Irony alert! Has the very idea of Sarah Palin rendered the concept of irony unrecognizable to many Americans, or has she just pointed out its irrelevance to them in ways that even 9/11 could not? Here's Maureen Dowd channeling/quoting "West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin on the subject of irony in America today.
President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) speaking frankly, as politicians say, to Barack Obama:
BARTLET: Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family's less safe than it was eight years ago, we've lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I'm a little angry.
OBAMA: What would you do?
BARTLET: GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that's what they are. Sarah Palin didn't say "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said "Thanks." You were raised by a single mother on food stamps -- where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I'd ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you're at it, I want the word "patriot" back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn't know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can't do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie -- the truth isn't their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they've earned it.
McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It's not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It's not bad enough she's forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It's not enough that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist's baby too? I don't know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she's got the qualifications of one. And you're worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!
Great speech. But, realistically, when irony loses its meaning, is condescension even possible? Or: In a world where condescension has lost all meaning (what is there to stoop to?), is irony possible?
I enjoyed reading this. However, can I just say that it took me a good ten minutes to figure out what the hell this was?
After all, it's you - Jim Emerson - quoting a piece by Maureen Down, who was quoting Aaron Sorkin's ficticious dialog between Barack Obama and his fictional character of Jed Bartlet, and you added a picture of Martin Sheen (who was in no way involved with any of this, except for playing said fictional character over a year ago).
I'm not complaining, but seriously - this is the most convoluted thing I've come across in some time.
How can John McCain be elitist for having eight houses? When he was a P.O.W. he had zero houses.
And I’m sure Sarah Palin knew more about the Bush doctrine than she was letting on. For starters, I bet any money she believed that it came out within the last 16 years. And that’s different from the Monroe doctrine by about 200 years. Or 3% of the age of the Earth.
(For real, though, is it entirely fair to call Ms. Palin’s daughter’s groom-to-be a “teenage hood,” and state that she is forcing her daughter into it? I know it would hurt Palin’s campaign a lot if she doesn’t, but are we really sure that it isn’t her choice, even if it happens to be the one convenient for Palin? I agree with the irony of the situation, but that one line from “Bartlett” rankled a bit.)
I have the delightful privelege of living in rural Georgia, progressive capital of the world. The futility of attempting to talk politics here is... disheartening. "Aw, shucks, she's tha only one with any common sense! Look at how she sold that jet on eBay!" Irony is beyond these people in a way I can barely fathom, and the saddest thing of all is that these are the people most excited to get out and vote.
Now that you bring it up, have you watched The West Wing and what did you think of it (before and after Sorkin left)?
I think the bigger problem may be that we live in world where words have lost all meaning. What can you say when "lipstick on a pig" apparently means "Sarah Palin and therefore all women are pigs"? When despite a huge controversy surrounding his Christian reverend, some people still insist Obama is Muslim? When "community organizer" becomes a laughable title?
Here's an obscure reference, but this campaign is increasingly reminding me of a running gag from an early episode of The Simpsons, when Mr. Burns hires Major League ringers for his nuclear power plant softball team (as described by the SNPP):
I'm not a complete supporter of either party, but its unfair to say Palin wants schools to "deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too," when Creationism actually includes all of those studies. The only difference is it says there is One Who created everything instead of some random explosion (which somehow created a complex and stable system which has apparently sustained itself over hundreds millions of years without a hiccup).
somehow I kind of miss the point of this. Are we picking on VP nominees? Maybe in the interests of equal time we should consider the constant flow of gaffes from Joe Biden. His latest was this, plenty more where this came from if you need 'em.
Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.
He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
dto1984: Can it really be suggested Creationism includes the sciences of geology, anthropology, and archaeology when it gets them all ass-backwards? That is truly the abandonment of common sense. The day the majority of Americans buy into the idea of different links in our evolutionary chain co-existing all at, ruffly, the same time, is the day when we'll have truly de-evolved. Let's not make our kids stupid.
I can't wait until this election is over so we can all get back to not caring again.
Sorry...too honest?
I hope that William B was making a dig at Palin's creationist beliefs in stating that 200years is 3% of the age of the earth, given that it is about 4.5 billion years old, and thus 200 years would be 0.0000000044% the age of the Earth.
dto1984, there may be some Creationists who ascribe to those studies - more than not, I would hope - but a Young Earth Creationist, like Ms. Palin, must actively choose to ignore/re-interpret those studies in order to make accepted fact fit into a 6000-year old Universe.
Do we go with a "Giant Douche" or a "Turd Sandwich"? And then do we spend all of our time talking about the string on the Giant Douche or the Mustard on the Turd Sandwich rather than the two themselves.
I hate politics. It's all about exaggerating the opponents ideas to make you look better so that the opponent then has to exaggerate in the other direction to stabilize, giving the other side more ammo to throw around.
This whole political time before the election is like comparing two movie trailers to decide which movie you want to go with. They both have the clever catchphrases, both show the biggest explosions, contain the funniest parts of the movie, one stars Oscar award winner, the other stars comedian that's had over 10 100million dollar hits... but no matter how much you think one of the movies will be better because of the trailer, you never know until you see the actual movie. We're in the trailer phase of the political machine right now. Both sides say exactly what other people want to hear, then the other side reacts accordingly with just as much hyperbolic trash. They accuse each other of being the same thing, when really, they are the same thing. And we'll never know how either of them will do until the actual presidency occurs. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Hate American politics and how it's been skewed completely by our news and media age.
Hey Jim,
Since you've had so many posts about irony lately, would you care to weigh in on the reaction to Roger's hilarious Creationism article and the unhinged reactions it has produced? I felt it was obvious what he was going for, but it's interesting on how many people it was lost.
(But I've actually watched "The Producers" and Sarah Silverman with someone who actually thought they were extolling the virtues of Nazism and racism, so Roger's article not landing doesn't surprise me.)
Mike Le Duca and Tony Duncan:
Geology is the study of the "solid matter that constitutes the Earth" (I'm citing the Wikipedia definition). As far as I know, creationists believe in solid matter. Maybe they won't date a certain rock back to 44 trillion B.C., but they can use all the same research techniques as a non-creationist.
Anthropology is the study of culture. Creationists certainly are people, too, you know. Culture isn't just reserved for evolutionists. Nor is archaeology. Once again, creationists might not come to the same conclusions as non-creationists, but that is their right.
Honestly, so much about science is built around opinion (it's only the big bang theory after all--not the big bang fact) that it's a wonder more people don't question the common sense of even secular scientists (Have you ever actually seen a monkey evolve? Then you'll have to put your faith in scientific opinion that they do. I'm reminded of the speech by the old bounty hunter in The Proposition: "HA HA HA! How crazy is that! Darwin thought we came from MONKEYS!").
I don't think anyone would honestly believe both pure evolution and pure creationism could co-exist; they are mutually exclusive (except in the case of theistic evolutionists). But would it really make our kids stupider to have another opinion to look at? At worst, they would have to use their brains in order to make up their own minds.
It seems all politicians these days have forgotten about the separation of church and state. Religious views have no place in a political arena, especially and fundamentally in this country. Palin thoroughly disgusts me in this regard. True Americans vote Libertarian.
It seems all politicians these days have forgotten about the separation of church and state. Religious views have no place in a political arena, especially and fundamentally in this country. Palin thoroughly disgusts me in this regard. True Americans vote Libertarian.
From fullyramblomatic.com
Id say this is a pretty good synopsis of most pixar movies
One or more lovable protagonists have existed for some time in a stable but fundamentally flawed routine, which is shaken up by the introduction of a foreign entity, usually another character, around whom attitudes are initially hostile. Attempts to deal with this character eventually lead to the protagonist(s) discovering a new, unfamiliar world, and in doing so discover the nature of the fundamental flaw in their routine. Villains are usually introduced or only become truly villainous from around the mid-point or quite late into the film. Along the way the heroes enlist the help of various lesser characters with clearly definable quirks and at one point reluctantly enter a high-speed chase. The villain is generally finally defeated with surprising ease, and everything concludes in an emotionally manipulative ending in which routine is restored with the fundamental flaw excised.
it's only the big bang theory after all--not the big bang fact
God, how I hate that argument. Scientific theory isn't something someone just thought up over lunch one day. It is not a theory in the sense that you walk into a room and say to someone, "You know, I have a theory..."
Scientific theory involves studying the readily available facts, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and refining the hypothesis based on the results. None of which can be applied to creationism.
Have you ever actually seen a monkey evolve? Then you'll have to put your faith in scientific opinion that they do.
No, but I accept the idea that people who are smarter than I who have studied incalculable amounts of available physical data and have come to an overwhelming group consensus based on testing and re-testing it might know what they're talking about.
I'm a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in "intelligent design", but I am absolutely NOT a Young Earth creationist. My faith cannot be tested scientifically, and therefore should not be taught as science in any form. Faith and intelligent design are philosophical arguments - let students learn about them in those courses, not in a science course where they are given unearned, equal weight with actual science.
Reading that excerpt really makes me wish that Aaron Sorkin had another show on the air right now. Assuming it was written by Sorkin; Emerson's genealogy of the piece was kind of confusing.
Although this really has little to do with the post...
dto1984, perhaps before criticizing it so vehemently, it would be a good idea to come to some understanding of science and its most basic principles.
The question - "Have you ever actually seen a monkey evolve?" - is literally on par with me asking "Where you there, peaking over God's shoulder on day one?" The process of evolution isn't in anyway like something you'd see on Pokemon or Transformers.
But seriously, that was a great article. We need more Sorkin.
Miles Banton: My post was intended to be satirical.
dto: Evolution is a "theory" in the same sense that Newton's theory of gravity is a "theory." Modern biology is based on it in a very fundamental way. And no one has "seen" a monkey evolve because evolution happens at the species level over a period of millions of years. I'm not as much an expert in that as I'd like to be, I admit.
I know more about physics, so: the big bang "theory" has been extrapolated backwards from the redshift of galaxies, which indicates that they are moving away from us; it is based on observation and on classical physics that has been tested and retested. It did turn out that Newtonian gravity was inexact--Einstein's general theory of relativity shows that it's only a special case of a broader theory, for example--and so it's very possible that the Big Bang theory is incomplete. But it is based on--dum dum dum dum--observation, experiment, and logic.
The old-universe creationist argument (a deity created the universe) is not incompatible with the big bang or evolution, but there is no evidence for it either way, unlike the Big Bang or evolution. So presenting that as an alternative is not really necessary.
Presenting Biblical creation (incompatible with the Big Bang and evolution) as an "alternative" should only be done if it is made clear that one is based on a large body of scientific evidence, logic, and experiment, and one is based on an ancient text whose veracity is hotly debated. If you want children to "decide," it can't be based on a side-by-side comparison without informing them of the fundamental differences in how the two "theories" of creation operate.
And if one should simply present all alternatives, then one should also present all religious explanations from human history. The Greeks and the Egyptians may have fallen (in their original incarnations), but how do we know that it was not Gaia giving birth to Uranus the sky above and laying with him to produce the other Gods?
If one would like to present evidence that suggests that there are problems with the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or the geologically determined age of the Earth on scientific grounds, then I would not have a problem with that--provided that the controversy is real and not manufactured in order to obfuscate the fact that these are based, again, on physical evidence and logic.
I want to make out with Jim, Maureen,Sorkin and Bartlett. Is that wrong?
You can't "watch" a monkey evolve. You can't watch any one specimen of any species evolve. Evolution is a chain of changes occuring within a species as a whole, not in a single specimen. Its path can be traced and predicted calculating data, but it cannot be observed in the process of happening as one would watch a YouTube posting. Jesus Christ.
Jim, my only question to you is what piece(s) of legislation that Obama himself introduced into the Senate do you support? Also, do you believe two years in the United States Senate is enough experience to serve as the most powerful person in the world. Finally, go cubs.
andrew: Since Nixon in 1972, all of our elected presidents except George HW Bush have been governors with little or no experience in federal government. So, yes, I'd say two years in the Senate already puts Obama ahead of Carter, Reagan, Clinton and W in that respect. I'm tracking the candidates' positions on the issues, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which bills were actually introduced or co-sponsored by them. That's a pretty small fraction of what they do. Obama represents my views much more closely than McCain, but McCain's views change so frequently it's hard to be sure if he remembers what he said earlier today. (Speaking of co-sponsored legislation I do recall: McCain made a big show of "standing up" to Bush on torture, then signed off on his own "compromise" bill that simply let the president define the word "torture," just like the original bill did. What a stand-up guy.)
William B: I'm with you. Seems to me that science and religion represent two profoundly different ways of apprehending the world. Religion can't be validated by the scientific method of logic and empiricism because it's a belief system that, by definition, is not founded on those principles. Religious thinking and scientific thinking may share a few of the same goals, but they approach them from radically different perspectives. No religion can meet the standards of science (because then it would be science and not religion), and no science can meet the standards of religion (because then it would be religion and not science). But I'm always fascinated by the lengths to which people will go to either accommodate both, or reject one or the other.
Erik, it's not too honest, it's just sad that you don't want to follow the election. This is more consequential than any movie or any sporting event, after all
Cynicism and ignorance in politics, I am shocked, shocked I tells ya.
What cynicism like Obama standing by and doing nothing as a state legislator about one of the most corrupt political machines in the US. Or Obama scrubbing his criticism of the now successful surge from his web site?
Or Obama running for two years claiming he is transcending normal politics and then when he dropped in the polls post the Republican convention running conventional attack ads, one so disgraceful even his VP pick said he disagreed with it?
Or ignorance? What like Ego Joe Biden having Roosevelt address the nation on TV before there even was TV?
Or Obama visiting all 57 states?
Come on boys, there is enough shame to go around in American democracy, don’t limit it simply to the tribe you do not support.
I wonder if dto198 would have a problem with teaching Communism in an economics course? Like creationism, Communism is also a theory that has fallen by the wayside to a superior economic theory.
The difference between teaching evolution and creationism in a science class is clear: evolution can be substantiated by science, creationism cannot! The clearest evidence of evolution is DNA, specifically the fact that many DNA segments of humans and other animals are similar. So dto198 is incorrect in saying there is no evidence of an evolution.