Click to get your own widget

Thursday, July 16, 2009


Jerry Pournelle had written of Sarah Palin:

I admire Sarah Palin, and I am astonished at her ability to persevere given the many tasks she has. She was at least as qualified by experience to be Vice President as Obama was to be President, with the exception of the Ivy League education and general membership in the intelligentsia. The most important qualification for President is judgment. The President is surrounded by experts: what is required is the judgment to choose the right people, and decide on the right course of action. No one can be an expert on all the matters on which a President must make decisions.

Palin made one truly great speech, and several very good ones. She doesn't do hostile interviews well. As to judgment, we have her record at Mayor and Governor.

I replied & he published my opinion of Sarah Palin:

"She doesn't do hostile interviews well"

But then the fact that we know that fairly unremarkable fact shows more about her enemies than her. We can't know if Barak does because the media has never given him anything but the slowest of balls. As a private citizen on July 26th she will be able to pick & choose who she speaks to though it is possible this will not absolutely prevent such interviews. A significant proportion of the things she is denigrated for saying were actually said in interviews with Ms Fey. This may be a breakthrough in modern news reporting.

Looking at a supportive interview she did (Limbaugh's) last October she said "I guess that message is they do want me to sit down and shut up. But that’s not going to happen. I care too much about this great country" & other things on the same line, which, if she is as genuine as I think, means she isn't leaving.

I think it is possible, indeed rather human, to honestly convince oneself that she (or almost anybody else one doesn't like) is stupid or too inexperienced for the job but not while saying that Obama is clever or sufficiently experienced.

It is not really proper to enlist the opinions of those who are no longer able to give them but in experience terms she is certainly far more experienced at government than the unnamed female VP Heinlein produced to give a happy ending to Expanded Universe & "Sarah Barracuda" seems capable of being similarly determined.

People often rise to the office. Palin will have an opportunity over the next few years to present herself -- assuming that she wants to.

In Expanded Universe, a collection published in the US, Heinlein's last story is about a black woman actress who had previously been a success on a committee & had been chosen for the Vice President ticket to add glamour to the ticket. When the President dies flying his private aircraft (written before JFK Jnr did this) she succeeds to office & cleans house solving America's problems because "there was nothing really wrong with America we just made some stupid mistakes & compounded them by being stubborn". The character is a closer parallel to Nichelle Nichols than to Sarah Palin but I think "Barracuda" Palin gains strongly by the comparison & while nobody can know I suspect Mr Heinlein would have thought so too.

We can't know if Barak does because the media has never given him anything but the slowest of balls.
A significant proportion of the things she is denigrated for saying were actually said in interviews with Ms Fey. This may be a breakthrough in modern news reporting

The centralized media exists to propagate lies - nothing more, nothing less.

Some may claim that the US has a decentralized media, but that's bull. Think of the last few years, whenever some minor event happens (the death of MJ) the whole media, as if it is a single entity, jumps on it and runs with the story for at least a week. And before MJ there have been a whole string of stories that the entire media decided to focus on, with every channel running the same thing. Generally the media has slow news weeks where they sit on their asses, and then the order comes down from above to feed on some story, often in a way that seems like it is intended to distract from the real news.

While the media was releasing squid ink over MJ's death the House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade bill, almost as if no one was watching.
At one time journalists were very pleased if they got a story competitors hadn't - it was called a "sccop". Today they get distinctly nervous if their paper leads with something unmentioned in others. Clearly culturally the herd instinct has taken over from individual initiative.

In Britain now when a paper uses the word "exclusive" it just means they have paid for an interview everybody wanted, indde 2 Sundays ago 2 separate papers had "exclusives" about Toya Jackson's lucrative sorrow over her borther.
At one time journalists were very pleased if they got a story competitors hadn't - it was called a "sccop".

That must have been a long time ago. Several years ago I read The Creature From Jekyll Island and in one of the chapters the author quotes a speech made by the editor of the New York Times at an editors banquet before the turn of the century. In the speech the NYT editor stands up and states that his paper exists to manipulate public opinion and serve the powerful and states that all of the gathered editors do the same. I would have to go back to find the book to get the actual speech, but you get my point.
I have heard of that one. I believe it has been denied though whether the denial is true or not I don't know. However you are right that, like most Golden Ages, the GA of journalism looks better in retrospect. There is a this entirely fictional & improbable story in the New York Sun of 1835 which shows journalists were no more interested in the truth than now & able to get away with a lot more. On the other hand they were more interested in making up a different story from the competitors rather than making keeping to the herd.
Hostile interviews? "What newspapers do you read?" My dog excretes smarter than either you or the Alaskan Quitbull.

If you want that to be in charge of the free world then maybe you deserve it.
No hostile interviews then? All these must be nonexistent
You repeatdly claim to despise the media's perceived stifling of truth and free speech. And then block posts on your own blog.

I really hope Palin does stand for president; she'll split the republicans right down the middle. She'll take the Religious Republicans vote and alienate the Fiscal Republicans vote, allowing Barack a second term. She's probably being paid billions by the Democrats backroom power-brokers to stand.
I block pointless obscenity. Perhaps you could point to somebody who doesn't.

Haviong balanced the Alaskan budget & called for free enterprise I'm not sure how she alienates fiscal Republicans. But she sure alienates the Democrat's back room money men.
Speak Your Branes doesn't. Look for any comment by Gobbler The Oral Sex Alsatian if you don't believe me.
Sounds like its major contribution to western civilisation.

Then I guess you don't need me to publish your fantasies for you do you?
Why not? We publish yours. You know, the ones where you win arguments with people.
Boy howdy! Here's another genius for you to be rootin' for presnit:

You knows youse in da right when all da gosh-danged branes is on y'all side.
I have already explained I don't feel the survival of democracy depends on publishing your erotic fantasies. You have your own blog for that & not being a complete & total corrupt lying hypocrit, you will, for a very long time have been regailing your audience witth what you would like to do to 15 year old girls (or boys).

Yac your point is?
Palin'll alienate fiscal republicans because she's a ridiculous, corrupt, inept, gaff-prone, vengeful, low-brow, bible bashing hick. The fact Alaska makes money is not her doing.

Anyone with an IQ over 100 who listens to her meaningless, desperate attempts to give interviews, instantly recognises that she is totally unsuitable for the most powerful job in the world. She is clearly an incompetent devious fool. The rich succesful 'sensible' republican voters will not want her in control of their fiscal security. Ergo, I really hope she runs and rips the Religious Neo-Con nutters out of the Republican party and leads them into the wilderness. And may their Fascism-for-Jesus agenda rot with them.
That Alaska makes money, rather than running a budget deficit as under her predecessor, is clearly her doing.

The rest is just rudeness
Your rebuttal is just a dismissal and ignores my point. Please explain why you think she has the skills to be president. She is utterly incompetent. You can see it in her eyes every time someone ask her a tricky question. And her answers are jumbled soundbites that contain no logical thought process. She is far from intelligent, in fact she is stupid, with a splash of cunning and manipulation. Her knowledge of the world is pathetic.

"Global warming is god hugging the world more tightly"... "I know a lot about foreign politics, cos I can see Russia from my house." etc Clearly the words of a very uneducated person who doesn't realise how sharply she is being measured by those with brains. And that makes her absolutely unsuitable for president.

We just had 8 years of an ignorant low-brow person as president. The world is in no hurry to repeat that mistake. The fact that she appeals to you and that you think she is a suitable candidate says a lot.
Well your first quote, seemed improbable to me so I checked & Google haven't seen it either. Your second is by Tina Fey. That & "see it in her eyes" doesm't seem to establish a case warrenting more than instant dismissal with a side order of "so that is the best the followers of the half blood prince can come up with."

If you actually had some facts that were factual that would be a different thing...
I'm sorry Neil, but your beloved Barracuda in lipstick DID say exactly what Anonymous says she did, on ABC news. Unfortunately no-one captured her monumentally stupid outbreak and so it's impossible to prove OH WAIT here is a link to it on YouTube:

As for publishing whatever I like on SYB, well you have your own blog, so why is so desperately important for you not to be censored on SYB?
Kelvin while I accept that as representing the very closest to honest of which you are capable that is not what your link shows. With all due respect you are an idiot.
Excellent point Neil. To be honest I don't know how Kelvin is going to come back from that.
I have to admit, he always gets me with that thing where he says "no" and then refuses to elaborate on why. To the layman it might look like he didn't have a counterargument at all, and when he runs through these conversations in his mind his imaginary interlocutor never gets to the point of disagreeing with him, but I think he understands that my inferior human brain can't handle the innate science of an actual reason. It's for my own wellbeing that he refuses to explain the reasoning behind any of his arguments, and for that I would be grateful, if only I had the kind of superior post-human that could appreciate it.
Kelvin she didn't say what you & Mous say (Fey said the 2nd) & your link doesn't show her making either statement. She said you can see Russia from Alaska, which is obviously true but not the "from my house stuff" which was what is known as a "joke". As for the other "quote" it was clearly from whole cloth.

What part of - you are a complete idiot so stupid not merely to lie but to hold up a big sign (metaphorically) saying what a lying idiot you are - fails to be comprehensible to you & your kids gang?
Gosh, it really does hurt you to have to lay out your bonkers logic, doesn't it. Is it like having a tooth pulled, or more like the straining of passing a stool too large to get past your ringpiece?

Aaaaaaanyway, it's not a "joke," it's what she claims as evidence for her diplomatic skills, and not just in that interview either. You can piss and moan about semantics all you like, but it doesn't change the level of her ignorance that's a matter of record. Remember records? 0.04% of the vote is a record too!
It what Tina Fey claims moron.
20+ YEARS (verified from reliable sources and newspapers): "I don't believe in interracial relationships, I was born in Idaho and raised to believe
that whites and blacks shouldn't mix or date each other" (1986)
"I want creationism as the only theory taught in our schools" (2001)
"I don't know a lot about Iran, I just heard that they are bad people"(2006)
"He can say he is a christian but as far as I'm concerned, Obama is a muslim, look at his middle name" (2007)
"The bible will at some point, be in every classroom in our great state if I have my way" (2005)

Here you go Craig a Fey/Palin who said what quiz from the Guardian. And you may indeed be right that Fey said the 'God Hugging' one. But, she's still a Dumb ________. Trying to justify your foriegn experience by saying Alaska is near Siberia is going to convince anyone with knowledge of international politics that you are a big eejiit.

These are real Palin quotes, authenticated by Snopes.Com.

"Here in Alaska, we
don't have hardly any black people, I never talk to them, so I was surprised that a black girl beat me in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant"(1988)
"Todd and I talked about Hurricane Katrina as God's way of
cleansing New Orleans of the blacks who have sinned, the Bible predicted it" (2005)
Checking it seems that this is lifted wholesale from a comment somebody has put on snopes, a part titled "questionable quotes" as anybody could.

It is in no way whatsoever verified.

That Palin's supporters are infinitely more honest than Obama's (& smarter) is proven by the fact that nobody put on a "verified" quote from Obama saying "Ah likes eatin' watermellons an rapin' white women"
That Palin's supporters are infinitely more honest than Obama's (& smarter) is proven by the fact that nobody put on a "verified" quote from Obama saying "Ah likes eatin' watermellons an rapin' white women"

Nope. That just proves that you think sarcasm is a way of covering up that a quote you say was not authentic has indeed been proved to be authentic.
Bored now... your inflexibility on any and all subjects grows tiring. You are in your own little world populated only by you and your pet hates.
Seriously, I know we've been busting your balls for the last few days. (You do deserve it for the horrible things you write.) But, after reading your blogs I feel sorry for you too. You are clearly obssesed and driven by inner turmoil. Your delusional conspiracies are text-book examples of mental stress.

There is nothing shameful in getting mental counselling (I have done and it helped me a lot). The NHS could get you a free course of CBT and help you control your anger and paranoia. You would find life a lot more calm and enjoyable. I hope you find some peace and, perhaps instead of trying to change the whole world, you should try to make a few small changes to your own life.
Proof awaited.
This doesn't seem to be anything but insults (well perhaps also his admission to have had counselling) but I will let it stand as an example.

As even Norman has already confirmed I am flexible enough to acknowledge an error it is just that on the Speak your Branes site the ocasion has not arisen.
Jerry Pournelle – “She was at least as qualified by experience to be Vice President as Obama was to be President, with the exception of the Ivy League education and general membership in the intelligentsia.”

General membership of the "intelligentsia"????

Why do you subscribe to this paranoid-delusional nonsense? Where is the evidence of this secret clique?
Intelligentsia a secret clique???

Presumably somebody refused you membership.
If I were refeused membership, I would accept that as evidence. If I were offered membership, I would also accept that as evidence.

Palin came across as less capable than Obama because she is less capable, not because she has failed to secure membership of the mysterious "intelligentsia". Does it come as a surprise to you that the dice are loaded against the incapable, incompetent, and plain stupid? The reasons for her failure are obvious.
Least she doesn't crack jokes on prime time about cripples like His Brilliance.

Look up "intelligentsia" in a dictionary.
That's odd Neil, my last comment pointing out that all Tina Fey ever did with that quote was repeat it verbatim doesn't seem to have made it past your screening process. I don't recall putting anything obscene in it, so I can't think why you would have censored a point that you couldn't form an argument against. Perhaps this site shares SYB's technical difficulties?
Now is that not lame.
Not only are you lying Kelvin, (you never put any such post & as your link earlier showed Palin never said these words) it isn't even your lie. This is something a different moron pasted on Branes yesterday

"On Friday, roughly 8ish in the evening I attempted to post on Neil’s site the comment “Why did you censor my last post. Do you hate freedom so much”… He has the choice to post it… and look like a censorer or simply censor it and be a censorer…"

Of course by going public on the fact that he had made up that silly lie he, correctly, made himself & all the little cheerleaders on Branes look like the idiotic liars you are. What on Earth made you think such stupidty would work this time AFTER IT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE PUBLIC?
this is truly hilarious.I realise that you have to approve my comment, but I'm seriously enjoying this.Your style of arguing appears to be a mixture of guesses and ignoring everything someone else has said by simply screaming "Wrong!". I also hate to pull this card, and sound like i should be doing homework(i don't, thank god for holidays) but i'm not even an adult, im nowhere near a politician, but even i can see that anonymous is winning. His arguments are coherent, entertaining and enjoyable, whilst yours are a combination of rubbish and screaming. also, apologies if i already posted this somewhere, my internet cut out and i'm not sure if it was submitted.
I don't "have" to approve anything - it being my blog. I don't approve obscenity & usually don't approve things which are purely rude, though sometimes that is fun & have refused a few which are just repeating things which have previously been disproved.
Calm down, neil. The darkies aren't going to get you.
Great post Neil.

It's baffling what Obama gets away with in the US. If you've not already watched his disastrous press conference the other night, I recommend you have a look.
There are good cultural reasons why America wants to prove to itself than it can elect a black President, but equally they want him to be a typical American rather than a Ghetto black. Hence Steve sailer's jibes about the "half blood prince". I think 4 years of this will be enough to exorcise this particular demon from the American psyche & even more deeply, the american media's psyche.
There are good cultural reasons why America wants to prove to itself than it can elect a black President,

No, there aren't good cultural reasons. Obama lost the White vote, the group that should have some sort of "White Guilt". The media, being the parent of the Democratic party, runs with that line of bull as part of their 24/7 marketing campaign for the Democratic way of life.

If you want to really see what Black-rule in America entails I will be happy to post links to sites showing the arson-swept fields of Detroit.

Or you can look at Karl Denninger's prediction of $12t in federal bond sales this year, which show the same level of destruction happening to the federal balance sheet.
It was well under 50% of the "white vote" (which is also better off than the average & thus can be expected to be disproportionately non-socialist)but it was still high enough to get him in. As Limbaugh said had he been given proper scrutiny on his policies, as he would have been were he white, he would have been at about 30%.

Nonetheless America has had a history of discrimination & there is reason to prove that gone (not good enough reason to elect Obama but still reason) & when you Jesse Jackson is the alternative Obama does look pretty good. Heh he looks good compared to Biden too.
I have carefully considered the alternative, which is that Mr Obama was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton (less of a liar), and a better candidate than John McCain (less of an angry, over-privileged nut). Obviously that is ridiculous. Instead, he was elected simply because he was black.
As I said when you put this on the Branes site as well I agree with you about him being preferable to both Clintons. The black vote in America went about 97% to Obama so, right or wrong, I think it difficult to claim that race was not an issue.
If race were the only issue, Mr Obama would not have been elected. He was by far the best candidate. However, I don't expect you, as a Palin obsessive, to agree.
Certainly not without some attempt to produce some evidence. I would be very interested in seeing you give actual, factual, reasons.
The black vote in America went about 97% to Obama so

Usually the Black vote is between 85-95% Democratic, with occasional exceptions.
This is Sarah Palin's facebook site where she writes (currently mainly about healthcare) without interruption from the media.

Whether you agree with her or not she is obviously very smart, on top of her brief & understands the health bill better than Obama, its nominal creator.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.