Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments New Event: Live Roundtable – “The Weekly Planet” Well, Kalima, there’s always our old favorite: Sarah Palin 2012. Threat or joke? » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 8:43 pm Kalima, I understand where you’re coming from. And needless to say, I wouldn’t consider buying this for a child. I guess what struck me about it was the implied contradiction of presenting possibly the most civilized guy on the planet in such an absurdly aggressive pose, wearing business casual, no less :o)! It’s kind of like an image of Mr. Rogers with a machine gun (to stretch a point). It’s inherent absurdity makes it kinda funny. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:32 am I don’t know exactly why, but I think I need one of these. » Posted By kesmarn On November 17, 2009 @ 5:26 pm LOL. ‘Fess up, Grabamop. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 8:08 am Oh yeah. The Pro-life Party is all about death, no? Meanwhile: on the subject of kitties. I only have one at the moment, but have always had at least one cat in my life. I find lots of Libs are cat owners, don’t you? I think we love their independence and we’re comfortable with letting ’em think for themselves. Kinda like PlanetPOV. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:55 am Grabamop! Holder is using your argument! In effect, he’s saying that they (the Repubs) need to suck it up, put their fears aside and get this thing done. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:48 am A belated good evening, all. Company just left. Re: the HP thing. They do seem to be aware of what goes on here. And, Andrea Castillo is a fan on the PlanetPOV Facebook page. » Posted By kesmarn On November 17, 2009 @ 5:23 pm Political correctness, sexism, and the assault on civility A very interesting article, Pepe. It addresses an issue that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about (Palin’s–to me–inexplicable popularity) because I think we may be dealing with it for some time to come. A couple of thoughts come to mind, along the lines of those that Clift mentions in the article, regarding her base. I’m reminded of a crowd that I saw years ago at–of all things–a professional wrestling match. (Disclaimer: I did not voluntarily attend this event. I was tricked into it :o), and had no means of transportation to get away, once I was there!) It hardly requires a rocket scientist to infer that professional wrestling is fake. And yet, virtually every person at this event (the crowd was very white, very rural) was apparently buying into the ‘story line’ of the various matches (with the exception of me, I guess). The story line never varied. There was a good guy and a bad guy in each match up. The good guy always seemed to be winning right up to the very end of the match, when the bad guy would suddenly engage in a dirty trick, like sucker punching the good guy from behind, or getting a colleague on the sidelines to trip the good guy. Then the good guy would lose. Not because he was in any way inferior as a man or a fighter, but because the deck was stacked against him by “them.” The crowd would roar it’s outrage over and over. It was a very, very weird experience. More and more, of late, I’m beginning to think all those Palin fans have exactly the same outlook. They identify with a person who is, to put it bluntly, a loser. (Beck comes to mind here, too.) But they and the people they worship are not losers because they have refused to get an education, or to apply themselves seriously to any effort. They are losers because “THEY” (the elites) hold all the cards. It’s just damned bad luck. They just grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, or were ‘born to lose,’or people are just jealous of them, or whatever I-don’t-have-to-take-responsibility-for-my-failures excuse they can hang on to. They are victims of life, of circumstances, of a rigged game. Even though they were often the people who partied too hard all the way through high school (or all two years of it before they dropped out), made fun of smart people, sober people, hard-working people, unions, going to college instead of getting a job ‘on the line,’ etc. When it all blows up in their faces, they know only one thing: they’re angry. So they’re instantly attracted to the angriest loser in the public arena. Especially if she’s “reeeel purty,” too. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 6:10 pm Absolutely. The connection to sexism is the main focus and you’re right on the money there. The rest is more or less detail. The real problem with these guys on the right is that false machismo (and ‘their women’ play right into it, too) that says that anything less than bellicose jingoism is ‘femmy.’ That’s the kind of talk that gets people killed. Other people, that is. » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 8:05 am I understand he has been divorced three times, so it may be a toss up as to whether he hates women or vice versa (maybe both?) » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:22 am Hehehe! We could write volumes in condemnation of their usage alone! » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:18 am The caricature of the Ugly American is alive and well on the right! » Posted By kesmarn On November 17, 2009 @ 6:11 pm Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the right appropriated and warped the meaning of a phrase (“politically correct”) that had already been in existence for quite a long time. Not that the origin of the phrase really matters, but I think that it might have once actually had some real meaning attached to it. It wasn’t used primarily as a weapon, the way the right uses it now. But then–what isn’t a weapon in their hands? Our Boy Rush’s current favorite catch-phrase is the “chickification of America.” What he means by this (or anything else he says) is not too clear, but he seems to feel that girls and girly feelings are just ruining (sob) everything :o(! How is this obnoxious? Let me count the ways. To imply that once women have their icky, perfumy hands on something, it’s wrecked, is hardly a compliment to half the population. To identify President Obama with the chickification trend, as Rush does, is meant to be derogatory, obviously. And it’s as much an attack on his manhood as it would be to call him a ‘boy.’ Which leaves us with the right’s role models for ‘real’ masculinity: which apparently would be…. Dubya and Rush? Two people who are belligerent without being strong, and aggressive without courage. Two guys who are good at causing suffering in others, but not so great at sacrifice themselves. And what does the right regard as a ‘real woman’? Certainly not that ball-busting Hillary! Nooooo. It’s moose-shootin’, wolf-slayin’ Sarah. She allegedly can fry up a trout she caught herself while having a guy’s sixth kid and look great in her homemade dress while doin’ it. This parody of some fundie, frontier ideal of femininity never did exist in real life (thank God), but only in the fevered fantasies of guys like Rush. So the ‘acceptable’ image of masculinity/femininity of these deep thinkers on the right would boil down to: GI Joe and Barbie. For them, real people need not apply. » Posted By kesmarn On November 17, 2009 @ 6:07 pm Polling Justice: 6 in 10 Americans Disagree with Adhering to U.S. Rule of Law Hey! Welcome monicaangela! » Posted By kesmarn On November 18, 2009 @ 7:52 pm SHANNYN MOORE: Palin’s Oily Lies Drip from the Pages of Going Rogue… Really the polar opposite of Bush in virtually every way. Which was, as you said, exactly what we needed. I still stand amazed at the amount of damage W did in a relatively short time frame…with virtually no area of the economy, foreign or domestic policy, or the national psyche left totally intact. BHO has possibly a bigger repair job to do than even FDR. God help him! Now the midnight hour approaches, so I’ll have to say good night to all! » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 8:59 pm You could say she’s demonstrated a certain amount of “teflonism” already (as in surviving Tina Fey :0)), but it might be primarily with her base. The hard part is getting a grasp of exactly how big that base is. One thing that has surprised me since President Obama’s election is the amount of racism that’s still out there. Call me naive, but I thought we were a little more enlightened than it seems we are. If there are millions of disgruntled folks lurking in the wings, she could provide some unpleasant surprises. I have to hope that you’re right, cat, when you mention her instability and the fact that she may well self-destruct before she can do much damage. Let it be soon! » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 8:50 pm That was an interview well worth reading. (It was done in 2007.) “A lot of people would disagree with me. I really think that Bush is not competent to be President. He is unconsciously destructive. He is out of touch with his cruelty. He is unable to think clearly when presented with new information. He cannot do it. He cannot read. He cannot pay attention to the Baker-Hamilton Report. He never looked at that report. He looked at the opening title, about a new way forward or something, and that » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 8:37 pm Thanks so much, nellie. I’m going to go read the interview now. This site is the most amazing source of support and info I’ve come across on line! A terrific group of people. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 7:54 pm nellie, if you have a spare moment, could you elaborate on that analysis of Bush by Frank? » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 7:14 pm Bye, Kalima. May you return refreshed and feeling fine. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 7:05 pm Reagan was a piece of work all right. He looked so bloody genial! Rosy cheeks, hearty laugh, who could have believed him capable of all the dastardly havoc he wrought? He was a sort of stealth destroyer of the American Dream, in the guise of the good guy in the white hat. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 7:03 pm You really nailed it when you said Bush was impulsive and rigid at the same time. For a guy who looked and acted like a simpleton, he was incredibly complicated. I think it’ll take many years before historians figure him out–if ever. He certainly mystified me…not in a good way! » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 6:09 pm nicole, I have to say I share your uneasiness with the Palin situation. She reminds me of Ronald Reagan (only even dumber, if that’s possible) in her ability to captivate her base. To me, the worst case scenario would be Palin as a third party candidate who could pull in the racists, the disillusioned, the religious fanatics, and the pro-business cynical types who could have her working for them the way she has worked for Exxon. And I really do believe she’s testing the waters for a third party. It’s clear she’s not afraid to burn bridges with mainstream Republican figures. I don’t think she cares in the least whether they support her as the Repub candidate or not. I have a feeling she thinks she’ll build her own base over the next three years and when she runs, she’ll be running the show completely herself…as a rogue. I sincerely hope the American voting public isn’t dimwitted enough to fall for her, but after two terms of W, nothing would surprise me. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 6:02 pm nicole, I just want to add my compliments,too, on your blog. It’s great looking and very smart. Know that you have our support here as you go through a very tough time in your personal life as well. I know you’ve mentioned your son (19 years old? Do I have that right?). That can be a great motivator for staying strong…having the kiddoes, I mean…which is not always easy. Hang in there. Better days lie ahead. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 5:33 pm Your Satisfaction is our Greatest Annoyance So true, AdLib. My friend who was the dean at the NYC university is now a professor at a different one. She recently had a student drop a class she was teaching because, as he said: “I would take a different approach to teaching this material.” It wasn’t that he couldn’t understand her method; it was just not the way HE would teach the class. Naturally, it never looks good to the administration to have students bailing out on classes. I feel bad for my friend, who is really a brilliant teacher, in that she even has to give a thought to her “approval ratings.” But she does. Meantime, the kid who dropped the class misses out on a chance to get someone ELSE’S take on a subject. (Since he clearly already knows his own take on it!) But he wants to set the agenda for his own undergrad career–for better or worse–and who’s gonna stop him? Ignorance is bliss. » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 11:31 am I know–so very, very well–exactly how you felt/feel! :o) » Posted By kesmarn On November 16, 2009 @ 7:22 am Kalima, hope I’m not interrupting here, but I think you said you had a medical visit tomorrow. I just wanted to extend my good wishes and hope that all goes well for you. » Posted By kesmarn On November 15, 2009 @ 7:16 pm And then there’s the bizarre flip side to this whole scenario: in the very places where you might actually legitimately assume that the customer is NOT always right, THERE is where you see the customer-must-be-satisfied-at-all-costs philosophy implemented! The prime example being universities and hospitals. But the funniest example, for me, of the consumer who knew best was a patient I had at the hospital. She had convinced herself that the pump which was being used to regulate the rate of her IV fluid was somehow sending electricity down the tubing and into her arm. She was pretty sure that she was throwing sparks when her hand touched the (plastic coated) siderail. (Of course, the fact that nobody got a “jolt” when they touched her hadn’t registered.) When I explained as politely as I could, while keeping a straight face, that such a thing was not possible, she snorted and said: “Hmph. Well, that’s just YOUR opinion!” The years of professional training and experience I had had with this equipment meant nothing. Her opinion was absolutely equal to mine. (I’m not saying she hadn’t a right to hold and voice her opinion, of course, but is there anything such as expertise at all?) We have to be very careful about tactfully steering people away from eating bags of fast food when their blood sugars are terribly high, and from pushing their IV poles down the hall and out the door so that they can smoke while we’re treating their pneumonia, or from requesting even larger doses of narcotics when their blood pressures are 82/40. Because, if they feel we lack courtesy and are offended, they will give the institution a bad evaluation and then our managers won’t get their bonuses and the “consumers” will stay away from our doors! :o) If only the banks and insurance companies and utilities would adopt the style of many of the universities and health care institutions! » Posted By kesmarn On November 15, 2009 @ 5:16 pm Where are the Progressive and Liberal Voices on Gitmo? I love James Carville and Michael Moore, myself, but the right gets so much more air time (thanks to FOX) that they really seem like voices in the wilderness. » Posted By kesmarn On November 15, 2009 @ 5:27 pm The MSM thinks it has done it’s duty to get the progressive point of view when it interviews Arianna! Lord help us! » Posted By kesmarn On November 15, 2009 @ 4:33 pmComments Posted By kesmarn
But seriously ;o): I think he merely lumps women in with the “other” inferior creatures on the planet–like minorities, gays, Muslims, liberals, etc. etc–whose primary duty is to know their place and humbly stay in it.
Your article was wonderfully eloquent and thought provoking, as always. Thanks for all that you do here.
Frank doesn’t pull his punches:
I have a good friend who was a dean at a university in New York City. She said the stress level was unbelievable because parents would call and scream if their kids were given anything short of straight A grades. There was pressure to accept transfer grades from other educational institutions with extremely dubious credentials, and pressure to fudge graduation requirements because little Johnny/Janey was getting married soon and would have a hard time taking those last two required classes, etc., etc. Since universities were/are competing for student dollars, the threat of a student’s pulling out and going elsewhere was always a real concern. Kids who had missed over a third of the classroom sessions, failed to turn in assignments and missed midterm exams still expected to get passing grades…and not just C’s either.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats