A MarketPlace of Ideas                        

What you probably think happened: They tossed Tod and Sarah a wad of cash or credit card - then they sped off to Neiman Marcus to shop like crazy.  This is your greedy imagination running wild.  Not plausible.  Where were the reports from Neiman Marcus showing Palin trying on cloths?  Is it possible she could have gotten in and out without being seen? Unlikely

What probably happened:  Palin time would have been incredibly precious.  Given that ~ 2.4 billion was spent and she was on the campaign for 12 ish weeks that would place her time value at about 5,000 dollars per minute.  ( 2.4 Billion / num minutes in 12 weeks / 4 persons-McCain&Palin&Obama&Biden ).   Staff personel was sent out to buy  the clothing

What you probably think happened:  When the Campaign ended Palin grabbed all the cloths and ran home to Alaska.

What probably happened:  Clothing is dense.  If you pack a suit case solid with cloths it is very heavy.  Without some sort of help like a truck and personel you do not move this quantity of stuff.   She described it in a recent report as "residing in the belly of the plane".   Sounds more plausible.

What you think happened:  She is a temperamental Diva that did not want to prepare for interviews.  She is stupid.

What really happened:  If the way McCain performed is any indication the staffers are not the best.  McCain was singularly wooden.  He never really fought for the presidency.  In his heart this man is a senator.  Senator’s aids are not likely to be the same as presidential ones.  These are limited people that Palin would have innately sensed were very limited in their talent.  I am sure she felt she was being restrained and a competitor like Palin would have chaffed at this.  You do not hitch a fine race horse to a shabby wooden cart and expect them to be totally happy.  Take away?  Any one on the McCain campaign should never be hired again.  Not only are they limited and incompetent they try to shift the blame for their short comings.

Whether you like or dislike McCain / Palin is not the issue here.   A little critical thinking makes it clear that the Palin rumor campaign is false.  It dismays me that the populace lacks the critical thinking skills to see through this sort of story.  They are used all the time.  Its dangerous for democracy.

All these stories bubbling up about Sarah Palin are very unlikely sounding.  First of all….wouldn’t staffers be running out to buy the clothes?  From various accounts I take this to be the case.   The bubblehead theory does not wash with what I saw of her.  And where do the divas you know all want to live? Right. New York City.  I am going to guess all the divas in Wasilla moved away shortly after 18 years of age.    If she’s so dumb, incapable and such a political joke, why do all the rabid lefties get into such a lather at the thought of her.   Their derangement was obvious.   Even old horse Peggy Noonan joined in on a premature rant.  This was before any of these confected stories.   They kept Palin on a short leash the entire campaign but we are to believe they could not reason with her. Too many conflicts occur in this depiction of her for it to be credible.  

What about wearing a towel when the staffers came by?  Highlighted as some sort of issue this particular point really puts the lie to this smear campaign.  So much so I feel I must bullet point the arguments.

1. Who cares?  The campaign was long hard boring work.  Why worry about a such an incident?
2. How uptight do you have to be to think this is some sort of issue? — Clearly its not about being uptight.  It was thrown in for effect.
3. The kitchen sink is being tossed in.   Why add this point unless you are trying to directly accomplish some sort of goal ?
4. Did the staffers not get to know her very well?  Were they not there to help her manage time?  A towel would not be the worry. ( unless she looked like Madelaine Albright …but only for the staffers stomach )
5. Who would even ask or be interested about this other than teenage boys with masturbatory fantasies of her?  The nudity angle makes the story stick more.   Obvious attempt to make people remember the story.  Why would it be important people remember?  Its only important if you want it to be remembered for a reason.
6. Obviously snarky attack

It is always amazing to me what portrayals people will swallow.  Obama spent 700,000 on a Greek temple set for a single speech.  Who asks about this?   Talk about a jackass idea.  SHAZAM.

 So I am left asking "Who benefits? What is the motivation for leaking these stories? McCains already lost.  However staffers have to find jobs and McCain probably presumes to be the titular leader of the republican party.  I rule out the idea he will run again.  His candidacy and speaking abilities were senatorial to a fault.  That is to say bad.  Thus we must ask who wants her hobbled so they can be the republican nominee in 2012?   Or is some sort of  Democrat party influence  being use to pay for her smear campaign?   If she runs in 2012 she will dismantle Obama like a frog being dissected in biology class.  Hear me now believe me later.   Obama clearly would not want to run against such a natural talent as her.   She is a definite front runner and outshines even Obama in her speaking because she actually connects with people.  Obama clearly does not connect while still being a good speaker.  He is quite a cold fish. 

I saw the point somewhere that Washington D.C. is an insiders club.  They do not want any person disrupting the place.  Sounds paranoid until you factor in this story because even if every word of these stories about Palin were true they still do not add up to a fake Greek temple.

Do not let this discourage you Sarah. If you want to run in 2012 then do it.  I can tell you with certainty you will be the nominee.  I can also tell you with certainty you will beat Obama.   Your authenticity will be felt even if most people are unequipped to detect the presence of the lie being told about you.

?So what am I not being shown?  I found the following:

Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio said Palin is not the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012.   This is telling.  She is very obviously the front runner for 2012.  He noted in particular some revelations uncovered by the news media during what amounted to a public vetting of her record once she was picked by McCain.   This makes me think that one of the republicans who want to run in 2012 and the McCain staff members are putting this out.  They must really see her as a threat.   One of Fabrizio’s quotes is: "All the intensity of conservatives does not matter if you lose 15% of independents.  Yet one Ronald Reagan is worth 20 of the moderate republicans.  And since when is a moderate republican ever been inspiring?  NEVER.  One of the bullet points on Fabrizios resume is as follows:

             Advised over a dozen US senators, more than twenty members of Congress, and served as a pollster for the Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee.
 

This one makes more sense than the Obama theory.  The other republican contenders know they will not be able to beat her head on.  Thus they are trying to sabotage her.   So now the question is:  Who is behind this well orchestrated smear campaign?

Watch the staffers from the McCain campaign and who they work for in 2012.  That’s probably who is behind it.  His likely confederate is the "wealthy donor".   He probably is a supporter cohort of the 2012 candidate.  This plot was probably a rapidly hatched effort after McCain selected her for the vice president position.  Some sort of smear may have been on the cards regardless of who was chosen.  Candidate X wants to run in 2012 and does not want the bother of a strong candidate to slow him down.  These people are telling their stories from the shadows and thus are in a convenient position to portray what happened from any point of view true or not. 

 Addenda

Initial list:

1. Nichole Wallace
2. Steve Schmidt
3. Mark McKinnon

Likely you have heard this old adage about security and liberty.  The security they talk about is economic.  Things are likely to get tougher in the near future.   We are shipping too much money out of the country for oil.   We are too dainty to allow it to be drilled on our coasts and in ANWR.   Thus things will deteriorate more until the pain threshold is found. 

Many people will want to vote for the politician that says it will be ok if we only regulate this or tax that.  These are the unDemocrats who will say anything to get elected.  Say anything to get the power.  I would like to think you as an electorate will have the sense not to listen.  But I’m doubtful about this.  You listened in the past and you likely will in the future.   The problem is this sort of thing never helps economically and in fact damages something much more precious than your temporary economic circumstances and that would be your liberty.  I know this is true.  My favorite home away from home country is Brazil.   As currently constituted Brazil has a fully implemented form of government that the unDemocrats want to have here.  The people know their government and changing it is hopeless.  Nothing will ever change in that area and the Brazilians know it.   With liberty you can improve your economic circumstances.   With economic wellbeing you can not necessarily do diddly squat about your liberty.  I know its tough to be a good soldier.  You have to be brave.  And clearly about 50% of the population lacks any impulse toward liberty. Quite the opposite.  They lick their chops at the thought of another round of incremental carving up of liberty for the sake of financial gain. 

Remember losing a job is temporary.  Living in a land of curtailed liberty is pretty much for your entire lifetime.    So don’t be dour Gus Halls who secretly long for a beer, a recliner and a black and white television.   For an inspired life you have to dream of liberty.

A joke told by Bernie Mac shows a Twain-ish twist that illustrates the high art of communication.  When you take it to this sort of level like Twain and Mac it pays.

His joke was as follows:

My little nephew came to me and he said, ‘Uncle, what’s the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?   I said I don’t know … but I’ll tell you what you do. Go upstairs and ask your mother if she’d make love to the mailman for $50,000.   Mother saying she’d sleep  with anyone  for $50,000 — and daughter hypothetically answering the question in the same way.  Hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000……….. But realistically speaking we live with two hos.

This joke is at its core very intellectual.    His illustration of wishful thinking versus realistic thinking contains a clarity hard to explain to people in normal language.   

It shows people who act out of motivation of wishful thinking to be the clowns that they are.( read liberal voter here ).  We conservatives have these laughs at you liberals expenses everyday.  When a liberal starts going on about global warming.  When you go on about raising taxes as a good thing.  We laugh at you.  We laugh hard.  And we wonder how can anyone be so damned square as to believe it.  But that is the "power" of wishful thinking.  It is the power to make use more powerfully brained conservatives laugh hysterically at your clumsy antics.

When I was young my father made a point of explaining the difference between the phrases "I THINK" and "I KNOW". 

•  "I THINK" should be used in the vast majority of cases.  If you have any doubt at all on a subject then the correct usage is "I THINK"  
• "I KNOW" should only be used when you are dead certain.  This is extremely rare and can be shaded a bit by risks.  For instance if your best friend is standing on the railing on the Empire state building and says "I can fly !  I can fly ! "  it is safe to use the phrase "I KNOW YOU CAN FLY JOE…. DO NOT JUMP!!!"

Thus when you see a politician like Obama acting so very sure of himself you have to know the guy is either lying or really stupid.  Politics deals with areas that are inherently uncertain.  If they were already decided they would not be part of a political decision process by definition!  

Given this analysis you have to laugh when you hear Obama is "already running for his second term"   This guy is a loser.  Don’t buy what he says.  He knows not of what he speaks.

Scooters have become stylish lately due to high gas costs.  However that is the wrong decision.  Scooters have small wheels and feel pretty tweaky to me.   A much better choice is to go get a small displacement motorcycle.  You will be safer and will find a larger envelop of operation.  You can drive your cycle 50 ish miles without too much difficulty.  I would not want to do that with a scooter.

Hunker in the Bunker

How much of a jackass do you have to be to screw up a museums hugely expensive exhibit ?

You can not legislate thought.  You can not wipe out history by wresting a wax figure to the ground.   The opposite of love is not hate.  It is apathy.  This is a display of non-apathy. 

Germany continues its obsession with odd political bents and worship of the arcane.   Global warming is a theme taken up largely only by germanic societies.   They prove their love of Hitler in Germany everyday they continue their misguided dictator like approach to solving global warming.  The problem is in the USA the largest ethnic group is german.  So we have an overdose of this strangeness also.  Everyone wants to be a dictator now days.

Couldn’t they just lift the window?  Or if they are pressed for time and don’t want to risk it they could just fire through the window.   The thing is its not like they are ducking when they break out the windows in cowboy movies.  It just seems like it would be alot less gratuitous if they just lift and open the window.

Think you are a moron half the time?  Believe me its much more than that.  I have studied this……..if you are lucky………5% of your ideas are actually good.  The other 95% are absolute non-flyers.  Even though they seem REALLY good.  I do not care how liberal you are or how good your intentions are.  Most of them are a load of smelly dung.  When you test them……they suck for whatever reason they just absolutely do not work.  You might say "what a waste!"  But not really. Because the 5% makes it all worth while.  Remember humans dwell on the positive. You use the 5% in the following fashion ( 0.95) ^Nth power -> decays to zero in other words humans keep the good ideas and toss out the bad so it appears EVERYTHING appears to work even though 95% of your ideas really sucked ass.

It never ceases to amaze me the obvious solutions that abound in this world that are completely ignored. Buffet favors democrats?  Well why wait for the democrats to take all our money away for some goober project that we’ve just got to do? He can spend his money any way he likes.  If he REALLY thought we should be doing this that or the other thing this guy has the cash to get a start on it TODAY.   He does not have to wait for Bill Gates to spend it. Why does he have any money left to his name?  Obviously because he does not practice exactly what he preaches. I like the guy but get really irritated when the rich advocate liberalism.  Liberalism is the saddest French comedy ever.  Its 3 Stoogism for everyday life.  Beat the living hell out of each other and for what?  When the stooges tried to repair the plumbing in a house we all knew what ensued. Liberals would have alot more credibility if they spent all THEIR money first before coming to me.  I do not care if you work at McDonalds or you are Jimmy Buffet you should spend every dime before you ask any body else for a single nickel.  Until then you should vote Libertarian and not bother me with your Red Sovine tear jerking stories.

What is marriaga? In the end as an atheist I have a minimist view of ritualistic legal procedures. In the end legal marriage is a form of transferring benefits without taxation. Examples would be you can put your wife on your health insurance policy. At the end of life you can transfer assets to her without taxation I believe without limit. Its only when it passes to children that the estate tax comes in to play. So why be against gay marriage? I’m against it on small government grounds. If marriage were a totally revenue neutral affair I would have only the fact that they are bastardizing a thousand year old tradition on a whim. Such practice is standard by the left. They just can keep their hands of things. They are an inherently manipulative bunch. Some things are meant to be diddled to death. Society is not one of them. If marriage were revenue neutral and they were not manipulative jerks they could simply invent something RATZELFRAZ and they proceed to get RATZELFRAZED with their life partner and butt buddy. I have several gay friends. I have nothing against them other than the way their public leadership speaks, the causes they fight and their general socialist attitudes. If they were not a manipulative bunch and voted conservative I would not have a problem with them saying " hey I know this tax system is unfair but maybe its better to weigh it down with lots of takers" ….but they don’t speak that way. They speak with the same manipulative crap you hear from the unDemocrats everyday of the week. They of course there is that part about bastardizing a 1000 year old tradition on a whim. That’s egotistical and self centered. Get your own thousand year old tradition. This one is ours. I guess I just changed my mind. I’m against gay marriage solely for this reason. I don’t come to you saying "change the rules for me" do I ? OOhrrigghhht….you’re special. I need to be your buttlure and jump every time you lift your pinky. Profoundly egotistical. Profoundly manipulative. The left always bends the rules to gain advantage. That is why I am against changing rules. And its funny they pretend like they know I don’t see it! They insult your intellect in addition. Go get ratzelfrazed.