Thursday, February 26, 2009

Quote of the Day:

You see, everything that the media lied to you and told you Sarah Palin was, Jindal actually is. -SayUncle.

Why does the GOP insist on offering me The Handmaiden's Tale as its cheery alternative to the Democrat's promise of 1984?



(UPDATE: Thank you to staghounds for correcting my titling gaffe in comments.)

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

For the record, I like Jindal and would probably vote for him. His speech at NRA was very good.

But I think there's enough there that he won't survive the inevitable press assault. Which won't start for another three years.

-SayUncle

Crustyrusty said...

But I think there's enough there that he won't survive the inevitable press assault. Which won't start for another three years.

Anyone who isn't a commie is going to be assaulted in the media for the next 4 years, at least.

Chas S. Clifton said...

Tam, I think I hear you saying that the GOP has to decide whether it is the party *of* religious conservatives, or whether religious conservatives are merely "useful idiots" in the service of the free-markets, smaller-government agenda.

I do wonder whether that issue will break the party.

Curious to hear your further thoughts.

WV: parno -- an imitation Italian hard cheese made entirely from non-dairy chemicals.

staghounds said...

Handmaid's tale.

But it's a GREAT summation of the parties.

For people who have read both books.

All fifteen of us.

Tam said...

"Handmaid's tale."

D'oh! You're right, of course.

Crucis said...

The media has already started on Jindal. He's made a very good start in Louisiana. Best if he told his GOP handlers to take a hike. His "response" speech was written by others. He should have written it himself.

Anonymous said...

Jindal is certainly capable of being president. Good man, regardless of his religious beliefs. What bothered me was the STUPID shot at millions for 'Volcano monitoring.' Even my wife (not a fan of science) thought that was out of bounds. This fits in well with McCain's shot on DNA testing for Grizzlies. What was not mentioned was that that was the most cost effective way to really determine the population numbers in that region. Pork DOES exist, but its easier to play to people who think all science is a waste. Jindal should aim higher.

Anonymous said...

Heh. Fist time I've been able to say this (I was not on board Forrestal):

I blame McCain.

wv: fricalo. Great with Parno!

Noah D said...

"But it's a GREAT summation of the parties. "

In the same way that 'Absolved' is a great summation of the 'People of the Gun', sure.

1984 is the furthest end result of Leftist/Authoritarian policy; the abuse of language as a method of control is probably one of the best insights. Brave New World is much more 'now', though.

The Handmaid's Tale is, IMHO, typical Leftist bedwetting PSH. Unless, of course, it's a cautionary tale about the dangers of Salafist/Wahabbist Islam and Sharia - then, it's brilliant!

(Either way, the epilogue is purest fantasy, and points out the utter ridiculousness of the whole thing.)

Of course, someone arguing from the other side of the fence would reverse the claims I've made; 1984 is the fantasy of reactionary bedwetters, and The Handmaid's Tale is the logical end result of Religious Rightist policy. Well, one of these views is borne out by history and reality. We had a Soviet Union, we have a Cuba, a North Korea, a China - but there ain't no Republic of Gilead.

wv: pronscia - the perfect sauce for fricalo with parno.

Tam said...

Golly, I've never used hyperbole before. That must explain the shock.

Dave R. said...

I've read Handmaid's Tale. Not using birth control and abortion in the context of a loving marriage has nothing to do with it. Hyperbole or not, that was cheap to the point of being inapplicable.

Noah D said...

Shock? It was clever juxtaposition in the service of hyperbole (I've read enough here to know what you meant, and appreciate it). As a 'summation', though, maybe not so much.

Then again, I may have misinterpreted/overanalyzed what staghounds meant - wouldn't be the first time I've done such a thing.

Tam said...

Noah D,

The Handmaid's Tale while hyperbolic and written by a pinko who wants to ban gasoline lawnmowers, is no more exaggerated than 1984 in many respects.

While it's easy to read it as an attack on one's particular flavor of religion, one should not look at it as an attack on Baptists or Episcopalians or Shiites or Druse, but rather on what happens when one religion (any one religion) or another gets to write its Bronze-Age codicils into 21st Century law.

"...but there ain't no Republic of Gilead."

Hmmm... A place where women are property? That's a stretch. But how about a place where women can't own property or exercise the franchise? Well, that's not too far from the chair in which you sit. Only a handful of decades away in the past, actually.

That may be easy to ignore if you're not a woman.

Anonymous said...

You know what? That Vietnamese doctor is right. That was just hateful. Victim-card, played for trump.

Wymyn Wymyn Wymyn. Scratch the surface, and Tam The Great runs up the true colors yet again.

The first generation after the revolution set aside the issue of slavery, which they knew was important, to take care of disestablishment and women's property rights--and they did. When the franchise was extended--no small issue, since it required a whole new definition of what a vote meant, setting aside the millenial concept of one vote representing a whole family--it was voted in by men, who absolutely did not have to, and chose what they believed was right. That, apparently, is easy to ignore.

Females are held as chattels on two large continents, no stretch. This custom is being opposed by Americans--and I guess I have to point it out to you--American men.

You need to remember who your enemies are. Bite down on that Dworkinite tantrum and spare us the just-a-girl posturing.

Noah D said...

Tam,

That may be easy to ignore if you're not a woman.

It is - which reflects poorly on me, history student and all.

The Handmaid's Tale...is no more exaggerated than 1984 in many respects.

Also true - but I'd argue that 1984 is somewhat closer to reality than Handmaid, save for one sad, salient point: when I said 'there ain't no Republic of Gilead', I was trying to point out (make fun of) Atwood's fictional Christian theocracy, vice the reality of Muslim theocracies.

Anon - wtf? If that was a 'Dworkinite tantrum' (funny, it looked like reasoned discourse to me), what happens when you read Dworkin herself? Does the book slam itself shut on your balls or something?

Tam said...

"Wymyn Wymyn Wymyn. Scratch the surface, and Tam The Great runs up the true colors yet again."

Dude, I'll take the Dworkin counterslam where it's warranted, but I scrutinized that post for excessive whining or fembottery, and I'm just not seeing it.

atlharp said...

Indeed,

I think Jindal's speech was muted in style, but had tremendous substance. Unfortunately, when dealing with the media it is all about style. I don't think Jindal is the major front runner for the presidency in comparison to Palin. Palin's record of reformation and her masterful handling of Alaska is a rock solid record of achievement. In comparison to Jindal, she dwarfs him- both on substance and on style. Jindal is a great addition to the lower tier of candidates, but I don't see him above the level of VP at this point. (Guys, yes I know this early....blah.....blah.....blah! LOL)

Tam said...

...oh, and I will admit that half the entertainment value in The Handmaid's Tale is that Atwood really thinks that that would be your typical Southern Baptist's idea of paradise. She is completely tone-deaf to her cultural foes.

Although it's interesting that Atwood's Gilead draws a lot more flack from some of the same people than Heinlein does for Scudder's Interregnum...

Mikee said...

Jindal will be president if and only if he wants to be, when he wants to be, much like Jeb Bush would have been president if he had wanted to, rather than George W in 2000. As far as I can tell, Jindal took on the thankless task of Louisiana governor in the sincere belief that he could do a good job and help the state recover from its previous Democrat leadership crises during Katrina and Rita. Such service, which seems to be moving te state in a positive direction, will qualify him for whatever he wants to do next.

As for his personal beliefs, please remember the difference between secular leftists and religious conservatives in government. It is primarily (by >99%) the leftists who want to impose their personal beliefs on this republic. The religious conservatives may want you to join their church, but in general (again, >99%)they will let you live as you see fit.

Noah D said...

Although it's interesting that Atwood's Gilead draws a lot more flack from some of the same people than Heinlein does for Scudder's Interregnum...

Well, Heinlein is that awful fascist who writes science fiction (ew), while The Handmaid's Tale, that's literature!

She is completely tone-deaf to her cultural foes.

True - not nearly enough pitch-in dinners in Gilead.

John said...

Mikee, it's worth remembering that a century ago, Christianity in government would have been synonymous with socialism and even nascent fascism.

Totalitarians are plenty numerous on both sides of the religious divide.

LauraB said...

I, for one (it appears), appreciate that little quip. Well said, I think.

And not at all - er, what was that? - Dworkinistic.

Joe Huffman said...

I quoted Tam (Tale v. 1984) in my blog post and someone came up to me today at work after reading my blog and told me they thought that was a quite accurate summation.

Sure, both books are far, far, beyond what either side actually envisions. But even if they don't actually envision that as a desirable outcome just trending in either of those directions is unacceptable.

AmericanMercenary said...

"The Handmaid's Tale" is happening today in Islamic states.

The Republicans may pander to the religious right, but neither the Republican party nor the religious right want an outcome involving a theocracy or one party system.