Palin: out with the “in”-crowd
I’ve got a new article up at Pajamas Media. It’s my latest take on the function of Palin-hatred.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
I’ve got a new article up at Pajamas Media. It’s my latest take on the function of Palin-hatred.
That’s a good post, Neo.
I’ve got a few tidbits for you, today: 1) the EU parliament won’t allow further cooperation with us on SWIFT accounts “despite pressure from the US.” 2) The German police union is opposing sending policemen to Afghanistan to train Afghanees because the Defense minister identified the situation there as an armed conflict. 3) Germany has said it won’t bail out the Greeks.
The first two say something about Obama’s ability to change hearts and minds. He should have read your posts on the topic.
I agree with you that Palin’s speech pattern is deliberate in order to endear herself with middle America.
I commented at Gateway Pundit the day “Palm-gate” broke that it was impossible Palin couldn’t remember two of the most important themes to Republicans since Reagan: energy and taxes. I didn’t offer an opinion why she chose to scribble those words, along with the phrase “lift American spirits”, on her palm. But I strongly suspected there was more to it than her being a blithering idiot who couldn’t remember 2 important one word themes and a phrase.
Someone at HuffPo may have figured it out.
The HuffPo author thinks Palin did it knowing that if the elite press noticed the scribbling on her hand, of course they would ridicule her. Which is exactly what Palin wanted to happen, because when she is derided by the elite press, it only makes her more popular with the average person in middle America.
I agree that if the media did pick up on the scribbling on her hand, they’d ridicule her. But I think Palin also wants to be identified with the words energy, taxes and lifted spirits. Because the press did blow “Palm-gate” way out of proportion, now a very large percentage of the population understands that energy, taxes and lifted spirits are HER themes. She owns them. That’s her platform if she decides to run for president.
Three years before the election and she has gotten her message out to middle America. And she didn’t spend a penny on advertising to do so. Instead, she let the Palin-haters do most of her bidding for her.
Scott, sound plausible to me….
and she is supposed to be the “stupid” one.
She is sharper than most give her credit. She knows the game better than many think she does IMO.
Isn’t such ritualized hatred the usual device to ensure group cohesion? It seems, from human evolutionary perspective, this is the primary function of this emotion. Sara Palin is now Emmanuel Goldshtein, and Two Minite Hate of her is everyday oath of allegiance for a certain tribe.
nice article.
the only thing i could comment on was this
Many people read the latter as “uneducated,” and therefore “stupid.”
un-educated = ignorant
no amount of education can help the stupid…all these intelligence terms have specific meanings and distinctive points to them. the fact that the general population misuses them creates no end of confusion.
stupid: Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
ignorant: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
the choice of words is telling… most people who see a capable person will not call them stupid for not knowing something. they will say they are ignorant of the facts, or some such. so why say stupid? because using it like that tells the listeners that she is ignorant AND incapable of being anything else but ignorant, as stupid means incapable.
they sit in rooms and craft these things. its amazing to sit in a room of them and listen to them plot and plan and so forth as i have done. looking for angles, looking for a way to sell a goal. don’t matter what way, as long as its sold some way. cant convince them through their racism to exterminate, then convince them that the target is cheating them from their fair share, change circumstances of their lives so they dont consider things that they would if you didnt do that.
they cant debate anything, as cargo cultists dont know principals of operation, and so cant debate. however if they can’t win the debate honestly, are they moral enough to recuse themselves and accept defeat? of course not… they work to develop skills to power that have no care of whether the argument is valid or not.
by dropping morals, they get to assert any lie or anything that can work. whatever and anything. yet we dont get it as we are too worried to how we are appaled to see the manipulations and how they work. that is they use a lot of games…A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
Principle of explosion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
the above is why we think marx can answer everything including contradictory points and be on both sides.
The principle of explosion is the law of classical logic and a few other systems (e.g., intuitionistic logic) according to which “anything follows from a contradiction”; that is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its converse) can be inferred from it
This can be read as, “If one claims something is both true () and not true (), one can logically derive any conclusion (ψ).”
so feminists for pornography, and feminists against pornography under feminism, creates the logical point that tey can derive any conclusion to theissue and not have to care what the posisions of their constituency are!
The principle of explosion is also known as ex falso quodlibet, ex falso sequitur quodlibet (EFSQ for short), ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ for short), and ex falso/contradictione (sequitur) (Latin: “from falsehood/contradiction (follows) anything”, literally “… what pleases”).
An informal statement of the argument for explosion is this. Consider two inconsistent statements, “Lemons are yellow” and “It is not the case that lemons are yellow”, and suppose for the sake of argument that both are true. We can then prove anything, for instance that Santa Claus exists: Since the statement that “Lemons are yellow and it is not the case that they are yellow” is true, we can infer that lemons are yellow. And from this we can infer that the statement “Either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists” is true (one or the other has to be true for this statement to be true, and we just showed that it is true that lemons are yellow, so this expanded statement is true). And since either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists, and since it is not the case that lemons are yellow (this was our first premise), it must be true that Santa Claus exists.
In more formal terms, there are two basic kinds of argument for the principle of explosion, semantic and proof-theoretic.
enjoy
Sergy
your referring to the difference between influence as a group and influence as individual. you dont debate a group, you guide it. you debate individuals and win them over..
so there is a whole seperate art to working with groups over the same as individuals.
group dialectics
that gets you to things like
European Journal of Social Psychology
Modern dialectics in social psychology: A reappraisal // 22 Feb 2006
The current status of dialectic theory in social psychology is critically examined. Its basic and interdependent assumptions are discussed and recent misconceptions analyzed. An attempt is made to clarify major confusions and misinterpretations of dialectics regarding such issues as dialectics as a conceptual versus a methodological tool, dialectics as a form of cognitive process, dialectics as a firm of interactionism, and dialectical contradictions as semantic opposites. To illustrate the relevance of dialectic theory to current issues a major dualism in social psychology is examined, namely that of individual versus social theorizing. Drawing liberally from Marxist social theory it is shown how the traditional dualism is resolved through dialectics. Finally, a response is firmed to criticisms addressed to the current status of social psychology. It is shown that dialectics not only incorporates most of the demands raised by these criticisms, but also enhances the field by pointing toward new perspectives and directions.
of course if no one will read the stuff that started all this. they are nto even going to be awaer of volumes and volumes of work and research going on and paid for with their tax dollars. heck we pay them to change circimstances of our lives as an experiement in group dialiectics to acheive new socialist man and utopia.
but none of this is happening at all
it doesnt exist… right?
Bonding through Snobbery.
It’s why ridiculing the Messiah is such a devastating tactic: his acolytes have cultivated that status in an effort to be “cool.” Being seen to venerate the object of others’ laughter makes the acolytes themselves look and feel ridiculous, because they crave social validation.
people are extremely reluctant to give up what gives them pleasure.” Freud
so they teach us to love things that are bad for us. one is to understand how they see us.. the others.
“The Cultivation of Hatred” Peter Gay
The book covers a very wide range: “the Western world” (the United States, England, France, Austria and Germany) from 1815 to 1914 and how this world developed three major “alibis” that would promote and also police aggression — the ideology of competition, the construction of Others, the cult of manliness.
These alibis, or deep rationalizations, allowed a measured amount of hatred to flow into presumably beneficial activities, while leaving the remaining aggression to be drained off into areas that either didn’t matter or deserved a little hating anyhow. At least that was how the alibis were supposed to work, and Gay suggests that they often worked surprisingly well.
so what do they see palin represent?
the cult of manliness…she is feminine. she is a mom. she is, to the progressives (feminists, socialists, communists, etc), an example of the antithesis of their plank that the family must end for the future to succeed.
they can accept an ugly feminist in power…but they sure cant accept a young self capable woman who loves family, believes in competition etc.. she violates their goals… (dont matter if you deny those goals, they write and say them. they promote them and we just don belive it)
the construction of Others
as best i can figure withou reading the book, is that this is a very complicated way to say that they do typecasting. but that isnt good enough as the left does more of that, and this is said to be typcasting to create social constructions of others. how does she violate that? her whole thing with her family again. the child with development issues, should be exterminated. (that whole eugenics thing comes clear when peopel refuse to kill people like me (deaf) or people like her child. or even people like team hoyt). that is, she violates the social construct they create. so she shows that their prognistocations are built onl lies
and the one thing that a liar hates more than anything else, is the person that unmasks that condition to the world…but its the other thing that they hate most.
ideology of competition
to them thats social darwinism. now they LIKE social darwinism. dont misunderstand them. they are all about equal but diffeent and that the superiors and elite should rule over lessers. what they are against is the soial darwin that then allows others from the stew to climb up and remove them by being better and havinbg more merit. that is, she chooses by merit not by heart.so she will, as she has before, weed out incompetents, and malcontents. not support a system which makes those seem good.
however dont go too far over with her. she is clearly a PROGRESSIVE. that her choices of family dont come from real morals, but a reformation of progressivisms points to then make her situaion ok.
The author is at his best when writing about competition and the ways in which the 19th century’s arguments for the necessity of conflict relied on a new view of science and fact that was, in turn, supported by the social Darwinists and the robber barons. Gay’s material on the use of “the convenient Other” and the development of racism is routine and flat, though, as is his discussion of the cult of manliness.
see. so this is how they convert one of their own on the other side of the fence from a person who wants real progress. into a person who is a hitler.
merit is a deep rationalization created by those with power to prevent others (withou merit) from having a place at the table. apply that to welfare, school, etc… kind of makes them clearer. no?
….people of merit and ability are scary people to them. if progress and freedom is too scary to let everyone have, then what about people who have it and havent learned that it cant really be taken away?
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Great article, Neo.
I will acknowledge to being unsure of Palin’s qualifications for president, at least at this point in her biographical timeline. But I never saw her as being stupid, or of being incapable of growing into a leadership role. I still suggest she may make a good VP. In any case, she doesn’t merit this willful summoning up of hatred which the left seems so eager to indulge in. I regret that people who claim themselves to be so open-minded and nonjudgmental, find it so crucial to their sense of themselves to demean someone who is so obviously not one of them. This shows how empty a place the Left has become that this ridicule is so central to their character.
The Sarah Palins make the best physicians. The more intellectual, the brightest, mediocre physicians at best, are more often harmful in treating the sick. The non-Palin MDs don’t listen to and don’t believe what their patients tell them; they do not appreciate the systematic use of differential diagnosis because they leap to diagnostic, and thus therapeutic, conclusions; they cut corners habitually. They have no use for feedback loops. Because they’re so smart.
And, being so smart, they sneer at the Palinesque physicians. That’s a defensive manuever which is never rectifying of their shortcomings.
As a doc, that is why I highly respect Sarah Palin.
Excellent short article on Sarah, Neo-Neocon. The more the snooty elitist slicks diss her, the more I love it. How dare that pesky female be smart, plain-blunt spoken, self-made all American Girl success story, gorgeous, mother of several, adoring wife and(EEeeeekkKK!)slayer of wolves, moose, salmon and countless patronizing lefty snobs.
The more they hate her, the more I seem to love her.
sergey: yes indeed, it is the Two Minutes Hate come to life. Palin-hatred surpasses Bush-hatred, which is saying a great deal.
Unfortunately, though, it lasts a lot longer than two minutes. If you try to wade through the comments at the post I linked in that essay, you’ll see what I mean.
Consider that the more nihilistic the person, the more judgemental they are to someone like Sara who is nihilism’s polar opposite. And it isn’t contained in liberalism alone. Plenty of those on center right fit this description and can’t help themselves either.
I have seen Ed Schultz in full rant, virtual head explosion mode on PMSNBC this week re:Sarah. I have a dream that posits that raging pig as the guest of honor in an al Qaeda stoning pit.
Hey. just saying…
I caution us all to be careful not to use Mrs. Palin as the same kind of Rorschach blot as Pres. Obama.
That said, man, I love the way she presents herself: gorgeous shoes, gorgeous yet professionally appropriate suits, no-nonsense hair and glasses, big grin! She’s my hero in that respect (among others – I’m not 100% sold on her as a national-stage politician, but it was such a fantastic, heady day when she first enlivened Mr. McCain’s campaign), which makes me think that YES, the writing on the hand was a plan, not a gotcha. (I had to do this kind of thing this week myself: a crisis at my work, resulting in serious questions and doubts on the part of my clients. I dressed ULTRA-consciously on the day after the bad thing broke – everything, from nail polish to accessories, chosen to emphasize that I was solving the problem I’d been handed. It’s what you do, because trust and distrust can be moved by unconscious things.)
I think the Left can’t help but project their own… stuff, for want of a more all-inclusive term, on to Mrs. Palin. Pres. Obama wears a bracelet for a deceased soldier but can’t remember his name, so that the whole blinkin’ world understands that the bracelet is a prop; therefore Mrs. Palin wears the “wrong” kind of bracelet for her indubitably deployed and living son, because to the politically active Left you ONLY wear that kind of thing as a prop – one she was “too stupid” to get right.
What makes Mrs. Palin’s moves appropriately conscious choices and Pres. Obama’s moves props, to me? Welp, Mrs. Palin seems to make believable choices: she is an Everywoman, so why not scribble on her hand? (I only stopped doing that when I was wearing contact lenses all the time, because the ink tended to come off with the lens solution when I was cleaning them.) And certainly, why not wear a bracelet showing the world that her son is on her mind? Versus Pres. Obama, commemorating a man he doesn’t know, may never have met, and – by dint of the way he died – might not have been welcome at the President’s dinner table?
I agree with Scott and DaveH and then some. Palin seems to have almost a Machiavellian gift to manipulate environments so they bend her way. I can see people voting for her not because of her qualifications but because of a recognition of a common foe and an admirable character. She is, as you say, a lot more clever than she gives the impression of being.
One thing that quite upsets me about the level of hate she engenders in the “elite”; I am afraid some nut case will get so full of hate and so convinced he will be loved if he kills her that he will try and kill her. It is a risk for anyone in public life but the magnitude of unjustified hatred directed towards a decent woman makes this scenario truly disturbing.
Among the many things I like about Palin is that she is tough. Many women who have been savaged the way she has would be loathe to continue as a lightning rod for the left. Not Sarah! In fact she seems to relish it. They didn’t call her Sarah Barracuda as a basketball player for nothing.
This crap about not being smart enough to be President is just so much smoke screen. The truth is, no one is smart enough to be President. That’s why he/she has a cabinet and a boatload of advisors. The best managers and executives are the ones who surround themselves with smart people from the diverse fields necessary and use them to the fullest. That is what Palin did as Governor in Alaska. (And what President Obama appears not to do.)
It’s one reason why she could step down and her number 2 could pick up the yoke and carry on seamlessly. Her resignation from the Governorship was, IMO, a smart thing that confounded those who hoped to destroy her administration through continual legal challenges.
The number one question that always comes up when selecting the President is that the primary job of the President is as Commander-in-Chief. That means being willing, when necessary, to send our young men and women into harm’s way. Many men do not have the spine to give such orders. Most women do not either. I believe, from what I have observed of Palin, that she is a lot like PM Thatcher, one of the few women who has that kind of steel in their spine.
Am I advocating Palin for President? Not until she throws her hat in the ring. If she does, I’ll be a supporter.
Why is it no one mentions Palin as a potential Secretary of the Interior? She is ideally suited for that position.
Move over, Emmanuel Goldstein. Meet Emmanuelle Goldstein.
For a blithering idiot TM @ the liberal press, Palin sure plays them like a musical instrument.
Regarding Palmgate; “oh please B’rer fox what ever you do please don’t throw me in that briar patch.”
Breitbart is pretty good too. But he’s more the roadrunner type, beep beep. Steps out of the way as acme anvil smashes mainstream media…again.
Palin’s detractors say she is ignorant because she doesn’t know what they know, which most likely means status-signifying buzz words. They think she is stupid because she hasn’t expended any effort to learn these things (which is a real put-down for them). They give no credit to the things she knows although her knowlege is based on a wide range of real life experiences they have never had.
Somehow Palin has managed to acquire the knowledge she needed to deal with pipeline negotiations. She could probably get herself up to snuff on other issues such as foreign affairs. At least she seems to have a pretty good sense of what she doesn’t know. I much prefer that to making pronouncements based on one-sided academically cool positions only to find that they have to be shoved down the memory hole because they don’t work.
We also can’t ignore the Todd factor, and I don’t mean just his looks. They seem to have an egalitarian marriage that hasn’t sent him into therapy for anxiety about his manhood. It’s what feminists have always said they wanted, while they have had to marry for status and money.
Bob from Virginia said;
“I am afraid some nut case will get so full of hate and so convinced he will be loved if he kills her that he will try and kill her. It is a risk for anyone in public life but the magnitude of unjustified hatred directed towards a decent woman makes this scenario truly disturbing.”
This has bothered me for a while. As Neo has pointed out, hatred for Palin has outgrown hatred for Bush. I find it way too plausible that someone is going to take a shot at her. Not assassinated by cold-blooded enemies but some wacko thinking he is doing the world a favor because the MSM spends time every day painting her as less than a real person; a christian (christian is always said with a sneer by these people) ignoramus, who likes to hunt, pop put kids into her forties and, heaven forbid, rides snowmobiles.
Neo,
Let me add my kudos too. Very good post.
Palin is not stupid. Neither is she anything near what those who hate her try and paint her to be. She resonates because she is genuine, which is why
the so called elites hate her so much.
Scott used the term elite press in his comment, which was otherwise a good comment.
My peeve is with the term ‘elite’ when used with media. There is nothing elite about our media.
Absolutely nothing.
These are the people who didn’t have the math skills or analytical skills to go into the sciences or engineering in college. These are the clowns who partied there way through five to six years of undergraduate work in an easy field and took their gentlemen’s ‘C’ for a degree which is a joke. There is no apprenticeship or responsible charge time.
There are no no state boards of certification, licensure or competance that license one to become a reporter. There are no requirements for continuing education.Being a reporter is NOT a profession, it is an occupation. One which requires less qualification that a plumber or welder.
I urge everyone to remeber that when referring to our mainstream media and to always heap the derision and ridicule upon them that they so richly deserve. Afterall it was their lack of intelligence/curiosity/ability (take your pick) that allowed Obama to sail through an election as a cypher, global warming to almost hi-jack the world economy, thug unionism be represented as the preference of the oppressed majority, for whom they pretend to speak.
What’s elite about Walter Cronkite, Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews, or any of the other poofed mannequins and Barbi dolls who read a teleprompter in front of a camera?
Much like Obama come to think of it.
“un-educated = ignorant…no amount of education can help the stupid”, Well said
Artfldgr.
Jaime…Liked your points. Isn’t it amazing the cluelessness from the ranting lefturds re-Sarah’s laconic notes on her palm whilst even throat clearing is is prompted on The Bamma’s poor exhausted TOTUS?
The useless twits have no snese of paradox..irony.. hypocrisy..or Over-Caricature of themselves.
Bunny Hoooooole! Alicceeee..!
“Sarah Palin is a stupid, lying, child-exploiting, shameless, opportunistic right-wing nut.”
But then, consider the source; Democrats, who are dishonest, incompetent demagogues, hypocrites and shallow left-wing fools…
Whenever I hear the Leftists I know in Manhattan ranting about this good woman, I’m reminded of what happens when you take a pickaxe to a pressurized steampipe. That hot steam comes SCREAMING out of the hole.
The leftists pride themselves to an inordinate degree on being Loving and Understanding and Compassionate to Everyone, Especially the loathesome and despicable (witness how they immediately adopted the murding Muslims as particular pets). This means they have no healthy outlet for normal human orneriness, for the desire to ostracize the Other, for tribal bonding.
Ah, but Sarah! she is an Approved TARGET for all that suppressed rage! So they spew. And spew. And spew.
Out comes the Leftists’ Bigotry, Misogyny, Snot-nosed Snobbery, Class Hatred, Racism, Religious Intolerance, prancing around the living room, naked and obscene.
Avert your eyes, people. Avert your eyes.
Hmmm. That should be “murdERing Muslims.”
Murding?
I enjoyed the article, and the comments. I am enjoying the comments here as well. I’m still giggling about Occam’s comment about the teleprompter, as well as “talk to the hand”.
They’re scared of her. Always have been, always will be. If feminism is about women wanting it all, Sarah Palin is the closest to achieving those goals as any woman I have ever seen – and on both sides of the feminist brick wall.
It has been fun watching Sarah drive the libtards off the edge, but I also worry about how one of them might react one day. Other threads here have pointed out how unaware the average leftist is of the implications and ultimate trajectory of their attitudes. For instance, do the leftists want a fascist dictatorship? The average leftist would say, “Of course not!” But look at the result of political correctness, and many other liberal shibboleths that must not be challenged. They all seek to establish an unchallengeable orthodoxy that establishes a new definition of good and evil. People do not compromise with what they deem evil. This is the primary reason why totalitarian, Utopian, humanistic systems always end at the concentration camp and gulag. The average leftist has not thought this through, but their progressive leaders have. The leaders harness the emotion of the rank and file and channel it in the desired direction. Mussolini did this with Neo-Roman nationalism. Hitler did it with German Romanticism and the Aryan racist myth. Stalin harnessed Russian autocracy energized with Marxist mythology. These things all existed in their cultures long before their full flowering. I believe that that our current ‘progressives’ are using this now.
Sarah represents traditional Western values and common sense, challenging their entire intellectual construct, and this cannot be tolerated. I pray every day to be delivered from ‘intellectuals.’
Jamie says:
Jamie, absolutely excellent post . This comes very close to how I feel about Sarah Palin. Except I’m male, so without the references to gorgeous shoes and nail polish accessories… 🙂
But, as you stated: I think many people, myself included, are not so sure she would be suitable as president. (I’m giving a thought to her as VP though.) But she definitely electrified the Republican convention when she was nominated, and she continues to represent a degree of authenticity that few other politicians have. And you can’t help but like her, unless, of course, like the Left, she represents something that one reflexively ridicules… maybe because (as you said) her authenticity seems so “wrong” among a crowd that is reflexively artificial and so reflexively contemptuous of average, everyday Americans.
Beverly Wrote:
Out comes the Leftists’ Bigotry, Misogyny, Snot-nosed Snobbery, Class Hatred, Racism, Religious Intolerance, prancing around the living room, naked and obscene.
Not everyone who prances around the living room, naked and obscene, is a leftist!
I read some of the post-bracelet comments on Crooks&Liars.
This is more than in-group signaling.
This is visceral, irrational, vicious hatred. I followed a couple of blogs where BDS was common and the usual comment was contempt and assertions of imbecility.
With PDS, it’s worse. It’s scary hate. No reason for it. Just pure hate.
I think somebody who murdered her would be accepted (“loved”) by a good many people. They hate. Oh, how they hate.
With all due respect, neo, it’s a hell of a lot more than in-group bonding.
Geoffrey de Bouillon and many others. Eric Hoffer discussed brilliantly IMHO his discovery that the “intellectual” is the enemy of the masses. I recommend his essays if you are looking for some good insights.
She’s a fine gal.
Re: the notes on the palm…how is this any different from holding a few index cards to remind the speaker about key points they want to make when giving the speech?
It’s hardly unusual, even for seasoned public speakers. And it’s a far cry from relying on teleprompters to spoonfeed virtually every word of a speech at nearly every appearance.
My feeling is that she has probably used the “hand notes” in the past, just like those of us who are juggling tons of information and stick Post-its everywhere, but this is the first time it’s been noticed.
Good grief, the woman gives dazzling speeches, off the cuff, every time, while TOTUS, well, needs a little help with his dazzling speeches.
Just like with GWB, the more abuse they heaped on him, the more he soldiered on and the more I admired him. Same thing with Palin.
“” It’s scary hate. No reason for it. Just pure hate.””
Richard Aubrey
I think it was written about a couple thousand years ago. Something about “They will hate that which is good”.
Steve,
Best answer I’ve heard.
In doing so, they only serve to show their own bigotry, and to further alienate an entire group of voters. But they are either unaware of that fact, or consider it a small price to pay for a chance to demonstrate their own superiority.
Excellent conclusion to an excellent article.
I am amazed at how they continually claim that she is not to be taken seriously while at the same time they analyze every little thing about her. Words written on her hand? Give me a break!
Echoing some of the comments here. I too would caution against wanting her to run for president. Having seen her close up as governor of my state and in other positions earlier in her career, I don’t know that she’s right for the job. In fact I didn’t vote for her in the republican primary. She was ok as governor, but not great. She’s a good and genuine person, but she just might turn out to be a presidential disaster equal to Obama, but in a different way. I think she will be most effective as a national voice.
I have become more of a Pailin supporter because of the hatred and poison directed at her. It angers me to see such deliberate attempts at personal destruction aimed at her (or anyone) when she did nothing to deserve them.
I have been a Palin supporter since before she was picked to be McCains running mate. I have admired how she has kept on fighting through one misstep after another. Ms Palin is beginning to mature as a politician and grow as a leader. She has bypasses the MSM media with Facebook and tweeting. I hope she continues to confound everyone and turns the world on its head. Ms Palin has more courage and leadership ability in her pinky then certain other politicians ever dreamed of having.
God Bless Sarah!
I have been a Palin supporter since before she was picked to be McCains running mate. I have admired how she has kept on fighting through one misstep after another. Ms Palin is beginning to mature as a politician and grow as a leader. She has bypassed the MSM media with Facebook and tweeting. I hope she continues to confound everyone and turns the world on its head. Ms Palin has more courage and leadership ability in her pinky then certain other politicians ever dreamed of having.
God Bless Sarah!
The more i think about it, the more i think liberal intellectual types just flat out resent Sarah’s spontaneous human life.
They’ve chosen an ideology that fixates their life in a rigid little life limiting box. On some level they know somethings not quite right because of the visceral hatred and envy that boils to the surface upon noticing those who’ve avoided this predicament.
They really are in a quandry. Because its not subtle life changes and adjustments needed to resolve this issue. Its requires an acknowledgement that their really is something life giving about the notion of humility and concern about your fellow man.
Maybe it’s envy. If so, it would certainly validate the assertion that envy is the only one of the seven deadly sins that isn’t any fun.
I risk being restricted again, but could the corollary be true in that there could also be a:
“Criticism of Palin” Derangement Syndrome?
Is she the Virgin Mary? Not that the supposed mother of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth was a virgin, parthenogenesis can occur in nature so it’s not impossible, but that doesn’t mean she is without flaw, or above scrutiny. But apparently I’m wrong, which is baffling — because I don’t believe she is.
My criticism is I think she a dangerous opportunist because it seems to me that she can be made, or taught, to say anything, and change her mind not based on new evidence but on populist opportunity, those with the intelligence of a liberal minded past yet who have seen the wisdom of adopting many common sense philosophies of the right, should know better it seems to me. This restriction on any criticism of Palin seems provincial, a lust for jabbing at the other side, in a time when it’s paramount that we have a serious person to stand behind in a post 911 world. Obama displayed some evidence for intellectual capacity and to evolve from stagnate thinking, but this wasn’t nearly good enough a quality to support, unless you seriously consider the “this or that” option the voters were left with. I’m also asking, keep a sense of skepticism, caution, and criticism, criticize when criticism is due, and give praise when praise is due. This isn’t a hokey dokey were gonna get em and jab it to em knock em dead and lol this is about our democracy, the domestic crises of our economy and creating new jobs, and just as important, how well America can effectively be a force for good in the world, because we need allies in this struggle against theocratic fascism (currently of the Islamic brand).
Richard Aubrey: where did I say it’s only in-group bonding? I wrote that Palin-hatred (and note that word: hatred—it’s means exactly what it says) is overdetermined, and then went out to list several other causes. I was merely exploring one of them—in-group bonding—in that essay, rather than the others.
But don’t discount in-group bonding, as well as scapegoating, as a player in Palin-hatred. The group eggs each other on to greater and greater heights (or depths) as part of the bonding. Those who have likened it to the Two Minutes Hate in 1984 are quite correct; whipping up frenzies of hatred towards an enemy can help create a feeling of solidarity.
Of course, sometimes the enemies are real, as in wartime. And with Palin-hatred some of it is that they do see her as a threat, despite what they see as her lightweight, moronic status.
But never have I indicated that group bonding is the whole picture. It certainly is not. Go to my right sidebar and start reading under the category “Palin” if you want to read more of my thoughts on the phenomenon.
nyomythus: who is restricting criticism of Palin?
I, for one, consider her a far from ideal candidate. Her negatives are too high, and I think she lacks experience (she has more than Obama, but I think we need someone with more experience than either of them).
I think her best role is as a backer of other candidates, a speaker, a writer, and an organizer of the party. I think, however, that criticism of her should be just that—criticism—of her viewpoints rather than her style. Hatred is completely out of place.
But valid criticism? Who’s restricting that?
A bit off subject.. but i figured out the phraseologies to get Marx on his proper footing!!!
I have been recently experimenting whith phraseology in a way to capture truth (make solid), and yet reveal it in such a way that refutation process foils itself.
dont have a lot of time… lots of work today. (then its on to fashion week tents).
recently i have been referring to good ole carl and engels as the Prophet Marx. i realized that these people are following a very long religous Prophethetical system!!! that like almadinijad, they believe in the cargo cult version of prophecy. that followers of the prophetic order have to create the conditions to fulfill the prophecies they follow. (which is why the doctrines dont change or the goals).
that is, they believe that conditions lead to outcomes, not principals and else. that is, if we make a runway, we add lights, and a gilligan island tower for the planes, they will then start landing.
you can see this with the train in albany. the idea of build it and they will come… (now you know why that movie was so important propaganda wise. it got us to accept cargo cultish ideas as normal and good. when the truth is something else)
the PROPHET marx has declared that capitalism will end and a stateless society will come…he has prophecied that this can only happen once the proletariat and bottom people are wiped away from the face of the earth in a “rebolutionary holocaust”. he has declared men and women to be the same and not have different interests and ideals, and so should be represented the same. he has ordained that, if representation in some area is not the same as the racial make up of peoples, then some race must be cheating the others, as we are all equal. this worked well to get rid of jews in germany. it worked well as a way to get rid of kulaks in russia. in cambodia, those who wore glasses.
in all cases these were the commoners who thought they could dare rise up from their station and take up a seat next to those who are to naturally rule. cant have the devine right of kings (elite), if anyone can rise up and be kind by merit, no?
so marx has prophecied that the bourgeoisie, the able, are incapable of directing man, their progress is too productive, it changes too much (people like marx cant keep up – and so he wanted the world to return to the past so that those like him would do better as they used to. this is why its PROmote reGRESSion is to them PRO/GRESS. they love word games and symbolism. after all, thats all you have when the substance is removed).
so the right only has to accurately describe marx as he is to his followers.
the great and wise second comming of the prophet, whose words delivered unto us will bring paradise to us, if we follow his prophecies.
so, they are trying to collapse capitalism to create the conditions for the fulfillment of the prophecie of their Prophet marx. sad thing is that setting off nuclear weapons will not bring the mahdi before his time. nor will collapsing capitalism cause the fruition of marx. russia shows that its not a response to conditions.
and prophets in history are more wrong than right. which is why jesus was not a prophet in the sense that others were… beware of false prophets. Marx realized that by co-opting the mechanisms of christianity, he can get the masses to follow a prophetic tradition, as long as the ends of the prophecy leads to what they want. he saw that by settign things up in this way, one can FALSLY create an artificial religion, create a canon, and do to the masses what he saw OPIUM was accomplishing for the british in china. a quiet pliable set of people in which one can turn productive capacity and energy, into stagnation and dynasty for those driving the system at that point.
every time we let them succeed. they get the same feeling of a god backing them. that they are prophetically in place to fulfill the great history laid out before them.
THIS is why the leaders of such become monsters. they are not governing damn it. they are fulfilling prophecy just as alma is. he is on a mission from god! a god named marx.
neo.
Sorry for not getting the entire article.
nyo is doing the usual schtick; Pretending that criticism is the same as “restriction”. Expect we’ll hear “censorship” next.
There will be no citation of any “restriction”.
Artfldgr,
Hence my continued reference to Obama and top dems as closed minded fundamentalist. It really explains a lot.
Lack of criticism, good god, the late Slobodan Milosevic
gets better press, I didn’t see one solid criticism of her actual performance. One can take issue with AGIA, with
her reworking of the oil taxes up there, some points on
the campaign, where she supported Prop 8, against her
better instinct, and her church was torched, and she was
hung in effigy, because of it. So, Jim’s point is at the
back of my mind. Why are her negatives so high, it is
a function of the relentless often unmerited media
assault, and some misteps like the Couric interview
that were magnified 100 fold.
nyo, I think there is a fair bit of uncertainty and criticism of Palin, even among her general supporters. There’s no deification here. But when people decide someone’s a net positve, their evaluations tend to have a net positive tone.
I think the shoe is entirely on the other foot, that her critics can not even choke out polite, insincere praise for her accomplishments.
Jamie and Beverly: thank you for your comments. Too true!
I, too, doubt that Mrs.Palin is a perfect choice as a Presidential candidate; she was, however, the only reason I voted in last election. (McCain wasn’t my choice; if it was up to me, I would keep Thompson in the race).
Still, she’s a sincere, genuine self-made quintessentially American woman – a rare bird in US politics. A few days ago I caught her talking on CSPAN (don’t remember on what occasion) – her accent sounded strange, but not illegible as liberals claim, and her ideas and delivery were superb.
The hatred she inspires in liberals is real and scary; I’ve seen my former boss, a partner of a successful mid-size architectural firm, an educated and normally restrained person, was getting red in the neck while spewing disgusting comments about her and her family.
But here’s my bit of caution: the same bonding mechanism that unites her haters might work on this side of the divide, transforming into unquestioning love for her – as a reaction to that hatred. And that might make her loose the criticism necessary for improvement. And she does needs to improve, if she has any aspirations for a high position in a future Administration (I’m not going to speculate on which position – it’s too prematurely).
I agree with *relieveddebtor’s post– btw, his opinion, of a priest and devout Christian (I am neither) should be interesting to most of the commentators here.
What I still cannot grasp is a wildly exagerrated, hysterical overreaction of the many pundits. Liberals behave as if sky is falling, imaging themselves as defendants of besieged castle. In reality they have all commanding heights at their disposal: both houses, presidency, MSM and academia. Why these cries “Barbarians at the gates!”? Why portray polite middle-class comers of Tea Parties as belligerent vigilanties? May be, they feel that their worldview is crumbling, due the mere fact of growing protest movement? But this movement is not wide enough even for direct political challenge, and nowhere close to mass rebellion.
Probably every conservative, most independents and quite a few Democrats agree that the personal attacks on Palin are and have been completely disproportionate to anything she’s said or done.
Thus, all the talk about her accent, hunting, education, lack of experience, support for drilling, pro-life support, being a strong Christian and even her positions on the issues are but surface objections to her, all of the ‘reasons’ given are superfluous. For those ‘reasons’ are not proportional to any threat that “a soccer mom from Wasilla, AK” could conceivably represent.
They are simply cover, for a much deeper objection to Sarah Palin.
It’s not a conscious objection, as others have mentioned, the hate runs much deeper than that. It is something subconscious that they sense about her and it literally terrifies them. They sense extreme danger and a mortal threat.
It’s not Sarah Palin the individual that they hate, it’s what she represents; an existential threat to the supporting philosophical premises upon which feminism, liberalism and post-modernism rely and without which, they collapse.
Sarah Palin represents a mortal threat to the supporting core base for liberals, leftists and the ruling elite of the Democrat’s party.
Because that threat is so fundamental, it cannot be consciously faced by them because to do so would require examining their own premises, something we all know almost all liberals are unwilling to do because their premises cannot withstand rational scrutiny. Liberalism is all about feelings not rationality.
Thus they sense subconsciously the threat but lack the conscious analysis to squarely face the true nature of the threat Sarah Palin represents.
Accordingly, all that leaves them is surface complaints such as her accent and inexperience necessarily defined as stupidity because inexperience can lessen over time but ‘there’s no cure for stupidity’ which if accepted as true of Palin, eliminates the threat…
This is all about eliminating the threat, a mortal threat that cannot be consciously faced but is inescapably sensed subconsciously and thus the hate and abuse.
Exactly like how liberals perceived Reagan…because he was a mortal threat too.
Some good comments on this thread. There’s not a whole lot I can add, except to point out that way back in mid-September 2008 I commented on another blog: “PDS has already gotten worse in two weeks than BDS did in eight years.”
As regards the Palin haters, I would just observe that anyone whose reaction to a fundamentally decent and wholesome person is blind sputtering rage has a real problem.
Nyo and Neo,
Valid criticism is the key phrase.
We are realists when we say Palin had more experience than Obama – yet the supporters of Obama (like Nyo) un-abashedly hammered Palin for her experience.
It was sick.
I think ALL of us would like someone who has the temperament and experience and wisdom to make good decisions as president.
Obama had none. Palin had some.
Watch Meg Whitman (who is running for CA governor) get Palinized.
This is what Nyo voted for
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2010/02/12/test-of-anti-missile-airborne-laser-is-successful/
It’s a certain religion that Obama has. 🙂
ConsideringTodd P’s work in in the oil biz, and the family-owned commercial fishing business, it would seem the Palins have more private sector experience than Obama and his cabinet combined.
And commercial fishing in that area requires both physical courage and financial courage.
I’d like to see the cabinet rustle up that amount of either, forgetting both, between them.
What I find interesting about Palin Derangement syndrome is how phony and trumped up it is. If she had done everything exactly the same, but had been a democrat, they would be singing her praises, and call her the future of the party. But because she is from THAT OTHER PARTY, they feel fre we to destroy her politically, drive her into bankruptsy, destroy her marriage, destroy her family, destroy her family. If they thought that they could put a bullet in her brain, they would do that. And for good measure put a bullet in Trig’s brain too. Not let that poor child live to adulthood. Because they think of politics not as a disagreement over policy, but as total war. They are nothing more than party hacks. They practice Alinskyism on steroids. They posit ethical positions that nobody could live up to, but have no standards at all on their side. Democrats can rape, plunder, and kill and they will bless it. If a Republican so much as sneezes, they will scream ethical violations. They lack intellectual honesty, and are not worth debating, as you would with most normal people. These people are scum. They are only to be destroyed.
***********
…My weekend computer is restricted from posting on this blog, so my replies won’t be seen. This one will, not the others…
***********