I was just struck by the difference between an unemployed housewife and the most powerful man in the world. Both have confronted intractable problems in recent weeks. A troublesome neighbor is like a stone in your shoe. And Sarah Palin has discovered that one of the herd of jackals who have viciously attacked her and her family, an accused plagiarist, has moved in next door.
A disturbing trend in American leftist political strategy is to intimidate one's targets by staging protests at his's residence (as seen here). In that case, the union thugs just wanted to shake down the bank to forgive their loans (and didn't realize the next-door neighbor could blow the whistle).
Mrs. Palin complained, but then she did something that the most powerful man in the world hasn't figured out. She did more than talk.
On the other hand, the most powerful man in the world, Barry Obama has a problem. Unlike Mrs. Palin, he is deep in the pocket of Big Oil, BP to be precise. (Incidentally, this is why the Bushies hate Palin.) Though Barry talks tough and has his minions talk about putting their boot on BP's neck, he nevertheless cashed a lot of checks from BP. The problem isn't that he sleeps with big oil and gets up greasy, it's that while the Gulf of Mexico is being polluted, he's going to Earth Day celebrations or arranging for BP to bus in props for photo ops.
Let's be fair. We have no reason to expect competence, the ability to get results, from someone who's never made payroll or produced anything of value in his life. Is a Community Organizer anything more than a professional complainer? The electorate voted for change. Competence wasn't on the ballot. Barry's talked, and organized, and instigated, and agitated. And he's never learned the lesson of King Cnut and the sea. There's a difference between having a fancy title with a lot of lackeys and getting something done.
Meanwhile, back in Alaska. Suppose you've got a troublesome neighbor who's moved in with the intent of spying on you and writing a book about it. What do you do about it after you've complained? (Aside from finding the home address of his editor at Broadway/Random House, then busing in a few hundred Palin fans.) The Palin family put up a fence.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
If Death Panels Don't Exist...
Months back Sarah Palin was widely scorned by state-controlled media, and those commentators who are wiser than us, when she used the words "death panels." They said that this was untrue. Sarah was lying, that there are no death panels in ObamaCare.
That was the refrain as this legislation made its way through that parliament of whores which is the US Congress.
Today, Mrs. Palin points out that "...the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote..."
If I am to believe the Democrats in Congress, not only do Death Panels not exist, but they don't exist so much that it will require a 2/3rds supermajority to repeal them.
That was the refrain as this legislation made its way through that parliament of whores which is the US Congress.
Today, Mrs. Palin points out that "...the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote..."
If I am to believe the Democrats in Congress, not only do Death Panels not exist, but they don't exist so much that it will require a 2/3rds supermajority to repeal them.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Bill Shatner Gets Pwned
Years back I read an article on game theory in Scientific American. It described an experiment where researchers devised a game played by computers against computers. And then they put programmers to work devising game-playing algorithms. I was surprised to learn the winning program was called "T4T" standing for tit for tat.
The algorithm didn't think at all, it just remembered whether the opponent hit him last turn and then it hit back. All sorts of fancy mathematical analysis couldn't beat this fairly simple principle of tit for tat.
We saw this a few months ago when John Kerry made some lame joke about Sarah Palin's dis-appearance. The newsies rushed to get her reaction. A little while later, she obliged by telling a joke about the senator's appearance with the punchline "John Kerry, why the long face?"
Some say the high point of the presidential campaign for Sarah Palin came when she gave her speeches at Dayton and at the GOP convention. Maybe. But I suggest it was the time that I did something I hadn't done for 20 years: watch Saturday Night Live. It was hilarious to see Sarah Palin walk up to Tina Fey goofing on her and then goof right back. Didn't she do a Tina Fey impression sometime during the show?
Mindful of this I shouldn't have been surprised last night. William Shatner has a semi-regular spot on the Conan O'Brian show doing hammed up oral interpretations of books. Last night he did, "Going Rogue." I found his excerpted sentences cringe-worthy. After he finished to everyone's surprise Sarah Palin came out carrying William Shatner's autobiography. And she read from Shatner's book.
The look on Shatner's face was priceless: surprise and apprehension. And deeper concern when he sees that she's carrying HIS book. It's easier to throw punches when you don't think you'll get hit back.
A year ago, everyone thought Sarah Palin was done as a political candidate because she'd been Quayled. Unlike the Vice President from Indiana, Mrs. Palin has devised an effective counter-strategy. Go along in a good-humored way, and then hit back in an equivalent fashion. Winston Churchill once said, "I like a man who grins when he fights."
Winston Churchill would have liked Sarah Palin.
p.s.
Do you remember when David Letterman said those nasty things about Mrs. Palin's daughters last summer? I don't think its surprising that she went on Conan O'Brian's show. There's just hitting back and there's how one hits back.
The algorithm didn't think at all, it just remembered whether the opponent hit him last turn and then it hit back. All sorts of fancy mathematical analysis couldn't beat this fairly simple principle of tit for tat.
We saw this a few months ago when John Kerry made some lame joke about Sarah Palin's dis-appearance. The newsies rushed to get her reaction. A little while later, she obliged by telling a joke about the senator's appearance with the punchline "John Kerry, why the long face?"
Some say the high point of the presidential campaign for Sarah Palin came when she gave her speeches at Dayton and at the GOP convention. Maybe. But I suggest it was the time that I did something I hadn't done for 20 years: watch Saturday Night Live. It was hilarious to see Sarah Palin walk up to Tina Fey goofing on her and then goof right back. Didn't she do a Tina Fey impression sometime during the show?
Mindful of this I shouldn't have been surprised last night. William Shatner has a semi-regular spot on the Conan O'Brian show doing hammed up oral interpretations of books. Last night he did, "Going Rogue." I found his excerpted sentences cringe-worthy. After he finished to everyone's surprise Sarah Palin came out carrying William Shatner's autobiography. And she read from Shatner's book.
The look on Shatner's face was priceless: surprise and apprehension. And deeper concern when he sees that she's carrying HIS book. It's easier to throw punches when you don't think you'll get hit back.
A year ago, everyone thought Sarah Palin was done as a political candidate because she'd been Quayled. Unlike the Vice President from Indiana, Mrs. Palin has devised an effective counter-strategy. Go along in a good-humored way, and then hit back in an equivalent fashion. Winston Churchill once said, "I like a man who grins when he fights."
Winston Churchill would have liked Sarah Palin.
p.s.
Do you remember when David Letterman said those nasty things about Mrs. Palin's daughters last summer? I don't think its surprising that she went on Conan O'Brian's show. There's just hitting back and there's how one hits back.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Maybe Sarah Will Be The Next President
If you're a moonbat. I'll let you have a few moments to scream into a pillow.
There. Better now? Let's begin.
If you look at the Republicans lining up to run against Barak Obama in the next election, the short list includes Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. I have never thought either of them stands a chance of beating Barak Obama and I still don't. The question is whether the GOP will nominate one of them or someone else.
Tonight there was a tragic event in Washington state where a fellow murdered four policemen. The man being sought in that crime is no stranger to the legal system, having been convicted for several crimes including one with a 48 year sentence and another for a 60 year sentence. The man is 37 years old and did not pass through a time warp. Instead, Mike Huckabee, pardoned him.
I've long thought that Mike Huckabee would make a great Pastor, maybe a good Evangelist, but was a lousy Governor and would be a bigger disaster as President than Jimmy Carter. Not to worry, he'd lose as badly against Mr. Obama as Alan Keyes did.
Mike Huckabee's greatest impact in 2008 in Republican Primaries was splitting the Evangelicals from the rest of the Republican party. However, it is entirely possible that in 2012 Evangelicals voting in the Republican primaries might find Sarah Palin on the ballot. His influence would be diminished accordingly.
What I found particularly distasteful about Mr. Huckabee's campaign in 2008 was his rather blatant identity politics: Vote for me b/c I'm Baptist. Well, I'm a Baptist and I voted against him. Sarah Palin isn't a Baptist, her faith is a prominent part of her identity, but she isn't quoting Scripture as much as she's quoting Reagan.
Tonight Mike Huckabee suffered a severe setback. Years back Mr. Huckabee pardoned someone who should be safely locked up in prison, but (if indeed he is found guilty) instead has perpetrated a murder spree. This may speak well of his willingness to forgive others their debts, but it does not speak well of his judgment. It is bad theology and it is bad politics to confuse worldly and heavenly offenses. I suspect this sort of confusion also afflicts politicians who want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
All Barak Obama needs to do in 2012 is dust off the Willie Horton ads that George Bush senior and Al Gore used against Michael Dukakis. And since Barak Obama is, by definition, not a racist, his photos of the pardoned cop-killer will run without criticism. Embed this instance of bad judgment into a narrative of running against someone just like George W. Bush and you've got the Obama '12 campaign.
This is a shame, because Mike Huckabee has one advantage over Mitt Romney: he didn't inherit his money. And there's one thing the Democrats have been fine tuning for the last decade: class warfare. If you run a rich scion of a prominent family, you're doomed. Ask Dick DeVos how his run for governor of Michigan worked. Jennifer Granholm's economic policies are as brain-dead as Barak Obama's. Yet she won re-election through pure class warfare. Blame the rich guy for bad economic times.
Here's another strike against Mitt Romney. He was for abortion before he was against it. Some claim that Evangelicals hold Mr. Romney's Mormon faith against him, but it is his changing positions on abortion that matter. If you go from pro-choice to pro-life, that's a Damascus Road change. Makes me kind of think he was pro-choice to get votes in Massachusetts and switched to pro-life to get votes in Republican Primaries. (Not that we haven't seen several Democrat politicians go the opposite direction.)
The third strike against Mitt Romney is RomneyCare. Mr. Romney knew that the Massachusetts legislature and electorate wanted health care reform. And he got a Health Care bill passed at a state level that is not unlike the one Mr. Obama has been pushing at a national level. It's not working out very well of late, or so I hear, but a year or two ago it was being hailed as a wonderful achievement of Mr. Romney. This'll make it hard for Mr. Romney to turn around and run against ObamaCare.
If Romney is the Republican candidate in 2012, this will take ObamaCare off the table. He'll have to find something else to run against. Given the choice between Obama and Yet Another Squish, a lot of Tea Partiers are going to vote for a 3rd Party candidate. Nevertheless, National Review and T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII is going to be pimping for Romney again.
So, name another Republican Presidential candidate? Newt Gingrich? He is the only one who thought he was presidential material, but after his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, he's toast. Tim Pawlenty, anybody ever heard of him outside Minnesota?
Then there's the girl everyone (if you've a Beltway Insider, or a Mainstream Media flack) loves to hate, but everyone most likely to vote in a Republican Presidential Primary treats like a rock star. I've talked to people who stayed in line overnight to get Sarah Palin's autograph on a book.
I've learned to never predict what Sarah Palin is going to do, because she has faked me out so badly when I've done so. It is altogether that Mrs. Palin is going to do nothing more than strike fear into the hearts of Democrat strategists and loathing in the hearts mainstream media Brahmans. And she could spend the rest of her days laughing happily to the bank. However, should she choose to run, she'll do very well with the demographic that's bought her book.
There. Better now? Let's begin.
If you look at the Republicans lining up to run against Barak Obama in the next election, the short list includes Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. I have never thought either of them stands a chance of beating Barak Obama and I still don't. The question is whether the GOP will nominate one of them or someone else.
Tonight there was a tragic event in Washington state where a fellow murdered four policemen. The man being sought in that crime is no stranger to the legal system, having been convicted for several crimes including one with a 48 year sentence and another for a 60 year sentence. The man is 37 years old and did not pass through a time warp. Instead, Mike Huckabee, pardoned him.
I've long thought that Mike Huckabee would make a great Pastor, maybe a good Evangelist, but was a lousy Governor and would be a bigger disaster as President than Jimmy Carter. Not to worry, he'd lose as badly against Mr. Obama as Alan Keyes did.
Mike Huckabee's greatest impact in 2008 in Republican Primaries was splitting the Evangelicals from the rest of the Republican party. However, it is entirely possible that in 2012 Evangelicals voting in the Republican primaries might find Sarah Palin on the ballot. His influence would be diminished accordingly.
What I found particularly distasteful about Mr. Huckabee's campaign in 2008 was his rather blatant identity politics: Vote for me b/c I'm Baptist. Well, I'm a Baptist and I voted against him. Sarah Palin isn't a Baptist, her faith is a prominent part of her identity, but she isn't quoting Scripture as much as she's quoting Reagan.
Tonight Mike Huckabee suffered a severe setback. Years back Mr. Huckabee pardoned someone who should be safely locked up in prison, but (if indeed he is found guilty) instead has perpetrated a murder spree. This may speak well of his willingness to forgive others their debts, but it does not speak well of his judgment. It is bad theology and it is bad politics to confuse worldly and heavenly offenses. I suspect this sort of confusion also afflicts politicians who want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
All Barak Obama needs to do in 2012 is dust off the Willie Horton ads that George Bush senior and Al Gore used against Michael Dukakis. And since Barak Obama is, by definition, not a racist, his photos of the pardoned cop-killer will run without criticism. Embed this instance of bad judgment into a narrative of running against someone just like George W. Bush and you've got the Obama '12 campaign.
This is a shame, because Mike Huckabee has one advantage over Mitt Romney: he didn't inherit his money. And there's one thing the Democrats have been fine tuning for the last decade: class warfare. If you run a rich scion of a prominent family, you're doomed. Ask Dick DeVos how his run for governor of Michigan worked. Jennifer Granholm's economic policies are as brain-dead as Barak Obama's. Yet she won re-election through pure class warfare. Blame the rich guy for bad economic times.
Here's another strike against Mitt Romney. He was for abortion before he was against it. Some claim that Evangelicals hold Mr. Romney's Mormon faith against him, but it is his changing positions on abortion that matter. If you go from pro-choice to pro-life, that's a Damascus Road change. Makes me kind of think he was pro-choice to get votes in Massachusetts and switched to pro-life to get votes in Republican Primaries. (Not that we haven't seen several Democrat politicians go the opposite direction.)
The third strike against Mitt Romney is RomneyCare. Mr. Romney knew that the Massachusetts legislature and electorate wanted health care reform. And he got a Health Care bill passed at a state level that is not unlike the one Mr. Obama has been pushing at a national level. It's not working out very well of late, or so I hear, but a year or two ago it was being hailed as a wonderful achievement of Mr. Romney. This'll make it hard for Mr. Romney to turn around and run against ObamaCare.
If Romney is the Republican candidate in 2012, this will take ObamaCare off the table. He'll have to find something else to run against. Given the choice between Obama and Yet Another Squish, a lot of Tea Partiers are going to vote for a 3rd Party candidate. Nevertheless, National Review and T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII is going to be pimping for Romney again.
So, name another Republican Presidential candidate? Newt Gingrich? He is the only one who thought he was presidential material, but after his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, he's toast. Tim Pawlenty, anybody ever heard of him outside Minnesota?
Then there's the girl everyone (if you've a Beltway Insider, or a Mainstream Media flack) loves to hate, but everyone most likely to vote in a Republican Presidential Primary treats like a rock star. I've talked to people who stayed in line overnight to get Sarah Palin's autograph on a book.
I've learned to never predict what Sarah Palin is going to do, because she has faked me out so badly when I've done so. It is altogether that Mrs. Palin is going to do nothing more than strike fear into the hearts of Democrat strategists and loathing in the hearts mainstream media Brahmans. And she could spend the rest of her days laughing happily to the bank. However, should she choose to run, she'll do very well with the demographic that's bought her book.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Who is Norah O'Donnell?
The television show, Babylon 5, had a race of aliens, the Vorlons, who would always ask the question, "Who are you?" This was in contrast with the darker aliens, the Shadows, who would always ask the question, "What do you want?" This was a metaphor to distinguish between the two aliens' approaches toward life. The question, "who are you?" isn't so much a request for identification, as a query about how one's moral compass is magnetized.
I went to lunch at On The Border outside Woodland Mall and watched the show going on outside as I ate my meal. (Sarah Palin was coming to town to sign books as I've recorded elsewhere.) It was a great day for people watching. I thought the most interesting people to watch were the acolytes serving the Network On-Air Talents. They were dressed normally, for New York City. But the Network On-Air Talents were invariably dressed most expensively. Out the window I noticed a tall, thin woman in a very expensive-looking pants suit. Definitely New Yorker, but I did not recognize her. But she did look like a Network On-Air Talent, except she was orders of magnitude more attractive than Andrea Mitchell.
I was parked on the opposite side of the Mall, so the path back to my car lay through Woodland Mall past the spot where MSNBC was camped out. This woman was striking, but I had no clue who she might be. She was being interviewed by a less attractive Network On-Air Talent from Access Hollywood, but that provided no clue. My friend with whom I had been lunching doesn't watch MSNBC, either.
Much later, after I'd gotten Sarah Palin's autograph & handshake, I was home and googling for news coverage of Mrs. Palin. I found a video on Media Matters. The interviewer was Norah O'Donnell. Yeah, same purple top & black pantsuit. I sent the link to two friends with the caption, "Norah O'Donnell picks on a little girl."
So, that's who Norah O'Donnell is.
Later, I read that the girl Ms. O'Donnell was persecuting was not a minor. BUT, just now I learn that this lie came from Ms. O'Donnell herself. Clearly, she understands that picking on kids is not an image enhancer and she lied about the girl's age to forestall blow-back. Happily, the web is such that even Network On-Air Talent can be fact-checked by little girls who are indeed age 17.
Don't take my word for this, read what Red, White & Conservative has to say for herself.
Who is Norah O'Donnell? She's a woman who doesn't let kids or the facts get in the way of her narrative.
I went to lunch at On The Border outside Woodland Mall and watched the show going on outside as I ate my meal. (Sarah Palin was coming to town to sign books as I've recorded elsewhere.) It was a great day for people watching. I thought the most interesting people to watch were the acolytes serving the Network On-Air Talents. They were dressed normally, for New York City. But the Network On-Air Talents were invariably dressed most expensively. Out the window I noticed a tall, thin woman in a very expensive-looking pants suit. Definitely New Yorker, but I did not recognize her. But she did look like a Network On-Air Talent, except she was orders of magnitude more attractive than Andrea Mitchell.
I was parked on the opposite side of the Mall, so the path back to my car lay through Woodland Mall past the spot where MSNBC was camped out. This woman was striking, but I had no clue who she might be. She was being interviewed by a less attractive Network On-Air Talent from Access Hollywood, but that provided no clue. My friend with whom I had been lunching doesn't watch MSNBC, either.
Much later, after I'd gotten Sarah Palin's autograph & handshake, I was home and googling for news coverage of Mrs. Palin. I found a video on Media Matters. The interviewer was Norah O'Donnell. Yeah, same purple top & black pantsuit. I sent the link to two friends with the caption, "Norah O'Donnell picks on a little girl."
So, that's who Norah O'Donnell is.
Later, I read that the girl Ms. O'Donnell was persecuting was not a minor. BUT, just now I learn that this lie came from Ms. O'Donnell herself. Clearly, she understands that picking on kids is not an image enhancer and she lied about the girl's age to forestall blow-back. Happily, the web is such that even Network On-Air Talent can be fact-checked by little girls who are indeed age 17.
Don't take my word for this, read what Red, White & Conservative has to say for herself.
Who is Norah O'Donnell? She's a woman who doesn't let kids or the facts get in the way of her narrative.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah Palin in Grand Rapids, MI
Just got back from Woodland mall. I arrived at 7:00am sharp and made my way to the end of the line of people waiting to get in. The line extended from Barnes & Noble, back to the Information Desk at the center of the mall, and then snaked around a maze like you'd see at the airport for a while, and then extended back to the mall entrance.
Next to the entrance to Barnes & Noble is a media setup with lights and camera. When I got in line, it wasn't immediately clear which media outfit was there. Unlike local news coverage, there wasn't any scruffy camera guy and a "face." Instead there were some well-dressed underlings, including a fellow in a tie sitting crosslegged on the floor typing on his MacBook Pro. In the center was a short woman in a pant's suit. Heavy make-up. Looking somewhat long in the tooth. Walking past, I heard her saying that people were standing in line for Sarah Palin. Oh, that's what Andrea Mitchell looks like in real life.
So, how much of Mrs. Palin's bad press is a function of the jealousy of older, less-attractive women? And I'm not saying Ms. Mitchell appeared to be a crone, just that she looked as you'd expect of someone her age. I'm not as young as I used to be, either.
I stand in line for a half-hour and notice the fellow 20 people ahead of me is reading. I slap my forehead with my palm, "I have Mrs. Palin's book with me." Helpful advice: 1) buy the book the night before; 2) show up at whatever time your fanaticism moves you to; 3) while away the idle hours perusing Mrs. Palin's prose. I started reading. The line seemed to go faster.
90 minutes after getting into line, Barnes & Noble personnel had affixed a wristband to me. The girl advised me to return at 4:00pm. I thought this odd. I had the wristband... The signing isn't scheduled until 7:00pm.
Walking through the mall to get to my car, I saw folks waiting in a 2nd line. Their story is a little different. They drove down from Traverse City the night before. They'd waited in line since 9:00pm the night before. True fans. Now they had their wristbands. "What are you waiting for?" "To get into line again?" "What for?" "To get our books signed." Oh. They weren't going to go away and return at 4:00pm. Like I said, true fans.
Update:
(I was tired enough last night that I posted this as comments on Stacy McCain's blog. If you've read it there, this is largely the same.)
At Noontime:
I went back to Woodland Mall for lunch. The crowd had changed slightly. Parking is a zoo. This time I observed there are four shows like layers of an onion: 1) There's Sarah who's not there yet. 2) Then there are guys like me with the wristband who have been in line all day. 3) Camping out in a position of Great Honor are the Network Talents. I recognized Andrea Mitchell, but I did not recognize the statuesque brunette (who might induce me to watch network TV again) being interviewed by Access Hollywood. I don't know whether this means she was From Access Hollywood or whether she's someone Access Hollywood thinks important enough to interview. (I later discovered with a bit of googling that she is Norah O'Donnell. You can see a video of her picking on a little girl at the Media Matters website.) 4) Then there's the fourth show, the various acolites and minor deities attending to the On Air Talents. I think they were the most interesting people there.
If you see someone dressed in a black dress coat, s/he's probably from New York and is attending to some broadcast network's business. Conversely, if you see a kid in a Cornerstone University sweatshirt, s/he's been there since Oh Dark Thirty this morning.
Later that same evening:
Mrs. Palin is friendly and personal. She does retail politics flawlessly.
When I got back to the Mall to stand in line again, the line extended outside. (A mall guard told me the fire marshal said there were too many of us to wait inside.)
After a few minutes a pleasant girl from channel 6 in Lansing came by with cameraman in tow and interviewed people behind me. Others kept walking through ruining the shot and I heard the same line repeated 6 times.
When Mrs. Palin arrived, she gave a short speech (couldn't hear much) and a few minutes later the line began to move. The mall seemed warmer than it had earlier in the day.
Andrea Mitchell was camped out at the MSNBC spot directly in front of the Barnes & Noble entrance with Ms. O'Donnell that I'd noticed at lunch. Happily, I've no need to watch MSNBC to learn who that is. Ms. Mitchell looked tired; probably a long day for her, too. Ms. O'Donnell has the youth and looks to not be jealous of Mrs. Palin in those regards. Nonetheless, she may still be jealous of Mrs. Palin's audience.
My cell rang. It was a couple journalism students from Cornerstone University. (My wife had given their prof my number.) They have a Wednesday night class. You could tell by the navy blue "Truth Seekers" tee shirts in a Star Wars font. They came over and we had a nice chat about Mrs. Palin's star power. "Look at this crowd. It's a rock star crowd. She's a Political Elvis"
Their prof owns a small newspaper a couple towns over. This reminded me that newspapers are hurting financially. Mrs. Palin's ability to make old-media newsies irrelevant is an existential threat every bit as real as Craigslist classified advertising. Who needs to tune into MSNBC when you can surf to Mrs. Palin's facebook page and get her words firsthand?
These students went away and the line slowly wound its way toward the Barnes & Noble door. Another Cornerstone student came around holding a big foam core board and a few Sharpies. They were collecting well-wishes for Mrs. Palin. I had to sign it.
Eventually, we got into the bookstore. The clerks know me from the Thursday writers' group. One called, "It's not Thursday." and we laughed. I climbed the deactivated escalators and wended a serpentine route through the stacks.
Sadly, they didn't route us through Philosophy. The teenager ahead of me pulled a book off the shelf about being a gay teenager and handed it to her dad. NTTAWWT. She and I found it a lot funnier than he did. He added that his Facebook account had been hacked a few days back and defaced with a lot of homoerotic stuff. I suppressed additional sniggers.
They had a big cloth scrim set up around the desk where Sarah Palin signed books.
Within this Holy of Holies were cherubim wearing Grand Rapids City Police uniforms and seraphim in plainclothes with coiled wires going into their ears. A high priestess took my books and passed them to Mrs. Palin. She said Grand Rapids was treating her well in that perky, aw-shucks way that I love so much.
I shook the hand of a rock star.
I left slowly, savoring the moment. I spoke with a guy in black suit--Someone Important with Woodland Mall. The crowd control & security was handled professionally and everything went well. His people did a great job. He thanked me back.
The crowd scene was pleasant. Conservatives are all individuals. Some of us can be odd, but everyone was friendly. I detest waiting in line, but I did enjoy the crowd. After Dan's Bake Sale, Rush remarked that the crowd left things neat & clean whereas when the same number of liberals get together they trash the place. This crowd left Woodland Mall in fair shape.
Outside the store the guy in line behind me had his digital SLR out. He asked me to take his picture in front of the Barnes & Noble sign.
Walking back to my car through the mall all the stores had closed and just a few clerks were finishing up for the night. It was peaceful as I carried two signed copies of Sarah Palin's book home.
Next to the entrance to Barnes & Noble is a media setup with lights and camera. When I got in line, it wasn't immediately clear which media outfit was there. Unlike local news coverage, there wasn't any scruffy camera guy and a "face." Instead there were some well-dressed underlings, including a fellow in a tie sitting crosslegged on the floor typing on his MacBook Pro. In the center was a short woman in a pant's suit. Heavy make-up. Looking somewhat long in the tooth. Walking past, I heard her saying that people were standing in line for Sarah Palin. Oh, that's what Andrea Mitchell looks like in real life.
So, how much of Mrs. Palin's bad press is a function of the jealousy of older, less-attractive women? And I'm not saying Ms. Mitchell appeared to be a crone, just that she looked as you'd expect of someone her age. I'm not as young as I used to be, either.
I stand in line for a half-hour and notice the fellow 20 people ahead of me is reading. I slap my forehead with my palm, "I have Mrs. Palin's book with me." Helpful advice: 1) buy the book the night before; 2) show up at whatever time your fanaticism moves you to; 3) while away the idle hours perusing Mrs. Palin's prose. I started reading. The line seemed to go faster.
90 minutes after getting into line, Barnes & Noble personnel had affixed a wristband to me. The girl advised me to return at 4:00pm. I thought this odd. I had the wristband... The signing isn't scheduled until 7:00pm.
Walking through the mall to get to my car, I saw folks waiting in a 2nd line. Their story is a little different. They drove down from Traverse City the night before. They'd waited in line since 9:00pm the night before. True fans. Now they had their wristbands. "What are you waiting for?" "To get into line again?" "What for?" "To get our books signed." Oh. They weren't going to go away and return at 4:00pm. Like I said, true fans.
Update:
(I was tired enough last night that I posted this as comments on Stacy McCain's blog. If you've read it there, this is largely the same.)
At Noontime:
I went back to Woodland Mall for lunch. The crowd had changed slightly. Parking is a zoo. This time I observed there are four shows like layers of an onion: 1) There's Sarah who's not there yet. 2) Then there are guys like me with the wristband who have been in line all day. 3) Camping out in a position of Great Honor are the Network Talents. I recognized Andrea Mitchell, but I did not recognize the statuesque brunette (who might induce me to watch network TV again) being interviewed by Access Hollywood. I don't know whether this means she was From Access Hollywood or whether she's someone Access Hollywood thinks important enough to interview. (I later discovered with a bit of googling that she is Norah O'Donnell. You can see a video of her picking on a little girl at the Media Matters website.) 4) Then there's the fourth show, the various acolites and minor deities attending to the On Air Talents. I think they were the most interesting people there.
If you see someone dressed in a black dress coat, s/he's probably from New York and is attending to some broadcast network's business. Conversely, if you see a kid in a Cornerstone University sweatshirt, s/he's been there since Oh Dark Thirty this morning.
Later that same evening:
Mrs. Palin is friendly and personal. She does retail politics flawlessly.
When I got back to the Mall to stand in line again, the line extended outside. (A mall guard told me the fire marshal said there were too many of us to wait inside.)
After a few minutes a pleasant girl from channel 6 in Lansing came by with cameraman in tow and interviewed people behind me. Others kept walking through ruining the shot and I heard the same line repeated 6 times.
When Mrs. Palin arrived, she gave a short speech (couldn't hear much) and a few minutes later the line began to move. The mall seemed warmer than it had earlier in the day.
Andrea Mitchell was camped out at the MSNBC spot directly in front of the Barnes & Noble entrance with Ms. O'Donnell that I'd noticed at lunch. Happily, I've no need to watch MSNBC to learn who that is. Ms. Mitchell looked tired; probably a long day for her, too. Ms. O'Donnell has the youth and looks to not be jealous of Mrs. Palin in those regards. Nonetheless, she may still be jealous of Mrs. Palin's audience.
My cell rang. It was a couple journalism students from Cornerstone University. (My wife had given their prof my number.) They have a Wednesday night class. You could tell by the navy blue "Truth Seekers" tee shirts in a Star Wars font. They came over and we had a nice chat about Mrs. Palin's star power. "Look at this crowd. It's a rock star crowd. She's a Political Elvis"
Their prof owns a small newspaper a couple towns over. This reminded me that newspapers are hurting financially. Mrs. Palin's ability to make old-media newsies irrelevant is an existential threat every bit as real as Craigslist classified advertising. Who needs to tune into MSNBC when you can surf to Mrs. Palin's facebook page and get her words firsthand?
These students went away and the line slowly wound its way toward the Barnes & Noble door. Another Cornerstone student came around holding a big foam core board and a few Sharpies. They were collecting well-wishes for Mrs. Palin. I had to sign it.
Eventually, we got into the bookstore. The clerks know me from the Thursday writers' group. One called, "It's not Thursday." and we laughed. I climbed the deactivated escalators and wended a serpentine route through the stacks.
Sadly, they didn't route us through Philosophy. The teenager ahead of me pulled a book off the shelf about being a gay teenager and handed it to her dad. NTTAWWT. She and I found it a lot funnier than he did. He added that his Facebook account had been hacked a few days back and defaced with a lot of homoerotic stuff. I suppressed additional sniggers.
They had a big cloth scrim set up around the desk where Sarah Palin signed books.
Within this Holy of Holies were cherubim wearing Grand Rapids City Police uniforms and seraphim in plainclothes with coiled wires going into their ears. A high priestess took my books and passed them to Mrs. Palin. She said Grand Rapids was treating her well in that perky, aw-shucks way that I love so much.
I shook the hand of a rock star.
I left slowly, savoring the moment. I spoke with a guy in black suit--Someone Important with Woodland Mall. The crowd control & security was handled professionally and everything went well. His people did a great job. He thanked me back.
The crowd scene was pleasant. Conservatives are all individuals. Some of us can be odd, but everyone was friendly. I detest waiting in line, but I did enjoy the crowd. After Dan's Bake Sale, Rush remarked that the crowd left things neat & clean whereas when the same number of liberals get together they trash the place. This crowd left Woodland Mall in fair shape.
Outside the store the guy in line behind me had his digital SLR out. He asked me to take his picture in front of the Barnes & Noble sign.
Walking back to my car through the mall all the stores had closed and just a few clerks were finishing up for the night. It was peaceful as I carried two signed copies of Sarah Palin's book home.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Republican Dogs That Didn't Bark
Republicans don't care when racists perpetrate lynchings. Just so long as the guys doing the lynching are liberals.
So, where is Mike Huckabee, Or Mitt Romney, Or even Sarah Palin? Do any of those Republican "leaders" have anything to say on the subject? Do any of those "leaders" have any inclination to practice LEADERSHIP?
Rush Limbaugh has just been subjected to a media lynching. The likes of which we haven't seen since it was done to Sarah Palin last fall. He was libeled by CNN and various members of the sports press who attributes racist quotes to him that they knew were false. And when they were called on it, they repeated the quotes and said he denied them.
They just made stuff up. And he should sue just to make it harder to libel the next conservative they decide to target.
You'd think that perhaps someone in the Republican Party might NOTICE. Or you think that someone who might want Mr. Limbaugh's support WHEN THE SAME THING IS DONE TO THEM NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, would say something in Rush's defense. Some Republican might express at disapproval of the obvious double standard in play when proven liars and race-hustlers make baseless accusations of racism.
That's where Rush differs from Glen Beck. He's still loyal to the Republican party. He's still in the party and instigating to get it to move to the right. Glen Beck is denouncing Washington Corruption in both the Republican and the Democrat sides of the aisle. Rush goes easy on the Establishment Republicans inside the Beltway. And this is how he's repaid.
The only McCain in Washington likely to condemn Rush's lynching is named Stacy (despite being distracted by Megan McCain's decolletage).
So, where is Mike Huckabee, Or Mitt Romney, Or even Sarah Palin? Do any of those Republican "leaders" have anything to say on the subject? Do any of those "leaders" have any inclination to practice LEADERSHIP?
Rush Limbaugh has just been subjected to a media lynching. The likes of which we haven't seen since it was done to Sarah Palin last fall. He was libeled by CNN and various members of the sports press who attributes racist quotes to him that they knew were false. And when they were called on it, they repeated the quotes and said he denied them.
They just made stuff up. And he should sue just to make it harder to libel the next conservative they decide to target.
You'd think that perhaps someone in the Republican Party might NOTICE. Or you think that someone who might want Mr. Limbaugh's support WHEN THE SAME THING IS DONE TO THEM NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, would say something in Rush's defense. Some Republican might express at disapproval of the obvious double standard in play when proven liars and race-hustlers make baseless accusations of racism.
That's where Rush differs from Glen Beck. He's still loyal to the Republican party. He's still in the party and instigating to get it to move to the right. Glen Beck is denouncing Washington Corruption in both the Republican and the Democrat sides of the aisle. Rush goes easy on the Establishment Republicans inside the Beltway. And this is how he's repaid.
The only McCain in Washington likely to condemn Rush's lynching is named Stacy (despite being distracted by Megan McCain's decolletage).
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Did You Vote For Tiger Woods or Al Sharpton?
One comparison has been omitted when regarding the Obama-as-promised and the Obama-as-realized. And that is one Tiger Woods. Mr. Woods is as multi-racial as Mr. Obama and extremely good at what he does and highly sought after as an endorser of luxury goods. He's a person of enough-color-to-be-regarded-black who is regarded as sensible and prosperous. He realizes what Mr. Obama (or whoever penned Dreams Of My Father) wrote describing the non-threatening black man. I think that many of the 53% who voted for him expected a President much like Tiger Woods.
Conversely, Obama-as-realized has demonstrated he is much more like Reverend Al Sharpton who hides a core of thuggish race-hustling extortion behind an expensive suit.
This isn't as much as racial thing as a social thing. Or subcultural thing. Power plays that work for Reverend Jeremiah Wright on his congregation do not generalize to the wider American culture. That there is a black subculture (to which Mr. Woods shows no signs of membership) is a signal failure of integration efforts of the 1960s. Rather than demonstrating the success of civil rights, Mr. Obama demonstrates black power at the expense of civil rights.
Had Mr. Obama truly been the Tiger-Woods-sort-of-man who was sold to the American electorate he could have easily assumed the Clintonian role of triangulator-in-chief. To the contrary, he has become the extremist whose words do not match his actions. So much that an unemployed Alaskan housewife has schooled him with a half-dozen Facebook posts. It should be noted that Ms. Palin began her demolition of Mr. Obama with an exhortation to civil dialog after the Mr. Obama had advised his followers “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Tiger Woods would have brought golf clubs.
Conversely, Obama-as-realized has demonstrated he is much more like Reverend Al Sharpton who hides a core of thuggish race-hustling extortion behind an expensive suit.
This isn't as much as racial thing as a social thing. Or subcultural thing. Power plays that work for Reverend Jeremiah Wright on his congregation do not generalize to the wider American culture. That there is a black subculture (to which Mr. Woods shows no signs of membership) is a signal failure of integration efforts of the 1960s. Rather than demonstrating the success of civil rights, Mr. Obama demonstrates black power at the expense of civil rights.
Had Mr. Obama truly been the Tiger-Woods-sort-of-man who was sold to the American electorate he could have easily assumed the Clintonian role of triangulator-in-chief. To the contrary, he has become the extremist whose words do not match his actions. So much that an unemployed Alaskan housewife has schooled him with a half-dozen Facebook posts. It should be noted that Ms. Palin began her demolition of Mr. Obama with an exhortation to civil dialog after the Mr. Obama had advised his followers “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Tiger Woods would have brought golf clubs.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why Charles Hates Sarah (a corollary)
Yesterday, I claimed that Sarah Palin is "socially horrifying." And I expressed a desire that she continue her socially horrifying behavior.
Today I read that Charles Krauthammer has asked Sarah Palin to "leave the room."
I have as much respect for Mr. Krauthammer as I have contempt for Ms. Dowd, but they are doing the same thing in their imprecations of Ms. Palin. They are condemning her David-like style of fighting. In so doing, Mr. Krauthammer is being First a commentator and Second a conservative.
As a commentator in good standing, Mr. Krauthammer has a vested interest in the social structure Mrs. Palin is undermining with her David-like behavior. For her to behave in a fashion acceptable to Mr. Krauthammer, she must first listen to Mr. Krauthammer, and then she must get his permission to enter or exit the room. And since the other side has a lot more people like him on their side, she will lose. If you doubt this, ask how well Mrs. Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric worked for her.
This socially horrifying behavior of Mrs. Palin's has been misunderstood by a lot of people. Particularly me. (I thought she was being anti-elitist, but that's not the case.)
By fighting Goliaths in a David-like way, she is undermining the position of folks like Mr. Krauthammer and Ms. Dowd alike. If people can read your Facebook page for yourself, what do you need Mr. Krauthammer or Ms. Dowd for?
As far as I am concerned, I'm fine with Mrs. Palin waiting until she is sitting in the Oval office with veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress before she invites either Mr. Krauthammer or Ms. Dowd enter the room.
Today I read that Charles Krauthammer has asked Sarah Palin to "leave the room."
I have as much respect for Mr. Krauthammer as I have contempt for Ms. Dowd, but they are doing the same thing in their imprecations of Ms. Palin. They are condemning her David-like style of fighting. In so doing, Mr. Krauthammer is being First a commentator and Second a conservative.
As a commentator in good standing, Mr. Krauthammer has a vested interest in the social structure Mrs. Palin is undermining with her David-like behavior. For her to behave in a fashion acceptable to Mr. Krauthammer, she must first listen to Mr. Krauthammer, and then she must get his permission to enter or exit the room. And since the other side has a lot more people like him on their side, she will lose. If you doubt this, ask how well Mrs. Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric worked for her.
This socially horrifying behavior of Mrs. Palin's has been misunderstood by a lot of people. Particularly me. (I thought she was being anti-elitist, but that's not the case.)
By fighting Goliaths in a David-like way, she is undermining the position of folks like Mr. Krauthammer and Ms. Dowd alike. If people can read your Facebook page for yourself, what do you need Mr. Krauthammer or Ms. Dowd for?
As far as I am concerned, I'm fine with Mrs. Palin waiting until she is sitting in the Oval office with veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress before she invites either Mr. Krauthammer or Ms. Dowd enter the room.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sarah Palin is "Socially Horrifying"
Malcolm Gladwell wrote an essay a while back about how underdogs can win.
Underdogs are called underdogs because the opposition holds all the advantages. Gladwell provides an example of a girl's basketball team composed of shorter girls. The coach found a way to win by adapting unconventional strategies that he adapted from his experience with cricket and soccer. That's how underdogs win. If the other side holds all the advantages, then you will lose if you play the game the other guy's way.
Underdogs win when they can find a way to play the game their way that negates the other guys' advantage. The other guys do not appreciate this and they tend to cry foul.
Let's take a look at the scoreboard and the playing field. The President is a Democrat, as his wacky side-kick. The Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the Senate and a wide majority in the House of Representations. They have all but the networks except one echoing their every talking point. And the Democrats managed to Alinski Mrs. Palin out of the governorship of Alaska.
Meanwhile Half the Republican party is falling over itself to say, "me too."
So, I'd say that Mrs. Palin would qualify as an underdog. And instead of going on the Sunday Morning chat shows or giving interviews with pundits who'll carry her words to the masses, she posts her opinions on Facebook.
Maureen Dowd cried foul last week.
This is what we call a clue. Mrs. Palin has shown that she can surprise everyone, do things that seem to destroy her future, and then manage to win. When Ms. Dowd whines, "she's cheatin' I'm tellun," you know she's not playing the game her adversaries have laid out for her.
Here's the thing. Mrs. Palin started talking about death panels. And the entire news-government complex started by putting the term in scare quotes. And then they called her a liar. The Messiah In Chief proceeded to say she was Bearing False Witness.
Yeah, but people believe that unemployed hick on the cyberstalking channel instead of their betters like Ms. Dowd, et al. David 1, Goliath 0.
How can this be? ObamaCare is proposed to reduce health care costs. Sick people incur health care costs. Dead people have zero health care costs. And if sick people die sooner that reduces health care costs. Does this mean ObamaCare won't reduce health care costs?
Is there anything in the hundreds of pages the ObamaCare bill that specifically excludes Death Panels? Has any politician suggested adding language to the bill that will specifically exclude Death Panels? I guess a sneering denial will have to do.
When Malcolm Gladwell says:
Later he says:
Either by accident or design, Sarah Palin has fought ObamaCare like David fought Goliath. I have no idea whether she can keep it up. I hope so, because we've got years of Democrats playing the role of Goliath ahead of us.
Underdogs are called underdogs because the opposition holds all the advantages. Gladwell provides an example of a girl's basketball team composed of shorter girls. The coach found a way to win by adapting unconventional strategies that he adapted from his experience with cricket and soccer. That's how underdogs win. If the other side holds all the advantages, then you will lose if you play the game the other guy's way.
Underdogs win when they can find a way to play the game their way that negates the other guys' advantage. The other guys do not appreciate this and they tend to cry foul.
Let's take a look at the scoreboard and the playing field. The President is a Democrat, as his wacky side-kick. The Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the Senate and a wide majority in the House of Representations. They have all but the networks except one echoing their every talking point. And the Democrats managed to Alinski Mrs. Palin out of the governorship of Alaska.
Meanwhile Half the Republican party is falling over itself to say, "me too."
So, I'd say that Mrs. Palin would qualify as an underdog. And instead of going on the Sunday Morning chat shows or giving interviews with pundits who'll carry her words to the masses, she posts her opinions on Facebook.
Maureen Dowd cried foul last week.
She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.
This is what we call a clue. Mrs. Palin has shown that she can surprise everyone, do things that seem to destroy her future, and then manage to win. When Ms. Dowd whines, "she's cheatin' I'm tellun," you know she's not playing the game her adversaries have laid out for her.
Here's the thing. Mrs. Palin started talking about death panels. And the entire news-government complex started by putting the term in scare quotes. And then they called her a liar. The Messiah In Chief proceeded to say she was Bearing False Witness.
Yeah, but people believe that unemployed hick on the cyberstalking channel instead of their betters like Ms. Dowd, et al. David 1, Goliath 0.
How can this be? ObamaCare is proposed to reduce health care costs. Sick people incur health care costs. Dead people have zero health care costs. And if sick people die sooner that reduces health care costs. Does this mean ObamaCare won't reduce health care costs?
Is there anything in the hundreds of pages the ObamaCare bill that specifically excludes Death Panels? Has any politician suggested adding language to the bill that will specifically exclude Death Panels? I guess a sneering denial will have to do.
When Malcolm Gladwell says:
ArreguÃn-Toft found the same puzzling pattern. When an underdog fought like David, he usually won. But most of the time underdogs didn’t fight like David.
Later he says:
This is the second half of the insurgent’s creed. Insurgents work harder than Goliath. But their other advantage is that they will do what is “socially horrifying”—they will challenge the conventions about how battles are supposed to be fought. All the things that distinguish the ideal basketball player are acts of skill and coördination. When the game becomes about effort over ability, it becomes unrecognizable—a shocking mixture of broken plays and flailing limbs and usually competent players panicking and throwing the ball out of bounds. You have to be outside the establishment—a foreigner new to the game or a skinny kid from New York at the end of the bench—to have the audacity to play it that way.
Either by accident or design, Sarah Palin has fought ObamaCare like David fought Goliath. I have no idea whether she can keep it up. I hope so, because we've got years of Democrats playing the role of Goliath ahead of us.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Leverage
There's something about asymmetrical warfare. If you can use a cheap rocket propelled grenade to take out a tank, then you've got an advantage because it costs a lot more to replace the tank than it does to buy more RPGs.
For almost a year now, the entire media-government-political complex has been obsessed with one thing: destroy Sarah Palin by any means necessary. Their goal is to get her to follow Dan Quayle's example and slink quietly away to wherever it was in flyover country that he came from.
And it has been somewhat effective. If her name comes up in casual conversation, half the things attributed to her were instead uttered by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. In the hospital today, I saw her face on a magazin cover with the word DIVORCE plastered on her. There's a full court press that's been ongoing nonstop well after the election and well after her departure from the office of Governor of Alaska.
But something funny has started happening. Mrs. Palin got a facebook account. And she's been posting to it. Now, when I post something here, I figure maybe a couple friends might see it and it goes no further. But when Sarah Palin posts to her facebook page, there's a lot of people who notice and read it. This includes people who have heard the latest scurrilous rumors and are hoping for a juicy tidbit, and the uncommitted middle who are wondering why the Dems and their media lapdogs are hyperventilating.
Everyone who sees her facebook posts can see for themselves that Sarah Palin is not Tina Fey. She doesn't write like she's an idiot, how can that be?
This is leverage. It costs Sarah Palin nothing but her time to write up a facebook post. Contrast that with the money it takes to run a big astroturfing campaign and to marshal the efforts of state-run media to get the Dems' message out.
But Mrs. Palin's facebook posts will languish in obscurity unless something drives traffic to her site. And what better to drive traffic than the morbid curiosity of watching a train wreck. Come on Democrats, you know she's caribou Barbie white-trash, keep coming back to see her say something embarrassing, like "death panels." And read every word for some little clue, or tidbit of gossip about her marriage. Check back early and often.
And you Democrats know that if you don't stop demonizing her, she'll be a viable political figure in 2012. You can't have that. Perhaps you should shop around some more rumors about her family.
Try not to notice you're making people curious to find out more about the target of your Two Minute Hate.
For almost a year now, the entire media-government-political complex has been obsessed with one thing: destroy Sarah Palin by any means necessary. Their goal is to get her to follow Dan Quayle's example and slink quietly away to wherever it was in flyover country that he came from.
And it has been somewhat effective. If her name comes up in casual conversation, half the things attributed to her were instead uttered by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. In the hospital today, I saw her face on a magazin cover with the word DIVORCE plastered on her. There's a full court press that's been ongoing nonstop well after the election and well after her departure from the office of Governor of Alaska.
But something funny has started happening. Mrs. Palin got a facebook account. And she's been posting to it. Now, when I post something here, I figure maybe a couple friends might see it and it goes no further. But when Sarah Palin posts to her facebook page, there's a lot of people who notice and read it. This includes people who have heard the latest scurrilous rumors and are hoping for a juicy tidbit, and the uncommitted middle who are wondering why the Dems and their media lapdogs are hyperventilating.
Everyone who sees her facebook posts can see for themselves that Sarah Palin is not Tina Fey. She doesn't write like she's an idiot, how can that be?
This is leverage. It costs Sarah Palin nothing but her time to write up a facebook post. Contrast that with the money it takes to run a big astroturfing campaign and to marshal the efforts of state-run media to get the Dems' message out.
But Mrs. Palin's facebook posts will languish in obscurity unless something drives traffic to her site. And what better to drive traffic than the morbid curiosity of watching a train wreck. Come on Democrats, you know she's caribou Barbie white-trash, keep coming back to see her say something embarrassing, like "death panels." And read every word for some little clue, or tidbit of gossip about her marriage. Check back early and often.
And you Democrats know that if you don't stop demonizing her, she'll be a viable political figure in 2012. You can't have that. Perhaps you should shop around some more rumors about her family.
Try not to notice you're making people curious to find out more about the target of your Two Minute Hate.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
More Stupid Republicans, Please
You can tell the difference between a Republican who's going to lose a political contest from one who's going to win by one simple criterion: How stupid is he?
We all know that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce who somehow managed to win two presidential elections by landslides and win the Cold War, then hand the presidency to his Veep (who demonstrated how much smarter he was when he called Reagan's domestic policies "voodoo economics"), George H W Bush.
Eight years after that mental colossus was defeated, his doltish son, an alcoholic frat boy or something, George W Bush, ran for president. This man was so stupid he ended up controlling both houses of Congress and the White House.
That's some kind of stupid, huh?
Now, younger Bush might have been called "stupid" by the press, but that doesn't mean he was a Conservative or a Reaganite. And his statist propensities persuaded the Libertarian bloc of the Reagan coalition to look elsewhere. Nevertheless, Bush was a lame duck and there was no need for him to be stupid any longer.
(One delightful irony is to read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and see him squirm at the question of whether Bush was a fascist. When you hear "Big Government Conservatism" just think fascism and it be clear. No, this isn't what the lefties saying, "Bushitler," had in mind.)
Then the Republicans figured that disloyalty and craven media pandering was exactly what the party needed to reward and they nominated the smartest guy in the room (just ask him) John McCain. (This was the point where I quit calling myself a Republican.)
Somehow the boffins running the McCain campaign screwed up. They thought, "if the Democrats have an affirmative-action presidential nominee, we'll counter with an affirmative-action vice-presidential nominee. Little did they know, that Sarah Palin was not going to be a hick non-entity that politely (and quietly) provided eye-candy while McLame lost the election.
Mrs. Palin did what she was hired to do. She got guys like me to pull the R lever on election day. Don't blame me, I voted for Sarah and what's his name.
She also drove the lefties, the Democrats, and the media elites nuts. Which is a blessing really. I used to take National Review and the Trojan-Horse Conservative commentators they publish seriously. I know better than to heed them now, thank you, Sarah.
You see, Sarah Palin, is stupid.
If she were only as smart as I am, she'd have done what I expected her to do: Demonstrate she can run Alaska for the next two years then move on to something bigger. Instead, she quit the governorship, citing spurious ethics complaints and slanders. Just a fortnight later, when someone said she was divorcing her husband, private-citizen Palin could sue the fellow for slander. And after the fellow's remarkable implosion, slanderers have to be more circumspect. Haven't heard anything about ethics complaints, either.
And Sarah Palin is stupid because she used two words, "Death Panels."
This was a horrible thing to say. Republicans could call Obama socialist, and point how much ObamaCare was like national socialism, but doing so runs afoul of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Instead, she said, "Death Panels," and everyone felt the words like blood red painted fingernails on chalkboard.
The lefties caught the vapors. Some fainted and the rest said, "that Palin has gone too far." The Trojan-Horse Conservative commentariate nodded in agreement, knowing how embarrassed they'd be at the next Beltway cocktail party. "There are no Death Panels in this bill... There are?.. Uh, let me get back with you on that."
It even gave pause to union thugs busting heads of Tea Partiers at town-hall meetings.
Death Panels. The AARP is a key front group for the Democrat party. Their leadership had been bought off along with everyone else. BUT the words "death panels" wonderfully concentrated the mind of anyone aged and infirm. When you're stupid like Sarah Palin, you realize a sick geezer will cost ObamaCare money, but a dead one won't.
Death Panels forced the AARP to listen to their members. They could either go along with their Obama, or they could lose their credibility as an advocate for the aged. And geezers vote. Sorry, Barry.
Thus Death Panels have been struck from ObamaCare. (I wonder what else is in this bill my Congressman & Senators have not read.) Who'd of thought that old folks were the exact point where political pressure could be most effectively applied?
Sarah Palin sure is stupid, isn't she? I wish more Republicans were stupid like that.
We all know that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce who somehow managed to win two presidential elections by landslides and win the Cold War, then hand the presidency to his Veep (who demonstrated how much smarter he was when he called Reagan's domestic policies "voodoo economics"), George H W Bush.
Eight years after that mental colossus was defeated, his doltish son, an alcoholic frat boy or something, George W Bush, ran for president. This man was so stupid he ended up controlling both houses of Congress and the White House.
That's some kind of stupid, huh?
Now, younger Bush might have been called "stupid" by the press, but that doesn't mean he was a Conservative or a Reaganite. And his statist propensities persuaded the Libertarian bloc of the Reagan coalition to look elsewhere. Nevertheless, Bush was a lame duck and there was no need for him to be stupid any longer.
(One delightful irony is to read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and see him squirm at the question of whether Bush was a fascist. When you hear "Big Government Conservatism" just think fascism and it be clear. No, this isn't what the lefties saying, "Bushitler," had in mind.)
Then the Republicans figured that disloyalty and craven media pandering was exactly what the party needed to reward and they nominated the smartest guy in the room (just ask him) John McCain. (This was the point where I quit calling myself a Republican.)
Somehow the boffins running the McCain campaign screwed up. They thought, "if the Democrats have an affirmative-action presidential nominee, we'll counter with an affirmative-action vice-presidential nominee. Little did they know, that Sarah Palin was not going to be a hick non-entity that politely (and quietly) provided eye-candy while McLame lost the election.
Mrs. Palin did what she was hired to do. She got guys like me to pull the R lever on election day. Don't blame me, I voted for Sarah and what's his name.
She also drove the lefties, the Democrats, and the media elites nuts. Which is a blessing really. I used to take National Review and the Trojan-Horse Conservative commentators they publish seriously. I know better than to heed them now, thank you, Sarah.
You see, Sarah Palin, is stupid.
If she were only as smart as I am, she'd have done what I expected her to do: Demonstrate she can run Alaska for the next two years then move on to something bigger. Instead, she quit the governorship, citing spurious ethics complaints and slanders. Just a fortnight later, when someone said she was divorcing her husband, private-citizen Palin could sue the fellow for slander. And after the fellow's remarkable implosion, slanderers have to be more circumspect. Haven't heard anything about ethics complaints, either.
And Sarah Palin is stupid because she used two words, "Death Panels."
This was a horrible thing to say. Republicans could call Obama socialist, and point how much ObamaCare was like national socialism, but doing so runs afoul of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Instead, she said, "Death Panels," and everyone felt the words like blood red painted fingernails on chalkboard.
The lefties caught the vapors. Some fainted and the rest said, "that Palin has gone too far." The Trojan-Horse Conservative commentariate nodded in agreement, knowing how embarrassed they'd be at the next Beltway cocktail party. "There are no Death Panels in this bill... There are?.. Uh, let me get back with you on that."
It even gave pause to union thugs busting heads of Tea Partiers at town-hall meetings.
Death Panels. The AARP is a key front group for the Democrat party. Their leadership had been bought off along with everyone else. BUT the words "death panels" wonderfully concentrated the mind of anyone aged and infirm. When you're stupid like Sarah Palin, you realize a sick geezer will cost ObamaCare money, but a dead one won't.
Death Panels forced the AARP to listen to their members. They could either go along with their Obama, or they could lose their credibility as an advocate for the aged. And geezers vote. Sorry, Barry.
Thus Death Panels have been struck from ObamaCare. (I wonder what else is in this bill my Congressman & Senators have not read.) Who'd of thought that old folks were the exact point where political pressure could be most effectively applied?
Sarah Palin sure is stupid, isn't she? I wish more Republicans were stupid like that.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Broken Party
OK, I held my nose and voted for McCain. We've had a systemic problem with Republicanism for several years. The Republican party has demonstrated in the last two elections that it is broken. After the 2006 loss there was not enough done to fix the party. Why didn't the party leadership take a delivery from the clue train?
I'm not thinking we should kick anyone out of the party, but we've got to be smarter about who we're listening to. Ronald Reagan is dead. We need someone else who can speak articulately to small businessmen and libertarians and values voters without embarrassing the country-club set.
I think that we've seen country-club presidential candidates in both Bushes, Dole, and McCain. The civil war within the Republican Party is about to start. Mitt Romney strikes me as yet another country-club candidate. The bizarre whispers that Sarah Palin was a drag on the campaign or that she had "gone rogue" appear to have come from Romney stringers.
It is my earnest hope that Sarah Palin will emerge as the next leader of the Republican party. If not her, I'll look to another neo-Reagan like Bobby Jindal. I have a hard time believing that yet another country-club Republican can unite the party and assemble a winning coalition to reboot the Republican party.
I expect to see a lot more class-warfare in the next four years. Ronald Reagan effectively fought class-warfare because the guy from Dixon, IL positioned himself as the alternative to Rockefeller Republicanism. We'll need someone who isn't old money or married to it to lead us out of this Babylonian captivity. I don't think that person is Mitt Romney.
I'm not thinking we should kick anyone out of the party, but we've got to be smarter about who we're listening to. Ronald Reagan is dead. We need someone else who can speak articulately to small businessmen and libertarians and values voters without embarrassing the country-club set.
I think that we've seen country-club presidential candidates in both Bushes, Dole, and McCain. The civil war within the Republican Party is about to start. Mitt Romney strikes me as yet another country-club candidate. The bizarre whispers that Sarah Palin was a drag on the campaign or that she had "gone rogue" appear to have come from Romney stringers.
It is my earnest hope that Sarah Palin will emerge as the next leader of the Republican party. If not her, I'll look to another neo-Reagan like Bobby Jindal. I have a hard time believing that yet another country-club Republican can unite the party and assemble a winning coalition to reboot the Republican party.
I expect to see a lot more class-warfare in the next four years. Ronald Reagan effectively fought class-warfare because the guy from Dixon, IL positioned himself as the alternative to Rockefeller Republicanism. We'll need someone who isn't old money or married to it to lead us out of this Babylonian captivity. I don't think that person is Mitt Romney.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Feminism
In the movie, "The Princess Bride," Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I think the national conversation about Mrs. Sarah Palin and feminism is another instance of a word being used whose meaning is in doubt.
Feminism has an appeal because it touches upon fairness and equality. People are differently abled, but nobody is better or worse just because they're a man or woman, black or white, Jew or Greek. I've always thought feminism was about this sort of equality.
Rush Limbaugh coined the term feminazi some years ago to describe "liberal, pro-abortion fanatics." It should be noted that he intends by this usage not a synonym for "feminist," but he describes a specific set of political policy aims. Can you assert equality of the sexes without asserting liberal, pro-abortion policies?
Recently, Camile Paglia has written that Mrs. Palin is "reshaping the persona of female authority." Ms. Paglia is a feminist and an intellectual who enjoys straying from the establishment group-think about what constitutes feminism.
Perhaps we need to distinguish between "feminist" and "establishment feminist" to avoid Rush's feminazi term. Certainly, Mrs. Hillary Clinton is an establishment feminist, but she is no fanatic. But Mrs. Palin is not an establishment feminist.
What prompts this outburst is an essay that I read by someone named Katie Granju who does not like Mrs. Palin. More accurately, after acknowledging Mrs. Palin's accomplishments she thinks it wrong that Mrs. Palin act "like all of these opportunities and open doors just fell into her lap because of her own good luck and hard work." Ms. Granju seems to think that Mrs. Palin owes ideological fealty to establishment feminists. (This sense of "you owe me" is a great way to live a miserable life and become a miserable person.) Presumably brave Norma Rae was out there toiling in some factory, or brave Erin Brockovich was toiling in some legal aid office, or a dozen other brave movie scripts were written so that forever after, all ambitious women would kneel and kiss the ring of establishment feminists.
Feminism's legitimacy comes from equality. However, establishment feminists seem to think that they are more equal than other women. It is fair to include or exclude people from the abortion movement based upon their pro-choice vs pro-life positions. But equality is not abortion. And equality must also be between women, too.
Establishment feminism is a postmodern phenomenon, as such it is preoccupied with power. Equality and power are often conflated in this case. Thus establishment feminism encounters an existential threat when an empowered woman does not share their policy aims. Her very existence suggests that a woman needs an establishment feminist like a fish needs a bicycle. I think this explains Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Feminism has an appeal because it touches upon fairness and equality. People are differently abled, but nobody is better or worse just because they're a man or woman, black or white, Jew or Greek. I've always thought feminism was about this sort of equality.
Rush Limbaugh coined the term feminazi some years ago to describe "liberal, pro-abortion fanatics." It should be noted that he intends by this usage not a synonym for "feminist," but he describes a specific set of political policy aims. Can you assert equality of the sexes without asserting liberal, pro-abortion policies?
Recently, Camile Paglia has written that Mrs. Palin is "reshaping the persona of female authority." Ms. Paglia is a feminist and an intellectual who enjoys straying from the establishment group-think about what constitutes feminism.
Perhaps we need to distinguish between "feminist" and "establishment feminist" to avoid Rush's feminazi term. Certainly, Mrs. Hillary Clinton is an establishment feminist, but she is no fanatic. But Mrs. Palin is not an establishment feminist.
What prompts this outburst is an essay that I read by someone named Katie Granju who does not like Mrs. Palin. More accurately, after acknowledging Mrs. Palin's accomplishments she thinks it wrong that Mrs. Palin act "like all of these opportunities and open doors just fell into her lap because of her own good luck and hard work." Ms. Granju seems to think that Mrs. Palin owes ideological fealty to establishment feminists. (This sense of "you owe me" is a great way to live a miserable life and become a miserable person.) Presumably brave Norma Rae was out there toiling in some factory, or brave Erin Brockovich was toiling in some legal aid office, or a dozen other brave movie scripts were written so that forever after, all ambitious women would kneel and kiss the ring of establishment feminists.
Feminism's legitimacy comes from equality. However, establishment feminists seem to think that they are more equal than other women. It is fair to include or exclude people from the abortion movement based upon their pro-choice vs pro-life positions. But equality is not abortion. And equality must also be between women, too.
Establishment feminism is a postmodern phenomenon, as such it is preoccupied with power. Equality and power are often conflated in this case. Thus establishment feminism encounters an existential threat when an empowered woman does not share their policy aims. Her very existence suggests that a woman needs an establishment feminist like a fish needs a bicycle. I think this explains Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
A Dangerous Lightweight?
Sometime last week the narrative reached the right wing commentator, Kathleen Parker that Sarah Palin was just Caribou Barbie: she ought not be running for Vice President and who was dragging down the McCain campaign and ought to pull an Eagleton.
Now, like Peggy Noonan before her, Ms. Parker has eaten some crow. In particular, Ms. Parker states of Mrs. Palin, "to Democrats, she’s still a dangerous lightweight..." which raises the question? If Mrs. Palin is a lightweight, how can she be dangerous?
I had a conversation with my neighbor when I put a McCain-Palin sign in my front yard. (I had foregone putting any Republican signs in my yard until I could get one with Mrs. Palin's name on it.) He announced with glee that Mr. McCain had pulled out of Michigan and thought that significant. He is probably correct at that point. But when I mentioned my support for Mrs. Palin, he said, "She knows nothing."
Very well, if she knows nothing, she should pose no threat to anyone with "D" next to their name, correct?
But my neighbor was not finished with Mrs. Palin. He said, "You know she's a Pentacostal. She supports Israel. She wants Armageddon to force the Second Coming." Now, I doubt that my neighbor recognized the naked religious bigotry in his assertion. I suppose that if Mrs. Palin's middle name were "Hussein" it might be different. But I gave him a pass, going after the sheer ignorance and falseness of this representation of premillenial eschatology. I am a premillenialist Christian and I find this canard of the left utterly ridiculous. If you think this way, you don't know what you're talking about. Christians who speak of the imminent return of Jesus Christ do so to warn that one must always be ready to meet one's maker and give account of one's life. The point is that God is in the driver's seat, not the other way around. But I digress.
I dislike this line of rhetoric: seeking not only the political defeat of someone whose opinions you contradict, but their personal destruction. I've come close to this myself, comparing Mr. Obama with Steve Urkel and contrasting him with John Shaft. I plan to vote against Mr. Obama because he advances policies I dislike and I plan to vote for Mrs. Palin because she advances policies I support.
By moving away from the policies of the candidates to their personal attributes, we set for ourselves a trap. When we speak of policies, we can more easily remain civil in our conversations. On the other hand, when we say the other guy is an empty suit, the other guy will speak of lipstick on a pig, and the conversation goes downhill very quickly. In conversation with my neighbor, most of my replies were, "Oh really?" and "Is that so?" while believing none of it. I don't think my neighbor realizes how close his assertions came to 1930s style antisemitism, or sexism and ageism of more recent vintage. But they got past his civility filter because he'd gone past policy into the ad hominem.
This isn't new. Mrs. Palin is getting the full Ronald Reagan treatment. And the left is tacking very close to the wind while doing this. If she's a lightweight, she can't be dangerous. But if she's worthy of the vitriol we've seen since her nomination for Vice President, someone must regard her as very dangerous. She has proved articulate and she manages to say things I haven't heard from a Republican candidate since Mr. Reagan left public life.
I'm not altogether convinced that Mrs. Palin's enemies are limited to those with "D"s next to their name. This year is not completely unlike 1976 and someone who so channels Ronald Reagan will find few friends in the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party. One wonders what would have happened had Gerald Ford made Ronald Reagan his running mate. My hopes are that Mrs. Palin is more dangerous than lightweight.
Now, like Peggy Noonan before her, Ms. Parker has eaten some crow. In particular, Ms. Parker states of Mrs. Palin, "to Democrats, she’s still a dangerous lightweight..." which raises the question? If Mrs. Palin is a lightweight, how can she be dangerous?
I had a conversation with my neighbor when I put a McCain-Palin sign in my front yard. (I had foregone putting any Republican signs in my yard until I could get one with Mrs. Palin's name on it.) He announced with glee that Mr. McCain had pulled out of Michigan and thought that significant. He is probably correct at that point. But when I mentioned my support for Mrs. Palin, he said, "She knows nothing."
Very well, if she knows nothing, she should pose no threat to anyone with "D" next to their name, correct?
But my neighbor was not finished with Mrs. Palin. He said, "You know she's a Pentacostal. She supports Israel. She wants Armageddon to force the Second Coming." Now, I doubt that my neighbor recognized the naked religious bigotry in his assertion. I suppose that if Mrs. Palin's middle name were "Hussein" it might be different. But I gave him a pass, going after the sheer ignorance and falseness of this representation of premillenial eschatology. I am a premillenialist Christian and I find this canard of the left utterly ridiculous. If you think this way, you don't know what you're talking about. Christians who speak of the imminent return of Jesus Christ do so to warn that one must always be ready to meet one's maker and give account of one's life. The point is that God is in the driver's seat, not the other way around. But I digress.
I dislike this line of rhetoric: seeking not only the political defeat of someone whose opinions you contradict, but their personal destruction. I've come close to this myself, comparing Mr. Obama with Steve Urkel and contrasting him with John Shaft. I plan to vote against Mr. Obama because he advances policies I dislike and I plan to vote for Mrs. Palin because she advances policies I support.
By moving away from the policies of the candidates to their personal attributes, we set for ourselves a trap. When we speak of policies, we can more easily remain civil in our conversations. On the other hand, when we say the other guy is an empty suit, the other guy will speak of lipstick on a pig, and the conversation goes downhill very quickly. In conversation with my neighbor, most of my replies were, "Oh really?" and "Is that so?" while believing none of it. I don't think my neighbor realizes how close his assertions came to 1930s style antisemitism, or sexism and ageism of more recent vintage. But they got past his civility filter because he'd gone past policy into the ad hominem.
This isn't new. Mrs. Palin is getting the full Ronald Reagan treatment. And the left is tacking very close to the wind while doing this. If she's a lightweight, she can't be dangerous. But if she's worthy of the vitriol we've seen since her nomination for Vice President, someone must regard her as very dangerous. She has proved articulate and she manages to say things I haven't heard from a Republican candidate since Mr. Reagan left public life.
I'm not altogether convinced that Mrs. Palin's enemies are limited to those with "D"s next to their name. This year is not completely unlike 1976 and someone who so channels Ronald Reagan will find few friends in the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party. One wonders what would have happened had Gerald Ford made Ronald Reagan his running mate. My hopes are that Mrs. Palin is more dangerous than lightweight.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Come On. He's Just A Kid
Recently, Mrs. Sarah Palin's email was "hacked" and the contents of her email account was disclosed publicly. This is a violation of law and the perpetrator of this crime is suspected to be Mr. David Kernell, a student at the University of Tennessee and the son of an elected official. Though Mr. Kernell remains innocent until proven guilty, the case against him seems strong enough to move the press to opine that the perpetrator is just a kid. The presumption is that youthful exuberance and bad judgment should excuse this act as a childish prank.
Though I am inclined toward mercy in most cases, I note that Mr. Kernell is old enough to serve in the military. At this moment, US servicemen are operating SIGINT listening posts around the world monitoring the communications of America's enemies. These servicemen are not older than Mr. Kernell (though they may be more mature). When telephone calls between foreign nationals were routed through switches located in the US, the NSA sought to intercept them using personnel no older than Mr. Kernell. This caused a great deal of angry discussion about the legality of doing so. Had any of these intercept operators disclosed the contents of these communications, they'd soon find lodging in a federal penitentiary.
Mr. G. Gordon Liddy knows something of federal penitentiaries. He was lodged therein after doing the 1970s equivalent of Mr. Kernell's hacking, bugging a telephone. If Mr. Kernell is found guilty, but only gets a wrist-slap would this give a green light to a Renaissance of Watergate-style political black ops? Worse, if the seriousness of the infraction does not rise to the level of prosecution, political operatives will take this as license to invade anyone's privacy.
Though I am inclined toward mercy in most cases, I note that Mr. Kernell is old enough to serve in the military. At this moment, US servicemen are operating SIGINT listening posts around the world monitoring the communications of America's enemies. These servicemen are not older than Mr. Kernell (though they may be more mature). When telephone calls between foreign nationals were routed through switches located in the US, the NSA sought to intercept them using personnel no older than Mr. Kernell. This caused a great deal of angry discussion about the legality of doing so. Had any of these intercept operators disclosed the contents of these communications, they'd soon find lodging in a federal penitentiary.
Mr. G. Gordon Liddy knows something of federal penitentiaries. He was lodged therein after doing the 1970s equivalent of Mr. Kernell's hacking, bugging a telephone. If Mr. Kernell is found guilty, but only gets a wrist-slap would this give a green light to a Renaissance of Watergate-style political black ops? Worse, if the seriousness of the infraction does not rise to the level of prosecution, political operatives will take this as license to invade anyone's privacy.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
With Apologies to Rudyard Kipling
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be Sarah Palin!
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be Sarah Palin!
Two Sorts Of Feminism
I just read this article describing a speech by Newt Gingrich. According to the Washington Times:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that Sarah Palin represents a "threat" to modern feminism and to Democrat Barack Obama's quest for the presidency, and that is why the "elite media" is trying to tear her down.
"Governor Palin violates every norm they have: she is tough, she is smart, she is articulate, she is happy, she has five kids, she has a very hardworking husband who is a union member, she is an NRA life member, she actually goes to church and prays. The list just gets worse," he said.
Perhaps I'm quibbling semantics, but when you make a woman the 2nd banana of the most powerful country in the world, you're not undermining girl power. This is hardly a blow to women or a threat to women's rights. To the contrary, Mrs. Palin is poised to become the personification of equality between the sexes. I'd rather vote for her for President than for Veep.
If you let the girl drive, she has the steering wheel and she gets to decide which way she turns. This is feminism by definition. In this sense Mr. Gingrich's assertion that Mrs. Palin is a threat to feminism is wrong.
But there is a difference between feminism by definition and feminism by tradition and convention. (By this I mean conventions and traditions that have been adopted only since the early 1970s.) Traditionally and conventionally feminism started with bra burning and eschewing cosmetics. Traditional and conventional feminism regards the unplanned pregnancy as a curse and children as a punishment. This form of feminism is typified by the spinster scold. The sort of person Rush Limbaugh calls the feminazi.
In this second sense Mr. Gingrich is right, Mrs. Palin is a threat to traditional/conventional feminism. I suspect that after five children she doesn't share Catharine MacKinnon's notion that all consensual sex between husband and wife is rape. Mrs. Palin has demonstrated her pro-life convictions when she gave birth to a disabled child and when her daughter got "in trouble." Both "problems" are easily be solved by abortion.
It is a sham to claim that women should be empowered, but then require every woman to toe the Democrat party line and/or the radicalized agenda of a self-appointed elite of Womon's Studies professors.
A persistent slander that has been heaped upon Conservatives by traditional/conventional feminists is that we hate women. No, we hate some policy aims of some women. Ask any Conservative if he'd vote for Margaret Thatcher and the answer would be YES!!!
Some traditional/conventional feminists who realize that any power placed in Sarah Palin's hands would undermine their policy aims are now claiming that Mrs. Palin is not a woman. She can't be: she is a mother, and men find her attractive.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that Sarah Palin represents a "threat" to modern feminism and to Democrat Barack Obama's quest for the presidency, and that is why the "elite media" is trying to tear her down.
"Governor Palin violates every norm they have: she is tough, she is smart, she is articulate, she is happy, she has five kids, she has a very hardworking husband who is a union member, she is an NRA life member, she actually goes to church and prays. The list just gets worse," he said.
Perhaps I'm quibbling semantics, but when you make a woman the 2nd banana of the most powerful country in the world, you're not undermining girl power. This is hardly a blow to women or a threat to women's rights. To the contrary, Mrs. Palin is poised to become the personification of equality between the sexes. I'd rather vote for her for President than for Veep.
If you let the girl drive, she has the steering wheel and she gets to decide which way she turns. This is feminism by definition. In this sense Mr. Gingrich's assertion that Mrs. Palin is a threat to feminism is wrong.
But there is a difference between feminism by definition and feminism by tradition and convention. (By this I mean conventions and traditions that have been adopted only since the early 1970s.) Traditionally and conventionally feminism started with bra burning and eschewing cosmetics. Traditional and conventional feminism regards the unplanned pregnancy as a curse and children as a punishment. This form of feminism is typified by the spinster scold. The sort of person Rush Limbaugh calls the feminazi.
In this second sense Mr. Gingrich is right, Mrs. Palin is a threat to traditional/conventional feminism. I suspect that after five children she doesn't share Catharine MacKinnon's notion that all consensual sex between husband and wife is rape. Mrs. Palin has demonstrated her pro-life convictions when she gave birth to a disabled child and when her daughter got "in trouble." Both "problems" are easily be solved by abortion.
It is a sham to claim that women should be empowered, but then require every woman to toe the Democrat party line and/or the radicalized agenda of a self-appointed elite of Womon's Studies professors.
A persistent slander that has been heaped upon Conservatives by traditional/conventional feminists is that we hate women. No, we hate some policy aims of some women. Ask any Conservative if he'd vote for Margaret Thatcher and the answer would be YES!!!
Some traditional/conventional feminists who realize that any power placed in Sarah Palin's hands would undermine their policy aims are now claiming that Mrs. Palin is not a woman. She can't be: she is a mother, and men find her attractive.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Astroturfing The Insubstantial
I just saw this on National Review.
When several liberal bloggers all choose to spotlight one particular news report by an Alaska CBS affiliate, one begins to wonder if we're seeing a coordinated message. Adding to Dean's observation, it sure is strange the way the liberal blogs all spotlight the same obscure story at the same time, huh?
I think it is significant because I've been thinking about the contrasting warfighting strategies of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. Astroturfing is nothing new and I suppose it is not unique to Mr. Obama's campaign. Francis Schaeffer once said that you shouldn't ascribe to a conspiracy the coordinated actions of a bunch of people who are all in lockstep as far as their worldviews are concerned. Thus, a few people can easily receive and forward the same choice tips that exactly fits their mental picture of the world.
Nevertheless, it appears that there are two or three channels of negative information coming from the Obama campaign about Mrs. Palin. The first is directly from the campaign and it mentions all the things a liberal Democrat would dislike about a conservative Republican. As such it's a fairly straightforward matter of attack and wholly cricket. But then there are the less-than-direct attacks which are troublesome. The rather childish, petulant insults like discussing Hillary with middle finger extended or referring to lipstick-wearing pigs are really beneficial for the window into Mr. Obama's character that they provide. I was upset yesterday, but today I'm grateful for this disclosure.
However, the astroturfing is troublesome. If you've a story you can't shop, or that would generate significant blowback, you can release it to your fellow-travelers and count on them to muddy the waters. Consider former mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, who announced his opposition to Mrs. Palin on the basis of a demonstrably false story about book-banning in a public library. I think Mr. Koch should oppose Mrs. Palin according to his beliefs and values, but he ought not support his decision upon a falsehood. I don't think Mr. Koch even knew he was deceived until long after the fact.
We've got to have a grasp on reality if we're to function in this world. When lies are your stock-in-trade, I think it distances you from reality. This may yield some short-team pleasantness, but it can be long-term harmful. And if you overdose on lies, you have blowback that can kill you.
Now, it appears that the Obama campaign believes that one can make a negative impression about Mrs. Palin if a particular CBS affiliate's news story is aired, but they're afraid there's not enough substance to it. Fritz Mondale once said, "where's the beef," and the Obama team must not have sufficient faith in this line of attack to man up and put it out there directly. Mrs. Palin had no problem directly attacking Mr. Obama in her convention speech. Why are her Democrat opponents not similarly direct?
If you punch me in the nose, I'll hate you but I'll respect you. Conversely, if you try to stab me in the back, I'll both hate and disrespect you. Mr. Obama has never faced big-league pitching and it shows.
When several liberal bloggers all choose to spotlight one particular news report by an Alaska CBS affiliate, one begins to wonder if we're seeing a coordinated message. Adding to Dean's observation, it sure is strange the way the liberal blogs all spotlight the same obscure story at the same time, huh?
I think it is significant because I've been thinking about the contrasting warfighting strategies of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. Astroturfing is nothing new and I suppose it is not unique to Mr. Obama's campaign. Francis Schaeffer once said that you shouldn't ascribe to a conspiracy the coordinated actions of a bunch of people who are all in lockstep as far as their worldviews are concerned. Thus, a few people can easily receive and forward the same choice tips that exactly fits their mental picture of the world.
Nevertheless, it appears that there are two or three channels of negative information coming from the Obama campaign about Mrs. Palin. The first is directly from the campaign and it mentions all the things a liberal Democrat would dislike about a conservative Republican. As such it's a fairly straightforward matter of attack and wholly cricket. But then there are the less-than-direct attacks which are troublesome. The rather childish, petulant insults like discussing Hillary with middle finger extended or referring to lipstick-wearing pigs are really beneficial for the window into Mr. Obama's character that they provide. I was upset yesterday, but today I'm grateful for this disclosure.
However, the astroturfing is troublesome. If you've a story you can't shop, or that would generate significant blowback, you can release it to your fellow-travelers and count on them to muddy the waters. Consider former mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, who announced his opposition to Mrs. Palin on the basis of a demonstrably false story about book-banning in a public library. I think Mr. Koch should oppose Mrs. Palin according to his beliefs and values, but he ought not support his decision upon a falsehood. I don't think Mr. Koch even knew he was deceived until long after the fact.
We've got to have a grasp on reality if we're to function in this world. When lies are your stock-in-trade, I think it distances you from reality. This may yield some short-team pleasantness, but it can be long-term harmful. And if you overdose on lies, you have blowback that can kill you.
Now, it appears that the Obama campaign believes that one can make a negative impression about Mrs. Palin if a particular CBS affiliate's news story is aired, but they're afraid there's not enough substance to it. Fritz Mondale once said, "where's the beef," and the Obama team must not have sufficient faith in this line of attack to man up and put it out there directly. Mrs. Palin had no problem directly attacking Mr. Obama in her convention speech. Why are her Democrat opponents not similarly direct?
If you punch me in the nose, I'll hate you but I'll respect you. Conversely, if you try to stab me in the back, I'll both hate and disrespect you. Mr. Obama has never faced big-league pitching and it shows.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Steven Quincy Urkel for President?
Mr. Barak Obama said that when you put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig. Now, any one of the 40 million people who saw the Republican Vice Presidential acceptance speech recalls the joke about how a hockey mom differs from a pit bull. (Yes, he also deniably called Mr. McCain an old fish, but I'm not on about that.)
It does not require the intelligence commonly claimed by a Democrat candidate for national office to connect the lipstick allusions. Isn't that clever? Mr. Obama didn't actually call Mrs. Palin a pig. Haw haw haw. When someone complains about the attack tomorrow, he'll deny it and everyone who doesn't accept this will look petty. Mr. Obama flipped the bird at Mrs. Clinton earlier this year in a similarly deniable fashion. It must have taken the brain the size of a planet to come up with that trick.
Or a sixth grader. You know, the guy you eventually got fed up with and gave a wedgie to. There's a word for this: passive-aggression. It's what gelded males do around females who have cowed them. It's the standard operating procedure for men without chests.
When Mrs. Palin went after Mr. Obama in her acceptance speech, she manfully launched a frontal attack. There were no childish petty snipes she might deny the next day. There was an arrogance in her sarcasm, not unlike that of Mr. Mohamed Ali who really was the greatest. (Mr. Obama has the arrogance of the Emperor/Messiah with no clothes. He has everyone in the Washington DC Beltway convinced that his hopey/changey/whatever is just so marvelous that only provincial bumpkins doubt its substance.)
When Mrs. Palin pointed out that someone has to have an awfully thin resume to count such a bogus gig as "community organizer," Mr. Obama whimpered the next day that the mean girl was hitting him: She used... sarcasm. She knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and… satire. She was vicious. In this world there are producers and there are consumers. Community organizers are not producers. Look at all the jobs Mr. Obama didn't create in his community. Someone has said that "Jesus was a community organizer." My Bible says he was a carpenter.
Contrast this with snippy, mincing references to pigs and lipstick. Or a thousand astroturfed smears about Mrs. Palin and her family by anonymous bloggers whose IPs track back to Democrat operatives. Yeah, that's the kind of guy we want standing up to America's enemies. That'll scare them.
When I vote for a black guy President he's gonna be John Shaft, not Steve Urkel.
Update: I suppose that passive-aggression is altogether fitting to a disciple of Mr. Saul Alinsky. I happened upon this essay wherein this paragraph appears:
His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)