Christopher Hitchens has an interesting piece in Slate this week called “Sarah Palin’s War on Science.” His monumental first sentence touches on something that was mentioned in class today that in the few hours between class and now has started to really bother me – the anti-intellectualism of this election.
Hitchens writes, “In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber.”
He goes on to cite Sarah Palin’s denouncement of expenditure on fruit fly research, research that has been dedicated to, among other things, studying disabilities and mutations. Hitchens also includes John McCain’s comments on the futility of funding grizzly bear research. Both comments are undeniably troublesome and coupled with Palin’s comments on other scientifically secure facts (Read: humans and dinosaurs did not live together. Ever. Ever.) they seem completely extreme and whacky.
Besides opposing funding for scientific pursuits, McCain/Palin have attempted to gain anti-intellectualism cred by incorporating folksy speech and constantly mentioning hunting and hockey. This has, of course, led to the some of the public’s perception of Palin to be someone “we” can relate to. This is placed in constant opposition to the “elitism” of Senator Barack Obama.
Anti-intellectualism, in my opinion, has no place in politics. While I do believe politicians should make an attempt to relate to their audience, dumbing down their speech, points and thoughts is plain annoying. Glossing over issues, desperately attempting to create a “personality” and lashing out at Obama seem to be McCain and Palin’s main campaign strategies. Not to say, of course, that Obama hasn’t done the same thing: He, too, has played into this whole “Joe the Plumber” election theme.
This façade of down-to-earth-ness that elite politicians constantly attempt to employ made me think of the article I posted a few weeks ago on politicians’ constant need to reference sports and how ridiculous it seems that John Kerry’s predilection for wind-surfing may have swayed some voters.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Leave it to Ellie...
On the Huffington Post this week, Eleanor Smeal, founding president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, long-time women’s rights advocate, incredible feminist and my old boss, posted “An Open Letter to John McCain.” In the piece, Smeal outlines the real reasons women aren’t flocking to the McCain/Palin ticket. (Note: The reasons have nothing to do with makeup, glasses, jealousy or looks.) Instead, she outlines all of the women’s issues McCain has voted “NO” on, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Violence Against Women Act and increasing the minimum wage.
It is undeniable, at this point, that the primary qualification Sarah Palin had in McCain’s eyes was the fact that she is a woman. Why else would she have been chosen in this election? I find it so absurd, however, that McCain and McCain advisors would actually think that women who supported the pro-feminist agenda of Clinton would jump on board with McCain’s anti-woman policies just because of Palin’s presence. I suppose a few older women, perhaps, may have considered McCain more than Obama because of Palin, but I mean, c’mon?
We haven’t seen too much coverage of the candidates’ stances on women’s rights. I’m sure Ellie recognized this and if I know anything about Ellie, she gave about 100 office-rants before she became so frustrated with the media’s coverage she decided to make media herself. I have always respected the passion of Ellie and other feminist leaders like Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy. But it is sad that after putting in about 4 decades of work, it is these same women that have to bring the woman’s message to American people in 2008. Will Ellie really have to continue doing this every year? As long as we leave in our "post-sexist" world, I suppose so.
It is undeniable, at this point, that the primary qualification Sarah Palin had in McCain’s eyes was the fact that she is a woman. Why else would she have been chosen in this election? I find it so absurd, however, that McCain and McCain advisors would actually think that women who supported the pro-feminist agenda of Clinton would jump on board with McCain’s anti-woman policies just because of Palin’s presence. I suppose a few older women, perhaps, may have considered McCain more than Obama because of Palin, but I mean, c’mon?
We haven’t seen too much coverage of the candidates’ stances on women’s rights. I’m sure Ellie recognized this and if I know anything about Ellie, she gave about 100 office-rants before she became so frustrated with the media’s coverage she decided to make media herself. I have always respected the passion of Ellie and other feminist leaders like Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy. But it is sad that after putting in about 4 decades of work, it is these same women that have to bring the woman’s message to American people in 2008. Will Ellie really have to continue doing this every year? As long as we leave in our "post-sexist" world, I suppose so.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Apparently I'm on an ACORN kick...
I just found an actually funny article about this voter registration fraud craze, that, unlike the AP article I just wrote about, manages to be sarcastic and point out truths. This comes from The Nation's Christopher Hayes.
Some gems:
"Keep in mind that ACORN's registered somewhere around 1.3 million people this cycle. Not surprisingly, there are errors. Think of all the times you've eaten at a restaurant in your life. On the rare occasions when the restaurant totaled the tip wrong, were they trying to defraud you? Did you inform the cops of an attempted robbery? Are you suspicious of restaurants generally and view them as an enterprise committed to widespread fraud? No, of course not. You would have to be a paranoid doofus to believe that."
"
Some gems:
"Keep in mind that ACORN's registered somewhere around 1.3 million people this cycle. Not surprisingly, there are errors. Think of all the times you've eaten at a restaurant in your life. On the rare occasions when the restaurant totaled the tip wrong, were they trying to defraud you? Did you inform the cops of an attempted robbery? Are you suspicious of restaurants generally and view them as an enterprise committed to widespread fraud? No, of course not. You would have to be a paranoid doofus to believe that."
"
The faux-outrage that Republicans have marshalled over alleged voter fraud is so transparently faked, so expertly cynical its almost surreal. When John McCain accused ACORN of being on the "verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history" Obama just broke down laughing. I was too. It was the only reasonable reaction.
But sure enough, they've managed to embed the notion deeply among the right-wing base and its now bled into popular discussion. (Someone on ESPN made an ACORN, vote-fraud joke the other night, which is when I knew this had gotten out of hand).
As nearly everyone on the left has pointed out, this is an old routine. Every two years, Republicans gin up baseless accusations of "voter fraud," often directed at ACORN. The strategic imperative is simple: create a pretense that will allow them to more credibly hassle and hopefully suppress poor and minority voters."
Okay, so it seems like I've quoted most of the article, but it is very funny. Worth a read if you're following this whole ACORN business.
More on Supposed Voter Registration Fraud
Here is a particularly stupid article about supposed “voter fraud.” This AP article (linked off of MSNBC’s site) spends nearly an entire page covering how someone’s dead goldfish received a registration mailing in Illinois. I mean, really, who cares? The article is written mostly in a sarcastic tone, but, of course, necessitates the mention of ACORN and seems to pose this as just one instance of voter registration fraud. I'm happy that MSNBC filed this in the "animal" section instead of "politics."
What frustrates me about these articles is that they make it seem as if this is happening all around the country and that these fake names are actually going to vote (or register to vote in this case).
As Michael Winship pointed out in the CommonDreams article I read yesterday, most people that register with fake names (including those names that aren’t so obvious) are most likely not going to vote anyway. I highly doubt that thousands of tricksters are trying to dupe the system. The Republicans aren’t trying to protect the integrity of America’s voting system, they are trying to allow for skepticism in the face of many lawful voters, especially low-income and minority voters. Articles like these do not help or expand the discussion in any way whatsoever and instead make a mockery out of what organizations like ACORN are trying to do.
What frustrates me about these articles is that they make it seem as if this is happening all around the country and that these fake names are actually going to vote (or register to vote in this case).
As Michael Winship pointed out in the CommonDreams article I read yesterday, most people that register with fake names (including those names that aren’t so obvious) are most likely not going to vote anyway. I highly doubt that thousands of tricksters are trying to dupe the system. The Republicans aren’t trying to protect the integrity of America’s voting system, they are trying to allow for skepticism in the face of many lawful voters, especially low-income and minority voters. Articles like these do not help or expand the discussion in any way whatsoever and instead make a mockery out of what organizations like ACORN are trying to do.
Monday, October 20, 2008
ACORN accusations keep going and going and going...
Raise your hand if you're sick of hearing about ACORN. Believe me when I say my digital hand has been fervently raised.
As America enters the final weeks before the presidential election, Republicans have intensified accusations against ACORN, a community organization working to register thousands of new voters across the country. Democracy Now! hosted a debate last week between ACORN's chief organizer, Bertha Lewis and a Republican lawyer. While it was definitely worth listening to, both sides spouted accusations and rebuttals I've heard endlessly before.
It seems like there’s a stalwart on the ACORN discussion, with ACORN insisting that they are the ones who flag questionable registration forms and Republicans insisting that their actions have become a “potential nightmare.” I think the media has done a pretty good job covering the ACORN issue; though I haven’t been completely vigilant in my consuming of mainstream media (since I was in New York for fall break), the coverage I have seen has been decidedly decent. The coverage, for the most part, has elucidated the connection (or lack thereof) between ACORN and Obama, one of the most important components, journalistically as it deals with truth.
Michael Winship has an article on CommonDreams this week explaining what ACORN does, Republican accusations of ACORN, the truth behind Obama’s non-connection with the organization and the real problem behind this story: the attempt to disenfranchise thousands of Americans.
Winship writes, “As my colleague Bill Moyers reported, ‘Hundreds of thousands of legal voters may have been dumped in recent years, many without ever being notified.
The report describes a ‘process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation.’
Hardly reassuring words if you want democracy to work, and sadly, not an urban legend, but the simple truth.”
Yikes.
As America enters the final weeks before the presidential election, Republicans have intensified accusations against ACORN, a community organization working to register thousands of new voters across the country. Democracy Now! hosted a debate last week between ACORN's chief organizer, Bertha Lewis and a Republican lawyer. While it was definitely worth listening to, both sides spouted accusations and rebuttals I've heard endlessly before.
It seems like there’s a stalwart on the ACORN discussion, with ACORN insisting that they are the ones who flag questionable registration forms and Republicans insisting that their actions have become a “potential nightmare.” I think the media has done a pretty good job covering the ACORN issue; though I haven’t been completely vigilant in my consuming of mainstream media (since I was in New York for fall break), the coverage I have seen has been decidedly decent. The coverage, for the most part, has elucidated the connection (or lack thereof) between ACORN and Obama, one of the most important components, journalistically as it deals with truth.
Michael Winship has an article on CommonDreams this week explaining what ACORN does, Republican accusations of ACORN, the truth behind Obama’s non-connection with the organization and the real problem behind this story: the attempt to disenfranchise thousands of Americans.
Winship writes, “As my colleague Bill Moyers reported, ‘Hundreds of thousands of legal voters may have been dumped in recent years, many without ever being notified.
The report describes a ‘process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation.’
Hardly reassuring words if you want democracy to work, and sadly, not an urban legend, but the simple truth.”
Yikes.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Sarah Palin's Extreme Sports
In an article published in The Nation yesterday (grabbed from CommonDreams), Dave Zirin explores the use of sports in political campaigns. He begins by pointing out the incredible number of well-known politicians that have made clear their sporting preferences and goes on to distinguish a “good” sport from a “bad” sport (read: John Kerry’s soft spot for windsurfing = bad). The fact that politicians are proud of their respective sport ventures is not all that surprising, considering the importance sports have in American culture.
But what Zirin’s article moves on to claim is much more interesting. Zirin examines the McCain campaign’s use of sports to paint Sarah Palin as a folksy-type.
“Palin's politics may be beyond the fringe, but her sporting interests are effortlessly mainstream. In this sense, she resembles the current occupant of the White House. George W. Bush built his public persona as the owner of the Texas Rangers,” writes Zirin.
He goes on to point out the obvious: That Palin isn’t “just one of us.” Her family’s combined income is over five times that of the average Wasilla family’s, according to Zirin. Again, that this should surprise anyone in a land where politicians are rarely living on the much-talked-of “Main St.” is shocking. It is, however, significant and Palin’s insistence on her hockey mommy-ness and on her identity as a hunter and sporting enthusiast is no mistake. What sports, military experience and sloppy language can do to connect inherently disconnected politicians with the American public is incredible.
“If sports teaches us anything, it's that you can disguise a lousy competitor for one round, one quarter or one inning, but the truth has a way of making itself known,” writes Zirin. “There is a reason Sarah Palin hasn't done a press conference. In every conceivable way, she belongs in the minors: strictly Bush league.”
But what Zirin’s article moves on to claim is much more interesting. Zirin examines the McCain campaign’s use of sports to paint Sarah Palin as a folksy-type.
“Palin's politics may be beyond the fringe, but her sporting interests are effortlessly mainstream. In this sense, she resembles the current occupant of the White House. George W. Bush built his public persona as the owner of the Texas Rangers,” writes Zirin.
He goes on to point out the obvious: That Palin isn’t “just one of us.” Her family’s combined income is over five times that of the average Wasilla family’s, according to Zirin. Again, that this should surprise anyone in a land where politicians are rarely living on the much-talked-of “Main St.” is shocking. It is, however, significant and Palin’s insistence on her hockey mommy-ness and on her identity as a hunter and sporting enthusiast is no mistake. What sports, military experience and sloppy language can do to connect inherently disconnected politicians with the American public is incredible.
“If sports teaches us anything, it's that you can disguise a lousy competitor for one round, one quarter or one inning, but the truth has a way of making itself known,” writes Zirin. “There is a reason Sarah Palin hasn't done a press conference. In every conceivable way, she belongs in the minors: strictly Bush league.”
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin"
I could answer this question in one sentence:
Some women hate Sarah Palin because she is against abortion in all instances, thinks women should have to pay for their own rape kits and supports anti-woman platforms all while masquerading as a 'feminist.'
Time writer Belinda Luscombe decided to dedicate an entire 700-something article on the subject, claiming that women hate Sarah Palin for three reasons:
1. She's too pretty
2. She's too confident
3. She could embarass us
Is this a joke?
Whether or not this article is serious (I'm too appalled to be convinced that it is) I'm considerably sick of all the talk this election has created around women/sexism/what it means to be a woman. Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton did as much for women as any one woman in recent history, but the superficial concern over sexism espoused by a party that has been incredibly anti-woman for decades is really just starting to disgust me.
Some women hate Sarah Palin because she is against abortion in all instances, thinks women should have to pay for their own rape kits and supports anti-woman platforms all while masquerading as a 'feminist.'
Time writer Belinda Luscombe decided to dedicate an entire 700-something article on the subject, claiming that women hate Sarah Palin for three reasons:
1. She's too pretty
2. She's too confident
3. She could embarass us
Is this a joke?
Whether or not this article is serious (I'm too appalled to be convinced that it is) I'm considerably sick of all the talk this election has created around women/sexism/what it means to be a woman. Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton did as much for women as any one woman in recent history, but the superficial concern over sexism espoused by a party that has been incredibly anti-woman for decades is really just starting to disgust me.
Josh Marshall
Marshall has an article on CommonDreams this week on the rise of Talking Points Memo and Independent Media, a piece adopted from his speech at IC. Woo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)