A coup has taken place
October 6, 2008 5:54 PM Subscribe
Naomi Wolf: "A coup has taken place." An interview with Naomi Wolf author of "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries" given October 4, 2008 on Mind Over Matters, KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle
God Naomi Wolf is inescapable these days. Here's to hoping her next book is called: "The Outrage Fatigue Doctrine."
posted by felix betachat at 6:07 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by felix betachat at 6:07 PM on October 6, 2008
God Naomi Wolf is inescapable these days.
Eh. I'd wager that 99% of the population has no problem avoiding her. Just to add some perspective.
posted by jonmc at 6:08 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Eh. I'd wager that 99% of the population has no problem avoiding her. Just to add some perspective.
posted by jonmc at 6:08 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Are you maybe thinking of Naomi Klein?
posted by atchafalaya at 6:11 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by atchafalaya at 6:11 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Ugh. Right.
See, proves my point...
posted by felix betachat at 6:12 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
See, proves my point...
posted by felix betachat at 6:12 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Transcript?
posted by echo target at 6:13 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by echo target at 6:13 PM on October 6, 2008
Man, Naomi Wolf is inescapable. Now don't get me wrong; I loved Galaxie 500. But I think that was pretty much a one-shot deal, and she shouldn't have let Damon convince her to keep plugging away at it. I mean, jeez, your time has past, do we really need to hear a radio interview with you? Just give it up already.
posted by googly at 6:17 PM on October 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by googly at 6:17 PM on October 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
The Brad Sherman clip she mentioned. I don't even know what the hell to say about that.
posted by nola at 6:22 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by nola at 6:22 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
KEXP! KEXP is a very, very good music radio station, and they have uncompressed audio if you like that sort of thing.
Oh yes, politics. Well, a good way to confront this conspiracy would be to electorally decimate the GOP as a political force and leave it languishing as a Southern-state regional party for years to come so if you guys could possibly do that it would be great thx.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:24 PM on October 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
Oh yes, politics. Well, a good way to confront this conspiracy would be to electorally decimate the GOP as a political force and leave it languishing as a Southern-state regional party for years to come so if you guys could possibly do that it would be great thx.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:24 PM on October 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
The Beauty Myth is one of those missives, I think, that calls for either twenty years or a formal retraction before demanding to be taken seriously again. She's got another three years by my count.
Of course, that would be if The End of America wasn't a reset of the clock, though for entirely different reasons. Or that whole bit about pornography being bad because it causes men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable), which seemed to be a lead-in to her later bits about the Muslim dress for women in some areas being a channeling of sexuality. Pardon me while I ralph over the idea of women being threatened with death because they didn't channel their sexuality towards "healthy family bonds."
I'm expecting her to do a weird Dennis Miller thing where she does some quantum tunneling through reality and pops back in as a funky Ann Coulter type.
posted by adipocere at 6:25 PM on October 6, 2008 [5 favorites]
Of course, that would be if The End of America wasn't a reset of the clock, though for entirely different reasons. Or that whole bit about pornography being bad because it causes men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable), which seemed to be a lead-in to her later bits about the Muslim dress for women in some areas being a channeling of sexuality. Pardon me while I ralph over the idea of women being threatened with death because they didn't channel their sexuality towards "healthy family bonds."
I'm expecting her to do a weird Dennis Miller thing where she does some quantum tunneling through reality and pops back in as a funky Ann Coulter type.
posted by adipocere at 6:25 PM on October 6, 2008 [5 favorites]
For the impatient, this is an extension on her earlier work stating that there are but 10 steps in establishing Fascist America. "The last step of the ten steps to a closed society is the subversion of the rule of law." She says that this has now taken place in the form of a "paper coup."
posted by grabbingsand at 6:26 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by grabbingsand at 6:26 PM on October 6, 2008
This is that crazy model who's always throwing phones at people? She wrote a book now?
posted by stinkycheese at 6:28 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by stinkycheese at 6:28 PM on October 6, 2008
When the Illuminati has to resort to hiring insane anti-Semites it makes me seriously question their silent coup capabilities.
posted by shii at 6:29 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by shii at 6:29 PM on October 6, 2008
Death by a thousand paper coups.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:34 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:34 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
are they Dixie Coups? The kind with the riddles on the bottom?
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on October 6, 2008
The man who invented it doesn't want it. The man who bought it doesn't need it. The man who needs it doesn't know it. What is it?
posted by nola at 6:41 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by nola at 6:41 PM on October 6, 2008
Nola, the correct answer to that is "Naomi Wolf's career."
posted by adipocere at 6:44 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 6:44 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
are they Dixie Coups? The kind with the riddles on the bottom?
No, they're chicken coups, duh.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:45 PM on October 6, 2008
No, they're chicken coups, duh.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:45 PM on October 6, 2008
I got to see Naomi Wolf speak shortly after she published The Beauty Myth. I thought she was very interesting and insightful. I haven't followed her much since, but I did notice this new book the last time I was in the store. I'll have to check it out.
See Brad Sherman's comment about the warning of martial law if the bailout wasn't passed.
Northcom troops planned for domestic "crowd control."
Good stuff in the interview. Thanks.
(Is anyone else talking about Monica Bicking and the RNC 8?)
posted by mrgrimm at 6:47 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
See Brad Sherman's comment about the warning of martial law if the bailout wasn't passed.
Northcom troops planned for domestic "crowd control."
Good stuff in the interview. Thanks.
(Is anyone else talking about Monica Bicking and the RNC 8?)
posted by mrgrimm at 6:47 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
I confuse her with the governess of Alaska...but this one seems not to wink.
posted by Postroad at 6:51 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by Postroad at 6:51 PM on October 6, 2008
Nola, the correct answer to that is "Naomi Wolf's career."
I would have also excepted "a coffin"
posted by nola at 6:55 PM on October 6, 2008
I would have also excepted "a coffin"
posted by nola at 6:55 PM on October 6, 2008
thank you augustweed for this post.
posted by captainsohler at 7:24 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by captainsohler at 7:24 PM on October 6, 2008
I had the good fortune of living in Mr. Sherman's district for a while before I left L.A. and he is one of the few Congresscritters I've EVER had of EITHER party who I seriously respect. I have no doubt that he speaks the truth that some other Representatives told him they were threatened with Martial Law. I don't see any evidence that he took the threat seriously but rather considered it the peak of White House fear-mongering (which he tried to make clear in his comments). He probably reassured whoever told him that the threat was not realistic, and would have done so for Naomi Wolf if she'd asked him.
posted by wendell at 7:31 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by wendell at 7:31 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
How to arrest the President?
This is what's wrong with this shit. I can't filter the insane-lefty shit from the more coherent ideas.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:36 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
This is what's wrong with this shit. I can't filter the insane-lefty shit from the more coherent ideas.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:36 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Hell that's a great idea.
Yeah, I'd love it. But, it'll never happen and it just makes her sound like a loon.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:55 PM on October 6, 2008
Yeah, I'd love it. But, it'll never happen and it just makes her sound like a loon.
posted by jimmythefish at 7:55 PM on October 6, 2008
So I'm just wondering, why isn't her book available for free on her website?
If she's half as scared as she claims to be and has this super important message to get out... is it worth it to sell the things?
posted by twjordan at 7:57 PM on October 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
If she's half as scared as she claims to be and has this super important message to get out... is it worth it to sell the things?
posted by twjordan at 7:57 PM on October 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I'd love it. But, it'll never happen and it just makes her sound like a loon.
Heh, well that's true too.
posted by nola at 7:59 PM on October 6, 2008
Heh, well that's true too.
posted by nola at 7:59 PM on October 6, 2008
So I'm just wondering, why isn't her book available for free on her website?
If she's half as scared as she claims to be and has this super important message to get out... is it worth it to sell the things?
This really can't be emphasized enough. If shit's really so dire, maybe going through the mainstream publishing process and charging people a bunch of money for your hardcover guide to freedom isn't the way to go.
Also, I'm disappointed with Safeway. Their in-house fancy soup brand appears to have healthied itself up, which significantly reduced the tastiness of my favorite type of their soup, the Chicken Tortilla. It's really a pity.
I just wanted to complain about that to someone.
posted by Caduceus at 8:13 PM on October 6, 2008 [6 favorites]
If she's half as scared as she claims to be and has this super important message to get out... is it worth it to sell the things?
This really can't be emphasized enough. If shit's really so dire, maybe going through the mainstream publishing process and charging people a bunch of money for your hardcover guide to freedom isn't the way to go.
Also, I'm disappointed with Safeway. Their in-house fancy soup brand appears to have healthied itself up, which significantly reduced the tastiness of my favorite type of their soup, the Chicken Tortilla. It's really a pity.
I just wanted to complain about that to someone.
posted by Caduceus at 8:13 PM on October 6, 2008 [6 favorites]
She's obviously freaked out, but if you can listen through the emotional tenor, she makes some good points. It's worth asking, seriously, why are troops being deployed as a permanent mission on US soil? I'm not saying everything she says is true. I'm saying, don't discard it without listening.
Here's a story from my life. Working in a small town, after reading a proposal from a particular industry (and the environmental report their consultants produced about it), I got convinced to join the "radicals" trying to get the city council not to allow it. A bunch of people said "aw, they're crazy." Even the lefties on City Council voted against us so they could be "reasonable." I was quite surprised to be accused of being radical since I generally read all the data tables and footnotes for myself (eg). Anyway, in the end, the state government sided with us, and upon further investigation, the situation was far worse than even we had suspected.
Point being: the people saying "they're crazy" or "I'm not radical like that" are the ones defining what's considered reasonable and what's considered crazy -- what points are and aren't listened to. So before saying that, you might carefully make sure the point is not valid. (Otherwise, technically, you're the one being "irrational.")
posted by salvia at 8:15 PM on October 6, 2008 [19 favorites]
Here's a story from my life. Working in a small town, after reading a proposal from a particular industry (and the environmental report their consultants produced about it), I got convinced to join the "radicals" trying to get the city council not to allow it. A bunch of people said "aw, they're crazy." Even the lefties on City Council voted against us so they could be "reasonable." I was quite surprised to be accused of being radical since I generally read all the data tables and footnotes for myself (eg). Anyway, in the end, the state government sided with us, and upon further investigation, the situation was far worse than even we had suspected.
Point being: the people saying "they're crazy" or "I'm not radical like that" are the ones defining what's considered reasonable and what's considered crazy -- what points are and aren't listened to. So before saying that, you might carefully make sure the point is not valid. (Otherwise, technically, you're the one being "irrational.")
posted by salvia at 8:15 PM on October 6, 2008 [19 favorites]
Are you asking about arresting the president in general or arresting bush today? Obviously it would be possible, you'd just need to impeach him first. I don't think it will happen to bush in the next three months, but I do think it could happen pretty easily if the president did something that couldn't be brushed off as "for the good of the country." Particularly something partisan.
What I think bush is clearly illustrating is you can get away with any crime if "your heart is in the right place" as president.
posted by delmoi at 8:29 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
What I think bush is clearly illustrating is you can get away with any crime if "your heart is in the right place" as president.
posted by delmoi at 8:29 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
If she's half as scared as she claims to be and has this super important message to get out... is it worth it to sell the things?
Is this not the grand tradition of the US 'left'?
The entire democratic party seems to exist not to oppose creeping fascism and more-strident-than-creeping imperialism, but rather to wring their hands about it, and prepare to say "we told you so" on only those issues which didn't turn out well for the Empire.
Selling a bunch of books and you can be respectably 'left'.
Standing on a street corner with a sandwich board is just gauche.
posted by pompomtom at 8:48 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Is this not the grand tradition of the US 'left'?
The entire democratic party seems to exist not to oppose creeping fascism and more-strident-than-creeping imperialism, but rather to wring their hands about it, and prepare to say "we told you so" on only those issues which didn't turn out well for the Empire.
Selling a bunch of books and you can be respectably 'left'.
Standing on a street corner with a sandwich board is just gauche.
posted by pompomtom at 8:48 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Bush is in office, the economy sucks, and we are at war with Iran.
Oh wait, that was the 80's.
Fringe elements having been dealing with this crap for the past umpteen years, but now that there is the real possibility that upper/middle class will get a taste, oh now it's a crisis.
Have you seen the growing prison population for the past thirty years? Scattered news reports of no-knock search warrent deaths? About 20 years too late, but thanks for playing.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 8:59 PM on October 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
Oh wait, that was the 80's.
Fringe elements having been dealing with this crap for the past umpteen years, but now that there is the real possibility that upper/middle class will get a taste, oh now it's a crisis.
Have you seen the growing prison population for the past thirty years? Scattered news reports of no-knock search warrent deaths? About 20 years too late, but thanks for playing.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 8:59 PM on October 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
Are you asking about arresting the president in general or arresting bush today? Obviously it would be possible, you'd just need to impeach him first.
She was talking about arresting Bush today. She asked district attorneys who were listening to give 'er the old college try.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:17 PM on October 6, 2008
She was talking about arresting Bush today. She asked district attorneys who were listening to give 'er the old college try.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:17 PM on October 6, 2008
she lost me on her idea that america is the best thing the human race has ever come up with -
anyway, i'm sure the fascists will prevent her book getting to the shelves and indeed take covert measures to stop people from buying it, such as placing it in bargain bins and so on.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:25 PM on October 6, 2008
anyway, i'm sure the fascists will prevent her book getting to the shelves and indeed take covert measures to stop people from buying it, such as placing it in bargain bins and so on.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:25 PM on October 6, 2008
I listened to her on the Tom Hartmann show a few days ago. It's hard to dismiss the facts of what she says, but the endpoint she's warning against may be a bit far-fetched to me. But I'm keeping my eyes and ears open.
For real fun on this subject, take a listen to Alex Jones' podcast. He's absolutely apoplectic about the bailout (among other things).
posted by zardoz at 9:40 PM on October 6, 2008
For real fun on this subject, take a listen to Alex Jones' podcast. He's absolutely apoplectic about the bailout (among other things).
posted by zardoz at 9:40 PM on October 6, 2008
The Beauty Myth is one of those missives, I think, that calls for either twenty years or a formal retraction before demanding to be taken seriously again. She's got another three years by my count.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but The Beauty Myth, even though flawed, has its brilliance; parts of it seemed to me, when I first read it back in the day, to be written in fire. I still haven't seen much of anything that so clearly spoke to some of my own experience, and which tried so passionately to dismantle the damage done to women through the ideology of beauty.
Of course, that would be if The End of America wasn't a reset of the clock, though for entirely different reasons. Or that whole bit about pornography being bad because it causes men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable), which seemed to be a lead-in to her later bits about the Muslim dress for women in some areas being a channeling of sexuality. Pardon me while I ralph over the idea of women being threatened with death because they didn't channel their sexuality towards "healthy family bonds."
Way to entirely misread and misrepresent her arguments. And that bit about "caus[ing] men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable)" is simply viscious.
I haven't listened to this interview, but I do notice that a lot of comments in this thread seem to be personal dismissals of Wolf as a "loon" or similar; I don't suppose I have to revisit the history of the discounting of women's writing due to "hysteria" or something similar?
posted by jokeefe at 9:51 PM on October 6, 2008 [12 favorites]
Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but The Beauty Myth, even though flawed, has its brilliance; parts of it seemed to me, when I first read it back in the day, to be written in fire. I still haven't seen much of anything that so clearly spoke to some of my own experience, and which tried so passionately to dismantle the damage done to women through the ideology of beauty.
Of course, that would be if The End of America wasn't a reset of the clock, though for entirely different reasons. Or that whole bit about pornography being bad because it causes men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable), which seemed to be a lead-in to her later bits about the Muslim dress for women in some areas being a channeling of sexuality. Pardon me while I ralph over the idea of women being threatened with death because they didn't channel their sexuality towards "healthy family bonds."
Way to entirely misread and misrepresent her arguments. And that bit about "caus[ing] men to have higher standards (or, alternatively, to be not as manipulable)" is simply viscious.
I haven't listened to this interview, but I do notice that a lot of comments in this thread seem to be personal dismissals of Wolf as a "loon" or similar; I don't suppose I have to revisit the history of the discounting of women's writing due to "hysteria" or something similar?
posted by jokeefe at 9:51 PM on October 6, 2008 [12 favorites]
I do notice that a lot of comments in this thread seem to be personal dismissals of Wolf as a "loon" or similar;
it seems to me that if there really is a coup in america, paper or otherwise, there'd be more than one person trying to tell us that
the idea that someone's taking control of the situation seems weird to me as it looks like the situation is getting way out of control
but maybe it's more comforting to believe that current events are being caused by some kind of coup then to realize that they're completely random and no one knows what the hell is going on
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 PM on October 6, 2008
it seems to me that if there really is a coup in america, paper or otherwise, there'd be more than one person trying to tell us that
the idea that someone's taking control of the situation seems weird to me as it looks like the situation is getting way out of control
but maybe it's more comforting to believe that current events are being caused by some kind of coup then to realize that they're completely random and no one knows what the hell is going on
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 PM on October 6, 2008
That was a sad and disturbing, and somewhat breathless and credulous YouTube clip.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:08 PM on October 6, 2008
posted by KokuRyu at 10:08 PM on October 6, 2008
personal dismissals of Wolf as a "loon" or similar
One could always go back in the metafilter history and read the dismissals of how Iraq was a bad idea as an example.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:10 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
One could always go back in the metafilter history and read the dismissals of how Iraq was a bad idea as an example.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:10 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
'All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - Schopenhauer
posted by SaintCynr at 11:56 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by SaintCynr at 11:56 PM on October 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
My only quip with this interview is the bit about martial law.
Sometime here last week there was an explanation concerning Rep. Brad Sherman's comment about martial law. I can't find it now but it explained the difference between military martial law (suspension of constitution, citizens under curfew) and congressional martial law (nobody's going home until this problem is solved/bill is passed). I believe Mr. Sherman was referring to the latter but Ms. Wolf understood the former.
I do not think she is a loon. She is a concerned citizen who doesn't want to be proved right. She is also very brave. If it comes to pass as she predicts, she will be one of the first that have to fear for her safety.
posted by chillmost at 12:48 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Sometime here last week there was an explanation concerning Rep. Brad Sherman's comment about martial law. I can't find it now but it explained the difference between military martial law (suspension of constitution, citizens under curfew) and congressional martial law (nobody's going home until this problem is solved/bill is passed). I believe Mr. Sherman was referring to the latter but Ms. Wolf understood the former.
I do not think she is a loon. She is a concerned citizen who doesn't want to be proved right. She is also very brave. If it comes to pass as she predicts, she will be one of the first that have to fear for her safety.
posted by chillmost at 12:48 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
She can't be serious, look at her hair! (can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet).
And, you know, it's "talk radio"! She's selling a book! Of course things are dire! If she really felt strongly, she'd give the book away - the marketplace is still intact, everything must be fine.
Lastly, This - And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
I'm first in line to hope she's wrong, and not just wrong on specifics, but wrong on the "slow motion underneath" as well.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:23 AM on October 7, 2008
And, you know, it's "talk radio"! She's selling a book! Of course things are dire! If she really felt strongly, she'd give the book away - the marketplace is still intact, everything must be fine.
Lastly, This - And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
I'm first in line to hope she's wrong, and not just wrong on specifics, but wrong on the "slow motion underneath" as well.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:23 AM on October 7, 2008
And this -
"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
posted by From Bklyn at 2:25 AM on October 7, 2008 [4 favorites]
"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
posted by From Bklyn at 2:25 AM on October 7, 2008 [4 favorites]
Wow! Good work guys. Metafilter now sounds about as intelligent as a major news network after a political debate.
posted by srboisvert at 2:55 AM on October 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 2:55 AM on October 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
I suppose I should have been more substantive and explained precisely why I do not hold her in high regard, although regard is, to me, earned, not automatic.
I'm dismissive of The Beauty Myth because of its painful wrongness. I will cheerfully swallow the idea that beauty has a strong cultural component and that it could definitely be wretched to try to comply with; that was pretty evident by the time I was six and flipping through National Geographic, then running across those poor women, necks encased by ring after ring. However, saying that beauty is entirely socially constructed and has no more reality than Santa Claus is the difference between "Yeah, there's some voting shennanigans in Ohio this time around" and "Our reptilian overlords use our paper ballots in the fires they use to cook our children and laugh hiss hiss hiss while they do it." The first is obvious, the second is the first taken to such extremity that it no longer has any contact with reality.
Not just science now, but science at the time of publication, contradicted the central thesis that beauty was entirely socially constructed. A cross-cultural, innate beauty standard, revolving mostly around proportion and symmetry, but also secondary sexual characteristics, exists. Unless you wish to believe that secret indoctrination of three month old infants occurs.
Backing up her thesis by publishing that some ridiculously high number of women were dying of anorexia just made it worse. What was it, 100,000 per annum? Nobody's calling "hysteria," I'm just calling "wow, that's some crap right there." Women, like men, can have some spectacularly wrong ideas. That's not just flawed, it's a promising central premise that has gone off the deep end.
Now, to address the "vicious" bit about manipulation, let's hear it from her own mouth: "... There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up." Imagine the horror of having to deal with someone whose buttons weren't so easy to push. It's like you'd have to put real effort in or something. Once again, Wolf's taken an idea I'd agree with (pornography can be densensitizing) and then made me turn away. Lamenting that mere nudity no longer causes the reaction of an eye-popping cartoon wolf whose tongue hangs down to his knees is not striving for equality; it's a return to the days when advice to women facing a traffic officers was to pop the top two buttons on her blouse and bat her false eyelashes. Yuck. It's demeaning to women, and it's also demeaning to men, because it demands that they not only be led around by their dick, but that the leash be as accessible as it was in the days of yore. She then goes on to quote a bit of the Old Testament, which turns out to be an ominous lead-in to later admiration of "traditional" Muslim garb for women.
Finally, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot has this ten step plan for a fascist takeover. Maybe this is news to somebody out there, but I've seen versions of these ten steps circulating since my bitter youth. It's at least as old as Bonewits Cult Evaluation Framework, which every even slightly rebellious teenager has, upon viewing it, has gigglingly applied to their religion and/or favorite military. Takeover? In 2007? That's not only a ripoff of a very old idea, it's also being incredibly late to the party. Everyone who will buy the idea already has. Those who have not being howling "Fascist pigs!" at the idea of Free Speech Zones and affronts prior to that probably wouldn't clue in if our new leader was an anamatronic Mussolini. I really, really came close to buying the book until I spotted the checklist and began remembering how familiar it was. Fluffing that up into a book, it's not even timely.
I haven't even laid eyes on Misconceptions or Promiscuities.
So, no, I wasn't dismissing her based on her ownership of a vagina (or the implied idea that said vagina might wander off and begin causing the vapors or some such nonsense) — it's that, so far, I either disagree with her extremity, find some of her ideas retrogressive, or think she's being a ripoff artist.
posted by adipocere at 5:07 AM on October 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
I'm dismissive of The Beauty Myth because of its painful wrongness. I will cheerfully swallow the idea that beauty has a strong cultural component and that it could definitely be wretched to try to comply with; that was pretty evident by the time I was six and flipping through National Geographic, then running across those poor women, necks encased by ring after ring. However, saying that beauty is entirely socially constructed and has no more reality than Santa Claus is the difference between "Yeah, there's some voting shennanigans in Ohio this time around" and "Our reptilian overlords use our paper ballots in the fires they use to cook our children and laugh hiss hiss hiss while they do it." The first is obvious, the second is the first taken to such extremity that it no longer has any contact with reality.
Not just science now, but science at the time of publication, contradicted the central thesis that beauty was entirely socially constructed. A cross-cultural, innate beauty standard, revolving mostly around proportion and symmetry, but also secondary sexual characteristics, exists. Unless you wish to believe that secret indoctrination of three month old infants occurs.
Backing up her thesis by publishing that some ridiculously high number of women were dying of anorexia just made it worse. What was it, 100,000 per annum? Nobody's calling "hysteria," I'm just calling "wow, that's some crap right there." Women, like men, can have some spectacularly wrong ideas. That's not just flawed, it's a promising central premise that has gone off the deep end.
Now, to address the "vicious" bit about manipulation, let's hear it from her own mouth: "... There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up." Imagine the horror of having to deal with someone whose buttons weren't so easy to push. It's like you'd have to put real effort in or something. Once again, Wolf's taken an idea I'd agree with (pornography can be densensitizing) and then made me turn away. Lamenting that mere nudity no longer causes the reaction of an eye-popping cartoon wolf whose tongue hangs down to his knees is not striving for equality; it's a return to the days when advice to women facing a traffic officers was to pop the top two buttons on her blouse and bat her false eyelashes. Yuck. It's demeaning to women, and it's also demeaning to men, because it demands that they not only be led around by their dick, but that the leash be as accessible as it was in the days of yore. She then goes on to quote a bit of the Old Testament, which turns out to be an ominous lead-in to later admiration of "traditional" Muslim garb for women.
Finally, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot has this ten step plan for a fascist takeover. Maybe this is news to somebody out there, but I've seen versions of these ten steps circulating since my bitter youth. It's at least as old as Bonewits Cult Evaluation Framework, which every even slightly rebellious teenager has, upon viewing it, has gigglingly applied to their religion and/or favorite military. Takeover? In 2007? That's not only a ripoff of a very old idea, it's also being incredibly late to the party. Everyone who will buy the idea already has. Those who have not being howling "Fascist pigs!" at the idea of Free Speech Zones and affronts prior to that probably wouldn't clue in if our new leader was an anamatronic Mussolini. I really, really came close to buying the book until I spotted the checklist and began remembering how familiar it was. Fluffing that up into a book, it's not even timely.
I haven't even laid eyes on Misconceptions or Promiscuities.
So, no, I wasn't dismissing her based on her ownership of a vagina (or the implied idea that said vagina might wander off and begin causing the vapors or some such nonsense) — it's that, so far, I either disagree with her extremity, find some of her ideas retrogressive, or think she's being a ripoff artist.
posted by adipocere at 5:07 AM on October 7, 2008 [3 favorites]
Former US Attorney Elizabeth de la Vega wrote a book *exactly* about the process of indicting George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, et. al. for felony violations of federal law, specifically 18 USC 371.
Apparently, it would take but a single honest United States Attorney to bring this to a Grand Jury for felony indictment -- which is why getting rid of the "Few, Good" honest ones was such a priority.
While they're at it, they can toss on a charge of violation 18 USC 1001, too. If federal prison is good enough for Martha Stewart and Marion Jones, isn't it good enough for George Bush and Dick Cheney?
And in keeping with Voting Season, consider that if the President *is* immune from The Law, the ideas of due process and equal protection are jokes. If that's the case, how could any of us believe that the Laws compelling the actual counting the votes are executed with any more fidelity?
posted by mikelieman at 5:10 AM on October 7, 2008 [5 favorites]
Apparently, it would take but a single honest United States Attorney to bring this to a Grand Jury for felony indictment -- which is why getting rid of the "Few, Good" honest ones was such a priority.
While they're at it, they can toss on a charge of violation 18 USC 1001, too. If federal prison is good enough for Martha Stewart and Marion Jones, isn't it good enough for George Bush and Dick Cheney?
And in keeping with Voting Season, consider that if the President *is* immune from The Law, the ideas of due process and equal protection are jokes. If that's the case, how could any of us believe that the Laws compelling the actual counting the votes are executed with any more fidelity?
posted by mikelieman at 5:10 AM on October 7, 2008 [5 favorites]
I fully support Kucinich's drive for impeachment. I listened to Wolf, and I find a great deal of merit in individual points, I don't her all of her conclusions or her recommendations to be useful. Arrest the President? You'd have to get a warrant. Difficult. You'd have to get close enough to serve it and take the President into custody. He has a group of highly skilled people who would not let this happen. The tool for this job is impeachment, and, for some reason, the Democratic leadership is uninterested in pursuing it.
I tend to be wary of the tinfoil hat brigade, but there's a part of me worrying that if Obama wins, which is looking quite possible, by a large enough margin that they can't steal the election, also looking possible, that there will be an event that will allow the current administration to declare martial law and stay in power.
Their inability to find thousands of needy people in a convention center in New Orleans, etc., suggests that pulling off a coup is not in their skillset. But even trying it would be devastating to this country, which has already caused enough harm on W's watch, and which has already suffered enough on W's watch.
posted by theora55 at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
I tend to be wary of the tinfoil hat brigade, but there's a part of me worrying that if Obama wins, which is looking quite possible, by a large enough margin that they can't steal the election, also looking possible, that there will be an event that will allow the current administration to declare martial law and stay in power.
Their inability to find thousands of needy people in a convention center in New Orleans, etc., suggests that pulling off a coup is not in their skillset. But even trying it would be devastating to this country, which has already caused enough harm on W's watch, and which has already suffered enough on W's watch.
posted by theora55 at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Not just science now, but science at the time of publication, contradicted the central thesis that beauty was entirely socially constructed. A cross-cultural, innate beauty standard, revolving mostly around proportion and symmetry, but also secondary sexual characteristics, exists. Unless you wish to believe that secret indoctrination of three month old infants occurs.
There's a big difference between "beauty" and its cultural meanings and consequences and infantile preferences for symmetry. You confuse biology with culture. The central thesis of The Beauty Myth, as I recall, was that ideals of beauty-- which do vary from culture to culture, and which, and this is important, mean different things from culture to culture-- are in the late 20th/early 21st century Western world social, psychological, and, finally, political restraints on women's lives. And that the current obsessions around "beauty" in our culture, manifested in body control of the most extreme kind, came to the social fore once other controls over female autonomy and movement had broken down, starting with the franchise in the early 20th century.
The anorexia statistic was wrong. I never said the book was unflawed. But its central thesis is, I think, an accurate one.
Now, to address the "vicious" bit about manipulation, let's hear it from her own mouth: "... There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up." Imagine the horror of having to deal with someone whose buttons weren't so easy to push. It's like you'd have to put real effort in or something.
This is just a big WTF for me. Where is that from, and from what context did you take it? Also, you seem to have some kind of personal reaction to it that doesn't seem to be warranted in the quote itself. And really, looking at it again, you'd find a lot of people here on Mefi-- people with whom I've argued about this very notion-- who would agree with Wolf on this. I don't, particularly, myself.
posted by jokeefe at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
There's a big difference between "beauty" and its cultural meanings and consequences and infantile preferences for symmetry. You confuse biology with culture. The central thesis of The Beauty Myth, as I recall, was that ideals of beauty-- which do vary from culture to culture, and which, and this is important, mean different things from culture to culture-- are in the late 20th/early 21st century Western world social, psychological, and, finally, political restraints on women's lives. And that the current obsessions around "beauty" in our culture, manifested in body control of the most extreme kind, came to the social fore once other controls over female autonomy and movement had broken down, starting with the franchise in the early 20th century.
The anorexia statistic was wrong. I never said the book was unflawed. But its central thesis is, I think, an accurate one.
Now, to address the "vicious" bit about manipulation, let's hear it from her own mouth: "... There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up." Imagine the horror of having to deal with someone whose buttons weren't so easy to push. It's like you'd have to put real effort in or something.
This is just a big WTF for me. Where is that from, and from what context did you take it? Also, you seem to have some kind of personal reaction to it that doesn't seem to be warranted in the quote itself. And really, looking at it again, you'd find a lot of people here on Mefi-- people with whom I've argued about this very notion-- who would agree with Wolf on this. I don't, particularly, myself.
posted by jokeefe at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
One of her points is really well worth pondering: the permanent deployment of a brigade strength unit of the US Army here ... my emphasis is deliberate, as this is the critical part of her scenario.
The First Brigade is only the first unit that will hold this status; if your read the press coming from the various Army PR organs it is very clear that this is absolutely permanent and that other units will be deployed in this role once the First Brigade finishes their tour of duty.
Unlike the National Guard units that report to the state governors and the chain of command being what it is, these troops will report to the Commander in Thief, I mean, Chief.
Can someone please verify the comment that Wolf made in the interview that armed forces are now swearing allegiance to the CiC first and not to defend the Constitution (which is what I had to swear to, lo those many years ago!)?
"Paper coup" is such a wonderful term ...
Metafilter: A Paper Coup
posted by aldus_manutius at 7:26 AM on October 7, 2008
The First Brigade is only the first unit that will hold this status; if your read the press coming from the various Army PR organs it is very clear that this is absolutely permanent and that other units will be deployed in this role once the First Brigade finishes their tour of duty.
Unlike the National Guard units that report to the state governors and the chain of command being what it is, these troops will report to the Commander in Thief, I mean, Chief.
Can someone please verify the comment that Wolf made in the interview that armed forces are now swearing allegiance to the CiC first and not to defend the Constitution (which is what I had to swear to, lo those many years ago!)?
"Paper coup" is such a wonderful term ...
Metafilter: A Paper Coup
posted by aldus_manutius at 7:26 AM on October 7, 2008
there will be an event that will allow the current administration to declare martial law and stay in power.
Have any of you seen the president lately? The man is tired. He's phoning it in, which is part of the reason why the last couple of weeks have been so chaotic -- he delegated authority to Paulson, but other than that speech spent no political capital on it. Remember Paulson begging Pelosi on one knee? With political capital he wouldn't have needed to do that.
Which, of course, leads us to that question about what "martial law" meant. Having seen how tired and ready to get out of here that administration, I doubt they meant "if you don't pass it, we'll start up the tanks," more "if you don't pass it, we'll end up like Argentina 2001 with tanks in the streets to quell the unrest." And given the nature of the ferment in this country right now and how little trust there is in government, that's a valid concern, raising the spectre of the "Godwinization" of America, where Nazi-like populist elements ride the ferment to power.
Again, Dubya is done, and he wants to go home. Did you see him acting like a tourist in China, then give that strange interview with Bob Costas? He's bored. He doesn't want to be there anymore. Yeah, maybe Cheney wants to seize power, but he seems too old, and he's too busy shredding his legacy to worry about seizing ultimate power.
But honestly, if you all are so certain that Dubya and Co. are going to try and seize power, I'll be happy to make a bet with you that they won't. I mean, it's easy money for you, right?
posted by dw at 7:31 AM on October 7, 2008
Have any of you seen the president lately? The man is tired. He's phoning it in, which is part of the reason why the last couple of weeks have been so chaotic -- he delegated authority to Paulson, but other than that speech spent no political capital on it. Remember Paulson begging Pelosi on one knee? With political capital he wouldn't have needed to do that.
Which, of course, leads us to that question about what "martial law" meant. Having seen how tired and ready to get out of here that administration, I doubt they meant "if you don't pass it, we'll start up the tanks," more "if you don't pass it, we'll end up like Argentina 2001 with tanks in the streets to quell the unrest." And given the nature of the ferment in this country right now and how little trust there is in government, that's a valid concern, raising the spectre of the "Godwinization" of America, where Nazi-like populist elements ride the ferment to power.
Again, Dubya is done, and he wants to go home. Did you see him acting like a tourist in China, then give that strange interview with Bob Costas? He's bored. He doesn't want to be there anymore. Yeah, maybe Cheney wants to seize power, but he seems too old, and he's too busy shredding his legacy to worry about seizing ultimate power.
But honestly, if you all are so certain that Dubya and Co. are going to try and seize power, I'll be happy to make a bet with you that they won't. I mean, it's easy money for you, right?
posted by dw at 7:31 AM on October 7, 2008
My only quip with this interview is the bit about martial law.
Sometime here last week there was an explanation concerning Rep. Brad Sherman's comment about martial law. I can't find it now but it explained the difference between military martial law (suspension of constitution, citizens under curfew) and congressional martial law (nobody's going home until this problem is solved/bill is passed). I believe Mr. Sherman was referring to the latter but Ms. Wolf understood the former.
@chillmost:
Actually, in the clip, Sherman specifically says "...a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no." [emphasis mine.]
It doesn't sound like it was just the threat of Congress being held in session.
posted by Amanojaku at 9:49 AM on October 7, 2008
Sometime here last week there was an explanation concerning Rep. Brad Sherman's comment about martial law. I can't find it now but it explained the difference between military martial law (suspension of constitution, citizens under curfew) and congressional martial law (nobody's going home until this problem is solved/bill is passed). I believe Mr. Sherman was referring to the latter but Ms. Wolf understood the former.
@chillmost:
Actually, in the clip, Sherman specifically says "...a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no." [emphasis mine.]
It doesn't sound like it was just the threat of Congress being held in session.
posted by Amanojaku at 9:49 AM on October 7, 2008
Disclaimer: haven't listened to the interview, didn't read THE BEAUTY MYTH -- but read many summations of what it said.
Now then.
It sounds to me like Naomi Wolf has taken the step that I am too skeptical to take when she attributes certain things to a centralized, organized groupthink, and THAT is where much of my disagreement with her lies.
In other words: yes, I agree that there is sometimes strong social pressure towards a certain standard of beauty, and yes, I agree that some women take it way too seriously, and yes, I agree that some cultures also take it way too seriously. However --- I DISAGREE that there is a deliberate, conscious effort to keep this pressure in place EXPRESSLY to objectify women. As I understand it, Naomi Wolf believes that the reason that little girls are growing up wanting to be pretty princesses and that's all is because adult men are secretly hiding all of the toys that would teach them anything different and are expressly designing things tailored to suppress these little darlings; while I think that these little girls are growing up wanting to be pretty princesses and that's all only because no one's bothered to tell them any different. All it really takes to defeat the Patriarchy's Paradigm in your own home is paying attention to your own kid. And if all it takes to "undo" a "conspiracy" is paying attention to your own kid, then it's not really a very strong "conspiracy".
Same to with the government -- it sounds like she thinks there is a concerted effort ON A NATIONAL LEVEL to marginalize various voter blocs, and that there has ALWAYS been so; there's slightly more truth and organization to this, but rather than thinking this is because of a two-hundred-year-old drive to "preserve the governing for White Males, huzzah!" I'd chalk it more up to occasional bouts of career politicians just trying to look out for them and their own. In other words, Strom Thurmond wasn't the way he was because he was part of a secret oligarchy -- Strom Thurmond was the way he was because he was a dick.
Sometimes "a conspiracy" is just "a handful of people who just all independantly happen to be dicks".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on October 7, 2008
Now then.
It sounds to me like Naomi Wolf has taken the step that I am too skeptical to take when she attributes certain things to a centralized, organized groupthink, and THAT is where much of my disagreement with her lies.
In other words: yes, I agree that there is sometimes strong social pressure towards a certain standard of beauty, and yes, I agree that some women take it way too seriously, and yes, I agree that some cultures also take it way too seriously. However --- I DISAGREE that there is a deliberate, conscious effort to keep this pressure in place EXPRESSLY to objectify women. As I understand it, Naomi Wolf believes that the reason that little girls are growing up wanting to be pretty princesses and that's all is because adult men are secretly hiding all of the toys that would teach them anything different and are expressly designing things tailored to suppress these little darlings; while I think that these little girls are growing up wanting to be pretty princesses and that's all only because no one's bothered to tell them any different. All it really takes to defeat the Patriarchy's Paradigm in your own home is paying attention to your own kid. And if all it takes to "undo" a "conspiracy" is paying attention to your own kid, then it's not really a very strong "conspiracy".
Same to with the government -- it sounds like she thinks there is a concerted effort ON A NATIONAL LEVEL to marginalize various voter blocs, and that there has ALWAYS been so; there's slightly more truth and organization to this, but rather than thinking this is because of a two-hundred-year-old drive to "preserve the governing for White Males, huzzah!" I'd chalk it more up to occasional bouts of career politicians just trying to look out for them and their own. In other words, Strom Thurmond wasn't the way he was because he was part of a secret oligarchy -- Strom Thurmond was the way he was because he was a dick.
Sometimes "a conspiracy" is just "a handful of people who just all independantly happen to be dicks".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on October 7, 2008
In other words: yes, I agree that there is sometimes strong social pressure towards a certain standard of beauty, and yes, I agree that some women take it way too seriously, and yes, I agree that some cultures also take it way too seriously. However --- I DISAGREE that there is a deliberate, conscious effort to keep this pressure in place EXPRESSLY to objectify women.
Then you and Wolf agree; to quote (from memory, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate): "This isn't a conspiracy; it doesn't have to be." It is a demonstration, a manifestation, of what our culture values. Asking questions about why one thing is more valuable than another, and how those expectations and punishments function and the consequences that might result is the aim of her book, not the detection of a conscious conspiracy to oppress women.
posted by jokeefe at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2008
Then you and Wolf agree; to quote (from memory, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate): "This isn't a conspiracy; it doesn't have to be." It is a demonstration, a manifestation, of what our culture values. Asking questions about why one thing is more valuable than another, and how those expectations and punishments function and the consequences that might result is the aim of her book, not the detection of a conscious conspiracy to oppress women.
posted by jokeefe at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2008
And reading this paragraph:
Same to with the government -- it sounds like she thinks there is a concerted effort ON A NATIONAL LEVEL to marginalize various voter blocs, and that there has ALWAYS been so; there's slightly more truth and organization to this, but rather than thinking this is because of a two-hundred-year-old drive to "preserve the governing for White Males, huzzah!" I'd chalk it more up to occasional bouts of career politicians just trying to look out for them and their own. In other words, Strom Thurmond wasn't the way he was because he was part of a secret oligarchy -- Strom Thurmond was the way he was because he was a dick.
Uh... don't forget the entrenched legal entitlements that existed with regards to the franchise. How long has it been since even white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote? Let alone women, or African Americans, or Asians, or, most egregiously in my country, members of the First Nations (who were granted the vote in Canada only in the mid 20th century). So of course there has been a concerted effort on a national level to marginalize voter blocks.
posted by jokeefe at 11:30 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Same to with the government -- it sounds like she thinks there is a concerted effort ON A NATIONAL LEVEL to marginalize various voter blocs, and that there has ALWAYS been so; there's slightly more truth and organization to this, but rather than thinking this is because of a two-hundred-year-old drive to "preserve the governing for White Males, huzzah!" I'd chalk it more up to occasional bouts of career politicians just trying to look out for them and their own. In other words, Strom Thurmond wasn't the way he was because he was part of a secret oligarchy -- Strom Thurmond was the way he was because he was a dick.
Uh... don't forget the entrenched legal entitlements that existed with regards to the franchise. How long has it been since even white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote? Let alone women, or African Americans, or Asians, or, most egregiously in my country, members of the First Nations (who were granted the vote in Canada only in the mid 20th century). So of course there has been a concerted effort on a national level to marginalize voter blocks.
posted by jokeefe at 11:30 AM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Actually, in the clip, Sherman specifically says "...a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no." [emphasis mine.]
It doesn't sound like it was just the threat of Congress being held in session.
I stand corrected (gulp). I was remembering another clip I saw last week from another representative who made a statement understood to be concerning congressional martial law. When I saw the link, I wrongly assumed it was the same one. The statement from Brad Sherman leaves no doubt as to which form of martial law he was referring.
America, you are so different now than you were when I left you. Like a lover from whom I reluctantly departed. Years later we cross paths and I wonder if you were always so, but I was too blinded by love to notice.
posted by chillmost at 12:28 PM on October 7, 2008
It doesn't sound like it was just the threat of Congress being held in session.
I stand corrected (gulp). I was remembering another clip I saw last week from another representative who made a statement understood to be concerning congressional martial law. When I saw the link, I wrongly assumed it was the same one. The statement from Brad Sherman leaves no doubt as to which form of martial law he was referring.
America, you are so different now than you were when I left you. Like a lover from whom I reluctantly departed. Years later we cross paths and I wonder if you were always so, but I was too blinded by love to notice.
posted by chillmost at 12:28 PM on October 7, 2008
So what the hell does this Sherman clip mean then? Practically everyone here has decided Wolf is a lunatic, so do you have any theories on what Sherman meant by Martial Law in America?
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:13 PM on October 7, 2008
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:13 PM on October 7, 2008
Can it be possible that Sherman wasn't threatened with martial law as a direct consequence if he and others didn't vote for the bill, but that things could get so bad, that there would be so much unrest and chaos, that martial law would have to be imposed to restore order? And is it possible that it was a very poorly chosen remark by a stressed-out aide to someone who thinks the world is ending? Isn't that just possible?
Man, Naomi Wolf. When I was fifteen she came to my high school and berated the boys. She has over-medicated (or perhaps under-) loon written all over her. What a string of causality she has put together. But forget the ad hominem attack. Isn't it just possible that no one was threatened with martial law?
posted by oneironaut at 1:36 PM on October 7, 2008
Man, Naomi Wolf. When I was fifteen she came to my high school and berated the boys. She has over-medicated (or perhaps under-) loon written all over her. What a string of causality she has put together. But forget the ad hominem attack. Isn't it just possible that no one was threatened with martial law?
posted by oneironaut at 1:36 PM on October 7, 2008
Can it be possible that Sherman wasn't threatened with martial law as a direct consequence if he and others didn't vote for the bill, but that things could get so bad, that there would be so much unrest and chaos, that martial law would have to be imposed to restore order?
You know, this is a good question. Because if that was what they meant, why didn't they just say "My god, man! We'll have rioting in the streets! In several cities around the country!" If the statement is instead "we'll have to impose martial law!" it begs the question, "uhhhh, is that, like, our plan for how to respond to riots?"
posted by salvia at 2:05 PM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
You know, this is a good question. Because if that was what they meant, why didn't they just say "My god, man! We'll have rioting in the streets! In several cities around the country!" If the statement is instead "we'll have to impose martial law!" it begs the question, "uhhhh, is that, like, our plan for how to respond to riots?"
posted by salvia at 2:05 PM on October 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
The Military just issued the new Martial Law Mission
Democracy Now - Amy Goodman
The Constitution and Martial Law
You have been warned.
posted by redhead at 1:16 AM on October 8, 2008
Calling what has happened to the US a coup is a misnomer. A coup brings to mind some sudden change, whereas what we are seeing is the endgame of a multi-decade plan of conquest.
She gives the government way too much credit. They're way too incompetent to launch a massive far-reaching conspiracy like that.
Their inability to find thousands of needy people in a convention center in New Orleans, etc., suggests that pulling off a coup is not in their skillset.
Bush and Co. have gotten exactly what they wanted for 8 years for themselves and their cronies, no matter who or how many were against them, no matter what it took, no matter the degree of outrage it caused. That's not incompetence. It only looks that way if you believe their stated motives. Their lack of concern about or compassion for average people in need, foreign or domestic, is legend.
No wonder Bush looks tired. Getting his Mission Accomplished has been hard work.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:35 AM on October 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
She gives the government way too much credit. They're way too incompetent to launch a massive far-reaching conspiracy like that.
Their inability to find thousands of needy people in a convention center in New Orleans, etc., suggests that pulling off a coup is not in their skillset.
Bush and Co. have gotten exactly what they wanted for 8 years for themselves and their cronies, no matter who or how many were against them, no matter what it took, no matter the degree of outrage it caused. That's not incompetence. It only looks that way if you believe their stated motives. Their lack of concern about or compassion for average people in need, foreign or domestic, is legend.
No wonder Bush looks tired. Getting his Mission Accomplished has been hard work.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:35 AM on October 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
Uh... don't forget the entrenched legal entitlements that existed with regards to the franchise. How long has it been since even white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote? Let alone women, or African Americans, or Asians, or, most egregiously in my country, members of the First Nations (who were granted the vote in Canada only in the mid 20th century). So of course there has been a concerted effort on a national level to marginalize voter blocks.
What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think that there is a smoke-filled room in the basement of the Capitol building full of men secretly rubbing their hands together and cackling evilly over their global network busily working to preserve this particular state of affairs. I think it's more like -- well, not a BENIGN indifference, and actually not even indifference. It's more like a fear of change on the individual level, with a lot of other people scattered across the country just happening to have that same fear. The parties have some kind of machinations in place, but they're more about preserving themselves than "We must keep these groups marginalized".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2008
What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think that there is a smoke-filled room in the basement of the Capitol building full of men secretly rubbing their hands together and cackling evilly over their global network busily working to preserve this particular state of affairs. I think it's more like -- well, not a BENIGN indifference, and actually not even indifference. It's more like a fear of change on the individual level, with a lot of other people scattered across the country just happening to have that same fear. The parties have some kind of machinations in place, but they're more about preserving themselves than "We must keep these groups marginalized".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2008
What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think that there is a smoke-filled room in the basement of the Capitol building full of men secretly rubbing their hands together and cackling evilly over their global network busily working to preserve this particular state of affairs. ... The parties have some kind of machinations in place, but they're more about preserving themselves than "We must keep these groups marginalized".
What the hell is the difference between preserving power and marginalizing others?
1. Keep minorities and women as secondary citizens
2. ...
3. ...
4. White men profit
I think Enron Hubbard is mostly right. I don't think the Bush/Cheney administration accomplished everything they wanted to, but it seems like they've gotten about 90%. If I were a conspiracy theorist, the collapse of the U.S. banking industry and subsequent merger with the government seems straight up Third Position. Through in nationalism, militarism, and anti-immigration, and ... godwin!
As for Brad Sherman, I agree with both Wendell and salvia.
I have no doubt that he speaks the truth that some other Representatives told him they were threatened with Martial Law. I don't see any evidence that he took the threat seriously but rather considered it the peak of White House fear-mongering (which he tried to make clear in his comments).
I agree with Wendell there, but I also agree with Salvia. Why didn't the representatives use the more generic "riots in the streets," which is certainly scary enough, i.e. Watts, 1992 riots? Probably because they didn't mean riots in the streets. They meant "martial law."
posted by mrgrimm at 3:44 PM on October 23, 2008
What the hell is the difference between preserving power and marginalizing others?
1. Keep minorities and women as secondary citizens
2. ...
3. ...
4. White men profit
I think Enron Hubbard is mostly right. I don't think the Bush/Cheney administration accomplished everything they wanted to, but it seems like they've gotten about 90%. If I were a conspiracy theorist, the collapse of the U.S. banking industry and subsequent merger with the government seems straight up Third Position. Through in nationalism, militarism, and anti-immigration, and ... godwin!
As for Brad Sherman, I agree with both Wendell and salvia.
I have no doubt that he speaks the truth that some other Representatives told him they were threatened with Martial Law. I don't see any evidence that he took the threat seriously but rather considered it the peak of White House fear-mongering (which he tried to make clear in his comments).
I agree with Wendell there, but I also agree with Salvia. Why didn't the representatives use the more generic "riots in the streets," which is certainly scary enough, i.e. Watts, 1992 riots? Probably because they didn't mean riots in the streets. They meant "martial law."
posted by mrgrimm at 3:44 PM on October 23, 2008
What the hell is the difference between preserving power and marginalizing others?
The justification. The motivation. The thought process behind it.
I just see a difference between "shoot, we're losing in the polls in the South Bronx -- quick, what can we do to win the election?" and, say, sitting around a table and singing The Stonecutters Song.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:59 PM on October 23, 2008
The justification. The motivation. The thought process behind it.
I just see a difference between "shoot, we're losing in the polls in the South Bronx -- quick, what can we do to win the election?" and, say, sitting around a table and singing The Stonecutters Song.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:59 PM on October 23, 2008
« Older Let's put a smile on that face | Monolith delivery? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by amuseDetachment at 5:56 PM on October 6, 2008 [2 favorites]