Our fascination with Whack-o Jack-o has never been only, or even primarily, with his prodigious skills. It was with the way he personified our culture's most central ambitions to whiteness, immortality, wealth, real estate and fame. Lodged somewhere between the superhuman and the alien, aspiration and disgust, Jackson was a grotesque reflection of our collective desires.
Yea, I think that's right (minus the needless use of "Whack-o Jack-o").
I think this is the major point that Bill Maher has buried in his critique of Obama. His comment that even his own audience, which suffered few jokes or critiques of Obama in the past, applauded that critique is instructive.
I think that is saying something.
This is sort of what I wanted to get at yesterday in my post. The Democrats have two out of three branches of government and, mostly, the other team is on the ropes. Now might be a good time to do what you said you would do when you got elected, Democrats.
I think the challenge for them is figuring out what the hell it is they want to do and then figure out how to bring the entire party along. The Blue Dogs are Democrats in name only. And despite what the Right will tell you, the rest of the party ain’t all that liberal. Especially not the leadership.
Of course anyone who watches Bill regularly knows that he knows that the Democrats have no idea what they really want to do, mostly because there is no Democratic ideology (I’m coming to believe this more and more). So rhetorically, he’s conflating what Obama should/would/could do with what is really the role of Congress. This works because, as you see, it gets him interviewed on MSNBC. And there should be criticism of Obama. But I don’t think it is translating to people demanding what they want from Congress.
Bill has to get that applauding audience of his to transfer that frustration from Obama to Congress.
That were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Ah yes, affirmative action got her through all of that. Sure – it helped her get into Princeton, but affirmative action doesn't take the tests and do the work for you.
But that isn't the kind of thing you'll likely hear from rich privileged white man who think they are under constant assault from minorities and women.
Wouldn't it be nice if they'd say "wow, I guess test scores aren't always great predictors of how well someone does in college?" You know, something accurate and thoughtful. And helpful.
It never ceases to amaze me how much they really think this is their country.