Sarah Palin gave a $100K speech to a convention of teabagging wankers, she faced a few pre-screened, prepared questions, and what did she need? She had to have the answers written on her hand ahead of time!
Here's what gets me the most, though. She didn't have a cheat sheet of wonky little details, stuff that would be hard to keep straight and important to get exactly right. No, she had to write down the three most important goals for a conservative majority. What, she's shaky on that?
Energy
Budgetcuts
Tax
Lift Americans
Spirits
Man, next time I go off to give a talk, I'm going to get a sharpie and write "Science. Evolution. Anti-creationism." on my left hand, in case I get asked what I'm going to talk about. 'Cause I might forget, you know.
And then I'm going to ask for a few thousand dollars. And the presidency. All right, I'm not going to be greedy — the vice-presidency will do.
- Log in to post comments
The Tea Party is a legitimate third party movement.
No really, it is.
I promise.
Maybe this is her version of Palm Pilot?
Frackin' A! Hasn't she heard of index cards? Or are those socialist or something.
I have never understood the concept of writing notes on one's hand. I've known a lot of people who do it, but I just don't get it. There's always paper around somewhere that one could use.
President of Vice?
Can I be an official researcher? I need more vice in my diet.
Or is that roughage? I always get the two confused. Mind you the coke and hooker parties are doing wonders for my bowel movements. Go figure!*
Louis
*Actual bowel movements may not be wonderful.
yeah ok show of hands....who here is surprised?
The biggest question I have is this: Who wrote the notes on her hand? I'm guessing the spelling is too good for the writing to be from Sarah's own hand.
Since they're on separate lines, and since "Americans" has no apostrophe, I take it that "Lift Americans" and "Spirits" are two different items.
So, what does she intend to lift Americans for? Is she laying down a new linoleum floor?
And "Spirits" could be a good thing, if she's talking alcoholic beverages. Otherwise, it sounds troubling. Is she suggesting teabaggers will be employing demonic entities in their campaign?
Just when I think I've seen it all...
I can't wait to see some of the inevitable Photoshopping of this image.
BTW, I'll have to examine that image closely to see whether she really left out that apostrophe. Votes could depend on that.
BTW 2: "Gaylord Opryland"? Srsly?
Heh.
At this point her official position is paid entertainer, not candidate.
We'll see.
You know, starting 2nd grade I decided to be straightforward and honest and use notecards.
I have a terrible memory when confronted with a crowd.
She promised to live and die for the people of America! Never mind that quitting of the governorship so she could cash in on her book and TV deals. minigiggles!
I know Teabaggers a zealously opposed to Teleprompter use (I think it's a party plank), but are 3x5 cards also against their religion?
wow. just. wow.
Hey, don't knock it. Its what got her through exams in those 5 colleges she attended and made her the person she is today.
Methinks she doesn't have the brain-power to illuminate a 5W light bulb...
This whole movement is scary -- and it starts at the top with Ms. Dim Wit herself.
Yep, I would feel so much safer because she would use her hand, and not a teleprompter. Cause only people who don't know what they are talking about use a teleprompter.
At the risk of some blatant blogwhoring, it's fascinating to see the frantic and desperate defense of Palin's infantile crib sheet by the members of the Wankerhood -- I ponder long and deeply about that here.
You're welcome, I'm sure.
I've yet to see anybody use the obvious headline, Talk from the Hand.
Well, at least she didn't have to use a TelePrompTer like a certain commie Muslin Kenyan Presnit!
I find it ironic that she used cuts instead of budget. Awareness that she has no ability to balance one, perhaps?
THat said, I really wish folks would focus more on the irony of this kerfluffle, rather then her use of notes and the like. She is, after all, one of the who claimed Obama was incapable of talking without a teleprompter.
McCain deserves a boot in the nuts, every day, for unleashing this thing.
Given the successful nature of this lady's (and her team's) manipulation of a large segment of the American electorate, I think she is far from stupid. I'm not saying she's super intelligent, but she is clearly smart enough to say/do things that resonate well with a huge number of people and make a successful career out of it.
I think she's laughing all the way to the bank.
I think that's more terrifying than the alternative. A couple of simple themes written on her hand helps her make a speech? All the "gee, gosh golly" stuff is a (at least partly) carefully constructed act, just like George Bush's mistakes in speaking. Either she is pulling strings, or someone is pulling her strings, and in turn the strings of an awful lot of people (not all of whom are total backwards muppets) are being suckered.
If it weren't so sad it would be funny.
Louis
No seriously, as awful as it would be if the Republicans had won, ....She would have been so much joy for the late night comedians...
I doubt if there would ever have been a scarcity of material if she had been elected.
McCain deserves a boot in the nuts, every day, for unleashing this thing.
Ayup.
She promised to live and die for the people of America! TWood
The sooner the better!
I can't believe this irrelevant woman's speech got air-time in the UK.
W T and indeed F?
She hasn't even learned the cardinal rule of cheating: don't do it obviously. Most people who write cheats on their hands are at least smart enough not to stare openly at their hand as if reading directly off of it.
You write notes on your hand when you're trying to keep it a secret. I have no problem with notes when you're giving a speech. But writing them on your hand, like a grade-school kid? Come on! The only reason to write notes on your hand is to keep people (i.e. teachers, interviewers, your brain-dead political supporters) from knowing when you're cheating.
And the fact that she clearly and deliberately looked at her hand during that chat makes the whole thing hilariously funny. If she'd used notecards during the speech, no one would have thought anything of it. But this? It's just typical Sarah Palin, don't you think?
MAJeff @ #7-- Even if she did write it herself, who did she have explain it to her?
I personally don't care if she has to write notes on her hand, but she has to be the all time worst choice for VP candidate hands down. Note: this list includes Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, John Edwards, and Dick Cheney.
I flushed a load down the toilet this morning that had more intelligence than Sarah Palin.
Obama: Remembers details about oppositions policies of the top of his head.
Palin: Can't remember six words about her own policy
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Vice President of the United States!
Thank FSM he won and not her.
In a canned, and most-likely well rehearsed, Q&A session, she couldn't remember these three freakin' things?
After looking at this disaster and comparing it to Obama's public evisceration of Republicans and their talking points a while back, it's confirmed that America made the right choice. This nightmare should be kept as far away from the presidency as possible.
How very Presidential of her.
Yeah, she should use teleprompters like the Messiah. At least he was able to address a 6th grade class without fumbling too badly.
I really don't get why this is such a target for mockery. Writing on your hand is just sometimes more convenient than paper, especially if you only need a list of five points. She chooses not to use note cards -- so what?
(Just for clarification, I'm not defending Palin in general -- I'd rather be stranded on a desert island for four years than have her working in the federal government.)
LOL! You need better notes, my friend.
And what's especially funny/sad is that these points are not some sort of obscure policy issues -- they are fundamental aspects of the conservatism she allegedly embodies. A Republican honestly can't remember she's in favour of tax cuts without looking at her hand?!? Really?
Mike Lupica in the NY Daily News
:)
I'm with Brian #38
So Palin goes after Obama for using a teleprompter while she scribbles notes on her hand. Last week she went after Obama's cabinet for using the word "retarded" but said it was OK for Limbaugh to use it in the same context.
IOIYAR strikes again.
$100 K for this creature to look at her hand as a source of cliff notes for a 2nd grade speech?
what. the. fuck. is. wrong. with. the. world. ?
I must end my life now. There is no point to living in a universe that permits such tardensity.
Goodbye.
I think we now know how/why Scarah attended 5 colleges before graduating. The fact that she gets so much airplay from the MSM is nauseating.
Just out of curiosity how long was her speech?
It seems silly that she didn't use notecards or even a full page outline when she's standing at a podium.
Actually, this farcical Tea Party business could be a blessing in disguise. It could lead to a serious discussion about electoral reform and third parties, which has been written off as "extremist" (a.k.a not favourable to the two main parties or big business).
I know there's no way I could have gotten away with it, but the prankster in me giggles at the notion of what might have happened if I could have written "Zombies!" there without her noticing.
Want a laugh? Check this one out: http://hillbuzz.org/2010/02/07/the-reason-sarah-palin-will-be-president…
Apparently,
Energy
Budget cuts
Tax
Lift Americans
Spirits
is code for "Hi, Mom."
OMFG.
I'd rather be stranded on a desert island for four years than have her working in the federal government.
Let's go one better: Strand her on a desert island for four years.
For those of you against the mockery: For me it's not that she was using notes (I think it's slightly childish to write on your hand like this, and would prefer notecards), but the content of what she wrote. If you can't remember the main points of argument for your party, you need help. That's like me forgetting that I'm an atheist unless I wrote it down.
Someone needs to take a good closeup photo of her shoes. I'm guessing "hayfoot, strawfoot".
It wasn't a speech. It was a Q&A. She was asked what her most important party platform points were, and she had to refer to the notes on her hand to answer. As Tulse said, she can't remember she's in favor of budget cuts without referring to her hand. It's important to remember that she's not just a media figure now; she's been pretty open that she views the media stuff as a way to make her more popular to win public office in the future. And she can't remember budget cuts and lifting America's spirits without crib notes. Is it a terrible, horrible thing to have no memory? No, some people do perfectly well in life that way. However, those people have no business being anywhere that wields any power over the lives of other people, period.
Here's a poll concerning this that a conservative site is swinging.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/palin_hand_notes_obama_tele…
I'm wondering if any of these people who keep insisting Obama needs a teleprompter bothered to watch him talking to the House Republicans unscripted for an hour and a half, methodically destroying all their talking points? It was pretty universally recognized that he did pretty well there despite not having a teleprompter. And for crying out loud, Bush had a teleprompter and still couldn't read the thing right!
Jeeeeeeez, whadda you guys want? She's just talkin' outa her palm, not outa her ass.
Try writing crib notes on your hand for your next job interview, and see how far you get:
Hard worker
Team player leader
Word & Excel
It is not Palin that bothers. It is that fact that it seems that many people find her an inspirational figure.
She's got the whole world, in her hand ...
Something we Brits like to do from time to time is air stuff like this, so we can all laugh at how stupid Americans can be. Whilst Palin is easy to make fun of, such behaviour is not our most endearing trait.
PZ, too bad you missed what Palin had to say right after that clip got cut out : what she means with "Lift American Spirits" :
Palin's vision for America : a god fearing nation that seeks divine intervention.
She's dumb, and she's dangerous !
Here's the whole thing for those who might want to satisfty their masochist side:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/291974-3
(you can skip to the 50th minute)
Patton Oswalt had a bit about this in one of his performances. "Let's say flying rape demons were unleashed one day, andt hey sodomized whoever they wanted after carrying them off. And let's say after eight years, the Pope exorcises them or something. Do you think I'm going to say 10 really great minutes of material were worth it?"
It's not so much that Iw ant to kill palin for setting women back, as that I want her not to be talking any more. I think if she took a vow of silence, she would do immeasurable help for humanity.
I'm unclear on the correction - was "Budget cuts" revised to be "Energy cuts" or "Tax cuts"?
I'm intrigued by the "Lift Americans" pledge - who are the people who will be lifting Americans? Whoever it is should have a good strong back, and lift with the knees...
Also, her proposal listed simply as "Spirits" undoubtedly means she'll be buying drinks, so you know she'll get a couple votes out of that.
Hang on... is she really speaking from a podium labelled "Gaylord Opryland"? The twelve year old in me is giggling like mad...
She's a public politician and she writes on her hands.
Gee, I'd look down on an elementary school substitute teacher who did that. I'm sure evangelical types would look down on a preacher who had to write sermon notes on his hand, and revolutionaries would ridicule a coup leader who had to write his speech notes on his hand, and Satanists would scorn a high priest who had to write the ritual on his hand. I'm a corporate trainer, and I hope to Hell nobody ever catches me talking in front of a class with the class agenda written on my hand. I mean, can you imagine the Pope writing on the sleeve of his chasuble? Martin Luther King writing "I have a dream" on his hand? Robert Green Ingersoll peering into his starched sleeve cuffs during one of his orations?
And she wants us to take her seriously? Seriously?
@#8:
I think it is clear what she means by "spirits": She wants to rescure the poor rover (http://xkcd.com/695/) out of the sand pit.
Has Palin invited a new form of verse?
Maverick
Sell Keep airplane
Tea Party
that woman is the poster child for dunning-kruger syndrome
I'm going to leave that alone. However, according to Palin, when Obama uses one it's called a "lecturn". You know, because he's an intellectual elitist and all.
Hope it's okay to do a bit of webcomic whoring, but following Andrew Sullivan's lead on this story, the part that is bothersome is that she thinks she's an act of God.
choking halo
Louis: "Given the successful nature of this lady's (and her team's) manipulation of a large segment of the American electorate, I think she is far from stupid. I'm not saying she's super intelligent, but she is clearly smart enough to say/do things that resonate well with a huge number of people and make a successful career out of it."
Yes, she is THAT stupid. It doesn't take much thought or strategy to manipulate the large segment of the American electorate that she has conned. They are mainly made up of uneducated (sciences), religious nut jobs who are incapable of having a thought that wasn't already PLANTED in their tiny, closed minded little brains by some preacher in front of a podium or by Glen Beck. Fooling them isn't hard. The rest who are educated ignore her complete and utter lack of intellect because she's attractive. They just want in her pants. You could put Carry Prejean in front of this same crowd and you would get the same results.
No need to pile on Palin, as all the great orators did this:
87 fourscore + 7
forefathers
govt of/by/for ppl
They will of course be Zeus, Thor, FSM, Yehovah, Allah and the one true Christian God.
Not with their knees and a strong back, but with a combination of magic hammer, noodly appendage, and other powerful divine intervention mechanisms they dispose of.
(see my comment #60)
TELEPROMPTER TELEPROMPTER MADRASAH MADRASAH.
Anyway--When I was in high school I remember this course on "different types of intelligence." Musical Intelligence, Kinesthetic Intelligence, and so on. While even at age 17 I smelled the whiff of pseudoscience, maybe I need to re-examine it. Palin, like many Republicans, has some kind of...Moronological Intelligence...that mixes interpersonal talent with a profound natural grasp of her own and others' anxieties, allowing her to act like a much higher-functioning human being in her narrow environment. It's amazing to watch.
@ Prostock69 #69,
I am unhappy about writing off a substantial fraction of 300 million people as casually as you seem to be (even though I'm from the UK and making jokes about Yanks is actually a legal requirement of citizenship here ;-) ). I'm pretty certain that there is something more subtle and significant than stupidity/horniness at work to explain the success of Palin's brand of conservative politics.
Sure, she is an acceptable, attractive spokesperson for her position the position she is being paid to espouse. And sure, a large part of her rhetoric is simplistic and designed to appeal to people looking for simple answers. I don't think this equates to many tens of millions of people being stupid or voting with their genitals. I don't deny these things may be factors, but I seriously doubt these are the only/most significant causative factors in the popularity of the politics she espouses. If they were, how do you explain Bush's success? Suddenly tonnes of very stupid horny Republicans went gay on George and reconverted when Palin materialised?
Sorry, I think it's a bit more complicated than that!
Louis
her coaches suggested she keep notes on her Palm, not knowing she uses a Blackberry
just a simple branding issue, really
@Louis #73
With Bush there might have been a "women want him, men want to be him" thing going on. As laughable as *I* find a slurry-voiced tiny-eyed thug in tight jeans and a large belt buckle, apparently that's cooler than James Bond and Tony Stark to a lot of Americans. There's still a desire here for a "great leader," since--apparently--we haven't had one fuck things up enough for the people in power. (Even Ronnie and W mostly harmed foreigners and the poor.) We distrust the educated person, not the demagogue, to our and the world's continuing misfortune.
Hopefully everyone has already seen this, but in case you haven't:
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
mmelliott01 #65:
Well, she is an accomplished poet: http://www.slate.com/id/2201342/
"is she really speaking from a podium labelled "Gaylord Opryland"?"
Opryland is an amusement park in Nashville. Gaylord is a hotel company that runs the massive Opryland Hotel. It's not that funny, really.
Oh come on. It is pretty funny.
@ Moochava #75,
Oh agreed, this can indeed be a factor. But come on, do you really believe that these things are a sufficient causative explanation for the popularity of the conservative *politics* espoused by these people?
Do you think for example that greed, deliberate misinformation, the way capitalist democracies have evolved, the coincidence of these policies with vested religious and corporate interests might not also be factors (amongst many other things)? Even more influential ones?
Like I said, I think making simplistic appeals to cults of personality or the supposed unsavoury habits/attributes of those I/we differ from politically is a mistake. It's more complicated than that, and we ignore that at our peril.
Louis
is she really speaking from a podium labelled "Gaylord Opryland"?
Talk to the folks at Gaylord Entertainment. They're the ones who name their hotels.
As for the lectern vs. podium thing. I think that podium used to mean the soapbox you stand on to be more visible, but it seems that now the two share a common meaning. Prescriptivists lose again.
Unless that's the bowl your college football team gets invited to.
And the humor has nothing to do with the name, just the shittyness of the bowl.
Awesome explanation.
Seriously, she crossed out an answer? Thats like missing a letter when spelling oligarchy on national TV.
Palin: "I know my policies like the back of my a lot."
@Louis #80
I think recognizing the difference between how things get fucked in the US as opposed to Europe or elsewhere is important, and I think there are two key differences: our love of personality cults and religious mass-psychosis. America has never been chewed apart by religious wars or fascism; those things happened "over there," and we lack a powerful immune response to religious insanity or cults of personality. I think those two weaknesses, coupled with the universals of greed, fear, and hate, explain most of the Republicans' successes since Reagan.
And a lot of times...well, it's not more complicated than that, or at least not appreciably so. Creationists are liars, Americans love demagogues, Glenn Beck is a man-shaped stain. Saying "it's more complicated than that" is easy. It lets us believe that we are very subtle and sophisticated and capable of appreciating nuance. But sometimes people's behavior isn't complicated at all.
I think you're all not giving Palin enough credit here. You're assuming that the words written on her hand were there to remind her of what to say. Like she was stupid or something.
No. They were magic talismans. In magic, words themselves have power, and symbols act down on the material world, and change it. By writing these powerful symbols on her hand, Palin was helping assure that her thoughts and hopes would send their energy out and impact the very nature of our experienced reality.
It's all very deep and sophisticated.
"America has never been chewed apart by religious wars or fascism"
Which is interesting, because our ancestors came to America to escape religious zealotry.
Granted, the average American wouldn't know fascism if it did a naked jig in front of them.
No, actually, that is the most telling part. She apparently first wrote budget cuts and revised it to tax cuts. To me that is the more disturbing thing (writing on her hand is just amusing). This is where "conservatives" lost any claim to being fiscal conservatives; when they started focusing purely on cutting taxes and not on responsible ways of reducing the budget itself.
She also did it during the vice-presidential debate:
You bet'cha
Obama = Black guy
Biden = White guy
Sound insperashunal good
#87:
Palin's a golem?
Palin's hand at a gathering of creationists:
Complexity
Complexity
Complexity
And then Palin turned to her right, glanced down briefly, and continued "On the other hand..."
Uh, I think you mean O'Biden.
Some of them. Of course, many of the ones who came to North America to escape religious zealotry also came to establish their own flavor of religious zealotry.
Still learning,
Robert
And a good number had no choice in the matter of course.
Well, you know. She's dumb.
"Which is interesting, because our ancestors came to America to escape religious zealotry."
Not even close. Our ancestors came over here in large part in order to be able to practice their own particular, and in many cases far more repellent, forms of religious zealotry.
No, the interesting thing is that the architects of our political systems were among the least religious of the bunch - lots of deists if not outright atheists. Which when you think about it says a lot about the effects of strong religious belief.
What does she do when she has to give a speech in Alaska, and she needs to wear gloves?
I just saw someone refer to this as a Wasilla Teleprompter.
That is why, at the beginning of the debates, she asked if she could just call him Joe. She could not say Biden, it kept coming out as O'Biden.
Seriously, I am stumped. Why are there people who think that she is an inspiring figure? What do they find compelling. Palin makes Dan Quayle sound articulate by comparison.
Matt Penfold,
Indeed, excellent point.
Still learning,
Robert
@Louis, #80,
Well, I know a number of republicans who don't care for Palin, but would still vote for her if she was running.
Why? Well, they give a number of reasons. One friend will do it because his church says so. Oh, not explicitly, but in a thousand little ways his church (Mormon) has indicated to him that voting on the democratic side of the ticket is against church teachings. He has even indicated that his religion is one of the things that motivates him to vote republican. But if you ask him his church isn't interfering in politics, it is only pointing out which party supports the tenets of the church.
Then there is my cousin who will vote republican because he was in a management position in the auto companies. For decades there has been a battle between unions, strong supporters of democratic candidates, and management who, as part of their battle against unions, vote republican. Some of the newer managers and laborers are not quite so competitive, but my cousin is an old-timer. He hates Palin, but will never vote on the democratic ticket.
Then there is one of my constituents who will always vote republican because he's afraid of losing his wealth. He owns a very successful landscaping company and has made (and is making) a good bit of money. In his opinion, even though the republicans have screwed up the state and federal budget, it's all right, they haven't raised his taxes. If a democrat is elected, by gum, he knows they will raise his taxes.
This isn't confined to republicans either. I ran into a 92-year-old woman while campaigning six years ago and she flat out told me that she will always vote straight ticket democrat because her father told her that all republicans are businessmen who will screw over the workers. That suggests she has been voting a straight democrat ticket since Calvin Coolidge. That's a long time.
Finally, I know people who will vote their party, republican or democrat, simply because they always have done so. They are apathetic about the issues or personalities, but always vote.
From a cultural perspective, we may be ripe for a new political party. The republicans are marginalizing themselves by their idiocy and the democrats are trying to spread a big tent over some really disparate ideologies. A European-style Socialist party may, surprisingly, do well in this country if it was formed today. It would be an uphill battle simply because of the name, but maybe not so much. There would be a good bit of frothing at the mouth by the tea-baggers, but that sort of publicity might actually help raise awareness of the new party.
The fear among democrats is that splitting the party into two would make it just that much easier for the far-right wing republicans to win elections. So the party is trying to avoid a split. However, the shifting of the republican party ever rightward, has caused it to losing the fence-sitters and even many long-term republicans. As the democratic party tries to attract more republicans away from their party, it is becoming more conservative.
It's the problem of accommodation again. With a two-party political system, everything looks like a dichotomy.
I'm with you, Janine. I'm baffled as to her appeal. Looking back on a number of prominent conservative figures in U.S. political history, I'm struggling to see the appeal of Palin as compared to figures like Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt. Of course, like any humans, Eisenhower and Roosevelt had flaws, but they seem like the kinds of figures that employed their strengths to outstrip, at list in the public perception, those shortcomings. Perhaps in their day, those opposed to Eisenhower and Roosevelt were similarly asking, "Is anyone else hearing what I'm hearing? They're not taking this person seriously, right?" I dunno.
Anyone have any insight into why she's so popular?
Still learning,
Robert
Flex at #102,
Thanks for your post. I was composing mine while yours got posted, so I didn't see it until just now, but that helps provide some insight into support for Palin, if not admiration, at least. Still, it remains that some admire her (book sales, speaking engagement fees, etc.), so that's still a mystery.
Still learning,
Robert
It is literally physically painful to contemplate her stupidity. That speech, and the Q&A that followed, were clearly the opening of her 2012 presidential run.
The Repubs couldn't have found anybody less qualified if they had rounded up sleeping drunks at Greyhound stations.
What the hell are they thinking?
How in the name of FSM could they prepare this ignoramus for a debate with Obama? He may be too timid, but he's no lightweight when it comes to public discourse. It would be like Betty White fighting Mike Tyson. Can't they see that?
I hope they can't. That would be fun.
"Of course, many of the ones who came to North America to escape religious zealotry also came to establish their own flavor of religious zealotry."
Point taken.
You'd think we'd know better by now.
Steve M. @ 89 has put his finger on something important -- at least in the very small world of insider politics: the difference between budget cuts and tax cuts.
The GOP crazies favor tax cuts, not budget cuts. These are the supply siders who continue to insist that if taxes are low enough, there will be plenty of government revenue.
The tea crazies, on the other hand, want both budget and tax cuts. It will be fun watching them get suckered by the GOP.
One of the conservative wackos on my floor just came by to tell me that Palin DELIBERATELY left the crossed out "budget" on her hand to send a signal to the Repub establishment that she is really one of them and not really a tea bagger. He insists that everything Palin did was part of a very clever plan.
Uh-huh. Talk about your right wing conspiracy.
@Robert, #104,
I don't have much insight into the people who love her. Pretty much all the republicans I know were extremely upset when she walked away from her governorship, even if they thought she was presidential material before they lost that opinion then.
Which doesn't mean they won't vote for her.
Yet, it's clear that she does appeal to some people.
Conspiracy theory is fun. I wonder if a mathematical formula could be drawn up illustrating the ratio at which conspiracy theory collapses under its own weight, which could then be incorporated into a formula illustrating that as time following the occurrence of that collapse approaches infinity, conspiracy theorists remain oblivious to the collapse of the theory, insisting that said collapse is merely an aspect of the ongoing conspiracy.
(With apologies to Zeno and other commenters who have forgotten more about mathematics than I'll ever know.)
Still learning,
Robert
Flex @102:
I agree in principle - a centrist party, based on the Blue Dog Dems and former moderate Republicans, would be competitive across most of the country, against a Progressive party in the Northeast, West, and urban areas, and against a Conservative party in the South and Midwest.
But the underlying problem that prevents any third parties from taking hold, even at lower levels, is the plurality-winner electoral system. Until we start having runoffs, nothing will change. Although actually, for fairness it's needed much more in primaries, where someone can win a contested race with less than 20% of the vote.
@ Moochava #86,
So the sum total of the explanation of conservative success in the USA for the last 30 or so years is "some folks be dumb and religious in a way Europeans ain't, some other folks be convincing talkers"?
Colour me unconvinced!
I think that it's a massive over-generalisation for starters. Intelligent, educated, sophisticated American conservatives who support/espouse Reagan/Bush/Palin politics exist. I've met 'em. They don't necessarily support those politics for identical reasons to the stereotypical fundamentalist hick. We're talking about millions of people here. "Millions of people" is by definition going to be a diverse set, acting as if they are all called Billy-Bob who spend their lives beating their wives and whittling statues of Jesus is counterfactual (and thus counterproductive). Equally, acting as if they are all called Harvard grads called Tarquin and live in the Hamptons with a quiver of Bentleys is counterfactual.
It's the generalisation and oversimplification I'm disagreeing with. The same accusation could be, wrongly IMO for the same reasons, leveled at Obama. An eloquent speaker, a strong public personality who appeals to a large moderate religious demographic. It's too simplistic. It ignores the circumstances of his electoral success for starters. Why would (for example) Hilary Clinton have made a worse/better candidate on these bases? She too is an eloquent speaker, a strong public personality who appeals to a large moderate religious demographic. To find out why she would have been worse/better you have to look outside and beyond those qualities.
Let's get this clear, I'm not apologising for conservatives, trying to make them feel good, nor am I disagreeing that the factors you mention are very much part of the story, I just disagree they are the major or only part of the story. I disagree that the story reduces to that simple a narrative.
For example these politics have partly developed out of religious and corporate vested interests. There really is a benefit to an influential group in American (or indeed any) society to, for example, tie cultural identity and virtue to a specific religious identity. There's a reason that some perfectly sophisticated, intelligent people in power demonstrably try to maintain these ties (and apparently believe them). It also isn't a simple matter of intellect or appreciation of nuance that automatically immunises people against holding these political positions (although undeniably these things help).
Look at creationists as an example. Part of the maintaince of creationism's popularity is identity politics, the creation and maintainance of an us and a them. The same thing is found in other forms of denialism like the anti-vaccine movement (not necssarily associated with conservative politics) or the AGW movement (usually associated with conservative politics). Almost invariably these in group/out group narratives are tied to conspiracy theories, the claim that there exists a grand conspiracy to suppress the truth.
This is more than mere rhetorical susceptibility in one group. Firstly, the hallmarks of denialism are the same across the political spectrum, secondly, why are some species of nonsense more frequently aligned with some brands of politics and not others? Rhetorical susceptibility and gullibility of one group don't account for it. Underneath, American woo looks a whole lot like European woo which looks a lot like Australian woo and so on. The surface details are different but underneath the psychology is very similar. It's the commonalities that add a complicating factor.
Writing things off with simplistic explanations ignores two really important things: 1) that there really are vested interests at work maintaining these cultural phenomena (with varying degrees of success), 2) underneath these phenomena are a series of psychological mechanisms that are far from retricted to one group.
To take a "scientific" example like belief in homeopathy, the reason this is important to appreciate is many people don't believe in homeopathy because they have studied the evidence, because they are simply ignorant, because they have been swayed by some rhetorical genius or because they are dumb. You can have a genius of public communication like Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan wax eloquent to these people, you can inform them, you can test them and find they are intelligent, and yet they still believe. They'll appeal to relativism, the culturally inculcated belief that the truth lies somewhere between two opposed claims, or an ironic rejection of authority (ironic because they almost always accept another claimed authority). They'll appeal (ironically again) to the evils of big business, to the fact that Western medicine (whatever the fuck that is) has killed people sometimes, or they'll project their own ignorance and claim we don't/can't know about these things.
The psychology underlying these things is more complex than stupidity, susecptibility to rhetoric or holding of religious beliefs. Those can also be comorbidities as opposed to causal, although since the relationship is complex and the feedback is extensive separating cause and effect isn't trivial.
Why is this so important? Because it directly speaks to tactics. You get people like Chris Mooney and the accomodationists appealing for mealy mouthed apologist stances to creationists, fundamentalists and other species of denialists. As an exclusive technique this doesn't. Just like yelling at people, ridiculing them and tearing them to shreds doesn't work as an exclusive tactic. Decades of science education and communication hasn't worked. This doesn't mean that we abandon all the above, it merely means that we realise the limitations of the tactics we have tried to date and evolve them. A simple example is scientific education. If we were to abandon it the situation would get worse, that doesn't negate the fact that education is only part of the story. Appreciation of the nuance allows to evolve our strategies.
The same applies to politics. Combatting conservative nonsense where it needs to be combatted isn't going to be acheived by oversimplifying the reasons people hold to conservative politics. We've got to understand the spectrum of tactics used thus far realise their limitations and evolve them based on the evidence we gather.
Louis
P.S. Oh and btw I'm not American, I already know I'm very subtle and sophisticated and capable of appreciating nuance. It's the birthright of every European. We get it in our tea/hot chocolate. ;-)
Heroes are sometimes created by popular demand.
And they can be made out of the flimsiest materials, cardboard, straw, tissue paper, lawn clippings. Doesn't matter.
The fundie xian crackpots are simply desperate for leadership and heroes. They don't have any right now.
Palin isn't smart or educated, hasn't accomplished much of anything, her family and financial life has been a mess, and none of that matters.
Who else do they have? Kent Hovind is in prison, Ted Haggard is busy being not-gay, Parsly wants to start a world war with the Moslems, Hagee hates Catholics, Kennedy and Falwell are zombies, and an assortment of aging, vaguely humanoid toads like Robertson and Dobson
@ Flex #102,
Thanks! Your post reinforces my point that it's a bit more complicated than merely ascribing undesirable attributes to a group of people I happen to disagree strongly with/appealing to cults of personality when dealing with a huge number of people.
Louis
I can understand a group of people projecting their hopes on an individual. (Though I disagree about the popular demand, they make up too small of the population percentage.) But why Palin? Why did the McCain campaign pick her? Why did conservative activists pick her to be the new face of neo-conservative values a couple of years before McCain brought her to the national spotlight?
Heck, because Palin has five imporant qualities (for these people) :
. she is charismatic
. she is "talked about" in the media
. she's trustworphy because they identify with her as a simple energetic honest hockey mum
. she knows how to capitalize on their reluctance to look at themselves, and understand why the biggest culprit in our current predicament is the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.
. and she blames the rascals we elect in Washington for all their miseries
Would someone please photoshop that podium picture? A shot of Palin speaking at "GAY OPRYLAND" would make heads explode both amongst the teabaggers and the CW "music" crowd...
As an Australian, I see many amusing similarities between Sarah Palin and Pauline Hanson. The simplistic, stumbling inanities, the ignorance, but also the apparent fact that she does well partly because conservative men find her hot.
@111-
I'm with you 100% that the current system essentially guarantees that the US can only ever sustain two parties, with popular movements being assimilated into Repub/Dem platforms. I'm a little hesitant about broad changes to the electoral system, however. A simple first step, and one seems fairly simple, is to change how we vote. My preference is for range voting.
Instead of "Pick one candidate" we switch to something akin to "Rate the candidates from 0 to 10." This change alone would encourage multiple-party entrants (I no longer "throw my vote away" on a third party), among all its other benefits, including being the best system for ensuring that the best candidate wins.
I should note though, that this change is basically unreasonable because it would require Repub/Dem support, and I don't think that could ever happen. That range voting is a more accurate representation of the will of the voters will fall secondary to the point that elections will be harder to win.
@Louis, #111,
I think I'm going to have to re-read Robert Levine's The Power of Persuasion. It's been awhile, but IIRC he has some interesting things to say about people are persuaded to follow people.
Your #111 post is accurate, and I think most everyone here will agree with it. I also think (well, hope) that most of the people who are posting here, laughing and pointing at Palin's inability to remember basic points about her party's platform, and the audience who appears to not care, are simply blowing off some steam. People here do get upset about the adoration of stupidity and intolerance, something the tea-baggers are particularly good at. Being able to occasionally shout profanities at the tea-baggers and point out their stupidity on an open forum lowers the commenter's blood pressure and improves their digestion.
So I wouldn't get too worried if your thoughts don't get much in the way of response. For all of the power of the Pharyngula minions, I don't know that we can plan a major policy shift in the democratic party. Or work out a publicity campaign of any duration. At this point the work of progressives is like water on a stone, it will happen, but there are some entrenched ideas which have to be worn away.
IMO, the biggest one is, "Taxes are bad". Since the early 1970's the republican party has been beating that drum. The idea is so ingrained in the American popular mind that even so-called liberals regularly repeat it. Taxes are not bad. An individual tax can be good for society or bad for society, but taxes exist, and there is no way for a society to function without some level of taxation. But after forty years of the incessant drum-beat of "Taxes are bad" we have a populace which believes it and will never support a tax increase.
As an example, our state collects $0.19/gallon gas tax, all of which go to the roads. The roads are in terrible state because our state legislature will not increase that tax. The current revenue from that tax does not even fully pay for road maintenance. Gas prices are about $2.50/gallon, and they range from $2.42-$2.67 depending on the station and it's location. A $0.02 increase in the flat-rate gas tax would provide enough income to maintain all the roads and even, over time, fix them. Assuming a driver drives 20,000 miles/year and gets an average of 15MPG, he will pay $26.67 more per year if the tax is raised by $0.02. But it cannot be done because of the "Taxes are Bad" mentality.
But what do you counter it with?
"Taxes are Okay!"?
"Taxes are necessary!"?
"Taxes pay for improvements!"?
There are other similar fallacious, but simple, ideas which have been beaten into popular culture in America.
Like, "Government is inefficient", even though most government programs are really quite efficient. They have to be because their financial details are transparent. Of course should the government hire independent contractors like Blackwater then the books are closed and efficiency cannot be evaluated. You just need faith that the free-market will provide for efficient management. (HAH!)
Anyone else have any examples of simple, but wrong, slogans being used to persuade people?
Good grief.
Matt Penfold:
Just two words for you: spaghetti harvest.
Do not underestimate the fear and loathing of the Palin.
You are watching the butt-end of White Rage, the same spirit that kept blacks enslaved, voteless and downtrodden for over 100 years. In their hearts these people know that civil rights for blacks is an insult to them, they need plenty of guns to defend their womenfolk, & faggots and queers are there to be beaten. In fact anything that removes whiteness and (a bit lesser) maleness from the centre of the universe is plumb well not going to be tolerated.
The danger is that in a time of deep economic crisis an enraged, quasi-Fascist movement like the Tea Party might be elected (or presented with)powerful offices, just like the Nazi party was manouevred into office by power-brokers who thought they could control it and its leader.
Yaussid at #118
I think this is a rather radical step myself. The simple first step I would propose would be to require all states to split the electoral party vote among the candidates. No more winner gets all the electoral votes from a state.
From what I understand (and I'm no expert), this system developed as the power of the two parties grew. In our system we don't vote directly for the president or vice-president. We vote for the party nominated electors who are bonded to vote for the candidate the party is backing. We are voting for a slate of people we've never seen who then cast their votes in private, delivering the votes to the President of the Senate. Laws in most states require that entire slate of people to be selected by the party which wins the popular vote in the state.
Change these laws, and third parties become much more possible. Of course, didn't Colorado try that recently and it was defeated? I never could figure out why.
We had a dog once. He was dumb as a post, but very good at manipulating his brother, who was even dumber.
What we have with Palin and her audience is a case of the dumb leading the dumber.
It's like the three blind mice, only dumber.
That's a serious insult to lumps of clay everywhere—even the inanimate ones.
I am so hoping that Palin ends up as the Republican Candidate for president in 2012. It will mean a 99% chance that the Democrats will have another 4 years in the White House. Only two things that scare me. The 1% chance of her winning and the possibility of 4 more years of Obama failing to sack up.
You're still left with the same problem: people are not going to cast their single vote for a candidate that can't win, and the perception that they can't win will remain until one of them shows it can. There is also good reason to believe that even if a third party could become a contender, it will simply replace the weaker of the two existing parties and we're still left with a two party system.
I'm starting to think Palin is a poe, or a sociologist doing her Ph.D on the role of populism in politics. It seems "Can I be X much of a ditz and still have support?" Yes she can!
Yaussid @ 118
Range voting looks complicated, and unfair to me. The method deemed best is single transferable vote - you vote for the candidates in order. If your candidate doesn't make the cut, your vote is transferred to your second choice, etc. We ought to have that here in the UK, too - it could transform politics.
We have that in Australia, it doesn't really help that much. Just in the senate where both parties scramble to deal with the far right and the greens.
She wants to be president? I guess she'll lead the world in the manner of President Carter, who went to international meetings with:
stop war
return canal
SALT (not the condiment)
on his palm.
Randomfactor #93
Ae thank yah, I have spilt rather a ruff Bordeaux all over, all over, but I have laughed and laughed and laughed...
The only way Ms dumber-than-a-sack-of-rotted-Caribou-shite would say that is if it was written on her right hand, she could read, had practised for twenty years, and then her voice was dubbed by an out-of-work p0rn star.
cypress #131
So you think the Camp David Accords, which resulted in a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, were meaningless? Of course SALT II, which resulted in reduction of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, should only be sneered at.
You can disparage Carter for a lot of things, but foreign affairs was not one of his weaker points.
This really is the fear that keeps me awake at night.
Teabaggers in a hotel named Gaylord. Does bipartisanship mean a reach around?
Flex #102 & Midnight Rambler #110
I disagree. It's too late for all this, your state is now owned by a plutocracy, and you the people have no effective access to valid intercourse with this plutocracy. They will stroke the pig and feed it scraps but ...
Any meaningful change in governance in the states will now have to come from outside. Changes in the international monetary system are probably going to be the least painful. Such change is already undergoing but, obviously, the beast will not go without a struggle. The creation of smaller, independent but interlinked, financial systems, via currency groups, anti-usury structures etc is going to be interesting to watch. The other interesting thing to watch will be the number of wars the thrashing beast can engender.
Delenda Nato Est !
Good luck Eathrings !
Epic Fail.
She should have used the Bush hidden radio-receiver method.
Still, at least we know she can read. Pity that the letters weren't joined up though!
Clever Hans.
Sorry, that's probably a insult to the horse and all the people who it fooled.
(Or should that be clever hands?)
yaussid #118
But, but, yu ain't choosin' them candydates, is yu boy ?
tobyjoyce #122
Precisely. Your prisons are already full of slaves, producing.
Did anyone check to see if the notes were in her handwriting?
So sorry, I think that should be
Nato Delenda Est !
Pished agin.
I would argue that Palin is not particularly intelligent, but very shrewd. she knows just how to pander to the recently disenfranchised white godbots. In that respect, she is a force to reckon with.
If the President does not grow a pair and damn soon, this tart will have endless talking points and the spineless Democrats will continue to be on the defensive.
Rolan le Gargéac wrote at #137:
Obviously I disagree, and not simply because I'm an low-level elected official with some interest in maintaining the status quo.
I disagree primarily because of what we are doing now. Sixty years ago we couldn't have had an open conversation in this fashion. Sixty years ago if you grew up in a small American town every bit of exposure to the outside world was through newspapers, radio, and television. In most places there was a single, local, weekly paper and if you were lucky a large town daily paper (maybe a day or two late) which served the town. Television consisted of 4-5 channels, and radio was mostly local as well. Millions of people grew up, learned a trade which was used in their town, married, raised kids, and never traveled more than 50 miles from their homes. You might own a set of world book encyclopedias and subscribe to the National Geographic, or Scientific American, or Amazing Stories, but it was more likely to be a weekly news magazine like Life or Time.
Information was limited, and often information about scandalous behavior, unethical conduct, violence, and scatological references were suppressed not by any deliberate censorship, but in the name of "good taste".
What do we have today?
Everyone can pontificate as much as they want. While the internet has allowed fearful people to find like-minded people, to form combines and voting blocks of people afraid of just about anything you can name, from vaccinations to evolution. It has also enabled the not-quite convinced to research and find information to allay those fears.
I know that Walton is a oft-used example in this community, but since he is familiar to the crowd I'm going to use him again. If Walton hadn't shown up and argued on these threads, he would have continued to surround himself with the same self-reinforcing friends with which he had solely engaged in the past. Now, there is some debate whether he has adapted his actions to the additional knowledge this community has provided him, but the fact remains that he has this additional knowledge because this community was here.
If it wasn't for the freedom of communication that we now enjoy, Walton would have never heard our voices. Even if he was exposed to them, he wasn't listening.
So, for that reason alone, I believe we can make headway against the tea-baggers. Their internet exposure may be limited to the bubble they have created, and it may be impossible to convert the die-hard fanatics. However, not all people in those movements are die-hard fanatics. Because information is available, when someone is ready to question their beliefs they can find arguments and counter-arguments to help them reach a conclusion. We may not agree with the conclusion they reached, but getting past unquestioning obedience is a large step for a lot of people.
This is not a recommendation for accommodation. It is a recommendation to continually probe and carefully question friends, relatives, acquaintances, and fellow travelers. If they aren't ready to question, don't disturb them, nothing more than anger will ensue. But, if they appear ready to question, then pounce with further questions and suggestions as to where to look for answers. Let them do the work, and they will be more inclined to personalize their results.
You may think I'm suggesting some sort of indoctrination. That would be incorrect. I'm not telling anyone what they should think or believe, only that they should question their beliefs and thoughts. For it is the questioning that makes us human, that separates us from most other animals which live in the certainty of the present.
And I think it inevitable that our present ability to communicate so many conflicting ideas so rapidly will force many children to think and question without having to go through classes in critical thinking. They will have to learn, at an early age, to discriminate between appealing but conflicting ideas. There will be no stopping them.
To get rid of the two-party system, you'd have to hack the job of president in two and separate the job of head of state from the job of head of government, making the administration dependent on Congress instead of on the President. Fat chance of that happening anytime soon.
Then why did she read them off her hand so blatantly?
No. She really is that stupid.
She's not a tragedy, she's a farce. We can keep laughing.
She would be – if there were enough white godbots left.
That experiment has been done.
The Christofascists have their new rogue Messiah--and to them, she's more popular than even Jesus. Worship is the closest word to describe the veneration with which she is accorded by the religious right--which is ironic for these 10 commandments-loving people.
Here is a scary scenario... President Palin calls a news conference... We have just declared war on... just a minute, I had the name here, -stan something, or maybe North Whatisname, don't worry, we'll beat 'em you betcha!
Personally, I think the appeal Palin has to the mainstream Republicans (as opposed to the Godbots) is that she is everything the reality-based community despises--anti-intellectual, intolerant, proudly ignorant, bland, blindly pro-business, anti-environment, priveleged and stupid. So, while they might cringe at the thought of this woman having her finger on the button--or even at the thought of listening to her for 8 years--they hate us more than they love the country.
Sarah Palin is George Bush in drag, and the Republican strategists will follow the same winning strategy they did with Dubya. Look for them to try to find an actual adult as a running mate--maybe Dumsfeld, maybe even Cheney again. And in 4 years they'll have their country back. And we can look for a new one.
Isn't it obvious? It is a code. EBTLAS.
Elevate Boobs to Look Absolutely Stunning.
Apparently, she had a last minute change of heart. I am sure I don't need to explain why B was substituted for C.
42% of The Ed Show viewers want Sarah to run for president.
Thanks for the responses. It's encouraging to see one of my first posts on here garner at least some attention.
Flex @ 123-
I guess I’ll open with the obvious: I’m certainly no expert either! Bah, let's ignore that and pontificate wildly all the same! I have relatively less interest in reforming the Electoral College because it "only" affects the presidential election. Obviously, this is an important election, but not the only one (I assume that statewide elections don’t depend on the electoral system and I’m quite certain local elections don’t). To be clear, I am not advocating in favor of preserving the Electoral College.
Your summary of the presidential voting process is basically how I see it as well, which is
-people vote
-the Electoral College in a state takes the votes into consideration and assigns its points to someone
The change to a range voting system would obviously only change the first step of the process. In my opinion it would make the first step a more accurate reflection of the views of the citizenry, which is a Good Thing. Whether a third party could carry enough support to take an entire state is the problem you point out in this system, and I think it is a valid, but separate, concern.
Davem @ 129-
You say “complicated,” I say “expressive!” :)
Instant runoffs would be better than the current system (plurality), on that we can agree. However, the merits of a candidate should be independent of his or her competition. This is the basis I’m starting from when I advocate for range voting. The claim of it being unfair doesn’t ring true for me, when each candidate can be judged without resorting to a comparison. It seems to be that transferable votes and instant runoffs still have this problem. Range voting allows for people to vote strategically, but seems to reward honesty too.
Responding to the charge that range voting is complicated is, well, complicated. :D I’m not entirely sure which part of it you mean to say is complicated (complicated to voters, complicated to count, complicated to implement). I could probably respond to each, but maybe you could elaborate instead? Also there’s a nice table describing features of voting systems (on the range voting site, so it may be skewed in their favor, though the concepts seem valid).
I used "complicated" a lot. The word has ceased to have meaning in my brain.
Rolan le Gargéac @ 140-
Umm, no?? :)
Flex #145
Er, so much for America's pride in its journalism.
Flex #145
?
??
Mwhahahahaha...
You are fucked, unfortunately you're v. prob. going to take us with you.
Our what?
Honestly, I don't really see the reason for the hubbub over Palin's notes.
I know speakers who scribble key points or important words regarding their speech and presentations on their palms, and it's usually just them preferring to have the notes available on something they won't misplace.
My only gripe with Palin is that she failed to hide the notes.
And just to be clear, I still think she's an idiot.
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom #156
I am old, my tears are old but, still, I can find more.
Unfortunately, if your political followers mostly consist of people whose worldview is summed up by Science=Hitler and Healthcare=Stalin , then writing notes on your hand doesn't seem such a big deal.
Even though I agree with all of you that Palin is a joke of a presidential candidate and that all of her political positions are despicable and undeserving of serious consideration, I am not at all convinced that the story PZ reported here is actually true. The crossed out word is simply too much and rose my suspicion. Pictures are very easy to manipulate nowadays (as the ACORN 'controversy' about the alleged pimp (now in custody for illegal wiretapping!) showed. It turned out that the video was heavily edited. It isn't even clear to what questions the ACORN personal really gave answers to. The editing was, by the way, not noticed by the "professional" media!) I didn't make a detailed calculation but I have the strong suspicion that even with professional cameras of journalists (and, really, newspaper pictures do not require high resolution) the scribblings could not be resolved as clearly as they appear on the picture above given the dimensions of the depicted person and background. It's simply too good to be true. This story plays exactly into how the left wants to perceive Palin. If the picture turns out to be doctored, the rethuglicans will use it as another 'proof' of the left's condescension. I am also surprised how easy we fall for it. I would love to be convinced that it is actually true but a picture on a web page is not sufficient evidence.
OK, here's the latest in our descent into McCarthyism.
So, Jimmy the walking turd is not satisfied with the trumped up charges aired at Penn State. Now he wants to get the NSF IG involved. I swear, these guys won't rest until they've outlawed science! These asshats have to be stopped. I would suggest a boycott of Oklahoma by scientific societies, but no one would want to go there anyway.
David @ 147:
I disagree. If you consider how the MSM is in a swoon over the resurgence of the Rethugs plus the amount of ink on Sarah Barracuda, then there may well be enough white godbots to make her a factor in 2012. Keep in mind just how successful the Right has been at stopping nearly everything of any importance in the Senate. The Right holds abso-fuckin-lutely solid while Dems have to be coaxed into supporting the President. If the Dems cannae find the stones to act now, what chance will they have after the loss of a few seats in 2010?
The official party line is being pushed towards the Tea Baggers and Rush, if it is not already there. After all,
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”"
As A-Ray @150 put it, they hate us more than they love this country.
President Mrs. Todd Palin will lead America into the future by letting Americans express their devotion to the Creator who made this great country the Lord's vessel of Dominion.
That, and burning a whole lot of people at the stake:
Gays, atheists, and anyone who can spell.
Futility @ 160:
I was going to agree with you about the photo then I checked a couple of my own images and it is entirely possible that it is a proper image. When I cropped a RAW image from a Nikon D700 to about the same area, I could easily see my reflection as well as the background landscape in the eye of the llama. If I were shooting in that situation, I'd certainly shoot RAW+jpeg, just in case I got an image that was of value.
I've not heard any cries of 'fake!' either.
First, I don't care for Palin AT ALL. period.
Second, ...okay she wrote subject notes on her hand w/ a sharpie. Soo!? Unless one of the messages were so profound as to say "Massacre the Liberals" or "!REDRUM", I don't see how this should be a headline surprise. Pick any chapter in her pathetic book and you could found a sentence or phrase FAR more of a shocker than "energy, budget cuts, lift American spirits". Seriously folks.
So to formalise the structure of Palin Hand Poetry:
one word
two words
three words
The word in line 1 should be something random and abstract.
Line 2 is a well defined concept, but with the first word crossed out and replaced with something more populist.
The third line should be a meaningless feel-good platitude.
As with haiku, the precise word count is not actually critical as long as the principles are followed; but the pattern makes it easier for the plebs.
Security
Invade Liberate Iraq
Support Our Troops
(Probably not a good example. Too coherent.)
futility - it isn't fake. In a moment of media savvy (the kind that makes her a real threat despite her lack of intelligence otherwise), she then wrote "hi mom" on her hand for later photographers to notice after the story broke.
Notes for this post:
Laughter
illiterate creationist idiot
Not fucking suprised
B
Here's my Palin Hand Poem then:
Traditional
Imprison Rehabilitate gays
God is love
Airspace
Putin's Medvedev's head
Pass the ammunition!
Just heard a good description of this piece of tomfoolery:
"The Redneck teleprompter".
On the other hand:
"TTD: Take over the world"
Whatever either side believes her motivations to be, very few people seem to address the point that she's just a sockpuppet.
The moment she was chosen as a running mate she's been a marketable resource that people are using to generate revenue.
If they can get her elected, she will be used in whatever ways possible to milk the religious for funding and the power to establish religious policy in government.
Those profiting from her had better hope that her wacky witch hunter and fundie friends don't encourage her to kickstart the rapture.
American politics needs a reboot. The conservatives are crazy, and the liberals are empty suits.
Oh well, isn't there some historical precedent for empires melting down after around 300 years?
What amazes me about the US electoral system is that a close minded, ignorant, shallow, incompetent quitter could be elected in her home state let alone come within reaching distance of the vice presidency. It's bad enough that the system allows someone so unsuitable to stand, but it is shameful and depressing that people still voted for her.
These voters are morons. I can't think of any simpler way of putting it.
The least you can expect of any politician is that they represent the best and most qualified the nation has to offer, somebody in whom you can trust their judgement even if you don't agree with them on policy. Palin is simply unqualified to stand for public office
Mike Wagner, Oh well, isn't there some historical precedent for empires melting down after around 300 years?
Precedent, yes; inevitavility, no.
E.g. the Egyptian dynasties; the Mayans.
#174:
Recall that one of the supposed positive qualities claimed for Bush was that he was "someone you could have a beer with". It appears that, for many voters, "the best and most qualified" candidate isn't who they're looking for; rather, they want "someone pretty much like me". After all, if you believe that what the job needs is simple homespun "wisdom" and some old-fashioned biblical morality, intelligence and education are a disadvantage.
@174--Adding to Moggie @ 176:
Unfortunately, among a significant percentage of voters, "qualified" = "elitist." There are plenty of people who vote who see "intellectual" as a bad word, and would rather have someone they "can talk to" and (like Moggie pointed out) "like them." One of the typically encountered slurs* Obama faced was "[liberal] elitist" or "academic". There is this notion in US culture (perhaps elsewhere?) that these "elites" and "academics" and similar aren't touch with "reg'lar types of folks."
Quite frankly, this notion baffles me. I don't understand why there are so many people who consider intelligence and education to be a bad thing. I certainly don't want Joe/Jane Six-pack in the Oval Office--I want somebody who has the intellect and ability to understand and confront the domestic and foreign issues faced daily as President. Unfortunately, a good many people would rather see Homer Simpson hold office. I have to ask: is this disdain for intellectualism and "elitism" mainly specific to the US political/electorate cultural, or is it found in the UK, Europe, Australia, etc.?
*Regarding slurs, I know Obama did (and continues to) face worse than "elitist." My point is, I find it ridiculous that "elitist" or "intellectual" would be political slurs in the first place.
Our esteemed host said:
And this, at least for me, is the point. You need crib notes? Fine, I understand, I've needed them, I've used them.
I gave a presentation on mass extinctions in front of a group, and I had the dates and names for epochal milestones jotted down in front of me in case I got Silurian and Ordovician confused in my tiny, feeble brain.
But:
A) I didn't have to write down:
Extinction
WeatherClimate Change
Many things dead
I was capable of keeping in my head the main themes of my presentation - if not, I wouldn't have given it,
and
B) I'm not gunning for a job of such massive complexity, subtlety, and (most importantly) consequence as this person looks to be trying for.
That's the point here, for me. If Ms. Palin requires these sorts of simple notes to be capable of answering questions, that's fine, I don't care - unless she tries to tell me I should elect her to high office, or trust her reporting of the world's events, because she's better at handling information like this than I am. I'm nowhere near good enough at 'high-office level Q & A' to be qualified for high office. Based on this, I suspect I'm better at it - or at least not terribly much worse at it - than Ms. Palin.
The famous Panorama spaghetti harvest April's fools did take in a lot of people. However there is a big difference between that an the Teabag movement.
The teabag movement seems to be serious, rather than an elaborate practical joke.
The natural conclusion of Kristol's use of religion to bully the uneducated masses around is that under no circumstances are the rubes who actually believe that crap to be allowed into positions of any real power. Thus it is that we see the ultimate failure of using "comforting lies" to control the populace. Once those lies get big enough, we have people who buy into them ascending to positions of importance and then the wielders of power become uncontrolled.
That's bad. Palin represents exactly the sort of thing that new atheists warn about: once the people who have been told that they have to do this or that because some god or another said so rise to the position where they are the ones calling the shots: they don't know why any decisions get made!
When the sheep who accept "godidit" as explanation enough for any course of action rise to the rank of shepherd and then are empowered to plot the course - the course they plot is essentially random. They didn't know where they were going when they were following, and they won't know where they are going when they are leading either.
@164,167:
Thanks. I stand corrected. It never ceases to amaze me how low rethuglicans can sink. This barrel doesn't seem to have a bottom. She cannot even remember the cherished maxims of conservative mantra? Truths she allegedly believes with every fiber of her being? Truly, presidential material.
@177:
Even though I lived in the US for several years (now back in Europe), I also had trouble to understand this rather common trait of the American psyche: the blatant anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism of large subsets of the American population. For some reason these people completely fail to realize that their prophets (Rush, Palin, etc.) are also part of the elite, an elite whose policies are detrimental to the very people who vote for them. The only explanation appears to be stupidity.
Similar views do exist in Europe as well but not to that extend. Why quite a few Americans seem to wallow in their own ignorance still baffles me. But luckily there are sites like this as an antidote.
Guys, there's a simple, biblical explanation for all this:
"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." -- Revelation 14:9-10, NIV
Palin has the mark of the beast.
Rachel.Wilmoth #177
'I have to ask: is this disdain for intellectualism and "elitism" mainly specific to the US political/electorate cultural, or is it found in the UK, Europe, Australia, etc.?'
Unfortunately, no. I can point out several knuckle-draggers in the Australian parliament.
However, I think that there is a fundamental difference between the Westminster system of government, where a party leader becomes Prime Minister, and the US system of direct election of Presidents. In the countries I am familiar with (UK, NZ, Australia), party leaders are elected from within the party, using various different methods. Casting my mind back, I can't think of any Prime Ministers of those three countries who could be described as dumb, in the same way that Bush, Quayle, Palin et al could be. So maybe it is an unfortunate outcome of the US electoral system. However, leaders trying to appeal to the simpler members of the electorate is a world-wide phenomenom, and is the basis behind the persistent rumours that Bush wasn't actually as thick as two short planks, but merely a deft political player who knew how to appeal to his electorate.
Matt Penfold:
My point was that there is enough credulity and stupidity in the world that nobody can afford to be smugly complacent.
The most oft-asked question on this thread is "What is the appeal of Sarah Palin?" As has been pointed out, there is a general disdain among a significant percentage of the American electorate for the "elitist, intellectual" types of politicians (never mind if they don't truly fit the "reg'lar folks" bill). I also suspect a large number of the tea-baggers are highly suspicious of foreign entities and nations, and as such, would likely have high isolationist tendencies. Considering that Palin's foreign policy experience can be summed up by "I can see Russia from my house!", I think part of appeal lies in the foreigners = bad mentality.
(BTW, thank you to those who answered my question concerning the "anti-elitist" political culture. I suspected that it was more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. That's a good in general, but I still want to bang my head against a wall when I see that kind of populistic idiocy eaten up with a fork and spoon.)