Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I think the only people who can really own the theme of the "Tea Party" in the true spirit of taxation without representation are the residents of DC.

The widespread fear, in my opinion, is the increase of media and technology and how in a second people can get information (correct or incorrect) and have lost their ability to think independently and rely upon talking heads and pundits on all sides.

I think this has a lot to do with it.

If you look at mass movements like this in US History, I don't think there's been anything like this since the suffrage and anti-immigrant movements of the early 20th century. I'm not including the anti-war sentiment of WWI and Vietnam because I think those are a separate issue.

Technology plays a HUGE role in all of this. Besides the points that VS listed above, technology (through blogs, email, etc.) has made it easier to coordinate the movement (organizing meeting locations, getting speakers such as Palin, etc.). That has helped take it from a bunch of local pockets to something on a national scale.

As far as the subject, taxation, I'm not sure there has been something like this in the past. When Bush I raised taxes in violation of his "No new taxes" statement, there was some hosility, but not to this level. I don't even think there was this level of protest when the income taxes were first instituted in the late 19th century, or when they were raised during the World Wars.

I think that the combination of more technology, a Democrat as President, and the current financial situation combined to create a perfect storm.

Little32, I'm not sure if that's responsive to your question, but that's just the opinion of one history major.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Little32, I'm not sure if that's responsive to your question, but that's just the opinion of one history major.

Make that two

I'm TAing this semester and working with undergraduates (and some graduate students) has really opened my eyes to how they are synthesizing and analyzing information, or not. As much as I like getting critical information fast, I covet my ability to see bias, research my own sources, and make an effort to get the biggest picture.

I'm reading a book called "The Dumbest Generation" and the author discusses how today's young adult can get information fast and believes it to be reliable, so there isn't a point for many of them to go beyond an RSS feed or their chosen website nor retain it as long as they have the facts to answer the homework or test question and can recall it with a few clicks. I'm really enjoying my experience with students who want to not just regurgitate information, but will make comparisons and relationships to other areas of their studies and life. One comment from the book that struck me was that one woman used RSS feeds to only get information from particular sites so she wouldn't get anything else creeping in. I see this with the general public who will only listen to a certain channel, talking heads, or read particular websites. Anyone can publish a blog, tweet, or make their ideas look like legitimate news and fact when they aren't.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Make that two

I'm TAing this semester and working with undergraduates (and some graduate students) has really opened my eyes to how they are synthesizing and analyzing information, or not. As much as I like getting critical information fast, I covet my ability to see bias, research my own sources, and make an effort to get the biggest picture.

I'm reading a book called "The Dumbest Generation" and the author discusses how today's young adult can get information fast and believes it to be reliable, so there isn't a point for many of them to go beyond an RSS feed or their chosen website nor retain it as long as they have the facts to answer the homework or test question and can recall it with a few clicks. I'm really enjoying my experience with students who want to not just regurgitate information, but will make comparisons and relationships to other areas of their studies and life. One comment from the book that struck me was that one woman used RSS feeds to only get information from particular sites so she wouldn't get anything else creeping in. I see this with the general public who will only listen to a certain channel, talking heads, or read particular websites. Anyone can publish a blog, tweet, or make their ideas look like legitimate news and fact when they aren't.

I, too, have questioned whether the access to all of this information, more immediately, necessarily translates into smarter, if those key components of sound analysis and synthesis are missing.

Many have been noting that the "success" of this movement is driven by the new technologies that make it easier to organize. Others have pointed out that certain networks are overblowing the movement, making it seem like there are more people involved than there really are.

But I appreciate both of your responses and would welcome others.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Make that two

I'm TAing this semester and working with undergraduates (and some graduate students) has really opened my eyes to how they are synthesizing and analyzing information, or not. As much as I like getting critical information fast, I covet my ability to see bias, research my own sources, and make an effort to get the biggest picture.

I'm reading a book called "The Dumbest Generation" and the author discusses how today's young adult can get information fast and believes it to be reliable, so there isn't a point for many of them to go beyond an RSS feed or their chosen website nor retain it as long as they have the facts to answer the homework or test question and can recall it with a few clicks. I'm really enjoying my experience with students who want to not just regurgitate information, but will make comparisons and relationships to other areas of their studies and life. One comment from the book that struck me was that one woman used RSS feeds to only get information from particular sites so she wouldn't get anything else creeping in. I see this with the general public who will only listen to a certain channel, talking heads, or read particular websites. Anyone can publish a blog, tweet, or make their ideas look like legitimate news and fact when they aren't.

I understand the concern, but there's another side to that sentiment. The easy access to information also means that there is easier access to academics and critical thinkers around the country.

As far as people only listening to certain channels or certain talking heads, I think that certain groups of people have always been intellectually stubborn. If you look back to movements in the late 19th/early 20th century (like the anti-immigration groups), through the Goldwater conservatives, to today, there's always been a tendency by people to only listen to one voice.

That doesn't necessarily make it right, but I think it's been an issue for a long time.

Originally Posted by Little32

I, too, have questioned whether the access to all of this information, more immediately, necessarily translates into smarter, if those key components of sound analysis and synthesis are missing.

Many have been noting that the "success" of this movement is driven by the new technologies that make it easier to organize. Others have pointed out that certain networks are overblowing the movement, making it seem like there are more people involved than there really are.

I'm not sure if certain networks are "overblowing" the movement, if only because it is a fairly large amount of people. Nate Silver estimated over 300,000 people attended Tea Party protests in April 2009 (link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ttendance.html). There's Tea Party Nation (the group that had Palin as keynote speaker), the Tea Party Patriots, and at least a couple of other groups that escape my memory.

Now, I don't know how to define the "success" of the movement. People are talking about it, and it's made its way into the news cycle, so that could be a "success" on its own.

[Ghostwriter]

A tip of the hat to VandalSquirrel for that!

[honeychile]

My own bottom lines after reading this thread:

-Sarah Palin will never translate into a viable national candidate as long as she's measured on her looks ("bump-it" hair, eyeglass style, etc), or as long as most people continue to confuse what she's said and what the Tina Fey look-a-like said. Most of the United States will probably never know who she really is or what she really stands for. I'm tempted to say that about most political women, but there are exceptions to every rule.

-"Tea Party" is a catch-all phrase for those who are sick to death of the inflated Beltway egos and their "what's good enough for me is too good for the average American" attitudes. Our Representatives rarely represent their district any longer (yes, even more so for those in DC), and Tea Party people are simply vocalizing what many people have been saying for years. I hope the movement to form a new party doesn't catch on, so much as brings more to the table of each of the parties. It's human nature to rebel, and when I hear Universal Health Care doesn't include the very people voting for it, I call shenanigans.

-VandalSquirrel's summary of undergraduates is completely on the money. Sadly, I had a grandmother like that, so it's not a shortcoming of a certain age group or educational class - too many people only want to hear their own side of a story, instead of weighing the facts of each side. It's the quickest way to dumb yourself down, IMHO.

-Lastly, anyone who thinks that the world spins according to GreekChat has been sipping too much of the Kool Aid.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by honeychile

My own bottom lines after reading this thread:

-Sarah Palin will never translate into a viable national candidate as long as she's measured on her looks ("bump-it" hair, eyeglass style, etc), or as long as most people continue to confuse what she's said and what the Tina Fey look-a-like said. Most of the United States will probably never know who she really is or what she really stands for. I'm tempted to say that about most political women, but there are exceptions to every rule.

-"Tea Party" is a catch-all phrase for those who are sick to death of the inflated Beltway egos and their "what's good enough for me is too good for the average American" attitudes. Our Representatives rarely represent their district any longer (yes, even more so for those in DC), and Tea Party people are simply vocalizing what many people have been saying for years. I hope the movement to form a new party doesn't catch on, so much as brings more to the table of each of the parties. It's human nature to rebel, and when I hear Universal Health Care doesn't include the very people voting for it, I call shenanigans.

-VandalSquirrel's summary of undergraduates is completely on the money. Sadly, I had a grandmother like that, so it's not a shortcoming of a certain age group or educational class - too many people only want to hear their own side of a story, instead of weighing the facts of each side. It's the quickest way to dumb yourself down, IMHO.

-Lastly, anyone who thinks that the world spins according to GreekChat has been sipping too much of the Kool Aid.

You forgot one...

As long as Palin keeps going after comedy shows and cartoons instead of dealing with legitimate causes, people won't take her seriously

See link

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You forgot one...

As long as Palin keeps going after comedy shows and cartoons instead of dealing with legitimate causes, people won't take her seriously

See link

Granted. (This is part of the last statement of my bottom line - being able to admit a mistake!)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

My own bottom lines after reading this thread:

-Sarah Palin will never translate into a viable national candidate as long as she's measured on her looks ("bump-it" hair, eyeglass style, etc), or as long as most people continue to confuse what she's said and what the Tina Fey look-a-like said. Most of the United States will probably never know who she really is or what she really stands for. I'm tempted to say that about most political women, but there are exceptions to every rule.

I totally disagree with this - most discussions re: Palin lately have completely discussed her, the literal person with actual (terrible) ideas. Such as:

-Her favorite founder? All of them!
-Her notes? Cross out lower taxes, talk about lower spending!
-Her book? Full of tacit misstatements and rampant factual errors!
-And etc.

While there are dummies who will like/dislike her because she's attractive (and these people neatly offset each other - remember, attractiveness matters, in a good way, so she's not exactly losing out), and while women still have not achieved complete equality in general or in politics specifically, Palin has received more than a fair shake.

She has proven herself to be an above-average politician and a top-tier fundraiser, public speaker and figurehead. She's also proven herself to perform poorly on her feet, to be essentially devoid of substantive platform-type thoughts, and absurdly focused on "attack-dog" or similarly partisan politics (aka "politics as usual"). She is what she is - it's more than the hockey mom at this point.

-"Tea Party" is a catch-all phrase for those who are sick to death of the inflated Beltway egos and their "what's good enough for me is too good for the average American" attitudes. Our Representatives rarely represent their district any longer (yes, even more so for those in DC), and Tea Party people are simply vocalizing what many people have been saying for years. I hope the movement to form a new party doesn't catch on, so much as brings more to the table of each of the parties. It's human nature to rebel, and when I hear Universal Health Care doesn't include the very people voting for it, I call shenanigans.

I wish this were more true today, although I completely believe this is how it began. This may be the genesis of the Tea Party movement, but in reality, it's a purely Conservative movement, which really eliminates its ability to do a lot of these things you've mentioned, and it seems to be one more predicated on an idea ("Government is out of control") than any specific complaints or actionable changes.

Additionally, it is certainly drifting more and more toward a traditional party structure - what with paying Palin $100,000 to speak at a $500/plate dinner, and all the associated things that counteract that awesome origin story that I wish were more true (because honestly, one can wish, can't we?).

If only there were an economically conservative, socially hands-off non-religious party that didn't carry the Libertarian social stigma (or aversion to national defense) . . . that would be the real winner. While I wish the Tea Party dicks did these things, they don't. They just don't. It's rah-rah for Glenn Beck - and so too will be the next movement.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by honeychile

My own bottom lines after reading this thread:

-Sarah Palin will never translate into a viable national candidate as long as she's measured on her looks ("bump-it" hair, eyeglass style, etc), or as long as most people continue to confuse what she's said and what the Tina Fey look-a-like said. Most of the United States will probably never know who she really is or what she really stands for. I'm tempted to say that about most political women, but there are exceptions to every rule.

I'll give you that women have a tougher go of it in politics than men. That said, I feel like statements like this totally underestimate the criticisms of Palin. There are a lot of people who have examined her record, her statements and her background, and who don't think she's a credible candidate based on all of that information. There are some of us who have looked at those things and won't vote for her based on that information, not based on some SNL skit.

I don't think it's as easy as saying, essentially, that people are too superficial in examining candidates. There is a sizable population who just doesn't think that her substance = Presidential material.

Originally Posted by honeychile

-Lastly, anyone who thinks that the world spins according to GreekChat has been sipping too much of the Kool Aid.

ETA: Now that I look at it again, I have no idea what you're actually saying in this last statement. Can you clarify?

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by honeychile

-"Tea Party" is a catch-all phrase for those who are sick to death of the inflated Beltway egos and their "what's good enough for me is too good for the average American" attitudes. Our Representatives rarely represent their district any longer (yes, even more so for those in DC), and Tea Party people are simply vocalizing what many people have been saying for years. I hope the movement to form a new party doesn't catch on, so much as brings more to the table of each of the parties. It's human nature to rebel, and when I hear Universal Health Care doesn't include the very people voting for it, I call shenanigans.

I feel like a lot of that mission is really lost when tea partiers start screaming that Obama isn't a citizen, liken him to Hitler or the Joker, are riled up because his middle name is Hussein, etc. I call shenanigans on that kind of ignorance and fear-mongering. I don't understand how that nonsense fits into their "rebellion;" in fact, I think it really detracts from what they're attempting to express and makes it even less likely others will take them seriously. I just have to believe there are more intelligent and effective ways for them to get the point across that they don't like inflated egos or Universal Health Care (which I didn't realize we capitalized, now) or whatever.