Hey Aaron, you hungry?
Posted on 12/14/2010 6:44:17 AM PST by Kaslin
EDITORS NOTE: THERE IS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE COLUMN THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME READERS. THANK YOU.
On CNN recently, Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network," "West Wing") called Sarah Palin an "idiot."
Let's see to whom that label applies.
Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her TLC mini-series reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska."
Sorkin opened with a quote from Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response:
"You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go f--- ourselves now."
That non sequitur was the high point of Sorkin's column. (Also, as I noted in my last column on the Grammy Awards nominees for Record of the Year, while most people use expletives in private conversation or in a rare uncontrolled outburst, the Hollywood and art-world left uses expletives in public discourse and in writing as a matter of course.)
Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin she had committed an act of murder and torture. To quote Sorkin:
"I don't relish the idea of torturing animals."
"I don't watch snuff films and you (Palin) make them."
"I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you (Palin) get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing."
"I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s---heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face."
"That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain."
"Sarah Palin is deranged."
Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost any of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the "fun" of eating meat. But when Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.
And while on the subject of torture, isn't there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?
As for comparing Palin's TV show to a "snuff film," what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.
Likewise, Sorkin's use of the word "murdered." Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word "murder" exclusively to describe the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin's logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.
No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between shooting a caribou and Vick's using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.
I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal or murdering a human being -- especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?
If he sees no difference, then it is he --- not Palin --- who best fits the description of her he wrote in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, including turning moral standards upside down, in order to insult her.
Good people can differ on Palin's political positions or on whether she should run for president in the next election. But what has she ever said, written or done to justify Sorkin's hatred and cruelty? Indeed, what has she ever said or written that was as infantile or morally foolish as what Sorkin wrote about her?
Ironically, all Sorkin's column achieves is an elevation of Palin's status. If people can be judged by those who hate them, Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized.
So, how does one explain Sorkin's irrational hatred and morally twisted thinking?
As noted earlier, it is indicative of the Hollywood Leftist mindset. Members of Hollywood's left generally live in a left-wing cocoon. What strikes most people who live outside of that cocoon as irrational and immoral is often regarded as brilliant in that world. To the rest of us, comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film, to murder and to torture is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind. But among many of Sorkin's peers on the cultural left, Sorkin's column is not merely brilliant, it is f---ing brilliant.
On CNN recently, Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network," "West Wing") called Sarah Palin an "idiot."
Let's see to whom that label applies.
Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her TLC mini-series reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska."
Sorkin opened with a quote from Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response:
"You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go f--- ourselves now."
That non sequitur was the high point of Sorkin's column. (Also, as I noted in my last column on the Grammy Awards nominees for Record of the Year, while most people use expletives in private conversation or in a rare uncontrolled outburst, the Hollywood and art-world left uses expletives in public discourse and in writing as a matter of course.)
Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin she had committed an act of murder and torture. To quote Sorkin:
"I don't relish the idea of torturing animals."
"I don't watch snuff films and you (Palin) make them."
"I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you (Palin) get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing."
"I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s---heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face."
"That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain."
"Sarah Palin is deranged."
Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost any of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the "fun" of eating meat. But when Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.
And while on the subject of torture, isn't there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?
As for comparing Palin's TV show to a "snuff film," what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.
Likewise, Sorkin's use of the word "murdered." Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word "murder" exclusively to describe the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin's logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.
No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between shooting a caribou and Vick's using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.
I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal or murdering a human being -- especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?
If he sees no difference, then it is he --- not Palin --- who best fits the description of her he wrote in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, including turning moral standards upside down, in order to insult her.
Good people can differ on Palin's political positions or on whether she should run for president in the next election. But what has she ever said, written or done to justify Sorkin's hatred and cruelty? Indeed, what has she ever said or written that was as infantile or morally foolish as what Sorkin wrote about her?
Ironically, all Sorkin's column achieves is an elevation of Palin's status. If people can be judged by those who hate them, Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized.
So, how does one explain Sorkin's irrational hatred and morally twisted thinking?
As noted earlier, it is indicative of the Hollywood Leftist mindset. Members of Hollywood's left generally live in a left-wing cocoon. What strikes most people who live outside of that cocoon as irrational and immoral is often regarded as brilliant in that world. To the rest of us, comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film, to murder and to torture is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind. But among many of Sorkin's peers on the cultural left, Sorkin's column is not merely brilliant, it is f---ing brilliant.
Many vets stop hunting after facing the steel and blood of war, but there is no comparison to normal, healthy killing of animals for sustenance-you eat meat, therefore you kill, if by proxy.
That said, I still remember my Dad coming back from the old Chicago Stock Yards where a newly designed method of killing the cattle was being patented. He was a WWII vet and a patent lawyer. He simply said that whenever the new method did not work, a huge guy with a sledge hammer would step up and nail the steer between the eyes. His dinner that night was vegetarian consisting of grain being distilled and aged in Scotland.
I think it was William Buckley who said that animals do not have rights. People have responsibilities. We are stewards and have a right to make use of the fruits of the Earth yet the responsibility to do so in a way that protects the future generations. Palin pointed that out in the program.
Will leave you with this I just got:
Texas Traffic Stop
This old story out of Texas. Seems a guy makes a rolling stop at a stop sign, and gets pulled over by a local policeman. Guy hands the cop his driver’s license, insurance verification, plus his concealed carry permit.
“Okay, Mr. Smith,” the cop says, “I see your CCW permit. Are you carrying today?”
“Yes, I am.”
“Well then, better tell me what you got.”
Smith says, “Well, I got a .357 revolver in my inside coat pocket. There’s a 9mm semi-auto in the glove box. And, I’ve got a .22 magnum derringer in my right boot.”
“Okay,” the cop says. “Anything else?”
“Yeah, back in the trunk, there’s an AR15 and a shotgun. That’s about it.”
“Mr. Smith, are you on your way to or from a gun range...?”
“Nope.”
“Well then, what are you afraid of....?”
“Not a damned thing...”
Pray for me, if you will. I promise I shall pray for you.
If all the Republicans are stupid, what does that say about the Democrats who lost to them?
AH, IT’S NOT THE DEMS WHO ARE STUPID, IT’S THE VOTERS WHO ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER WHO ELECT REPUBLICANS. / s
THAT’S HOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVE EXPLAINED THEIR LOSSES SINCE THE TIME WHEN STEVENSON RAN AGAINST EISENHOWER FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.
BUT THE DEMS IGNORE THE SIMPLE SOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE THEM:
TO PARAPHRASE BERTOLD BRECHT, IF THE DEMS HAVE LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE, THEY NEED TO REPLACE THE PEOPLE AND SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER ONE.
If anything I typed offended you, that was not my intent.
None taken. I hope you are correct about Palin because if she does run, it will be the biggest media firestorm since Barry Goldwater. Bush taught us the old adage is true and regardless of the world, it is the U.S. economy that controls elections and Obamba, to say the least, is vulnerable.
The irony to me is that the attacks on Palin for a show that depicts her in a non-political setting are similar to those attacking her daughter when she was a dance contestant. They help her and push the perception of the left further left, something the Democratic party does not need.
Either way, the campaign would be all about Sarah and not about Obama’s failures. If she is up for that challenge and can ignore and overcome it the way Reagan did, she could win. If she were to give a Goldwater, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” go to hell speech, look out.
I mentioned Carter and Wilson being smart. No one in the White House was smarter than Reagan with the possible exception of FDR. Both led with conviction and charm, a devastating and effective combination.
Being right is essential but not enough. I am certain we both have many friends who voted for Obama and are looking for a way out. As long as Obama is the story, he will lose.
If anything I typed offended you, that was not my intent.
None taken. I hope you are correct about Palin because if she does run, it will be the biggest media firestorm since Barry Goldwater. Bush taught us the old adage is true and regardless of the world, it is the U.S. economy that controls elections and Obamba, to say the least, is vulnerable.
The irony to me is that the attacks on Palin for a show that depicts her in a non-political setting are similar to those attacking her daughter when she was a dance contestant. They help her and push the perception of the left further left, something the Democratic party does not need.
Either way, the campaign would be all about Sarah and not about Obama’s failures. If she is up for that challenge and can ignore and overcome it the way Reagan did, she could win. If she were to give a Goldwater, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” go to hell speech, look out.
I mentioned Carter and Wilson being smart. No one in the White House was smarter than Reagan with the possible exception of FDR. Both led with conviction and charm, a devastating and effective combination.
Being right is essential but not enough. I am certain we both have many friends who voted for Obama and are looking for a way out. As long as Obama is the story, he will lose.
“I don’t relish the idea of torturing animals.”
I like to put relish on tasty animals.
The wheat will always find favor. Then there are the tares. No one but God knows exactly who these _individuals_ are in whom the Holy Spirit resides. The tares grow right along side the wheat and are indistinguishable until Christ returns and separates them.
In other words, there is no such thing as "national" salvation, only "individual" salvation. Each man stands or falls as an individual (not as a "collective").
You have my prayers, per your request.
Thank You.
off subject....I am having trouble staying connected to net. Also having trouble going to other websites. I just wanted to mention. Anyone else seeing similar problems? I could be me only, as in operator error.
Not since 1973!
Many people question Sarah’s intelligence. They need to be reminded that the smartest people in the world got us in the mess we are in. I want a President who loves our country in the White House.
Is 0bama smarter than Sarah? Let’s see...he thinks socialism/communism is better than capitalism.
Jimmy Carter smart? Pleeeaze. Stupid is as stupid does.
my situation seems to be improving almost as quickly as it began on staying connected to net. It ended almost as quick as I typed. Checking other sites now and surfing with ease. Was not the case five minutes ago. Did anyone else have this trouble?
Like I said, she’s a lot smarter than you giver her credit for. You have definitely fallen for the anti-Palin hype.
Of course you have the right to support who you want. Palin hasn’t even said she’s going to run yet, so I’m looking at others too.
If she does run, she gets my 100% unqualified support.
If she doesn’t run, I will do my best to support who she endorses.
I think the key to the R primary season is for there to be as much conservative unity as possible.
One way to achieve that unity is to support Palin if she does run and support her choice if she doesn’t.
I know that suggestion will not go down with many, but I believe that it is a good solution to the conservative-lack-of-unity problem in the Republican Primaries... which is why we got McCain in 2008.
There are many — even some here in FR — who equate the verbal trick of parroting complex socialist pronouncements with intelligence. By that measure Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter and Beelzebub Obama are all declared “intelligent” by the likes of the David Frumm, Ariana Huffington and little Chrissy Matthews.
By that measure, Sarah Palin is not intelligent.
But I don’t have to tell you what I think of that measure. I think you can guess.
Hey Aaron, you hungry?
Like I said, she’s a lot smarter than you giver her credit for. You have definitely fallen for the anti-Palin hype.
Of course you have the right to support who you want. Palin hasn’t even said she’s going to run yet, so I’m looking at others too.
___________________
I have tried to form my opinions about Palin without the aid of the left or ex-POWS turned U.S. Senators. But you are spot on regarding the comment about the conservative split leading to McCain. Voting for that clown was as difficult as any vote I ever cast.
C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity that the Christian faith consists of many “houses” and it is up to a Christian to find the right house for him/her and support that house without attacking the other Christian homes because the attack would affect every house. The same is true for conservatives. I like Sarah Palin. I wish she were still governor. I like her positions. She is not my first choice. But that does not make her anything worse than my second or third choice.
That’s fair. And I have no problem with her not being your first choice. (Who am I or who is anybody to tell you who your first choice should be?)
I only took issue with your previous posts in which you seemed to fall for the media meme that Sarah lacks intelligence.
She might not be your first choice (and that’s fine), but she doesn’t lack intelligence.
On your larger point, however, that we should not cast aspersions at anyone else running... I can’t go along with that.
I’ll say what I think about Mitt and Huck and I won’t hold my tongue on either of them.
Yes, I got your back-don’t hunt if you do not want to. Given your comments, a choice made consciously and thoughtfully, not irrationally.
Good snippet-I’ve said similar when asked why I carry (it is not because I am afraid, just informed). I am amazed when folks who have seen the dark side of things are against armed self-defense-they know the cops won’t be there to stop anything.
Take care;
Is 0bama smarter than Sarah?
I am equally certain that the attacks on Palin have not resulted from fears about a lack of intelligence. She is being taken seriously by the left because she represents a real threat to them.
My original comment about her not being particularly smart was made noting that one does not have to be a genius or Ivy League educated to understand what is at issue and how to be an effective governor.
In the end, I again simply state that I have issues with her limited experience at the national level and how effective she would be in international affairs. These are the same complaints I have about our current President who in addition seems to feel the political and economic structure in this country is not to his suiting, something that Sarah Palin does not share.
The interesting question is whether indeed she will run. What she has done recently seems to me to be a lot more sophisticated and savvy than what she demonstrated a few years ago. Perhaps the attacks and the experience she is gaining now may give her all the tools to run a successful presidential campaign.
Either way, someone is spending a lot of time and money going after her and Hollywood is right about one thing: there is no such thing as bad publicity.
One last question: When does the indictment of John Kerry for hunting hit the New York Times? Sorry for asking but I let my subscription lapse.
On your larger point, however, that we should not cast aspersions at anyone else running... I can’t go along with that.I’ll say what I think about Mitt and Huck and I won’t hold my tongue on either of them.
Not to be the martyr here but if I voted for McCain, surely you wouldn’t vote for Obama if Mitt or Huck were running?? I still have nightmares about voodoo economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.