Palin Agonistes 13.2: …into the ears of the deaf.

Needless to say, the idea of someone’s time being worth a figure of five digits seems beyond the pale. Given the person in question, it is an outright mockery of capitalism. To whom, then, should the withering glance be cast? The answer is astoundingly simple: anyone involved in the whole sordid process. To borrow from Zola, J’accuse:

            1.) Bristol Palin: for being able to face herself in the mirror, comfortable in the knowledge that an hour’s worth of her musings on life are worth $15,000 at a minimum.

            2.) Prospective event organizers: for agreeing with Ms. Palin as delineated above.

            3.) Prospective attendees of said events: for giving tacit approval to the whole concept by willingly purchasing a ticket.

Granted, there are a host of others who rightfully deserve acerbic condemnation, but the twin demons of time and available space have conjoined to preclude further remonstration.

Bristol Palin is the product of contemporary attitudes towards politics: spectacle at the expense of substance. In her defense, I doubt very highly that she ever intended to be thrust into the national consciousness in so coarse a manner. Nevertheless, her actions indicate that she fully plans to reap the benefits of our (by which I mean people who are neither me nor my ever-shrinking circle of friends and well-wishers) fascination with the trivial and mediocre. In the strictest terms of empty-words-for-money, she is not alone: Bill Clinton regularly commands $150,000 for a single speech. However, consider the mathematics: at her lowest asking price, Bristol Palin is asserting that her viewpoints are at least one tenth as impacting as a man who, for better or worse, was the most powerful person in the world for eight years.

Have we become so enamored of the transient, fleeting qualities of shallow fame that we are singularly unable to focus our attention on the worthwhile persons of consequence who exist in our facile-minded country? Have we traded the timeless wisdom of the Founders or the wealth of brilliant art, literature, and music produced by our fellow compatriots for the mindless eructation spewed forth from the mouths of babes (meant strictly in the literary vice misogynistic tone)? I am not suggesting that our lives be dictated such that the occasional guilty pleasure may not be enjoyed, but consider: how many people have taken the time to read the Declaration of Independence as compares to the number of people who have read The Da Vinci Code? Our political identity is inextricably woven into the preponderance of illogical passion for the spectacle of gaffes and foibles perpetrated by persons who, absent their public exposure, we would not willingly invite to dinner. Bristol Palin has chosen (most likely unwittingly) to derive financial gain from this morass; I wish her the best of luck: her actions tend to be remarkably adept at validating my beliefs as to the overall direction of the grand experiment that is the United States of America.

Palin Agonistes 13.1: …seeping from the mouth of madness…

Rather than dwell on the obvious truth that inconsequentiality tends to breed inconsequentiality, I rationalized that my fascination with the aforementioned revelations by focusing my thoughts on two salient points:

            1.) Who, in their right mind (pardon the vernacular) wants to hear the thoughts of a 19 year-old?

            2.) Who is the greater criminal: the speaker who demands exorbitant fees for broadcasting treacle or the event organizers who willingly meet said demand?

While neither of the questions have easy answers, heuristic inquiry reveals a particularly frightening image: we are devolving as a nation at a rate that resembles the hitherto allusion to the late Roman Empire. It has been written that England in the 17^th and 18^th centuries played Greece to the United States’ Rome of the 19^th and 20^th. The elephant in the corner quotes Louis XV as regards the present state of our culture: Après moi, le déluge.

A popular television show (even I have my occasional vices) once made the claim that teenagers are essentially indistinguishable from sociopaths. While I am willing to concede that some 19 year-olds throughout history have accomplished amazing feats and evinced unmistakable signs of greatness at so young an age, these examples are either few and far between or inflated to the realm of hyperbole. Nevertheless, perhaps a comparison of achievements is in order:

1.) At the age of 19, Dr. Balamurali Ambati had completed an ophthalmology residency at Harvard University. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin had carried a child to term.

2.) At the age of 19, C. F. Gauss had invented modular arithmetic and claimed the first proof of quadriatic reciprocity. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin had been a high school graduate for over a year.

3.) At the age of 19, Georges Bizet Had won the Prix-de-Rome for musical composition. At the age of 19, Bristol Palin is still related to Sarah Palin.

One tends to doubt that any of the three contrasting examples were able to garner $30,000 to talk about their “outlook on life” for an hour. Ironically, I would have actually paid to hear any of the three speak.

As to the second point, it must be made clear that I take no issue with the generalized concept of a capitalist economy: if someone names a price for their good or service, that is their decision; if I choose not to meet their price, the decision is mine alone. My incredulity towards the Palin situation stems from the perceived value of the service being provided. To be honest, this is an exceptionally rare situation in which I find myself: to view things from a value-derived sense of labor equity smacks of Marxism in all its profanely imagined glory. As such, I tend to question pricing only when the number itself sets off an internal warning beacon. For example, consider the following pricings that would turn my head in awe:

1.) $600 dollars for a pair of sunglasses.

2.) Greater than $1.25 for two tickets to a Broadway musical.

3.) $30,000 for an hour of Bristol Palin speaking.

Palin Agonistes 13.0: An ideologically bereft political landscape…

I readily admit that years of disdaining the political process have left me absent of any inclination towards engagement; quite to the contrary, I typically view those who describe themselves as “political junkies” as little more intelligent than the average toaster-oven and far less useful. During the latest Presidential campaign, I found myself uninterested in the process itself (being thoroughly disgusted by both candidates), but singularly amused by the sheer vehemence with which partisan affiliates of both major parties would attack the opposite candidate (note that I specifically did not say they would defend “their” candidate with same assiduousness).

As I tried to discern the rationale for these words and actions, I arrived at a conclusion: people attacked other candidates because they could not find much of anything tangibly positive as regards their choice of charlatan. This of course begs another question: to what end did they select a candidate to champion in the first place? The easiest answer is fairly obvious: most people are morons. I confess that this was my initial assumption. To back this assertion, I offer the following quotes regarding politics in the 21^st century:

            1.) “I don’t know anything about politics, but I know I hate George W. Bush!”

            2.) “The liberal Dems are responsible for everything that has gone wrong in this country for the past fifty years. Wake up, America!

            3.) “It’s a fact that all Repukes hate Black people.”

            4.) “Liberal commies won’t be happy until we’re all gay!”

Suffice it to say, I have rarely had to back down from said initial assumption. Yet, if it is neither an affinity for a given political figure nor an intellectual imperative for the average person to engage in the politics of the day, we are left inquiring as to what constitutes the draw and fascination.  

Today I learned the answer: pure spectacle. I suppose the parallel between the United States and Rome around the year 400 CE is fairly obvious. I arrived at this particular conclusion after careful consideration of the past several months. Admittedly, today’s discovery was the ne plus ultra of confirmatory indications. It appears that a 19 year-old single mother who graduated high school last year and is currently locked in an ugly custody battle while pursuing her career as a medical receptionist has decided on a new line of work: she wil become a public speaker (I refuse to use the ‘orator’), embracing such topics as “abstinence, her parenting approach, and her outlook on life, while collecting fees ranging from 15,000 to 30,000 dollars (depending on how much “prep work” is needed).

Granted, her public profile assists her bargaining position; after all, she has the fortune (?) to be related by birth to a likewise inexplicably famous person. The young lady in question is none other than Bristol Palin. Before the slings and arrows of outrageous political indignation bare their capped fangs (the mixed metaphor is duly noted), allow me to state for the record that I am entirely ambivalent as concerns Maitre Sarah Palin: I find her neither more nor less disappointing than the average person. Likewise, I do not feel she is any more or less qualified for a position of political leadership than the typical view-skewed, unprincipled, semi-literate, nominally bearable rake who passes him/herself off as a “viable candidate.” Idiocy knows neither cultural nor political bounds.