armchair pundit

If Sarah Palin falls in the forest and the media ignores her, does it make a sound?

I shouldn’t have to wish for Sarah Palin to go away. After all, what is Sarah Palin but the losing candidate for vice-president in an election that happened 10 months ago, and the former governor of a state most of us never think about (sorry Alaska)? If the winner of the vice presidency is awarded with “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived” (in the immortal words of John Adams), then what does the loser get?

As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin generated a lot of media buzz last summer because she was a woman that no one had ever heard of, and the GOP picked her to be John McCain’s running mate. Pure shock value basically. In a sensible world, the buzz would have quickly dwindled to the sub-audible hum that most veep candidates garner. Except that it turned out she was kind of a dimwit. OK, so that was a bit newsworthy, and Palin was good for a few ammusing “joe six packs” and “you betchas.”

But then it really should have been over.

When McCain lost the election, and she went back to Alaska, that should have been the last we heard from or about her – barring a sex scandal or some kind of meltdown. Like suddenly quitting her job.

But this is the governor of Alaska we’re talking about, and we only care about her because she ran for vice president. When a former veep candidate resigns from office in the least-populous state, it warrants a few paragraphs of coverage for a day or two.

So who’s still talking about Sarah Palin? I don’t read the conservative press, but the New York Times has run several Op-Ed pieces in the last few days and another front-page story yesterday. The Huffington Post has posted probably 50 Palin stories in the last week. The Daily Dish, which usually has better things to talk about, has been beating the dead horse too.

Can y’all stop now please?

I just finished watching the second season of Mad Men, and I’m left with a familiar bittersweet feeling. The same one you get when you finish a great book. I don’t often get this feeling from a TV show, so I’ve begun to reflect a little on what it is that makes the show so good. One thing, of course, is the place and time.

1960 in America

Setting a show in 1960 was a stroke of pure genius. America, having recovered from World War II hit it’s stride in the 1950s. The country was enjoying an unprecedented era of era of prosperity. The big companies that created the machinery of modern warfare reinvented themselves as purveyors of household magic. Plastic revolutionized packaging and changed the whole concept of disposable goods. Chemicals emerged to ensure everything from green lawns to wrinkle-free clothing. A proliferation of new gadgets promised to erase every inconvenience from our lives. This is when Modern America was born. We were seduced by technology, and we never looked back.

At the same time, there was so much about America in 1960 that seems so quaint and primitive now. Often comically so. There’s a voyeuristic joy in watching kids play spacemen in front of their parents by putting plastic bags over their heads. Seatbelts didn’t even exist yet. Pregnant women smoked and drank. Everyone, for that matter, smoked and drank constantly – even at work. Every executive had “a girl” to take care of all the minutiae of meetings and phone calls (plus coffee, dry-cleaning and sometimes other “perks”). “Homos” were perverts, and “negroes” were only fit for household help and operating elevators.

Looking back on this era is to witness the fascinating disconnect between what Americans in 1960 believed about themselves – and their culture and their country – and what we now understand to be the reality. This makes for many gasp-producing, head-shaking moments. But I believe there’s also something much more personal going on. I suspect that in 2009 there is a similar disconnect at play in America.

1960 as a mirror

The Internet has resurrected our reverence for technology and our faith in technology’s ability to solve our problems (if it ever went away). We constantly crave the next new thing – then we adopt it, adapt to it, become disillusioned by it and discard it. This whole cycle can happen over a few months or even weeks.

Today, for example, everyone seems to be excited about Twitter’s third anniversary. At the same time they’re wondering if Facebook’s home page redesign is a harbinger of impending decline.

Women and minorities have come a long way of course. There are whole categories of things we consider unjust today that were acceptable in 1960, but there is still plenty of injustice in the world. And for the most part we still coast through our lives, blissfully untouched by it.

So partly, we love Mad Men for the same reason we love most great stories – because we recognize ourselves in the characters, and we see our world in the one they inhabit.

Yesterday, NPR’s On The Media aired an interesting segment about Bush and language. It wasn’t another jab at his butchering of English; it was a look at his administration’s creative branding of its policies, programs and  initiatives:

Gladstone’s guest, “Republican wordsmith” Frank Luntz, doesn’t anticipate that much of Bush’s lexicon will stick, but he seems to be referring to Bush’s oratory, rather than the Administration’s knack for naming. Regretfully, I think we’ll have to live with some of these names for a while (not to mention the damage they’ve done). In no particular order…

• Operation Enduring Freedom. I think you have to establish freedom before it can endure. As I read on a bumper sticker once: “We’ll Liberate the Shit Out of You.” Remember when this one was…
• Operation Infinite Justice. Because Bush’s top adviser is… The Lord, and The Lord apparently likes Tom Clancy novels. Either way, this war introduced us to…
• Unlawful enemy combatants. Not just enemy combatants, but unlawful ones. In any case, this means that even though we’re in the middle of a “war” on terror, the people we’re fighting are not “prisoners” of said war once we capture them. They’re “detainees.” And they’re unlawful. How convenient for us. Or maybe not, since the government can decide that any one of us is an unlawful enemy combatant pretty much whenever it wants to and with no explanation whatsoever. Think about this before you chuck your shoes at the president smart guy, or you might be subjected to…
• Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Don’t worry though, it’s not torture. Sigh.
• The Axis of Evil. We have to trust him on this. He talks to The Lord, remember?
• Homeland Security. They tell us what color we are – red, orange, yellow (like Lifesavers… literally), and they keep American cities from being destroyed (except by hurricanes). We all feel much more secure with them around.
• Patriot Act. It tells us how to act patriotic.
• No Child Left Behind. And seven years later, no children are behind! Right?
• The Clear Skies Initiative. Because who’s not for clear skies? Wait, Bush? Really? But what about the name? I don’t get it.
• The Healthy Forests Initiative. Because who’s not for healthy forests? Wait, Bush? Really? But what… oh, I think I’m starting to understand.
• Compassionate Conservatism. Ahhh, this is where it all began.

For a final word on Bush’s knack for naming, I leave you with Jon Stewart.

Aspirational Time Horizon

When the folks in “real America” want to make a point of distinguishing themselves from the rest of us, they often spit words like French, European, elite, socialist and of course San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi. SNL captured this sentiment pretty well:

Now, I live in San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi is my representative, and while I think the right’s characterizations of her are simplistic, exaggerated and unfair, I was very surprised to receive a robocall from Rosanne Barr the other night urging me to dump Pelosi, especially when I realized that Barr was saying Pelosi is not liberal enough. Specifically Barr declares, Pelosi is “a collaborator with a criminal administration.”

Pelosi’s biggest mistake, in my mind, was to have stated upon assuming her position as Speaker of the House that “impeachment is off the table.” People understood her to be, in effect, giving the Bush Administration a free pass, but Pelosi was only being pragmatic. Regardless of what you think Bush and Cheney deserve (impeachment, a war crimes trial), the Democrats hold the slimmest majority in Congress, and there’s no way they have the votes to impeach. She recognized it as a hopless cause that would only make it impossible to push anything else on the Democratic legislative agenda.

Rosanne’s candidate, by the way, is Cindy Sheehan.

It’s taken me a few days to write this post, partly because I’ve been busy (remarkable in itself, since I’m officially unemployed right now), and partly because I’m still not really sure what I want to say.

David Foster Wallace committed suicide last Friday, and the world lost an acrobatic writer and a dazzling mind. People either love or hate his fractured, self-conscious, self-interrupting, heavily-footnoted style. Some people dismiss it as pretentious or as a kind of academic pandering, but I think his suicide represents a final verdict that shows he was his own biggest critic.

I am a huge admirer of DFW, and I’m not sure there’s ever been another writer so versatile. His work is at times manic, funny, quiet, sad, high-flying, firmly-grounded. Most of it is so multi-dimensional it defies description. He was a virtuoso who came closer to representing the way our brains process life than anyone else I can think of. His magnum opus – Infinite Jest – was 1000+ pages long and packed with footnotes, but as you read it you recognize that your own mind produces this kind of fractured and multi-layered narrative about every second.

Finally, it’s crystal clear in his writing and in the way he would talk about his writing that he wrote out of love. It feels trite to actually write that here, but I think the whole of his writing has a tenderness running through it that is ultimately about the pain of modern life. He recognized how difficult it is to live in the world we’ve made for ourselves, especially for people inclined to examine it.

He was one of those people, and in the end he couldn’t endure what he was able to see.

I can’t believe I’m writing about Britney Spears, but bear with me.

One would hope that Britney bottomed out somewhere around the head-shaving or the crotch-flashing. Now it seems the gossip mill’s coverage of Britney has finally bottomed out as well.

Yesterday I was in the checkout line at the Safeway – where I get most of my celebrity gossip – and I noticed the usual array of Britney shots on the covers of the usual magazines. But something was amiss.

The normally snarky Us Weekly had Britney’s face dominating the cover, but instead of the obligatory jab about her latest booze binge or child-endangerment episode, the headline simply read, “Living With Mental Illness.”

Adjacent to this on the shelf was Star magazine, whose cover story was something about how Britney and K-Fed are working to come up with a parenting agreement that will be good for their kids.

All of this on the heels of the recent South Park episode (“Britney’s New Look“) lampooning our insatiable appetite for tabloid news. Key quote, “I know watching celebrities go down can be fun. Me and my friends were just as guilty as all of you, but maybe, just maybe it’s time to let this one go.”

Amazingly, the tabloid press is listening, and it seems they’ve agreed to a ceasefire.

Of course, Craig Fergusson called for it a long time ago.

It really bugs me… They say, ‘Oh, David Beckham – he’s not very clever.’ Yeah. They don’t say, ‘Stephen Hawking – shit at football.’

- Paul Calf