Yesterday, I attended the ASIAN AMERICANS FOR OBAMA EVENT WITH ACTOR KAL PENN, in Macacaville, VA. No, I’m not shouting at you, I’m just too lazy to reformat what I copied from the press release that uber-Dem Toby Chaudhuri was kind enough to send me. 😉 Like all good desi events, it didn’t start on time, which was highly awesome for those of us who were fighting our way from DC to Farlington during rush hour, in the hopes of seeing the biggest brown actor of them all stump for Obama.
So many references were made to a certain set of movies with which you are all familiar, that I have resolved to not mention them once (not! once!) in this post; instead, I’m going to give you the highlights of what Kal Penn said, about his favorite contender for the potentially-soon-to-be-not-White House.
Penn got personal, as he speeched at us with tales of his grandfather’s involvement in the struggle for India’s freedom and a more recent influential event in his life– a phone call he received from a good friend, from Texas, asking for advice.* This friend was struggling to finance his education, and he had been offered a job with Satan with Haliburton, driving trucks through Iraq for $90,000 a year. It was a tempting, and obviously perilous offer for someone making minimum wage. Penn was deeply affected by the awful situation his friend was in and that’s one of the reasons why he’s taking the time to get involved and motivate people across the country to support Obama; he sincerely believes his man has a plan.
The actor, who is currently starring in one of MY favorite shows, “House”, commenced his entertaining remarks with “Happy Macaca day!”. Indeed, it was the second anniversary of the infamous event which transformed our community in to some monkeys with which to reckon.
The one-hundred plus people in attendance seemed to enjoy his message…and the event itself, which was lively, upbeat and well-stocked with delicious food. Seriously. While I can’t personally vouch for the chicken–which my friend had fourths of– I CAN say that after Penn was hustled in to a waiting (yet fuel-efficient) SUV, I devoured the best samosas I’ve EVER had. Toby and Ruby…who was your caterer??Oh, yeah…there was some more useful stuff I should report. During the brief Q+A, someone mentioned the whole “secret Muslim”-accusation, and how that may dissuade people from supporting Bharath. Penn referred them to a website set up expressly for this purpose- Fight the Smears.com.
Many of the speakers emphasized that “grassroots outreach” or speaking to people one-on-one would be the best way to hash out these issues; to that end, even Kumar Barve mentioned that instead of working precincts in his own MoCo, Maryland, he’d be in battleground-y Virginia, giving his all for Obama. I’m the least-in-love-with-Obama person I know (I’m an independent), but I will type this– every once in a while, I’m surprised at the examples of selflessness he seems to inspire. I’ve rarely seen it in politics, whether it’s new college grads donating their tax refunds to the campaign (instead of Apple) or veteran legislators offering to go door-to-door in a state which isn’t even their own; people are giving more of themselves than I would expect. That’s…something, isn’t it?
.
.
.
*I might have certain details of this story wrong, because I was busy furiously flickr-ing, BrightKiting and tweeting about how I was four feet from Kal Penn. All that web 2.0 makes it difficult to take written notes, y’all! But I do have a whole album of pictures for our favorite, semi-literate, Ivy-league teens to enjoy, and really, that’s all that matters. 😉
50 · Shyam said
which is why i didn’t suggest it and provided a link. look, these things are subjective, and there’s usually some plasibel denial. imo, the clinton campagin has a narrative with a lot of various examples, certainly surpassing reagans famous 1980 campaign that began at the uniformest fair, and certainly more than you mention. i’ve bought them up in various SM threads if your reading.
well, the case against obama is as such. i’m not impressed by most of it, but live by deconstruction, die by deconstruction:
52 · Manju said
Who lives by deconstruction? Is the “i’m not impressed by most of it” a denial, or just deniability?
53 · Shyam said
well, dr. a, for one. i think the powers monster quote was a good examples of the problems with the literary interpretation of racism. i recall reading a feminist blog (feministe and femionsitng) and the consensus was that monster was not a gendered term, which is the way i saw it. then there was fairly long essay that appeared (i forgot where) by a scholar outlining how independent women have been labled monsters, both in literature and in history. but no ne seemed to be aware of it, wo we’re left to believe powers attack just seeps into our subconscious and triggers our misogyny, like the paris hilton ad.
yes, i know, all this code breaking is really frustrating. its like you can’t say anything anymore. but then again codes exist. as a republican, i feel your pain.
54 · Manju said
A non-answer! No wonder you’re a Reagan fan!
for the record, i didn’t see anything vaguely sexual about the paris hilton ad. i thought mccain was making fun of obama’s celebrity, and just the mere presence of a white woman near obama is enough to raise the issue of miscegenation? wtf? . but then, lieberman said this:
“To some extent the appearance of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears — people complain about it — they should just relax and enjoy itâ€
hmmmm?
a naravtive needs a bunch a examples, and at the end of the day usually someone spills the beans on the true intentions, like lee atwater or the mark penn memo. so, we’ll see with mccain.
56 · Manju said
What, he’s into the shiksa forbidden fruit now? No wonder he doesn’t think the miscegenation thing is that serious.
ANNA, u make politics sexilicious. hope y’all vote for obama, the world is watchin (and hell knows we’ve been waiting!)
58 · tash said
that and re-runs of “Pimp My Ride” and “Punked”
“he speeched at us with tales of his grandfather’s involvement in the struggle for India’s freedom”
If Penn is bringing up the experiences of his grandfather (sacrifice/freedom struggles, including possible time in prison), you would think that he would be more inspired by McCain than Obama on this point.
Saw Kal Penn at a NYC South Asian Obama fundraiser last night, and he gave pretty much the same speech! Totally cool though, as it was very effective and I really enjoyed hearing what he learned working for the campaign in Iowa, etc. Unfortunately, there was no food at all at this event…so my friend and I jetted out early to grab grub. Can you blame us?
58 · tash said
I’m voting for Obama, but I’ve got to ask what he means for you? He’s got a prof from U of Chicago,a school with a market philosophy that has had the ear of the Whitehouse since 1980, as his econ advisor. He believes in the sensible application of force. Will you still be this enthusiastic when he chucks the anti-Nafta talk (already a memory since he secured the nomination) or makes good on his promise to chase the Taliban into Pakistan? Will a withdrawal from Iraq & the symbolism of a nonwhite President be enough to avoid the Left feeling cheated?
anna, ur writing style is horrible…
…and you’re an asshole. Try putting together a whole sentence before you criticize the way someone else writes.
37 · Manju said
It is like a tool in natural science, when properly done. It relies on objectivity, proof, an understanding of its own limitations, and most of all correspondence with the empirical world. To establish that one person responds to a particular image in one way and another person responds in another way does not invalidate that objective conclusion even though it relies on characterizing subjective responses. Some people might even call it marketing science 😉
And it was on those grounds that I was questioning you: your claims in this thread, starting with “The Southern Strategy” is overplayed or some such word ranging into “I don’t see it” in the use of two attractive young blonde White women in an ad by the Republican nominee against a Black nominee going into a list of every instance of a deconstructive activity that you can find that you don’t buy to arguing that the United States is post-racial. This set of views strikes me as naively ahistorical or completely disingenuous. So make as many two word caveats and concessions as you want in your comments, but I responded to the thrust of what you say, with an understanding that you’re an intelligent person and can comprehend that, like you, I’m not saying that every instance of alleged racism or sexism rings a bell in my mind. If you want me to stop responding to you as if you’re an intelligent person, I’m happy to do so. Otherwise, let me know when you want to have a sincere conversation about race and iconography and the Republican Party over the past 35 years.
The one that you left out struck me was “You’re likable enough” with the look of disgust. But none of this compares to McCain addressing a crowd of bikers recently saying that he wanted his wife to enter their nude contest, calling his wife a c@nt, opposing abortion, opposing affirmative action, supporting more war, etc.
Anyway, I don’t buy the argument that Obama is a deep-seated misogynist as opposed to someone who has some sexism, but that’s not really the point (see below). Gender hierarchy operates as a social system (in addition to and in conjuction to racial hierarchy, sexuality hierarchy, class hierarchy, etc.). How individual people are raised and then respond to that system varies – that’s why it’s best not to police what people say as much in terms of particular words and instead look at what they do in the context of the situations that they’re in.
On that basis, you can figure out how they work in the system, and understand how a biological man or a biological woman can be supporting, opposing, contributing to, commbating, surviving, or having other responses that cumulatively make up something that you have to kind of guess at a label for “sort of sexist” “deeply misogynistic” “anti-women” “feminist”. While at the same time, it’s sort of intuitive that the people who benefit from a hierarchy (in this case straight men) are probably more likely to be supportive of it, and the people who don’t benefit from it (in this case everyone except straight men, to varying levels dependign on a lot of things) are more likely to have issues with it. But I think it’s best not to label people in one word like “sexist” (especially if you don’t know them personally), as if the problem is THAT person, rather than the actions they’ve taken in a broader context of a social problem.
with an understanding that you’re an intelligent person and can comprehend that,
If you want me to stop responding to you as if you’re an intelligent person,
I’m done for the night, to the relief of many non-wonky types
Is there a graduate school where they teach put-downology?
67 · amaun said
I don’t know, is there one where they teach bad one-liners? 🙂 click here
amaun, this is like the second or third time you’ve taken a potshot at me like this. None of the comments you referred to were “put-downs” except the last one – which was a putdown of myself because I felt guilty for making the thread so policy wonky! If I communicate forthrightly and with a limited tolerance for bs and get annoyed sometimes, don’t blame me; we’re all grown ups here.
But I’m happy to explain if it will help YOU (that’s not a putdown!!!! that’s sincere!!!!!!), but when you just take potshots like this, it really doesn’t make me want to reach out. Anyway, feel free to e-mail me if you’re truly upset about something I’ve done and we can resolve it.
There’s an easy solution to people to the left of Obama who still would rather have him win than McCain. Check 538 or Pollster before you go to vote. Check the latest polls or rely on the sites to tell you whether your state is close (e.g. I like 538’s little box on the side called “tipping point states” for 15 states that might determine the election with the likelihood that it will be crucial).
If you live in one of those states that’s close and important, then vote for Obama. If you DON’T live in one of those states, then vote for someone to the left of Obama (Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Roger Calero…whoever you want). This way, you help Obama’s chances of winning, you add to the group of people who are registering their discontent with the options in front of us, and you’re not completely discounted as a “nonvoter.”
This is what I’ll be doing in New York. The strategy works because of the way the election works – 50 separate elections in each state. The only problem with this strategy is if EVERYONE does it in a state that’s considered “safe” for Obama (e.g. California or Washington), but how likely is that? There’s no organized effort to do this. And also there are some states (I think Maine and Nebraska?) that divide up their electors a little differently, so you should fid out about that if this is something you want to do.
On the other hand, the much tougher question is whether it’s time to just jump ship and join another party or more generally how you talk about a candidate you don’t wholly support but who you like about certain things. That I leave to your personal reflections. I think Obama will be useful to some extent for the space that he will provide progressive and radical activists to work on their issues – but I think he will also participate in a lot of f@#ked up $hit–much less than McCain, but more than enough to make me annoyed. Of more use will be progressive Democrats in Congress probably.
69 · Dr AmNonymous said
Bob Barr.
63 · pradeep said
Really? I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it. I can’t resist pointing out that it was adequate enough for a Professor of English at Vassar College to quote and link. Bloggers tend to utilize a more casual style of writing, which some may not find as appealing.
Fascinating, how there can be such a diversity of opinions, about that and far more important things, like candidates named Obama…speaking of whom, thank you to everyone else for staying so on-topic! 🙂
Yesterday, I attended the ASIAN AMERICANS FOR OBAMA EVENT WITH ACTOR KAL PENN, in Macacaville, VA.
Where is Macacaville, VA? I can’t find it on google maps. Is it close to Richmond or Norfolk or Charlottesville?
71 · A N N A said
Touché!
sorry i just had to go there
70 · Nayagan said
Fruitless discussion about whether libertarianism is “right” or “left.” Without going there, I’m going to simply state for the record that I think Bob Barr is an asshole, regardless of your sentiments on libertarianism, which I have mixed feelings about.
66 · Dr AmNonymous said
Ok, this is hilarious. Let’s be clear – he dislikes Hillary. But that doesn’t mean he is a misogynist. If you’re going to hang your case on such indicators that he had an itch on his face, or tried to say that she should run as long as she hadn’t lost (what should he have said: I am entitled! Quit now!), you do lose credibility with the common-sense crowd. (These allegations are about as sensible as the idea that Hillary darkened the lighting on some Obama ad to make him look blacker.)
And, when you’re done playing “spot the misogyny”, it would be good to pay heed to your own words and see that Obama is married to a very strong high achieving woman, who earned more than him for the lion’s share of their marriage so far, and who has pursued her career very successfully till Obama began his campaign. If that’s not a strong indicator of how he feels about equality of women, I don’t know what is.
47 · SpongeBob said
That was not the last sentence. You are arbitrarily picking a quote fragment. The last sentence was: And, as you know, there is no reason to doubt that.
The quote starts with “Of course not.” and ends with “I take him on the basis of what he says. As you know, there is no reason to doubt that.” Sounds pretty damn clear to me that she is not equivocating. It was only those unnecessary 5 words “as far as I know” that she should not have said. Should not have fallen for the mischief kroft was trying to make.
75 · Dr AmNonymous said
hmmm, who’s more ‘left’ on the use of the American military abroad (i’m talking recent left)? Before you expound on DOMA and other misadventures, did you know that he’s actually apologized for much of his congressional career? Which other presidential candidate has done that?
Mixed feelings aside, who does narrative journalism the best these days? Which publications actually put shoe-leather to the ground (sorry PETA!) in the dogged pursuit of all violators of constitutionally guaranteed rights? Which rags stump for science and reality-based public policy (tyranny of empiricism, if you will)?
76 · Shyam said
ah, but HE is running for prez, while SHE is not. And those who level the charge of misogyny never disseminated several highly reputable ‘whispers’ regarding the validity of his birth certificate, whether he is a clone, or whether he leveraged the advantages conferred by patriarchal society so that his wife would go on a rant about ‘whitey’
Fair point. I’ve met some people who’re fairly passionate about my candidate(s), and have done some crazy extreme stuff, which is why I don’t find the other stories eyebrow-raisingly-unusual in intensity…….
e.g. a 19-year old I met in Texas (while campaigning), a chronic leukamia patient whose parents didn’t have insurance had a “Hillary’s my gal” permanent tattoo – that was apparently even risky for her health given her condition but she still went ahead and got it done. I’d link to her photograph, but she wouldn’t be too happy if I did, because she works for a very Republican business owner (she has to wear long sleeved shirts everyday to cover the tattoo from him :-p).
And Shyam and everyone who’s trying to say ‘Hillary lost, and now Barack is better than John, i.e. more progressive, so get over it already and vote for him’ – Melissa McEwan of Shakesville fame says it so much better than I ever can, so I quote:
In other words, it’s like tipping 20% for bad service in one place, because hey, the guy next door is the Soup Nazi. WTF.
80 · Chevalier said
That doesn’t count because she was in remission at that time. Yes, I went there.
You are right. Your candidate can beat up the other candidate – you’ve got a larger number of older, sicker, more depressed people on your side. That’s the game we are playing, right? Happy?
49 · Manju said
Is that your stripper name, Manju?
81 · Chevalier said
Even granting the premise of your analogy (which I don’t agree with, btw), given that you have to pick one or the other for your soup, whom would you have serving you? “None of the above” is not an option.
I am still looking for evidence of Obama’s sexism that passes the smell test. Yes, Hillary probably lost some votes due to pervasive sexism among the American voting public, just like Obama lost some votes due to pervasive racism among the voting public (remember Philadelphia? Or how Ohio’s votes broke?). But holding Obama responsible for American society’s sexism is a bit much – unless you too believe that he is the great saviour, and indeed has the solution to all of
America’sthe universe’s problems.I say this as somebody who had a slight pro-Hillary bias through the primary season. But I acknowledge that she was outplayed fair and square. Obama’s long haul 50 state game definitely won over her reliance on Iowa.
Chevalier, are there ANY candidates for elected office who support abortion in the third trimester? As one of the only terms in which states CAN regulate (and prohibit) abortion under Roe v. Wade, this seems like an insane place to make a sexism argument to me. His talking points may be bad (although CERTAINLY not as bad as what has come out of McCain’s mouth), but his position is not unusual or out of the mainstream, both among pro- and anti-choice voters.
I think it’s one thing for those deciding between Democratic candidates to be critical of the candidates and their issues. I think it’s a waste of time, and irresponsible, to go on fishing expeditions for anti-Obama talking points because you’re upset about how the primary went down. This is absolutely NOT analogous to a Soup Nazi situation, and it’s extreme and inaccurate to paint it that way. People said there wasn’t much of a difference between Gore and Bush in 2000, and now where are we?
ANNA, I’m glad you’re back; it sounds like the event was a lot of fun 🙂
83 · AquaTeen said
yes, manju is sponge bob, and unfortunately for him, it is well deserved.
66 · Dr AmNonymous said
Well, sex-worker feminists may take issue with your first example, the second one is a form of swift-boating since there is no reliable source confirming maccain said it (you should’ve went with the rape joke) and the last three are political positions easily detached from sexism. I mean, one could easily argue that fetus-rights, anti-affirmative action, and pro-war positions benefit women.
and thus the subjectivity I was talking about. You can’t take your opinion that these are misogynistic positions, treat them like facts, and conclude this is a like a gendered southern policy and anyone who disagrees with you is in denial.
65 · Dr AmNonymous said
well, I guess this is where we disagree. Literary criticism is a humanities, and subject to a high degree of subjectivity to the point where, like interpreting a poem, it may very well tell us nothing about the intent of the author or even its effect on the audience. This field is laden with examples of scholars who have been brilliantly wrong, like the one who declared the great gatsby was passing for white. all the symbols where there, to be sure, but coincidences are the rule, not exception; so this is an artform that must be practiced humbly.
And one must especially avoid the hubris of politicizing the technique in order to dismis entire political positions as a form of bigotry. Since racism and sexism aren’t the only evils in the world, right-wingers–though may not be as sophisticated as deconstructionists–will hear their own dogwhstles, usually signifying Obama as a fellow traveler. Some are not so subtle, like the bozo who had a Che Guevara flag hanging in one of Obama’s campaign offices. Yes, Joe McCarthy was a deconstructionist. And he was half right too.
Interesting. I didn’t know that, though it would take a lot for me to forget the Barr of all of the 1990s, apologies aside. A lot of the things he did were pretty permanent deal-breakers for me for a political figure (as opposed to him as a human being).
The comparison you raise between Barr and Obama, however, is irrelevant to the voting strategy I raised – the whole point of this voting strategy is to be able to vote for nonmajor parties without “losing.” So the two relevant and separate comparisons would be Obama vs. McCain and choosing among Calero, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and whoever else you might consider. I’d be pretty unlikely to choose Barr from that group. There are side considerations too, like whether either major party would ever even try to appeal to the base of the Socialist Workers Party (which I doubt) as opposed to Nader’s or Ron Paul’s or the Green Party’s or the Libertarian Party’s.
I agree with you that the Democratic Party also supports imperialism (as well as hegemony domestically) and like I mentioned earlier, I find myself sympathetic to left-libertarians, anarcho-socialists, etc. just in terms of values – and with some of the policy stands that even more conservative libertarians might take.
Tehelka 🙂 On the U.S. media, I wouldn’t point to a single source for investigative reporting, but the occasional pieces that I’ve followed have come up in places like The New Yorker (Ryan Lizza story on Obama), Salon (Bush Administration asking CIA to forge documents), and The Atlantic (Clinton primary memos), not libertarian magazines like Reason. Probably a function of the internet circles I travel in, but then if something was really important, I would hope (maybe naively) that it would be mentioned in those circles. I tend to regularly read or look at Fark, Al Jazeera, Open Democracy, NYRB, and LRB for news and commentary and like Judith Warner’s blog at the NY Times when I remember to read it.
The only contexts I explicitly care about constitutionally-guaranteed rights are their effects on contemporary politics and my own values. Am trying to wean myself off the 200+ year old historical document or interpretations thereof.
87 · Manju said
Short version:
When it comes to forming an opinion about a person’s actions, you take the cumulative body of evidence of the situation and everything else you know about the person and about the context of the actions, and you form a conclusion.
Long version:
Well, ironically, you are the one that is engaging in an extreme form of relativism here, not me, by assuming that all of our perspectives are of equal value in terms of describing the empirical world. What I am saying is that although I can’t establish with 100% certainty a particular “fact” (which is epistemologically true of all facts, including in the natural sciences, imo), I can resort to asserting how likely I think something is to be true, to a probabilistic notion of how closely the description of the event conforms with the empirical world. And a social consensus on that likelihood (admittedly going to be different in different social groupings) is what provides something of a check on that, but the ultimate baseline test is whether a description actually matches the empirical world. Unfortunately, we can’t establish this with a 100% certainty, but we can have varying levels of confidence, do circumstantial evidence testing, test for internal coherency, test against other statements that we think are likely true, etc.
The difference is basically that between saying every assertion is subjective and the accuracy of every assertion is subjective. For example, a “sex worker feminist” to take your phrase, could argue that McCain offering his wife to a crowd of bikers for a nude pagaent is not sexist. Now I would take issue with this because you have a man, married to a woman, seeking power and in a narrow sense approval in a social setting, by offering his wife’s nude body. Whether or not we agree about the definition of “sexism” or “feminism”, we should be able to agree on the facts of the situation. Beyond this, there is a certain range of interpretations of what might be bolstering a system of gender hierarchy (and yes, I should have drawn a distinction between intent and effect you are right) (i.e. is “sexist” in my opinion), but only some set of those interpretations of what sexist means can, by consensus of people with good-faith interest in the topic, be described as likely or unlikely if the term is to have any meaning.
If someone said, for instance, that a man beating up a woman because she’s a woman is feminist, then the only two possibilities are that this is an incorrect description of the facts or the term feminist here has been stretched so far beyond a consensus understanding that it would be serving a different purpose or no purpose at all than combating the gender hierarchy in society. So you could mount an argument that “pro-fetus rights” in American Presidential electoral politics is feminist but you probably wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on (as opposed to doing it in some other context like addressing female foeticide in India or arguing that it might not be feminist but it “benefit[s] women”, which would strike me as nonsensical or insidious in the manner that postmodern conservatives are).
All of which is to say:
Where my humility comes is after having the internal courage to state my opinions directly; it is to understand that my opinions might be incorrect even while stating them, to listen to other people even while disagreeing with them, and to reevaluate what I have thought even with a potentially bruised ego. And that I do, because it’s the only way I learn for now.
but it is an issue that i’m still learning to deal with – it basically comes down to the idea that the act of assertion and the contents of assertions is not immune from social hierarchies of power any more than the what they are describing, so there is a problem, but I don’t think it’s one of subjectivity — it’s of some individual or collective subjectivities being more strongly weighted than others, thereby skewing the assessments of whether or not our statements are matching up with empirical realities. I haven’t figured out what to do about this, though your suggestion for more toned down rhetoric is probably good advice for me in several instances, so thanks for that.
What I am saying is that although I can’t establish with 100% certainty a particular “fact” (which is epistemologically true of all facts, including in the natural sciences, imo)
Water (H2O) has a boiling point of 100 degC at STP. Are you saying that it sometimes has a boiling point of 120 DegC at STP? Also, isn’t your statement about natural sciences just a belief.
Not to derail this discussion, but the scientific method works every time you have a testable hypothesis. Asserting that the McCain ad is exclusively about miscegenation and not an ad implying Obama is all fluff like Britny & Paris can never be correct since, both options are probable. The message that viewers take away may again be twofold. But then that just adds to the effectiveness when viewers see multiple reasons for not voting for Obama.
No, I’m saying it always has a boiling point of 100, but I can’t establish that fact with 100% certainty (i.e. there’s a tiny tiny tiny amount of doubt remaining). Basically this has to do with the lack of certainty that what our sense tells us is in fact what is actually out there – you can’t entirely rule out some possibilities, even though, like I said, I can be 99.99999999999 percent sure of things like my own existence, that I just ate a banana, that the peel is lying here, etc. The reason I state this is because it gets away from black/white notions of truth without compromising the idea that truth (i.e. accuracy of description of the empirical world) exists. Get the best of both worlds and all you have to lose in the process is the comfort that comes with certainty.
If you construct the question so that it’s impossible for it to be true, then of course it won’t be true 🙂 I agree with you that the McCain ad implies that Obama is all fluff and I would add that there’s symbolism that’s playing on fear of miscegenation. Also, this is testable – you can construct a variety of behavioral experiments with people that involve the ad – for example asking them their opinions about interracial marriage before and after viewing the ad and asking them to give their estimate of Obama’s IQ or something. I’m not a behavioral psychology so I probably wouldn’t be able to construct a really good practical example of this kind of experiment, but you get what I mean hopefully.
89 · Dr AmNonymous said
living, breathing…or dead as a doornail–it’s not going away! I am more concerned with issues like home invasions, gun control, immigration, eminent domain, drug policy, etc. so that feeds my bias as well and hope you agree that these are important subjects requiring a deft hand at narrative journalism. (the Atlantic is pretty center-right and I read their affiliated blogs regularly) I remember you mentioned Cynthia McKinney as an alternative–but would a self-respecting progressive lefty throw their vote to a woman who recently (and seemingly bc she was not getting into specifics) endorsed Mugabe’s “Take land from white people and give it to non-whites” policy? (I certainly hope not, and will exclude the Che-shirt-wearing crowd from consideration)
Actually far more radioactive that miscegenation is the extremely devious equation of Obama with Moses, as the ad makes it look this is somehow a claim that Obama made – something that will work to Obama’s disadvantage with conservative religious crowd, especially given all the furor over his churchgoing, whether he is a secret Muslim etc.
Make no mistake about it: it is this kind of slime that keeps the wheels of the straight talk express turning.
Interesting question. Being free of having to decide between Democrats and Republicans forces the arduous choice of actually aritculating one’s own ideas 🙂 Can i vote for Mushtaq? 🙂 Anyway, I won’t make a comment on the Mugabe policy unless I actually find out about it first – my preconceptions are in line with everyone else’s – that it’s bad – but I would want to read about it first before anything else. And yeah, not that I know her, but she occasionally seems a little less than thoughtful – at least in what gets covered, which is not much to rely on.
I’ve been doing some searching, actually, and it’s been difficult to find a candidate that won’t get my vote written off as a “crazy” vote, will support progressive movement building (the Green Party and Nader have both proved themselves pretty lackluster as far as I can tell but at a national level the Green Party is pretty much all I have for a force that will pressure the Democrats from the progressive left, broadly understood), and at the same time will express some substantial part of what I believe. I’m becoming more inclined just to write off the worry about it being read as a “crazy” vote because feeling good about what you do is more important to me given the lack of attractive options. So I could go with what I did in 2004 and vote for Calero because among the slate of third party candidates, he’s the only one I’ve met, and I think he’s a good guy. Gloria La Riva is also appealing.
I agree about the Atlantic – that’s why I stopped reading it (and never bothered with the New Republic since it transformed). Like I said, when an article creates a buzz and seems newsworthy, I’ll click on it. As far as I can tell, it’s a strategy for finding out things that are important beyond my daily reading and my work without exerting myself too much 🙂 I’m interested in a lot of the same issues – especially immigration – and yes, they do require writing upon, though I’m not sure how much narrative journalism is required. Americans are ideologically a pretty individualistic bunch, imo, and just pushing a few buttons will get them to start bitching about the state, so you don’t need to humanize the stories as much as to offer an analysis of how the state is f@#king over the general populace. When it does it selectively, though, which is usually how it does it in hegemony, I agree that it requires a lot of effort and skill at narrative journalism.
From my own vantage point, though, I think a sound empirical understanding of political economy and history in a global context is a more neglected and urgent topic of inquiry for mass consumption. I spent several years doing immigration NGO work, writing, and other activities, and I still had never heard about Operation Wetback.”. Many on the American progressive left still routinely use the word “we” in describing the U.S. government in an international context.
That’s a sad state of affairs, but not unpredictable at all. I’d like to see a constitutional amendment banning deportations on political grounds to add to the ideological diversity in the U.S. over time.
It’s not Moses – it’s hinting he’s the Anti-Christ to a selected audience. But I agree with you about the slime part.
96 · Dr AmNonymous said
well, he must be the antichrist. a the symbols are there.
that should be “all the…”
97 · Manju said
I don’t follow what you’re saying here.
99 · Dr AmNonymous said
only that the biblical literalists are reading the tea leaves too, and they see uncanny parallels. notice how mccain gets at twofer, simultaeously calling obama uppity (as david gergin informs us) with “the one” ad while calling him the anti-christ at the same time. that’s b/c coincidences happen. race theorists and the john birch society need to learn that not everything happening is meant to be there.
personally, i thought the hilton ad was an attempt to gay obama up, a meme that started with the clinton campaign (carville said”If Hillary Gave Obama “One Of Her Cojones, They’d Both Have Two”), after all he was being compared to britney and paris, not sexually linked. this, i thought, would be followed by a 3am-like ad, but that never happened.