Had to share this…I think it is pretty funny (although it does bring back nightmares of tough professors and their red pens even though nothing I ever turned in came back looking like this).
My sweet lord, who wrote that shite? Palin herself? It’s terribly written, poorly thought-out… gah.
That’s not writing, that’s typing.
Isn’t that a transcript of a speech she gave extemporaneously? It’s a little unfair to judge such a thing as if it were pre-written.
Yeah, some of the deletions were things like “Well” or things that you’d take out if you were writing, but not if you were speaking. And that you wouldn’t really think twice about if the person were saying them, not writing them.
No. It’s the speech she wrote herself and referred to as she made her live remarks.
Oops, my mistake. Here’s what she wrote, and it’s damned close to what she said out loud. Her thought processes and written words are just that incoherent.
I bought the current issue of Vanity Fair because it promised a skewering of Sarah Palin on its shiny shiny cover. I was disappointed; the article was too heavy-handed and I somehow even felt ashamed for reading it. It was so crassly polemic that I found myself actually sympathising with the poor benighted bimbo.
I would have felt much better about the small expenditure if I saw that in the print version.
Wow Vanity Fair is such a petty fucking magazine. Most of those corrections are for style.
Retarded.
You pointy-headed liberals just really do not have a clue do you? Any irrelevant minutiae in order to play the last hurrah of your gestalted hatecrush for Sarah Palin.
The advantage with stringing together mumbo-jumbo is that it allows the pattern-finding portion of our brains to try and connect the dots and create from it a coherent whole. If the overall sense of the person that they get is positive–for instance because she seems boisterous or cute–then we’ll connect the dots in a way that matches our expectation.
I’ll note, however, that this is something that pretty much all politicians have happened upon. Looking over any of their speeches, you’ll find a mostly incoherent ramble that can’t be securely tied down on any one thought.
The main difference is that they perfected this ability to cover their true thoughts, Palin most likely has no other way of expressing herself, even to herself.
The problem here is that the Vanity Fair article is just trying to be pedantic, trying to talk about how stupid she is that she doesn’t speak good Harvard English, but they miss the point that Harvard English is alienating to the audience that understood her perfectly. Vanity Fair isn’t just saying that Sarah Palin is stupid, they are saying that Alaska is stupid.
Well people are just declaring it incoherent even though it’s not incoherent in the slightest. But yes, most political speech is rambly and unecessary.
:rolleyes: Has someone been reading Lacan?
Since there was no substance, they worked with what they could.
You do realize that all you just said is, “I disagree with her politically therefore she is stupid.”, right? I mean you realize that your statement was far more devoid of substance than what she said don’t you? That you are just attacking her because she is a Republican and for no other real reason? You do realize that right? That you are simply playing out your programming, that no rational thought went in to your post?
Fucking Lemmings.
No, they aren’t. What is this bullcrap about “Harvard English”? There’s only one kind of English, and Palin’s speech could have been better written in it. No one is expecting the Gettysburg Address from her, but my god. There were also some factual errors in there (she didn’t know in whose cabinet Seward served? wikipedia could have told her that) that are inexcusable. No, it was Palin who insulted the people of Alaska, not Vanity Fair, both by resigning and by doing it with such a shitty speech.
And that “pointy headed liberals” comment is just so much anti-intellectual reactionary bullshit. Seriously, it’s elitist now to expect a person to write a grammatically and factually correct speech if she is the Governor of Alaska? That’s too high a standard? Please. My poor English teacher’s heart can’t take it.
No, it’s not elitist, it’s petty bullshit. People are trying to find new and creative ways to make fun of Sarah Palin, that’s all it’s about. It has nothing to do with a love of intellectual rigor, and everything to do with a hatred of Sarah Palin. I hate hearing Liberals called Elitists because that just puffs up the egoes of lemmings who speak without thinking as the aptly named Robot Arm does above.
I mean seriously, it just comes across as Beavis and Butthead style humor. “Haha, Sarah Palin is dumb.”, “Yea, yea, dumb!”
I’m not saying she isn’t dumb, she clearly is pretty damn stupid, that was clear after her Couric appearance, but at this point repeating it ad nauseum is redundant. It’s just petty.
But maybe you all are stupider than I am, because I didn’t find her speech incoherent. I can understand why Mrs. Flaherty might have marked it up like that, but that doesn’t make it incoherent just because you hate Sarah Palin.
Seriously the bit about Seward being in Lincoln’s or Johnson’s is fucking irrelevant. It is a factoid that just doesn’t matter, maybe it matters to you who live in America’s 57th state, but here in the state of Normalcy, we understand that politicians get TRIVIA wrong all the fucking time. :rolleyes:
Harvard English or bad English is irrelevant to putting together and conveying a clear idea.
Conveying a clear idea is relevant to the intended audience, not to people who will be intentionally obtuse in order to participate in a pedantic in-group circle-jerk.
You’re kidding, right? You’re wrong about me, my motives, my message, and the thought that went into it. And while my post may have had less substance, I think eleven words on a message board can be forgiven for not having the earth-shaking importance of a resignation press conference called by a governor and former vice-presidential candidate.
You are accusing liberals of being elitist, but do you think that the Republicans would be so much more generous to a liberal who was as inarticulate as Palin? I doubt it.
I actually do possess a love of intellectual rigor. Those red marks on that page? I do that for a living. I think it’s important for people to write well, and while that speech is not an atrocity, it’s not up to the standards I would expect for a state’s governor. I would be equally disappointed and chagrined if a liberal state governor wrote it. And I think your insults towards Robot Arm are excessive and misplaced, as I think the speech lacks substance also, and some of its content is ironic considering the reason she was delivering it.
That’s your opinion. I think it’s a lot more sophisticated than that. There are errors of fact in that speech, and some pretty basic errors of grammar and usage as well. It basically makes fun of itself. Are you totally unable to see that? If so, then you are as blinded by partisanship as you claim your opponents are.
Then don’t read it. I’m not going to cry big crocodile tears for Palin, who after all, wants to be in the spotlight, and thus invites scrutiny such as this. It’s not a personal attack. It’s very clearly a fact based attack on her written words, which is about as objective as you can get.
Yeah, that’s it. We’re stupider than you, who gets all worked up into a froth over a Vanity Fair article. A true sign of an enlightened mind, that is. Note that I never once said it was incoherent. Poorly written and badly in need of editing, though? Fuck yes it was, and I am not saying that because I hate Sarah Palin. I’m saying it because I have some respect for and understanding of my mother tongue.
Try harder not to take shit personally when it isn’t personal. The “Palin hate” is no more over the top on the left than the Clinton hate is on the right, for example. You want to pay, you have to pay. Things like this are par for the course. Don’t like it? Stay in private life.