Ebert on Palin: Two Thumbs Down

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by kut2k2, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    September 11, 2008

    BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic

    I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!

    My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald-faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.

    I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.

    Five different schools in six years. What was that about?

    And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.

    You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.

    But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.

    I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1156080,091008ebertpalin.article
     
  2. good post.
     
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Bad post
     
  4. So let me get this straight: a movie critic now thinks he has the expertise to decide what are the qualifications for VP. And they are (drumroll), travelling to Europe. LOL. Priceless.

    I caught myself musing this morning....evidently according to this board, no one is qualified for office unless they have Washington experience. In other words, someone who was simply a good CEO of a business would not be qualified. He wouldn't have the Washington experience, no would he have met any foreign leaders.

    So when we say we want "change", what we are really saying is that we want someone different who has all the same background and experience. LOL.

    What was the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    OldTrader
     
  5. Didn't even read it. Why do I care about what some fat fuck who lives in LA with cat thinks?

    He watches movies for a lliving. Maybe he should be President.

    "President Ebert, the Russians have moved into Poland. What shall we do."

    "Quick, to the screening room. Show, "Air Force One."
     
  6. Ebert is a partisan Chicago democrat.

    He's also corrupt. He's married to a black woman and several years ago it was disclosed she'd used he "minority" status to recieve minority set aside stock in an Illinois casino. The casino's management was mob backed and they were ultimately forced to pull their application. The public was little amused at the wife of a white millionaire film critic gaming the system and being partered with the mafia to boot.

    Weirdly Ebert is in the news this week because New York Post film reviewer Lou Lumenick smacked him at a screening this week, lol.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-phil-rosenthal-roger-ebert-sep11,0,5934261.story
     
  7. 50_Bip

    50_Bip

    Waah waah waah - she's not fit to be VP and you folks know it!
     
  8. Pabst,

    there is a saying "even a broken clock is right two times per day".

    That means that in each separate case you should apply reasoning, and not be dogmatic or simplistic.

    For instance you can build trust on a specific issue, but have no trust on other issues - even differing with other participants. E.g a person can be extremely apt in financial economics, but you would never trust him to save your life in battle.

    That means that you can not infer trust based on the general skill set - or in a "holistic sense", but have to assess each situation because there are many variables. This is similar to how you optimize risk assessment and reach decisions. You would not do this in a bivalent manner where you make a single bivalent value override each and every other component for the final conclusion. You keep trust on level with the type of situation based on heuristic evidence, or some form of trust transfer such as confidence, but you are still able to adjust your trust towards a person in each situation - adding to your knowledge and understanding of the person, situation and solution.

    Finally, if a person has done something in the past - it does not nullify any future attempt of this person to contribute something valuable - although there are degrees to trust and truth, so that the gravity and number of trust issues have cumulative and synergistic effects. Loss of trust once does not make every future contribution worthless, because you still need to apply reasoning and not discard the value based on - well, prejudice or ignorance really.

    I guess I just gave the logical rationale for "forgiveness" too.
    However, real world natural deduction is not bivalent like I pointed out;
    there are degrees, because of the non-linear and more chaotic complex relations.
    There - I made the logical case against Abrahamic religions once again...
    :)
     
  9. So someone who reviews movies should be dismissed summarily for their point of view on politics and personally attacked, but a bad actor like Chuck Norris is held up as an expert on foreign policy for beating up stunt men in bad movies.

    What is even funnier is that the right wing won't see the ridiculousness of this situation...
     
  10. Of course I hear you amiga. As a Chicagoan though I've read Ebert's op-eds for years. He's a leftist with the depth of a thimble. Sux as a critic too. Anyone who thinks the Blues Brothers is one of the great American films of all time should be beat with a notebook......
     
    #10     Sep 12, 2008