“Is a title worth it? Does a title shackle a person? Are they — someone like me, who’s a maverick — you know, I do go rogue and I call it like I see it, and I don’t mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively, and to find solutions to or the problems that our country is facing.
Somebody like me — is a title and is a campaign too shackling? Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers to shape me and to force my message to be what donors or what contributors or what political pundits want it to be? Does a title take away my freedom to call it like I see it and to affect positive change that we need in this country?” –Sarah Palin, 09/28/11
One of history’s greatest myths is that its most remarkable events are revolutions and that its most remarkable people have titles.
We know that isn’t true. Simple events like independence days in the US and Mexico required a great deal of process, happened on various days, and didn’t simply explode into a set 24 hours of pomp and circumstance. And simple, everyday folks did more to influence the tiniest slivers of history more than all of its titled elites combined.
However, we see how liberals thrive off the perpetuation of this myth. Their movements must be carefully-led revolutions (October, French, even American), their leaders must have titles (King this, Prime Minister that).
The Tea Party is the most notable modern refutation of this myth. Here’s a movement that started based on the comments of a news anchor about fiscal responsibility. To date, it has no leader, it has no direct dates when its followers set to “occupy” some sort of territory, and it has been, despite efforts to characterize it otherwise, decidedly grassroots and of the people, and evolving constantly.
Sarah Palin is the second refutation of this myth. Here’s someone who, through her experience as a wife and mother, started on a school board in one of the most remote states in the country, and slowly worked her way through the system at a remarkable pace to clean out the corrupt leadership and special interests that were running politics in Alaska. When she resigned from the office of Governor, people on both sides were outraged. How could this woman ever think she has a future in politics without a title or an office to hold? Yet she continued to serve her community without a title, promoting tourism to her state with a popular TV show (Sarah Palin’s Alaska) and continued to promote the natural resources that her state was willing to provide to the nation. She gained even more influence out of office: endorsing candidates across the country who caused a historic sweep in the 2010 midterm elections; writing frequent Facebook policy updates on energy independence and crony capitalism which made instant headlines; and going on a national bus tour to articulate American values.
But Sarah Palin has shown us something more. She’s shown us that it doesn’t take a title to make a leader. Leaders exist at every level, in every community and household across the nation. Those who waste time and efforts on ensuring they remain in power and hold their titles are those that our nation stepped away from two centuries ago. Those were monarchs. Those were people who believed they were greater than other people by virtue of title and class. Those were the people who passed the laws, got the kickbacks, and ran up the tab expecting the American people to foot the bill. Those are the people we have in office today who want to drive us into fiscal ruin and fracture this great nation for their own personal gain.
So rather than breaking barriers in the traditional sense (becoming the first *WOMAN* president) Sarah Palin decided to do it in a different way, as she has done her entire career. She has decided to work outside the halls of power to break barriers, to show that feminism is not having a female in a certain position but inspiring women across the country to choose their own goals and exerting their own unique influence.
The holy grail of modern identity politics is the ‘glass ceiling’, that once a member of a certain race or gender or orientation reaches a position, that suddenly everything changes for the better. And if we’ve learned anything over these past two-plus years, with an African-American president, and with African-American unemployment and imprisonment at its highest rates, it’s that it simply…doesn’t. By choosing not to run, Sarah Palin has made the most powerful refutation of the Obama ideology thus far.
According to Antimullah, yes, and it will be announced by morning, Tehran time.
I can’t help but notice the similarities between this and the whole “Kim Jong-il is dead” meme that seems to be a common denominator in these evil, sealed-off societies.
However, Iran is not quite as sealed-off as North Korea, which makes me wonder:
If this is true, what will the response be like? Tehran circa June 1989 or Tehran circa June 2009?
Just when you think things are bad enough here, check out what politics are like in France:
PARIS (AP) – France’s culture minister is struggling to keep his job amid an uproar about a 2005 book in which he details Bangkok’s brothels and the pleasure and freedom of paying “boys” for sex.
Frederic Mitterrand’s candid tale came back to haunt him after he jumped to the defense of filmmaker Roman Polanski, currently in a Swiss prison on U.S. charges relating to his sexual liaison with a 13-year-old girl when he was 43.
In case you were wondering, Mitterand is the nephew of the late French (Socialist) President Francois Mitterand.
The affair is awkward for France and especially French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose embrace of non-conservatives such as Mitterrand has upset his ruling UMP party. Mitterrand’s critics say it’s about child sex tourism, which France’s government is campaigning against. But it also involves a politician’s sex life, which many French consider private business, and a public figure’s recognition of his homosexuality.
Sarkozy, who named Mitterrand culture minister four months ago, has yet to speak out about the book. Sarkozy’s conservative UMP party is squirming but so far holding firm in defense of Mitterrand.
The far-right National Front party has conceded that it went looking for dirt on Mitterrand after his impassioned defense of Polanski.
“Frederic Mitterand must resign because his presence in the government as a representative of France is an indelible stain (for) the entire world,” National Front vice president Marine Le Pen said Thursday. Le Pen triggered the controversy earlier this week, flagging excerpts of Mitterrand’s book in a televised interview.
Leftists have joined in. Socialist Arnaud Montebourg said Thursday that Mitterrand “deliberately acted in violation of national and international laws” and appealed to Sarkozy and Prime Minister Francois Fillon to fire him.
“It is impossible that a minister representing France can encourage violation of his own international commitments to fight sexual tourism,” Montebourg’s statement said.
You know what’s sad?
It took a neo-Nazi party to point all this out, and it seems that only Socialists are willing to condemn this pervert.
God Bless America.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kans.) told a group of local Kansas reporters on Wednesday, that opposition to the president’s health care package had been driven by knee-jerk partisanship and urged Congressional Republicans to get on board a version of reform.
The 1996 Republican presidential candidate also predicted, following a speech at a health care reform summit in Kansas, that “there will be a signing ceremony” for a reform bill sometime this year or early in 2010.
But the comments that seem likely to create the most ripples were those that dealt with congressional opposition to the White House. Dole, according to reports, framed the pushback to Barack Obama’s reform agenda as almost perfunctory in nature.
“Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,” he said, according to The Kansas City Star. “They don’t want Reagan to get it, they don’t want Obama to get it, so we’ve got to kill it…
Sounds like someone just wants to get his Viagra paid for.
Winning today’s Pravda Award:
The United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration, according to a new poll.
You know, the kind of star power that can get the Olympics to come to–oh wait.
What evidence is used to support the ridiculously hyperbolic claims of the first line?
“What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009,” said Simon Anholt, the founder of NBI, which measured the global image of 50 countries each year.
He believes that during the previous administration of George W. Bush the United States suffered in the world ranking with its unpopular foreign policies but since Obama was elected, and despite the recent economic turmoil, the country’s status has risen globally.
“There is no other explanation,” Anholt said in an interview, referring to the impact of Obama.
More ridiculous hyperbole.
And of course, in the age of Obama, there is no other explanation.
Canada took the biggest hit in the latest survey, falling to seventh from fourth place, while China climbed several spots to 22nd, which Anholt believes in due in part to the successful staging of the Olympics.
Anholt doesn’t seem to conjecture that Canada’s position “suffered” because of Stephen Harper.
In fact, has Canada done anything to warrant a drop of 3 places?
And of course, China climbed “several spots” because of the Olympics which were held…over a year ago.
In Soviet Russia, poll takes you.
From the kind-of-creepy official White House Twitter:
Reality Check on the Olympics: Fox News Trying to Turn a Point of Pride into a Moment of Shame http://bit.ly/RsRXJ
Once you click on the link, you’ll find a familiar looking “Rhetoric vs. Reality” format that the White House bloggers seem so content with using, even when they try to make hilariously hair-splitting points.
RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT “HAD THE OLYMPICS.”
REALITY: VANCOUVER’S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010.
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT “WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA.”
REALITY: VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL.
RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN.
REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE.
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY.
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID.
What is the White House so scared of?
Why do they see it necessary to go out of their way to “debunk” staggeringly trivial (and essentially truthful) claims made on one episode of Glenn Beck by Democrat strategist Pat Caddell?
And why do they go out of their way to insist upon the innocence of Valerie Jarrett?
I think most reasonable observers would conclude that the White House is simply afraid of another Van Jones situation here, especially with Obama leaving for Copenhagen so soon. There are so many problems with hosting the Olympics in Chicago, and to get a peek at the Daley Machine in action for 2016, check out Michelle Malkin’s brilliant column from this week.
It’s absolutely embarrassing that a move towards hosting the Summer Olympics in the US for the first time since Atlanta in 1996 could be so fraught with corruption at its genesis. As far as the other contenders go, you have Madrid (undesirable, especially in light of the fact that their government was overthrown in 2004 by Islamic terrorists and is now controlled by Socialist Zapatero), Rio (also undesirable, especially since Brazil is led by Chavez buddy and professional racist Lula de la Silva), and Tokyo (probably the most solid choice, except now less-US-friendly Hatoyama is PM). As far as the positives go, Brazil has the most to gain as far as proving themselves on the world stage. And hey, the government in charge can’t be much worse than Beijing in 2008 (and as far as corruption goes, London in 2012.)
As much as I would enjoy seeing the Olympics stay in the US, and see Chi-Town undergo a revitalization (which has been spearheaded by the revamped Sears “Willis” Tower), I’m afraid that the people in charge simply can’t make it happen. And if Daley (or Obama for that matter) want the 2016 Olympics to be just another jewel in their crowns, then the Games will turn out to be more of an embarrassment than a “point of pride”.
Sadly, it seems like every year (or, rather, four years) the Olympics turn into a political spectacle.
I remain hopeful that having the Olympics in the US will allow for the smallest margin of corruption. And if President Obama (if he’s still President by then) really wants to “improve our standing in the world”, he ought to be personally responsible for making these games as transparent as possible.