Sarah Palin - The politically correctedness has gotta out now....

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
George Victor

As "some Republican guy" said in the CNN story comments:November 25th, 2009 2:42 pm ET

 

"I'd like to wish a happy Thanksgiving to all you narcisstic Obamabots, Obamatrons, Oprah watching union thugs, illeagle aliens from ACORN, socialistic Hollywood elitists, terrorist-sympathizing libtards, grandbabies, death panel members, birthbaggers, neoclowns, townhallers, real Americans, greedy insurance executives, too big to fail capitalist pigs and even Chay Guevarro and Ayn Rand, wherever they may be. And God bless our troops. Have a nice Thanksgiving!"

al-Qa'bong

So what's the solution George?

 

Should that Kucinich fella hire a PR manager who understands what Ivy Lee knew a century ago; that if one wants to endear himself to the US electorate, he should be someone who "speaks
the language of the man who rides on the trolley-car, who chews gum and who spits tobacco juice"?

George Victor

Well, you have seen how Bageant describes how the mess developed, Al? Lots of folks came in from the farm, began work in industry, got blindsided by globalization, don't read or follow the news that isn't prepared for them by talk radio, etc.

Bageant says it's a matter of upgrading educational opportunity, but has no idea how that could be brought about (not that I can find it in Deer Hunting, anyway). And they are not going to rush out to support an African-American pres.  Bageant does suggest a lot of things to cut their aggravation with elitist, liberal, wealthy, Wall St. goings on. And I guess the picture here on babble itself is one of folks who are, to say the least, rather leery of even reading about Bageant's "redneck" culture - his description. Which makes me despair of the great "out there" coming to terms with the huge "underclass" that is certainly only going to build in importance as the economy continues to shed jobs and hope.

Do you think those innately conservative folks are going to seek anything but a populist route out of their misery?  I've tried to stir interest in construction of a rational approach to it, but just wind up proposing putting economy and society on a wartime footing, with all of its constrictions, but with the objective of bringing about an end to the need for growth, and the complete redefining of what it means to be a functioning, producing, consuming human being on Earth. Sort of a return to 1941, with other outcomes in mind. And really level the social playing field again. That's about as optimistic as I can get, and shows my underlying authoritarian tendencies.

Well, anyway, Al, you asked.  ;)

 

Kaspar Hauser

George, I think you've raised some very good points.  It's too easy, and shamefully cruel, to simply ridicule an underclass for the cultural symptoms of their traumas and their oppression. I'm going to look for a copy of Deer Hunting With Jesus.

George Victor

I found it enlightening and entertaining, but rather maddening due to the absence of prescription, Michael. I'd really like to know how that mind retreats from the popular understanding of the meaning of scientific developments and the impacts of the larger world on our own. Is it fear that turns it away from access to learning so very muich more from the IT world? Today's hillbilly has no excuse.

I'm looking forward to the new book now in the works. I'll bet Palin appears.

George Victor

Thanks. I've just been reading the Gore, Jacoby and Reich "trilogy", explanations from their liberal perspective. I think you'll perhaps find Bageant is "What's the Matter with Kansas" set in the hills of Virginia. I must find out.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

George Victor wrote:
And among the folks of Winchester, Virginia, the supporters of Palin,As Joe Bageant explains it in Deer Hunting with Jesus:

I had a gf in Winchester - the birthplace of Patsy Cline - and used to visit often. Beautiful place, although also quite a contrast between the well-to-do and the less well off.

George Victor

Patsy Cline singing Willie Nelson's "Crazy", has to be about as good as it gets, eh, Boomer? Leastwise, it brings back lots of memories for this old sentimentalist. What was "good" about Winchester?(besides the scenery ;) nudge, nudge. Seriously, when was Winchester starting to look like the WalMart leftover that Bageant describes today? Or was it just the "old" American contradiction of rich and poor...out of which the great, unschooled ignorance grew quite naturally?

I've been noticing the old school buildings around this part of Ontario, lately. They were built like castles, a century back; obviously with great expectations for their products.  Of course, the Houses of Industry (one of which still remains) were impressive edifices too.

al-Qa'bong

Barack Obama has today become Sarah Palin's greatest weapon.

 

Quote:
The wave of goodwill that blessed his historic election, the very aspirations the Nobel nod rewarded, all of that has now subsided as scepticism and disillusionment have settled in, the greying president now down in his job approval ratings and bruised by almost a year of political battles. The messy deliberative process on Afghanistan, punctuated by a flurry of leaks and counterleaks, showed hesitation and second-guessing at a defining moment of his presidency, tarnishing the image built during the campaign of a White House fully in control of its message
.

welder welder's picture

Gee...

The cult of personality bing revealed as empty...

 

Quelle surprise!!!

George Victor

Thanks for the Truthdig link, Michael.  Bageant is almost as concerned as Hedges, about the prospects for change. I wonder why, however, getting too close to that culture - and Sarah - always slides over to Obama, hereabouts?  Too painful?  Too difficult a target?  I sometimes think that the precursor to a fascist eruption, anywhere, must look a bit like this.  Fear of discussing the real world as developing social rality?  Leaders as easy targets. All faith is somehow reposed in leadership taking us out of the mess by some magic formula that discounts the real life situation of a people under the gun?

George Victor

MN: "Wolf's work has its problems. She doesn't acknowledge that Black and Indigenous Americans have long lived under quasi-fascist rule, she doesn't examine the role that previous administrations have played in setting the stage for the Bush regime, and she doesn't acknowledge the roles played by corporatism, widespread social dislocation and the radical Christian right in the rise of a fascist American zeitgeist. Despite this, The End of America needs to be read by as many people as possible."

 

You are going to enjoy Deer Hunting, Michael. This "hole" in Wolf's account is where he informs. But did Ms Wolf really explain the degree to which the vast majority of people have also been drawn into the action by their dependency on the market for their old age? Pension funds are going belly up. What are people going to require of "the state"? It seems to me that that can be the "tipping point" (with apologies to Malcolm Gladwell).

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
I wonder why, however, getting too close to that culture - and Sarah - always slides over to Obama, hereabouts?  Too painful?  Too difficult a target?

 

Your sentence lacks a subject (who or what slides over to Obama?), which makes it a little difficult to interpret, but if I read you correctly, you're wondering why Obama's name pops up in discussions about Palin.

 

How about this? The clever sophisticated liberals who inflicted Obama on the world are no more politically sophisticated than Palin supporters. In a sense, they're worse, since Palin appears to take a stand on an issue here and there, while Obama with his nebluous "hope and change" is the American Hologram personified.

NorthReport
George Victor

I'll try again, Al.

 

"I wonder why, however, DISCUSSION getting too close to that culture - and Sarah - always slides over to Obama, hereabouts?  Too painful?  Too difficult a target?"

 

If you are truly happier with the prospect of the dingbat as pres., that's your - and the folks in the hills - prerogative. As we see from North Report's latest report, she's right into another vital question - the president's birthplace.

kropotkin1951

They would both be puppets so who cares.  Reagan and Bush II didn't make any big policy decisions they just followed the advice of the people holding their strings. Palin would be no different. Bush I was somewhat different since he was already part of the inner circle of the elite that controls the real power in the US.  Clinton proved his mettle to the real powers by almost immediately bombing a pharmaceutical lab in the name of protecting freedom and liberty for Americans. As it turns out Obama is no different either. I am to old to have faith in a candidate running on hope alone.  I thought his handling of his pastor's comments during the campaign was the largest clue to his future as an agent of change and I was unfortunately proven right. 

So I gather the books above try to answer the question, "does it really matter who is President or is it all just smoke and mirrors?"

The only good thing about Palin is that people will start to look to see who actually is at the end of the strings.  With Obama he still hangs on to the illusion that the strings are invisible.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
If you are truly happier with the prospect of the dingbat as pres

 

It isn't a question of being happier with a dingbat as president, it's that Obama is proving himself to be rather similar in deed to a dingbat.

 

Don't you want someone better than EITHER of those two?

Doug

Such a person isn't on offer and if they were, definitely wouldn't win.

Doug

Sarah Palin has a "Gee, thanks Dad!" moment:

 

Palin's Father: She Left Hawaii Because Asians Made Her Uncomfortable

arborman

Palin is a symptom - there has never been a shortage of dimwitted charismatic types available for public office and attention.  If it wasn't Palin it would be someone else in the same role for the authoritarian right.  I am more worried about whomever comes after her.

Obama's campaign was also a symptom of the same problem, which is that the issues and problems facing the world and the individual are complex, interrelated and all but insurmountable.  Anyone who tries to begin explaining or talking about solutions runs into the inevitable complexities of the issues, and gets bogged down.  Not to mention derided as weak and indecisive etc.

So we end up with simplistic icons and catchphrases rather than policy discussions.  Anyone who doesn't use them doesn't win, simple as that.  Which is a serious problem - but try explaining it without being tuned out.

 

Obama is no hero of the people, but anyone who can't see a difference between him and the likes of Palin is in denial.  Personally, I think nation states - especially big sprawlers like the US, are becoming unworkable.  And as such I focus much of my energy and effort to the local level.  But that may just be the politics of despair.

Unionist

arborman wrote:
Anyone who tries to begin explaining or talking about solutions runs into the inevitable complexities of the issues, and gets bogged down.  Not to mention derided as weak and indecisive etc.

Nice to see you around here again, arborman!

I have no use for Obama - none - neither his actions as president, nor his offensive words and promises while he was campaigning.

What I don't understand about your post is this:

Why is it simpler and more decisive to say and do the wrong things rather than the right things?

Why would you think U.S. voters have an easier time understanding, "We'll chase the scumbag terrorists into Pakistan!!!!!!!!" than "We ain't gonna study war no more"? Is the latter more complex - less "decisive"? Why did Obama need to condemn his spiritual mentor and leave his church when his pastor told the truth about racism and the Middle East? Why is it easier to sell "Israel is heaven" to U.S. voters than, "We will hold Israel to account?"

What's complicated about this: "There will be single-payer health care from Jan. 1 on, and it will cost the U.S. far less than it does now?" How many voters are so in love with the status quo that such a catchphrase won't appeal to them? Of course, they never once heard it from Obama, so we'll never know.

Why do the "simplistic icons and catchphrases" which are so essential that "anyone who doesn't use them doesn't win" have to be the icons and catchphrases of white supremacy, homophobia, imperialism, aggression, and unbridled capitalism?

Neither Obama nor McCain nor Palin seeks approval of the voters as first priority. They seek approval of those who run the economy and who manufacture public opinion. If you're saying that that's the way it is, then there is indeed no difference between Palin and Obama. As some babblers here have said, you can't blame Obama for being totally unable to do one single significant progressive thing so far as president. He's only one person, after all.

At bottom, what is reflected in these excuses - in these tired attempts to find differences between Bush and Obama, for example - is a profound belief that the people of the U.S. are all Sara Palins at heart. Even when they prove otherwise - by voting for the chimera that is Obama - no one listens to their plea for change.

 

arborman

Hi Unionist.

 

At root I agree with you.  The kinds of changes needed are radical (as in a big leap from the status quo) on many levels.  Conservatives (and Naomi Klein) know that radical change can only be effected in times of crisis - real or imagined.

Obama definitely inherited a lot of crises, real and imagined.  He could and should have used them to make radical changes.  He likely would have been blocked by the Senate, but maybe not if he had done it decisively enough and used his considerable charisma and support to push it through.  It isn't like the Republicans haven't given a long lesson in how to marginalize opposition and to present concepts simply and appeal to basic values.

Sadly Obama, and many of the rest of the thinking world, is an intelligent, reasonable and careful person.  He will think at length about what is needed, taking into account all the various issues and perspectives, and make a careful and pragmatic choice that balances many perspectives and interests.  Which will be the wrong choice, and not enough - because there are major crises happening which require decisive action.  It isn't like there is a dearth of empirical literature or historical examples which demonstrate what happens to overextended, massively indebted empires and their populations.

He is a charismatic, intelligent, thoughtful person who should know better.  But, like Carter, he is going to think himself in circles, accomplish little and change less.  He is not like Bush or Palin - who lack the intellectual complexity to harbour doubts or consider alternative points of view.

Palin and her ilk don't need to think - they know they have the answers before they have the questions.  They are hostile to rational, careful and pragmatic thoughtfulness.  Actively hostile to intellectual consideration of issues.  Reagan was much the same, or at least he and his handlers knew how to pander to those people.  They know that if people are scared enough, worried enough, confused enough they will support anyone who claims to have the answers.  Where Obama fails is in that he likely does have some of the right answers, but he is too reasonable and pragmatic to actually implement them.  Palin and her fellow travellers are not reasonable and definitely not pragmatic.

So no - I don't like either of them.  But they are wrong for different reasons - pretending otherwise is to be in denial.  From where I sit, as a non-American, I mostly just want the least batshit crazy person possible to be close to the nuclear button.  And Obama beats Palin hands down on that particular scale.  

George Victor

A very rational, logical and well-thought-out conclusion, arborman.

But what about the folks who devotedly follow the less-than-rational, illogical input of Obama's chief antagonists?  Doesn't THE quesion become: How do we rational political activists ensure that they do NOT come near that bloody button?  Beyond continuing our support for Obama by default.

Easy as hell to toss brickbats at the pres. for his failure to somehow, magically lead Congress and the people out of the wilderness, right?  But there is no political meaning to such morally pure flights of fancy.  This is what we've got to work with. Let's not aid the enemy. I believe we're on the cusp of ALL coming to realize that radical action will be needed to extricate not just Americans but all of humanity from the pathalogical condition that materialist cultures have allowed to develop through ignorance and greed. The passge of time is making it obvious in Canada that even the super-smooth, manipulative Conservative "economist"  doesn't have the answer. Religion has become the crutch for these people, everywhere.

There just might be time left to bring it off when a collectivist answer comes to be seen as the only solution for a crowded, increasingly polluted and resource-poor planet. At least, one hopes that there will be a subject to measure the sanity of a nation - and political thought - post Palin.

 

Jingles

Quote:
If you can't kill her, at least throw tomatoes at her -- or cheer on those who do. Thus speak today's [url=
">http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/gutter-politics-with-tomato...

 

Quote:
Make no mistake: the ultimate motive and goal of this perspective, one that is deeply embedded in our culture, is to Kill that Woman!

Unionist

arborman wrote:

So no - I don't like either of them.  But they are wrong for different reasons - pretending otherwise is to be in denial.  From where I sit, as a non-American, I mostly just want the least batshit crazy person possible to be close to the nuclear button.  And Obama beats Palin hands down on that particular scale.  

Thanks for the very thoughtful post, arborman - did I mention it's good to see you around here?

I was nodding my head for the most part until I reached your conclusion (above).

Harry S Truman pushed the nuclear button. Ronald Reagan never did. Which one struck you as more batshit crazy?

John F. Kennedy organized the Bay of Pigs, threatened nuclear war over the missile crisis, and together with LBJ escalated the Vietnam war to proportions unknown since WWII. Even G.W. Bush couldn't rival those feats in Iraq and Afghanistan - and he actually tried harder to manufacture an excuse. Were JFK and LBJ more "batshit crazy" than GWB?

Jimmy Carter invaded Iran (in a Peter Sellers kind of way, but still...). Every Republican since then has threatened - but no more. Would you be really that shocked if Barack Obama announced an attack on Iran (say) next month - given the right pretext? I wouldn't.

So you see, even when you set the bar as low as: "Who is more likely to unleash a nuclear holocaust?" - I think I'll need lots more convincing evidence before I can pick between Obama and Palin. History needs to be our guide.

 

George Victor

The people at Information Clearing House report that 44 per cent of Americans "want Bush back." It is not surprising, then, that Sarah has a chance in taking a run at it.

 

Those folk tend not to be good in interpreting the big picture. And if concerns seep down from the centres of debate such as Copenhagen, there's always Jesus. But I'll bet that the leaders in Washington have some concern as to whether the game is ever going to be the same, some thoughts along the lines of Monbiot's this week:

 

"The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accomodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.

"This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness."

Doug
NorthReport

God bless Canada. Laughing

 

Backlash boots Palin from hospital fundraising

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/12/18/12204771-qmi.html

George Victor

Thanks for the book idea, Michael. Looks like a great primer on the monstrous mental workings of frightened, terribly dangerous people appealing to others by offering a Jesus crutch. 

Just heard Martin Selegman doing his positive psychology thing in audience with the Dalai Llama. Would love to see the reaction of Sarah's folks exposed to such super-rational ideas. Another Buddhist philosopher told his audience that the "basics" of his belief depend on the assumption that such introspection is possible only after the necessities of food, clothing and shelter are assured - and this suggests a stable political/working environment... among the things threatened or missing in the lives of increasingly marginalized, angry people joining a political movement.

Speaking of which, how are you coming on Deer Hunting With Jesus? I think that understanding the Palin phenom starts among those folks.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

Mr. Bageant's tome - in paperback - is a mere $11.51CAD at Amazon.ca

[link deleted by moderator. They don't need the free advertising.]

Maysie Maysie's picture

Please try not to buy books from amazon or any other chain.

Support independent bookstores.

Thank you.

George Victor

Yep. WordsWorth Books gets all my book orders...and they will continue to, even though they screwed up on my Christmas order of The Prince and the Bag of Frozen Peas. Nobody's perfect.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

Sandy47 wrote:

Mr. Bageant's tome - in paperback - is a mere $11.51CAD at Amazon.ca

[link deleted by moderator. They don't need the free advertising.]

 

To the nameless and faceless "moderator" quoted above:

There was nothing untoward in what I posted, which makes your editing seem a tad aggressive, to put it nicely. If you had a problem, perhaps a better way of handling the situation would have been to let your thoughts be known rather than leaping in with both storm trooper boots on. Gosh, who knows? I might have even seen the error of my ways.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hi Sandy,

We have a habit of not linking to large corporations here on babble. It's related to being alternative media. I didn't mean to imply you had done something untoward.

I also have a particular hatred of large bookstore chains. How's about I'll leave my storm trooper boots off next time okay? But you can't take away my Ewok ears though.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

Maysie wrote:

Hi Sandy,

We have a habit of not linking to large corporations here on babble. It's related to being alternative media. I didn't mean to imply you had done something untoward.

I also have a particular hatred of large bookstore chains. How's about I'll leave my storm trooper boots off next time okay? But you can't take away my Ewok ears though.

 

Hey Maysie. I've been hanging around Babble for quite a while now, and it never dawned on me there was any such policy. Now, I know, and will act accordingly in future.

Nice ears, BTW...

al-Qa'bong

It's not a policy, it's like Maysie said, a habit.

 

"Storm trooper boots" eh? I'll have to forget I ever heard that one.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

It's not a policy, it's like Maysie said, a habit.

 

"Storm trooper boots" eh? I'll have to forget I ever heard that one.

 

Maysie explained the forum's position gently and adequately, but the fact of the matter is, when posts are edited by a third party to reflect and enforce said "habit", it is no longer simply that, and the line is crossed into policy. Nevertheless, as I said before, I am now fully informed and happy to acquiesce.

Sandy47 Sandy47's picture

Enjoy it I did George. I read it a couple of years ago -- and I got my copy from the LPL... ;)

George Victor

Perhaps it should have been, The Princess (not Prince) and the Bag of Frozen Peas.  The difference is fundamental (for Freud, and other discerning readers).   Edit.:  It's the PACKAGE of frozen peas, not bag. And it's put out by Scholastic so not readily available elsewhere.

And I hope you enjoy Deer Hunters, Sandy.

Kaspar Hauser

deleted

Kaspar Hauser

deleted

Kaspar Hauser

deleted

Kaspar Hauser

deleted

Kaspar Hauser

deleted

Pages