Does the HHoW episode discussion thread always go to the "poor blameless House will be destroyed by the lack of trust by those around him" place? It does, doesn't it? Sigh. I attempt to argue against this, with predictably limited success.

Elsewhere, there's the question of whether possibly-jokingly-intended allusions to a slash pairing make said pairing more or less legitimate. I, as I always do, tend to think intent is irrelevant.

Annoying Palin-related editorial by the NYT's Ross Douthat - so many problems with this.

Especially surprising/baffling is this paragraph: "Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard."

Yes, that certainly is the democratic ideal - and I think most believers in the meritocratic ideal would say that not going to prestigious schools shouldn't disqualify anyone for a position. It's what you *do* with that non-prestigious education - being a strong student, going on to perform well in your career, and if you want to be elected president, having a strong command of national issues and the ability to discuss them coherently and engagingly in public. That last one is where Palin *resoundingly* fell apart, and still does.

I mean. 'Democratic' as opposed to 'meritocratic' surely doesn't mean that just anyone should be picked to do the job, regardless of whether or not they are capable or can convince a majority of people that they are. When I hear the phrase "anyone can grow up to be president," I don't assume it to mean any ambitionless lump like me could do the job, just that (in theory) if someone from a poor background worked hard and (let's face it) had a hell of a lot of luck, they could get there despite their non-elite upbringing. Does anyone really intend the former meaning when they say this? Is this one of those differences between conservative and liberal outlooks I just didn't realize before? If so that'd be damned ironic, as so many other avowedly-conservative ideas (opposition to affirmative action, for example) are supposed to be based on the meritocratic ideal.

Also, Douthat criticizing the "elite" for how they treated Palin is pretty rich - dude, you are a straight white guy from a rich family who went to Harvard and has a column at the New York Times. THE ELITE IS YOU.

He also has a section on the unfair lessons Palin had to learn as a national candidate, and I have to link to a blog comment on this post (I unfortunately can't direct-link to the comment) that rewrites his lament with a different politician as the subject: "Here are lessons of the BARACK OBAMA experience, for any aspiring politician who shares HIS background. Your WIFE will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, OBAMA did not insist on SWEARING IN ON THE KORAN, REFUSE TO WEAR A FLAG PIN, OR INJECT SOCIALISM INTO THE ECONOMY.)

"Male commentators will attack you for HAVING A STRONG WIFE. Female commentators will attack you for BEING A WIMP. You'll be sneered at for how you talk and THE EXCELLENT colleges you attended. You'll endure gibes about your "MUSLIM" looks and your "YOUR TERRORIST FIST JABS," while a prominent female academic declares that your "greatest hypocrisy" is the "pretense" that you're AMERICAN"."

This isn't to say that there wasn't any element of sexism and classism in the reaction to Palin - one only needs to compare her to the very similar George W. Bush to see that. But that only means that the unthinking benefit of the doubt given to Bush's qualifications in 2000 because of his background and his name were the unfair outlier, and that such deference should be extended to all or taken away from candidates such as Bush. Palin was treated very similarly to the democratic candidates this last time around, honestly.

Anyway! Even more trivially, my elbow itches because I have two massive bug bites there. How is this even *possible,* I don't go outside that much! ARGH. Something about my body chemistry apparently makes me irresistible to all bugs.

In more exciting news, 6 days until my awesome vacation of awesome! I'm still willing to send people postcards if anyone's interested - comments are screened! (I'll unscreen anything that doesn't have someone's address, of course.)

Ah, why do I let myself get into arguments on the internet? I know they're never going to be productive, but I can't seem to stop myself from poking at the arguments anyway. But, getting pissy with a media critic for being critical of a show you like - kinda lame but, well, human. Describing the attitude of said critic (who happens to be a woman) as that of a "jilted lover" and requiring "backstory" to explain? Is letting one's own pissiness lead to sexism, honestly. (I don't play the sexism card often, but - jilted lover! Like they would've used that phrase if it was Maurice rather than Maureen Ryan.)

In political unnecessary arguments, the weirdness with the oath at the Inauguration is turning into one of those classic tempests-in-a-teapot, of course. First Biden made a crack about Roberts at his and Obama's first press conference in office (which I thought was funny, but the funniest part is Obama's bitchface there afterwards. He's clearly thinking something like, "DAMMIT, JOE, WE PRACTICED THIS. CAN YOU NOT CONTROL YOUR OWN BRAIN OH MY GOD.") Then, there was a report that Roberts readministered the oath to Obama this morning, presumably to try to cut off the conspiracy theorists. Tragically, though, you can not kill conspiracy theories, born as they are of desperation and fear and a need to believe them. The new reason Obama's not really the president, I'm sure (aside from the "omg-he-was-sekritly-born-in-Indonesia" birth certificate angle, which the wingnuts have not at all given up): he didn't take the redone oath on a bible, so it doesn't count.

It is a rare pleasure indeed to be able to shoot down *two* ridiculous arguments, that claim nearly opposite things, in the same post. Either fandom is especially annoying this week or I'm getting hormonal again right about now...