Jarod Loughner IS A Schizophrenic With Paranoid Tendencies, And Sarah Palin? Fail.

I've been saying, since the horrific events of last Saturday, that it was too soon to characterize the shooter as having schizophrenia with paranoid tendencies. While I have also said it is likely that mental illness is involved, no one could actually diagnose without actually speaking with the shooter. I was in error, however, in stating that no reputable mental health professional would diagnose without more information and direct contact with the subject. Dr. E. Fuller Torrey has made that diagnosis and claims that he has sufficient information from the limited writings and YouTube videos available. He also noted the flattened affect displayed in the photo that we have all seen, which I thought was a pretty big signal of schizophrenia (one of the features that we look for is inappropriate affect - smiling at the wrong time for example). I am pleased that one of the leading experts on schizophrenia validates my opinion that it is only a tiny percentage of persons with that illness who exhibit violent tendencies, and his agreement that it is past behavior and substance abuse that are more likely indicators. What Dr. E. Fuller Torrey explains, is that it is the content of the delusions that is important in someone with schizophrenia, in this case, the paranoia. Dr. Torrey says that Saturday's shooter is a "textbook case" of paranoid schizophrenia (the formal diagnosis would be schizophrenia, paranoid type, and then what type of paranoia). This doctor knows far more than I ever will on the subject, so I defer to his judgment.

When interviewing someone who has delusions, and claims to hear voices, the first question I ask, is "what do the voices say?" Command hallucinations, as we call them, are those in which the 'voices' tell the individual to do something. Frequently, someone with hallucinations that involve hearing voices will describe conversations going on in their head that are 'about' them or 'to' them, usually in ways that diminish self-esteem, but a 'command' hallucination is dangerous in that the only way the individual has to make it stop, is to follow through with the commands given. Any mental health professional encountering someone with command hallucinations will immediately take notice and seek to determine what the commands say. One of the very few instances in which we can break confidentiality, is when the individual is a danger to themselves of to others whom we can identify. Someone with paranoid features to their schizophrenia and who is in an active phase, will have delusions that include the idea that others are trying to do something to them (insert thoughts into their brain, listen to their thoughts, or control them in some way). Evidently, Jarod Loughner believed that the government was trying to control his grammar--a quite unusual fear and definitely evidence of paranoia.

What is very sad about this whole incident, is that it shines a light on the lack of mental health care in this country. Several Republicans in the past couple of days have stated, quite strongly, that the problem is not political rhetoric, but rather the lack of mental health care. I am puzzled by these comments as they are in complete contrast to the Republican desire to repeal the current health care legislation, and mental health care is one of those dreaded social services that conservatives love to deride. Perhaps after this, they will re-think their derision of government-funded health care.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This morning, Sarah Palin released a video with her statement regarding the blame that seems to have attached to her since Saturday's shootings. She says that she has spent the past few days in reflection, and we are given to understand that she is releasing this statement in response to her puzzlement at the (unstated) left's desire to "apportion blame." Not wanting to accept any blame, she makes this video. You'll note that she has chosen to appear in a dark blazer, a flag pin that is not her usual crystal embellished pin, and in front of a fireplace (read "Fireside Chat"). Very presidential. It is clear that she has either read my posts on her body language or finally begun to listen to her advisors as her poll numbers drop as she rarely displayed her usual "tells" to give away her complete disdain for having to give this speech. Had not the intertubes and Twitter not been full of comments about her deafening silence, I am sure that she would remain silent still. What is remarkable about the following comments, is that, as said by many others, she missed an opportunity to appear bigger than she is, presidential even. If she has been watching the cable shows other than Fox, she would have taken note of the many pieces of advice about what she should do, what she should say, and what would immediately dilute all the negative reaction that she has been getting. Obviously, she did not.

I agree that Saturday's events are not directly her fault, but I do believe that she is one of those holding primary responsibility--the others being Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck--for the level of vitriol that passes for politics today in this country. Whether or not politics has anything to do with Saturday's events has not been determined, however, it has been determined that Loughner hated Congresswoman Giffords and that she was his primary target. How can the attempted assassination of a political figure not be political?

"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy. 

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic's core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day. 

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. [And it took her three days for her scriptwriters to come up with something for her to say to undo her first, unscripted remarks and to counter the blow-back from Glenn Beck's reading of purported emails from her] President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." [Unfortunately, while he did say these words, the context was that he was arguing against providing any social services to the inner cities] Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, [Although the left does not use maps with gun sights accompanied by her favorite slogan, "Don't retreat--reload"] not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election. [And just because something is legal means of course, that it is the right thing to do]

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country's future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. [well, not exactly] In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power [?!? transition of power? sorry hon, just the House, so not really a 'true' transition of power]  proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.  [Which I have abused by telling lies] And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. [What is reprehensible is using a term 'blood libel' that has a very specific history in Judaism and is offensive when the primary victim on Saturday, Congresswoman Giffords, is Jewish. And manufacture? Just the word is incendiary in itself, connoting as it does conspiracy on the part of (whom?) to stir things up] [And once again, she contradicts herself in the same paragraph. First, the crime stands on its own, then somehow, speech can 'incite blood libel?']

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. [?] And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren't designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders' genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure. [So you have no desire for an ideal world? If so, you would have stopped the hateful comments shouted out during your campaign rallies as John McCain did, or at least noted their inappropriateness in civil, albeit heated, political debate. And this level of rhetoric? It is unique as never before have we had a television station devoted 24/7 to promulgating lies in aid of a political party and ideology. You clearly do not believe your own words, that the crime stands on its own as you regularly claimed that then Senator Obama "palled around with terrorists" and tried (and still do) to claim guilt by association for all your opponents]

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we 'take up our arms', we're talking about our vote." [Funny, this was when your gunsight map generated controversy and Congresswoman Giffords went on MSNBC to tell you that words have consequences. Just sayin] Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional. 

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults. [Oh wow. This, from the Queen of Thin Skin! But I forgot, in Sarahworld, the 1st Amendment is about protecting her and political figures FROM the press, so muzzling the voices that call her to account is okay, but limiting hate speech is not?]
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply "symbolic," as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred [No Sarah. It is not 'sacred.' This is a secular country and our founding documents are not sacred.] charter of liberty was more than just "symbolic." But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. [Hmmm. Where were you when all the members of your party sat on their hands as Bush and Cheney raped the Constitution?]

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God's guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. [Would that it were mindless] We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.
- Sarah Palin"

My takeaway from all of this, is that once again, it is all about Sarah. Were she not vilified in the "liberal" press for her (granted, small) part in all of this, we know that she would have injected herself into the conversation anyway (and likely much sooner). She could have, as so many have said, taken the high road and apologized for the inappropriateness of her gunsight map (especially as Congresswoman Giffords herself commented on it at the time of its release and was concerned) and done so while still saying that she was not at fault. I don't think I have heard anyone blame Sarah Palin directly for Saturday's events and it is impossible to form direct cause-effect links, however, just the fact that she found it necessary to 1) have the website taken down immediately, 2) have her mouthpiece try to claim that the symbols on the map were surveying marks rather than gunsights (when she talked constantly about reloading and asked people to go see the map?), and 3) had the email exchange with Glenn Beck in which she complained about people using this as a reason to criticize her suggests that she knows she bears some responsibility for the level of hate present in this country today. The fact that politics has always been heated and that this was nothing new (although I disagree) does not mean that she shouldn't use her position to attempt to improve things.We will always have people on the extreme fringes of our society, people vulnerable to suggestion, whose locus of control is external so looking for someone to blame for their problems. Providing them the trigger to act is the height of irresponsibility and not in the least presidential.

No, as usual, Sarah Palin had to play the victim once again, make this about her, and try to turn it into a political opportunity. The one thing I am confident of, is that in this she has failed.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATED: Sarah Palin Can Now Check Off One Of The Gun Sights On Her Map

As of this time, Congresswoman Giffords of Arizona is out of surgery and doctors are "very optimistic" for her recovery as she was communicating with her medical team. A nine-year-old child has died, as well as a federal judge. According to the Sheriff's Department, a total of 18 people were injured in the shooting this morning at a constituent meeting event held by Congresswoman Giffords.

It should be noted, that Sarah Palin and others on Fox News should reserve their false condolences, particularly as this image and similar comments have been, immediately, removed from websites.

Image: Courtesy of SarahPAC

 Please note the 4th name on the left-hand column.

On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin said of the shooting, [emphasis added]

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

This image may have been removed from her website, however, it should be distributed thoroughly around the web so that anyone who may have missed it, see it.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE:

Congresswoman Giffords opponent placed this ad prior to the election:

Me, Me, Me! It's All About Me! Look At Me! Me!

If this were a television show, the ratings would be huge, we'd all make sure we were sitting there on our Barcaloungers each week, popcorn in hand, waiting for the next episode of the Sarah Palin Me, Me, Me show. Everything out of her mouth contradicts not only what she said a day, week, month, or year before, but often contradicts what she has said several sentences before. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not a television show. This is our life as we watch our country disintegrate around us and the ignorant folk who have previously always felt somewhat ashamed of their high school or community college only education, or lack of a high-powered, important career, can now wave signs and be somebody because, hey, ignorance is cool!

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against people without advanced degrees or any degree at all for that matter. In fact, I was that person with a GED and some college who managed to rise to a mid-level management job, then take those skills and run two successful small businesses for a number of years before I was finally able to attend college and get through graduate school. It would have been better had I led a more conventional life as I have discovered in this economy that most employers consider self-employment for women worthless, and when offered young brand new graduates without experience or older brand new graduates with all kinds of experience but not a lot in their new field, they invariably pick the young ones. Whatever. My point, is that I am not including myself in any particular group, but I am comfortable saying that many people--including, I would imagine, many Palin supporters--are secretly jealous of those who were able to attend really good schools, earn professional degrees, and privately ashamed that they don't understand all of the nuances of economics, foreign affairs, or even national or state politics because of their lack of education. That particular attitude drives me crazy, because people psych themselves out of learning these things because of their lack of formal education. I have been involved in politics for years, and well understood nuance because I took the trouble to educate myself about issues I cared about.

Then, along comes someone like Sarah Palin. Out for the main chance, angry at the world (why, we don't know), who somehow manages to be in the right place at the right time. Defensive because she is put in a position of looking ignorant (and excuse me, a governor who climbs on a state airplane to fly to a conference or meeting and takes as her reading matter a People magazine rather than a briefing book has no excuse) and exhibits her one strong talent. Turning her negatives into positives and convincing people with a wink and a sparkle, a twitch of the mini, that up is down and left is right. One wonders what she will do when plastic surgery is, inevitably, no longer an option? Her appeal is emotional, not logical, and thus extremely difficult to counteract.

The funny thing about emotions and feelings is that they don't always make sense. We've been taught to understand that feelings don't have to make sense, they just are. This is true, but a bit simplistic. Depression just "is," as is anger, fear, and in some, paranoia and panic. Sure, there are often reasons, but not always reasons that we can understand. These are all emotions that are natural and normal, part of the human condition, but can also be destructive if they interfere with the function of everyday life. Fortunately, we know how to treat these feelings and help people manage them in such a way as to live a better life. That said, because we understand how to help people manage them, we also know how to manipulate them. Great salespeople learn how to work their contact to close the deal, and believe me, psychology is integral to the workings of a good salesperson. Politicians learn how to discover what people want, and make sure they say what people want to hear. If you listen carefully, most pols rarely actually answer a question, but rather answer something else that will get out the message that is important to them in that moment in time. People trained to receive information in short bursts but who have not been trained to be critical thinkers, will often, especially if they like the politician, feel as if someone is finally listening to them.Their good impression of the speaker is reinforced because, hey, they listened to me, they answered me, they care about me.

When we make a decision based on emotion, it is not usually a good one, but it is always a decision that we become attached to on a personal level, so let go of with difficulty. Sarah Palin works these emotions to bring people to her side, and keep them there. Her use of Facebook notes to communicate her rants--and that's what they are--allows her followers to feel as if they are part of something because they can comment. The fact that negative comments are deleted immediately tells those whose comments are retained that they have been approved for membership into this club, which reinforces their belief that if they are special, then she is special. It is a mutual admiration society that unfortunately, is one-sided. Sarah Palin does not care about her followers. They are useful to her, but if she truly cared, then she would be concerned about actually making their lives better.

How do I know that she does not care about making their lives better? Her record. It's not secret. She left her job of mayor with the town millions of dollars further in debt than when she started. She had barely been elected when she spent $50,000 to redecorate her office (and she claims to love second-hand clothes). As governor, when villagers were having to make choices between food or freezing to death, rather than declare an emergency, she took them cookies (and took the cookies to a different village so that she would not have to actually face those who were desperate). Rather than focus on the job of governing, she spent her time retaliating against those who bad-mouthed her. Journalists who asked her basic questions, that should be expected for anyone running for office, especially national office, were accused of attacking her and she retains that vendetta to this day.

Most disturbing, is that in the rise of the astroturfed tea-party movement, she caters to their anti-government mood by deriding the government--especially the President--at every opportunity. Never mind that she has nothing useful to contribute, every event must receive a comment from her. Every action taken by the President receives a "gentle" chiding on what he should have done or what she would have done in his place. In her latest book, "America By Heart," she tells people that everyone needs a "First Dude." She says that had they won the 2008 election, she would not have balanced anything [family and job] because had they won, they [she and Todd] would have done the White House like they did everything else, as a team.  She still thinks that she lost the election to President Obama. I hate to be the one to tell her, but she did not. Sen. McCain lost the election. She may well have been a contributing factor, but she was really just along for the ride and actually, would have lived in the Naval Observatory, not the White House. I could go on and on, and on, but you get the point.

Lately, I think that she may have turned a corner and gone too far. It is one thing to be critical of  policy decisions whether she understands them or not. People understand that she is planning to run for president in 2012 and that she is building up a library of media sound bytes for the campaign, and floating trial policy balloons. What she is doing lately, however, is attacking people. I think most of her followers understand and expect her to attack the President on a personal level, after all, she has them convinced, with the help of Fox News, that all of the criticism she receives are personal attacks against her. The media criticizes Bristol, or rather, the actions of Sarah Palin's followers in regards to Bristol, and therefore, it is open season on Sasha and Meliah Obama. Never mind that Sasha and Melia are young children and Bristol is 20. Never mind that she is a "teen advocate" who has made a number of public appearances which to me, denotes a, I don't know, public figure? I'm not sure why she is also personally attacking Michelle Obama, but she has done that in the past, in fact, she is recycling attacks from the 2008 campaign, probably because there is nothing else to say. The difference between her children and the Obama children is immense, but she cannot see it.

Sarah Palin has this ability to conflate issues to support her opinions. Politicians take campaign photos that include their families for a brochure or maybe a commercial, and take them onstage when they declare victory (or defeat), so to Sarah, this is exactly the same as her trotting her children to every campaign event, speaking engagement, or book signing that she attends. As governor, she got into trouble because she insisted on her family attending every event that she did, and in fact, photos of, for example, visiting trade delegations include attendees in appropriate business attire, Sarah in jeans and a windbreaker, and Piper. Very, very few official photos did not include Piper. One wonders if that child ever attended school. We know she did occasionally rather than being home-schooled from the questions she was asked by reporters on the campaign trail. When questions arose about Trigg, she immediately announced that her unmarried, underage daughter was pregnant, then forced her to sit on stage and endure a level of attention that was likely extremely humiliating (remember your teens?).It is not wonder that her detractors accuse her of using her children as props to deflect attention from her flaws or attract attention to her as the perfect mother. Props they are.

Her latest, and purely to pander to her supporters, is another attack on government overreach and intrusion by "the Feds" as she likes to call them. Teabags are anti-government, so gosh-darn-it, every time the government does anything, Sarah Palin will attack. Michelle Obama is well-known for advocating against childhood obesity and for better diets for all, Sarah Palin has chosen to attack Michelle Obama in her most recent book:

"Take her anti-obesity thing that she’s on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And..and..and I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."

What is amusing, is that while governor, she was not entirely useless. Probably little more than a talking head, as she was when she claimed to be a journalist, in her State of the State speech in 2009, Sarah Palin said: [emphasis added]

"Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help."

Chef Kurt Michael Friese responded to the exchange with one of the best comments that I've heard:

"You see, Mrs. Palin, contrary to what President Reagan once said, government is not the problem, nor is it the solution. Government is a tool, like a hammer. And like a hammer it can be used by people to build things up or tear things down. I would choose the former, and you would choose to throw the hammer out the window."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Someone, Please Explain the Pentagon Papers to Sarah Palin

As we know, about 250,000 diplomatic cables have been released by Wikileaks to five major newspapers in the US and Europe. It should be noted that months have been spent reviewing these cables to establish standards for publication between the papers prior to receipt of the materials, and the governments involved were notified months in advance what would be included in the "dump" so that they might do any damage control. By the way, Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has been keeping a list of persons killed as a result of any of the (now) three information dumps and has come up with a total of zero. Full disclosure, I have really mixed feelings about this, but the point of this post is not the actual information leak itself, but rather Sarah Palin and her reaction.

Sarah Palin has, once again, inserted herself into this conversation. God forbid that a significant (or not so significant) issue occur without her having an opinion, and whether it has anything to do with him or not, attack President Obama. Certainly the cables do refer to his administration, and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, and actually go back to 1965 in some cases. What has been reviewed so far appears primarily to be on the order of embarrassing rather than dangerous. But, Sarah Palin never one to miss an opportunity to badmouth the President, and more importantly, put herself forward, blames him for the leak and the release of the information.

The tweet?

“Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book “America by Heart” from being leaked,but US Govt can’t stop Wikileaks’ treasonous act?”

What she probably should do is get a dictionary and look up treason, leak, and inexplicable. It wouldn't hurt, seeing as how she has published two books in the past year, to review copyright law. I know she claims that she will never, ever, ever speak to Katie Couric again, but on the off chance that she runs for public office again which appears highly likely, and she is asked about her favorite Supreme Court decisions, or one she disagrees with, she could go learn about 403 US 731 (1971) New York Times Co. v United States. This is more commonly known as the case of the Pentagon Papers. The issue? Prior restraint. The government tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing documents reporting the results of a study on the decision making process related to the Vietnam conflict. The 1st Amendment, that pesky little amendment that Sarah Palin seems to be confused about (remember, on Oct. 30, 2008, she complained that her first amendment rights were being violated by media attacks on her). She, of the journalism degree that makes her the final word in what is "good journalism," seems not to understand that the first amendment is simply protection of the media from the government and at the time, she was pretty definitely the government.

Ezra Klien of the Washington Post, speaking on The Last Word on MSNBC, said, in referring to her tweets about Wikileaks, that he found it fascinating "...how small Sarah Palin's reaction is to this."

One of the best analyses I've read today about this reaction is from Sarah Jones at PoliticsUSA, writing WikiSqueaks: Sarah Palin's Incoherently Dangerous Wikileaks Criticism. Italics is Sarah Palin.

Responding to Sarah Palin's demand that President Obama do something to protect our soldiers, and blaming him completely for not averting the dump in the first place, Sarah Jones says:

[...]

"Not only is Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden where, I feel duty bound to point out, the President of the US does not have sovereignty as of yet and where it is impossible to commit treason against this country unless one is a US citizen residing in Sweden, but also, as Ms Palin must be aware (given her recent claim to a journalism degree that qualified her to discredit all American media save Fox News) there’s that pesky Pentagon Papers ruling"[sic]

"We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.”

"Ms Palin is charging the Obama administration with neglecting national security on purpose, implying that he is anti-American, as she did during the 2008 campaign. And that must sting the President, coming as it does from a person married to a once-registered secessionist..."

[...]

It isn’t that she doesn’t know the law, it’s that she doesn’t care to know the law. It isn’t that she assumes dictator like powers as President, it’s that she has already proven in Alaska that she governs with reckless abandon for the law. This is the person quoted as saying to the Wasilla City Council leader, “’I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t.”

 I've been working on several things today unrelated to news and politics, but I kept TweetDeck open all day and popped in and out when something caught my eye. Everyone has written about this issue, most weighing in on whether or not they agreed with the release of the documents. Most of the discussion seems to be about the damage that may or may not have been done, and the next dump which is reputed to be bank information. The cluelessness of Sarah Palin puts an amusing coda on the subject, but also is very frightening. Although in the middle of the piece, this paragraph from Ms. Jones piece, is I believe, the most important point: (emphasis added)

"And this is where the real trouble begins. Are we to believe that in Ms Palin’s America, she would assume the right to shut down any blog, paper, or freedom of information act organization she disliked by claiming they were a threat to national security (and the troops)? Would it be asking too much for American citizens to get more information on Ms Palin’s understanding of the fine tightrope between transparency and security, court precedent and a general understanding of the balance of power inherent in our government? Does Ms Palin think Americans are entitled to hear her discuss these complicated issues on a regular news outlet at some point, as the rest of our lawmakers and leaders do?"

thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble - I Hope

I am tempted to insert the entire post from Politics USA: The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble written today by Sarah Jones. Please go read it in its entirety as it is one of the best I have seen on the subject of Sarah Palin's newest book and her relationship with the media.

Although the book is not due to be published until next week, several pages have been "leaked" and posted on Palingates and elsewhere. It should be noted that publishers release portions of books expected to generate a lot of interest in order to generate buzz and increase first day sales. Starting out at the top of the NY Times bestseller list is always a goal. On a side note, Sarah posted this tweet, clearly demonstrating her misunderstanding of copyright law, fair use law, and the First Amendment.

Yes Sarah, it is absolutely legal. Gawker also wrote at length about the excerpts as well as the ongoing controversy about Bristol and Dancing with the Stars, and she, in response to their posting pages from her book, and their "attacks" on her family, sent out this tweet:

 

This tweet was taken down almost immediately, but as she has yet to learn, the internet is forever.

Sarah Jones notes that Sarah Palin appears to be stuck in the past, 2008 to be specific. She uses race to attack the President, and remarkably, Michelle and Meliah Obama as well.

"Anyone who is surprised by this has not been paying attention. Sarah Palin is the great divider, a lowest common denominator among an already low-brow movement of proud to be ignorant, pseudo-rebellious anarchists who are super angry about the democratic process which renounced them in 2008."

Jones discusses how Palin has been talking about Reverend Wright, the supposed lack of qualifications of Obama, and other issues that have been thoroughly put to rest by anyone but her.

"None of these strategies worked in 2008 and beating these dusty memes only makes Palin look like the emotional retrograde she is, still clinging to her wounds from 2008 and sure that if enough people hear her, they will denounce Obama. Ms Palin is unaware that in real America, blatant racism doesn’t play well. And she is also unaware that our President and his family are too self-disciplined to even acknowledge her embarrassingly juvenile attempts to engage them."

[...]

"...Palin will not know what hit her because she is still stuck in 2008, seething with jealousy and outrage that she lost to a black man.

And this is why race will be her “issue”.

Palin is going to run for President, and this is how she will do it. Why? Because she has nothing else..."

Palin is the ultimate martyr and victim flashing a bit of thigh, appealing to the KKK type crowd.

"So Sarah Palin’s campaign has already begun and it will consist of trashy, unspeakable things that will hurt your soul, pain your heart and make you question the sanity of your country. And when no one pushes back hard enough against her outrageous claims (they will debunk the lie, but fail to expose the projection), you will find yourself curling up into a ball of horror at what your country has become."

 She limits herself to venues that are supportive, and reporters that let her set the tone, not believing that no one will let her get away with that should she run for President in 2012. She claims that being on Fox everyday gives her "exposure" not realizing that:

"Exposure is what celebrities do. It is not the same thing as taking questions and talking policy, in other words, interacting in live time with the fourth estate. Neither Facebook nor Twitter nor Fox are vehicles for the fourth estate to do their job. As a supposed journalism major (in spite of the fact that no one at her last college remembers her and we have not been gifted with proof of her degree), Palin should have at least cursory knowledge of the job of a reporter. Not many on Fox PAC will ever be accused of being a reporter. Twitter is not a reporter. Facebook is not a reporter."

Providing some well-earned criticism to the mainstream media, Jones notes that:

"While they will still miss the larger points, they’ve had time to get to know Palin’s reputation for lies and they will not want to be humiliated again. The press scrutiny of the VP candidate is nothing compared to the scrutiny she will face as the top of the ticket. If Sarah Palin thought the media was cruel to her when they asked her what she read, wait until they ask her why she lied about not having healthcare, about Troopergate, about the AIP connections, about Death Panels, the people who died under her administration or about her belief that Iraq bordered America"

Her conclusion is a direct message to Sarah, and indirectly to the media. It is one that I hope the media heeds, although I will not hold my breath.

"And that’s not even the juicy bits. Welcome to 2012, Ms Palin. If you insist upon bringing your scourge of hate upon this country, don’t think we’re going to sit back and take it like we did in 2008. Buckle up, sweetie. The spotlight is on you, where you’ve always wanted it, but I’m not sure you’re going to like it. Your dreams of stardom may well turn into a nightmare. You are about to learn what it feels like to be attacked for real."

Please do read the entire post here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin's Alaska. Palin Children Well-Taught, But Not What She'd Like Us to See.

 Image: lynnrockets

I hadn't planned on watching, but just as we all seem to watch train wrecks, I did watch Sarah Palin's Alaska this evening. Having done so, I can say that I will not be wasting any more time watching in the future. What a total waste of time. What struck me, is that prior to the show airing Sarah made quite a fuss about this not being a "reality" show, but was to share Alaska with those in the lower 48 who were not familiar with the state. Uh huh.What it did show is that whatever we may think of the Palin children, they have been well taught.

If this were in fact a travelogue, as she claims it was, then the segment on the cement slab discussing the "dude out to get you" and "the author writing a hit piece" would be cut, the section on Willow and her boyfriend going upstairs would be cut, and the part about Sarah in her studio talking to Bill O'Reilly on Fox with Todd serving as engineer would have been cut. Those portions that took up a significant amount of time had nothing to do with "Sarah Palin's Alaska," but rather had to do with a reality-show type slice of life in the Palin family and were an attempt (failed) to improve her image to the 52% of Americans who disapprove of her. Clearly the story about her having editorial control must be true.

Most of the activities were clearly brand new to Palin and to her family (wanting to show America what life was like for them in Alaska? Really?) and the little vignette with Willow demonstrated that her kids have as much respect for her as she has for them, meaning none, and that Sarah's maturity level is on a par (if that) with her children. After all, what mother is going to embarrass her teen aged daughter on national television by talking about whether or not she can have boys upstairs? Seriously. Only Sarah Palin.

As a counselor, the most important part of the show, to me, was at the end when Sarah said to Piper that "we one-upped him [Joe McGinnes] because we had a good day and he was stuck at home." Since the Palins hit the national scene, I have watched the dynamics of this family and there is plenty of evidence to make some pretty strong conclusions. Without going in depth into my opinion of someone who takes her daughter into situations that are clearly inappropriate, I have to say that the message that Sarah sends to Piper with that comment, and others she has made, is pretty astonishing. Essentially, she is telling her children two things. First, that there is no dividing line between children and adults, and second, that you do not bother trying to find a positive motivation for anyone's actions, or give them the benefit of the doubt. She is telling them that the Christian tenets of forgiveness and turning the other cheek are foreign concepts in their household, and most importantly, life is about revenge. Getting even, getting yours, and making sure that you screw others before they have a chance to screw you. Lovely.

I want my hour back, but lacking that, I will certainly have something else to do on future Sunday evenings. Take my advice. Don't waste your time.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Hey Kids, Ignore Your Teachers. Sarah Palin Says It's Okay to Ignore Rules.

Photo: rollingpinproductions

As I watched all the talking heads discuss Sarah Palin's "speech" in Pennsylvania where she proclaimed that parents should be the ones to decide what their kids eat, not the gov'mint (if she paid any attention, she would know that while school boards set policy, parents have significant impact on those policies if they are unhappy) I thought that most of them had missed the point. As she whined about the big, bad government daring to decide what kids could or not eat (never mind that she had misunderstood the 'suggested guidelines' as a mandate), she announced that she had brought a couple hundred cookies with her for the kids to prove her point that it was up to parents to make those sorts of decisions. No word on whether she actually asked the parents if they wanted their kids to have the cookies. No word on whether the school actually distributed those cookies, but that isn't the point.

As I watched the various pundits, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, discuss the situation, the emphasis was on the fact that Sarah Palin had, once again, governmentized something. That she had taken a small issue as representative of "big government overreach" to fire up her base and demonstrate her point that "government bad." They all decided that by choosing these fairly trivial issues to emphasize, she could show how far into our daily lives government intrudes. The fact that such things as setting nutritional guidelines is the proper role of government is completely beyond her. I have to wonder, again, still, if government is so bad, why on earth does she want so badly to be a part of it? Of course, she doesn't. She just sees it as the ultimate in being the center of attention.

The point that I see and that I think was missed, and it is something I have been seeing in much of what this woman does, is not that she has to demonize government in everything she says, but that instead, she is teaching children, as she has clearly done with her own (just listen to statements made to media by, for example, Piper or Bristol), that rules only matter if you agree with them. It is all about winning at any cost, game the system if you have to, and if you don't think a rule is fair, or reasonable, or if it is an example of "government overreach," just ignore it. So, give a speech to schoolkids and tell them to ignore their teachers and principal and, in effect, any other rules that they care to cause hey, if you get to throw out one rule, why not all of them?

What exactly is Palin actually advocating? That 2nd amendment solution her followers are so fond of--I didn't get my way so I'm going to force you to give it to me according to Sharon Angle et al--is essentially saying that rules only count if 1) I made them, or 2) I agree with them. and 3) I am the only one that matters.What a terrific example of parenting and family values. Never mind teaching your kids ethics, integrity, honesty, and respect for authority. She has already demonstrated keeping commitments. What about how to participate in changing policy from the inside out (voting, running for office, serving on the PTA) rather than simply ignoring any rule you do not like? But that's too much like work. No wonder there is so much wrong with our society.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Making Ignorance Chic & Some Fact-Based History

IMAGE: Trever, Albuquerque Journal

I've always had mixed feelings about columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, believing that some times she was spot on, at others that she was so far out in the ozone that I wondered how she kept such prime real estate in the Times. Of course, anyone that writes regularly hopefully generates similar emotions in their readers as even negative reactions are a sign that there is some depth and energy to what is written. Her most recent column illustrates very well the problem with the current teabag belief in the need to be "just like you" and the reality of the history of our country.

In the Oct. 19, 2010 issue of the Times, Dowd writes of the change in our society as we seem to appreciate ignorance over education. Using Marilyn Monroe as an example, the comparison to Sarah Palin and other teabags is made, noting of Sarah Palin that:

"She says she believes in American exceptionalism. But when it comes to the people running the country, exceptionalism is suspect; leaders should be — as Palin, O’Donnell and Angle keep saying — just like you."

As Dowd notes, Marilyn was an intelligent woman posing as a dumb blond while reading Dostoyevsky and Proust (Russian and French authors respectively). She suffered from a disconnect between her public and private self, caused by a deeply self-reflective personality that she tried to self-medicate leading, ultimately, to her death.

I agree with Dowd that teabags, particularly Sarah Palin, trumpet their ignorance, a bizarre behavior for a woman constantly talking about "American exceptionalism." As I watch these people in action, Palin complains that Obama refuses to acknowledge this exceptionalism as he "kowtows" to foreign leaders. I am constantly puzzled at someone who is so proud of her ignorance yet demands that we maintain this position as the world leader and as we are, she says, better than anyone else. Never mind that it is exactly this attitude that adds to the negative image of America that we have enjoyed since Watergate days.

IMAGE: Dhonig, hypnocrite.blogspot.com

Exceptionalism requires that we be exceptional. We cannot just say it, we need to be it. Just as the teabags seem unable to define their proposed agenda, other than to decimate the Constitution, they are also seemingly unable to define just what are the factors that are important to them that make us exceptional. Palin et al sneer at "elites" which includes anyone from an ivy league school (except Joe Miller), disregarding the fact that President Obama is a classic example of the American dream. He may have attended an elite school, but it is our life in total - particularly the early days - that shapes our character and defines who we are.

I'm not sure how we have come to the point where ignorance is embraced and someone who is "just like you" is our best choice for high office. Certainly our government is designed on a foundation of citizen politicians, but I doubt that the current teabags understand that the citizen representatives in the days they claim to want to return to were not "just like you." People who were able to travel to Washington to serve in Congress were not ignorant. Education was valued and people who had the privilege of learning studied philosophy and literature, science as it was known at the time, and maintained a close connection with their European counterparts. Ignorance was not a value prized by the Founders.

In a time when only white, landowning men could run for office, sons were tutored at home, typically studying, in addition to math and reading and writing, science, Greek, Latin, geography, and history. Even this list is incomplete. In addition to this daylong, thorough education, boys frequently attended boarding school in England, and after completion, often trained as doctors or lawyers prior to returning to America to run their estates. Even then, there was an understanding of the complexity of our world, and the complexity of a democracy made up of a society that included people from varied backgrounds learning to come together. A reading of any early document shows clearly that education was highly valued by our founders. Just the complexity of the language used and the knowledge of law, philosophy, and history are clearly illustrated in the development of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I understand the disconnect that many people feel during these difficult times when those in Washington seem more and more enclosed in a bubble. When one has lost a job, a home, or is at risk of those losses, when you watch your neighbors experiencing the same, and all around you your world is changing in a direction that frightens you, it is easy to allow yourself to be manipulated by others who claim to have all the answers. We tend to believe people who are like us, so teabag candidates bend over backward trying to demonstrate how like "the people" they are. The phenomenal GOP public relations efforts of the past 40 years has done an excellent job of creating sound bites and buzzwords that appeal to our instant information culture. Conditioned to absorb information in 30-second ads and to understand an entire story in 46-minutes, people who are afraid are vulnerable to others with no moral compass. An attractive, charismatic women such as Sarah Palin turns her lack of intelligence, her ignorance, and her moral  vacuum into a positive as she appeals to peoples' fears.

As Dowd said, back then, it "was cool to be smart." I believe that our Democratic leadership needs to come our of their bubble and understand that the teabags and others in the GOP have filled this need for reassurance in our country by taking the social problems in our country and making them positive campaign talking points, a truly remarkable feat.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
SOURCES:
The History of Education in America
Education in the Thirteen Colonies
American Education

Palin, Angle, Paul, Miller, & O'Donnell - What Do They Say About Us?

 IMAGE: Hebiclens Clown Collage/Mashup BoingBoing

Today's teabags are righteously indignant that the Democrats and bloggers and any journalist not on Fox is being mean. It is outrageous that anyone should expect them to open up their private lives or backgrounds to inspection and question their right to cast slurs and aspersions on their campaign opponents. They are so steadfast in their beliefs (although I have my doubts about that), that they think it is perfectly acceptable to override the will of the majority of the people and impose their narrow-minded, rigid ideologies on everyone else. Refusing to participate in the electoral process other than to demand that we just trust them, I am having a hard time understanding why they have so much support, or wonder if they really do. They refuse to talk to any but a select few in the media, and then only answer previously vetted questions. What do they say about us?

So my question is, why is this acceptable? They all campaign on their history, yet refuse to discuss it. They all campaign on their values, but refuse to share them unless you are an upper- or middle-class white person with a job, in which case they don't need to. Sarcasm, slurs, and put downs raise chuckles and they all think they're pretty cute, but only succeed in making this country look foolish, and even more so if they are actually elected.

Sarah Palin, when asked a perfectly reasonable (and common) question about where she gets her information immediately takes offense and sees it as an attempt to make her look like an uneducated hick (please refer to my earlier writings on projection). She attacks Michelle Obama for something said over two years ago, and misrepresents it at that.

Sarah Palin also complained a few days before the 2008 election that the media were attacking her and that they were violating her 1st Amendment rights, which were there to protect her from the media.

Sharon Angle says she will talk only to media who will ask her the questions that allow her to give out only the information she wants to give out and who will allow her to ask for contributions.

She also said, while speaking to a high school Latino club, that they didn't all look Hispanic, that some looked Asian.

IMAGE: Crooks & Liars

Rand Paul said he wasn't sure he would debate against someone who attacked his religion, and attacked his opponent for bringing up something that happened 30 years ago (although you will note, he did not deny the event). Interesting though that when Clinton came to campaign in Kentucky, Paul was comfortable bringing up Monica Lewinsky, something with great relevance to this election, especially as it happened so recently.

Joe Miller says he will no longer answer questions about his past or his personal life. [Although he did just admit to committing ethics violations.]

Each day brings up new information reaffirming the idea that Miller is about as ethical as other nationally prominent Alaska politicians. Today, a close examination of his (many, many months late) campaign disclosure forms show that he paid himself rent on office space that he owned (legal) that was up to four times what it was actually worth and paid himself a salary that was less than $10,000 (something that the IRS frowns on). Why is that a problem? He pays income tax on all income, but payroll tax only on salary. Pretty tricky accounting.

In a debate with Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell appears shocked that the separation of church and state is a part of the 1st Amendment. Trying to walk back her gaffe, she and other GOPher apologists claim that she was correct because the exact wording "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution and that it was Coons who appeared ignorant because he could not name the five freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment as if that were the point of the exchange.

Sigh.

Sarah Palin recycles slurs and attacks from the 2008 campaign and complains about what she perceives as insults to her from that campaign in every speech and interview that she gives. If anyone has done anything recently to offend her, apparently her rage at President Obama's nerve at winning the election overrides that fact. It's too bad that it wasn't Todd Palin interested in politics as I believe that Sarah Palin would far prefer being First Lady than President. She has demonstrated an inability to actually perform work, a lack of intellectual curiosity (favored reading material OK Magazine? Favorite television show Bridezilla?), and rather than try to learn and understand complex issues facing our nation today, she becomes defensive when asked questions for which she has no answer. Her continued reference to having a "title" rather than holding an office suggest a fascination with her beauty pageant days that holds more interest than it probably should.

Sarah Palin gets (to her) ideas from one-note entertainers on Fox News, believing they hold great insight into governance, and disparages education, believing that ignorance is suggestive of "real" people regardless of the complexities involved in being a leader. To suggest that being on the city council and the mayor of a town of approximately 5,000 (and doing so badly), and then serving for one year on Alaska's Oil & Gas Commission (does anyone have any record of what she actually accomplished in that capacity? Meeting minutes maybe?), and two failed political campaigns as commensurate with serving three terms in the State Senate and then the United States Senate is on par with something a high school student might say prior to taking their required US Civ class.

Sharon Angle is a comical figure and I am amazed that she is in such a close race. Nevada reporter John Ralston said yesterday that her position in the race has nothing to do with her, but the state's displeasure with Harry Reid. Hopefully they'll wake up soon to what an Angle win will really mean. She claims God as her guide, yet displays herself as a mean, bitter woman willing to lie to get her own way. She is somehow of the opinion that hers is the only opinion that matters - a common failing of teabags and Republicans everywhere. A majority of the country decided that they didn't like the policies of the Republicans so voted them out. The willingness of the GOPhers to lie, manipulate, and ignore the needs of their constituents has created an environment that allowed a small minority to shout so loudly that the national media, also responding to their corporate masters, manipulate the news to suggest that most of the country is dissatisfied with the direction of the new administration.

Rand Paul has the thinnest skin I have seen on a politician and I thought no one could top Sarah Palin. After his debate with Conway, he sounded like the little boy crying that he was going to take his ball and go home because someone was mean to him. That's what politics is. It's dirty and it's nasty. The people decide how much they're willing to put up with and politicians ignore them at their peril, although with a newly activist Supreme Court determined to legislate from the bench, we now have a government that will be determined by whomever has the most money and therefore the loudest voice. To say that politicians such as Paul feel comfortable saying some of the outrageous things that he does is truly remarkable yet bizarre that he can't take any of the heat.

Probably the most ludicrous figure of this election season is Christine O'Donnell. Each time I think I can't hear anything worse, I hear something worse. It's not just the bizarre statements, but her lack of self-awareness to understand how she is being perceived. During the debate with Coons in which she demonstrated her lack of understanding of the Constitution, she thought the audience was laughing with her, at Coons (they weren't). Every time I hear her, she seems a step off and I wonder that her followers don't see it (of course, why they can't see the other teabags either I can't fathom). Today in Michelle Malkin's blog (no, I won't link), she claims that it is Coons who does not understand the Constitution.

While debating at a law school, O'Donnell went on and on about her superior knowledge of the Constitution, yet when asked by the moderator about the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, she had to ask what each of them was about because she didn't have her copy of the Constitution with her. First of all, one principal planks of the teabag movement is the Constitution and she is appearing at a law school. O'Donnell has, repeatedly, claimed her superior knowledge of application of the Constitution. Wouldn't you think that she would bone up on the three amendments that are at the core of the teabag movement or at least bring her copy of the Constitution with her? Or write it on her hand? 14th (immigration), 16th (income tax), 17th (senate). Easy, should fit on anyone's hand.

Forgetting, as they all do, that there is video all over the web, O'Donnell and her cohorts have tried to re-write the event. What they've done, is taken everything out of context, something they claim as a tactic of the left. Replying to a discussion of schools teaching creationism and intelligent design, Coons stated that it was a violation of the separation of church and state. O'Donnell replied that he just demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution if he thought that it said that local school boards could not decide to teach anything they wanted to teach, and he then brought up the 1st Amendment. Within the context of the discussion, the exact phrasing and whether or not it appears in the document is a moot point. The whole debate was in a similar vein, with O'Donnell displaying her ignorance as she also displayed her rudeness talking over Coons attempts to answer not only the moderator's questions, but hers.

I haven't had much time to blog every day, but between now and the election I am going to try to write about each of the major components of the campaign. I know many teabags, and this election, am no longer able to remain silent when I hear people repeating outrageous claims that are easily disproved. People who are unwilling to listen to facts and insist on holding on to their beliefs because they like the person who says them or because the individual belongs to the correct religion or party is dangerous to this country and I for one, am not keeping quiet regardless of the personal consequences.

The fact that these, and other teabag races, are so close says as much about us as it does about them. A few years ago, these people would have gotten no traction. The media would have been all over the inconsistencies and when caught in the lies, these people would have been forced to drop out of their respective races. Many, if not all of them, probably do not believe half of what they say, but simply want either the attention, the adulation, or the money that they know they will receive once they reach national political office, and then retire. Doesn't say much about us does it?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney, Please Go Away, & Sarah, The Tillmans Are Atheists, Don't Pray for Them

IMAGE: Unknown (numerous sources)

What is so remarkable, is that not only are people on the right ignorant of the true agenda of the Republican Party - that being to send as many jobs overseas as possible and reduce the costs of the jobs that remain here - but within two short years, they have forgotten everything that went on before. On CBS Face the Nation this morning during an exchange between Liz Cheney, Howard Dean, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Galston, Bob Schieffer asked each whether this election was a referendum on President Obama or a referendum on the economy. To paraphrase Liz, the president no longer gives "big vision speeches" because he somehow knows that we no longer want to go where he wants to lead. Lindsey Graham faced the camera and told us that people were scared and that "all this spending is not what people expected from this president." He says that two weeks before the election, most people are running against the "Obama takeover of most of society." He goes on to say that, "If he had governed like he had campaigned" there would be no problem (sure think Linds) and "This is an overreach." Graham says that this overreach includes health care, the stimulus, and regulation of Wall Street, as do many others campaigning from the right. Take a look at the video here.

First, why is Liz Cheney there? Are these men offended to have to sit and have these debates with her? Although, probably a lot less offended than Harry Reid is to have to debate Sharon Angle or Mike Castle having to appear on the tv machine with fruit-loop in training (medical terminology), Christine O'Donnell. Liz Cheney's total credentials to have these conversations is that her father was a politician. She is referenced as a "previous state department official," but she was a mid-level manager of a small unit. She had no diplomatic brief, foreign policy assignments, nor involvement in policy matters. Her position was administrative, and administrative at a mid-level only. Certainly as a citizen and one who has involved herself in politics, she has opinions and ideas as do all of us who maintain a deep involvement in world and national affairs, but to be given this level of credibility and gravitas is breathtaking. I expect it from Fox, but the networks? Anyway.

Back to the issues. "All of this spending." Hmmm. Would he be referring to TARP perhaps? Or perhaps the stimulus? Those two bills that had full Republican support? The ones that were watered down to meet Republican demands? The ones that were from the, horrors, Bush Administration? The ones that John McCain suspended his campaign so that he could run back to Washington and organize (of course with BFF Lindsey Graham)? Or maybe it's the fact that for the first time since George and Dick took us into a war of revenge and aggression, allowing our actual enemies to escape, President Obama included the cost of the war in the budget that he sent to Congress, something that Bush never did. To pay for the war, Bush pretended it did not exist, for budget purposes, and then paid for it through supplementals. Obama actually wrote a budget that reflected reality. Of course our deficits took a huge hit after that.

And what about health care you say? The one that Graham and others say Americans don't want? That Obama didn't run on? Not sure where you were Lindsey, but on Jan. 25, 2007, USA Today quoted Obama as saying that universal healthcare would be a "very major part of my campaign." If there is any disappointment about health care and voices saying they don't want it (apart from the teabags, all 11% of them according to a Sept. survey) it is from progressives and other Democrats disappointed that President Obama negotiated away universal health care and began the discussions so low, that the final product while better than nothing, is still far from what is needed.When people - even Republicans - are asked if they are even favor of the individual elements of the health care bill, they are universally in favor of them. It is just when they are asked about some over-arching "health care reform" or "Obamacare" that they fall back on talking point responses that they have been programmed with by Fox News. As far as spending, I note that no Republican (and unfortunately, very few Democrats) are campaigning on the money that we will save over time by this health care bill and the reduction in the total deficit in the past year. Nor are they comparing job growth numbers of the previous presidents (George W had the least of any president since WWII) and the difference between Democratic and Republican administrations when it came to actual job numbers.

My point? To quote Tip O'Neal, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." People who insist on their own version of reality regardless of statistics, evidence, facts, or other demonstrations of reality are the ones living on a unicorn ranch in fantasy land. To expect everything to be fixed immediately is unrealistic and unfair. Unfortunately, they are trying to force the rest of us in the reality-based world to live there with them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sarah Palin, Praying is Offensive to an Atheist, & Really, 2008 Stuff? That's It? 

IMAGE: indiedesign

So here's the thing. Sarah Palin has twice this week referenced comments made by Michelle Obama during the 2008 campaign as if she made them last week, and taken them out of context. Whining that she has obviously not met a soldier if she is only now proud of being an American. Mrs. Obama has, several times, explained that she was referring to the excitement and numbers of young people turning out to vote and volunteer for the Obama campaign. If one didn't know better (and I would bet that most of Palin's bots don't), they would think that these are all things that have happened in the past week or two.

More sickening, in a speech in San Jose, Sarah brought up Pat Tillman since she was in his hometown. Assuming, as she does, that because he gave up a multi-million dollar football career to volunteer for the military, and died in Iraq, that he and his family would want us to thank God every day for his sacrifice for our freedom.

Does she think we're idiots (don't answer, of course she does - she thinks everyone is just like her). Pat Tillman may have thought he was going to fight for our freedom, but he did not. He went to stroke the egos of little men who were too cowardly to serve their country and were petrified after 9/11 and lashed out without thought. They then saw an opportunity to take us into a war they had been planning since the early 90's, and when Mr. Tillman was killed by friendly fire, lied to his family and to us and as usual, manipulated the news to create a climate that would allow them to continue their need to play war when they were too cowardly to be real soldiers. Every time Sarah Palin gives a speech, she brings up the military as if she has a little checklist to cover; God, check, military, check, lamestream media, check, pregnancy, check, Democrat Party, check.

As someone who has studied psychology, sociology, social psychology, and is a trained counselor, I have to say that I am fascinated watching this woman. People who speak in buzzwords and use slurs to demean their opponents say far more about themselves than they do about anyone else. Sarah Palin's use of the term Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party is juvenile, as is her use of the term lamestream media. She thinks it's cute or amusing to coin these catchphrases, hoping that they will be associated with her (they are) not realizing that there are catchphrases and then there are catchphrases. Ones that we might use in middle school come across far differently then ones we might coin as a grownup. All Sarah Palin does is succeed in demonstrating that her emotional and social maturity is locked at about age 13 (witness her use of the term title rather than office - it's her beauty queen mentality). Her history of holding grudges and ensuring that anyone who "crosses" her is made to pay (and really, what does that mean? Cross. In what world does everyone, all the time, agree? Just in Palin world).

Much of what she does and says is the result of losing the 2008 election (although she didn't actually lose. McCain did). She has a real, deeply held anger towards President Obama for his temerity at winning the election. What is extremely bizarre, is that she is in a never-ending spiral that I am still waiting for her bots to recognize. Tillman, a comment by Michelle Obama over two years ago, talking about reading material and "journalists who ask about it" refusing to name Katie Couric (anyone who asks a reasonable question is attacking her or playing gotcha). And really, does she not realize how offensive it is to ask everyone to pray for an atheist? Or to reference God in any way in relation to Pat Tillman's service or death?

And the other teabag candidates have a similar pattern. What is disappointing is that over and over again, whenever asked a question, a teabag candidate replies that it isn't about them, it is about their opponent. It's about the issues. The only problem? If it's about the opponent, shouldn't they be willing to let us know how they are different? If it's about the issues, shouldn't they be willing to let us know what they would do differently? Unfortunately, the media seems willing to let them get away with just about anything and too many of us are willing to go along.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

"...the Mad Dr. Palinstein's Creation Goes Missing"

PHOTO: oliver willis

Andy Ostroy writes today at Huffington Post about the presence in Delaware, or lack thereof, of Christine O'Donnell since the primary elections have been held. [emphasis added]

"She's scarcer than an Osama bin Laden video. Harder to find than Waldo. The burning question in Delaware these days is, "Where's Christine?" As the NY Times reported Thursday, the state's cracked-Tea-Pot Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, is apparently in hiding. And why not? She's terrified of opening her mouth in public. I guess those grass roots have rotted."

"Since beating her Republican rival Mike Castle in the recent primary by just 3500 votes, O'Donnell has had virtually zero presence in the state. No events planned. No campaign office. And most of her funds have come from out-of-state donors. If you're a Delawarean and you'd like to ask her about the issues and her positions, good luck."

"A tax cheatin', tuition welchin', home foreclosin', education lyin', non-masturbatin', evolution-refutin', "mice- with-fully-functioning- human-brains" stem-cell-hatin' Tea Bagger, O'Donnell's a candidate in the clone-mode of her creator and mentor, the mad Dr. Palinstein. They're both cute, perky, full of Fox News-worthy snarky soundbites and not a lick of substance between them. O'Donnell's main strategy? Hope voters are just plain stupid and will vote for her in an unprecedented knowledge vacuum. Same goes for Kentucky's Rand Paul, Nevada's Sharron Angle and Alaska's Joe Miller, her fellow Tea Bag, gag-ordered, all-stars."

"With all their big talk of "taking back America" with a bold new plan, they sure as hell are utterly terrified to go before voters and the press to articulate what it is any of them truly stand for."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sharon Angle is Evil

Sharon Angle is evil. Sarah Palin is an idiot, but Angle is evil. How else can one explain the following? [emphasis added]

“We know that if we could have that affordability across state lines, you’re not, you’re not afraid of competition I know you’re not, you would in fact invite it. I have friends in other states that say “you know I’d like to come to Nevada, but you have problems there in Nevada. And one of the problems is unfunded, well they are unfunded, but these mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage for things that people don’t even really need! And what we need to do is get rid of those mandates, let you provide a comprehensive coverage that takes care of what people need and allows them to buy them the things that they have to have, not things that are mandated by the government. A similar policy, as the things that people write for car insurance, and life insurance, you know you write something that fits the need of a person rather than fitting what the government has done for some politically correct special interest and that’s how we got those mandates.”

Can you say bullshit? What is comprehensive coverage if not mandating the insurance companies to provide a basic level of care? Why isn't she upset about having to buy auto insurance or fire insurance for her home? Maybe because they aren't underwriting her campaign?

Routine breast exams (never mind mammograms!). Colorectal exams. Prostate exams. Pap smears for early detection of ovarian and cervical cancer. Well-child visits. The "new" requirement that women be allowed 48-hours in hospital after a mastectomy rather than just 24 (used to be 1-week).

These are all medical services that we have come to associate with routine medical care. Care not just associated with the new health care reform, but care we receive if we are fortunate enough to have health insurance. Not every state has the same requirements, but most states have some minimal level of service that insurance companies are required to provide to its customers.

It makes sense, as if you catch cancer before it takes hold, you can stop it faster and easier (and supposedly cheaper) which should be as advantageous to the insurance companies as to the patient.

But no. Now we learn that these are not procedures and services contained in basic health care because they make sense, or because they are "basic." No. We receive these services because some special interest, somewhere, has paid the government to include that category in mandated insurance coverage. People like Sharon Angle love to talk in sound bytes like unfunded mandates and special interests, and sneer and use air quotes. Ever since John McCain went overboard with the use of air quotes during his debates with then Senator Obama, those on the right seem to believe that using them is an automatic dig at Democrats. And autism? Where is her buddy Palin on this one? After all, Palin's sister has a child with autism.Of course she'll speak out for children with disabilities and correct Angle. Right? Right? Right.

Angle (and now O'Donnell) take their cues from Palin and somehow believe that running for office (or a title, as Palin says - never far away from her beauty queen days) means proving the other person is unfit rather than trying to show how they would do better. When unable to prove anything negative about their opponent, they resort to personal smears (gay? gay? I never said he was gay. I would never say he was gay. who said he was gay? gay? not me) and lies (death panels anyone?) including misrepresenting legislation that their opponent is associated with. Journalists are little better as they say that their job is to present both sides, not to verify the truthfulness of what they report (Gregory). Statements by others they support that do not fit their worldview are ignored (remember the false concensus effect that I have discussed previously here and here) or re-written to say what they want it to say.

In the Pledge to America and the Republican rants against health care reform, in the conversations I have had or heard about the evils of socialized medicine, people against health care reform are against some generalized concept they have been taught to fear, but when asked item by item, point by point, one finds that they are actually in favor of the benefits to be gained by the new legislation. What is mind-boggling, is that you can ask many of these people if they are in favor of no pre-existing conditions conclusions, coverage for children until age 26, and some of the other individual features of health care reform, but tell them that they have just agreed to all of the component parts of the concept they are fighting against, they continue to say they are against it.

What is completely bizarre, is that Sharon Angle and Harry Reid are in a dead heat. Granted, Reid was way behind at one time, but once we started learning about what a whack job Sharon Angle really is, he started moving up in the polls - to dead even.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k