The E-mail Circus

Of all the media feeding frenzies we have enjoyed the last few years, there are few that compare to what happened when the Alaskan government finally released Sarah Palin’s e-mails. The media crowd-sourced relentlessly, begging readers to dig through the e-mails to find something, anything. But, as much as I love transparency, this exercise was pointless. Even Palin nemesis Joe McGinnis admitted as much, noting that 2500 of the e-mails were redacted — the choice of redaction being made by Palin’s lieutenant governor. Did anyone imagine anything remotely interesting would be in them? Assuming there was anything interesting to begin with? The worst thing there was that they did not redact the names, addresses and phone numbers of people who e-mailed criticisms to the governor.

I’m afraid my thinking is close to that of Matt Welch:

It seemed the former governor of the 47th-most populous state in the union, a woman who holds no elected office now and almost assuredly will not again anytime soon, had thousands of e-mails from her 21-month tenure data-dumped onto the public.

Transparency advocates doubtlessly breathed a sigh of satisfaction that sunlight-disinfectant was being applied to a government figure. And people with any sense of political proportion were left with an additional thought: When is this journalistic scrutiny going to be applied to politicians who wield actual power?

He specifically notes the lack of media attention paid to Obama’s factually challenged statement on the auto-maker bailout, a statement that blew out Factcheck’s bullshit-o-meter. He also contrasts the attention they’ve devoted to Palin’s death panel claims against the President’s bald-faced lies on keeping your healthcare plan if you liked it, standing up to healthcare interests and getting a good score from the CBO.

This is why I don’t blog about Sarah Palin (much). She is, to some extent, a distraction. All of the GOP candidates are. The first primary is eight months away. There are six hundred things that have to happen before we even know who the top candidates are (my money is still on Romney).

Even the Weiner thing wasn’t this irrelevant — he is at least a sitting member of Congress. But going through Sarah Palin’s selected e-mails hoping to find something juicy? Please. If Sarah Palin is closer to a reality TV star than a politician, as many claim, what does this make the e-mail feeding frenzy? Paparazzi crap.

There are things going on right fucking now that need to have their bullshit peeled away. We have a debt crisis and three wars and a Democratic establishment more interested in scaring the shit out of people than finding solutions. We have a President openly deceiving us about his economic policies. Doesn’t that warrant a little bit of a mention? I’m not saying ignore Palin, but maybe devote a tenth of the resources being used on her to cover the White House and the Senate?

Thank you.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Agreed. She’s irrelevant. Like the ‘Climategate’ emails, this wasn’t in any way the ‘bombshell’ many were hoping for. No ‘smoking gun’, or anything close. Almost all are the boring emails that are the stuff of life.
    Almost anything else you can think of is of greater significance.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Kimpost

    I agree with both of you, this should be a non-issue, but… that’s sadly not how media works. What if someone happened to find an email where Palin found someone to be attractive? Or if she rooted for a Canadian NHL-team? Huuuuuge scandals, lo and behold.

    As much as I despise it, I understand the media interest. Palin sells, she’s controversial, she’s a Republican star possibly running for president (not having announced yet makes her even more interesting).

    There’s a parallel universe out there, where humanity is not as stupid. Sometimes I wish I lived there instead. I bet chicks have three boobs there too.

    Thumb up 0

  3. balthazar

    You really have to inject GW into every thread dont you? Its gotta be like a nervous tic or something, maybe its a form of Tourrettes or something. Get it checked out.

    Thumb up 3

  4. JimK

    My “favorite” thing so far is how Sully tried to work his fucking despicable Trig obsession into this. He’s such a genuine scumbag now I can’t even remember the days when he deserved respect.

    Thumb up 1

  5. AlexInCT

    Oh CM, thanks for providing me with my morning humor. The ClimateGate emails were only “irrelevant” to the religious fanatics and true believers of the AGW cult. Everyone else, especially those of us that have scientific backgrounds and hold the scientific principles in high regard, it proved that this wasn’t about any kind of science at all, unless that science served the political and ideological watermelon masters.

    BTW, your fixation with the AGW issue, and on the wrong side of it nevertheless, is getting boring.

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT

    What does it tell you that the MSM is spending, yet again, an inordinate amount of time & effort going after Palin, when they didn’t put 1 millionth of this effort vetting candidate Obama, huh? Personally I am starting to think that they see some kind of a Reaganesque risk in Palin – remember that the media also considered Reagan a dunce that was way out of his league, and constantly dismissed him and everything he stood for, until he trounced old Jimmah “Beware of the attack rabbit” Carter – and that has them now going out of their way to terminate her before she gets to do serious damage to the left yet again.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Rann

    and that has them now going out of their way to terminate her before she gets to do serious damage to the left yet again.

    That’s always been the thing with her. They saw what a threat she was and that’s why she’s gotten so much attention/fixation/hate from pretty much the moment she was announced as McCain’s running mate, with numerous people retconning in having hated her before it was popular to give themselves more PDS-cred. I outright saw one of them say today “The media wouldn’t go after her so much if she’d just back down”… yeah, and gang members won’t beat you so bad if you don’t fight back.

    In the Cult of Personality (even those for whom it’s only a State of the Union and Fourth of July thing) she is the Satan figure, and she will simply always be wrong. If she’s right, it was on accident, or she was wrong for how she said it, or wrong for when she said it, or wrong because she doesn’t have any business in politics anyway, and so on, but she definitely wasn’t actually right, because she just has to be a complete idiot, she just has to.

    I think it’s the need for a scapegoat more than anything else, and Palin makes a dandy one. A “minority” (female) who has the audacity to be a conservative, who is more interested in speaking her mind than polishing her image (a real person gives attack dogs so much more to work with than an empty suit), and so on and so on. It takes attention off of Obama and makes them look like they’re really vigilant and on top of it with their hard-hitting stories about Palin pardoning a turkey but not every turkey.

    Thumb up 1

  8. sahrab

    You have to wonder, what would have happened if the MSM poured some of this effort into having their readers comb through the 2000000000000 page Fiasco that is Obamacare.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    wonder was used facetiously

    Thumb up 2

  9. CM

    Oh CM, thanks for providing me with my morning humor. The ClimateGate emails were only “irrelevant” to the religious fanatics and true believers of the AGW cult. Everyone else, especially those of us that have scientific backgrounds and hold the scientific principles in high regard, it proved that this wasn’t about any kind of science at all, unless that science served the political and ideological watermelon masters.

    No, I’m sorry, as much as you want it to be true, those emails proved (as if there was any proof required) that there isn’t a massive fraud or conspiracy. But then you’ve already demonstrated (twice) how you don’t even understand a simple climate change concept (and that you can’t be bothered reading SOURCE DOCUMENTS which are the entire basis of your narrative. So it’s completely understandable that you’d just believe the denier talking points.

    BTW, your fixation with the AGW issue, and on the wrong side of it nevertheless, is getting boring.

    As I said, I hardly ever mention it (at least not first). However your “liberals are just morons” and “it’s all the media’s fault” are as boring as they are…..well moronic. You ARE fixated on both, and bring at least one (if not both) into nine out of every ten threads.

    Hey Alex, got through the first page of that corrective action notice SOURCE DOCUMENT yet?

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    In the Cult of Personality (even those for whom it’s only a State of the Union and Fourth of July thing) she is the Satan figure, and she will simply always be wrong. If she’s right, it was on accident, or she was wrong for how she said it, or wrong for when she said it, or wrong because she doesn’t have any business in politics anyway, and so on, but she definitely wasn’t actually right, because she just has to be a complete idiot, she just has to.

    Sounds exactly like Obama in some places…..

    Thumb up 0

  11. JimK

    Would it kill people to just say “Yes. The way the left and the media treat Sarah Palin is disgraceful.” and then just, you know…stop talking? Without having to backstop the admission in any way, for any reason?

    Just a question. One to which I’m pretty sure I already know the answer.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Kimpost

    I agree with you. Seems like an oddly difficult thing to do. It’s the same thing in a thread next to this one, about Obama’s admitted flaws as a father. It’s apparently difficult to just say “Good for him, makes him look human, and what he says should serve as a reminder to many of us”.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Yeah good point.

    I’ll say it here and now then, without qualification:

    Yes. The way the left and the media treat Sarah Palin is disgraceful.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    No, I’m sorry, as much as you want it to be true, those emails proved (as if there was any proof required) that there isn’t a massive fraud or conspiracy.

    Sorry CM, but you don’t get to make up your own facts and reality on this. This isn’t a conspiracy: it is a travesty. Those emails were beyond damning, and proved that the whole house of cards was bullshit. From rigged data that was conveniently lost, to statistical slight of hands and outright cherry picking to produce the desired base data, and lets not leave out the rigged models that produce the same outcome no matter what the input, or the bias that prevented anyone with a contrary opinion from getting any kind of a fair shake by the rigged “peer review” system, the emails proved that this wasn’t science.

    BTW, I find it quit telling that people are demanding Sarah Palin’s emails for review through FOIA, and getting them, while we are still waiting for those from people like Mann, which obviously committed fraud-science.

    But then you’ve already demonstrated (twice) how you don’t even understand a simple climate change concept (and that you can’t be bothered reading SOURCE DOCUMENTS which are the entire basis of your narrative. So it’s completely understandable that you’d just believe the denier talking points.

    This from this blogs idiot Luddite. I understand science & the scientific process quite well, and guarantee you I can run circles around idiots like you. In fact I have done it quite often. The “climate change” bullshit isn’t a concept, unless you think made up shit is also a concept, it’s a purely ideological and neo-religious movement. Here is a fucking clue for you: the fundamental and underlying data these losers use for their claims and predictions is fake. Everything that follows is junk.

    If these cultists had any respects for science everything they were doing would be public knowledge and property. That’s how real science works: you allow any and all comers to reproduce your experiments, and draw their own conclusions, and if your experiment actually bore any basis on reality, the results would be identical and reproducible. Instead, what we have is a clique of “bishops” that guard their information like a mother lion guards it’s cubs, and that accuses anyone that dares to question them of heresy and labels them with the scourge of “denier”. A circle jerk of AGW friendly retards, getting together to pretend to do a fair and objective analysis of whether the facts that the ClimateGate e-mail hack exposed showed they were doing anything but science, decided that there wasn’t really a scandal, despite the obvious and blatant lack of scientific rigor of any kind clearly exposed by the hacked e-mails which proved the data was suspect at best, and likely falsified and cherry picked, that the and models used were rigged, and that the review process was anything but a circle jerk of its own. Opening up everything for the scientists to look at and to reproduce? Fuck no. None of that!

    Hey Alex, got through the first page of that corrective action notice SOURCE DOCUMENT yet?

    Which page is that you refer to? Link it. I am waiting.

    Thumb up 0

  15. richtaylor365

    Way different, none of his critics ever call him an idiot or simply too stupid to govern, not so with Palin. And it is an interesting dynamic, aside from the fact that he does not appear stupid (naive, sure) nobody dare go down that road for fear of it being labeled as racist, but nobody has any qualms labeling a woman as stupid, or fearful that such an allegation would be labeled as sexist.

    Another way it’s different, even though I did not vote for him I was rather proud of our nation, proud that democracy spoke and proud that we (America) was the first world power to elect a black man (OK, half black) to it’s highest position, hoping that it would silence all the euroweenies that have labeled us as a racist nation and that it would empower many of those here that have felt disenfranchised for so long. And I was genuinely rooting for him, hoping that all this hope and change crap had substance. I knew that the rigors of actually being in charge was quite different from the campaign trail and expected him (like Clinton) to moderate his tone and govern from the middle. In essence, in good faith I gave him his shot, you think any on the left of the MSM would have given Palin the same deference? rhetorical question, I know the answer.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Rann

    Could both of you go back to one of the actual climate change topics for this? It would frankly be ridiculous to turn this topic into yet another rehash of the same argument about the same subject.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Rann

    Obama is the President of the United States.

    Palin is a former governor ran-for-VP-but-didn’t-get-it.

    Do you actually think she needs to be held to a stricter standard than him, or are you just grumbling about “Obama Derangement Syndrome” again? Because I’ve gotta tell ya, you may think you’re being clever gotchaing us after eight years of calling BDS on people, but a lot of the people we called it on were the ones who were blaming him for stuff like global warming, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. So you trotting it out every time we doubt Obama’s purity of heart and intention or find fault with him just makes you look like a jackass.

    … Well, more of a jackass.

    Thumb up 1

  18. Kimpost

    I’m sure it isn’t, and that you could build a case as for why that is. Unfortunately I think it probably goes both ways.

    Anyway, looking forward to seeing your rationale.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Rann

    First of all, he’s the President. There is a different standard reserved just for him, under which he should expect to have everything he says and does scrutinized. When you have the potential to send troops or missiles to another country at a moment’s notice with our entire country’s name on them, the media and people crawling up your butt is kind of to be expected. Not only has Obama managed to avoid that, he’s completely deflected it onto someone who under any standard doesn’t rate it, being as they’re not the leader of a global power.

    Second, you’re talking about a large group of people (the media) having a truly degrading and indefensible actions over the course of years towards a person on every level with no justification, versus some slight suspicion of the sincerity about the statements of someone who has been shown to be a talented campaigner.

    And on, and on, and on. You’re comparing apples to oranges very seriously in this case, and falling back on “Well they’re both fruit”.

    Thumb up 1

  20. Kimpost

    I’m not trying to weight some kind of totality here now. My reflection was on our reactions to a couple of posts here - and now.

    In one Palin has her emails checked, which in-itself probably is fine with all of us, while the scale of its attention is way overblown. In the other Obama appears worried about his career choices leading him to neglecting his family.

    None of the subjects warrant an attack on either of them, in my opinion. Yet that’s what we’ve got. Check the Obama thread. You were the first one there. How many pro-Obama comments do you count? Zero. Now, how many comments are reflecting on career dads? None.

    Obama is a gifted politician. He knows how to campaign, and his people knows too. Is there an element of campaigning in this? Know what? I think that there might be. But why can’t it also be true? What I don’t find very likely, is the thought of this being totally manufactured to build likeability.

    Few people are such douche bags. He’s talking about his daughters and wife, after all.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Section8

    I think it’s great. Annoying, yes, but this kind of behavior always backfires. We saw it happen with the try to guilt into submission strategy when anyone questioning the left (which was quite a bit of the populace) was considered a violent, racist asshole. The result: People just went quietly to the polls and said see ya. Same thing with the media, the trust gets less by the day, and the right doesn’t need to dig to find reasons to say much of the mass media is left leaning and silly, when they do such a great job on their own to demonstrate it. The clock is ticking and it won’t be long until this leftist surge in popularity a few years ago, is completely relegated to a small corner in the back of the room. The unprecedented surge in left wing “intellectual” popularity can only be out matched by the unprecedented ability to piss it all away with stupidity in such short order.

    Thumb up 0

  22. richtaylor365

    How many pro-Obama comments do you count? Zero. Now, how many comments are reflecting on career dads? None.

    Given that this is a right leaning blog I think you have to be satisfied when we don’t condemn him outright but admit the possibility that his motives might be altruistic, and that was the tone of the post. I gave him props for recognizing his failings with his family (many men don’t) and his attempt to re connect. Then at the end, paid him the ultimate compliment of telling him what I would do.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Hal_10000 *

    I still read him because he can be good on other issues. But if I spy the word “Palin” I just skip the post. Nothing I’m about to read is interesting.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Kimpost

    I realize where I am, rich, and I’m fine with the overall tone here.

    I had no problems whatsoever with your post. I liked it, and recognized its tone to being just what you have now described. The comments, however, were less reflective than I thought your post deserved, which was a shame.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    Kimpost:

    In one Palin has her emails checked, which in-itself probably is fine with all of us

    I don’t see why her emails needed to be publicly released. Nobody deserves that amount of scrutiny. Because pretty everything can be purposeless misinterpreted for partisan reasons.

    Rich:

    Given that this is a right leaning blog I think you have to be satisfied when we don’t condemn him outright but admit the possibility that his motives might be altruistic, and that was the tone of the post. I gave him props for recognizing his failings with his family (many men don’t) and his attempt to re connect. Then at the end, paid him the ultimate compliment of telling him what I would do.

    It’s not the first time you’ve suggested he might have done something really good either (although last time I completely misunderstood…).

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    Same thing with the media, the trust gets less by the day

    Is that what research suggests?

    The unprecedented surge in left wing “intellectual” popularity

    Can you elaborate on that? What is the ‘intellectural’ aspect of this?

    The left (the world over) certainly do seem to have a special skill at shooting themselves in the feet. Although the projected US demographics are on their side, so they may get away with it more and more.

    Thumb up 0

  27. richtaylor365

    The comments, however, were less reflective than I thought your post deserved, which was a shame.

    I guess it is the cynicism of human nature (shame on us) to look for ulterior motives and I’m as guilty as anyone, but on this topic he connected with me. All dads go through this soul searching, am I measuring up and doing my kids right? We don’t get a do over when it comes to parenting so anyone that self evaluates as he goes along is tops in my book.

    Now, if you will excuse me, all this Obama slurping got me dizzy (not use to it) and I need a Dramamine.

    Thumb up 0

  28. AlexInCT

    Can you elaborate on that? What is the ‘intellectural’ aspect of this?

    Not speaking for Section8, but the left constantly tells us that you are an intellectual if, and only if, you believe in what they do, and then primarily in all that class nonsense Marx spouted.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Section8

    Is that what research suggests?

    Yep.

    Can you elaborate on that? What is the ‘intellectural’ aspect of this?

    Really? You missed out on the whole dumb Red State vs Blue State thing? You missed out on the whole dumb, gun-toting, racist, cowboy redneck vs the college grad intelligent leftist? Honestly,considering it was so recent I’m not going to waste my time rehashing. Since I don’t have much time to post anymore, in situations like this when I’m talking about obvious events in very recent history I go by the 80/20 rule. If 80% can figure out what I mean, and I’m pretty sure they do then I’m fine with that.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    Oh ok.
    But it goes both ways. Some on the right use the “college grad intelligent leftist” as though it’s real.
    e.g. “Of course they’d believe that, they’re at Berkeley”
    As if the act of going to university is sufficient to disregard an argument. Or even relevant to the strength of the argument.
    In addition to criticising the concept of intellectualism (and reason even) I think the right in some cases HAVE adopted an “anti-intellectual” stance. Many seem to actually prefer paranoid conspiracy theories to explain things.
    These pieces explain what I mean (in general, I’m not claiming they’re 100% based on fact, or that they are 100% factually correct).

    Thumb up 0

  31. Section8

    As if the act of going to university is sufficient to disregard an argument. Or even relevant to the strength of the argument.

    You completely missed my point. Anyhow, like I said I’m fine with that.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    You completely missed my point. Anyhow, like I said I’m fine with that.

    I apologise for missing the point. I would genuinely like to understand it. But if you don’t have the time, no worries.

    Thumb up 0

  33. AlexInCT

    Seriously CM, I hope you are joking. Because here in the US and even in Europe the lefty elite, the ones that think they are the intelligentia, constantly tell us this stuff. They are smart and educated – members of government, the media, or academia, but then practically never the hard sciences – because they understand this collectivism thing, and the rest of us that doubt them are rednecks and rubes just a degree or so removed from Neanderthals.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Section8

    I would genuinely like to understand it.

    No you wouldn’t. You play as if everything is news to you. Either you play ignorant on purpose, which is a waste of everyone’s time here, or have a case of convenient amnesia, or have Alzheimer’s. If I thought it was the third one I might have a little more patience.

    In addition to criticising the concept of intellectualism (and reason even) I think the right in some cases HAVE adopted an “anti-intellectual” stance.

    Again, see last couple of years. It is not about criticizing reason or intellectualism, it’s about a group that decided they had a monopoly on on it, and then the new, but now getting old leadership in this country and many of the vocal voices on the left decided that “intellectual” debates should consist of labeling people stupid, racist, violent, and other name calling. I didn’t see to much protest of that tone by the rest of the left. Please though, pretend it never happened or you are unaware of it. I hope most on the left follow that same path, because that will be the nail in the coffin come next election if they want to try that game plan again. I really hope they do, and then forget it ever happened so they do it again and again.

    “Of course they’d believe that, they’re at Berkeley”

    The keyword there is Berkeley, not higher education in general, but I guess I’d have to explain that one as well, as it would be news to you,

    Oh here is some more news. Right leaning people also go to universities. Let’s just keep that a secret though. :)

    Thumb up 1

  35. CM

    Um yeah, that’s precisely why I said “almost always” Balthazar.

    Anyway, it had relevance (in terms of everyone assuming it would be full of ‘smoking guns’ emails, but contained none), but also:

    Although she would later dismiss climate change as “junk science,” Palin didn’t always feel that way. In an email dated Sept. 15, 2008, Palin wrote that “climate change is the top issue for our state.” Later in her political career, Palin distanced herself from such a stance, at one point calling climate science “junk.”

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    Yeah I guess I was aware of the ‘elitist’ meme, I guess I was seeking clarification about the “popularity” aspect of what Section8 meant. Obviously that would suggest Section8 believes it will become unpopular?
    Personally I see just as much elitism (and condescending attitudes) from conservatives, if not more. Particularly from those who believe the poor are stupid, and only stupid people vote for Democrats or other liberal candidates. Or that poor people are lazy. Or that the Dems only get that many votes because poor people vote themselves money.
    This whole ‘I’m down with the street’ narrative doesn’t stack up with respect to people who hold those attitudes.

    As for the hard sciences – are you suggesting that the AGW cult (fundamentally propogated by climate scientists who have qualifications in the hard sciences) is actually a conservative cult? Or is this simply more internal inconsistency?

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    Which page is that you refer to? Link it. I am waiting.

    The corrective action notice. Link back in the appropriate thread. You keep seeming to ignore it. You didn’t read it. (or perhaps you just didn’t understand it).

    Thumb up 0

  38. Poosh

    So when something shocking and important comes along like the Climategate e-mails, they are shoved under the carpet (until a self-appointed panel with a pre-determined verdict decided that everything was cool). But Palin’s e-mails are something to be shoved into the public sphere …. yet Obama’s thesis is still no where to be seen (which can’t be right, surely the uni has a library copy printed for public viewing).

    Thumb up 0

  39. Poosh

    In case you haven’t worked out by now, why these leftists and liberals hate Palin, it’s because she’s a symbolic failure of the left and their attempts regarding the emancipation women (shown to be a hollow and calculated fraud).

    Most successful females, as a philosopher whose name I cannot remember once said, such as Thatcher and Clinton have been “phallic” in a sense that they have been imitating men in what is assumed to be a man’s game.

    1) Obviously one wants the political realm to be gender-free and all inclusive

    2) The Left must create a cultural belief that the Right are responsible for a lack of sexual equality and spread it WHILST showing themselves to be the cure

    3) Part of the feminism’s claim (which I think is true) is that motherhood can add to inequality as it burdens females and removes any hope of a level-playing field.

    Palin is living proof of the sheer failure of the left, in this regard. She is female through and through. No one could claim she is a phallic, in that she hides her femininity. The dresses, the sexuality. What Palin does is show that YES she is a sex object, but one you can’t touch. Not only is she a proud sex object, she is one that has literally CRUSHED males to get to a position of power, one of the highest in the country. She was not given any advantages, she worked from the bottom up. ALL while holding conservative values, AND – horror of horrors – giving birth and raising offspring!

    How can this be? She is living proof of the failure of leftist feminism. She is proof of conservative feminism, proof that a female can move to positions of power without having to sacrifice femininity or motherhood. That is why the leftist/liberal elites, academics (who are versed in feminism etc) hate her. That is why she needed to be destroyed – often with sexist methods.

    It is ironic that Hilary Clinton – by all accounts – should have been president, yet was smashed aside by a male. And it is ironic that it is often right-wing conservative parties, internationally, that put females in positions of Prime Ministers.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    No you wouldn’t. You play as if everything is news to you. Either you play ignorant on purpose, which is a waste of everyone’s time here, or have a case of convenient amnesia, or have Alzheimer’s. If I thought it was the third one I might have a little more patience.

    I don’t think I’ve ever had it explained to me properly.

    it’s about a group that decided they had a monopoly on on it, and then the new, but now getting old leadership in this country and many of the vocal voices on the left decided that “intellectual” debates should consist of labeling people stupid, racist, violent, and other name calling.

    Ok well that’s appalling. Calling people stupid, racist or violent in the name of being ‘intellectual’ is dumb.

    The keyword there is Berkeley, not higher education in general, but I guess I’d have to explain that one as well, as it would be news to you,

    Oh here is some more news. Right leaning people also go to universities. Let’s just keep that a secret though. :)

    Well exactly. But apparently if someone is at a university like Berkeley AND holds a left wing position, the position is automatically considered irrelevant because it’s only held because they go to university. Which is the same as calling them stupid (or racist or violent).

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    So when something shocking and important comes along like the Climategate e-mails, they are shoved under the carpet (until a self-appointed panel with a pre-determined verdict decided that everything was cool).

    I’m sorry that’s just nonsense. The emails revealed that there is no huge conspiracy, or attempt to undertake fraudulent science. The body of science is unaffected by what came out of the emails. And I’m not even sure what you’re talking about with the ‘shoved under the carpet’ – there was significant media attention given to them (far far more than was justified).
    Where is your evidence that all the enquiries had pre-determined verdicts? How can a panel appoint themselves?
    Why are conservatives seemingly so fond of grand and implausibly large and complex conspiracies? Or is it “intellectual” to point out how ridiculous it all is?

    But Palin’s e-mails are something to be shoved into the public sphere …. yet Obama’s thesis is still no where to be seen (which can’t be right, surely the uni has a library copy printed for public viewing).

    Why is Obama’s thesis of any relevance? I would say that’s of no relevance (to anything), and Palin’s emails are of virtually no relevance (to anything). The Climategate emails WERE relevant, as they proved (as if any were needed) that there is no massive conspiracy and fraud (which would be required for the whole thing to be a hoax, given that involves tens of thousands of professionals and an even greater number of published research papers).

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    In case you haven’t worked out by now, why these leftists and liberals hate Palin, it’s because she’s a symbolic failure of the left and their attempts regarding the emancipation women (shown to be a hollow and calculated fraud).

    No, I hadn’t worked that out. Or heard of it.

    Most successful females, as a philosopher whose name I cannot remember once said, such as Thatcher and Clinton have been “phallic” in a sense that they have been imitating men in what is assumed to be a man’s game.

    How are/were they imitating men?

    1) Obviously one wants the political realm to be gender-free and all inclusive

    Agreed. But there is no doubt that discrimination exists, and at all levels.

    2) The Left must create a cultural belief that the Right are responsible for a lack of sexual equality and spread it WHILST showing themselves to be the cure

    Why must this be the case? In order for what?

    3) Part of the feminism’s claim (which I think is true) is that motherhood can add to inequality as it burdens females and removes any hope of a level-playing field.

    Well you don’t even need to suggest that this is a ‘feminist’ claim. It’s logic. Having kids usually puts a serious dent in a career path. Hard choices always need to be made.

    Palin is living proof of the sheer failure of the left, in this regard. She is female through and through.

    What is “female through and through”? What differentiates her femininity from that of Thatcher or Clinton? Or any other female politician, or successful female in any particular career?

    No one could claim she is a phallic, in that she hides her femininity. The dresses, the sexuality.

    You’re suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a ‘phallic’, and hides her femininity? Because she doesn’t wear dresses? What?

    What Palin does is show that YES she is a sex object, but one you can’t touch. Not only is she a proud sex object, she is one that has literally CRUSHED males to get to a position of power, one of the highest in the country. She was not given any advantages, she worked from the bottom up. ALL while holding conservative values, AND – horror of horrors – giving birth and raising offspring!

    She is a proud sex object? What does that mean? Are you suggesting she’s got her position (well her former position) because of her gender, rather than just her talent and skills? Really?

    How can this be? She is living proof of the failure of leftist feminism. She is proof of conservative feminism, proof that a female can move to positions of power without having to sacrifice femininity or motherhood.

    How has Hillary Clinton sacrificed motherhood? Or femininity? How has Palin been a better mother than Hillary? What do you base this on?
    Just before you suggested that Palin used her gender to get ahead. Is that “conservative feminism”?

    That is why the leftist/liberal elites, academics (who are versed in feminism etc) hate her. That is why she needed to be destroyed – often with sexist methods.

    No doubt there is a degree of Palin Derangement Syndrome. No doubt. However I would say that many people might dislike her because they don’t agree with her beliefs, and because she doesn’t appear to know what she’s talking about a lot of the time. That’s not elitest.

    It is ironic that Hilary Clinton – by all accounts – should have been president, yet was smashed aside by a male. And it is ironic that it is often right-wing conservative parties, internationally, that put females in positions of Prime Ministers.

    Why should Hillary have been President? What do you mean she was “smashed aside”? How is that ironic in any way? I also don’t understand the irony of your last comment (if it is indeed true – other than Thatcher, who else is there? I’ll look it up. Here, our first female PM was conservative, but she wasn’t elected. The first elected female PM was liberal. Same in Australia).

    It’s probably obvious that I have an issue with most of your fundamental assumptions and basic premise. Or perhaps I just don’t understand them.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Poosh

    I don’t know what climategate e-mails you were reading. It was quite clear the scientific method was being violated and that politics was taking place, not science. It showed the mentality and corruption, the active attack on free-discourse within science to be replaced with political selection and agenda.

    Obama’s thesis is of course important. Any political thesis a politician writes (dissertation etc), any book he writes, is relevant but especially a university thesis. It shows his thinking, his beliefs, how he sees the world – the schools of thought that he comes from. In political and philosophical contexts the schools of thought you are attached to are important and can say a lot about you. I don’t even know why I’m writing this, it’s blooming obvious.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Poosh

    In Britain and America, I don’t know about your country, politics has been seen and is still seen as a men’s club, if women do come into politics they have to imitate the masculine. Even in the UK. Females who want to enter that club must assume a phallic character. Can you honestly say H. Clinton or Thatcher were overly ‘feminine’? You mention Merkel, again she is less female and more male in her appearance and persona. This is another way of looking at it:

    The earlier generations of women politicians (Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and even, up to a point, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton) were what can be referred to as “phallic” women. They acted as “iron ladies” who imitated and tried to outdo male authority, to be “more men than men themselves.”

    Writing in Le Point, a French weekly, Jacques-Alain Miller, a follower of the late French philospher Jacques Lacan, pointed out that Palin, on the contrary, proudly displays her femininity and motherhood. She has a “castrating” effect on her male opponents, not by being more manly than them, but by sarcastically downgrading the puffed-up male authority. According to Miller, Palin instinctively knows that male “phallic” authority is a posture, a semblance to be exploited and mocked.

    – Zizek (who is a dirty marxist, but he gets this point right)

    There are too many points and I clearly did not explain myself very well. I certainly did not say Palin did not work or used her sexuality to get where she is? But that she does not hide the fact that she is a “sex object” (as seen in the eyes of men, not that she is one in the sense of being an object). She quite obviously displays her sexuality – as many females do, I’m sure most of our female friends do the same. This is a no-no in the world of politics, women need to be like men in politics – so the male-made rules of politics dictate. Thatcher etc got to power on men’s terms. Palin, on the other hand, achieved power on FEMALE terms.

    In addition, Clinton would not be see to have any problems bringing up children as she is a leftist/liberal herself, thus her bringing up children – from the point of view of the leftist/liberal – is not a problem.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Poosh

    I am not interested in current trends but who put females to power first in leading western democracies. As far as I’m aware Thatcher and the UK Conservative Party. .. it was the Conservatives who made a Jew as Prime Minister and who gave women the vote.. oddly enough.

    Thumb up 0

  46. loserlame

    remember that the media also considered Reagan a dunce that was way out of his league, and constantly dismissed him and everything he stood for,

    I think it’s the need for a scapegoat more than anything else, and Palin makes a dandy one. A “minority” (female) who has the audacity to be a conservative

    Sure, i’m biased, even though I actually voted for Obama, but I seem to read Palin’s critics calling her “bitch”, “skank” etc. far more often than Obama haters calling him a “nigger” and shes not even doing any important things that effect the whole world.

    There weren’t any deadly riots needed to get Obama elected, and no riots held to keep him out. So all ya got is Palin.

    Thumb up 0