Sarah Palin Hypocrisy and Myopia: Out of Control?

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in a closed door strategy session, called a strategy by some liberal groups to air ads attacking some Democrats who were balking at Overhauling health care reform, “f**king retarded.”

Though it has not used the term ‘f***king retarded,” this website has taken strong issue with certain ‘liberal’ oriented political strategizing views very recently, albeit likely for very different reasons than Emanuel may have.  But the phrase itself is a comment slang expression for “very foolish,” and in almost call cases is not used, intended to, or even taken in any way to, refer to or impugn the mentally disabled. And if it were, or was, used in this latter fashion, this site would be among the first to castigate anyone for so doing, as a base and cowardly form of cruelty.

But that clearly has no applicability to Emanuel’s common slang usage. Usage, which, moreover, was being employed to refer to strategy alone, as an adjective,  not to an individual or group of  individuals.[i]

Yet Palin is outraged. And calling for Emanuel to be fired because of this.

Now let’s look at number one rated talk show host in America, and despite his far right leanings (or perhaps because of them), sadly sometimes cited de-facto leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh:

Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards….I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards.

Limbaugh almost never gets the facts correct [ii].   And here is no exception, as he ascribes something to Emanuel that is completely untrue -Emanuel didn’t call anybody anything; he referred only to a strategy itself as “retarded,” which is something very different from what Limbaugh stated Emanuel did and what Limbaugh did himself, and, if employment of this term is in fact offensive, far less so in this context than in Limbaugh’s case:

Limbaugh did not only impugn individuals directly, he said it multiple times, and he used the term as a noun directly, in describing a group of people. He also said it publicly, on air to millions of listeners, as opposed to in a closed door strategy session.

So if what Emanuel did is grounds for immediate firing, what might this much more egregious statement by Limbaugh be grounds for? Let’s ask Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin, on Rush Limbaugh’s statement[iii]:

I agree with Rush Limbaugh

She also, ridiculously, called what Limbaugh said, satire (read the comment in blockquotes above by Limbaugh again, lest you have any doubts.)  This is about as satirical as the speech Palin gave herself at the recent Tea Party convention.  Yet in the spin world of Sarah ‘If BS were currency, she could bail out Wall Street herself” Palin, satire is a new magic word to simply employ, no matter how ludicrous, to shield or blind oneself from the reality of raging, pathological hypocrisy.

_____________________
Endnotes:

[i] Other, more reputable, sources, however, misrepresented what Emanuel stated as well. Here is the headline to ABC’s famous news blog, the note, with Jack Tapper, “Rahm Apologizes for Privately Calling Liberal Activists ‘Retarded.’” This is blatantly misleading, and can be ascertained even by a very careful reading of the very article itself. Ironically, Fox, whose online news coverage is not nearly as bad as their television coverage, which in effect serves as a ‘fair and balanced’ craftily veiled advocacy channel, did not mischaracterize Emanuel’s statements like ABC’s political blog did. Even the highly ideological, and often heavily slanted, New York Quote, got Emanuel’s quote right. How did ABC not?

[ii] Note that the Daily News, whose publisher, Mort Zuckernam, is considering a run for the Senate – simply repeated Limbaugh’s assertions as true when they were not. See note [i] immediately above, also.

[iii] Steven Colbert fairly effectively mocked this, by saying on air that Sarah Palin was a “f*ing retard” because Palin knows its okay to say if you don’t mean it, just like Palin said of Limbaugh (despite the fact that Limbaugh made it very clear he did mean it.)  The far right but sometimes informative site Newsbusters, apparently missing the entire point on a show that is almost entirely satire (but yet not chastising Rush Limbaugh for calling people retards seriously), became heavily self righteous over this and in turn actually, and seriously, accused Colbert in its headline of blatantly calling Palin what Limbaugh had called Liberals, missing the entire gist of Colbert’s point even though it’s fairly obvious from the very clip they themselves play.  This is a classic example of why the semi  Orwellian named site “Newsbusters” is listed in the blog roll to the right, under “ideological.”

New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts

Space on the prestigious NY Times opinion pages is extremely limited.  And most of that space is routinely taken up by the paper’s own editorials and columnists.

So one imagines that on the rare occasions when the Times ventures to outside sources from among the constant inundation of submissions it normally receives, it chooses its pieces carefully — to represent a particular point of view or perspective, with careful, reasoned and logical support.

Thus, in its search far and wide for someone to provide  a provocative, informative, non misleading and relevant opinion piece on the timely and global issue of climate change recently, the Times apparently scoured the entire globe itself, finally settling upon an expert from New Zealand. A professor of philosophy named Denis Dutton.

Just below is how Dutton’s fantastic work of reason, logic, and coherency might have made its way onto the famed and highly selective pages of the NY Times.

Note that the following conversation is merely a simulation (one supposes) of a conversation that could have occurred, illustrating both the value of Dutton’s piece, as well as how it might have ended up on the highly influential and venerable NY times opinion pages:

DUTTON: I think some may be overreacting on climate change here.

So far, notice, this is a short, one sentence, unsupported suggestion, not an oped.  So how does it turn into one?

NY TIMES:   Why may some be overreacting?

DUTTON: because sometimes people overreact.

NY TIMES:  We know sometimes people over react to things.  That’s like saying that we are under-reacting to climate change because “sometimes we under react.” What’s your reason why some are overreacting on this issue?

DUTTON: because people tend to find apocalypses intriguing!!

NY TIMES:  That’s not an argument for saying climate catastrophe is overreaction, catastrophes do happen; that’s an argument for saying the world is literally coming to an end due to climate changer alone – an argument that maybe all of four people are making – and three for intended hyperbole.

When sometimes we under react to things, and other times we over react to things, saying that we are “overeacting” to climage change by giving a reason why sometimes people over react to things, which otherwise has not specific applicability to this particular instance, is tautological,and logically nonsensical.

It is like saying “I think my neigbor’s wife is having an affair;” we ask why, you say “because sometimes wives have affairs,” we ask why her, and you give a  reason why sometimes wives in general have affairs, such as “because they are lonely or bored.” You have done nothing to support why you think your neigbor’s wife is having an affair;  and you have done nothing to support why our response to climate change is an over reaction rather than an under reaction.

So do you have anything else more than “we overreact sometimes,” we under react other times, this time we are over reacting, based upon the reasoning that “we overreact sometimes”?

DUTTON: Yes, yes, of course I do.  Here goes. Here is my reason.  Drumroll please: “It seems to me.”

NY TIMES: Hey, that’s pretty good. In other words, you are not just arguing “sometimes we over react to stuff, sometimes we under react to stuff, on climate change we are over reacting, the end,” you are saying that, but with “it seems to me” thrown in.  As they say on the Guinness commercials, “brilliant!”

But do  you have anything else?  That, would make it even better.

DUTTON: Yup.  I sure do. I have even more. Since this is a scientific issue, why should we bother with any actual science, when instead we can botger with stuff that is even better than science; namely, science fiction.   Ready?  Mary Shelley Created Frankenstein.

Thus, you see, people are fascinated with this stuff, like Frankenstein, so we are over reacting on climate change!  And no one will ever pick up that we also tend to overlook other stuff, like actual science, or scenarios where there is a big lag between cause and effect, so we are underestimating climate change.  Instead, here, we are over reacting, because of Frankenstein, and fascination with Frankenstein!

NY TIMES:  Absolutely brilliant.  This is great stuff. No one will eve see what a hoax this logic is (including us!).

But allthough we know it says so much more, it might appear as if your argument says nothing more than “We are over reacting, not under reacting, this time, because because Mary Shelley created Frankenstein.”

Brilliant and relevant as that argument is, can you fill this piece with an otherwise also completely irrelevant yet excruciatingly detailed example of a time when we over-reacted as opposed to under-reacted, overlooking how that also illustrates exactly nothing — yet allowing you to essentially, and wonderfully, wasted your entire piece on it!

Since we already know we sometimes over react, just like we know we sometimes under react, giving us an example of a time we overreacted tells us nothing.  But it will come across to readers as if it does! Particularly if you spend almost your entire piece on it.  And that is what we want to do here at the NY Times. Print logically nonsensical pieces of garbage that might masquerade as something of worth.

So, can you not only give us an example of an otherwise unrelated time that we over reacted, but spend most of your at this point otherwise two sentence piece on it?

DUTTON: Sure, absolutely. Like what?  Like, maybe, talk about how many people and countries way over reacted to Y2K?

(Editor of ELA, not of the NY Times here. Ahem, Dutton, “ahem.”  Not many people but those of us that did; since the editor of this website  thought the entire notion of an unavoidable enormous Y2k breakdown just because the years on many computers were in double rather than quadruple digits, was ridiculous, and said so repeatedly.)

NY TIMES:  Exactly.

DUTTON: Done. Check  your in box.

Hard to believe, right?

NY TIMES: If you don’t believe this speculated mockusation, come read our pages, December 31, and see for yourself.

Simply saying “We overreact to some things, perhaps we are to climate change, here are some reasons why we are over-reacting here,” flawed as the conclusion that we are overreacting likely is, is fine. Dutton does not come close to doing that, however.  He suggests that sometimes we over react to things; he explains why he thinks we over-react to things sometimes (fascination with the eschatological), and then suggests that “we are over-reacting here” for no reason other than the completely tautological explanation that sometimes we do, along with the completely irrelevant reason why we sometimes do.

If anything, there would be far more driving the idea that we are under-reacting here.  Likely results are many years in the future.  The implications to many, of this, are extremely negative, because of the (flawed) perception that sensibly addressing this means we have to sacrifice our economy. There is a general lack of general scientific understanding among the populace. And our expectations are grounded in what we have come to expect, and the difficulty we seem to have grasping the ideas that 1) there is an enormous time lag here between both cause and effect, and 2) effects are very likely to be non linear (that is, potentially accelerating with increased input).

Whether that last paragraph, was a good or bad (but short) opinion piece for the Times, at least it offered reasons. Dutton offers none. What he offered is like suggesting “remember how in medieval times the plague hit, and people did not take it seriously enough;” then spending most of the time writing about how bad the plague was and how wrong everybody was; then offering up a bunch of reasons why in general people often don’t take things seriously enough (and they tend to number far greater than “fascination with eschatology”) and then concluding “it seems to me climate change is the same. The end.”  That would be a truly inane piece.  And, analogously, it is exactly the logic — and all of it — that the NY Times chose to publish.

Lesson One: Learning How to Control Congress with a Minority

Today’s lesson plan is brought to you by the Republican Party of America.  It is designed to teach the other major political party in America, how to control Congress with a minority.

We interrupt this special presentation, with a special announcement, and question, from the Democratic Party.

Thank you very much for your assistance in teaching us how to control Congress with a minority.  We appreciate this very much, and it is truly something that we do want to learn. However, before you teach us this, can you please teach us how to control Congress with a majority and the White House?

Republican Party response: “That was whene we were in power over the past decade.   But don’t worry, if you didn’t take copious notes that time around, your opportunity will come soon enough again.”

Jon Stewart, Torture Advocate John Yoo, and the American Media Today

Perusing through the daily blog posts at the Liberal “American Prospect,” one sees that they don’t get many comments, typically. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is not suggested here. But one very recent post that DID get a lot of commentary was on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show interview with former Bush Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.

Several of the comments were interesting, to say the least. A few examples:

Sadly, this blog post says more about the American Prospect and Adam Serwer than Jon Stewart. Very disappointing. How about the Prospect doing an in-depth profile and interview with Yoo in your next issue, and doing a better “job” than Stewart could in 8 minutes on a comedy show?
Posted by: Kay Leigh Hagan January 12, 2010 4:26 PM

True that.   At the same time, the Daily Show reaches millions; the American Prospect reaches a small, very largely self selected group that on average is likely going to be highly skeptical of Yohn Yoo’s theories. Thus, instead, how about the American Prospect do an in depth profile interview as suggested in the comment above, and work on turning it into mainstream news?

I think that giving John Stewart a pass because he is “just a comedian” is a bit of an unfair double-standard. When he makes a good point, we don’t give him less credit because he is “just a comedian”. Take Glen Beck for example. He says the most insane things you can imagine, but then qualifies it by saying he’s just a clown, etc, and that you shouldn’t listen to him. At no point does he really expect anyone to not take him seriously. I think it is the same with John Stewart.
Posted by mike January 12, 2010 5:50 PM

Stewart is more than just a comedian. He covers timely news events, and news interviews, all while doing so with, humor, insight, and often additional knowledge.  On the other hand — and often underestimated by those who dismiss Beck as obviously “full of it” — Beck has one of the most popular radio talk shows in America; a news punditry show, with an occasionally funny weird twist, not comedy.  Beck also has a daily news punditry show on “Fox News,” a 24 hour, round the clock news channel – and the most watched cable news channel in America.  Stewart  has a daily comedy show on the 24 hour, round the clock comedy channel.

Stewart may or may not have done a good job going toe to toe with John Yoo on the Constitution.But it’s not like he wildly mislead viewers. He just failed to do a much better job asking, following up on, and getting answers to, tough questions, than most others in the media.  This next comment however, right or wrong, suggests he still did a better job than the general media.

Stewart did a much better job with Yoo than any other so called journalist. Let’s see Yoo on Face The Nation or The Situation room, compare and contrast.
Posted by: John D’oh January 12, 2010 3:38 PM

He asked more than Congress or the Obama Administration has asked.Stewart isn’t a lawyer. And a comedy show isn’t the kind of place where you can try to pin down a slippery and practiced opponent. That’s better done in a court of law.
Posted by: clbrune January 12, 2010 3:41 PM

I agree with most of the people here saying that Jon Stewart is a comedian and that it’s a failure of real news channels that we rely on him so much to get to the real answers. I disagree when the author says the Jon didn’t question Yoo when he said that the outlines of torture had never been addressed by the US – he tried to get Yoo to clarify that multiple times. Yoo did what a lot of politicians do which is broadly acknowledge the questions without really answering them. I’ve definitely see Jon be more combative in interviews however so I’ll give you that.
Posted by: Susan January 12, 2010 3:48 PM

Another echoed this a bit further:

Cripes, people! You can’t expect Stewart to be a one-person truth squad for the nation! He can’t do it alone! As long as network window dressing like the George Stephanopolis’s and the Chuck Todd’s of the world fail to do their job the media will continue to fail us all. We need gutty, intellecutally curious journalists to challenge this sort of thing. What we get is “Herb Tarlek” with a microphone.
Posted by: Mark B January 12, 2010 3:22 PM

A vibrant democracy can not rely upon a one person truth squad. It needs a robust Fourth Estate to serve as a mainstream, non polarizing, non insular, non self selecting, check upon misinformation, group-think, rhetoric run amuck, and government. But for the past ten years (perhaps even fifteen, ever since Glenn Beck’s “Fox” came on the scene), America has been seeing less and less of that, and more and more simple stenographic copying of what people in, or with, power (or microphones), are saying.

Using the specific media examples given in the last comment, here are some facts and context behind former Major Rudy Giuliani’s appearance as a terrorism expert last week with Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Good Morning America, from some random, unknown, and likely audience self selecting blog.

Here is what you get from watching Stephanopoulos himself conducting that interview.[Also note, Giuliani spends most of the time, as if he is one of the writers for the hit Fox TV counter-terrorism series"24," talking about how 30 hours is nothing for an interrogation, and what one "typically gets" out of "30 hours." Perhap's its just me, but, depending upon what led up to it, I'm thinking I could get a lot of information out of Giuliani, or even a caught red handed terrorism suspect, in probably ten hours of total actual questioning.  But there is nothing from the interview to suggest that all questioning of Abdulmutallab has ceased. And if Giuliana has inside information that this is so, he does not share it.]

Here is what you learn about John McCain’s foreign policy expertise during the 2008 Presidential election, from that same random, unknown, blog. Here is what you get from listening to the media and NBC’s Chuck Todd on John McCain.

Jon Stewart, comedian; and in the form of comedy and satire, occasional savior of truth.

But while close, in some eyes, to a one man truth squad for the nation, no match for John Yoo: Apologist for and proponent of state sanctioned torture, and primover behind the theory of Executive Unilateral Discretion regardless of existing Statute or Bill or Rights, in the Executive’s unilateral view of “national security.”