?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Hogarth judge

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Hogarth judge

Notes on Cant XXIII

You have to admit that this 39 year old story about a much younger Hillary Clinton and her professional victory is a well crafted piece of political attack theater.

Apparently she represented a criminal defendant accused of raping a 14 year old girl, and got him pled down to a five year sentence, four suspended. At some time not too long after that, she was interviewed by somebody, and remembered the case as a victory for her. As well she might, and as she surely is entitled to.

In 2014, this gets trotted out "Believe the Victims" style. Somebody digs out this taped interview. We learn that in the 1980s, Hillary still had an accent that could curdle milk. Now, this professional success story is spun as an "attack" on the "victim" because she dared to question her credibility as a witness. Hint: it's part of doing the job.

What interests me, of course, is the lesson we get in the essential vacuousness and insincerity of cant. "Why aren't you guys giving this rape victim a voice?" Eyeroll. #YesAllWomen, eyeroll. @AmandaMarcotte, eyeroll. Yes, it's a relatively convincing put-on, recognizing that this is the kind of odd phrase that might occur to One of Them. All is interpreted through a subjectivizing framework in which social influence versus marginalization is the only dynamic that counts.

You'll notice how little sense it makes in context. Whatever the alleged victim's problem was forty years ago, it had nothing at all to do with being denied a "voice". No one is allowed to conscript your attention in any case. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the current situation, in which her stale charges that melted under scrutiny have been picked up by the right wing noise machine.

I don't know how it came to pass that Hillary Clinton became the great vessel of the hopes of American womanhood. I would prefer that the Democratic nominee be someone other than her. This has nothing to do with her sex, and much to do with the fact that her husband was a weak and ineffective president. I know she was the brains of the outfit; they still strike me as unprincipled opportunists. After Bill, the only Clinton I'd vote for is George.

So why do they have to make me like Hillary more than I want to with this stunt?

Comments

A lot of people don't realize that that's the way the game's played in the courtroom;

we don't mind her voice at all, she talks exactly like our Aunt Ruth, our whole family's from that area;

and anyway her voice has nothing to do with it, neither does her being a woman or having had this case. Lawyers have cases like that. Sometimes they're defending people who are innocent, other times guilty as hell.

She is a neocon from the black pits of Mordor and that is why we're not supporting her candidacy.

You really, really need to step away from the SJW trolls. Do not read shit online.