January 12, 2011

She better have a lot of security guards

Here's the transcript of Sarah Palin's video released today:
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.

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.” 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, 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.

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. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful 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.  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.

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.

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.” 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.

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 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.

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. 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

This is an eloquent defense of America's tradition of free speech and debate. Further, it's a trenchant criticism of the Who? Whom? mindset dominant among the media oligopoly.

My main caveat would be that the truly reprehensible thing was not the establishment press unleashing their racial and regional prejudices "within hours," but their continuing to try to pound home the same hate-driven propaganda line, day after day, long after their initial response had been proven factually wrong.

Not surprisingly, Establishment pundits and reporters are sputtering with rage at Palin. For example, Matthew Yglesias's response is:
Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

161 comments:

adsadfdsfas said...

Remember the movie ACE IN THE HOLE where a tragedy of one man is turned into political circus/theater.
There was a discussion about 'jump the shark' sometime back. Maybe the recent media hysteria/circus surrounding the Loughern shooting could be described as 'aced in the hole'.

Stephen Thomas said...

I don't know whether she should be president, but she is certainly a magnificent woman.

And, as you say, she'd better have several lines of security in place.

adfasdfasdf said...

"This is an eloquent defense of America's tradition of free speech. Further, it's a trenchant criticism of the Who? Whom? mindset dominant among the media oligopoly."


I dunno. They brought a knife to a fight and she brought a spatula.

kurt9 said...

I fail to see anything objectionable in Palin's comments. I don't understand what the hoohaa is about Palin's statement.

RK said...

Really, that's "sputtering with rage"?

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

Uhh, help me out here - that is satire, right?

Eric said...

I dunno. They brought a knife to a fight and she brought a spatula.

And prevailed with that spatula. My kind of woman.

asdfasdfasdf said...

You know, Steve seems to be more riled up than usual. Could it be because MSM trashed Sarah Palin more than usual? Nobody better mess with his girl. He's into Santino mode after Carlo beat up Connie.

Fred said...

Yglesias seems peeved that Palin co-opted a term from Jewish history. Yet when blacks have done that repeatedly ("ghetto", "diaspora") most Jews seem to be fine with that. It's as if he's OK with blacks analogizing themselves to Jews, but not a white Christian like Palin.

Polichinello said...

I fail to see anything objectionable in Palin's comments.

That's because you're not schooled in the Dowdian School of Realist Intentionalism or Yglesian Dog-Whistle Divination or Sullivan's Rules of Uterine Production Authentication. Leave the interpretation to the pros, please.

I don't understand what the hoohaa is about Palin's statement.

It all relates to her still being able to draw breath. Don't overbother yourself about this. Your betters are busy at work trying to remedy the situation.

Anonymous said...

I keep hearing people say Yglesias is smart. Is there any evidence of that? He seems in over his head, unable to deal with concepts coherently, and just another dull, witless media hack.

Did he change? Am I just getting the worst of him?

Polichinello said...

Yglesias seems peeved that Palin co-opted a term from Jewish history.

Even the Derschbag found this bit of hysteria too much. THAT alone should say something.

At any rate, the term isn't exclusively Jewish. It's been applied to Christians, who were accused of murder and cannibalism under the Romans and to Christian heretics and freemasons.

Really, she's been falsely accused of having a hand in the murder of child, along with several others. This is pretty much the textbook use of the phrase.

asdfasdfasdf said...

"Yglesias seems peeved that Palin co-opted a term from Jewish history."

Why not? Jews have taken Christian tropes in the creation of the Anne Frank cult(Virgin Mary), Holocaust-as-universal-religion("Jews died for our sins"), and Obama(the new messiah). And they even used to compose pretty good Christmas songs.

More Anon said...

So who is Palin's speechwriter? Did she decide to seize the moment herself or was this some consultant's doing?

Baloo said...

Yeah, but SUCH a spatula!

Anonymous said...

Palin didn't write the speech.

She strikes me as being a lot like Bush. Opportunistic and good politicial instincts..... but otherwise very reliant on advisors because she doesn't know much and isn't that bright. She throws meat to the base, but if she becomes president, she'll let the WSJ/neconservative/establishment crowd run the show.

There are a lot of issues where she could've said something substantative (ie immigration), but she kept silent. Just because she's saying something you like, don't get too excited.

I don't trust her.

Whiskey said...

Yes Dershowitz came out and defended her use of the phrase Blood Libel.

What is striking to me is the absolute RAGE (and it was RAGE that was the main operating emotion upon Palin's debut as a VP candidate) that the Left, and particularly SWPL/Professional Class/Entertainment women have for Palin.

Before this, Kathy Griffin was saying she would "take down" 16 year old Willow Palin over comments on her Facebook page.

Mull that over. A fifty plus woman is going to "take on" (after boasting she "took down" Palin, husband Todd, Bristol, and older son Track) a sixteen year old girl (who is of no real interest to anyone, other than her High School friends/boyfriends etc.) It is a bizarro universe.

Sarah Palin is not that important. Compared to Boehner, or Marco Rubio, or Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan, or Mitch Daniels, men actually exercising political power in opposition to Dems/Obama, Palin is a mere social-media footnote.

Yet she generates huge amounts of RAGE while these guys draw a shrug/huh? Proof I think that Palin is threatening to upper middle class White women, gays, and those who follow them (the Media is Gay Central).

stari_momak said...

Sarah Palin, Emmanuel Goldstein for the American Left.

Anonymous said...

In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides.

No, we don't. Separate your church from my state.

Simon in London said...

I agree with your analysis, and most of what Palin said is praiseworthy. One caveat:

"Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world."

Eh, these days, really not so much. It's not like we have Nazi Germany or the USSR to compare you with any more. China might not have the rule of law, but they haven't invaded anybody for *ages*. I think the most common feelings towards the US worldwide are fear + envy, though some of us in the Anglosphere retain some fondness.

KateK said...

Sarah's not too bright, I must admit. She doesn't know what 'blood libel' is. She shouldn't accuse her critics of 'blood libel' but of having accused her of 'blood libel', which is what the pundits in the MSM did. Liberal Jewish commentators like Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrea Mitchell, and so many others have accused her of killing Gifford. They accused her of blood libel. Sarah should have said, 'my critics accused me of blood libel'.

The irony of all this is that Jews, who'd once been accused of blood libel in the notorious Protocols of Elders of Zion, now freely accuse others of blood libel though Palin and her political allies had nothing to do with the killing in Arizona, a crazy act carried out by some stoner half-Jewish kid.

Anonymous said...

Dershowitz to the defense...of S. Palin. I'm sure you've read it by now.

I also know the average American had no idea the term was even related to Jewish history.

Sometimes I think even Steve's readers don't understand that most Americans, not living in urban centers, and not having gone to urban schools, know relatively few Jewish people.


As for Palin--no, I am sure she didn't write it, or at least not most of it, but she delivered it better than any other speech I've ever heard from her. Her voice, usually quite high and sing-songy, was well modulated and her normally hurried speech was slowed to a good pace. I was quite surprised, even impressed, actually.

So, who decided to insert the "blood libel" phrase and did he/she/they do it purposefully, knowing it would make the left go crazy, or were the speechwriter(s) simply unmindful of its meaning to the Jews (and thus the left)?

Chicago said...

This whole affair is getting really tacky with all these opportunists practically fighting with each other at the gravesite over who'll control the political content of the eulogies. They sure didn't waste any time, springing into action almost within seconds. One person's tragedy is another person's opportunity, I guess.

Fred said...

"Why not? Jews have taken Christian tropes in the creation of the Anne Frank cult"

Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck.

"China might not have the rule of law, but they haven't invaded anybody for *ages*."

I guess it depends how you define "ages". The PRC was founded in 1949 and since then, they've invaded Tibet and invaded parts of India and Vietnam.

Nanonymous said...

The speech may be eloquent but she didn't write it. And the use of 'blood libel' may be defensible but still stupid. She is dumb, that's a fact.

nsam said...

Little chance that Palin would have comprehended, much less composed, that sentence.

Anonymous said...

Anger misdirection.
False Framing.
Slander.

Meanwhile there were 14 headless bodies found in Acapulco the other day.


One blogger mentioned that the left tells us that violent Hollywood movies dont motivate anyone to kill, but that rascally silver-tongued Sarah Palin can motivate an apolitical, non-radio-talk-show-listening, pot-smoking, flag-burning, Communist-Mannifesto-reading-kid into murdering a congresswoman with her wiles. No wonder women everywhere are jealous of her. Que the Eagles classic, "Witchy Woman".

Anonymous said...

why does the tribe hate her so much? and why would the tribe's lawyer come to her defence, he obviously could have spun it, and the media wouldn't have vetted him..

one thing that is increasingly bizaare is the media seems to be digging in it heels even MORE refusing to believe the blogsphere etc, exists and they can go on shaping the conversation..

Anonymous said...

"Dershowitz to the defense...of S. Palin. I'm sure you've read it by now."

This guy is all over the map. Never trust him.
He's defending Sarah now but don't expect him to defend her if she gets stabbed to death by an ex-football player.

She said it, I didn't. said...

"The speech may be eloquent but she didn't write it. And the use of 'blood libel' may be defensible but still stupid. She is dumb, that's a fact."

I'll bet a neocon Jew wrote it, fully knowing it would stir up this controversy, which then could be exploited to teach us about the importance of being sensitive to Jews. And wink wink, Dershwitz picked up the signals of what's what. A Jew writes a speech for Palin. Palin, uncomprehending, reads it out straight, but other Jews pick up the coded message and ignite another controversy. Sarah is like a passenger pigeon. She carries messages but only the only ones who really GET the message are those who code it and those who can decode it.
Of course, my suspicions could be just a batshit crazy case of connecting the dots that don't exist, but no worse than what MSM has been up to lately.

I said it, she didn't. said...

"Why not? Jews have taken Christian tropes in the creation of the Anne Frank cult"

"Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck."

Jews haven't yet gone that far batshit crazy but they do see a Neo-Nazi Tea Party lunatic in a half-Jewish loner schizo who went on a shooting rampage.

Eric said...

She is dumb, that's a fact.

So her opponents keep saying. But I see no evidence it's actually true. Do you have any reason to believe this beyond political positions that are different than yours?

RKU said...

Not surprisingly, Establishment pundits and reporters are sputtering with rage at Palin. For example, Matthew Yglesias's response...

Actually, I'm about 98% sure that Yglesias was just making a sarcastic joke about the absurdly inflamed reaction of some of the silly liberal-pundits to Palin's speechwriter's excitable phrases. And that seemed to be the view of Yglesias's commenters, who closely follow his blog postings. In fact, it's a little difficult for me to figure out how it could have been intended as anything but a non-joke.

I think Steve is just getting a little too worked up about all this AZ shooting nonsense---he should just calm down and get a good night's sleep. I'd hate to have him start getting obsessed with governmental grammar control or something...

JSM said...

Welcome, KateK,

No, Sarah's right.
"Libel" means a lie. "Blood libel" is the phrase Jews used to defend themselves, to say, "That's a lie!" when Christians accused them of killing children and using their blood for Passover.

Christian: YOU KILLED!
Jew: BLOOD LIBEL!

So when the lefties (Jews, to a large extent) accused Sarah Palin of causing the deaths of the Congresswoman, the 9 y.o. girl and others, Sarah defended herself by calling it blood libel.
Jews: YOU KILLED!
Sarah: BLOOD LIBEL!

Her usage was correct. She's, maybe, not so dim, after all. But welcome!

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

Well, I guess it is supposed to be satire.

Or something.

I still can't get over the fact that they think they're being clever in trying to pin on the WASPs [Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Partiers] the blame for the murders committed by a deranged Jewish boy.

[Honestly, I'm not sure what his point is supposed to be - satirical, or not].

Anonymous said...

adfsadfdsfas said:

"You know, Steve seems to be more riled up than usual. Could it be because MSM trashed Sarah Palin more than usual?"

No, the reason Steve is more riled up than usual is because the left-wing media is trying to use the shooting to silence the pro-secure borders crowd (i.e. most sane Americans). In other words, this is all your fault you immigrant-hating Arizona voters. Now shut up, open your borders, and enjoy the diversity.

Wes said...

I suspect what frightens the Establishment is not so much Sarah Palin herself, but way so many White middle class Americans respond to her. The fact that after decades of indoctrination, Middle America could suddenly and forcefully respond to a person that they identify with, scares the elites. It's not so much Palin they fear as the fact that the living soul of America isn't quite dead yet and it can become vigorous and well ordered overnight.

JSM said...

"And the use of 'blood libel' may be defensible but still stupid."

If it's defensible, how is it stupid? I think it may turn out to have been exceedingly canny.

Big bill said...

"Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck."

You really ought to follow the black hatters more closely. They are a fascinating bunch of fundamentalists. Mind you they don't have any use for or interest in assimilated "neo Christian" Jews like Anne Frank, but I wouldn't be surprised if they spotted M. Schneerson in some gefiltefish.

Anonymous said...

From what I am told, an evangelical Christian would most likely be familiar with the historical meaning of "blood libel."

anony-mouse said...

Count your blessings.

At least you're not in Pakistan where people are crawling over each other to be associated with a political assassin.

Dennis Dale said...

They know veracity is no impediment; whatever facts come out in calmer days ahead (and recieving much less enthusiasm in the press), most will remember these early hysterics.

This is the left's version of charging Saddam with involvement in 9/11; years from now, all evidence to the contrary or not, a significant portion of the public will believe a "right-wing shooter" killed those people in Arizona. Like those righties who don't really care if the Iraq war was justified by WMD or 9/11, they just support it because that's what their side does (or so they think--if it was, say, Clinton's war most would have found the remnants of their integrity soon enough).

People have made a deliberate decision to use Loughner's murder weapon as the starter pistol for the next election. I would like to be a fly on the wall at one of those strategy sessions--though the air of cynicism in there would probably choke a dung-beetle.

Tony said...

Sarah palin as republican nominee guarantees obama 4 more years. She just needs to shut up, pose nude, or fade into obscurity. I like her conservative views but she's just an idiot.

ben g said...

Palin probably contributed 1% to that speech. Ditto to the commenter who compared her to bush. The main difference is that bush is actually intelligent, while it's amazing that Palin ever made it as far as she did in politics.

Why does this blog put any stock in her? She's just an abstract Red State symbol, who if elected would enact the same policies as Bush/McCain.. which are in fact not much different from Obama.

Anonymous said...

i could not help but note the opportunism of the mexican/native american speaker who tried to pepper his moment in the spotlight with facts relevant to immigration etc. also, several judeo/christian people die and we honor them with ethnocentric pagan rites ... i know there were scripture readings later, but it was out of place.

Mac said...

"There are a lot of issues where she could've said something substantative (ie immigration), but she kept silent. Just because she's saying something you like, don't get too excited.

I don't trust her."

Agreed. I think most right-wingers can't help but reflexively defend her some considering how the mention of her name tends to drive a Democrat one is speaking with bats--- insane. But she's not actually worth a vote.

Half Sigma said...

"This is an eloquent defense of America's tradition of free speech and debate."

Steve, I agree. You should should use your journalistic skills to find out who REALLY wrote it so that person can get the acclaim that he or she rightly deserves.

Anonymous said...

As for Palin--no, I am sure she didn't write it, or at least not most of it, but she delivered it better than any other speech I've ever heard from her. Her voice, usually quite high and sing-songy, was well modulated and her normally hurried speech was slowed to a good pace. I was quite surprised, even impressed, actually.

I dunno. I quite like Palin, partly because of her quasi-Canadian accent, but she totally lacks gravitas.

She should be a talk-show host, the Oprah of the right wing. Seriously, she could do a lot of good in that role.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

OT.

Dr. Harpending.

http://vimeo.com/18554760

agnostic said...

Blood libel is unique to Jews. The Romans said the same thing about Christians in the early centuries of Christianity.

And more recently it showed up in the heyday of urban legends (mid-'70s to early '90s), in the one about a gang of black youths who, as part of a ritual or initiation rite, cut off a white boy's penis in a mall bathroom. The mother is worried that he's been gone so long, enters the bathroom after seeing the smirking black youths exit, and finds her son with his blood spilled over the floor.

Anonymous said...

"Palin didn't write the speech.

She strikes me as being a lot like Bush."

Yeah, she is a New Eangland Establishment, liberal Republician, whos father was put on the Reagen ticket to soften the libertarian/right wing principled Reagen ticket with RINO goodness and garner votes.

Anonymous said...

"Palin probably contributed 1% to that speech. Ditto to the commenter who compared her to bush. The main difference is that bush is actually intelligent, while it's amazing that Palin ever made it as far as she did in politics."

Bush is "actually intellignet"?
Yes, in reality he is, but you are muddling the leftist/statist message, for the last ten years it was very important that bush was an Idiot, responsible for the Republican losses to Obama and a incoherent mindless blithering fool. Not "intellegent". No one in the Times or anywhere else that mattered would ever say those words about Bush.

David Davenport said...

Check this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/yesterday_afternoon_i_received.html

Posted at 9:36 AM ET, 01/12/2011

ADL incensed at criticism
By Jennifer Rubin

Yesterday afternoon I received an irate phone call from Anti-Defamation League spokesman Todd Gutnick. He was incensed that I had written such a critical piece on the ADL. I asked him what his specific gripe was. He said, "Well, for starters, it wasn't a 'press release.' It was a 'media advisory." Ah, I see. But really, not so much.

Then he insisted that the invitation to reporters to consult with ADL experts on "right-wing extremists" was justified. He claimed that it was ridiculous not to see the connection between right-wing extremists and anti-Semitism. But do the Arizona shootings have anything to do with anti-Semitism? Oh no, he assured me. In fact, the ADL has issued a statement saying the shootings have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

Now I'm confused again. If the mass murder did not have anything to do with anti-Semitism and can't be linked to right-wing (or any) political rhetoric, why then is the ADL using the opportunity to peddle its experts? Gutnick said, indignantly, "People are interested in our work, and we consider this part of our work." He said the ADL is talking to lots of journalists. I bet.

...

agnostic said...

is *not* unique

Svigor said...

"In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides."

No, we don't. Separate your church from my state.


Separate your separation of church and state from my state. "Congress shall make no law," etc. That's it. End of story. The rest is projection.

Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck.

How many Jewish Messiahs are there running around, as we speak? We probably shouldn't start throwing stones on the subject. Jews are as nutty as anyone when it comes to religion. "Zealot," "scapegoat," etc. Don't even get me started on their beliefs vis-a-vis burial (which, oddly enough, I consider rather intelligent, in a weird sort of way).

You really ought to follow the black hatters more closely. They are a fascinating bunch of fundamentalists. Mind you they don't have any use for or interest in assimilated "neo Christian" Jews like Anne Frank, but I wouldn't be surprised if they spotted M. Schneerson in some gefiltefish.

^^^ Beat me to it.

In fact, it's a little difficult for me to figure out how it could have been intended as anything but a non-joke.

I confess to not understanding that quote at all. I suppose I should check his blog for context.

Why does this blog put any stock in her?

I don't put any stock in her, but she does seem to drive the left absolutely batshit, so she can't be all bad. She's probably the harbinger of a charismatic Republican female with some real chops.

Fred said...

Half Sigma,

Despite your atheism and alleged rationalism you still have an irrational aversion to Sarah Palin. The first question you raise when she gives a good speech is who wrote it. Why, do you think Obama writes all of his own speeches? If anything, he's got more speechwriters working for him that she does for her. You should spend some time on this site, Jews for Sarah.

RKU said...

Here's an interesting question...

Over the last few decades, I think the overwhelming majority of American "terrorism" or mass-killings has been by crazy people, unhappy about various things, and I'd probably put this Loughner fellow in this category.

I think the second largest group of mass-killers/terrorists, sometimes overlapping with the first, have been those motivated by racial/ethnic hatred, with that Thornton fellow being a perfect example. Blacks seem very heavily over-represented, but I'm not sure if I can think of a single Hispanic example, while the fairly numerous Asian mass-killers almost always seem to fall into the first category. There seem almost no examples of domestic Islamic mass-killers (if you subtract the Black Muslim ones), despite the best efforts of the FBI plants to foment them.

Quite a ways down in number, are the pure ideological terrorists/mass-killers, and these almost always seem rightwing or libertarian types, with the numbers being non-trivial if you include abortion-protesters and such.

My question is this: has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years, since the Weathermen and the SLA of the 1960s and early 1970s? If not, then the perhaps it's not so totally absurd for the MSM liberals to make the assumptions they do. And no, I don't regard Thornton-type anti-white killers as being leftists in any reasonable sense...

Shouting Thomas said...

Boys, she makes you feel inadequate.

That's the whole story.

This woman is going to change the history of this country.

She isn't lacking. You are. And, the criticism and carping reeks of jealousy.

Little men sniping at a very big, very powerful woman.

Anonymous said...

@Fred, the reason we ask who wrote Palin's speeches is that we are interested in who her handlers are, because that points to what kind of policies we would get if she were elected. Pointing out that Obama doesn't write his own speeches either rather misses the point, don't you think?

It's not like we're talking about a Reagan who has his own ideas and who can articulate them himself; too many GOP politicians have become front-men for their gaggle of neo-con handlers. Neo-cons always want the same thing: Israel-uber-alles, open borders, globalism, outsourcing, offshoring, multiracialism, diversity, and unregulated Wall Street financial shenanigans.

Eight years of Bush the Lesser were enough. We don't need a repeat performance.

c said...

'No, we don't. Separate your church from my state.'

Oh, settle down there, Mr. Maher.

Fred said...

"Jews are as nutty as anyone when it comes to religion."

No doubt. But none prays to Anne Frank, whereas hundreds of millions of Christians pray to The Virgin Mary, so lefty's analogy was false.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of videos. Our host here:
http://vimeo.com/18544054

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is Anne Oakley. She is an American architype, timeless and instilled in each of us. If she os smart enough top ride it she could be a major cultural force. A couple partisan twitters is not what I have in mind.

Anonymous said...

Using the blood libel phrase completely upstaged that guy in the Whitehouse. What was his name again?

Anonymous said...

"I think Steve is just getting a little too worked up about all this AZ shooting nonsense"

It's not nonsense. The left was going to use this for a push on hate speech laws to shut down dissent even more than it already is.

Svigor said...

Maybe. But praying to Mary is a Catholic thing, not a Christian one, AFAIK; many Protestants consider it heresy/contrary to doctrine. Hell, isn't seeing saints in Cheetos a Catholic thing, too? I honestly don't know on that one, but I do know many Protestants share the Jewish/Muslim aversion to representing the image of God in art.

Svigor said...

My question is this: has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years, since the Weathermen and the SLA of the 1960s and early 1970s? If not, then the perhaps it's not so totally absurd for the MSM liberals to make the assumptions they do. And no, I don't regard Thornton-type anti-white killers as being leftists in any reasonable sense...

You killed your own question. You ask if lefties might be justified in making the assumptions they do. Presumably, you mean the assumption that right-wing rhetoric inspired Loughner? Not the presumption that he was himself right-wing.

Then you turn around and immunize the left from the exact same accusation:

I don't regard Thornton-type anti-white killers as being leftists in any reasonable sense

Not "I don't regard Thornton-type anti-white killers as being inspired or enabled by leftists."

Convenient, no?

Svigor said...

But you might have a kernel of a point, if you could remove non-white violence from the table. It makes sense, of course - WTF do the lefties really have to get violent about? Running everything? Getting their way all the time?

Svigor said...

And I read as many comments at Yglesias' blog as I could stand; still don't know WTF that quote means.

Peter A said...

Eloquent? She's a vile woman by any conservative standards and you should be ashamed of yourself. Steve, you are an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

"I don't trust her"

I trust her to drive the left insane.


"Sarah palin as republican nominee guarantees obama 4 more years."

I think replacing Democrats and corporatist Republicans at the state, congress and senate levels is more important than winning the Presidency with the sort of person who could win in the current conditions. The conditions need to be changed dramatically before anyone sensible could get elected.


"My question is this: has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated...And no, I don't regard Thornton-type anti-white killers as being leftists in any reasonable sense..."

Then it's an invalid question. The idealogy of the post-war left is cultural marxist and anti-white.

A white left-winger who was motivated by that idealogy would be white-suicidal rather than murderous. You'd find them promoting abortion or having no children to save the whale or having non-white children or volunteering in the most violent parts of Haiti and getting killed etc. It would be something that involved trying to reduce the number of white children being born rather than killing them once born.

Black killers like Thornton are exactly the sort of people you'd expect to find motivated by the post-war, cultural version of left-wing idealogy. They are leftists in that sense because they have absorbed the "white people are the problem" idealogy of the modern left.

It's no different to a working class kid in 1910 shooting a capitalist because they have absorbed half-understood socialist ideas.

Truth said...

"Sarah Palin is Anne Oakley. She is an American architype, timeless and instilled in each of us."

No, Anne Oakley actually knew how to shoot a gun.

"Then you turn around and immunize the left from the exact same accusation"

Svigor, come on homie, you've been here long enough to properly translate Sailerese into English. Step aside:

"I don't consider Thornton or other black killers leftists, because that would assume that they had a political bent, and they're not inteligent enough for that. Besides everyone knows that every black who kills a white does so because of racial hatred.

Anonymous said...

It's mildly amusing to see all the Palin rage on the part of the elite left, and I'm not even a Palin fan.

As far as I can see, it's the NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, WaPo, Time, and Newsweek vs. Palin and a Facebook account, and Palin is ahead on points.

Gene said...

Sarah Palin was falsely accused of aiding and abetting a monstrous crime. She had a right to object. Perhaps the accusation wasn't exactly the blood libel but it was a bloody libel nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I'm about 98% sure that Yglesias was just making a sarcastic joke about the absurdly inflamed reaction of some of the silly liberal-pundits to Palin's speechwriter's excitable phrases. And that seemed to be the view of Yglesias's commenters, who closely follow his blog postings. In fact, it's a little difficult for me to figure out how it could have been intended as anything but a non-joke.

Did you mean to write "joke" instead of "non-joke"?

Or "like" rather than "but"?

You are confusing me as much as Yglesias did originally.

Anonymous said...

This strikes me as the biggest breakdown in communication in this country in recent memory, and one that may have lasting consequences for civil discourse.

The Left is stuck with the notion of blaming the Right for the murders of six people. Prior to the shooting there were leftists just praying for an act of violence. They instantly glommed on to the hope that it was committed by a right-winger. Now that it's known that Loughner is no right-winger, they're still intent on blaming the right for the "atmposphere of violence" they've created, nevermind that there's not a single damn bit of proof that Loughner, who didn't even vote in the recent election, was paying any attention whatsoever.

No matter what Loughner was thinking, no matter who he was or wasn't paying attention to, according to the Left it's still the Right's fault.

I have a lot of friends on every side of the political divide. With exceptions for the very extreme, I don't assume people have the worst of motives just because of what they believe. I think there are intelligent people on every side of the debate.

But this is the rare issue where I've ended friendships over mere political statements. Rush Limbaugh doesn't make me angry - he's actually a pretty jovial guy, and makes me laugh. John Boehner didn't make me want to go shoot any Democrats. Sarah Palin is mostly silly and pathetic. But the Left, blaming the Right for these murders, just makes my blood boil. It's pathetic to see people purporting to discourage vitriol by spreading craploads of it.

Incivility and hate? Janet Napolitano (a former Arizona governor) wasn't being uncivil when suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were likely terrorists? The lame duck Democratic Congress wasn't being uncivil when passing a truckload of bills they didn't have the balls to vote on before the election? Accusing Arizonans and Americans of being racists for wanting their border secure isn't uncivil? Accusing millions of Tea Party activists of anger and racism isn't uncivil? Lying about Loughner's political registration (some leftists accused him of being a Republican) isn't uncivil?

From where I stand, there's a hell of a lot of anger and incivility being sown by the Left. They have no right to feign innocence.

The Left, with no f---ing evidence whatsoever, is trying to blame the Right for inciting murder. And it's not really the murders they're pissed about, it's just an excuse to get people on the Right to shut up.

RKU said...

Then it's an invalid question. The idealogy of the post-war left is cultural marxist and anti-white...Black killers like Thornton are exactly the sort of people you'd expect to find motivated by the post-war, cultural version of left-wing idealogy. They are leftists in that sense because they have absorbed the "white people are the problem" idealogy of the modern left...It's no different to a working class kid in 1910 shooting a capitalist because they have absorbed half-understood socialist ideas.

Yes, that's a fair point. To the extent that American "leftism" these days seems something totally different than the traditional meaning of the term, the sort of actions it inspires or motivates would obviously be different as well.

But I still think my basic point mostly stands. Offhand, I can't think of a single Hispanic or Asian (or white) in the last few decades who's committed mass violence for "anti-white" ideological reasons as opposed to just ordinary lunacy, and remarkably enough the same is pretty much true for domestic Muslims as well.

Now I would agree that a certain portion of the very heavy level of black violence directed against whites is probably due to the widespread "anti-white" ideology presented in the popular culture, not to mention the black subculture. But this shouldn't be taken too far. After all, the vast majority of black violence is directed against other blacks, exactly contrary to this ideology. And as far as I can tell, black violence against other non-white groups such as Hispanics and Asians is actually quite a lot greater than that against whites, and this again has no current "leftist" ideological justification. So I tend to doubt that the importance of the ideological factor is nearly as great as some people are claiming.

(And I obviously meant to use the phrase "could have been intended as anything like a non-joke" in my earlier comment.)

Anonymous said...

I'm more likely to support Palin now than I was before.

I think what is driving people in the media to make these delusional denunciations is paranoia.

I remember when I was a Minuteman on the Naco line, there wasn't one act of violence, nor was there any discussion of violence - that I heard. I recall the New York Times printing a story about a Hispanic migrant who had been killed by a man in Arizona. Don't remember the details, but the NYT reported it as a killing by a Minuteman. Only problem was that it took place 200 miles from where the Minutemen were active, so it was pure paranoia. At least the NYT acknowledged its mistake and retracted the story. But in that case, reality so obviously and immediately conflicted with their delusion that they really had no choice. Here, they can run on each others fumes.

- Rudy

Justthisguy said...

Reading this kind of stuff makes me even more happy than I was that I voted for Sarah Palin and that old guy, whatshisname.

On getting shot in the head: It will, in general, mess you up. You are never the same after a bad head wound.

Of course, it's not as bad as being shot dead, like the little girl.

Simon in London said...

Fred:
"I guess it depends how you define "ages". The PRC was founded in 1949 and since then, they've invaded Tibet and invaded parts of India and Vietnam."

'Ages' - since 1979.

Simon in London said...

RKU:
"After all, the vast majority of black violence is directed against other blacks"

That's a myth - somewhat over half the victims of black violent crime are white (per the 2005 DoJ stats, which I think was the last time they released race/crime stats). Blacks are individually more likely (5-6 times as likely) to be victims of black crime because there are 6 times as many whites as blacks.

David said...

>has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years<

Ted Kaczynski. Saint of the Deep Ecology movement.

Half Sigma said...

Fred: "Why, do you think Obama writes all of his own speeches?"

I never said that he did. But if he wanted to, I'm sure he could. Sarah Palin has given no indication that she's smart enough to write such a good speech. Her private emails, which that guy hacked and published on the web, showed deplorable writing skills.

DYork said...

"This is my genocide school," says the narrator on the video, identified as Loughner. "We areexamining the torture of students."

OK, it's one thing to kill a 9 year old girl among others but to invoke genocide when complaining about your problems is nothing short of blatant anti-semitism.

Jews everywhere should be outraged at this.

Has Abe Foxman spoken about this outrage?

Plus, Giffords is Jewish. Is there a connection?

JSM said...

I simply ADORE the fact that Sarah drives the left batshit. That fact alone makes her worth her weight in gold.

Do I want to see her as POTUS? Heck, no, but it'd be delicious indeed to have her as, say, Secretary of Ed.

She's not a mental giant, by any stretch, but she's clearly no dumber than an average school teacher.
And since the Left thinks edukashun is the Answer to All Problems, their heads would REALLY explode to see Sarah running their favorite hobby horse.
*....um, okay, in view of Saturday's events, maybe using the metaphor of heads exploding was a tad ungraceful....

Anonymous said...

google news is still spotlighting Krugman - a snapshot of the aggregate when I looked at it:
Obama Calls for Untiy
Palin incites hate (AP)

one thing i have noticed (i don't know why this comment didn't get posted before) that MSM has been slowly regaining power via aggregates like google news- google news used to have papers from all over the world - one would read about the middle east from, say Lebanon daily star - and smaller sources - google and msm made some sort of backroom deal -because now, on google news about 80% of the sources are MSM left leaning, the rest taken up by murdoch papers

Silver said...

This is the left's version of charging Saddam with involvement in 9/11; years from now, all evidence to the contrary or not, a significant portion of the public will believe a "right-wing shooter" killed those people in Arizona. Like those righties who don't really care if the Iraq war was justified by WMD or 9/11, they just support it because that's what their side does (or so they think--if it was, say, Clinton's war most would have found the remnants of their integrity soon enough).

It's pointless to bemoan it. That's just the way humans -- at least prior to some sort of "awareness point" -- are built.

For the life of me I can't recall where I read it but there's some fascinating psychological research that it's pertinent to share here. From memory it was something like: Random people were asked by a researcher posing as a geographer whether the population of [country X] was greater or smaller than [number Y], followed by a request for an estimate of country X's population. What occurred was people's estimate tended to fall within the ballpark of the number dropped by the geographer, even if that number wasn't even close to the actual population of country X. (Eg Country X's real population is 10 million, but geographer asks whether it's greater or smaller than 50 million, and estimates tended to be much closer to 50 million than to 10 million.)

The fascinating part was that the same experiment was repeated not with a geographer (ie an expert) dropping the number but it being generated by a roulette wheel. The researcher would spin the roulette wheel; it would land on [number Y] and the interviewee would be asked whether country X's population was greater or smaller followed again by a request for an estimate of the population. And again the estimate volunteered was closer to the number that came up on the roulette wheel than country X's actual population.

We're built to see patterns and form connections, and we'll often go about it totally irrationally. And once those connections are formed in our minds we'd rather defend them than change our minds.

In the case of politics, people are primed to form certain sorts of connections. Exploiting those biases is cinch.

At this point one really has to wonder just how intelligent some "highly intelligent" people really are. Because rather than accept that this is our human reality and work within it they'd rather spend the rest of their lives vainly railing against it, attempting to make the average person into what the average person cannot, on average, ever be.

elvisd said...

I don't care for Palin. I also think this is just another spin of the long co-dependency between her and the MSM. They demonize her as a straw-woman for the heartland that they despise so much. She relishes the role, so it stays at Jerry Springer level.

That said, her speech was overall quite good. I don't want to go into the whole Jewish angle on this. Blood libel is a bit of almost medieval arcana, somewhere along the lines of quoting Aquinas, or being able to recite the seven deadly sins.

For Palin, it came across as fish out of water, as her education is clearly so limited. I suspect a handler who vaguely knew the reference put it in, gave her a 30 second synopsis of it, and she rolled with it.

It probably jarred people more now than it would have fifty years ago, when the truly educated would have really known the reference.

References to European history and religion are becoming more and more remote to the average American, and generate intellectual blackouts like this.

Whitey Whiteman III said...

"Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck."


Good point.

They see Hitler is fucking everything.

Leah said...

Can I just say, as a Jew and a libertarian, I LOVED this speech. Go, Sarah Palin! (I never thought I'd be saying that; she's the reason we're stuck with Obama in the White House, after all).

The people who've leaped onto her "blood libel" terminology are the same opportunistic types who leaped onto her "violent rhetoric" and ignored worse things from Democrats. Nobody in this hemisphere seriously believes Sarah Palin is an anti-Semite. These liberals are bald-faced liars.

Oh, and I guess we can't use the phrases "witch-hunt" or "tar and feather" any more... because y'know SOMEONE's ancestors were literally persecuted in those ways.

Leah said...

Incidentally, she used that phrase (probably) because it appeared in the headline of a WSJ Op-Ed by Glenn Reynolds about the Arizona shooting and the media demonization of Palin based on scant evidence.

So... it got past the WSJ editors. People need to chill.

dearieme said...

"has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years": yes, the slaughter of the religious fruitcakes at Waco by the thugs of the Clinton junta.

Anonymous said...

Half Sigma: Fred: "Why, do you think Obama writes all of his own speeches?"

I never said that he did. But if he wanted to, I'm sure he could. Sarah Palin has given no indication that she's smart enough to write such a good speech. Her private emails, which that guy hacked and published on the web, showed deplorable writing skills.


You really ought to spend an afternoon with the [handful of] known non-Ayers non-Favreau works in the [ostensible] Obama "corpus", and then get back to us on that one.

David said...

"Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck."

Many Jews see Hitler in almost everyone who disagrees with their favorite political ideas. They see Hitler in the likes of you and me. They see Hitler behind a tree. Read _The Plot Against America_ by Philip Roth; he perceives in the entire state of Kentucky, and in America's favorite aviator, naught but drooling Hitlers. Hitlers and Cossacks and xians and cheated business partners - oh my! In reality, it was such people along with the Russian peasants who handed Hitler his fanny on a stick (at immense cost in their own blood). But that's the heck of it: this is detachment from reality we're talking about here.

If the solution is Holocaust museums in every state and Holocaust studies in every school curricula, what is the problem?

K, have to go back to poring over Google Earth now, looking for swastika-shaped buildings and rock formations. See ya.

Anonymous said...

google and msm made some sort of backroom deal

Tell me about it.

I've spent much of the last year trying to bump up the relevant Olof Aschberg article to the top of a google search on him [right now I am showing the relevant article at about #5, which is an improvement over no hits at all].

Anonymous said...

BTW< i totally agree that the holocaust has become a quasi religion:
ann frank is the virgin mary figure
the 'crucifixion' is the holocaust itself
the 'resurrection' is Israel.

All politicians mush make a 'pilgrimage' to either 'Jerusalem' or a reliquary cathedral -eg a holocaust museum

Mr. Anon said...

It was a pretty good speech. Of course, she did not write it, but she had the good sense to have it written for her and approved it. It was even Eloquent, as it has been described. This shows that Sarah Palin can be eloquent.......in defence of herself.

I have never seen her speak with eloquence in defence of anything I care about. She has not been eloquent about deporting illegal aliens, limiting immigration, the selling out of american industry, or our needless foreign wars. In fact, she doesn't speak about those things at all, other than occasionally to put in a good word for them.

I don't think Palin is that smart, although she may have a few decent instincts. But what she mainly is, is an ambitious self-promoter. She is not building a political movement - she is building a brand.

I don't trust her, and I would never vote for her.

stari_momak said...

How will the 'Law and Order' version play out?

stari_momak said...

On Palin's gun skills -- Truth obviously didn't watch 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'

BTW for a reality show, it was actually pretty good.

RKU said...

JSM: I simply ADORE the fact that Sarah drives the left batshit. That fact alone makes her worth her weight in gold.

Ha, ha! Then "JSM" must have adored "W" even more, since liberals and leftists hated him to an even greater extent. Wasn't it even called "Bush Derangement Symptom" for a while.

My impression is that about 80% of all the current uses of the "blood libel" phrase in today's America are by Jewish neocons, just as was likely the case in that WSJ Op-Ed from a couple of days ago (Glenn Reynolds isn't Jewish, but the WSJ editor who picked the headline quite probably was). So I think that gives us a pretty good clue as to who's writing Palin's big speeches, and generally telling her what to think about everything. Assuming this analysis is true, the charges of "anti-Semitism" levelled against her by various other Jewish neocons become very funny, but so does the adoration of her speech by some of the anti-neocons on this blogsite.

Anonymous said...

I thought the Reagan quote was most apt. The MSM and co are no doubt upset that they can't directly pin this on the Tea Party, so they'll manufacture outrage out of thin air.

Kylie said...

"...she's[Palin's] the reason we're stuck with Obama in the White House, after all."

No, IIRC the NAM vote is the reason for that.

Speaking of which, apparently I'm the only person in the Western hemisphere who's bored by both Palin and NAMs.

TrueNorth said...

So much for the Yglesias is the "conscience of the Left" thesis of Andrew Sullivan. He is just another deranged leftist pundit.

I agree with the observation Steve made that it is the continuation of this ridiculous connection between Palin and the shooting (rather than the initial overreaction) that is so disturbing. It is a real wheat-chaff sorter for viewing those on the left.

Mr. Anon said...

"stari_momak said...

How will the 'Law and Order' version play out?"

It just did. Life mimics art.

lesley said...

"She [Palin] is dumb, that's a fact."

"Dumb?" Do you mean she is lacking that ineffable quality that we are told B.O. possesses in such abundance, i.e., intelligence?
Or do you mean "dumb" as in "mute?" Because she does talk.

And that's a fact.

Anonymous said...

"has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years"

Besides the Unabomber there was Jim Jones, who killed over 900 in Guyana. It was the largest mass murder of Americans until the 9/11 attacks. Jones was from the Bay Area, had deep ties to the Left, and was not religious in any real sense.

Scotsman said...

"has there been single example of a clearly leftwing-motivated terrorist/mass-killer in America in the last 40-odd years<

Ted Kaczynski. Saint of the Deep Ecology movement."

But if youve read his manifesto, you'll see he spends about 1/3 of the paper analyzing the mind of a leftist. He concludes that there can never be any cooperation with leftists. No, Ted's critique of the industrialized world is closer to a Luddite position, not a leftist one. (and I say this as an anti-leftist conservative)

RKU said...

Simon in London: "That's a myth - somewhat over half the victims of black violent crime are white (per the 2005 DoJ stats)"

Actually, I'm skeptical about that claim and the statistics behind it. A major problem is that some of the worst black ghetto areas are virtually in a "state of nature", and I doubt that anybody bothers to report much of the local crime---petty theft, violent fights, etc.---unless someone is seriously injured. By contrast, when middle class people (mostly whites) are robbed or attacked, they tend to report the crimes to the police.

The "gold standard" for crime statistics is the homicide rate, since definitions are clear-cut and reporting is near 100%. And if you look at the official data, I think only around 10% of black homicide victims are white, so I suspect the true figure for black violent crime victims is somewhere in the same ballpark.

Anonymous said...

Jared Loughner is not Jewish.
See: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/01/12/2742519/loughners-jewish-mother-not-so-much#When:13:12:00Z

Anonymous said...

"Let me know when a Jew claims to have seen the image of Anne Frank in a splotch of bird crap on a truck."

Seeing an image of Jesus in a splotch of bird crap is one thing, but believing in a religion in which one of the luminaries (Moses) claims to have parted the Red Sea with God's help is quite another. Spare me the BS about Christians being superstitious. Jews are just as superstitious - it's just that they are oblivious about how their criticisms work just as well on their religion. Or, indeed, on any religion. Why do they focus their fire on Christianity? Because - in the modern era - Christians, unlike Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, do not assassinate their critics.

Truth said...

No, Stari, I didn't. But I did work in T.V. production for many years.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/levi-johnston-calls-palin-a-phony.php

Anonymous said...

Half Sigma called it, with respect to Palin.

I have nothing against Mrs. Palin personally, but she's a tool. She's also not smart enough.

Anonymous said...

Judis Priest. I really wonder about Americans sometimes. 97% of us AREN'T Jewish. Most Americans don't have Jewish neighbors, friends, or even co-workers. The Jews had nothing to do with the founding of this country and had minimal impact on our public life until 1900 or so.

Yet, now our entire public life revolves around the Jews, Abe Foxman and the ADL. The Semites, the anti-semites, and weirdo Christian Zionists like Mike "I worship a Jew" Huckabee dominate every discussion.

50 years ago, some one like Matt Y wouldn't have dared to attack a Gentile Politician for offending Jewish sensibilities. Today not only Jews -but most Gentiles seem to only to care "Is it good for the Jews?"

Svigor said...

Svigor, come on homie, you've been here long enough to properly translate Sailerese into English. Step aside

Hey, where's the love? I helped you with your Puertonics without all the huff...

Anonymous said...

"On Palin's gun skills -- Truth obviously didn't watch 'Sarah Palin's Alaska' "

You mean the episode where she missed five shots in a row and needed her dad to work the action on the bolt-action rifle for her? Yeah, fine shootin' right there...

Sean said...

When Soviets committed the massacre in the Katyn Forest, many on the Left insisted the Nazis did it. Because MSM thinks in terms of "Nazism(or far white right)as the ulitmate evil", even leftist crimes have been projected on the Right. All evil must somehow be linked to the Right--just like 'hate' is only a rightwing pathology but not a leftist one according to PC. Same with the asassination of Kennedy in which the murderer was the Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald. The blame was Katyned onto the Right. The movie JFK was hardly different from the Soviet myths about Katyn.
And though Omar Thorton killed whites, the blame was indirectly placed on 'racist' whites who may have driven him crazy. In other words, evil whites made Thorton do it. And OJ was made from a murderer to a poor black victim of a 'racist' cop Mark Fuhrman.
And though it was leftist Jews who snuck atomic secrets to the USSR and it was the USSR which planted nukes on Cuba(and Che Guevara even wanted a nuclear exchange in the name of 'revolutionary sacrifice'), Hollywood movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, and Seven Days in May warned that far-right elements are about to push the world to the brink.
What we saw with the Arizona shooting fits the same pattern.
This isn't to say there aren't crazies on the far right; there are. But it's worrying that even the extreme acts of leftists or non-rightists are blamed on the right in some Procrustean manner.
(But most delusional of all are American conservative who act as though most American Jews are the most wonderful people and the best friends of good decent patriotic Americans.)

Indio said...

"Speaking of videos. Our host here:
http://vimeo.com/18544054"

What happened to the beard?

Eric said...

Her private emails, which that guy hacked and published on the web, showed deplorable writing skills.

How many people take the time to polish up their private emails? Seriously, that's weak.

Anonymous said...

I read through a recent edition of Mother Jones this morning in the doctor's office. I was attracted by the big cartoon of Sarah Palin on the cover.

Very interesting - as Arte Johnson used to say on "Laugh In".

These unrepentant Marxists slam Palin for deceiving the American middle class about their true interests. She has somehow kept the American people from recognizing their stake in the class struggle. She is, they seem to imply, some sort of genius level political manipulator while affecting a deceptive persona of normality.

I don't quite know how this is reconciled with the other theme that she is a numbskull with barely enough brains to breathe.

One quality that Palin has is caricaturability. The cartoons of O'Reilly and Beck in Mother Jones could be anybody. But the cartoons of Palin are instantly identifiable (bangs and glasses). I expect cries of outrage from the left if she ever decides to wear contacts and change her hair style. More evidence that she is up to no good.

Albertosaurus

Whiskey said...

RKU -- Taken as a whole, anti-White violence is certainly anti-White, on the part of Blacks in particular. Reginald Denny, the victims of Monfort and Thornton, the victims of the Knoxville Horror, the victims of the Kansas Massacre, were all singled out for attack (and mostly murder, only by a miracle did Denny survive) BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE. NO OTHER REASON.

The flipside to Emmett Till's lynching was that of Thornton's massacre. He said he was going to kill them ... BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE. The former happened in ... 1955. The latter, last year.

You also have John Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo, and Nidal Hassan, and Faisal Shahzad, all motivated explicitly by Islam (roughly, part of the Left, not the least of which the Left defends and admires Islam).

Add Bill Ayers (Obama's mentor) and his odious wife, and you get an ugly picture.

JSM said...

"Ha, ha! Then "JSM" must have adored "W" even more, since liberals and leftists hated him to an even greater extent. Wasn't it even called "Bush Derangement Symptom" for a while."

Nah. Bush had the reins of power, which is what made him terrifying, and he used those reins to drag us into a war for which we STILL have no exit plan.

If you'll note, I said I did *NOT* favor Palin as Prez, but Secretary of Ed, sure. (Mainly because, while she'll drive the Left outta their gourds, which I shall enjoy immensely, as well as distract them from furthering their anti-White policies, she can do no actual harm. A dept. headed by the likes of Arne Duncan cannot sink any lower).

Baloo said...

Yes, I don't know if it's been used here, but the word for this new religion is 'Holocaustianity.'

JSM said...

"Assuming this analysis is true, the charges of "anti-Semitism" levelled against her by various other Jewish neocons become very funny, but so does the adoration of her speech by some of the anti-neocons on this blogsite."

Nah, you don't get it.
Sarah may not, originally, have understood just what a shitstorm the use of a very apropos metaphor would cause, true, but the full dose she's getting now of Jewish vitriol may open her eyes to possibilities that governing distant,
dark Alaska left her unaware of.

If the unfair demonizing she's suffering serves to radicalize her, she may end up being of use to us pro-Whites, after all.

We love Sarah's speech BECAUSE of the inevitable, very public, howls of outrage her use of the phrase "blood libel" sparked from Organized Jewry. She may, if she's even of average intelligence, which I think she is, start to question WHY her neocon handlers did this to her and that maybe firing a few might be a good idea.

Svigor said...

(But most delusional of all are American conservative who act as though most American Jews are the most wonderful people and the best friends of good decent patriotic Americans.)

Indeed, "conservatives" enforce ipso facto Jewish innocence as a dogma, just as "leftists" enforce ipso facto non-white innocence as a dogma.

I think a useful tactic might be to start from this position - lead with this premise. Then criticism of either group becomes support for an attack on white conservatives and leftists, and less an attack on Jews or non-whites.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

RKU -- Taken as a whole, anti-White violence is certainly anti-White, on the part of Blacks in particular. Reginald Denny,......(and mostly murder, only by a miracle did Denny survive)"

To be fair, it wasn't a miracle that saved Reginald Denny - it was four black people, who saw him being brutalized on live TV and went to his aid.

Anonyia said...

"I honestly don't know on that one, but I do know many Protestants share the Jewish/Muslim aversion to representing the image of God in art."
Dunno if this one is true anymore. Or at least not when it comes to nativity scenes, which catholics, protestants and evangelicals alike seem quite fond of around Christmastime. There is a Baptist coffee shop down the street from me which sells various Christian items. There is plenty of religiously themed artwork/knick-knacks. It's just a different style of art than the Catholics are fond of when depicting likenesses of God/other holy beings.

Anonymous said...

Who wrote the speech? Who advises Sarah Palin every day on every subject? Who is the eminence grise? Who is hiding in plain sight?

Todd.

Think Penn & Teller. Read Eric Hoffer and think about all the time Todd had on the North Slope to read ... well, who knows.

Truth said...

"To be fair, it wasn't a miracle that saved Reginald Denny - it was four black people, who saw him being brutalized on live TV and went to his aid."

Anon, you know better than to interrupt a fantasy with cruel, unfair truth.

kwilliam 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.”

So, by that reasoning, the Muslims who didn't participate in the 9/11 attacks should be off the hook. Think Palin is going to drop her opposition to the Ground Zero 'mosque'? Me neither.

Mr. Anon said...

"kwilliam said...

So, by that reasoning, the Muslims who didn't participate in the 9/11 attacks should be off the hook. Think Palin is going to drop her opposition to the Ground Zero 'mosque'? Me neither."

Yeah, real cute. Peddle it elsewhere. Muslims are not american. We never asked them to come here. They were imposed on us by a government that cares not one jot what we think. They should not be allowed to build thier mosques in our lands.

Svigor said...

Anon, you know better than to interrupt a fantasy with cruel, unfair truth.

Indeed. The Manichean racist vs. anti-racist conflict played out by whites on the big screen could be said to more accurately portray blacks.

Svigor said...

You have a point there. I think I got my wires crossed. Prots are more into not worshipping/over-revering anything outside the Trinity, so they get kinda sniffy about icons and such. Well, some of them anyway.

Fred said...

"Spare me the BS about Christians being superstitious. Jews are just as superstitious"

Congratulations on missing the point by a country mile. Scroll up for the answer in my response to Svigor.

ben tillman said...

The flipside to Emmett Till's lynching was that of Thornton's massacre. He said he was going to kill them ... BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE.

Not at all.

First, Till wasn't lynched. A lynching involves mob action; it's an act of public retribution. Till was killed by the husband of his victim and a couple of accomplices in an act of private retribution.

Second, Till was not killed simply because he was black; he was killed because the victim's husband believed he had sexually assaulted the victim. The fact that he was black surely didn't help his cause, but he was the instigator.

The MSM and co are no doubt upset that they can't directly pin this on the Tea Party, so they'll manufacture outrage out of thin air.

The falsification of history as it happens ought to lead you to question the veracity of the received historical record, especially regarding things like the Emmett Till story.

ben tillman said...

Jared Loughner is not Jewish.
See: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/01/12/2742519/loughners-jewish-mother-not-so-much#When:13:12:00Z


That JTA article calls Mother Jones's star witness Tierney a mere "acquaintance" of Loughner. The author is a liar. Falsus in uno; falsus in omnibus.

From Mother Jones:

"As Loughner and Tierney grew closer, Tierney got used to spending the first ten minutes or so of every day together arguing with Loughner's 'nihilist' view of the world."

And:

"At 2:00 a.m. on Saturday—about eight hours before he allegedly killed six people and wounded 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), in Tucson—Jared Lee Loughner phoned an old and close friend with whom he had gone to high school and college. The friend, Bryce Tierney, was up late watching TV, but he didn't answer the call. When he later checked his voice mail, he heard a simple message from Loughner: 'Hey man, it's Jared. Me and you had good times. Peace out. Later.'"

lesley said...

"97% of us AREN'T Jewish. Most Americans don't have Jewish neighbors, friends, or even co-workers. The Jews had nothing to do with the founding of this country and had minimal impact on our public life until 1900 or so. "

I once had a conversation with a very intelligent black lady (she'd worked in the film industry for a while) and opined that slaves had only made their owners wealthy, not society as a whole. She pointed out that slavery had made products like rum, sugar, cotton, etc., cheaper on whole, allowing a more fluid common market. So maybe the wealth of America did owe something to slavery.
As far as Jews not influencing all this, think again. First of all they were involved with European banking, and that was very involved with American finance by the Civil War. Lincoln had some real issue with all this, but that's a complex subject that has been written about by finance historians.
Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade going back to the 16th century. Lists of Jewish owned ships, crews, and the countries that sponsored them, are well known and Jews themselves spoke freely of it until it became taboo in the later 20th century. The first synagogue in the United States went up in Providence, Rhode Island, which puzzled me until someone pointed out that was a major slave-trade port. This is not to accuse them of greater perfidy than that committed by non-Jews, but I am really tired of how some act as though they (as a group) are totally innocent, historically, of slavery and racism in America. They are as guilty (even if they were sometimes victims of racism) as the non-Jews who were slavers. Nevertheless, the Jewish slavers could not have flourished unless the "Christian" countries sponsoring them, went for it in a big way. Queen Elizabeth I had her scruples, but they were overcome.
What I'm saying is, this aura of innocent victim who has never done any great degree of moral wrong (compared with gentiles) has just got to stop. It's dishonest, dissimulating, and leads to psycho anti-Jewishness which is just as disturbing as irrational philo-Jewishness. The Jews are no better and no worse morally than any other ethnic group, but the history is there to read. They say winners write history--I think they write the textbooks and the taglines on monuments. The original sources and references are left in the file cabinets for those who really want to know.

Manco 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.”

"So, by that reasoning, the Muslims who didn't participate in the 9/11 attacks should be off the hook. Think Palin is going to drop her opposition to the Ground Zero 'mosque'? Me neither."

There's a key difference between 9/11 and this case.

9/11 was carried out by Muslims, and there seems be a substantial number of people in the Middle East who admire Osama.
Arizona shooting was NOT carried out be a Tea Partier and all people in the Tea Party condemn the act.
The two events would be comparable IF a rightwing Tea Party did the killing and something like 1/3 of Tea Party people approved of the violence.

Truth said...

"but he was the instigator."

Sure he was, he whistled at a woman and got murdered for it. And Omar Thornton's co-workers were "racist", and they got murdered for it. Life is a perfect circle.

Truth said...

"9/11 was carried out by Muslims,"

"Carried out" by Muslims perhaps, but planned, aided and abeted by globalist whites.

"and there seems be a substantial number of people in the Middle East who admire Osama."

How do you know? Have you been there recently, or is it true because Shill O'Rielly told you so?

Anonymous said...

Truth "9/11 was carried out by Muslims,"

"Carried out" by Muslims perhaps, but planned, aided and abeted by globalist whites.


Say what?!?

ben tillman said...

How do you know? Have you been there recently, or is it true because Shill O'Rielly told you so?

Absolutely priceless. Are you suggesting you were in that little store in Mississippi in 1955?

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

"9/11 was carried out by Muslims,"

"Carried out" by Muslims perhaps, but planned, aided and abeted by globalist whites."

Yeah, the same ones who faked the moon landing, keep those water-powered cars off the market, and are hiding from us the already complete conquest of our world by alien, reptillian overlords.

When you are as stupid as "Truth" is, everything is a conspiracy.

Truth said...

"Yeah, the same ones who faked the moon landing, keep those water-powered cars off the market, and are hiding from us the already complete conquest of our world by alien, reptillian overlords."

Exactly, Grasshopper!

OMG, I can't believe it's finally sunk in. My work here may be done.

lelsey said...

"Yeah, the same ones who faked the moon landing, keep those water-powered cars off the market, and are hiding from us the already complete conquest of our world by alien, reptillian overlords.

hmmm. why does this come to my mind?

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."\
Shakespear.

Me. Footage of the moon landing has Stanley Kubrick's fingerprints all over it. Indeed, it is in the public domaine that NASA had hired him to do work for them. There is a technique of filming he used in Space Odyssey 2001 that is in the moon landing footage, whereby he films a static, panoramic background somewhat out of proportion to the larger, moving foreground, giving a weird sense of a world superimposed on another. I'm not an film expert and so can't explain it, but I have heard a cinematographer on about it. This does not mean America did not land men on the moon. It did, and more times than are on record. But the particular footage we see was done in studio for reasons of the makers' own. Reasons, I'm sure, rational, conspiracy-rejecting folks would know are conspiracies and therefore reject them.
While there are powerful forces transcending nations, forces that have more in common with one another than with the common people of their respective countries, I would call these powerful forces corporate big business, big bankers and big wigs who operate behind the scenes, rather than "reptilians" even though many look the part.
But of course, rational people know that there is nothing going on that we don't already know about from FOX News or, perhaps, The Nation.
As for that water-run car, there have been rumors for 100 years that such a car was invented and viable in the early 20th century. I had always assumed that oil was necessary, but in fact there were other options but the oil industry was already powerful; and persons have subsequently come forward with virtual free-energy fuel sources never to be heard from again.
If you control many trillions do you really think you'd let some little garage inventor ruin your business? You think Russian oligarchs can kill to get and keep what they? So will any others. That's why you hear this "reptile" stuff--cold blooded, heartless. Willing to send a whole generation to death or dismemberment just for the greater gain of their personal wealth and power. Reptiles at heart, all of them.
The naievete of the masses is at least as laughable as the reptile-believers. More so, since they are more common and more usable.

lelsey said...

"Yeah, the same ones who faked the moon landing, keep those water-powered cars off the market, and are hiding from us the already complete conquest of our world by alien, reptillian overlords.

hmmm. why does this come to my mind?

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."\
Shakespear.

Me. Footage of the moon landing has Stanley Kubrick's fingerprints all over it. Indeed, it is in the public domaine that NASA had hired him to do work for them. There is a technique of filming he used in Space Odyssey 2001 that is in the moon landing footage, whereby he films a static, panoramic background somewhat out of proportion to the larger, moving foreground, giving a weird sense of a world superimposed on another. I'm not an film expert and so can't explain it, but I have heard a cinematographer on about it. This does not mean America did not land men on the moon. It did, and more times than are on record. But the particular footage we see was done in studio for reasons of the makers' own. Reasons, I'm sure, rational, conspiracy-rejecting folks would know are conspiracies and therefore reject them.
While there are powerful forces transcending nations, forces that have more in common with one another than with the common people of their respective countries, I would call these powerful forces corporate big business, big bankers and big wigs who operate behind the scenes, rather than "reptilians" even though many look the part.
But of course, rational people know that there is nothing going on that we don't already know about from FOX News or, perhaps, The Nation.
As for that water-run car, there have been rumors for 100 years that such a car was invented and viable in the early 20th century. I had always assumed that oil was necessary, but in fact there were other options but the oil industry was already powerful; and persons have subsequently come forward with virtual free-energy fuel sources never to be heard from again.
If you control many trillions do you really think you'd let some little garage inventor ruin your business? You think Russian oligarchs can kill to get and keep what they? So will any others. That's why you hear this "reptile" stuff--cold blooded, heartless. Willing to send a whole generation to death or dismemberment just for the greater gain of their personal wealth and power. Reptiles at heart, all of them.
The naievete of the masses is at least as laughable as the reptile-believers. More so, since they are more common and more usable.

none of the above said...

lesley:

There was definitely a lot of money made using slaves, particularly in the godawful sugar plantations (where they spent centuries steadily buying new slaves, as the existing stock of slaves died off faster than they could reproduce), but also in cotton plantations. If there hadn't been lots of money at stake, it wouldn't have been such a contentious issue. Trade patterns between England, West Indies sugar plantations, and Southern cotton were a very big deal at one time.

That was one of the sources of wealth that led to the West industrializing and taking over much of the world, just as clearing off the subset of the natives of the Americas who survived a one-dose treatment with the Eurasian disease package was. There's not much point in breast-beating about it (both slaves and slaveowners are long since dead), but there's even less point in pretending it didn't happen.

none of the above said...

Manco:

So, it would be okay to smear the Tea Party guys for a crime, if you had some polling data saying that similar movements *overseas* broadly supported the crime? From the polls I've seen, American Muslims overwhelmingly don't support Al Qaida or terrorism. (This report gives some worthwhile data. Though surveys aren't so good at telling you about outliers (the guys who shoot up political rallies or Army bases), just about averages.)

Templar said...

This does not mean America did not land men on the moon. It did, and more times than are on record.

Even though by NASA's own admission, they can't undertake manned space missions beyond Earth's Van Allen Belts because they have no adequate means of shielding astronauts from lethal solar radiation?

Mr. Anon said...

"Templar said...

""This does not mean America did not land men on the moon. It did, and more times than are on record.""

Even though by NASA's own admission, they can't undertake manned space missions beyond Earth's Van Allen Belts because they have no adequate means of shielding astronauts from lethal solar radiation?"

That is utter horseshit - NASA has never said any such thing. The Apollo astronauts were not shielded against solar storms, because they are infrequent. It was a risk, but an acceptable one. People who push this idiotic conspiracy theory meme that space radiation precludes short spaceflights are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. (long spaceflights are another matter).

lesley said...

Mr. Anon posted:
"Templar said...

""This does not mean America did not land men on the moon. It did, and more times than are on record.""
Even though by NASA's own admission, they can't undertake manned space missions beyond Earth's Van Allen Belts because they have no adequate means of shielding astronauts from lethal solar radiation?"

Mr. Anon opines, "That is utter horseshit - NASA has never said any such thing."
Well nobody said they did, did they? But don't pay too much attention to NASA, as in Never A Straight Answer, unless you have your Flash Gordon decoder on hand. I think, Mr. Anon, you have mixed two commenters up.

I am the one who asserts that NASA has landed people on the moon, "more often than on record." You rail against the BSers who claim the Van ALlen Belt makes that impossible and that it was done.
OK. You don't have any argument from me about that Van Allen Belt. I know they have gone through it. My point was that the initial moon landing FOOTAGE THAT WAS SHOWN the first time, appears to have been staged. A film maker named Jay Weidner is currently working on a film about it which should be released soon. They DID GO TO THE MOON; only the film is faked, IMHO, and only for that first landing. "How Stanley Kubrick
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies." Alchemical Kubrick II, Jay Weidner, 2009.
Yeah, he's out of the box, but that's considered a good thing IF we agree with the outtaboxer.

Mr. Anon said...

"lesley said...

Well nobody said they did, did they? But don't pay too much attention to NASA, as in Never A Straight Answer, unless you have your Flash Gordon decoder on hand. I think, Mr. Anon, you have mixed two commenters up."

No, I didn't. I was responding to "anonymous", not you. I responded to him because he sounded like a garden variety conspiracy nut. I did not respond to you because you just come across as a nut.

Truth said...

I don't know if we went to the moon or not, but I do know that almost 20 years after the alleged landing, the Space Shuttle was still blowing up.

If you have seen the mooncraft exhibit at the Smithsonian, you truly have to wonder how that glorified go-kart made the moon with less computer power than your average modern day cell-phone, yet your GPS is wrong half the time, in telling you how to go across the neighborhood.

Truth said...

By the way, there is a not-totally unaccepted, alternate theory that we have not only returned to the moon multiple time,s but mine it for minerals and to set weapons, and have had bases there for many years.

http://paranormal.about.com/od/lunaranomalies/a/aa011507_2.htm

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

I don't know if we went to the moon or not, but I do know that almost 20 years after the alleged landing, the Space Shuttle was still blowing up."

And 80 years after Lindberg crossed the Atlantic, airplanes still crash. I guess he never really did it, huh? Things break.

"If you have seen the mooncraft exhibit at the Smithsonian, you truly have to wonder how that glorified go-kart made the moon with less computer power than your average modern day cell-phone, yet your GPS is wrong half the time, in telling you how to go across the neighborhood."

You only have to wonder about it if you know nothing about how anything works.

Truth said...

"And 80 years after Lindberg crossed the Atlantic, airplanes still crash. I guess he never really did it, huh? Things break."

Well, grasshopper, if more airplanes crashed than actually reached their destinations, I would think people would re-think the whole "air travel" thing, wouldn't you?

lesley said...

Mr. Anon said
" I responded to him because he sounded like a garden variety conspiracy nut. I did not respond to you because you just come across as a nut."

So they've been telling me for years. But so often what I say turns out to be true, that even other people in my life who scoffed have started to notice and even apologize occasionally.
Using the term "garden variety conspiracy nut" about the other commenter tells a lot more about you.

Mr. Anon said...

"lesley said...

Using the term "garden variety conspiracy nut" about the other commenter tells a lot more about you."

As, indeed, your believing in unproven, unphysical, and unlikely things tells me a great deal about you.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

"And 80 years after Lindberg crossed the Atlantic, airplanes still crash. I guess he never really did it, huh? Things break."

Well, grasshopper, if more airplanes crashed than actually reached their destinations, I would think people would re-think the whole "air travel" thing, wouldn't you?"

Two shuttles have been wrecked out of nearly 120 flights. Is 2 > 120, "Truth"? Is that how your math works. Or do you maintain that we haven't launched any shuttles either? That we've never even been to orbit.

That we were able to get to the moon is not a mystery to anyone who undertands a few things, like how inertial guidance systems work. Your posts have demonstrated a broad and deep ignorance of technical things (like the second law of thermodynamics). Your opinions on these matters are uninteresting.

Truth said...

Well let me see; there have been 19 men who (theoretically) walked on the moon, and 17 who lost their lives in NASA disasters. Maybe it's just my 85 IQ, but I don't think that makes a good ratio.

BTW, it's so good to have an world renown expert in theoretical physics who manages to create enough time to correct all of our errors here. Kudos to you, grasshopper.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Well let me see; there have been 19 men who (theoretically) walked on the moon, and 17 who lost their lives in NASA disasters. Maybe it's just my 85 IQ, but I don't think that makes a good ratio."

There were only 12 men who walked on the moon, nitwit. And you are comparing two separate programs, Apollo and the Shuttle. They had different destinations and different vehicles.

And space travel has little to do with anything that a theoretical physicist does, although that's just the sort of childish thing that a childish, misinformed person like you would think.

How's your water-powered car working, "Truth"? Getting good mileage with that?

Truth said...

"How's your water-powered car working, "Truth"?"

You really don't get out much, do you?