fpb | (no subject)

British media, including the supposedly conservative ones, are supporting Obama and (especially) hounding Sarah Palin, with a ferocity unknown even to their American counterparts, and looking more like the Daily Kos than anything, so to speak, human. This is appalling in itself, and may well end up being disastrous if by any chance McCain and Palin win. These creatures are planting poisonous ideas in the average British reader, which will take decades to weed away. And incidentally, it does nothing to disprove my view that at the roots of all serious modern political conflict in the West there is abortion; for the British media and establishment, including the so-called conservatives, are completely sold on the practice, and anti-abortion forces are marginalized to an extent unknown and hard to believe in Italy or America. This goes back a long time - Margaret Thatcher always voted in favour of abortion. Now, Sarah Palin, simply by being who she is, is a living rebuke to all the abortion-is-necessary crowd; and this explains the ferocious hatred and the avalanche of pathological lies with which this attractive, polite, competent female politician has been welcomed. Find me another explanation that makes sense! It also accounts for the complete silence that has been enforced on anything that might make Obama, the most pro-abortion candidate in history, look bad or even moderately dubious. It is not about race; if Judge Clarence Thomas were running for President, he would be treated like Palin has been. It is not even about party; if Condoleeza Rice had run and got the Republican nomination, you can bet your life that she would have had a much smoother ride than Palin. She, after all, has no children. You cannot underrate the power of repressed and concealed guilt feelings, crawling under the skin of all the career women who got rid of unwanted babies in order to please bosses and boyfriends, and indeed among all the men who were complicit in their crimes or even demanded them; when faced with a brilliantly successful career woman who not only had five children, but opted against aborting even the disabled one. (I don't suppose it helps that she is beautiful and looks ten years younger than her age. The sheer unfairness of the distribution of beauty is salt on any open wound, and the wound in question is painful enough in the first place.) Sarah Palin is a mirror who tells them the truth about themselves; and it is a truth that they cannot bear to see.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

when faced with a brilliantly successful career woman who not only had five children, but opted against aborting even the disabled one. (I don't suppose it helps that she is beautiful and looks ten years younger than her age. The sheer unfairness of the distribution of beauty is salt on any open wound, and the wound in question is painful enough in the first place.) Sarah Palin is a mirror who tells them the truth about themselves; and it is a truth that they cannot bear to see.

That's "shining light" talk.

Oh, and do read this. Wooten was investigated and reprimanded. The "tasing of an 11 year old" is not so nearly as horrifying as you'd choose to portray it. But keep trying. I'm sure, somehow, you'll be able to find a rationale that puts the weight of evidence on the other side, rather than Palin just using her power to settle scores.

I am not, by any means, a partisan moron. But, again, if it helps you to sleep better at night to think of me as such, then by all means, carry on.

If you insist on using the same media I keep saying have done their utmost to demonize Palin as reliable and trustworthy sources, you will do nothing but confirm your partisanship. Of course they will want to cleanse the abominable Wooten; we would not want to imagine that Palin had any reason to complain, would we now? That would be unreasonable.

They were quoting and summarizing a report. That Wooten was not fired after an investigation is indisputable and not subject to "liberal media bias." That an investigation took place, that a report was filed, and so on and so on is indisputable.

If you would like to dispute that the use of the taser was aggressive or abusive, I'd be interested to see your sources. Irresponsible, no question, but no one seems to be stepping up with evidence that it was at all malicious.

Oh, sure. There was an investigation. And investigations are sainted objects with which nobody ever tampers and whose results are never set in advance to please lobbies (such as, say, the troopers' union). And I would raise pigs, but they keep sprouting wings and flying away. No matter what bromides the so-called enquiry used, this man used a taser on a child. End, in the eyes of any reasonable person, of story. And firm evidence that you are not being reasonable.

You're going a long, long way to try to say that Sarah Palin was impartial in a process that involved her own family. You've impugned journalists and peace officers with how much evidence, exactly? Seriously, can you back this up with anything?

According to the State Police report, Wooten used a fraction of the power of the Taser on his stepson, little more of a jolt than you'd get by licking a battery. Your effort to paint the incident in the starkest terms possible only demonstrates my point and frustration: your candidate's enemies can do no right, your candidate can do wrong. The essence of naked partisanship.

And you trust the State Police to investigate ITSELF?? Boy, do you have those bridges comin' to you.

I trust it a far sight farther than I trust you to know what the hell is going on from Britain.

Well, go on trusting it, then. Meanwhile, I am tired of this nonsense and declare this thread closed. You are welcome to insert any comment you think proper on your own blog, but mine will not receive them.

Since you think the report is untrustworthy, I'm curious what inaccuracies or spurious claims you found in the report when you read it.

I do not accept the police investigating itself, on principle. Anyone who accepts it is a moron. End of discussion. And if you insist, just study the events about the murder of Jean Chafles de Menezes.

*shrug* Suit yourself.

Fine. There's someone out there with a bridge for you to buy, too.

Let us take it in order. That Sarah Palin is beautiful is a fact. That she looks younger than her age, ditto (and is at the root of much of the patronization she has received). That she is a successful woman in her field is beyond argument - she rose from town councillor to state governor in eighteen years, which qualifies as success by anyone's standards. That beauty is unfairly distributed is a fact - think of all the wonderful ugly people out there. As for the statement that pro-aborts hate SArah Palin because of her testimony to their lies, that does not even bear on her at all, any more than the invention of a fabulous FPB who has nothing whatever to do with the person writing this has to do with me. If I am idealizing anyone, I am reverse-idealizing - demonizing, that is - the abortionist forces. None of this idealizes Palin. Success does not imply moral virtue; in fact, it has been said that "God's opinion of money can be seen by the kind of people He gives it to". Beauty, likewise, is wholly unrelated to any personal merit. I have said elsewhere that I do regard her as honest - perhaps too honest for her own good (someone less honest would not have entered the lair of a rattlesnake like Couric). I did not say it here, and you are simply putting words in my mouth. Or else so completely and utterly in thrall to the media that you are incapable to see what is obvious. It comes to the same thing anyway.

Honest?

"Which newspapers do you read?" "All of them."

ALL of them? All?? She replied to honest questions with verbatim talking points, when she wasn't floundering as with the above question. That is neither competent, nor honest. That is being a puppet.

For me to be honest, I would have to say that my media consumption is limited, at most. When I can, I watch raw CSPAN footage, or otherwise find the stuff presented in its entirety online. But, again, if you feel like you need to make stuff up about me to explain why two reasonable people might disagree, that is your problem, not mine.

You really do cling like grim death to one quotation from an obviously pawed about and viciously edited interview. Do you have any other arguments? BTW, I, too, read all the newspapers - meaning that I have no favourites and pretty much look at all the ones that reach me.

Sorry, chum. I watched the interview. That particular question and answer were not edited. They were walking backstage or something at a rally with a single camera that never cut away from them.

And yes, when it's obvious you have no rebuttal to it other than to bluster and blow smoke, it's fun to cling to it.

All the newspapers? So tell me all about Kwame Kilpatrick, if you would, if you are so well-read. Link some things you've read about him.

All the newspapers, indeed. What do you do with the three minutes that are left in your day, once you are done reading them all? They increasingly rely on wire services and such, but it's not gotten that bad yet that reading one is much like reading another.

And speaking of which, are the newspapers where you get your information on American politics, or do you have some other, sainted, unbiased sources?