Sexism in the Campaign

As we draw near the end of the Democratic Primary, one of the most prominent discussions over the past few days has been the role of sexism in the campaign. In Today's New York Times, Josi Kantor discusses the issue of sexism and whether or not it played a role in the campaign. In the article, the author quotes a Clinton supporter that suggested it was though the author also quotes Doris Kearns Goodwin, a prominent historian, who suggests that Senator Clinton's errors were tactical and were in no relation to her being a woman. In fact, according to Kearns, being a woman may have helped her raise money for her campaign.

While there have been some remarks that the consensus interpretation would be that they were sexist, to reach the conclusion that those comments hurt or thwarted Senator Clinton's campaign may not be conclusive because a few comments may not be able to lead to the general conclusion; it neglects other factors such as policy differences, race, ideology, and campaign tactics; and, it neglects the personality differences of voters and candidates.

Further complicating discussion of sexism is the projection of sexism that women faced in their own experiences and with some sexist comments that Senator Clinton received during the campaign. I say complicating because any comment that may seem dismissive (e.g. "You're likable enough") is open to interpretation as sexist but somehow "becomes" sexist without context or other available interpretations because some people have had those experience. Or since Senator Obama has less "experience," and there is no discussion of experience of other necessary qualifications, the woman must stand behind and wait for the less qualified male to lead. This is not to diminish the experiences that some women face. But from an interpretation standpoint, the meaning of one act leads to a fixed interpretation of sexism regardless of other cultural factors, political contests, or immediate context. (The pedagogical component of this post is at the end. Please continue to that point.)

While The New York Times articles discusses competing views of sexism in the campaign, a columnist from The Chicago Tribune writes about the worst aspect of sexism in the campaign, the repeated use of the "monster" metaphor, as well as allusions to pop cultural "monsters", to describe Senator Clinton. The explaining paragraphs:

When the doctor checks to see if the patient is still breathing, it's disgust, not compassion, that leaks out between his syllables: "You couldn't kill her with an ax," he sneers.

That patient—the wide-hipped, unwieldy woman at the heart of Dorothy Parker's 1929 short story "Big Blonde"—is a familiar image in books, films, songs, comic books, TV series, video games and, now, politics: The woman as monster. The over-large, over-ambitious, overbearing creature who irritates everybody, the death-defying witch who just won't go away—and who therefore must be destroyed....

In their landmark book of literary criticism "The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination" (1979), Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar were among the first to spotlight this noxious theme, this isolation and ridicule of powerful women by labeling them crazy, hysterical, perverse, monstrous. To challenge male domination—of the world, or just of oneself—was to be risk being marginalized, ostracized, locked away like Rochester's wife in "Jane Eyre" (1847), the fate that gave the book its title. In real life, behavior that strayed from the polite, demure norm expected of women in the 19th Century was rewarded with psychiatric evaluations and often, imprisonment and death.

The argument is that this is a pervasive cultural theme to demean women and, the assumption is that in this campaign this theme has been used against Senator Clinton to derail her campaign. It is a direct shot against MSNBC and an implied shot at Senator Obama: "that he would publicly condemn the trend of evoking death and destruction when it comes to Clinton. Perhaps, someday, he will." There is no mention of the actions of Senator Clinton as an individual or the tactics of her campaign; just the use of the "woman as monster" in the universal sense and Clinton in that universal.

The article represents the limitations of using popular culture references to discuss political campaigns, especially in regards of arguing across argumentation fields (specified types of argumentation, such as academic disciplines or political contexts). There is an odd interpretive move where, first, the columnist uses literary references that have no bearing on political campaigns to provide context and a major premise, such as the use of a Sylvia Plath poem or Dorothy Parker short story; the use of Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; or the use of D.H. Lawrences Sons and Daughters. Second, she provides a minor premise by referencing the media's use of pop culture to perpetuate the theme "woman as monster." The reader is to conclude that the media types in question tapped in to these references to discuss Senator Clinton and to perpetuate the sexism.

A similar approach is that these references by the media employ "archetypal metaphors," which rely on universal experiences (such as metaphors that discuss light/dark), or metaphors which are so dominant that they control the interpretation of any speech act. Of course, if these are "archetypal metaphors" then you move into the territory where language controls our actions and there may be little agency to break these forms of interpretation.

Further, there is no discussion of intention, elevating the interpreter to conclude sexism without regard of whether or not the rhetor desired the use of sexism. There is also no discussion of how a speaker attempts to connect with the audience by speaking the language of the audience (using popular culture). Only that the audience has the power to decide and must reach a similar conclusion because of the dominance of the metaphor.

I think that the author makes a mistake in two regards. First, she states, "But is it really necessary to order a hit? Isn't it enough just to vote for somebody else?" Throughout her piece, she takes figurative analogies and turns then into literal analogies as no one is calling for an actual "hit." This means she elevates certain metaphors (those that appeal to the "monster" theme) to ground them an in interpretation but rejects the ability to render another interpretation of the comments. Her entire argument reflects nothing more than a straw argument. This leads to a second mistake.

The author's second mistake is to promote her major premise (woman as monster) as an archetypal metaphor or dominant metaphor, removing that view from the context of a political campaign. By arguing across argumentation fields, there is a loss in clarity. For example, the author's use of Andrew Sullivan's zombie quote (28 Days Later, "It's alive") to describe a campaign that "look dead" but was able to "overcome defeats" and come close though not be able to win in the end, as the zombie can never be human again (win the primary). For the Columnist, this is sexism because it applies to her major premise, "woman as monster." When discussed in another context of political campaigns, it loses the interpretive dominance of sexism. While the original metaphor from Sullivan is not very helpful to discuss the Democratic primary, neither is the criticism in the Column.

Finally, and most importantly, if we were to grant the columnist's argument that these are dominant metaphors and that they hinder female candidates, what the is transformative strategy necessary to move beyond these interpretations of "woman as monster?" Is this a case whereby female candidates have become "trapped in language," meaning that there is no way to proceed?

Or is this a case where the Columnist relies on literary works, such as Sylvia Plath, Dorothy Parker, D.H. Lawrence, that speak to a historical context? In this case, we have moved beyond those works and referencing them deflects away from the progress. (See Megs' comments here). By just acknowledging the remarks as being "sexist," then there is no push to transform the remarks or move beyond them.

I would be interested in how some of the bloggers here discuss interpretation and corrective readings with their students, especially in the context of this article and the political campaign.

The Characteristics of the First Woman President

The New York Times published an article on the characteristics of the first woman president and, yes, the assumption is that Senator Clinton will not win the nomination or be president. (You can also view women legislatures and potential candidates). Here are the characteristics of what the first woman president will need:

That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).

She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Barack Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits....the first woman to be president probably will not come from the established names in Washington.

According to the article, this profile develops from political strategists and talents scouts.

Beyond those essential characteristics, there are two extremely controversial sections in the article. The first develops from a quote by Dee Dee Myers, the (first female) press secretary for William Clinton. She stated, “No woman with Obama’s résumé could run....No woman could have gotten out of the gate.” The assumption is that women need to prove that they are capable of being elected to office where as men avoid this scrutiny.

Yet, I disagree with this statement as it deflects away from the other important qualifications such as political judgment, political style, political charisma, and rhetorical kairos that enhance the potential candidate. While I may agree that there is a smaller pool, a mix of self-selection and some attitudinal barriers, I think that focusing on experiences perpetuates the problem just like acknowledging the "essential characteristics" is a problem. In this election, Senator Obama exceeds in judgment, style, charisma and kairos, and, with a message of change, the lack of "political experience," [also known as longevity in office and in the spotlight] is a benefit. Ann Richards would have been a similar candidate to Senator Obama, unfortunately, she did not attempt to seek higher office and lost her election while a Democratic President was in office.

The second controversial passage is from Karen O’Connor, the director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, who stated, “Who would dare to run? The media is set up against you, and if you have the money problem to begin with, why would anyone put their families through this, why would anyone put themselves through this?” For this reason, she said, she doesn’t expect a serious contender anytime soon. “I think it’s going to be generations."

The basis for this section is on how the media treated Senator Clinton, which may not be the best analogy to use as it is not clear. While some could argue that there have been an enormous amount of sexist claims made during the presidential election (this would depend on frames of reference and characterizations of the political process), making Senator Clinton the example for this piece is not the best idea. First, the public's perception of Clinton's negatives, from the Clinton legacy, her failures on Health Care, dishonesty, her political personae, etc., are much too high to render this a fair discussion on the topic. Just because she has progressed further than any other woman does not help. Second, as I have argued before, she cultivated a relationship with the media that would cast her as a victim at times because it was politically advantageous for her (New Hampshire, "Boys Club," using SNL in the debate, recent ad in Oregon about the media pundits) to rally some sections of her base. Finally, with the worst incident, the Schuster Comments, she attacked MSNBC and wanted the networks to suspend and fire its reporters (Matthews and Schuster). After this incident, Matthews, Schuster, Olbermann, and Carlson really started their attacks on Senator Clinton. I would argue that while Schuster's comments were bad, it was a tactical error by the Clinton campaign to go after MSNBC because it ensured worse treatment in the future on the opinion shows and not the news segments. To use the media treatment of Senator Clinton as a reason why a woman candidate should not run treats all women the same and overlooks some of the tactical faults of Senator Clinton's campaign.

This second controversial point may not extend to other presidential candidates though we, hopefully, will not know until 2016.

McCain on SNL: What's the rush Seth?

The Senator from Arizona made a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live last night. The clips are very funny. Here is the first, which features McCain discussing the Democratic Primary race.



Here is the other post. Like the first, it is very funny.

More Good Folkin' Music

Jealous of the Colbertian Tip of the Hat that M and PW recently earned for introducing Harrogate to Feist, I am compelled to offer a musical libation of my own.

Below is a live clip of John Martyn, a Scottish singer-songwriter from the '70s, singing "May You Never." Many know this song by way of Clapton, who covered it on his Slowhand album. I prefer Martyn's version.

Martyn celebrated some mainstream success early in his career, but his contributions are often overlooked today. I highly recommend his 1973 effort, Solid Air.

On the Smoothness of Feist; or, a Colbertian Tip of the Hat to M and Paperweight

Ah, what can compare with the exchange of music among friends?

Take the people behind the scenes of this award-winning Blog. Long before Contributors were being consulted by Barack Obama (and perhaps even considered!!!)for his Vice-Presidential choice, their accomplishments as listeners of music had ascended to epic proportions.

The great Symbol for which is of course Oxymoron's Listening Room which, while now defunct, will never die in our collective imagination. And one day, we are sure, it will, Phoenix-like, re-emerge in all its glorious physical form.

On a personal level, the enormously-broadening influence Amy Reads and Roof Almighty have wielded on Harrogate's musical tastes have been alluded to before in this space, and are thoroughly documented in the private Discourses which Board Members have shared over the years. And that Supadiscomama's Musical Aesthetics have seeped into and enriched Harrogate's auditory core, should go without saying.

But each and every Contributor to The Rhetorical Situation has grown Harrogate's musical experience in new and exciting ways since he has met them. And recent events suggest this only stands to continue: only this week, megs provided Harrogate with the information he needs to get started on the Hooverphonic front.

But today's Colbertian Tip of the Hat goes to Paperweight and M, who lent him (among other things) Feist CD's last weekend, to which Harrogate has listened almost continually ever since. Verily, the sheer smoothness and joy emanating particularly from the album Reminder almost pisses Harrogate off, when he thinks about how long he went unaware of it.

So in case anyone else isn't in the loop on Feist, here's a nice rendition of "My Moon My Man."

Essentialism 101, Courtesy Jemele Hill: "The birthing process gives any mother the right to overreact, no matter how ridiculous."

So, here's the scene. Monday, one night removed from Mother's Day, Paul Pierce gives the hard foul to save a break-away dunk by Lebron. The two go barreling into the stands. Lebron's Mom isn't happy, she wants her pound of flesh from Pierce.

The Gatorade Kid, Kevin Garnett, tries to calm Ms. James down. He seems to have little success. She is pissed, that was her baby just got roughed up.

LeBron and Pierce emerge from the scrum. LeBron turns to her and says--You Can See His Lips Very Clearly, "Mom, sit your ass down!"

Meanwhile Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Ernie Johnson laugh it up.

You gotta see this, it's not even 1:00 minute long.



But check this shit out. Jemele Hill's article, published yesterday, tears LeBron up for cussing at his Momma.

The titular quote Harrogate provided above is pretty juicy. Here's another:

But even with so much on the line, and his manhood teetering because his mother was rushing to his rescue, LeBron should have maintained his composure.

Harrogate's thoughts? Well, first of all it was a helluva lot more interesting than most of what Harrogate has been watching during these playoffs. But more seriously, what we had here was a classic breach of the Imaginary Line between public and private. Maybe that is how he and his mother talk to one another in private all the time, but when it comes out in this particular Rhetorical Situation, people don't recognize what they are seeing. It is, to say the least, different.

And also, anyone who played sports as a child and even through high school, or even attended games in any capacity, is familiar with the spectacle of the Mother rushing to the defense of her beleaugred son who has just been roughed up. We've all seen it. And for his mother, he's still doing the same thing he has been doing for years and years--engaged in what is, in its essence, a kid's enterprise.

But now he's a man; more, he's a Commodity. Property of the Cleveland Cavaliers. Property of the NBA and of all the shoe and soft drink labels. And so, he has apologized on the Mike and Mike Show.

Rwanda and Why Women Should Rule the World

I promised I'd write about my experience reading Why Women Should Rule the World by Dee Dee Myers, but I never did. This won't be a comprehensive review, but I do want to talk briefly about one of Myers's arguments regarding women and peace processes and its particular relevance given a CNN article about women in Rwanda.

Myers talks about Rwanda and other war-torn countries and women's particular role in the peace process there. Women, she claims, are especially situated politically, given their complete lack of involvement in prior governments and their importance as heads of households (i.e. men maintain the title, but women make the decisions) to bridge factions and bring about true peace. I'm really interested in the idea of the domestic being the site of political development and women's leadership role in that area. CNN's piece about women in Rwanda supports both my hopes and Myers's argument, telling the story of a woman who forgave her husband and children's killer and befriended his wife. (The role of women is not only domestic, though, given Rwanda's cabinet, one-third of which are women, and Parliament, 48% of which are women, the highest rate in the world.)

I find incredible hope in a story like this one and, especially, in the numerous situations that Myers presents that are the same or similar.

In other news, I just started reading Three Cups of Tea. (It's the one by Greg Mortenson, the American man who started 50+ schools in Taliban strongholds and has single-handedly done more to combat terrorism than the entire "coalition" put together by the United States.) Not as well written as another in the same genre, Reading Lolita in Tehran, which I firmly believe every English professor should read every semester. But it tells a really great story. Mortenson was particularly committed to starting schools for girls in towns that had no schools at all. More at eleven.

Same Sex Marriage Ruling in California

The California State Supreme Court released a 4 -3 decision that overturned the state's ban against same-sex marriages. This decision expands the right to marriage for the basis of developing a family. According to The New York Times, the decision states:

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Here is a link to a brief discussion of the reasoning if you desire more information on the case.

There are a few important points to note about this legal challenge in California. First, the state legislature attempted to accomplish same-sex marriages though their authority; however, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed those bills. In this case, "Judicial Activism" did not overturn the will of the people; a governor's veto did.

Second, Governor Arnie stated he would abide by the Court's decision:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

Third, and most important, the success today is by no means guaranteed to stand for very long. Same-sex rights activists will need to be out in full force in California this November since a constitutional initiative will be on the ballot. Voters will support or reject the following ballot: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This is constitutional, not statutory, meaning if this amendment passes, the California Supreme Court cannot render a decision on it. According to Washington Monthly, the statutory ballot initiative in 2000-- the one the California Supreme Court struck down-- passed with 63% of the vote. Have the attitudes in California changed in the past 8 years?

Fourth, will this alter the presidential election by bringing out more conservatives in California? In 2004, the ruling in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage brought out conservative voters in a lot of states to support amendments that redefine marriage as being for one man, one women. Will this decision start the process over even though the facts of the case are much different?

Ethical Dilemma of the Day

From CNN: Teens are using social networking sites, such as You Tube and Facebook, to announce that they have been sexually assaulted. According the CNN report, the teens reach out through online technology because:

the Web offers what traditional counseling does not. It's a chance to communicate without having to face someone or fear their judgment. Some people are seeking legal advice and medical information, and many younger victims believe they can warn others about their accused attacker.There also are people like XXXXXX, whose case was dropped by the Orange County, Florida, state attorney's office, who feel slighted by the justice system.

This seems like a very good way for young teens to speak through a medium they trust on a subject that is very hard to discuss. It certainly provides more coverage and visibility to the topic and specific incidents. After seeing a broadcast others may speak out against what happened to them.

The downside to this, of course, seems to be that some of those involve may provide too much personal information about themselves or they may skirt the legal system and falsely accuse someone. There are repercussions if the were a false accusation though the public damage to the reputation of the person falsely accused may mean that that person may never clear his/her name. Words and images on the internet never seem to disappear.

The Authenticity Debate: NARAL v. Emily's List

Buried underneath the John Edwards' endorsement of Senator Obama, NARAL endorsed Senator Obama as well, mush to the dismay of many of the group's supporters. The commentators on NARAL's blog rejected and denounced the endorsement. A dozen representatives who endorse Clinton protested the endorsement as being "inappriopriate," "unnecessary," and a "betrayal."

Yet, the worst attack on NARAL's choice is from Emily's List, a pro-choice group that only supports women pro-choice candidates. (Please overlook the multiple forms irony in this.) In response to the NARAL endorsement, Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, stated:

I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.

There are a few lessons to take from this. First, the this is another sign that the nomination process is all but a formality.

Second, the complaints against NARAL provide an example of how primaries concern authenticity and not necessarily endgame. Throughout the campaign there has been a repeated attempt to frame Senator as not being pro-choice or not being pro-choice "enough," followed with an argument that only Senator Clinton can speak for women and issues relating to women (read the comment sections from NARAL's blog). Senator Clinton becomes the only "authentic" choice for these issues and anything else will lead to a compromise on the issue as if no other candidate could speak for that audience or protect that interest, breaking the political synecdoche.

Finally, Malcolm's complaint against NARAL is that the timing of the endorsement is disrespectful to choose Senator Obama now and that this choice must be "disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights." This only perpetuates the problem that only Senator Clinton and female representatives can speak for women or that Obama is not pro-choice enough. Malcolm's comments certainly show disrespect for those who support the cause but don't require the authenticity. As for the timing, if Obama cannot speak for this group then does it matter that this choice occurred now rather than three weeks later? It is not is anything magical will happen that will make Senator Obama more appealing to this group other than the elimination of Clinton from the process.

Further, nothing in the comments by Malcolm explains how the support of Clinton or the timing of the announcement will advance the cause of both Emily's List or NARAL. Shouldn't this be the focus, the issue, and not who works for the issue.

Divergent Premises Prevent Us From Agreeing On the Meaning on the Election

On a personal level, it has been very disheartening for Harrogate, this election season. To have diverged so broadly, and at times so angrily, from people one holds dear is not the end of the world, of course, as nobody wants to dwell in a social echo chamber. But when people on all sides share an awareness of high stakes, the divergences can be particularly painful and wearisome.

Harrogate realizes that his posts hitherto have been much less consistent than others on this Board, and to the Innocent Reader, much more difficult to translate into an actual position. After this hopefully once and for all clarifying post, and any discussion that it may yeild in thread, Harrogate will resume his long break from the anger and sadness that comes with contemplating this debacle.

All along it has felt to Harrogate, as it surely must have to numerous others, like it must feel to watch a sequence of seemingly unrelated events that you know are leading to a fatal automobile accident, but are powerless to alter in any way.

The Democrats stood the ruthlessly best chance of winning this time around by running a "mirror campaign." This would have first meant doing the easy work of showing that Bush is nothing unique, but merely reflective of the GOP write large. Again, very easy to do.

The mirror campaign of course needed to be supplemented by speaking the modest truth that the Democratic candidate offered something better on the economic, social, and foreign fronts. Period. There was no need to shoot for the rhetorical stars, as it were, to be a superstar, to stage faintings, to elicit poetry along the order of "rise, Hillary!" Indeed such flair, being the opposite of mirroring, is counterproductive as it draws attention away from what the GOP will continue to do should it retain power.

So with these premises, Harrogate was disgusted by Hillary and Barack's economic cornering of the Primary from its earliest stages. Two highly gravitational personalities. Very polarizing. Each poised to enter the General encumbered with vast unshakable baggage. But what was more frustrating to Harrogate was the extent to which individuals throughout the country bought into it all.

Early on it was not about endgame. It was about Identity politics plain and simple. Inane questions like what is more prevalent, racism or sexism, became foundational to the Primary. The Clintons, if you take the punditocracy at their word, are responsible for the racism and Islamophobia Barack struggles against. And Barack's supporters, by the same token, appear to have invented sexism and single-handedly caused half of the electorate to remember that they hated Hillary Clinton all along.

How sad it has come to pass. Since it is Obama who gets the nod, we replace the focus on endgame with academic and journalistic pontifications about race and Islamophobia.

Let it be received however it is going to be received. Harrogate has been convinced from the beginning, and is still convinced, that if what the Democrats were really interested in was actually winning the election, they would have nominated a candidate high-profile enough that people would take seriously, but low-profile enough that the mirror effect could have established.

For many, to be sure, "endgame" was never the issue. Many who have submerged themselves whole-hog into this primary apparently do not believe that a GOP win would, after all, be so bad. What apparently was wanted, if you combine both sides of this polarized contingent, was an "historic" race with new faces and (SEEMINGLY) new ideas. Yea, as though either Soaring Rhetoric or Efficient Pragmatism were new to the American enterprise.

Well, what was wanted, was gotten. Now, nobody has any right to complain or act surprised at the vitriol that Obama will face at every turn, from now through November.

In the face of this, if McCain loses it will be a testament to the public's surprising awareness of the sheer horribleness of the National Republican Party. Which Harrogate does not discount. But 'tis a sad depository for our hopes.

Fruits from a Brief Tour of NBA Message Boards

God, the NBA Playoffs last a long time.

A couple of days ago Harrogate was watching the opening ceremonies for a game between (he thinks) the Celtics and the Cavaliers. There was much pomp and circumstance, of course, with the Introduction of the Home Team, replete with fireworks and big light shows and splashy music and a Jumbotron festival of highlights.

Walking into the room, noticing all the hoopla, supadiscomama innocently and, when you think about it, quite reasonably, asked if this was the "last game"? As there really wasn't a good response to the question, Harrogate resignedly said something to the effect of "no," and left it at that.

But one thing about these here playoffs, they sure do inspire some vitriol on the ESPN Message Boards. Only a brief visitation of several of the team sites, this time of year, will put in perspective the comparatively tame sniping that has occured across the political blogosphere between Obama and Clinton supporters.

Here, for example is a sampling of some reconfigured team appellatives, as rendered by hostile fans. Some, obviously are more better than others:

Detroit Pistons = Detroit Pissed-Ons

Phoenix Suns = Kleenex Sons (Spurs fans particularly revel in this one, and seem especially happy at being able to use the city as well as the team in their construction)

Boston Celtics = Boston Smelt-Its

Los Angeles Lakers = Los Angeles Fakers (that one's pretty easy, yes?)

Orlando Magic = Orlando Tragic

New Orleans Hornets = [That's Right] New Orleans Whorenets

San Antonio Spurs = San Antonio Sterns (this one's a bit more cerebral, implying NBA Commisioner David Stern's favoritism towards that team)

Utah Jazz = Utah Jizz

But so far, Harrogate has seen no attempt to appropriate Cleveland Cavaliers.

Race and The Campaign

The Washington Post published an article about some of the racial incidents that occurred while supporters campaigned for Senator Obama. Some of the racial incidents against Senator Obama involve regular people; some involve elected officials at the local level. One of the worst is from Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball, who explained his support of Hillary Clinton by stating this in a letter to the editor:

"Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.

"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."

On one hand this is a depressing article as it represents attitudes circa 1968. On the other hand, it is amazing article to see how the country has progressed to the point where Senator Obama will be the nominee for the Democratic Party.

It's Happening!

Sex and the City: The Movie premiered in London today. How fabulous do these ladies look? I love SJP's hat! And Cynthia Nixon looks hotter and hotter with each appearance!

For the Moms

Happy Mother's Day!

A Short HIstory of Mother's Day in the USA

Mother's Day in the US begins after the Civil War as a protest against War in general. The "official" unofficial begins with Julia Ward Howe's "Mother's Day Proclamation" (1870).

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or tears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have taught them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated earth, a voice goes up with our own. It says, "Disarm, Disarm!"

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice. Blood not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail & commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesars but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Like most good social protests, the establishment stole the symbol of Mother's Day. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first official Mother's Day as a day "for American citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war," which seems to counter the original purpose as this legitimizes war.

And now for something completely different:
Yesterday, the House attempted to pass a resolution to celebrate Mothers. This occurs all of the time at the state and federal level. For example, Sue Myrick honored The Nature Boy Rick Flair; Congress honored Islam; Congress honored the Discovery astronauts; Congress honored Mary Eliza Mahoney, America's first African-American Nurse. Usually, this is quick, feel-good legislative work that makes constituents feel better.

Yet, every once in a while, the minority party does something stupid like block one of these ceremonial pieces of legislation to ensure another goal. Since the Republicans delayed the vote on the ceremonial legislation there was not time to debate and discuss the mortgage relief and the war funding bills. This means that Republicans voted against Mothers to delay economic relief for the poor and middle class and to perpetuate the war. Good move!!! And they will be rewarded in the fall.

Republicans Against Mothers

I know what you are thinking Oxymoron but this is not from the Onion. The Washington Post has an article on how republicans are against mothers and, ironically, they voted for it before they voted against it. The title of this article reads, "Republicans Vote Against Moms; No word yet on puppies, kittens."

The story? Read for yourself....

Because I Just Can't Let Eight Belles Go...

and, if you did, here's a reason to think about her again.

Here's a short Time article about almost everything we at the situation have been talking about as of late, with the exception of politics:

But it's only fair to point out that breeders aren't a solitary priesthood. They flip horses the way real estate speculators once flipped condos. With dollar signs in their eyes, they savor 2- and 3-year-old horses, exactly the way the fashion industry looks at long-stemmed 14-year-old girls, exactly the way the celebrity culture gazes on Britney and Lindsay and Miley, exactly the way shoe-company reps scrutinize boys on basketball courts. Horses, fashion models, teen stars--they're all produced for maximum profit.

Every market needs buyers as well as sellers, and that's where the rest of us come in. If horse breeders have stopped raising animals that are sound for the long run, it's because the audience for mature racehorses--like the audience for maturity in general--has vanished. Seabiscuit, over his 89-race career, drew huge crowds season after season. By contrast, this year's Derby winner, Big Brown, will command the public eye for two months at best, retiring after the Belmont Stakes in June. Provided he lives that long.

So it's about our obsession with youth as much as anything else. I think this is spot on. Unfortunately.

Superdelegates

Senator Obama now leads Senator Clinton in pledged delegates, popular vote, and Superdelegates.

A Comment to Harrogate and His Best Buddy

Well, I'm not sure what it means, but at least Best Buddy has taste in music. Here's Sweet Baby J's current favorite. I'm not impressed:



However, she also likes this one, which is some comfort:

Durand's "Progress (The Advance of Civilization)" (1853)

At the learned suggestion of Paperweight Harrogate checked out this painting early in the week. Interesting to compare with the Gast piece that Harrogate posted a while back. Here is a blurb Harrogate found on the piece:

In “Progress” an imaginary topography suggesting the Catskills and the Hudson River is replete with villages, farms, steamboats and a railroad. A dazzling city sits near the horizon, struck by the light from a benignly expansive sky. In the not-so-pretty foreground, a hardscrabble road leads out of the picture, and a clutch of American Indians survey the alarming scene from a rock in a forest area packed into the lower left corner of the canvas.

Dr. P.W., et. al: Thoughts on the blurb? On the painting?

A Brief Word on Harrogate's Best Buddy and the Ubiquitous Garnett/Gatorade Commercial

So, Harrogate admits it, he has once again against his better judgment subjected himself to the NBA playoffs. There are more reasons not to watch NBA Basketball, according to Harrogate's Aesthetic Rubric, than there are reasons to watch it, though good reasons there be.

Perhaps before this whole weird spectacle mercifully ends in June, Harrogate will elaborate on some of those "Pros and Cons."

But that is not really what this current literary outburst is about. What this is about, mostly, is the ritual Harrogate and his Best Buddy have developed each night, "cuddle time" before bed, watching basketball, cheering at every made shot, helpfully chanting "almost" at every miss, until Best Buddy begins to drowse off for real.

But there is one thing Best Buddy will not stand for, no matter what time of day it is. If the television is on, and this commercial right here comes on, there must be no distracting him. Verily, he stops everything and watches, mouth open. Gee, Best Buddy, thinks Harrogate to himself, the commercial is good, but it aint that good. So what we have here is perhaps the first subtle artistic disagreement betwixt Harrogate and his Best Buddy.

And so. Does his mesmeric state before it mean he will be a great athelete? A great musical composer?

Both?

Harrogate reports. Ye decide.

A VP for Barack (An Open Letter to Senator Obama)

Okay, Barack, it looks like you've wrapped up the nomination. Not that you're taking anything for granted--we know, we know--but still, it's looking better than good. And even if you swear up and down that you haven't thought about it, we all know you're seriously considering candidates for the Vice Presidency.

I've got to tell you, Barack, it took a lot for me not to support the first viable woman for the presidency. It would have felt really great. But I believe in you, Barack, so throw me a bone here. If not Hillary--and I understand that there's some bad blood there, plus the shadow of Bill--then give me a female VP I can get behind.

Here's a suggestion: Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. A two-time Democratic winner in her state,

At the heart of Governor Sebelius’ administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state’s renewable energy assets.

Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association’s Executive Committee and is co-chair of the National Governors Association’s initiative, Securing a Clean Energy Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.

She's already on your side, having endorsed you several months ago. Kansas went for Bush in 2004 and 2000, but Sebelius on the ticket would probably ensure you the state's electorate. (It's only six votes, but you've shown that those smallish Midwestern states really add up.)

So just consider it. And check the comments section for this post. I bet the rest of the Situation bloggers will have other suggestions.

The Michigan Problem....and Electability

First, Michigan Democrats agreed to a plan that would split the Democratic Presidential Delegates 69 - 59 in favor of Senator Clinton, allowing the delegates to be seated at the convention.

The Obama campaign agreed to the terms of the deal. However, the Clinton Campaign rejected this proposal because it would not include the popular vote.

This is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario for her. If she accepted the proposal, then that would guarantee her loss in the primary today no matter what happens between now and the convention. Of course, since she rejected the deal, her argument, and ethos, over seating Michigan and Florida takes a major hit as she rejected a proposal that would seat one of the states. It is hard to argue that you want to make sure the voices have been heard and reject deals that would make that possible. Just ask the Obama campaign.

As long as she argues from a position of weakness, she will most likely not get a better deal on this matter.

Second, the Clinton campaign believes publicly that Senator Obama cannot win in November. Yet, for Clinton to win the nomination, there would need to be intra-party chaos from now until the convention, which conventional wisdom suggest that the Democrats would not be able to win in the General Election. Maybe privately the Clintons believe differently. A Reasonable interpretation of their actions would be that the Clinton campaign believes a Democrat will win no matter who the nominee and no matter when the nomination is secured. If the Clintons are political realists, this would be the only way for them to stay in the race now and jeopardize a possible 2012 run. It appears 2008 may be their best chance for the White House.

The best movie never viewed in the theaters

It is the 15th Anniversary of True Romance. To celebrate the cult flick, Maxim has a interview with the cast. It is a good read.

This has to be one of the best casts to ever appear in a single move. And it has some of the best lines ever for a movie.

Do we really want FL's vote to count after this?

Be careful out there all you educators.

12:11 am: May the General Election Begin

The race is over.

Politico reports that Senator Clinton loaned her campaign more money. On MSNBC, Tim Russert reports that she canceled her TV appearances on the Wednesday morning shows and other public appearances.

At this point, Indiana is too close to call with 8% of the vote left to tally. The problem for Senator Clinton is that Lake County, the northwest corner of the state, has not fully reported its vote tally. With 28% of the vote counted, Obama cut a 40,000+ lead down to 20,000. To say this county will go to Obama is an understatement. Further, there are three more counties out: a sparsely populated county that Clinton will win and two larger counties that Obama will win.

Senator Obama may not win Indiana but Senator Clinton will not continue the race. A few Super Delegates will approach her tomorrow when her campaign meets.

****Update: Senator Clinton still has some public appearances today, with stops in West Virginia and a fundraiser tonight. However, her chances are still grim as not many will be donating to her campaign and her campaign email last night did not ask her supporters for money. The AP, via Politico, reports that Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $6.4 million last month.

In his speech last night, Senator Obama reached out to Senator Clinton to help bridge the divide between the two candidates and their supporters. In her speech, Senator Clinton presented two themes, one on winning and one on unity, though the second theme was not as clear. Look for Senator Obama to continue to ask for reconciliation. As for Senator Clinton, if she desires to continue, she will attack Senator Obama in West Virginia. If she knows that she will not be the nominee, look for her to attack only Senator McCain and graciously walk out of the campaign in case she wants to run at a future time. If she attacks Obama in the next two weeks, knowing that she cannot be the nominee, she will not be able to run again in the future. The negative campaigning is over.

What to expect from here: By May 20th, Senator Obama will win the majority of pledged delegates. To secure the nomination, a candidate needs to win the majority of total delegates 2,025. By the primary in Oregon, look for Senator Obama to clinch the nomination. A deal will be in place for Michigan and Florida by that time.

****Update Two: On a conference call, the Clinton campaign played the racial bloc voting card-- Senator Obama cannot win white voters. This may not be over as the Clinton campaign may try to run up the score in Kentucky and West Virginia.

A Call For Unity

In light of tonights events, I would like to issue a a call for unity between the esteemed Democratic presidential nominees. This would entail that the senators meet upon some symbolically important location where Sen. Clinton will withdraw from the race and give her "full" backing and support to Sen. Obama. To further seal the deal and in order to appease the their backers, the senators should have metaphoric make-up sex (lets face do you really want to see either of them go at it?) in front of the party representatives and the gathered public to show that they have now kissed and made-up.

The Gas Tax Primaries....

The double-header will be a split as Senator Clinton will win Indiana by an estimated of 4 - 5 % and Senator Obama will win North Carolina by 10 - 15%. With the double-digit lead in North Carolina, Senator Obama will erase most if not all Senator Clinton's advantage in Pennsylvania from 4/22 in both delegate count and popular vote. Senator Clinton will most likely not be able to take the lead in pledged delegates or the popular vote.

Of course, what does this mean?
First, tonight is a victory for Senator Obama. Senator Clinton needed both states to make a claim to the nomination. Further, she needed to avoid a blowout. Neither happened. After tonight, the nomination is further from her grasp as her only argument is "electability" and not pledged delegates or popular vote. In a sisyphean sense, this means that the race for the nomination has not changed since the beginning of March. Though the goalposts seem to be changing, the candidates positions have not.

Second, the exit polls suggest that the divisions between the Clinton supporters and the Obama supporters is growing. Time may heal the division but it will take a lot of time. This suggests that there may be some Super Delegate movement this week. If they were to declare for Senator Clinton they would have done so by now and, with a double-digit loss, Senator Clinton may not be able to hold them in place.

Third, the division and the closeness of the race may suggest a Unity ticket. I still think that because of the apathy between the candidates and the specter of Bill hanging over the ticket, this will not happen as prominent Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, object to this. If anything, look for the nominee to seriously consider, if not ask, a prominent surrogate from the other party.

Fourth, with losses tonight, if Senator Clinton believes she can still win the nomination she must invoke some "nuclear option" on Senator Obama by Oregon on May 20th or when the DNC credential committee meets on 5/31 to discuss Michigan and Florida. Clinton will win Kentucky and West Virginia in the next two weeks. However, if she loses Oregon and does not do well with Michigan and Florida, her probability of wining will be close to zero. Of course, if Super Delegates commit publicly, then this option becomes meaningless.

Fifth, a few commentators on MSNBC state that Senator Obama can clinch the nomination by May 20th. This means that the delegate count is 2025 (without Michigan and Florida). If this were the case, then the decision on Michigan and Florida does not matter. Symbolically, this is very important as the the DNC prize has been 2025 though Clinton campaign wants the media to adopt a new standard that includes Michigan and Florida. If Obama reaches 2025 before the media and the people acknowledge another threshold, it would be impossible to take the nomination away. Consequently, Senator Clinton must push for Michigan and Florida before Senator Obama announces 25 - 50 Super Delegates. This is the only race that matters.

Sixth, the speaking situations tonight will be interesting as Senator Obama must begin calls for unity. On the other hand, Senator Clinton may continue to attack or she may begin to pull back the reins, though even if she attacks her campaign may reassess in the morning.

McCain's Judicial Philosophy

While most people in the free world anxiously await the results of the Gas Tax Primaries, John McCain delivered a speech at Wake Forest on his Judicial Philosophy. The speech follows the traditional conservative "god-terms" of judicial restraint, activist judges, democratic decisions, and "devil terms" of international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, evolving standards of decency, penumbras, and emanations.

If this speech represents his views, McCain does not possess a deep philosophy. For example, though McCain praises the god-terms of judicial restraint and democratic decisions, he derides the Supreme Court for its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the eminent domain case from Connecticut. While this case certainly seems like an abuse of power by the New London, the city officials proceeded through democratic means and reforms in response to the decision have developed through democratic means. This is how democracy works. Instead of attacking this decision, McCain ought to praise this decision because the Supreme Court followed his god-terms. But that would take intellectual honesty and require him to cross his political backers.

So what does this mean? First, this speech certainly reflects McCain's need and desire to appeal to the Religious Right. To do this means he may lose some Republicans and Independents by creating rhetorical demons over the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on the currency.

Second, there is no discussion of how to interpret the Constitution. Instead, McCain provides examples of what is right politically and, hence, legally (the Religious cases, Kelo, etc). McCain offers the standard line of Alito and Roberts as a model but does not note how they read the Constitution in any principled method.

Third, if Democrats need a way to create unity, this speech ought to work for the fall.

The Profession of Women

The following is an excerpt from Catharine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe's The American Woman's Home: or Principle's of Domestic Science; Being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful, and Christian Homes, which was originally published in 1869.

It is the aim of this volume to elevate both the honor and the renumeration of all employments that sustain the many and varied duties of the family state, and thus to render each department of woman's profession as much desired and respected as are the most honored professions of men.

I read this a little while ago, and it struck me for some reason. Most of Beecher's writings (and Stowe's to a lesser extent) argue that motherhood is as valuable as any male dominated profession (keep in mind she wrote throughout the 19th century). In her time, she was revolutionary for advocating that women needed to be properly educated to complete domestic labor; for her such an education included mathematics, economics, science, and physical education. The rhetoric of it is interesting to me, as Beecher and Stowe focus on equality but maintain that women and men should focus on very different professions.

Pro-Choice Politics

MSNBC reports that the National Right to Life group is Robocalling Indiana voters on behalf of Senator Clinton and against Senator Obama. You can read the transcript of the call at The Huffington Post or listen to the call on You Tube.

The evidence that the Clinton campaign teamed up with NRL is not "official" though pointing out that Senator Obama is pro-choice while not mentioning Senator Clinton and telling voters to vote against Senator Obama and not Senator Clinton seems to help the junior Senator from New York. Since Indiana has strict Robocalling laws this ad may be illegal.

In the beginning of the campaign, the perception was that Senator Obama was not pro-choice enough. Now, the reverse is true.

In "Lizzie" Melville's Words: A Day in the Life

Okay, so this excerpt is really long, so long that Harrogate almost didn't post it. But Harrogate thought it might interest several of the Board Members in terms of the letter's Rhetoric, its provision of an intimate glimpse-at-a-now-famous-couple, &c. Perhaps, too, the letter tangentially intersects with M's research interests in the configurations of domestic space.

Anyway. Harrogate is currently reading Andrew Delbanco's amazing Melville biography, which contains this fully excerpted letter written from Elizabeth Shaw Melville to her stepmother Hope Savage Shaw. Delbanco qualifies this letter with a passage that itself merits a block quote. The letter, dated December 1847, conveys:

the heady mood in those New York days, making as clear as decency would permit that she and her "industrious boy" took domestic but still flirtatious pleasure in each other as she managed the household while he threw himself into his writing

And here is the letter:

We breakfast at 8 o'clock, then Herman goes to walk, and I fly up to put his room to rights, so that he can sit down to his desk immediately on his return. The I bid him good bye, with many charges to be an industrious boy and not upset the inkstand, and then flourish the duster, make the bed, etc., in my own room. Then I go downstairs and read the papers a little while, and after that I am ready to sit down to my work--whatever it may be--darning stockings--making or mending for myself or Herman--at all events I haven't seen a day yet, without some sewing or other to do. If I have letters to write, as is the case to-day, I usually do them first--but whatever I am about, I do not much more than get thoroughly engaged in it, than ding-dong goes the bell for luncheon. This is half past 12 o'clock--by this time we must expect callers, and so must be dressed immediately after lunch. Then Herman insists upon my taking a walk of an hour's length at least. So unless I can have rain or snow for an excuse, I usually sally out and make a pedestrian tour a mile or two down Broadway. By the time I come home it is two o'clock and after, and then I must make myself look as bewitchingly as possible to meet Herman at dinner. This being accomplished, I have only about an hour of available time left. At four we dine, and after dinner is over, Herman and I come up to our room and enjoy a cosy chat for an hour or so--or he reads me some of the chapters he has been writing in the day. Then he goes down town for a walk, looks at the papers in the reading room, etc., and returns about half-past seven or eight. Then my work or my book is laid aside, and as he does not use his eyes by very little by candle light, I either read to him, or take a hand at whist for his amusement, or he listens to our reading or conversation, as best pleases him. For we all collect in the parlor in the evening, and generally one of us reads aloud for the benefit of the whole. Then we retire very early--at 10 o'clock we all disperse.

Eight Belles' Genetic Make-up

According to Washington Post reporter Andrew Breyer, Eight Belles' life-ending accident after Saturday's Kentucky Derby can be blamed on problems associated with breeding. It seems that horse breeders are less likely to breed horses to race them themselves; they now breed horses to sell them, which means they are more interested in a "perfect" horse and less interested in one that can weather the physical demands of horse racing.

And the campaign goes on

In case anyone was wondering, Senator Clinton wasted her momentum from her 9.4% win in Pennsylvania by losing the Guam caucus by seven, yes 7, delegates.

Senator Obama had a 204 vote lead before Guam counted votes in its most populous village. The final count:
Senator Obama: 50.1%
Senator Clinton: 49.9%

Caucus Delegates:
Senator Obama: 2,264
Senator Clinton: 2,257

DNC Pledged Delegates:
Senator Obama: 2
Senator Clinton: 2

I believe that Obama will win the Super Delegate count in Guam by either 3 - 2 or 4 - 1. But with elections like these we will reach the total of 2,025 in February, right after the inauguration.

Eight Belles

Exciting, wasn't it? Eight Belles, a rare philly in the Kentucky Derby this afternoon. But then--after coming in second--she fell, broke both of her ankles, and had to be euthanized right on the track. Two years ago, Barbaro had a similar fate, after falling and suffering medical treatment for months.

I love the excitement of the Derby as much as the next girl, but one has to wonder about the ethics of a race in which two front-runners have died in three years. So I did a little research. PETA, expectedly, is opposed to horse racing in general. While PETA can sometimes be over the top, its argument on this one is solid:

Thoroughbreds are bred to have unnaturally delicate legs, are forced to run at ever-younger ages, and are drugged to mask injuries, which leads to horrifying and life-threatening injuries like Barbaro's. As a New York Daily News reporter remarked, “The thoroughbred race horse is a genetic mistake. It runs too fast, its frame is too large, and its legs are far too small. As long as mankind demands that it run at high speeds under stressful conditions, horses will die at racetracks.”

If you're interested, here's what PETA recommends, in terms of social action:

PETA is campaigning to get the Breeders' Cup's 2-year-old juvenile race, which is particularly harmful to young horses, canceled; many horses who have won that race have been forced to run injured or became “broken down” within the following year. Please call 1-800-RACE-CUP to voice your objections to this cruel event.

Obscure notes from the edge of the Universe...

If anyone was wondering what was the most useless human gadget ever invented, you can stop now as the contest is over. It appears that a few inventors, and marketing geniuses, in Switzerland created it: a $300,000 watch that does not tell time. From the WSJ:

Swiss watchmaker Romain Jerome just launched the "Day and Night" watch. The watch won’t tell you what time it is. That’s so yesterday. But it does tell you whether it’s day or night — helpful, I guess, for billionaire types who can’t afford windows.

As the company’s Web site boasts: “With no display for the hours, minutes or seconds, the Day&Night offers a new way of measuring time, splitting the universe of time into two fundamentally opposing sections: day versus night.”
What’s most impressive about the Day&Night is its complexity, given its absolute uselessness. The watch features two tourbillons — devices that overcome the ill effects of earth’s gravity on a watch’s accuracy — connected by a differential mechanism. Instead of hands, the watch has a “contemplative tourbillon operation whereby the ‘Day’ tourbillon operates for 12 hours to symbolize working life, while the ‘Night’ tourbillon takes over afterward to represent an individual’s private time.”

Like other Romain Jerome watches, the watch is made in part with steel salvaged from the sunken Titanic, along with material from the shipyard where it was built. That sounds creepy to me, but maybe today’s buyers prefer morbid metals.

And, if you are wondering, the watch sold out in 48 hours.

Oprah says. . .

According to Oprah the upcoming SATC: The Movie does not disappoint. This is one time that I really hope I agree with Oprah.

Appeal to Not Destroying It All

"The Gunner's Dream." Applied to our current moment, is this song a cogent refutation of John McCain and the many others who subscribe to the school of "thought" holding no world at all preferable to a world not thoroughly dominated by American market economy?

Or, just a naive little song?

Harrogate reports, you decide.

Visual Rhetoric and the American West

Yesterday in conversation with his Dissertation Chair, Harrogate said something which reminded his Chair of this lovingly murderous painting by John Gast, rendered in 1872. The Title is American Progress.

Later Harrogate found the following anonymous precis online:

"A DIAPHANOUSLY AND PRECARIOUS CLAD AMERICA FLOATS WESTWARD THRU THE AIR WITH THE "STAR OF EMPIRE" ON HER FOREHEAD. SHE HAS LEFT THE CITIES OF THE EAST BEHIND, AND THE WIDE MISSISSIPPI, AND STILL HER COURSE IS WESTWARD. IN HER RIGHT HAND SHE CARRIES A SCHOOL BOOK--TESTIMONIAL OF THE NATIONAL ENLIGHTENMENT, WHILE WITH HER LEFT SHE TRAILS THE SLENDER WIRES OF THE TELEGRAPH THAT WILL BIND THE NATION. FLEEING HER APPROACH ARE INDIANS, BUFFALO, WILD HORSES, BEARS, AND OTHER GAME, DISAPPEARING INTO THE STORM AND WAVES OF THE PACIFIC COAST. THEY FLEE THE WONDEROUS VISION--THE STAR "IS TOO MUCH FOR THEM."

File Under Not Bloody Likely

In Campaigns and Elections, Joe Trippi, the former campaign manager for John Edwards, argues, rather unpersuasively, that if Edwards remained in the race he could have amassed enough power to broker the convention and a nomination for himself.

I didn't tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

Yep, anything could happen. The Democrats could nominate Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or AL Franken. However, since Edwards didn't win a state and your polling, self admittedly, looked worse and worse, maybe it was a good idea he dropped out. In 04 he could not win against a weak set of candidates; in 08, he could not win though he polled well against McCain, heh. And I liked Edwards and wanted him to do much better in 04 and 08 than he did. But there is a point...

But my favorite line has to be this, which symbolizes the problem with Edward's campaign:

It's not only painful for those still on staff to part with friends and colleagues, but it's very tough to take the level of your campaign down in order to survive. A campaign gets used to flying around in a chartered jet and using an air-conditioned bus. Now you're looking at staying at a Motel 6.

A Motel 6? No, you couldn't stay there could you because you would have actually have to had been like the average middle class voters you were trying to reach. Nope, it is easier to say there are "Two Americas."

But why this piece, now? Well, it is in the hypothetical:

That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face.? You'd have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards' advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.

If the Supers will be the ones who choose, meaning democracy through elections does not matter, then why not choose the fresh face who polled better than McCain in January. Now that would be democracy...

The HIstory of the Democratic Race

In Seven Minutes. Relive the glory, the agony, the defeat.

Well, Cross off Kentucky,,,

It appears that Senator Obama will not win the Kentucky primary or win Kentucky in the General Election. Any guesses why?

What Obama Wishes He Could say About Clinton

While Senator Obama is "weathering" William Ayers and Rev. Wright, Politico posted an article, "What Obama Wishes He Could Say" but somehow never does.

Back in April, Politico published "What Clinton Wishes She Could Say," which discussed why, according to the Clinton perspective, Obama could not win the general and should not win the primary. The beginning of the new article rehashes some of it.

Now, in the guise of fairness, Politico returned the favor and published an article damning Senator Clinton from the Obama perspective. This articles makes Wright and Ayers seem relatively minor.

I am still waiting for what Obama and Clinton would say against McCain but I do not think that is going to happen any time soon. Cynics may say that Politico may want to damage both Dems and leave McCain out of this struggle.

I still maintain that no matter who wins the Democratic primary, most signs point to a Democratic President. (See here, here, and here). But the games must continue.

May Day- Labour Holiday

Today is an international holiday, though you will probably not read or see too much about it today.

May Day,or International Workers Day, celebrates the social and economic achievements of the labor movement, such as the 8 hour work day.

For some reason, I just can't explain why, it is not a major holiday in the US and it gets more respect in Europe. Usually, there are marches in major cities, such as NYC, New Haven, and Portland.

Some Reflections

I know I have been talking with a few you folks about my experiences with the job search. For those of you who don't know I had ridiculous amount of interviews during this years job search--I should preface this by saying I was not picky about where I applied so there was tremendous variety. Part of the reason I did this, was the fact that I had been through this before last year, while I was ABD at which time I had some interest in my work but nothing came of it--so to my ABD friends on here don't fret it if it does not pan out on the first go around, you all will get the props you deserve when degree is in hand--but I had the bulk of the materials together (again thanks Solon and Southpaw for a bit of help on the job letter) so I just shoveled the information out; I also sent things out very, very early to avoid excessive mailing costs and I sent everything electronically when I could. In hindsight I think my eagerness to apply to any and every job was an utterly stupid idea. For one I never realized how damn difficult it actually would be to have 13 conference interviews followed by 8 campus invites (I did not go to 3, 1 of those if you recall was the CA trip that was terminated that left me a free ticket, 2 I turned down once I received my 2 job offers). I basically spent all my time prepping and traveling (the joke that is). I did not realize how much actual research/work I would not be able to do, nor did I realize how far behind and horrible my classes would turnout to be (a couple of my courses I did not see my students for 3 1/2 weeks). But I guess, as I have been repeatedly told by my colleagues) the job stuff is ok considering that things were on the out at my current institution, despite what guilt I feel for not being an effective teacher.

Despite their reassurances this is still a tough pill to swallow because I do not feel that I have done my job as I should, and likewise, how can I fairly grade my student's when I have not been around to effectively evaluate their performances and give them proper feedback (I still have exams and papers that I'm grading that I received at the beginning of April and finals are in 2 weeks). How do I compensate for this in my grading; do I bump all my class grades up? How can I scold them and stick to the attendance policies (3 days missed letter grade deduction, 6 fail the course) concerning their excessive absences when I have probably missed 6 or 7 days of class if not more? How can it be ok that I missed this much as a result of my job search (which turned out be very successful) when I have not necessarily delivered on the product that my students (ok, their parents) paid for?

There is much more I could say about the whole interview process and the unethical questions that are asked that should not be like: are you married (maybe I'm a homosexual is that ok?); oh what does mrs. weight do (like I can tell you she is an academic too and expect to get a call back); oh you have a lite-weight as well (oh no one has kids here, guess I'm not getting that job either); oh who are you voting for (never mind I just told you that I'm a card carrying member of the NRA)? I know the flip side to this is that they are looking for people that will fit but these questions are not appropriate. But I'm still having issues about what I have put my 200 students through this semester and how it makes me feel as an educator.

Corn Politics

So as we all know our government has made GREAT policies in our increasing efforts to save our planet. Of the bone-headed ideas has been the increased production of bio-fuels--particularly corn-based ethanol--to reduce our dependency on that "evil foreign oil." Curiously these efforts have an unusual effect on the economy: the price of products connected to the corn industry have sky rocketed because corn farmers are now selling their corn bushels to ethanol planets for $5.50 or more --this includes eggs, beef, pork, poultry, salad dressings, pet food, you name it. Moreover, the production of corn ethanol and other forms of agriculturally produced bio-fuels actually causes more damage to the environment due to the increased carbon emissions that are the result of production and manufacturing processes . Although it is nice to see farmers finally make a buck for their hard work, the catch is that commodities increase, famine begins (not in our country but in others throughout the world dependent on our corn exports), and the pressures on the environment increase. Thus, nothing good comes of this: so why the hell are both parties' presidential candidates (I cannot speak for Obama) continuing to fund such ridiculous fuel efforts? I guess we can just take Bush's lead and start drilling oil in Alaska instead of making the automakers and oil companies finally realize that they need to make changes: GM has recorded another quarterly lose with its love for the Suburban and Exxon-Mobil is in the middle of a governing shakeup--the Exxon issue was brought about by the Rockefellers, who founded the company because the company has been paying scientist to create false counter arguments that there is not such thing as environmental damage nor have they explored other fuel alternative energy sources, which will eventually kill the company.

Well must go educate the masses but just had to stand on my soapbox a second and vent!

By Request

Solon asked that I post this blurb from a piece I stumbled across at Wondertime (where I faithfully read the Dalai Mama every week). Apparently, it can be found in an anthology, Blindsided by a Diaper. The excerpted essay, "Harried with Children: Communication Breakdown," was written by Kermit Pattison:

I liken my marriage to a once-great civilization that was sacked when a horde of Viking dwarves came ashore and had their way with us. Since then, it's been a saga of trying to communicate while the barbarians are at the baby gate.

Yup. I totally get it! (And the teething-but-still-charming Viking dwarf, by the way, is in large part the reason behind my recent disappearance from the Situation. That, and the necessity of finishing another dissertation chapter--not yet begun--by the end of July.)

It's Called Being Pregnant; or, Celebs are Human Too

Warning: Bitchiness ahead.

MSNBC.com is reporting that Angelina Jolie is having a very difficult pregnancy: “The babies are heavy, and she’s exhausted from the weight. The pressure can make it hard for her to breathe at times, and she tires out very easily.” Really? That's so unusual! I've never heard of a pregnant woman having such experiences. How did things go with Shiloh? Did a stork deliver her?

Newsflash: Pregnancy is physically demanding--for some more than others.

End bitchiness (for now).

Save Knut and the Polar Bears (who lived where it was cold)

According to The New Republic, a California judge ordered President Bush to declare, in the next sixteen days, whether or not polar bears are endangered animals due to global warming.

I do not know what to say.

Debate over the Debate

Here is an interesting take on another Democratic Debate from Mr. Tuesday Morning Questerback (TMQB), Greg Easterbrook.

Record ratings for series finale of "Debate Friends": Jon Stewart says Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debated so many times, their smackdown was a reality series. Now the 21-epsiode series has ended -- but without a series finale. Here is the tear-jerking series finale episode:

Shown: A familiar apartment. Scattered around are various sentimental objects: a foosball table, coffee cups from Central Perk, a deck of pinochle cards, bowling balls, travel brochures to Hawaii, Bibles, camouflage hunting suits and lots of shotguns. Hillary Clinton is seen dabbing back tears.

NBC

In the final reel, they made up and made out. The Barack-Hillary series finale may be somewhat different.

HILLARY: I can't believe I went to the wrong airport! I thought he was arriving at Dulles, but it was Andrews Air Force Base. I went to the wrong airport and missed him! I was going to beg him not to take his new job as president, and just go on debating me forever. (Throws back a shot of Crown Royal.) Maybe I should shoot some ducks to take my mind off this. (Picks up a shotgun.) I wonder which end the bullets go in? (Pours another shot of whiskey and throws her head back.)

(Unseen by Hillary, Barack Obama has stepped into the doorway and has been standing behind her the entire time.)

BARACK: I can't leave you. I just gave my ticket on Air Force One to John McCain. He can be president -- that seems to be what the Democratic National Committee wants, anyway. We'll go on running against each other forever.

HILLARY: Are you bitter?

BARACK: There's a campaign bus outside waiting for us. I heard there's a primary in Manitoba. It's nonbinding -- but let's go!

HILLARY: Oh Barack, promise me there will be sniper fire!

(They leave hand in hand. Schmaltzy music plays, and we see the apartment door close.)

Update on Michigan Vote in Democratic Primary

Democrats in Michigan proposed a 69 - 59 split in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Michigan Delegates. This proposal finds some balance between the original elections in January, the desire of Senator Clinton to seat the elections as is, and the suggestion of a 50-50 split by Senator Barack Obama.

This proposal is an attempt to provided representation for the citizens of the state but there are a few unanswered questions. First, What happens with the popular vote? I am not what happens with the popular vote or the Super Delegates. Since the elections were illegitimate, the popular vote in Michigan cannot contribute to the popular vote total.

Second, will the Super Ds still possess a voice in the process? Since the political officials in Michigan caused the problems to being with, then it may not be a problem if they lose their vote.

Finally, if both the pledged and super delegates are seated, what is the punishment? If the Super Delegates were to be seated, then there will be no punishment for Michigan, making 2012 ripe for problems. This exercise would represent bad parenting on the part of the DNC, which may be just another knock on the Democrats (bad) desire for eternal parentalism.

Neither candidate may desire this though they may need to accept it. If there is no resolution, the DNC credentials committee will decide the fate of Michigan and Florida on May 31st.

The Rhetoric of Miley Cyrus

Because we here at the Situation read all things rhetorical I wonder what my fellow bloggers make of the "controversy" surrounding Annie Liebovitz's recent portrait of Miley Cyrus. It seems that the photos are being read as too sexual for a 15-year-old girl, and Cyrus has publicly stated that she is "embarrassed" by the photos and she has also admitted to being excited to work with Leibovitz. I want to present these photos in the context of the celebrity gossip cites and in the context of the Vanity Fair article.

First, MSNBC is running a headline on its homepage that reads "Miley Cyrus embarrassed by photos." (For the record I clicked on the link because I had read on Vanity Fair's website last week that Liebovitz was photographing Cyrus for May's cover story and wondered if these were the same photos.) When you click on the link you're directed to one of MSNBC's gossip columns which displays this picture. The picture displayed is grainy and oddly cropped. I have to admit that I didn't click on the video link because I assumed it was a clip of one of the entertainment shows and didn't want to see it.

Second, Vanity Fair's website has all the photos from the shoot online. First, in the context of the shoot, it becomes immediately clear that Cyrus was not nude for the photo in question; she was simply made to look as though she was nude. Second, according to Vanity Fair and Leibovitz, Cyrus and both of her parents discussed the concept of the shoot with Leibovitz fairly extensively and agreed to the tone of the shoot. Her parents had been on set most of the day, and although they were not present when the photo in question was taken, her teacher and her grandmother were. From the slide show on Vanity Fair, it seems clear that Cyrus agreed to the shoot, was not pressured in any way, and had fun while taking the shot that has caused all sorts of controversy.

I understand that part of the issue with the portrait is that Cyrus is famous for being a Disney star. She has made her career out of being as wholesome and likable as her television persona. That said, I feel like this story and photo shoot were probably intended to portray Cyrus as capable of taking on more diverse, more difficult, and, possibly, more sexual roles. After all if this young woman intends to make it as an actress, she will have to prove she can do more than star on a Disney show. From that perspective, this seems like a fairly smart move to me. Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine, and Leibovitz is a well known and well respected photographer. What doesn't seem so smart and what confuses the rhetoric of the photograph is Cyrus's decision to say she's embarrassed by the photo and to apologize to her fans. Why the confusing message? Why take the photograph, one that she clearly agreed to, if she is only going to apologize for it as soon as it hits the press? This is one rhetorical move I don't understand.

Mixing News and Fashion

Can any explain the rationality behind CNN Shirts?

According to CNN, you can order T-Shirts with CNN headlines.

My favorite so far is: "Smuggled Workers Turned into Slaves." A close second: "Barracks aswim in feces, ickiness."

Now that is fashion...

Question of the Day....

Would anyone like to guess the meaning of the phrase, "Vatican Roulette?"