at least takes after mother and a shy youth was put in the stocks - he will be marrying her, she said, before he ran away and hid from the crowd.Gun handling Sarah slammed into her opponent, rarely naming him, and said she would easily overcome the old duffer. She said he was that horrible overtly apparent moderate guy who would nevertheless raise money to spend on public services. He was, she said, "A dead parrot, a Norwegian blue." She, meanwhile, looked forward to shooting tigers with ex-President Putin, before they turned their guns on each other. She herself looked forward to making George Bush the first American Prime Minister.
She said it was about time they drilled for oil on the White House lawn, and really get the building looking black. She was ambitious to get those troops into Georgia, once they were released from Atlanta, and get those bunkers in Alaska into good use. She told of her own son who could well be facing death in I Rack, or Afghanistan, or indeed the whole world when she is finished with "all those evil forces out there to get us".
"That will sort out global warming," she said to her audience going nuts, "I'm looking forward to my own heated swimming pool we used to call the Arctic Ocean."
She said she would start funding a gas pipeline straight away, to come direct from two main orifices of her own body. And when she herself met her maker, after his 6000 year experiment to make what she could destroy, she would donate herself to the Creationist Museum for apparent scientific research, on how such a person could be created on General God's orders.
At this point officials were handing out plastic bags to delegates, as many started wetting themselves in delirium. They had found, from nowhere, a major historical figure, a new President Reagan, but this time one who likes to sink her teeth into men's legs. Apparently this is one of the methods that passes for sex education in Alaska.
Republicans went out polling immediately after her speech, and on Palin's instructions they can only ask the God-given heads of households - men. As for how their wives will vote, each man said, "Alaska." Asked by a reporter how she could explain women ruling over men in God's created order, that is herself in the top job, Palin bit his head off and held it high, the Senators in the crowd apparently raising their swords and shouting "Hail Caesar, Hail Caesar," or something similar.
Biographical note: Sarah Palin has been unknown all her life, apparently starting out as a comedian and ending up as one too.
23 comments:
It is nice to know that beneath the thin skin of the liberal male there still lurks the Neanderthal misogynist.
Why did the Democrats not put a woman on the ticket?
I couldn't care less what sex she is, she is a right wing fantatic. In as much as she uses her sex, her family and all that as an ideological package, I'll bite the lipstick pitbull.
Fantatic? Did you mean Fanatic?
I think you do care because "methinks thou dost protest too much?"
Of course Obama never used “his family and all that as an ideological package” did he?
Why did the Democrats not put a woman on the ticket?
I think there was a difference: that Obama was proposing the need for public services so that families, including his, could grow up in a better America.
I meant fanatic of course.
Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama would not have had the same impact had she received the vice presidency, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she does not end up with a hefty cabinet job, well defined and which sets her up for after Obama's eight years, should he have them.
Anonymous
A woman is right simply because she's a woman?
Sarah Palin stands against everything I believe in, as does pretty much everyone else in the Republican party.
Is it not letigimate to oppose her because of what she stands for?
And asking why the Democrats didn't put a woman on the ticket is as sensible as asking why the Republicans didn't select a black man.
Pluralist
“Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama would not have had the same impact had she received the vice presidency”.
Do you seriously think that she was kept off the ticket so that her endorsement had more impact? A bit of a lame excuse if true, don’t you think?
Or was it that she was not really wanted inside the White house?
E Baker
A woman is right simply because she's a woman? – No.
However is the Democrat party a misogynist free zone?
“And asking why the Democrats didn't put a woman on the ticket is as sensible as asking why the Republicans didn't select a black man.”
Please would you clarify this statement? I may be misreading it. To me it implies that Democrats are sexist and Republicans are racist. Was that what you really meant?
We do not know whether Hilary Clinton will be in the White House until Barack Obama chooses his executive. Had she been Vice President, it would have looked like a trade-off; as it was, her and Bill Clinton's approach 'healed' the party more effectively.
I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick - as for the Republicans being racist, there were under 40 black people in that huge crowd of delegates. It is racist in that sense. The Democrat crowd was far more mixed.
Dear anonymous
Please try to read with less cynicism!
I didn't say that the Democratic party is a heaven for women. I simply replied to your astonishing comment that Pluralist is misogynist because he doesn't like Sarah Palin's politics. It is quite possible to dislike the politics of a person without disliking their gender, skin colour, religion or whatever people set up as artificial dividers.
You asked, twice, and completely out of context, why the Democrats did not put a woman on the ticket.
I assume you believe it is because they are misogynist, or because you assume that Pluralist is and you want to make sure he knows that his preferred party is also against women.
But your question does not make sense to me, because I believe that both parties are trying to be as open and liberal as they can be.
One has selected a black man, the other has selected a woman as a running mate.
If you want to play race and gender politics you end up being satisfied only if both parties put up two black women, otherwise you end up accusing them of being anti the grouping they haven't selected.
Asking pointedly why the Democrats did not put up a women makes as little sense as asking pointedly why the Republicans did not put up a black man. Because it’s about policies, not stereotypes. And because the Democrats believe they found the best candidate in Obama, who happens to be a black man, while the Republicans happen to believe they found the best running mate in Sarah Palin, who happens to be a woman.
E Baker.
“Sarah "Mike" Palin paraded her normal, American, dysfunctional family to show that one daughter at least takes after mother”.
Not sexist?
BTW Obama was not the best candidate.
Look, this so called family values is an ideological tool and a fantasy. It results in her grotesque parading of her normal dysfunctional family. Politics has enough in the way of double standards without leaping about with them.
I preferred Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, but he ran the better campaign and gained much support and enthusiasm. He is clearly with talents and more to show. He will face some very difficult situations in office, not least a shuge deficit when he needs to make the economy work, but I have much confidence in him and in comparison McCain and Palin are useless set against what is needed to be done.
"“Sarah "Mike" Palin paraded her normal, American, dysfunctional family to show that one daughter at least takes after mother”."
I read it as an attempt at a humorous swipe at Republican ideals.
Look, I have exchanged posts with Pluralist for about 2 years now and we've communicated by email. He posts extensively on Thinking Anglicans. A more women-friendly man is pretty much impossible to find.
Actually, women-friendly is not right, because he isn't biased either way. No hostility, no unnecessary sucking-up-to either.
Sex REALLY REALLY doesn't matter.
Was Obama best? I don't know! I'm not American! I judge with a European head.
But the Democrats thought he was best and therefore nominated him.
In a democracy, that'll do for me.
The Republicans think Sarah Palin is best. Again, I judge with a European head and she seems totally bizarre to me, like the worst of our home crop of unscientific evangelicals with faux family values.
But I say that not because she's a woman, but because as I said earlier, she represents everything I dislike.
Can we get past this mud slinging now?
There are two tickest: a black guy and a white youngish man, and an old white guy and a youngish woman.
Let the Americans choose, and I hope they choose according to the people's policies, not to whether it panders to any stereotyping prejudice against a whole group of people simply because of their colour or their gender.
Erika, your praises for my apparent moral character cause me to go to the church to try to flush out my publically unknown sins, for the half-second that makes any difference.
E Baker
Attempt - no? Sorry this is blatant sexist language.
American politics is far from the rosy picture you paint. It is mired by money and misogyny. Hillary’s treatment has been shameful.
Anglicanism is seen as unscientific, sexist and homophobic. Why should anyone who “thinks” finance it or support it?
This is ridiculous now, conflating two different matters: who Obama chooses as his running mate and Anglicanism!
Just responding to “Thinking Anglicans” on EB’s post.
Yes, very ridiculous. Why should a religion be scientific? And anonymous clearly doesn't know much about the Episcopal Church if she/he thinks it is homophobic.
And anonymous -- why can't you feel good about what HAS been accomplished in the recent electoral process -- the possibility that an African American could become president of the US? Does the glass HAVE to be half-empty?
Hillary lost because she miscalculated politically and ran a weak campaign -- she did not loose because she was a woman -- a party that will nominate an African American, would most certainly not be averse to nominating a woman.
"Anglicanism is seen as unscientific, sexist and homophobic. Why should anyone who “thinks” finance it or support it?"
There I do agree with you 100%!
On the other hand, if we don't we loose all influence and I still haven't given up hope that it can become an intelligent church again.
“Yes, very ridiculous. Why should a religion be scientific?” I agree and I hope EB will listen to you if not to me. In her post you will find “unscientific evangelicals”. Point made.
Secondly, I did not say she lost because she was a woman. I said her treatment was shameful. Please se “Misogyny I won’t miss” Marie Cocco, Washington Post
Thirdly, I did not say the Episcopal Church I said Anglicanism is seen to be homophobic. Let’s be more specific the church in the UK, the C of E - how is that seen?
Well, anonymous,
how about coming off the fence and giving us a name? Presumably, your posts on TA are at least linked to some initials or a pseudonym. It's always disconcerting to be attacked by people who refuse to be honest about who they are.
You can, of course, insist on taking offence. Pluralist has told you that he had not intended to sound misogynist, I believe him because of what I know of him, and I hadn't read them like that in the first place.
But, of course, you do not have to believe in misunderstandings, you can continue to feel insulted.
Why do I care?
Because it's a symptom of the whole stupid way this American election is being fought, where people refuse to look at political arguments but insist on riding their own hobby horses, cultivating a sense of personal injury at perceived slights, and thereby creating the focus on racism and anti women sentiments that would otherwise not be there, or could be ignored in favour of real politics.
It's a bit like the gay discussion in the Anglican church. The longer you reduce people to one characteristic, and the more you elevate and carricature that characteristic, the more you help to create the situation you deplore. And eventually, everyone is mired in the same morast and no-one can dig themselves out of it any longer.
" agree and I hope EB will listen to you if not to me. In her post you will find “unscientific evangelicals”. Point made."
Please explain what I should agree with, and what point you believe you have made here?
Erika
Thank you for your last post. Please allow me a little longer to be anonymous, I am finding my feet in blog town. It appears that on blogs many have pseudonyms and I may go down that route. The problem with names for example if I called myself “Anglo Catholic Joe” that would make people think in one way no matter what I posted. I hope to find something neutral.
I have not posted on TA by the way.
“Unscientific” The point I am trying to make is that religion and science are different and you cannot use one to critique the other. Science deals with the material world: religion deals with the immaterial - by that I mean the things of the Spirit. You do not use a barometer to measure electricity unless you wish sparks to fly.
We all slip up some time because prejudices are often latent and times move on. Nevertheless we should learn from our mistakes and be mature enough when shown a blind spot.
“The longer you reduce people to one characteristic, and the more you elevate and carricature that characteristic, the more you help to create the situation you deplore. And eventually, everyone is mired in the same morast and no-one can dig themselves out of it any longer.”
I agree and would like to add the following debate is destroyed when the character is attacked not the argument eg
Anglo- Catholic – sexist –end of debate go
Evangelical – homophobic - end of debate go
Creationist – dangerous nut case – go
To destroy all debate – bigot or heretic.
Those that oppose liberal views feel as hurt as probably Pluarlist and you did when they did not want to sound prejudiced. I wish we would stop name calling. Unfortunately I see the name calling getting worse and fragmentation coming and many people deeply hurt. The arguments left unresolved.
I leave you with some thoughts from Jonathan Sachs
“If there is no agreed moral truth, we cannot reason together. All truth becomes subjective or relative, no more than a construction, a narrative, one way among many of telling the story. Each represents a point of view, and each point of view is the expression of a group. On this account, Western civilisation is not truth but the hegemony of the ruling elite. Therefore, it must be exposed and opposed. Western civilisation becomes the rule of dead white males. There are other truths: Marxist, feminist, homosexual, African-American, and so on. Which prevails will depend not on reason but on power. Force must be met by force. Lacking a shared language, we attack the arguer, not the argument.
This is done by ruling certain opinions out of order, not because they are untrue – there is no moral truth – but because they represent an assault on the dignity of those who believe otherwise. So: Christians are homophobic. People on the Right are fascist. Those who believe in the right of Jews to a state are racist. Those who believe in traditional marriage are heterosexist. Political correctness, created to avoid stigmatising speech, becomes the supreme example of stigmatising speech.”
And
“Identity politics is deeply and inexorably divisive. If the withholding of recognition is a form of oppression, then one way of achieving recognition is to show that I have been oppressed. The logic is as follows: the group to which I belong is a victim; it has been wronged; therefore we are entitled to special treatment. This gives rise to an endlessly proliferating list of the aggrieved. Each of their claims is surely true, but you cannot build a free society on the basis of these truths, just as you cannot heal trauma by endlessly attending to your wounds. A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation, is greater than that of others.
Ours is a transitional age, as revolutionary as the move from agriculture to industry. The growth of computing, the internet and satellite television will change life as much as any epoch-making development in the past.
With the new technologies the idea of an autonomous national culture disintegrates. Until recently, national cultures were predicated on the idea of a canon, a set of texts that everyone knew. In the case of Britain they included the Bible, Shakespeare and the great novels. The existence of a canon is essential to a culture. It means that people share a set of references and resonances, a public vocabulary of narratives and discourse. Until the early 1950s a politician could quote the Bible and expect people to know what he was alluding to. No longer.
As long as there were newspapers and a small number of radio and television news networks, people were exposed to a variety of views. Today we attend to only those media we choose; we focus only on the stories that interest us. If we see the world one way we will watch al-Jazeera; if another, we will watch Fox. We can filter out the voices with which we disagree. We are exposed to a selectively edited version of reality.
This is massively amplified by the phenomenon of blogs, which often present the news in highly tendentious ways. The result is that our prejudices are confirmed, and need never be disturbed. “
I'm afraid my effort to solve Erika's multiple posting means I lost the lot, so I am using the email notification to post here what she wrote:
Anonymous
"Unscientific" The point I am trying to make is that religion and science are different and you cannot use one to critique the other."
THANK YOU! But you see, that had been my point too. I believe creationists to be deeply unscientific because they fail to make precisely that distinction and make claims for Scripture that are just not what Scripture is about. It is unscientific because it refuses to engage with the reality of science in favour of blind faith.
I also believe many evangelicals to be unscientific, because they try to reduce to bible to a detailed manual on how to behave that can be read literally in King James English, thereby denying the discoveries of translation studies and linguistics over the last 150 years, the increasing knowledge of the kind of society the bible speaks of and the culture it was written in. They are also unscientific because they perpetuate stereotypes of people (gays are disordered) rather than listen to what science tells them.
And I find that incredibly dangerous. As for being hurt in the debate - as a woman living in a same sex partnership I am very used to being misrepresented and deeply hurt by many posting in blog land. It's how it is - some post to have true dialogue, others post to ram their opinions down the throats of everyone and believe the longer and louder they shout the more they have truth on their side.
As a liberal my arguments are frequently dismissed by those who are convinced I am deeply immoral, twisting Scripture to suit my own personal likes and dislikes, denying God, rejecting the true faith..... after a while, especially when you try to be honest, genuine and show that your life is not a stereotype but real, made up of the same challenges everyone else faces, it gets very hurtful. I suppose that's why I reacted so strongly to what I perceived to be your insistence to be insulted. You appeared not to hear what Pluralist was saying after your initial (rather sarcastic) comment, but insisted on your reading of him to be true. I am getting very allergic to that because it's the precise opposite to listening to the other and respecting their otherness.
The Jonathan Sacks is brilliant, isn't it. Is it from The Dignity of Difference?
And have you come across the Doorman Priest's blog? His latest post has resulted in a nice conversation about the bible and science. http://theworldofdoorman-priest.blogspot.com/
And finally - yes, you can stay anonymous if it helps. But you could also just give yourself some initials? They sound more like a name and more personal than a nothing.
Posted by Erika Baker to Pluralist Speaks at 10 September 2008 10:00
Erika
Still searching for a name.
Jonathan Sachs Times article 2007.
Sorry you have been hurt. I believe Catholics also follow the “disordered” thing.
May God bless us on our journeys.
Au Revoir.
Anonymous
Was that Au Revoir a final goodbye?
Oh yes, the Catholics do it too. It's not necessary, there are oustanding orthodox pro-gay catholic theologians around.
Once people get their heads round it and disentangle the different strands of their fears, they'll wonder what the whole debate was about.
But it will take time.
If you pop up anywhere else I post, maybe by then with a set of initials or a pseudonym, let me know it's you?
A blessed journey for you too!
Post a Comment