Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- Pretty Lady
- Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
26 comments:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Snarky, but fun!
Is it just me, or does the guy LOOK nuts? Just his hair! What's with the hair? No normal American human has that Eastern Bloc Prime-Minister-for-Life hair on purpose.
PL, really! Linking Palin to Blogo is beyond the pale. I hope Palin isn't going to be an obsession of yours.
Mr. Rywalt, That hair style of Blogo has always baffled me. It reminded me of something but I could never put my finger on it. Then you solve the mystery with "Eastern Bloc Prime Minister-for-Life hair". That's IT! So funny and just so perfect!
George, I'm genuinely curious--WHY is linking Palin to Blago beyond the pale? It's all about pattern recognition. They strike me as remarkably similar personalities. They both loudly tout the form of the principle without having the slightest clue as to the actual meaning of the principles they're espousing; they're also both narcissistic pathological liars with irrational power complexes. They remind me of four-year-olds with blue icing all over their faces, declaring indignantly that they have no idea what happened to the cake.
And no, Palin is someone I devoutly hope to forget about as soon as possible, unless she is forced upon my attention by worldly circumstances.
PL, "both loudly tout the form of the principle without having the slightest clue as to the actual meaning of the principles they're espousing; they're also both narcissistic pathological liars with irrational power complexes."
Oh! In that case okay, but you've just described three quarters of the members of Congress and about the same percentage of governors - and I'm being conservative.
I'd say she's describing most politicians in general.
The other night Craig Ferguson joked on his show that during rehab he'd been given the Minnesota Personality Inventory and it showed he's an extrovert with extremely low self-esteem. "There's no cure," the doctors told him, "but at least you can go to Hollywood and see if you can make some money."
I hope we keep hearing from Palin because
a) now that the truly scary possibility of her being VP is over, we can enjoy the hilarity (her candidacy even made Saturday Night Live funny again), and
b) the more she talks, the less likely she is to be accepted by any major political party as a candidate for anything.
Hey, give her a talk show and we can laugh at her daily!
ps
I'm fond of "Repugnican" myself, but I heard a new one today: Rethuglican. Just thought I'd share!
xx
O
George, Palin has become the same kind of larger-than-life bugbear for the left that Hillary was for the right (at least until she dared challenge the accession of The One), with the chief difference being that she is a genuinely good and decent human being.
However good and decent she may have been as citizen and mayor of a small town she seems to have too easily morphed into a “pol” on the larger stage (governor). Whether she comes by this naturally or is a quick learner doesn’t much matter, either way, she has the looks of career pol, for which I have little regard. That someone should be against her (politically) for the reasons PL ticks off in her comment is understandable. That someone should equate her with the alternately corrupt, delusional, insane, nincompoop Gov. Blagojevich, as PL did in her post, is, I repeat, beyond the pale. Just off the top of my head I can come up with a pairing for Blagojevich that serves the point (unless the point was to further smear Palin) - Pelosi/Blagojevich!
I don't know too many genuinely good and decent human beings who would stand before a mob (excuse, me a group) of people yelling "kill him!" about one's opponent without trying to discourage such rhetoric. McCain showed such decency, belatedly, in his concession speech and during one of the later debates, but Palin? Nope.
She is the larger than life bugbear because her ignorance is larger than Alaska.
DC, get a clue. If you are going to keep peppering PL's comments with these statements that are counter to her political views, you have to make a cohesive point, something that can be argued. If you make a reasonable argument, she will engage with you (she's like that, unlike some of us) but your comment above doesn't present anything to refute, it's just an irrelevant snipe at Hillary. The right didn't like Hillary because she is smart and doesn't apologize for it. A lot of people don't like Palin because she is not so smart and doesn't apologize for it. I prefer to align myself with the smart and unapologetic group, but I understand that not everyone feels comfortable there, as evidenced by your comments.
DC, Oriane is right. You used to make some cohesive and well-thought-through points on this blog, usually in the areas of spirituality and relationships, but lately you've stopped doing so.
Let me counter your argument: Hillary is a genuinely good and decent human being. End of argument.
Notice how effective that argument is? Notice how I have defined my terms, cited examples, contrasted these examples with counter-examples?
Hint: I didn't do that. I just made a blanket statement assuming that everyone reading me shares my assumptions about what a 'good and decent person' is, is familiar with the same anecdotal evidence that I am familiar with, and subscribes to my political, religious and spiritual world-view.
That's not a conversation. That's shouting, "I know you are but what am I???" over and over and over. I'm bored with that. I am not going to engage with people who do that.
Is that clear?
Now please stop commenting on this blog unless you are genuinely interested in communicating. Communicating means 'paying attention to what the other person's values are, and where they are coming from' as well as stating your own position. I have put a lot of effort into understanding positions different from my own; I have come to the point where I do not wish to continue conversations with people who are not interested in making the effort to understand mine.
Oh, and DC? I posed a real question up at the top post, there, which I'm genuinely interested in getting feedback from smart people about. If you want to engage, start engaging about that.
Oriane, the “Kill Him’ allegations are just the sort of thing I object to when it comes to Palin.
Perhaps she said nothing because she didn’t hear anything of the sort – nor did Secret Service agents in the crowd, nor did anyone else. Apparently the only one who’d heard “kill him” was a lone reporter, David Singleton. One can only assume he had a raging fever due to the highly contagious Palin Derangement Syndrome.
For more see:
http://www.fightthepalinsmears.com/smears/someone-shouted-kill-him-scranton-pa/
and:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
You don’t have to believe she’s a competent elected official, you don’t have to like her, nor even believe she’s a basically decent person. But you ought to draw the line at making her cowardly, stupid, or evil.
Just to be clear, George, I don't think that Palin is cowardly, stupid, or evil in the pure sense (just about no human being is purely evil, which is why I object to black-and-white moral codes which routinely condemm people as though they were.)
But she is appallingly ignorant about basic matters of state, as I saw and heard with my own two eyes and ears when I watched the interviews she gave with Gibson and Couric. She consistently repeated dozens of lies which were verified to be lies, checkable by universally accessible public record. She is demonstrably incurious, having spent her entire life turning down opportunities to engage with ideas outside her immediate social system, which gives me little hope that she will rectify her ignorance sufficiently to become a competent public servant. Her speech at the Republican National Convention was notable for its childish, petty, snide, spiteful and non-constructive tone; if she is a 'genuinely good' person, she certainly does a good job of hiding it when she's speaking in public.
These are my reasons for disliking the prospect of Palin holding any position of authority in the society I dwell in, and they have nothing to do with 'smears.' I haven't got any need to 'smear' her, nor would I want to; my opinion is entirely based on her own oft-repeated and thoroughly documented words and actions. The idea that I am 'threatened' by her because she somehow pokes unfixable holes in my cherished world view is laughable; she hasn't got the intellectual resources to begin to figure out what my perspective even IS, nor does she care to.
I never said she was cowardly, stupid or evil. I said not so smart and doesn't feel the need to apologize for it. OK, so if you want to paraphrase, that's almost the same as "stupid", but said in a less childish way. I may be wrong about the "kill him" shouts (although I have to say, I'm not going to blindly accept as impartial what's said on a website called fightthepalinsmearsdotcom), but as PL notes, there is plenty of evidence that comes straight from the horse's mouth (I'm not calling her a horse, either; it's just an expression) of her ignorance.
ps PL says:
I have put a lot of effort into understanding positions different from my own; I have come to the point where I do not wish to continue conversations with people who are not interested in making the effort to understand mine.
Yay! I think there is a series of French tapestries in the Met that commemorates this occasion, called "The Liberation of Pretty Lady".
Oriane, I hadn't expected anyone, least of all Palin raggers to accept fightthepalinsmearsdotcom which is why I added a second source, a legitimate source if you will.
Furthermore, I am not trying to convince you of Palin's intellect or worthiness for public office. You may be right. All I'm saying is smears and innuendo and hearsay not be part of your ammunition against her.
PL, I have never said or implied that you were threatened by Palin or her intellect. My objections to the worldwide Palin pile on are based on the unreasoned, infantile, and fevered attacks against her and nothing more. Your style points as to her intelligence, character, and personality are legitimate reasons for thinking her ill equipped for public office, the “Kill Him” smears alluded to by Oriane are not – and there have been others. I had assumed your pairing of Palin and Blagojevich was nothing more than good-natured mischief and I commented in kind. If, however, you were in earnest in the comparison then that passes the smear test. Palin, whatever you think of her, is neither corrupt nor insane, nor a nincompoop.
If you are going to keep peppering PL's comments with these statements that are counter to her political views, you have to make a cohesive point, something that can be argued.
I know I know, stuff like this, I'm sure:
I'm fond of "Repugnican" myself, but I heard a new one today: Rethuglican. Just thought I'd share!
Ah yes, there's that maturity (and cohesive argumentation) this blog is so very known for advocating. Personally I like how "libtard" rolls of the tongue, but "DemonRat" is so very descriptive too. What do you think?
The right didn't like Hillary because she is smart and doesn't apologize for it.
There you go. We both can do it then, can't we? Psh! The right doesn't like Hillary because she espoused some very socialist policies during her husband's term in office, and because of the many character flaws that PL so aptly elucidated during the primary season. For my part I've seen scant evidence of the "smart" that is so often ascribed to her. What are her achievements besides rising to power on the coattails of her husband? She is crafty, yes. She is tremendously driven by hunger for power, yes. But "smart"? Well, depends on your definition then. I can think of a handful of smart women, but Hillary is not among them.
You used to make some cohesive and well-thought-through points on this blog, usually in the areas of spirituality and relationships, but lately you've stopped doing so.
Funny why that is.
Your blog. Your rules. You've got a ban-hammer you can use if I'm not welcome.
That's not a conversation. That's shouting, "I know you are but what am I???" over and over and over. I'm bored with that. I am not going to engage with people who do that.
Is that clear?
Oh quite. And it's just this very thing that has me most frustrated in this venue--there is a rather marked blind spot when it comes to the converse. There has been all manner of blanket statements about conservatives, conservative politicians and conservative ideas and ideals over the last few months here that have been in no way adequately supported by "defined terms, cited examples, contrasting counter-examples", but likewise relied upon assumptions that your audience shared your body of anecdotes, assumptions, values.
In regards to that absurd "kill him" meme, besides there being allegedly no one else in the crowd, including Secret Service agents, who heard that shout, I did read somewhere that at least one other attendee heard someone shout "tell him!" A rather different intent there, no?
See this is one example of the kind of stuff that has me fed up. You've got a single (hostile) source allegation (quite possibly misheard) with no confirmation from anyone else in that crowd, and the left has turned this nit into a character damning mountain. It's the same kind of petty, malicious sniping that you are so fond of excoriating the right for, and here it gets laid out as an assumed "fact".
In point of fact, the reason I am not engaging constructively here as I once did is that it became markedly more difficult to do so over the last six to nine months.
Which is not to say that someone of your perspective would have found it particularly easy to engage constructively at my blog in the same time frame. But then again I'm not pretending to be anything more than a liberty-oriented partisan.
You can think of a whole handful of smart women? Dude, I'm impressed. That must be some fast crowd you hang with.
Hooray! More thoughtful, well-reasoned discourse!
DC, instead of engaging on the real question which I politely asked you to, you continued doing exactly what I asked you not to do--engaging in infantile, tit-for-tat sniping with another commenter on this blog, who may be a 'liberal,' but she's not me. Therefore I don't expect to be held responsible for what she's saying or how she says it. I've made it clear that I don't consider spite to be a partisan characteristic.
It's become markedly more difficult for you to engage over here because you're no longer being mollycoddled. Deal with it or leave. I did.
If I may weigh in here, yes, dc, I am guilty of saying one thing ("engage in discourse, make a point" and doing another (childishly insulting you). But when I said "make a point", I prefaced it by noting that your political views are counter to the prevailing ones here (counter to PL's and to many of the people who comment, although I don't like to pigeonhole anyone's views into shorthand categories like "liberal" and "conservative"; I am simplifying here for the purposes of explanation. And I don't speak for PL; she can, and does, express, describe or defend her own views). As unfair as this double standard is, what happens when people of like minds (on some issues) get together is they kid around, they makes jokes, they insult or dismiss people that they all disagree with, they mock public figures who give them plenty of ammunition. Is this discourse at the highest intellectual level? No. If I were to go into a hostile environment (for instance, a Republican blog) I would not say the same things that I say here. I would carefully construct my arguments and try to make them as intellectually compelling as possible. I wouldn't go there to shoot the sh*t with my friends. Is this unfair? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things, I think this particular unfairness (that you can't speak the same way in front of people who disagree with you as you can with people who agree with you) is kind of small potatoes.
And you know what's funny? I used to ask PL why she bothered engaging with right-wingers. And here I am, doing it right under her nose, on her very blog. I appear to have been hoist by own petard.
Why is he continuing to garner news media attention, instead of being shot full of Demerol and confined to a locked ward?
I assume this is the question?
The whole scene has been tremendously entertaining to watch (from a distance), because in many ways it confirms what most have been led to believe about Chicago politics and Chicago politicians. That kind of horse-trading doesn't appear to be so terribly far outside the norm for Chicago. Most pols just never get the attention of the Feds like Blago did.
The spectacle! Corrupt pols impeaching an even more corrupt pol!
Because (dis)like him or hate him, it is hard to escape the magnitude of his chutzpah, from the original horse-trading through successfully appointing a Senator over the objections of Harry Reid (eat it, Harry!) to his publicity campaign during the impeachment proceedings.
Surely you don't expect the media to stay away from such a circus?
And I'm assuming the part about being "clearly insane" and requiring Demerol and a locked cell are over-the-top hyperbole? Or was that a serious part of the question?
Of course I understand for Democrats and Obama in particular, the whole spectacle is tremendously embarrassing. Well he's gone now. You can exhale.
Is this unfair? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things, I think this particular unfairness (that you can't speak the same way in front of people who disagree with you as you can with people who agree with you) is kind of small potatoes.
Oh, I understand this. I've seen it elsewhere. Vox, for example, raises the bar quite a bit higher for those carrying a contrary message than he holds it for the Ilk. As long as all parties at a site are *aware* of the double standard and acknowledge it's existence, then it is what is and is fine. As long as no one is pretending to a level of objectivity that doesn't actually exist.
However intense "discussions" of politics didn't used to be the primary feature here. My former reasons for visiting, reading and commenting here had little to do with politics. I'm frankly as disappointed in the loss of some of the better aspects of that previous community and comity as is PL.
There is a WHOLE NEW POST at the top of the page. This one was A JOKE.
Sheesh.
Post a Comment