T Nation

Palin's Tea Party Speech

I’m avoiding the low hanging fruit of the crib notes, because in the end it’s better than just having her bumble about, however I saw this come across the news today: http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2010/02/10/robinson-palins-bigger-blunder/ and I found it much more interesting. It’s funny how a thread is started about the mispronunciation of “corpsman” but this goes by without a blip. Which is more disrespectful?

Did you read the Author’s Note at the bottom? It’s basically a retraction of the entire piece.

Kinda like obama’s bracelet?

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Did you read the Author’s Note at the bottom? It’s basically a retraction of the entire piece.[/quote]
D’oh!

“Low hanging fruit of the crib notes” ?

So far as having a brief set of words like that:

When as a graduate student I gave seminars, my ordinary procedure (after having planned what I was going to say) was to bring a single piece of paper with a few words on it. Not counting whatever overhead slides there were, or handouts, etc.

What I actually said was extemporized.

Why have those few words?

So as not to accidentally omit an entire section of what I wanted to talk about, or do things in a different order than I had in mind, or wind up spending too much time in one area when a simple glance at the list would remind me there were 3 more to go.

True, I had it on paper on a lectern, not on my hand. Big whoop.

I have a suspicion that those mocking having a few words written down (but never mocking having EVERY WORD of a speech come from a Teleprompter) have little to no experience in public speaking.

It’s common to have a brief outline in front of you and is no sign of stupidity.

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Did you read the Author’s Note at the bottom? It’s basically a retraction of the entire piece.[/quote]

LOL! Congratulations OP, that is the most complete fail I’ve ever seen. You didn’t even bother to read the entire article THAT YOU POSTED AND STARTED A THREAD ABOUT!

L - O - freaking - L

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]borrek wrote:
Which is more disrespectful?
[/quote]

I love this part. LOL!

“Author’s Note: In my column in the News Wednesday, I criticized former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for wearing a black memorial bracelet with her sonâ??s name on it, as Track returned unharmed from Iraq last fall. However, Sarah Palin’s bracelet was not black; instead, it was a dark brown “DeployedHero” bracelet worn by those who have loved ones currently serving in the military. The bracelet is different from the black one associated with men and women who are killed in action overseas. Recognizing this, I apologize to the governor and to any reader who might have been misled by my piece. I hope that this serves as an important lesson for anyone interested in the importance of these symbols.”

[quote]doubleh wrote:
LOL! Congratulations OP, that is the most complete fail I’ve ever seen. You didn’t even bother to read the entire article THAT YOU POSTED AND STARTED A THREAD ABOUT![/quote]
Actually, it’s clear that the column was published Wednesday, the OP (borrek) wrote his post Wednesday evening, and the retraction was published Thursday morning. So no fail on the part of the OP.

When I asked if he had read the Author’s note, I simply meant to call his attention to the retraction, which I assumed he had not yet seen.

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Did you read the Author’s Note at the bottom? It’s basically a retraction of the entire piece.[/quote]

d’oh. shit happens I suppose. The retraction was not printed yet when I saw the article.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Something like 70% think she’s unqualified to be president.


It’s not a minority view.

I don’t like to call anyone stupid, because it’s presumptuous. Someone who knows what to do to attain his or her goals isn’t stupid, and Palin certainly knows what she’s doing, so no, I don’t think she’s stupid. I didn’t think Bush was stupid either.

What I will claim is that she has no background in scholarship, and, from my impression, no particular love for learning or respect for science (I recall that she belittled fruit fly research, when the fruit fly is the standard test subject in genetics.)

I think that it’s a bad sign when a politician belittles the educated, because, in the end, the success or failure of policy is an empirical question. Policy will work best when it’s justified by the evidence. And that evidence will have to be evaluated by educated people, via methods developed in universities. Politicians who disdain academic knowledge will make serious errors in judgment, by trusting their guts instead of the evidence.

That’s basically why I don’t like her, or populists in general. Knowledge doesn’t preclude getting things wrong, of course, but there’s far more danger in disregarding it. You don’t have to go to an Ivy League school to value knowledge (and you don’t have to be rich to go to an Ivy League school, either) so I don’t think her humble origins are an excuse for her anti-intellectualism.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Something like 70% think she’s unqualified to be president.


It’s not a minority view.

I don’t like to call anyone stupid, because it’s presumptuous. Someone who knows what to do to attain his or her goals isn’t stupid, and Palin certainly knows what she’s doing, so no, I don’t think she’s stupid. I didn’t think Bush was stupid either.

What I will claim is that she has no background in scholarship, and, from my impression, no particular love for learning or respect for science (I recall that she belittled fruit fly research, when the fruit fly is the standard test subject in genetics.)

I think that it’s a bad sign when a politician belittles the educated, because, in the end, the success or failure of policy is an empirical question. Policy will work best when it’s justified by the evidence. And that evidence will have to be evaluated by educated people, via methods developed in universities. Politicians who disdain academic knowledge will make serious errors in judgment, by trusting their guts instead of the evidence.

That’s basically why I don’t like her, or populists in general. Knowledge doesn’t preclude getting things wrong, of course, but there’s far more danger in disregarding it. You don’t have to go to an Ivy League school to value knowledge (and you don’t have to be rich to go to an Ivy League school, either) so I don’t think her humble origins are an excuse for her anti-intellectualism. [/quote]

Kind of like how “global warming deniers” get belittled by politicians?

You should go read freakonomics, there are lots of instances in that book of politicians using “science” in politics. The problem is that if you shop around long enough you can find a scientist that will say whatever it is you want. Kind of like getting second opinions until you find a doctor that says you don’t need surgery.

The other problem of course being that politics is about doing “feel good” acts, not “do good” acts. You can’t succeed in politics being analytical and rational.

One of the best ways to stop crime (in a value sense) is to build prisons. More cops, harsher punishments, est. do very little, it’s a proven fact. But what is a politician more likely to do with the same amount of money? if one were to build prisons with the money, he’d get called cold and heartless.

Our recently with the mammogram controversy. It’s an inefficient use of health care money for women to get them as early as they have been. There are better places to spend that money that would save more lives. But these women’s groups will protest and keep getting the exams. even though they could be using it to find a cure for cancer.

Or how these politicians waste so much times on things like gun control, when it’s so little of the problem.

Humans are irrational and they elect their leads as such.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:

I think that it’s a bad sign when a politician belittles the educated, because, in the end, the success or failure of policy is an empirical question.
[/quote]
Alisa, I don’t think that is the thrust of her argument. The point is that electing people whose ONLY qualification is an education is foolish. Witness our current president. I know a bunch of guys just like him. Great education, never actually DID anything, or were RESPONSIBLE for anything. Education is great, but education with practical leadership experience is better. I also know people with less prestigious educations who are better leaders, and really overall “smarter” people.

[quote]Politicians who disdain academic knowledge will make serious errors in judgment, by trusting their guts instead of the evidence.
[/quote]
Its pretty easy to argue that this is the exact definition of liberal economic and social policy. Tax and spend liberalism has mountains of evidence piled up against it, but they NEVER stop pushing it. And its not because of erros in judgment. It is to gather power from a voting block that feels victimized or entitled.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Or how these politicians waste so much times on things like gun control, when it’s so little of the problem.

[/quote]
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. All the empirical data absolutely destroys the gun ban groups’ arguments. But again, they never stop. These so called “educated” people make decisions like all humans: on feeling, emotions, and their own desires and goals.

[quote]jwillow wrote:

[quote]doubleh wrote:
LOL! Congratulations OP, that is the most complete fail I’ve ever seen. You didn’t even bother to read the entire article THAT YOU POSTED AND STARTED A THREAD ABOUT![/quote]

Actually, it’s clear that the column was published Wednesday, the OP (borrek) wrote his post Wednesday evening, and the retraction was published Thursday morning. So no fail on the part of the OP.

When I asked if he had read the Author’s note, I simply meant to call his attention to the retraction, which I assumed he had not yet seen.[/quote]

Was not clear. The only date I see (saw) was the publish date, 02/10/10. The note could have been added same day.

Epilogue: OP avoids fail Hall of Fame… for now.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:

…What I will claim is that she has no background in scholarship, and, from my impression, no particular love for learning or respect for science… [/quote]

To make a claim like this is…stupid.

  1. No background in scholarship? Explain.

  2. No particular love for learning? Alisa, you show an astounding amount of arrogance with this statement. Arrogance that at your young age you have no right to have.

  3. No respect for science? Because she allegedly had some differences with some fruit fly research? You’re really reaching, arent’ you? What does it take to “respect science,” Alisa? Toe the company line? Accept what YOU happen to believe when it comes to science?

Speaking of science, give me your Princeton educated political “science” ideas about the limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Use your “love for learning” to explain to me how our present federal government is authorized to expand itself to the limitless horizons it now claims.

With your background in scholarship, please enlighten me on this subject. Start another thread if you will.

Razzle and dazzle me, baby.

If you’re going to denigrate someone like Palin in this regard then step up to the plate and let me see how well you hit the ball.[/quote]

Not that I’m saying this must be the case with this poster, but it’s remarkable how many people whose accomplishments of any significance would require less than half a napkin to write down belittle Sarah Palin as being supposedly a done-nothing.