Post Pig Pause Determines Meaning

The roaring, or is it oinking, question of the week is, was senator Obama's lipstick on a pig statement intended as a hit on Governor Palin? Or was that inevitable result simply the unfortunate consequence of an innocent oversight by Obama who missed the high likelihood that such an interpretation would be derived from his use of the common expression to describe some of his opponent's policies. That would be an amazing oversight by as brilliant a politician as Obama, given the present context following her very well received speech that used a similar expression with such popular effect? Some cynics might take issue with the idea that it was inevitable that it be taken as a hit on Governor Palin. Many such cynics would conclude that this has been a right-wing fabricated attack or a media generated controversy. So how do we determine Obama's intent here?

The expression, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," in normal usage is stated without a significant pause after the first use of the word "pig." This is almost always the case. And this is especially true in a planned usage, that is, a pre-thought-out usage, as would be the case as here in a campaign stump speech. That is, if Obama’s intended reference was only to McCain's policies. But Obama didn’t do that here. He said it with a very lengthy pause after the word “pig” in the middle of the expression. It was an abnormally long pause. And it was only after that pause, about half way through it that his audience broke out in laughter (as he intended), clearly taking it as a jab in reference to Palin. Obama knew why they were laughing and could have corrected it right there. He did not. Instead he rode it throughout the extension of his pause.

Confirmation that this analysis has merit comes from Obama's own subsequent statements following the controversy in it which he again used the expression, "You can put lipstick on a pig", but it's still a pig," in explaining how he clearly intended it as an attack on some of McCain's policies and not a reference to Palin (tsk, tsk, how could so many get it so wrong). In that instance there is no pause. His usage is consistent with the normal usage. There is a smooth flow from beginning to end, as is normally the case when that expression is used. That was not the case when he first used it. There was a clear and definite pause, one suspects, to give listeners an opportunity to take up his unspoken, but intended, meaning: to take it as a jab at Palin. That pause determines the meaning. It was unnatural and inconsistent with normal usage. It had special purpose.

There is generally a consensus that Obama is a brilliant person, and certainly a brilliant politician whose achievements are extraordinary. Nevertheless, there are those such as Sean Hannity who think that he is mostly a highly skilled con man, brilliant, charismatic, but dishonest and self-serving, driven by desire for political power. Is it possible we would so soon again elect such a Democrat to be president of the United States? 

Whether such characterizations are justified or not Obama is certainly very bright. He and his staff would be plenty capable of planning such an attack on Palin in the guise of an attack on McCain policies. Part of such planning would also anticipate the reactions as part of the planning, so it would not be unexpected that the Obama camps would be prepared to make all of the counter charges against the McCain camp that we have seen. For example, that it's false outrage by the McCain camp, "Swift-boating," etc. and that Obama's love of the country will not permit that to happen again. All the time knowing the association of lipstick on a pig with Palin permeates the ether as do opportunities to attack "McCain's policies."

Such tactics might well be seen to make sense in the light of Palin's great convention success and impact on the campaign. Momentum had clearly moved to McCain's side and very serious deterioration was taking place on the Obama side. Desperate tactics are often born of just such shifts in momentum. Add to this the friendly media and the encouragement derived from a helpful interview with Bill O'Reilly and it seems plausible enough that the considerable risks might seem worth taking. 

If so, it worked. Most of the big hitters, for example, on Fox News have concluded that Obama’s statements surely referred only to McCain policies. There was a bit of hedging such as O'Reilly’s reluctant yielding to the possibility of a subliminal ideational slip-out following Dennis Miller's comments that Palin had definitely gotten inside Obama’s head. O'Reilly's tilt towards Obama is so clear that he couldn't even concede, at least, the appropriateness of an apology to Palin.

What we have then is, at least, one of the century's most brilliant politicians making an enormous faux pas without realizing it even though his immediate audience was fairly shouting it to him at the time. This missed opportunity for on-the-spot correction is further aggravated when it later becomes obvious to him that there is a lot of room for people to legitimately impute such an insult to the comments, whether intended or not, and there is still no correction in the form of an appropriate apology even if only for the unintended consequences to the one receiving the brunt of the imputed insult. Normally this would be seen to constitute at least extremely poor judgment.

Indeed, judgment so poor that one woman who was not originally a McCain/Palin supporter, but who has since switched as a result of the comments, suggested that such sexist name-calling is what people expect of fifth graders, not presidential candidates: she went on to point out that she does not want a fifth grader as president in the White House. Judgment so poor that it suggests a superlatively gifted rhetorician is unaware of the consequences of his words in a given context that is so highly charged? Uhmn! Judgment so poor that warranted apology is not forthcoming. Such poor judgment is difficult to understand in the face of such brilliance and political skill and rhetorical sophistication.

Post Pig Pause Determines Meaning

The roaring, or is it oinking, question of the week is, was senator Obama's lipstick on a pig statement intended as a hit on Governor Palin? Or was that inevitable result simply the unfortunate consequence of an innocent oversight by Obama who missed the high likelihood that such an interpretation would be derived from his use of the common expression to describe some of his opponent's policies. That would be an amazing oversight by as brilliant a politician as Obama, given the present context following her very well received speech that used a similar expression with such popular effect? Some cynics might take issue with the idea that it was inevitable that it be taken as a hit on Governor Palin. Many such cynics would conclude that this has been a right-wing fabricated attack or a media generated controversy. So how do we determine Obama's intent here?

The expression, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," in normal usage is stated without a significant pause after the first use of the word "pig." This is almost always the case. And this is especially true in a planned usage, that is, a pre-thought-out usage, as would be the case as here in a campaign stump speech. That is, if Obama’s intended reference was only to McCain's policies. But Obama didn’t do that here. He said it with a very lengthy pause after the word “pig” in the middle of the expression. It was an abnormally long pause. And it was only after that pause, about half way through it that his audience broke out in laughter (as he intended), clearly taking it as a jab in reference to Palin. Obama knew why they were laughing and could have corrected it right there. He did not. Instead he rode it throughout the extension of his pause.

Confirmation that this analysis has merit comes from Obama's own subsequent statements following the controversy in it which he again used the expression, "You can put lipstick on a pig", but it's still a pig," in explaining how he clearly intended it as an attack on some of McCain's policies and not a reference to Palin (tsk, tsk, how could so many get it so wrong). In that instance there is no pause. His usage is consistent with the normal usage. There is a smooth flow from beginning to end, as is normally the case when that expression is used. That was not the case when he first used it. There was a clear and definite pause, one suspects, to give listeners an opportunity to take up his unspoken, but intended, meaning: to take it as a jab at Palin. That pause determines the meaning. It was unnatural and inconsistent with normal usage. It had special purpose.

There is generally a consensus that Obama is a brilliant person, and certainly a brilliant politician whose achievements are extraordinary. Nevertheless, there are those such as Sean Hannity who think that he is mostly a highly skilled con man, brilliant, charismatic, but dishonest and self-serving, driven by desire for political power. Is it possible we would so soon again elect such a Democrat to be president of the United States? 

Whether such characterizations are justified or not Obama is certainly very bright. He and his staff would be plenty capable of planning such an attack on Palin in the guise of an attack on McCain policies. Part of such planning would also anticipate the reactions as part of the planning, so it would not be unexpected that the Obama camps would be prepared to make all of the counter charges against the McCain camp that we have seen. For example, that it's false outrage by the McCain camp, "Swift-boating," etc. and that Obama's love of the country will not permit that to happen again. All the time knowing the association of lipstick on a pig with Palin permeates the ether as do opportunities to attack "McCain's policies."

Such tactics might well be seen to make sense in the light of Palin's great convention success and impact on the campaign. Momentum had clearly moved to McCain's side and very serious deterioration was taking place on the Obama side. Desperate tactics are often born of just such shifts in momentum. Add to this the friendly media and the encouragement derived from a helpful interview with Bill O'Reilly and it seems plausible enough that the considerable risks might seem worth taking. 

If so, it worked. Most of the big hitters, for example, on Fox News have concluded that Obama’s statements surely referred only to McCain policies. There was a bit of hedging such as O'Reilly’s reluctant yielding to the possibility of a subliminal ideational slip-out following Dennis Miller's comments that Palin had definitely gotten inside Obama’s head. O'Reilly's tilt towards Obama is so clear that he couldn't even concede, at least, the appropriateness of an apology to Palin.

What we have then is, at least, one of the century's most brilliant politicians making an enormous faux pas without realizing it even though his immediate audience was fairly shouting it to him at the time. This missed opportunity for on-the-spot correction is further aggravated when it later becomes obvious to him that there is a lot of room for people to legitimately impute such an insult to the comments, whether intended or not, and there is still no correction in the form of an appropriate apology even if only for the unintended consequences to the one receiving the brunt of the imputed insult. Normally this would be seen to constitute at least extremely poor judgment.

Indeed, judgment so poor that one woman who was not originally a McCain/Palin supporter, but who has since switched as a result of the comments, suggested that such sexist name-calling is what people expect of fifth graders, not presidential candidates: she went on to point out that she does not want a fifth grader as president in the White House. Judgment so poor that it suggests a superlatively gifted rhetorician is unaware of the consequences of his words in a given context that is so highly charged? Uhmn! Judgment so poor that warranted apology is not forthcoming. Such poor judgment is difficult to understand in the face of such brilliance and political skill and rhetorical sophistication.

How California’s Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision Empties the Prisons

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision imposing the status of civil right on Gay marriage is an example of judges incompetently exercising judgment—something, of all people, judges should avoid—or of judges whose arrogant authoritarian hubris is willfully or ignorantly exercised to undermine America’s representative democracy. Civil rights, as opposed to civil liberties, are established by law, and the essence of their violation is that they be denied to some people while being permitted to others. Prohibitions against gay marriage, very clearly, do not do this.

The following comments along these lines were written in November 2004, and sent to some of those who seemed to miss this point and who were then involved in the legal disputes; they still apply:

"So tell me how you are being discriminated against?”

"I can't marry someone of the same sex; that's discrimination against me because I'm homosexual."

"No it's not. Straight people can't marry people of the same sex either. So where is the discrimination?"

"But straight people don't want to marry people of the same sex. They marry people of the opposite sex."

"So can you. Can't you marry someone of the opposite sex if you want to? Of course you can. So where's the discrimination?"

"Uhm ..., uhm..., ... well, yes, but I don't want to."

"Oh!"

(Such a conversation might best end right there. But one can also well imagine it continuing as follows):

“So now you get it, right?”

“Yes, I get it. Your argument is that when someone can’t do what they want to, their civil rights are being violated.”

“Right on.”

“So let’s empty all the prisons, right?”

"Uhm ..., uhm..., uhm....: No, those people are there because they are law-breakers.”

“Yes. People who, according to your argument, shouldn’t be there due to their civil rights being violated because they aren’t permitted to do what they want to do. So let’s empty the jails.”  

"Uhm ..., uhm..., uhm....”

          “But some laws are bad laws.”

          “Then change them.”

          “Exactly. And that’s what the Court did.”

          “Exactly!”

                                                                             Infinite Rainbow