I poached the image to the right from Rocky Beach. The hosts of Rocky Beach, a small coastal community of contrary and classic Maine grumpy gusses, have a way with words. They very seldom use them. Yet they make their point. I laughed hard when I saw this. All the spin and news both true and false, has been swirling around now for a couple of days. Since Sarah Palin is unknown to most of us, it will take some time to deconstruct the "truth" each side puts out there for us to swallow. As the "truth" gathers momentum, different juicy pearls get spit out.
My favorite is -
Palin's 5th child - Trig (either named after a discipline of Math, Roy Rodger's dead horse, or given her rugged last frontier Alaskan manhood, named for the trigger on her favorite Moose killin rifle) Anyway, someone is claiming the comely governor of Alaska did not have the child. Trig is actually the result of a tryst her 16 year old daughter had. Mom is protecting her virtue by stepping up and calling Trig one of her own. I wonder if this story will grow legs. Damn, I hope so. Not because I wish any ill will to the governor. I am just looking for cheap entertainment. Watching politicians squirm is some of the best cheap entertainment out there. And forgive me if I have no sympathy for her. I have no sympathy for any of them. If you want to play with the big dogs, you have to learn to piss in the tall grass.
10 comments:
McFool has really outdone himself on this one. Did his geezer perv dementia kick in or what. Fantastic political theatre at its best.
Palin, a heartbeat away from being a PILF.
... vpilf.com
your right of course about if your gonna play politics one has to deal with that kind of horse-puckey, but making fun of a Mongoloid child----I fail to see the politics in that?
Who made fun of a mongoloid child? Trig's situation never came into play for my post. Only his name. But you read into it whatever you want Gary.
Turns out now she has announced that her daughter, aged 17 is five months pregnant, will keep the baby and marry the dad. But the rumor of her covering up her daughter's pregnancy was actually credible enough when you looked at all the pieces. I don't know enough about birth dates and all the rest, but it could still be true, I suppose, and this could be the daughter's SECOND child.
And the post had nothing to do with making fun of a mentally disabled (the use of Mongoloid went out with the term "cripple" too, BTW) child. It was about exposing the hypocrisy of the holier-than-thou, my-shit-doesn't-stink-'cause-I'm-so-much-better-than-you-crowd. And that, I dare say, is at the heart of politics, particularly when a party claims to have some kind of moral authority to say what people can and cannot do with their lives, their bodies, and their world.
Dawn - I could care less if she or her daughter has 20 kids. That is her business. I was honest when I said I just love watching the whole crew of them squirm. And it comes down to that holier than thou attitude many of them project so righteously.
Just what the Hell are "family values" anyway? Some kind of fantasy set of rules designed around "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best"? Anyone found to be outside the parameters is labeled a deviant, a loser or gasp, a Democrat. What a bunch of hypocrits.
The Left does not get off scot free either. They bring to the table of holier than thou many knee jerk judgements based on little or no evidence. Hypocrisy and blinders it seems is are equal opportunity faults. They seem to settle in hard on both sides of the aisle.
Thanks Macrum you've just stated my position exactly.
When I heard Trig is supposed to be her daughter's child, it actually made me laugh. Knowing what I know of biology, it makes little sense that he'd be her daughter's kid. An "older" mother (note that if Trig's Sarah's and not her daughter's kid, she'd be 43/44 when she conceived and had the kid) has a greater chance of having a child with Down's Syndrome than a teenager. So, I threw it out as mud slinging bs that it will probably turn out to be. I understand, though, it's not bs from the Dems, but someone's blog out there?
But, yes, I LOVE to see Republicans (and most other politicians) squirm!!! :-D
Politics is highly entertaining, but I really wonder sometimes what we're doing when we consume the "entertainment" that the press digs up for us.
Just a few posts ago, you enumerated a list of issues you would like to see addressed: "There are more basic problems that need fixing first, yet neither party seems interested in addressing them. Health care, our crumbling infrastructure, overall education reform, sensible foreign policy, an aggressive and sensible energy plan, and our sliding status in the international business arena should all be up in front of anything else."
Fair enough. Some of the things that you left out of your list would be items I would add to my list (while keeping all of yours... and yes, I know you didn't really mean this to be an exhaustive or utterly definitive list of issues). In the same manner, other citizens will come up with their own lists of issues, and look for candidates to take them seriously. And of course, candidates will have lists of their own and will spend time trying to convince the voters that these issues are important and worthy of attention.
All of this is well and good in a democracy. The system and the end result are full of faults, but it's pretty much the best system out there. (I'm getting to my point - I promise!)
My questions are these: How much does our wilfull consumption of the entertainment portion of politics, and the fake or indolent journalism that forms to provide this entertainment, prevent better candidates from running in elections and hinder the efforts of candidates to run serious, issue-oriented campaigns? How much does this same appetite for entertainment prevent a politician, once in office, from simply doing the job and concentrating on issues?
As for Trig Palin, I'd go with the math theme, having been a math geek myself back in the day.
El Cerdo Ignatius - All points well taken. Especially the Media v. entertainment aspect. My post is blatant in it's feeding of that monster. I am very capable of being the tyoe of politics watcher I hate. Weak moments for weak minds. That post certainly points this up. Getting caught up in useless and stupid non issue oriented histronics does nothing to move the process forward. Another of the several if not many hurdles a campaign has to jump through on it's way to election day.
Since posting that I have taken a breath. I realized I was again getting sucked into the stupid side. Happens to me every election.
How much does the superfluous/for entertaiment only coverage drive a campaign and or keep serious people from running on issue driven platforms?
Quite a bit I am sure. Politicians have to be vetted according to the current standards of the day. That includes the vetting that takes place in the venue of public opinion. Unfortinately, it seems the public wants entertainment instead of serious consideration on the issues that most affect them. The media is only playing to it's audience. We want our politics in 30 second sound bites and for chrisakes keep it raunchy as possible. Entertainment Tonight, Nat. Enquirer mentality.
I would think that given this type of atmosphere, the high profession of publicly elected office only attracts the bottom feeders for the most part. It is a rare thing for one to work through the process and not have at least fed regularly from the bottom. The good folks stay local or stay home.
Did that provide any answers? Sometimes I am not sure.
No, Mr. Macrum, I'd say you answered the question well.
I remember about ten years ago when the Solicitor General of Canada was overheard babbling carelessly to a friend in an airplane about a matter concerning the RCMP. It was not the sort of thing to be discussed in public by the Minister responsible for the RCMP - and unknown to the loose-lipped polito in question, another Member of Parliament (of a different party) was sitting behind him, taking seven pages of notes of the conversation. Which he then shared with the press.
The media circus that followed was pure, evil fun for the entertainment value. The poor S/G at first tried to deny that he remembered the conversation or even the identity of his airplane seatmate. Then the seatmate - an acquaintance of many years - threw him under the bus, and swore out an affadavit describing the details of the conversation and basically confirming every allegation of the eavesdropper. Then it really got crazy. The S/G was running from journalists most of the time, and looking foolish when trying to talk to them. Finally he had to resign his cabinet position.
One mistake by a good man, and a circus followed. It was great at the time, but looking back on it, I wonder how much my and the rest of the country's zest for this type of spectacle contributed to the acceleration of the news media as a bunch of intellectually lazy muckrakers.
Post a Comment