By Nikolaos Gysis (1892)              

I have been thinking about values lately.

When I was in grammar school, I recall a teacher who must have had a bug up his arse about some political matter. God only knows what it was. In those days irrelevant issues were the issues of the day like Fluoridation and Daylight Savings Time and the Red Menace. Even in the North we did not receive much news about segregation and poverty.

Anyway Mr. Thoms would stand at the black board and write something like:

I feel that the roads are becoming more dangerous. or

I think that the polio vaccine is one of the most important discoveries of our century.

Then he would turn to us and say that countries and corporations and organizations do not 'think', do not 'feel', do not 'believe' things.

You know how some things stick with you? I do not even recall the teacher's name but I recall this 'law' of associations.

I do not give a damn how many polls you do; whether compiled by the repub Rassmussen or the neutral Gallop or the shyster Luntz. Only in rare cases can there be a consensus in a population over 300 million people.

We will all argue that our nation believes in such in such or that Exxon thinks it can rule the world. Whatever. But we must always remember that when we speak in these terms, when we personify some thing, we are engaging in metaphor at best. Sometimes even I get lost in this metaphorical process but then the old memory of the message on this ancient black board comes to mind.

Consensus is another term that can help us out of a metaphor that does damage to the 'facts'. But in order to reach consensus on any issue, certain 'facts' must be agreed upon. And in this day and age, it is becoming harder and harder to reach consensus on even the most basic 'facts'.

College freshmen earned an average grade of F, or just 53.7 percent, when asked a series of questions about U.S. presidents and key historical events from their times in office. After four years of college, their knowledge didn't improve much.

College seniors got just 55.4 percent on the 60-question quiz given to 14,000 students at 50 colleges and universities across the country as part of a study designed to test their knowledge of America's history, government, international relations and market economy.

"In this election, we are focusing on the youth vote, and it's great that more kids are coming out to vote. But we worry that it's become a kind of cult of personality," says Richard Brake, director of the Lehrman American Studies Center at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Del., which commissioned the civic learning study, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy.

"If these kids don't know what has happened in the past, our history, then we fear they are going to be fodder for sweeping rhetoric," said Mr. Brake, a former professor who taught American history and government for seven years.   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/18/students-dont-grasp-us-history/

Palin's history reflects this, although I think she has a degree from some Community College:

In 2006, the Eagle Forum Alaska sent a questionnaire to all the state's gubernatorial candidates, including Sarah Palin (R). From Palin's response about the Pledge of Allegiance:

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

However, as Hunter points out, the words "Under God" didn't appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954; the founding fathers had nothing to do with them. The Pledge itself, in fact, wasn't even written until 1892

Now this type of analysis, or (as I call them) throw-away patriotisms, demonstrates a gap of sorts in palin's education. One of the commenters to this Think Progess squib responded that this gaffaw on the part of palin merely demonstrated the negligence of her staff. I knew the correct answer to this question but for fun I quickly googled Pledge of Allegiance and it took less than 60 seconds to arrive at the dates of 1892 and 1954. I knew I could do it in less time at Wiki, but who cares?

Many different examinations of palin's thinking process have been discussed over the last year or two:

Another way that Palin has revealed her limited linguistic skills is through her repetition of certain words or phrases. As Roger Cohen pointed out recently in the New York Times, she "loves the word 'exceptional.' At a rally in Nevada the other day, the Republican vice-presidential candidate said: 'We are an exceptional nation.' Then she declared: 'America is an exceptional country.' In case anyone missed that, she added: 'You are all exceptional Americans.'" And as Kathleen Seeyle has reported about Palin's past debate performances:

Her sentences were distinguished by their repetition of words, by the use of the phrase "here in Alaska" and for gaps. On paper, her sentences would have been difficult to diagram. John Bitney, the policy director for her campaign for governor and the main person who helped prepare her for debates, said her repetition of words was "her way of running down the clock as her mind searches for where she wants to go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/02/sarah.palin.election.language

The Brits worry about such things; which is all fine and dandy but the right would simply blame her ugly speaking lines as part of the American Vernacular.

Matthews brought it up recently citing one of her famous fill in phrases. I mean the least she could do is what I found to be helpful; when I seek to end a sentence and forget my thought, aim or purpose I simply include the words:

Truth, Justice and the American Way.

And usually you can diagram or parse my sentences; except for the first few days of the month of course!!!

Roger Cohen puts his finger on the real problem with Palin:

Behind Palinism lies anger. It's been growing as America's relative decline has become more manifest in falling incomes, imploding markets, massive debt and rising new centers of wealth and power from Shanghai to Dubai.

The damn-the-world, God-chose-us rage of that America has sharpened as U.S. exceptionalism has become harder to square with the 21st-century world's interconnectedness. How exceptional can you be when every major problem you face, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to gas prices, requires joint action? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/opinion/25Cohen.html?_r=1&em

George Will and a number of other notable conservatives worked under the auspices of William F. Buckley. Even ten years ago Will would not stand for the imprecision of this woman's phrasings or Bachmann's phrasings or the phrasings of  a number of repub pundits and pols. Buckley would have never stood for it. He was a nut that way.

Look, I can have an argument with someone about whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian Nation. I really can. And I could do so without throwing soup at my debate opponent. But there have to be certain conditions.

Show me in the Constitution where God is even mentioned. Ahhh but it is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and don't give me that crap about the Declaration not having legal force or effect; because through Abraham Lincoln it does.

Well what about the treaty with pirates off of the coast of Africa which is signed by John Adams himself, acting as President of the United States?

See...we can have a debate and I do not think there is a clear answer to this 'issue'. It all has to do with how the 'issue' is framed.

But I will walk away from a debate if my opponent starts telling me that "One nation under God, indivisible" appears in our Constitution. The person has just admitted that he/she is an idiot; and a lazy idiot at that.  If such a comment were made in some class I was teaching, I would simply hand the student a copy of the Constitution and ask them where that language appears.

Is that elitist? You see there is a line to be drawn in the sand, so to speak. And Bachmann and palin and beck and others cross it all the time. And it's more than an issue of grammar. Main stream media lets these idiots get away with it most of the time.

Ever have a friend who always relies on base phrases like:

Shite always runs downhill.

I hate that. First it just aint true. I mean it may eventually run downhill with a good rainfall or with the melting of snow. But the phrase becomes tiresome unless put in the context of irony. But tiresome phraseology is less painful to read or hear than the straight out lies and lack of history coming out of the mouths of certain pundits and politicians.

I was fascinated by a recent interview with President Obama. A question was put to him concerning certain remarks made by palin concerning nuclear disarmament. And our Commander-in-Chief made it clear that he was never going to stoop low enough to respond to some nonsense perpetrated by an outsider who knew nothing pertinent to the discussion.

Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has not been shy about criticizing Obama's policies and this week weighed in on his revamped nuclear strategy, saying it was like a child in a playground who says 'punch me in the face, I'm not going to retaliate.'

"I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Pressed further on Republican criticism that his strategy restricts the use of nuclear weapons too much, Obama added:

"What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63800B20100409

Good for him.

We have had uneducated people come to the fore before. They take up the banner of NO NOTHINGS and such. Teabaggers...what's the difference.

But when their leaders cannot check even some of the most basic and pertinent facts underlying their arguments in this day and age; it is truly unforgivable.  

Some British actor  was recently interviewed by Bahar. He contended that no palin or bachmann would ever be elected in Britain. Someone who loves to review Churchill's speeches might question this pronouncement. Winston could be rather harsh on his opponents when they misstated an historical fact.

But Winston Churchill never met the likes of Palin or Bachmann.