Palin Bashing is a fun elitist sport

Joan Vennochi (Globe, 5/7/09) admits that the image of the "adorable" Obama family is "managed expertly by the White House with help from the media." She also admits that Sarah Palin's family life "brings baggage that is especially difficult for a female candidate to overcome." But this female member of the press is happy to help out with the media manipulation of the Obama image, and happy to make life more difficult for a female politician. She has compiled a snarky repetition of old baggage about Sarah Palin. An absurd internet rumor from last summer about Palin's Down's Syndrome daughter. Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's father's legal difficulties. Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend's sister calling the Palin family "white trash" (so Vennochi doesn't have to say what she's obviously thinking.) At the same time, we hear about the "adorable First Puppy" and "adorable First Daughters" but none of Obama's baggage that is far more damaging than anything brought up about Palin--Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.--things actually connected to the President and not to people two degrees removed from him.

Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.

Manure eating conservatives

There’s a saying I’ve heard from Dennis Prager on talk radio: conservatives think liberals are wrong, but liberals think conservatives are evil. I’ve always found this to be a bit simplistic and exaggerated. Surely my Cambridge neighbors don’t think I’m evil because I disagree with them on the role of the government. But then I happened upon Mitchell E. Nelin’s letter in the Chronicle, who accuses conservatives of sympathizing with slavery, being ignorant, fearful of education and “thriving on a diet of manure.” Good grief, Mitchell, we’re not that bad. I don’t know a single conservative in Cambridge who approves of slavery, and I for one do not eat manure. Is this your idea of tolerance, dialogue and bipartisanship? Speaking of education, I seem to recall that both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were Republicans, and it was the southern Democrats—not Republicans—who voted en masse against the Civil Rights Act. Educate thyself.

letter to the Chronicle

There’s a saying I’ve heard from Dennis Prager on talk radio: conservatives think liberals are wrong, but liberals think conservatives are evil. I’ve always found this to be a bit simplistic and exaggerated. Surely my Cambridge neighbors don’t think I’m evil because I disagree with them on the role of the government. But then I happened upon Mitchell E. Nelin’s letter in the Chronicle, who accuses conservatives of sympathizing with slavery, being ignorant, fearful of education and “thriving on a diet of manure.” Good grief, Mitchell, we’re not that bad. I don’t know a single conservative in Cambridge who approves of slavery, and I for one do not eat manure. Is this your idea of tolerance, dialogue and bipartisanship? Speaking of education, I seem to recall that both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were Republicans, and it was the southern Democrats—not Republicans—who voted en masse against the Civil Rights Act. Educate thyself.

The Right to Be Heard

Professor Nadle argues in “Will Obama be a n0-go to racism conference” (4/13/09) that the U.S. should attend the upcoming U.N. racism conference, even though it promises to be another hate-fest with human rights paragons like Libya, Cuba and Algeria issuing statements criticizing the human rights records of Israel and America—alone among nations. Although she admits that some of the statements from the 2001 conference in Durban were “ugly” and “anti-Semitic,” she claims it is wrong to limit “people's right to speak their feelings and be heard.”

I believe in free speech as well—for instance, the right of Geert Wilders to show his film criticizing Islam, and in freedom of the press—the right for Danish newspapers to publish cartoons.

No one is trying to limit anyone’s right to speak at the conference; the anti-Semitic carnival will go on whether or not the United States attends.

But if we offer anti-Semites the microphone, no corresponding right exists to “be heard.” Colin Powell did the right thing to walk out of the 2001 conference and President Obama is doing the right thing to stay home.

Spewing CO2

Scott Paul’s letter “Think of Carbon Law’s World Impact" (4/1/09) confuses two related but distinct issues: air pollution and climate change. He states that, “Air pollution causes 750,000 premature deaths in China, while 25% of the particulate matter over Los Angeles originates in China, which has become the world's largest carbon emitter.” Some particulate matter (soot and ash from burning coal, for example) contains carbon, but a carbon footprint is a measure of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, not of solid particles. CO2 is essential for plant life and non-toxic to humans, and has not caused a single premature death. If breathing carbon dioxide causes cancer, we’re all doomed.



The only danger presented by CO2, which led to the Supreme Court decision—mistaken in my opinion—to classify it as an air pollutant, are future dangers, the potential to harm future generations by its unproven contribution to rising global temperature. Spending money to reduce particulate air pollution makes sense, but obsessing over a harmless ubiquitous form of carbon in CO2 is, in the memorable phrase of the Journal editors, a form of climate neurosis.

Divided We Stand

Most of Sam Haselby’s “Divided We Stand” (Globe Ideas, 3/22/09) presents an excellent history of, as his subtitle calls it, “the problem with bipartisanship.” In his concluding paragraphs however his own partisanship for Barack Obama undermines his credibility. He starts to go off the rails by including the 2002 Iraq War resolution with slavery and Japanese internment camps as “shameful episodes” with bipartisan support. This is not a historian speaking but an anti-war advocate.

More egregious is Haselby’s blindness to the hypocrisy in President Obama’s use of the bipartisan card; Obama talks about ending the old divisive ways, but the President seems to believe that since he won the election, he doesn’t have to compromise. It’s my way or the highway. Let the losers reach across the aisle.

Haselby calls partisanship “strong and critical advocacy that opens public debate,” but when he analyzes the current debate over the stimulus bill, he sees Republican partisanship as “squabbling,” while Obama’s partisanship presents “the best—or the only—solutions for the crisis facing the nation.” Open public debate does not flourish when one side is convinced they have all the answers.

my way or the highway

Most of Sam Haselby’s “Divided We Stand” (Ideas, 3/22/09) presents an excellent history of, as his subtitle calls it, “the problem with bipartisanship.” In his concluding paragraphs however his own partisanship for Barack Obama undermines his credibility. He starts to go off the rails by including the 2002 Iraq War resolution with slavery and Japanese internment camps as “shameful episodes” with bipartisan support. This is not a historian speaking but an anti-war advocate.

More egregious is Haselby’s blindness to the hypocrisy in President Obama’s use of the bipartisan card; Obama talks about ending the old divisive ways, but the President seems to believe that since he won the election, he doesn’t have to compromise. It’s my way or the highway. Let the losers reach across the aisle.

Haselby calls partisanship “strong and critical advocacy that opens public debate,” but when he analyzes the current debate over the stimulus bill, he sees Republican partisanship as “squabbling,” while Obama’s partisanship presents “the best—or the only—solutions for the crisis facing the nation.” Open public debate does not flourish when one side is convinced they have all the answers.