MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

♦ RSS

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

06 September 2008

Is this legit? I submitted it to Snopes for investigation since nothing came up. I think you guys have already mentioned the open letter from Anne Kilkenny on Palin that Snopes says it indeed true. (It was forwarded via email to me from a friend today - this was the first I'd heard of it.)

sorry TeePs - it's too important not to bring up, IMHO...
post by: chewatadistance at: 16:48 | 27 comments
I have heard of this. I'm not sure it's been proven or not, however. I guess we'll have to wait on Snopes.
posted by MonkeyButter 06 September | 19:30
Could be, but I would be on watch for ratfucks from Rovians. They're trying really, really hard to make Palin look like a media victim.
posted by stilicho 06 September | 19:54
Almost everything in the article supports what we already know about her- the trooper firing, the librarian firing, the government stipends, etc. The only thing new is the overt racism. And honestly, that's less surprising to me. From phone canvasing I've found the most overt racism seems to come from the places with the least racial diversity.
posted by kellydamnit 06 September | 20:02
NPR interviewed the composer. I didn't think it was real, but NPR says it is, and I have to belive them.
posted by rainbaby 06 September | 21:29
Thank you for posting this.
posted by BoringPostcards 06 September | 22:50
Who can tell? This might be the worst written article in history. Just state your facts and their sources! All the editorializing makes me question things that I know are facts!
posted by eamondaly 06 September | 23:07
Other than the Sambo bit, that LA Progressive article raised my opinion of Palin and her potential, like from a -50 to a -35.
posted by Ardiril 07 September | 00:20
To me, this kind of crap sensationalism actually damages the credibility of the facts of the situation.

I'm legitimately afraid now, since I've been peeking at mainstream Web sites like Ravelry and other craft communities and seeing how much average folk just adore Palin for her "sassiness". You people really need to DO something and keep McCain/Palin out of office or the rest of the world (and I do believe I speak for the rest of the world) will never forgive you.
posted by loiseau 07 September | 09:28
I agree it's not a fabulous piece of journalism by any stretch but disturbing nonetheless if true. I don't know if Snopes notifies people who submit articles for investigation or if we just have to keep checking back, but I'll let you guys know if they send me a note.
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 11:01
The thing is, chewie, it isn't really confirmable in any real sense. All she has to do is deny it. Whereas the Troopergate investigation involves people being under oath and such.

This is definitely a case where "YouTube or it didn't happen" applies.
posted by stilicho 07 September | 13:04
To me this just adds to the proven lies, despicable behaviour and bullshit. There are plenty of truths with which to (erm, metaphorically) hang her; such as this is just gravy.
posted by goo 07 September | 13:31
good point stilicho. Also, I think the debates will be entertaining at worst.
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 13:41
sorry TeePs - it's too important not to bring up, IMHO...

Unsubstantiated rumors from a news source I've never heard of about a candidate we've pretty much all already decided not to vote for already? Please. You can't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 07 September | 14:33
^I didn't say it was true, TPS. Just querying the hive mind. Some of us want to know how much/deep the dirt is. Train wreck anyone?
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 15:30
I don't care about dirt. I don't want people to vote based on dirt, real or imagined. And it's awful hard to know the difference between the real and the imagined once the waters get muddy. How can we encourage others to vote for our candidate based on the issues, while we hold up the dirt of their candidate as reason not to vote for her? It's just idle gossip, and it's nasty, and it's absolutely not important, and I don't think we should bring it up like it is important.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 07 September | 15:42
*I* think that racism is important, and should be an influence on whether someone votes for a racist or not. I also found it interesting that in the comments of this article, people are still ignorantly referring to Obama's religion as Muslim. Is that dirt too?

What's important is in the eye of the beholder. Or the voter, I should say.

People are going to talk about this election. Here and everywhere else.
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 16:05
Well then, I guess whatever "people" are doing "everywhere else" is fine by me.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 07 September | 16:16
You seem to be pissed at me TPS, and I don't know why. I wanted to post it to see if anyone had any additional info about it here. That's it. I value some of the opinions here. I don't read threads I'm not interested in or know that I'll disagree with. Maybe if you see the word "Palin" you should do the same.

Peace out.
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 17:08
To be fair, chewatadistance, you called her out in the OP. It's unreasonable to expect someone to avoid a thread when their name is directly mentioned in it.
posted by muddgirl 07 September | 17:39
I just scanned through about a dozen feminist and anti-racism blogs and all but a couple were backing away from the Sambo comment as insubstantial. The others had not mentioned it at all.

"According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used..." just doesn't cut it. Even if Lucille comes forward now, I doubt this issue will have legs. Charlie James blew his opportunity by not fully identifying Lucille up front.
posted by Ardiril 07 September | 17:51
Point taken muddgirl. It wasn't really meant to be a call out - I knew she didn't like election threads so I was giving her a friendly heads up.
posted by chewatadistance 07 September | 17:58
To be fair, muddgirl, TPS seems to think it's OK to (try to) shout down any thread that mentions Palin. It sucks that chewie felt she add a disclaimer to (try to) keep TPS from shitting in the thread, but I can understand why she did it. The mods certainly haven't done anything to discourage her behavior.
posted by danostuporstar 08 September | 08:59
To be fair, muddgirl, TPS seems to think it's OK to (try to) shout down any thread that mentions Palin. It sucks that chewie felt she add a disclaimer to (try to) keep TPS from shitting in the thread, but I can understand why she did it. The mods certainly haven't done anything to discourage her behavior.


Thanks dano, for articulating to a T what I felt.
posted by chewatadistance 08 September | 11:12
*shrug* I'm just letting you know that it read like a challenge to me, and probably to TPS, too. I understand that you think TPS was out of line in other threads, but IMO the way to deal with that is by contacting the moderators.

How can we encourage others to vote for our candidate based on the issues, while we hold up the dirt of their candidate as reason not to vote for her?

Also, I agree with this. And if a bunny was posting threads about Obama being a secret Muslim, or a secret Black Panther, or whatever, I expect they would meet the same distaste from TPS and from others, besides.
posted by muddgirl 08 September | 11:36
The thing is, *all* info is garbage until it is proven factual somehow. I'm sure the state trooper issue and the library censorship issue were scoffed at originally as well. One person saying they'd never heard of the source does not a case make.

Given the rational reasoning some folks offered in this thread, like stilicho, eamondaly and kellydammit, I can see how this case may indeed be garbage. Which is the whole point of my posting it here - I wanted that kind of input.

I might add also that a sweeping statement like,"...we've pretty much all already decided not to vote for already..." is offensive to those who may not have already made that decision. I'm not one of them, but there are folks here who are not necessarily Obama leaning. It's not fair to throw that in their face.

And with that, I am done.
posted by chewatadistance 08 September | 12:56
They're trying really, really hard to make Palin look like a media victim.

While simultaneously praising her as a pit bull with lipstick who can go toe-to-toe with the Russkies and ignoring the fact that she basically called Hillary Clinton a whiner for complaining about sexism in the media.
posted by kirkaracha 08 September | 13:40
Does anyone use "sambo" as a racial epithet anymore? That part of it reads totally bogus to me. It's about as likely as someone (under the age of 70) complaining about "coloreds" or "darkies". Like stilicho, I detect a faint odor of ratfucking about this. DO NOT TAKE THIS BAIT!
posted by Atom Eyes 08 September | 14:07
← omg kitty video! || cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep →

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN
All posts and comments © their authors