news you should know about

this merits its own post. forgive me.

leave a comment »

I have some time between classes, which I am theoretically using to study for statistics (t-tests, man. How do they work?), but instead of course am plugged in, ’cause that’s what I do, and anyway, I came across what is quite possibly my favorite news moment of the last really long time.

Apparently I can’t embed the video (or else I’m just doing it wrong), but it can be viewed here.

So Sarah Palin’s being interviewed by an anchor on Fox News, and the Salon talking point is that according to Palin, there’s apparently a type of military intervention called a “squirmish” (which sounds either like a small, bottom-feeding deep-sea fish or a tropical weather pattern), but my favorite part – the part that literally had me shrieking at my screen –  was the part where the anchor comments that, having reviewed Obama’s speech, she noticed there was a lot of nuance. Which is cool, because this means the anchor could hypothetically pass an AP English class. But – but – and this is the kicker – apparently that’s a problem; if you’re going to war (or entering a squirmish, or whatever) and you have to explain yourself with a lot of nuance, the anchor says, this is cause for alarm.

I’m going to let that one sink in. Complications and nuance in making a far-reaching, highly controversial military decision is bad.

Is this Tea Party influence that we’re seeing? That if your sum commentary requires more exposition than allowed by a piece of 36-inch cardboard, it’s too much?

And then Palin responds that her favorite part of the speech was his shout out to the North Star, because she talks about the North Star a lot, too, and this means that Palin and Obama could have sleepovers and braid each others’ hair now. now. Honestly, that was her biggest comment about the speech. There was an obscure connection to Alaska and Alaskan values (which, if what I’ve seen of her TV show are anything to go by, mostly involve scrambling over glaciers and shooting woodland creatures). And then she complains about his ‘dubious rationale’ and inconsistency. Well, I suppose she’d know about that.


Written by whackanarwhal

March 30, 2011 at 11:08 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: