The Washington Post staff writer — Hank Stuever — doesn't know what to make of Sarah Palin's reality show.
You're flipping channels and you randomly land on "Sarah Palin's Alaska"... It's a show about . . . hmmm.Stuever is imagining "you" flipping channels and arriving at this show, but for "you" to have this reaction, "you" would need not to recognize the celebrity or the celebrity-at-home genre of reality show. Maybe 10 years ago, this hapless "you" would have puzzled over a show like that, back before "The Osbournes" was the next big thing. But now? Come on, "you" is dumb!
About a busy mom with a sporty husband. Their many offspring run from a soldier son in his 20s down to a mentally disabled adorable toddler and an unexpected grandson with curly blond hair. But quick enough it seems to be a show about a woman who fancies herself as something of a nature enthusiast who wants to take advantage of the short-but-sweet Alaskan summer. So is it about the li'l town where she lives? Is it about flowers and birdies and double rainbows? Is it like "Northern Exposure" meets "An American Family?"
You still don't know....
(Mumbled "fuck" warning.)
Posts
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Sarah Palin's heaving cans!
200!!!!!!!!!!!
Just passed 200
Or this one - The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
I love how you pretend this is some sort of achievement.
I see nothing that tells me conservatives are concerned with the welfare of children period,"
Hysterical.
I love the fact that the mere mention of Palin on an Internet site has gotten you to this level of spittle induced frenzy.
"Just passed 200"
Page views of Sarah Palin's Cans....658
expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
I think you should clap loudly that the Democrats have just about tripled the national deficit in 2.5 years.
Idiot.
Concern for the children reminded me of this:
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And yet liberals like to pat themselves on the back when they give the shirt off of someone else's.
People still use: "It's for the children"?
A sure sign it's a law that can't be justified on it's merits.
The pot legalization dudes in CA should have used: "It's for the children."
From a conceptual point of view, I find the liberal insistence that spending a lot of taxpayer money on children really helps them. Trillions of dollars have been spent in this way over the last 45 or so years, with arguably significantly bad results for the kids that these programs were supposed to help.
One of the basic problems is that doing things for the benefit of children invariably translates into supporting the mothers of children who shouldn't have had the children in the first place. This was one of the key concepts of LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty. But, by separating having kids from the responsibility for supporting and raising them, the result has been that single motherhood has been subsidized. And that has had dire effects on the children they have tried to raise. Fathers are no longer necessary, since the state has taken their place. As a result, the males grow up without male socializing, at least until they end up in prison. And the girls, not knowing unconditional love from an adult male, find it in sex, and in having kids, perpetuating the vicious cycle. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is probably rolling over in his grave right now.
And that is the basic problem of liberalism - that for liberals, good intentions are what are important, not good results.
The pot legalization dudes in CA should have used: "It's for the children."
The prohibition side had that one all sewn up -- pictures of wrecked cars next to school buses with "if you love drunk driving, you'll love stoned driving" written underneath, etc.
That was the main argument against legalization, actually: endless commercials with people bleating "oh my god they're going to turn our kids into addicts and kill them". Pathetic, really.
When your governing philosophy is so substantively bankrupt you have to resort to asserting that spending is caring I think you've admitted you have nothing to add.
P.S.
Let's all remember the theory though: If you're against a bill for any reason you must be against the purported interests of it's backers. So if garage voices objections to the Patriot Act he supports Terrorism. If he's against military spending he supports other countries invading the US.
Garage is beyond hope but it will be fun to point out how stupid his reasoning is.
Post a Comment