I don't know how insulting (yes, insulting, that was the intent) one party's shining beacon (far past her 15 minutes) somehow correlates with any member of the opposite party. Not to mention the specificity. I'll comment, though: Nancy Pelosi has a job in government, Sarah Palin doesn't any more. Nancy Pelosi holds a position of leadership in the house of representatives, Sarah Palin is the representative leader of a movement composed of angry voters. Those are facts. Now, opinions: As for Pelosi, she's as incompetent, self-serving, partisanship, and deceiving as most of her colleagues are. That means: a lot.
Any other issue I would offer my apologies and try to change my views, but this woman represents the exact opposite of my worldview and stands for most everything that makes me ill. Treating her as the same garbage she chose to throw herself into leaves me no shame.
How can I be against arguments a person doesn't even try to make? Most of the time, I have no idea what the hell she's saying. Bush messed up and even made up words, but he was making an argument as he was talking. Obama takes 10-second breaks between sentences, but if I remember what he said, he also makes arguments. Here are some fun ones: Rush Limbaugh has a distorted way of thinking, but at least I know what he's thinking. I disagree with most everything Hannity says, but there's nothing wrong with how he talks. I think Rahm Emanuel is an asshole and I think he knows it, that's why I don't usually see him on air holding a mic. Then there was this other blond horse who equated liberals with the Apocalypse whose name I don't remember, but she neighed and I understood. A favorite person of mine, Roger Ebert, has the extremely annoying habit of throwing one-liners against conservatives, and he does this non-stop, thinking they're all funny and witty, but he's as condescending and rude as the people he keeps throwing the punches at (sometimes unfairly) and his capsule attacks are very, very unfunny and unwarranted. I hate that. But I know what he's saying. Sarah Palin? Beats me.
I don't know what a "fine American" means so obviously I'm not evaluating her in that respect.
An example: of what? What you said is a bunch of vague crap I can apply to anyone else. Here, read the blurb for the hardcover bio I just prepared for the guy who's about to kick McCain out of his seat:
J.D. Hayworth is stalwart example to millions of how the glass ceiling continues to be shattered, as well as an endearing example to the values of a hard work ethic and where it can get you in this country.
Amazing.
But I agree she's an example. She is a sticker card, a logo, an image, a brand name, a tag, a label, a mascot. But, unlike Tony the Tiger, she happens to be human and real. She doesn't have to make sense. All she has to do is provoke a reaction that is familiar and safe. Nothing she's ever done would matter were it not for this friendly, "familiar and safe" image. Her idiosyncrasy in her expressions and her face are all she needs for attention. And that's all she wants: attention.
Anticipating your rebuke at this, first try to think of what she has done. What her actions have been. Don't read into them or add to them. Just a list. Example:
1.
President Bush oversaw the invasion of Iraq by American troops in 2003: correct.
Dubya-wah-wah raped the innocent children of blood-covered Iraqis for an unjust cause covered in lies and fueled by his personal goal of overshadowing his father: incorrect.
2.
President Obama signed a bill into law that will change how certain aspects of health care in the U.S. are run. The health care reform bill, as it was known, was surrounded by controversy: correct.
Prophet Obama has brought along America with him to the promised land, joining the ranks of other, more civilized countries in the world. He just saved the lives of 47 million Americans and it was about time: incorrect.
While still annoying, her voice can't speak louder than her actions. Go ahead. "Brought together", no, wrong (unless she did physically did so or you can prove a mass gathering occurred solely because of her; no "voices" or "prayers" or shit like that is allowed). Think it's unfair? Going to the play the Gandhi (or similar) card on me? Gandhi was beaten and thrown into jail. He chose famine. Whether that means God cried all over India and the man is a symbol of peace and non-violence, I don't care. He walked to Dandi and picked up some salt. He also used a pejorative term towards a group of South Africans (also known as "black people") and also said they were "dirty". Fact.
Her attention-seeking behavior as a public figure and the use of her name as a convenient and recognizable brand to be plastered onto anything the people you never get to see on TV but who actually run everything behind-the-scenes (like known asshole Rahm Emanuel) deem worthy of. That's what I see. That's kinda bad, but the repercussions are worse:
Because she stands for nothing except perhaps "good" (and I think all of humanity can agree on what
that means, right? no sarcasm at all?), she can represent everything. Because her presence equates acceptance, the conservative equivalent of someone missing the tip of one of his fingers might promote an event, secure her appearance, and meet his needs, whatever those may be. So far, Palin has been known to hang out with shifty folks who hate scientists (that would be ok if they understood science or at least the
importance and
relevance of science and mathematics to, hell, forget "knowledge" and "curing disease", their huge impact on the economy, specially that of a super power, one whose military keeps most of the world in check -- I bet you no one is trying to "teach the controversy" in China or India; ignoring human rights, sure, but at the convenience of growing exponentially in power and influence), contradicting herself that one time she said something I understood (spending money on fruit fly research is bad, y'all, LOL, meanwhile, we should spend money for research that might cure autism or whatever the hell that new child of mine has and draws sympathy for me and ups my credentials).
Why do I care? Why do I care that someone is being used as the forefront speaker to convince groups of people that the MSM is married to know-it-all, uppity scientists that care fuck-all if not their careers (I admit this is a virus that is spreading most everywhere... yes, there are NIH , Ivy League, and Pharma scientists who are infected with this virus, but so are the people who rally Palin and co. to win congressional seats to further their careers, grow "powerful", some shitty concept that exists only in their heads, but regrettably affects people in the real world)? I have my reasons. I happen to like science and am awed by what us, puny humans have been able to understand about our universe and how we use that to our advantage and I wish I had any kind of l33t science skills. There's that. I also know this is the way of dealing with phonies:
"Hey, Edison, Tesla here. You keep telling people AC is dangerous and you're outright lying by using your precious DC for killing animals in public and designing the electric chair, claiming the power comes from my AC. You're using uneducated folk's distaste for this type of thing to your advantage; and all for a couple of bucks. Well, guess who's a friggin' genius ahead of his time whose AC will take over the world and whose scientific curiosity will echo in the years to come? Me! Know why? Because your shit can be disproved with my shit. Anyone can do it! Now, there's that. I'll provide negative commentary about you after your death and the world will ostracize me for several other reasons."
"Hey there, people who don't care I ended up mad in a mental institution, alone, shamed, and quite literally rotting myself to a promptly death simply because I suggested "washing your hands" before every delivery of a newborn baby was a good idea. Anyway, let me just write '
Semmelweis wuz here and could have saved thousands of lives' on the wall and die. Keep not paying any attention to me".
"Yo, I cracked an atom. Seriously, I did. No, no, no... I know whatchu thinkin', but it ain't that. So what if I work in a Patents Office, momma? I'm keeping it real, be makin' a somebody outta me. Look at this light'n shit. It be all like 'I am waving like a mofo' and then all like 'nuh-uh, check it how much misbehavin' like a particle I am'. Whoa. Also, the universe, goddamn, it shaped like all bent and shit with time and space. Newton missed out by this much, yo! And he was, like, a made man and all that, 'tchu know what'am talkin' 'bout? Oh, by the way, thanks for accepting talent like me into your country and not letting the Germans put me into an oven. Thank God you Americans like scientists like us. Now, I'm going to write a letter urging Roosevelt to make DA BOMB and regret it into old life.
"
"Hi, England, I'm Allan Turing. Yeah, the granddaddy of the granddaddy of computer science. You British lot sure were happy with my codebreaking and helping you and the Allies win the War. Oh, we bunch of rotten scoundrels, all, eh, chums? Heheh... boy, swell times. What? Prison? But I... but he... so what if I am? What do you mean, 'you know better'?
I was the one who devised a test designed to distinguish a human being from a computer. Who are you to judge? Ok, ok, chemically castrate me. I'll just fall into a deep depression, see no place for myself in the world, and commit suicide."
"I'm talking about being lenient on student visas. No, I'm not saying... Look, Mexicans play a big part in the economy, too, but I'm not talking about... outsourcing? No, look, all I'm saying is we need foreign talent to be on our side, working for us. Anti-American? But we've done this in the past. Like, since forever! Hurting the economy? Ok, why not, I may not be 'an endearing example to the values of a hard work ethic and where it can get you in this country', but I did build a multimillion industry working with these people, I think I know what I'm talking about. Pro-evolutionist, God hater? Yes, I said our biggest problem is that America's education system is bullshit and is in dire need of fixing, but that does not mean... Ok, you know what? Fuck you. I'm going elsewhere to eradicate polio. Maybe find new, better vaccines. That's easier than dealing with you, people. No, I said fuck you. I'm only the richest person alive: I can do whatever I want."
In the interest of securing political power for themselves, those who use the likes of Palin will rally behind any cause, for as long as it delivers amazing (short-term) gains, they will stand for anything. Like I said, I don't know what a "fine American" is, but I think these people are more like the wise guys in Goodfellas, every man for himself. If that man's definition of himself is money or "power", wherever those are, he'll be there, whether he's a "fine American" or not.
(I will navigate that tunnel in Being John Malkovich, John Cusack-style, and try to find the exits leading to Alaska) I'll never know for sure, but I think Palin is looking for those great gains, that amazing feeling of being in the spotlight. She's in it for the ride and as long as it pays off, what does it matter what she hangs on to? Why stop and think? Wouldn't you like to be sung praises and made into a role model without the effort? I mean, the effort to disregard family life and any sense of self that comes from within and not a crowd, that's there, but it's barely a nuisance. Palin fits my personal definition of retarded and here's why: unlike Tony the Tiger, she's capable of understanding where she is and how she got there. What she means. There's no reason she can't gather the circumstances of her life, past and present, and how her own actions fit into her life. She can examine if those actions (and their consequences) are worth it and take the high road: leave the podium, which currently has CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, ABC, CBS, and NBC crews with cameras pointing right at it, stop condemning the mistreatment she (and, therefore, everyone who identifies with her) receives from the MSM, and go level with members in her audience. She can, honest-to-goodness, brush off their current
raison d'être (her "personality") and genuinely ask what's bothering them. For as long as she doesn't, but claim that she does, there will be no respect coming from me.
But why the hatred? Why insult her? Those people I quoted above -- ok, "paraphrased", those are valuable people with much to give us. We want them. But, as you can see, their efforts have had little impact at times, to the point they second-guess their self-worth (and maybe commit suicide, like Turing did). It's easy to see how they might, just might, come to the conclusion that it's very hard for other people to see what they're seeing. They might think they're special and above the others, in a way. It's their responsibility, at any cost and no matter what the means, to impose their knowledge on others. After all,
they clearly don't know what's good for them. Wouldn't it have been great, after all, if that Hungarian doctor had lived to see his observations and recommendations gain wide acceptance? Or not to condemn a person based on his or her sexual preference, but to rejoice in their gifts and encourage them to continue, tell them how valuable they are and how much they mean to us so they can proudly continue their work, work for the good of humanity? They might convince themselves that they are working for us and that we
are appreciative of their work and more comfortably share their worth.
Is a man's worth measured by his productivity and value to an enterprise? Is it fair, then, to get rid of this man as his productivity is no longer welcome for the common gold-er-goal the executives now find worthy to pursue? And, let's be honest, they weren't not demigods. They could behave like real gits sometimes. They have as much to learn from the best of us as we have from them. You know, grow? Money doesn't grow on trees and neither does the human spirit, but only one of them is worth seeking (ok, two, if you count that we need trees and they grow, as well).
But that's too much schmaltz for amateur philosophy. Besides, wasn't there this guy who actually made sense and acted as a teacher, asking others to follow in his footsteps, guiding them and showing them how? What happened to him? Man, I can't remember anything since last week.
Anyway, Palin. Because she chose to define her life as it is, the consequences will only add to the confusion. That ceiling that's breaking apart. If she acts as a stand-in for someone who
is the real thing, what are other people to think? "They just don't see it. I tried to explain. It doesn't seem to work. They must be too stupid (--puny humans blame others before looking at themselves--). I know I'm right. After all, look at them. Look at what they (--people
they relate to told them--) have done (--electing Bush and the war in Iraq, the most sinful sin in the world? Texas Board of Education introducing fairy tales in their books? place whatever they consider [ill of the world] here:_____--). What a mess. I have to fix that mess. I'm right and they're wrong. They will come about, one way or the other".
And that might just be a climate scientist or an evolutionary biologist, who studied real hard but are no artists like Galileo (they think they are, though, just won't admit it). What about people with "real power". Those who hunger for it and glance at what history celebrates, looking to find a little room for themselves. Specially under
Historical Figures.
"Look at these guys. They were all chastised at one point. Like me. They were called names. Like the ones they call me. They were persecuted. Like I am! They went after me because they knew I was right and they'd lose all their power if I'm allowed to be heard. Just like these guys! This one, this one was a threat to the Church (--power--) because he defied their views. And he was right! People may look at me with scorn now, but what do they know. I'll let them know. History will prove me right (--I will live on beyond this earthly confinement--). I'm in good company (--actual talent, humility, wonder, and concern this person doesn't really have but thinks he has, in part because writers of history write about Ultimate Humans and not about, you know, people, people who poop--). I will persevere (--never look back at any criticism as it is and always will be without merit, this guy won't make the same mistakes as his "predecessors"--), I will endure, and I will come out the victor. Everyone else: screw'em." The virus spreads.
You can see how a severely deluded individual might inflict serious injury by nurturing this thinking. He might even quit Art school. Hopefully we can rescue that pointy haired guy from a serious misreading of Wagner. (I believe I have officially Godwinized this thread, but hopefully you can see the same delusion in a congressional hearing, talking about doing God's work with the market, oh yeah)
Real power, from my naive view, is truth. Being able to transfer that, that's art, that's science. Call it what you will. It requires knowing and seeing others and that requires knowing yourself, which can only be done by... guess... knowing others. Respect nature, though it will be ugly at times. I said this on Twitter, of all places, but I believe it: Love makes no promises, but always delivers. Love, truth, knowledge, respect... call it what you will.
tl;dr version:
I think that by celebrating the emptiness and the placeholder for the poor, confused folk - who are in need of someone with real caring and will to listen to their concerns - and their frustrations, you are only making those frustrations stronger, harder to resolve, to the point where throwing that anger about and pointing the finger is done for the sake of doing it. Replacing solutions with even more frustration and anger. I think that's what you guys are doing by empowering Palin and co. (or, because there's this unwritten rule that states you have to offer a counterexample or else you are a one-sided hack...
as if there were only two sides *grumbles*... glorifying the great biologist but brainless atheist Richard Dawkins; there). Adding to the confusion, adding more fire.
You're endorsing what you hate, Josh. By giving these guys over here → too much center stage, you're fueling these other guys, those over there ← . And the bitter cycle continues.
Meanwhile, those at the ↑ revel on this fact, and oftentimes that results in this $ going ↓. Way, way ↓.
But if I had to choose what makes me the angriest, it's the twisted antagonism towards learning. I live in the same continent as you guys. I like it that way. I'm immersed in your/my culture. As the $ goes ↓ and your disenfranchisement with scientific innovation continues, those fuckers in Asia are going to find ways to overpower you dudes. Don't make me learn a completely new alphabet just because I fear for my life. It's either that or people calling her a MILF and I wouldn't, in a million years...
Having people like you calling us cowards in their defense
is the reward.
But let's share. I don't stand for any kind of principle and if I've claimed to then I lied and you can quote me on that. I think Sarah Palin is a retarded bitch and I say so over the internet. What does that mean? To you, someone I respect (and I actually think you'll come around as you grow older and judge people for their actions and not their words, regardless of party affiliation), that means I'm a coward.
In person, out there in the real world, one man once said to me that all his problems were due to my being born. A woman once (I'm simplifying when I say once, I really don't know how many times any of this actually happened) said to me that, if it weren't for me, she'd leave, as I was her world. That same woman once said to me that she'd be better off without me, how I and the aforementioned guy ruined "everything". Another man belittled my childhood, asking "who do you think you are?", laughing, as it were, when I was seven. He also told me I lacked dignity and was unworthy of being his son (guess I was 15). That last one played a role in my breaking these plans I had to meet up with some guys in London, who I knew through this film score discussion forum, aptly named "the ScoreBoard".
The first dude is 5 years older than I am and is supported, moneywise, by the last dude. This support includes money for prostitutes, surgery for what those prostitutes left on his skin (the same prostitutes, I presume, who stole his own material belongings with the help of their pimp), his ephedrine and cocaine habit, purchasing an illegal firearm with which to pose for the camera (money source for digital SLR camera he doesn't know how to use, same person) and distributing the pics over e-mail, meaning he's really serious and really hurting inside, then "cured" by having his credit paid off (again, same source) and who, just days before my 23rd year as an endangered species comes to pass, sent me an email saying how I was the bestest ever and how mature I was (I guess I did all that maturing in the year following his 911 call, accusing me of battery) and that I should look over ma and pa because he was going to kill himself for the, what, 1,401st time? He's sort of my brother.
The income fella, he's sort of my dad. Pushing 70 (dude's old), he confesses his pain, his utter confusion, at things turning turdwise all his life, though he'd never admit that in public (mainly, because no public wants to hear about his emotions, only quote him on some stupid, misguided article, like the ones he wrote on how pretend-violence on TV is hurting our children). He is right about being confused, he doesn't get it, how family and friends never sprouted on their own, as they should, right? He is left barren and, for the first time in his life, as "old" overcomes him, he's starting to realize how empty he is inside, and how he never quite managed to fill that void in his constant pursuit of political and intellectual power (it's a miracle he made any money).
And the woman, well, there's Mrs. Jekyll and then there's Mrs. Hyde. They live in constant torment with each other. Though claiming to be wholly independent and defining people, the exterior, as useless to her, dadda provides there, too (he one... two... dunno really-timed her and divorced her, but that doesn't mean he's not a perfectly good gentleman, it's she who didn't understand). In his review of "Precious", Ebert says that Mary, the mother "is perhaps not a bad woman but simply one defeated by the forces she now employs against her daughter." A couch potato constantly reliving the old days through the lenses in her eyes and defining herself by giving the fully grown woman a chance to avoid those unpleasant times today, for brief (or longish) lapses in her mind. I don't recall Precious being compared to Hitler, Satan,
and Stalin in a single sitting, though.
I think that means a lot of things, but, in the end, when the pieces are joined together, I guess they mean nothing at all. Because this was face-to-face it must mean, to you, Josh, if I may be so bold to venture a guess, that at least they weren't cowards about it.
I don't know why I mention all that. Maybe I think it shows my phony detecting skills have had some training. Maybe I'm just bored. 23 seems like enough. Let's leave it at that.
"Leaders". Oy. Oh, I remember now! He was put on a cross and people laughed at him. Yeah. Dunno whether he had thick skin or not, but he did have the courage to withstand it all, setting an example. But I think he made a mistake by resurrecting a few days later and letting people know about it because that's all they talk about these days. People are very afraid of dying, it seems. They don't care how they live, though, they just don't want to die.
Nah, Jocko. I've still got your nose.