Question of the Day: Jon Stewart's America

Did Jon Stewart hurt America?

Five years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on the now defunct show Crossfire, with the rather zero integrity journalists of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. Well, I should say, Carlson defined himself as a journalist even if his normative beliefs about libertarianism got in the way of his reporting, and Begala, a former Clinton White House Aide, is a political commentator, which frees him from any ethical use of facts. But I digress...

Daniel W. Drener argues that Stewart's questions on Crossfire, which led to the demise of Crossfire. Of course, he continues the argument and states that the demise of Crossfire also led to the demise of The Capital Gang and Hannity and Colmes years after the fact. How Stewart;s appearance led to the retirement of Colmes from Hannity and Colmes is not clear but....

In place of the crude ideological debate, Drener states we just have the ideology manifested in Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman, and Hannity. Of course, shows like these existed before Crossfire's demise. And other shows, such as the Sunday morning shows, and Hardball, O'Reilly, Hannity, have opposing positions even if, first, the framing of the opposing is crass and not likely to persuade the audience, who is ideologically committed prior to watching and, second, these shows fail to act like news organizations and discover "truth" such as whether or not Iraq possessed WMDS.

It seems that the pure ideology shows always existed and will exist so long as there is a market for them regardless of whether or not Jon Stewart criticized the format of these shows. But who knows. I have not watched Stewart or Colbert since moving to the East Coast.


Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

The Complications of Parenting

I came across this story today while I was eating my lunch: "She adopted a child--and then gave him up." I really want to write something thoughtful and considered about this story, but as usual of late, I'm too tired to think. I'm posting this though, in the hopes that I will be able to write something tomorrow.

The Left Better Learn to Love the Second Amendment

In a class on rights today, we discussed the notion that only a third of the people in the American Colonies wanted revolution while a majority preferred revolution. Luckily, the third of the country who wanted revolution also owned land, controlled the press, and possessed the artillery.

Over at Newsmax, a site that praises Glen Beck, John L. Perry wrote a column titled, "Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention." Here is the beginning of the column:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

While Newsmax pulled the article, you can read the entire column here.

Seriously?

Check out this story at MSNBC on a mother ordered to stop watching her friend's children for less than an hour every morning. I'm all about protecting children, but this seems to be a bit much. Most of us at TRS have watched one another's kids at some point in time--always without pay. What do we, as parents, think of this? Is this a case of too much government involvement? Yes, I did just write that.

Tired

I wanted to check in with my fellow Rhetoricians. Given our continued absence on TRS, I'm assuming everyone is as tired as I am. That is all. I will now go back to preparing job materials.

In honor of Facebook; in memory of TRS

Kanye's at it again...

First he interrupts Taylor Swift the VMAs, and now he interrupts President Obama at a joint session of congress. What an ass!

Revolution #9

9/9/09 is here. That means the newly remastered Beatles CDs hits the shelves today. I won't spend $200 for the complete catalog, but I can swing a few titles. I think I'll pick up another Abbey Road, the White Album, and Let It Be. High expectations!!!

Five for Smoking but not for Breastfeeding, Continued

A few months ago, Solon wrote a post on a case before the Ohio Supreme Court. A woman employed at the Totes/Isotoner Factory was fired for taking unauthorized breaks to pump breast milk for her baby. About two weeks ago, the Ohio Supreme Court reached a verdict. They upheld a ruling that said the woman had been legally fired. As Motherhood Uncensored explains, the court had little choice given how the law is written. Technically the mother was in the wrong. I could say a lot about this particular issue (and I do me A LOT), but for now I just want to draw everyone's attention to Motherhood Uncensored's post on this. As we've discussed some at TRS, breastfeeding is a contentious issue. Women are told unequivocally that "Breast is best!," yet, as Motherhood points out, many, many women aren't given the support they need to breastfeed. A lot of women who want to breastfeed stop because breastfeeding takes time and effort--and quite a lot of both. Yes, breastfeeding is free in so far as moms don't have to pay for breast milk, but in terms of the amount of time required to nurse a baby and/or pump when putting baby to breast isn't an option, breast feeding costs is damn expensive (I know; I'm breastfeeding as I write this). I like this post by Motherhood because it points out the breakdown between the incessant demand that mothers breastfeed and the reality that many don't have the time to do so.

State Legislators Hard at Work...

Intellectual Honesty Watch: Katie Roiphe Edition

Last week we discussed anxiety and motherhood, which was based on Katie Roiphe's experiences as a new mother headed back to work. In some parts of the Internets, Roiphe's article was attacked. We only attacked it for a very stupid paragraph.

Well, Roiphe has a new article up on Slate in which she states:

No, I am not responsible for the subtitle, nor did I see it until the piece was on the site, which is in no way unusual.)... To answer some of the other comments: Nowhere in the piece did I tell anyone else how to live. Nowhere did I suggest that my experience of the first days of motherhood was any better, richer, or more interesting than anyone else's. (To me, the addiction metaphor implies a derangement and desperation not entirely to be recommended.) Nowhere in the piece did I attack anyone for having a different viewpoint or experience. (Though frankly one does worry about the fragile commenter: If someone chooses to wear an orange dress are you hurt because of the implied critique of your yellow one?) Nowhere did I say that feminists hate babies. In fact, my own mother was a feminist, and I like to think she liked me.

While the first two sentences maybe fine, though they are quite debatable, the third sentence reveals a lack of memory. Last week, Roiphe wrote:

One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment.

It seems to be quite the trick to blast a group of individuals, all of whom have, according to the author, the same dishonest viewpoint, but not "attack anyone for having a different viewpoint."

Quoteof the Day

In light on Jenna Bush Hager, Glenn Greenwald at Salon discusses the perils with meritocracy:

They should convene a panel for the next “Meet the Press” with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it’s really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There’s a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters. . . .

All of the above-listed people are examples of America’s Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work — The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor — who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice — is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.

Question of the Day, or Decade, whichever you prefer?

In light of a discussion with P-Duck over torture, otherwise known to some as enhanced interrogation techniques, when did the virtue of manliness become expressed through the notion of raw power or strength rather than manliness as an intellectual endeavor?

And a second, but related question: if the virtue of manliness means raw power and strength, why do those who advocate for torture call it "enhanced interrogation technique?" Why not take the virtue to its logical extension and call it what it is rather than diminish or mask the concept of torture behind the Orwellian "enhance interrogation technique."

Bonus: Song of the Day. "I Am a Man" by Bo Didley. Where are the Tony Sopranos of yesteryear?

Something you might not expect from me

Following up on Solon's post on "Anxiety and Motherhood," here is the comment that bothers me: "Since, as Katie points out, so few of history's famous thinkers and poets have been mothers, the intense ordinary swoon we feel about our babies has been neglected. But I think that we sing Auden’s lullaby quite as much to our children as to our lovers." I think this is a vast overstatement, and rather than suggest that mothers are just as capable of being thinkers, scientists, and writers but that their responsibilities as mothers often makes it more difficult for them to be both, as I think is the author's intent, it seems to suggest that mothers can't combine their love for mothering with their love for other types of work (and yes, I will continue to define mothering as work, no matter how much I love it or how sentimental I feel about my children).

I believe we Situationers did this once before, but how many famous thinkers and poets can name who were/are also mothers? Here are a few.

Marie Curie
Toni Morrison
Margaret Thatcher
Isabella of Spain (yes, I'm going that far back!)
Sara Willis Parton (aka Fanny Fern)
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Betty Friedan
Adrienne Rich
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Madeleine Albright
Sandra Day O'Connor
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anne Bradstreet
Abigail Addams
Harriet Jacobs

Can you think of any others?

An interesting take on visual rhetoric

I find this to be a valid form of "punishment."

Anxiety and Motherhood....

From Slate's Double X: a piece by Katie Roiphe that praises the joys of being a mother of a newborn and, along the way, attacking feminists' hostility to the pleasure of infants.

It is an interesting piece as our household transitions from one parent working to both parents working. While we both share childcare duties, Megs has been the one to stay home full-time even while writing a dissertation. Next week, she will step in the classroom for the first time and feels similarly to Roiphe about separation.

Roiphe's piece has been criticized for the following paragraph:

One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.

First, though I am not to knowledgeable on the literature of which she speaks, I find it a bit dubious when writing about a group of individuals and stating that all individuals have one view. It is especially dubious when failing to cite one of those writers and perpetuating the fiction that one writer stands for all of the writers. Maybe those that criticized Roiphe (follow the link), feel guilt for going back to work and valuing work over family. I don't know. But I do know that the controversial paragraph is not very controversial.

In defense of the post, Hanna Rosen writes that this is a "very neglected subject in both literature and philosophy and yes, also feminist writing," especially compared to erotic love. But does this establish a prima facie case that feminists are dishonest about the connection between a mother and her infant? If anything, it is a call that research needs to be done (ahem, Megs....) but this claim establishes nothing else.

But this leads to another problem: if you are not speaking out against something than you are complicit in your silence. This means that Roiphe and Rosen may speak out on this issue but are complicit on all of the issues on which they do not speak. I am sure the list is endless.

Then there is the notion of choice: Roiphe criticizes feminists for not allowing people to choose what they want to do or be, i.e. choosing motherhood over work. But this is an endless game. Roiphe is now condemning people for condemning a choice. This could go on endlessly if we choose.

It seems as if the controversy seems a bit manufactured. If you follow the link on the criticisms of this post you will find that some of the attacks on Roiphe's piece are quite misdirected and unsubstantial. There are better critiques of Roiphe's article. Nonetheless, as we in this household transition, I thought this piece may interest the readers and writers here even if this is a good piece of writing gone wrong.

A Favorite

This came up on my Ipod this morning as I drove Wild Man to school. It's a personal favorite of mine, and apparently Wild Man, who told me "Turn it up, Mommy," agrees.

Tuesday Musical Tribute

Discovered this today. Makes Harrogate happy for a number of reasons. Wanted to share with friends here.

Knock-Knock