I Had Wondered Who Would Make This Argument FOR Palin

August 30, 2008

As soon as I heard the specifics of Sarah Palin’s lack of foreign policy any experience, the thought occurred to me that someone, somewhere would try to spin the fact that part of Alaska is only 150 miles or so from the easternmost chunk of Russia as being something in favor of the notion that Gov. Palin has the type of foreign policy gravitas that someone in line for the presidency of any country, much less the United States, might aspire to, much less actually have.

And, of course, it happened on FOX.

And the spinmeister was Steve Doofuscy.  Crooks and Liars has the video, but here’s something I had truly wondered if anyone would actually try to use to spin away the fact that someone whose government resume consists of 18 months as governor of the least populous state and a few years as mayor and council member in what is probably one of its least populous cities has less foreign policy experience than any hair on Barack Obama’s head.

But the other thing about her – she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska, right next door to Russia.

Jon Stewart’s rather restrained – and incredibly tasteful considering just how ridiculous the assertion was – critique of this ‘analysis’?

You’re a moron.

McBush…

Most.

Pathetic.

Flip-Flopping.

Senile.

Suck-up to the Colorado Springs Christianist Cabal.

Ever.


Clearly, Palin is a Perfect Match for McTimeBomb

August 30, 2008

That’s not to say that neither Ann Coulter nor Laura Ingraham nor Rick Santorum would also be perfect, given what the Governor of Alaska has proven herself capable of doing.

From the Anchorage Daily News of Jan. 27, 2008:

The governor’s appearance on KWHL’s “The Bob and Mark Show” last week is plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I’ve ever seen from a politician.

Anchorage DJ Bob Lester unleashed a vicious, mean-spirited, poisonous attack on Senate President Lyda Green last week while our governor was live on the air with him.

When we played the tape on my show the day after it happened, we received 130 calls. Even some Palinbots were disgusted.

What was Don Fagan referring to?

Early on in the conversation before Palin started to crack up, Lester referred to Sen. Green as a jealous woman and a cancer. Palin, who knows full well Lyda Green is a cancer survivor, didn’t do what any decent person would do, say, “Bob, that’s going too far.”

But as the conversation moved on, Lester intensified his attack on Green.

Lester questioned Green’s motherhood, asking Palin if the senator cares about her own kids. Palin laughs.

Then Lester clearly sets the stage for what he is about to say by warning his large audience and Palin. He says, “Governor you can’t say this but I will, Lyda Green is a cancer and a b—-.” Palin laughs for the second time.

What were teenage boys thinking when they heard the governor laugh at someone being called a b—-? How about the teenage girls who look up to Palin. What did they think when they heard her laugh?

But there is more. Lester then describes Green’s chair as big and cushy. A clear reference to the senator’s weight. Palin laughs a third time. She’s just having a grand old time.

Palin was clearly enjoying every second of Lester’s vicious attack on her political rival.

But it gets worse.

How much so?

Lester asks Palin point blank: “Do you have any idea of what you did, to make Lyda Green dislike you, hate you?” How does Palin respond? Does she do the right thing? What you would expect from a mature leader, a governor and say, “Bob, Lyda doesn’t hate me.”

No, she responds like a 13-year-old and says, “Um, you know once and a while I try to figure that out but I can’t figure that out.”

OK – before I go any further, I’ll ask: During the introduction ceremony on Friday, did she ever not sound like a 13-year-old?  But I digress…

The Palin camp says the governor did call Green and apologize. That was the right thing to do. But the governor’s statement shows the apology a half-hearted one.

The statement in part reads: “The Governor called Senator Green to explain that she does not condone name-calling in any way and apologized if there was a perception that the comment was attributed to the Governor.”

But there’s strong evidence Palin did condone Lester’s name-calling. At the end of Lester making fun of Green as a mother, calling her a cancer, twice, and saying she has to go; after calling the senator a b—-, making fun of her weight, and accusing Green of being jealous and hateful; after all of that, Lester ends the conversation offering to visit Palin.

How does Palin respond? “I’d be honored to have you.”

The statement released by the governor’s office also called Palin’s action bad judgment.

But bad judgment is when you stay up late the night before a big test, order steak at a Chinese restaurant or wear blue jeans to a black tie affair.

What the governor did was wrong.

As was what Sen. McBush, er…, McAdulterer, er…, McCuntslinger, er…, McFlipFlopper, er…McCain did on Friday by telling every woman (and man for that matter) that what Sarah Palin has done in her 43+ years is worthy of being second-in-command to a 72-year-old leader of the most powerful country in the world.


Who’s Going to do a ‘Heckuva Job’ This Time? Gov. Exorcist?

August 30, 2008

First Katrina…

Now Gustav?

 Hurricane tracking map

 

What’re you going to do this time Dubya?  Give McAdulterer a belated trophy-veepbirthday cake?  Or will you try to wane nostalgic for 9/11 by re-reading My Pet Goat as the levees give way again?


Saint Sarah?

August 29, 2008

The full post from Crooks and Liars on this is, of course, worthwhile – but take a look at the screengrab:

 

“Almost Saint Sarah”?

What was she in line to be canonized for?  Divine collagen?  Immaculate botox?


The Alice Dreger of Vice-Presidential Candidates?

August 29, 2008

And did I mention that Gov. Palin believes that christianist creation mythology is science?

From the Anchorage Daily News of Oct. 27, 2006:

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor’s race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night’s televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons “religious-based” and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class.

Teaching mythology as an equal to science is not simply providing information, it is a legitimization of religionist fantasy – much like the defense of the anti-science fantasy of J. Michael Bailey – and sanctions intimidation of anyone who opts out of religion games in favor of reality.

And, based on my memories of public school, I wasn’t allowed to ‘debate’ what was science and what was not – just like I wasn’t allowed to ‘debate’ the merits of reading Billy Budd in English class.

And it looks as though that page on the Anchorage Daily News site has been rediscovered since McBushMcSameMcViagraMcCain’s announcement today.

Wow, if you people would actually bother to read what she said she basically said that if a student asks about creationism it should be open to discussion. Only a closed-minded zealot should have any problem with that.

And just what exactly would the discussion be???

Student: “Did God create everything in seven days?”
Teacher: “No.”

End of discussion.

Seriously, what is a science teacher supposed to discuss about creationism? It doesn’t come into play at all regarding evolution. If someone wants to teach their kid that evolution is false then so be it, but just because people want to believe wacky things doesn’t mean that science has to give it any credence whatsoever.

And, as of 11 am CDT today, McBushMcSameMcViagraMcCain’s campaign is something that should be given no credence whatsoever.


We Also Need the Most Superficial Vice-President Imaginable

August 29, 2008

A beauty-pageant runner-up whose constituency prior to two years ago was about equal to the population of one or two of the dorms here at the U of Iowa.

I shit you not.

McCain-Palin: The Ticket to Nowhere (which will be applicable to the G(L)OP if they lose; and to everyone in the nation making less than what McViagraCain thinks is the demarcation line between middle-class and rich should they win.)

Anita Bryant, it must suck to be you; it looks like you were born thirty years too soon.


We Need a Superficial Conversation About Trans-Inclusion

August 29, 2008

(Apologies to The Onion; no apologies to St. Barney)

LGBT people need to put aside their differences and come together on common ground. Especially at this crucial moment in our history. How better, I ask, to achieve this goal than to engage in an inconclusive, protracted, ignorant, and superficial examination of the issue of trans-inclusion in federal and state civil rights legislation?

The time for vagueness is now.

In the decades since Stonewall, our movement has become intensely polarized. The gap between gay and trans has grown ever more vast. Those on both sides are desperate for alternatives. If we ever hope to move into a new era of enlightened exchange, we must foster, on a movement-wide scale, a second-grade-level look into the most painful and difficult issue in the history of the LGBT movement.

Assimilationist gay, Janice Raymond-loving lesbian, MTF, or FTM — we can all be callously summed up in a trite, substanceless statement of unity.

Like it or not, the movement needs a stupid conversation on the issue of trans-inclusion. Perhaps more importantly, we need this stupid dialogue to be couched in the most self-righteous, know-it-all attitudes on the part of those involved, as if they have no idea whatsoever of how much more complicated the issue is, and how little their one-dimensional approach to it brings to the table.

It’s our duty to put aside the complexities of communication between trans people and non-trans gays and lesbians and focus on the first idea that comes to mind. Then, after we’ve wasted 20 minutes discussing whether a non-inclusive ENDA is of any benefit to trans people (or anyone else), we can repeat the first idea over and over until we have alienated all listeners who did not already agree with us at the beginning.

Is that so very hard?

I’m talking about ill-informed citation of dubious polling data about the feelings of rank-and-file gays and lesbians toward trans-inclusion. I’m talking about patronizing notions of inclusion, like pointing to the existence of an individual trans employee as proof that inclusion is real. I’m talking about multisyllabic, intellectual-sounding terms like “machinations” and “concealment” and even “mutilation.”

The time has come to start saying foolish, foolish things about the men in ladies’ showers once again.  How long has it been?  A whole week?

It’s been too long since we sat down and shared long-discredited arguments asserting that incrmentalism actually is a more successful path to trans-inclusive legislation than inclusion in the first instance. Terms like “trans-jacking” should be revitalized and put back in the spotlight. And while we’re being open and honest, why not trot out that old chestnut about the unfairness of trans-only usage of “tranny.”

I dare the head of one of the major gay rights groups to blanket the media with buzzwords like “LGBT marriage,” without ever examining the underlying implications of what they might mean (who needs to contemplate what a bisexual marriage, much less a trans marriage, is anyway?). That would be the day.

I likewise dare the head of one of the major gay rights groups to blanket the media with the notion that, ‘once we get same-sex marriage, what sex you are won’t matter at all for anything’ without ever examining the fact that some people are transsexual and single and occasionally find themselves needing to use the restroom.

Assimilationists and the reality-based alike, hear my plea: We can all say incredibly silly things about who does or does not have the “right” to “protection” of the law.

Since the emergence of an organized gay rights movement, trans has been the movement’s “dirty little secret”—an ugly, shameful reality swept under the rug of polite discourse, emerging only in isolated, angry outbursts about ENDA, the hiring practices of the Human Rights Campaign, and Barney Frank’s obsession with bathroom usage by transsexual women. Let’s take that issue out from under the rug—keeping that initial phase of ignorance, lack of mutual understanding, and fear—and make sure it dominates American – not just gay – politics for the next century.

Only by opening an embarrassingly one- dimensional dialogue on the most simple and wholly ignorant level can we ensure that we, as a nation, never get down to the deeper issues about trans-inclusion that truly threaten to tear this sexual minority civil rights movement apart.

Who’s with me?