Friday, July 3, 2009

Thrilla in Wasilla (Wink)

Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska was quite a surprise today. I mean thanks to Vanity Fair, she was about to be all over the news again. And, the whole thing with David Letterman's piss poor joke provided Palin with face time as well. And, I just read that Sarah Palin's father suggested to Fox News that the negative media was a part of Palin's decision to resign.

Maybe this means that she is now ready to spend the next several years immersing herself in information that will afford her an opportunity to develop an informed political sensibility. Okay, I might be pushing it there.

And why is Mark Sanford still running South Carolina?


Scott said...

If I applied for a 4 year job and quit halfway through, I don't think I'd expect to be hired in that line of work again.

If I disappeared from my job, no-call no-show for 5 days (hell, if I did that once) I'd expect to be fired.

What world are these people living in?

BiblioDiva said...

They're living in a very different world than you and me.

Anonymous said...

"why is Mark Sanford still running South Carolina?" I don't remember you calling for Clinton to leave office.

Scott said...

Anon, about Bill Clinton--

"I think it would be much better for the country and for him to resign. I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone".

That's Mark Sanford on Bill Clinton. Yeah, let's talk hypocrisy.

hscfree said...

@Anonymous: Different circumstances rule this issue. Clinton's dalliances were not done in a way that left the country without a leader for five days. Yes, he lied. Yes, it was wrong that he did it. But, I think I remember his whereabouts during that entire time period. There was no hunt for Bill Clinton. This isn't even Eliot Spitzer's sitch, and yes, he needed to resign too. And last I checked, John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig remain(ed) in office.

Anonymous said...

I've looked at this blog. I'm wondering why it is named 'negro,' Spanish slavers' term to objectify and commodify people, rather than the self-elected, fought-for, and now universally accepted 'black.' Also perplexing is how (and if?) any bloggers here are any more 'well-spoken' than any other 'negroes' out there. And if so, 'well-spoken' by whose standards? Doesn't it go without saying that millions (zillions) of black people, heirs to very rich African oral traditions, well-spoken? Just curious about where this site, based on its name, is coming from. --a head-scratching surfer

hscfree said...

@Anonymous #2: Thanks for stopping by. I actually have an entire post from back in 2007 explaining why I chose the name. You can check it here:

Hopefully that will hyperlink for you. If not, just go back to July 2007 for WSNS Background.

Please come by again, and leave comments.

Anonymous said...

So, I went back to the archived explanation--interesting.

Maybe (just a thought) that explanation could be somehow put 'up front' on the homepage so as to quickly/readily explain the site's orientation to a Cyberspace with a myriad of racial views.

The "Negro" thing is...interesting. OK. But the 'well-spoken' thing, to be frank, still seems odd. You wrote:
}We bonded on the issue of "well spoken" black folk. Both of us experienced derisive commentary and snide remarks about the way we spoke (speak).[

Presumably you're talking about 'educated' speech a la Maya Angelou, David Levering Louis, the back-in-the-day colored lady grammar school teacher out of Tuskegee. But I wd ask: do you and those folks have a monopoly on being well-spoken? What about the countless black folks who know few if any 10 (or even 5) dollar words but somehow always speak both eloquently and meaningfully.

Maybe in fact ur being facetious and actually using 'well-spoken' as if in air-quotes...Or maybe not?

Imagine finding a blog that's called the "articulate black man site". We all know what 'articulate' is code for. So how far removed is 'well-spoken'"?

Anonymous said...

"A salon is a gathering of stimulating people of quality under the roof of an inspiring hostess or host, partly to amuse one another and partly to refine their taste and increase their knowledge through conversation and readings"

It looks like no "salon" at this URL either. I'm gone.

Anonymous said...

Clinton didn't just lie. He lied under oath. He perjured himself. You can still argue that despite the perjury he should have remained in office, but don't shade the facts to support your conclusion.

Sanford is a state governor—there is a Lt. Governor in place and it's not like he is carrying around nuclear codes with him. I don't care if Sanford stays or goes, but I'm entertained by the way libs twist themselves to get the results you want. You like Clinton, and you don't like Sanford, so you reached a different conclusion. I can't remember the details (I'd have to dig out my copy of the Staff Report), but I recall that Clinton was physically engaged with Lewinsky while he talked to Congressmen on the phone about sending the military to bomb targets in the Middle East. Which is worse?

hscfree said...

@Anon 3: The "well spoken" is exactly like "articulate." It's something I wanted to play with.

@Anon 4: Sorry that you felt this wasn't for you.

@Anon 5: If you mean by liking Clinton, you mean that I liked him more than G.H.W. Bush, then yes, I did like Clinton. He definitely had his problems. And yes, he lied under oath. Bad thing. Did I think he should have been impeached over it? No. And the Senate decided not to remove him. Sanford simply didn't bother to provide back-up for SC. And maybe we can wait for someone to charge Sanford for adultery, so that he and Clinton will potentially be even.

Micheal Sisco said...

About David Letterman: ... the joke was FUNNY in a bawdy, burlesque kind of way ... let's PLEASE stop acting like a bunch of stuff shirt, holier-than-thou pat Robertsons!

Sanford: I remember when I was hiking in the Appalachians ... er ... on a sigh seeing tour of Tennessee ... er ... gettin banged by some HOTTIE ... Yet another instance of GOP hypocrisy (as if we should be surprised). Ultimately, it'll be up to the voters to render a verdict on the wayward fella, though I LOVED the way his wife has handled it (if only Hillary could have been so cool).

Dear, Sweet Sarah: Really? We're surprised? Really? Tell ya what, Sarah, the media will stop giving you and your kin coverage the second you stop acting like the Clampetts! ... Next stop, Jerry Springer!

Anonymous said...

re @Anon 3: The "well spoken" is exactly like "articulate." It's something I wanted to play with.

"Play with"? How conveniently vague, deflective. The original, extended query was intended not to be judgmental but to be salon-like. But as hostess/host you deliver (this can be seen elsewhere on your site) a terse rebuttal which not only doesn't illuminate but appears designed to shut down further discourse on a subject. Is this salonlike and worth of GA Douglas Johnson? If you want this site to flourish you might want to consider being more discursive--and courteous.