Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

May 28 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Sorkin Called Sarah Palin an ‘Idiot’?
Comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind.

By Dennis Prager


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

On CNN recently, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network, West Wing) called Sarah Palin an “idiot.”

Let’s see to whom that label applies.

Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her reality-TV miniseries on TLC, Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

Advertisement

Sorkin opened with a quote from Sarah Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response: “You’re right, Sarah, we’ll all just go f*** ourselves now.”

That non-sequitur was the high point of Sorkin’s column. (Also, as I noted in my last column on the Grammy Awards nominees for Record of the Year, while most people use expletives in private conversation or in rare uncontrolled outbursts, the Hollywood and art-world Left uses expletives in public discourse and in writing as a matter of course.)

Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin, she had committed an act of murder and torture. To quote Sorkin:

“I don’t relish the idea of torturing animals.”

“I don’t watch snuff films and you [Palin] make them.”

“I’ve tried and tried and for the life of me, I can’t make a distinction between what you [Palin] get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing.”

“I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s***heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.”

“That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain.”

“Sarah Palin is deranged.”

Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost all of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the “fun” of eating meat. But when Sarah Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.

And while on the subject of torture, isn’t there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?

As for comparing Palin’s TV show to a “snuff film,” what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.

Likewise Sorkin’s use of the word “murdered.” Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word exclusively for describing the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin’s logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.

No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between Palin’s shooting a caribou and Michael Vick’s using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.

I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal, and murdering a human being — especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?

If he sees no difference, then it is he — not Sarah Palin — who best fits the description of her he gave in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, in order to insult her, even if he has to turn moral standards upside-down.

Good people can differ on Sarah Palin’s political positions or on whether she should run for president in the next election. But what has she ever said, written, or done to justify Sorkin’s hatred and cruelty? Indeed, what has she ever said or written that was as infantile or morally foolish as what Aaron Sorkin wrote about her?

Ironically, all Sorkin’s column achieves is an elevation of Sarah Palin’s status. If people can be judged by those who hate them, Sarah Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized.

So, how does one explain Sorkin’s irrational hatred and morally twisted thinking?

As noted earlier, it is indicative of the Hollywood-leftist mindset. Members of Hollywod’s Left generally live in a left-wing cocoon. What strikes most people who live outside of that cocoon as irrational and immoral is often regarded as brilliant in that world. To the rest of us, comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film, to murder, and to torture is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind. But among many of Sorkin’s peers on the cultural Left, Sorkin’s column is not merely brilliant, it is f***ing brilliant.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website,dennisprager.com.

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST

Lowry: Unleash Biden!

Charen: Obama’s Education Hypocrisy -- Again



COMMENTS   83

EXPAND  

Jon Messersmith
   12/14/10 08:05

Precisely Dennis. It is the confused morality of someone blinded by hate for ideas that go against his worldview. Those happily eating meat, most of which comes from animals that are truly tortured, while condeming Palin for hunting and killing an animal relatively quickly with the intent of eating it shows a lack of moral depth.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Anonymous
   12/14/10 08:26

Sarah Palin is the worst nightmare of the left. No one there ever imagined a successful woman with children and a husband, good looking, multiple-faceted, having a career, with right wing leanings opposed to abortion. She shoots caribou? How about all the ass kicking, imitation macho woman on tv created by Hollywood. Obviously, they love them. So, what's different about Sarah Palin?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:01

I just finished reading this column, and I respectfully conclude that Dennis Prager is an idiot. Or running out of column ides. Or both.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:03

“Sarah Palin is deranged.”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

I personally feel safer with Sarah Palin and a high powered rifle then I do walking the streets knowing a drug addled Sorkin is driving the streets and possibly sidewalks of America.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:12

MikeB is a fine example of the intellectual prowess of the left. Not only does he reach a conclusion without offering any reason, his grammar is terrible. Idiot indeed!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Tallgrass Rancher
   12/14/10 09:12

"And while on the subject of torture, isn’t there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?"

No Dennis, to answer your question, there is not. "Tortured" farm animals do not perform to there genetic potential. This translates to decreased average daily weight gain, and decreased fertility, both of which are a drain on a farms profitability. Farmers do not torture there stock. Period.

Bill Buckley's magazine should not be in the business of adopting leftist talking points just to fill space in a column. There is a long history of attacking agriculture on the left, starting with the socialist Upton Sinclair, and continuing through to Michelle Obama. I am truly sorry to see such ignorance surfacing here.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Gang of One
   12/14/10 09:12

MikeB,

Your vacuous comment indicates that you possess merely a fraction of Prager's intellect and you have your lips planted squarely on the gluteus maximus of the Hollywierd elite.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:15

Sounds more like Dennis is smitten and running to defend a damsel in distress, however his point about Sorkin is well taken. Going out of your way to attack Sarah Palin for the things she does that are valued by some grass roots voters doesn't help the cause of exposing her lack of qualification for the office of President of the United States.
Coming off like a hysterical bleeding heart PETA fanatic over a commonly hunted animal like a moose only makes rational minded liberal democrats look bad. Sorkin -1 Prager +1/2

P.S. She is an Idiot.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:18

Here’s an idea that could reduce the number of extreme leftist squatting in the democrat party overnight. It won’t be easy and would almost require moderates/independents to turn off their TV sets and actually study and understand the issues. NRO would be a good place to start.

I’m dreaming, but if “we the people” could elect Sara Palin as President in 2012 the top reality show of the decade would be called “EXPLODING HEADS” or perhaps “MELTDOWN” (a little less graphic). Each week would feature and expose the rants, raves, and bold face lies of iconic liberals.in politics and the media until………Kaboom!! or Ahhhhh I’m melting!! Aaron Sorkin might just be the perfect candidate for the first episode. The spin offs, phone apps,T shirts, happy meal toys, could do much to stimulate the economy. Not to mention the effect of having a sane person in the white house.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Genna
   12/14/10 09:26

It is the Aaron Sorkins of the world who are dooming the Democratic Party in this country. It's not a positive endorsement for Democrats when the American people think of most Democrats as being liberal and most liberals of being like Aaron Sorkin.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:32

To MikeB (or is it really Aaron Sorkin??):

What specifically is idiotic about this opinion piece? Just because you think something is true, does not make it true.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:38

Re MikeB's comment, evidently one of Sorkin's catamites got in here somehow. Nevertheless, I read the article twice and can find no direct evidence that Prager has suddenly become an idiot as opposed to MikeB, who eveidently has been one for a long time. Such are the dangers of having too much time on one's hands.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
RicO
   12/14/10 09:39

MikeB,

dear fellow, without resort to ad hominems, do tell, what is "idiotic" about Prager's column? I suspect you'll have difficulty but it should be fun to watch.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Ammo Guy
   12/14/10 09:45

Beware the ides of Mike.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:48

Critiquing anything written by Aaron Sorkin is like shooting caribou in a barrel.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:50

Good one, MIkeB, the flow of your argument is immaculate and persuasive.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
dkfennell
   12/14/10 09:52

The shrill, vituperative comments from Mr. Sorkin reveal a mind twisted with hate and illogic. He projects his own mindset onto Sarah Palin and believes that he is a paragon of love and tolerance. Jeremiah is right, "The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things. Who can know it?"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 09:56

Step aside Dennis Prager. This sounds like a job for America's newest superhero ... NO LABELS! Where are you when you need you?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/14/10 10:04

I think that anyone in their right mind can agree that this Aaron Sorkin guy is a nut-job not worth wasting our breath arguing over how stupid or insane he is.

That being said, this whole Sarah Palin the victim, the look at how hated Sarah Palin is by the "Lamestream Media" thing needs to stop.

To quote this article "If people can be judged by those who hate them, Sarah Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized." What is that supposed to mean? By that logic a lot of people hate Barack Obama too, that must mean that he's greater than we even know. Same goes for Barney Frank and Miss Nancy.

Oh. Wait. You don't like that analogy anymore do you?

I have an idea. Hold on, it's a little crazy; a little out there. How about we base our judgements on politicians on their own merits, based on their actions and who they are and not on what they look like, or their catch phrases and mindless talking points, or how many people hate them. Lets base our opinions on substance.

"But Sarah Palin doesn't look too good when it comes to substance" you say. Her best qualities are saying things like "Don't retreat, reload" or "What the Lamestream media wants you to think....." Thats exactly my point.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
landers
   12/14/10 10:14

I just finished reading this column and also MikeB's comment. Hey Mikie - you're and idiot and probably living right next to the twisted and corrupt Sorkin in the cocoon.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact