[VIDEO] Sarah Palin Won’t ‘Refudiate’ Mosque Comments | Palins supporters interviewed outside a book signing

Oh god, not another Dubya…here we go again

JULY 19, 2010

By Susan Davis

Associated Press
In this June 25, 2010 photo, Sarah Palin holds out her palm to show the notes on it while speaking at a fund-raising dinner at California State University, Stanislaus in Turlock, Calif.

Sarah Palin entered the fray over plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in a series of tweets on Sunday asking “peaceful” New Yorkers and “peace-seeking” Muslims to oppose the plans.

But it was the former Alaska governor’s use of “refudiate” (hint: not a word) that’s drawing attention today. Palin used it in an initial tweet asking Muslims to “pls refudiate” the building of the mosque.

The tweet was deleted and Palin re-tweeted two comments using words found in the dictionary, including “reject” and “refute.”

Palin then used her Twitter feed to align herself with former President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama and—yes—William Shakespeare.

“‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

“Misunderestimate” was a non-word famously coined by Bush who used the term on several occasions, while Obama used “wee-wee’d up” last August. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs later defined it thusly: “I think ‘wee-wee’d up’ is when people get nervous for no particular reason,” he said.

The tweet was not the first time Palin has used the term. She also used it recently in an appearance on Fox’s “The Sean Hannity Show.” And considering her defense of refudiate—it probably won’t be the last.

Why the Hijab/Burqa/Niqab/Chador Debate in France is not about racism as much as a fundamental clash of cultures and foundational traditions with regard to self-defined women and their societal effects | Pamela Anderson’s PETA campaign and the significance of John Singer Sargent’s 1884 ‘Portrait of Madame X’


tribal interloper

‘histori-cultural parallel’

thought experiment:


I suffer not those who fail to contemplate that though it may be argued that females may not be ‘running’ the ‘socially conventional’ world, they are indeed steering evolution and have been pretty much since life only existed at a unicellular level .

Two main points I attempt to explicate below:

Point One:

I contend that it may not be the subject of scandal, especially with regards to the portrayal of women, that is a societal problem, but the way in which the subject is perceived by that society. This really more reflects the stigmas and lack of refined contemplative thinking of that audience or those attempting to censor, the work, than the woman in question being objectified, exploited or behaving quite frankly, ‘as a slut’.  The objective of Sargent in his work Madame X was to capture and convey how the beauty of women is a strength, and the ability to exploit this beauty–both inner and outer–to their advantage, an admirable skill of the ideal woman.  It is the celebration of the woman in control, through the nuanced manipulation of her charms, to direct life in the way of her choosing.  Sargent’s work was ahead of it’s time, and thus his necessitated adjustments, and his lifelong disappointment at the short-sighted scandal it caused.  However, I feel it indeed captures a moment in French, and more generally Western social sensibilities where it began to be understood that the quality of womanhood, femininity and the powers these grant while on refined social display–may just be in the control of the subject being appreciated and not some unseen puppeteer–the dreaded patriarchy.  I am not denying in saying this, that women are exploited regularly, with depravity, especially in today’s world of hyper-marketing and internet porn-a-thon.  It is though, just as misogynistic in my mind, if not merely small-minded, to assume in a knee-jerk manner that there do not exist celebrations of femininity which indeed are allowing a glimpse into the apparently difficult-to-perceive mechanism of evolution which women have been in sole control of since early biologic history on planet Earth, and today obviously may still display with absolute dignity, gravitas and sophistication.

Nicole Kidman poses for VOGUE in the tradition of John Singer Sargent’s famous Madam X

Point Two:

A more obvious point, though a parallel I wish to draw from the time of Sargent to Sarkozy. France decided the above ‘point one’ almost 130 years ago.  This more profound understanding of feminine beauty may have allowed the West to advance in terms of civilization. The key is an ability to perceive life with nuanced contemplation.  Something neither Puritanical Christians nor Wahabis nor the Taliban can claim to have facility in.  I submit that in covering females in the absolute or in the marginal, more reflects an audience unable to judge exploited from the exploiter, the puppeteer from the marionette–an audience and society indeed unable to enjoy and benefit from the display of feminine beauty in all its complexity.  When the Islamic world stops allowing all women to be perceived and treated as a bed sheet bedecked coatrack, nature itself will partake in a wondrous evolution (absolutely imperceptible in real-time) of not only memetic but genetic wizardry.  For this to occur the magic of femininity must be displayed to the world–no, not just of gawking, horny, adolescent (of mental or actual maturity) penis-possessors, but of all who may understand and perceive beauty and strength–women and men, young children as well as the elderly.  Beauty is not just a physical aspect in the terminology above–it is a philosophical aesthetic that is applicable both from the personality, character, ambition which Madame X displays to the tenacity of Pamela Anderson in her consistent campaign to USE her ability to make the most uninformed, ignorant, immature male in contemporary society pause and stare at or speak of a current news item which involved her.  Her campaign is not only courageous but effective, as when you see a big slab of cow dangling in a meat locker, yes, you actually WILL think of Pamela Anderson’s desirous aspects.  But won’t that make you wonder on exactly the concept she wished you to?  So one ought contemplate, is she being ‘exploited’ or conniving?  Does she really not understand what she is up to?  Could she not just have set up shop in Vegas by now?  I respect Pamela Anderson as I do Madame X, in that though Society condemns, they both get the last laugh.

Females in nature do the same.


the perversion of the subtle powers of nature must again be disencumbered

Continue reading