I have been thinking about Sarah Palin a lot lately.
It is an activity I do not recommend to anyone. It involves far too much energy and far too much angst. Why am I wasting so much time and emotional energy on her? She isn’t really worth all of this, is she?
Just to be clear – this isn’t some kind of creepy crush. I despise her. I won’t go as far as to say I actually hate her – hate is strong word and I am not sure that I hate anybody at all. But despise – yeah – that pretty much captures it.
Why do I have this reaction to her? Why am I allowing her to make me miserable?
Oh – there are lots of reasons for me not to like her.
I think she is naïve yet smugly confident – a dangerous combination in a politician. She is not particularly well educated and frankly she isn’t very bright either. She would sell her soul for attention. I applaud her advocacy for the developmentally disabled – but she and I are diametrically opposed on virtually every other policy issue.
Yes – there are many reasons for me to dislike Sarah Palin. Still – none of the above can explain the depth of my emotional reaction to her. There are plenty of right-wing politicians who share the above qualities with Palin – yet I don’t have the same emotional reaction. Take Mike Huckabee. He and Palin are very close on the issues – but I do not have the same reaction to him. OK – he plays bass, which earns him a few points. But otherwise, on the serious issues, I oppose his stances just as strongly as I oppose Palin’s.
Why does she elicit this reaction?
Don’t for a second suggest it is her gender. I don’t have a similar reaction to Condoleezza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or any number of other right-wing women.
It finally became clear to me over this past weekend.
If you follow the news closely you already know that the “Tea Party” movement held a convention over the weekend. Palin delivered the keynote address.
Perhaps I am a masochist – but for whatever reason I watched her speech. As always, I found my anger growing and blood pressure rising. Then she delivered the line…. AND I KNEW.
“How’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?”
Sigh…. Seeing the line on the computer screen just doesn’t capture it – so try to hear it in your head – delivered with that Marge-from-Fargo voice, dripping with sarcasm. It is a cruel, mean spirited, mocking voice.
“How’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?”
It isn’t your political views, Sarah. It isn’t your IQ or your educational background. It most certainly isn’t your gender.
It is the nasty, mean spirited, sarcastic way you mock the values of those who might differ from you.
Let me tell you something about that “hopey changey” thing. I am sure you think “Hope and Change” it is just a campaign slogan – something to twisted and mocked to serve your purposes. You would be wrong.
Hope and change is about inclusion. It is about bringing the disenfranchised into the political process. It is about believing – truly believing – that every American can become involved and take part and make a difference. It is about taking those who have been cast aside and bringing them into the fold.
I know that threatens you Sarah. I know you don’t think we are real Americans. You have said as much. Again, you would be wrong.
An image. It is election night. A newly-elected President Obama is delivering his acceptance speech to thousands in a frigid Grant Park. In the crowd stands Jesse Jackson – with tears pouring down his face.
That image moved me to tears.
That is what Hope and Change is all about, Sarah. Mock it at your peril.
Tags: conservative, democrat, Hope and Change, left-wing, liberal, Palin, political, republican, right-wing, wordpress-political-blogs
February 10, 2010 at 10:45 am |
HP–
I agree with you about Palin but ….
The real problem is not her –
the problem is that too many people like what she says despite its shallowness and mean-spiritedness (or possibly BECAUSE of it, which is even more scary).
February 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
Paul – you are right of course. My reaction to Palin includes both disdain (as I describe here) but also fear – fear based on the fact that so many people seem to be falling for her petty, shallow and downright nasty approach to the issues.
– hp
February 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm |
You’ve been so nice in your approach Professor Hippie, I felt like I offered a civilized response – well, as civilized as I can make a response to a “lib”, which as you well know is a pejorative in my vernacular. You raise interesting point, with which I do not agree but is worth discussing.
We share a common bond – the amusement of the left’s obsession with Ms. Palin.
———————-
Point by point:
Knowing what I know about how overrated a Harvard education is in anything but the hard sciences, and realizing Obama provides the textbook representation of the Affirmative Action candidate, you might see why I might find this statement amusing. I could change the name, flip the script and say “Barack Obama” is naive yet smugly….and his dismal performance has done nothing to circumvent my opinion which now includes a mass of data showing I am right. Obama has accomplished nothing of significance, and if you were to study his record, short of being elected, is the status quo of his own achievement. His own neighborhood he oversaw as community activist is 3rd world – a ‘hood with a murder rate exceeding Iraq. His Senate record undistinguished.
Sure. Both are pro-choice and what you perceive as appropriately educated. It’s an arrogance that is common in academia and leftist circles – as if somehow, the left has a monopoly and deciding intelligence. You simply do not understand the word wisdom is much more rare than intellect.
And yet, you have no problem with the multitude of lefty feminists who have said far worse. Selective outrage blinded by innate politic. Do I need to go down the list of “notable” liberal women who do the same? Clinton, Boxer, Pelosi to name a few? We won’t even mention the female ‘entertainers’ and Hollywood moguls who say the most vicious of things about Christians, the right, Conservatives, ad nauseam…
Personally, I think BlackisWhite at Rutherford’s site nailed the real reasons for the intense hatred of Sarah Palin – and the hate is far more prominent from the female shrews of the Left. Sarah Palin represents the strong, conservative, faith filled, pro-life, successful woman, comfortable with her femininity and motherhood that the hags from Left have been telling young women they can never be. Sarah Palin is a threat to their claim – the theory of their better way which by itself has damaged millions of young women. Do women today, after 40 years of misandry, appear any happier for their troubles? Not if they are honest.
I marvel at the profundity of Obama cliche – hope and change; now that is incredibly deep. Kind of like, “Yes We Can”. It’s like “Who Dat”. I don’t believe for a minute hope and change is inclusive. And fact, it is divisive in my book. It compartmentalizes groups. It’s slang for “you’re too stupid” to manage on your own, and if you will only vote for me, I’ll rule, not govern and care for you.
Unbelievable. This paragraph actually astounds me at your own gullibility. A man of your achievement can not see through the duplicity, the absolute phoniness of Jesse “Shakedown” Jackson? A man who has been so discounted to be a monument to hypocrisy? Love children on the taxpayer dole? A spiritual adviser to Clinton, advising about fidelity in marriage while banging his one of his own staff? And you believe this was heartfelt reaction from Rev. Jesse? The very man who dissed Barack Obama on CNN under his breath and then caught denied it – the intense jealousy so obvious? This was pure show – give the man an Oscar.
Now having said that, I too could not help but watch blacks upon Obama winning the election feel some happiness in their joy. If they truly felt marginalized, it was their day. It was the only good thing to come from Obama’s election, as I was sure he was a complete demagogue who would ultimately fail miserably and damage the country. I thought he was Jimmy Carter reincarnated.
Obama has so far been far worse and the elections that followed have proven that. I has pushed America to the brink of insolvency. His softness on terrorism has endangered our citizenry. The takeover of private institutions infringing on free enterprise? His credibility is shot with most of America. My sincere joy that night surely does not outweigh how dangerous Obama has become, with masses of rubes running off the proverbial cliff for their Caesar.
Have fun with Sarah Palin – she appears tough enough to take it and made millions for her troubles. But ignore her message at your own peril.
February 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
Tex…. I finally have time for a detailed response here…
We share a common bond – the amusement of the left’s obsession with Ms. Palin.
You nailed it. I would much prefer to ignore her – I spend way too much time and energy worrying about her. I guess ignoring her seems to me like ignoring that little lump in your armpit – until it is too late to do anything about it….
Knowing what I know about how overrated a Harvard education is in anything but the hard sciences, and realizing Obama provides the textbook representation of the Affirmative Action candidate, you might see why I might find this statement amusing.
Call me an elitist if you like – but I have also worked in higher education for over 25 years. Someone who attends 4 or 5 second- and third-tier colleges over a course of 6 years is not particularly educated. Yes – there are exceptions. I suspect she is not one of them.
Say what you like, but you do not become President of the Harvard Law Review based on affirmative action.
You simply do not understand the word wisdom is much more rare than intellect.
Oh – indeed they are different things. I would argue that Palin has even less wisdom than she does intellect.
And yet, you have no problem with the multitude of lefty feminists who have said far worse. Selective outrage blinded by innate politic. Do I need to go down the list of “notable” liberal women who do the same? Clinton, Boxer, Pelosi to name a few?
I have told you before – I don’t expect you to be offended about the same things I am. I am sensitive to fat jokes, probably because I have been the target of a lot of them. I don’t think anyone ever understands how cruel they are until they have been the target. So – no – I don’t see things that Hillary or Pelosi or Boxer have said to be nearly as offensive. This is not to say that you shouldn’t be offended by them.
Unbelievable. This paragraph actually astounds me at your own gullibility. A man of your achievement can not see through the duplicity, the absolute phoniness of Jesse “Shakedown” Jackson?
Jesse Jackson was with Martin Luthar King in Memphis when he was assassinated. A little over 40 years later he is standing in the audience as an African American accepts the Presidency of the United States. I like to think every American should be moved by that image – regardless of what you think of Jackson’s politics.
I too could not help but watch blacks upon Obama winning the election feel some happiness in their joy. If they truly felt marginalized, it was their day.
Perhaps then you realize why it offends me so when Palin mocks that hope. I also like to think that it was all of our day – for surely an inclusive society would be a better place for all of us to live? Yes – I know we disagree on whether Obama’s policies are truly a path to inclusiveness. I believe that they are – and thus I am greatly bothered when someone seems to throw roadblocks in the way of that hope – especially when it is for personal gain (which I suspect in Palin’s case).
But ignore her message at your own peril.
Like I said, that would be equivalent to ignoring that little lump in your armpit….
Tex – I know we differ – but I hope you know how much I value that we can exchange views in a civil manner.
– hp
February 10, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
This may be pretty cramped. Hippie, you are indeed a gentleman. Many on the left could learn a thing or two to your approach, as could I.
You do when politics and assuaged guilt is involved. And if here is a place on earth anymore politically correct that Harvard, somebody would have to prove it to me. If Obama the Magna Cum Laude, if he is as smart as you attest, release the transcripts and we can all judge.
Correct, he was there. And then it was charged from those in attendance that Jackson used the tragedy for personal gain, including posing for the camera. I don’t truly know anything about MLK other than what I have read including his letters, but if he was the man that I believe, and he was what he wrote, what Jesse Jackson has become would be an anathema to everything MLK stood for. Now I know you recognize that. We may disagree, but you are smart enough to recognize a fraud when you see it. I don’t know what further proof you would require.
Understand this about me Hippie. I am not necessarily a fan of Sarah Palin. She’s an obvious asset and I am grateful we are on the same side. But she certainly would not be my candidate of choice. Do I think Palin is intelligent as definition of schooling? No, probably not. Do I think she makes a good manager of problems and has street cred? Yeah, I do. And I think her success proves it. Ironically, though I certainly do not equate her with Reagan, I heard the same thing about Reagan 30 years ago.
We have an entire flock of school boys and girls, now leading the country that have graduated from the most elite of universities, who can’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag – Obama included. I’ve probably got as much formal education as you do across a broad spectrum of subjects. Most of that would have come from what you consider II/III tiered universities, including 60 hours obtaining prerequisites from a community college (albeit a good one) to enter medical school (which I chose not to finish). Am I to assume that the left would also consider me stupid?
See, I think you fall into the common trap of academia. You believe higher education is the highest calling and highest form of intellect. Me, I’ll take a common sense, clear headed approach with or without formal education every time.
February 10, 2010 at 11:53 pm |
Tex said…. This may be pretty cramped. Hippie, you are indeed a gentleman.
Tex – thanks for the compliment. It probably has to do with my teaching philosophy. I have discovered over the years that students don’t really learn if you bash them over the head with your viewpoint – or even worse if you require them to parrot your viewpoint back to you. It works much better to quietly state your case, and listen to theirs. In the end, I don’t really care if they agree with me as long as they have thought about the issues and considered it from various sides.
Of course, this assumes you aren’t just trying to lull me into complacency.
I don’t truly know anything about MLK other than what I have read including his letters, but if he was the man that I believe, and he was what he wrote, what Jesse Jackson has become would be an anathema to everything MLK stood for.
You know, I don’t particularly like Jesse Jackson and I don’t find him to be particularly genuine. I do think the tears he shed on election night were genuine, though – and I couldn’t help but be moved by the image. I can be moved by it even if I don’t like his views or actions, because of what it represents.
Most of that would have come from what you consider II/III tiered universities, including 60 hours obtaining prerequisites from a community college (albeit a good one) to enter medical school (which I chose not to finish). Am I to assume that the left would also consider me stupid?
I would never consider you stupid Tex – and anyone on the left doing so would themselves be stupid. The pattern I was trying to describe isn’t your pattern. Some students come to college, goof off and party a lot, don’t really concentrate much, decide to blame it on their professors or on some other thing that screwed them over, and transfer after a semester or two. The new place isn’t any better, so they transfer again… and again. Eventually, they might finish, or might not. I suspect that was Palin’s pattern – but I don’t know. Who knows – perhaps I am being elitist.
From what I know of you, though, it is almost certainly is NOT your pattern.
It is easy to be elitist in my field – to think I am better than everyone else. When those feelings creep in I try to remind myself that I am an expert in something that nobody else in the world actually gives a damn about. That brings me down pretty fast.
– hippieprof
February 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm |
Nasty approach… and throwing out hate like this isn’t nasty. Back and forth we go!!!
Boy you should “know” what bothers you about her before you espouse this flimsy reasoning. Is it just her folksy manner? Down-to-earth? I kinda like her for that reason. She’s not afraid to take a stand. Even if she’s not as eloquent or lofty (dare I say, haughty) as you would probably like.
Wait! It’s because she’s an attractive woman isn’t it. Babes like this have no business in any position of power do they? She can’t be smart – she’s cute! And you wouldn’t want to bag Huckabee!
Well — actually my real belief is that you’re just upset at someone questioning the level of change that was promised by the current administration. It’s not as fast as you like either so you’re getting defensive about. In understand completely!
Don’t sweat it! We’ve got a few more years and we can go for some other “Changy-Thingy”
By the way, I’m now a fan on FB. Thanks for bringing into the fold!
Rock On, Hippie Prof!!!
Dave
February 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Dave, you ignorant slut!
Not sure how I am throwing around hate – in fact I specifically said I don’t hate Palin. I despise her. Big difference. Honestly, though – I am trying to come to grips with why I dislike her so because my emotional response to her is indeed irrational…
Is it just her folksy manner? Down-to-earth? I kinda like her for that reason. She’s not afraid to take a stand. Even if she’s not as eloquent or lofty (dare I say, haughty) as you would probably like.
No – the folksy bit doesn’t bother me. James Carville is folksy – but he is damned smart too. Her, not so much.
Wait! It’s because she’s an attractive woman isn’t it. Babes like this have no business in any position of power do they? She can’t be smart – she’s cute!
OK – maybe I am the only male in the world who thinks this – but I really don’t find her attractive at all. She reminds me of Dana Carvey’s church lady – a bit younger perhaps but with the voice and attitude to match.
Well — actually my real belief is that you’re just upset at someone questioning the level of change that was promised by the current administration.
No – I have disliked her from the start. I think true loathing set in with the smarmy comment she made about community organizers at the GOP convention. Martin Luther King was a community organizer – but I suspect she thinks that being mayor of Wasilla puts her on his level too.
Rock On, Hippie Prof!!
Yeah – you rock on too, dude!
(for those of you who don’t know, Dave is one of my band mates – proving once again that rock’n'roll transcends politics)
– hp
February 11, 2010 at 9:33 am |
Hey Hippieprof. I think Tex Taylor said a little of the way I feel towards the matter of Sarah Palin. Honestly, I don’t see this “shallow or actual mean spiritness” you and one of the commentors claim she has. I mean geez, the sound of her voice makes me cringe, but the she makes completely valid and factual points.
The ” hopey, changey thing” grated me but come on it’s a slight rub on Obama’s campaign slogan. If you want to see viciousness and mean spiritness … look at just about any video of Sarah Palin on Youtube and check out the comments. Absolutely disgusting. 99.9% contain no substance, just some the the most vile name calling. The MSM had villified Ms. Palin and it amazes me how successful they were at it.
One thing that always bothers me is how most on the left think that someone that doesn’t agree with them … then they’re just stupid or un-educated. I will say this, when those in our government take more control like she was talking about … answer me this … who’s gonna “police the police”? It’s out of control already.
Great blog site… gonna link to it.
February 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
Hi Steve! Glad to see you made it over here. Despite what some might think I really do want to foster a rational exchange of ideas.
So on to specific points (gonna do that italics quoty thingy….)
Honestly, I don’t see this “shallow or actual mean spiritness” you and one of the commentors claim she has. I mean geez, the sound of her voice makes me cringe, but the she makes completely valid and factual points.
I am starting to think that seeing the shallow and mean spirited thing requires you to have a particular attitude going in. I know I am offended by some things people on the right say – and you guys don’t see it. Alternatively, you guys may get offended by some things said on the left that seem harmless to me.
As for the factual points – well – that is probably a matter of opinion too
One thing that always bothers me is how most on the left think that someone that doesn’t agree with them … then they’re just stupid or un-educated.
I agree that we have some really arrogant folks over on this side. To be honest – it bothers me sometimes. I think I probably have that perspective because I grew up in a conservative household and know that conservatives are neither stupid nor evil. You can have honest differences of opinion without questioning someone’s intelligence or morality.
I fairness, though, it is a game both sides play. I grew up in a household where liberals were considered stupid and evil – it took some life experience to realize that they are neither. We have seen it over on your blog today where several people have been attacking my intelligence and education simply because they disagree with me on issues (BTW – I am again sorry – I really wasn’t trying to stir up trouble over there).
Again, thanks for coming by – you are welcome here anytime.
– hp
February 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
Anyone who has to write on her hands what her top priorities are (it was visible on TV) does not deserve serious consideration as a potential head of government.
And back in the real world, Todd Palin’s recently revealed emails show who the effective Governor of Alaska was.
February 12, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
But the pronunciation of corpsman as “Corpse Man” three times during a speech is perfectly excusable, even commendable, as President.
By the way for anybody of serious debate, while attending a Toastmaster’s meeting many years ago, it was suggested to combat nervousness, writing down single words on the hand to remember what you wished to emphasize not only acceptable, but not a bad idea.
February 12, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
Notes on your hand
Notes on your hand
Lookin’ like a fool with notes on your hand
….
But – seriously – this is really only an issue because it came during a speech in which she criticized Obama for using a teleprompter. All politicians use some sort of aid in delivering their speeches – do we really expect them to memorize every word of every speech? Palin shouldn’t complain about teleprompters, and the left shouldn’t complain about hand notes.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm |
In the future please refer to “notes on your hand” by the proper name: Redneck Telepromter.
Thank you.
February 14, 2010 at 12:52 am
jsmith said: In the future please refer to “notes on your hand” by the proper name: Redneck Telepromter.
Man – that one gave me a good laugh! I don’t know if you made it up or heard it somewhere else – but either way it was a great line. I even twittered it
Levity always welcome here….
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I laughed too – great line!
February 14, 2010 at 4:37 pm
(whoops! wrong place in thread – that was a response to HP re the ‘redneck teleprompter’ line further up.)
February 14, 2010 at 3:32 pm |
LOL Sarah is now a Toastmaster’s grad. Too funny. If she hasn’t gotten beyond Toastmasters tips she ain’t ready for the big league.
By the way, her core values were on her hand. Hard to remember? And why not a note card? That would have been reasonable instead of acting like a Jr. High School cheat.
February 12, 2010 at 10:13 pm |
Hi HP–I am glad you’re back! What irks me about Sarah P is quite simple–she strikes me as a “mean girl.” You know, the kind of girl in high school who was popular, pretty, smug, was the queen bee and knew it. There is much more to why I do not like her but that’s at the core of it.
I was at Grant Park on election night. One small correction to your description of that night, it was actually a wonderfully warm night for Chicago in November. I will never forget that night, it was filled with peace and joy….people were hugging, dancing, celebrating. When it was announced that Obama won, tears flowed. Although there were thousands of us there that night, I did not witness any violence or ugliness. I know I’ll sound cheesy saying this but the love in that park was palpable. And that night was healing and full of hope for many, myself included. I am going to give Obama more time before I become bitter and disenchanted with his presidency.
Keep on blogging!
February 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm |
Jen, you live in fantasy. ‘Hugging, dancing, celebrating’. Uh…for what? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. EXACTLY what was everyone ‘hugging, dancing, and celebrating’? What makes you think that Obama is going to bring anything that’s going to change your lif for the good? What is it you’re looking for? Do you want the government to control everything in your life?
What has Sarah Palin said that chaps your a$$? Everything she said is factually accurate. (I admit the sound of her voice makes me cringe). But come on, lay some facts on me and I sincerely hope you’ll answer the questions I asked.
You need to wake up and realize that Obama is not the ‘knight in shining armour’ that he and the media has portrayed him to be. Anyway, I’ll anticipate your answer.
Thanks hippieprof for allowing me to visit!
February 12, 2010 at 11:46 pm |
Stave said….. Jen, you live in fantasy.
Steve – maybe she does and maybe I do too – but please listen to what we are telling you. Both Jen and I apparently had a very similar emotional experience that night – a very very joyful and intense emotional experience. Hope and change really did mean something – it felt like yes – indeed – the world really had a chance of becoming a better place.
I understand completely that your emotions and Tex’s emotions and the emotions of lots of conservatives were quite a bit more negative. I will concede that.
I need you to understand this: With emotions as strong as I – and others – experienced – an attack on our President takes on a whole new meaning. ‘When Limbaugh say “I want him to fail” he is saying – to me – I want your spirit to be crushed.
I think that is why we react so strongly when Obama is attacked – because we have a huge emotional investment in his election and his success.
Call it naive and irrational and whatever else you like – but at least try to understand that this means a lot more to people that would be the case with just any old politician.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 12:00 am |
Steve – forgot to address a couple of things…
First… you say:
Thanks hippieprof for allowing me to visit!
Steve, you are always welcome here. People don’t always believe me, but the purpose of this blog is to foster discussion. I really do think we are in serious serious trouble as a country if we can’t find a way to respectfully discuss our differences.
Besides – I learn a lot more by listening to people I don’t agree with than listening to people I do agree with. For example, today I learned from you that Glen Beck has detractors on the right. That was interesting – I had not suspected it.
You go on to ask…. Do you want the government to control everything in your life?
I am glad you asked that, because the answer is a firm NO. That is why I get so angry when people call me a socialist – I absolutely DO NOT want the government controlling everything.
What I do believe is that we need more government control in some areas – which means a bigger government than you want but still something far short of socialism.
Take health care – I have written about it all over this blog so I am going to be brief here. I think the private sector does a lousy job with health insurance because the profit motive drives them into unethical practices. In particular, cancellation of insurance and denial of coverage after someone gets sick is just plain wrong. Likewise, denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is immoral in my book. I WOULD LOVE IT IF THE PRIVATE SECTOR GOT THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND STOPPED THESE PRACTICES ON THEIR OWN. But – they haven’t and won’t because companies which DO engage in these immoral practices have lower costs and can offer their product for less – and will drive the “moral” competition from the market.
I don’t want government regulation for the sake of regulation. I want regulation because in some cases the private sector just does a bad (and in this example I thin immoral) job.
Does that make sense? I can want more government regulation without being a socialist.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 9:21 pm |
Steve: There was hugging, dancing etc. because the liberals in Chi-town thought that the Messiah had been elected. It really is quite sad for when we start believing one man can save us, that is where dictators and madmen come from.
It appears that you and I have similar opinions on Sarah. Her voice is grating, but it’s nothing like Obama’s constant (literal and figurative) looking down his nose when speaking. And at least Palin can speak without having a teleprompter everywhere she goes. Google Obama School Teleprompter and you’ll see what I mean. (And yes I know that the tps were for a prepared speech, but come on! Aren’t you intelligent enough to say a short remark without a teleprompter?)
February 14, 2010 at 9:14 am
Informed mind said: Steve: There was hugging, dancing etc. because the liberals in Chi-town thought that the Messiah had been elected. It really is quite sad for when we start believing one man can save us, that is where dictators and madmen come from.
No – people were hugging, dancing, etc because we thought maybe – just maybe – we really were moving into a post-racial era – and that our country would be better for it. People on the right are working damned hard to dash those hopes because apparently they don’t find a post-racial world very appealing.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 9:46 am
Good morning hp!
Man, what a beautiful day in Ft. Worth!
Hp, you have to be joking, suggesting that Obama getting elected would create a ‘post-racial’ climate. In a way, his victory was indicative of how far along America has come regarding racism. He won by a land-slide. There is absolutely no way anyone can claim the usual racism claims towards whites. I do know for a fact that 90+% of black people voted for Obama simply because of his skin color … but that’s beside the point. Clearly Obama is a racist (Mr. and Mrs.), judging by his speach and past associations.
It’s also offensive to suggest that those on the right find the post-racial world not appealing. I surely think you’re more intelligent than to attempt to use race in our disdain towards Obama. It’s his policies, plain and simple.
February 14, 2010 at 10:08 am
Mornin’ Steve….
Man – I am just getting done commenting on stuff from yesterday – and now I am getting comments on comments….
You said: Hp, you have to be joking, suggesting that Obama getting elected would create a ‘post-racial’ climate.
Steve, a lot of whites believe that we have had a post-racial climate for a long time already because, as you note, things have improved a lot in the last 50 years. I am sympathetic to that view. If you talk to blacks, though, you will get a completely different view. They are subjected to things that you and I never have to experience. Despite my scruffy hippie look, I have never been stopped by police simply for walking down the street. It happens to blacks all the time. It happens to my black students when they are walking across their own campus.
Getting to a true post-racial world requires that the minority group actually experience that. I was hoping that Obama’s election would be a signal to blacks that we were getting there. Unfortunately, it looks to me like the message is “look what happens when you get uppity…”
One other question – If it is just Obama’s policies, how do you account for the fact that 95 percent of working Americans have had taxes lowered – yet they are protesting about Obama raising their taxes. Lots of disinformation out there.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 10:29 am
One problem with the black community is their own keep the racial divide going strong. Exploiters of their own race such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton profit immensely from keeping the ‘pot stirred’, so to speak. I’m amazed that folks still buy into the idea that it’s only white people that are racist; but I’m not going to get into all the other stuff right now.
You’ll have to demonstrate the 95% of working Americans having their taxes lowered. There was a 5 or 6 month period I noticed about a $3 a week increase in my pay, but it’s gone right back to where it was.
Hp, there is absolutely no way Obama will implement his policies without raising taxes on everyone; not just that, when cap and trade, health care, and all his other proposals hit … don’t you think prices will skyrocket? He said it himself that when ‘cap and trade’ hit they will. He has already basically reversed his stand to not raise taxes on the middle class. He knows and knew during the campaign that it’s going to happen. Right now he says he’s ‘agnostic’ about raising taxes on the middle class.
Yep lots of disinformation for sure.
February 14, 2010 at 10:20 am
Steve…. one last thing….. you said:
It’s his policies, plain and simple.
Then lets have a debate about his policies. Tell the racists that they don’t have a home under your tent – and he honest – there are some of them out there. Quit it with the whole birth certificate thing. Quit calling him a fascist and a socialist because he most certainly isn’t either.
Instead, concentrate on the real issues like government size and government power and free markets. I would much rather be having that conversation.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Let’s see you document that “fact”. WTF do you know about why blacks vote? Did some blacks vote for Obama based only on race? Of course. 95%? No, that implies 95% of blacks are stupid. Do you really want to go there??
February 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm
See, conservatives don’t dislike Obama because of his race, but liberals only like him because of his race. It makes perfect sense, right? As long as you ignore the hand-wavy bits in the middle.
I’m sure there are plenty of conservatives who really DON’T have a problem with Obama’s race, and plenty of liberals who secretly hated the idea of voting for a black guy, or stayed home so they wouldn’t have to. Here’s the thing. The Republican Party, as a whole, perpetuates racist ideas. Not each and every one of them. But when the tea partiers put Tancredo out there as the opening speaker for their convention, when Palin claims that “small-town Americans” are the only “Real Americans”, it emphasizes how blind they are to the concerns of minorities.
February 14, 2010 at 4:46 pm
And when the southern Dixiecrats fought hard against the civil rights legislation in the 1960′s and lost, they left the Democratic Party en masse and became Republicans. Says it all guys – I’m not saying, nor do I believe, that anyone on this thread is a racist – but the GOP has a sorry sorry record in this regard.
The Dixiecrats ended up being much more comfortable in the Republican party anyway, where they could continue their fight against unions.
February 14, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Moe said…
And when the southern Dixiecrats fought hard against the civil rights legislation in the 1960’s and lost, they left the Democratic Party en masse and became Republicans.
I am so happy to hear you mention that. I made a similar point over on a conservative blog the other day – and provided a link to wikipedia as evidence. (I know – wikipedia isn’t the greatest source – but it isn’t so bad these days – and is easily linkable). Anyway, I was told that I was attempting to change history and that I was obviously operating from a liberal playbook. I was told that Wikipedia was a biased liberal propaganda tool (hard to see how that could be for an open-source encyclopedia).
Elsewhere in the same thread someone claimed that – by matter of Constitutional law – only Christians are allowed to be President.
Sheesh…
Some of the people in that discussion have made it over here – so it is nice to hear someone independently confirm the correct history.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 6:14 pm
[I was told that Wikipedia was a biased liberal propaganda tool (hard to see how that could be for an open-source encyclopedia).]
HP, I’ve run into that argument often and find it utterly perplexing. But some on the right are so convinced of it, that the Family Research Council created something called Conservapedia – which of course is, by its very name – a conservatively biased wiki. (If it really is a wiki). It’s also got a LOT of Christian slant on its entries, which is odd.
One of today’s top headlines (yes, they have headlines) today is “Happy Saint Valentine’s Day! Keep the “Saint” in Saint Valentine’s Day.”
Anyway, check it out: http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page
February 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Eclaire….
Thanks for dropping back and commenting.
You said:
The Republican Party, as a whole, perpetuates racist ideas.
I see this so clearly – but I have come to believe that many Republicans just don’t see it. Sometime yesterday a commenter here typed out a list of about 20 racial stereotypes – and then claimed that it wasn’t racist because the stereotypes were true. Another commentator agreed that conservatives seek a “monocultural” America – as opposed to a multicultural America – but somehow doesn’t see the racist overtones in that.
Keep up the good fight….
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm
HP,
The first example was a shmuck, plain and simple. The second one is partially right. Conservatives want everyone to have pride in the United States and think of the United States as their country, not simply as a home without any attachment or pride in it, as Theodore Roosevelt (someone I don’t agree with, sans on this point) said: “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic… There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.”
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 6:04 pm
An informed mind said:
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic… There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.”
So – what would an unhyphenatied American culture look like? Would we cease to allow “Greektown” or “Chinatown” or other ethnic neighborhoods? Would we close all the Thai and Italian and Chinese restaurants and replace them with “real American” food like Bob Evans? (the thought makes me shudder). Will we stop celebrating St Patrick’s day>
Seriously – what would a monocultural country look like. It sounds damned boring to me.
I think what bothers me most is that the monoculturalists (though perhaps not you) seem to be OK with Greek-Americans and Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans but are not so OK with Arab-Americans or Latin-Americans – and sorry – that does smack of racism.
Oh – they don’t much like liberal Americans either….
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I have problems with any hyphenated American. My dad’s from Czechoslovakia and he considers himself American NOT Czech-American. I consider myself an American… done deal.
I don’t have problems with Chinatown or Little Italy as long as the people therein consider themselves American period. I don’t want someone with split loyalties between a country that their ancestors are from yet hasn’t done a d*mn thing for them and America that has given them all the opportunities in the world. Polish, Irish, Italian, European or Asian, Hispanic or African.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Let’s see you document that “fact”. WTF do you know about why blacks vote? Did some blacks vote for Obama based only on race? Of course. 95%? No, that implies 95% of blacks are stupid. Do you really want to go there??
I mentioned this elsewhere. About 88 percent of blacks voted for Kerry in 2004 – so apparently the theory would go that all of that 88 percent switched to being Republicans sometime between 2004 and 2008 – but then 95 percent jumped back to being democrats because Obama was black…. yeah… that must be how it happened.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm
No need for me to defend Sarah Palin further. If she were as incompetent as many of you would like America to believe, she would make little mention – but she is the headliner. If she were as beatable an opponent as many liberals attest, liberals would actually welcome her dialogue, discourage the politics of personal destruction, and encourage her candidacy. Smart progressives know better. Enough said.
I do defend Palin against Rutherford because of Rutherford’s real intent, not because she is my candidate of choice – far from it and I believe there are some far more capable. I do welcome Palin as an asset to Conservatism. And I will defend Palin against Rutherford’s condemnation, not only because of its viciousness, but his obsession with Palin to the point of psychosis. His wife shares his psychosis, with one feeding off the other.
A good example of black racism is Obama’s adult life of attending Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. This facade of worship is loosely a form of black apartheid and white hate, stoked by sheer evil and hypocrisy. Obama’s spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright is an admitted racist and Jew hater.
Again, I use the example of Rutherford’s duplicity in thought. Three times last week and once last fall, this Harvard educated “elite”, the Commander-in-Chief, mispronounced corpsman as “Corpse Man”. Even if one finds Sarah Palin a complete buffoon, she can do little to top that in sheer ignorance.
I have witnessed many times a public speaker have a complete melt down and forget every thought. It happens with nervousness. You Rutherford have obviously never been in position to speak publicly. If you had, your own radio blog wouldn’t sound so amateurish and pitiful. You certainly are in no position to condemn.
February 15, 2010 at 12:03 am
Tex says:
Well Tex, before you can host even an amateurish blogtalkradio show, you have to know how to read, and you haven’t come THAT far yet. The funniest part is what you didn’t read, you had the gall to quote and ignore. I said (louder this time?) “And why not a note card?” I understand nerves. If she’d had a visible note card in her hand, at least she wouldn’t have looked like she was trying to trick her audience into believing she talking off the cuff. But then, the woman has lied on so many occasions that this MO comes naturally to her. I will repeat, she looked like a Jr. High cheat. A few note cards would actually have made her look professional. And you know what? You’re a sexist MCP because any man who had been caught doing that would have been laughed out of the auditorium with you at the front of the line laughing your ass off. But because someone who has the talking points you like to hear PLUS a vagina you’d like to tap, she gets a free ride. You and National Review’s Rich Lowry.
For what it’s worth, I served for four years as the President of a local professional society during which I spoke sans notes in front of a decent number of people every month and I did a pretty damn good job of it. Again, when you assume, you make an ass of u and me. They teach that along with RIF.
February 15, 2010 at 12:40 am
Rutherford,
Your predilection for the irrelevant noted – but who really cares except for the pedantic hack if the words on the hand or note card? You’re grasping for straws, while continually ignoring Corpse Man Obama publicly demonstrating himself a egocentric dimwit. If you’re as proficient at public speaking as you attest, you would know what Sarah Palin did with notes is far more difficult than what Obama does with a teleprompter, as he moves from side to side of the audience like Stevie Wonder jamming on the piano. Is that sexist too?
My assumption about your radio blog being rotten is not based on assumption, but first hand account listening to the weeds grow. If I were a really wicked bastard, I’d turn a recording of “that thing” from 2/6/2010 over to Sean Hannity to openly mock your co-host and provide a monument to the stupidity of many neo-liberals and their own inability to LIF.
February 14, 2010 at 12:48 pm
HP,
Obama would never had won had there been racism in even 15% of the white population. Don’t try to bring racism into it. Whites voted more for Obama than for McCain and that is a large reason why Obama won. However, why can’t you admit that almost ALL black people that voted for Obama voted for him because he is black. Is there no racism involved there?
Secondly, trying to say that conservatives don’t want a post-racial world is insane. We have nothing to lose from a post-racial world except race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that think that they speak for the black populace. Conservatives have long been called racist or bigots due to the fact that we disagree substantively with Sharpton or Jackson. In truth, Democrats are just involved in subjugating blacks and other minorities by making them reliant on the government. Back in the 70s and 80s the number of black children growing up in a two parent household was much higher than now. Why? Because government has largely replaced the father as the sole provider for the family. Back in the day, fathers were responsible for taking care of their children and wives, now with welfare and other ‘social programs’ there is no need for a father. The culture of big government has ruined many minority families.
February 14, 2010 at 6:14 pm
You sound as mindless as Steve. To imply that all black people who voted for Obama knew nothing about economics, foreign affairs, or any issues of the day …. to say they just said “Hot damn, I think I’m a gonna go in that votin’ booth and vote for someone who looks like me cos I don’t know nuthin else.” To think that …. to say that …. Informed Mind shows that you are …. guess what? A friggin’ racist. And I’m not afraid to call you out on it.
HP, I’m sorry but you are way to gentle with these backward folks pretending to engage in intelligent debate. You should be going up one side of them and down the other. How disgusting to suggest that ALL black people (or almost all) knew nothing and cared nothing about their country or the issues. All they saw was skin color. It’s disgraceful
February 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Rutherford said….
HP, I’m sorry but you are way to gentle with these backward folks pretending to engage in intelligent debate. You should be going up one side of them and down the other. How disgusting to suggest that ALL black people (or almost all) knew nothing and cared nothing about their country or the issues. All they saw was skin color. It’s disgraceful
R…. I hadn’t gotten to that exact comment yet – I have a lot of traffic here. You know how I used to envy you for all the traffic on your blog? You have to be careful what you wish for.
Perhaps my style is too gentle – I like to think that by pointing out logical contradictions and the such that I am letting them hang themselves and that they come off as foolish. But – maybe that is too subtle.
I agree with you that the remark above is disgraceful. What bothers me even more is that people who make such remarks don’t realize it – and in fact do not think of themselves as racists. I virtually guarantee you that Informed Mind does not see that remark as even slightly offensive, and may claim that we are beeing overly sensitive.
More later – for now back to rummaging through comments.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Rutherford,
Really? Am I a racist? Such a shame. I guess it doesn’t really mean much to me nowadays since I have been called a racist ever since I started being outspoken against Obama. Really? Is that the worst insult you can throw at me? You’re starting to sound like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, just another race hustler caring nothing about black people, just about making white people shut up about their criticism of Obama or anything that a black person does wrong. This is not about race. Ask my black friends and colleagues. Ask Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Angela McGlowan, Larry Elder and numerous other black conservatives.
I guess that means that Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, etc. are all racists? Shame shame on them. Look at the polls dummy. Black unemployment has risen with Obama in office and the general economic trend toward black people/minorities is that they are losing jobs, yet they continue to support Obama (and in fact in higher numbers than when he was first elected.) You can’t tell me that there is not an inherent race-bias there. You seem to think that you have the right to claim that white people are inherently racist and whoever doesn’t like Obama is motivated by race yet I can’t claim that many blacks support Obama just because he is black? Two-faced much?
Backwards is the mindset of a fool that can claim racism is only from the majority and that no minority can be racist. Backwards is the label used to silence those whose arguments you have no refutation for. Backwards are the people that don’t believe any conservative can have a valid, legitimate, cogent argument against a liberal without being racist, stupid or a hick. Don’t talk to me about being backwards until you look in the mirror and start practicing the tolerance you espouse. You sir are a charlatan and have no mind except that which has been programmed by the government and liberal elitists who believe they have the only legitimate definition of intelligence.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Informed, you put the cart before the horse. I “meet” you here and I see that you are a conservative. So far so good. I know many conservatives who are intelligent, caring and cool when it comes to race. You voice some of the usual criticisms of Obama. Still so far so good. I assume nothing about you racially at this point.
But then you say that almost all blacks voted for Obama on color alone. You’re right. HP took the high road and quoted you John Kerry stats that show your comment to be as foolish as it was. I took the low road and assumed that anyone who thinks that any entire block of people leave their intellect at the sidewalk and go into a voting booth and vote on color, must have some very prejudiced views of that block of people.
If you are not a racist, then I would like to understand how you make the leap to assume that more blacks (proportionate to whites) were ignorant about the issues and voted purely on a superficial. You see I KNOW for a fact that lots of whites voted for McCain because they despise liberal ideology. Obama represented everything they ever wanted to avoid …. reminded them of Clinton and Carter. These same white people would have voted for McCain had he been black.
What you need to consider before you get huffy about being called a racist, is that black people think before they vote.
February 14, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Rutherford, you seem to be a bit ignorant, perhaps willingly, but none the less ignorant; and that ignorance makes your take on things ‘disgraceful’. No one here said that ALL black people voted for Obama because he’s black, but there’s quite a few that did.
February 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Steve, did you not say 90%? How close to ALL is that? I also notice that to prove your point, you post a video of a couple of ignorant black people.
I can match you video for video of ignorant whites … especially some of the ones attending the Tea Parties.
And of course, the fool hosting this parade of ignorant blacks “wants his country back”. Mmmmm, that dude is getting paid pretty damn well in this country that he’s losing. What has old Rick Roberts lost? Not a damn thing.
February 14, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Yeah, 90% or more actually. Did I read that right? “a couple ignorant black people”? You borderline on a racist comment. I could have put up several such videos, but it would be pointless.
“ignorant black people” … geez
February 15, 2010 at 12:13 am
LOL Steve … anyone who mistakes McCain’s platform for Obama’s and still likes Obama is ignorant. That’s not racist. That is actual fact. Your 90% isn’t fact. So there’s your difference.
You and Informed just don’t get it. Opposing Obama does NOT make you racist. My blog is full of conservative commenters and I can’t remember the last time I called any of them racist. They loathe Obama. Doesn’t make them racist. (Even Tex, who used to be my buddy of sorts but has gone into full hissy-fit mode, has never been a racist in my mind. A sexist maybe LOL, but not a racist.)
But when you make blanket statements about a race of people, without foundation …. a statement that paints that entire race of people in a very bad light, then why am I so far off to think “you just might be a racist”?
As I said to Informed, you can hit Obama up, down and sideways on policy and I will disagree with you but I will assume no racial motivation. So don’t hide behind “OMG just cos I don’t like Obama he accuses me of racism”. It’s BS and you know it.
February 15, 2010 at 9:41 am
Rutherford,
But according to your own standard, calling black people ignorant, even if they are, is racist. Shame on you Ruth! You racist bigot!
You mean like your blanket idea that anyone that criticizes a black person or president is automatically racist? Your foundation-less attack on conservatives due to their legitimate opposition to Obama?
We have hit Obama in policy. High taxes driving business out of the country and taking jobs with them, the health care bill that will run even higher deficits AND debt, the most liberal record in favor of abortion, taking on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell rather than the Taliban, Miranda rights to terrorists that have no rights to them under the Constitution, ever growing government at the cost of personal liberty and soaring debt, apologizing for America abroad, letting Iran get ever closer to the bomb and making our allies feel more like enemies. Policies enough for you?
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 15, 2010 at 10:06 am
Informed minds said…
But according to your own standard, calling black people ignorant, even if they are, is racist. Shame on you Ruth! You racist bigot!
No…. calling black people ignorant BECAUSE they are black is racist. Implying that all (or most) black people are ignorant is racist.
Noting that two particular individuals happen to be black and happen also to be ignorant is NOT racist because no causation is drawn and because there is not attempt to generalize to “all black people.”
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 1:02 pm
HP,
No, I never said that all black people voted for Obama because he’s black. Look at the statistics, black people that have never voted before, even for Democrats that made more promises about minorities etc, voted for Obama. There is an inherent race-bias that a black president would do more or help black people more than a white president would. I didn’t say they were racist or condemn them for their voting for Obama, but I did say and will stand by it that there is a significant race bias from a large majority of the black people that voted for Obama.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Informed minds said:
Whites voted more for Obama than for McCain and that is a large reason why Obama won.
Well, except that didn’t occur. Exit polls suggest that Obama took about 43 percent of the White vote.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
However, why can’t you admit that almost ALL black people that voted for Obama voted for him because he is black. Is there no racism involved there?
I have to go with Rutherford on this one. The statement is downright offensive and is in fact racist in itself. Perhaps black people voted for Obama because they thought his positions might in fact be better for black people. Not an unreasonable assumption at all – and certainly not racist. Voting in your own best interests isn’t racist.
If you look at the link I provided above, you will note that 88 percent of blacks voted for John Kerry – so even if race were the ONLY factor behind that difference you would be talking about a mere 7 percent of the black vote – a far cry from the “almost all” you claim.
Sorry, just because Rush or Beck says that blacks were racist for voting for Obama doesn’t make it so.
Sometimes you guys really seem not to see it when you say offensive things.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
Yes, there has been so much malicious stuff said about Ms. Palin and her hand notes. I’m sure you’ve seen some of the videos of Obama trying to speak without his teleprompter. Gawd! I tell you even G.W. Bush looks like an intellectual compared to Obama, and I mean that. Obama is like a lost kid without it. I believe he needs it to talk to his wife and kids when they get up in the morning.
February 14, 2010 at 9:41 am
Steve said… Yes, there has been so much malicious stuff said about Ms. Palin and her hand notes.
I wish my side would lay off the hand notes – it is really a fluff issue and is a distraction. The only reason it is a story at all is that she had just finished criticizing Obama about the teleprompter – and hence was being hypocritical.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Please hippieprof. To say it’s hypocritical for her to write a few notes on her hand compared to his entire speech on a teleprompter is ridiculous. Not hardly in the same league.
February 13, 2010 at 9:50 pm |
My heavens, if the prompter went down it would be a circus. Wahaha. I think I would die laughing. Glenn Beck recently played a video of Obama tried off the cuff remarks due to the tp being down. All I could say was that I couldn’t stop laughing. This is ‘the One’? HAHAHA!!! However, Obama has cleverly concealed his reliance on the prompter in most cases. He looks back and forth when delivering the speech, I think that is because multiple tps have been set up so he can appear more eloquent and masterful in his delivery.
But I think that his ‘intelligence’ is little more than book-learning and has no fruitfulness in running of a nation. In fact, I feel much less safe now than I ever have.
February 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm |
HP said [When Limbaugh say “I want him to fail” he is saying – to me – I want your spirit to be crushed.]
Thank you for finally articulating my own reaction. I was sputtering mad and couldn’t find the words. You just gave them to me.
February 13, 2010 at 12:02 am |
Hey Jen – I am glad to be back at this too – I really missed it during my hiatus – though it is starting to dominate my life again. Moderation. I need to remind myself that there are other things I need to be doing.
It sounds like you and I had similar experiences on election night. I almost drove up there – but I figured it would be an absolute zoo and stayed home instead. Now I am really wishing I had gone.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 9:04 am |
And yet for almost as many, those of us who do not judge by our “feelings” but by our wits and sense, and recognizing a complete facade when we see one, it felt like it was the culmination of all that was wrong with America.
Whether we can recover quickly from Barack Obama and his empty promises and empty cliches of hope and change remains to be seen. It is embarrassing to me my fellow citizens would be taken with something inane as the “profoundness” of cliche. Obama’s failure to understand even the most basic of economics and free enterprise, his wishes to take us toward a failed Europe (just today I read of the imminent failure of the Euro), his smugness naivete, and narcissistic behavior remains to be seen. But it is now obvious many have been hoodwinked into believing in the “magic” of Barack Obama.
I told my friends that evening when it became apparent that Obama would win, that this is what happens when Conservatives, before most non political in nature (we are now), sit on their collective hands and do nothing, “hoping” for the best. John McCain was an embarrassment himself as a candidate, and for the 6th Presidential election in a row I was forced to choose between the better of the lesser of two candidates – an absolutely pitiful demonstration and a sign of America’s failed leadership. The only thing McCain had was an admirable life story.
I believe Barack Obama exercises his own tacit but vicious form of racism which when he has dropped his guard has been exposed. You do not sit in a pew of a church for twenty years and listen to a dubious character and bigot like Jeremiah Wright (a hypocrite of biblical proportions) preach heresy without indicating you too have something terribly wrong with your own character. This fact was conveniently ignored by the press. Many of the left where and still are clueless to that simple fact.
Whether Obama can continue to fool his legend of followers remains to be seen. But his first year of office has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster, failed leadership, and lies about transparency. He has proven to be an empty suit as I predicted. I do not trust the man, I do not admire the man, nor do I like the man. There is no more pretentious man on earth than Barack Obama IMO.
February 13, 2010 at 2:49 pm |
Like your blog Hippie — interesting stuff to get a lefty perspective…
I am not a Palin supporter — nor am I a Palin basher — so I have no real comments about your irrational fears of this woman. One thing in your post did, however, catch my attention:
“An image. It is election night. A newly-elected President Obama is delivering his acceptance speech to thousands in a frigid Grant Park. In the crowd stands Jesse Jackson – with tears pouring down his face.
That image moved me to tears.
That is what Hope and Change is all about…”
Not so long ago there was another, similar event — a man emerged from the presidential palace, with tears streaming down his face, as the new chancellor. He was wildly cheered by his supporters — who believed in him, not thinking about their constitution or republic… only about the hope and change he represented.
Now, I am not equating Obama with that “new chancellor” (really, I am not). I would, however, like to point out that some very eery comparisons between the events you describe and a January day in 1933 can be drawn…
The cult of personality can be a very dangerous thing. How many millions voted for Obama due only to the cult of personality? How many voted for him ignorant of his desire to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” or without a thought as to what that might actually mean? How many voted for him just to experience the feeling you described that night at Grant Park. How many voted based only on the promise of “hope and change?”
Palin was correct. Now that he is the president that “hopey changey thing” isn’t really working out for us — or him. This isn’t really what most Americans were expecting. They didn’t really know what to expect other than the undefined “hope and change.” The outrage over many of his policies and decisions now (on the left and right) surely demonstrates this isn’t what they thought they were going to get. They were simply caught up in a moment, caught up in the cult of personality.
If Sarah Palin is mocking Obama’s “hopey changey thing” all I can say is:
Good for her.
February 14, 2010 at 9:34 am |
J. Smith….
The “cult of personality” observation is very interesting – I hadn’t heard it put quite that way before.
Some people probably did vote for Obama because of the “cult of personality.” I like to think I didn’t.
Do I understand what he meant by “fundamentally transform the United States of America” – I like to think I did. If you read this blog you will see that Health Care Reform is a big issue for me. In our current system we pay more to get less compared to other developed nations – plus, the system is downright immoral. We need a system with a robust public option. Single payer would be great, but I know that won’t happen. That is one example of what fundamental change means to me – and I support it all the way.
Does every voter have that level of understanding? Probably not. But don’t claim that everyone who voted for Obama was blind to what it meant. I would note that of people voting for McCain very few would have been able to articulate his policies either.
You say: Palin was correct. Now that he is the president that “hopey changey thing” isn’t really working out for us — or him.
I will say it again – Palin was talking to 600 people who could afford to spend a large amount of money to be there. They are not the poor and disenfranchised. They probably have decent health insurance. The probably aren’t the target of racism on a regular basis. Hope and Change in fact muight not work too well for them if they just look at their selfish personal interests.
(an aside – 95 percent of working Americans have received a tax cut under Obama – yet a recent poll says only 12 percent of them realize it. Either all of Palin’s audience was in that upper 5 percent who didn’t get the cut – and certainly some were – or they simply don’t know what they have received. It is of course in the best interests of that upper 5 percent to convince everyone else that it is not working for them – and indeed they are trying their damnedest to do exactly that…..)
Look – a conservative economic policy would probably be much better for me personally. I have a good job with good benefits and I have good investments. If I take a narrow, selfish view then I guess hope and change isn’t working for me. I actually might have to give something up so others around me benefit. Oh – but I guess that sounds like evil socialism so I had best not go there.
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
HP, I finally got around to reading this. It is a beautiful eloquent expression of why Sarah Palin is so wrong.
The only area in which I differ with you is the ONE thing you like about Sarah. To those of limited imagination, just seeing Sarah proudly displaying her Down Syndrome child gives them a more positive attitude toward Down Syndrome. Perhaps they think for the first time that they could “cope” with a Down Syndrome child if they needed to. That is as far as her “advocacy” goes. Will any of the proceeds of “Going Rogue” or the $100,000 speaking fee go towards disabled issues? As I far as I know, not a dime. How many times in the past two years of her notoriety has she spoken at Special Olympics or any other disabled advocacy event or organization? She is an advocate purely by virtue of being a disabled child’s mother, nothing more. If that helps folks a bit, then bravo. It does little to move me.
Because you are polite and tolerant, you go back and forth with Tex. Tex has as much of a pro-Sarah blind spot as any of us have an anti-Sarah blind spot. The argument is utterly futile and a stalemate. Tex, who claims to not care for Sarah all that much, will go to any length to defend her. She literally can do no wrong in his book and if someone like me takes her on with more forceful language than do you, Tex flies into a rage.
You are right. Conservatives are neither stupid nor evil. Sarah Palin is both and the sooner conservatives forcefully throw her to the side the better.
February 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
As usual, I am forced to refute Rutherford’s characterization of my position, as he has a habit of fudging the facts.
Like J. Smith, I am neither a proponent of Sarah Palin’s possible candidacy as she not my candidate of choice, nor am I a hater of Sarah Palin. I actually admire most of her positions. Rutherford and his spouse spend countless hours on the couch and the computer following Palin’s every word, activity and speech. Rutherford has an obsession as his blog a personal testimony to his strange interest of Palin, almost to the point of the garden variety peeping Tom. When Rutherford finally stooped to a recent level of including Palin’s disabled son in his wrath with another post more wicked than usual, I had enough and was forced to confront Rutherford’s pretentious nature with a virtual punch to the mouth.
I will admit, given the choice between Sarah Palin and a cheap imitation of Jimmy Carter Redux with a messianic complex and universe sized dose of narcissism, I will choose Palin.
February 14, 2010 at 2:49 pm |
As I’ve stated elsewhere, Tex employs a logic tempting to many but intellectually empty and that logic states that if one discusses exploitation of the disabled, then one is ipso facto exploiting the disabled. Again it is the same logic that states anyone who discusses racism is a racist.
The article that has Tex so steamed presented two points. One a perspective from the mother of a mentally challenged child. She finds Sarah offensive. For that reason alone, Tex labels her a hairy armpit liberal mouthpiece. The second point was Stephen Colbert taking apart the hypocrisy of Sarah lambasting Rahm Emanuel (fair) but giving Rush Limbaugh a free pass. Stephen’s main point was that Sarah does not know what satire is (she claimed Rush was employing satire in his use of the word “retard”). I don’t find the presentation of either of these points “wicked”. And I maintain that Tex’s reaction to me is as visceral as my reaction to Sarah. I suggest anyone who wants to make up their own mind should visit my blog and read the article. (Not blog pimping here HP, just asking for a fair hearing.)
February 14, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Rutherford said….
I suggest anyone who wants to make up their own mind should visit my blog and read the article. (Not blog pimping here HP, just asking for a fair hearing.)
R… no worries…. I have pimped my blog on yours many many times. We generally have a similar take on issues, so why not? I highly recommend the Rutherford Lawson blog – people can find it here:
http://rutherfordl.wordpress.com
– hp
February 13, 2010 at 8:24 pm |
Palin = grifter.
And her ‘real America’ is a minority. The vast majority of Americans live in densly populated places. Like southern New England, California and the mid-Atlantic states. That’s where America lives.
February 13, 2010 at 9:49 pm |
And how is that Moe? I thought there were 50 states…all containing Americans…(no, not 57). I live in Texas … do you not consider me an American? You excluded yourself as well, if I guess right that you reside in Florida.
February 14, 2010 at 8:58 am |
Steve…. I think Moe was referring to Palin’s comment, during the campaign, that rural, small town Americans are the “real” Americans. Indeed we are all Americans – and all of us just as real as any other.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 8:54 am |
Hey Moe – glad you dropped by!
And her ‘real America’ is a minority.
Of all the things Palin said during the campaign I think that one bugged me the most – the suggestion that some Americans are “real Americans” while some are not. She has absolutely no idea how insulting such a suggestion is.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
Thanks for the defense HP – glad you agree about that particular comment from Palin.
I wasn’t particularly insulted since it came from someone for whom I hold no respect. But the falseness was so easy to disprove and yet it slid right by with thousands saying “right, right!”.
February 13, 2010 at 9:13 pm |
Odd, what about the Obama statement about the Republicans needing to shut up and grab a mop? Or the daily ramblings of Fat Ed from The Ed Show fame *more like flop* ‘if I could vote twenty times I could to keep these bast*rds out of office’ or Joe Klein saying that Americans are basically too stupid to understand economics? How does that compare to Palin’s ‘hopey changey’ statement? (BTW, the way she talks can be somewhat irritating, but I would vote for her any day over Obama.)
February 13, 2010 at 9:47 pm |
The statements you mentioned by Obama, Fat Ed and Joe Klein is quite acceptable to folks like Rutherford, who blathered on about Ms. Palin and as always following those on the left, not one single backed up fact.
February 13, 2010 at 9:55 pm |
Yeah, I’m used to it. The left seems to never admit that their own are usually far worse than the right. They want to talk about the ‘conservative racists’ and all that garbage, yet they ignore the purple shirted thugs from the SEIU beating up on a black man while using the N-word for handing out ‘Don’t tread on me’ flags at a tea party movement. I also find it quite disgusting that they have to use a sexual slur to refer to tea partiers as opposed to what you and I use. So much for tolerance and respect.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 8:50 am
Informed mind said….
Yeah, I’m used to it. The left seems to never admit that their own are usually far worse than the right.
One thing I learned from being on both sides of center over the course of my life is that each side thinks the other side is worse. I suspect the truth is that each does equally bad things – although not always the same bad things.
This is the second or third time I have heard reference to something involving SEIU – and it sounds like something I would condemn – but I don’t know the specific instance. Can you point me to it.
As I said in my article – I have never used the sexual slur until now – when their leaders invited someone to give an opening speech calling for a return to JIm Crow. To be honest, I have stopped using the slur again, after someone noted I was stooping to their level by doing so.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm |
An Informed Mind says
Please I beg of you, change your comments handle because the irony is just too hard to bear.
The Tea Party People themselves coined “Teabagger”, referred to themselves “teabagging the White House”, etc. All the liberal media did was look the damn term up, and then laugh their ass off at how inappropriate the self chosen moniker was …. and they ran with it.
And you see, “Informed” Mind, the whole Tea Party metaphor was stupid from day one because they were not simply protesting taxation. How could they, 95% of folks had their taxes lowered by Obama. They were protesting any little thing that was under their skin at the given moment. The most unfocused protest movement in the history of our country. I would argue this lack of focus is what left the door cracked open for racists to jump into the crowds and shame the entire endeavor.
And to you and Steve who gloat about teleprompters, you obviously didn’t see Obama at the GOP retreat. No TP and he did perfectly fine thank you. In fact, he ate the dumbass GOP reps for lunch and spat them out. The “shut up and grab a mop” was not condescending in the least. Obama was saying if you don’t have solutions (which the GOP doesn’t) then STFU, help or get out of the way. Sounds pretty logical to me.
February 14, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
Rutherford,
Your ignorance shines through your bluster. The 95% of people that saw their taxes lowered (not true by the way) are going to see them rise as Obama is now ‘agnostic’ on tax increases for the middle class. Back to the whole 95% lie, if 30% of people pay NO income taxes, how then will 95% of the people get a tax cut? Answer me that.
Yes the tea party started protesting taxes. That blossomed into something against big government and weakened national security. Just because a movement expands its horizons does not make it unfocused or dissolute. Without a wide variety of reasons for protest the movement would ultimately be of much less clout.
Two totally different types of speech there. When he is using a prepared speech he is useless without the tp. If he is speaking without needing a long drawn out speech he can do fine. Big deal. I could speak for fifteen minutes without needing a tp. He is a clown, a fool and worthless without his TP on most speeches. Last of all, I think it demeans the office of the president when a petulant and petty comment like his ‘shut up and grab a mop’ one is used. As president you are essentially the leader of the free world, don’t act like a alpha male frat jock with no restraint or orderliness about you.
February 14, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
It isn’t so much her lack of formal education as her disdain for education. I consider myself a fairly smart person, but the president should be smarter than me, not an average Joe. Quoting Sarah Vowell, “The United States is the greatest country on earth dealing with the most complicated problems in the history of the world–poverty, pollution, justice, Jerusalem. What we need is a president who is at least twelve kinds of nerd.” It’s her certitude that anyone who would choose a different way of life is unworthy or deluded or greedy.
Also, how is it that a blog post about Sarah Palin ended up being a magnet for comments about how racist Obama is?
February 14, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
Eclaire asked….
Also, how is it that a blog post about Sarah Palin ended up being a magnet for comments about how racist Obama is?
Because the typical response on the right to accusations of racism is to deflect the discussion by making (absurd) counter-accusations that Obama is himself a racist. It is a standard debate ploy – turn the tables by putting the other guy on the defensive.
I have never seen the least evidence that Obama is a racist – the only argument I seem to hear is an extremely weak guilt-by-association claim based on his contact with Rev Wright. But – once the accusation is made – we are put on the defensive by having to counter it.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
It’s simple EClaire. Conservatives will do anything to distract from what an utter embarrassment Sarah Palin is.
I have never in my life seen so many intelligent people wed themselves to a reality-show contestant who belongs on a segment as a “Dr. Phil Family” instead of trying to become President of the United States.
February 14, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
Informed mind said…
This is not about race. Ask my black friends and colleagues. Ask Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Angela McGlowan, Larry Elder and numerous other black conservatives.
(sigh) just because you have black friends and colleagues and just because there are black conservatives does not mean you are incapable of making offensive statements.
Rutherford is right – to claim that 95 percent of blacks voted for Obama only because he is black is insulting – especially when you consider that 88 percent of blacks voted for Kerry during far less trying economic times.
Do you not see how your statement might be taken as offensive?
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why it is that blacks generally find the Republican party unattractive. Be careful how you answer the question too – lest you not say something offensive again.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 8:12 pm |
HP,
Everyone is capable of making offensive statements and that is not based on race whatsoever. Jeremiah Wright is offensive, Fat Ed Sullivan is offensive, to liberals Sarah Palin is offensive. In America it is not a crime (yet) to be offensive. Free speech demands that you do not have the right to not be offended. You have the right to not be slandered or libeled, but you cannot shut down speech because it is offensive.
I think I’ll write a post about the demise of free speech in the free world. It seems that leftists on here cannot allow free speech that has conservative roots. It seems that one can slander and write something offensive about a conservative ie: Palin, but if one writes something about Obama it is automatically racist. Are liberals/progressives/leftists that uncertain of their own arguments?
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm |
Well put informedmind. The attacks on Sarah Palin are way over the top; have been and they keep on coming. I have yet to figure out why except for those on the left fear her, or are jealous of her. Personally I don’t think she’s presidential material; but she is leaps and bounds ahead of what we have now. I’d vote for one of the homeless people on the streets of Ft. Worth before I’d vote for Obama.
February 14, 2010 at 8:55 pm |
Informed mind said:
I think I’ll write a post about the demise of free speech in the free world. It seems that leftists on here cannot allow free speech that has conservative roots.
I think that is a little unfair to me. I have never censored a post here. I may disagree with you, but you are free to express your ideas. In fact, I encourage you to.
I can’t count the number of times I have been censored on conservative blogs – usually by having my comments fail to survive moderator screening. To your credit, neither you nor Steve do that. I appreciate it.
– hp
February 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm |
HP,
I wasn’t talking about you and this forum. I am well aware that you’ve allowed my comments to stay. I am grateful for that as well. However, on other liberal blogs such as The Drudge Retort my comments have been stricken simply because they presented an uncomfortable viewpoint to Hoffman.
I am speaking more of the general view of the left that certain language is ‘offensive’ and therefore should be censored or demeaned. The idea that just because certain viewpoints go against the established rule of not criticizing Obama because he’s black or other black people they should be censored. I have not nor will I ever be politically correct. I say what I see. I shoot straight. I have no qualms about calling out someone whether they be black, Hispanic, European, white, yellow, purple or red. If someone is going against my beliefs and principles I’m gonna say it and I’m gonna say it however I can. That is what is so great about a free, open, uncensored internet and talk radio. People can express their opinions even if people disagree with them. That is why even though you and I are diametrically opposed in our principles, I respect you for allowing my comments to stand.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
PS: My comment policy is laid out very clear in the section of my blog called Comment Policy. I believe in free speech and that carries over to my blog.
February 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm |
Steve–
It’s about the content.
What Palin wrote on her hand (readable on TV) was a short list of her main priorities. Definitely not in the same league as a long detailed speech.
If she doesn’t know what her priorities are without a crib sheet, what does she know?
February 15, 2010 at 9:10 am |
For someone that had a ‘short list’ of topics she wanted to talk about, she did a pretty good job speaking for 40+ minutes with while only referring to her ‘list’.
February 15, 2010 at 11:56 am |
This thread gets more ridiculous by the minute.
The “short list” of her basic beliefs, were written on her hand for the benefit of a Q&A that occurred after the speech in which all the questions were screened in advance.
The 40+ minute speech was delivered not from a TP nor from her hand but from prepared notes. No shame in that. No one but a fool goes in front of a crowd of 1000 paying guests and riffs off the top of their head.
Nice try Steve trying to suggest she delivered a 40 minute speech based on 4 lines on her hand. She didn’t.
I have to ask …. Steve did you actually watch the speech and Q&A or are you just talking out of your ass?
February 14, 2010 at 11:37 pm |
I do actually agree with Informed Mind on “Americans”. The only reason I support the notion of “African-American” is that it puts blacks on a par as immigrants (albeit unwilling immigrants). The minute Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. are willing to abandon their monikers, I’ll be the first to say let’s bury African-American.
HP, it might be a tricky balance but I think we can identify American first, and yet embrace aspects of other cultures that have influenced our family. I think the problem arises when “Tony” thinks that eating spaghetti somehow makes him special. All it does is allow Tony to introduce some diversity into our culture. Bravo for that. But it really doesn’t or shouldn’t go any deeper than that. Same for blacks and dashikis.
February 14, 2010 at 11:49 pm |
Have you totally lost it? She READ her Tea Party speech from prepared notes. Nothing wrong with that but please don’t try to tell me she got up there and spoke 40 minutes extemporaneously. (Granted it was one rambling lousy speech, but I assure you it was written down.)
Someone (maybe you) already conceded that Obama can handle “15 minutes at a time” without a TP. Based on Sarah’s hand, she CAN’T.
One more question Steve. Do you have so much trouble remembering your three basic beliefs that you need them written on your hand? I like virtually not a damn thing you’ve said in this thread and I’d vote for you before I’d vote for Sarah Palin.
(LOL damning by faint praise.)
February 15, 2010 at 12:07 am |
Hippie,
With due respect to you, to prove that liberals continue to be wrong about anything of substance, including Sarah Palin’s legitimacy, here is another where the scientists are in retreat, but the progressive party which before hand sang their praises, refused to admit error.
THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
The camouflage is bright yellow…
February 15, 2010 at 12:14 am |
BTW, HP I’m sorry my comments are not appearing in the right place … for some reason I’m not “threading” right.
February 15, 2010 at 12:21 am |
Rutherford said….
BTW, HP I’m sorry my comments are not appearing in the right place … for some reason I’m not “threading” …
Don’t worry – nothing seems to be threading right at the moment. I will probably start a new thread tomorrow and we can move discussion over there.
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 12:46 am |
an egocentric dimwit… for the pedantic Mr. Lawson, who has only witnessed a marginal attempt at hissy fit so far…
Just loosening up the arm without windup.
February 15, 2010 at 12:58 am |
LOL Tex … you know full well where I “met” you. Over at Chen’s you were in full bile-spilling mode. You’ve mellowed my friend. Granted your new found outrage may energize you for a bit, but you won’t exceed your
bestworst days over at General Chen’s.Seeing you go into full insult mode is simply nostalgia. Just give me a chance to put on my Men At Work album before you launch the next attack.
February 15, 2010 at 12:57 am |
Hippie,
I don’t wish to dash you like Rutherford, but that post-racial fluff is pure bunk and always was. It’s the most insidious of liberal charges against Conservative America and the last bastion of failure. Tell that to the O.J. Simpson jury, because they are the ones most needing to hear it.
And if Rutherford will be honest, he will note that I predicted months ago that when the inevitable Obama failure rears its head for all to see, and it is, race relations will actually worsen and parallel Obama’s imminent fall. Baseless charges of racism have followed, with liberals unable to make honest admission race or creed have little to do with the disdain of Obama’s policies.
February 15, 2010 at 8:09 am |
Tex said…
I don’t wish to dash you like Rutherford, but that post-racial fluff is pure bunk and always was. It’s the most insidious of liberal charges against Conservative America and the last bastion of failure. Tell that to the O.J. Simpson jury, because they are the ones most needing to hear it.
Sorry – call me a naive idealist if you like, but I actually did think that for a moment we were moving toward a post-racial world. I have a lot of black students and colleagues Tex – quite a few of them had that hope too. The OJ Simpson case was over 15 years ago – I like to think lots has changed since then. It it too much to hope for some progress on the issue? You seem to be saying that progress is impossible Tex. Wow. What a sad commentary.
You say it isn’t race? Maybe not – but it isn’t the issues either. If not race it has been power politics. Obama’s proposals have been center-left a most. The Senate health care reform bill on the table barely meets the description “left of center” and doesn’t even come close to “progressive.” – Yet the GOP have discovered they can earn some political points by being obstructionist.
Sheesh. You wonder why people are getting bitter when the minority part plays obstructionist – and makes an active attempt to dash your hopes?
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 11:37 am |
Tex speaks the truth here. He has consistently claimed Obama’s administration would breed unprecedented racial divisiveness and would be an utter failure.
February 15, 2010 at 9:16 am |
Hp, I can’t hardly track with the thread here anymore. I’ll just leave off with the fact that I sincerely appreciate your blog and you have some intelligent and articulate people here and I enjoy the dialogue immensely. I’m glad that things didn’t get too out of hand, and though we disagree on things, I’m convinced that all in all we want America to be protected and hope only the best for the citizens. It’s doubtful we could have had this ‘conversation’ in too many other countries.
Hoping you and yours have a great week!
February 15, 2010 at 9:40 am |
Stave said….
Hp, I can’t hardly track with the thread here anymore. I’ll just leave off with the fact that I sincerely appreciate your blog and you have some intelligent and articulate people here and I enjoy the dialogue immensely. I’m glad that things didn’t get too out of hand, and though we disagree on things, I’m convinced that all in all we want America to be protected and hope only the best for the citizens. It’s doubtful we could have had this ‘conversation’ in too many other countries.
Yeah – I am having trouble following it too – it doesn’t help that responses were not being properly threaded there for a while. I am planning to post a new thread later today – hopefully something equally provocative.
Thank you for the compliments on the blog. It is my belief that the only way we will find our way out of this mess is to discuss our differences of opinion rationally. Good to know that I have facilitated that at least a bit.
You are right – there are very few countries in which this would be allowed to occur.
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 11:20 am |
Hippie,
Even if your thread was posting correctly, my suggestion would be to turn it off. Any thread more than 15 comments will become a jumbled, indented mess has been my experience.
No criticism as it your blog as I am here and enjoy it – but the reply feature even if working correctly makes it almost impossible not to overlook comments.
Now of a good laugh to mock the anthropogenic global warming crowd who deserves to be severely dissed as crooks:
February 15, 2010 at 12:09 pm |
Tex – you are assuming I missed your global warming post earlier. Perhaps I just ignored it instead….
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm |
No, I assumed nothing. I just thought this 4:00 minutes of parody quite truthful and humorous; a wonderful summation of how liberal thought has permeated culture and academia.
This was intended for everyone’s amusement that has a sense of humor.
But now that the “cat is out of the bag” so to speak, I think fair people need to put this charade in the memory banks next time a liberal speaks about truth.
February 15, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
Tex…
Well, I would probably think it is humorous – except for several issues:
1) I have seen the same “angry Hitler” clip re-overdubbed so many times that he effect wears off. I am not even sure what the original movie was – but my guess is that this clip (in its various overdubbings) has now been seen by more people than saw the original….
2) I don’t like liberals being compared to Hitler – it just isn’t appropriate. For the record, I didn’t like it when my side that to Bush. People seem to have forgotten what Hitler really did. Hint: It is nothing like Republicans or Democrats are doing – nothing even close.
3) It is fuc%!ng disinformation! Take the statement that “snowfall is breaking 80 year records….” Sheesh – higher snowfall is PREDICTED by global warming. Melting polar ice caps = more moisture in the atmosphere. Warmer air holds more moisture than colder air. Therefor, warming produces the conditions for more snow. Here in Illinois we have had a lot of snow this year. What we have NOT had are very many -15 degree days – which we usually do in winter. It does not snow when it is -15 degrees because the air is too dry to hold any moisture. What really ticks me off is that there are at least some people on your side who KNOW this but choose to capitalize on public ignorance of the science instead – for nothing more than political power.
There – back to grading tests. My student’s grades are going to suffer because you have pissed me off….
(In case any of my students are reading this – that was a joke – I think)
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm |
To now deny the obvious ruse Hippie is beneath you. AGW is the biggest hoax since St. John’s Wart or Alar and on a far broader, more insidious scale, wasting billions of dollars to redistribute wealth and finance academic personal enrichment. It is a complete fraud based on really bad science. Hopefully, it has so damaged the eco terrorists, that they will never again be taken seriously.
This is humor – no one is comparing Hitler to libs but simply using comedy to amuse the masses. And unless your an AGW drone, it is funny.
The actual movie I watched almost by accident receiving it from NetFlix about the time these Hitler dubs started appearing. The name of the movie (American Title) is “Downfall” and it is based on Traudl Junge, the final secretary for Adolf Hitler, telling of the Nazi dictator’s final days in his Berlin bunker at the end of WWII.
I’m a pretty harsh movie critic and I would rate it at least an 8.5 out of ten scale – excellent and definitely worth the watch. If subtitles don’t bother you, one of the best foreign films I’ve ever seen.
February 15, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Tex…
First, thanks for the movie recommendation. I have been wondering what the original movie was for a while. My favorite YouTube overdub is probably the one with Hitler complaining about not being able to get dining reservations at Disney World….
Now – on to the serious stuff – you claim:
To now deny the obvious ruse Hippie is beneath you.
(sigh) As I have told you on other threads, I am indeed a bit more skeptical following recent revelations. I still believe that the bulk of the data support global warming. You can claim that is below me – but really – what do you guys have?
Hmmm….. You have a relatively minor slip-up by a scientist revealed in a STOLEN email (nobody seems at all bothered by the fact the emails were stolen, BTW). The significance of the email has been greatly exaggerated – and the scientist’s university has exonerated him. Besides – if there is such a huge massive conspiracy going on, wouldn’t there be a lot more emails? Wouldn’t there be a huge paper trail?
Oh – you have a minor misstatement about sea level in the Netherlands – one that really matters very little in the overall argument….
Oh – and it has snowed a lot this year. Never mind that increased snowfall results from WARMER temperatures because warm air holds more moisture….
Seriously, you guys have very very little to go on – but you are making a big political play out of it. This battle isn’t about science – this is a battle for public opinion and you know it. Guess what – the public is ignorant about science – you are winning – congratulations. I like to think that celebrating such a victory would be below you.
Guess what else – if global warming turns out NOT to be a ruse (as I suspect) our kids are going to hate us because we refused to do anything about it – a lot more than they will hate us because of that debt we are shouldering them with.
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Ummmm…. Hippie,
I believe the more appropriate question is, “what do you got?” It’s not the skeptic’s responsibility to prove you guy’s wrong, and I readily admit I have moved way past skeptic to mocker. That’s not how science works. Remember? Hypothesis, observation, measurement/validation, repeatability from the observer?
Provide me with this “mountain” of well documented information Rutherford claims the AGW crowd has. The news has been so bad for the AGW crowd of late, I don’t even know what they consider valid anymore.
February 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Tex said…. Ummmm…. Hippie, I believe the more appropriate question is, “what do you got?”
Tex – back when I first met you on Rutherford’s blog I did answer this question in some detail. I am not particularly interested in searching through it for the answer – but certainly you remember my “imagine a sine wave centered around the x-axis post…” You guys had fun with that one at the time because I was talking way above people’s heads…. I will have to dig that out some day…. but not today.
Suffice it to say that there is a large body of self-consistent evidence coupled with theory. That a tiny portion of the evidence is questionable does not really change the big picture.
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 11:26 am |
Whoever said that? I truly feel like I’m talking to a fencepost.
All the policy issues you listed are fine and dandy but you lose your credibility on any of them when you claim all blacks voted for Obama based on color. This is my last comment on the subject. How you cannot see after several iterations with me how offensive that notion is, is beyond me. We will have to agree to disagree. You think you have special insight into the hearts and minds of 90% of black Obama voters and I think you are making bigoted assumptions. More power to you.
February 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
Dr. Nancy Schneiderman of the dreaded MSNBC made a very true and scary comment this morning. She said, and I paraphrase, “We are going from a science-ignorant society to a science-resistant society.” She was talking about the insistence of folks that autism is caused by vaccinations, despite no credible scientific evidence backing that up. Sadly the same can be said about climate change. A bit of dubious science in an otherwise mountain of good data and the climate change deniers are in full force.
The only thing the “notes” proved is that we must always hold our scientists to a high standard. It did not disprove climate change. Sadly, it has become fashionable of late to dismiss science, call it a liberal conspiracy, and rejoice in ignorance as though ignorance is a political platform. Very scary indeed and no one seems immune from this trend, even highly intelligent men who attended medical school, men who you would think would not be so quick to dismiss science.
P.S. The worst thing that could ever have happened to the climate change awareness effort was the involvement of Al Gore. While well intentioned, he gave the whole thing an air of politics.
February 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
Rutherford,
Are you way behind the news, or just that dense?
Another BSNBC analogy if that was the woman’s intent to defend AGW. MSNBC should be moved to the comedy channel where the news can be shown with reruns of Seinfeld and All in the Family.
What the woman should have said the same rubes feeding us scares about autism and vaccination correlation/causation, are the same academic rubes selling AGW. She is right in her condemnation, while pointing fingers at the wrong side of the proponents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
If I’m wrong and my own bias personal against science, tell me why I believe AGW to be a farce, yet never bought the theory of vaccinations causing autism. My children are fully vaccinated.
Again Rutherford, you try to play both sides of the fence, failing to note it is the rational skeptics that are being proven correct as each day passes.
February 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm |
In defense of Dr. Schneiderman, she was not talking about climate change at all. She limited her remarks to autism. But it was that observation about our increasing distrust of legitimate science that struck a chord with me.
Tex, as long as you base your opinion on where and when it snows and not WHY it snows, you are looking at the phenomenon with one eye closed. The data rejiggering revealed in the stolen e-mails has never grown beyond that one incident. There is no talk of mass deception in this area.
Here is the great and terrible irony. When climate change finally results in a catastrophic event that wipes your house down, the insurance company (which your GOP supports) will not pay you a dime because it will be considered an act of God (something you believe in). Don’t worry, despite all the nasty things you’ve said about me over the years, if my home is still above flood level, I’ll put you and your much better half up in a spare room till you land back on your feet.
February 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
Hippie,
I usually pride myself on my memory, though gross anatomy in med school proved it had started to slow considerably. But I do not remember you talking above my head about a sine wave around the X axis, because I can assure you the concept of a sine wave not terribly complicated.
As one who did a mini-thesis about the electromagnetic spectrum, and thoroughly enjoyed revisiting both physics and calculus recently as they help to modify the way I “think”, I’m reasonably assured that a concept of the plotting data and analyzing the results would not have blown me away. I hope I wasn’t flippant in my response(s) to you. Statistics, including multiple regression, at one time kind of a hobby of mine – including assisting in constructing the Oklahoma University meteorology department’s prediction models as a student almost 25 years ago utilizing SAS and SAS maps to forecast prediction.
But we need not revisit your old post or debate models and techniques for you just to “list” the talking points, do we? Because as far as I can tell, in the absence of data and therefore proof, in less than two months we’ve had Climategate, Glaciergate, Rainforestgate, and this weekend the assistance of Phil Jones’ anti-climactic climatic admission [borrowed from PJM].
What you see as a fight in formulating public opinion, I see as an assault on free enterprise, elitism, political activism laced with personal enrichment, and group think of academia incredibly frustrated by public skepticism.
February 16, 2010 at 10:58 am |
Tex….
Sorry for the slow response. My mother ended up in the hospital in the middle of the night and I was there much of the night…. still pretty groggy.
I usually pride myself on my memory, though gross anatomy in med school proved it had started to slow considerably. But I do not remember you talking above my head about a sine wave around the X axis, because I can assure you the concept of a sine wave not terribly complicated.
I don’t think it was you who said I was over people’s heads – it was Rutherford or DR. The point I was trying to make is that if the sine wave represents short-term temperature change and the x-axis represents long-term change, and if we tilt the x-axis upwards to the right there will be periods when it briefly gets colder even though the long term trend is warmer.
I think of this as a partly completed jigsaw puzzle – one with enough pieces in place that you can say it really looks like it will be a duck. A couple of the pieces have been taken away – but hey – it still looks like a duck. It most certainly does not look like an elephant, as your side would claim.
What are the hundreds of pieces we have in place? Here are a few…
We know the basic chemistry – how greenhouse gasses react with the ozone
We know that emission levels of greenhouse gasses have increased
We know what the ozone layer does in regards to UV radiation
We know that the ozone layer has become thin in spots….
We know that we are having heavy melting in the polar icecaps…
There are lots of other pieces. To much going on to list them all – and besides, I suspect you would tell me it is al some sort of grand conspiracy anyway – and that argument is of course impossible to counter.
I never have been clear what the motive is for these conspirators….
– hp
February 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
Tex says: [Provide me with this “mountain” of well documented information Rutherford claims the AGW crowd has. ]
Try: The Influence of Mauna Loa Observatory on the Development of Atmospheric C02 Research, C. D. Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego
http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/HISTORY/PUBLISH/20th%20anniv/co2.htm
or just check NOAA, NASA and the Pentagon. They’re big players in the discussion and have tons of data.
or look at the agenda in the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. The leadership of the entire friggin’ world was there and discussing how to deal with AGW.
What do you know that they don’t?
A few liars and scandals and sadly invisible people who tried to get some fame really isn’t enough.
February 15, 2010 at 10:15 pm |
No Moe,
You still have it wrong. A few liars is exactly what you got at the very top, as much of that data from the very people making claim. The people pushing this got caught fudging, cheating and outright lying. Throw in Fat Al living large on the green, and people no longer trust you. Thankfully, because of the scope of the lie, I doubt people will be so gullible next time. Simple social agenda with only a few as benefactor – standard lib politics.
What do I know that they don’t? Undoubtedly, I know a scam when I see one for academic funding, control and personal enrichment. The argument is for all intents and purposes over here in America. Your side lost, and all but the progressive party sees AGW as snake oil. Not even registering anymore as concern. You can’t answer the basic questions. Like why was it warmer during the middle ages? Got an answer that would contradict or refute?
The links I provided early demonstrate the argument is over. I SAY YELL A LITTLE LOUDER AND KEEP IT UP UNTIL NOVEMBER. Even the feckless Europeans see through the game now. If they can’t be fooled, no one can. They’ll buy any whacko theory.
February 15, 2010 at 10:58 pm |
Well, Tex, I see you chose to ignore the NOAA, NASA, Pentagon stuff in favor of Al Gore and academia.
[Like why was it warmer during the middle ages? Got an answer that would contradict or refute?]
It was warmer in Europe during the middle ages. We have no idea if it was warmer in Asia, Africa, North or South America, the poles, Australia, the subcontinent, Indonesia. We have no idea what the ocean temperatures were.
It was warmer in Europe.
February 15, 2010 at 11:39 pm |
OK Moe, here we go. I’ll open another pandora’s box.
Tex, please share with the crowd your thoughts on teaching evolution vs creationism? I’m pretty sure I know your opinion on this based on our extensive exchanges, but I think your sharing it here will help put your climate change opinion in further perspective for those gathered here.
February 16, 2010 at 10:34 am |
OK Moe, here we go. I’ll open another pandora’s box.
Ohhhh…. that is indeed Pandora’s box….
February 21, 2010 at 9:08 pm |
[...] 1) Obama has symbolically broken the racial glass ceiling. He has empowered a huge segment of our society – a group who in fact felt that the American dream did not apply to them. He has given a sense of hope to the disenfranchised. Go ahead and scoff at this – but believe me, it is real and it is important. This is one reason I am so resentful of those who seek to take Obama down for mere political gain. You may have already seen my blog post on the topic: http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/02/10/ahhh-sarah-about-that-hopey-changey-thing/ [...]
March 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
I am pro choice for many different reasons, and I value the women that have to make this choice. There are so many campains out there that don’t show real life situations.
March 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
So many people with an opinion on the Tea Party – yet so little knowledge about what they actually represent or its political origins. If they are extremist then they represent a large part of America. They are Americans who don’t like how our government is throwing away our tax dollars and spending money we don’t have in this country. They started a grass roots movement to get a message to their government representatives. Don’t waste our tax dollars! How UnAmerican is that?
March 8, 2010 at 11:16 am |
“Health” the Tea Party movement has two problems. The first is a completely unfocused agenda that makes the movement look unintelligent.
Problem number two are a handful of racist loons who got a disproportionate amount of attention and sullied the movement. However, there is no doubt the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with.
Folks who are dissatisfied, from the left, are now organizing also. Rightly or wrongly they’re calling themselves the Coffee Party. No joke.