Tag Archives: sarah

Hyppo and Critter: Mike Ditka’s Redskins


Thwart Deform

I'll shop here just because they have a certain ganache.

I’ll shop here just because they have a certain ganache.

This post contains my patented Tort Reform Quiz For Dummies. At last you can find out if you support tort reform or not! You’ll find the short quiz after the introductory crap. Wade on!


The punch landed bone-jarringly hard and the boxer in the red trunks suddenly ate canvas, a little puddle of drool forming quickly under his bloodied face. The referee counted it down then, with so sign of movement, called the fight. It was a knockout!

The blue corner jumped up and down ecstatically. “Way to go, champ! Way to go!”

The red corner carried their fighter back to their corner, balanced his lifeless body on his stool, and also began jumping up and down. “Wow, what a fight! You took ’em to the cleaners, champ! You really flayed ’em!”

Erm, what? Meanwhile the monkeys are flying in from the East chanting, “Oh wee oh! Oh wee oh!”

Such is the way of politics these days. Is my example a little extreme? Perhaps, but sadly not by much.
Continue reading →

Sarah Palin stripped down

Sarah Palin considers 2012 Run for PresidentFirst things first, if you clicked on this post because of a certain something teased by the title: shame, shame, shame!

I am not a pundit or an especially keen observer of things political. I’m an entertainer. Even so, I still have my political feelings and leanings, and I can’t help, from time to time, to inject a bit of that into my blog offerings. At the end of the day, I’m only human.

In fact, politically speaking, I find myself on the short end of the stick the vast majority of the time. Apparently I like to be different from those around me. That decidedly makes me a poor choice for armchair editorializing.

Even so, I’ve been thinking a lot about the latest brouhaha about the reaction to the shooting in Arizona and Sarah Palin. It’s one of those things that I just can’t shake and I find it back on my mind again and again.

I admit, my first response to the shooting was reflexively visceral. I remembered Palin’s tweet about “reload” and how it directly referenced a Facebook post with bullseye symbols denoting candidates for office in the United States.

Never have I suspected a causal relationship between these facts, but I did think it was highly unfortunate that a person Palin had labeled with a bulleye icon had been shot. I remember thinking, “I sure wouldn’t want to be in Palin’s shoes.”

If it was me, being in that sort of circumstance would have left me feeling bad.

This is when I had an idea and decided to take another approach. Maybe it’s the part of me that takes a bit of pride in being unbiased and considers itself to be, at least on some level, a scientist. What if, I surmised, we chucked politics and identities out the window? I decided to strip things down, to deconstruct the situation and try to examine some basic facts.

What we have in this case is a person’s comments and symbols directed at another human being who ended up being shot. I submit that most people in that situation would feel bad about something like that. I know I would.

But how did Palin respond? With an eight-minute video that initially attempted to portray understanding and compassion but clearly switched gears to make the point that opinions about her were a “blood libel.”

Again, forget about the content of the “blood libel” thing. There are those who will take great umbrage to that on the content-level. That’s not pertinent to my point here.

I don’t think it should work like this. Understanding and compassion are fine, but how can you include the “blood libel” response in the same message? That effectively makes the whole video a me-oriented thing. It’s like including the word “but” in a compliment, statement, or apology.

“I’m sorry about what I did but …”

“I like your cooking but …”

“I feel for your loss but …”

“I love you but …”

What could possibly come next in these examples that won’t impact and minimize the tone of the initial statement? I read something about this recently, but alas I can’t remember the specifics or where I saw it. Basically it was about the falseness of statements that begin with an overt message and then subtly change tone in the middle. This results in the overall message not matching what was initially said.

In other words, at least with the persona she projects to the public, she doesn’t feel that bad. In fact, she takes a line in the sand approach and makes it about her. In that light, the portions of the video that pertain to understanding and compassion ring hollow.

This is a trend with Palin. Her approach is part “in your face” and part “never back down.” She takes pride in doing what others perceive as being “politically incorrect.” Then, if there happens to be any fallout, she ups the ante by taking a position that is basically the kindergarten equivalent of, “you push me, I’ll push you back.” That projects a certain image and makes it easier to forget who really pushed first.

Forget the specifics of what she actually said and try to look at her behaviors and overall patterns. To me this is what scares me about the possibility of Palin in the White House.

Hyppo and Critter: Reload

Hopey changey stuff

Last Saturday night Sarah Palin delivered a speech to a “tea party convention,” whatever that is. The tea party movement, as we all know, is a bunch of Obama-hating right wing conservatives. It was reported that they were even registering people as Republicans right on the floor of this “convention.”

All the talk about the tea party movement being non-partisan and having no leadership and not being tied to any one party is just a smokescreen. When you talk about the tea party movement you are talking about the conservative right-wing and you are talking about Republicans. Just dump all that plausible deniability crap about being “non-partisan,” okay? It doesn’t suit you.

Palin, in her speech, asked the crowd a version of the question I’ve been hearing from rightie wingnuts for the last six months:

Now a year later, I have to ask those supporters of all that how is that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?

As you can see she spruced up the the standard talking point question with her own unique personalized stylings and flair.

“Hopey changey stuff.” Does anyone really talk that way? I mean, really?!?!?

Even someone on the national stage using crib notes sloppily written on her own hand? Really?

That irony was delicious. While she stood there addressing the tea party crowd and criticizing Obama for his usage of teleprompters she had handwritten notes on her hand. ON HER HAND!

Personally I could care less if she had something written on her hand. I wouldn’t cross the street to criticize her for that. But the hypocrisy of criticizing Obama for his teleprompter usage at the same time is simply unbelievably stunning. The phrase “unmitigated gall” comes to mind.

But don’t you dare criticize her for it. Oh no, then of course you’d be one of those people that seem to unfairly nitpick her every move. The kind of person that makes her ask, “Golly gee. Don’t they have anything better to do?” Never mind that she was in the act of nitpicking Obama. That’s different. Nitpick them = good. Nitpick me = bad.

The thing about writing crib notes on your hand is that it seems to me it’s either your habit or it’s not. Personally I’ve never written notes to myself on my own body. Ever. Not even a phone number for a hot woman in a bar. I’d rather go without. 🙂

It seems to me, though, that if you are a famous woman in her mid-40’s writing crib notes on your own hand then chances are pretty good it’s something you’ve probably been doing your entire life. It’s probably a lifelong habit. It’s probably something you learned early and used often, like in elementary school, junior high, high school, in a beauty contest, college, while governor of a state and maybe even while running for vice president of the United States.

And what’s the all-time number one reason for using crib notes in the first place?



Now that is something that wouldn’t surprise me one little bit.

Meet “private citizen” Sarah Palin

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=sarah+palin+bus&iid=7088297″ src=”f/4/3/4/Customers_wait_in_c936.JPG?adImageId=7763985&imageId=7088297″ width=”500″ height=”333″ /]

My recent post entitled “Sarah Palin is a liar” generated a bit of hubbub, at least by my extremely modest standards. One development from that fracas was the allegation that Palin is a “private citizen” thus raising the all-important question: “Why are you picking on her?” Oh, poor wittle Sarah!

Heh. Riiight.

Continue reading →

Sarah Palin is a liar

Note: Don’t ya hate it when you think of a post title that is informative and humorous, then you plug it into the google and find out it’s not as unique as you had hoped? You betcha! wink, wink. Oh well, I’m sticking with it.

It might not seem like it, but I really have nothing much against Sarah Palin as person. She’s a real person with real feelings. I get that.

My only real beef with her is that she is a liar. I don’t care if she has a different point of view than my own. That is actually part of what makes this country great. But using lies to manipulate and deceive is wrong. If you can’t sell with the truth then you need to re-evaluate what you are selling.

The web site PolitiFact.com has a page they call the “Sarah Palin file.” It is a page where they assess the truthfulness of statements made by Palin. For a figure so prominent on the national stage the lack of honesty is quite alarming.

Then today I found this on the Wall Street Journal web site. The following tidbit is made even more impressive when you consider that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch:

It is her mastery of the lament that explained former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s appeal last year, and now her knack for self-pity is on full display in her book, “Going Rogue.” This is the memoir as prolonged, keening wail, larded with petty vindictiveness. With an impressive attention to detail, Ms. Palin settles every score, answers every criticism; locates a scapegoat for every foul-up, and fastens an insult on every critic, down to the last obscure Palin-doubter back in Alaska.

When it comes to politicians, the TRUTH is of paramount importance, at least to me. Just tell me the truth. That’s all I ask. If you stick with the truth you have a chance of getting me to see your point. Without truth I’ve got absolutely no use for you. In the final analysis, Palin is nothing more than a snake oil salesperson, and we have far, far too many of those these days.

Sarah, this one’s for you:

I don’t want some pretty face to tell me pretty lies
All I want is someone to believe