Wonder Woman vs. Sarah Palin
Many of us know Lynda Carter. She was the star of the 1970’s Wonder Woman TV series, where she did many of her own stunts and became forever linked with the character, setting the standard for any future portrayals. She’s been seen in supporting roles in comedies such as Super Troopers and the very funny Sky High. She’s appeared in the popular Smallville TV series and played Mama Morton in the 10th anniversary show of Chicago in West End London. And she hasn’t aged in the last 25 years.
Recently, Lynda Carter was being interviewed by Victor Fiorillo of the Philadelphia Magazine. They talked about nude scenes, life, alcoholism, her singing career and, yes, the many recent comparisons between Sarah Palin and Wonder Woman.
The actress was not shy about her opinions concerning how the Alaskan governor stacks up next to the Amazon warrior of Paradise Island. The full interview can be found at this link, but the highlight is pasted for you below.
PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE: Okay, last question. I’m sure you’ve seen all the comparisons in the media and among Republicans of Sarah Palin to Wonder Woman. How do you feel about that?
LYNDA CARTER: "Don’t get me started. She’s the anti-Wonder Woman. She’s judgmental and dictatorial, telling people how they’ve got to live their lives. And a superior religious self-righteousness … that’s just not what Wonder Woman is about. Hillary Clinton is a lot more like Wonder Woman than Mrs. Palin. She did it all, didn’t she?
"No one has the right to dictate, particularly in this country, to force your own personal views upon the populace — religious views. I think that is suppressive, oppressive, and anti-American. We are the loyal opposition. That’s the whole point of this country: freedom of speech, personal rights, personal freedom. Nor would Wonder Woman be the person to tell people how to live their lives. Worry about your own life! Worry about your own family! Don’t be telling me what I want to do with mine.
"I like John McCain. But this woman — it’s anathema to me what she stands for. I think America should be very afraid. Very afraid. Separation of church and state is the one thing the creators of the Constitution did agree on — that it wasn’t to be a religious government. People should feel free to speak their minds about religion but not dictate it or put it into law.
"What I don’t understand, honestly, is how anyone can even begin to say they know the mind of God. Who do they think they are? I think that’s ridiculous. I know what God is in my life. Now I am sure that she’s not all just that. But it’s enough to me. It’s enough for me to have a visceral reaction. And it makes me mad.
"People need to speak up. Doesn’t mean that I’m godless. Doesn’t mean that I am a murderer. What I hate is this demonization of everybody but one position. You’re un-American because you’re against the war. It’s such bullshit. Fear. It’s really such a finite way of thinking about God to think that your measley little mind can know the mind of God. It’s a very little God that way. I think that God’s bigger. I don’t presume to know his mind. Or her mind."
Alan Kistler isn’t gonna lie, he’s kind of in love with Lynda Carter. And his love is pure! Alan Kistler has been recognized by Warner Bros. Pictures and mainstream media outlets such as the New York Daily News as a comic book historian, and can be seen in the "Special Features" sections of the Adventures of Aquaman and Justice League: New Frontier DVDs. His personal website can be found at: http://KistlerUniverse.com. One of these days he’d love to write for DC, Marvel or Doctor Who.
When has Sarah Palin told people how to live their lives? She is very open and forthcoming about her faith and I guess that makes some people uncomfortable. It shouldn't, unless they realize that they don't have the same conviction about theirs. She said and 20/20 when asked about homosexuality, "Oh, I don’t — I don’t know. But I’m not one to — to judge. And you know I’m — I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds. And you know I’m not going to judge someone on whether that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. And I’m not going to judge them."That doesn't sound like anything Linda Carter is accusing her of. It seems like anytime someone talks about their faith the kneejerk reaction is to assume they are preaching or a hypocrite. Usually both
I think Lynda Carter was speaking more of her stance that Roe V. Wade should be overturned and that she has spoken of the war in Iraq as a mission from God and made other remarks that have made many feel that she doesn't believe in the separation between church and state.Not that you have to agree with anything Lynda Carter says, certainly. Just trying to clarify.
Despite what people may feel, Palin has never said she doesn't believe in the separation between church and state. And she was misquoted about saying the Iraq war was a mission from God. She brought that up to Charles Gibson who insisted those were her exact words, but they weren't. She said:"Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," Palin said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Praying for something implies that one does NOT know the mind of God. Leaving out that first part changed her meaning from a hope to a declaration. She shouldn't have let Gibson get away with it.And as far as Roe v Wade: whether a human life is accorded full protection under the law is more of a legal and medical issue than a religious one.
So its not a "mission from God", its just "God's plan". Thanks for clearing that up. Im sure the extremist Muslims in the world will see it that way too……Stating you know "Gods plan" is implying that you know what he is thinking.
Read the quote again. She didn't say the war was "a mission from God" or "God's plan". She in fact said she DOESN'T know God's plan. That's why she said to pray that what we were doing was right. Are you related to Charles Gibson?
Okay, guys, let's not get mean her. And if she only later told Charlie Gibson she was misquoted, you can hardly blame Lynda Carter for that as the interview with her occurred before Gibson's interview.
Hmmm so we are to believe that she doesn't want anyone to live out her beliefs and values? Is there any room in that rock you live under for anyone else? Her faith makes people uncomfortable because its so out of whack with what most people believe in. Even people who go to church or believe in God don't agree with 75% of the hard core stances attributed (correctly I might add) to her. It makes people uncomfortable because most of us who know people like that also know them to be lacking in common sense at best and at worst we know them to be stupid people.
In my first post I said:"It seems like anytime someone talks about their faith the kneejerk reaction is to assume they are preaching or a hypocrite. Usually both."I think you just made my point. Although you didn't say she was a hypocrite, you just said she was stupid. What did Linda Carter say about Palin being judgmental?
She's tried to ban books from libraries. (Also, that's not a rumor. The NYT had an article on her past and that was discussed in it)
Try reading here to find out why you are completely wrong. Palin never tried to ban any books from the library and the librarian in question remained gainfully employed in her job through most of Palin's term. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_p…
Your link is a truthy site. No books were banned because SP woke up and smelled the coffee of the United States of America, where people with decent public educations know that that sort of thing is what we never, NEVER do here. Poor ignorant ditz.
factcheck.org a truthy site? Now that's funny. I hear it referenced all the time, mainly by liberals who are attacking McCain. I'll let them know it's a "truthy site."Oh well. At least we both agree that Palin never tried to ban any books.
Whatever you and your site call it, she shouldn't have done it and most Americans over the age of 12 know we don't do those things here and find that behavior nauseating. Real mayors of real places have their hands full with real work.
"Whatever you and your site call it, she shouldn't have done it…" She DIDN'T do it. That what factcheck.org says. Why must you lace your responses with insults and attempts to deride the subject? Do you think it makes your point more powerfully? Calling her an ignorant ditz and implying that she wasn't a real mayor of a real town doing real work makes you sound bitter and petulant. It doesn't help your case and your kind of debating is something that could only be done in the relative anonymity of the internet.
Thank you for the impertinent gas on my rhetorical style. I'm anything but anonymous: a lifetime journalist, interested in comics, I contribute here infrequently as a reporter and critic and muck about the comments many times a week when needed to serve truth, justice and the American way.Back to what's important: I'm up on what thin-skinned Sarah DID re: her library and it was heinous, however you or some web site choose to apologize for it. If she'd behaved the same way around a mobster she'd be in jail for criminal solicitation.And, compared to the general run of intelligence in that party that does believe in government, SP is indeed, an ignorant ditz. I call it like I see it, petulant or all the way to angry, and she am one. Not since felonious Spiro Agnew. Shame on us all.
A journalist and you aren't familiar with factcheck.org? Wow. That's pretty incredible.Well, I think you need to make up your mind – Did she or didn't she? You say that Palin tried to ban books, then she didn't, now she did again. I would suggest that you make up your mind on the side of truth – Gov Palin DID NOT try to ban any books whatsoever. No one has said that she did. The worst thing you can come up with is that she asked the librarian a question on the subject of book banning. (Actually I think she was asking to make sure that the librarian would never allow book banning. Palin, I'm sure, is totally against it. The librarian in question would have been fired if she hadn't answered the question so negatively.) There's even a fictious list of books circulating that she supposedly tried to ban, some of which weren't even published at the time. Now who could have made that up?
How does Palin's faith jibe with her continuing lies on the Bridge to Nowhere, on the plane she didn't sell on eBay, etc.? How does it jibe with her first being willing to cooperate with a Republican-led investigation of her alleged abuse of power and her willingness to allow the McCain campaign to now interfere with that investigation? How does it jibe with her supporting making rape victims pay for their rape kits? If I were voting for or against Palin based on her faith, I would at least look at her practice of that faith when it's inconvenient to her?
Well, this is far afield from Linda Carter's comments… but what the hell.Yes, she kept the money originally slated for the bridge and used it for other infrastructure projects in the state. The bridge may have been unnecessary, but new and safer roads are a good use of Federal funds. By the way, Tom Coburn from Oklahoma introduced to a bill that would have directed that money to Katrina relief. Senators Obama and Biden voted against it.She didn't say she sold the jet on E-bay. She said she put offered it on E-bay. No one met the minimum so she sold it through a broker.Many states charge for rape kits. That's bad, but they do,I don't know why she's fighting the Troopergate investigation. I suspect that since she is now the vice-presidential nominee, it's not her call. I doubt that it will come to anything. The Public Safety Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the governor. If she wanted him gone, she doesn't need a reason. Another question might be: Why wouldn't the commissioner fire the trooper in the first place? He drinks on the job, physically threatened his ex-father-in-law, and tasered a ten-year-old boy. He certainly doesn't sound like a sterling example of law enforcement. He should be fired for cause, yet he wasn't. Where is that investigation? Troopergate will amount to nothing and the press and those needing a scandal will have wasted weeks. Why, that might even be the whole idea."…I would at least look at her practice of that faith when it's inconvenient to her." Having a Downs Syndrome baby seems pretty inconvenient to me, but she did.
Because she is the vice-presidential nominee it's no longer her call to cooperate with a unanimous (that's fully bipartisan) call to investigate Troopergate? Because the Republican machine says she shouldn't cooperate she can't? That's not the actions of a Maverick. It's OK for her husband (the First Dude) to just ignore a subpoena? Suddenly Palin and the First Dude are above the law? The judge in Palin's sister's divorce case called for Palin and her family to stop making disparaging remarks about Trooper Wooten. The Judge called that kind of family in-fighting a form of child abuse.Now, the Republican stonewalling of the investigation, orchestrated by Palin, reminds me of the type of stonewalling that has been coming out of the White House for the last 7 years. IF the Public Safety Commissioner ONLY served at the pleasure of the Governor, IF she could fire him without reason or cause, there would be no need for an investigation. The fact is, it's bad form for a Governor to use her office to wage personal, family vendettas.Palin's choice in stonewalling an investigation she has agreed to cooperate with paint her as spineless in standing up to the Republican Political Machine or just a liar. Which is it?
"Palin's choice in stonewalling an investigation she has agreed to cooperate with paint her as spineless in standing up to the Republican Political Machine or just a liar. Which is it?"I choose neither. The investigation she agreed to cooperate with has been taken over by partisan politicos. The search for the truth about the firing, (which she maintains was because of budget disagreements), has become a search for scandal which I still believe won't materialize and will prove to be a giant waste of time. The judge in Palin's sister's divorce case called for Palin and her family to stop making disparaging remarks about Trooper Wooten. The Judge called that kind of family in-fighting a form of child abuse."What does he call tasering a 10-year-old? And if he expected one side of a divorce case to stop making disparaging remarks about the other side, it must have been his first divorce case.
So Palin and the First Dude have no obligation to listen to a Judge or follow a Subpoena? Wooten's tasering of a boy is as alleged as Palin abuse of power.
"I choose neither. The investigation she agreed to cooperate with has been taken over by partisan politicos. The search for the truth about the firing, (which she maintains was because of budget disagreements), has become a search for scandal which I still believe won't materialize and will prove to be a giant waste of time."Way to cling to those GOP talking points, George. Never mind that a bipartisan, but Republican majority legislature voted 14-0 – that's unanimous, by the way – to launch the investigation. Never mind that the Republican majority committee voted 3-2 – and yes, the "yes" votes were 2 Democrats and 1 Republican, but that still adds up to bipartisan in my book – to issue the subpoenas. Never mind that Palin's husband is unlawfully refusing to speak to the committee. Never mind that the McCain campaign and its lawyers are interfering in a state matter. Never mind that ABC News is now reporting this…"An internal Alaska government document obtained by ABC News shows that Sarah Palin's staff authorized a trip by then-commissioner Walt Monegan to Washington, DC — the trip she has since claimed was unapproved and the basis for his firing."Your candidate is a liar, George. And while you might not be curious enough to seek out the truth behind her lies, the American people have a right and an obligation to hear the truth and make an informed decision on Election Day.Barring new developments, I've made my choice and will proudly vote for Obama.
Sarah Palin did not tell Charlie Gibson later that she was misquoted, she said it right then. That is why he abruptly responded, "Exact words."
Palin's church has one of those 'Pray Away The Gay' programs to 'fix' gays.When I heard that I thought of the 'Will and Grace' episode where Neil Patrick Harris invites Jack to join a similar program at his church.
Do these people do the same for people of other faith-structures? Do they pray for the conversion of Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Scientologists, atheists? Christ, I sure hope they're not praying for me.
And now we see the new typical response—someone says they don't like a candidate, a candidate who claims to be religious, and suddenly that someone hates God, all religious people, and the Good, Old USA."Quit being haters, you treasonous, terrorist, traitors!"Or so the new argument goes.
Um… I never said that Linda Carter or anyone else who didn't like Sarah Palin "hates God, all religious people, and the Good, Old USA." Really, check the thread. I said perhaps her being vocal about her faith made people uncomfortable, but that's a long way from saying they must hate God, religion and the USA.I was simply asking where Linda Carter got the impression Palin was judgmental and telling people how to live their lives. Palin never has said anything like that. Subsequently the misquote about the Iraq war came up and well, things took off from there.
A McCain-Palin administration would work hard to further limit the family planning choices of poor people, thereby telling others "how to live their lives."Palin also needs enablers to straighten the rest of us out about what she "said." Thanks boys, without you I'd have to trust my lying ears.
Well, it looks like by the time the end of this presidential election rolls around, Obama will have spent about a half billion dollars trying to get a $400,000-a-year job so he can give poor people better planning choices.What a magnanimous gesture to poor people everywhere!And all the candidates for this election will probably have spent in the area of $1 billion total.Not only that, many of these candidates are elected officials who will have spent a year of more campaigning at the expense of their constituents — at full pay! Imagine all the stuff that could get done that doesn't!Am I the only one who thinks this whole wasteful process is totally obscene?
No, you're not the only one. I feel the same way, and last night former British prime minister Tony Blair said pretty much the same thing. The whole damn process — beginning to end — could and should be restricted to three months: one for the primaries, two for the campaign. That'll cut the cost and reduce the power of the heavy contributors.At least Obama's funding comes primarily from $100 contributions, mostly off of the Internet. He's got his heavy-hitters too, but the overwhelming majority of his financial wherewithal comes from citizens who are offering their support out of their own pockets. When AIG or the UAW contribute to a campaign, they're doing so with other people's money.
"Waste" is a relative term. Fascism and totalitarianism are much more cost efficient in terms of dollars. But you tend to have a lack of … what's it called, oh yeah, "freedom." And changes in power happen through coups and purges of "undesirables." It can be very messy and bloody. If we choose to invest money in the political process, hey that's part of our liberties, our freedom. One of the great things about the Internet is that Politicians have found it's even more cost effective to reach out to a LARGE base of small contributors than a small base for large sums. My guess is the USA is spending a lot less on financing political campaigns than it does on Internet Porn or Gambling. The money invested in Political Campaigns is up, but so are the numbers of people participating in the process.One of the things that will get decided with this election is which Party holds the purse strings and the reigns on economic regulation. The other day the Bush administration bailed out AIG to the tune of 85 BILLION dollars! Eighty-five TIMES what R. Maheras estimates will get spent on ALL the Political Campaigns put together. Why? Because somebody was texting on their cell phone (just not paying attention) while the Train of our Economy was going off the rails! Before Bush took office we had budget surpluses and were paying down the national debt. Under Bush, deficit spending has caused our national debt to climb by TRILLIONS of dollars. That is a millstone that will hang around the necks of generations of Americans. Our grandchildren will probably be paying for little diversions like Iraq. You can't even begin to compare the "wasted" money of $1 Billion spent on elections to the WASTED money spent on CORPORATE WELFARE and WARFARE. How many BILLIONS of dollars have HALIBURTON and corporate mercenaries made overcharging the USA in needless military actions? More than 4 billion in tax breaks have continued to be given to oil companies while they rake in historic (and some might say obscene) profits. CEOs getting millions for running Investment banks into the ground while their employees lose their jobs and investors lose their retirement money, that's pornographic.Medical company lobbyists WROTE the legislation for the Medicare Drug Benefit program, the biggest single social spending program outside of Social Security. The drug companies made SURE the USA couldn't negotiate the price of DRUGS! How many BILLIONS has that cost the USA?If Bush and Palin/McCain had their way, Social Security would have been privatized into the Stock Market. It doesn't seem like such a good idea now. Does it?McCain has been on the side of deregulation for years. It's time for some sane regulation. McCain and Bush have diverted billions of dollars to the wealthiest people in nation in the form of tax cuts, corporate welfare and governments contracts for needless and wasteful military spending. What was the trickle down effect? Higher unemployment. Lower wages. Higher prices. Bigger debt, both national and personal. If it takes spending a BILLION dollars to CHANGE the course of this country, that's CHEAP. The wasteful spending, financially radical (and you can't call socializing one of the largest insurance firms in the nation anything but knee-jerk, reactionary and radical politics) and gross incompetence of this Republican administration has cost Our County TRILLIONS of dollars, our position as a moral world leader and endangered the safety of our military servicemen and citizens. One billion dollars, it's all relative. And that is small price to pay to peacefully achieve the kind of change that we desperately need.
Oh, baloney!If there was a finite campaign window and a spending cap, it wouldn't affect the viability of the democratic process one iota.The current process involves flushing enormous amounts of money away, but even worse, it keeps most of the candidates who are already employed to represent us from doing their job.Face it, Congress already has a single-digit approval rating, and such unnecessary year- or two-long sideshows certainly don't help.
Salami is much better for you. Baloney is leftover parts.
Don't change the subject. We're talking about liar-tyrant Sarah Palin and her gang's plans to run the uterus of every female in the country.That, sir, is obscene, not your whining about the process.
Apparently, the reason she didn't want to pay for rape kits is that they contain emergency contraception. Therefore, she was using the law to enforce her personal religious beliefs.If she can do that, I'd like to see about enforcing circumcision…
I'm opposed to that, myself.
Wait a minute. What about the nude scenes???
Comic people discuss politics as well as politicians talk comics.
Tim's post had no reply button:We agreed some posts before that no books were banned. I will always maintain that then-Mayor Palin's behavior in opening that discussion was an intimidating move, at best unwise and at worst sinful.
Wonderful, now we're getting somewhere. Palin is now being criticized for something she might, possibly, could have, (but have no evidence of), been THINKING! Congratulations on joining the thought police.Oh and I googled your name. I presume you're not the writer who died in 2004 but the writer who came up under the Comic Mix link. I read a few of the items you wrote. They are well-written and contain no insults or demeaning comments. So I guess your rhetorical style isn't a permanent thing. You just employ it when you want to sound… what? 12 years old?
Personal attacks now, George? How Republican.
Personal attacks are Republican? What about "Barry Goldwater will start World War III"? What about Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech? What about "MoveOn.org's Busch in 30 Seconds"ad?I simply asked John Tebbel why he used insults and demeaning comments in his posts. He replied that I was criticizing his rhetorical style. But I pointed out that he did not use that style in several articles written by him that were well written. So I assumed, (dangerous I know). that he only used that style on message boards when he wanted to appear… confrontational I guess. I asked if he thought that tactic made his points more powerfully. It seemed to be the kind of thing a kid does so I responded in kind.It's why I initially said that people only do this kind of thing on the internet. I saw the play Frost/Nixon today. There is a character who had written four books about Nixon's abuse of power. He was a very vocal critic of Nixon in his books. He was one of Frost's researchers during the interviews and when he met Nixon face-to-face he was cordial and respectful, as was Nixon who certainly knew who he was. People don't act in real life like they do on message boards.I would hope that if we were all in the same room our discussion would not be laced with insults about lying bitches.
Well, I certainly did not call anyone a lying bitch.
You attempt to change the subject when there's no way to defend your candidate in a logical manner. You can accept what she did. I cannot. Have a nice day.
And I, with equal certainty, deny calling anyone a lying b*tch. And my find function says GH was the first on this page to reference a female canine of any probity. Political experts will recognize this tactic as the old cat's dark stalking horse's paw trick, first used at the Westminster Dog Show by Harry Houdini, but Harold Stassen lost anyway.
GH must be thinking of something he read on The Beat, that's a rough bunch over there.
My mistake. The general consensus of Palin's critics on this board seems to be that she is lying. Alan Coil called her "hideous bitch". I combined the two descriptions. So yes, no one has called Palin a lying bitch, just a liar and a hideous bitch.This is getting silly. You know denying the lying bitch comment was simply aissue of semantics. I don't expect anyone to be swayed to my position and similarly neither will I. I started this thread because of Linda Carter's comments which were broad assumptions on her part. The book banning and the "Iraq war in God's will" had nothing to do with Carter. I must mention that the vitriol has come from only one side and I think that is significant.
George, you've been around long enough that I shouldn't have to tell you this, but you REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. I did NOT call her a hideous bitch. Go back and read my comment again, please. You'll see that I was making a sarcastic joke about why she had fired (or 'tried' to fire the librarian, however you wish to see that part of the discussion) the librarian, and was not referring to Palin, but the librarian (who, by the way, I have never seen a picture of), and was trying to figure out a logical reason for a former beauty queen to fire a female co-worker.
George, I'm still waiting for a reply.
I replied at 6:38 this morning but it isn't placed in the thread correctly. Don't know why but it is down near the bottom of the page.I hope it is everything you were expecting.
I realize yours is a rhetorical pose and than no one seriously doubts what any new mayor has on his or her porcine mind when he or she oinks to the librarian about banning books, with or without a question mark. No one over the mental age of, say, eleven.The Dead John Tebbel, Prof Emeritus Journalism NYU, taught me when I was too young to fully appreciate it, that censorship is wrong, any kind for any reason. Aside from a few things I cribbed from Jesus and Moses this is one of the few bits that's stood the test of time.Your tactic of ignoring the issue and trashing your opponents won't work anymore. We're not insulted, we're not offended, we're not flummoxed, we're energized, and we'll stick to the issues like a Hunter Thompson simile. Back to work.
Cool. And since we have now all admitted that Palin did not try to censor anything, we can move on. Unless you are a member of the thought police, as George suggests, you cannot have any basis to pretend that you know that Palin was censoring or wanted to censor anyone or anything. Mindreading would be the only proof you have. Here are the facts:1) She did not ask the librarian to ban any books.2) She did not fire the librarian.
New York Times—"Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support."opednews.com—"Vice-Presidential candidate,Sarah Palin, former mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, may have waited as little as eleven days after after assuming office before precipitously firing Mary Ellen Emmons, Director of the Wasilla Public Library, over Ms. Emmon's steadfast refusal to ban books."Ankorage daily News—"A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired."Washington Monthly—"Soon after taking office, Palin, according to a New York Times report, fired Baker, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Baker hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor."=====When called on it, Palin reinstated her, saying she had only fired the librarian because she was a hideous bitch who pulled down the "Hotness Quotient" of the town.
Apparently you do not realize just how sloppy the state of journalism is in this country. Despite some conflicting information, the actual facts regarding the whole situation seem to boil down to this:1.) Palin never gave any sort of list of books to ban to Emmons, the Wasilla librarian.2.) Emmons publicly supported Palin's opponent during the mayoral race, and when Palin won, this obviously made Emmons' loyalty to Palin questionable.3.) Palin indicated, in writing, she was going to fire Emmons, then changed her mind (She may have done so because of pressure from her constituents, or it may have been a decision she made after thinking the whole thing over — only Palin knows for sure). At about this exact same time, Palin also sent letters to other department heads of questionable loyalty, based on who supported who during the mayoral election.4.) Emmons was never fired, and eventually resigned on her own more than 2 1/2 years later, near the end of Palin's first term.5.) Palin contends that her ire with Emmons was always a loyalty issue, not a book-banning issue. The facts seem to back Palin up.Now you tell me why any responsible journalist in this country could not find these facts out as easily as I did? I'll tell you why… because too many hard news journalists these days let political agendas blind themselves from the facts.A hard news journalist should never, ever "write" a story; the story, based on the facts accumulated by the reporter, should, in effect, write itself.This link has the best summation I've seen of the whole incident: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/70…
Russ, at no point in my post did it say Putin fired the librarian over refusing to remove books. It states she fired the librarian.You said: "…because too many hard news journalists these days let political agendas blind themselves from the facts."which seems to mean that if their reporting is in disagreement with your opinion, they are blinded politically. We get it: only your opinion is the true opinion.
When I framed my comment, I framed it around the most prevalent distortions and omissions the media has been guilty of.Also, my "opinion" was merely a citation of the facts — facts which any objective journalist should have been able to discover and incorporate into their stories. In many cases, that just was not done.That's my big gripe here. I want the truth in my news stories — truth that is not tainted by media bias and partisan omissions. That is not too much to ask from the professional journalist community.
Hey, Russ, did you know that John McCain was a Prisoner of War?
"I want the truth as I see it in my news stories…"There, Russ, fixed it for you.
factcheck.org -"One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books."
I don't think we all admitted that. Most of us (those of us with real world experience dealing with people in power) think that Palin was trying to intimidate the librarian. A look at the historical record demonstrates that this is true.
Um, no it doesn't. Please go to the factcheck.org page that I cited above. What you are saying is not true. And yes, before you joined the discussion, the participants agreed that Palin did not, in fact, try to censor anything. John went so far as to say that, while she didn't try to censor anything, he knew that she meant to. Hence, George's comment that he had joined the thought police.
No, the factcheck.org page does no such thing. I agree that Palin did not try to get that list of books banned. I do not agree that she did not get the librarian fired because the librarian wouldn't ban books. The record suggests to me that the librarian's adherence to the right to read was interpreted by Palin to be a lack of support.
Palin is a censor. A heedless, unsuccessful censor, but an censor nonetheless. If she quacked she would be a duck, since she got up in the librarians face the way that she did, she is a censor. All friends of comics know their tactics well and have learned, the hard way, through ruined careers and reputations, that censors must be fought on the beaches and on the streets and in the boardrooms and the city council meetings and on the web sites and on election day. Comic fans are not mindreaders, but history readers.And we all know your tactics, and George's. You're welcome to them; they've worked in at least two election cycles. I place my faith in the great Republican who reminded us that you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Biden has also been strongly accused of being a censor by the IT community because he proposed banning certain anarchist Web sites. So if you are going to be objective about the issue, start attacking him also "on the beaches and on the streets and in the boardrooms and the city council meetings and on the web sites and on election day."From my persective, much of the "censorship" accusations about Palin have been from those partisans against Republicans, or from the uninformed.From everything I've read, the librarian was one of several leftover mayor's staffers from the previous administration who publicly supported Palin's opponent, and the librarian's firing notice went out the same time as everyone else's.The intimidation you cite could very well have been the "loyalty check" Palin said it was — something almost every incoming politician in American has to deal with when they purge their staffs of incumbent loyalists still on the payroll. I'm pretty sure that if Palin was a Democrat, some of the folks here would be giving her the benefit of the doubt.
You're right I misread who you were calling a hideous bitch. I guess I wasn't expecting anyone to make jokes. Sorry for the confusion, I'm sure no one on this thread would sink to personal attacks on the candidates.As you can tell, I'm not as good at making jokes.
What is the story behind Palin? Ask Anne Kilkenny, a native of Wasilla who went to bat for the librarian Palin tried to fire.Here's Anne Kilkenny's take on Palin, framed by the liberal Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-kilkenny/about…And here are Anne Kilkenny's words on a conservative blog, Fairly Conservative, by Cindy Kilkenny (no relation):http://fairlyconservative.com/the-race-for-presid…Anne Kilkenny portrays Palin as a smart, charismatic politician with little real skill in running a small town.
I condemn anyone's effort to censor, including Biden's and will certainly oppose this effort. Thanks for the tip. Is Biden a preferable candidate to someone who is against censorship? You bet your mukluks. Are the Democrats the party less likely to try to run your library from the bosses chair? Aye-aye.Loyalty checks are the tools of scoundrels, if it's part of today's political toolbox then we're no better than the bums we threw out of Europe in the 40s. Your use of the word "purge" pricks the ears of Orwell fans (or fans the ears of Orwell pricks, depending on your point of view).There are a few offices that are political and those guys clear out on inauguration day, the rest are civil service and, again, this used to be a hallmark of American transparent government, are not subject to dubious, medieval inquisitions about their loyalty.If the Wasila govt has the librarian on the table of organization as "mayor's staffers" it's a bigger mess than we've been led to believe.And, of course, asking about banning books is not pertinent to loyalty, unless loyalty questions include wild-ass feelers about clearly unprofessional conduct, like asking the chauffeur how he feels about running over old ladies.And, lastly, a big election year "boo hoo" to all those whose candidates are not given the "benefit of the doubt" by their opponents. That's boo for boo, and hoo for hoo: boo hoo. Maybe that's the site that will make my fortune: Benefitofthedoubt–Where your word is good enough for us!I love the smell of warmed up motherboards in the morning, smells like . . . victory!
George HabergbergerYes, she kept the money originally slated for the bridge and used it for other infrastructure projects in the state. The bridge may have been unnecessary, but new and safer roads are a good use of Federal funds.You mean the newer and safer approach road to the Bridge to Nowhere that she used that money to build, which will, mainly. benefit tember companies and moose hunters and otherwise serves no useful purpose? And she didn't "keep the [Federal] money slated for the bridge" – she never got that; what she spent was the State portion of the total amount.I choose neither. The investigation she agreed to cooperate with has been taken over by partisan politicos. The search for the truth about the firing, (which she maintains was because of budget disagreements), has become a search for scandal which I still believe won't materialize and will prove to be a giant waste of time.Two words: "Ken Starr"(Incidentally, Lynda Carter spells her name with a "y"…)Russ Rogers"Waste" is a relative term. Fascism and totalitarianism are much more cost efficient in terms of dollars.Actually, they're not – consider the Soviet Five Year Plans. I are not right-wing; i can just see what totalitarian planning did in the USSR. And it really didn't work that much better in Nazi Germany – had they not had a war to fight, Adolph and Friends would have trashed the economy pretty quickly. As it was, the "War Effort" allowed them to look as if they knew what they were doing, and they could blame all economic hardships on it.You can't even begin to compare the "wasted" money of $1 Billion spent on elections to the WASTED money spent on CORPORATE WELFARE and WARFARE.While everyone is screaming about $700 billion spent over a period of time to prevent a possible national economic collapse that is the fault of the present [Mis}Administration and its nominal political party, no-one seems to be particularly concerned about the $612 billion military budget for one year that just passed without much trouble – and is mostly needed to support an unnecessary, misguided, badly-run and ruinous war that is completely the present [Mis}Administration's fault.Alan CoilSalami is much better for you. Baloney is leftover parts.So is most politics. Remember Bismarck's remark about laws and sausages.As to Biden on censorship – i refer you to my own blog post on MOG.com, a music-oriented social-networking site: Joe Biden – the RIAA's Best Friend (which, ironically, was one of the hits on the first page of Google results for "biden RIAA copyright").