Another Ignorant, Snarky Piece Published by the NYTs

Well, who would have thought, another ignorant and snarky article published by the New York Times. I would have commented on the site but it looks as if the Times doesn’t like competing viewpoints in their comment section. They close their comment section so quickly that I feel they only want comments from those for whom the NYTs is the FIRST read of the day.

Sarah’s Amazing Race
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 1, 2010

IGNORANT:

Almost no one expected her to lose — certainly not the Alaska Democratic Party, which had dumped its nomination on Scott McAdams, the affable mayor of Sitka, a town with 9,000 people and no road access.

Only a fool from the lower 48 would say something as silly as this. Sitka is not an insignificant town in Alaska, whether it has 9,000 people of not. As far as having no road access out of the town, well neither does Juneau, the capital of Alaska.

SNARKY & IGNORANT

Whether Palin’s backing made any difference to the 28 percent of eligible voters who flocked to the polls is unknowable.

Ms. Collins needs to review the voting percentages nationwide. Twenty-eight percent of eligible voters in an off-year primary is excellent. I’m sure that Ms. Collins knows that but wants to illicit sneers and snorts from her readers.

SNARKY:

In her spare time, the former governor of Alaska is making speeches at $75,000 a pop. To which she must be flown first class, as per her standard contract, or in a private plane that “MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger.”

Does anybody doubt that the Palins had a simple life in the years before Sarah Palin was selected by McCain? Is there anything wrong with being able to command $75,000 for a speech? Regarding the Lear 60 or larger: The question should be “how much more expensive is the Lear 60 option than flying first class?” Gail, how about if you get a research assistant to look into this. Is there any reason that she shouldn’t have this option? She doesn’t pretend to be little-miss-housekeeper or struggling; only that she is still a down-home gal. It’s been two years since she entered the national limelight. Twenty-years from now, as a multi-millionaire, I don’t think she could still properly call herself a “down-home gal" but if Loretta Lynn and Dolly Parton, both multi-millionaires now, can maintain a "down-home gal" sensibility decades later why sneer at Sarah Palin?

EXTRA-SNARKY AND IGNORANT

A new Vanity Fair profile by Michael Joseph Gross suggests that Palin does still cut costs by being an extremely bad tipper. The piece also resurrects the charge that she does not actually hunt, and claims that Todd had to scour the neighborhood to find some moose to put in that chili when a TV crew came to call.

This is really stupid. His outdoor cred cannot be better. Only a snarky ignoramus could think that a small-town Alaskan oil worker and champion snow-mobile racer is BSing about moose hunting. As for having to scour the neighborhood for moose I didn’t read the article but how about this scenario: that the reporter comes; talks the Palins; the conversation turns to moose chili; it not being moose season the Palin’s don’t have any moose; and wanting to make some moose chili for out-of-town guests they “scour the neighborhood to find some moose.” The sheer fact that they have to scour the neighborhood implies that when the Palins were interviewed moose season was long gone and everyone was out of moose meat. DUH.

I must say, another brilliant piece published in the Times. It's a shame that many, otherwise intelligent and educated people, will fall for this trash.