alltaket |
| Is this gender-related? The NYT endorses both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. Posted: 21 Jan 2020 04:03 AM PST I like the illustration, but this is semi-nuts:  The nice illustration is by Jules Julien. It's even better if you go to the article page, here. If Kamala Harris were still in the race, would the Times have picked 3? Let's read: On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced....You decide if you want to go realist or radical, and the Times has picked the best realist and the best radical. This is similar to choosing the best Democrat and the best Republican when there are active primaries in both parties. Anyway, the question becomes why Warren over Sanders? The NYT observes that Sanders is 79 (Warren is 70) and he just had a heart attack. But it's not just that. The Times says he's "overly rigid, untested and divisive." Meanwhile, "Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller." Oh, yes, I remember the story of how Bernie told her a woman can't be President and the story of how she is a person of color. But the Times means: She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans... In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country....How do we know Warren was "a longtime Republican"? I agree it's a good story! I'm skipping over a lot, but here's the part where the Times has a reservation (sorry, I just stumbled into that word, but I do see the humor potential): In her primary campaign... she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.... The senator talks more about bringing together Democrats, Republicans and independents behind her proposals, often leaning on anecdotes about her conservative brothers to do so....For those who opt for moderation, why is Amy Klobuchar the one? The Times ticks through the alternatives. Pete Buttigieg is young. Andrew Yang has no governmental experience. Bloomberg is "the candidate in the race with the clearest track record of governing," but he's not campaigning in the normal way. Joe Biden is "prone to verbal stumbles," and he just "tinkers at the edges of issues," and talks about "merely restoring the status quo." So: Amy! The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.... Her record shows that she is confident and thoughtful, and she reacts to data — what you'd want in a crisis....I think the NYT really wants Amy Klobuchar to be the one. And you know me: I said it in December 2018: "Why aren't the Democratic candidates better? I'm just going to be for Amy Klobuchar." Here's how the NYT ends its dual endorsement: Democrats would be smart to recognize that Mr. Trump's vision for America's future is shared by many millions of Americans. Any hope of restoring unity in the country will require modesty, a willingness to compromise and the support of the many demographics that make up the Democratic coalition....I think there's a dual endorsement here not because there are 2 women left and the NYT wants a woman, as if there's no way to distinguish them because there's only one factor, gender. I think the NYT wants to stand back for a while and let voters have their time with the radical option and get rid of one of the radicals (Bernie, they hope), and later when things settle down, they'll let us know that the realist is better suited to go up against Trump. They hope to give Amy some traction in the meantime, and if it comes down, in the end, to Elizabeth and Amy, they'll advise Democrats to pick Amy. But chances are, it will boil down to Biden and Bernie, and if it does, that's when we'll know how dedicated the Times is to the realist side of the Democratic Party. They'll embrace Biden.  |
| Posted: 21 Jan 2020 03:14 AM PST "It's such a weird, sneaky thing... It's greasy!... Whenever I read 'male feminist' posts... I know what you're doing: You're a greasy man!" Joe is speaking in the extreme, stating absolutes, and that works as comic expression, whether or not the absolute version of the statement is precisely true. Of course, if you had to defend it as precisely true, you could easily win by using a "no true Scotsman" approach to what "male feminist" means. Also, "greasy man" is an excellent insult. It's old too. I looked it up in the OED. It's "a contemptuous or abusive epithet" that's been around since the 1500s. a1529 J. Skelton Poems against Garnesche in Poet Wks. (1843) I. 121 Wherto xulde I wryght Of soche a gresy knyght?The OED has a specific note on the phrase "greasy mechanic": "used of Northerners by Southerners preceding and during the American Civil War." I looked up "greasy mechanic" in the NYT archive and found "The Greasy Mechanic in a New Light" from September 30, 1861 (click to enlarge and clarify): There's also greaser culture — the grease of "Grease." Wikipedia ties this term to the old insult: The word "greaser" originated in the 19th century in the United States as a derogatory label for poor laborers, specifically those of Mexican, Italian descent. The term was later used to refer to mechanics. It was not used in writing to refer to the American subculture of the mid-20th century until the mid-1960s, though in this sense it still evoked a pejorative connotation and a relation to machine work. The name was applied to members of the subculture because of their characteristic greased-back hair.I went to high school in the 60s, and there were lots of teenagers of Italian ancestry who styled themselves in a way that is called "greaser," but that wasn't the word were I lived (in Wayne, New Jersey). We called them "hoods" or "hood-y kids." Anyway. Let me gather all the points I want to make into a list so you don't think I just took an off ramp, lost my way, and left you stranded in some backwater of English usage and my long-lost youth: 1. "Greasy" is an excellent insult with a long tradition. 2. The "male feminist" is indeed suspect. 3. Comedians have the license to state things in the absolute that are not actually absolute. 4. Never forget the "no true Scotsman" argument (which is a fallacy, but that doesn't mean you can't use it). 5. I think some gay guys really do believe in feminism (and don't mind saying so). 6. There's an important difference between believing in feminism and calling yourself a "male feminist." 7. I think "male feminist" should only be used as an insult. If you're feminist and male, just call yourself a "feminist." It's like "male nurse." Who says that and why? If you're male and a nurse, you call yourself a "nurse," don't you? It's those other people, who sound rather dumb, who keep saying "male nurse."  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from <title>. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |