(no subject)

[fpb]

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.

Comments

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

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.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

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.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

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?