Consiglio caldamente la lettura dell’articolo di Mino Vianello “L’Handicap di Obama” su Notizie Radicali di oggi, nel quale non si parla del colore della pelle del Candidato, ma viene invece fatta una disanima del rapporto fra egualitarismo e concetto della democrazia negli USA, e il sentimento anti-intellettuale diffuso fra gli americani stessi.
Sara’ un bene o un male, questo anti-intellettualismo “fatto di empirismo e di senso pratico“? Personalmente, il dover arrivare comunque a una sintesi fra empirismo e intellettualismo mi sembra un punto ovvio oltre che logico. Non penso sia comunque quella, la domanda da farsi.
C’e’ da chiedersi invece se gli unici a non esserne completamente consapevoli siano gli intellettuali stessi, massicciamente Democratici e che invece di provare a comprendere l’elettorato, vivono ancora nel sogno di Camelot, la Presidenza cioe’ di John F Kennedy.
Un solo l’appunto a Vianello: l’aver dimenticato di nominare il movimento dei Know-Nothings nel XIX secolo (“Non So Niente”) che poche settimane fa il neo Premio Nobel dell’Economia Paul Krugman richiamo’ sul New York Times citando “l’insistenza che ci siano semplici risposte a ogni problema, basate sulla forza bruta e sulla gratificazione istantanea, e che ci sia qualcosa di effeminato e debole in chiunque suggerisca altrimenti“.
There is a scene in Alan Sandler’s “Mr. Deeds” when three high-society New York types (Kurt the Opera singer, William, and George the New Yorker writer) are shown as bordering on the inhuman, as too full of themselves.
Unless they go through “rehab,” as yours truly did — meaning, in short, until they grasp the realization that to be a “non-international” American who attends church regularly does not automatically mark one out as a bigoted nitwit — liberals cannot help themselves. Upon what they believe to be the high-horse is where they are most comfortable. They simply cannot imagine that they are NOT absolutely more sharp-minded and heavyweight than their opponents.
The major reason for that self-delusion? Since the mid-1960s, Democrats have actually come to believe — honestly — their own puffed up view of themselves as the default party of “great thoughts“ […]
the Democratic party has changed: it is no longer the party of FDR and Truman. For the last 45 years it has become instead the party of JFK idolatry and imagined “Camelot.” Reared on an endless diet of “Jack and Jackie in Paris” […] and so much more, many to most Democrats sincerely now appear to believe that to be a Republican is . . . to be a moron. […]
when dealing with what might be considered opposing conservative opinions, liberals are often quick to lose perspective, react emotionally and all too often embrace outright intellectual snobbery.
And as to that latter mostly with so little justification, since few Democrats are themselves actually anywhere approaching nearly as smart as they perceive themselves to be […] a liberal (meaning a Democrat), when confronted with your opposition, might try that for a moment, but if you hold your ground and respond in kind he will tend far too often to descend to the famous argument-tipping “huff,” roll up his eyes and proclaim you obviously just another unworldly simpleton who needs to retake 1st Grade.
Expat Yank is a “disgruntled Democrat turned Republican“. I have a feeling, he knows what he’s talking about.
Trouble is, I do not see Kurt, William and George understanding a single word of the above.
Myself, I cannot see evidence of anything in Palin’s right ear, during the debate.
But that is not as important as the answer to the following question: what evidence would I need to change my opinion? Well, I would need to spot that device clearly in at least one picture. So far, all I have been able to see is perfectly explainable with Palin’s hair, glasses and shape of the ear.
And so my question to Creighton and all the others is: what evidence would you need, to change your opinion?
What was that running down into Sarah Palin’s right ear during the debate? […] This photo was never intended to stand alone as evidence, that is why I include the link to the CNN video itself… That is still below. From that video, and many others now, you can see something that looks like it is attached to the arm of her glasses on the right side. You can see it move with her head, and her glasses throughout the video. I have taken another shot of the straight on view of this object, but please, look at the photos, then watch the CNN video so you can see it isn’t just some fluke; it stays there and is attached to her glasses. […]
Even without zooming, you can clearly see something attached to her glasses and running into her right ear. At first I thought this might be a hearing aid of some sort, so I looked up other pictures of her to see if I could find one of her wearing a hearing aid. I couldn’t. […]
Let’s start with the consideration that the “hearing aid” claim sounds very disingenuous. If Palin really had been hard of hearing, we would have known that weeks ago for sure. Mr Creighton should have definitely tried to look more sincere, if only to help support his case for a “device in the right ear”.
Anyway…the only way to be sure is to check if the “device” can be seen in any picture.
Now, a paranoid mind will find lots of food for their thoughts, as there really aren’t too many photos of Sarah Palin clearly showing her right ear during the debate itself (there is the one with her youngest son, but it was taken after the end of the debate and the aforementioned paranoid mind will surely claim Palin’s removed the “device” just in time). Also, I am not going to argue with anybody believing that the “device” was invisible or very well hidden: that’s akin to claiming a giant white, invisible rabbit was jumping up and down in front of the camera for the whole debate (iow: it cannot be taken seriously).
In any case, the onus is on those claiming the “device” existed at all. So I have scoured around on YouTube, the Getty Images website and the web looking for any “right ear” shot. Results below.
Images are enlarged areas from sources described in each picture. Copyrights remain with the authors of course.
First of all, look at “Palin 05”: that one has been taken at the end of the debate, when Palin was holding her baby son, if I am not mistaken. I included it because it reveals Palin’s ear details in full, with all the “ridges” and “valleys”. Note in particular the rather peculiar “ridge” right underneath the “temple” (“sidepiece”) of her glasses.
Peculiarity in this case is not important. Every one of us has a “special” shape of the ear and I understand it’s the one thing people really have trouble with when disguising.
I believe that “ridge” is what people like Creighton are misinterpreting as a “device”.
In fact, I wonder if anybody could please tell me where in every other picture posted above, there is a “device” that is on top, or separate, or in any case definitely not the “ridge” mentioned above.
You may also want to note how in images Palin 08, 09 and 10, taken directly from the live TV pictures, Sarah Palin is showing her right ear to the cameras in ways that would be extremely dangerous were she wearing a “device” of any sort in her right ear.
The above is more than enough to convince myself there was nothing at all in Palin’s right ear, during the debate. At this stage, the discussion can move forward only in two circumstances: either somebody comes out with a very clear picture of the “device”, or believers tell me what more evidence they need, to change their opinion.
Is there any hope that one day the “liberal” American “people of culture” will wake up and realize that they live… in America?
How can it be that a long list of very fine intellectuals collectively and invariably fail to understand a simple fact: that it is precisely what they despise in Sarah Palin, that makes her popular among many of their fellow citizens.
Take for example the “news” that the Governor of Alaska has spent more nights at home than in the Palace in Juneau, after having been elected. Those who “leaked” this important (or not) piece of information may have tried to demonstrate that Palin cannot be a good VicePresident, since she does not accept the full responsibilities of public office.
But I am sure that many non-liberal Americans (and not only they) have interpreted the same “news” as evidence that the Palin is a “normal person” for whom family takes precedence, above everything else: and that’s what anybody would do, apart from those driven by mission or inordinate ambition.
It does not matter if Sarah Palin performs poorly once, or a hundred thousand times, in interviews that, incredibly, appear too convoluted in her presence. What non-liberals are going to convince themselves of, is that the Press, Academia, and Great Journalism are made up of Republican-hating strange people called “liberals”: whilst Palin is simply an “average person”, perfectly able to lose words and trains of thought in front of aggressive, controversy-seeking interviewers.
Has Palin got the characteristics that would make her a good Vice President and perhaps even a good President? Who knows?. The great satirical strip Doonesbury recently had an episode around the fact that every American is told that he or she may become President, one day. So what’s so strange if “Sarah Palin, average American” becomes Vice President?
And lest we forget: after four years of Dan “Potatoe” Quayle as VP for Bush father, I do not know who could perform worse. And Bush father did win the 1988 elections with Quayle in tow,
It is therefore absolutely foolish to go on with the mantra that Palin is “a bit slow, a bit ignorant, a bit young”: the more the Media will talk of that, the more votes she’s ensured to get.
Is that too hard a concept for contemporary liberal America? When will a leading “liberal mind” begin to think that if someone will vote for Sarah Palin, there may be good reasons for that, well beyond the usual “it’s the idiots that do it”?
Spare a prayer for John Biden then. He’s the one going into Thursday’s VP debate in the worst conditions.
Since everybody expects him to win big time, all Biden may be able to do is meet expectations. That will hardly look impressive: whilst every point conceded to Palin will be seen as a disaster (and a defeat).
From Sarah Palin, on the other hand, nobody expects anything. She can declare herself the winner even if the only thing she manages to state correctly is the time of the day.
If Palin will be able to hold her own against Biden for most of the debate, it will be for her a triumph beyond all hope. That’s after all the same tactics, of appearing “slow witted”, successfully employed by George W Bush to become Governor of Texas, and the President of the United States, persuading opponents to feel infinitely superior to him.
The Democratic VP candidate has everything to lose, at Washington University in St. Louis on Thursday. The Republican VP candidate, she has everything to gain: another gift, perhaps, by the Great “liberal” Minds that I do not think understand their country at all.
Is it a coincidence that in the last 100 years, in the White House there have been 10 Republicans and only 7 Democrats? And during the last forty years, 5 Republicans and only 2 Democrats?
C’e’ qualche speranza che un giorno la cultura “liberal” americana si svegli e capisca di essere…in America?
Possibile che tutti questi intellettuali sopraffini, buon ultimo anche Fareed Zakaria, non riescano a comprendere come siano proprio le qualita’ che loro disprezzano, a rendere Sarah Palin eleggibile per tantissimi dei loro concittadini?
Prendiamo ad esempio la “notizia” che il Governatore dell’Alaska avrebbe trascorso piu’ o meno meta’ delle notti da quando eletta, a casa invece che nel Palazzo a Juneau. Chi ha sparso in giro questa “chicca” voleva evidentemente dimostrare che la Palin non puo’ fare da VicePresidente, perche’ non accetta tutte le responsabilita’ dell’incarico pubblico.
Sono invece sicuro che gli Americani non-liberal (e non solo loro) abbiano interpretato il tutto come prova che la Vice di John McCain sia una “persona normale” che vuole proprio tanto bene al marito e ai figli, e li antepone a tutto: come fanno un po’ tutti, a parte coloro trasportati da una missione o da una smodata ambizione.
Da questo punto di vista, quand’anche Sarah Palin facesse brutta figura cento o mille volte in interviste che in sua presenza appaiono incredibilmente cervellotiche, al massimo i non-liberal si convinceranno (come se ce ne fosse bisogno) che la Stampa, l’Accademia, il Grande Giornalismo e’ composto da persone “liberal”, che odiano i Repubblicani e che sono fondamentalmente “strane” e “diverse”: mentre appunto la Palin non fa che quello che farebbe la “persona media”, capacissima di impappinarsi di fronte a un’intervistatrice polemica, aggressiva e pronta ad approfittare di tutto.
Sono, quelle della Palin, delle caratteristiche che farebbero di lei una buona VicePresidente e forse anche Presidente? Chissa’. Come recentemente scritto nella grande striscia satirica Doonesbury, non viene forse detto a ogni Americano che un giorno potra’ diventare Presidente? E quindi cosa c’e’ di strano se “un’Americana” un po’ qualunque diventa VicePresidente?
A parte il fatto poi, che dopo quattro anni di Dan “Potatoe” Quayle come Vice di Bush padre, non so proprio chi potrebbe essere peggio. E Bush padre vinse le elezioni del 1988 con Quayle al seguito,
Insomma continuare a ripetere che la Palin e’ un po’ tonta, un po’ oca, un po’ gallina non riuscira’ che a garantirle ulteriori voti. E’ cosi’ difficile arrivarci? Perche’ tutte quelle menti “liberal” non cominciano a riflettere che se qualcuno votera’ per Sarah Palin, ci sara’ pure un buon motivo al di la’ del solito “sono tutti degli idioti”?
E poi: non va forse John Biden al dibattito di giovedi’ nelle condizioni peggiori? Visto che tutti si aspettano che lui vinca alla grande, al massimo potra’ essere capace di rispettare le attese, cosa che non impressionera’ nessuno: mentre ogni punto a suo sfavore sara’ visto come un disastro (e una sconfitta).
La Palin invece, da cui nessuno si aspetta niente, potra’ dichiararsi vincitrice anche se riuscira’ a dire correttamente solo che ore sono all’orologio. Addirittura, se riuscisse a tenere testa a Biden per quasi tutto il dibattito, sara’ per lei un trionfo oltre ogni speranza.
E’ un po’ la tattica da “lento di comprendonio” che George W Bush ha sfruttato per diventare Governatore del Texas, e Presidente degli USA, convincendo gli avversari a sentirsi a lui infinitamente superiori.
Il candidato VP democratico ha tutto da perdere, alla Washington University a St Louis. La candidata VP repubblicana, tutto da guadagnare: un altro regalo, probabilmente, della Grandi Menti “liberal” che del loro Paese non capiscono a parer mio proprio un bel niente.
Sara’ un caso che negli ultimi 100 anni, ci siano stati 10 Presidenti Repubblicani, e solo 7 Democratici? E negli ultimi quaranta anni, 5 Repubblicani e solo 2 Democratici?