Sarah Palin’s Trip To Haiti

I earlier commented on Lori Ziganto’s excoriation of the hate-filled leftist lamestream media’s dishonest smearing of Palin over her trip to Haiti, with all the leftist lamestream media’s PDS-filled lies. Lori quoted a PuffHo author’s lie-filled, hate-filled smearing of Palin and responded to him, straightening him out (although I highly doubt the liar over at PuffHo ever saw it).

And then, the multiple shots of Sarah sanitizing and washing her hands suggests the former Gov is primarily concerned, above all humanitarian else, about catching something. …

She’s concerned about “catching something”? She’s there. Where are you, Mr. Shaw? Furthermore, I’m no fancy-pants journalist who talks out of my cushy and judgmental hindquarters. So, I did a little something called a google search to confirm my common sense (common sense is hard for the Left) suspicions; washing and sanitizing hands after being in contact with people infected with cholera is a way to, you know, stop the transmission and spreading of cholera. It’s what one is supposed to do.

Via Newsmax, Reverend Franklin Graham explains why Sarah Palin went to Haiti (he invited her but while that was a catalyst, that was only secondary), and explains about the dangers of cholera, and responds to the lamestream media’s attack on Palin.

Graham, who said he has worked with Palin on a number of projects in Alaska, invited her to Haiti to view the relief efforts. Accompanying her on the tour last weekend were her husband, Todd, and daughter Bristol.

The former GOP vice-presidential candidate “has tremendous compassion for people, she loves people, and she cares deeply about people,” Graham said.
“She was an encouragement not only to the staff and to the relief workers (but) even to the Haitian people who didn’t know her,” Graham said.

“She came in with her smile. She would sit on the cots. Now, you have to understand a cholera clinic, these cots have been soaked in urine, and fecal matter, and vomit. Cholera is a horrible thing, and she just sat right there in the middle of it, holding peoples’ hands, talking to people, holding babies, it was an amazing thing. She’s quite a lady and not afraid to get her hands dirty.”

Graham noted that cholera can kill a person in four hours. I suppose that might be a good reason to maintain one’s own cleanliness after coming in contact with infected people and contaminated equipment, don’t you, Mr Shaw?

For information on Samaritan’s Purse, the organization doing the hard and dangerous work with Haitian cholera victims, do stroll over to their site. And maybe consider giving a donation to the worthy cause.

19 Comments

  1. What is Conservatism and what is wrong with it?:

    [...]
    Q: What is conservatism?
    A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
    [...]
    The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.
    [...]

  2. The Phoenician links his source, but you have to follow the link to see who wrote it. The author, Philip Agre, is a former professor at UCLA, and suffers from manic-depressive disease. Aissing person’s notice on Dr Agre described him as 6’0″ tall and 120 lb; if that’s accurate, he is so dangerously thin that it’s unlikely that he’s healthy.

    But, of course, what Dr Agre describes as conservatism is simply his bias. Conservatism actually means:

    1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
    2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

    It’s rather amusing that our Kareful Kiwi Kommenter would use a definition of conservatism which included “the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are,” on a thread about Sarah Palin. Former Governor Palin’s strongest attribute, politically, is that she very plainly isn’t an aristocrat, but a commoner, just like us, while the left’s criticism of her is based on the fact that she has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree and that she just ain’t an intellectual.

    Add to that the campaigns of the recent Democratic presidential nominees. Al Gore tried his darnedest to persuade us that he was a smart guy, an intellectual, while George Bush was just a doofus.1 Four years later, we were treated to the aristocratic John Kerry2 running against the ordinary guy George Bush. Four years after that, we were treated to the oh-so-intellectual Harvard graduate Barack Obama, the guy who’s better than us. Yet the Phoenician is combitching that it is conservatives who admire aristocracy?

    You really can’t get funnier than that.
    _______________________________

    1. This despite the fact that George Bush got higher grades in college than did Mr Gore, the fact that Mr Bush earned an MBA from Harvard, while Mr Gore dropped out of law school and flunked out of divinity school. [back]
    2. Aristcratic because he married money. [back]
  3. Dana, when you first heard about a man walking on the moon, did you dig into Armstrong’s life and history to find faults? When a weather man warns you about a coming storm, do you leave your windows open while you denigrate his person?

  4. Add to that the campaigns of the recent Democratic presidential nominees. Al Gore tried his darnedest to persuade us that he was a smart guy, an intellectual, while George Bush was just a doofus.1 Four years later, we were treated to the aristocratic John Kerry2 running against the ordinary guy George Bush. Four years after that, we were treated to the oh-so-intellectual Harvard graduate Barack Obama, the guy who’s better than us. Yet the Phoenician is combitching that it is conservatives who admire aristocracy?

    The Left hates an aristocracy that is based on merit and virtue, on decency and a sense of honor. These qualities Sarah Palin has in spades. Of course, left wingers rarely possess any of these, so their natural tendency is to tear down those who do. That’s their version of egalitarianism, an equality of moral mediocrities.

  5. Nang asks:

    Dana, when you first heard about a man walking on the moon, did you dig into Armstrong’s life and history to find faults? When a weather man warns you about a coming storm, do you leave your windows open while you denigrate his person?

    Didn’t have to: in 1969, LIFE magazine and every other media outlet was simply drenched in stories about the astronauts in general and Mr Armstrong in particular.

    And I always check the station with the best looking weather girls in the morning, so no, I’d never denigrate them! :)

  6. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-il will all be surprised to know they’ve been going about establishing bloodthirsty regimes all wrong.

  7. It’s rather amusing that our Kareful Kiwi Kommenter would use a definition of conservatism which included “the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are,” on a thread about Sarah Palin. Former Governor Palin’s strongest attribute, politically, is that she very plainly isn’t an aristocrat, but a commoner,

    Well done on missing the point entirely.

    I wasn’t talking about any attitude from Palin. If you go through and read the reaction of wingnuts such as PB and Eric to Palin, you’ll see Agre’s point demonstrated perfectly.

  8. Pingback: A much better combination « Common Sense Political Thought

  9. Dana lectures us:

    But, of course, what Dr Agre describes as conservatism is simply his bias. Conservatism actually means:

    1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
    2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

    What ‘conservatism’ means, and how folks who call themselves ‘Conservatives’ behave, are not the same these days.

    This is demonstrated by how so-called Conservatives abandoned all the principles of conservatism by making the tax cut deal in favor of our wealthy aristocrats, to the point where they forgot about paying for it (the deficit you know), and they forgot about opposing earmarks (pork)! Sorry, these Repubs are Conservatives in name only, not in behavior. And then we have the $350 million per month to prop up one of the most corrupt countries in the universe.

    Additionally, it disturbs me that we are spending what, $150 billion (I’ve heard numbers up to $300 bilion, on the fat cats, which is the least stimulative part of the bill (Ref: the Bush-43 years). I am in favor of more stimulus, short term, after which austerity is mandatory as the economy grows some more, but not this bill.

    But you’re happy about it, right Dana?

  10. The Phoenician wrote:

    It’s rather amusing that our Kareful Kiwi Kommenter would use a definition of conservatism which included “the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are,” on a thread about Sarah Palin. Former Governor Palin’s strongest attribute, politically, is that she very plainly isn’t an aristocrat, but a commoner,

    Well done on missing the point entirely.

    I wasn’t talking about any attitude from Palin. If you go through and read the reaction of wingnuts such as PB and Eric to Palin, you’ll see Agre’s point demonstrated perfectly.

    [guffaws!] Yeah, John and Eric like Mrs Palin, politically, in part because she’s not an aristocrat, and has never pretended to be one.

    I note that you broke the quote in mid-sentence, forgetting:

    just like us, while the left’s criticism of her is based on the fact that she has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree and that she just ain’t an intellectual.

    Now, can you tell me how John and Eric’s admiration for Mrs Palin and her politics demonstrates that they have “a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are?”

    You know, if they were looking for “aristocrats” in the GOP, I’d expect them to be backing someone like former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). Do you expect to see either of them doing that?

  11. Perry wrote:

    But you’re happy about it, right Dana?

    I’m certainly happy that we’ll be denying the federal government more money to spend, yes indeedy! The more they have, the more they’ll spend.

  12. I don’t want to sit on the bedsheets of a cholera patient who has lost control of their bodily functions. I think I lack the necessary courage and love to do so. And until I’m able to, I would never dream of criticizing anyone who shows me how it’s done.

    I would rather be woefully inadequate in the courage department than so stunningly arrogant that I would dare criticize from the comfort of my clean and safe home.

  13. Other Dana says:
    17 December 2010 at 21:35
    I don’t want to sit on the bedsheets of a cholera patient who has lost control of their bodily functions. I think I lack the necessary courage and love to do so. And until I’m able to, I would never dream of criticizing anyone who shows me how it’s done.

    I would rather be woefully inadequate in the courage department than so stunningly arrogant that I would dare criticize from the comfort of my clean and safe home.

    Bravado is a rotten thing to have. The mouth speaks before the brain has been put in gear (if at all). I learnt that lesson last week in the jury pool for a capital murder case. Bravado hears a horrible crime that took place. Bravado is judge, jury, prosecuter and defense with the outcome fully in mind – fry the bastard. Reality is that 2×4 that comes around and smacks you between the eyes when YOU, not your neighbor, not your hubris are asked if you would vote to apply the death penalty. For all intents and purposes, the person pushing the plunger to deliver the fatal dose to the perp is your proxy. Now who here will sit on those crappy sheets? Who here will do what Mother Theresa did in Calcutta? Who here thumps their chest to announce to the world they are a damn fool?

  14. You know, if they were looking for “aristocrats” in the GOP, I’d expect them to be backing someone like former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). Do you expect to see either of them doing that?

    You could hook up 10 kilovolts to Sarah Palin’s lever in the voting booth and I’d still pull it. If it was a choice between Romney and Obama, it would only feel like 10 kilovolts when I pulled Romney’s lever in the voting booth.

  15. We have this:

    Bravado is a rotten thing to have. The mouth speaks before the brain has been put in gear (if at all). I learnt that lesson last week in the jury pool for a capital murder case. Bravado hears a horrible crime that took place. Bravado is judge, jury, prosecuter and defense with the outcome fully in mind – fry the bastard. Reality is that 2×4 that comes around and smacks you between the eyes when YOU, not your neighbor, not your hubris are asked if you would vote to apply the death penalty. For all intents and purposes, the person pushing the plunger to deliver the fatal dose to the perp is your proxy. Now who here will sit on those crappy sheets? Who here will do what Mother Theresa did in Calcutta? Who here thumps their chest to announce to the world they are a damn fool?

    And this:

    Patrick, don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you leave. On second thought, let it.

    And this:

    No Kennedy = One less multiculturalist, one less Progressive, one less person for libs to worship, and one liquor store goes out of business supposedly.

    Will the real Yorkshire please stand up? I actually think he is the first Yorkshire!

Comments are closed.