Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He Called Sarah Palin an "Idiot"?
Townhall.com ^ | December 14, 2010 | Dennis Prager

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: freepressforpalin; gagdadbob; onecosmos; petersinger; sarahpalin; utilitarian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last
To: UCANSEE2
"Is that the secret to his playing ability?"

If that were the secret, the NFL would be inundated with Korean quarterbacks. ;-)

61 posted on 12/14/2010 7:22:59 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Actually Palin went on the caribou hunt for the documentary..
The limit is 5 Caribou for Alaskan citizens.. depending on the Zone you're in..

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..

62 posted on 12/14/2010 7:24:42 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

North Korean or South Korean?


63 posted on 12/14/2010 7:24:50 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Okay, an evil bitch.


64 posted on 12/14/2010 7:26:49 AM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How screwed up are we as a society that Hollywierd celebrities are treated as experts on political affairs?


65 posted on 12/14/2010 7:27:13 AM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

“Celebrities - is there anything they don’t know?”


66 posted on 12/14/2010 7:27:42 AM PST by dfwgator (Welcome to the Gator Nation Will Muschamp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Irishguy; Cicero; no-to-illegals

“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


67 posted on 12/14/2010 7:27:51 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
North Korean or South Korean?

"Huh? I-- I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!"

68 posted on 12/14/2010 7:30:54 AM PST by dfwgator (Welcome to the Gator Nation Will Muschamp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

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.


69 posted on 12/14/2010 7:34:56 AM PST by barb-tex (What else did you expect from the likes of 0? BTW, What ever happened to Rhodesia?, Oh, yes, Zimbabw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
53,000,000 babies killed and yet this dufus wants to write a nasty, vulgar laced diatribe about one caribou killed and utilized for human food...the comparison is stark to me.
70 posted on 12/14/2010 7:35:18 AM PST by jennings2004 (Sarah Palin: "The bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

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.


71 posted on 12/14/2010 7:37:39 AM PST by j35jazz (Replacements)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Sorkin... you lose your bag of mushrooms... again?


72 posted on 12/14/2010 7:37:42 AM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo

Thank you for posting this

Thank you for posting this.

Too funny.

Too funny.


73 posted on 12/14/2010 7:42:05 AM PST by IM2MAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


74 posted on 12/14/2010 7:42:46 AM PST by Terry Mross ( Reagan made one mistake: He chose Bush as his veep. We've been paying for it ever since.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fml

I’m guessing he is a commie poofter?

LLS


75 posted on 12/14/2010 7:43:20 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
I am trying to think of the last Republican that the Dems did NOT call idiot, stupid or the like.

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.

76 posted on 12/14/2010 7:52:47 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Grammar police off-duty. But I saw what you did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

As You Know, There are some very mentally deranged people out here. Seems as though the number of their sort are increasing, regretfully.


77 posted on 12/14/2010 7:54:15 AM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: fml

No, he’s a major coke-snorting whacko. Seriously. Known and admitted coke-head.


78 posted on 12/14/2010 7:57:51 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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)).


79 posted on 12/14/2010 7:58:51 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fml

“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


80 posted on 12/14/2010 8:00:36 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson