Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Single Thread That Unravels Joe McGinniss' Career
McGinniss' double-talk has destroyed his credibility
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
"'There was no religion,' an insider reveals. 'There was nothing about God. There was no Christ. Nobody prayed. No Bibles. No crosses. None of that was ever there. Never.'"So McGinniss writes that Palin is, deep down, a fanatical religious fundamentalist. And he also writes that Palin's public displays of religious belief are a sham, because she and her family are not even remotely religious.
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Creepy Little Bastard Joe McGinniss Can't Keep His Tabloid Stories Straight
Joe McGinnis, no longer a respected, reputable journalist, can't keep his story straight. First he claims supermarket tabloids used him as a source, then later admits he used the National Enquirer as a source.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sarah Palin: John McCain's "No Guarantees" Candidate
McCain: Palin could beat Obama. Maybe.
Looking back on the 2008 Presidential election, a lingering question remains:
Did Sarah Palin cost John McCain the Presidency, or did John McCain cost Sarah Palin the Vice Presidency?
The argument is largely the same each way: to those who favour Palin, John McCain wasn't strong enough on conservative issues, and drove conservative voters to stay home. For those who favour McCain, Palin's views are too extreme, and drove moderate voters into the waiting arms of the Democrats.
But in a recent appearance on FOX News, McCain seemed more interested in looking forward to the 2012 Presidential election. When asked if Palin could beat Obama in 2012, he answered to the decidedly affirmative -- but with no guarantees.
“Of course, she can,” McCain said. “She can. Now, whether she will or not, whether she'll even run or not, I don't know.”
“A lot of things happen in campaigns,” McCain continued. “You remember, I was written off a couple of times and was able to come back. So, there's going to be a roller coaster ride for all of them before we finally arrive at our nominee.”
But just as in 2008, Palin's greatest strength could also be her greatest weakness.
“She also inspires great passion, particularly among Republican faithful,” McCain noted.
Of course, he's right. But she also inspires passionate hatred -- that is really the only way to describe it -- from the left.
Often, it works out to the benefits of conservatives, as many of these people simply reveal themselves for the defective human beings they are, sending reasonable and intelligent voters to look at the alternatives.
Even so, this really does not make for good politics. Palin has been masterful at forcing the chronically-unstable among the left (even some of those who otherwise can be intelligent and insightful, such as Andrew Sullivan) to reveal their mania. This is not an acceptable alternative to having ideas of her own.
Declared candidates such as Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have ideas of their own. Palin does not. Her purported "common sense conservatism" is not an acceptable alternative to having some ideas.
Perhaps Sarah Palin could beat President Barack Obama in 2012. But "perhaps" isn't a good enough reason to forsake candidates with real ideas in favour of Palin.
Looking back on the 2008 Presidential election, a lingering question remains:
Did Sarah Palin cost John McCain the Presidency, or did John McCain cost Sarah Palin the Vice Presidency?
The argument is largely the same each way: to those who favour Palin, John McCain wasn't strong enough on conservative issues, and drove conservative voters to stay home. For those who favour McCain, Palin's views are too extreme, and drove moderate voters into the waiting arms of the Democrats.
But in a recent appearance on FOX News, McCain seemed more interested in looking forward to the 2012 Presidential election. When asked if Palin could beat Obama in 2012, he answered to the decidedly affirmative -- but with no guarantees.
“Of course, she can,” McCain said. “She can. Now, whether she will or not, whether she'll even run or not, I don't know.”
“A lot of things happen in campaigns,” McCain continued. “You remember, I was written off a couple of times and was able to come back. So, there's going to be a roller coaster ride for all of them before we finally arrive at our nominee.”
But just as in 2008, Palin's greatest strength could also be her greatest weakness.
“She also inspires great passion, particularly among Republican faithful,” McCain noted.
Of course, he's right. But she also inspires passionate hatred -- that is really the only way to describe it -- from the left.
Often, it works out to the benefits of conservatives, as many of these people simply reveal themselves for the defective human beings they are, sending reasonable and intelligent voters to look at the alternatives.
Even so, this really does not make for good politics. Palin has been masterful at forcing the chronically-unstable among the left (even some of those who otherwise can be intelligent and insightful, such as Andrew Sullivan) to reveal their mania. This is not an acceptable alternative to having ideas of her own.
Declared candidates such as Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have ideas of their own. Palin does not. Her purported "common sense conservatism" is not an acceptable alternative to having some ideas.
Perhaps Sarah Palin could beat President Barack Obama in 2012. But "perhaps" isn't a good enough reason to forsake candidates with real ideas in favour of Palin.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Journolist, Andrew Sullivam & Karma
"Corrupt" journolist members had more sense regarding Trig Palin "story" than Sullivan
Sometimes Andrew Sullivan gets things right.
In his book, The Conservative Soul, Sullivan was absolutely right when he posited that a healthy level of uncertainty should be considered central to conservatism -- a socratic breed of uncertainy that leads conservatives to question themselves on what they know and what they do not. This breeds a sense of humility seldom found in the ideological opponents of conservatism. (It's also too seldom found in conservative ideologues.)
Sullivan has very seldom been right outside the pages of his book.
He was right about something far more recently when described participants in Ezra Klein's Journolist message board as "corrupt".
"What's depressing is the way in which liberal journalists are not responding to events in order to find out the truth, but playing strategic games to cover or not cover events and controversies in order to win a media/political war," Sullivan wrote.
But the story has since turned even on Sullivan, as it can't help but rub his nose in the most devestating self-humiliation of his career.
The matter pertains to the story that Sullivan bought hook, line and sinker -- to the extent that he continues to occasionally harp on it even today. That story, is the bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that Sarah Palin is not the real mother of Trig Palin.
The story was brought to the attention of Journolist by Business Week's Ryan Donmoyer.
Dylan Matthews -- the blogger known as Minipundit -- quickly responded to the story by declaring it to be non grata in terms of political strategy:
Much more eager to embrace the conspiracy theory was Health Beat's Maggie Mahar. Dylan Matthews also seemed to have bought the sorry tale.
Perhaps the most disgusting response came from Mark Kleiman, of the website Reality-Based Community. "I see no upside for our side here," he wrote. "There’s plenty of other stuff to work on that won’t get her any sympathy at all and won’t risk damage to her innocent children/grandchild."
To Kleiman, the only reason not to report on the conspiracy theory was that it would provoke sympathy for Palin. One can easily posit that Kleiman's use of "children/grandchild" suggested that he may have believed the story -- or was at least prepared to.
These examples -- with the exception of Donmoyer's initial skepticism -- are actually outliers amongst the Journolist cabal. The bast majority of them either expressed outright disbelief in the story, or simply ignored it.
With the exception of the noted outliers -- as well as a few others -- the "corrupt" Journolist crowd, who even when addressing this issue seemed far more interested in harming Sarah Palin than in reporting a factual story, were able to figure out very quickly that promoting the Trig Palin conspiracy theory was a fool's errand.
But not Andrew Sullivan. Still not Andrew Sullivan. Scarcely a week passes on his Daily Dish blog where Sullivan doesn't dredge it up again.
One should consider it the karmic end of the Journolist scandal: that even as Andrew Sullivan scorns the Journolist participants, they demonstrate judgement far superior to his own.
Sometimes Andrew Sullivan gets things right.
In his book, The Conservative Soul, Sullivan was absolutely right when he posited that a healthy level of uncertainty should be considered central to conservatism -- a socratic breed of uncertainy that leads conservatives to question themselves on what they know and what they do not. This breeds a sense of humility seldom found in the ideological opponents of conservatism. (It's also too seldom found in conservative ideologues.)
Sullivan has very seldom been right outside the pages of his book.
He was right about something far more recently when described participants in Ezra Klein's Journolist message board as "corrupt".
"What's depressing is the way in which liberal journalists are not responding to events in order to find out the truth, but playing strategic games to cover or not cover events and controversies in order to win a media/political war," Sullivan wrote.
But the story has since turned even on Sullivan, as it can't help but rub his nose in the most devestating self-humiliation of his career.
The matter pertains to the story that Sullivan bought hook, line and sinker -- to the extent that he continues to occasionally harp on it even today. That story, is the bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that Sarah Palin is not the real mother of Trig Palin.
The story was brought to the attention of Journolist by Business Week's Ryan Donmoyer.
Dylan Matthews -- the blogger known as Minipundit -- quickly responded to the story by declaring it to be non grata in terms of political strategy:
"Obama absolutely cannot touch this. Even if it’s true.Matthews gave the matter just enough consideration to consider that it may actually be true. Some Journolisters seemed prepared to believe the story. But Donmoyer himself was not. He later wrote:
I think the press would justify covering it on the issue of trust, but for me it’s offensive that she would refuse to allow her daughter the choice. She has no business deciding what to make of that pregnancy. If her daughter wanted an abortion, it speaks very ill of Palin’s character to deny her the option."
"This is one hell of a whacky conspiracy theory and I too agree it’s probably best left alone. I do wonder, however, whether at least one authoritative piece ought to be done to try to put the issue to rest — not as a hit job on Palin so much as to counter something that has already rapidly and viciously spread on the Internet and will only go more viral. As long as it’s in the rumor stage it rivals the disinformation disseminated about Obama — and neither is useful for theThis healthy skepticism on Donmoyer's part unfortunately seems not to have lasted. He would continue in the thread to compile a list of reasons he thought it was more likely that Trig Palin was actually Bristol's son -- resting his case on his belief that it's more likely that a 17-year-old girl would give birth to a child with Down's syndrome than a 43-year-old woman conceiving without medical help.
public discourse."
Much more eager to embrace the conspiracy theory was Health Beat's Maggie Mahar. Dylan Matthews also seemed to have bought the sorry tale.
Perhaps the most disgusting response came from Mark Kleiman, of the website Reality-Based Community. "I see no upside for our side here," he wrote. "There’s plenty of other stuff to work on that won’t get her any sympathy at all and won’t risk damage to her innocent children/grandchild."
To Kleiman, the only reason not to report on the conspiracy theory was that it would provoke sympathy for Palin. One can easily posit that Kleiman's use of "children/grandchild" suggested that he may have believed the story -- or was at least prepared to.
These examples -- with the exception of Donmoyer's initial skepticism -- are actually outliers amongst the Journolist cabal. The bast majority of them either expressed outright disbelief in the story, or simply ignored it.
With the exception of the noted outliers -- as well as a few others -- the "corrupt" Journolist crowd, who even when addressing this issue seemed far more interested in harming Sarah Palin than in reporting a factual story, were able to figure out very quickly that promoting the Trig Palin conspiracy theory was a fool's errand.
But not Andrew Sullivan. Still not Andrew Sullivan. Scarcely a week passes on his Daily Dish blog where Sullivan doesn't dredge it up again.
One should consider it the karmic end of the Journolist scandal: that even as Andrew Sullivan scorns the Journolist participants, they demonstrate judgement far superior to his own.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
The Excuses They Make
Just as predicted, the far left excuses themselves over Levi Johnston revelation
As predicted yesterday, the American far left lost little time in looking for a way to excuse themselves for gleefully reporting the lies that Levi Johnston admitted he told about Sarah Palin.
Writing in an op/ed in the New York Times, Gail Collins shows no interest whatsoever in honestly addressing the revelation, and sinks to an actually quite-comical low in order to do it:
Apparently, it's unthinkable to Collins that the vast majority of what Johnston said about Palin is untrue.
What Collins -- and other far-left figures such as Andrew Sullivan -- has entitled themselves to is a unique rhetorical trick.
The honest and rational individual examining the media coverage of Levi Johntson's comments about Sarah Palin would recognize that it was all merely gossip -- hate-driven gossip intended to influence impressions of Palin's politics, despite having little or no relevance whatsoever.
The honest and rational individual will quickly realize that, given that one is dealing with nothing more than gossip, if any unidentified portion of it is admitted to be untrue, then all of it is suspect.
Instead, Collins has entitled herself to a rather different take. Her self-serving take seems to be that if none of what is untrue is specificially identified, then none of it is suspect.
That's hardly a rational or honest approach to this revelation. Then again, the modus operandi of individuals such as Collins to Palin has been one that has been fundamentally dishonest and irrational. Nobody should have expected anything to change now.
In the case of Collins, she isn't done entitling herself to rhetorical tricks. In a particularly pitiful attempt to squirm free of the implications of the Johnston revelation, she even disputes the commonality of the phrase "youthful indiscretions", suggesting that its use is evidence of some kind of conspiracy:
Google passes verdict on the commonality of the phrase quite decisively.
As an argument, this is beyond weak, and it actually sullies the pages of the New York Times that they would bother printing such tripe.
It's a sobering reminder for any of those who had hoped that the revelation that the far left yellow journalists who had posted so many of its hopes on the gossip offered by Levi Johnston would smarten up and offer a mea culpa. With Gail Collins and the NY Times leading the charge, an appropriate admission simply isn't in the cards.
They've simply let themselves off the hook -- at least in their minds.
As predicted yesterday, the American far left lost little time in looking for a way to excuse themselves for gleefully reporting the lies that Levi Johnston admitted he told about Sarah Palin.
Writing in an op/ed in the New York Times, Gail Collins shows no interest whatsoever in honestly addressing the revelation, and sinks to an actually quite-comical low in order to do it:
"We have been dealing with a lot of imperfect apologies recently, but this one hits a new level of unsatisfactory.It's so utterly pathetic that one hardly knows where to begin.
At the very least, we need to know which of the gossip he was dishing was true, and which not completely. The part about how Sarah fights a lot with Todd? Or that she never cooks? Personally, all I want to know is whether Levi was being straight when he said that the former governor of Alaska doesn’t really know how to shoot a gun."
Apparently, it's unthinkable to Collins that the vast majority of what Johnston said about Palin is untrue.
What Collins -- and other far-left figures such as Andrew Sullivan -- has entitled themselves to is a unique rhetorical trick.
The honest and rational individual examining the media coverage of Levi Johntson's comments about Sarah Palin would recognize that it was all merely gossip -- hate-driven gossip intended to influence impressions of Palin's politics, despite having little or no relevance whatsoever.
The honest and rational individual will quickly realize that, given that one is dealing with nothing more than gossip, if any unidentified portion of it is admitted to be untrue, then all of it is suspect.
Instead, Collins has entitled herself to a rather different take. Her self-serving take seems to be that if none of what is untrue is specificially identified, then none of it is suspect.
That's hardly a rational or honest approach to this revelation. Then again, the modus operandi of individuals such as Collins to Palin has been one that has been fundamentally dishonest and irrational. Nobody should have expected anything to change now.
In the case of Collins, she isn't done entitling herself to rhetorical tricks. In a particularly pitiful attempt to squirm free of the implications of the Johnston revelation, she even disputes the commonality of the phrase "youthful indiscretions", suggesting that its use is evidence of some kind of conspiracy:
"Johnston also told People that he hoped that the Palins would 'forgive my youthful indiscretion.' This does not really sound like something that would come from a high-school dropout who gave his son the middle name of Easton because that is his favorite hockey equipment company. In fact, the last time I heard anyone refer to a 'youthful indiscretion' was in 1998, when 74-year-old Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was confessing to an adulterous affair he had conducted when he was 41."This would mean that Collins wasn't paying attention as recently as July 1, 2010 when USA Today refered to the "youthful indiscretions" of Ted Kennedy in the midst of an obituary piece on Senator Robert Byrd.
Google passes verdict on the commonality of the phrase quite decisively.
As an argument, this is beyond weak, and it actually sullies the pages of the New York Times that they would bother printing such tripe.
It's a sobering reminder for any of those who had hoped that the revelation that the far left yellow journalists who had posted so many of its hopes on the gossip offered by Levi Johnston would smarten up and offer a mea culpa. With Gail Collins and the NY Times leading the charge, an appropriate admission simply isn't in the cards.
They've simply let themselves off the hook -- at least in their minds.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Andrew Sullivan Before the Levi Johnston Revelations...
While this is unlikely to make the the pale imitations some clowns offer of intellectually superior alternatives, Levi Johnston, the man who impregnated Sarah Palin's daughter and then delighted the left-wing media with his tales of Palin's alleged dirty deeds, had admitted that many of the things he said about the Palin family were "not entirely true".
It doesn't take a PHD in etymology to realize that means that Johnston told a few fibs; sold a few lies.
So while the furthest of the far left find themselves excuses to not shuffle their feet uncomfortably, it's certainly worthwhile to take a look at some of the individuals who took great pleasure in reporting, and actually embellishing, some of Johnston's mistruths.
One need not have a great deal of regard for Palin to agree that Andrew Sullivan -- he of the Trig Palin conspiracy theory -- is due for some comeuppance.
Even setting aside the self-destructive Trig Palin conspiracy theory -- in which Sullivan managed to destroy his own reputation with a story invented out of whole cloth -- Sullivan has far too often staked his credibility on the topic of Sarah Palin to escape with it intact.
The degree of the effect Palin has on Sullivan's psyche became evident mere days after Palin's selection to be John McCain's running mate in the 2008 election, when he suggested that Palin should be "dismissed out of hand":
Sullivan remarkbly once claimed that the only thing he was interested is the truth -- while suggesting that Harper Collins should have vetted her autobiography, and continuing to peddle his self-humilating Trig Palin conspiracy theory!
By the time Sullivan made his most recent appearance on Bill Maher's HBO program, it became clear that his reputation was all but shot.
(For the record, Sarah Palin has a right to part of what Sullivan describes as "our discourse" because she is a US citizen. Andrew Sullivan is not.) (Would it be crass to suggest that Sullivan won't use the meth pipe Maher gave him because he may already have one of his own? -ed)
Sullivan shouldn't be surprised to find out that Johnston has been lying. Even in the midst of his glee he acknowledged that Johnston could be lying while describing Johnston's allegations as "the best we've got":
Now, it turns out that the best source Sullivan had to offer in the midst of his anti-Palin crusade wasn't being truthful. In fact, he was likely being far from truthful.
One should expect a mea culpa and a massive apology from Andrew Sullivan for taking the Johnston allegations in so deeply. One should, but one doesn't.
In fact, on the very day of Johnston's revelation, Sullivan was still pretending there's a debate regarding Trig Palin.
As of this writing, Sullivan hasn't come clean on the extent to which he's been bamboozled by Johnston's dishonesty. Nor should one expect one.
Meet Andrew Sullivan after the Levi Johnston admission. Same as the Andrew Sullivan before the Levi Johnston admission.
It doesn't take a PHD in etymology to realize that means that Johnston told a few fibs; sold a few lies.
So while the furthest of the far left find themselves excuses to not shuffle their feet uncomfortably, it's certainly worthwhile to take a look at some of the individuals who took great pleasure in reporting, and actually embellishing, some of Johnston's mistruths.
One need not have a great deal of regard for Palin to agree that Andrew Sullivan -- he of the Trig Palin conspiracy theory -- is due for some comeuppance.
Even setting aside the self-destructive Trig Palin conspiracy theory -- in which Sullivan managed to destroy his own reputation with a story invented out of whole cloth -- Sullivan has far too often staked his credibility on the topic of Sarah Palin to escape with it intact.
The degree of the effect Palin has on Sullivan's psyche became evident mere days after Palin's selection to be John McCain's running mate in the 2008 election, when he suggested that Palin should be "dismissed out of hand":
Sullivan remarkbly once claimed that the only thing he was interested is the truth -- while suggesting that Harper Collins should have vetted her autobiography, and continuing to peddle his self-humilating Trig Palin conspiracy theory!
By the time Sullivan made his most recent appearance on Bill Maher's HBO program, it became clear that his reputation was all but shot.
(For the record, Sarah Palin has a right to part of what Sullivan describes as "our discourse" because she is a US citizen. Andrew Sullivan is not.) (Would it be crass to suggest that Sullivan won't use the meth pipe Maher gave him because he may already have one of his own? -ed)
Sullivan shouldn't be surprised to find out that Johnston has been lying. Even in the midst of his glee he acknowledged that Johnston could be lying while describing Johnston's allegations as "the best we've got":
One should expect a mea culpa and a massive apology from Andrew Sullivan for taking the Johnston allegations in so deeply. One should, but one doesn't.
In fact, on the very day of Johnston's revelation, Sullivan was still pretending there's a debate regarding Trig Palin.
As of this writing, Sullivan hasn't come clean on the extent to which he's been bamboozled by Johnston's dishonesty. Nor should one expect one.
Meet Andrew Sullivan after the Levi Johnston admission. Same as the Andrew Sullivan before the Levi Johnston admission.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Palin-esque Absurdity of it All
It's not about an ugly fence -- it's about an over-obsessive stalker
Some writers manage to demonstrate an incredible gift for missing anything even resembling the point.
Cue Washington Post columnist Adrian Higgins, whose most recent offering is an insipid op/ed entitled "Sarah Palin's fence didn't have to be so ugly".
Right. Because that's what the entire affair is about: an ugly fence.
Apparently, it isn't about an over-obsessive author-turned-stalker who lacked the judgement to recognize that moving in next door to the subject of his most recent book so he could spy on her private life was an unethical idea, even if the neighbour offered to rent him the property.
No. Apparently, the entire matter is about an ugly fence.
This is apparently the absurdity that the American left-wing media has sunk to in this ongoing TMZ moment: suggesting that Palin simply could have planted some really tall hedges if she wanted to protect her family's privacy from the prying eyes of McGinniss.
As it turns out, there very much is something about Sarah Palin that drives the American left into these absurd corners. It seems they need to make this entire affair about the fence, and Higgins has gone to Andrew Sullivan-esque lengths of reputation self-destruction in order to justify it.
If these were rational people, they would recognize that McGinniss' invasion of Palin's privacy is beneath contempt, and would recognize that their lame defenses of it are likewise.
But there's something about Palin that renders these people utterly incapable of rationality. Their defenses of the entire affair would be better not justified with response if it weren't for the fact that rubbing the noses of such individuals in their own stupidity wasn't actually a public service (Andrew Sullivan, a whole lot of people are looking your way right about now -- and not just Bill Maher).
Of course, the American left can do what they will. It won't salvage Joe McGinniss' reputation -- which has been reduced to just a few notches above the level of Herbert from Family Guy.
They would be doing themselves a service if they stopped allowing their own reputations to be dragged under right alongside it -- but this is something that the mania Sarah Palin inspires in them will not allow them to do.
Some writers manage to demonstrate an incredible gift for missing anything even resembling the point.
Cue Washington Post columnist Adrian Higgins, whose most recent offering is an insipid op/ed entitled "Sarah Palin's fence didn't have to be so ugly".
Right. Because that's what the entire affair is about: an ugly fence.
Apparently, it isn't about an over-obsessive author-turned-stalker who lacked the judgement to recognize that moving in next door to the subject of his most recent book so he could spy on her private life was an unethical idea, even if the neighbour offered to rent him the property.
No. Apparently, the entire matter is about an ugly fence.
This is apparently the absurdity that the American left-wing media has sunk to in this ongoing TMZ moment: suggesting that Palin simply could have planted some really tall hedges if she wanted to protect her family's privacy from the prying eyes of McGinniss.
As it turns out, there very much is something about Sarah Palin that drives the American left into these absurd corners. It seems they need to make this entire affair about the fence, and Higgins has gone to Andrew Sullivan-esque lengths of reputation self-destruction in order to justify it.
If these were rational people, they would recognize that McGinniss' invasion of Palin's privacy is beneath contempt, and would recognize that their lame defenses of it are likewise.
But there's something about Palin that renders these people utterly incapable of rationality. Their defenses of the entire affair would be better not justified with response if it weren't for the fact that rubbing the noses of such individuals in their own stupidity wasn't actually a public service (Andrew Sullivan, a whole lot of people are looking your way right about now -- and not just Bill Maher).
Of course, the American left can do what they will. It won't salvage Joe McGinniss' reputation -- which has been reduced to just a few notches above the level of Herbert from Family Guy.
They would be doing themselves a service if they stopped allowing their own reputations to be dragged under right alongside it -- but this is something that the mania Sarah Palin inspires in them will not allow them to do.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The American Left's TMZ Moment
Never has a lop-sided, hastily-erected fence sparked such speculation in the not-so-hallowed falls of the internets.
Yet when Todd Palin set to work feverishly constructing a fence between the home he and his wife Sarah Palin -- the former Governor or Alaska, and former Vice Presidential nominee -- share with their children and the property currently being occupied by author Joe McGinniss, it didn't take long for a photo of a section of that fence to appear on the internet.
The photo reveals a massive gap under the bottom of the lop-sided fence, indicating the clearly-poor crafmanship of the work.
Then again, quality craftsmanship requires time. And when a would-be journalist is watching your family's private moments from the house next door, you start building fast.
The incident has revealled, once again, the self-serving nature of many of those who occupy the far left -- even those who occupy the far left under the guise of being conservative.
Case in point:
In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan wrote a fine and thoughtful book on the meaning of what it is to be a conservative. But in joining the "Bristol Palin is Trig Palin's mother" rush, Sullivan demolished his own credibility. He chose to become, essentially, a left-wing birther.
(And while right-wing birthers are concerned about the birth certificate of the American President -- a matter that would be of great social consequence if it weren't total nonsense -- Sullivan and company are concerned about the birth certificate of Palin's child. Sad world.)
It's on this note that some would imagine that Sullivan would decide to stop self-immolating, and leave Sarah Palin alone.
Nope. In a Daily Dish blog post about Palin and McGinnis, Sullivan snidely remarks: "I'm hardly surprised that Sarah Palin has had a conniption over someone threatening to commit journalism in her vicinity."
Apparently, to Andrew Sullivan, that's what this entire sorry affair is: journalism.
It isn't voyeurism for the satisfaction of a cabal of far-left-wingers who despise Palin. It's journalism.
Of course, there are other individuals, relentlessly invasive of the privacy of public figures, who call themselves journalists: the paparazzi.
Certainly, many among the paparazzi aspire to journalism. The problem for them is that they possess no quality journalistic skills. Accordingly, they become relegated to a dark corner of the world of journalism where they simply invade the privacy of celebrities in order to sell the photos they take for money.
This is apparently the depth that McGinniss has sunk to. Evidently, possessing no quality journalistic skills, he instead spies on the Palin family, presumably so he can include what he sees in their home in a book -- to be entitled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously.
To visit Wasilla, interview locals, perhaps even friends, family or adversaries of Palin would be one thing. But moving in next door and playing at being a Peeping Tom?
Another thning entirely.
Which reminds one of the genius of TMZ. TMZ is basically an infotainment program/website largely centred around the papparazzi. But rather than glorifying papparazzos, the show focuses on showcasing the ridiculousness of said papparazzos, and the kinds of stupid questions they tend to ask their subjects.
The current plight of Sarah Palin and family is a reminder of how ridiculous the left-wing media can be.
That someone like Andrew Sullivan, who describes himself to be a conservative, would join the ranks of their cheerleaders is rather embarrassing -- but, as in most cases of Andrew Sullivan and embarrassment, the embarrassment remains his.
Yet when Todd Palin set to work feverishly constructing a fence between the home he and his wife Sarah Palin -- the former Governor or Alaska, and former Vice Presidential nominee -- share with their children and the property currently being occupied by author Joe McGinniss, it didn't take long for a photo of a section of that fence to appear on the internet.
The photo reveals a massive gap under the bottom of the lop-sided fence, indicating the clearly-poor crafmanship of the work.
Then again, quality craftsmanship requires time. And when a would-be journalist is watching your family's private moments from the house next door, you start building fast.
The incident has revealled, once again, the self-serving nature of many of those who occupy the far left -- even those who occupy the far left under the guise of being conservative.
Case in point:
In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan wrote a fine and thoughtful book on the meaning of what it is to be a conservative. But in joining the "Bristol Palin is Trig Palin's mother" rush, Sullivan demolished his own credibility. He chose to become, essentially, a left-wing birther.
(And while right-wing birthers are concerned about the birth certificate of the American President -- a matter that would be of great social consequence if it weren't total nonsense -- Sullivan and company are concerned about the birth certificate of Palin's child. Sad world.)
It's on this note that some would imagine that Sullivan would decide to stop self-immolating, and leave Sarah Palin alone.
Nope. In a Daily Dish blog post about Palin and McGinnis, Sullivan snidely remarks: "I'm hardly surprised that Sarah Palin has had a conniption over someone threatening to commit journalism in her vicinity."
Apparently, to Andrew Sullivan, that's what this entire sorry affair is: journalism.
It isn't voyeurism for the satisfaction of a cabal of far-left-wingers who despise Palin. It's journalism.
Of course, there are other individuals, relentlessly invasive of the privacy of public figures, who call themselves journalists: the paparazzi.
Certainly, many among the paparazzi aspire to journalism. The problem for them is that they possess no quality journalistic skills. Accordingly, they become relegated to a dark corner of the world of journalism where they simply invade the privacy of celebrities in order to sell the photos they take for money.
This is apparently the depth that McGinniss has sunk to. Evidently, possessing no quality journalistic skills, he instead spies on the Palin family, presumably so he can include what he sees in their home in a book -- to be entitled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously.
To visit Wasilla, interview locals, perhaps even friends, family or adversaries of Palin would be one thing. But moving in next door and playing at being a Peeping Tom?
Another thning entirely.
Which reminds one of the genius of TMZ. TMZ is basically an infotainment program/website largely centred around the papparazzi. But rather than glorifying papparazzos, the show focuses on showcasing the ridiculousness of said papparazzos, and the kinds of stupid questions they tend to ask their subjects.
The current plight of Sarah Palin and family is a reminder of how ridiculous the left-wing media can be.
That someone like Andrew Sullivan, who describes himself to be a conservative, would join the ranks of their cheerleaders is rather embarrassing -- but, as in most cases of Andrew Sullivan and embarrassment, the embarrassment remains his.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Use Your Words, Heather
Writing in the Guardian -- the only place where she's able to peddle her political invective these days -- Heather Mallick has a message for Britain:
She despises Canada. So Britain should avoid being like Canada.
Mallick tells Britain that they should "use their words". She describes it as polite shorthand for: "Stop hitting your little friend, you tiny nasty animal. Negotiate. Share your toys. Find a way."
This is immediately preceded by her wailing about how Canada's centre-left opposition parties won't gang up against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, and refuse to share their toys with them.
"Use your words". The phrase takes on a particularly facetious tone when it comes from someone whose personal viciousnesa and vindictiveness is as well known as Mallick's.
One just has to look at what Mallick uses her words for:
"Excellent campaigning. If only our hateful pseudo-human Prime Minister would meet a nice granny in Kamloops and hurt her feelings. Actually, Harper would knee her in the groin and block her hip replacement, he's that personal in his hates.Stephen Harper is "hateful", "pseduo-human", and assaults the elderly.
Canada has a Conservative minority government right now that does have a core belief. It's that Canadians deserve a good stomping, all of them. Conservatives can't stand people, particularly if they're female, or second-generation Canadian, or educated, or principled, or not from Alberta, which is the home of the hard-right belly-bulging middle-aged Tory male. Watch them at the G8, ostensibly fighting for women's health internationally while blocking abortions for raped Congolese."
Is that what Heather Mallick is trying to say here?
Conservatives are so hateful that they "can't stand people" (it helps that in Mallick's mind Conservatives are "pseudo-human", so themselves are not people), and are sexist fat old men.
(Unless they're Rona Ambrose, in which case it's acceptable to make sexist jokes about her hair.)
It kind of reminds one of what Mallick had to say in the column that effectively ended any semblence of revelance she may have enjoyed at the CBC:
"It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman.Republican men are "sexually inadequate". Sarah Palin isn't really female. She looks like a primped-up porn star. Her daughter is a hussy impregnated out of wedlock. Her husband is a redneck, and her son is a sissy.
...
...No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too.
...
Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified."
Yep. Heather Mallick is a poster-girl for the civilized nature of the use of words. When she insists that the use of words is the act of the civil, everyone should take her seriously.
Not.
One imagines that perhaps Canadians should be thankful for one thing. If Mallick is going to insist on using her words, as they were, at least she's doing it far, far away from Canada -- in what seems to be the only news outlet that will actually print this kind of drivel.
In the meantime, she should feel free to count herself among Murray Dobbin and those desperate denizens of the far left who either have failed to understand that Canadians relected the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, or simply don't care.
It isn't as if she possesses so much of a shred of relevance. Any semblence of it she ever possessed was drowned in her own bile a long time ago.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thank You For Your Advice, Sarah...
...But Canadians will make our own decisions about health care
Ever since she was vaulted into the international spotlight during the 2008 Presidential Election, Sarah Palin has made a bad habit of coming out on the wrong end of interactions between herself and various comedic pranksters.
In November, 2008, Palin was pranked by a Montreal radio host.
Just over a year later, Palin has now been burned by Mary Wash, also known as This Hour Has 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty, who solicited some health care-related advice from Palin.
"We told her we're from Canada, and we're just looking for a few words of encouragement for the Canadian conservatives who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the socialized medicare that we have," Wash later recounted.
Palin's answer was frank.
"Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit," Palin replied during a later encounter (the first one was ended by the intervention of security).
"Basically, she said government should stop doing the work that private enterprise should do," Walsh added.
But even as Canadians' attitude toward private health care has apparently softened -- a recent survey indicated that 56% of Canadians support increasing the number of private health clinics in Canada, so long as they operate alongside -- and do not adversely affect -- public health care.
And while many Canadians may forget that Canadians were initially as resistent to the introduction of socialized health care as the United States has been -- then-Premier Woodrow Lloyd and then-former-Premier Tommy Douglas were burned in effigy during the health care debates in Saskatchewan -- Canadians have embraced public health care very deeply.
Many Canadians are in favour of reforms -- and sadly, Canada seems to be wasting this goden opportunity to discuss the options -- but abolishing public health care is on the agenda of very, very few, even among conservatives.
And while the very idea of Mary Walsh speaking on behalf of conservatives is perverse and laughable, that is, in its own sense, the purpose of comedy.
(It's also worth reminding people like Walsh that it was the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party, who last slashed billions of dollars from public healthcare.)
Outside of the world of comedy, Walsh would have no such place. Just like Sarah Palin has no place telling Canadians what we shoud do with our health care.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
The Intrepid - "Sarah Palin Tells 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty That 'Canada Needs to Dismantle Its Public Healthcare System'"
Dan Shields - "FunnierThanGerryDeeNotAsFunnyAsCancer"
Ever since she was vaulted into the international spotlight during the 2008 Presidential Election, Sarah Palin has made a bad habit of coming out on the wrong end of interactions between herself and various comedic pranksters.
In November, 2008, Palin was pranked by a Montreal radio host.
Just over a year later, Palin has now been burned by Mary Wash, also known as This Hour Has 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty, who solicited some health care-related advice from Palin.
"We told her we're from Canada, and we're just looking for a few words of encouragement for the Canadian conservatives who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the socialized medicare that we have," Wash later recounted.
Palin's answer was frank.
"Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit," Palin replied during a later encounter (the first one was ended by the intervention of security)."Basically, she said government should stop doing the work that private enterprise should do," Walsh added.
But even as Canadians' attitude toward private health care has apparently softened -- a recent survey indicated that 56% of Canadians support increasing the number of private health clinics in Canada, so long as they operate alongside -- and do not adversely affect -- public health care.
And while many Canadians may forget that Canadians were initially as resistent to the introduction of socialized health care as the United States has been -- then-Premier Woodrow Lloyd and then-former-Premier Tommy Douglas were burned in effigy during the health care debates in Saskatchewan -- Canadians have embraced public health care very deeply.
Many Canadians are in favour of reforms -- and sadly, Canada seems to be wasting this goden opportunity to discuss the options -- but abolishing public health care is on the agenda of very, very few, even among conservatives.
And while the very idea of Mary Walsh speaking on behalf of conservatives is perverse and laughable, that is, in its own sense, the purpose of comedy.
(It's also worth reminding people like Walsh that it was the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party, who last slashed billions of dollars from public healthcare.)
Outside of the world of comedy, Walsh would have no such place. Just like Sarah Palin has no place telling Canadians what we shoud do with our health care.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
The Intrepid - "Sarah Palin Tells 22 Minutes' Marg Delahunty That 'Canada Needs to Dismantle Its Public Healthcare System'"
Dan Shields - "FunnierThanGerryDeeNotAsFunnyAsCancer"
Friday, November 13, 2009
Why Sarah Palin is Wrong About "Death Panels"
Sarah Palin peddles "death panels" absurdity at doctors' peril
Regardless of what many people -- liberals and conservatives alike -- seem to think, Sarah Palin is not nearly as intriguing an individual as many seem to think.
But one thing Palin certainly has a gift for is provoking controversy then not backing away -- which is precisely what she has done since stirring up a hornet's nest with her "death panels" remarks over the summer.
In a recent post on her Facebook profile, Palin has pushed that button once again.
"We had been told there were no 'death panels' in the bill either," Palin wrote. "But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care."
As was noted when Palin originally brought up the issue, what she's actually referring to are panels providing counselling on end of life issues.
Rarely has the reason precisely why Palin is so wrong on this issue been made as crystal clear as in a recent episode of House MD.
In the episode, Dr Greg House (Hugh Laurie) and Dr James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) travel to a medical conference where Wilson plans to recite a paper about the need for support for doctors who may need to consider helping a terminal patient end their own life.
As the episode points out, it's simply naive to believe that doctors who deal with the most agonizing and deadly illnesses don't practice euthanasia, and it may even simply be dogmatic to pretend that it isn't the humane thing to do.
On that note, it's actually extremely inhumane to leave doctors with nowhere to turn when forced to make the decision between helping a patient end their own life or forcing that patient to live out the last hours of their life in agony.
Whether Sarah Palin wants to call them "death panels" or not, the fact is that these boards are badly needed. Not merely in the United States, but everywhere in the world.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Yeah, Antonia. About That Whole "Sexism" Thing...
Zerbisias decries state of feminism in United States
Writing from her bully pulpit at the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias continues her ongoing quest against... yep, you guessed it: sexism.
Yet among those she identifies as the targets of sexism in the United States is, oddly, enough Sarah Palin.
"Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Both still get 'bitch-slapped' around in the most virulent sexist terms," Zerbisias complains. "Women's looks, their clothing, even their voices – all are not-so-fair game, no matter how accomplished they may be."
It's an interesting complaint. One might wonder what Zerbisias would have thought if a sexist attack on Sarah Palin were made by someone who is allegedly accomplished, and female.
How about by Zerbisias' "chesty sister" Heather Mallick?
Mallick's "Mighty Wind" has been played and replayed so much it's almost become a cliche. But at a time like this, it might be a useful exercise to examine a few of Mallick's more "enlightened" comments in the course of that article:
-Palin appealed to the "white trash" vote (by the way, Republicans apparently own that).
-Republican men are sexually inadequate.
-Palin dresses like a porn actress.
-Bristol Palin's pregnancy means Sarah and Todd Palin are bad parents.
Readers may recall that "A Mighty Wind" was the column that pretty much convinced CBC to take her punditry skills elsewhere and stick to writing fluff. (Mallick has, by the way, plied her punditry skills elsewhere, with disastrous results.)
One may want to direct their attention toward the latter two bullet points. It sounds an awful lot like the "women's looks, their clothing, even their voices" complaint that Zerbisias is making here.
As a matter of fact, it sounds exactly like it.
So, one may wonder what it was that Antonia Zerbisias had to say about Heather Mallick's "Mighty Wind". The answer seems to be "why, nothing. Nothing at all."
To find that such a dedicated denizen of the far left could be so disingenuous isn't all that hard to believe. In fact, observers of what passes for feminist commentary these days have long realized that sexism (like racism) can be perfectly acceptable, so long as it comes from the "right" source.
Writing from her bully pulpit at the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias continues her ongoing quest against... yep, you guessed it: sexism.
Yet among those she identifies as the targets of sexism in the United States is, oddly, enough Sarah Palin.
"Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Both still get 'bitch-slapped' around in the most virulent sexist terms," Zerbisias complains. "Women's looks, their clothing, even their voices – all are not-so-fair game, no matter how accomplished they may be."
It's an interesting complaint. One might wonder what Zerbisias would have thought if a sexist attack on Sarah Palin were made by someone who is allegedly accomplished, and female.
How about by Zerbisias' "chesty sister" Heather Mallick?
Mallick's "Mighty Wind" has been played and replayed so much it's almost become a cliche. But at a time like this, it might be a useful exercise to examine a few of Mallick's more "enlightened" comments in the course of that article:
-Palin appealed to the "white trash" vote (by the way, Republicans apparently own that).
-Republican men are sexually inadequate.
-Palin dresses like a porn actress.
-Bristol Palin's pregnancy means Sarah and Todd Palin are bad parents.
Readers may recall that "A Mighty Wind" was the column that pretty much convinced CBC to take her punditry skills elsewhere and stick to writing fluff. (Mallick has, by the way, plied her punditry skills elsewhere, with disastrous results.)
One may want to direct their attention toward the latter two bullet points. It sounds an awful lot like the "women's looks, their clothing, even their voices" complaint that Zerbisias is making here.
As a matter of fact, it sounds exactly like it.
So, one may wonder what it was that Antonia Zerbisias had to say about Heather Mallick's "Mighty Wind". The answer seems to be "why, nothing. Nothing at all."
To find that such a dedicated denizen of the far left could be so disingenuous isn't all that hard to believe. In fact, observers of what passes for feminist commentary these days have long realized that sexism (like racism) can be perfectly acceptable, so long as it comes from the "right" source.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The Follies of Political "Evil"
Sarah Palin invokes accusations of "evil" in health care debate
If Sarah Palin has any intentions of reaching out to moderate Democrats in preparation for what many speculate will be a run for the Presidency in 2012, she certainly hasn't started off on the right foot.
Writing on her Facebook page, Palin denounced Barack Obama's health care plan as "evil".
Alluding to a clause dealing with "advance care planning consultation" that could deal with "living wills" and "termination of life services", Palin seemed to have started out with a rather peculiar interpretation of the clause that led her to speak about the rationing of health care.
"Who will suffer the most when they ration care?" Palin asked rhetorically. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin continued.
"Such a system is downright evil," she concluded, noting that this clause could lead to decisions regarding euthanasia being made by "death panels".
the Examiners' Jacksonville Republican Examiner, Patrick McMahon notes that Palin's comments seem to be a rather bizarre way of extending the advantage that Republicans already seem to be enjoying in the health care debate. One thing that can be said for certain about Obama's health care reform package is that it will certainly lead to a drastic change in American taxation culture -- a change that more and more Americans do not seem to want.
Canadian health care is, almost hands-down, a superior model to the current American model. But it doesn't come cheap to Canadians, who can pay up to 30% of their income in taxes.
For the vast majority of Canadians, our health care is worth what we pay for it in taxes. But Americans, who traditionally favour lower taxes, may not share the same opinion.
Appearing on George Stephanopoulos' program on ABC, Newt Gingrich attempted to defend Palin's comments. “Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept,” Gingrich insisted. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Of course, what neither Palin nor Gingrich seem to be addressing is the fact that any decision regarding the pursuit of euthanasia would ultimately have to come from either a terminal or unresponsive patient, or from their medical proxies. No government agency could impose euthanasia on any patient. For the simplest reason why, one has to realize that it would be unconstitutional.
Few words exist to describe precisely how threatening it is when politicians attempt to ascribe the label of "evil" to their opponents' policies -- especially policies that, even if potentially unimplementable, are actually quite benign.
Many Americans -- Republican and Democrat alike -- have good cause to be concerned about the cost of health care. The Canadian experience has demonstrated that it's extremely difficult to control the costs of an already-costly system. This is a legitimate concern.
But Barack Obama is not the devil, nor are his health care policies the work of the devil. To describe them as "evil" only serves to unduly stir up moral hysteria.
That is far, far less than what one expects from a statesperson -- especially one who, like Sarah Palin, needs to court moderate Democrats to accomplish that goal.
If Sarah Palin has any intentions of reaching out to moderate Democrats in preparation for what many speculate will be a run for the Presidency in 2012, she certainly hasn't started off on the right foot.
Writing on her Facebook page, Palin denounced Barack Obama's health care plan as "evil".
Alluding to a clause dealing with "advance care planning consultation" that could deal with "living wills" and "termination of life services", Palin seemed to have started out with a rather peculiar interpretation of the clause that led her to speak about the rationing of health care.
"Who will suffer the most when they ration care?" Palin asked rhetorically. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course."The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin continued.
"Such a system is downright evil," she concluded, noting that this clause could lead to decisions regarding euthanasia being made by "death panels".
the Examiners' Jacksonville Republican Examiner, Patrick McMahon notes that Palin's comments seem to be a rather bizarre way of extending the advantage that Republicans already seem to be enjoying in the health care debate. One thing that can be said for certain about Obama's health care reform package is that it will certainly lead to a drastic change in American taxation culture -- a change that more and more Americans do not seem to want.
Canadian health care is, almost hands-down, a superior model to the current American model. But it doesn't come cheap to Canadians, who can pay up to 30% of their income in taxes.
For the vast majority of Canadians, our health care is worth what we pay for it in taxes. But Americans, who traditionally favour lower taxes, may not share the same opinion.
Appearing on George Stephanopoulos' program on ABC, Newt Gingrich attempted to defend Palin's comments. “Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept,” Gingrich insisted. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Of course, what neither Palin nor Gingrich seem to be addressing is the fact that any decision regarding the pursuit of euthanasia would ultimately have to come from either a terminal or unresponsive patient, or from their medical proxies. No government agency could impose euthanasia on any patient. For the simplest reason why, one has to realize that it would be unconstitutional.
Few words exist to describe precisely how threatening it is when politicians attempt to ascribe the label of "evil" to their opponents' policies -- especially policies that, even if potentially unimplementable, are actually quite benign.
Many Americans -- Republican and Democrat alike -- have good cause to be concerned about the cost of health care. The Canadian experience has demonstrated that it's extremely difficult to control the costs of an already-costly system. This is a legitimate concern.
But Barack Obama is not the devil, nor are his health care policies the work of the devil. To describe them as "evil" only serves to unduly stir up moral hysteria.
That is far, far less than what one expects from a statesperson -- especially one who, like Sarah Palin, needs to court moderate Democrats to accomplish that goal.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Battle Over the Defining Face of the New GOP
Bill Bennet favours McCain over Palin
Speaking on CNN recently, senior Republican Bill Bennet frames with unequivocal clarity the choice that lays before the National Committee for a New America, the organization providing the thrust behind the efforts to re-brand the GOP.
That choice is very simple: rebuild the party around a Palin-esque image, or rebuild the party around a McCain-esque image. No matter what Rush Limbaugh may have to say about it, not rebuilding the party at all is not an option.
With equally unequivocal clarity, Bennet also has his own preference in terms of the identity the party should pursue -- a youth-oriented moderate image, as best exemplified by Meghan McCain.
However, Bennet contends that the media isn't doing the Republican party any favours by continuing to focus on figures like Palin.
“One of the things the media could do – some of the media – is to move the debate off Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh,” Bennett said. “This is probably not the future of the Republican Party."
"It could talk about a Paul Ryan or a Mike Pence," Bennet continued. "It could talk about a Bobby Jindal. It could talk even about a John Kyl or a David Petraeus. You know, there’s a lot of talent in this party."
"I ran into Meghan McCain last night," Bennet added. "And I have to tell you, Bill, she’s refreshing, she’s honest and she’s a face that could really help them galvanize young people and independents."
Despite what the most extreme conservative ideologues seem to insist, the Republican party very much does need to be able to reach out to independents and to fiscally conservative Democrats.
Sarah Palin herself seems to understand the need to rebuild the party for the 21st century -- something that should have been taking place in 1999 as opposed to 2009 -- as suggested by her recent membership in the NCNA. However, whether Palin intends to contribute to an effort to moderate the Republican party in the interest of being politically competitive or is merely looking for another political venue in which to hang her star is another matter altogether.
Speaking on CNN recently, senior Republican Bill Bennet frames with unequivocal clarity the choice that lays before the National Committee for a New America, the organization providing the thrust behind the efforts to re-brand the GOP.
That choice is very simple: rebuild the party around a Palin-esque image, or rebuild the party around a McCain-esque image. No matter what Rush Limbaugh may have to say about it, not rebuilding the party at all is not an option.
With equally unequivocal clarity, Bennet also has his own preference in terms of the identity the party should pursue -- a youth-oriented moderate image, as best exemplified by Meghan McCain.
However, Bennet contends that the media isn't doing the Republican party any favours by continuing to focus on figures like Palin.
“One of the things the media could do – some of the media – is to move the debate off Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh,” Bennett said. “This is probably not the future of the Republican Party."
"It could talk about a Paul Ryan or a Mike Pence," Bennet continued. "It could talk about a Bobby Jindal. It could talk even about a John Kyl or a David Petraeus. You know, there’s a lot of talent in this party."
"I ran into Meghan McCain last night," Bennet added. "And I have to tell you, Bill, she’s refreshing, she’s honest and she’s a face that could really help them galvanize young people and independents."
Despite what the most extreme conservative ideologues seem to insist, the Republican party very much does need to be able to reach out to independents and to fiscally conservative Democrats.
Sarah Palin herself seems to understand the need to rebuild the party for the 21st century -- something that should have been taking place in 1999 as opposed to 2009 -- as suggested by her recent membership in the NCNA. However, whether Palin intends to contribute to an effort to moderate the Republican party in the interest of being politically competitive or is merely looking for another political venue in which to hang her star is another matter altogether.
Monday, May 04, 2009
An Interesting New Puzzle Piece
Sarah Palin joins GOP rebuilding effort
Rush Limbaugh is an incredible ass.
Limbaugh is such an incredible ass that he all too often fails to understand who is on his side, who isn't, and generally what's really going on.
Such must have been his shock when he learned that former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has officially joined efforts to re-brand the Republican party, mere hours after Limbaugh insisted that the GOP leadership is afraid of her.
Oops.
"Something else you have to understand is these people hate Palin too," Limbaugh had mused. "They despise Sarah Palin, they fear Sarah Palin, they don't like her either. She's, according to them she's embarrassing. McCain said, 'I was there with Ronald Reagan'…. No Reagan voter ever believed McCain was a Reaganite."
"And I think… a lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin," he continued. "When you strip all the talk — It's 'the Reagan era is over, stop all this nostalgia and stuff.' Clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of the mill good old fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin. Now, everybody on this [NCNA] Speak to America tour has presidential perspirations [sic]. Mitt Romney there, he wants to be president again. Jeb may someday. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain — I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin."
Now, the National Committee for a New America -- a committee name that seems to oddly ring of Preston Manning's The New Canada -- has contradicted Limbaugh in delicious fashion, and added some level of intrigue to the affair.
Palin, after all, is held up by many as an example of the antiquated social conservative policies the Republican party has become so closely associated with. Even though her stances on most of these issues aren't nearly as extreme as many of her opponents insist -- for example, her views on abortion actually promote the kind of alternatives to an abortion that pro-abortion activists often insist they would support -- Palin's participation in the NCNA will allow the party's detractors to denounce the process as putting a new shade of lipstick on a pig.
But if a rebranded, rejuvinated Republican party is to be successful it will have to find a place in it for those who hold socially conservative values. While that place shouldn't grant these individuals the dominant position over policy making that they've previously enjoyed, their ongoing participation in the Republican party will remain important.
Certainly many social conservatives -- especially proponents of the religious right -- would reject a Republican party that didn't grant them an extraordinary amount of influence over party policy.
Moving away from these particular social conservatives is one of the most important things the new Republican party could do for itself.
For those social conservatives who are willing to collaborate with those who don't share their views in order to establish a consensus that more effectively reflects the modern-day values of the American people, Sarah Palin's influence on the Republican party will be important in terms of maintaining the Republican party as a party they, too, can call home.
It will be a party that Rush Limbaugh probably won't like very much anymore. Then again, that alone will be of immense value to the new GOP.
Rush Limbaugh is an incredible ass.
Limbaugh is such an incredible ass that he all too often fails to understand who is on his side, who isn't, and generally what's really going on.
Such must have been his shock when he learned that former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has officially joined efforts to re-brand the Republican party, mere hours after Limbaugh insisted that the GOP leadership is afraid of her.
Oops.
"Something else you have to understand is these people hate Palin too," Limbaugh had mused. "They despise Sarah Palin, they fear Sarah Palin, they don't like her either. She's, according to them she's embarrassing. McCain said, 'I was there with Ronald Reagan'…. No Reagan voter ever believed McCain was a Reaganite."
"And I think… a lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin," he continued. "When you strip all the talk — It's 'the Reagan era is over, stop all this nostalgia and stuff.' Clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of the mill good old fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin. Now, everybody on this [NCNA] Speak to America tour has presidential perspirations [sic]. Mitt Romney there, he wants to be president again. Jeb may someday. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain — I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin."
Now, the National Committee for a New America -- a committee name that seems to oddly ring of Preston Manning's The New Canada -- has contradicted Limbaugh in delicious fashion, and added some level of intrigue to the affair.
Palin, after all, is held up by many as an example of the antiquated social conservative policies the Republican party has become so closely associated with. Even though her stances on most of these issues aren't nearly as extreme as many of her opponents insist -- for example, her views on abortion actually promote the kind of alternatives to an abortion that pro-abortion activists often insist they would support -- Palin's participation in the NCNA will allow the party's detractors to denounce the process as putting a new shade of lipstick on a pig.But if a rebranded, rejuvinated Republican party is to be successful it will have to find a place in it for those who hold socially conservative values. While that place shouldn't grant these individuals the dominant position over policy making that they've previously enjoyed, their ongoing participation in the Republican party will remain important.
Certainly many social conservatives -- especially proponents of the religious right -- would reject a Republican party that didn't grant them an extraordinary amount of influence over party policy.
Moving away from these particular social conservatives is one of the most important things the new Republican party could do for itself.
For those social conservatives who are willing to collaborate with those who don't share their views in order to establish a consensus that more effectively reflects the modern-day values of the American people, Sarah Palin's influence on the Republican party will be important in terms of maintaining the Republican party as a party they, too, can call home.
It will be a party that Rush Limbaugh probably won't like very much anymore. Then again, that alone will be of immense value to the new GOP.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
A Lament For Lessons Unlearned
Here's what you should have learned, Heather
As most people grow into adulthood, they find themselves in a rather precarious position.
No longer children but not yet fully adults, the safety net that had accompanied childhood is mostly gone -- except under the direst of circumstances -- and the pressure to become a better, stronger and more independent person truly mounts.
A premium quickly emerges to learn from one's mistakes.
So then what does it say about CBC op/ed columnist and fervent blinkered left-wing feminist ideologue Heather Mallick that she can't seem to learn from hers?
In a column published by CBC yesterday, Mallick at long last offers her thoughts on the controversy that emerged following her notorious "Mighty Wind" column:
But many observers feel that Mallick herself is unfit to be a journalist -- the case she made for herself when she resorted to a personal attack in lieu of actual legitimate political criticism.
For those, like Mallick, so driven to the depths of loonishness by Palin's nomination, may benefit from a few quick notes about how to not make oneself look like a political vulture:
First off, attacks on a politician's family are extremely bad form.
Second, the personal relationships of family members of a politician (such as Bristol Palin's relationship with Levi Johnson) should be considered off-limits. Once again, not only is this bad form, but actually suggests that you're unable of debating the issues.
Third, try not to show your actual contempt for the people you claim to give a shit about.
Fourth, making unsubstantiated claims about a broad group of people tends to make one look, frankly, stupid.
Last but not least, don't bait the crazies. For example, if one knows that there are unstable individuals among America's Republican right -- and there most certainly are -- then dismissing the lot of them as sexually inadequate "white trash" may not be the best idea.
Which is really what Mallick's characterization of the attention of Fox News and its viewers as "unwelcome".
Was she operating under some delusion that cbc.ca is unavailable in the United States? Or that maybe, just maybe, they'd never find out about it?
Or maybe the entire point was to attract said attention, and to stir up the ensuing controversy. Except that this one turned out to bite Mallick in the ass a little bit, fatally damaging the very slim journalistic credibility she once possessed.
There's something about writing a column with the vicious character of Mallick's "Mighty Wind" article and then complaining about receiving hate mail afterward.
Sarah Palin's favourite joke could probably be paraphrased as such: "What's the difference between a pit bull and Heather Mallick? A pit bull doesn't poke a hornet's nest and then whine about it afterward."
Or was it "lipstick"?
No matter.
Unsurprisingly, Mallick seems ill-prepared to take any responsibility for her own comments. In fact, in Kevin Potvin-esque fashion, she predictably blames Fox News for provoking the outrage:
Yet perhaps the greatest irony in Mallick's response to the entire affair is that she doesn't yet seem to have comprehended just how much like her hated right-wing counterparts on Fox news she really has shown herself to be.
Take, for example, the comments offered on the matter by Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren, who responded to Mallick's comparison of Sarah Palin to a porn star by calling Mallick a "pig".
To put this in suitable context, when Heather Mallick was confronted with a Vice Presidential candidate she didn't like, she wrote an insult-laden tirade about her and her supporters. When Greta Van Susteren read the article, she settled for insulting Mallick back.
Sadly, this is all preschool calibre politics with no sense whatsoever of the larger issues at stake in this particular matter.
As mentioned here previously, Heather Mallick, of all people should be able to regard a pregnant teenager as a societal dilemma -- one created as much by Mallick's left-wing feminism as by the religious right -- rather than merely a political football to be punted.
Political field goals may be treated as points on the board, but recognizing and solving the real problems are the touchdowns of the game.
But if one needed any further proof that Mallick simply doesn't get it, one only needs consider the following passage:
The absurdity of that very notion need not be commented on or explained here.
Only a blinkered ideologue -- as Lindsay Stewart, an apparent huge fan of Mallick's wound describe her if he could muster the sense to do so -- Heather Mallick could come out of something like this with their arrogant sense of superiority intact.
But then again, this may be the greatest tragedy of an individual who, even at Mallick's age (she turns 50 next year), has yet to achieve full adult hood.
It's a lament for lessons unlearned.
As most people grow into adulthood, they find themselves in a rather precarious position.
No longer children but not yet fully adults, the safety net that had accompanied childhood is mostly gone -- except under the direst of circumstances -- and the pressure to become a better, stronger and more independent person truly mounts.
A premium quickly emerges to learn from one's mistakes.
So then what does it say about CBC op/ed columnist and fervent blinkered left-wing feminist ideologue Heather Mallick that she can't seem to learn from hers?
In a column published by CBC yesterday, Mallick at long last offers her thoughts on the controversy that emerged following her notorious "Mighty Wind" column:
"A month ago, I wrote about Sarah Palin's unfitness to be the Republican vice-presidential nominee and attracted the wholly unwelcome attention of Fox News and its viewers."So Mallick considers Sarah Palin unfit to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Fair enough. There's a case to made for that, if one can actually make it.
But many observers feel that Mallick herself is unfit to be a journalist -- the case she made for herself when she resorted to a personal attack in lieu of actual legitimate political criticism.
For those, like Mallick, so driven to the depths of loonishness by Palin's nomination, may benefit from a few quick notes about how to not make oneself look like a political vulture:
First off, attacks on a politician's family are extremely bad form.
Second, the personal relationships of family members of a politician (such as Bristol Palin's relationship with Levi Johnson) should be considered off-limits. Once again, not only is this bad form, but actually suggests that you're unable of debating the issues.
Third, try not to show your actual contempt for the people you claim to give a shit about.
Fourth, making unsubstantiated claims about a broad group of people tends to make one look, frankly, stupid.
Last but not least, don't bait the crazies. For example, if one knows that there are unstable individuals among America's Republican right -- and there most certainly are -- then dismissing the lot of them as sexually inadequate "white trash" may not be the best idea.
Which is really what Mallick's characterization of the attention of Fox News and its viewers as "unwelcome".
Was she operating under some delusion that cbc.ca is unavailable in the United States? Or that maybe, just maybe, they'd never find out about it?
Or maybe the entire point was to attract said attention, and to stir up the ensuing controversy. Except that this one turned out to bite Mallick in the ass a little bit, fatally damaging the very slim journalistic credibility she once possessed.
There's something about writing a column with the vicious character of Mallick's "Mighty Wind" article and then complaining about receiving hate mail afterward.
Sarah Palin's favourite joke could probably be paraphrased as such: "What's the difference between a pit bull and Heather Mallick? A pit bull doesn't poke a hornet's nest and then whine about it afterward."
Or was it "lipstick"?
No matter.
Unsurprisingly, Mallick seems ill-prepared to take any responsibility for her own comments. In fact, in Kevin Potvin-esque fashion, she predictably blames Fox News for provoking the outrage:
"After Fox got the firestorm restarted, we redirected the next few hundred threats to the e-mail belonging to my husband, who is British and unflappable. He initially read them, rather than mass-delete, so that kind people offering encouragement would not be ignored. Readers are hurt when you don't reply. Canadians are nice. Angry sometimes, but not violent.So in the end, Mallick seems to take no responsibility for the response to her own comments. In fact, in Mallick's mind, her comments have nothing to do with the entire affair. Instead, Fox News (and all the other news outlets, both off- and online) are to blame.
But Fox viewers are a piece of work. I last appeared on Fox News in 2004 when I went on Bill O'Reilly's show to defend American war resisters sheltering in Canada. O'Reilly lost his mind, if he ever had one, and he was so mad about Vancouver's safe-injection site that he threatened to tell his fans to boycott Canada and destroy our economy, as they had that of France, he alleged, ludicrously. The conversation was so deranged that anti-Foxers sent me personalized "baguette" coffee mugs as souvenirs. "Beellions of dollairs," they read.
This time, I explained to Fox producers that I couldn't appear because Fox viewers are, like their hosts, too violently brutish to alienate. Fox shows aren't interviews so much as bear-baiting. I didn't watch the Fox shows on the subject of me or read the subsequent Canadian commentary in print or online."
Yet perhaps the greatest irony in Mallick's response to the entire affair is that she doesn't yet seem to have comprehended just how much like her hated right-wing counterparts on Fox news she really has shown herself to be.
Take, for example, the comments offered on the matter by Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren, who responded to Mallick's comparison of Sarah Palin to a porn star by calling Mallick a "pig".
To put this in suitable context, when Heather Mallick was confronted with a Vice Presidential candidate she didn't like, she wrote an insult-laden tirade about her and her supporters. When Greta Van Susteren read the article, she settled for insulting Mallick back.
Sadly, this is all preschool calibre politics with no sense whatsoever of the larger issues at stake in this particular matter.
As mentioned here previously, Heather Mallick, of all people should be able to regard a pregnant teenager as a societal dilemma -- one created as much by Mallick's left-wing feminism as by the religious right -- rather than merely a political football to be punted.
Political field goals may be treated as points on the board, but recognizing and solving the real problems are the touchdowns of the game.
But if one needed any further proof that Mallick simply doesn't get it, one only needs consider the following passage:
"Online has brought instant media democratization as well as the erasure of national borders. And websites have not devised a way to keep online forums civilized. "There's no point debating anything online," writes the columnist Charlie Brooker. "You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."Apparently, in Mallick's mind, to attack the family of a political opponent and label their supporters as "white trash" qualifies as cultured.
I used to write for print newspapers - an endangered species of their own - but this squabble made me think of Lévi-Strauss's theory of human culture, the raw versus the cooked: Cooking marks the transition from nature to culture. Online commentary is still mostly raw.
I have now discovered the joy of no e-mail; I cannot tell you how peaceful and happy life has become in the world of the cooked."
The absurdity of that very notion need not be commented on or explained here.
Only a blinkered ideologue -- as Lindsay Stewart, an apparent huge fan of Mallick's wound describe her if he could muster the sense to do so -- Heather Mallick could come out of something like this with their arrogant sense of superiority intact.
But then again, this may be the greatest tragedy of an individual who, even at Mallick's age (she turns 50 next year), has yet to achieve full adult hood.
It's a lament for lessons unlearned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)