the continuing story of the 2008 political election

[hannah]

race is apparently a verboten topic of discussion w/r/t this election, but it's still cool to say things like "HC WILL CRY FOR VOTES" and talk about her cleavage and all, and that's some fucking bullshit right there. And I don't care what anyone says, all of these men who for years have had some sort of inarticulate misgivings about HC without anything substantive to back it up are at least in part motivated by a deep-seated and culturally imparted sense that women are unfit for command. The fact that we're not seeing these kinds of reactions w/r/t Obama is heartening, I suppose, but not really so much when viewed in the light of how the media is doing HC.

I quote this to second it, of course, and to contribute what I hope will be a mood-lightening link: a recent piece by Hendrik Hertzberg about the crying calamity. It has an excellent punchline -- clever, graceful, and sharp.

[DCDave]

Richmond is going nuts - Andrew, can you hear the applause from your house?

[diesel_powered]

"uncoördinated". God I love the New Yorker.

[elpollodiablo]

Oh man that shit gets me every time.

[andronicus]

You know, thinking about it, in English diareses are defined by inserting a softly-voiced w-sound between o and u sounds, a y-sound between e and i's, and a glottal stop between a and short a sounds.  In Syriac and Arabic (and thus I assume most Semitic languages) w is treated kind of like the 'consonantal' o/u (there's only one vowel approximating those sounds) and y the consonantal i/e, and a glottal stop is treated like a consonantal cousin of the a vowel.  Hell of interesting.

[DCDave]

Hey Pollo: Obama just proposed a $4,000 tuition credit paid back through public service, incl. part-time volunteering for any student.

[elpollodiablo]

richard, you and my fiance definitely need to talk

Also Dave, yeah, I'm watching the speech. Dude definitely has some great ideas, and I'll be behind him 110% if he's our man in the general. I'm not down on Obama, especially. I think you guys just took my semi-enthusiastic endorsement of HC a little personally.

[DCDave]

I'm just saying - SPECIFIC POLICY BAM

[elpollodiablo]

Thouh hath pwn'd me

[Andrew_TSKS]

And Andrew, what exactly am I wrong about? The fact that I don't feel it's especially it's offensive?

yeah, that's what i'm saying.

Also w/r/t Chris Matthews, I think that shit heel saying that HC only won New Hampshire because people felt bad for her because her husband was unfaithful (?!) is waaaaaaay more offensive than saying she was pimping Chelsea.

and yes, this was fucked too. don't get me wrong. it is more offensive than the chelsea comment, i agree. but that doesn't make the chelsea comment NOT offensive.

[coldforge]

Andronicus, I think that what you're responding to is not actually any kind of coincidental relationship between English and the Semitic languages, as much as a general phonological principle, ie, the relationship of semivowels/approximants to vowel backness.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I'm just saying - SPECIFIC POLICY BAM

i was thinking this too! he dropped a lot of great specific policy notes in this speech. i was WAY into the speech.

Richmond is going nuts - Andrew, can you hear the applause from your house?

no, it's a few miles from my house. until last year, i lived 4 blocks from the siegel center, and i bet it's pandemonium over in my old neighborhood right now.


oh and also... louisiana gop race still too close to call!

[Thermofusion]

I'm discussed the misogyny thing at length with my friends and there has emerged a trend: that you're automatically suspect of woman-hating if you strongly dislike Clinton.  Well if there's anything about this campaign season that I hate, HATE...is being labelled a misogynist just because I don't like Clinton.  It has nothing to do with her being a woman (not to mention I thought a great deal of her up until a few months ago) and everything to do with her pretty reprehensible campaign tactics and highly questionable aspects of her history.  To support Clinton solely because she's a woman is equally ignorant as supporting Obama just because he's black.  I'm not saying those things shouldn't be factors (obviously if you're a woman, you might identify with Clinton in that regard and that's OK) but they shouldn't be the keystone of why you vote for someone.

[elpollodiablo]

Andronicus, I think that what you're responding to is not actually any kind of coincidental relationship between English and the Semitic languages, as much as a general phonological principle, ie, the relationship of semivowels/approximants to vowel backness.

'O' got so much backness you can see it from the front

[elpollodiablo]

I'm discussed the misogyny thing at length with my friends and there has emerged a trend: that you're automatically suspect of woman-hating if you strongly dislike Clinton.  Well if there's anything about this campaign season that I hate, HATE...is being labelled a misogynist just because I don't like Clinton.  It has nothing to do with her being a woman (not to mention I thought a great deal of her up until a few months ago) and everything to do with her pretty reprehensible campaign tactics and highly questionable aspects of her history.  To support Clinton solely because she's a woman is equally ignorant as supporting Obama just because he's black.  I'm not saying those things shouldn't be factors (obviously if you're a woman, you might identify with Clinton in that regard and that's OK) but they shouldn't be the keystone of why you vote for someone.

You do realize that's not at all what I was saying, right?

[andronicus]

Andronicus, I think that what you're responding to is not actually any kind of coincidental relationship between English and the Semitic languages, as much as a general phonological principle, ie, the relationship of semivowels/approximants to vowel backness.

I don't know anything about the principle, but I was thinking along the lines that it was a general thing.  Certainly I don't think the languages have any common things at that level, to my chagrin.  You'll have to forgive me all these basic linguistic principles tend to appear to me as revelations since I have no linguistic background.

[Thermofusion]

You do realize that's not at all what I was saying, right?

yeah!  That was just a general response not really directed at any one person's comments

Gobama!

[elpollodiablo]

A text I got from a friend who's been doing DNC stuff out in SF for the past year:

"ARE YOU ON THE HOPE TRAIN?"

[Andrew_TSKS]

i loved when obama said that people are accusing him of being a "hopemonger". awesome.

[andronicus]

I'm discussed the misogyny thing at length with my friends and there has emerged a trend: that you're automatically suspect of woman-hating if you strongly dislike Clinton.  Well if there's anything about this campaign season that I hate, HATE...is being labelled a misogynist just because I don't like Clinton.  It has nothing to do with her being a woman (not to mention I thought a great deal of her up until a few months ago) and everything to do with her pretty reprehensible campaign tactics and highly questionable aspects of her history.  To support Clinton solely because she's a woman is equally ignorant as supporting Obama just because he's black.  I'm not saying those things shouldn't be factors (obviously if you're a woman, you might identify with Clinton in that regard and that's OK) but they shouldn't be the keystone of why you vote for someone.

I don't like Clinton, I never have, but no one's ever called me misogynist for it, because you know, I don't express my dislike of her by saying HOW ARE WE GOING TO BEAT THE BITCH.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, really, i think the reason democrats don't like clinton are way different than the reasons republicans don't like clinton. personally, i'm opposed to clinton's "mandated" health care program.

aaaaand on the louisiana gop front, w/89% reporting, huckabee has a 2000-vote lead. still too close to call.

[diesel_powered]

What's goin' on, Barack?

[elpollodiablo]

Haha, nice. He does cut quite the figure.

[Thermofusion]

What's goin' on, Barack?

That is the realist shit ever, right down to his old skool digital watch

Obama's mah boy!

[coldforge]

Andronicus, I think that what you're responding to is not actually any kind of coincidental relationship between English and the Semitic languages, as much as a general phonological principle, ie, the relationship of semivowels/approximants to vowel backness.

I don't know anything about the principle, but I was thinking along the lines that it was a general thing.  Certainly I don't think the languages have any common things at that level, to my chagrin.  You'll have to forgive me all these basic linguistic principles tend to appear to me as revelations since I have no linguistic background.

Oh, It's hugely interesting stuff, to be sure. Basically there is a set of sounds, known as semivowels, which don't actually constrict or obstruct airflow, and thus are not consonants, but still can act consonantally—especially to lead into or out of (and thus between) vowel sounds. Some of these have taken the full force of consonants in English: y (written /j/ in IPA), w. J, of course, used to be an elongated I; we see there that I was once used vocalically and 'consonantally', ie, as a semivowel, in Latin; cf. 'Iulius.'

So /j/ and /w/ are the same kind of consonant sound, just with different tongue positions; those tongue positions can be replicated by vowels. A palatal approximant, /j/, is going to be the natural result of semivowelization, or the extreme shortening, really, of the vowel which puts the tongue there: /i/. And gliding into the back vowels /u/ and /o/ will cause a labial-velar approximant, /w/. Etc.