The Shiniest of Two Turds

I sent a few tweets out during the second Presidential debate, once I realised it was worth blogging. While I missed 'binders full of women', I did note the following, beginning with Obama's clever coup of claiming to have called Benghazi as a terror attack, a confident claim which totally floored the unprepared Romney:

woah, Romney's floored by that, he wasn't expecting Obama to play such a strong hand

— John Crow (@publicslips) October 17, 2012

checkeedtranscript. Yeah, fair enough that qualifies as calling it an act of terror, although technically it's grammatically implied

— John Crow (@publicslips) October 17, 2012

i'm beginning to think Obama's 'passive' performance last time was a very deliberate strategy. Makes this look even stronger than it is

— John Crow (@publicslips) October 17, 2012

Pssst! Mitt. Whatever you do, don't mention the Olympi...Oh. Carry on then.

— John Crow (@publicslips) October 17, 2012

I ended up feeling pretty sorry for Mitt. Anyway, I'll be blogging the third debate over on the Twitter feed, so keep an eye out for that. Eagle! UPDATE: I missed the debate, owing to having something better to do, ie sleep. What did I miss? What was it like? Worth catching up on, or should I not bother?

Golden Dawn Rituals

One of the leading politico-economic stories of the year has been Greece's general elections, and the wider 'debt crisis' involving the Euro, austerity, and all that jazz, in which they have been situated. Last year, Russia Today's Keiser Report featured an interesting interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, and I was struck by her analysis that Europe does not have a 'debt crisis', rather it is a plan to restructure government according to the needs of the "financial coup d'état":
Yet this situation creates unusual, unpredictable consequences for electoral party politics, particularly in Greece where the establishment parties have lost ground: notably to the 'coalition of Marxists, ecologists and feminists' Syriza, but also to the openly fascist Golden Dawn. The party achieved international notoriety during the election campaign, I would say chiefly for two things: their pledge to attack hospitalised immigrants in Greece, and for a GD MP's physical attack on two left-wing politician on live TV. Here is that moment, with English subtitles:
In a clear display of either paranoia or deliberate obfuscation, Golden Dawn leader Ilias Kasidiaris claimed he was set up, deliberately provoked. According to the Guardian, reporting on the incident

The party's image has been severely dented by continuous replays of footage of the 31-year-old Kasidiaris, a former army commando, striking the middle-aged Communist party deputy Liana Kannelli three times.

Oh yeah? Well, in fact Golden Dawn's share of the vote was only very slightly dented after the incident, its share down from 6.97% to 6.92%. In other words, support for the party has held firm. Clearly, the manufactured economic 'crisis' can be blamed. For our purposes, we note how little the GD spokesperson's public loss of control on TV affected the party's electoral results. What do you think? Was the incident manufactured, not by the TV show but by Golden Dawn itself, a fake loss of control designed to maximise publicity for the group and appeal to a pro-violence tendency in humanity? Or was it a genuine loss of control, spun by the party to portray Kasidiaris as a victim of political correctness? Here's a sharp analysis of the election results to ponder in the meantime. Also, in a thematically related incident from America, here's a video about an alleged assault on Ron Paul by another Republican politician that seems to have been imagined.
My take? Rather than an physical assault, this in fact seems to be an example of a psychological assault using body language commonly employed in the society of power to express seniority and hierarchy within that society. By the way, in the interests of balance I should point out that T-mobile are one of the many networks implicated in the Carrier IQ spyware story.

Obama on technological represssion

Back in April, on Holocaust Memorial Day, President Obama made an halting speech at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

In the video below, at 1:33, Obama makes a slip regarding technological surveillance and repression. He's  talking about his administration's intent to 'institutionalise the focus' on the issue of potential genocides today. In particular, Obama talks about the current crisis in Syria, and announces new sanctions on those who 'abet' Syria 'for using technologies to monitor and track and target citizens for violence'. A finger wag comes in at 1:20, as Obama says the word 'today'. Then, as he begins to talk about the new sanctions, his hand makes a pincer gesture, as if to dramatise sanctions closing around the Assad regime, but the gesture continues, to emphasise the monitoring, tracking and targeting of citizens for violence. Then comes the Freudian slip: raising his finger once more, to emphasise the point, Obama states 'these technologies should not be used to empower...' and then he stumbles as he realises his mistake. As he moves to correct the statement, his hand once more makes the encircling gesture, as he says 'technologies should be in place to empower citizens not to repress them'.

 What are we to make of this? I want to hear your views. Is this a revealing slip, a politician stating his real, if unconscious view, on the era of technological surveillance Internet-based technologies have brought to bear? In particular, does the body language add a particular layer of interpretation to this parapraxis?

 

 We can possibly detect a little suppressed smile as Obama corrects his slip, almost as if the accidental meaning of his statement triggers a brief moment of amusement for him. Here's an animated gif showing the moment he realises his mistake and corrects his statement.

One final point: earlier on in the speech, Obama mentions new technologies, stating 'we will strengthen our tools across the board...and create new ones'. He states that they will work with technology companies to this end. He states 'alert channels will ensure information about unfolding crises, and dissenting opinions, quickly reach decision makers - including me'. In other words, technology will be used to funnel information to the government. I'm interested in theories as to why Obama feels the need to add 'dissenting opinions', which he does rather quickly, to this stipulation. Dissenting from who? Presumably, the President is expressing the need for a diversity of information about 'unfolding crises' to reach his ears, not just the standard view. It's a fine point, but why could it not be implicit in the phrase 'information about unfolding crises'? In other words, maybe the purpose of these new technologies will be to monitor 'dissenting opinions' in general? Here's the video capturing that moment, so you can judge for yourself.

News In Brief

Stories catching my eye recently Many of you will have heard Obama's statement that he has 'evolved' into someone who supports same-sex marriage, and publicly affirming his personal support for gay marriage. It turns out one figure surprisingly not yet mentioned on this blog, American VP Joe Biden (who is famous for gaffes, slips and plagarism in public speaking) appears to have precipitated the affirmation. The story goes that in a typical Biden blunder, he jumped the gun by making a similar statement off the cuff, thus forcing Obama to make his statement - arguably, a case of the off-message mis-speak of a loose-lipped politician making a little bit of history. The Slate analysis is archly titled The Audacity of Evolution.

“I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” – Arnold Schwarzenegger

This classic quote comes from an interesting post listing "political faux pas that will leave you in splits" from John Mark Ministries.

 Added to Blogroll: Sturdyblog, which has at the moment a post that does seem to conclusively prove David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, to be a liar!

Meanwhile here's a pre-emptive exposure of Cameron, courtesy of Armano Iannuci's Time Trumpet.


 Local councillors are so funny sometimes.The Right Ear has a hugely entertaining report on the twitterstorm created by an apparently pro-EDL councillor who, despite claiming not to have realised the EDL were racist in her subsequent apology, had previously tweeted such gems as 'if you don't like it here go back to where you came from' to someone on the basis of their funny foreign name. The post is valuable as an archive of tweets deleted by the councillor concerned.

And finally: a political parapraxis for French speakers.

Cock News

Sally Nugent, a television sports presenter, was recently drafted in to present the BBC Breakfast News and attracted a few headlines for accidentally saying 'cock' when she meant to say 'pocket'. The Daily Record claims

viewers took to Twitter to point out the embarrassing gaffe during a report about fake pound coins. Sally said: “When you’re walking around with a couple of pound coins in your cock – um, pocket...” Eleanor Head tweeted: “Oh, Sally Nugent.. your first time giving BBC breakfast news and you say cock rather than pocket on live television! freudianslip.” And Tim Marben said: “Four pound coins in your cock...” Oh, BBC Breakfast, you please me no end.”

A quick search of Twitter reveals no user by the name 'Tim Marben' exists; there are a number of users called Eleanor Head but none of them tweeted about Sally Nugent. It appears that the Daily Record decided to add an angle to the story by pretending people were talking about it on Twitter. Which they are not. There's only one tweet about Sally Nugent, to do with her legs. She's the new Angela Rippon it seems. Here's an edited version of the moment:

Slips by female newsreaders that get a lot of publicity often relate to sexuality, usually penises. From earlier in the year this was getting a lot of attention:

Meanwhile this newsreader seems to associate policing with masculinity:

Male newsreaders also enjoy explicitly referring to the penis:

McCain endorses Obama!..no...wait...

I warned you John McCain would be back. Here he is in animated gif form, having one of his renowned 'senior moments'.

From Under the Mountain Bunker

Santorum concedes...

Concedes his racism that is, but with this one he may as well concede the race. Seems fairly clear that he was about to say 'nigger' while criticising Obama's supposed Socialist Peacenik credentials:

The Young Turks have this interesting analysis:

One blog, Addicting Info, argues racism towards Obama has become apparent across the Republican board:

Gingrich has called President Obama the “food stamp President.” Santorum once said he didn’t want to make black people’s lives better. Rush Limbaugh has referred to the President as “Barack the magic Negro.” And conservatives have made efforts to pass birther bills all as a response to the color of our President’s skin. Though Santorum managed to stop himself, the damage has already been done. For any Presidential candidate to even come close to using such a word on the national stage is unacceptable. It not only reveals the rampant racism and feelings of white supremacy residing in Santorum’s twisted soul, it reveals the rampant racism and white supremacy feelings that have taken over the Republican Party.

President Obama sings Sweet Home Chicago! In front of a camera! In a TV studio!

Well it looks like a TV studio. Apparently its the White House where a 'clearly reluctant' President sings.

Meanwhile, who knew the Hufington Post has a collection of Obama's most religious statements! That's like Letterman's Top 10, only even more likely to be boring this week.

Anyway, the earliest they could dig up implies it was the communitarian side of the religion which got Barack O's God-trance going:

From the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 6, 2009
"I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I've ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done.
"I didn't become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- His purpose."

Of course this must be Obama's most famous religious statement.
As he tries to explain, what he was trying to do is defend McCain from accusations he insinuated Obama is a Muslim. But maybe Obama's faith encompasses a general Abrahamic perspective, revealed by the slip?

Fishing for approval

For years now I very much enjoy reading freewillastrology.com, horoscopes by Rob Breszny which, when he's on form, really delight with their unexpected angles and metaphors. His paragraph for Pisces this week uses a figure bound to make a reappearance on this blog: John McCain.

Pisces (February 19-March 20)
Gawker.com notes that American politician John McCain tends to repeat himself -- a lot. Researchers discovered that he has told the same joke at least 27 times in five years. (And it's such a feeble joke, it's not worth re-telling.) In the coming week, Pisces, pease please please avoid any behavior that resembles this repetitive, habit-bound laziness. You simply cannot afford to be imitating who you used to be and what you used to do. As much as possible, reinvent yourself from scratch -- and have maximum fun doing it.

Wondering what the joke is? It's not worth much. According to the gawker post in question, the joke invariably runs that as Congress' approval rating falls so low, "we're down to paid staffers and blood relatives."
Something about this must appeal to McCain. Check the NY Mag list of each quote. I guess it shows us who McCain thinks can be relied upon in adversity: the remunerated and the blood line - volunteers and in-law relatives never get included in the joke.

Gayness as a disability, newsreaders as ideological mouthpieces

I love this one because it shows how newsreaders are so often on auto-pilot, detectable from that special 'newsreader' tone of voice which appears to encode ideology through interpellation. The slip is made by the anchor on the left of your screen:



What is happening here is that a story about a blind man climbing a mountain is misreported as a gay man climbing a mountain. Its as if the newsreader drops in something from the stock mainstream categories of 'unusual' or 'disabled'. So, in this case, the auto-pilot slip allows us to speculate on how this mainstream media might regard homosexual love as an impairment, or at least as a category not normally associated with 'normal' enterprises like mountain climbing.

I think the key lesson here reminds us the media considers newsworthy abnormalities, even when they get it 'right', as part of a stock list, a social construction of conciousness. For once, the existence of ideology encoded in standard news speak is revealed by this slip, since both 'gay' and 'blind' appear to be on this list.

Low-lights of Bachmann's Concession Speech

The video highlights choice slips from Michele Bachmann's speech earlier today. Apologies for the rough edit!

@2:20 She'll fight to keep her country 'se-cr- great - er- free'. Interesting one that - unsure whether to say 'safe' or 'great', she elides the words into 'secret'. She reverts to 'great', then to what she was apparently supposed to say - 'free, safe and sovereign'.

@2:27 Listing her pet hates, 'excessive government regulation' is mis-spoke as 'rec-ess-essive'. Recessive has a different meaning to excessive: 'tending to go, move, or slant back'.

White Wing Media

Rush Limbaugh, a well known talk radio host, made this slip early in 2011.

tl;dl: Commenting on an article in the NYT, Limbaugh says 'white right wing media' instead of 'right wing media'.

Limbaugh already correctly uttered the phrase 'right wing media' once, which could account for the sheer speed with which Limbaugh corrects himself - it's like the error and the correction merge into one word : 'whiteright'.

Blogging this, Jason Easly does assume the slip reveals something of Limbaugh's unconscious. There is a debate as to whether slips do reveal the unconscious, as psychoanalysis after Freud theorises, or whether, as some cognitive psychologists contend, they are simple processing errors. I am agnostic on this issue, and I'll be blogging about it. For now though, it doesn't really matter if you believe the theory or not - I certainly believe such slips open the space to tell our truths, the truths we know. Who cares if Rush Limbaugh has repressed awareness of white bias in right-wing media, and that awareness has found a way out, through parapraxis? We're not here to psychoanalyse Rush Limbaugh. We're here to see if his slip can inform us about what's hidden behind the veil he represents. Easly's response continues:

Rush Limbaugh’s slip of the tongue was actually the truth. People like him and Glenn Beck aren’t the right wing media. They are the white wing media. They are preaching to an overwhelmingly older, white audience. The white wing media serves as the information network for the angry vastly majority white faces who scream that they want their country back. Limbaugh appeals to this audience by using Obama’s skin color to delegitimize him often. Everything from his frequent references to the President as a man child to his featuring the song Barack The Magic Negro on his show is an attempt to divide by race.

The purpose of the white wing media is to divide. Republicans learned from the previous two decades that they can’t win or maintain power if the nation is united, so since the election of Obama they have worked day and night to once again fracture our nation 50/50. They view a return to the last two decades as politically beneficial, and if they have to divide the country along racial lines to achieve their goals, that is exactly what they will do.

Limbaugh preaches conservative versus liberal, but the subtext is also white versus black. That’s what the white wing media does. They help those white conservatives who can’t handle their loss of political power and standing in a society that is becoming more diverse, feel powerful again by attacking change, progress, and diversity.

Pundit slip: Ron Paul 'attacked'

This video, posted on www.mediaite.com and tweeted by CNN themselves, shows CNN's coverage of the Republican Iowa caucus, which by 1.30am was getting a bit loose as the newsreaders and pundits struggle with the new studio tech, and find themselves in one of those live TV moments of chaos.




But check out the parapraxis by pundit Ali Velshi at 2:54. Explaining why Ron Paul is the most popular candidate on Twitter, he says "we know he's been attacked - attracting a younger audience'. Mistaking similar sounding words is a common enough parapraxis - in this case he misses out the 'r', to make 'attacked' - yet perhaps this reflects an underlying sense of hostility towards Ron Paul, balancing the positive news of his popularity on the microblog? Anyway, news is Mitt Romney has won the caucus by eight votes. Ron Paul was third, according to the Guardian:

Romney and Santorum both ended the night on 24.5% of the vote, Paul 21.5%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Rick Perry 10%, Michelle Bachmann 5% and Jon Huntsman 1%.
Paul's campaign team claimed it was now down to a two-man race between himself and Romney because Santorum did not have the resources to mount campaigns in other states.
Paul's national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, said: "The Ron Paul campaign is celebrating a great victory tonight … This is now a two way race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and the candidate for real change, Ron Paul."

Hello World

Saying 'hello world' can be a nervous experience. Mistakes might be made: say exactly the wrong thing, reveal a hidden truth, and suffer in the knowledge your error exists publicly, not your property but in the whole world's domain.

When a public figure in any kind of power position is speaking in public, and normally therefore on the media, I normally switch off. Sometimes though they might make a slip, a 'mistake' which they might ignore or instantly 'correct'. I wonder if these errors do reveal truths the speaker would prefer to stay hidden, either from us or from themselves.

This blog wants to collect such slips of the tongue, these parapraxes, as they are known to psychology. Some theorise that parapraxes can truthfully be seen as more than just simple error - that they reveal some hidden truth, a 'repressed impulse' (to use Freudian language), hints, a window into the speaker's mind.

I'm not a professional psychologist or anthropologist, but I've often further wondered, wouldn't it be great to collect parapraxes, and publish them? From great parapraxes of the past, to the current semantic slips made by today's public figures, this blog will do just that, for your information and entertainment.

And in the hope that we might glimpse behind the veil of power.

So I've been collecting, but where to begin? The private lives of politicians? Why not? First up in this wonderful clip, from the 1992 USA presidential campaign (source), Al Gore's mother speaks movingly about the Democratic ticket, Al Gore and Bill Clinton:


Love her rather knowing expression after the parapraxis. Of course, politicians of other parties also developed a reputation for debauched behaviour in this era, through the medium of the Freudian slip. Check out this classic by a well known 'bad man', former CIA chief George HW Bush, talking about his time as Vice-President under putative boss Ronald Reagan:



Ok, we made it through the first post. Check back soon for more parapraxia puzzles!