A combination of defiance and curiosity compelled me to add The Undefeated (documentary about Sarah Palin by conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon) to my Netflix queue. I'm tired of the dominant media monopolizing the stage and influencing
the narrative, as they did (or tried to do) with the fictional movie
about Palin called Game Change (correctly categorized in the Internet Movie Database under "drama" and "history" and not "documentary," since it's clearly not a documentary).
Where Game Change zeroes in on Palin the candidate, The Undefeated introduces us to her first as mayor of Wasilla and then as governor of Alaska before being selected by John McCain to be his running mate.
Palin-haters have derided her as stupid, incoherent, incompetent, unintelligent (and those are the nicer comments). In spite of the annoying sound track (someone needs to talk to Bannon about re-releasing this doc sans cheesy music), I watched the entire movie documenting her rise in politics, and I'm going on
record as saying that whatever else you may say about her, Sarah Palin is not stupid, and she's certainly not incompetent. Sarah Palin is gutsy and ballsy, defying not only the good old boys of her own party, but the powerful oil companies, as well. I'd bet if Palin had done the exact same things she did in Alaska but had a "D" and not an "R" after her name, she'd be in the feminists' Hall of Fame, by now. Just look at how the liberals catapulted Sandra Fluke to stardom (apparently feminists are now encouraging her to run for office). Instead, because Palin's a conservative, maybe because she's a Christian, she's been demonized.
We could argue all day about whether the decision to lure Palin away from Alaska to join McCain on the GOP presidential ticket was a good one. Maybe the Republicans should have left her alone and let her "ripen on the tree" a bit (ditto for Barack Obama, by the way). Did her run for VP ruin her? I watch her in action as mayor and governor. Impressive! I watch her fall apart as VP candidate. Painful! But then, I watch her fight back after returning to Alaska (weakened, some have said), see her make the controversial decision to step down as governor (to pay the legal bills), and then watch her get back into the arena, bruised but not beaten, ultimately to become the face of the tea party rebellion, and I marvel at her never-give-up tenacity (hence the title). Should they have let her be? Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe it's better now that she's not in public office. She owes allegiance to no one. She seems to thrive in those circumstances, enemies be damned.
Why do I marvel at her ability to get back into the arena and keep fighting? It would have been easier to simply crawl away, lick your wounds, return to private life, take care of your family. That's my tendency. I went AWOL at the first bared teeth of criticism when I started writing years ago, and we're talking about letters to the editor and phone calls (before we went unlisted), not the instant commentary, the blogosphere, the world of Twitter and Facebook. It's brutal. I didn't have the stomach for the vitriol then, and I doubt I have it now. Palin is made of sterner stuff. I admire her for it. It's why I admire Andrew Breitbart, and so many others, really, who endure the frontal assault of the left's hatred.
Breitbart's in this film, by the way, at the end. And he skewers the GOP establishment for not standing up for Sarah Palin when the media did everything they could to destroy her ("Alinsky-ed" her, is how Tammy Bruce put it), referring to them as "eunuchs."
Tammy Bruce, now there's another rebel on the front-lines, fighting for conservative values. Palin and Bruce, Malkin, Coulter, Bila, Charen, Seipp (now deceased)...these are the real feminists, if you ask me. Those other so-called feminists? The Flukes, et al? They're just lackeys. Posers. Lap dogs. They sign on the dotted line, toe the line, stand in formation. But they don't think for themselves. Fluke calls on other women to run for office, according to a write-up in the Huffington Post. But not just any woman. Just those who advocate for family planning. Liberal ladies, step up, sign on the dotted line. Conservative women, go home.
I think it's time to re-think what "feminism" means.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis ("Times change, and we change with them").
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Los Angeles Times Supports Cordoba House
I sent in a Letter to the Editor this morning to the Los Angeles Times, in response to their editorial in today's paper called "Ground Zero for Tolerance." They argue in favor of the construction in New York City of an "Islamic Community Center" (aka mosque) 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They cite Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been vocal opponents of the project, before making their case that the center will be a place for the promotion of religious tolerance. Their source for such a claim is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is spearheading the project. They take his words at face-value with little or no apparent scrutiny. I took offense at the editorial on several levels, which is why my letter won't be published (too long, for one, and also, making two points, a no-no if ever there were one). Since it won't be published, I'll copy it here. I'm linking to the original editorial below. Here's my too-long/bifurcated Letter to the Editor:
Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.
"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010
"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post, July 23, 2010
"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010
"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.
And so on.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Los Angeles Times simply can't be trusted for intelligent and informative commentary. In your editorial, "Ground Zero for Tolerance," you gleefully bat down two "straw men" (Palin and Gingrich) as representative voices against the construction of the Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero, even managing to slip in a dig over Palin's misuse of the word "repudiate" in her Twitter post. I teach English at a community college, and one of the things I teach my students is to "argue against the best representation of your opposition," as Sydney Callahan put it. "If you can't state the opposing side's argument better than they can, and then show why the position is unsatisfactory," she wrote, "you haven't done your homework." Trying to score points with your readers by mocking Sarah Palin and distorting Newt Gingrich's words is not doing your homework. How about addressing some real concerns about the project, such as the following (to name a few):
- Contrary to your editorial, the construction of this building is not about religious tolerance. America is plenty tolerant of Muslims. According to the website American Muslim Perspective, there is a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America, two million of which are associated with mosques. A 2007 survey by the Muslim Group of America listed 1,462 mosques in America.
- Your editorial quotes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as saying that the purpose of this center is to "push back against [Islamic] extremists." In reality, according to Andrew G. Bostom, Rauf is a "full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism."
It may surprise you to discover that your readers are smarter than you think. If we can't get reliable commentary from the Los Angeles Times, we'll find it elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if you don't publish this letter in your paper, I suggest your editorial board start doing their homework.
- You say nothing about the significance of the naming of this so-called "Islamic Community Center." The "Great Mosque of Cordoba" built in the capital of Southern Spain, was built in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest. Symbolically, Cordoba implies Islamic rule and conquest. Nothing peaceful or tolerant about that.
Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.
"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010
"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post, July 23, 2010
"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010
"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.
And so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)