"Huh? I-- I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!"
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.
If that were the secret, the NFL would be inundated with Korean quarterbacks. ;-)
A proper hunt would have secured several caribou a wolf or two and probaby a Bear...
If you could find one..
And in some places all the Greyling(fish) you could catch and eat over the camp fire..
North Korean or South Korean?
Okay, an evil bitch.
How screwed up are we as a society that Hollywierd celebrities are treated as experts on political affairs?
“Celebrities - is there anything they don’t know?”
“is he mentally insane? i dont mean that as a joke, he sounds like he has some real mental problems.” ~ Irishguy
Yes. He thinks just like this Utilitarian:
Peter Singer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
<>
“Peter Singer advocates killing babies up to a year old, if they have any physical defects. He also advocates the practice of bestiality.
In the old days, he would have been considered a Nazi. He still resembles a Nazi, regardless of the approval he currently receives from the deluded left.” ~ FReeper “Cicero”
<>
“...The New Yorker calls this Princeton professor, Peter Singer, the world’s “most influential living philosopher.” It is Singer’s belief that “middle class families in the United States have a moral obligation to pay 33 percent of the first $30,000 they make to combat poverty around the globe.” After the first $30,000, they should pay 100 percent. He explicitly rejects the theory of property rights as an ‘unacceptable ethical view,’” and argues that certain animals are “persons” that have “the same special claim to be protected” as humans. He also maintains that infanticide is in some cases morally obligatory (Larry Arn, in a special edition of the Hillsdale College Imprimus). ...” ~ Robert Godwin, Ph.D
Excerpted from:
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Children of Light vs. the Communist Maninfestation
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/10/children-of-light-vs-communist.html
"Huh? I-- I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!"
Rememinds me of the time President Lincoln asked what kind of whiskey Gen. Grant drank.
Since Palin is one of us, we know who the idiot is.
Your indifference to the plight of animals shows how inhuman you are. We should all be guided by liberal humanism best exemplified by the Great Barbara Hershey who changed her name to Barbara Seagull noting:
in remorse after killing (a seagull) in a movie location accident on New York’s Fire Island. “I felt her spirit enter me,” she explained later. “It was the only moral thing to do.”
Good thing for Barbara she didn’t kill a tufted titmouse.
Sorkin... you lose your bag of mushrooms... again?
Thank you for posting this
Thank you for posting this.
Too funny.
Too funny.
I finally had enough last week when someone I know questioned Palin’s I.Q.
I asked this person on Facebook:
From which university did you graduate?
On what NCAA Div 1 University team did you play basketball?
In what city were you elected city council?
In what city were you elected mayor?
In what state were you elected to the oil and gas commission?
In what state were you elected governor?
Which major political party chose you to run as vice president of the United States?
How much do you get paid to speak?
How many best sellers have you written?
Who said there are 56 states? Oh, wait. That was Obama.
So, when you question Sarah Palin’s intelligence all you do is show the lack of your own intelligence.
I don’t think that person will be speaking to me anymore. And that’s fine with me.
And by the way, I’m finished with Facebook. I’m tired of learning what time someone got home from Walmart.
I’m guessing he is a commie poofter?
LLS
May have been well before the Stevenson-Eisenhower contests. Stevenson was billed as an intellectual; Ike was merely a career Army guy of some distinction. I hope that doesn't need a sark tag.
As You Know, There are some very mentally deranged people out here. Seems as though the number of their sort are increasing, regretfully.
No, he’s a major coke-snorting whacko. Seriously. Known and admitted coke-head.
I have not read all the replies and I am sure that someone else may have already made this point, but anyway:
The difference in this guy’s thinking/moral position is a world view that attempts to replace what is and what always will be, with an inversion/counterfiet (read Romans 5).
The real world view is simply this: Man is alone in the world in relation to the animals, we indeed are different and are we to use the worlds’ bounty for our benefit (a blessing from the Creator). Hopefully we do so wisely, but not to the exent we attribute humanity to the plant and animal world, mind you. Preserve, conserve, husband/shepherd.
The left (many on the “right” as well) tend to be so soft-minded that animals (the world) become the new god, and “protecting” them and elevating them to the realm of humanity (rights etc) is the grand folly of the era; man is out of touch with nature-especially those who “love” it. (meaning they see themselves as less than or equal to the creatures around them).
True, we must be good stewards, but when did the steward become subservient and secondary to the flock/herd/fields (environment)?
The bottom line is is that “environmentalisn” is indeed a worship model-always has been (think ancient religions and even not so ancient ones).
It is a false religion designed by the grand enemy of humanity (the devil, sataan, beelzebub etc) to replace true worship of God with a counterfiet.
I expect some push back, of course; even from fairly conservative folks-that is the way it is, though, like it or not.
Best;
PS Go Sarah! (As I eat a breakfast of venison and home raise fresh eggs and type this by my wood stove fire (trees need food (CO2)too)).
“The hardest thing I do every day is not take cocaine.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/aaron-sorkin-the-hardest-_n_734967.html
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.