This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 12, 2011 5:28 PM. The previous post in this blog was Revolving doors. The next post in this blog is Hell to the Chief. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dim bulb

And it ain't gonna get no brighter.

Comments (49)

What an ignorant nut. It's like she's playing "Can You Top This?" with herself -- autoerronicism in her case, for you political fetishists. How sad that there's so much money in her line of depraved blather.


I had just been thinking this afternoon, "Isn't her 15 minutes up?"

Gosh darn it, when are those psychotics going to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Jack, you are insulting light bulbs.

Does Sarah have delusions of messianic grandeur? Shouldn't someone smite her down for blaspheming everything scared?

Snards, that analogy insults Thomas Edison and probably in an offsides kind of way New Jersey. ;-)

Are you serious... she didn't jump into this fray... Some mentally ill man kills and injures people and the press and so many others are trying to figure out how Sarah was able to make the man do it. Give me a break.

Correct, Carol. The NYTs, WaPo, and etc. reached for Palin like a Stangelovian arm thrust.

If there is one election upon which Ms Palin would have taken a Sherman on, it would be involvement in this.

But, to mix metaphors, the left has been agitating for conscription in recent years.

And when she opened her mouth, complete and total crap came out, illustrating that she is even more intellectually challenged than George Bush, which says an awful lot.

As a progressive i think obama is a failure and a sellout. That said his eulogy tonight was outstanding and made me cry. I watched palins after and was shocked at how plainly bad it was, even without the blood libel libel.

She has scores of advisors and so one has to not just doubt her intellectual heft but also the current fulcrum of GOP power.

Larry and Carol, I don't hold Sarah Palin's dumbness against her, but I do have a problem with her mean streak. I think dumb people latch onto that path because they don't have the smarts to finesse their way through life. Mean works. It worked for W, as well.
I think Sarah knew all along that she was making her political opponents more of a target. We are currently sending young people to two countries with the stated mission to kill terrorists. Sarah had to know how inflammatory it was for her to say President Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She's plenty stupid but I think she understands that she was creating more of a threat for her opponents, by talking about reloading, etc... One person who clearly felt threatened by Sarah's tone was Gabrielle Giffords. She mentioned Sarah Palin by name. Incidentally, when Sarah's spokesperson said the rifle scopes were actually surveyor scopes, I didn't mind that. See, I know Sarah hired that person and that's just the dumb part coming out.
But Sarah also has to know that - as dumb as she is - there are people who are much worse off mentally, and some of them are dangerous. So assuming Sarah put this all together in her own murky mind, she just chose to ignore the possible consequences of her tone and carry on. And that's what I don't like - that's the mean part coming out. Can we agree that she certainly didn't err on the side of being responsible and nice?

I don't blame people for speculating on what set this young man off. It's natural to ask why, and of course it leads to outrageous theories and exploitation. Gaye Harris came up with her standard knee-jerk response suggesting that it was somehow anti-Jewish, even though the young man is apparently Jewish himself. Let's just say, everyone but the Eskimos got blamed along the way, and it was ugly. I stayed out of the speculation - I'm not willing to guess why this man went off when he did - but if Gabrielle Giffords does recover enough to discuss this, I bet it'll be damn hard to convince her that Sarah Palin had absolutely nothing to do with it.

However, what also could be driving some of the discussion is the sincere desire of people who see through Sarah Palin's mediocre, mean, phony little act. Perhaps they felt there was enough here for a teachable moment about the wretched human being Sarah Palin really is. You can't fault their patriotism: The sooner it takes her followers to clue in about her true character, the better off for America.

Love the quantum leaps.

What if we all try and follow our President's lead, taking his advice to try and make our country better for our children, and for ourselves.
Let us all practice substantive and civil debate, leave out the snark, and try to achieve meaningful and productive solutions to our many and pressing problems we face.
Things might be a bit more dull for a while, but in the long run it could be worth the effort.

All I can say is "Thank you", thank you very much John McCain for bring this lovely dingbat into public view.

No responsible commentator that I am aware of said the Palin and Company were directly responsible for the Arizona tragedy, and in fact there is no indication that the murderer was incited by them. However, it is important to note that no one dismisses the idea that the rhetoric of placing a gun target on a politician could result in an assination attempt of that politician, and this I think is the message of those who have commented on how inappropriate it was of Palen to have "targeted" Ms. Giffords.

With respect to "Blood Libel", as Jewish person I am so disgusted and offended at her attempt to co-opt a term of blatant anti-semitism and use it for her own goals that words cannot express my outrage. One conclusion is that Ms. Palin is so desparate for media attention, and so disturbed that the spotlight was off of her that she deliberately used provacative language to focus the media back on her.

Finally, Ms. Palin argues for individual responsibility, and that one should not blame a group for the actions of individuals in that group, yet she condemns the entire Muslim religion for the actions of a few individuals who by all accounts acted in violation of Muslim faith. With respect to individual responsibility, Ms. Palen needs to accept some of her own.

Two old chestnuts come to mind: (not that I always pay heed)

1. Never ruin a perfectly good apology with an explanation;

2. Never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to STFU.

"yet she condemns the entire Muslim religion for the actions of a few individuals who by all accounts acted in violation of Muslim faith"

Just a few?

If Palin is so dumb how come she dominates the minds, lives, and according to testimony, the digestive systems of some many fiercely intelligent leftists here?

Careful Larry.

Sarah Palin does for intelligent political discourse what Whitley Strieber does for SETI.

Sarah Palin is about as interesting as the latest round of the "Survivor" TV show, which is to say, not much. What amazes me is that there are so many people in this country who listen to her for even a minute. It's profoundly sad.

"Does Sarah have delusions of messianic grandeur?"

No more than Obama claiming someone first opens their eyes when he walks in a room.

Steve, I think you got that a little wrong. Check out the reports again and get back to us. You could have someone read the m to you.

Thank you, Allan.

You know, I'm not a big Palin supporter. But the irrational reactions to by the left anything that she says or the does is stupefying.

So now she's anti-semitic. Jesus...

Here's what Allen Derhowitz had to say about her comments:

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations..."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2042176,00.html#ixzz1AvstmJ00

Should she have said it, probably not. But given the level of constant attacks and the almost instantaneous attaching to and blaming her for the actions of a simply crazy gunman with out one shred of evidence, who can blame her?

Paraphrasing the talking head last night, if the critics hadn't had the 'blood libel' phase to froth over, then it would be her use of semicolons.

If we want to examine the level of discourse in our political society, perhaps both sides should look at their own words first.

You could have someone read the m to you.

"Obama revealed during his speech that she had opened her eyes for the first time shortly after he visited her bedside."

Quoted from Yahoo.

Believe me this is no defense of Palin.

And talk about inserting themselves into a tragedy, who prints up t-shirts for a memorial anyway?


It doesn't look like a defense of Palin, Steve. It looks like you're critical of Obama because you think he's "uppity".

"It looks like you're critical of Obama because you think he's "uppity".

Mmm, am re-reading brief comments several times and do not see mention of word uppity beyond your implication.

If it helps, then I retract previous statement and let Yahoo quote stand since it is different from what I stated time-wise. You can interpret Yahoo as you wish.

"Uppity"? Oh yeah. Can't criticize the president from the right unless your a racist.

Fer christ's sakes people, knock it off!

So, heLp me out, zoned. What is Steve's counTerfactual statement about Obama supposed to mean?

Allan - The original implication was that Ms Palin thought she was imbued with some messianic power by using the term blood libel (BTW - That was absolutely stupid).

However, by merely stating what Mr Obama brought up in a speech, I thought it might serve as an interesting counterpoint for perspective's sake. You can interpret the statement for what it is, if it means nothing, fine.

Otherwise, am looking for the counterfactual statements beyond my gaffe in mentioning the timing of her opening her eyes which I hoped I'd redacted and apologize for the inaccuracy.

I think I finally get it. The whole blood libel thing was a bit over my head.

"BTW - That was absolutely stupid"


BTW - That was absolutely stupid to use the term blood libel.

We're now back to the point of my post.

It's about class not race. Palin is the "uppity" one.

Other than her use of the "blood libel" phrase, which had apparently already been tested and used in other references to the initial media reaction ( see WSJ), her statement is a not so cleverly disguised apology for, and nonsensical rewrite of, her prior gun-macho rhetoric. I do grudgingly giver her decent marks for emphasizing the political process, not violence as the answer. Yet while she appears to be attempting to defuse her prior rhetoric by clarifying that she
never meant "take up (our) arms" to mean anything but "take up our votes", few familiar with the colloquial use of the English language would understand the word "arms", together with the words "take up" to refer to the election process. (Just more of "Sarah's World"). Nonetheless, as much as I am disturbed by right wing hate radio and shock jocks, I really do not see a direct connection between the extremist right wing rhetoric and this horribly violent acting out by a severely deranged 22 yr. old man. In other words, I kind of agree with her main point, that individual's are primarily to blame for such acts, and the rest is often a media fed "who should have foreseen this and stopped it" blame game.

There is no direct connection between Sarah and the young man. Nobody's arguing that there is, but it'd be one thing if this "arms" rhetoric was in a vacuum. Instead, it's from a known gun advocate who has been pictured repeatedly with weapons, often after shooting a moose or whatever.
She's also a proponent of shooting animals from a helicopter. I think that's sick and speaks to a cruel mental state.

Bill: Agree with you on her rhetoric and image for her macho base. But to me incidents like this are more NRA and Gun lobby issues. Without a hand gun in a concealed carry state, this guy might not have killed anyone. Without a semi automatic and extended or extra magazines, he might not have killed anyone or as many. Hell, Congress can't even get laws passed to stop the selling of automatic assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels in the border states. So I think this Palin target map flap is just a covering distraction from the issue of the real power that these death merchants wield over our legislators. How did we go from an NRA that was about hunting, or at home self defense, to a gun lobby that promotes laws that let nut jobs like this buy Glock semi automatic weapons based upon "instant" background checks that don't even get his mental health history.( I bet even Barry Goldwater would be appalled if he knew his state now let deranged people like this buy semi automatic weapons and multiple magazines, in a same day transaction.) This killer may have had the insane intent, but he was enabled in this act a whole lot more by the semi automatic Glock, than by Palin's rhetoric.

You can't blame instant background checks or gun lobby on letting this guy get a gun. HIPAA laws prevent the mental health of all patients from being released. First the HIPAA laws have to be changed to allow doctors to report this information before we can stop nuts from buying guns. As is we have to wait until they commit a crime to do anything.

Let me further explain the "Blood Libel" issue.

The term refers to the impact on Jewish people from the middle ages to the mid 20th Century. Literally millions of Jews were tortured, imprisoned and murdered by the "Blood Libel" that said that Jews murdered Christians to drink their blood.

That Sarah Palin invokes this imagery as equal to the attacks on her is beyond appalling.

Ms. Palin posted a picture of Rep. Gifford with a bullseye cross hairs on her face and labeled her a target. When Rep. Giffords was shot, what exactly did Ms. Palin think the reaction would be?

Ms. Palin posted a picture of Rep. Gifford with a bullseye cross hairs on her face and labeled her a target.

Really? Mind providing a link to that?

The only thing I've seen were bullseyes on a map of the US (over political districts).

Like this.


There doesn't seem to be any cross hair over Gifford's face.

There is this, though:


So easily manipulated...

Ignorant, mean and crazy is a very bad combination. Add money and stir....

Add denial, and you have modern America, where we blithely ignore kids as they descend into the hell of a relentlessly paranoid state. The left freed these sufferers from oversight/authority (except the authority of bullet from a police officer's gun), and the right refuses to pay for caring for them properly.

And now Palin cries "evil" and "criminal" to score political points. And asks us to pray to her God, whom she refers to as "him". Truly nauseating.

Anti-psychotic medication is now available as an injectable drug administered at intervals weeks apart. What's criminal is our denial, as a society, of the pressing need to impose treatment on these sufferers as they come of age and their condition manifests. It is nothing short of cruel and inhuman not to do so. The majority of these patients will never volunteer to take meds regularly and reliably, because part of their delusion is that they are not delusional. Chasse was off his medicine when he was killed, the kid shot near the Lloyd center in his car never was started on meds, this story repeats itself endlessly.

Once, I was interviewing a sufferer. He came in because he wanted me to perform an operation to remove a slot machine from the back of his head so that he would be able to continue to space travel. When I enquired how his mental health treatment was going he laughed.
"oh, I'm not schizophrenic", he said.
"just some of my worse angels think I am".

and Bill,

on the Jewish angle, I never posted anything knee-jerk about Loughner's motivation for the assassination.

To me, it is sufficient evidence, when someone publicly posts Mein Kampf in their favorite book list on My Space, and then goes out and shoots a Jewish politician, that anti-semitism is in the mix along with psychosis. But I'm not surprised that you would be judgmental toward me about it.

As for Loughner being Jewish, that is thus far entirely speculative and anyway irrelevant, because Jews can also be anti-semitic, and psychosis knows no bounds of hatred, especially toward the self.

"I think, hate aside, people should be aware that this killing very possibly occurred because Giffords was a Jew, and pro-Israel, at that."--Gaye Harris

Some of us are hoping that we will not be going to war in Iran soon despite how badly Benjamin Netanyahu wants us to. I'm not judgmental about you - I'm judgmental about war. I'm worried about the constant drumbeat - the escalation of the "War on Terror" and it made me cringe to think this would be turned into a terrorist incident against the state of Israel. For all I know you are 100% right about your speculation but I thought it was too soon. I've read since that this wasn't as much about ideology
as a young man who was just crazy.
As someone who has lost a good friend in a terrorist attack, I'm for peace. And I'm certainly not for making a bad situation any worse.

McDonald, going back to your soliloquy (well, I did follow it so maybe it isn't a soliloquy) on Palin's "dumbness", I would think that you must have minimally some acquaintances, probably some friends and maybe some good friends that from your perspective are "dumb". But, after your vindictiveness concerning "dumbness" I don't know if I'd be your friend.

I'm not a good writer like you. I'm not especially bright. I'm not a great speaker. I grew up in an environment where proper grammar wasn't the norm. So, maybe I have a different way of measuring smartness or dumbness. And I have several friends that if you use my above list, then I guess they may be dumb; but gosh, they sure are very successful by many people's measurements.

I'm wondering if your measurement of "dumbness" is more of whether someone's position on issue(s) might be different than yours.

I'm sorry if I came off like I look down on anybody for being dumb. I don't. I'm more concerned about Sarah Palin being mean, and I guess I sounded mean doing it.
But I don't just use it as a label if I don't agree with someone.
And I really think Sarah Palin is mean. That thing about shooting wolves from a helicopter gets me. Imagine you're a wolf just trying to survive in Alaska and this noisy machine shows up over you and starts firing bullets at you, and you can't run away from it. Even if you make it to the woods it can hover overhead and try and pick you off. It's cruel.

Isn't Kulongoski a proponent of shooting animals (sea lions) from a boat. Do you think that's sick and speaks to a cruel mental state? Imagine you're a sea lion just trying to survive in the Columbia and this noisy machine shows up near you and starts firing bullets at you, and you can't swim away from it. Even if you make it underwater it can wait for you to run out of breath and surface. Is it cruel?

Clicky Web Analytics