Archive for the Palin Category


Last Saturday, August 28, Glenn Beck, the Fox broadcaster, held his much-heralded event in Washington on the Mall. He says that choosing the 47th anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech by Dr. Martin Luther King was an accident on his part. He claims that he did not know that on August 28, 1963 Dr. King delivered his famous speech in exactly the same location he had chosen for his rally last week. If you will excuse me, I will suggest that Glen Beck is a consummate liar. He had to know because the people who gave him the authority to hold his rally obviously would have told him that this was the anniversary of the King speech.

But be that as it may, Beck advertised his event as a religious one rather than a political one. The theme of the meeting was to “turn back to God.” Clearly and unequivocally he thought that turning back to God tells us that we had looked the other way or turned our back on God, which of course is the source of all the troubles that we have been experiencing. I suppose that when we turned our back on God, we invaded Iraq for example. On the other hand, George Bush was the President of the United States who made that decision to invade Iraq. He claims to be a very religious man who received counsel directly from God that he should run for the Presidency. As in the case of Beck, I consider Bush a hypocrite and a full-fledged liar.

To help reinforce the theme of the meeting, turning back to God, Brother Beck invited the former governor of the great state of Alaska to be his keynote speaker. Apparently she was eager for the challenge and for forty minutes or thereabouts she lathered the crowd with her version of turning back to God. For whatever it is worth, I consider Mrs. Palin to be a hypocrite as well as one who is unschooled in the ways of the world. She considers that people who have attended schools such as Harvard or Yale and the Ivy Leagues as somehow undesirable. It could be said that the title of undesirable might also apply to Mrs. Palin.

But the theme of the conference from Glen Beck and Mrs. Palin was turning back to God. As I said, this is a declarative statement that leaves no room for nuance or invitation. It suggests that our troubles flow from turning away from God.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on religious matters, so I will offer a few observations. When the audience is told that we must turn back to God, it seems to me that several supporters of God will be greatly offended. For example, there are those who consider themselves red hot Christians who will deny, with a great stamping of feet, that they ever turned their backs on God. I am personally acquainted with some of those religious enthusiasts who would be greatly offended to be told that now they must turn back to God. Some of my acquaintances border on zealots and they would deny that there is any reason to turn back to God because they never abandoned him in the first place. So the theme of the conference involving those two, Mrs. Palin and Glen Beck, becomes very confusing because of this contretemps of turning back to God.

Secondly, in those who subscribe to the faith of the Jews, it would seem preposterous for an Alaskan Christian and a Mormon such as Beck, to say to the Jews that they must turn back to God. The Jews have been at this religious business for a whole lot longer than the Christians and the Mormons have. I believe that it is utterly silly to tell them that they should now turn back to God. My guess is that few Jews went to the rally last Saturday.

The third point would have to do with the growing number of Muslims in this country. If I understand their rituals, they prescribe prayer on five separate occasions on each day. And then Friday, their holy day, they are exhorted by their imams so it seems to me that they are a very religious people.

And finally, there are the non-believers, of which I am one. Based on the council of Sarah Palin and the Fox News broadcaster Glen Beck, who turned back to God, I would contend that all of us are unconvinced by a speech given by Sarah Palin, and the meeting of Glen Beck. The speech and the meeting by Glen Beck would in no way convince me to abandon my beliefs which Beck and Palin would consider the beliefs of infidels. If those two consider those of us who are non-believers to be infidels, I want to be among their number.

If Beck and Palin conclude that their turn back to God meeting in Washington has resulted in an outpouring of religious belief, I would suggest that there seems to be no revival spirit among the people I have seen recently. America has not been converted into a nation of zealots as a result of Beck’s rally in Washington. Those who are not addicts of the Fox Broadcasting Company will still regard Beck as an untrustworthy performer. And as for Mrs. Palin, there is a very interesting and long article in Vanity Fair this month. Among other things, the article contends that Mrs. Palin is un-God-like in her conduct in Alaska. The article says that when Mrs. Palin has a dispute with her husband, they throw canned vegetables at each other and make liberal use of the “f” word connected to “you.” It could be that Mrs. Palin would be well advised to turn to God herself.

It is also of interest that Kathleen Parker, a Republican writer for the Washington Post, has concluded that returning to God is the twelfth step in the rehabilitation of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. It appears from Ms. Parker’s article that Glen Beck has had his problems with alcohol.

Well, there you have my views on the grandiose meeting in Washington sponsored by Glen Beck with the featured speaker being Mrs. Palin. A week later, nobody seems to have remembered what that meeting was called for. But my own view is that when people such as those two tell us that we must all turn back to God, they are nothing more than charlatans and deserve to continue to be ignored.

And in the meantime, I can’t imagine that devout Christians, devout Jews, or devout Muslims are going to be thrilled by Sarah Palin and Glen Beck telling them that it is time to turn back to God.



September 6, 2010

Essay 494


Kevin’s commentary:

I’m sure more people would have found this offensive if there was anyone left who actually gave a damn about the opinions of either of these two. Even most republicans have by this point recognized that he is a screaming nutjob manchild and she’s simply a moron.


The Duchess of Alaska, Sarah Palin, had a pronouncement over the past weekend.  On two occasions, which were recorded in newscasts, Sarah used the word “refudiate.”  When she was asked to explain what “refudiate” meant, she said that William Shakespeare made up new words at various times in his career.  Those of us in the lower forty-eight are left to wonder whether the Duchess of Alaska is comparing herself to William Shakespeare.  She has no plays or poems to her credit but apparently she believes that the new word “refudiate” makes her an author of some kind in the class of William Shakespeare.

I assume that Mrs. Palin must have considered “refudiate” as a new word added to the august English language.  If that is the case, she never used the word neologism to describe such a new word.  I suspect that the neologism is a term that Mrs. Palin, her daughter Bristol, her prospective son-in-law and her Eskimo husband would find foreign to them.

As I said, on two occasions she used this new word, “refudiate,” much to the bafflement of her listeners including me.  When newspaper reporters began to question Mrs. Palin, it turns out that the word that she was really looking for was “repudiate.”  There is a gulf between “repudiate” and “refudiate” that most of us dare not cross.  But for Mrs. Palin, it is no trouble at all, particularly when she claims that even Shakespeare made up new words.

My guess is that at the White House, the campaign machinery has gone into high gear to help Mrs. Palin’s become the Republican nominee.  My earnest belief is that Barack Obama would dearly love the opportunity to run against Mrs. Palin in 2012.  Mrs. Palin claims that she is loaded with common sense and does not need exposure to the finer arts and communication.  Common sense is all well and good but I should think that Mr. Obama would be slobbering at the chance to run against the Duchess of Alaska in 2012.  If she is the nominee of the Republican Party, as she may well be, I suspect that people of even ordinary literary brains will run for the hills.

I know a little bit about neologisms, and “refudiate” ain’t no neologism.  It is a blunder of mispronouncing the simple word, “repudiate.”  And to think that this candidate was running for the number two job in November, 2008 standing behind a 72-year-old presidential candidate who had a form of cancer!  But stranger things have happened, more than 52 million Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which returned him to office.  It could be that the voters in this country will “refudiate” those of us who know what a neologism is when we see one.  In the meantime, I suspect that the Duchess of Alaska will have her hands full planning the wedding of her daughter to the most eligible bachelor north of the lower forty-eight, Levi Johnston.  Do you suppose that Levi and Bristol would postpone their wedding until it could be held in the White House?  All I can say is, “Stay tuned.”  It may be that more strange things will happen.



July 19, 2010

Essay 475


Kevin’s commentary:  I am afraid that Pop may have misunderestimated poor Mrs. Palin’s intelligence here.  I actually love the self-made comparison to Shakespeare. She lives in her own little world.