Call me a “liberal elitist” or whatever, but whenever I’m hearin’ Sara Palin talkin’ it makes my flesh crawl, and not just because she’s an ignorant, god-bothering nitwit who’s manifestly unqualified to potentially be “leader of the free world” (yes, try to meld those two things in your mind without drowning in massive amounts of cognitive dissonance), but more simply because she’s annoying as all get-out to listen to:
But again, I could just be on the entirely wrong track here. What do I know? After all, back in 2000 and 2004 people just adored George W. Bush’s “folksy” Texan patois (completely phony as it was). Aside from his pantomime brush-cutting antics, it was the ultimate mark of authentication on his otherwise completely ludicrous, counterfactual claim to be a “man of the people” who regular/average/X-percentile of the demographic “folks” would just love to share a beer with… right? And what could have possibly gone wrong with that?
So now we’ve got this Palin character providing “folksy” cover for John McCain (who’s too crippled up to effectively wield even a girly-man chainsaw on a phony “ranch” in some desiccated patch of rural Texas — now being sold as it’s expended its public relations value, by the way).
Update: Some more in-depth observations about Palin’s accent.
Pity the poor Liberals… They’re really throwing absolutely everything and anything they can at the wall in the hopes it will stick. I doubt today’s feeble charge of “plagiarism” by Bob Rae will gain much traction, but it’s pretty funny.
In fact, it’s somewhat reminiscent of the scaremongering line of attack from the 2004 campaign…
Unfortunately, that was then — this is now. Then, Harper was a largely unknown commodity, and as such, the “risky” option for Canadian voters. Now the roles have been reversed (albeit on different grounds).
I hate to agree with Harper’s weasely spokesdouche, but it really is a measure of the Liberals’ desperation. Is this actually the best the LPC can come up with… “a debate about a five year-old speech that was delivered three Parliaments ago, two elections ago, when the prime minister was the leader of a party that no longer exists”? Quite pathetic really.
Like many I’d suppose, I watched the first presidential debate last Friday with some eager anticipation. Of what, I’m not quite sure. Short of one of the candidates spontaneously combusting on the stage of the Ole Miss. on live TV in front of millions of people — it doesn’t matter which, although the narratives would have been strikingly different (now there’s something amusing to mull over in your infinite spare time) — the possibility of anything in the least bit exciting or memorable occurring, let alone even the faint glimmer of something substantive foreign policy-wise deviating from the present misguided course of action arising out of the event, was remote to say the least.
Experience over the past thirty years has demonstrated that we can expect little to nothing but groaning disappointment and/or shoe-hurling frustration to come from these painfully staged, artfully contrived so-called “debates.” In a sense, they’re really a microcosm of what’s wrong with American “democracy” today. That’s an intriguing subject deserving of much greater elaboration than time allows just at the moment, but seeing as there will be a handful more of these wonderful, mega-hyped, once-in-a-lifetime, historic, game-show format “debates” to come before the Big Day on November 4 when the election is stolen again, we can get back to that at a more opportune time.
Truth be told, I fell asleep during the last half hour of the debate. Did I miss anything? Well you tell me. I suspect it’s rather doubtful, although CNN looped it relentlessly throughout the night, so I could perhaps have picked up the delicate nuances of semantic parsing by all concerned, examined the minutiae of body language, looked more deeply into the hidden meanings to be derived from the perceived and/or imagined “attitudes” of the candidates, and so on. That is, of course, had I actually given a shit. Which brings me to this…
The most insightful commentary on the “debate” in my opinion wasn’t to be found on the cable news networks with their assembled teams of best political “experts” judiciously sifting through the mysterious entrails of live audience reaction with microscopic precision (when they weren’t making shit up on the fly, that is), nor was it from the completely insane ramblings of the addlepated pundit corps reeling in confusion from the hactacular “spin wars” waged by hordes of greasy, bilge-spewing sycophants lying ferociously through their teeth on behalf of each side. No. It was from this irreverent little pop-stand on HBO:
Chalk it up to my current distemper maybe, but the general tenor of analytical opinion offered up with relative candor on Real Time (never was the name so apt) rang true to me. Unsurprisingly, Ralph Nader said it best when considering the “Who won, who lost” dynamic of the judgment calls that inevitably follow on the heels of these silly charades. “Militarism won. Nuclear power won. Boondoggle missile defense won. Bloated military budget won. Corporate crime won. Bailing out Wall Street crooks won. Peace advocates lost. Georgia (in USA) lost…” Well, you get the idea.
So, why do I mention this four days late after the fact? It seems to me that this is the kind of critical, no-nonsense, no-bullshit standard that we should be applying to these pathetic so-called debates. Quite honestly, I was massively disappointed on the whole by the reaction of “progressive” and “Liberal” bloggers (I didn’t bother to check out the Blithering Retards. Sorry… time and mental health constraints, you know.) who, generally speaking, seemed quite content to blithely suck up the corporate media spin and score the event on the basis of which candidate best conned the rubes or in accordance with a no-risk matrix of who “won” by appearing to be the most “presidential” or not making a major gaffe. That just really makes my heart sink. It’s so contemptible. Have we really stooped so low? God help us all if we’re really THAT fucking dumb.
This is too funny (in a tragically awful, scary because it’s frighteningly close to the truth, kind of way)…
I just have a couple of minutes here, but really wanted to say thanks very much to all of the generous folks who made a contribution the other day. It was very heartening (and helpful — or at least it will be when PayPal gets around to doing their thing… they’re painfully slow at executing bank transfers!) Right now I’m scrambling madly to get stuff done with clients before the end of the month so that I can stay afloat here. The wife moved out yesterday. That was weird. It should take a few days to assimilate things and get back on track. Meanwhile, I see they’ve well and truly entered into a period of National Socialism down south. Scary stuff… not to mention maddening. Anyway, must run. Thanks again. Oh, and sorry for not responding to any messages — I’ve just had my head down working non-stop for the last several days. I hope to get caught up soon.
Or so “they” say. But actually, it’s not.
In an attempt to stave off being homeless next month, here’s a bit of a wacky, harebrained thought…
If you enjoy this blog and would like to see it continue, contribute a dollar (there’s a PayPal button on the sidebar). That’s it… ONE DOLLAR. Slightly more than the price of a chocolate bar.
Sorry, I hate to impose and I realize that it’s shamefully undignified, but I can’t carry on doing this for nothing. Well nothing… even less than that, in fact. I did the math a while back and it works out that I make about $0.004 per post. The expression “That’s my two cents!” is considerably overpriced as it turns out.
Sadly, I’ve got overhead and will shortly be in the situation of being divorced (long story — bottom line: after 30 years, I get stuck holding the bag with all the costs and responsibilities…) and most probably homeless. Not the end of the world… I suppose there will be some dismal fun and adventure in that, but it’s not really a place I’m keenly looking forward too. Thankfully, I’ve familiarized myself with “Hobo Matters” and am conversant with actuaries and their tattoos.
Think of it as something similar to those awful “pledge drives” on PBS (minus the insufferable pandering) or to reference a more topical situation, a “bailout”… That may come across as sarcastic, but I’m entirely serious.
Update: SQ mentioned the hackneyed “for less than a cup of coffee” and “now more than ever” appeals made by our PBS friends.
Well, I can’t launch a new episode of Dr. Who off the cuff, but can offer up the following to address the question of what you get for the price of your “double-double” (or “babies milk” or sugar-free vanilla soy latte, as the case may be). For lack of a better word… context.
Or not. Hey, the Liberals have an Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund; a Small Communities Fund; a Green Fisheries and Transport Fund; a Regional Flexibility Fund; a Water Fund; a Green Farms Fund; an Interdisciplinary Sustainability Fund; an Educational Endowment Fund; a Low-Income Homes Retrofit; a Partnership Fund; a Doctor and Nurses Fund… Yes, many, many funds for us all to deeply snore through…
Funny that whoever made the above ad/video would riff off King Crimson’s “Lark’s Tongues in Aspic” so shamelessly.
Sadly, this seems to be the best message the Liberals (and the progressive “left” for that matter) can come up with at the moment.
There’s a HUNDRED REASONS here, but I rather doubt anyone much cares that Stratford isn’t getting the same level of federal matching funds as Edmonton is, or that the Museum Assistance Program was cut in half.
Update: Nice to see that everyone has their priorities in order.
Update2: There really is no irony left in the world when “Chucker Canuck” attacks Jason Cherniak, whom he calls “quarterback of Liberal cyber-strategy” (There’s a newsflash — quarterback… Liberals… strategy… Who knew? ), for unleashing “heaps of venom over what they see as unfriendly reporting.” This from an anonymous clown who proudly sports a badge on his sidebar supporting John McCain for some mysterious reason. Hello…. Earth to Chucker!
MSNBC’s David Shuster talks to Rachel Maddow about a recent column by George Will blasting John McCain as a man that’s temperamentally unsuited to be commander in chief. Well duh.
To follow on a bit from yesterday’s observation about the spreading disaffection on the part of the so-called “liberal” Washington press corps with the darling senator they’d so shamelessly fawned over for years as being a straight-talking “maverick” (while glossing over his shoddy record of non-accomplishment and other dubious shortcomings), it’s perhaps not all that surprising to now see an ostensible arch-conservative like Will also throwing up his hands in disgust at McCain’s childish petulance, populist histrionics and “Manichaean worldview”…