GM's Place.Com

Posted By Woody on July 3, 2009

Palin Deragement Syndrome is rapidly replacing the similar disease frequently associated with Pres. Bush.  While conservatives tend to understand some of the Left’s crazed hate of Gov. Palin, another explanation of Palin Derangment Syndrome comes from an unlikely source.

The Huffington Post:  Palin, Vanity Fair, Envy, and Hate, by Douglas MacKinnon 

…I’ve been asking for months of my liberal friends: Why do so many on the left have such an unhinged hatred of this woman? Why do so many alleged feminists and female members of the mainstream media openly and gleefully despise Palin?

On any given day, like the regularity of the Sun rising or setting, you can expect Maureen Dowd of The New York Times to hurl even more insults at a woman she has relentlessly assailed for almost a year. Why? If — as Dowd and other attackers on the left maintain — Palin is inconsequential, ignorant, untalented, and part of the unwashed masses, why not just let her recede into history? Why the constant attacks?

As to why Vanity Fair and other liberal outlets go after her, the answer is quite simple: money. With uncounted thousands from the left who equally hate Palin, Vanity Fair and the other outlets understand — especially in a bad economy with declining circulation — that there is gold to be mined from the fragile minds of those who hate.

…Fine. I get that. But why Dowd and the feminists? With regard to The New York Times columnist, I asked a female friend of mine who happens to be a psychologist, what might prompt the anger? She mentioned a host of possibilities, but settled on one theory. That being that Dowd “may be threatened or envious of Palin… or both. As an aging but still attractive woman, Dowd may resent Palin’s good looks. Further, as a single woman of a certain age, she may be envious that Palin has a husband, a family, and has carved out an accomplished political career.”

With regard to why Purdum, David Letterman, and other liberal males continually go after Palin, the answer might be as easy as they secretly lust after her while also seeing her as the “girlfriend of the quarterback” they could never get in high school.

…In summary, we know that the left really, really, really hates Palin, that the left-wing media needs Palin to stay in business, that certain liberal female columnists may be envious of her, that certain liberal male reporters and talk-show hosts may lust after her, that the GOP is still populated with disloyal weasels who put self before all, and that Sarah Palin is still standing tall.  …

For more fun, read the comments after the article.

From my observations, the Left hates Gov. Plain, lies about her, and wants to destroy her because they fear her election potential, but that might be too logical.  Their hate is unlike the disgust that conservatives had for Clinton’s dinhonoring the Office of the Presidency and concern that Pres. Obama is terribly unqualified for his position and opposes traditional American values.  Unlike disgust and concern, the Left actually hates Gov. Plain, as they do all successful conservatives…and, if the conservatives are black or female, don’t expect help from Jesse Jackson or NOW.  Left wing groups, with support from the liberal media, even, disgustingly, consider the Governor’s family and children as fair game in their attacks…even if one child is a Downs baby. 

It would be nice if the Left would rationally debate issues, but they cannot.  Strong emotions don’t allow room for rationality.  So, they try to hurt and destroy opponents instead.  It doesn’t matter if you’re a conservative president, a governor, a beauty pageant contestant, or simply a blogger, the Left hates and destroys people with conservative and traditional views because the Left knows that it cannot win with facts, honesty, logic, and, yes, moral values. 

As has been pointed out in the article, the Left is also envious, whether it be envy of beauty or wealth envy.  And, the Left hates that, too — hates to admit it that it’s true.

[Update 1]  John Ziegler Exposes How Palin Derangement Syndrome Works

Although almost eight months have passed since last year’s elections, Palin Derangement Syndrome continues to manifest itself throughout America’s press.  As NewsBusters’ Mike Sargent reported Tuesday, Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum is gravely afflicted with the illness, and needs to see a team of doctors quickly if he ever wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than the extreme Left.  With that in mind, Palin documentarian John Ziegler had a fascinating radio interview with Politico’s Mike Allen Wednesday that shed some light on how PDS works and why it’s so pernicious.

(Go to article for audio and transcript.)

…And therein lies the heart of Palin Derangement Syndrome: making totally false statements about the Alaska governor without being able to back them up.  Sadly, as this is what most media outlets want — dirt about Palin irrespective of veracity — the mudslingers not only easily get away with it, but are revered for doing so.  ….

 

[Update 2]  Palin Quits as Alaska Governor

As commenter John Moore reported below, Gov. Palin and her staff were spending eighty-percent of their time fighting personal and political attacks, ethical complaints, and lawsuits, even though the charges eventually get dismissed.  It wasn’t worth it personally or for her family and it wasn’t fair to the citizens of Alaska.  That’s the Left for you and how they operate.

Video: Sarah Palin Won’t Seek Second Term, Will Resign Mid-Term

[Update 3]  Typical classless Democratic response to Palin resignation.

Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way – her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.

Who needs it?

Category: General | 8 Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Mark Amagi on June 29, 2009

When I was a student in the 1960s, the idea of participatory democracy was in the air. Whenever an issue came up, the citizens could just vote with some sort of home electronic voting machines in their homes. It was just assumed that this would be a good thing, as we typically had little knowledge of history. If we had read Thucydides’s Peloponnesian War, we may have thought differently. The Athenians practiced a form of participatory democracy in which talented speakers could easily sway the crowd in their assemblies, which largely accounted for their ultimate defeat by Sparta. By the war’s end, they had either executed or exiled their best generals and admirals. For example, after their destruction of the Spartan fleet at Arginusae, because the Athenian commanders had abandoned thousands of their surviving seamen in the stormy seas, 6 of their 10 commanders were executed, while the rest fled into exile (see Victor Davis Hanson, A War Like No Other, p. 282). The Athenian assembly constantly intruded into military decision making, they had a knack for choosing incompetent leaders, much like Lincoln in the early years of the Civil War, and they were swayed by Alcibiades into undertaking the disastrous invasion of Sicily, leading to an overextended second front, much like Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasion of Russia. After 27 exhausting years of warfare (with a few short breaks) with Sparta, one of the greatest civilizations in history was destroyed.

If that isn’t enough to persuade one about the defects of participatory democracy, and majority rule in general, there is always the French Revolution. I’m currently reading Simon Schama’s Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, which is a detailed account of that period of history. What started out as an orderly process of much needed reform was transformed by bunch of firebrands who manipulated the passions of the Paris mobs into one of history’s bloodthirstiest revolutions. Of course, it didn’t help that the French monarchy was virtually bankrupt and without credit. However, after the monarchy was overthrown, the cure was worse than the disease, much like Obama’s futile attempt to resolve our current economic crisis with more “stimulus,” more inflation, and more debt. Between 1790 and 1796, the French government issued 40 billion livres of assignats (paper money backed only by the value of confiscated Church properties). The result was massive inflation and impoverishment of the people.

“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money” (Daniel Webster, quoted in Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money Inflation in France, p. 69)

Since the Obama administration, and its leftist allies, seems intent upon turning the United States into a copy of European democratic socialism, it is perhaps timely to investigate just what this may mean for America. So it may not be coincidental that my current researches have turned to the French Revolution. In addition to reading Schama, I’ve also been reading J. L. Talmon’s The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy. Both Friedrich Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty, and Talmon have posited that there are two kinds of democracy: in Talmon’s case he distinguishes between liberal and totalitarian democracies, whereas Hayek differentiates the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberal democracy and the French tradition of democratic socialism. Both authors agree that the latter tradition evolved out of the French Revolution, and in fact, often leads to various forms of totalitarian democracy.(Talmon may have had some influence on Hayek as he is cited as a source in Hayek’s work noted above.) I use the same distinctions in my own writings, which have been influenced in this case by Hayek, Burke, James Burnham, and Thomas Sowell. Another way to frame the difference is that between believers in self-government and believers in majoritarian democracy: the former believe in a decentralized system where most decisions are made as close to home as possible, whereas the latter want to impose the tyranny of the majority on a whole nation (at least when the majority decisions are in their favor).

In a chapter on “Majority Rule,” Hayek differentiates between Liberalism and Democracy:

Equality before the law leads to the demand that all men should also have the same share in making the law. This is the point where traditional liberalism and the democratic movement meet. Their main concerns are nevertheless different. Liberalism [in the nineteenth-century European meaning of the word] is mainly concerned with limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not, whereas the dogmatic democrat knows only one limit to government – current majority opinion. (The Constitution of Liberty, p. 103)

For those who are unfamiliar with my writings, Hayek uses the term “liberalism” to mean classical liberalism; conservatives in America generally want to preserve classical liberalism, as differentiated from modern, leftist “liberalism.” The aim of liberalism, according to Hayek, “is to persuade the majority to observe certain principles”: He accepts majority rule as a method of decision making, “but not as an authority for what the decision ought to be” (p. 103 – 04). For Hayek, that higher authority was “the rule of law,” which was that set of principles that limited the power of government through legislation or administrative order, to interfere in the lives of citizens. This is precisely the role that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to serve.

Those whose role it is to implement the Rule of Law should strive to guarantee equality before the law. Thus, we can plainly see that when Obama uses the term “rule of law,” he means something quite different. Obama means something to the effect that the military, when dealing with foreign combatants, must be held to the same standards as the police in dealing with U.S. citizens. He also means that Courts should privilege minorities, the so-called “underdogs.” But such an interpretation destroys the meaning of Rule of Law, because once you privilege certain persons the law no longer has the same meaning for everyone; it in fact, creates a new aristocracy of people above the law. Sotomayor, in her ruling against the Connecticut firefighters, was privileging certain racial  minorities, and as such, the Supreme Court was correct in recently overturning that decision.

Obama is a democrat, but he is not a liberal, at least in the classical sense of the term. In Obama’s opinion, there are no limits to government power; this is evident in what he does if not in what he says. Of course, one could argue that some democrats are not even democratic anymore; whenever the people vote for an initiative that offends their sense of political correctness, they shop around for a judge to overturn it.

Category: Democrats, Obama, The Constitution | 9 Comments »
Tags: Constitution, Democracy, Democrats, liberalism, majority rule, Political Correctness, rule of law

Posted By GM Roper on June 29, 2009

Category: I Couldn't Have Said It Better | 1 Comment »
Tags: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Abridged

Posted By GM Roper on June 28, 2009

No, no, not Obama, but Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras.  Obama and Hillary says that Honduras must respect the rule of law and re-instate Zelaya but as someone noted, since Zelaya was attempting to go ahead with a vote declared unconstitutional by the courts, by the Honduran congress and by even Zelaya’s own party, how come everyone has to obey the law except Zelaya?

None-the-less, if you REALLY want to know what is going on, Check out Fausta’s Blog.  As is usual for Fausta, she’s the firstest with the mostest.  In fact, for any info on Central and South America, the Caribbean and the Spanish speaking world, Fausta’s is the place to go.

Category: General | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By GM Roper on June 28, 2009

The title of this post is a quote from Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel.  One of my regular trolls commenters suggests that Mrs. Meir was a racist for making this comment:

I also see that this blog is now running the awful and racist quote by Golda Meir,who cannot even bring hersefl [sic] to say Palestinian but says Arab instead and sadi [sic] that Palestinians dont [sic] exist. Somehow I diubht [sic] you’d run that quote, nay youd [sic] hide it. No wonder one of the authors of this blog is reffered [sic] to elsewhere, on a numbwer [sic] of occasions, as the paris hilton [sic] of poltics [sic].

Of course, this is one of the reason’s that I enjoy jousting with the trolls folk from the left.  One would think that if one wanted their argument to be taken seriously, they would be more apt to check their spelling before whizzing off a jaunty rejoinder [full disclosure: that thought is not original, but rather from my friend and co-author Mark Amagi].  But let’s look at what the troll commenter is implying.  First, the troll commenter doesn’t have a very good grasp of history.  Mrs. Meir made that statement in 1972.  This after Arafat and the Palestinians and the Arab States had started wars against Israel in 1948, 1967, and would again in 1973.  Since then, the Arab States decided that direct confrontation with Israel was idiotic (in-as-much as the Israeli Defense Force consistently handed the Arab States their ass in a basket) and decided to use the “Palestinians” as cannon fodder.  So, lets take an honest look at the comment by taking a look at a photograph or three.

Charming photograph isn’t it,  and obviously this fellow loves his daughter more than he hates the Jews.   And who is that charming fellow on the poster held high behind the young lady with her hand in the universal peace sign and her tummy wrapped in peace offerings?  Why, its Chairman Arafat of the PLO dressed in a semi-fascist outfit.  He must love the Jews too don’t you think?  Maybe you need some more evidence of how the Arabs and Palestinians have expressed their love for the Jews.

Isn’t that a lovely cartoon.  And how about this one:

Or This lovely example of love:

And this:

If you see Arab/Palestinian racism in any of this, then welcome to the club and one will, if one is honest, come to the conclusion that we won’t have peace because the Arabs don’t love their children more than they hate the Jews, in fact, it should be fairly obvious to anyone with half an ounce of intellect that the Arab states foment hatred for Israel and the Jews among the Palestinians to keep the fires of war hot.

Also looking at other comments by our troll commenter friend, we find this little bon mot:

I saw someone post a particularly wothwhile thought experiment whuch goes like this;

“More to the point than his Holocaust denial is that if Ahmadinejad tomorrow miraculously aquiesced to Western objectives in the Lebanon (ie stopped supporting Hezbollah), and opened Iran to Western capital, then Iran would overnight cease to be a “paraiah,” and Ahmadinejad would overnight become either a reformer or a strongman, and no more of an “embarrassment” than is a King Abdullah, a Mubarak or an Abu Mazen. And Iranian elections would become no more of an issue than Egyptian, Palestinian or Saudi elections are today.”

I love little “thought experiments” like this, because you can make some ridiculous claim and arrange it so that the answer would be obvious.  Like this one of mine:

Lets assume that the Jews and Israel suddenly acquiesce to the demands of the Palestinians.  They completely abandon their settlements in Gaza and turn it over in its entirety to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians rejoice in their new found freedom.  They in turn set up a representative government and hold free and fair elections and HAMAS (whose charter demands the death of the Israeli state) wins and decide to forgo any hatred of their political opponents in the PA, and use the structures left behind by the Israeli’s who, by the bye, removed their citizens from Gaza by force when necessary, creating a mini paradise for the Palestinians.  If that happened, wouldn’t the Arab States and the Palestinians in the West Bank decide to stop their hatred of the Jews.

What do you mean that the Palestinians had that opportunity and blew it with their hatred of each other and more so of the Jews?  What do you mean that the Palestinians/HAMAS destroyed the infrastructure left behind and used some of that material to blast rockets at Israel?  What do you mean that HAMAS continued their irrational “Jihad” against Israel after Israel gave them what they had been demanding for so long?

You see, these sort of silly thought experiments (actually, “experiments” in propaganda for or against some cause) can be twisted to mean anything you want and that is not honest dialogue, it is dishonesty incarnate.

As for someone on some other blog calling me the “Paris Hilton” of Politics; well, either that person doesn’t know anything about me, or Paris Hilton for that matter, and is only trying to make a shallow point via ad hominem thus changing the subject.  Typical when you have no argument.

How about, in ending this little post a couple of more evidences of how the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews.

Playground toys?

This "killer" ain't happy!

Its Halloween! What do you mean it is not Halloween?

And perhaps one of the most disgusting, and infamous photograph of all in this genre:

It has been said that the parents of this child did this as a "joke." If so, it is a disgustingly sick joke and I'm not laughing.

Category: Apologists of All Stripes, Evil, Israel, Israel and her Enemies!, Terrorism | 42 Comments »
Tags: Arabs, Children, Israel, Love, Racism

Posted By GM Roper on June 27, 2009

Madmen – history is full of madmen.  Take your pick from only recent history:  Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Arafat, Pinochet, Bundy, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad? Ahmadinejad, supervenient to a rigged election, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran?  Madman?  Like having a jar of Grey Poupon, “But of course!”

And yet, he whom the gods have obviously made mad is the man with whom it is to be hoped by some in the Obama administration a “dialogue” will be held.  We are of course, not holding our breath for even as our fearless leader has extended the hand of, well, if not friendship then accommodation at the very least because we understand that Ahmadinejad is mad.

And at this, I wonder.  Can one treat with a madman?  Certainly others have tried.  Roosevelt and Truman gave it their best shot with Stalin to over throw Hitler only to see fighting war erupt from Russian backed armies in Greece and Korea.  Chamberlain thought he had achieved “Peace in our time,” with Hitler.  More recently Clinton and Rabin tried with Arafat.  All failed, all were rebuffed because of the megalomania of the individual they tried to negotiate with.

So too, will Obama find that Ahmadinejad is truly mad, and not to be trusted.  Oh, I know that the madman Ahmadinejad is only the mouthpiece for the mullah’s and the fearless Supreme Leader of Iran, but really folks, doesn’t the mouthpiece bear some responsibility?  Would we have tried (and ultimately hung) Joseph Goebbels had he not killed himself?

As the Iranian thugocracy cracked down on the objectors to the result of the recent presidential elections, Obama finally came out with a fairly mild mannered “Stop, the world is watching” type comment.  Typically, for the diminutive, bearded (and reportedly smelly) newly elected prez of Iran – mouthpiece extraordinaire of the Mullahs, Ahmadinejad offered this little friandise to Obama:

“You should know that if you continue the response of the Iranian nation will be strong… The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse.”

Crushing?  Iran’s response will “crush” the United States? Will cause us to be filled with “remorse?”  Didn’t I tell you that Ahmadinejad was mad?  I wonder when the gods will destroy him and the thugocracy he represents?

Category: Islamofascism, Obama | 14 Comments »
Tags: Ahmadinejad, dialogue, Obama, thugocracy

Posted By GM Roper on June 27, 2009

As I have noted before, one of the pleasures of reading blogs is the occasional clicking on a blog and being delighted.  Maybe because the blog is political (me, political – Nah!  Perish the thought!), maybe because it is literary, maybe because it is funny or maybe because of all of the above.

So, imagine my inner grin when I chanced on Miso…(Pick An Adjective).  Now, you’d have to know the author like I know the author.  Mrs. Leonora Mae Poltiss.  She is quite a woman.  First, she’s no ordinary blogger.

Most bloggers have day jobs and interests outside of blogging (well, except for those dedicated few that have figured out a way to keep their pajamas on full time and enjoy it) and so it is with Lenora Mae.  First, Mrs. Lenora Mae Poltiss is an erstwhile friend of Laurie Kendrick and she is  a Part Time Pirate of Penzance.  She is also the Secretary – Treasurer Of The Ladies Langouste and Lettuce Luncheon League (although why anyone would want to eat langouste and lettuce for lunch is beyond the ken of any sane individual – unless it was served with Russian Dressing).

I mentioned that Lenora Mae was a friend of Laurie Kendrick.  That is not to say that she IS Laurie Kendrick, but that she is a good friend of hers.  Laurie is also known to me and I doubt seriously if she has the wit and intelligence to write like Lenora Mae does.  Now listen, I’m not saying that Laurie is stupid by any stretch of the imagination, because she isn’t.  She’s just not up to the speed of Lenora Mae.  For example, this post of Lenora Mae’s is a piece that is well worth reading if you NEVER read another piece on a blog, as is this one.

OK, enough of the encomiums, put Miso…(Pick An Adjective) on your favorites bar.  Besides, she got a thousand hits in 4 days, twice what I get in a month, but damned if I know the justice of THAT.

Category: Blogs of Friends, Celebrations of Joy, Good, Humor, New Blog Discovery's | No Comments »
Tags: Friends, Laurie Kendrick, Lenora Mae