Posts
NeoReactionaries Redux... oh my!
-
*If what follows seems scary to you on Christmas Eve, well, down at-bottom
I’ll reiterate one final Redemption Daydream. One thing that one good man
mi...
10 hours ago
2 comments:
I'll try a 3-for-1, Bill.
On Hillary's clothing (or age)criticism: If somebody starts in on that, switch the discussion over to Sarah Palin's drinking habits. :) There seems to be a slow-growing consensus on the interwebz that Prada-wearing Caribou Barbie is a fall-down drunk.
On "weird science:" Lately, my YouTube watching has been stuck on old Apollo moon footage. What's your take on the "moon-landings-were-a-hoax" thing (even though, with a strong enough telescope, you can supposedly see the Apollo 11 landing site)?
On the poor treatment of minority war veterans: Look at how crappy we've treated the Native Americans. Yet, some of the most unsung heroes of World War II were the Navajo "code talkers" in the Pacific Theater.
Well, let's see, Jeff. I'll take them in reverse order and just say that I agree completely with #3. And I'll point out that minorities have fought for America in every war.
What do I think of the Moon Landing hoax stuff? Well, as conspiracy theories go, that is probably the most ridiculous one I've ever heard. I mean, I've heard a lot of crazy talk, but that one really takes the cake.
Normally, I don't argue with moon-hoaxers, because it gives them too much credit if we even take them seriously.
Keep in mind that we were in a race with the Soviet Union. Why in the world would they go along with this 'hoax' - and they could easily tell if it were fake - in order to let their enemy, America, win the race to the Moon and take the prestige from it?
There are a lot of stupid things about that conspiracy theory, but that's one of the stupidest, don't you think? But again, I don't think it's even worth arguing about. (I hope you haven't been arguing with moon-hoaxers. You can't reason with people like that.)
Finally, re. your first point,... I don't think that criticizing Sarah Palin is an appropriate response to sexism against Hillary Clinton.
For one thing, that's how Republicans typically argue. If you accuse Donald Trump of racism, for example, they'll claim that some Democrat, sometime, somewhere, was also racist.
Whether that is true or not is immaterial, since it's not a defense. If you're arrested for murder, will your defense be that other people have also been murderers? How would that work out? :) And yet, Republicans always seem to argue like that.
Second, responding to sexist comments about Hillary Clinton by criticizing a Republican woman just doesn't feel right. Saying that Sarah Palin is a "fall-down drunk" isn't sexist, whether it's true or not. But it's still not the way to go. (Again, I don't want to emulate Republicans. I don't admire them, so I don't want to be just like them.)
And finally, Sarah Palin is an old joke by now. She's nothing. She wasn't even invited to speak at the RNC. (Donald Trump said that it was because of the distance, as if Palin would have to walk from Alaska or something. And as if the convention didn't have delegates from Alaska and from even further away, too. As excuses go, that was lame even for Trump.)
Palin is still popular with a small, but declining, subset of people. Her endorsement of Donald Trump probably helped him with some of the crazies. But overall, she's not very popular even within the GOP. She's not the right-wing star she used to be. She's over. She's done.
So what's even the point? Republicans are always giving us fresh material, so why stick with old jokes about has-beens? Palin is a footnote in the history of comedy (or comedic history, maybe). She's no longer relevant.
It would be like poking fun of Michelle Bachman. Yeah, she's always an easy target, but she's not relevant anymore. Let's use the abundance of fresh material right-wing crazies are good enough to supply us with every single day. :)
Post a Comment