nancynall.com » Sarah vile.

Sarah vile.

We were sail­ing when Sarah Palin announced she was advanc­ing in another direc­tion, so I missed the fun of the announce­ment. Saw a minute or two here and there on the web, which was about as long as I could stand; when­ever I hear her sup­port­ers say, “She dri­ves lib­er­als crazy!!!” I can only agree. I think they mis­un­der­stand the rea­son, how­ever. It’s not because she has a child with Down Syn­drome or a rifle or an unwed preg­nant daugh­ter. And sorry, crazy-man-I-found-via-James-Wolcott-and-I-will-think-twice-before-doing–that–again, it’s not because of this:

Finally, but by no means least, she wears figure-flattering clothes, grooms her­self beau­ti­fully, and walks grace­fully and con­fi­dently in high heels.

It’s just annoy­ing, at an ele­men­tal level, to think that a per­son could get so close to the pres­i­dency who writes like this:

Alaska’s mis­sion – to con­tribute to Amer­ica. We’re strate­gic IN the world as the air cross­roads OF the world, as a gate­keeper of the con­ti­nent. Bold vision­ar­ies knew this — Alaska would be part of America’s great destiny.

Our des­tiny to be reached by respon­si­bly devel­op­ing our nat­ural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, min­er­als, AND oil and gas. It’s energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a hum­bling respon­si­bil­ity, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s secu­rity, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY inde­pen­dence… no more con­ven­tional “pol­i­tics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration’s accom­plish­ments speak for them­selves. We work tire­lessly for Alaskans.

I’m aware, with every pass­ing year, that no one really cares about writ­ten or even spo­ken expres­sion in any mean­ing­ful way. A catch phrase, a snappy deliv­ery, a one-liner or two — that’s all any­one expects from peo­ple in the pub­lic eye. But even I, who thought I’d seen all of Sarah Palin any­one needed to see, was…what’s the word? Le mot juste? Oh, hell, let’s go with the obvi­ous and trite: I was offended. Yes. Offended by this ram­bling, non­sen­si­cal exer­cise in nar­cis­sism. What the hell is she talk­ing about? Alaska, sure. Com­mit­ment, not so sure. Sarah, cer­tainly. And all those cap­i­tal let­ters. MY inde­pen­dence. AND oil and gas. And excla­ma­tion points! We are doing well!

Sarah is, anyway.

I’m a writer, and I have all the writer’s irra­tional prej­u­dices about peo­ple who don’t under­stand subject-verb agree­ment and the impor­tance of proper spelling. I’m aware this makes me some­thing of a snob and elit­ist, but I don’t care. This shit ain’t rocket sci­ence, and peo­ple who write com­pe­tently, never mind styl­ishly, are indi­cat­ing by their exam­ple that they respect writ­ing. Peo­ple who respect writ­ing are more likely to read. And read­ers are smarter, there I said it.

The case has been made that Palin is smart, but a dif­fer­ent kind of smart. Not fan­cy­pants Obama book­learnin’ smart, but hard­scrab­ble shoeshine-and-a-smile bachelor’s-degree-by-way-of-five-schools smart, the sort of smart that used to be called shrewd. Hmm. OK. I acknowl­edge there are dif­fer­ent kinds of intel­li­gence, that a per­son who is genius at nego­ti­a­tion but dumb at math is no dummy, and that a per­son who is great at math but can­not learn that it’s wise to pay atten­tion to one’s per­sonal groom­ing may well have a brain dys­func­tion, but I’m still a writer, and I still say it’s spinach and I still say the hell with it.

One inter­est­ing thing about Palin’s state­ment you only see in the writ­ten ver­sion, as painful as it is to read: She cap­i­tal­izes “out­side” when speak­ing of “Out­side spe­cial inter­ests.” Out­side is, of course, Alaska code for the lower 48. Could any other politi­cian with national aspi­ra­tions get away with trash­ing the rest of the country?

I wish you’d hear MORE from the media of your state’s progress and how we tackle Out­side inter­ests — daily — SPECIAL inter­ests that would stymie our state.

Oil com­pa­nies — not a spe­cial inter­est. Min­ing — not a spe­cial inter­est. Com­mer­cial fish­ing — not a spe­cial inter­est. What color is the sky in Sarah’s world?

A bit of bloggage:

I’ve read uneven reviews of “Meth­land,” but Wal­ter Kirn’s in the NYT was over-the-top pos­i­tive. I don’t trust Kirn, but this may be a library reserve-list item. There’s been a lot reported about meth, but not as much about the why, why a drug so toxic and dan­ger­ous could take root in what is allegedly the bliss­ful coun­try­side. It seems Nick Reding’s book gets close:

The agri­cul­tural con­glom­er­ates that have gob­bled up Oel­wein and sim­i­lar farm towns may feed the world, but they starve the folks who work for them, breed­ing a crav­ing for syn­thetic stim­u­lants that con­ve­niently sap the appetite while enlarg­ing the body’s capac­ity for toil. These offal-streaked Dick­en­sian mills are also mag­nets for des­per­ate immi­grant labor­ers who, in some cases, blaze the smug­gling trails that run up into the Corn Belt from Mex­ico, home to the gang lords who own the super­labs that, increas­ingly, dom­i­nate the meth trade.

“Vicious cycle” is not an ade­quate term. As Red­ing painstak­ingly presents it, the pro­duc­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion and con­sump­tion of metham­phet­a­mine is a self-catalyzing cat­a­stro­phe of Cher­nobylish dimen­sions. The rich, with their far-off, insu­lated lives, get richer and more detached, while the poor get high and, finally, wasted. In the mean­while, the traf­fick­ers fat­ten in their dens, expand­ing their arse­nals and their pri­vate armies, some of whose troops are recruited from the ranks of the pale zom­bies their busi­ness spawns.

This is one rea­son I get so impa­tient when the Rod Drehers of the world paint such rosy pic­tures of the world out­side the cities. I’ve been to Dekalb County, friends — it ain’t all sus­tain­able organic farm­ing and chick­ens in the yard.

So how was y’all’s week­end? Mine was fine and dandy. Alan installed a screen door on our back door, a fea­ture that had been miss­ing. It’s the best thing we’ve done since we made Kate. Noth­ing says sum­mer like the back door stand­ing open to the screen.

And a hot week awaits to enjoy it. Enjoy yours, but already my respon­si­bil­i­ties are prod­ding me.

78 responses to
“Sarah vile.”

  1. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:05 am

    My calls this morn­ing are already telling me that there are about five of us work­ing today. Snarl.

    I posted a com­ment at a Rod Dreher chat about the glory of small, “live­able” towns about how they have only half the story, and the wrong half (yes, there are lots of places where peo­ple live among rel­a­tives, have rel­a­tives liv­ing with them, and work within a cou­ple miles of their home with a large gar­den out back), com­pletely miss­ing the other half (yes, meth, etc., but the whole “fam­ily all around me” is not *nec­es­sar­ily* a sign of emo­tional and men­tal health — can be quite the opposite).

    The fact of the mat­ter is that the Michael Jack­sons and Steve McNairs and Rush Lim­baughs and Paris Hiltons will always have full access to every­thing from Dilau­did to Hal­dol to ether, by a “doctor’s” pre­scrip­tion, while the other end of the dumb­bell curve cooks meth, brews ‘shine, and grows weed down among the weeds in the curve of the drainage ditch. Both ends of the dis­tri­b­u­tion are self-medicating, and eat­ing mega-doses of a-nutritional crud on a daily basis is killing way more than meth is, if you want to get seri­ous about what’s doing harm to Amer­i­cans. The sad thing for celebri­ties and the rich is that they can’t let them­selves get obese (it’s a law of some sort), so all they can do is work up the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal lad­der until they suc­cess­fully depress both their anx­i­eties and their breath­ing to the same level.

    Last note from the still not entirely dis­en­chanted Palin fac­tion — the more that gen­eral media keeps using “crazy,” “unhinged,” “insane,” “loopy,” “deranged,” and so on for Sarah Palin, the more a big hunk o’ the coun­try is going to stay loyal. Talk about whether this was respon­si­ble or not, and you’ve got a con­ver­sa­tion (but the per­sonal finances angle gets vir­tu­ally *no* dis­cus­sion in what i’ve heard, which strikes me as unfair in its own right), but make every­thing about this a sign of men­tal defect, and you just are blow­ing on that dog whis­tle again.

    I’m just sayin’. My PhD, very thought­ful esposa is fum­ing, just livid about how Palin’s being relent­lessly described, and if you get the tv off, she’ll admit she’s not sure why resign­ing makes a bit of sense, for now or later. But the reporters and anchors and colum­nists all pil­ing on the “whack job” descrip­tors has her ready to send a check to Sarah­Pac — i’m not kidding.

  2. coozledad said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    It’s peas­ant cun­ning. They don’t give a damn if you can write or speak, they even hate it. I see it when I’m at the feed store or have to hire some­one to do brute work. Usu­ally among the slower ones who can’t man­age the poker face. As soon as they detect the stink of edu­ca­tion or man­ners on you, you can watch the blinds drop down in their eyes and hear the lit­tle raspy edge of vio­lence creep into their voices. They never needed but one book, and everything’s in it. Some of the mer­chants among them learn to fake it, but it’s just a veneer over some nas­ti­ness you really don’t want to think about. Even though I’ve got one of those brain-dead slow south­ern drawls and was blessed by nature with a pig-eyed expres­sion they some­how walk straight past it to what counts: that rep­til­ian brain. I’m sick of being told they’re the back­bone of the coun­try. They’re more of a shadow prison population.

  3. Julie Robinson said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:19 am

    Any­one else find­ing the Sarah Palin PAC ad on NNC a bit amusing?

    We spent the long week­end in Chicago with a mini-family reunion. None of us felt up to tack­ling Taste of Chicago but we did see the Harry Pot­ter exhibit at the Sci­ence and Indus­try Museum. Fun if a bit pricey. Mostly we just enjoyed spend­ing time together. Our daugh­ter is start­ing her last year of sem­i­nary so any time we have with her is pre­cious. She has reached that place where we can just enjoy her won­der­ful­ness with­out hav­ing to par­ent her and it’s a great reward.

  4. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Did you get to the U-505, Julie?

  5. Peter said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am

    I’ve read it in a few places, so I’ll just pick one: Richard Roeper stated that Palin’s logic is that she is not a quit­ter, so she had to quit her job.

    My brain hurts when I lis­ten to her. Her writ­ten work makes Bob Greene look like Shakespeare.

  6. 4dbirds said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am

    I grew up before “learn­ing dis­abled” was rec­og­nized or addressed there­fore I make lots of mis­takes in my writ­ing and in my speech. In spite of that I still love to read and wish I had the abil­ity to express myself with the grace that so many of you do here. So if I post and my gram­mar sucks, please cor­rect me but don’t be mean. I’m very frag­ile. :-)

  7. Sue said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Even while avoid­ing Fox News, I saw as much “bril­liant move” cov­er­age as “WTF” cov­er­age on Sarah. It was hard to fol­low it con­sis­tently, though, because there was still so much Michael Jack­son cov­er­age, on all the news chan­nels — that’s more out­ra­geous to me than reac­tion to any­thing Sarah does. I heard some­one on CNN today refer to the peo­ple who got tick­ets to the Michael Jack­son memo­r­ial ser­vice as “lucky win­ners”. On Sat­ur­day a panel dis­cus­sion on what might hap­pen to those who admin­is­tered drugs to Jack­son ended in happy chat on hol­i­day plans. It’s like they’re talk­ing about an episode of some tv show.
    One thing I found inter­est­ing about the Sarah cov­er­age — I didn’t see any spec­u­la­tion along the stan­dard lines of “ok, what’s going to come out in a day or so to explain this move?”. No one assumed that she had been caught at some­thing, which seems to be the default reac­tion these days to odd behav­ior by a politician.

  8. Julie Robinson said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am

    Since I grew up an hour from Chicago and the muse­ums used to be free they were my family’s favorite place to go. Sci­ence and Indus­try, Nat­ural His­tory, the Aquar­ium, Adler Plan­e­tar­ium, Art Insti­tute, Ori­en­tal Insti­tute, Lin­coln Park Zoo, you name it, we went there. As well as pricier attrac­tions such as the­atre, CSO and bal­let, even a few Sox games. Most of my friends’ fam­i­lies never drove in and thought we were a bit exotic. Mom and Dad had their prob­lems but were always teach­ing us about the wider world. I appre­ci­ated it then and now. Espe­cially since I’m now too claus­tro­pho­bic for the sub or the coal mine.

  9. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    I miss the free days — i saw where the Art Insti­tute, which used to be free a num­ber of days, and “rec­om­mended dona­tion” the oth­ers, was free some­thing like “Sun­day after­noon, cour­tesy of Target.”

    Sigh.

  10. derwood said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    I think it was Ander­son Cooper who was inter­view­ing Palin’s PR per­son and AC asked why she was Quit­ting. PR rep kept using the bas­ket­ball anal­ogy that she knows when to pass the ball. AC was great when he kept at her and said he doesn’t under­stand sports and it doesn’t explain why she is quit­ting. I wanted him to point out that in bas­ket­ball the point guard passes the ball and con­tin­ues to play, they don’t up and quit and walk off the field.

    Who­ever posted the smash the potato with a cof­fee mug recipe and bake it…Thanks. It was a big hit with the inlaws.

    –daron

  11. jeff borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    What ran­kles me most about Sarah Palin is her smug hap­pi­ness at her own shal­low­ness. When most peo­ple pur­sue an edu­ca­tion, they are struck by the fact that the more we learn, the more we real­ize how much we don’t know. Not the snow­billy. She learned every­thing she needed to know, by God, dur­ing those four years at five dif­fer­ent schools. She doesn’t need those fancy degrees and thick books and a gen­eral under­stand­ing of the immensely com­pli­cated and inter­con­nected world in which we live. She has some­thing bet­ter: her own com­mon sense.

    Jeff tmmo is cor­rect about one thing. To the true believ­ers who see some­thing spe­cial in this empty-headed diva, every insult is a com­pli­ment, every ques­tion about her com­pe­tence is evi­dence of her excel­lence, every cri­tique of her behav­ior is is proof she is on the right track.

    John McCain should hang his head in shame for the rest of his life for foist­ing this self-worshiping idiot on the body politic.

  12. LA Mary said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I installed a screen door two years ago. I wanted one 11 years ago when I did a remodel, but the architect/contractor would not hear of it. He was orig­i­nally from Alabama and I think it some­how reminded him of a past he wanted to for­get. Any­way, in the sum­mer, it is what makes indoor cook­ing pos­si­ble in my unair­con­di­tioned house.
    On Sarah Palin: peo­ple don’t want politi­cians to sound smarter than they are. Peo­ple don’t want to think about some deci­sions. Too much infor­ma­tion con­fuses issues, and we all have our own idea of what too much infor­ma­tion is. For some it’s as basic as rules of grammar.

  13. Deborah said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am

    I am a lousy writer. I have no idea why I dare to post com­ments on this site but for some rea­son I feel com­pelled to do so from time to time. I don’t think I’m stu­pid, I read a lot but it doesn’t make me a bet­ter writer. I can tell the dif­fer­ence between good and bad writ­ing but it doesn’t make me a bet­ter writer. Why is that?

  14. jeff borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Deb­o­rah,

    You are not a lousy writer and you cer­tainly are not stu­pid. Your post is clearly writ­ten and straight­for­ward in pur­pose. That’s com­m­mu­ni­ca­tion. After 35 plus years of report­ing and writ­ing for a liv­ing, I’ve always con­sid­ered myself as a writer with a small ‘w.’ Some­one like Den­nis Lehane is a writer with a big-assed cap­i­tal ‘W.’

    You are cer­tainly a bet­ter writer than La Palin. I’ve read the tran­script of her remarks and they are beyond atrocious…it’s almost stream of con­scious­ness bab­bling. Worse, it doesn’t really say any­thing other than she’s leav­ing. Her rea­son­ing is all over the board. It’s a state­ment that raises more ques­tions than it answers, hence, it’s lousy writing.

    Appar­ently, the Alaskan lieu­tenant gov­er­nor said on one of the talk shows yes­ter­day that she is quit­ting because of loom­ing finan­cial issues relat­ing to all those ethics charges against her. I’ve read that she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees. Now, she can milk her celebrity for every dime. Hell, I won’t be sur­prised to see her join­ing “I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Outta Here.”

  15. Linda said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Hav­ing read it, I give a thumbs up to Meth­land. The author cov­ers the roots of eco­nomic ruin, and how meth got built up first as a drug shipped in from the west coast, home-brewed from tiny enter­prises, and finally as a com­mod­ity shipped in by Mex­i­can car­tels, all as a direct result of phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal lob­by­ing and our reliance on cheap, imported labor. The end­ing is, I think, pre­ma­turely upbeat re: the town he cov­ered, but the book is good.

    Another book to read: Farm City by Novella Car­pen­ter, about a woman and her cre­ation of home farm­ing and ranch­ing in inner city Oak­land, CA.

    About Sarah Palin: I don’t hate her as a lib­eral. Since the Repub­li­cans are cling­ing to this loser as a hero­ine, and she has as much chance of becom­ing pres­i­dent as I do, she’s like a gift. I won­der how many vir­gins we had to kill to get her.

  16. Connie said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:39 am

    You are wel­come Der­wood. We had them yes­ter­day as well, with the steaks our friends brought, the first wax beans of the sum­mer, and a cae­sar salad. A fine din­ner on the deck.

  17. Jolene said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am

    I’m with Nancy re Palin. All along, I’ve been offended by the idea that this fun­da­men­tally unse­ri­ous per­son sees her­self and is seen by oth­ers as hav­ing the abil­ity to address our very real and com­plex national and inter­na­tional prob­lems. She knows lit­tle of the world and has shown no evi­dence of want­ing to rem­edy that defect. Her inabil­ity to present her own think­ing clearly and coher­ently is, in my view, damn­ing. I would be entirely happy never to hear from her again, but I fear I won’t be so lucky.

    Mean­while, Barack Obama, who began think­ing and writ­ing about arms con­trol while still in col­lege, is in Rus­sia try­ing to make the world safer and is now announc­ing new agree­ments with the Russians.

  18. moe99 said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am

    The rea­son Sarah Palin is so pop­u­lar in this coun­try, is shown in Jay Leno’s “Jay­wlak­ing” seg­ments where ordi­nary peo­ple can­not name things like the largest state in the Union, or iden­tify a pic­ture of Colin Pow­ell. These folk are Palin’s nat­ural fod­der. Here’s a poorly recorded seg­ment of Jay­walk­ing:
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​V​z​3​p​E​PUeSRc

    I think that even­tu­ally Sarah Palin will tell us that she has gone Galt. Because she has.

  19. jeff borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    In the final analy­sis, this is all about Sarah Palin grab­bing with both hands. She’ll leave Alaska’s prob­lems to her erst­while lieu­tenant gov­er­nor so that she can:

    1.) Write, tour and pro­mote her “mem­oirs.” Pay­off? Fig­ure $2 mil­lion for the book. Maybe $500K for sell­ing exclu­sive rights to pre­view it to some pub­li­catin.
    2.) Deliver speeches and make per­sonal appear­ances. Pay­off? Fig­ure $50K to $100K, depend­ing on the group. This does not include first-class air­fare and accom­mo­da­tions plus money for han­dlers, which is usu­ally paid for by the host group.
    3.) Nego­ti­ate national radio talk show or com­men­tary deal. She may well be too lazy and intel­lec­tu­ally incu­ri­ous to han­dle a daily talk show, which cer­tainly would pay her an annual seven-figure sum, but per­haps she could become a con­trib­u­tor at a reduced amount. Per­haps a weekly or bi-weekly com­men­tary on Sean Hannity’s pro­gram? Or Bill O’Reilly’s? It might be good for a half-million annu­ally.
    4.) Field offers from tele­vi­sion pro­duc­ers for a talk show of her own or a spot on an exist­ing pro­gram. She’s unde­ni­ably pho­to­genic and charis­matic. Would Bar­bara Wal­ters think of adding her to The View? Or could she wade into the second-tier talk show arena? Pay­off? $1 mil­lion annu­ally, if she has a sharp agent.
    5.) Appear in com­mer­cials. La Palin seems to lack the sense of humor that allowed other failed pols like Geral­dine Fer­raro and Bob Dole to cash in with self-deprecating TV com­mer­cials, but she’d prob­a­bly get a hand­some pay­day. Again, I’d reckon she could fetch $1mil.

    A com­men­ta­tor on another site has sug­gested that while Palin is not con­ven­tion­ally intel­li­gent, she pos­sesses a grifter’s cun­ning. She sees a nice pay­day and she’s tak­ing it.

  20. Scout said on July 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    I was aware of a cer­tain level of anx­i­ety in Palin’s voice that I had never heard before. Addi­tion­ally, shortly before her hastily called press con­fer­ence she had twit­tered that she had made the “happy” deci­sion not to run for Gov­er­nor again. Then all of a sud­den, she was quit­ting entirely, a move that seemed a sur­prise even to her. I think there is trou­ble afoot, although maybe her step­ping down was the trade­off to keep it quiet. We may never know what really happened.

    I am sure she will end up in some sort of media posi­tion; it is a nat­ural fit for her. Polit­i­cally? Stick a fork in her. She’s a quit­ter and decid­edly unpres­i­den­tial. Nuff said.

    Oh, and I iden­tify with the oth­ers who have posted that they love to com­ment here amongst the pros even while feel­ing uncom­fort­able about their own writ­ing skills.

  21. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    How, exactly, does every­one know Palin is “unse­ri­ous”? I hear that almost as much as “nutty.” I guess it’s like Bush being “fun­da­men­tally uncu­ri­ous about the world,” which no one can prove and just becomes a fact through repetition.

    Unse­ri­ous, uncu­ri­ous, insane. Let’s keep it per­sonal folks, and undis­prov­able. And by all means, let’s give a pass to Mau­reen Dowd’s pla­gia­rism and re-friend her for mock­ing Palin’s mid­dle class­ness first and foremost — 

    “Cari­bou Bar­bie is one nutty puppy… On the shore of Lake Lucille, with wild fowl honk­ing and the First Dude smil­ing, with Piper in the fore­ground and their Piper Cub in the back­ground, the woman who took the Repub­li­can Party by storm only 10 months ago gave an inco­her­ent, breath­less and prickly stream of con­scious­ness to a small group in her Wasilla yard.” Every­thing Dowd is mak­ing fun of is cen­tral to why Palin is still liked, gaffes and gar­bling and all. Not because she can’t read, doesn’t read, or doesn’t read the right things, but because she doesn’t find it ludi­crous to have loons in the back­ground of a press con­fer­ence and is actu­ally proud of own­ing a small, pro­peller dri­ven air­craft. Even that “in her Wasilla yard” line — c’mon, can’t you see what you’re buy­ing into here? Do you really want to make a stand on snobbery?

    Slam her posi­tions on energy devel­op­ment, on being anti-choice, on the right role of states vs. fed­eral man­dates, and be will­ing to engage in an actual dis­cus­sion (she might sur­prise you, and those are gov­er­nance issues, too). But i find it fun­da­men­tally incu­ri­ous for peo­ple to say they are “against her” when they only men­tion per­sonal qual­i­ties that they don’t have any data on, other than the occa­sional photo op at the turkey abattoir.

    “Grifter’s cunning” — sweet. But i’ll bet she’d take you in a hand of poker, and make you say “thank you” as you walked away the loser. Three hands, and you’d be ask­ing for a ride home. Except that’s not grift­ing, that’s play­ing the hand you’re dealt bet­ter than the other fellow.

  22. moe99 said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  23. Sue said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    This group likes Mau­reen Dowd? I always got Mitch Albom vibes about her from the com­ments around here.

  24. Dexter said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    I make a lot of mis­takes when I write on blogs but I rarely go back and cor­rect my gram­mar because I believe in the the­ory that Craig Craw­ford explained; the inter­net was cre­ated so folks could type out a thought and hit send and pro­ceed to read­ing the other person’s thought. I agree that bad writ­ing should be edited before it is pub­lished for mass dis­tri­b­u­tion, of course.
    I notice that many of my friends have moved away from the IM lan­guage “howr u 2day?” and gone to Twit­ter where they write a lit­tle bet­ter.
    Well, since I am not a writer, not even a hacker, I have for­got­ten school-days teach­ings and I just go by mem­o­ries of how I am sup­posed to punc­tu­ate and struc­ture sen­tence and para­graph. My older brother who has the J-Masters is always on me about my poor writ­ing “skills”. Well, I try but can’t seem to improve.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sue: Mau­reen Dowd was great until a cou­ple years ago when she seem­ingly lost inter­est in jour­nal­ism. I was a devo­tee for years but now I read Frank Rich and Gail Collins and Bob Her­bert over there and I skip Dowd most weeks.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This is much more inter­est­ing than S. Palin and her mis­cre­ants:
    http://​j​-walk​blog​.com/​o​l​d​/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​t​w​i​ne.jpg

  25. jeff borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    I’d love to play poker with Sarah Palin, Jeff. If she plays her cards the way she runs her life, she’d be hitch­hik­ing home or bor­row­ing a quar­ter to call a cab. She’s exactly the kind of per­son you want to play: some­one who thinks they are much, much bet­ter than they are. You ride a cash cow like that all night, man.

    How can I call Sarah Palin unse­ri­ous, Jeff? Are YOU seri­ous? She has taken the easy way out in every aspect of her life. Five schools in four years? Uncom­pleted terms as mayor, gas and petro­leum board and now gov­er­nor? Unwill­ing­ness to pre­pare for impor­tant debates and inter­views? A sense of enti­tle­ment and play­ing by her own rules (see debate, vice pres­i­den­tial) when she doesn’t like the odds of her doing well?

    If that is not unse­ri­ous, what the hell is?

  26. ellen said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    I agree with jeff b. she real­ized that the appear­ances, speeches, etc., would make seri­ous $$$. Plus, now she won’t have to turn down lucra­tive gigs because of triv­ial details like run­ning a state. She will be sur­rounded by peo­ple who agree with her and who are will­ing to pay for the priv­i­lege of breath­ing the same air. What’s not to like about this career move? Even if it doesn’t lead to pres­i­dency, she will make more $$$ and have more ado­ra­tion from “her kind of peo­ple” as a talk­ing head, com­men­ta­tor, book “author,” etc. All this with­out hav­ing pesky state ethics laws hang­ing over her any­more. Sounds good. Where do I sign, Satan?

  27. coozledad said on July 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Seems to me that not too long ago Democ­rats rose and fell on how they wind­surfed or looked in a tank hel­met.
    I sus­pect a great deal of the mouth breath­ing pop­u­la­tion beat­i­fy­ing Sarah eagerly awaited some evi­dence of a phys­i­cal short­com­ing or some awk­ward cloth­ing choice so they could begin trash­ing Obama prop­erly. Trash him in a way even a self described “point-guard” could get behind.
    The pal-ling around with ter­ror­ists thing was pretty much all they had, even though there were some rum­blings about a ter­ror­ist cousin –from Africa by God!
    Nope. Every time Obama nailed a three pointer was a big stake in the heart of their goober jock cred, and Sarah’s scarcely con­cealed con­tempt for “peo­ple who are able to quote facts and fig­ures” didn’t play well in the after­math of the the Yale legacy douch­e­sack. And while the eco­nomic waste­land George and his bud­dies left behind hob­bled old McCain, noth­ing did him in like his own hand­picked dum­b­ass sex­ual pros­the­sis.
    I had sev­eral elderly farm­ers walk up to me at the polls and tell me that they almost went for McCain, but she was the last straw.
    There was another group, though, that was all for Sarah. The ones who were chant­ing “Babykillers! Babykillers!” Or mid­dle aged men who said they were just going to cut their work force or go into hid­ing. These guys tended to park in the hand­i­capped space in the park­ing lot of the precinct. You know, Losers. Guys in a midlife cri­sis. Hys­ter­i­cal racists. Dit­to­heads.
    They were say­ing for awhile that Repub­li­cans had mas­tered the art of polit­i­cal slime, and it was so admirable, and we’d be stuck with them because they had their fin­ger on the pulse of the idiots. Well, they for­got to keep track of every­body else, and their sole remain­ing con­stituency believes in witches, spon­ta­neous gen­er­a­tion, Ayn Rand and the gold standard.

  28. nancy said on July 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    JeffT­MMO, I appre­ci­ate how you — and fre­quently you alone — are will­ing to stick up for con­ser­v­a­tives when they’re unfairly trashed here, but I’m with Bor­den on this one. If Palin isn’t the very def­i­n­i­tion of an unse­ri­ous grifter, I don’t know who is.

    What did it for me was when she claimed she didn’t hes­i­tate, not even for a sec­ond, when asked to join the McCain ticket. Not even to think about it overnight? Dis­cuss it with Todd and the kids? That’s not just evi­dence of ego­ma­nia and about a mil­lion other neb­u­lous dis­or­ders, it’s cer­tainly the work of an unse­ri­ous person.

  29. 4dbirds said on July 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Ref poker, one thing I actu­ally know of a lit­tle. The last poker tour­na­ment I played in, I was seated next to a large, over­all wear­ing, good ole boy from one of the Car­oli­nas. His shtick was almost painful to watch. “What are these here black chips worth?”, “You city folks sure are aggres­sive.”.
    You don’t drive up from Car­olina to Atlantic City to play in a large buy-in game and not know what the chips are worth. Nobody was fooled. He did not last. In pok­erese he “shipped it obv”.

  30. moe99 said on July 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  31. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Still can’t hang with unse­ri­ous or grifter (grifter — cool word, but “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”).

    Now, should a) McCain have picked her, or b) should she be so self-assured as to not need a night to think it over? THAT’s a con­ver­sa­tion. And i can hap­pily play cards with some­one who’s say­ing a) No, and b) No.

    And i don’t even play cards.

    (Grifter? I’m try­ing to see Angel­ica Hus­ton play­ing Palin … nope, not work­ing for me, even if we time machine back and get the ’77 Angelica.)

    Plus i’m dri­ving around lis­ten­ing to “Fresh Air” and “On Point” as every­one gets hyper-snotty about “she wants to make money.” A half-million in debts from dis­missed com­plaints, and another half-million in legal bills com­ing if she tries to pay down those with speeches in the Lower 48, aka “Out­side.” Nope, she’s mak­ing plenty of sense to me. But y’all pinatafy her another week or so, and let me know when you’re done what’s going on in Xinx­i­ang, Qom, Moldova, and Hon­duras, if you can get past the MJ “memo­r­ial ser­vice” cov­er­age. Trust me, lots of Palin advo­cates can find all four of those places on a map with­out using Google Earth.

    Seri­ously, this all feels way too much like August, 2001. It was noth­ing but shark attacks and Chan­dra Levy & Gary Con­dit and will Hillary make it as a car­pet­bag­ging junior sen­a­tor. When this decade’s gamechanger comes, we’ll all say again what we said in Oct. 2001 — “how could we have paid atten­tion to that stuff with such pas­sion and inten­sity?”

    EDIT: I checked after post­ing (i know, i know), and that should be Xin­jiang. So i guess i’m a knuckle drag­ging, drool­ing, One Book* own­ing, mouth­breath­ing, neo-griftatious troglodyte who splits infini­tives after all! But i can still find it on a map.

    [*Cooze, did you mean “The Foun­tain­head,” or “Atlas Shrugged”?]

  32. alex said on July 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    I guess it’s like Bush being “fun­da­men­tally uncu­ri­ous about the world,” which no one can prove and just becomes a fact through repetition.

    Oh, my. I guess, then, that it can­not be proven about Joe the Plumber, either. Just another lib­eral rush to judg­ment about a man who could quite pos­si­bly be bril­liant. We should be debat­ing his ideas on their mer­its. Puhleeze.

  33. Jeff Borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    Jeff tmmo,

    You have hit the nail on the head. The real object of scorn should be Sen. John McCain for thrust­ing this pho­to­genic know-nothing onto an enor­mous pub­lic stage. It was a des­per­ate ploy by a des­per­ate politi­cian will­ing to sac­ri­fice the last scin­tilla of his honor and integrity for a shot at 1600 Penn­syl­va­nia Avenue.

    I’ll never be able to take the guy seri­ously again.

  34. Jolene said on July 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Jeff: Here’s an exam­ple of Palin’s win­ning combo of igno­rance and arro­gance. She gave, in Pitts­burgh, I believe, a speech about spe­cial needs chil­dren in which she promised to fully fund spe­cial edu­ca­tion by cut­ting earmarks.

    As an exam­ple of the kind of project that could be cut, she named a project that involved study­ing fruit­flies in France. Of course, we all know that any­thing remotely con­nected with France is un-American and emi­nently mock­able, but this project actu­ally involved study­ing flies that are dam­ag­ing olive trees. Appar­ently, the prob­lem is more seri­ous in Europe than in Cal­i­for­nia, so some knowl­edge that might be help­ful to Amer­i­can olive grow­ers might be gained by fig­ur­ing out what’s going on there before things get worse here. And the fund­ing for that project was a grand 200K. It’d take quite a few of those to make much of a dent in the fund­ing of spe­cial education.

    I’d call that unse­ri­ous. She didn’t have the remotest idea of what she was talk­ing about. She just grabbed an exam­ple out of a report issued by an advo­cacy orga­ni­za­tion w/o the slight­est effort to eval­u­ate its cred­i­bil­ity. Of course, she should have staff peo­ple who will do that work for her, but the fact that she was, appar­ently, will­ing to take what­ever they handed her doesn’t speak well of her intel­lect, her man­age­ment skills, or her judgment.

    And this is leav­ing aside the idea that even peo­ple such as myself, who did not spend much of their time in school focused on the life sci­ences, know that a ton of research in genet­ics involves the use of fruit flies. Know­ing noth­ing about the project or the prob­lem w/ the olive trees, if some­one had brought that speech to me, I’d have said, “Are we sure this project doesn’t involve some­thing impor­tant in genetics?”

  35. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Well, i’d have been more con­cerned if it was dam­age to grape vines, since (regret­tably) i con­sume more wine than olive oil.

    McCain is back on a light sched­ule work­ing as a sen­a­tor, where i’m happy to have him and where he’s plenty sharp enough if you grade that body on a curve; i’m still fas­ci­nated by the coun­ter­fac­tual of “what if McCain had told Schmidt et alia to go inter­course the pen­guin and picked Lieberman?”

    Yeah, yeah, he woulda lost that way, too … maybe. Maybe not. But while Axel­rod was still try­ing to fig­ure out how to imple­ment his 2012 strat­egy in Octo­ber 2008 (holy cr4p, we’re going to win the nom­i­na­tion? against Hillary?), McCain was dither­ing much more than suits the per­sona — a lit­tle Pali­nesque deci­sive­ness looks pos­i­tively pres­i­den­tial next to that prat­fall. If John wanted Joe on his ticket, tell ‘em to stuff it and go there, and do what you can to make it work.

    Mean­while, Huck­abee could have made it all the way to the Naval Obser­va­tory if it wasn’t for his sch­pilkas over run­ning under a Mor­mon, and Rom­ney might have reached the White House if he wasn’t queasy about hav­ing a min­is­ter as his veep. Of course, Dems couldn’t quite feel right about either a woman in the White House or Bill back even in the East Wing, so it’s all pol­i­tics. But don’t expect me to fall all over how igno­rant Bush was when i had to lis­ten to years of blather about how smart Gore and Kerry were, while their col­lege grades were sealed until after the shout­ing was over. So is Obama’s.

    Yes, i’m touchy on the whole “tak­ing more than four years” and “going to mul­ti­ple state col­leges” as proof of igno­rance. And quot­ing an advo­cacy group for a lame, overex­tended, not entirely ger­mane exam­ple of a pol­icy point doesn’t make you stu­pid or unse­ri­ous, it makes you a politician.

    So Jeff, i’m still peeved at the insis­tence that Palin (and Bush) are know-nothings, but i agree that the act of “select­ing” Palin was justly a below the water­line self-inflicted tor­pedo launch into the Lt. Cmdr.‘s ves­sel. You don’t fire a full spread into an uncon­firmed tar­get in open water … unless you’re in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    By the way, RIP Robert McNa­mara. Very lit­tle men­tion of the Ford Fair­lane in the cov­er­age, i see, but i guess we’ll fight the Viet­nam War all over again for the ben­e­fit of ignor­ing cur­rent events just a few more days, or at least until the riots out­side of the Michael Jack­son memo­r­ial concert.

    THEN we’ll have some footage for the 10 pm shows!

  36. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    BTW, i don’t under­stand the bile going into so much com­men­tary on McNa­mara, and i hope Errol Mor­ris is given a chance to write a memo­r­ial piece in the NYTimes; cf. this from CNN and i ask “How is McNa­mara the main devil in this Inferno?” –

    “By Novem­ber 1967, McNa­mara told John­son that there was “no rea­son­able way” to end the war quickly, and that the United States needed to reduce its forces in Viet­nam and turn the fight­ing over to the American-backed gov­ern­ment in Saigon. By the end of that month, John­son announced he was replac­ing McNa­mara at the Pen­ta­gon and mov­ing him to the World Bank. But by March 1968, John­son had reached vir­tu­ally the same con­clu­sion as McNa­mara. He issued a call for peace talks and announced he would not seek re-election.”

  37. LA Mary said on July 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Jeff, I can’t find Qum on the map, but I read news­pa­pers and I can name the ones I read. Palin may be bril­liant about some­thing, but she’s uncu­ri­ous and unwill­ing to own her igno­rance. Those are scary qual­i­ties in some­one who wants to lead the free world. W had his own ver­sion of arro­gance which drew on his legacy and some dreamed up cow­boy fan­tasy he was liv­ing. She’s got her own which I think is based on man­ag­ing to get very far for some­one who never tried ter­ri­bly hard. She tries hard to win, but not to succeed.

  38. jeff borden said on July 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Jeff tmmo,

    I’ve met plenty of dum­b­asses from good schools and plenty of extra­or­di­nar­ily accom­plished peo­ple who never got beyond high school, if that. I do not believe that a Har­vard or Yale grad­u­ate is auto­mat­i­cally supe­rior to an Ohio State or Brigham Young grad. Or a high school dropout, for that mat­ter, in some arenas.

    As proof of Palin’s know-nothingness, it seems self-evident. She prac­tices hor­ri­ble Eng­lish and gram­mar. I’ve yet to hear her cite or quote a book of any merit beyond the Bible. Asked what pub­li­ca­tions she reads to feed her world­view by Katie Couric, she replied, “All of ‘em.” Asked by Char­lie Rose if she sup­ported the Bush Doc­trine, she had no idea what he meant. Rather than pre­pare for a real debate, she winked at the audi­ence and announced at the start that she would be doing things her way, which again under­scores some­one who just doesn’t like to work very hard intellectually.

    If that’s not a know-nothing, what is? Even worse, she lies like you and I breathe. It’s easy to lie and then, when you’re caught, com­plain that the librul media is beat­ing you up again. A per­son of accom­plish­ment might’ve led a trade group to Rus­sia, as she claimed. A know-nothing would not, but might lie about it, as she did. A per­son of accom­plish­ment would not claim for­eign pol­icy exper­tise because they can see Rus­sia from the Alaskan shore. A know-nothing would.

    She and Bush are, at base, intel­lec­tu­ally lazy. They are fit and trim and healthy and exer­cise a lot, but that big hunk of gray mat­ter between their ears has never got­ten the same kind of workout.

  39. nancy said on July 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    To be hair-splittingly accu­rate, Bor­den, the “I can see Rus­sia” line was Tina Fey’s writ­ing staff’s, not hers. But Palin did claim foreign-policy bona fides because Rus­sia shared a bor­der with Alaska, which I guess makes Jen­nifer Granholm, the Canadian-born Michi­gan gov­er­nor who actu­ally can see Rus­sia Canada from here, qual­i­fied to run the U.N.

    (For­give the mis­take. A long day.)

  40. Dexter said on July 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    I did get a lift today, fondly recall­ing that although my first boy­hood home didn’t have hot water or a flush toi­let, by gawd, we did have a damn good screen door, with an auto­matic closer — a spring on two eye-hooks.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Wasn’t that a fancy hall where Obama and Dmitri Medvedev signed arms reduc­tion papers? Medvedev looks like a 32 year old wun­derkind, but he’s actu­ally 43 years old. Obama said he’s not com­ment­ing on Putin’s take on all this, but he reit­er­ated that his strong talks with Putin ear­lier were very seri­ous, con­cern­ing Georgia.

  41. Peter said on July 6th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    Re: Robert McNa­mara — I don’t know why, but I did feel sorry for him, although he cer­tainly sent more peo­ple to their early demise than Rums­feld. It wasn’t the remorse that got me, but it was that early ’60’s can do atti­tude which his NYT obit obliquely referred to. I got Ford on the right track, I cleaned up the Pen­ta­gon, I fig­ured out the missle gap — I can do some num­ber crunch­ing and fig­ure this Viet­nam thing out too. Call it what you want, but I can relate to some­one with a grade A pos­i­tive men­tal atti­tude who fig­ures out, way too late, that the great plan has gone into the crapper.

    As for the com­ments (in other sites) that he had the guts to tell LBJ, only to have been booted out for it — what exactly did he think LBJ was going to do? Go on the teevee and say “Mah fel­low Ahmer­i­cans, I fukked up?” Geez, Nixon wanted to stop the war and make it look like we won, and it took four years for that farce.

  42. Duyen Ky said on July 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    “I’m a writer, and I have all the writer’s irra­tional prej­u­dices about peo­ple who don’t under­stand subject-verb agree­ment and the impor­tance of proper spelling.”

    You’re also a lib­eral, with the liberal’s char­ac­ter­is­tic pro­cliv­ity for call­ing those who dis­agree with her stu­pid, crazy, or evil. This ten­dency appears to be inten­si­fied by pro­longed expo­sure to Fartsmore of the Vanities.

    Best of luck with the rest of your life. I’ll try to remem­ber to pray for you.

  43. Dexter said on July 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    Jesus Christ, Duyen Ky…we hardly knew ye! Any rela­tion to Nguyen Cao Ky, he of ARVN and LA liquor store fame?
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​P​h​b​P​h​pPDuH4

  44. coozledad said on July 6th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Jeff TMMO: I started read­ing The Foun­tain­head at the request of my busi­ness school girl­friend and couldn’t for the life of me fig­ure out how to make it tie in the­mat­i­cally or philo­soph­i­cally with the works of Car­los Cas­teneda that were then turn­ing me into a slightly dif­fer­ent form of obtuse shit­head. I think it was after read­ing some John Barth, Nabokov, and Italo Calvino in a sur­vey course that Willard and His Bowl­ing Tro­phies lost its lus­ter for me. I still like Calvino a lot.Another cyn­i­cal old left­ist who out­grew Marxist/Leninist reli­gion. The Baron in The Trees is prob­a­bly a bet­ter escapist para­ble than any­thing Rand cob­bled together.

  45. MarkH said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    And, to be fur­ther hair-splittingly accu­rate, it was Char­lie Gib­son who asked the Bush Doc­trine ques­tion (ahem). Of course, what do I know; I got less hair than Brian.

  46. beb said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    The unse­ri­ouss­ness of Sarah Palin was revealed dur­ing one of those pow­der puff inter­views when she was asked what mag­a­zines of news­pa­pers she read. “All of them,” she replied. But the fol­low up ques­tion was “name one,” and couldn’t. Any seri­ous politi­cian has to read the New York Times or the Wash­ing­ton Post, or both. She couldn’t say she read the national papers of record. She couldn’t say she read any of the Alaskan news­pa­pers. That is ‘unse­ri­ous’ to me.

  47. alex said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    You’re also a lib­eral, with the liberal’s char­ac­ter­is­tic pro­cliv­ity for call­ing those who dis­agree with her stu­pid, crazy, or evil.

    And you’re evi­dently a con­ser­v­a­tive, with that conservative’s char­ac­ter­is­tic pro­cliv­ity for feel­ing snubbed and dissed and pissed. I’ve just spent the last sixteen-plus years lis­ten­ing to con­ser­v­a­tives demo­niz­ing lib­er­als with those very words and a whole lot worse while polite soci­ety gave them a pass.

    A fox smells its own hole, I guess.

  48. Jason T. said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    Nance, I shouldn’t feed trolls, but what the heck hap­pened at #42? I con­sider myself a pretty reg­u­lar reader, and I don’t know who or where that came from. That was like being side­swiped by a clown car.

    Did I miss some­thing in the secret weekly hate-filled socialist-Marxist newslet­ter that all lib­eral elit­ists receive …

    Oh … sorry, I’ve said too much.

    P.S.: Hey, 42, pray for the rest of us, too! What are we, chopped liver?

    P.P.S.: The Google tells me more about 42, includ­ing links to a blog that looks like it was writ­ten by a finite num­ber of monkeys.

  49. moe99 said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    http://​www​.eter​ni​ty​road​.info/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​/​w​e​b​l​o​g​/​s​i​n​g​l​e​/​i​n​t​e​r​v​e​n​t​i​o​n​s​_​t​w​o​_​g​u​e​s​t​_​r​u​m​i​n​a​tions/

    Ms. Ky’s rumi­na­tion is the sec­ond one. I would say, that if the name and address are cor­rect, it is odd to be receiv­ing this sort of judg­ment from a for­mer prostitute.

  50. Jason T. said on July 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    That’s the blog, Moe. I’d say they’re sev­eral mon­keys short of a barrel.

  51. alex said on July 6th, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Well, Duyen (or is it Ky?), given my druthers I’d rather be a Roman Catholic than a teen pros­ti­tute, so I say you made a good call. Although I’d rather be queer than either of those things.

  52. coozledad said on July 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Damn. You leave a few min­utes to start work­ing on your Mon­day drunk and all the good shit starts happening.

  53. 4dbirds said on July 6th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Shorter Ky: Leave Sarah AAAAALLLLLOOOOONNNNNEEEEEE!!

  54. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    Coo­zledad — i like your read­ing list. Love Calvino, more even than Mar­quez. Have you had a chance to dip a toe into Bolano’s “2666”? (Some­day, i should find out how to put a tilde~ above a let­ter. Bolano gets one over the “n” someday.)

    JeffB — it was Char­lie Gib­son, and she should have said “which one? Bush has had more doc­trines than Carter had lit­tle pills.”

    It’s the “self-evident” part that baf­fles me. She doesn’t cite books? I have enough books in this house to build an above ground root cel­lar and i’m just not get­ting how that’s the ulti­mate index of adept or ade­quate governance.

    As a con­ser­v­a­tive, thanks to all who didn’t say “sucks to be you, doesn’t it?” when i got some, ummm, help. I’d rather have Levi John­son aid­ing me in a debate than Ms. Ky. He seems to under­stand that you don’t cross-body-block into the boards when you’re try­ing to build a team, but Ky appar­ently thinks the teams are set and we’re just in a scrum to the fin­ish. I look at democ­racy a wee bit dif­fer­ently, ma’am (if you’re still lis­ten­ing). God lures and nudges and attracts, as much or more than whack­ing peo­ple with cos­mic thun­der­bolts off the lad­der of grace, hurl­ing them into the abyss with rel­ish and aban­don. Try John 3:17 — i know you’re famil­iar with the pre­ced­ing verse.

  55. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    I do hope she wasn’t refer­ring to the legal pro­fes­sion as pros­ti­tu­tion. But the skin care prod­uct line … i need a Mason jar full of what­ever Cooze is having …

  56. alex said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    So where’s the Gas­man? We need some brassy par­ti­san backup to bring this dis­cus­sion to a crescendo.

  57. nancy said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Ky came over from the crazy-man site I linked to in the post. FYI. Some peo­ple track their linkbacks pretty obsessively.

  58. Deborah said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Yeah, I’ve been won­der­ing where the Los Alamos Gas­man went?

  59. del said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Coozledad’s post at 2 — loved it.

  60. beb said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Speak­ing of mason jars… Many years ago my wife and I were vis­it­ing a friend, a mem­ber of my father’s gen­er­a­tion, fought in WWII and a great sto­ry­teller. He ran a mail order busi­ness in pulp mag­a­zines at the time and we were out in his garage admir­ing his aston­ish­ing col­lec­tion. When he pulls out a mayo jar filled with a clear liq­uid and offers my wife a sip. I, hav­ing per­haps lis­tened to his story more than my wife, declined the offer. She took a sip and described as light­ning run­ning down her throat. It was real moon­shine he’s picked up at an SF con­ven­tion in South Car­olina. If that’s what Coolzedad is sip­ping, I hope he has an iron constitution!

  61. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    I thought that was what *gives* you an iron constitution.

  62. del said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    JTTMO, I’m both­ered by your obser­va­tion that this feels like August 2001 and all that stuff about the com­ing “gamechanger” of the decade. If and when a ter­ror­ist attack occurs I think it would be a mis­take to extrap­o­late too much from it (apophe­nia?). I for one won’t buy into the post-Carter mythol­ogy that a Repub­li­can would bet­ter pro­tect us.

    On the other hand, your com­ment that liv­ing near fam­ily may be a neg­a­tive reflec­tion on men­tal health rang true.

  63. coozledad said on July 6th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    My best friend from first grade came from a fam­ily of moon­shin­ers, and he was also an extremely capa­ble banjo artist. When we were in high school, we per­formed a banjo duet in Lil’ Abner. I just hap­pened to own a banjo, and the knowl­edge of three chords. He sug­gested I needed some “loos­en­ing”.
    If I’d known what he meant was corn liquor, I would have obliged.

  64. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Del, i’m extrap­o­lat­ing from a series that goes back well before 1886; there will be another anar­chic act of mass ter­ror of some sort, at some point, sooner rather than later. No par­ti­san polit­i­cal point intended (and, as much as i find him a fig­ure of mirth akin to what so many seem to feel re: Palin, this is what Joe Biden was get­ting at, more than pre­dict­ing an act aimed at test­ing Obama directly — but the test will come all the same).

    Coo­zledad, one con­ser­v­a­tive, once upon a time, on “The Fountainhead.”

    And Garry Wills on WFB, a real keeper of a pro­file. Wills’ “Bare Ruined Choirs” is a book worth tak­ing to the beach, albeit a grim rocky beach with no Ital­ian Ices stand in sight.

  65. brian stouder said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    I think Tom Schaller at Fivethir­tyeight cap­tures the Palin conun­drum pretty squarely

    http://​www​.fivethir​tyeight​.com/

    an excerpt:

    The longer answer has to do with the fact that she is young and a woman, which only mag­ni­fies sen­ti­ments on both sides of the Palin divide. It was easy to dis­miss with a polite smile or a roll of the eye­balls the late-stage career grum­blings of Jesse Helms or Strom Thur­mond; you knew their days were num­bered, that they were walk­ing anachro­nisms slated to join other curiosi­ties in the museum of post-war Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. Not so with Sarah. She is younger than Barack Obama, after all. She is attrac­tive. (I stopped count­ing how many women have men­tioned to me, unso­licited and unprompted, Palin’s cheek­bone struc­ture.) And so we have in her a woman cheer­ily and cheek­ily rail­ing against the Great Soci­ety even though she was still in dia­pers the day Lyn­don John­son signed the Civil Rights Act.

    yeah.

    She is counter-intuitive; she looks like somone you might guess would be a lefty; female, self-made, special-needs son, preg­nant daugh­ter — hell, she could be a latter-day Glo­ria Steinam or Betty Friedan; but instead, and improb­a­bly enough, she seems to aspire to be Shawna Han­nity or Rachelle Limbaugh

    I was in agree­ment with Jeff tmmo when the buck-toothed dufus David Let­ter­man called Palin and her daugh­ter a slut*, but I don’t agree that there’s any ratio­nal rea­son — based on what we have seen to this point — that would mag­i­cally ratio­nal­ize the plainly bizarre res­ig­na­tion of Ms Palin.

    $500,000 legal bill? C’mon, Jeff — McCain’s small-ball cam­paign kicked over a wardrobe for her amo­junt­ing to that much! If she was a national can­di­date (which she would have been), she would have eas­ily swept that debt away.

    I won’t call her “crazy”, but I will say that I sim­ply don’t under­stand her.

    *David McCul­lough recounts the inter­est­ing story of the time Harry Tru­man read a scathing review of his daughter’s (Mar­garet?) piano recital — and responded with an angry, hand writ­ten (now THERE’S an old fash­ioned touch! When was the last time you sent a hand-written let­ter out?!) let­ter to the reviewer, wherein he promised to punch the guy right in the face if he ever saw him.

    Now THERE’S the way to respond to folks who get in your face!

  66. Jason T. said on July 6th, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Nance @ 57: Thank you. I didn’t click on the link, so I didn’t real­ize that site was the source of Ky’s lit­tle out­burst at 42.

    Yes, indeed, crazy, man, crazy!
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​K​P​Y​t​2​oPSFMw

  67. brian stouder said on July 7th, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Jeff — thanks for the Wills link. I had the plea­sure of a few moments to gab with Wills at last fall’s Lin­coln Col­lo­quium at Knox Col­lege in Gales­burg, Illi­nois; I told him how much I enjoyed his “Lin­coln at Get­tys­burg” book, many years ago — and asked after WFB (I had read that they had reconciled) — and he became wist­ful and told me this very same anec­dote, about Buckley’s gen­eros­ity, from the article:

    One day in the early ’60s, a large pack­age was brought to my front door. It was the 24 vol­umes of the new edi­tion of the Ency­clo­pe­dia Bri­tan­nica. Another time I got a pack­age con­tain­ing framed copies of two char­coal por­traits by the famous British news­pa­per artist David Low. These were stud­ies of G. K. Chester­ton and Hilaire Bel­loc, men Bill knew I admired. I asked where he had got the pic­tures. They were a gift to him from the British broad­caster Alis­tair Cooke. Bill said, “They will mean more to you than to me.”

  68. basset said on July 7th, 2009 at 12:25 am

    Made the smashed pota­toes twice over the week­end, went over well with Mrs. Bas­set and Bas­set the Younger. Tried not to think about Sarah Palin, Michael Jack­son, or Steve McNair, the for­mer foot­ball player who appears to have been shot by his girl­friend, or female acquain­tance, or what­ever she was. That last hap­pened about a block and a half from where I work — drove by there on the way home today and car­loads of peo­ple in team jer­seys were still cir­cling the block just to get a look at the building.

    This busi­ness about La Palin’s great beauty, I just don’t under­stand. I’m a straight male sev­eral years older than her, with a nor­mal level of lech­ery, but she doesn’t do a thing for me.

  69. Jean S said on July 7th, 2009 at 12:44 am

    “a nor­mal level of lech­ery” … *snort* … thankyas for that!

    I don’t mind that she skipped from col­lege to col­lege or job to job. I don’t mind that she’s look­ing out for herself.

    But I do mind that she’s intel­lec­tu­ally sloppy and lazy and, in her own way, in-your-face arrogant.

    Sadly, she has lots of com­pany in the polit­i­cal arena.

  70. Dexter said on July 7th, 2009 at 12:54 am

    …and now they are all gone, the big ones…and who’s the last man stand­ing? Gen­eral Vo Nguyen Giap, Ho Chi Minh’s fig­u­ra­tive right-hand-man. Gen­eral Giap is 97 years old and still going strong.
    McNa­mara, who real­ized many thought of him as a
    “son of a bitch” (‘he Fog Of War’ docu-movie), now joins Nixon and Humphrey in the last ring of hell.
    So, Hitler, Stalin, and McNa­mara are sit­ting there and you have two bul­lets in your gun…who do you shoot?
    Answer: empty the god­dam gun into McNamara.

  71. Dorothy said on July 7th, 2009 at 8:54 am

    I too made the smashed pota­toes on Fri­day, with fresh gar­lic chives I bought that day in Pitts­burgh. Very deli­cious! I’m stay­ing away from all the other stuff being dis­cussed in this thread. There aren’t enough words in the dic­tio­nary to express how I feel about Sarah Palin. What makes me most upset, though, is that one of my younger sis­ters thinks she’s great. That, to me, is worse than Sarah herself.

  72. del said on July 7th, 2009 at 8:59 am

    I saw the Fog of War doc­u­men­tary and I think that McNa­mara worked pretty hard in his old age at undo­ing man’s war foolishness.

    I’m no Sarah Palin fan Bas­sett, but she does it for me. (I’m reminded of the art patron in a Sein­feld episode who described the por­tait of Kramer thusly, “I find it hideous … and yet … I can­not avert my gaze.”)

    JTTMO, I think you give too much credit to the ratio­nal­ity of poten­tial ter­ror­ists. I doubt that acts of ter­ror are directed at “test­ing” a given politi­cian. Ter­ror­ists would wreak havoc no mat­ter who gov­erned. I’m reminded of argu­ments for increas­ing prison sen­tences to deter crime. I think it mis­ap­pre­hends the true bone­head­ed­ness of some­one who’d want to rob a gas sta­tion in the first place.

  73. moe99 said on July 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am

    Can some­one just tell ABC to go to hell if this is what they con­sider “news?”

    http://​blogs​.abc​news​.com/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​a​l​p​u​n​c​h​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​7​/​m​a​l​i​a​-​o​b​a​m​a​-​b​u​d​d​i​n​g​-​f​a​s​h​i​o​n​i​s​t​a.html

    The Oba­mas, unlike Sarah Palin, have never used their chil­dren as polit­i­cal props. It’s sum­mer, for god’s sake, I’d take them on a trip with me too. But that does not make their wardrobe news­wor­thy. If they stole the money from the DNC to out­fit them­selves, then yes. But not now.

  74. LAMary said on July 7th, 2009 at 10:50 am

    My work is across the free­way from For­est Lawn Cemetary, so this morn­ing we are under a canopy of heli­copters. I’m glad I don’t work downtown.

  75. curious said on July 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    What do you think of this?

    “In a recent Pew poll, 44 per­cent of Amer­i­cans regarded Palin unfa­vor­ably. But slightly more had a favor­able impres­sion of her. That num­ber included 46 per­cent of inde­pen­dents, and 48 per­cent of Amer­i­cans with­out a col­lege education.

    “That last sta­tis­tic is a cru­cial one. Palin’s pop­u­lar­ity has as much to do with class as it does with ide­ol­ogy. In this sense, she really is the per­fect foil for Barack Obama. Our pres­i­dent rep­re­sents the mer­i­to­cratic ideal — that any­one, from any back­ground, can grow up to attend Colum­bia and Har­vard Law School and become a great Amer­i­can suc­cess story. But Sarah Palin rep­re­sents the demo­c­ra­tic ideal — that any­one can grow up to be a great suc­cess story with­out grad­u­at­ing from Colum­bia and Harvard.

    “This ideal has had a tough 10 months. It’s been tar­nished by Palin her­self, obvi­ously. With her mis­steps, scan­dals, dread­ful inter­views and self-pitying mono­logues, she’s botched an essen­tial demo­c­ra­tic role — the ordi­nary cit­i­zen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embod­ied by politi­cians from Andrew Jack­son down to Harry Truman.

    “But it’s also been tar­nished by the elites them­selves, in the way that the media and polit­i­cal estab­lish­ments have treated her.

    “Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin expe­ri­ence, for any aspir­ing politi­cian who shares her back­ground and her sex. Your chil­dren will go through the tabloid wringer. Your reli­gion will be mocked and mis­rep­re­sented. Your polit­i­cal record will be dis­torted, to bet­ter par­ody your fam­ily and your faith. (And no, gen­tle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex edu­ca­tion, slash funds for special-needs chil­dren or inject cre­ation­ism into pub­lic schools.)

    “Male com­men­ta­tors will attack you for parad­ing your chil­dren. Female com­men­ta­tors will attack you for not stay­ing home with them. You’ll be sneered at for how you talk and how many col­leges you attended. You’ll endure gibes about your “slutty” looks and your “white trash con­cu­pis­cence,” while a promi­nent female aca­d­e­mic declares that your “great­est hypocrisy” is the “pre­tense” that you’re a woman. And eight months after the elec­tion, the pro­fes­sion­als who pressed you into the ser­vice of a gim­micky, dreary, idea-free cam­paign will still be blam­ing you for their defeat.

    “All of this had some­thing to do with ordi­nary par­ti­san pol­i­tics. But it had every­thing to do with Palin’s gen­der and her social class.

    “Sarah Palin is beloved by mil­lions because her rise sug­gested, how­ever tem­porar­ily, that the old Amer­i­can apho­rism about how any­one can grow up to be pres­i­dent might actu­ally be true.

    “But her unhappy sojourn on the national stage has had a dif­fer­ent moral: Don’t even think about it.”

    http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​0​9​/​0​7​/​0​6​/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​/​0​6​r​o​s​s.html

  76. Today’s great reads « The Apostate said on July 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    […] Nancy Nall offers a (witty) writer’s per­spec­tive on Palin’s insuf­fer­able­ness. Link. […]

  77. brian stouder said on July 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    “What do you think of this?”

    With her mis­steps, scan­dals, dread­ful inter­views and self-pitying mono­logues, she’s botched an essen­tial demo­c­ra­tic role — the ordi­nary cit­i­zen who takes on the elites, the up-by-your-bootstraps role embod­ied by politi­cians from Andrew Jack­son down to Harry Truman.

    But it’s also been tar­nished by the elites them­selves, in the way that the media and polit­i­cal estab­lish­ments have treated her.

    What I think of that is — Pop­py­cock! Dou­ble Poppycock!!

    Andrew Jack­son suf­fered many, many more slings and arrows, lit­er­ally and fig­u­ra­tively, from his polit­i­cal and social oppo­nents, and from British troops, then any­thing Sarah Palin has ever actu­ally even poten­tially with­stood, from gnats like “the blo­gos­phere” or David Let­ter­man, or some east coast syn­di­cated pundit.

    Good God — if you want to look at some HORRENDOUS and all too real “pol­i­tics of per­sonal destruction” — read up on Jackson’s wife Rachel. In Jackson’s suc­cess­ful (1828?) cam­paign for the White House, his polit­i­cal oppo­nents had a grand time dur­ing the cam­paign of accus­ing his wife of bigamy (which was true enough) — and in fact she ulti­mately sim­ply col­lapsed and died between the time of his elec­toral vic­tory and his inau­gu­ra­tion; Jack­son always blamed the stress the cam­paign inflicted on his wife for her untimely death.

    And Harry Tru­man had a say­ing you might recall — some­thing about what to do if the heat in the kitchen became too great?

    I think plac­ing Palin in the same class as tena­cious achiev­ers like Jack­son and Tru­man is simply…thoughtless poppycock

  78. Overlady said on July 8th, 2009 at 2:05 am

    WOW you are a G*R*E*A*T writer!!! THat para­graph that ends “I say it’s spinach and the hell with it” is one of the best para­graphs I have read in a long while!

    TALENT!! YOU ARE TALENTED AND GREAT