The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.
Where to begin?
zeroeth) It’s all the media’s fault, again.
i.) A weird indictment of irony, a defining virtue of Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth.
ii.) Who qualifies as an “ordinary American?”
iii.) What are these “politics of personal destruction” of which you speak?
iv.) Who are these “countless others [who] leave their positions for a higher calling without finishing their term?” When one reads the first clause, they can concievably believe that she’s referring to unelected people who make sacrificial decisions towards a humanitarian effort, like passing up college straightaway to enlist for a few years, or the graduate who turns down a job to join the Peace Corps for a few years–but then she places the necessary modifying clause “without finishing their terms.” Can she cite any, just one other other elected official who’s stepped down, not for committing a crime or some personal disgrace, but because they just don’t think they can do enough good in the bully pulpit, with the resources and network of support executive office entails?
Trooper Cooper tries to pry a straight answer from Palin’s spokeswoman, Meg Stapelton:
Around 3:20, Stapelton descends into simple gushing about her employer to no discernible end. She’s got spirit, is a maverick, she can do whatever–whatever–she wants to do, and the world is literally her oyster. Literally. It’s not a metaphor at all. Nope, Palin’s literally gonna wrangle the actual pearls right out of that fucker.
Around 5:00, Stapelton admits Palin has “no plans for anything in particular at this point and time”–although, earlier she had said the governor has been offered ”everything under the sun.” So she left office to affect change, because she couldn’t do that in office. Instead, her master plan–premeditated, we are to believe, months in advance–was to quit her job as a state executive to affect said change outside the government by…well, by whatever comes along. That’ll surely come along–and will certainly be able to help the “right people get elected.” Even though Palin herself, presumably by her own standards a “right person” had already gotten elected.
Also: Anderson Cooper’s amusing bafflement about basic the terminology of basketball through minute four. (I didn’t get it either; but this is the weekend for schadenfruede.)
Diana Goldstein explains her project, “Fallen Princesses” “
The project was inspired by my observation of three-year-old girls, who were developing an interest in Disney’s Fairy tales. As a new mother I have been able to get a close up look at the phenomenon of young girls fascinated with Princesses and their desire to dress up like them. The Disney versions almost always have sad beginning, with an overbearing female villain, and the end is predictably a happy one. The Prince usually saves the day and makes the victimized young beauty into a Princess.
As a young girl, growing up abroad, I was not exposed to Fairy tales. These new discoveries lead to my fascination with the origins of Fairy tales. I explored the original brothers Grimm’s stories and found that they have very dark and sometimes gruesome aspects, many of which were changed by Disney. I began to imagine Disney’s perfect Princesses juxtaposed with real issues that were affecting women around me, such as illness, addiction and self-image issues.
Another sadly poignant photo after the jump. Five more at JPG Magazine.
It all started six months ago when my partner, Anita (also a media literacy advocate) and I watched the enormously popular movie Twilight, based on the book of the same name by Stephenie Meyer. Coincidentally, we had recently finished re-watching the final season of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, our favorite television show ever. As huge Buffy fans we couldn’t help but compare the two stories. We were troubled by how the main characters in Twilight seemed to embody antiquated, sexist gender stereotypes. Teenage protagonist Bella Swan is written as passive, co-dependant and perpetually the damsel in distress. Edward Cullen, her love interest, is written as over-protective, domineering and possessive.
Over the course of the film Edward is in turns patronizing, condescending and just downright creepy. He spies on Bella, he stalks her (for “her own good”), he sneaks into her room to watch her sleep (without her consent) and even confesses to a deep, overpowering desire to kill her. We marveled at how the film attempted to present this behavior as sweet and deeply romantic – and how the larger pop culture discussion continued that framing for millions of young Twilight fans. At several points during the film Anita and I found ourselves asking each other: “What Would Buffy Do?”
…In the end the only reasonable response was to have Buffy stake Edward – not because she didn’t find him sexy, not because he was too sensitive or too eager to share his feelings – but simply because he was possessive, manipulative, and stalkery.
Here’s the transcript to her truly painful speech. It’s peppered with motivational poster tropes like:
Life is all about choices!
Only dead fish go with the flow.
Gotta put first things first!
She quotes twice: First, a statement from Oliver Smith, which she incorrectly attributes to Macarthur. Secondly, a truly horrible refrigerator magnet of her parents which conveniently exonerates her from ever giving a reason for anything she ever does ever again:
Don’t explain; your friends don’t need it, and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.
Or, you know, you could point out something your enemies/neurtral parties missed, or correct a misunderstanding on their part, or bolster your own side’s opinion with better-crafted arguements. Yeesh.
According to Palin, a lame-duck governor has just two options. You can have “fun,” mail it in, and take an extended travel holiday. Or yo can bail out entirely and let someone else take over. No mention of a third option: using your freedom from crude electoral politics to make hard choices and earn the best possible results for your state. Apparently that’s “not what is best for Palin Alaska,” either.
Just watched Palin’s press conference. Bizarre. No specific reasons given, just a reference to attacks on her son, Trig, a rambling history of the acquisition of Alaska, and a lamenting of having to defend numerous ethics charges. Palin didn’t appear to be reading from any notes and the Lt. Governor seems rather stunned…Some say that she’s taking the high road and leaving politics entirely to care for her family, some suspect a coming scandal – and many are calling her political career over.
Though she claims she’s explained herself, I feel like there is a lot of obfuscation here. What is her real reason? How is she going to “affect change from the outside?”
It seems disingenious for her to act like the honorable thing is to “pass the ball” so she’s not a “lame duck” governor, rather than just, well, not being a lame duck governor. If she’s all about what’s good for the peeps of Alaska, why can’t she finish her term honorably and then move on to other things?
She’s 
![[8]](http://static.flickr.com/3566/3684030710_a3b5755453_t.jpg "[8]")
