Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Gina Barreca

Where Credit is Due ... Palin's Speech

OK, I gotta say it: Palin did a good enough job just now for me to feel she’s a real enough politician to be called by her surname.

I was more impressed by her acceptance speech than I thought I would be — not by her message, because there wasn’t any, but by her poise and ability to deliver a funny line without stepping on it. She was much better, for example, than Mitt Romney, who would have got the hook on an old Vaudeville stage and who would never have been heard from again (banned from the platform for having chosen such an absurdly ill-fitting role to play).

Yep, whoever wrote Palin’s script gets full marks, but — to be fair — her timing, too, was excellent. An 8.7, I’d say (points off for snarling and grimacing at key moments and for the pit-bull hockey-mom analogy).

She did forfeit a few points with me when she dragged the kids out, one by one, after saying IN BIG LETTERS we should leave them alone. Hmmm. You see, touting the accomplishments of her eldest boy does sort of leave them ALL open to the possibility that somebody sneaky and cynical might mention the “accomplishments” of her daughter Bristol as a way to balance the family act. Actually, I am grateful because now I don’t feel guilty saying anything about them at all. The Palins come wholesale, as a package deal, shrinkwrapped, so that to buy one is to get, oh, 117 free? Fine.

Just don’t tell me they’re off-limits. Not when they line up like the Von Trapp Family Singers. (With Bristol singing “I am 16 going on 17” while holding a .22.) Not when you shave the erstwhile adorable boyfriend and make him look like any other fat-faced smug mouth-breathing kid who nobody told not to stare at himself in the camera like he was an extra at a Girls Gone Wild videotaping. He sort of looked like “Sawyer” from Lost in his hockey pics and now he looks far less cute than the First Grandude. Drag.

So, fine, she’s real enough to take seriously, and so let the games begin.

Just keep her away from libraries, the Supreme Court, women’s reproductive rights, health care, education, foreign-policy decisions (she only got her first passport last year?) and gun control, as well as her younger daughters (they seem lovely and there’s no need for them to get pregnant and drop out of high school, is there?) and — as the old song goes — THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT!

(The little voice that keeps reminding us that it is also destiny? More about that later …)

Posted at 10:11:17 PM on September 3, 2008 | All postings by Gina Barreca

Comments

  1. You are truly vile.

    — Does the Chronicle pay for this trash? · Sep 3, 11:17 PM · #

  2. You’re a professor? You must be the chair of the hate dept. Heaven help any young minds poisoned by your bile.

    — Nick Poulos · Sep 3, 11:31 PM · #

  3. This is funny.

    [I mean the 1st 2 comments.]

    Oh, the blog post is too.

    — Anon E. Moose · Sep 3, 11:52 PM · #

  4. So far by the looks of this convention – the Republicans would have trouble just trying to change a flat tire. Giuliani had the best speech, but while it was amusing it had to many cheap punch lines. As for Palin, while it was at least a positive sign that she could complete a memorized speech, her delivery was pointed and contemptuous. If there was one thing she said that summed up her character it was her joke about ‘What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? – - Lipstick.”. While being tough is a good quality, as a VP or President, being tough without using good diplomacy is belligerent and potentially disastrous. Palin’s delivery, words and facial expression exhibit an inexperienced pit bull indeed. Sure we need tough leaders – but even a two year old can say ‘No’. We need leaders who can make tough decisions, and yet converse in ways to create/maintain allies, resulting in a ‘Yes, we can – if we work together’ mentality. After all, war and violence have been around since the beginning of time. Aren’t there any new ideas or alternatives left in the world that we can try? McCain is a real Patriot and Soldier for certain, but the McCain/Palin ticket is not the voice we need right now. And, if I can take a second to step onto a bigger soapbox – please Republican party stop using the word ‘Maverick’. Enough already! If you mean Maverick as described in The George Bush’s Republican Dictionary, than you mean it as praise for a person who abuses power and overrides the Constitution. That kind of ‘Maverick’ and anyone who votes the same as Bush, 90% of the time, costs us (and the world) too much. All this talk about winning the war -what exactly have we won from this war? We invaded a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Apparently, it needs to be broken down for many of us in a context we care about and understand -Take Fast Food for example: Would we sue Starbucks over a spilled cup of coffee we bought at McDonald’s? Oh wait…many of us probably would try that. hmmm…

    — Lenny Nimoy · Sep 4, 12:15 AM · #

  5. Having a bad night, are we?

    Get used to her being around. She is a class act.

    You, on the other hand, are a small minded low life.

    — Karen Meier · Sep 4, 03:18 AM · #

  6. Sound of Music reference is perfect. (Are you, #5, the History of Medicine person? I hope not. I like to think she would know better.)

    — Penman Ship · Sep 4, 04:11 AM · #

  7. If an undergraduate submitted this, I’d grade her “D-” for content. Twaddle at best. Besides, how seriously can one take an essay with “gotta” in its opening sentence? God save the academy.

    — James C. Kline · Sep 4, 04:12 AM · #

  8. Almost seems like Gina’s talking/writing about Palin here has summoned some of the bloices of right-wing interns. Hey interns, I hope you feel really horrible! Hahaha! Take that to your master. As far as the speech itself goes, I couldn’t bring myself to listen to it. I turned in a few minutes before but then I changed my mind. All of the little right wing gonads probably got a chubby thinking they can rally for Palin. Viva! Olay! Wtf?

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 05:56 AM · #

  9. Wow, some of these comments are intense. “Chair of the hate dept.” I have yet to take a class with you, but I hope to and I’m looking forward to being “posioned.”

    I agree with #6, the Von Trapp remark was delightful.

    So, points off for the pitbull comment? Tell me more. I cringed at it a bit, because I found it anti-pitbull. I was watching last night with my cuddly love dog, the pitbull named Mr. Snuggles. Maybe the Republican campaign can shake off the past 8 years by adopting the pitbull owner’s slogan, “Blame the deed, not the breed.” Palin may be onto something here…

    — Toni Fellela · Sep 4, 07:19 AM · #

  10. Let’s see—the kids are fair game, eh? So which one(s) do you want to go after? The child with Down’s syndrome? The one serving his country in Iraq? The little girl? The sister who, in your estimation, will also become pregnant? Or is it the easiest target, the sister who already is? Let’s impugn her—obviously her situation has never happened to anybody you might know. And the affrontery that she should be marrying the father! And that he should shave and clean up a bit for national television! The horror!

    So—which one(s) do you really want to malign? Or is it their mother and father for seeming to be somewhat proud of them? Better that she should never have introduced them? Kept them hidden away, so that people like you could then declare that she’s ashamed of them, hiding something, etc., etc.

    Your snarkiness is saddening. I would have expected better. I’m tired of this campaign already

    — shui khan · Sep 4, 07:32 AM · #

  11. Palin: Cheney in drag?

    — Bea Riginal · Sep 4, 07:46 AM · #

  12. I love seeing the rage of liberal feminist women when they encounter an accomplished, intelligent woman who dares to be conservative and dares to oppose the slaughter of unborn children.

    http://rightwingprofessor.blogspot.com/

    — right wing professor · Sep 4, 07:48 AM · #

  13. The “accomplishments” of the son going to Iraq? No, the fact of a son going to Iraq. Has everyone forgotten Michael Moore’s filmic indictment of the “ruling classes” in America for sending everyone else’s children but their own into the fray?

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 4, 07:48 AM · #

  14. “the fact of a son going to Iraq”

    Kind of like the fact of her daughter being pregnant, huh? Funny how that works.

    Give her credit for something historical: her claim that being mayor of a small town is the equivalent of being president is the most naive thing I’ve ever heard from a politician.

    She had two tasks. She had to get Republicans excited. Check. She had to give a small number of skeptical viewers in swing states a reason to believe she is ready for the office. Complete failure. Whining about the media asking questions was the wrong solution.

    — me · Sep 4, 07:58 AM · #

  15. #13: Gov Palin’s son freely joined the military (as I did years ago). Perhaps that arrogant hypocritical slob Michael Moore might consider doing on-site one of his anti-American propaganda flicks he touts as “documentaries” by trying to survive a couple of days in boot camp!

    — emt · Sep 4, 08:14 AM · #

  16. #11 raises what will be a real issue this October: how many ‘Palins’ will be at the Village parade? S/he is going to be SO represented it won’t be (or will be) hysterical. LOVE the Worley link btw.

    — DragStar · Sep 4, 08:26 AM · #

  17. Palin’s claim that being the mayor of a small town is like being a community organizer – only with responsibilities – together with many other “reversals” of Democratic campaign facts and rhetoric may indeed overshadow the fact of her daughter’s pregnancy. Since when does a Republican take responsibility for the actions of others? Personal responsibility is that party’s watchword.

    “Family values” cannot (should not) be a militarily enforced system. Besides, the percentage of unwanted pregnancies in this country has not been on the wane, now, has it, among all races and classes – a fact the public is keenly aware of (there, but for the grace of God, goes one’s daughter, niece, etc.). As The Scarlet Letter should have taught us ages ago, the real scandal lies not in the women and girls who must bear the visible sign of “transgression” but in the men who often walk away unscathed by public opinion. Thus, this hyper-focus on her daughter serves to indict those who parrot such attacks on teenage girls as hypocritical and anti-woman – at best.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 4, 08:30 AM · #

  18. AHA—a measured response, as always, I look for you everywhere, but don’t you find the focus on the daughter something the RNC is encouraging even as it waves it away? There is something smug about Palin’s FV position, isn’t there? It’s not that the daughter should be forced to wear an “A” but should she really be boasting an “A+”?

    — katie · Sep 4, 08:38 AM · #

  19. I think Governor Palin successfully dismissed the first wave or two of ridicule that anti-Republican bloggers and blogsponders dished out. She showed that she can deliver a speech as well as, or better than, most of the candidates for President who were taken seriously by her party.

    Those who felt she could be ridiculed out of the running were wrong. I’m not a big fan of ridicule and sarcasm as campaign rhetoric. Even though they are clearly effective tools in the arsenal of mindless persuasion, they lack positive and relevant content and they appeal mainly to emotion. I got the sense from Governor Palin’s speech that her strength lies in her ability to communicate on an emotional level to those who identify with her.

    Remember, her training and experience include a journalism degree from University of Idaho and service as a television journalist. University of Idaho is not a lousey little college (as some belittlers portrayed it). Some people seem to think that attending a public community college (Northern Idaho College) and a public university (U of I in Moscow) in a largely rural frontier state is a weakness. I do not think so. I think many small town and rural people see this as both sufficient and “down to earth.” In the rural and small town demographic that identifies with Governor Palin, higher education is not all that appealing—this is not the urban/suburban population that points its children at Ivy-league schools from pre-school on.

    Now, what about content and issues? Governor Palin did herself no harm by not really addressing the issues that set her apart from people like Gina. The pre-speech hype and controversy was allowed to provide the content. Reproductive rights. Stem-cell research. Creation science. Oil drilling in National Parks. The Endangered Species Act. It all went pretty much without saying. Of course,she could not resist portarying the Iraq war (essentially, warfare against Islam) as “God’s work.”

    So, where are we at this point? I think the Republican party has nominated for VP someone who connects on an emotional level with an important part of the coalition they must succeed with to win this election. The coalition is essentially this: 1) the selfish and powerful wealthy and wealthy wannabees; and 2) the rural and small town Republican base population—especially those who are charismatic evangelicals (mainly, anti-Catholic Pentecostal protestants, but also some charismatic Catholics for whom reproductive freedom is anathema). Once again, we have those with means protecting wealth and power by trying to convince ordinary people to support the selfish wealthy agenda by offering to support the fundamentalist “values” agenda. It is the same Rovian power formula that has worked before.

    Whether it will work well enough to send the McCain-Palin team to the White House remains to be seen; but anyone who hopes that will not happen should not take this challenge lightly. I think there are many “poor but honest” people who have totally bought into “trickle-down” Reaganomics, along with “values” voting. Many of these people are still ethnically isolated and suspicious of anyone who they perceive as “not like” them. In many ways, Sarah Palin is—or seems to be—like them.

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 08:40 AM · #

  20. Sorry, that should be “portraying.” Hello, AHA and Katie. Nice to see you here.

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 08:50 AM · #

  21. Oh, GB, you just don’t get it. Maybe your message has saliency, do I dare say, an audience, in the narrow confines, the remote academic landscape, but out in the polis (the ultimate tester of ideas and vetting sphere of myopia) you don’t make sense. I realize that’s the point of being an academic, but at least stay within your area of expertise. Yes, her kairos is good, but not exclusively for her own self interests. The genius is and the reason you’ve spent the past two days ranting on Palin is that the rhetorical timing taps into much larger cultural and hegemonic points of view that you find trite, below your cultured being, and messy. And on the points about her family… I suspect you’d rationalize the pregnancy issue if the tables were turned. You’d call it progressive and open, maybe even call it “the new family,” but since it’s squarely hit on the other side you’ve essentially dismissed them as the hoi polloi without realizing that your own discourse is irrelevant, because nobody (and I use this particular word rhetorically and not literally) beyond this very small circle is listening to your praddle, because you’re “full” (here used as the plain English word for pregnant) w/ tired ideas. There’s a new cultural war and we need you to foster the divisions.

    — Rob · Sep 4, 09:42 AM · #

  22. After five shameless days of beyond the pale trashing of Sarah Palin, there are some people in the mainstream media who have some serious explaining to do.

    Never in my half century of living have I ever witnessed such a concerted effort to marginalize a woman through such misogynist and sexist based attacks.

    — P · Sep 4, 09:49 AM · #

  23. P – #22. You should see CNN’s Campbell Brown video clip where she takes on a McCain advisor about Palin. To me, it’s the ultimate manifestation of what you’re saying. It’s not responsible given her craft.

    — Rob · Sep 4, 10:09 AM · #

  24. Sarah Palin’s family deserves privacy? Let me tell you, if she’s elected, only her family will get any privacy. Your kid turn out to be gay? TOO BAD—he or she doesn’t get the right to love someone. Your daughter need an abortion because, God forbid, she was date raped? TOO BAD, because she won’t get one. It’s privacy for everybody’s family—or nobody’s.

    — Logical thinker · Sep 4, 10:22 AM · #

  25. Toni Fellela (#9) – So, you found my comments intense, but you have no problem with the profs’s hateful, insulting and dishonest review?
    Please go back to watching “High School Musical”, the grown-ups are trying to talk.
    P.S. Gook luck finding a job with your degree in Feminist Theory.

    — Nick Poulos · Sep 4, 10:34 AM · #

  26. Did anyone here see the Katie Couric interview of Cindy McCann? I see Cindy falls in line with Sarah on the notion that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in school. Cindy’s not so sure about overturning Roe vs. Wade—she just thinks it should not be a federal issue. It should be up to the states to decide. So, once again, the old tired state’s rights perspective. This is the one where the US is 50 states that are essentially individual countries allied within a confederated republic. Of course, this implies the right to secede from the union and denies that this issue was settled 140 years ago. Slavery. Abortion. Teaching of evolution. Integrated schools. Yes, all those issues should be decided by individual state/nations. The confederation should be weak. Hmmm. Doesn’t that also imply a weak federal judiciary, legislature, and executive? And, of course, very powerful state governors….

    Where does all this lead? Are Republicans really libertarians or anarchists? Of course, we know that the Democrats are all communists or socialists, but where do fascists fit into this schema?

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 10:43 AM · #

  27. #19-20: Of course Gov Palin will have ample opportunities to elaborate upon the issues that you so tendentiously presented in terms of class warfare (“selfish and powerful wealthy”; “those with means [of] protecting wealth and power”; “selfish wealthy agenda,” etc.) along with your clumsy overlay of supercilious profanum vulgus snobbery (“many small town and rural people see this as sufficient and ‘down to earth’”; “trying to convince ordinary people”; “many ‘poor but honest’ people,” etc.). The “[m]any of these people are still ethnically isolated and suspicious of anyone who [sic] they perceive as not ‘like them’” is a simple paraphrase of Sen Obama’s snobbish slur on those working-class or small-town Democrats who wouldn’t support a left-wing urban machine politician like himself. Your appeal here is not primarily to logos, nor ethos, but pathos, #19-20, as in pathetic.

    — emt · Sep 4, 10:45 AM · #

  28. Just curious, I don’t care either way, but why is everyone so personally upset? I read the piece by GB; it wasn’t patricularly good or funny. But, I’m at a loss why so many McCain supporters are frothing at the mouth. Palin is a politician. It is a lot like being a boxer – you get hit in the face alot. Either suck it up or get a different job.

    As for her family. When one makes “family values” central to one’s message, one cannot simply ask that one’s own family be excluded from scrutiny, critique, or ridicule. This is no different from the way the media treated Brittney Spears .

    Ok, back to insulting one another!

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Sep 4, 10:45 AM · #

  29. So Palin’s family and “private life” are off limits, but any person, organization or lampost Obama ever came into contact with is fair game as long as in some obsurd, false way it links him to a racist or a terrorist, right? That’s how this game is being played.

    “Be nice to Sarah Palin and her family. She is a woman after all. Any attacks on her family are sexist. But Obama’s ex-college roomate’s third cousin dated a woman who married a man who may have been on the same plane once as someone from Iraq 10 years ago. He and his wife, they are terrorists. They shouldn’t be trusted. Oh and don’t forget his name rhymes with Osama. What does that tell you!”

    I am offended as a woman (AND A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) that the far right thinks if they put a woman who speaks moderately well on the ticket, I will, as a woman, give said ticket my vote, because of course, we are both women and so I must feel an emotional connection to her on some level. Sorry, not going to happen. In fact, the only thing that offends me more than the assumption I will vote for McCain/Palin because Palin and I share a gender is when I hear people slamming the media, writers and Gina, for treating Palin as we would treat any other candidate, because she’s a woman.

    Newsflash, if any male candidate was trying to run on a platform of family values we would be EXAMINING their family. Do people in the media and campaign camps go to far at times? Yes, but that is on both sides of the aisle.

    You don’t have to agree with Gina, but it really shows your class, maturity and intelligence level when YOU resort to calling her nasty names on HER blog. Didn’t you mother ever tell you that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    — Jennifer · Sep 4, 10:52 AM · #

  30. Erwin,

    #26 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of federalism. The federalists won, in case you haven’t heard, and the anti-federalists lost. The number of people who want a new federation of semi-independent country-states could probably be numbered in single digits.

    The principle of federalism, as it is traditionally understood by conservatives, holds that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution of our United States the specific powers that the federal government has. Why enumerate specific powers if you do not intend the federal government to limit itself to those powers, and those powers alone? Whatever powers were not specifically addressed in the Constitution must be, by necessity, afforded to the states.

    Strictly speaking, whenever the federal congress addresses an issue not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, they are acting unconstitutionally—or at the very least, extra-constitutionally.

    This provides the states and their citizens with a double protection. In their wisdom, the founding fathers provided us with a federal government constricted by enumerated powers, and a bill of rights (which was a concession to the anti-federalist faction) in order to guarantee our individual freedoms.

    If the founding fathers had provided a peaceable way to exit the Union, the Civil War might have been avoided. Unfortunately, the Civil War DID settle the matter—the only way out is war, and the fight will be impossible. Imagine the United States military invading Vermont, and you will understand what I mean.

    That the Constitution lacked a provision for peaceable separation is indeed a fault, but has very little to do with modern conservatives’ conception of federalism.

    I hope this tutorial helps.

    — Pinkster · Sep 4, 11:24 AM · #

  31. Brilliant, Pinkster! The enumerated federal powers may be fairly regarded as an absolutely minimal list at least as fairly as it can be considered an absolutely exhaustive list.

    Governor Palin’s connections with the Alaskan independence movement bears some watching, though, doesn’t it, considering the energy reserves and other assets of that state—which was actually PURCHASED by the federal government. Maybe she can declare herself President of the nation of Alaska!

    But seriously, Pinkster, thanks for the valuable, if pedantic, “tutorial.”

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 11:37 AM · #

  32. On Comment 18:

    Part of the point I was trying to make is that “unwed motherhood” is “out of the closet”, so to speak, in our entire society. Further, the Cheneys had a similar “situation” with their openly lesbian daughter. In the end, these are realities which occur in families across classes and races – thus they “cut both ways”, politically speaking.

    On Comment 26:

    Actually, given the structure of the Federal Court system into Circuits and Districts, we do live in separate subset “countries” with respect to Federal and State laws. Each state’s laws are, of course, independent of each other. However, when a Federal law is interpreted differently in one state’s District than in another, in one Circuit of the country than in another, in the end, only a Supreme Court ruling can make one of the conflicting interpretations the one which will rule throughout the land. This is, perhaps, a little-known fact to the average American, but it is true, nonetheless. Depending on the Circuit in which one’s state falls, and the District within that Circuit within which one’s city falls, the “American” freedoms one enjoys may be very different indeed.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 4, 11:40 AM · #

  33. Pinkster: While we probably disagree on alot of things, I liked this last summary. I also happen to think, philisophically, that the country would probably run better as a federation of semi-independent country-states.

    My only problem is that neither party seems to respect that the federal government is and should be limited in its scope of power. (D) and ® seem to disagree about which aspects should be limited, but neither seem to respect the fact that we don’t get to pick and choose; our contract is the constitution. Maybe their party platform is several hundred pages, but if each just relied upon the documents that gaurantee our rights, we’d all be better off.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Sep 4, 11:45 AM · #

  34. In response to Karen Meier: “Having a bad night, are we? Get used to her being around. She is a class act. You, on the other hand, are a small minded low life.”
    — Karen Meier · Sep 4, 03:18 AM · #

    How dare you insult Prof. Barreca while referring to that narrow-minded, right-wing nutcase as a “class act”? ARE YOU JOKING??!! Palin is nothing but a DISGRACE to womanhood for her “pro-life-even-in-cases-of-rape-and-incest” agenda… She is nothing more than a puppet for the white males who “run the show” at the Republican Party and she should be ashamed of herself! Maybe if her daughter was taught PROPER sex education and birth control methods instead of that “abstinence is the only way to go” drivel that her mother and others of her ilk are always spewing, she wouldn’t be pregnant! THERE ~ I said it! From what I can tell, there is nothing “classy” about her, and she falls SERIOUSLY short as a mother AND a politician.

    Take some time to REALLY investigate Palin’s agenda, Ms. Meier… Then you’ll see who the REAL “small minded low life” is!

    — Nina Lomando-Grigoreas · Sep 4, 12:05 PM · #

  35. If Palin was running for president of the NRA, the head of Monster Truck Racing Operations or the new chairwoman of PBR I would have thoroughly enjoyed her speech last night. There’s no question she is competent in front of a podium (much more so than McCain).

    If this election was to be decided based on who is the best orator, however, we would already know our eventual victor.

    I am in complete agreement that she was far better last night than expected. She showed an air of poise that few could muster having less than 2 weeks to prepare for such an event. For someone who does not agree socially with her, this is quite concerning.

    Her views have brought the GOP ticket to a completely new space. She will fight against almost every socially liberal policy being debated in politics today, if elected. She outwardly runs in the face of the separation of church and sate. She claims to want to reduce the economic influence of government while at the same time creating far reaching government powers to interfere with social issues.

    To Joe’s point above – I don’t think Sarah Palin needs to seem like the average American. She comes right out and says that she “is” the average American. This is a powerful message, and will likely resonate with a large audience. People can ignore conflicting views, possible problems and past scandals if they believe the person they are voting for is their next-door neighbor.

    To those of you above who obviously are incapable of separating the concepts of message and delivery, read Gina’s post again. Regardless of your views, many of you could learn quite a bit about the latter.

    (P.S. Excellent work with the thesaurus Rob; sadly, most of us have them these days)

    — Christian · Sep 4, 12:12 PM · #

  36. Nina—
    Just a reminder, the official educational policy in place in Alaska highlights both “safer sex” and “abstinence.” To say that a state policy has in some way led to the unfortunate actions of one girl is to be unfair to her and to ask far too much of the state.

    In the end, people make their own decisions; a case in point is the way in which AIDS continues to spread in spite of the millions and millions spent on education programs (especially in large cities where prevention programs are well-established).

    The state is not, and ought not to be, the primary means by which we raise a child.

    — Pinkster · Sep 4, 12:16 PM · #

  37. AHA, good points. It’s not so simple, is it?

    Is it excessively complicated to the extent of being wasteful and inefficient? Is the diversity across jurisdictions worth the energy expended?

    I’m just wondering which aspects of our freedoms are considered to benefit most or least from local and state control versus a uniform federal standard….

    While I value diversity, I’m not so sure about chaos….

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 12:19 PM · #

  38. By golly old (two years less than me) McCain picked on one hot looking VP -even if with her attempt to look properly GOP frumpy with that hairdo and granny glasses.
    Pretty cool – popping out 5 – one about to get his ass shot at in a stupid war started by a stupid man and an another infant with a terrible disease. Be fruitful and multiply – who changed the diapers while the Governor was busy claiming to object to the Bridge to Nowhresville but keeping the Federal money anyway?
    We know that Cindy McCain had a few dollars available to tend to her personal requirements. Another good selection by All American Hero John after dumping his first wife.

    Fine if the Queen of Alaska loves screwing but a pill, or at least a condom, might have been worth considering.
    Bravo to her daughter – defying Mom’s :“abstinence only” opinion. Of course the Dad will marry her. If your future mother-in-law hunts moose you have few choices. (I suspect if Chelsae Clinton had got knocked up she would have been called a slut.)

    — AW · Sep 4, 12:45 PM · #

  39. #32: Of course various state laws differ and should, considering that state laws reflect the wishes of those governed by them. And possible conflicts between state and federal laws work their way up through the circuit and district courts to the Supreme Court. But that’s no reason to suggest that we live in legally different “countries” (at least you had the good sense to bracket the term in metaphorical “scare quotes”).

    #37: No It’s not so simple as your suggesting that Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin, defend an “old tired state’s [sic] rights perspective” that our 50 states are “essentially individual countries” that “implies the right to secede from the union and denies that this issue was settled 140 years ago. Slavery [you claim they believe] . . . should be decided by individual state/nations.” What palpable lunacy! Or, if meant sarcastically or merely in ridicule, then what’s to be made of your earlier statement that the latter are “clearly effective tools in the arsenal of mindless persuasion”? Either way, you’re striving to earn to monicker “Smokin’ Joe.”

    — emt · Sep 4, 01:11 PM · #

  40. I want to try as best I can to take the long view of this entire situation. I wanted to enter deeper into the particulars of what was being written about here but I feel a stronger need to be more general. I have not put forth intensely well-argumented claims when I have expressed myself about Palin, and I am not sure I am going to begin that presently. I am commenting now more from intuition and imagination but I am curious what someone else might think that is worth. I avoided the political noise for a few years but find now I am obliged to pay closer attention since this is a more interesting election as far as I am concerned. The discourse has sucked me back in after intentionally avoiding politics for some time to save my sanity. I seem to be better at observing it now without worrying about the end. I look at it all as a dream state, with the inevitable things that happen which are significant because they won’t comply with the dream. I listened to the spin this morning on NPR and it began to really surprise me but then I realized, wait, lying is just a job, and if you have lied for a living for 25 years or more you’re probably really good at it. Also, there are natural born liars. An alarmed woman called the Diane Rehm show from Berlin (Germany) to say that the mention of the “pit bull” reminded her of the same exact rhetoric used by neo nazis in Germany today. The Germans have gotten so good at fearing fascism that they may at times be too good at it. But of course, we don’t even know what fascism is for the most part—most people don’t. Which is why it is so likely to happen here. Most people learn only through repetitive experience, and we haven’t really had fascism once yet. But to me the creepiest part about the Palin talking points that seem to have been zapped into right wing pundits is the logic of “knowing her well.” Of course she has been manufactured by a special interest, and she is a Regimesucker to the core, riding a particular zeitgeist wave. A lot of American men and women may indentify with her blind ambition, yet still want to look at her gubernatorial record. But I am concerned that there may really be a large religious middle who will feel they “already know her,” and thus don’t need the “liberal mainstream media propaganda” of her real record. Those people will vote with their “hearts” and not their minds, hearts where they feel they know Palin as they know Bush and McCain and as they feel they know god. But of course, the human heart contains a lot of secret blood lusts. I don’t know that I think the rhetoric of these right wing psychopaths is as good a predictor of what they are going to do as I used to, but I do think they are capable of absolutely anything. Like Biden said about McCain, “I’ve known him for 33 years and with John, nothing surprises me.” It would be a good idea to mobilize the Obama people to some serious action this time around. The alternative to Obama is also interesting, but I do believe it is also very terrifying. So far, I have found the comments by Joe Erwin and Nina L-G most interesting.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 03:14 PM · #

  41. And I do apologize for writing in haste and with less than ballistic syntax.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 03:21 PM · #

  42. Also, I should make clear I have paraphrased Biden to serve my own contextual purposes.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 03:30 PM · #

  43. Ahh zo, #40, how lonk haf desuh “recht-ving-fanateeks” mit der “seekret blut-loosts” bin persekootink du?

    — emt · Sep 4, 03:35 PM · #

  44. That’s funny emt, or should I call you herr doktor? But the fact is that I am not sure “fanaticism” is a word I’m quite comfortable using on them, though some like that, some quality of the far right that is something like that, is disturbing to many people in this country. I prefer to use the word psychopath when referring to the extreme right.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 03:42 PM · #

  45. On Comments 37 and 39:

    Of course, state laws differ and where they conflict with supreceding Federal legislation or the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the U.S. gets the final call – but the Justices have to be persuaded to take the case first, which is never a given.

    What I was trying to indicate as more disturbing is the fact that the Constitution and Federal law are not interpreted in the same manner in the entire United States so that, in many ways, the Circuits, like the States, are indeed separate fiefdoms. Yes, SCOTUS gets the last word but the case which highlights conflicts in the Circuits or in State law has to be selected by the Justices to be among the precious few cases they decide each year.

    Far more damning, because unreasoned, then, is the “cert. denied” ruling which solidifies Circuits in their contrary positions merely because the Justices felt there were more compelling cases for the Supreme Court docket that term.

    It is to be expected that these issues are misunderstood, by and large, except by those who have spent time, and money, either in legal training or in litigation. But they can mean the difference between serving time or remaining at liberty, between “enjoying” the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and, for example, Federal civil rights legislation — or not. Depending on where in the U.S. one lives. Yes, we expect variation with State law, but not with the Constitution and Federal laws….

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 4, 03:49 PM · #

  46. So, to Citizen #45—I mean er—commentor #45, it appears it requires a delicate balancing act (on the part of those trained in jurisprudence and litigation) to keep us happy clams “enjoying” our rights; I mean at least, “enjoying” them on them importent papers as such?

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 04:27 PM · #

  47. Thank you for the enlightening explanation. This is just one more reason for attempting to elect an executive who can be reasonably expected to appoint qualified judges that are not selected on the basis of idealogy—although, I think many appointed judges have risen to the occasion and behaved more fairly and objectively than the executive who appointed them really intended. AHA can probably cite a number of cases where judges/courts behaved badly.

    Luke, “psychopath” may be a pretty applicable term. These are “people of conscience” who seem to have no conscience—or at least lack the ability to apply their consciences to themselves. They seem most inclined to expect others to conform to their wishes, rather than to develop and exercise their own consciences.

    Ah well, all this seems to go on without end. My best wishes to all of you. I do apologize for being sarcastic myself, after suggesting that sarcasm and ridicule are not very informative nor helpful. I’ll just have to try to live with the guilt. I can’t do much about it now, except to try to apply my own standards to myself, even with no serious prospect that others will adopt the same standards.

    — Joe Erwin · Sep 4, 04:37 PM · #

  48. I do think that holding one’s own standards is the challenge that faces each one of us.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 4, 05:48 PM · #

  49. #45: I’d be interested to learn of examples of significant variations in different circuit or district court decisions that the US Supreme Court has refused to review. I know they decline to review certain cases they think settled without necessity for a review due to procedural or substantive concerns.

    I’ll peruse the black box electronic voting machine issue as well as see how assiduously they’ve promoted other problems compromising the vote, such as opposition to requiring photo IDs for voting, voter registration and voting fraud in corrupt, machine-controlled cities (Cleveland, Chicago, and Milwaukee are a few current examples), sale of absentee ballots (a judge recently assured me that they go for about $15 in Detroit), etc.

    — emt · Sep 4, 06:25 PM · #

  50. There you go again, Gina, stirring things up and making people think for themselves again. You sexist liberal, you, making Palin account for her politics even though she’s a woman. Shame on you for being both thoughtful and funny.

    Also, am I the only one who’s wondering who’s going to stay home with the youngest child? I’m not a huge fan of the Clinton clan, but at least they only had one kid and waited until she was older and more self-sufficient to pursue the presidency. I’m interested to see what Palin has to say about the state of special education in public schools as the years go on.

    — kellan · Sep 4, 07:04 PM · #

  51. On Comment 49:

    Given that the Supreme Court takes so few cases each year (is it 80, or fewer? I’ve forgotten), there are often conflicts in the Circuits which evolve and remain in place with multiple “cert. denieds” until a case is presented to the Supreme Court which it feels is compelling enough to include on the docket.

    Two intersecting examples of case law which the reader might find interesting in this regard are the enforcement of the ADA against public entitites and Eleventh Amendment immunity defenses. For example, at long last the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane decided in favor of the disabled complainant’s suing a public court system for physical access under Title II of the ADA – yet it has left open whether such redress is specifically available in the areas of education, etc. If one lives in the Second Circuit, such redress is conditionally available since the Second Circuit’s Garcia v. SUNY ruling but other Circuits do not agree that Eleventh Amendment immunity may be thus compromised.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 4, 07:56 PM · #

  52. And Luke Warm, what then is the extreme left in your mind? They’re people of conscience? Oh geez, what socially constructed rock did you crawl out from under?

    — Rob · Sep 5, 08:54 AM · #

  53. Rob, I don’t do social constructivism, because the only academics I’ve ever met who believe that follow it like a religion. I’m not going to talk about an “extreme left” with you either, but I’m sorry you worry about it. This election, as far as I can tell, boils down to two candidates. Obama, who will serve the corporate oligarchy BUT he may contribute meaningfully to the larger discourse on what it is to move democracy forward. That is a big MAYBE, but at this point I am willing to vote for him. Then there’s McCain, and as far as I can tell his camp will only be more of the deliberate reversal of all the norms that have allowed us to have a republic. Mostly what disturbs me about McCain is his use of language, and that is what I find to be so important about Obama. It was Mailer who once made the claim that Kennedy had to be killed because his language and style gave power to the people. Thomas Frank has a great essay on Mailer (listed below) where he mentions some of Mailer’s more dulusional claims but redeems his overall efforts as a writer. I agree with Mailer that Kennedy was targeted because his language worked against the corporatocracy; those buggers want us to believe that down is up. They have done their absolute best to destroy our language so that it means nothing. They have been very effective. The Frank essay also describes the folly of worrying about an “extreme left” any longer. http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/015_03/2720

    — Luke Warm · Sep 5, 04:30 PM · #

  54. A Wasilla neighbor of Gov. Palin reviews the candidate’s career (quite an expose), reprinted at this link:
    www.democrats.com/the-real-sarah-palin

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 5, 08:19 PM · #

  55. Sarah Palin has the highest popularity rating of all Goveners in the US, over 80%. so maybe that why all the liberal left is so worried. and she is doing real well in polls also. i think she is a real winner.

    — JERRY B · Sep 7, 01:34 AM · #

  56. The “liberal left” is so worried because you Palin supporters refuse to look at her record. That’s worrisome, Jerry. Do you need to look up worry in the dictionary? We are not afraid only that she will “win,” we are afraid of what she will be capable of after she wins and the fear we feel arises from us making even a cursory glance at her record. Her record, Jerry, her record, her record, her record.

    — Luke Warm · Sep 7, 06:01 AM · #

  57. The only positive side to the possibility John McCain wins this election is simple: a hot vice president.

    Aside from that, we’re stuck with a gun-toting, bible-thumping, creationism-spouting nut who retains an 80% approval rate because she’s been governing the most isolated state in the country. Sure, she was poised and confident in her speech, but did you hear a single line about what she plans to DO once in office? Poise and confidence is not everything, as evidenced by Obama, who from time to time makes mention of—gasp—the economy, the middle-class, education. You need something more than demeanor to present to voters.

    But I learned something from the RNC, honest. Until now, I had no idea that McCain was a POW in Vietnam. And Giuliani with the 9/11 thing? Christ, where have I been? Why haven’t they brought this stuff up before, really?

    — Charlton Fucking Heston · Sep 7, 03:29 PM · #

  58. On Comment 58:

    My favorite with the Republican National Convention was the image of the wrong Walter Reed projected on the greenscreen behind McCain:

    http://www.democrats.com/walter-reed-middle-school

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Sep 7, 06:48 PM · #

  59. The other day a radical-left friend of mine said he was planning to vote for McCain—as a vote against academics, particularly since this election is meaningless anyway. He is repulsed by grotesque displays of classism and sexism and the utter intolerance of others’ points of view, values, beliefs (fascism anyone?) along with a snideness and certain certainty that are doing a great disservice to higher education and to your dearly beloved candidate.

    Support for “obama” (whoever he is, whatever he stands for) has reached such a fever pitch in academic circles that we have begun to make the right-wing look good: and that, my friends, ain’t easy. We’re also confirming what the right has been saying about us, which is bad enough — but when it gets to the point where the left starts to agree with them, well, maybe it’s time to head to the woodshed, as they say in jazz, and do a little soul searching. You like the way Obama talks? Maybe you should consider it a cue, a performance standard. Really.

    — rabbit ears · Sep 7, 10:13 PM · #

  60. Rabbit Ears, don’t really get what you’re saying. Clarify.

    — Charlton Fucking Heston · Sep 7, 10:20 PM · #

  61. For example, the originating post is one urging Obama supporters to attack Palin’s children. That is unbecoming of any adult but not something one would ever expect of an educator, and an educator holding the Ph.D. Not only does this columnist openly call for attacks on these children, but she commences them in an alarmingly vulgar, mean-spirited fashion (how one attacks children without being vulgar and mean-spirited I couldn’t say).

    For further examples of how repellent we have become, just browse the comments to the post. A good many represent the tone and content of faculty across the nation, at least from what I gather anecdotally with discussions from colleagues at other institutions, and those at my own. Academic supporters of Obama are gleefully vicious, vulgar, hostile, on the lookout for any dissension in the ranks.

    If we admire Obama for his eloquence and, if one accepts the rhetoric, his refusal to participate in partisan vitriol, then by all means let us take him as our model? We are embarrassing ourselves and our profession when we present as snarling, dirty, sniping, sexist, classist, intolerant…professors. (Change is not a value in itself, as Foucault taught us years ago).

    — rabbit ears · Sep 8, 05:57 AM · #

  62. P.S. Charlton Fucking Heston: how we are conducting ourselves on these posts is precisely how the right portrays our conduct in the classroom. As this election unfolds, and faculty reveal their “politics” (if such we call this frothing), it’s beginning to look as if the right’s portrayal is not altogether wrong. Beware of chasing monsters, as Nietzsche warned, lest you become one.

    — rabbit ears · Sep 8, 06:31 AM · #

  63. Dear sir/Madam,

    We would like to use this opportunity to inform you that we have a job in our education sector,and we are looking for foreigner who will come over to take the job.We havw about ten vacancies in different parastatals.

    If interested send your full informations for more details.

    Yours fathfully
    Professor.Tony William

    — Professor Tony William · Sep 8, 07:44 AM · #

  64. Rabbit Ears, I get what you’re saying, really. The exclusive political attitudes found in most any University had always turned me off from the left, though the left is the side of the political spectrum my views mainly occupy. And yes, it should be a performance standard that all of us involved in the political circus adopt the eloquence and cool poise of Senator Obama, though it’s a tall order. Because let’s call a spade a spade: it doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you are mentally involved, and furthermore, surrounded by fellow colleagues just as involved, just as educated, and just as outspoken, the teeth come out. I mean, this is politics. Is it ever a dignified, gentlemanly battle between one side and the next?
    But what you’re saying is true, and Nietzsche was right. However, let’s deflate this fantasy that liberals are traditionally less vitriolic than conservatives. Never been true. Not for a minute.
    They’re just less wrong.
    And voting for McCain as a vote against “academics” does seem—no offense to your friend—pretentious, teenaged, and utterly misguided. We do not vote for the benefit or ill-will of social circles, last I checked.

    — Charlton Fucking Heston · Sep 9, 01:56 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2009 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review