Tag Archives: palin

Posted on by

The Wrong Day To Mess With Me

I’m not in a good mood. My congestive heart failure symptoms are giving me fits today. Weight is up, chest hurts, didn’t sleep. I thought I’d take it easy, not write any political posts, just kind of unplug.

I even, for the most part, just blew off the right-wing posts I was seeing, regardless of how near-sighted, self-centered or just plain stupid they were.

And it was working just fine, until someone decided to turn a post about how to fix Facebook settings into an attack on the left, and Christians on the left in particular.

Don’t ask me why, but it set me off. Maybe my filters are just off today. Maybe I’m just tired of the hypocrisy. Maybe my inner asshole decided it needed to come up for air. Whatever it was, I had a rage come up that made my blood boil. Not a great idea for a guy with a bad ticker.

I let loose on the individual in question, but the anger, the rage is still there. And since writing is my way of making sure I don’t go looking for a bar fight, I decided to get it out. So, if you’re still reading, be prepared – I’m about to vent. As in radioactive steam release vent.

I’m usually fairly mild mannered in my writing. I don’t usually drop the f-bomb. So if that word offends you, feel free to go look for cute kitten pictures now. Because I’m fucking pissed.

Why? Let’s start a little list, shall we?

For example, don’t rail against sharia law, and how Muslims are going to somehow circumvent the Constitution and how you have to pass laws to ensure it never happens, then turn around and tell us that the country should be ruled by your God’s law first, and the Constitution second.

Don’t tell me you defend the Constitution then work to dismantle every bit of it you don’t like.

Don’t find some reason to turn any discussion, no matter how mundane, into an attack on your religion, then turn around and try to tell me you know the difference between a “Christian” and a Christian, just because they don’t agree with everything you say. Or question the faith of the President of the United States.

Don’t tell me you’re all for the civil rights and equality for everyone and then argue against women’s reproductive rights, the rights of homosexuals to marry, or the right of a Muslim church to build a mosque in which to pray.

Don’t rail against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing blowhards and then ignore it when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Bill Maher say something equally as offensive.

And don’t dare bring me the fucking “They do it too” excuse. Don’t. It only shows how stupid you are and how stupid you think I am.

Don’t talk to me about how you represent “the 99%” and then break into buildings. Here’s a clue genius – 99% of people don’t think someone who is breaking the law represents them. Peaceful, persistent protest, yes. Doing shit that is intended to aggravate “the man”, like hurling things at the police or through windows? Not a chance.

Here’s another clue: There really is supposed to be a separation of church and state. You deciding there isn’t doesn’t change history or the Constitution. I’m an agnostic, have been for most of my life. Your ardor for your faith does not give you the right to force me to bend to your beliefs. See “sharia law”.

Oh, and by the way, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government stifling your free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voicing your asinine beliefs.

For those who haven’t figured it out, things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security aren’t “entitlements”. If I paid my money into the system, they were an investment. If your investments are so fucking precious, how about treating these investments with the same amount of care, rather than raid them to fatten your damned offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Don’t tell me it’s too easy to get welfare or assistance, then tell me that I can’t get any medical insurance or food assistance because my disability insurance pays me too much. And my rent is more than half of what I get.

Don’t rail against the President about gas prices (regardless of political stripe) but tell me oil companies need continued subsidies. And don’t tell me gas prices are about supply and demand when we have a surplus and prices are still climbing. Meanwhile, speculators are laughing their asses off as we have to make decisions about whether we eat or put gas in the car. Think that’s an exaggeration? I made that exact decision yesterday.

Don’t tell me that climate change and evolution are “controversial theories”, but insist that “creationism” or “intelligent design” are sound scientific hypotheses.

Don’t tell me about defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood and remove access to birth control, then rail against abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. And when you talk about womens’ pregnancies in terms of barnyard animals I have two words for you: Fuck. Off.

Don’t talk to me about how a racist can’t be a racist because he’s not actually a caucasian while a family buries their young son because he had the temerity to walk back from 7-Eleven with Skittles and iced tea. And don’t even defend the very same racist  who is heard saying “fucking coons” on a 911 tape when the kid he followed, who he vastly outweighed ended up with a hole in his chest from the gun that was fired in “self-defense”.

And you better not try to tell me that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. No, stupid fucking people with access to guns kill people. And no, genius, that doesn’t mean I want to take away your guns. It means there are responsible ways to control who has a gun and when they can have it on them, and if your excuse for carrying it is the Second Amendment, your reading comprehension in terms of the Constitution is embarrassingly low. Look up the definition of “well-regulated militia”, and I’m pretty sure you ain’t it. And it doesn’t give you the right to carry a bazooka like an extension of your johnson. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to hunt rabbits, moron.

The next person who uses the term “race card” in my presence may get a well-placed fist in the puss. Racism is racism, and I don’t care who is guilty of it. And guess what? It’s out there, uglier than ever. And if you’re black, and you see something that was racist against a black, it’s ok to call it out. And I expect you’ll call out racism against whites, hispanics and Asians. Just like I expect all of them to do the same. Same with anti-Semitism. I don’t care the race, creed or religion of the person being racist. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

And don’t – don’t - defend a racist remark by trying to redefine it. The word “nigger” is not defined as someone who is lazy or slothful. It’s a derogatory term derived from the mispronunciation of “negro”. So using your definition of it to excuse a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012″ isn’t fooling anyone. If you’re going to be racist, at least have the decency of wearing your fucking hood so we can see you more easily.

Speaking of hoods, wearing a hoodie and jeans isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And then turning around and saying that the reason a kid got killed was his choice in clothing is the epitome of stupidity and blatant idiocy. Maybe the problem is the perception that someone wearing a hoodie is automatically a thug, you fucking gasbag.

And no, there isn’t a “liberal media bias”. There is a bias to what makes money. Fox is focused on the right because Murdoch realized he could make a buck there. Liberals don’t watch as much TV. If they did, he’d try to suck that market dry too. CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest – they aren’t journalism anymore. They are reporters. They repeat what they’re told and fuck the truth. It’s waht they can get you to watch that’s importannt. How the hell else do you justify nearly 30 Republican debates with the same questions asked over and over and over again, like there was any real chance of the answer changing.

Another clue for some of you – just because Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul call it “gotcha journalism”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t answer the damned question. If you are asked a question about something you said, it’s your own damn fault for saying it. Blaming the person asking the question and calling it a gotcha question means you realize you opened your fucking mouth when you shouldn’t have, and now you don’t want to have to answer for it. Shut up, and either back your statement or recant it. But asking you about something you said isn’t “gotcha journalism”. It’s follow-up.

Oh, and you rocket scientists on the “professional left”… Just because you had some unrealistic fantasy that the President would fix eight years of backward, destructive policies within 90 seconds of taking office doesn’t mean the rest of us had the same stupid expectation. And the most ridiculous thing you do is then decide you’re going to punish the one guy who actually has gotten things moving in the right direction by not voting for him, or trying to weaken him. Result? You allowed the guys who fucked things up for eight years to gain back the House so they could proceed to spend two years doing nothing but get in the way. Awesome plan. What’s next? Tell folks on the left they should vote for Romney ’cause he’s no different? Oh, right, some of you have already done that. Idiots.

Here’s another thing – shut the fuck up about family values while you’re on your third wife, screwing hookers while you’re in diapers, having sex with Congressional pages or trying to have an illicit homosexual hookup in an airport bathroom while claiming you’re straight. You’re all bunch of hypocrites. And don’t give me the bullshit that the media only covers the screwups on the right because of the bias. They cover the screwups on the right because the right claims to be the arbiters of what are “true family values”. The left doesn’t make that claim, so when they screw up, it’s less of a deal. If the right didn’t spend so much time acting like they were the pristine vestal virgins they want everybody to believe they are, it wouldn’t be as big a deal when they screw up. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office, and they moved to impeachment. Vitter does hookers while wearing a diaper, and he’s still getting voted in. Gingrich is on his third wife – having cheated on the first two – and he’s still running for office. So tell me again, where’s the bias?

I also can’t fathom how the guys who are so concerned about voter fraud can’t even count votes properly in their own caucuses.  They can’t complete a simple primary without accusations of voter fraud within their own people. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid someone else will do it, even though there is no credible evidence that it happens.

But probably the one thing that really, really pisses me off is the willful, even spiteful ignorance of facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, even your own conclusion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Rather than pursue fact and deal with issues based on those facts, there is a culture of simply throwing out conjecture and outright falsehoods and treating them as fact. That’s the willful ignorance. But the spiteful ignorance is when you present the facts, and instead of addressing the facts, the subject gets changed. Can’t win with your argument? Change the argument!

Along a similar line is the incessant use of a straw man argument, based on nothing but hot air. Sure, we all occasionally make an argument based on a misunderstanding of information. But in those cases, most of us, when presented with contradictory facts, will at least concede that we need to do more investigation. That’s perfectly ok – we all have the right to change our minds or be more educated. No, what I get really torqued about are the people who make stuff up out of thin air, and when you call them on it – ask for proof – they move on to the next lie, the next fabrication. They never retract a thing, they never acknowledge the facts in front of them. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit. So why does this piss me off the most? Because these people are the same ones that will demand an unending chain of proof for anything you say, and when you provide it, they’ll still call you the liar, and complain the truth is “manufactured”.

Just stop. Please. It’s bad for my heart to get this pissed off. And you guys are working too hard at it.

There. I got it off my chest. Do I feel better? No. But I’ll have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you can’t fix stupid.

Posted on by

Limbaugh’s Belly Flop Created A Tidal Wave

I’ve held off writing this post to see if the dust was going to settle. It’s not, so it’s time to put these thoughts into some order.

Rush Limbaugh may not have just killed his own show, but he may have loosened the Gordian Knot that has given the right a stranglehold on talk radio for the last two decades.

First, to what he did. By now, you probably already know that Limbaugh went after Georgetown student Sandra Fluke for her testimony on a hearing convened on women’s reproductive rights and access to contraception. Limbaugh, in his usual bluster decided to call Ms. Fluke a slut, a prostitute and ask that if she wanted him, as a taxpayer to pay for her contraception, she should send him sex tapes.

Of course, he ignored what she actually testified about – that lack of access to contraceptives increases the danger for women who might develop ovarian cysts and other conditions that are helped by the use of contraception. But this post isn’t about arguing the merits of that debate.

No, this is about pointing out that what he did was wrong. Period. As I discussed in our post yesterday, the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that what he did was flat out wrong. No dissembling, no waffling. It was wrong. It was demeaning, churlish, sophomoric and a whole bunch of other multi-syllabic words describing how bad it was.

The defense of it first came from Limbaugh. He acted like it was no big deal, then offered the standard conservative non-apology apology: “I’m sorry if anyone was offended”. Kind of like saying, “I’m sorry you walked in front of my car while I ran the red light”. They are the cause of the damage, but it’s your fault for being there. Here’s a clue: If you did something wrong, the proper way to apologize is to say “I shouldn’t have done it”. In Limbaugh’s case, it should have been “I shouldn’t have said it”.

But instead, he uses it to rail against his detractors, complaining that they want to curtail his 1st Amendment rights, and that somehow, his words make him the victim, not the bully. And then comes the really infuriating excuse:

They do it too. (Again, see yesterday’s post for my real thoughts on that).

Let’s really break down that idiotic argument, shall we?

First, pretty much every kid I know has heard the “If your friends jumped off a bridge” line from their parents. We all learned that just because someone else does something, it doesn’t give you an excuse to. Period. So the “they did it too” excuse is just a pile of crap. But if you really want to see how it falls apart, ask them who did it. They will point to three names right now – Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Louis CK. And that right there shows you they have no clue that they are comparing apples to oranges.

How many times has any of those individuals actually influenced anything the left does? Anything? Moore makes movies and spouts his rhetoric. And to be sure, I condemn about half of what he says. He, like Limbaugh, is earning a buck. And no one on the left actually takes advice from Moore, regardless of what the folks at Fox News believe.

Maher and Louis CK are stand-up comics. They offend as part of their act. And yes, I cringe with disgust when I hear some of their jokes because I find the language or attack offensive. But are they major players in the Democratic Party? Not even close. They’re entertainers.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, has been a major player in Republican politics for years. How many times has John Boehner said something, have Limbaugh attack it, and suddenly reverse his tone? Limbaugh scares the Republicans, and until now, has been able to wield his program like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the Republican Party. If Rush doesn’t like it, it gets quelled quickly.

Which is why comparing what the other guys do to Limbaugh is wrong on so many levels. They aren’t in the same field, much less the same arena of followers. But they also act like Limbaugh has only been offensive this one time. It isn’t true.

“This one time”, or as one commenter described it “a five-minute lapse”, was actually three days of bashing a private citizen. When Maher or Louis CK go after someone, it’s usually someone in the public eye. I have yet to hear them go after someone who is not a public figure. But Limbaugh went on for three days about a private citizen. And whether she is an activist for women’s issues is irrelevant. Had Limbaugh not decided to go after her for three days, the vast majority of people would not have a clue who she is, and she would have been a footnote in the whole contraception brouhaha. Instead, he chose to make her more prominent.

Contrast that to Sarah Palin, who uses every opportunity to promote herself, to the point of using her followers’ money to tour around the country on vacation last year in a bus with her name emblazoned on it. That’s not just in the public eye, that’s sticking your finger in it. This is a person who craves the spotlight. Does this justify using some of the more vulgar language that has been directed at her? No. Just like being President doesn’t justify being called some of the more offensive racist slurs. Those are reprehensible. I condemn that from anyone. But it’s part and parcel of being a public figure.

Sandra Fluke was not a public figure, until Limbaugh made her so.

But the real issue to consider is that she is only the most recent. Here are some choice quotes (h/t to Milt Shook who has compiled these and many more, along with sources):

  • “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
  • “Holocaust? Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?” Source
  • To a black caller who disagreed with him: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” Source
  • “Feminism is about victimization. Don’t forget Undeniable Truth of Life Number 24. Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” Source
  • On Fox & Friends, defending his selection as a Miss America judge, 02/03/2010: “I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.” Source
  • On his TV show in 1993, while holding a photo of Chelsea Clinton, then 13: “Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” Source
  • On women who protest sexual harassment: “They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”Source

You get the picture. There are plenty more.

So why now? Why this time? Because the right has been on a tear of late attacking women. Blocking contraception, invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, the Komen Foundation fiasco – all of these have heightened the awareness of women. And Limbaugh thought he was playing to a friendly crowd when he decided to go down this route.

Make no mistake – it was a conscious decision on his part. You don’t keep bringing the topic up for three days by accident. He wanted to milk it because his loyal dittoheads were soaking it up. But the world of social media got hold of it. Ten years ago, this would have flown right by. But now, a movement can be started with a text message and a tweet. And he kept digging.

But before anyone starts complaining about stifling his free speech, let’s remember one thing – no one is saying he can’t say what he wants to say. No, what folks have done is coalesce behind the idea of contacting the companies that advertise during his program to let them know what they are sponsoring, and that if they choose to continue to sponsor that kind of program, they will lose a customer. Free market, baby! Back in the early 2000′s, when the Dixie Chicks released a song critical of the Bush administration, and spoke out against policies they were against, I guarantee there was not a Conservative tear shed for the backlash against them. It was the free market, and their “fans” spoke with their wallets. Limbaugh is no different.

You see, the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It protects you from government stifling of that free speech. You know what’s not guaranteed in the 1st Amendment? That there won’t be repercussions from you opening your mouth. It doesn’t guarantee that if you say stupid, offensive things at work that you won’t be fired. You can say them, but the ramifications of that choice are yours. And it doesn’t guarantee that saying “Sorry you were offended” will make it all better.

But Limbaugh’s situation may be leading to a much more dramatic shift – a change in talk radio. It’s been a trend that has been coming for a few years, but may be hastened by the controversy. The fact is, Limbaugh’s listeners are generally older males. They’re loyal, but they’re not a great buying demographic. You know who is?

24-45 year-old Females. Oops.

The demographic that advertisers seek the most, find the most valuable, are exactly who Limbaugh has completely alienated, with little to no chance of ever getting them to listen in the future. And he plays to an older crowd. Old enough that one station manager has been quoted as saying the mean age for a Limbaugh listener is “deceased”. Not a growing demographic, and not one advertisers seek.

While Limbaugh has tried to play this off as no big deal, his distributor Premiere Networks is in full-blown panic mode. They sent out a memo to stations that carry Limbaugh’s show that all of their national advertisers were to be pulled from the show for a two week period that started today. That’s not small potatoes. That’s major revenue loss. Also, you have to understand the dynamics behind Limbaugh’s show and most other talk radio programs. Most shows are given “free” to affiliates, and the ad time during the show is split, with half going to the affiliate to sell, and half going to the show. Good deal for both.

But Limbaugh actually charges for his show, as well as keeping ad time. It is among the most expensive shows, and the ad time on the show has some of the highest rates. With advertisers pulling out of the show at both the national and local level, his show becomes very expensive for a local affiliate to run. Very expensive. And they aren’t in the business of losing money.

And the ad pull wasn’t just for his show. It includes Michael Savage, Sean Hannity – and any other program deemed “controversial” or “offensive”. That’s a big ripple and a very large chuck of revenue.

Meanwhile, another prominent conservative – with a much softer approach – is making headway in the time slot that has been traditionally Limbaugh’s. Mike Huckabee, who has been a contributor for Fox has been hosting his own show, and is gaining popularity. His non-confrontational, friendly style is much more appealing to the golden female demographic, and he has pledged that while he might talk politics, his show will be much more. To with, he recently interviewed Meryl Streep. Imagine that on Limbaugh’s show.

Will this be the end of Rush Limbaugh? Hardly. But he may end up going the way of Glenn Beck, with a much smaller, loyal audience, and much less of the impact on politics he has been able to wield for the last two decades.

Posted on by

Are We Going To See More “Isolated” Incidents?

Palin Crosshair map

It has barely been a year since the tragic shooting in Arizona that killed nine and nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. This week, she announced her resignation from the House in order to focus on her recovery.

One year.

Also this week, five Democratic state senators in Missouri found images of sniper crosshairs on their office doors. You’ll recall that Gabby Giffords was “targeted” by Sarah Palin with crosshairs on a map before she was shot.

Are we getting ready to start seeing more “isolated incidents“?

To be sure, the blame for the attack in Arizona last year cannot be laid squarely at Palin’s feet. And until they catch – if ever – the individuals that placed the crosshairs on the office doors, there’s no way to know their political leaning. But it’s about the atmosphere that has been created.

Somewhere, it became acceptable, and even encouraged to make physical threats. Last week, the campaign manager for a Democrat in Arkansas came home with his kids to find their cat dead and the word “Liberal” carved into it. At what point did this become acceptable, in any way?

Have we not learned the lessons that violent rhetoric only makes the problem worse? How long will it be until we get another “isolated incident” that will be disavowed and put off to coincidence? As the campaign rhetoric heats up, and as the candidates make their cases, how long until someone decides to eliminate a candidate for good?

Posted on by

Miss Our 1st Anniversary Show? Catch It On Replay!

Yup, we’ve been doing the show for a year now! But in case you missed the live show, never fear – replay is here! Watch the show below, and make sure to leave us a comment!

Watch live streaming video from editedforclarity at livestream.com
Posted on by

Palin As Orwellian Concept In The Flesh

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

– Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

I don’t know that George Orwell had in mind the politics of the 21st century when he wrote “1984″, but the concepts of “Newspeak” and “doublethink” are not only alive and well, but thriving in today’s political arena. The most recent case is Sarah Palin’s attempt to rewrite history and change Paul Revere’s ride to warn of the approach of British soldiers into a rally for the right to bear arms.

According to Palin:

He who warned uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

This would leave pretty much any kid in grade school scratching their head, as it’s definitely not what we’ve learned about Paul Revere’s ride, not what the facts support. Which is why it fits into Orwellian constructs so neatly.

As most of us have learned, Revere’s ride was not a warning to the British. In fact, it was designed to be a clandestine message to colonists, and in particular to warn Sam Adams and John Hancock that they were in danger of being arrested by the Brits. The “one if by land, two if by sea” clues were designed not to warn the Brits, but to alert colonists of how the British were approaching and so that Adams and Hancock could dodge arrest.

And Revere did not ride, firing his shotgun and ringing bells, as Palin describes. Again, this was a clandestine ride. Firing a gun would have been counter-productive. There was a ride that included bell-ringing and shots fired, but it was not Revere’s, but rather Israel Bissell, whose 4 day ride WAS intended to alert the colonists to the impending British attacks. These rides were related, but Revere’s primary mission was to alert Adams and Hancock.

So what does all this have to do with Orwell? Glad you asked.

Palin’s initial “gaffe” was full of Orwellian “Newspeak”. Her response when confronted with the errors was to use “doublethink” to change the story.

Newspeak is the concept of reducing language to a minimum set of words and phrases to elicit specific reactions in such a way that the communication is essentially a shortcut. Today, we refer to such phrases as “dogwhistles”. These phrases carry meaning beyond the real word or phrase. For example, her use of the phrase “they weren’t going to be takin’ away our arms” isn’t based in any facts. Revere never said it, and it never happened. But the phrase is a rallying cry for ultra-right conservatives who live in fear that their 2nd Amendment rights will be violated by a government seizing of personal firearms. Further consolidated into this piece of Newspeak is the idea that their fear is supported by the ideals of the founding fathers. Pretty powerful set of nine words.

This is nothing new. At every point on the political spectrum you will find these shorthand phrases for much larger concepts, usually tied to something we’re supposed to be afraid of. These “sound bites” are spread like wildfire by mass media, and now, social media. And they may seem innocuous, but have deep-seated meaning and power. Even a name can be used. For example, President Obama is often referred to on the right as “Barack Hussein Obama”. Why? Because it ties the name “Hussein” to thoughts of dictators in the Middle East, making it easier to vilify him for anything. The perception that he is somehow “different” and “not one of us” is perpetuated by simply uttering his name. How’s that for shorthand?

Want irony? How about the phrase “big government”. Say it now and the reaction is “big brother”, referring to “1984″. So the use of a phrase that evokes images of “1984″ is in itself, a form of Newspeak, creating fear of losing liberties to an all-powerful government with just two words.

But the real power is in is “doublethink”, the tactic of not only saying the opposite of the truth, but believing it. In this, Palin and her followers are not just adept, but masters. In this latest incident, despite all evidence to the contrary, Palin insists that she is completely accurate in her statements, and that Revere did warn the British. The logic? That when Revere was captured by the British at the end of his ride, and at gunpoint was asked about the colonists, he lied about their forces and their strength. According to Palin and her “posse”, this was a “warning” to the British.

More evidence of the strength of this doublethink is in the fact that since she made that statement, a number of people have tried to make changes to the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere so that it conforms more to her statement. Their sources for backing her up? The LA Times and WDHD-TV in Boston, among others, who reported what Palin said. Their back-up for her statement is that someone reported it. In other words, their claim that her statement is true is based on the fact that someone reported she said it, not on any other facts. Yet, they believe wholeheartedly that her statement is the truth. They don’t believe they are helping change the story, they believe they are reporting fact. This is at the heart of doublethink, truly believing that which is demonstrably false.

Need more examples? How about the firmly held belief by millions of Americans that President Obama was not born in the United States? Despite reams of evidence, including production of the “long form” birth certificate that was clamored for, right-wing birthers still believe that there has been some form of institutionalized cover-up to get this man elected, starting all the way back in the 50s. The facts are plain and proven, and yet, the belief is unshaken.

Here’s another: Ask a Tea Party member what their biggest gripe is. The answer is, of course, taxes. They believe the government is robbing them through taxes in any possible way. But the facts are that effective tax rates are the lowest now since the 1950′s. Then ask them if Medicare and Social Security should be abolished to cut the deficit. You’ll get a vehement reply to keep your hands off those programs. So, taxes are bad, entitlements are bad, but don’t stop spending on them. You can’t have zero taxes and pay for programs like Medicare and Social Security. Again, doublethink in action, believing the opposite of the truth, even when it is self-contradictory.

What Orwell described is in evidence around us. In “1984″, the ruling class, the Inner Party, represents less than 2% of the population. The Outer Party, the middle class of the book is roughly 13% of the populace, and the lower class, the Proles, represent about 85%. Compare that to our current day structure based on income. The top 2% in income represent an enormous amount of wealth, and with it, power. Included in this level of power is the corporation, who last year were given the status of “personhood” for the purpose of free speech by the US Supreme Court.

Next come the pols, the politicians who do the bidding of those high income individuals and corporate entities. They are handed their marching orders (much like the Outer Party was controlled by the Inner Party), and make sure that any changes made to the structure benefit the top, regardless of detriment to the bottom. This also includes media entities who work to enforce the message being presented by the top income levels. Their job is to make sure that the divide between the top and the bottom gets bigger, until the bottom can’t effect change.

But unlike “1984″, they needn’t do it with torture or violence. Because, unlike “1984″, Big Brother is not the government, but the corporate structure. They use most of the same tools – they have learned well. But the need for violent enforcement is mitigated by the sheer power and volume of the finances they control. And because of the Citizens United decision in 2010, they can use their money at will, with no repercussions, to change the outcome of elections to fit their designs.

Sound sinister? You betcha, as Palin would say. But there are far too many who will believe the propaganda.

Need yet more? How about changing history books to distort the past and not educate about it? In “1984″, the Ministry of Truth was tasked with revising history to fit the current ideology of the Party. If a specific incident did not fit the ideology, the “history” was rewritten. Now look to today’s real world Texas Board of Education. They have made attempts to rewrite the history books in Texas to reflect their beliefs, rather than real history. For example, they want to minimize Thomas Jefferson’s role in creating the founding documents of this country. Why? Because Jefferson was strongly for the separation of church and state, explicitly saying so on more than one occasion, including the Treaty of Tripoli. That goes against their belief that the United States is a “Christian” nation. They also want the books to say that the main reason for the South to secede and start the Civil War was that they felt their state’s rights were being infringed upon, and that slavery was only a side issue. This revisionism is worthy of Minitrue. Changing history books to reflect not what happened, but what you want to believe happened.

Palin’s latest is just another in a long line of events that point to reality approaching Orwellian fiction. There are lots of explanations why the media – and the great mass of public with them – follow Palin when she refuses to declare a candidacy. Or Trump before her. It is a distraction, plain and simple, and this distraction keeps the masses from asking real questions. Those that act as acolytes defend the indefensible, with a whole-hearted belief that they are in the right.

And those at the top smile and count their wealth. Orwell just missed on the year.

Posted on by

We Are All Americans – Or We Should Be

A flight under the cover of darkness. A highly trained team, having rehearsed the incursion in a specially built replica of the compound executed the plan nearly perfectly. A mechanical failure causing one chopper to be grounded. Forty minutes in and out, just escaping before Pakistani jet fighters find them. And with them, the body of Osama Bin Laden.

The plan took months to develop. From information gleaned from interrogations in Guantanamo, to the name of a trusted Bin Laden courier, the trail was followed to Abbottabad in Pakistan. There, in the same town as Pakistan’s version of West Point, a compound that had been built in 2005 was scrutinized. Eight times larger than the surrounding homes, with walls 12-18 feet tall topped with barbed wire, the home stood out like a sore thumb. It had no phone or internet connections, despite having been built only six years ago. There were no windows that faced the street. And unlike the rest of the neighbors, trash was never taken out of the compound. Instead, it was burned within the compound.

But there remained one piece of the puzzle missing – Osama Bin Laden had never been seen there.

The “boots on the ground”, the “humint” or human intelligence all pointed to someone important being kept there. The million-dollar home with the reinforced security measures made no sense in any other context. And the owner of the home? The courier. But there was no sign of Bin Laden.

A number of options were discussed from bombing from stealth aircraft to missile strikes and the eventual option taken, the incursion. This was no simple decision – it required forces to enter Pakistani airspace and execute a military operation on Pakistani soil. And there was one additional complicating factor: the Pakistanis would not be notified.

The compound was approximately a mile away from the military academy, yet no Pakistani intel had led US intelligence to the compound. Either they were clueless, the leader of Al Qaeda living under their noses, or there were forces within Pakistani intelligence that were willfully ignoring or hiding the identity of the compound’s residence.

After weighing all the possible options, President Obama made the decision to use the members of Seal Team VI, now known as United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) to come in low in helicopters, take the compound, and retrieve Bin Laden – if he was there.

This was not a decision without a great deal of peril. They wouldn’t be notifying the Pakistanis. And there was no guarantee that Bin Laden would be there. John Brennan, deputy national security advisor for homeland security and counter-terrorism said the President’s decision to go ahead with the mission was one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history”.

A mission approved by President Jimmy Carter to rescue American hostages in Iran failed and Seal Team VI was born. The reality of that failed mission is what allowed the success of this mission  31 years later.

All involved in the mission to capture or kill Bin Laden deserve high praise. From the myriad intelligence personnel who did the hard work of tracking down leads and developing the information used to make the decision, to the military personnel who executed the mission, the national security team, and the President himself all deserve recognition for the hard work, difficult decisions and bravery required to bring the mission to successful conclusion.

Both former president George W. Bush and former vice-president Dick Cheney congratulated all involved, including President Obama on the raid. Crowds gathered at the White House and Ground Zero in New York to cheer the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. And for a time, we weren’t Democrats, Republican, Liberals or Conservatives. We were all Americans.

For a time.

Nearly as swiftly as the news was announced, the politics of the raid began.

There was Sarah Palin, who congratulated the military, but ignored the intelligence community and the President. Texas Senator John Cornyn gave the president praise as “the messenger” that delivered the news, heaping more praise on George Bush. Texas Governor Rick Perry as well as  House Representatives Pete Sessions and John Carter also congratulated the military, while glossing over President Obama’s involvement. And of course, right-wing mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh did what they could to minimize the President’s involvement in the operation.

Some have tried to make the case that former president Bush actually started the process, but even that is flawed. The hunt for Bin Laden was actually begun by former president Bill Clinton. In fact, Republicans were highly critical of Clinton when there were failures to get Bin Laden.

But for the President there is no safe haven. On the left the newest conspiracy theory has begun. First it was the Truthers, the folks who believed that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the CIA. The right countered with the Birthers, who refuse to believe the President was born in the United States and demanded to see his birth certificate. Now, it’s the “Deathers”, who alternately believe that Bin Laden was either killed years ago, or was not killed at all, and that the whole mission was an elaborate Kabuki dance to fool a gullible public.

When the attacks happened on 9/11/01, this country came together regardless of political stripe. We had an enemy to confront, one that for nearly 10 years has changed our way of life. Last night, the figurehead for that enemy was killed. The President showed that the US will not stop until justice has been served and that we will not give up the fight against those who wish to harm us. But it’s no longer 9/11/01. Apparently, it’s now more important to make political points by diminishing the President’s leadership in this effort, to stand against him – or at least stand apart from him – at one of the turning points in American history.

Posted on by

John Stewart on Sarah Palin: “Petty Woman”

In her first national interview since the Tucson shootings, Sarah Palin went on Sean Hannity’s show to do some spin control. To no one’s surprise – but perhaps their disgust – Palin painted herself as the real victim, helped along by Hannity.

The Daily Show’s John Stewart didn’t miss the self-thrown pity party, and decided to give his take.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Petty Woman
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook
Posted on by

A Day of Dignity, A Day of Disgust

Today, the nation remembered the six people who were killed in a senseless act of violence last Saturday in Tucson, AZ.

Today, a half-term governor tried to make herself the victim of the incident.

First, the dignity.

President Obama and his family flew to Tucson to memorialize the six victims of Saturday’s tragedy. In a moving and poignant speech, the President spoke of each individual, their lives, and their memory.

Below is the transcript of the President’s remarks:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Please, please be seated.  (Applause.)To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants who are gathered here, the people of Tucson and the people of Arizona:  I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow.  (Applause.)

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts.  But know this:  The hopes of a nation are here tonight.  We mourn with you for the fallen.  We join you in your grief.  And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy will pull through.  (Applause.)

Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

On Saturday morning, Gabby, her staff and many of her constituents gathered outside a supermarket to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and free speech.  (Applause.)  They were fulfilling a central tenet of the democracy envisioned by our founders –- representatives of the people answering questions to their constituents, so as to carry their concerns back to our nation’s capital.  Gabby called it “Congress on Your Corner” -– just an updated version of government of and by and for the people.  (Applause.)

And that quintessentially American scene, that was the scene that was shattered by a gunman’s bullets.  And the six people who lost their lives on Saturday –- they, too, represented what is best in us, what is best in America.  (Applause.)

Tucson Shooting Victims Memorialized

Judge John Roll served our legal system for nearly 40 years. (Applause.)  A graduate of this university and a graduate of this law school — (applause) — Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago — (applause) — appointed by President George H.W. Bush and rose to become Arizona’s chief federal judge.  (Applause.)

His colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit.  He was on his way back from attending Mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say hi to his representative.  John is survived by his loving wife, Maureen, his three sons and his five beautiful grandchildren.  (Applause.)

George and Dorothy Morris -– “Dot” to her friends -– were high school sweethearts who got married and had two daughters.  They did everything together — traveling the open road in their RV, enjoying what their friends called a 50-year honeymoon.  Saturday morning, they went by the Safeway to hear what their congresswoman had to say.  When gunfire rang out, George, a former Marine, instinctively tried to shield his wife.  (Applause.)  Both were shot.  Dot passed away.

A New Jersey native, Phyllis Schneck retired to Tucson to beat the snow.  But in the summer, she would return East, where her world revolved around her three children, her seven grandchildren and 2-year-old great-granddaughter.  A gifted quilter, she’d often work under a favorite tree, or sometimes she’d sew aprons with the logos of the Jets and the Giants — (laughter) — to give out at the church where she volunteered.  A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better.  (Applause.)

Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard grew up in Tucson together -– about 70 years ago.  They moved apart and started their own respective families.  But after both were widowed they found their way back here, to, as one of Mavy’s daughters put it, “be boyfriend and girlfriend again.”  (Laughter.)

When they weren’t out on the road in their motor home, you could find them just up the road, helping folks in need at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ.  A retired construction worker, Dorwan spent his spare time fixing up the church along with his dog, Tux.  His final act of selflessness was to dive on top of his wife, sacrificing his life for hers.  (Applause.)

Everything — everything — Gabe Zimmerman did, he did with passion.  (Applause.)  But his true passion was helping people.  As Gabby’s outreach director, he made the cares of thousands of her constituents his own, seeing to it that seniors got the Medicare benefits that they had earned, that veterans got the medals and the care that they deserved, that government was working for ordinary folks.  He died doing what he loved -– talking with people and seeing how he could help.  And Gabe is survived by his parents, Ross and Emily, his brother, Ben, and his fiancée, Kelly, who he planned to marry next year.  (Applause.)

And then there is nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green.  Christina was an A student; she was a dancer; she was a gymnast; she was a swimmer.  She decided that she wanted to be the first woman to play in the Major Leagues, and as the only girl on her Little League team, no one put it past her.  (Applause.)

She showed an appreciation for life uncommon for a girl her age.  She’d remind her mother, “We are so blessed.  We have the best life.”  And she’d pay those blessings back by participating in a charity that helped children who were less fortunate.

Our hearts are broken by their sudden passing.  Our hearts are broken -– and yet, our hearts also have reason for fullness.
Our hearts are full of hope and thanks for the 13 Americans who survived the shooting, including the congresswoman many of them went to see on Saturday.

I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak.  And I want to tell you — her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you — right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.  (Applause.)  Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.  (Applause.)

Gabby opened her eyes.  Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you she knows we are here.  She knows we love her.  And she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey.  We are there for her.  (Applause.)

Our hearts are full of thanks for that good news, and our hearts are full of gratitude for those who saved others.  We are grateful to Daniel Hernandez — (applause) — a volunteer in Gabby’s office.  (Applause.)

And, Daniel, I’m sorry, you may deny it, but we’ve decided you are a hero because — (applause) — you ran through the chaos to minister to your boss, and tended to her wounds and helped keep her alive.  (Applause.)

We are grateful to the men who tackled the gunman as he stopped to reload.  (Applause.)  Right over there.  (Applause.)  We are grateful for petite Patricia Maisch, who wrestled away the killer’s ammunition, and undoubtedly saved some lives.  (Applause.)  And we are grateful for the doctors and nurses and first responders who worked wonders to heal those who’d been hurt.  We are grateful to them.  (Applause.)

These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle.  They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength.  Heroism is here, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, all around us, just waiting to be summoned -– as it was on Saturday morning. Their actions, their selflessness poses a challenge to each of us.  It raises a question of what, beyond prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward.  How can we honor the fallen?  How can we be true to their memory?

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations –- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless.  Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system.  And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.  (Applause.)

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “When I looked for light, then came darkness.”  Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack.  None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.  Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy.  We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence.  We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future.  (Applause.)  But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.  (Applause.)  That we cannot do.  (Applause.)  That we cannot do.

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.  Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.  (Applause.)

After all, that’s what most of us do when we lose somebody in our family -– especially if the loss is unexpected.  We’re shaken out of our routines.  We’re forced to look inward.  We reflect on the past:  Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder.  Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices that they made for us?  Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in a while but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward -– but it also forces us to look forward; to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us.  (Applause.)

We may ask ourselves if we’ve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives.  Perhaps we question whether we’re doing right by our children, or our community, whether our priorities are in order.

We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -– but rather, how well we have loved — (applause)– and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.  (Applause.)

And that process — that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions –- that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.

For those who were harmed, those who were killed –- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. (Applause.)  We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them.  In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners.  Phyllis –- she’s our mom or our grandma; Gabe our brother or son.  (Applause.)  In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America’s fidelity to the law. (Applause.)

And in Gabby — in Gabby, we see a reflection of our public-spiritedness; that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union.  (Applause.)

And in Christina — in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic, so full of magic.  So deserving of our love.  And so deserving of our good example.

If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate — as it should — let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost.  (Applause.)  Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better.  To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents.  And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.  (Applause.)

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.  (Applause.)

They believed — they believed, and I believe that we can be better.  Those who died here, those who saved life here –- they help me believe.  We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that’s entirely up to us.  (Applause.)

And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.  (Applause.)

Christina-Taylor Green

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.  (Applause.)

Imagine — imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future.  She had been elected to her student council.  She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful.  She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model.  She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want to live up to her expectations.  (Applause.)  I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it.  I want America to be as good as she imagined it.  (Applause.)  All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.  (Applause.)

As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.”  On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life.  “I hope you help those in need,” read one.  “I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart.”  (Applause.)  “I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today.  (Applause.)  And here on this Earth — here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in restful and eternal peace.  May He love and watch over the survivors.  And may He bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

The speech was powerful, eloquent, and what we should expect of the President of the United States. It did not attempt to make political points, and was designed not to lay blame, but to entreat the nation to return to a more civil dialogue, to remember that “we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.”

And so it was that 6 Americans were remembered.

Palin Crosshair map

But earlier in the day, the story was that of another “victim”. Sarah Palin, who has taken heat over the last few days for her incendiary rhetoric, a penchant for framing her speech with violent undertones, and who even had a “target” map that included crosshairs on congressional districts – including that of shooting victim Representative Gabrielle Giffords – apparently decided it was time to answer her critics.

She did so by invoking victimhood, and by using a particularly charged phrase: blood libel.

Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Why is that phrase so charged? Perhaps the definition will be of use – from Wikipedia:

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have – alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration – been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

Keep in mind, Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head and is – thankfully – recovering from that injury, is Jewish.

This, of course, is reprehensible on so many levels.

The use of the phrase “blood libel” has a long history, and not one easily mistaken. While many have used the time-worn canard that Sarah Palin is so stupid she would not have know what she was saying, that’s just too easy an answer, and way off base.  Palin is not stupid, nor naive. In fact she is shrewd, manipulative, and knows how to appeal to her crowd and change the subject. That phrase was not a pulled out of thin air. It was designed to paint her as a victim – and to incense enough people to change the subject to semantics instead of the rhetoric she has spewed since she appeared on the national scene. The proof is in her eyes, or more accurately, her glasses. That’s where you can see the reflection of the teleprompter (GASP!) from where she was reading the speech.

This speech was not impromptu. It was written by professional speechwriters. And you can bet, they knew the meaning of “blood libel” and the reaction it would get. But again, by raising a whole new issue, a shiny new object in the view of the media, the issue of whether she has contributed to a climate of hatred gets left behind.

And what about the timing of the speech? The decent, common sense solution would have been to release it the day after the memorial service, allowing those who are grieving to have their day of reflection. No, Ms. Palin had to steal the spotlight for herself, and make herself the subject and victim. And unfortunately, the media gave her what she wanted.

The President spoke of elevating the level of discourse, of living up to Christina-Taylor Greene’s expectations. I want that for my daughter too. Too bad Ms. Palin has no sense of decency to do the same.

Posted on by

Miss Tonight’s Show? Catch It On Demand – Topic: Tragic Shooting in Tucson

Tonight’s topic: The shooting in Tucson, and where the blame should rest.

Posted on by

Irony Alert: Palin vs. Santorum

Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are potential rivals for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. And it appears the jabs are already starting.

In a recent radio interview, Santorum opined that Palin was skipping an annual gathering of conservatives this week because of other business opportunities and mothering responsibilities.

I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has

Now, I can certainly see where Santorum could be accused of being sexist with this statement. So Palin’s response isn’t totally out of line:

“I will not call him the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal,” Palin continued. “I’ll let his wife call him that instead.”

But let’s look at what he actually said. He said that Palin might not have attended because of business or family. I may have lost a few brain cells between then and now, but weren’t those the reasons Palin stepped out of the governor’s post? From WaPo:

Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family’s finances and hampered her ability to govern. She said leaving office is in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security.

“I love my job and I love Alaska, and it hurts to make this choice, but I’m doing what’s best for them,” Palin said, the sun glinting off a seaplane on Lake Lucille behind her.

Palin, 45, said that, after deciding not to run for reelection as governor, she realized she did not want to finish out her term merely for the sake of doing so.

So, as is par for the course with the half-term governor, she can’t seem to make up her mind what is offensive and what is not. As long as it keeps her in the spotlight. In this case, she’s firing up her “Mama Grizzlies” to be incensed at sexist remarks, even though they accurately reflect what she has said in the past. She’s playing the victim again, and her base will eat it up.

Not that I feel badly for Santorum. He played right into her playbook. He pitched a softball and she went yard with it.