Vote Palin, if you’re desperate enough

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by conservative columnist Charlotte Allen, who has been featured in well-known right-wing media outlets for quite a number of years, but still isn’t famous enough for her own Wikipedia page. I’m sure she hasn’t heard the end of it for a recent column of hers that went viral for its utter lack of forethought. But this failure is so comprehensive that it merits a full-scale deconstruction, six days after the fact. Doing her part for the Republican chadash (Hebrew for “renewal”), Allen, who is clearly stuck in Dayton, October 2008, nominates a 2016 candidate: former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).

Are you done laughing yet? Good. At least you weren’t blinded with rage over the fact that she’s already talking about 2016. Anyway, here’s Allen’s case for President Palin, in bullet-point form:

• blue-collar
• media-savvy
• has a single-mom daughter
• consistent on social issues
• pro-states’ rights
• has a military son
• attractive
• tough
• Ronald Reagan also had baggage

And here’s what’s wrong with that list:

• She hasn’t been even close to blue-collar since the 2008 election.
• She pisses on the media too much to want to be savvy with it.
• Bristol is a sanctimonious twit who has no connection with your average, struggling young single mom.
• She’s consistent on social issues in a way that voters just rejected . . .
• . . . which at times overrides her preference for states’ rights.
• Who cares about Track?
• Who cares what she looks like?
• She wasn’t too tough to quit being governor!
• Ronald Reagan never had to deal with the Internet constantly reminding voters of his baggage.

Aside from the Palin-bots who, bizarrely, still exist, left-wingers are hugely supportive of this idea. If you can’t figure out why, rejoice, for you are at least as insightful as Allen. Thankfully, based on recent events, it’s likelier that the Republican Party will avoid a candidate who reminds them of Palin the way they’d avoid that weird lady on the bus who talks to herself. Might I recommend someone who actually intimidates Democrats for more than a couple of weeks? This is about winning elections, isn’t it?

How not to write like a wuss

It’s a slow news day, which means it’s time for another random writing lesson. (One of the items on my bucket list is to teach a university-level course on political commentary; consider this practice.) Recent emotionally charged news has resulted in a lot of emotionally charged writing, which isn’t a bad thing in theory, but the key here is execution. There are certain habits you must avoid if you want to sound a) original and b) not like a wuss. (The original title of this post was a more graphic synonym for “wuss,” but this is a family blog.) Here they are.

Don’t begin an op-ed with “As a [insert demographic here].” Could the reader care less if you’re a suburban middle-class blond mother of four? No. They could not. This isn’t about you. And if you are trying to make this about you, prepare for a lot of readers to respond with “This isn’t about you.” I know some people haven’t gotten out of the “Personal = political” era, but at some point you need to develop the capability to determine an opinion on issues based on how they affect people other than you and your household. Of course, I can name several elected officials who still haven’t figured out how to do that. . . .

Don’t begin a sentence with “I think.” What the hell do you mean, you think? Do you have something to back up your contention or not? And even if you do, “I think” sounds not only as excessively personal as “As a [whatever],” but just plain immature. A strong op-ed has a tone of certainty throughout. Lose that tone and you give the impression that you don’t mean what you’re saying.

Don’t tell people you’re offended. Every time someone includes some permutation of “I’m offended” in an op-ed, I imagine a Snooki whine playing right afterward. In doing so, you’re effectively shutting out all criticism of your argument, a practice that is only done when the argument itself is weak, or the person making it is too weak to face criticism. Once again, it’s not about you and your feelings. It’s about the issue.

Don’t talk about what “society” should do. Tell me, who exactly is “society?” Because if you can’t identify a person or group who has the power to fix whatever problem you’re squawking about, a society-wide change is a pretty tall order. This makes you sound like you just found out that society has its undesirable elements. Either speak as specifically as you can or save the OMG SO BAD talk for your LiveJournal.

In addition to these don’ts, remember to internalize this list – at least most of it. (I happen to enjoy parenthetical phrases, analogies, foreign words and contractions. But use them sparingly.) Also, it helps to do a little bit of delving into whatever issue you’re writing on, so as not to come off as a reactionary. Unless that’s what you’re going for, in which case I can’t help you.

The patriotic army of Palin

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by a number of American readers, presumably fans of ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), who didn’t like what I had to say about her in my city paper, where I’ve been freelancing editorials. I have no idea how they found it; I assume they scour the Internet daily searching for Palin detractors. They get the fail for their reason why I shouldn’t be bothered with (although they did bother).

I will give “may” some credit for pointing out my error in naming Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) as a representative from Ohio. Normally I get that right and I don’t know how I missed it this time, but I posted a retraction in the comments. A number of others had the following to say (I’m paraphrasing):

• I was born in Canada, and my country is irrelevant. (What, like I disagree? That’s why I write about them!)
• They will not vote based on what Canadians want. (Who ever said that? The point of the article was to assure other Canadians that Palin is incapable of being a national candidate.)
• I am a lefty because I hate Palin and didn’t acknowledge President Obama’s “incomptence.” (The article I published before, on war resistance, had people accusing me of being a Conservative operative. It was fun.)

I can’t say I’m hurt by any of this. I’ve dealt with it several times, and for every American who brands me persona non grata because of where I was born, there are five who engage me on the substance of my writing, and three of those five (including my friends Alyssa in Illinois, Sherry in Florida, and Charlotte in Nebraska) like me.

The negative comments really didn’t do that. They simply provided some variation on the theme of “What are you talking about? Palin rules.” Some other favorites were a guy who actually used the term “cotton-picking,” and another who said Canada would be “dead meat’” without American protection. To which a Canadian commenter replied that the only people who have ever attacked us have been Americans. Good point.

Most Americans are smart enough to see that a) globalized communications and b) close economic and military bonds are sufficient grounds for Canadians writing about U.S. issues. I’m sorry that a loud and obnoxious minority needs to spew such nonsense when they read something they disagree with. But at least I’m getting attention.

Vanity Fair is the seventh deadly sin

In my first-year journalism course, one of the most important rules we learned was never to use a quote, no matter how good it was, unless the source was at least willing to reveal their first and last names. (Ages and occupations are also good things to have, but they may not be necessary depending on the nature of the piece.) And that’s just for innocuous articles about the weather. That rule was suspended for a 10,532-word Vanity Fair piece on what hadn’t previously been revealed about ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).

Now I’m not going to lie: As much as I take the article with a tablespoon of salt, it’s absolutely hilarious to read. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if everything contained within turned out to be pure fact. Even without that, it reads like a short story about someone’s paranoid fantasy of what Palin is really like. But we can’t know if everything is pure fact, because except in a couple of cases, the sources are confidential. Author Michael Joseph Gross probably couldn’t be persuaded to reveal them.

Here’s Palin’s tweet from 5:01 p.m. on Wednesday:

When yellow journalism gets ratcheted up for a period of time over an individual or an issue it makes u wonder what’s up? What’s the threat?

“Yellow journalism” is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers.” OK, so Vanity Fair is a magazine. But it certainly inflames Palin’s detractors, and Gross’s use of confidential sources is without a doubt irresponsible.

I’m not going to let Palin off the hook, though. Now that this article is making headlines of its own, it has ended up in the minds of many Americans; she’s going to have some ‘splainin’ to do eventually. She would do well to respond to each accusation one by one and, if she can, prove them wrong. It might not be fair for her to be put into such a position, but that’s an occupational hazard of becoming a public figure, like it or not.

Sometimes you’ll have people pondering the question of whether or not journalists – that is, anyone contracted and paid to produce journalistic material for a publication – should be legally forced to reveal confidential sources. In my opinion, they shouldn’t use them at all, and nobody should even offer them, considering the risks of one day being exposed. It’s sad that such a law even needs to be pondered, especially today; with the Internet, anonymous people can say whatever they want without ever getting caught or being held to journalistic standards. If they have no guts, anyway.

The best magazine you’ve never heard of

I mentioned this in the Sunday Drill earlier this week, but it’s a fairly slow news day and I’m saving some national security coverage for Disposal Day tomorrow, so I’ll go into more detail about it today.

My friend Gabe, always a valuable source of lesser-known information, told me last week of “a magazine for wonks” he thought I’d like, known as Miller-McCune. He was right. I’ve only read it online so far as I haven’t seen a printed copy at any bookstore in my area, but that has been enough for me to see that this is the magazine of my wildest dreams: heavily research-based, non-ideological and, as Gabe said, so wonkish that they make me look like Perez Hilton.

On their advertiser page, they say that “Miller-McCune draws on academic research and other definitive sources to provide reasoned policy options and solutions for today’s pressing issues.” The only way I can really illustrate this magazine’s depth is by posting samples from its Politics section:

• “Adventures in Capitolism [sic]: Federal plans for a green economic revolution need more discipline – and a long-term partnership with the venture capitalists who know startup winners from losers.”
• “Might Health Care Reform Address Minority Gap? Beyond the humanity, there’s a business case for tackling the persistent gap in health for most U.S. minorities.”
• “Showing Initiative (the Door): In states where ballot initiatives are common, recent studies suggest they foster a low opinion of government leadership.”

One of the sources of inspiration for this column was a quote from Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which complained in chapter 1 that the majority of political coverage was “about process and horse race and not about policy.” I doubt Miller-McCune drew its vision from that quote, but it drew the same sentiment from somewhere. While they are not completely immune from discussing process, they do so in the same high-minded tone used in their research articles.

I can’t comment on the credibility of the many pieces of research they cite, other than to say the majority come from U.S. universities. I can say the concept is good because it uses rational arguments and scientific evidence to sway opinions, instead of waxing ideological about whichever issue. Most pundits might not bother with that, but they should. If I was a politician, I’d look to this as a primer before a major vote.

Yes, it is true what they say about Ann

I don’t often talk about other pundits in this column, but it’s a slow news day and I’ve been thinking about this topic for some time, so bear with me – policy discussion will resume tomorrow.

For the past two years or so, I have read Ann Coulter’s column every week. Sure, it makes my eyes bleed at times (figuratively speaking), but it’s a good way for aspiring commentators to learn what not to do. Having lightened up on certain party-line conservative opinions since I started reading her work, I believe I can look at it more objectively now. But I have made two observations about her style that have either gone unnoticed or unarticulated.

1. She spends way too little time talking about policy. In the past year, she has written on such topics as Keith Olbermann lying about his alma mater; why single motherhood is worse than smoking; coverage of racial profiling allegations in Gatesgate; New York Times coverage of an American girl’s murder in Italy; defending Carrie Prejean; why it’s rude to refer to anti-tax protesters as “tea-baggers”; and top Democrats who have received campaign donations from large banks. (I will, however, leave her parents’ eulogies out of this category; I found them quite touching.)

When she does discuss “ideas and issues with real consequences,” in her own parlance, her thesis statement is generally “This idea is bad because liberals like it.” And the column is still so rife with analogies and accusations that reading until you get to the point is an exercise in restraint.

2. She uses examples as filler. The majority of her last book, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, is little more than reminders of instances in which liberals or their adjuncts have developed a victim mentality for no good reason. That’s not a good thing, obviously, but I find it unbelievable that she could fill up an entire book with it. And in her latest column, instead of making a point about the claims of the Birthers, all she does is rattle off a list of examples of Democrats falling for conspiracy theories. Does it matter?

If Coulter ever reads what I’ve just written – which would fulfill a particular hope of mine – she’ll probably pick out an allegation against her, then comb through my entire archives looking for something that can possibly be construed as related hypocrisy, without actually defending herself. This is what’s known as ad hominem tu quoque. And she’s the master of it.

Power to the sportswriters!

I’m going to take a break from U.S. politics today to discuss an issue closer to home. (It won’t happen often.) I’ll be sharing my views on new plans for automakers later in the week, when we have a clearer idea of the extent of any potential fallout.

At school, when I’m not talking about politics, chances are I’m talking about sports. This semester, I fell in with the seven guys who write the majority of the content in our newspaper’s sports section and host the accompanying radio show. It’s been a fun ride and I consider them all my friends, but now we’re brothers (and sister) in arms as well, because the managing editor of our paper is cutting the sports section. And by “cutting,” I don’t mean shortening. I mean it’s being eliminated entirely. Here are the specifics:

• Coverage of our volleyball and basketball teams’ games will be put in a section reserved for campus news.
• The arts and culture section, which is currently four times the size of the sports section, will be expanded and divided between arts and “culture and lifestyle.” All sports-related articles that don’t fit into the above category will go here, mixed in with articles on how people really feel about wedding socials and where to get the best veggie burger in town.
• The sports editor will be replaced by a “culture beat reporter.”
• The managing editor explained that the reason for this change is the fact that so few people go to the back of the paper for sports coverage (at least not according to her observations), and putting it in this culture and lifestyle section will make more people read it.

Really? Imagine that you flipped to this cool new culture section and found within it, in no particular order, an article on March Madness, an editorial about why salary caps for professional athletes should be put into place, and a series of local arena reviews. Would you not ask yourself, “Don’t they usually have a sports section for this stuff?” Furthermore, this entire section would be under control of the arts and culture editor and this “culture beat reporter.” What sense does it make to put people with titles like this in charge of editing sports articles?

I could go on. Believe me, I could go on; there is so much suspicion among our group about what the board was really thinking about when they planned this. For now, our plan is to continue discussions with them and the managing editor in the hopes that we can get our space back. If we don’t, our group of eight has already agreed never to write for the paper again. We’ll be setting up our own online sports magazine in any case. When that’s up and running, I’ll put it up on the links page. Our Facebook group is “S.O.S. (Save Our Sports) at the Uniter” if you want more information, or you could just e-mail me at jess.a.chapman [at] gmail.com.