Obsidian Wings

The truth hurts: Newsweek's Palin cover

By Lindsay Beyerstein  

Newsweek used this photograph of Sarah Palin as this week's cover shot.

The headline reads, "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else, too."

It's a damned good question, and I couldn't think of a better image to make the point.

Palin posed for this picture as part of a photo essay captioned Governor Palin, The Runner, which ran in the August issue of Runner's World. When I saw this image in its original context, I was appalled that a sitting governor would pose for a shot like this; or this stretching shot that puts the visual center of gravity squarely on her crotch.

Maybe Palin didn't realize that the photographer, Brian Adams, was depicting her this way. If so, he totally fucked her over. [NB: In an earlier version of this post, I misspelled Brian Adams' name "Bryan Adams." Today, I got an email from a firm called Web Sheriff telling me that they'd take legal action if I didn't apologize to the rock star Bryan Adams and ACI for any injury I might have caused to his reputation. So, I sincerely apologize to Bryan Adams. I wouldn't want my name associated with these ridiculous pictures either.] But I think she was on board with the concept. If Palin had assailed Runner's World for making fun of her, I might now take her complaint about Newsweek seriously. She liked the Runner's World spread, though. She thought it was appropriate.

There's nothing scandalous about Palin showing some skin, or wearing Spandex. But this cover image is deliberately styled to make the then-governor of Alaska look like a Vargas pinup girl. Unlike the other images in the series, this one references her status as a governor. As she poses like a swimsuit model, she's clutching one icon of political power--the Blackberry--and leaning on another. The theme isn't Sarah Palin, athlete. The theme is Sarah Palin, Sexy Governor. (As in: one of those dime store Halloween costumes: sexy cop, sexy ladybug, sexy sanitation worker...)

Predictably, Palin complained that Newsweek's use of the image was sexist. Yes, the image was plucked from its original context. The whole point was that the picture was appalling it its original context. Newsweek is holding this picture up to the world and asking: Who does this? 

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself.  Obviously, she's a potential problem for America because she's an incompetent leader who supports terrible policies. But that's not Newsweek's question.

Newsweek's question is why she's bad for the GOP. The answer is that she's dragging down her party because it's impossible for adults to take her seriously. Not because she's beautiful or maternal or fit, but rather because she has no decorum, no dignity, and no common sense. I mean look at her, she's working the goofy MILF persona like that's a perfectly normal thing for a governor with presidential aspirations to be doing. (As a political pro pointed out to me, it's shocking that her staff let her do the shoot without checking the Runner's World contract to make this couldn't happen.)

Palin's not even bad news for her party because she's ignorant or radically reactionary. Lots of American politicians are both and they do just fine. Palin has the double whammy of being ignorant and absurd. She's absolutely not ready for prime time. John McCain plucked her from obscurity as a publicity stunt and he lived to rue the day.

The tighter the wingnut base embraces Palin, the more clownish they reveal themselves to be.

Shorter Douthat: It's embarassing to be such a bigot

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Social conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat admits that he's uncomfortable discussing gay marriage in public because he opposes it for no good reason:

The question came from Christopher Glazek, a fact-checker at The New Yorker, who wanted to know whether Mr. Douthat and Mr. Salam believed that former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who has apologized on behalf of his party for the Southern Strategy, should also apologize for the Republican party's gay politics.

At first Mr. Douthat seemed unable to get a sentence out without interrupting himself and starting over. Then he explained: "I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public."

Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public. [NY Obs]

It's understandable that Douthat doesn't like debating the issue in terms of his religious beliefs. Because he always loses to the opponent who says: "Who cares about your religion, Ross? We're talking about the criteria for civil marriage, here."

Ross said he doesn't even bother with the standard secular argument against gay marriage because nobody ever takes takes it seriously:

He added: "The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren't just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don't find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,' you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.' Who wins that debate? You win that debate." [NY Obs]

Ross says the notion doesn't "get traction" because it's too "abstract." Notice how the pundit speak absolves him from coming right out and saying that this argument is bunk. He says he doesn't make the case because nobody will listen, not because it's a crazy idea.

Actually, nobody takes the marriage/reproduction argument seriously because any undergraduate can debunk it. It's not abstract at all. Even Ross thinks that sterile opposite-sex couples should be allowed to get married and I'm sure he's aware that some same-sex couples raise children. So, the question is why straight childless couples have more rights than their gay counterparts. If reproductive support is so important, we have a moral obligation to support the children of gay and straight families equally by letting their parents get married.

It's obvious why Ross is uncomfortable talking about gay marriage in public. He wants the state to impose his religion on other people, but he doesn't want to look like a theocrat in front of the liberal cultural elite.

Are Universities Doomed?

by publius

This weekend's Post had an interesting take on whether colleges might soon go the way of newspapers.  The basic gist is that the rise of online long-distance learning makes a lot of the traditional college system unnecessary and redundant.

While these trends are not promising for the Publius family checkbook, it's easy to see their economic logic.  In one sense, you can think of colleges as expensive distribution systems.  You go to the school, listen to the prof, and knowledge is distributed.  It's like going to a really expensive movie rental store.

But the Internets creates a new and extremely inexpensive distribution channel for knowledge.  In the same way that online and on-demand video offerings will eventually kill off rental stores, it's easy to see how these offerings could do the same to many colleges (or at least, to many college instructors). 

This shift in distribution networks could truly shake things up.  And in many ways, the shift could vastly improve the quality of college education at a fraction of today's costs.

To take but one example, the Internet could create the mother of all course catalogs, complete with the world's best lecturers.  If a million people wanted to hear Harold Bloom on Shakespeare, or Jonathan Spence on China, they could.

Anyway, I won't repeat the whole article -- but it's definitely worth a read.

I do have a few concerns with the brave new world though.  First, it could put me out of a job.  So I guess it's good that I keep my DC bar license up.

Second, if colleges ultimately shift to an on-demand model, students will be missing what I consider to be the best parts of "college."  The aggregation of years of dining hall conversations, tavern debates, and dorm room bull sessions are my most valuable memories.  And honestly, I learned more -- and gained more "cultural literacy" -- in those 3 AM dorm room debates than in most of my classes. It's sad to think that future students might miss out on all this (though I recognize that it's perhaps an unnecessarily expensive luxury).

One last thought -- even if the revolution doesn't come, I hope we see more of these online classes freely available in the near future.  I've been listening to iTunes U lectures lately on various topics, and I love it. 

It would be nice, then, if more schools created open programs like these -- not to replace college, but to supplement it.  Open Yale Courses is a great start because it allows you to essentially audit complete courses, with video too.  But the course selection is tiny.  A more robust selection would make people who never really wanted to leave college (i.e., me) very happy.

Michael's Best Album

by publius

I've been having this debate with friends, but it's a matter of such weight and importance that I wanted to include you too.

After careful study, I have concluded that Bad is a significantly better album than Thriller.  Yes, Thriller is more iconic.  And yes, Billie Jean is the best single.  But song for song, Bad is the musically superior album. 

Thriller has too many throwaway songs, while Bad is solid throughout.  Consider the lineup:  Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel, Speed Demon, Man in the Mirror, Another Part of Me, Dirty Diana, Smooth Criminal, Leave Me Alone.  It's good stuff.

Resolved:  Bad is significantly better than Thriller.  Discuss.

The Wire

by publius

So after years of resisting passionate pleas from friends, I've broken down and started watching The Wire.  I'm now through Season 4 about to start 5.  And it's absolutely fantastic.

To those who haven't seen it -- go start it right now.  If you are reading this blog, chances are you have a fairly high interest in things like politics and policy.  If you do, you will love it.  I mean, you'll love it anyway, but you'll love it even more.

I missed the whole back-and-forth on the larger Wire debate a year and a half ago, but I'll probably do a few posts on it in the near future (below the thread to limit spoilers).  I actually don't watch much TV or movies anymore other than Sesame Street, Barney, and the Daily Show.  But this one you should make time for.

Michael Jackson

--by Sebastian

I've been strangely sad since hearing that Michael Jackson died.  Strangely because I haven't really liked him much in the past 10 years. 

I loved him growing up.  His voice was so arresting.  His songs were usually encouraging.  He projected an elemental joy in singing that I found captivating.  When I was little I was completely drawn into that.  And as I got older I appreciated his singing even more when comparing it to others. 

But his turn toward extreme strangeness and apparent self-loathing in his non-singing life wore me down somewhat.  And then the allegations of child molestation made me angry at him.  (Though I do remember saying that Michael Jackson was the only person I could imagine who was so weird that it was even remotely plausible that he could be sleeping in the same bed with those kids and not be molesting them).  So for the last 10 years or so whenever I would hear about him, my heart would harden a little and I would turn away.

Yet despite all that in the wake of his death, I'm still sad.  Lots of radio stations on the way home were playing his songs, especially some of his older songs.  Wow, I had forgotten what a good voice he had.  I think there are two parts of me that are sad.  The first is the part that recognizes the death of Michael Jackson as happening many years ago.  The child and then man who so entranced me was gone a long time ago.  I sorrow a bit for all those lost years between that and his actual death.  The second is the part, deep down, that really was rooting for him to snap out of it.  The part of me that believes in redemption stories and getting your life back together.  That will never happen now (and of course it was never very likely).

Hmm.

You can use this as an open thread. 

The Power of Poop

by publius

Here's something I learned today -- the historical success of Western Europe stems in part from its utterly disgusting personal hygiene.  And to be more blunt, from its poop.

I'm reading Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms:  A Brief Economic History of the World.  One argument is that, prior to 1800, income was inversely proportional to population.  Thus, the more people there were, the poorer they necessarily must have been.

One interesting implication is that actions that improved public health could actually lower living standards.  Sanitation systems, for instance, would lower death rates and increase the population.  That, in turn, would worsen living standards by lowering everyone's income.

Anyhoo, apparently one reason why northwestern Europe enjoyed a higher living standard than Japan and China was because Europeans were disgusting -- literally.  They walked around in -- and died from -- their own feces.  Clark writes (on p.105-07):

Europeans were -- by modern standards and also those of preindustrial China and Japan -- a filthy people, living in dirt and squalor. . . .

The low attention paid by the English to personal hygiene was expressed in their primitive toilet arrangements.  While in Japan toilets were built at some distance from living quarters, the English upper classes seemed to prefer the convenience of adjacent toilets, even with the attendant problem of odors.  Or they dispensed with toilet arrangements altogether.  When the Globe Theater was constructed . . . in 1599, not one toilet was provided for the 1,500 audience members that the theater could accommodate.  Spectators, even those in the 5-pence boxes above the stage[,] did their toilet in the yard outside, or more likely in the stairways and passages of the theater itself.

Fabulous.

Saturday Poetry Blogging

by hilzoy

Over at Ta-Nehisi's blog, I found a wonderful poem by Elizabeth Alexander, who has been invited to write a poem for Obama's inauguration. It's 'Hottentot Venus', about a woman from what is now South Africa who was taken to Europe and exhibited throughout Europe. When I was 12 or 13, I saw her skeleton, and I think some sort of cast, in Paris, where it was on exhibit in a museum (apparently, it has since been put away, thank God, along with her preserved brain and genitalia, which I do not recall. France returned her remains to South Africa in 2002.) I've put the poem below the fold; it's really, really good. Ta-Nehisi:

"I don't know how, but in my early readings of this piece, I missed perhaps the most important emotion--a kind of slow-burning rage. There are many ways to read those two quotes. But I'm black and Ta-Nehisi and what I see is the irony of science, how disciplines founded to better understand the world so often obscure the world."

I think that's right: right about the rage, right about the science. But it's also striking to me how she manages to combine a kind of generosity to Cuvier with that rage. The first part starts with such beauty, though as it goes on, you can see the inhumanity peering out from behind it. But a less generous poet would have left it out entirely.

But politics obscures the world as well. Googling around to find out more about the woman who wrote this poem, I found some other responses, from people who didn't seem to want to bother giving her a try. This from Newsmax is typical (it's worth reading the poem it excerpts in its entirety. You can make snippets from any poet sound dumb. Think of TS Eliot:

"Twit twit twit

Jug jug jug jug jug jug"

What a dope!)

In any case, enjoy!

Come For The Grand Wizard, Stay For The Fishing

by publius

So I was driving through western Tennessee on my way home for the holidays and I saw a sign for the "Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park" along the interstate.

Hmm... Nathan Bedford Forrest. Where have I heard that name before. Oh right. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Or as the Tennessee Environmental Department calls him, "the intrepid Confederate cavalry leader."

Given my upbringing, I have a higher tolerance for this crap than I should. I know, for instance, that many people view this stuff innocently from a subjective perspective (not defending, just explaining). I also draw the line at removing statues and other artwork. I didn't like it when the Taliban destroyed art it found distasteful, so I think old statues should remain too.

But naming a park is different. It just seems like a gratuitous insult that could be easily remedied without sacrificing art or history or whatever. Plus, it's Nathan Bedford Forrest. I mean, he was selected as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK for God's sake. I know there is some back and forth about Forrest's leadership role, but that's beside the point. He was selected as the Grand Wizard, clearly played a significant role in the early organization, and has become closely associated with it.

Tennessee taxpayers should be proud.

Intel's Sophie's Choice

by publius

Intel asks the truly tough questions (the point of the study was ostensibly to show how important the Internets have become):

Men have always faced challenges when it comes to romance. Here’s a sign that technology may have raised another hurdle. An online survey commissioned by Intel has found, among other things, that 46% of women would rather go without sex for two weeks than give up the Internet for that long. . . . Some 30% of all men would swap sex for the Internet for two weeks, if they had to[.]

These numbers actually seem low to me. I mean, it's two weeks. I dare say that many couples go that long, even without such wrenching Sophie's Choices facing them. I think the more interesting numbers would start coming if you increased the time period to, say, months, instead of weeks. Also, at that time range, would the gender numbers start diverging more sharply?

That's why I'm here folks -- to keep things at a very high intellectual level.