political figure who fits her theories so well. After 2 decades of analyzing Madonna, she must be ravenous for this new subject matter. No wonder she's sick of the media elites serving up candy-tutti-frutti-Jell-O. Finally, a full-course meal.Paglia speculates that Sarah Palin may be part Native American and savages the people who think Palin might be dumb. I'll skip some of that and get to the part about feminism:
The next phase of feminism must circle back and reappropriate the ancient persona of the mother -- without losing career ambition or power of assertion. Betty Friedan, who had first attacked the cult of postwar domesticity, had long warned second-wave feminists such as Gloria Steinem about the damaging exclusion of homemakers from their value system. The animus of liberal feminists toward religion must also end (I am speaking as an atheist). Feminism must reexamine all of its assumptions, including its death grip on abortion, if it wishes to survive.
The hysterical emotionalism and eruptions of amoral malice at the arrival of Sarah Palin exposed the weaknesses and limitations of current feminism. But I am convinced that Palin's bracing mix of male and female voices, as well as her grounding in frontier grit and audacity, will prove to be a galvanizing influence on aspiring Democratic women politicians too, from the municipal level on up. Palin has shown a brand-new way of defining female ambition -- without losing femininity, spontaneity or humor. She's no pre-programmed wonk of the backstage Hillary Clinton school; she's pugnacious and self-created, the product of no educational or political elite -- which is why her outsider style has been so hard for media lemmings to comprehend.
Well said.The hysterical emotionalism and eruptions of amoral malice at the arrival of Sarah Palin exposed the weaknesses and limitations of current feminism. But I am convinced that Palin's bracing mix of male and female voices, as well as her grounding in frontier grit and audacity, will prove to be a galvanizing influence on aspiring Democratic women politicians too, from the municipal level on up. Palin has shown a brand-new way of defining female ambition -- without losing femininity, spontaneity or humor. She's no pre-programmed wonk of the backstage Hillary Clinton school; she's pugnacious and self-created, the product of no educational or political elite -- which is why her outsider style has been so hard for media lemmings to comprehend.
In a similar vein, here's what I said about why Palin is great for feminism:
[F]eminism is something that transcends party politics. Women have interests that the parties should have to compete for. I want a vivid debate about what is good for women. Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.
Labels: abortion, biden, class politics, femininity, feminism, Gwen Ifill, journalism, Madonna, masculinity, Paglia, Sarah Palin, Todd Palin
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:52 AM 150 comments
McCain's Brain!
ADDED: "Nope, too slow. Touch her." Wow, I hadn't noticed that McCain refused Obama's offer of a handshake. AND: Oh, that must have been the moment when Brokaw yelled at them for blocking the monitor. Of course, none of the humor in this video is fair. It's just really funny.
posted by Ann Althouse at 10:33 AM 20 comments
Althouse meets Skeptoid, on the new Bloggingheads.
I love the Skeptoid podcast, and it was a big thrill to talk to Brian Dunning.
Topics:
ADDED: Here's the part where we talk about why people believe in conspiracies, miracles, and extra-terrestrial and supernatural beings:
(Hey, it looks like I'm wearing an earpiece!)
AND: Here's the context for my "smack in the face" line, in which I also talk about the irrational things educated, intelligent people think. (Remember my asking you for some input?)
Topics:
Lost cosmonauts and shortwave-radio spies (04:01)
Why do we believe conspiracy theories? (06:13)
Debunking subliminal sexual imagery in ads (09:02)
Quack remedies’ tenacious hold on the infirm (12:48)
The real-world consequences of our irrational beliefs (10:10)
What does “Free Tibet†really mean? (04:45)
I'll have some clips in a few minutes, including the context of the "smack in the face" clip I blogged here.Why do we believe conspiracy theories? (06:13)
Debunking subliminal sexual imagery in ads (09:02)
Quack remedies’ tenacious hold on the infirm (12:48)
The real-world consequences of our irrational beliefs (10:10)
What does “Free Tibet†really mean? (04:45)
ADDED: Here's the part where we talk about why people believe in conspiracies, miracles, and extra-terrestrial and supernatural beings:
(Hey, it looks like I'm wearing an earpiece!)
AND: Here's the context for my "smack in the face" line, in which I also talk about the irrational things educated, intelligent people think. (Remember my asking you for some input?)
Labels: advertising, astrology, Bloggingheads, Chicago, conspiracies, Freud, health, I'm skeptical, podcast, rationality, science, Skeptoid, Tibet
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:10 AM 13 comments
In which I say who won last night's debate and almost abandon my cruel neutrality pose.
When I woke up this morning, I decided to concentrate my mind on the question which man won the debate. It wasn't my first thought. My first thought was: Is it late enough to get up? I was pleased to see it was 6:15, and then woke up too much before remembering that I was up until 1 am, analyzing the damned debate, fretting about the illusive earpiece, skimming the 800+ comments, and mellowing out in contemplation of the absurdity of monkeys serving hot towels and drinks in a Japanese restaurant.
I put up a poll in last night's live debate post, and the answer I chose was the one that was by far the least popular. Who won? I said "both," the answer that got only 1%
I put up a poll in last night's live debate post, and the answer I chose was the one that was by far the least popular. Who won? I said "both," the answer that got only 1%