GatewayRedbirds.com

heyzeus wrote:I would love to see someone do a mashup of Palin's "ringing the bells" Paul Revere soliloquoy with Ms. South Carolina's "such as the Iraq, and our kids need maps" speech. I think they'd go together wonderfully.

C'mon internets. This is close, but you can do better.

[/youtube]

sighyoung wrote:When I visited the Revere House a few years ago, there was plenty of signage in and around the place to learn about the ride, his work as a smith, and his role in public affairs in Boston. She could have learned a thing or two if she'd tried to.

No, she's right about Paul Revere. If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia. And, well, if Wikipedia contradicts her story today, then check Wikipedia tomorrow.

thrill wrote:

sighyoung wrote:When I visited the Revere House a few years ago, there was plenty of signage in and around the place to learn about the ride, his work as a smith, and his role in public affairs in Boston. She could have learned a thing or two if she'd tried to.

That's the most galling thing. She had spent all day "learning new stuff" about Paul Revere. I'm probably extrapolating too much from this, but the dismissive anti-intellectual cocksure attitude about their knowledge and opinions is just so typical of right-wing politics in this country. Their opinion is the only truth that matters regardless of fact.

To be fair, I think this is true of partisans of whatever stripe--they only care whose side you're on. People who will try to change a Wikipedia entry to accord with Palin's mangling of facts--that's truly pathetic.

But there are two other things that strike me about Palin. 1) I do believe that she believes in inspiration (as in divine inspiration--the Holy Spirit entering her). What matters to her (and some followers) is not what she says, but their gut feeling that what she believes is truly American and moral, and thus correct. She sees herself as the embodiment of America, and her heart expresses fundamental American values. That will never change, no matter what comes out of her mouth.

2) She's drawing on an old, old tradition that sees nature as a repository for American identity, rather than, say, the city. This is a powerful tradition in many settler cultures--not just the U.S., but Canada, South Africa, Australia. The pastoral tradition of the farm (see Jefferson) or the frontier as the locus of American values--never urban centers or centers of power. She's trying to draw upon all these cultural symbols to define herself as fundamentally American, and anything different as suspect or alien.

She has defined herself as quintessentially American, inspired by God, and basically correct all of the time. It's troubling to see that.

i wish you would debate her sigh.

It's called histrionic narcissism.

sighyoung wrote:But there are two other things that strike me about Palin. 1) I do believe that she believes in inspiration (as in divine inspiration--the Holy Spirit entering her). What matters to her (and some followers) is not what she says, but their gut feeling that what she believes is.

That's so dangerous.

To be fair, I think this is true of partisans of whatever stripe--they only care whose side you're on.

I teeter between non-partisan and politically apathetic and (I think) I am truly non-partisan and not non-partisan in the way that young, white republicans of my demographic claim to be non-partisan because they know it's uncool to be a republican at the college they go to.
That being said I truly find republicans/conservatives/right wingers whatever you want to call them to be by far, the most sure of their opinion and the most dismissive of fact when there is a differing of opinions. Democrats/left wingers/whatever are certainly more elitist, but they're more willing to dialog and agree to disagree. There's rarely an element of if you disagree with me, not only do I think you're wrong but I also think you hate America and are going to hell because of it like there is among the right.

It's [expletive] dangerous, it's unproductive and I'm probably just biased because so many people I grew up with and work with are conservative.

Eh, most people could lap me on policy. But take a look at her book:



She's not just talking about gut-level instinct, but really a kind of intuited decency and political compass--a sense of the divine dwelling within her. The mind can be tricked or corrupted, but the heart knows.

sighyoung wrote:She's not just talking about gut-level instinct, but really a kind of intuited decency and political compass--a sense of the divine dwelling within her. The mind can be tricked or corrupted, but the heart knows.

Sorry if I'm dragging the level of the conversation down here.

If you feel like being really disturbed and depressed - read the Rolling Stone article (this months) about the head of FOX news.

I kept telling myself this can't be true - Rolling Stone must be as liberally biased as FOX news is conservatively biased...but the scary thing is, if even 1/4 of it is true - it scares the [expletive] out of me.

docellis wrote:If you feel like being really disturbed and depressed - read the Rolling Stone article (this months) about the head of FOX news.

I kept telling myself this can't be true - Rolling Stone must be as liberally biased as FOX news is conservatively biased...but the scary thing is, if even 1/4 of it is true - it scares the [expletive] out of me.

Ailes? or Murdoch?