This statement holds true a great majority of the time, but my confusion tends to grow at a geometric rate (!) when it comes to politics. If you happen to live under a rock, it is possible that you missed the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice President. If you're like most people your response to hearing about her nomination was probably "who?". Don't worry, it doesn't mean you're uninformed in this election, it just means you don't need to know who is governing a state with a population smaller than any given major US city. (It's barely 6 times the population of Boulder). Of course being unknown and inexperienced doesn't necessarily make her entirely unqualified (despite what the McCain campaign would have had you believe before they picked her for VP) so I was interested in learning more about who she is and what kind of candidate she would make.
I decided to check out her speech from the Republican National Convention as a starting point, to hear what she had to say with no preconceived notions. And shortly into the speech the confusion began to set in. When Hilary Clinton talks tough and has snippy comebacks she is "a bitch", but when Sarah Palin does it she "has spunk". Of course, if we want to call it having spunk, then the only things I learned from her RNC speech was that she
A)Is spunky.
B)Likes drilling. (For oil)
Her first opportunity to really address the nation, and all she has is a bunch of snide remarks belittling community organizers and people who actually care about human rights. I realize that she was probably not the one who wrote that speech, but it seems like as some point when she was practicing it she could have asked if it was necessary for her to sound like a high school girl who didn't get asked to the prom. She was unable to assuage any doubts people might have about her ability to lead, she told us almost nothing about how she feels about ANY of the issues surrounding this election, and she made no mention of the current administration's success/failures.
The other thing that she failed to address was the hypocrisy of her selection as McCain's VP, and if hypocrisy can help you win an election, then we've got another four years of Republicans in the White House coming. It starts with picking a VP who is extremely inexperienced, and seems to be more of a celebrity than politician. (I don't think Obama was ever in a beauty pageant...). How do you explain this move when your entire campaign against Obama was "Don't vote for him, he's inexperienced! He's more a celebrity than he is a Senator!"? The current strategy seems to be never mention that they said that, and don't show those commercials anymore. We also have all of the republican pundits showing nothing but sympathy and respect for her pregnant 17 year old daughter, and demanding the same of the rest of us, despite having spent all of their careers up until this point condemning teens for having sex and blaming it all on poor parenting. Sarah Palin asks us to respect her family privacy in this matter and respect her daughter's decision to keep the child when she intends to remove the right to privacy and decisions for all women and families. The Republican party claims to be concerned about the people (They're going to give us tax cuts!) but they still find time to mock community organizers. (You know, the people who help those who the government has left behind)
In addition to the raging hypocrisy (any wagers on how many times I'm going to use that word in this blog?) I have taken some time to investigate more about Sarah Palin, and what kind of Veep she would make.
Sarah Palin does not believe that humans are at all responsible for global warming, and she does not believe polar bears should be on the endangered species list. I don't think she has any scientific backing for either of these opinions, simply that they both have the potential to interfere in her love of drilling. If she does have backing she hasn't informed anybody of it. Perhaps it'shypocrisy a secret.
Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from her town library back when she was mayor, simply because she didn't like the ideas expressed within. If the thought of that kind of government censorship doesn't upset you then you and I will probably not agree on very many things in life.
The one that made me laugh out loud (right before I started weeping in terror): Sarah Palin never left the country before July of 2007. I cant' even comment on that. Seriously.
I think Matt Damon says it well:
"It's like a really bad Disney movie, 'The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president. She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It'shypocr absurd."
The prospect of Sarah Palin being our VP, and being a heart attack or a cancer relapse away from being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America is absolutely terrifying. This cannot come to pass. I urge each and every one of you do your part to save our country and vote Barack Obama in 2008.
Matt Damon on Youtube
I decided to check out her speech from the Republican National Convention as a starting point, to hear what she had to say with no preconceived notions. And shortly into the speech the confusion began to set in. When Hilary Clinton talks tough and has snippy comebacks she is "a bitch", but when Sarah Palin does it she "has spunk". Of course, if we want to call it having spunk, then the only things I learned from her RNC speech was that she
A)Is spunky.
B)Likes drilling. (For oil)
Her first opportunity to really address the nation, and all she has is a bunch of snide remarks belittling community organizers and people who actually care about human rights. I realize that she was probably not the one who wrote that speech, but it seems like as some point when she was practicing it she could have asked if it was necessary for her to sound like a high school girl who didn't get asked to the prom. She was unable to assuage any doubts people might have about her ability to lead, she told us almost nothing about how she feels about ANY of the issues surrounding this election, and she made no mention of the current administration's success/failures.
The other thing that she failed to address was the hypocrisy of her selection as McCain's VP, and if hypocrisy can help you win an election, then we've got another four years of Republicans in the White House coming. It starts with picking a VP who is extremely inexperienced, and seems to be more of a celebrity than politician. (I don't think Obama was ever in a beauty pageant...). How do you explain this move when your entire campaign against Obama was "Don't vote for him, he's inexperienced! He's more a celebrity than he is a Senator!"? The current strategy seems to be never mention that they said that, and don't show those commercials anymore. We also have all of the republican pundits showing nothing but sympathy and respect for her pregnant 17 year old daughter, and demanding the same of the rest of us, despite having spent all of their careers up until this point condemning teens for having sex and blaming it all on poor parenting. Sarah Palin asks us to respect her family privacy in this matter and respect her daughter's decision to keep the child when she intends to remove the right to privacy and decisions for all women and families. The Republican party claims to be concerned about the people (They're going to give us tax cuts!) but they still find time to mock community organizers. (You know, the people who help those who the government has left behind)
In addition to the raging hypocrisy (any wagers on how many times I'm going to use that word in this blog?) I have taken some time to investigate more about Sarah Palin, and what kind of Veep she would make.
Sarah Palin does not believe that humans are at all responsible for global warming, and she does not believe polar bears should be on the endangered species list. I don't think she has any scientific backing for either of these opinions, simply that they both have the potential to interfere in her love of drilling. If she does have backing she hasn't informed anybody of it. Perhaps it's
Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from her town library back when she was mayor, simply because she didn't like the ideas expressed within. If the thought of that kind of government censorship doesn't upset you then you and I will probably not agree on very many things in life.
The one that made me laugh out loud (right before I started weeping in terror): Sarah Palin never left the country before July of 2007. I cant' even comment on that. Seriously.
I think Matt Damon says it well:
"It's like a really bad Disney movie, 'The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president. She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's
The prospect of Sarah Palin being our VP, and being a heart attack or a cancer relapse away from being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America is absolutely terrifying. This cannot come to pass. I urge each and every one of you do your part to save our country and vote Barack Obama in 2008.
Matt Damon on Youtube
9 comments:
Also, AJ don't forget that War in Iraq is "act of God". We are sending Christmas to the Godless in the form of bombs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs
Not that that is at all scary. I think she missed that part about the separation of Church and State, I think she is all about sending us back to the Days of Yore when rights were fairly non-existent and women were traded with the Cattle every Spring. (I may be bitter about her views on womens' issues.) I think Gloria Steinem sums up a lot of my issues with Palin in her LA Times article,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
Erin
I would also like to comment that her job before governor of Alaska was mayor of a town smaller than the one I grew up in, and everyone makes fun of me for coming from Podunk nowhere.
Whoah...what happened? Is this Adge's Rambles? The URL looks right so I must be in the right place.
I thought I might have gotten redirected somewhere else. The language of this blog was a little surprising considering the last post. Let's see...what did it say? Something about the way that we act and calling people names to get across our point. And that it's "not a very good way to sway opinion." Hmm...
Hopefully you didn't think you would sway any opinions with this post. Because that would be...well, what's the word? It starts with 'h' and appears a lot in this post. Oh, what is it? Anyway...
I'd take more time to comment on the content of this post, but it was hard to hear what was being said through the manner in which it was said. Remember, don’t drink the Kool-Aid!
Interesting. I went back and re-read the blog, as I have been known to let my emotions into my rants. But hey, our emotions are what makes life worth living, right? (Well, that and World of Warcraft)
However, after multiple readings I am still uncertain at what point I called anyone names, or even had any emotionally fueled statements (Aside from the part about her being president terrifying me.) Perhaps you could elaborate on just what points of mine were muddled?
The drinking the kool aid part makes me chuckle. You are probably unaware of this, and a lot of people are very surprised when they first learn it, but I am the offspring of extremely conservative, Republican, Christian parents. My grandparents are conservative Christians. Almost all of my aunts and uncles, cousins, my sister, her husband, his family too. You probably ARE aware that I am NOT. You may never in your lifetime meet someone who is more interested in thinking about what I believe, why I believe it, what other people's opinions and beliefs are, and why they think that.
Personally, I enjoyed your post very much. Add one to your readership count!
Shazam! Although I think to be fair, you ought to add another label: "hypocrisy". It's definitely a major theme throughout. A very interesting rant.
I couldn't agree more. And saying that the thought of Sarah Palin as president or even vp is terrifying is putting it lightly, in my opinion.
I’ve been meaning to respond, but I haven’t had time until now. You asked me to elaborate on the style you used to express your opinions about Sarah Palin (calling names, emotionally fueled statements). I did not mention that anything was “muddled”, so I won’t address that.
Calling names:
- “…high school girl who didn't get asked to the prom.”
- “snide”
- “belittling”
- “extremely inexperienced”
- “…more of a celebrity than politician.”
- ” raging hypocrisy”
- and of course “absolutely terrifying”
More importantly, the inaccurate, emotionally fueled, or politically spun statements:
- You said you watched her speech with “no preconceived notions” and immediately said that “the only things” that you learned from the speech were that she is “spunky” and that she “likes drilling for oil.” I happened to catch the speech and there was much more to it than those two points (one of which is merely opinion).
This next statement, which contradicts the previous one about only learning two things, was clearly taken out of context in what seems like an emotional attack.
“…all she has is a bunch of snide remarks belittling community organizers and people who actually care about human rights.“ - Really? Is that ALL she had? I think that is a textbook definition of an emotionally fueled statement. It is not a matter of opinion that she did not only have those types of remarks. I remember a few instances where she mentioned community organizers. As an aside, I believe the comments about community organizers were in response to the immediate criticism that she started receiving from opposition the day before when she was announced as the VP nominee. Her experience as a mayor and governor were dismissed because of the size of the respective constituencies while her opponent used the role ‘community organizer’ as proof that he does have adequate experience to be president. She did not attack community organizers, regardless how anyone wants to spin it.
- ”do your part to save our country” - As if Sarah Palin running for vice-president has in some way actually done something to cause us to need saving.
Finally, the post ended with the rantings of a person who gets paid to make believe for a living. Using actors who compare vice-presidential nominees to Disney movies hardly seems like any sort of serious attempt to prove a point.
I’ll admit that I am undecided for this upcoming election. I do not believe that we Americans have been presented with very good candidates to choose from. Reading this blog wouldn’t sway my opinion either way. Like the waves of rhetoric coming from the media, this post is biased and expresses the type of cynicism of the demonstrators you disagree with and condemned.
Of course we’re all entitled to opinions and emotions. The only reason I responded the way I did to this post is because of the strong language you used to come against those that express themselves similarly to the way that you have. These posts seem to not target substantive discussion about people and issues, but to preach to the choir of those you know already agree with you with the paradigm of one who drank the Kook-Aid. (The reference to my post “Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid” was not an insinuation that you are only following in your family’s footsteps. The language used in this post sounds like those who spin words and events to match up with their beliefs – similar to those who drank the Kool-Aid of their beliefs.)
You said it was hard to hear what was being said through the manner in which it was said, which implies that the points were at best unclear. So while you technically did not use the term "muddled" it was certainly implied.
As far as your "calling names" section, it seems you've done a nice bit of 'spinning' my words to make them sound more insulting than they really are. For starters, only one of those can even be construed as an actual insult. While admittedly saying she came across as a high school girl (etc.) isn't particularly nice, I also mentioned that she didn't write the speech, so cannot be held fully accountable.
I don't think it's really name calling to point out that someone is inexperienced (I have been in college longer than she has been in politics). I called the things she said snide and belittling, which again, she didn't write the speech. The raging hypocrisy comment was leveled at the hypocritical things that were going on, I suppose it might be insulting to have one's hypocrisy pointed out, but I guess that's the price one pays for being a hypocrite. And as for the "Save our country" bit. No, her running for VP does not put us in a situation in need of immediate saving. But it is my opinion that putting her one heartbeat away from President is something we would need to be saved from.
Moving on, I watched Sarah Palin's speech. Twice. Before I saw it the first time I hadn't really heard anything other than a few people said she'd done a good job. So imagine my surprise when she got through an entire speech without saying anything substantial about the economy, the war in Iraq, the growing disparity between the upper and middle class, education, national debt, or any other relevant issue I can think of aside from energy. Not only that, but in place of substance, she was full of insults. That and spunky jokes about bulldogs.
You can try to spin her derisive comment about community organizers back to the right wing rhetoric if you want, but it wasn't even a subtle insult, so best of luck. And if she truly didn't mean it to be insulting then she fucked up.
Further, your (second) attempt to call me a hypocrite and lump me in with the organizers I mentioned in an earlier blog still falls short for several reasons. For starters, this is a blog on the internet. If at ANY point you don't like what you see, all you have to do is close the browser and it stops existing for you. I'm not forcing anyone to read anything I write. I don't even ASK anyone to do so. I occasionally TELL people that I have written something if they're interested. The people I mentioned are the kind who shout at you as you walk by on campus, and continually solicit you with information you don't want. Additionally, at no point in the entirety of my writings did I insult republicans, conservatives, or anyone except for maybe Sarah Palin and a few Republican pundits. And EVEN IF the point of this blog were to sway opinion, I am 72% certain I would be unable to convince Sarah Palin to vote for Obama, so I did not insult anyone whose opinion I may have been trying to sway. Again, unlike the example of people who call others evil baby killing bastards. It is not even comparable.
On that point, I find it amusing that you came into reading this post with the assumption that it wasn't going to be a biased opinion piece. I'm not part of the goddamned Associated Press here. It's my personal blog on the internet. OF COURSE it is going to have bias, I am writing opinionated rants about things that are currently on my mind. If you're looking for unbiased discussion pieces than you should go ahead and delete this site from your bookmarks kthx. I also don't care if I'm already preaching to the choir, and I don't even care if anybody ever reads a single thing I write. I write because I find it cathartic and an excellent way for me to organize and refine my thoughts because I actually do think for myself, despite your (two) insinuations that I am so incapable of thought independence that were everyone around me to do so I also would kill myself.
Post a Comment