Palin steps down as Governor of Alaska

[Michelle]

Palin is a great danger to the libertarian movement. She is a pig-ignorant creationist nitwit, who claims that the dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, who tried to ban "bad" books from the library in Wasilla and when the chief librarian refused, tried to fire her, and who thinks that research of fruitflies is a ridiculous waste of time and money. The problem isn't only that she is so ignorant, but that she even doesn't know how ignorant she is and that she flaunts her ignorance. Let's hope that she'll disappear into oblivion, where she belongs. With such friends you don't need enemies.

As to Miss Palin, I find it hard to take her talk of freedom seriously when she wants America to be subjugated to Christian moral standards. One does not call Pinochet a lover of freedom because he allowed Capitalism to flourish in Chile while he was busy torturing political enemies, and one should not call Miss Palin a lover of freedom, or a proponent of freedom, because she likes capitalism.

What, exactly are you talking about, Michelle? Can we have some specifics, rather than a vague description? To celebrate Obama (which of course I am sure was in jest) because one would not have Palin in office is absurd. And the library story was a smear, as Michael already stated above. Indeed, it is the constant smears and attacks which should result in libel charges (you can thank liberals for destroying libel and the possibility of maintaing a good name) which disgust her and the remainder of the decent people in this country who refuse to run for office. I bet you can't find one single substantial and specific charge against her worse than the fact that she is a pro-life Christian. Oh, and I am no real fan of hers, but I'd take her over any single democrat and most of the republicans I know.

Is there even one good reason why I should support her?

And you know damn well I'm not "celebrating Obama."

In a perfect world, no. This is a far from perfect world, and she shines in comparison. I can't think of a more electable person with better character, although I wish I could. I do regret I was only 16 when Reagan ran for reelection.

In comparison to who? Obama? Other Republicans?

[kiaer.ts]

Palin is a great danger to the libertarian movement. She is a pig-ignorant creationist nitwit, who claims that the dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, who tried to ban "bad" books from the library in Wasilla and when the chief librarian refused, tried to fire her, and who thinks that research of fruitflies is a ridiculous waste of time and money. The problem isn't only that she is so ignorant, but that she even doesn't know how ignorant she is and that she flaunts her ignorance. Let's hope that she'll disappear into oblivion, where she belongs. With such friends you don't need enemies.

As to Miss Palin, I find it hard to take her talk of freedom seriously when she wants America to be subjugated to Christian moral standards. One does not call Pinochet a lover of freedom because he allowed Capitalism to flourish in Chile while he was busy torturing political enemies, and one should not call Miss Palin a lover of freedom, or a proponent of freedom, because she likes capitalism.

What, exactly are you talking about, Michelle? Can we have some specifics, rather than a vague description? To celebrate Obama (which of course I am sure was in jest) because one would not have Palin in office is absurd. And the library story was a smear, as Michael already stated above. Indeed, it is the constant smears and attacks which should result in libel charges (you can thank liberals for destroying libel and the possibility of maintaing a good name) which disgust her and the remainder of the decent people in this country who refuse to run for office. I bet you can't find one single substantial and specific charge against her worse than the fact that she is a pro-life Christian. Oh, and I am no real fan of hers, but I'd take her over any single democrat and most of the republicans I know.

Is there even one good reason why I should support her?

And you know damn well I'm not "celebrating Obama."

In a perfect world, no. This is a far from perfect world, and she shines in comparison. I can't think of a more electable person with better character, although I wish I could. I do regret I was only 16 when Reagan ran for reelection.

In comparison to who? Obama? Other Republicans?

Having read her obviously self-written resignation speech, complete with bizarrely all-capitalized prepositions, I cringed at her as a writer. But I don't want a writer in office. I want someone who does the right thing as she sees it, who loves America, and who is largely on the right sides of the issues. This woman thinks for herself.

Character is job one in the Whitehouse. Were Palin Obama she would not care about the unfounded ethics complaints that are making it impossible for her to function as governor of Alaska. She would be taking donations from shady characters to pay off her $500,000 in legal fees. She would be a hard-nosed, cynical "player" who didn't care about the truth. We don't need more of that. As I said before, I cannot think of one Democrat I would prefer to Palin, although I do not despise Joseph Lieberman. And I am very unhappy to say I know few Republicans or Libertarians who come close to her in character. They are almost all politicians first. Career politician and finger-in-the-wind pragmatist are not terms that describe Palin.

In a perfect world I would not have to consider her the best putative candidate for the presidency. I don't necessarily expect Objectivists or Libertarians to love her, just not to buy into the Left's lies about her.

[kiaer.ts]

Gulch is not a creep. He is totally wrong about the insinuation that Palin is such a slave to her religion that she is a moral automaton without choice, and I admit he is fixated, but there are far bigger issues than his errors for words like "moral creep."

You will not convince anyone to consider your views on a loaded issue like abortion by calling them names, nor will you convince any readers. And I believe these issues (abortion and mentally handicapped human beings) are very important. I have read some of your arguments on abortion at other places. I consider them to be quite good thinking, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. (I personally tend to agree with you.) I believe they should be on the table. Name-calling keeps them off for many readers who might consider them.

I beg to differ. Consider the relative suicide rates of homosexuals and of people with Down's Syndrome. A google search will return a paper that considers two anecdotal suicides among Down's Syndrome people as notable for its utter rarity. Whether that creep realizes it or not, his argument would hold much better for aborting homosexuals if they could be identified in the womb. Or for aborting obsessive-compulsive conspiracy theorists. I would not outlaw aborting a first trimester Down's Syndrome child if that were a mother's considered wish. But to castigate a woman for choosing not to abort a child who will likely lead a happy life, a child she is fully prepared to love and support?

There is something inhumanly twisted in a mind like that. The Nazis needed men like him.

You suggest I not call that creep names if I want to persuade him. I am not interested in a continued dialog on eugenics. I am not interested in persuading him. His condescending elitism shows in all his actions. He is not some misguided teenager, he is a senior citizen with a bizarrely fixated better-than-you (i.e., second-hander) agenda that shows in his arguments on other topics, and the depravity of which strikes the attention-paying reader full force in that post above. Objectivists read the premises behind the stated positions. The benefit of the doubt is not an unlimited line of credit. I understand your concerns for civility, and intend no continuing crusade of name-calling. But creep is a very gentle name for the sort of person which he has demonstrated himself to be, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Brant Gaede]

"Abort and try again." Some women don't see themselves as people factories, watching their fetuses go by until one sees a defect and hits a reject button. Some women abort merely because they want a child several years later, not seven months later. Some abort because they want a child of a different sex. Etc.

A decision to bear to term a Down's baby with all that entails in this case reveals a woman of tremendous strength of character and practical ability. It cannot be said with any real conviction and understanding that she made a wrong choice only that it was her choice to make.

In the 1950s my late step-father and his late wife had a baby boy effectively born with half a brain. In those days you didn't know about that until the birth and abortions were very hard to get regardless. He has been institutionalized in Alabama his whole life with little understanding of his circumstances or other people. I visited him with my Mother--not his mother--in 1976 at a special private care home since closed with many defectively born children, some of them Down's. One child was so hard to contemplate--just to look at--we had to be warned beforehand to avoid the shock of it. Anyway, the Down's children were delightful in many ways and completely trusting and innocent. From the standpoint of quality of life my step-father's son would have been better off aborted had that been any kind of choice. You can't make that case for a Down's.

While my Mother made sure years ago that her late husband's son would be taken care of the rest of his life, I will be going to Alabama in a year or two to check on him. We have no more contact with him. He may even be dead. I have little emotional bond or connection with this man but I will see what his actual situation is with my own eyes to make sure certain parties properly did their job respecting him.

--Brant

Edited July 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Brant:

Agreed. One of my father's men [firefighter] was a full blooded Cherokee Indian, christian and a great man. The sanctity of life was a central value to he and his wife.

They had a Down's child and even though my father and I argued for abortion, they chose to have the child. Once they made the decision we supported them 100%.

Wonderful child. Strengthened their entire family. It was difficult for one of the teenage girls to accept the total family responsibility, but she learned that she could be a supportive family member and still chart her own course in life.

It was an extremely valuable experience for her.

Her father, along with being a remarkable person, taught me a lot of my hunting, trapping and wilderness skills which to me are invaluable.

Additionally, the strength and integrity with which they approached a challenging and difficult decision was a source of power for me and stood me in good stead throughout my life.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is basically how I see Sarah Palin's resignation. It is by Roger Stone on his blog, The Stone Zone. Drudge featured it today under this headline: ROGER STONE: Palin's Plan and why it can work...

I think the flood of traffic crashed the server. I found a cache copy and am reproducing it below. It was posted on July 7, 2009.

Palin's Plan

By Roger Stone

It was 1962. Richard Nixon had had enough. Enough of being called "Tricky Dick, the man no one would buy a used car from." Enough of the elitist derision that had come his way since the Hiss case. He had had enough of the liberal media who consistently held him to a higher standard than his Democratic opponents and poked fun at his lack of sophistication - he being the son of a grocer. So Nixon blew. He announced the end of his career in seeking elective office; "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." Six years later he was inaugurated as President of the United States.

This moment came last week for Sarah Palin and her husband Todd. Sick of the derision of the media for her unsophisticated country ways, her plain speaking and consistently being held to a higher standard than her critics, Palin had had enough. Palin resigned as Governor and, like Nixon, did not reveal her future plans. A follow-up FACEBOOK posting for her legions of admirers was clearly written in her own hand as it is plain-spoken and blunt.

Watching the Washington chattering class pan the Palin moves shows the moronic level of political analysis in the media today. Switch-hitter Dave Gergen, Ed Rollins who bolted his Party to go destroy the candidacy of Ross Perot and then trashed Perot, and Upper West Side reform Democrat Dick Morris who toiled for Ohio lefty, Howard Metzenbaum and Clinton but is today a born again Christian and right-winger, all panned the Palin move. Fools.

In fact, resignation as Governor was necessary to preserve any prospect that Palin could be nominated and elected in 2012 or beyond.

Palin could accomplish nothing more as Governor to burnish her "experience" credentials. Nuisance lawsuits and ethics complaints from garden variety left-wing nuts were costing her hundreds of thousands of dollars and paralyzing state government. Palin's accomplishments as Governor in boom times where behind her. The lot of a Governor today is painful cuts and delivering bad news for the next 18 months. Who needs it?

Palin has the most valuable commodity a Presidential candidate can have - a base. Roughly 23% of Americans and 68% of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin. She alone has this kind of intense following. She alone can fill a large hall or small stadium anywhere in Republican Country. This is similar to the following that sustained Nixon through two defeats and his 'self-destruction' in 1962 to win the White House in 1968.

Like Nixon, Palin needs some rehabilitation to her political image caused by the relentless attacks of the elitist media, the knife-work of the relatively talentless Republican Party pros like Steve Schmidt and her own self-inflicted wounds from the post election period that were born out of inexperience at this level of political combat. Like Nixon, Palin can re-make herself in the controlled environment of television. Instead of being tortured by smug media types like Katie Couric, Palin can demonstrate her better understanding of issues and articulate a case against Obama. She can be folksy and plain-spoken and above all, 'smart.' All hail the Conservative Oprah!

The "New Palin" is crucial to the expansion beyond her base of true believers to be a viable presidential candidate. The obvious place for Palin to re-tool her political image is FOX television. FOX's viewers are Palin's potential voters. It is ironic that FOX president Roger Ailes is the genius TV producer who erased candidate Nixon's flaws in a controlled environment and facilitated the greatest political comeback in American history, is at the helm at FOX.

As Bill Kristol, the only DC based analyst who "gets it" said, the move also frees Palin to "write her book, give speeches, travel the country, and educate herself on some issues." It also frees her to build a net work of fundraisers and supporters throughout the country - many of whom will be her TV viewers.

Palin will also be more in demand as a dinner speaker, fundraiser and campaigner than any other Republican in 2011. She can suspend her TV career and will have a chance to collect countless political IOUs along the way, campaigning for candidates and raising them money and hitting the State Republican dinner circuit. Demand for the "New Palin" will only increase.

Palin's "star-power," charisma, presence and genuineness cannot be discounted. No one can discount her moxie, her energy and her inspirational qualities. Her anti-elite middle-class message can have resonance again when the Obama economic policies likely fail. The Ivy leaguers and Hollywood crowd so high on Obama may be riding for a fall. The media has unfairly labeled her as "dumb." All she must do is disprove this...and she can have sixty minutes each week to do it.

Palin's stunning move guarantees an outsider strategy in which Palin is a "movement" but not a "party" candidate. No decision on running should be made until 2011 and focus must be on image repair. This is a woman who held off 36 year Senate vet Joe Biden in a 90 minute debate. She may just be up to the task.

[Selene]

Michael:

Exactly. It is know as the 1966 Nixon strategy.

"Nixon’s Right Turn: How Nixon changed his strategy from 1960 to 1968 to capture the presidency.

(Paper proposal for the first session)

In this paper I will examine Richard Nixon’s strategy to stage a successful political comeback in 1968 and win the presidency. Nixon knew that the center of gravity within the Republican Party had changed from 1960 to 1968, and he adjusted his strategy accordingly. In 1960 Nixon had had a secret meeting with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller in connection with the party platform. Nixon agreed to support Rockefeller’s liberal position on civil rights. This 5th Avenue meeting had made conservatives angry, and Barry Goldwater had described it as “the American Munich.”1 Nixon lost most of the South and the presidential election.

After his loss in the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, Nixon declared that he had given his “last press conference.” However, while working in a Manhattan law firm, Nixon sought to rebuild his political credentials. Unlike many eastern Republicans, he campaigned for Goldwater in 1964. Nixon has explained in his memoirs that he considered it to be his job to bridge the gap between the conservative Goldwater wing and the Eastern Establishment and keep the party together. In 1966 Nixon was the busiest campaigner on behalf of Republican congressmen. He wanted to position himself for the 1968 presidential election.

In 1968 Nixon did not make an agreement with Rockefeller, but rather with southern conservatives, including senators Strom Thurmond and John Tower. In a pre-convention meeting in Atlanta, Nixon told the conservatives that if elected, he would ease up federal pressures forcing desegregation of schools. In my paper I will discuss what Reg Murphy and Hall Gulliver refer to as Nixon’s Southern Strategy and assess how significant it was for Nixon’s capture of the GOP nomination.2 Nixon had supported the 1954 Brown decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but he “tried to play both sides of the fence on the explosive race issue,” according to his biographer Stephen Ambrose.3 Nixon’s attitude might be called hypocritical, and I will argue that his new strategy was cynical. Although Nixon was no segregationist himself, he exploited racial conservatism in the South in the attempt to win the nomination and the presidency. The party had moved rightwards and Nixon adjusted his policy positions and rhetoric in order to succeed."

I do not believe that this is the path that she is choosing, but it could be.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I don't see Nixon-like compromise strategies in Palin's future, but I do see the part about collecting and cashing political IOU's for campaign support.

Compromises will not be needed. I think Palipn will be privileged by President Obama's consistent left-wing bent. He will make an awfully big (and easy) intellectual target, especially once his policies start bearing their bitter fruit.

Michael

[DavidMcK]

That ad of the Johnson campaign was interesting, and I had never really listened to the words until now: 'We must either love each other or die'....Floyd Ferris? I always thought of Johnson as the Cuffy Meigs type, so he must have been some type of hybrid. The issue however was real since Goldwater was hinting around that he would authorize a tactical strike of nukes in N. Vietnam.

[ginny]

If my choice for the next election are a) Obama, lover of big government and B) Palin, lover of god and small government, so help me, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Palin. I'd even campaign for her. In just six months, Obama's big government (Government Motors, etc.) has been terrifying. He's smart, capable and, unless stopped, can probably finish what Lenin tried to start.

Gimme Palin. Please god.

Ginny

[Selene]

That ad of the Johnson campaign was interesting, and I had never really listened to the words until now: 'We must either love each other or die'....Floyd Ferris? I always thought of Johnson as the Cuffy Meigs type, so he must have been some type of hybrid. The issue however was real since Goldwater was hinting around that he would authorize a tactical strike of nukes in N. Vietnam.

David:

Glad you enjoyed it, broke our backs in terms of public opinion.

I would of course like to see some sourcing on Goldwater "hinting" about tactical strikes in N. Vietnam with Nukes - I do not see any strategic reason for using Nukes.

There were three major passes or land routes to resupply Hanoi by land from China. The modeling that we did was to shut those down with conventional bombing.

Is that what you were referring to? One of the critical evaluations we had to make was whether Russian or Chinese casualties would occur.

However, if tactical nukes [which I do not believe we had perfected by then, but I could have been out of that loop] could have been used and ended that war, I would have used them in a heartbeat. Saving 45,000 -55,000 American lives works on my scales every time in our favor.

I have a heavy thumb.

Adam

[Selene]

Palin is a great danger to the libertarian movement. She is a pig-ignorant creationist nitwit, who claims that the dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, who tried to ban "bad" books from the library in Wasilla and when the chief librarian refused, tried to fire her, and who thinks that research of fruitflies is a ridiculous waste of time and money. The problem isn't only that she is so ignorant, but that she even doesn't know how ignorant she is and that she flaunts her ignorance. Let's hope that she'll disappear into oblivion, where she belongs. With such friends you don't need enemies.

Time Magazine asked:

"What do you think is particularly wrong with what Obama is doing now?

President Obama is growing government outrageously, and it's immoral and it's uneconomic, his plan that he tries to sell America.

His plan to "put America on the right track" economically, incurring the debt that our nation is incurring, trillions of dollars that we're passing on to our kids, expecting them to pay off for us, is immoral and doesn't even make economic sense. So his growth of government agenda needs to be ratcheted back, and it's going to take good people who have the guts to stand up to him, stand up to him and debate policy, not personalities, not partisan politics, but policy to effect the change that we need there.

And allow free enterprise and the industrious Americans who run our small businesses and want to raise a family, allowing our families to grow and prosper and thrive, Americans who still believe in those ideals to get in there and effect change. I want to work for people who believe in that."

What a stupid nitwit creationist bitch! Be gone! Git thee into oblivion!

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

There is a good cause and effect principle involved.

Dragonfly's implication is that Sarah Palin's views on things like evolution (which are not properly characterized, but let's take his opinion for the effect of argument) will harm libertarian politics.

President Obama does not believe in creationism, yet he does not hold libertarian ideals.

Dragonfly says Sarah Palin is a nitwit. (She isn't, but for the sake of argument...) I think we can all agree that President Obama is not a nitwt.

Sarah Palin supports small government and free markets. She has already developed many of her ideas in Alaska.

President Obama supports big government and highly regulated markets. Look at what he is doing now.

We can judge both by what they say and what they do. There are records to look at for those who want to look.

So where is the implied cause and effect?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Camille Paglia certainly looks at facts in an answer to a reader letter on July 8, 2009:

Dear Camille,

Just wondering. Do you still think Sarah Palin is ready for the big stage?

James L. Somers

Good question! And very timely after Palin's shock resignation as governor of Alaska this past Fourth of July weekend. I assume that family priorities -- personal as well as financial -- had become all-consuming. Given her success with finalizing the massive Alaska pipeline project, I think Palin should have stuck it out, but of course she is master of her own fate. What certainly was blameworthy was the chaotic and rushed statement itself. Something so politically consequential needed more careful composition and rehearsal. Why provide more fodder for the vultures and harpies of the Northeastern media?

Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that Palin still lacks that cadre of trusted pros who are the invisible elves behind every successful national politician -- the assistants who gather and vet material and who filter proposals and plan logistics. In a way, this is part of her virtues -- her complete freedom from routine micromanagement and business as usual. She does her own thing with seat-of-the-pants gusto. It's why she remains hugely popular with the Republican grass-roots base -- as I know from listening to talk radio. Callers coming fresh from her rallies are always heady with infectious enthusiasm.

Of course you'd never know that from reading hit jobs like Todd Purdum's sepulchral piece on Palin in the current Vanity Fair. Scurrying around Alaska with his notepad, Purdum still managed to find comically little to indict her with. Anyone with a gripe is given the floor; fans are shut out. This exercise in faux objectivity is exposed at key points such as Purdum's failure to identify the actual instigator of Palin's extravagant clothing bills (a crazed, credit-card-abusing stylist appointed by the McCain campaign) and his prissy characterization of Palin's performance at the vice-presidential debate as merely "adequate." Hey, wake up -- Palin cleaned Biden's clock! By the end, Biden was sighing and itching to split.

Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor. She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it. Palin should not have gotten into a slanging match with David Letterman or anyone else who has been obsessively defaming her or her family. Let surrogates do that stuff.

The vicious double standard is pretty obvious. Only the tabloids, for example, ran the photos of a piss-drunk Chelsea Clinton, panties exposed, falling into her car outside London clubs a few years ago. If Chelsea had been the scion of Republican bigwigs, those tacky scenes would have been trumpeted from pillar to post in the U.S. as signals of parental failures or turmoil in clan Clinton. As a Democrat, I detest the partisan machinations that have become standard in Northeastern news management and that are detectable in editorial decisions at major metropolitan newspapers nationwide. It's why I, like a host of others, have shifted my news gathering to the Web.

Does anyone think Camille Paglia is a dummy or a middle-class uninformed nitwit housewife?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been sent a link to a roundup of criticism of Sarah Palin by Andrew Sullivan. I am posting it here for reference:

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up

Seriously, I tried to read this thing, but it sounded like it was written by James Valliant. After analyzing PARC in depth, I've had enough of that kind of boneheaded logic for a lifetime.

Later I will look into some of these criticisms and see where Palin is at fault and where the "Palin lied" brouhaha is nothing but spin. But I do not relish this task. This thing is spin awfulness in all its glory.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

One of the "lies"

Palin liedwhen she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Yeah, okay, off with her head. These aren't lies, they are different interpretations of implications. Sullivan is the liar here, he's obviously become demented. And he himself opposes gay marriage, so what he means by "gay spouses" is quite unclear. Does he mean like the wives of Tim Mcgreevy and Larry Craig? Does he think she thinks gay people can't nominate whom they like as heir and power of attorney? I used to have some respect for this guy in the 90's. He became a bit odd after 9-11. Now he's just plain batty.

[studiodekadent]

Dragonfly's implication is that Sarah Palin's views on things like evolution (which are not properly characterized, but let's take his opinion for the effect of argument) will harm libertarian politics.

Michael,

I don't necessarily agree with everything Dragonfly says, but I believe that Dragonfly is pointing at an important fact: a perceived link between free market economics and social conservatism IS bad for libertarian politics. For one, if people believe that free markets necessitate social conservatism, they will have a hard time understanding libertarian ideas (at least initially). This alone will make it hard to promote libertarian ideals. Second, the association between market economics and social conservatism is very bad publicity. If Capitalism is linked to discrimination against sexual minorities, religious irrationalism, censorship and abstainance-only sex-ed then this is very bad for Capitalism.

The idea that "low taxes = prudish, morally-uptight, conscription-advocating, bible-loving homophobes" has been the best weapon in the Left's arsenal for decades. It has given market economics a bad image and its made socialism the 'default ideology' for anyone that wants to express discontent with current social conditions.

Palin is a continuation of this image. She would strengthen the public's belief that social conservatism and market economics are joined at the hip. And this belief IS detrimental to libertarian politics.

Does anyone think Camille Paglia is a dummy or a middle-class uninformed nitwit housewife?

No, she is none of those things. However, her biggest philosophical influences are Sigmund Freud and the Marquis de Sade. Paglia also seems to believe man is quite bestial in nature and needs religion to 'tame' him. Plus, her description of uterine secretions (in the FIRST CHAPTER of "Sexual Personae") is so stomach-churning that it makes even H. P. Lovecraft's depictions of Shoggoth slime look tame in comparison.

I don't doubt Ms. Paglia's intellectual honesty, but given the philosophical origins of some of her views, I'd be inclined to approach her ideas with a more skeptical eye than usual.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The idea that "low taxes = prudish, morally-uptight, conscription-advocating, bible-loving homophobes" has been the best weapon in the Left's arsenal for decades. It has given market economics a bad image and its made socialism the 'default ideology' for anyone that wants to express discontent with current social conditions.

Palin is a continuation of this image. She would strengthen the public's belief that social conservatism and market economics are joined at the hip. And this belief IS detrimental to libertarian politics.

Andrew,

This image only exists because of leftist distortion. Her record does not fit it.

Ronald Reagan was good for the world, yet he had his flaws. Before he was elected, he was similarly characterized.

In my view, I prefer to let people think for themselves, even the unwashed masses. They don't need to be fooled into being saved. I believe if you hold up achievements and good arguments, you end up winning in the long run.

Barack Obama did not get elected on his merits. He is very good at manipulating image, but he got that chance and got elected because President Bush, despite his virtues, lied to the American public about very serious issues and was unrepentant about it. The public BS meter went into the red. Now President Obama is lying to the public about very serious issues and is equally unrepentant about it. He will pay a high price for that.

So I see no reason to dupe people. If a person's image is wrong, we change that perception by speaking out. We don't need to reject or accept a person based on image alone, especially when it is an incorrect one.

There is another issue called the reality of today's context. Between preserving the purity of "libertarian politics" in a world actually governed by people like Barack Obama, and a world governed by people like Reagan (and hopefully Palin) with a shot at promoting the ideas behind "libertarian politics," I'll take the second option.

The real problem with fighting for the purity of "libertarian politics" in the context of today is that there are people who want to blow us up for real and China is waiting in the wings to cash out its debts. These kinds of issues need to be tamed (like Reagan did with the cold war) before moving into a political universe where pacifism reigns.

Interestingly enough, I see this as a matter of time, so the only practical issue is staying alive and well until it happens. The information revolution is a real occurrence. Although it allows loudmouths and bullies to distort images quickly, it also allows truth to be spread more easily and thus fix those images. Iran's election woes are just one example. (I believe that Iran is a boiling pressure cooker that is ready to explode and will soon—and the regime will once again not be able to contain the images and information going out to the world.) In a similar manner, the image the left-wing media promoted of Sarah Palin is false. Just like with Reagan, it will be corrected and there is nothing any one person can do to stop it.

On the issue of homophobe, I do not believe that Palin is one. I do believe that she does not like the idea of homosexuality just as she does not like the idea of unwed mothers. But I do not sense hatred.

Between the real options on the table right now, one man saying he likes homosexuals but working efficiently to enslave them (and all of us) through regulation, and a woman who maybe does not like homosexuality, but leaves homosexuals to exist in freedom, who do you think is a better choice? (Do you see another viable option? I don't.) Once again, I'll take the second.

It further needs to be said that there is no record of Sarah Palin mistreating homosexuals, so it is a good presumption that there are some around her with whom she is friendly. I know that she would love dearly her son or daughter if such turned out to be homosexual. She has already shown what she will do with a daughter who is an unwed mother.

I look at what people say and what they do. When there is a difference, I go with what they do as the better indication of what they will do in the future.

Michael

[Selene]

Yes, Joe Biden the dumbest man to ever sit in the US Senate and the dumbest Vice President in history.

The Wall Street Journal Online

July 7, 2009 -- 5:03 p.m.

The Biden Curve

Palin was "stupid" for saying what he says now.

By JAMES TARANTO

Over the weekend, as we noted yesterday, Vice President Biden said that if Israel decides it needs to take military action against the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, the U.S. will not "dictate" otherwise. A reader points out that Sarah Palin, who ran against Biden in last year's election, said much the same thing in a September interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson:

Gibson: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Palin: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Gibson: So if we wouldn't second-guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

Palin: I don't think we can second-guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

Gibson: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

Palin: We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Palin reiterated the point in a later interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

PODCAST

This column agrees with both Biden and Palin and is glad to see that the bipartisan consensus recognizing Israel's right to defend itself appears sturdy. But we suspected not everyone would be so consistent, so we went back to see what people had said about Palin.

Matthew Yglesias, who when he was young drew much praise for his thoughtful and fair-minded commentary, wrote a blog post titled "Palin: If Israel Wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, That's Okay With Me":

Palin reiterated her absurd view that the President of the United States shouldn't "second-guess" Israeli policy under any circumstances.

Palin is okay at repeating various "pro-Israel" buzzwords, but she can't run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid.

So when Biden said the same thing, did Yglesias call it "absurd" and "stupid"? Well, is the pope Italian? Here's what he wrote yesterday:

This is being read by some . . . as a "green light" for an Israeli attack. . . . I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he's trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn't do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.

The main problem with this, I think, is that probably nobody's going to believe it. Already you see many Americans taking Biden's statement that the U.S. doesn't control Israeli policy to "really" mean that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to attack.

When Palin says it, it's stupid. When Biden says it, he gets graded on a curve: The problem is that other people are too stupid to understand the deep subtlety of Biden's thinking.

Then there's M.J. Rosenberg of TalkingPointsMemo.com. In September, he described Palin as "robotic" and suggested that she is the puppet of a Jewish cabal:

Now we know why among the very first people Sarah Palin sat down with after being nominated was Joe Lieberman and the head of AIPAC.

She needed the latest talking points and, boy, did she learn her lines. . . .

In other words, under the Palin administration, we won't second guess Israel. I think I've got it.

Palin sure has.

And when Biden said it? Rosenberg kept mum until he was persuaded that the vice president's words didn't really reflect U.S. policy. Then he wrote this:

The President said today that he has "absolutely not" given Israel a "green light" to attack Iran.

So Biden either misspoke, was misinterpreted, or has just been corrected by his boss. Israel will get no green light to attack. We will, as Obama said all along, rely on diplomacy to solve the Iran problem.

Fair enough, right? Wrong. Look what Palin said to Charlie Gibson just before he asked about a hypothetical Israeli strike:

Gibson: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

Palin: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

Gibson: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.

Palin: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

What Palin said last year was precisely what Obama and Biden have now said: Diplomacy is the optimal way of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat, but if it fails, Israel has a right to defend itself. In a way, the inconsistency of some of Palin's critics is reassuring. It shows that a good deal of anti-Israel sentiment is mere partisanship masquerading as something uglier.

When do we have the five day wall to wall coverage burying "journalism"?

Adam

Post Script:

bolding/italicizing were added by myself

Edited July 10, 2009 by Selene

[Matus1976]

One does not call Pinochet a lover of freedom because he allowed Capitalism to flourish in Chile while he was busy torturing political enemies, and one should not call Miss Palin a lover of freedom, or a proponent of freedom, because she likes capitalism.

And yet, one could with justice call Pinochet and advocate, or proponent of Freedom. You must always consider the context these events take place in. Sparta had slavery and and heavily militaristic society, but it had the concept of freedom as a form of national self determination in a world where NO other peoples or nations had such concepts. Many cultures, such as Egypt, did not even have a WORD for freedom. Every salient step toward freedom should be celebrated, not chastised for not leaping centuries ahead through ages of struggle to some Platonistic idealization of freedom - which will never be attained.

Similarly, in the context of a South America wrought with communist insurgents funded explicitly by the COMMINTERN, Pinochet was a salient step forward in the struggle for freedom in the world. For starters, ECONOMIC freedom is the singular most important manifestation of freedom toward quality of life. Nations which are politically free, but economically controlled, like India, fester in poverty and misery. Nations which are politically unfree, but economically free, like Chile under Pinochet and South Korea under Sigmen Rhee, flourish and see unprecedented standard of living increases. Pinochet instituted vast economic freedoms which directly related to the well being of every individuals lives. By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people. This is a single hour in Cambodia or China under their communist totalitarian murderers. All told, communism has killed some 200 million people this century. Whats the death toll of right wing dictators who lay the foundations of economic freedom? And how many of those 3,000 were in fact communist spies and wannabe tyrants?

Pinochet's economic reforms initiated what is referred to in Chile as the "economic miracle" where from 1975 to 2005 the GDP / Capita in Chile TRIPLED. Today Chile is the only South American country decent enough to visit, and where an American does not have to seriously worry about being kidnapped by some ridiculously communist insurgency. According to the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom, Chile is the 11th most free nation - economically - on the planet. (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Chile) According to Freedom House, today Chile has the highest available ranking for both Political Freedom and Civil Freedoms. Today it has a GDP per capita of $14,900. In other words, it's one of the, literally, free-est nations on the planet. This is in large part due to Pinochet's regime. Compare this to it's northern neighbor Bolivia, with a GDP/Capita of $4,500, moderate 'partly free' ranking by Freedom House, and ranking of 130 in the world for economic freedom.

It's great to be able to pray to who you want to and speak your mind when you want to, but if you're perpetually on the verge of starvation because of a totalitarian manhandled economy, what good will it do you? Historically, theocratic regimes with economic freedoms are some of the most prosperous nations with the highest median standards of living. And nations with controlled economies are always the poorest with the lowest standards of living and most misery and pain. Even so, the existing constitutional protections for religious and personal freedoms can never be transgressed in the US to such an extent that an oppressive theocracy is formed. However, we have NO such protections for ECONOMIC Freedoms, and these are well on their way to being usurped to form an oppressive economic totalitarian state, thus the threat posed by liberal socialists and environmentalists on our literally well being are far greater than those posed by moral authority wannabes.

[Matus1976]

Michelle:

An accurate statement of her position on stem cell research is that is should not be funded by federal tax dollars.

As a person well entrenched in Extropian / Transhumanist circles (those who explicitly advocate the use of technology and science to extend human life spans, even indefinitely, and advocate modifications and enhancements) I never the less was not very upset by Bush's restrictions (and similar sentiment by Palin) on federally funded stem cell research. For starters, as Selene points out, that's not the role of the government. Additionally though, the US was leading the worlds research in Stem Cells, and was overwhelmingly governed by christian standards or liberals harboring original sin standards, i.e., in favor of curing diseases, but NOT curing AGING, etc. While Christians find such a thing 'playing God' or whatever, liberals find such a thing an arrogant affront to 'mother nature' both equally oppose life. Because of these restrictions, the OTHER free, rich, scientific nations of the world, like JAPAN and SOUTH KOREA, got off their lazy bandwagon asses and started doing some of their own stem cell research which was not bound by the conventions that the poor philosophy in the US forced.

[Michelle]

By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people.

More than 30,000 people were tortured in the state detention and torture centers. Also, note that the Valech Report only took the testimony of people who were tortured in these centers. So when people were being tortured and maimed in the streets during the eighties, they weren't included. Like Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was burnt alive for demonstrating against this dictatorship.

You're seriously going to point to this scumbag and his goons who killed, tortured, and forcibly disappeared tens of thousands of people and say he is a proponent of freedom? To say that I am disgusted is an understatement. Apparently torture and death are fine tools of the state when they're used in the context of a capitalist economy.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Michelle R

[Matus1976]

By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people.

More than 30,000 people were tortured in the state detention and torture centers. Also, note that the Valech Report only took the testimony of people who were tortured in these centers. So when people were being tortured and maimed in the streets during the eighties, they weren't included. Like Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was burnt alive for demonstrating against this dictatorship.

You're seriously going to point to this scumbag and his goons who killed, tortured, and forcibly disappeared tens of thousands of people and say he is a proponent of freedom? To say that I am disgusted is an understatement. Apparently torture and death are fine tools of the state when they're used in the context of a capitalist economy.

The problem is you act as though the choices available here were progressive free market based representative government or Pinochet's military dictatorship. This is not the case, the choices available to Chile at this time were Pinochet's military dictatorship or a communist totalitarian hell hole run by Allende where 3,000 people would have probably died *every day* Allende was a communist, backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and sought to establish a dictatorship and communist utopia. Allende and his socialist and communist supporters had nationalized most of the major industries of Chile and confiscated most of the land for 'redistribution' Every other time this has ever happened, millions of people died. Allende's socialist revolution had thrust Chile into chaos and poverty, Allende himself lamented in a public address that they had a mere few days of flour left - after crushing the means of production. So you tell me, what should have been done? And we're not talking hippy lala land where magically everybody behaves properly. Were talking about armed communist insurgencies, funded by Cuba and the Soviet Union, which terrorized Chile, attacking civilians, politicians, and military installations, through bombings and outright assassinations. These were the common tactics of communist insurgency. But by 1980 Pinochet's Chile was drafting a civilian authored constitution that ensured private property and democratic elections. Pinochet would eventually *voluntarily* step down after losing an election which HE arranged.

From Wikipedia

Pinochet thus left the presidency on 11 March 1990 and transferred power to the new democratically elected president.

Please, show me ONE single COMMUNIST nation that voluntarily converted itself to a representative government.

Your opinion of Chile is no doubt the product of an immense demonization campaign instituted by the modern left propoganda machine, which drops context and dreams of communism utopias. Though responsible for nearly 200 million deaths this century (See R.J. Rummels Power Kills site, or the Black Book of Communism) the left views Pinochet as the incarnate of right wing evil, even though at his worst he killed less than the LEAST bad of the Communist dictatorial hell holes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is quite funny:

What If Palin Were President?

By David Harsanyi

July 10, 2009

Real Clear Politics

From the article:

Really, where would we be if a bumpkin like Palin were president? With her brainpower, we probably would be stuck with a Cabinet full of tax cheats, retreads and moralizing social engineers.

If Palin were president, chances are we'd have a gaffe-generating motormouth for a vice president. That's the kind of decision-making one expects from Miss Congeniality.

The job of building generational debt is not for the unsophisticated. Enriching political donors with taxpayer dollars takes intellectual prowess, not the skills of a moose-hunting point guard.

The talent to print money we don't have to pay for programs we can't afford is the work of a finely tuned imagination, soaring gravitas and endless policy know-how.

Palin is so clueless she probably would have rushed through some colossal stimulus plan that ended up stimulating nothing.

And it goes on and on...

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people.

More than 30,000 people were tortured in the state detention and torture centers. Also, note that the Valech Report only took the testimony of people who were tortured in these centers. So when people were being tortured and maimed in the streets during the eighties, they weren't included. Like Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was burnt alive for demonstrating against this dictatorship.

You're seriously going to point to this scumbag and his goons who killed, tortured, and forcibly disappeared tens of thousands of people and say he is a proponent of freedom? To say that I am disgusted is an understatement. Apparently torture and death are fine tools of the state when they're used in the context of a capitalist economy.

The problem is you act as though the choices available here were progressive free market based representative government or Pinochet's military dictatorship. This is not the case, the choices available to Chile at this time were Pinochet's military dictatorship or a communist totalitarian hell hole run by Allende where 3,000 people would have probably died *every day* Allende was a communist, backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and sought to establish a dictatorship and communist utopia. Allende and his socialist and communist supporters had nationalized most of the major industries of Chile and confiscated most of the land for 'redistribution' Every other time this has ever happened, millions of people died. Allende's socialist revolution had thrust Chile into chaos and poverty, Allende himself lamented in a public address that they had a mere few days of flour left - after crushing the means of production. So you tell me, what should have been done? And we're not talking hippy lala land where magically everybody behaves properly. Were talking about armed communist insurgencies, funded by Cuba and the Soviet Union, which terrorized Chile, attacking civilians, politicians, and military installations, through bombings and outright assassinations. These were the common tactics of communist insurgency. But by 1980 Pinochet's Chile was drafting a civilian authored constitution that ensured private property and democratic elections. Pinochet would eventually *voluntarily* step down after losing an election which HE arranged.

From Wikipedia

Pinochet thus left the presidency on 11 March 1990 and transferred power to the new democratically elected president.

Please, show me ONE single COMMUNIST nation that voluntarily converted itself to a representative government.

Your opinion of Chile is no doubt the product of an immense demonization campaign instituted by the modern left propoganda machine, which drops context and dreams of communism utopias. Though responsible for nearly 200 million deaths this century (See R.J. Rummels Power Kills site, or the Black Book of Communism) the left views Pinochet as the incarnate of right wing evil, even though at his worst he killed less than the LEAST bad of the Communist dictatorial hell holes.

War is hell, and civil war is the worst kind of hell. The complaints against Pinochet are that he won the civil war, and that he did so in large part by keeping the state and economy intact and functioning. The difference is between what is seen (3,000 communists killed) and what is not seen, millions dead and starving like a second Cuba or Khmer Rouge, exporting Che Guevarism to the rest of the Cono del Sur.

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.