A history lesson for modern pampered lily-livered politicians.
[Update a while later]
Sarah Palin responds to the vicious calumny. And no, she doesn’t “apologize.” Good for her.
[Another update]
Want to see a violent political culture? Go back to the sixties:
In a very real way the media were the secret sharers of the radical left. As a young media member and novelist, I knew this well. The most radical of us were acting out our hidden dreams for the rest. We condemned them occasionally and ritually, but rarely vehemently. The Weather Underground and even later the execrable Symbionese Liberation Army were never treated in the press with quite the opprobrium they now reserve for the tea party movement. As Baudelaire put it, “Mon semblable, mon frère.” The worst of the radical left were just like the rest of us, but with a little extra edge.
They weren’t anti-war — they were just on the other side.
And so many were disappointed, including Jackie Kennedy, when the assassin was determined to be a communist sympathizer. So much so, in fact, that many of them remain in denial about it today, as evidenced by all the conspiracy theories.
[Update a while later]
Good point: “If you really believed political rhetoric caused Jared Loughner’s killing spree, you wouldn’t dare to say it.”
Very soon now, what the “new left” was with it’s violence, bullying and totalitarian instincts will be lost to the next generation because it’s been hushed up by a media elite who both were part of it or romanticized it.
There have been plenty of media pieces on the mistakes and issues of the Vietnam war, but very little in the public eye on the violent radical left of that era beyond Horowitz’s “Destructive Generation”.
As even a cursory glance at comments from statists on this blog will demonstrate, the anti-liberty crowd has problems with evidence, facts and logic. And yet this argument that the rhetoric of Sarah Palin or other “extremists”* seems unusually weak, even for them. I mean, wouldn’t you have to show that the Tucson shooter actually read Sarah Palin’s blog or listened to Glenn Beck or whomever? The argument should be:
(1) X uses inflammatory anti-statist rhetoric;
(2) Shooter Y is a fan of X; therefore:
(3) Shooter Y was motivated to shoot by X’s rhetoric.
Even that strikes me as a weak argument, a variation on the “post hoc ergo propter hoc;” but now the statists aren’t even bother to come up with a middle term (2), even a weak one.
Of course it’s all baloney anyway. Statists always want anti-statists to shut up and go away. Tucson is just the latest excuse.
*And by “extremist” they mean of course “consistently and vigorously pro-freedom,” or at least “anti-Obama.”
I listened to the Sarah Palin speech over at powerlineblog.com, and I believe this speech is transformative. She quoted Ronald Reagan in the best speech in defense of liberty I have heard since Ronald Reagan.
Good point: “If you really believed political rhetoric caused Jared Loughner’s killing spree, you wouldn’t dare to say it.”
Mohammad Cartoons.
If Sarah Palin could make her voice sound more like Katharine Hepburn and less like Marge Simpson, and smile with her eyes as well as her mouth, she’d be unstoppable.
Cross posted in the derangement thread, but here is ABC’s The Note‘s response to Sarah Palin:
Should she have ended her video right after her expression of sympathy? After all, isn’t today about the victims, not the debate? Then again, if she didn’t address the debate swirling around her target map she might just as quickly have been accused of ducking the tough questions.
BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.
There’s just so much wrong is such a little amount of space.
If you really believed political rhetoric was the cause of Loughner’s shooting spree, then Palin would need a top notch 24 hour security detail to protect her from the left.
BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.
Yes, because she is supposed to stay quiet while lies are told about her. Refuting the lies just makes her worse, while if she says nothing then she’s admitting her guilt.
Isn’t that how they expect her to act? And to think, the Press can’t understand why millions of people no longer trust them.
“If Sarah Palin could make her voice sound more like Katharine Hepburn and less like Marge Simpson, and smile with her eyes as well as her mouth, she’d be unstoppable.”
Am I the only person in America who can’t stand Katharine Hepburn’s accent? Did you mean Audrey Hepburn? (Who was European anyway.) And what on Earth has she to smile about at all? If a person is only “smiling with their mouth” that means they’re angry but trying to be polite. I’d say she has good reason to be angry, and you’re lucky she’s trying to be polite. If it were me you’d have a hard time telling me apart from your average gargoyle. (Well, even more than usual.)
Why, oh why, do even reasonable men pull this “she’s not smiling enough” bullshit about women when smiling really isn’t called for? Why do women always have be fear-grinning around fearful males to reassure them that… what? We won’t bite your throats out in our rage? A man who was treated like this and smiled through it would rightly be called a “pussy.” A woman doesn’t show she’s continuously cheery and happy when she’s being accused of aiding and abetting a murder she had nothing to do with is complained about. I give up, I really do. And no, I’m not smiling, not even with my mouth.
Am I the only person in America who can’t stand Katharine Hepburn’s accent?
Probably. She was awfully popular. But as it happens I was speaking to diction and rhythm, not her Main Line accent. And you can substitute whatever elegant speaking voice you prefer and I would still say the same thing.
And what on Earth has she to smile about at all?
Well, a big chunk of her speech was speaking about the victims, where she was smiling I assume sympathetically, and in another part she was speaking of American greatness, where I assume she was wanting to smile proudly. She certainly could have spoken only about her own vilification, in which case I agree it would be most appropriate to grind her teeth in rage and shoot sparks of violet flame from her eyes. But it was her choice to mix in other thoughts, and to smile during them. Ideally even if she’s angry about something personal she wouldn’t let that infect the other parts of her speech.
I do realize this is all by way of asking her to be a little more of an actor, of not being a completely genuine person. I do not personally recommend the changes — I value every drop of genuineness to be found in a politician — I was just pointing out that her political success would be greater if she were, well, a better politician, i.e. actor.
Why, oh why, do even reasonable men pull this “she’s not smiling enough” bullshit about women when smiling really isn’t called for?
Since I’m not a reasonable man — more of a hardened cynical cranky (but devastatingly adorable) old coot — it’s hard for me to speak for them.
But I would guess it’s an assumption of female exceptionalism. Women are alleged to be more sensitive to the feelings of others, to be more compassionate, to be more concerned for consensus and social harmony, and less bullheadedly insistent on getting their own way, come hell or high water. That kind of behavioural superiority certainly calls for a greater degree of smiling at people who are irritating or unreasonable, just the way exceptional negotiators do not become enraged and give the finger to difficult parties across the negotiating table.
Personally, I’m cool with women insisting on the right to smile at jerks no more than men do, provided they simultaneously accept the proposition that they are no better than men at dealing with jerks or social discord generally. I’m guessing this is your position, Andrea? Well and good.
But you will need to convince your sisters to ratify it before I can put a parallel motion in front of The Brotherhood, lodge rules being as stuffy as they are. We cannot have any more statements of what a “wise Latina” can do, for example, that aren’t followed by hoots of derisive laughter from nearly every prominent woman, just the way it would go down if Nino Scalia or Dubya maundered on about the unique and valuable insights being a white man gives them, and to which everyone should pay respectful attention.
Please don’t pull the “women are inherently superior at this social harmony” stuff, because it’s complete bullshit, and also patronizing. Women have to learn to be geishas, they aren’t born that way.
PS: I can’t stand that clipped, rattling diction of Katharine Hepburn’s either. It’s amusing in a forties comedy when she’s playing against someone like Cary Grant. In real life it must have been like living with a typewriter. I don’t mind the way Sarah Palin speaks, and it’s really irritating to keep reading about people who want her to go to charm school so she can learn to talk like the actors they grew up watching in sixty-year old movies.
Please don’t pull the “women are inherently superior at this social harmony” stuff, because it’s complete bullshit, and also patronizing.
Well as much as I personally might agree, Andrea, it seems to permeate the councils of both reasonable men and — alas! — women themselves. I had such trouble being seriously considered as a candidate for “Room Mother” in my son’s 2nd grade class.
And then there is the general assumption that men have more antisocial or at least more asocial purposes in their interactions with children, which has even — I know this will shock you, but it’s true — permeated to the courts wherein, for example, child custody cases are decided, restraining orders are issued, and crimes against children or spouses are prosecuted.
Please don’t ask me to defend this. I’m just some guy from Betelgeuse who’s having a hard time finding a ride off this miserable planet. But it does seem to my unrefined senses as if there is some quid pro quo going on here: women get some curious benefits in exchange for more smiles. I’m going to hazard a guess that the one comes with the other, and until the majority of women uncheck the box next to the bennies the majority of men are going to keep being jerks about the smiles due on the bottom line. Sorry about that! Management has been notified, but is apparently on vacation and can’t be reached.
I don’t mind the way Sarah Palin speaks, and it’s really irritating to keep reading about people who want her to go to charm school so she can learn to talk like the actors they grew up watching in sixty-year old movies.
Could you say that in a Katharine Hepburn accent, please?
I was born in Ohio, went to college on LungIsland, and have lived most of my life in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never been anywhere near Alaska, but I find Sarah’s accent endearing. I can’t understand why anyone has a problem with it.
Me neither!
But in another twist on the “Sarah Palin is so tacky” meme: the memorial service for the slain has free t-shirts!
Yeah. Let’s argue about Sarah Palin’s dropped n’s.
I dunno. I like her ascent. But after watching one episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska”, I couldn’t stand the sanctimony of how great her kids went outdoors than to the mall, play with cellphones, or whatever cliche of mainstream teenage culture. But annoying as it was, I still wouldn’t accuse her of inciting a murder a few thousand miles away from her by a person that she never met (and a person that apparently never paid attention to her).
I will say in the episode I saw (family fishing in Bristol Bay), she smiled with her eyes quite often.
Maybe people can’t stand her because they watch her all the time? On tv and the internet that is. I know that constant exposure to someone’s televised image eventually makes me tired of them. It’s not the same as seeing a person in person every day — tv is remote, you can’t touch them, yet there they are. Some sort of psychic mechanism is at play. Then again, this is probably just my weirdness; I don’t watch a lot of tv because I find myself getting really irritable if I do.
I’m generally a guarded fan of Palin (if nothing else, I love the way she sends The Hive into fits of lunacy), but I watched one episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska and I found her voice or manner of speaking irritating, too. Oddly enough, Lisa Ann’s imitation of her (“Sarah Paylin”) in “Who’s Nailin’ Paylin?” doesn’t bother me as much.
I’ve said it before, transcripts of Sarah provide a depth and intelligence I do not perceive as well in a video. Her voice and accent are fine but there is something that causes this for me.
I think she may be a great president, but it may also be why she doesn’t seem presidential. She’s a thousand times smarter than all the idiots that attack her put together. She’s controlling her image better than before.
But there is something that isn’t quite right and yet I like her more and more the more I get to know her.