Posts
By the way, don't you just want to do me? *wink wink*
I couldn't resist. *insert smiley face here*
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Looks Like Campaign 2012 Has Started
Credit for the original image below goes to Runner's World online mag, who staged this cutesy pic of Governor Icon last month. I'll take full blame for the overlaid word salad but I swear I heard her say something very much like this in the past!
I couldn't resist. *insert smiley face here*
I couldn't resist. *insert smiley face here*
Monday, June 29, 2009
Governor Icon of Tight Ab-Land
I found a comment from Regina of Palingates on another blog today with a link to a series of YouTube videos showing the Sarah Palin special that FauxNoise broadcast almost 10 months ago. Thank you Regina, I've been looking for this footage for a long time! A lot of the video that Faux incorporates in their special was purchased from Elan Frank, an Israeli Air Force reservist and documentary director who interviewed Sarah Palin when she would have been almost eight months pregnant. Frank went to Alaska and filmed Sarah over a few days, and the best information I can find has April 8, 2008 as one of those days. (If any reader has confirmation or more precise information please let me know.
So, why is this video footage so important? Because just ten days later—April 18, 2008—is Trig Paxson Van Palin's birthday. Or so we have been told. Images of Sarah seemingly pregnant with Trig are scarce, and they are interspersed in the February-April 2008 timeline with images of Sarah clearly not pregnant.
I extracted an frame of Sarah from one of the videos and put it side-by-side with an image of another woman who seems to really be eight months pregnant. In case you're confused, that's Sarah on the left and a woman advertising a little strap-thingie that connects bra to jeans on the right.
I viewed all 5 parts of the Faux special and found more interesting material that may make it into blog posts in coming days.
Because snippets of the video are quite telling, I put a little movie together showing Sarah talking about her "tight abs" and cooing and giggling and looking ever so innocent as she talks to Elan Frank. I know, I should probably add music in here somewhere, but I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to making videos:
So, why is this video footage so important? Because just ten days later—April 18, 2008—is Trig Paxson Van Palin's birthday. Or so we have been told. Images of Sarah seemingly pregnant with Trig are scarce, and they are interspersed in the February-April 2008 timeline with images of Sarah clearly not pregnant.
I extracted an frame of Sarah from one of the videos and put it side-by-side with an image of another woman who seems to really be eight months pregnant. In case you're confused, that's Sarah on the left and a woman advertising a little strap-thingie that connects bra to jeans on the right.
I viewed all 5 parts of the Faux special and found more interesting material that may make it into blog posts in coming days.
Because snippets of the video are quite telling, I put a little movie together showing Sarah talking about her "tight abs" and cooing and giggling and looking ever so innocent as she talks to Elan Frank. I know, I should probably add music in here somewhere, but I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to making videos:
Saturday, June 27, 2009
More Fun With Photoshop
The hole that Meg Stapleton and Sarah Palin dig with their ridiculous outrage over petty and false things brought the following image to mind. If they keep it up, even their faithful disciples are going to have a hard time taking them seriously!
Sarah and Meg accidentally flush themselves down the 'get off the stage' toilet
Sarah and Meg accidentally flush themselves down the 'get off the stage' toilet
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Wasillabilly Grifters
Backstory for those not aware:
AK blogger Celtic Diva is trying to get copies of some AK executive branch e-mails and the Palin administration wants an arm and a leg for finding and copying them, so readers of her blog are contributing so that the fee can be paid. The request for e-mails has to do with the executive branch leaking private information to certain media outlets to smear someone who filed an ethics complaint against Sarah Palin.
Part of Celtic Diva's fundraising campaign has included a 'thermometer' type graphic illustrating the fundraising progress. Each day a new image with a new "percent raised" has been posted. One day's image showed Sarah Palin holding a baby Eddie Burke (a radio host who broadcast the leaked information).
Sarah's disciples at one of her more prominent worship sites have gotten into a humongous uproar about this thermometer image because Eddie Burke's face was 'shopped on top of the body of Trig Palin, Sarah's [grand]son. They began informing everyone they could think of about Celtic Diva's horribleness and word must have reached Sarah herself. We know this because her spokesperson Meg Stapleton distributed a statement today, likening the 'shopped image to desecrating a holy icon. I'm not kidding.
As a result, Politico and even CNN reported the extent of Sarah's latest outrage, which probably sent an awful lot of traffic to Celtic Diva's site. Congratulations Linda!! Based on most of the comments on those stories, another result is that Sarah's bulb has gotten even dimmer (if possible). They are fun to read if you have the time.
So I thought, hey, I can 'shop too! With that, let me introduce my latest (hilarious) creation, titled "The Wasillabilly Grifters and Their Enablers." :-)
Feel free to reproduce and use anywhere you want!
AK blogger Celtic Diva is trying to get copies of some AK executive branch e-mails and the Palin administration wants an arm and a leg for finding and copying them, so readers of her blog are contributing so that the fee can be paid. The request for e-mails has to do with the executive branch leaking private information to certain media outlets to smear someone who filed an ethics complaint against Sarah Palin.
Part of Celtic Diva's fundraising campaign has included a 'thermometer' type graphic illustrating the fundraising progress. Each day a new image with a new "percent raised" has been posted. One day's image showed Sarah Palin holding a baby Eddie Burke (a radio host who broadcast the leaked information).
Sarah's disciples at one of her more prominent worship sites have gotten into a humongous uproar about this thermometer image because Eddie Burke's face was 'shopped on top of the body of Trig Palin, Sarah's [grand]son. They began informing everyone they could think of about Celtic Diva's horribleness and word must have reached Sarah herself. We know this because her spokesperson Meg Stapleton distributed a statement today, likening the 'shopped image to desecrating a holy icon. I'm not kidding.
As a result, Politico and even CNN reported the extent of Sarah's latest outrage, which probably sent an awful lot of traffic to Celtic Diva's site. Congratulations Linda!! Based on most of the comments on those stories, another result is that Sarah's bulb has gotten even dimmer (if possible). They are fun to read if you have the time.
So I thought, hey, I can 'shop too! With that, let me introduce my latest (hilarious) creation, titled "The Wasillabilly Grifters and Their Enablers." :-)
Feel free to reproduce and use anywhere you want!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Fear, Hate and Loathing in Anchorage, Alaska
After listening to a few hundred people 'testify' before the Anchorage Assembly regarding an ordinance that would extend the current anti-discrimination law to include members of the LGBT community, I've got enough material to compile a typical statement made by the red-shirted xtians who stood up at the microphone. The following is not a transcript, it is simply my impression. The images on the side come from pictures posted on this blog entry at Mudflats.
"My name is Redd Shurt and I've lived in Alaska for a while. I'm here to let you Assembly people know that God loves everybody and I love everybody, really I do, and I don't hate anyone. All my brothers and sisters in Khrist feel exactly the same way! In fact I know a lot of homo-sekshuals and I have gay friends, a lot of 'em. But there's a natchural way to live and an unnatchural way and if you all pass this here ord'nance 64, we'll be forced to condone, support and promote the unnatchural way which is the same as sin because it says so, right here in the Bible: [insert favorite chapter and verse from the Old Testament here]. Alaska will turn into Sodom and Gomorrah and be destroyed. Gays will be recruiting other people and spreading disease and prancing around telling us decent, God-fearing folks what we can and can't do in our own city. So do the right thing and vote NO on 64.
"I don't judge anybody because that's up to God, but I love God and I don't approve of those gay people's sin! Can I get an amen? Think of the children when they go to school or church or daycare or... to the bathroom! What happens when they run into men dressed up like women in a public restroom and get scared and confused! Or what if their Sunday school teacher was a lesbian, trying to infect them with some of that queerness -- that would be turrible bad! I have a right to raise my children as I see fit, far away from sick, immoral deviants. Gay people should just stay in the closet where they belong, but this ord'nance makes it okay for them to come out and that makes me disgusted and angry. Remember, I vote and I'm watching you! In fact, let the people vote on 64, otherwise you are taking away my rights to have a voice in this matter and it's clear that people who feel like I do are in the majority and the majority should rule!
"What about my rights? If I don't want to hire somebody you can't make a law that sez I have to. If God doesn't like what I do then I get to answer to God, not to some law you make up. I won't be able to turn down a homo-sekshual with bad credit who wants to rent an apartment without getting sued! The lawyers will get rich but us Khristshuns will go broke and that is very bad for our city, our state and our country. Even the US Military kicks gay people out and everyone knows that there's no proof at all that you have to be gay because I shure haven't read anything scientific to prove it but right here on the Internet it says gays can be cured so that means it's a choice and behavior can be changed. But if you wanna be gay then suck it up and take what comes with that and don't be asking me to give you any special rights. Besides, I shouldn't have to pay because of a choice you make!"
"My name is Redd Shurt and I've lived in Alaska for a while. I'm here to let you Assembly people know that God loves everybody and I love everybody, really I do, and I don't hate anyone. All my brothers and sisters in Khrist feel exactly the same way! In fact I know a lot of homo-sekshuals and I have gay friends, a lot of 'em. But there's a natchural way to live and an unnatchural way and if you all pass this here ord'nance 64, we'll be forced to condone, support and promote the unnatchural way which is the same as sin because it says so, right here in the Bible: [insert favorite chapter and verse from the Old Testament here]. Alaska will turn into Sodom and Gomorrah and be destroyed. Gays will be recruiting other people and spreading disease and prancing around telling us decent, God-fearing folks what we can and can't do in our own city. So do the right thing and vote NO on 64."I don't judge anybody because that's up to God, but I love God and I don't approve of those gay people's sin! Can I get an amen? Think of the children when they go to school or church or daycare or... to the bathroom! What happens when they run into men dressed up like women in a public restroom and get scared and confused! Or what if their Sunday school teacher was a lesbian, trying to infect them with some of that queerness -- that would be turrible bad! I have a right to raise my children as I see fit, far away from sick, immoral deviants. Gay people should just stay in the closet where they belong, but this ord'nance makes it okay for them to come out and that makes me disgusted and angry. Remember, I vote and I'm watching you! In fact, let the people vote on 64, otherwise you are taking away my rights to have a voice in this matter and it's clear that people who feel like I do are in the majority and the majority should rule!
"What about my rights? If I don't want to hire somebody you can't make a law that sez I have to. If God doesn't like what I do then I get to answer to God, not to some law you make up. I won't be able to turn down a homo-sekshual with bad credit who wants to rent an apartment without getting sued! The lawyers will get rich but us Khristshuns will go broke and that is very bad for our city, our state and our country. Even the US Military kicks gay people out and everyone knows that there's no proof at all that you have to be gay because I shure haven't read anything scientific to prove it but right here on the Internet it says gays can be cured so that means it's a choice and behavior can be changed. But if you wanna be gay then suck it up and take what comes with that and don't be asking me to give you any special rights. Besides, I shouldn't have to pay because of a choice you make!"
Monday, June 22, 2009
Why Babygate Matters
There are some people who say they don't care whether or not Sarah Palin gave birth to a 5th child, a son named Trig Paxson Van Palin. I care, and here is why.
Sarah Palin seems to see herself as a national political figure. She's done nothing to discourage any talk about running for President in 2012 or 2016, and in fact, she seems to be eager to promote herself as someone worthy of consideration.
Palin's supporters push for her candidacy and promote the idea on numerous blogs and other Web sites. They support her potential run financially through SarahPAC. I get the feeling they are not all that numerous but they are very vocal. We have to wait until the PAC's first accounting comes out to see how the support translates into dollars.
Even though many voices I respect claim Sarah Palin stands no chance being selected as the Republican nominee, much less winning the Presidency, I'm not confident enough in our mainstream media or our voting machines to think that such a fluke is 100% impossible. Besides, there is always a 3rd party ticket possibility.
I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that Sarah Palin uses people, including her own children, to further her political aims. If she did not give birth to Trig, she is especially using those who are against legal abortions, or those who also have a Down syndrome child, by appealing to them in events across the country. If she did not give birth to Trig, she has been lying to them and everyone else for a long time.
A person who would perpetrate a deception like this would also attempt to deceive on other issues. These are not the morals or ethics I want to see in a President, or in a person who holds any political office for that matter.
Sarah Palin's resume, and her appeal to what are called the core voters in the GOP, rests almost entirely on these "facts:"
Babygate is about points one and two. I can say with great confidence that the woman shown below could not have given birth to a 6 lb 2 oz baby a few weeks after these pictures were taken:
Babygate researchers have turned up all kinds of additional evidence that increases my confidence. This information is being preserved online at Team Truther as well as several other places. It's not hard to find if you look!
The only evidence to the contrary remains:
As for #2—We know that a woman can appear to be pregnant when she is not. There are many ways to pad oneself under clothing. For some reason, the Gusty images are no longer publicly available. Neither are any other images that show a pregnant Sarah Palin. There are quite a few images that show a not-pregnant Sarah Palin though!
As for #3—Sarah's family doctor has never spoken on the issue even though local news media gave her the opportunity a few times in an attempt to put Babygate to rest. No birth certificate or medical records have ever been released that would back up Sarah's claim of being pregnant with and giving birth to Trig. No hospital birth announcements were published for Trig Paxson Van Palin.
If the Babygate deception was revealed as truth, would Sarah's chances at a national political office be virtually eliminated? My Magic 8 ball says:
That's why Babygate matters to me, and I'd guess that's also why Sarah Palin's supporters are so savage and vicious when anyone brings it up.
Sarah Palin seems to see herself as a national political figure. She's done nothing to discourage any talk about running for President in 2012 or 2016, and in fact, she seems to be eager to promote herself as someone worthy of consideration.
Palin's supporters push for her candidacy and promote the idea on numerous blogs and other Web sites. They support her potential run financially through SarahPAC. I get the feeling they are not all that numerous but they are very vocal. We have to wait until the PAC's first accounting comes out to see how the support translates into dollars.
Even though many voices I respect claim Sarah Palin stands no chance being selected as the Republican nominee, much less winning the Presidency, I'm not confident enough in our mainstream media or our voting machines to think that such a fluke is 100% impossible. Besides, there is always a 3rd party ticket possibility.
I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that Sarah Palin uses people, including her own children, to further her political aims. If she did not give birth to Trig, she is especially using those who are against legal abortions, or those who also have a Down syndrome child, by appealing to them in events across the country. If she did not give birth to Trig, she has been lying to them and everyone else for a long time.
A person who would perpetrate a deception like this would also attempt to deceive on other issues. These are not the morals or ethics I want to see in a President, or in a person who holds any political office for that matter.
Sarah Palin's resume, and her appeal to what are called the core voters in the GOP, rests almost entirely on these "facts:"
- She is an attractive woman and a mother of five.
- She chose to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.
- She is a Governor.
- She is knowledgeable about the "energy" issue.
- She has a "servant's heart."
Babygate is about points one and two. I can say with great confidence that the woman shown below could not have given birth to a 6 lb 2 oz baby a few weeks after these pictures were taken:
 |
| Sarah Palin on March 14, 2008 |
 |
| Sarah Palin on March 27, 2008 |
 |
| Sarah Palin, first week of April 2008 |
Babygate researchers have turned up all kinds of additional evidence that increases my confidence. This information is being preserved online at Team Truther as well as several other places. It's not hard to find if you look!
The only evidence to the contrary remains:
- Sarah said she was pregnant. ("So, it was really great, I was only pregnant a month.")
- The mysterious Gusty photos taken on one afternoon that appear to show a pregnant Sarah.
- An ambiguous printed statement released by the McCain campaign purporting to be from Sarah's family doctor.
As for #2—We know that a woman can appear to be pregnant when she is not. There are many ways to pad oneself under clothing. For some reason, the Gusty images are no longer publicly available. Neither are any other images that show a pregnant Sarah Palin. There are quite a few images that show a not-pregnant Sarah Palin though!
As for #3—Sarah's family doctor has never spoken on the issue even though local news media gave her the opportunity a few times in an attempt to put Babygate to rest. No birth certificate or medical records have ever been released that would back up Sarah's claim of being pregnant with and giving birth to Trig. No hospital birth announcements were published for Trig Paxson Van Palin.
If the Babygate deception was revealed as truth, would Sarah's chances at a national political office be virtually eliminated? My Magic 8 ball says:
That's why Babygate matters to me, and I'd guess that's also why Sarah Palin's supporters are so savage and vicious when anyone brings it up.
[cross-posted at Team Truther]
Thursday, June 18, 2009
What the Red Shirts Really Said
Last night's public testimony from the red-shirted ABT people (Anchorage Baptist Temple, the church led by Jerry Prevo) boils down to this:
The LGBT community is not okay because God said so, according to the Prevochristians™. They are extremely agitated at the thought that the Anchorage Assembly might pass an ordinance saying that gays actually are okay in the eyes of the law.
The Prevochristians™ won't say this out loud, but they are afraid this might mean that they are not exclusively okay. According to Prevo, there is only one kind of okay. People who believe as he does are it. So people who don't believe as he does can't be okay, can they?
The red shirts claim that their rights will be taken away if sexual orientation is added as a protected class along with other identifiers like race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and marital status. The only "right" they would lose, it seems to me, is the right to discriminate against a lesbian or gay or transgender person—which seems just fine to me. If they ever had that right in the first place it was because they assumed too much.
Pastor Prevo has developed a litany of reasons why gay people are not okay, and red shirt after red shirt stepped up to the microphone last night and read out the reasons.
It's very hard to see what is outside the box when you are inside it. The box protects you and shields you, but it also blinds you and breaks your connection to the rest of the world. I don't have a problem with people being in a box as long as they know they are in a box, and as long as they accept that being in that box isn't the only right way to live.
The LGBT community is not okay because God said so, according to the Prevochristians™. They are extremely agitated at the thought that the Anchorage Assembly might pass an ordinance saying that gays actually are okay in the eyes of the law.
The Prevochristians™ won't say this out loud, but they are afraid this might mean that they are not exclusively okay. According to Prevo, there is only one kind of okay. People who believe as he does are it. So people who don't believe as he does can't be okay, can they?
The red shirts claim that their rights will be taken away if sexual orientation is added as a protected class along with other identifiers like race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and marital status. The only "right" they would lose, it seems to me, is the right to discriminate against a lesbian or gay or transgender person—which seems just fine to me. If they ever had that right in the first place it was because they assumed too much.
Pastor Prevo has developed a litany of reasons why gay people are not okay, and red shirt after red shirt stepped up to the microphone last night and read out the reasons.
- Being gay is a choice, a lifestyle, a behavior. (Even if this were true, going to ABT and believing what Prevo says is also a choice.)
- Since gayness can be cured it is okay to ostracize, ridicule, reject and otherwise discriminate against gays who don't seek treatment. (Sorry, being gay is not a physical or mental disease.)
- God condemns homosexuality as a sin. (Whose god?)
- Gays have an agenda! (And Jerry Prevo does not?)
- Gays try to convert you into being gay too! (Ahem. Who is trying to convert who?)
It's very hard to see what is outside the box when you are inside it. The box protects you and shields you, but it also blinds you and breaks your connection to the rest of the world. I don't have a problem with people being in a box as long as they know they are in a box, and as long as they accept that being in that box isn't the only right way to live.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
More to Come But First:
I've been watching the video feed of the public discussion on the Anchorage, AK ordinance that would add a class of protected persons to their anti-discrimination laws. The law in Anchorage already protects people no matter their race and gender, among other descriptors. The ordinance (#64) seeks to add protections for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (aka LGBT).
The proponents for the ordinance are presenting studies that discrimination against this group is real, and in their testimony they are bearing witness, through personal accounts, of the bigotry, hatred, and ostracizing they or close friends have experienced... in Anchorage.
The opponents of the ordinance are inspired to speak out, to fight against the ordinance, largely by a few pastors of Anchorage churches. Their testimony includes exhortations to God, statistics about the deviance and foulness and disease of gay folks (which seem to be largely unsupported), history lessons going back to the Old Testament, and pleas to the Assembly to refrain from usurping their own rights. Rights? Rights to label others? Rights to discriminate against others? Rights to engage with others only as long as those others recognize their sin and agree to be re-programmed so they are no longer gay?
The opponents are of one voice when they say that lesbians and gays have an illness that comes about from their personal choice. If only, they wail, these deviants, these sick people would accept their help to stop being "not okay" so they could rejoin the Christian™ community!
Frankly, I am appalled. Appalled by the overt hypocrisy in the Reverend Jerry Prevo (and other pastor's) crowd. (See Immoral Minority for a copy of what this right Reverend has sent to his "congregation." See Bent Alaska for a history of the struggle to codify protections for the LGBT community.) I am appalled that a sect... a religious sect really thinks it should be able to enforce its particular beliefs on an entire city. I am appalled that so many individuals, all wearing red shirts, can get up and publicly display their bigotry, their disdain for tolerance, their disgust of fellow human beings. The right Reverend, I think, will have an awful lot to answer for, should he make it to those "pearly gates."
Anyway, more to come on this. There is another open session tonight where additional "testimony" will be taken. Please visit Mudflats for information on how to listen/watch tonight's session. Also please visit Alaska Commons for a comprehensive view of the ordinance and its meaning.
The proponents for the ordinance are presenting studies that discrimination against this group is real, and in their testimony they are bearing witness, through personal accounts, of the bigotry, hatred, and ostracizing they or close friends have experienced... in Anchorage.
The opponents of the ordinance are inspired to speak out, to fight against the ordinance, largely by a few pastors of Anchorage churches. Their testimony includes exhortations to God, statistics about the deviance and foulness and disease of gay folks (which seem to be largely unsupported), history lessons going back to the Old Testament, and pleas to the Assembly to refrain from usurping their own rights. Rights? Rights to label others? Rights to discriminate against others? Rights to engage with others only as long as those others recognize their sin and agree to be re-programmed so they are no longer gay?
The opponents are of one voice when they say that lesbians and gays have an illness that comes about from their personal choice. If only, they wail, these deviants, these sick people would accept their help to stop being "not okay" so they could rejoin the Christian™ community!
Frankly, I am appalled. Appalled by the overt hypocrisy in the Reverend Jerry Prevo (and other pastor's) crowd. (See Immoral Minority for a copy of what this right Reverend has sent to his "congregation." See Bent Alaska for a history of the struggle to codify protections for the LGBT community.) I am appalled that a sect... a religious sect really thinks it should be able to enforce its particular beliefs on an entire city. I am appalled that so many individuals, all wearing red shirts, can get up and publicly display their bigotry, their disdain for tolerance, their disgust of fellow human beings. The right Reverend, I think, will have an awful lot to answer for, should he make it to those "pearly gates."
Anyway, more to come on this. There is another open session tonight where additional "testimony" will be taken. Please visit Mudflats for information on how to listen/watch tonight's session. Also please visit Alaska Commons for a comprehensive view of the ordinance and its meaning.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Compare and Contrast
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of images of Sarah Palin. Most of this photographic record starts with her Alaska gubernatorial run and goes through the McCain-Palin campaign. I've displayed a random sampling of those images in the strip on the left.
I think many of us noticed the sudden and startling shift in Sarah's appearance in her recent cable news interviews. At first I put it down to a different hair-do—a subconscious, perhaps, rebellion against David Letterman's jest that she went to Bloomingdale's to "update her slutty flight attendant look." After taking a second look, though, I think the contrast cannot be explained by just the hair style change. Images grabbed from her Matt Lauer interview a few days ago make up the strip on the right.
In my previous post I suggested that something is definitely going on with Sarah, and I am even more sure of it after comparing these images.
I wonder if the sea of pee'ers has noticed this physical deterioration in their goddess, and if they think their efforts to raise funds for SarahPAC will be of any help whatsoever. Maybe one of the teabaggers can talk her into sipping a good herbal blend that stimulates the appetite.
I think many of us noticed the sudden and startling shift in Sarah's appearance in her recent cable news interviews. At first I put it down to a different hair-do—a subconscious, perhaps, rebellion against David Letterman's jest that she went to Bloomingdale's to "update her slutty flight attendant look." After taking a second look, though, I think the contrast cannot be explained by just the hair style change. Images grabbed from her Matt Lauer interview a few days ago make up the strip on the right.
In my previous post I suggested that something is definitely going on with Sarah, and I am even more sure of it after comparing these images.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
These images were taken between the time Sarah Palin ran for Governor in 2006 and end when she finished her campaign to be VP. | These images were taken a few days ago as Sarah Palin spoke with cable news about her outrage over David Letterman's "knocked up" joke. | |
 |  |
I wonder if the sea of pee'ers has noticed this physical deterioration in their goddess, and if they think their efforts to raise funds for SarahPAC will be of any help whatsoever. Maybe one of the teabaggers can talk her into sipping a good herbal blend that stimulates the appetite.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
I'm No Doctor But...
Sarah Palin doesn't look well to me.
My impression comes from looking at the images of her "pageant walk" across the stage at the NRCC/NRSC dinner last week.
Awfully slim, skinny even, more so than I've ever noticed.
No hips, no abdomen.
Toes slipping off the front of the platform shoes.
Prominent tendons at the neck.
The hair is big, but nothing else is.
Here's another .. she's sort of leaning toward Todd as she makes her way across the stage. Her chinbone is visible and her hands look absolutely skeletal. Her kneecaps are obvious.
I enlarged the hands to look at them better.
Her knuckles look swollen and her wrists and fingers are terribly bony. The bracelet on her left wrist looks like it could fall off at any moment. She's not wearing any rings that I can see, which is odd because she usually wears a wedding band.
Maybe it's just the lights, or the fact that black is incredibly 'slimming' in these photos. But my impression is that something is going on. What do you think?
My impression comes from looking at the images of her "pageant walk" across the stage at the NRCC/NRSC dinner last week.
Awfully slim, skinny even, more so than I've ever noticed.
No hips, no abdomen.
Toes slipping off the front of the platform shoes.
Prominent tendons at the neck.
The hair is big, but nothing else is.
Here's another .. she's sort of leaning toward Todd as she makes her way across the stage. Her chinbone is visible and her hands look absolutely skeletal. Her kneecaps are obvious.
I enlarged the hands to look at them better.
Her knuckles look swollen and her wrists and fingers are terribly bony. The bracelet on her left wrist looks like it could fall off at any moment. She's not wearing any rings that I can see, which is odd because she usually wears a wedding band.
Maybe it's just the lights, or the fact that black is incredibly 'slimming' in these photos. But my impression is that something is going on. What do you think?
Friday, June 12, 2009
How's Your Self-Esteem Lately, Bristol?
In each of Sarah Palin's public discharges (I can't help but think of the ooze from a pus-filled wound) over the last day or two, she takes the opportunity to ream David Letterman for destroying the self-esteem of young women everywhere. It is with no small amount of head-shaking that I feel it necessary to remind "she who is a media whore from babble on" that she herself is the major factor in destroying her daughters' sense of self-worth.
Think back to the beginning of September, 2008. The GILF (Governor I'd Love to F*** was a frequent descriptor) was chosen as John McCain's running mate. She came with some baggage. Part of the baggage was a legislative investigation into her questionable firing of Walt Monegan. We all know how that turned out—she was found to have abused her power as Governor by the AK State Legislature, but her own Personnel Board simply took her word for the fact that she had no idea members of her family and staff were harassing Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
The other part of her baggage was this persistent, long-standing rumor that she had faked her supposed 5th pregnancy and that her daughter, Bristol, had in fact, given birth to the DS baby Sarah lugged around on stage during the campaign. Sarah attempted (unsuccessfully) to squash that story by shoving Bristol, then not even 18, onto the public stage by proclaiming that Bristol was now pregnant by "around 5 months." Instead of offering any records that she, Sarah, had given birth to Trig, she outed her 17-yr-old daughter's current pregnancy as a way of saying, "See, she's really pregnant now, so she couldn't have been pregnant before!"
Talk about embarrassing. Bristol was padded and stuffed into tight clothes and displayed on stage at the RNC and carted around throughout the campaign, curiously acting more motherly toward Trig than Sarah ever did. From that time on I felt sorry for Bristol. Her pre-marital sex with someone suddenly became common knowledge across the world. Had my mother done that to me (had I been unfortunate enough to become pregnant as an unwed teen) I would have despised her.
And that wasn't enough! Almost as if Sarah wanted Bristol to pay dearly for her indiscretions, Bristol somehow became a spokesperson for abstinence via Candies' "excuse me" subsidiary. Candies makes money by selling sex to very young girls. They also try to counter the negative publicity from this by running another enterprise that is intended to tell young girls that they should not engage in sexual intercourse -- all the while feeding them images that aim to get them to buy and dress in sexy revealing clothing.
So I ask, what has Sarah Palin done in her own small sphere—her family—to bolster her own daughters' self-esteem? She branded Bristol as an irresponsible youth for whom an equivalency high school diploma is some grand achievement and an out-of-wedlock child is a happy misfortune. Her brazen tossing of Bristol under the bus of her own political aspirations must have sent red flags to Willow, and even if Piper doesn't realize it yet, she too has been demeaned.
For Sarah to essentially call David Letterman a pedophile and a statutory rapist is not an ordinary reaction. It is an extreme over-reaction. It makes me wonder about the rape history in Sarah's family story. You only get that touchy about something that has touched you.
Here's another aspect of Sarah's hypocrisy in her recent blathering. She said in the Matt Lauer video,
Sarah, take it from me. I'm a financial conservative and social liberal. I have three children, one of whom is a daughter. My mother was a dittohead (aka Rush Limbaugh devotee). If you had shown any promise whatsoever, even in one sphere (besides American Talibanism), I would have tried to find reasons to support you. Instead, you spit on me and those like me, because even though we are working women who have raised children while totally supporting our households in ordinary jobs (at less than 1/3 of what you make), you say we do not belong to "real America," whatever that is. What you are doing now, by smacking your lips and getting all in a roar about a late night comedian, is self-defeating. You have chosen to fight a paper dragon. Yet you are no warrior, you are a whiner. You are no lady, you are a tramp. You are no Christian, either, so get off it.
The jokes that Letterman told a couple nights ago were derived from you, the actions you took, the scrutiny you invited, the celebrity you sought and cultivated for you and your vulnerable children. Your daughters' self-esteem problems, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with Letterman compared to what you've already done to them.
Think back to the beginning of September, 2008. The GILF (Governor I'd Love to F*** was a frequent descriptor) was chosen as John McCain's running mate. She came with some baggage. Part of the baggage was a legislative investigation into her questionable firing of Walt Monegan. We all know how that turned out—she was found to have abused her power as Governor by the AK State Legislature, but her own Personnel Board simply took her word for the fact that she had no idea members of her family and staff were harassing Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
The other part of her baggage was this persistent, long-standing rumor that she had faked her supposed 5th pregnancy and that her daughter, Bristol, had in fact, given birth to the DS baby Sarah lugged around on stage during the campaign. Sarah attempted (unsuccessfully) to squash that story by shoving Bristol, then not even 18, onto the public stage by proclaiming that Bristol was now pregnant by "around 5 months." Instead of offering any records that she, Sarah, had given birth to Trig, she outed her 17-yr-old daughter's current pregnancy as a way of saying, "See, she's really pregnant now, so she couldn't have been pregnant before!"
Talk about embarrassing. Bristol was padded and stuffed into tight clothes and displayed on stage at the RNC and carted around throughout the campaign, curiously acting more motherly toward Trig than Sarah ever did. From that time on I felt sorry for Bristol. Her pre-marital sex with someone suddenly became common knowledge across the world. Had my mother done that to me (had I been unfortunate enough to become pregnant as an unwed teen) I would have despised her.
And that wasn't enough! Almost as if Sarah wanted Bristol to pay dearly for her indiscretions, Bristol somehow became a spokesperson for abstinence via Candies' "excuse me" subsidiary. Candies makes money by selling sex to very young girls. They also try to counter the negative publicity from this by running another enterprise that is intended to tell young girls that they should not engage in sexual intercourse -- all the while feeding them images that aim to get them to buy and dress in sexy revealing clothing.
So I ask, what has Sarah Palin done in her own small sphere—her family—to bolster her own daughters' self-esteem? She branded Bristol as an irresponsible youth for whom an equivalency high school diploma is some grand achievement and an out-of-wedlock child is a happy misfortune. Her brazen tossing of Bristol under the bus of her own political aspirations must have sent red flags to Willow, and even if Piper doesn't realize it yet, she too has been demeaned.
For Sarah to essentially call David Letterman a pedophile and a statutory rapist is not an ordinary reaction. It is an extreme over-reaction. It makes me wonder about the rape history in Sarah's family story. You only get that touchy about something that has touched you.
Here's another aspect of Sarah's hypocrisy in her recent blathering. She said in the Matt Lauer video,
Quite, I think, a sad commentary on where we are as a culture, as a society to chuckle and laugh through comments such as he had made the other night. I think it’s quite unfortunate.But listen here to an audio broadcast where Sarah giggles when radio talk show hosts demean an Alaskan Republican legislator who happened to be recovering from cancer. The shock jocks call Lyda Green a bitch and a cancer. Way to go supporting women, Sarah! You agreed and laughed and never said one word to tamp down the very nasty speech against a fellow female politician IN YOUR OWN PARTY.
Sarah, take it from me. I'm a financial conservative and social liberal. I have three children, one of whom is a daughter. My mother was a dittohead (aka Rush Limbaugh devotee). If you had shown any promise whatsoever, even in one sphere (besides American Talibanism), I would have tried to find reasons to support you. Instead, you spit on me and those like me, because even though we are working women who have raised children while totally supporting our households in ordinary jobs (at less than 1/3 of what you make), you say we do not belong to "real America," whatever that is. What you are doing now, by smacking your lips and getting all in a roar about a late night comedian, is self-defeating. You have chosen to fight a paper dragon. Yet you are no warrior, you are a whiner. You are no lady, you are a tramp. You are no Christian, either, so get off it.
The jokes that Letterman told a couple nights ago were derived from you, the actions you took, the scrutiny you invited, the celebrity you sought and cultivated for you and your vulnerable children. Your daughters' self-esteem problems, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with Letterman compared to what you've already done to them.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Red Is the Color of ...
Given today's terribly sad news about an aged right-wing, white supremicist shooting and killing a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and given the recent horrific news about another right-wing anti-abortion extremist killing Dr. Tiller at his church last weekend, and given the awful speech by extreme right-wing idealogues who mouthed off against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I suppose I should be thankful that none of the LGBT citizens who appeared at last night's Anchorage hearing were harmed while I watched.
Staying up well past my bedtime last night I viewed as much of the hearing as I could (via the Internet) on Anchorage, Alaska's proposed ordinance to add LGBT persons to their anti-discrimination law. Was anyone else disturbed by the nearly uniform wearing of red shirts by all those who testified in opposition to the ordinance? Had I been sitting on the board hearing the testimony, I would have been upset that a simple session for citizen comments would be usurped by what appeared to be a calculated, organized movement. People from well outside Anchorage spoke against the ordinance... no doubt people from Sarah Palin's own home congregation.
I wrote down several themes, from both proponents and opponents. What I finally sorted out for myself today boils down to this: those who oppose making explicit a LGBT person's rights are afraid. Here is what they have been led to fear:
I do not care what my neighbors believe when it comes to religious precepts. What I would care about is if my neighbors took it upon themselves to set me straight according to their religious beliefs by haranguing and harassing me. (I do wish Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would stop knocking on my door, trying to enlist me in their belief systems.)
Our country does have freedom of religion. It also has, or should have, freedom from religion. Extreme fundamentalists and proselytizers have the option to kick out their gay son or daughter from their own house. They have the option to refuse entry to a transgender person from their house of worship. They have every right to turn away a gay couple who asks to be married in their church. But each of us also has the right to be respected when we ask evangelists of whatever flavor to leave our front porches or get out of our faces at women's health clinics or on the streets. Each of us should have the right to be hired and perform our jobs with excellence regardless of our religious or personal beliefs, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation, and regardless of our race. Each of us should have the right to rent an apartment as long as we have the finances to do so and no history of trashing places.
There were a couple very egregious things I heard from the "red shirt" crowd last night. One was that 'teh gay' was a behavior, a choice, and therefore was not worthy of an extension of civil rights. To that I say, your choice of religious beliefs is also a choice. Why should one segment of society be told to change their "choices" while your choices remain unassailed? What makes your "choices" any better than anyone else's? (Let it be known that I do not subscribe to the view that 'teh gay' is a matter of choice.) The other was that laws should not be made to grant benefits to minorities when the majority was against it. When it comes to civil rights, it is our responsibility to make sure that minorities are protected from majorities. That is what civil rights is all about! One speaker even revealed his fear that by affirming the civil rights of LGBT persons the ordinance would essentially be enforcing a religion of tolerance on all. How fallacious.
If you run a business, you are no longer an individual. You report to the state, the state licenses you to run the business, you have to follow business rules. That goes whether you are silk-screening T-shirts in a garage somewhere or renting apartments that you own. As an individual, if you do not want to invite a lesbian to your backyard barbeque, fine. As a business who places advertisements for workers, you need to hire based on qualifications and not your own personal againstments.
I am not a "Christian," but I honestly don't think Jesus would mind hanging out with LGBT folks at all. And I hope that the body in Anchorage responsible for deciding on this ordinance keeps in mind that the state is supposed to keep itself separate from the church.
Red is the color of passion, war, power, wanting attention...
"Better dead than red"
"Red herring"
"Was my face red"
"Redcoats"
"The devil wears red"
"STOP"
"Anger"
"Lust"
"Intensity"
"Danger"
Staying up well past my bedtime last night I viewed as much of the hearing as I could (via the Internet) on Anchorage, Alaska's proposed ordinance to add LGBT persons to their anti-discrimination law. Was anyone else disturbed by the nearly uniform wearing of red shirts by all those who testified in opposition to the ordinance? Had I been sitting on the board hearing the testimony, I would have been upset that a simple session for citizen comments would be usurped by what appeared to be a calculated, organized movement. People from well outside Anchorage spoke against the ordinance... no doubt people from Sarah Palin's own home congregation.
I wrote down several themes, from both proponents and opponents. What I finally sorted out for myself today boils down to this: those who oppose making explicit a LGBT person's rights are afraid. Here is what they have been led to fear:
- They will no longer be able to freely discriminate against members of the LGBT community.
- In addition, they will no longer be able to assert their dominance as the major religion, forcing their ideas and beliefs on others.
I do not care what my neighbors believe when it comes to religious precepts. What I would care about is if my neighbors took it upon themselves to set me straight according to their religious beliefs by haranguing and harassing me. (I do wish Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would stop knocking on my door, trying to enlist me in their belief systems.)
Our country does have freedom of religion. It also has, or should have, freedom from religion. Extreme fundamentalists and proselytizers have the option to kick out their gay son or daughter from their own house. They have the option to refuse entry to a transgender person from their house of worship. They have every right to turn away a gay couple who asks to be married in their church. But each of us also has the right to be respected when we ask evangelists of whatever flavor to leave our front porches or get out of our faces at women's health clinics or on the streets. Each of us should have the right to be hired and perform our jobs with excellence regardless of our religious or personal beliefs, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation, and regardless of our race. Each of us should have the right to rent an apartment as long as we have the finances to do so and no history of trashing places.
There were a couple very egregious things I heard from the "red shirt" crowd last night. One was that 'teh gay' was a behavior, a choice, and therefore was not worthy of an extension of civil rights. To that I say, your choice of religious beliefs is also a choice. Why should one segment of society be told to change their "choices" while your choices remain unassailed? What makes your "choices" any better than anyone else's? (Let it be known that I do not subscribe to the view that 'teh gay' is a matter of choice.) The other was that laws should not be made to grant benefits to minorities when the majority was against it. When it comes to civil rights, it is our responsibility to make sure that minorities are protected from majorities. That is what civil rights is all about! One speaker even revealed his fear that by affirming the civil rights of LGBT persons the ordinance would essentially be enforcing a religion of tolerance on all. How fallacious.
If you run a business, you are no longer an individual. You report to the state, the state licenses you to run the business, you have to follow business rules. That goes whether you are silk-screening T-shirts in a garage somewhere or renting apartments that you own. As an individual, if you do not want to invite a lesbian to your backyard barbeque, fine. As a business who places advertisements for workers, you need to hire based on qualifications and not your own personal againstments.
I am not a "Christian," but I honestly don't think Jesus would mind hanging out with LGBT folks at all. And I hope that the body in Anchorage responsible for deciding on this ordinance keeps in mind that the state is supposed to keep itself separate from the church.
Red is the color of passion, war, power, wanting attention...
"Better dead than red"
"Red herring"
"Was my face red"
"Redcoats"
"The devil wears red"
"STOP"
"Anger"
"Lust"
"Intensity"
"Danger"
Monday, June 08, 2009
Over the Top: C4P Can't Handle the Truth
I admit that I can be aggressive in a gentle sort of way. I was in that sort of mood when I posted a few comments on C4P's site last night under a topic that was excusing Sarah from "lifting" thoughts and words from the Gingrich-Shirley article without attribution. I wondered aloud if there was anything her highness could do or say that would raise an eyebrow of concern among her disciples. And I further wondered if anyone at C4P had a problem with Michael Reagan, and Sarah's glowing praise and encouragement of him when she introduced him.
The first poster to reply to me said, " Go away DivaPiglit."
Another wrote, "Tell your masters they need to come up with a better boogey man then Michael Reagan ok."
A third chimed in, "In case you haven't noticed, this isn't 'Converatives4MichaelReagan'. Who cares what he said or didn't say? And why the hell do you care if anyone here agrees with him or not?"
Then R.A. Mansour joined the fray, "She cited her source. How can she have plagiarized when she vited [sic] her source?"
The next thing I know, I read this from RAM, "Bye troofers. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." Every post I'd made on the thread so far was removed.
So I wrote an e-mail asking what happened and why. Full content below, in chronological order:
Ejected from C4P...Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:20 PM
From: "Lee Franklin"
To: ramansour@conservatives4palin.com
On what grounds, please?
I did not, to my knowledge, break any rules about posting.
Thank you for a prompt response,
Lee Franklin
aka Ennealogic
Re: Ejected from C4P...Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:26 PM
From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"
Off topic, spamming the thread, and being an over all jerk who annoys all of us. How's that?
I didn't actually ban you. This thread was your warning. Do it again and you're gone for good.
Re: Ejected from C4P...Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:38 PM
From: "Lee Franklin"
To: "R. A. Mansour"
The topic was Goeffrey's article about Sarah's plagiarism. I do not believe I was off topic.
I opened some remarks and then responded to replies directly made to me. I do not understand how that qualifies as spamming.
As for being an "over all jerk who annoys all of [you]", perhaps that is how you see it, but I did not impugn any poster or the site. I did not malign you or anyone else there, I only asked a few questions about plagiarism and the speech that Sarah gave -- which was, in all 17 minutes, supposed to be a glowing introduction to Michael Reagan.
As for me, I did not receive even one honest answer to any of my questions from any of the people who spoke with me. Yet I am not annoyed, I am only saddened. Why does what I said annoy you?
As for your warning... I do not know what not to do again. Perhaps if you'd lay out the rules? Can one not question Sarah Palin's actions? Can one not point out that Mike Reagan wants to stuff hand grenades into babies' butts? Can one not link Sarah Palin with those she introduces and cheers on?
Thank you for a response, though. I wasn't expecting it.
Sincerely,
Lee Franklin
Re: Ejected from C4P...Monday, June 8, 2009 11:56 PM
From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"
You know what "saddens" me? Your Trig Trutherism.
Re: Ejected from C4P...Sunday, June 7, 2009 12:08 AM
From: "Lee Franklin"
To: "R. A. Mansour"
I do not believe I have posted anything about Trig (Palin, right?) on the C4P site, ever. Have you removed my posts from a thread about Sarah's alleged plagiarism because you suspect I may not subscribe to your beliefs concerning the birth of Trig?
Seriously?
Re: Ejected from C4P...Monday, June 8, 2009 1:16 AM
From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"
"Trig (Palin, right?)"
That's it. Now you are banned for life, you sick son of a bitch.
"may not subscribe" to my beliefs?
Yes, I would also delete and ban racists, Obama birth certificate truthers, and Holocaust deniers.
You are at home with those people.
Don't ever come back to my blog. Don't email me again. Your emails are going in my SPAM filter.
For some reason I don't fully understand, the topic of Trig Palin's parentage is as horrific as garlic soaked in holy water and wrapped around silver stakes would be to a vampire. RAM and most everyone else at C4P seem to be deathly afraid of touching the topic at all. And I didn't even bring it up.
I pointed out the apparent disconnect between how they viewed Sarah Palin's cheerleading for Michael Reagan, and Obama's non-connection to Bill Ayers' revolutionary actions. Go figure.
Gosh, now that I'm branded as a sick son of a bitch, maybe I should get a tattoo?
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Palin bin Plagiarizin
"Screw political correctness," pronounced Sarah. Indeed. That must mean, also, too, screw honesty and screw ethics and screw the effort it takes to think your own thoughts and write your own speeches.
By the way, I'm pretty sure it was Rush Limbaugh (may the universe forgive him) who started the whole "screw being PC" movement at least twenty years ago. Does Sarah have an original thought in her head, I wonder?
I also wonder how the Sarasites feel about their idol's words today, knowing that she ripped them off. C4P had reprinted much of Palin's Reagan-introduction-in-Anchorage and praised it in glowing terms. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to berate the guv'ner for cheating and stealing.
Friday, June 05, 2009
A Tale of Two Speeches
Before I begin, I wish to credit AK Muckraker's post at Mudflats in which she transcribes Sarah Palin's recent speech introducing Michael Reagan. If you are unfamiliar with the fullness of Sarah's word salad, you really ought to read the whole thing.
And the quotes from President Obama's recent speech to the world given in Cairo, Egypt, are taken from the transcription provided at Huffington Post.
On one side of the world, Sarah Palin cheers on Michael Reagan. He is the son of a former President and a vehement proponent of killing mothers and babies who believe in Islam by stuffing a hand grenade up their butts... This is who Sarah Palin -- supposedly an avid "pro-life" person -- applauds and cheers on:
On the other side of the world, we see our President making the case for a new beginning in the hope that we can identify those principles we share instead of harping on those notions that separate us. See Obama's video in my last post.
Let's compare the speeches. I would not embarrass Sarah Palin so, except for this: she has given no assurance that she rejects the notion of running for a national political office in the future, and the Sarasites who adore her seem to truly believe she is well-suited for a national political office. On, then, to the comparison.
Opening paragraphs -- Sarah's will be in red, Obama's in blue. Keep your favorite grammar book handy:
Fair enough... Sarah is introducing an extremist right wing talk show host before an audience of maybe 400, and President Obama is speaking to the Arab peoples and the rest of the world before an audience of millions.
Let's get more into the meat of these speeches. Please read carefully and apply headache remedy as needed for the red text:
And again, more contrast:
And this closing message:
Sarah can't hold a candle to Barack. Not in style, certainly not in substance, and definitely not in spirit. Sarah is all about blaming and dividing. We recognize this personality because we learned it well during GWBush's years in office. Sarah is all about fear and loathing and calling on us to buy guns and ammo and build fallout shelters. She's all about that because she has no inkling of any other way but the isolationist, us versus them way. She is afraid. She cannot deal with anything outside her own small sphere because she doesn't have the wisdom or the education to realize that all human beings have common aims and dreams and hopes. She doesn't know that we need each other. Sarah asks us to be afraid along with her.
Barack asks us to step outside any fear and see truth.
Sarah couldn't put a cohesive speech together by herself if her life depended on it.
Barack not only can think and write and speak cohesively, he does so with a humility and graciousness that Sarah has never touched and probably will never know.
One speech makes us shudder and cower and clutch that which we feel is most dear. The other speech lifts our spirits and opens our hearts and encourages us to extend our hands in greeting and good wishes to our neighbors.
Two speeches, two entirely different attitudes. Which will have the more positive impact on our lives and our future?
And the quotes from President Obama's recent speech to the world given in Cairo, Egypt, are taken from the transcription provided at Huffington Post.
On one side of the world, Sarah Palin cheers on Michael Reagan. He is the son of a former President and a vehement proponent of killing mothers and babies who believe in Islam by stuffing a hand grenade up their butts... This is who Sarah Palin -- supposedly an avid "pro-life" person -- applauds and cheers on:
On the other side of the world, we see our President making the case for a new beginning in the hope that we can identify those principles we share instead of harping on those notions that separate us. See Obama's video in my last post.
Let's compare the speeches. I would not embarrass Sarah Palin so, except for this: she has given no assurance that she rejects the notion of running for a national political office in the future, and the Sarasites who adore her seem to truly believe she is well-suited for a national political office. On, then, to the comparison.
Opening paragraphs -- Sarah's will be in red, Obama's in blue. Keep your favorite grammar book handy:
We have an awesome guest, a guest who is affecting our culture in such a positive way. We need him to keep on being bold and we’re counting on Michael Reagan to help educate America.
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
Fair enough... Sarah is introducing an extremist right wing talk show host before an audience of maybe 400, and President Obama is speaking to the Arab peoples and the rest of the world before an audience of millions.
Let's get more into the meat of these speeches. Please read carefully and apply headache remedy as needed for the red text:
Today the things that some in Washington would do to take away our freedoms, it’s absolutely astounding, and we would do so well to look back on those Reagan years as he championed the cause for freedom and then he lived it out as our president - cheerfully, persistently and unapologetically. Reagan knew that real change and real change requiring shaking things up and maybe takin’ off the entrenched interest thwarting the will of the people with their ignoring of our concerns about future peril caused by selfish short-sighted advocacy for growing government and digging more debt, and taking away individual and state’s rights and hampering opportunity to responsibly develop our resources, and coddling those who would seek to harm America and her allies.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
And again, more contrast:
What Newt had written in this article, he wrote “remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved, and praised and deserved” that Reagan dealt with, with then the troublesome Soviet Union, remember this? His vision for the Cold War? We win, they lose.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
And this closing message:
Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and of fearful lawmakers being led to believe that big government is the answer to bail out the private sector because then goverment gets to get in there and control it and, mark my words, this is going to happen next I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states, then government gets to get in there and control the people, and watch what happens there. Michael, maybe you want to talk about your home state California. We’ll see what happens there but you know it’s…. aaaaa!…. for the love of God you’ve got to ask yourself where we got off track?
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
Sarah can't hold a candle to Barack. Not in style, certainly not in substance, and definitely not in spirit. Sarah is all about blaming and dividing. We recognize this personality because we learned it well during GWBush's years in office. Sarah is all about fear and loathing and calling on us to buy guns and ammo and build fallout shelters. She's all about that because she has no inkling of any other way but the isolationist, us versus them way. She is afraid. She cannot deal with anything outside her own small sphere because she doesn't have the wisdom or the education to realize that all human beings have common aims and dreams and hopes. She doesn't know that we need each other. Sarah asks us to be afraid along with her.
Barack asks us to step outside any fear and see truth.
Sarah couldn't put a cohesive speech together by herself if her life depended on it.
Barack not only can think and write and speak cohesively, he does so with a humility and graciousness that Sarah has never touched and probably will never know.
One speech makes us shudder and cower and clutch that which we feel is most dear. The other speech lifts our spirits and opens our hearts and encourages us to extend our hands in greeting and good wishes to our neighbors.
Two speeches, two entirely different attitudes. Which will have the more positive impact on our lives and our future?
Thursday, June 04, 2009
A Time for Peace: Obama's Hope
I can't imagine anyone else currently in public life, or any other politician or person now in office, who could have created and delivered this speech with such depth, sincerity, gravity, and warmth. I'm looking at you, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or any other presidential wannabe -- left or right.
I'm in tears. The speech is long but as people who live for only a brief time as citizens of this world, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow humans to listen to it. This is our President, and I could not be more proud.
Huffington Post has a full transcript below the video if you'd like to read along.
I'm in tears. The speech is long but as people who live for only a brief time as citizens of this world, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow humans to listen to it. This is our President, and I could not be more proud.
Huffington Post has a full transcript below the video if you'd like to read along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)