I’m a day late with my Friday Flashback this week, but I’ve been kinda busy with my move, so I do hope you’ll all forgive me.
Wouldn’t you like to expose your newer readers to some of you earlier posts that they might never have seen? Or remind your long term followers of posts that they might not remember? Each Friday I will publish a post I wrote on this exact date in a previous year.
How about you? Why don’t you reach back into your own archives and highlight a post that you wrote on this very date in a previous year? You can repost your Friday Flashback post on your blog and pingback to this post. Or you can just write a comment below with a link to the post you selected.
If you’ve been blogging for less than a year, go ahead and choose a post that you previously published on this day (the 8th) of any month within the past year and link to that post in a comment.
This was originally posted on February 8, 2010 in my old blog. Re-reading this post for the first time in a decade, I realized three things. One, American politics was just about as fucked up 10 years ago as it is today. Two, I used to get as upset and angry about the state of American politics back then as I do today. And three, I have learned in the past decade to write much shorter posts.
The Definition of Absured
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, former candidate for vice president, and current Fox News celebrity pundit, said it would be “absurd” for her not to consider running for president in 2012. She said that she will run for president if she believes it’s right for the country and right for her family.
Right for the country? What country would that be, Sarah? Are you referring to Russia, the country you can keep an eye on from your porch in Wasilla?
You know what the real definition of absurd is? It’s that Sarah Palin would even consider herself to be presidential material and that there are people who would actually take her seriously — seriously enough to vote for her in 2012. It’s absurd. And it’s frightening.
This is the same woman who is calling for Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, to be fired for using the word “retarded,” but who is silent about Rush Limbaugh calling people “retards.” Isn’t that special?
It is apparently true that Emanuel, in a meeting with White House aides this past August, referred to some liberal supporters as “fucking retarded” because of attack ads they were planning to air, which were targeted at conservative Democrats who opposed Obama’s health care reform initiative. Emanuel later issued an apology to Special Olympics chairman Tim Shriver for using the ‘R-word.”
Meanwhile, Palin wrote on her Facebook page:
“Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the ‘N-word‘ or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.”
But where is the indignation toward her fellow conservative talking head? Limbaugh’s “retard” remarks on his radio program included multiple uses of the word. He said:
“Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insults have 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. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Rush Limbaugh also once suggest that Michael J. Fox, who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, was “moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act”?
He went on to say, “This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” Limbaugh did take some heat for those remarks, but, hey, wasn’t he stoned on OxyContin back then?
So why didn’t sensitive Ms. Palin post something on her Facebook page calling for Limbaugh to be fired over his use of that “inappropriate language”? Why is it okay for Limbaugh to make “retard” remarks, but it’s unconscionable for Emanuel to use the word? In fact, according to the Huffington Post, Palin defended Limbaugh, saying:
“Rush Limbaugh was using satire…. I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there.”
Yes, there is a big difference. Limbaugh is a righteous conservative and Emanuel is an evil liberal. Can you say “hypocrite”?
In another seemingly absurd act by Palin, during a speech at the Tea Party conference in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, a photo revealed several notes written on her left hand.
These notes included the words “Energy,” “Tax,” and “Lift American Spirits.” There’s also what appears to say “Budget cuts” with the word “Budget” crossed out. She also referred to the scribbled notes on her hand while being interviewed at the Tea Party shindig. Perhaps she should have etched the word “hypocite” on her palm, as well.
My final example of absurdity — today, anyway — doesn’t belong to Sarah Palin. In fact, just to show that I’m not completely partisan, this absurdity emanates from a Democrat. According to an article in the Boston Globe on Saturday, February 6, 2010, New Hampshire state Senator Kathy Sgambati wants the Granite State to change its constitution, which was ratified in 1783.
Apparently the offensive reference in the state constitution is in its opening words, where it notes that “All men are born equally free and independent.”
So what is it exactly that state Senator Sgambati finds so offensive? Seems she believes the constitution is sexist. “It’s a very simple thing in my mind. The constitution should reflect our government, and that includes women.” Ah, the beauty of a simple mind.
I am a typical, insensitive male, so before declaring this nonsense to be absurd, I asked my wife if she found terms such as “men,” “man,” and other such gender-specific references in historical documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, to be offensive. She just laughed and wondered, with all that is wrong in this country today, whether this is really the best way for our legislators to be spending their time.
Apparently, to a number of legislators, the answer must be yes. Among the states that have already amended their constitutions to include gender-neutral language are Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, California, Florida, Hawaii, and New York. Other states, such as Nebraska, have tried to amend their constitutions and failed. Massachusetts has kept its original language, as has the US Constitution.
So, in answer to my wife’s question, no, it’s not the best way for our legislators to be spending their time. It’s the definition of absurd.