The Live Parrot Sketch

Anyone of my age here in England will certainly remember the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch, starring Michael Palin and John Cleese. If you have never seen it, you really must. You can find it on YouTube: Dead Parrot Sketch – there is more of it in this version than I had remembered.

Today (thanks to Matt Wardman and David Keen‘s sidebar for the link) John Cleese appears in a new sketch, in fact more of an interview, this time about a live parrot. As there were problems with Matt’s attempt to embed this, here is a link to YouTube: Live Parrot Sketch. This is in fact John Cleese’s take on the other Palin, Sarah. Among other things he says:

I used to think Michael Palin was the funniest Palin ever …

She’s basically learned certain speeches. And she does them very well, she’s got a very good memory. But it’s like a nice looking parrot, because the parrot speaks beautifully, and kind of says “Aw, shucks” every now and again, but doesn’t really have any understanding of the meaning of the words that it is producing, even though it’s producing them very accurately …

And the truth is that Sarah Palin is no way good enough … [In Europe] you probably wouldn’t find 5% who think she is good enough to run the United States. And she’s running as the partner of a 72-year-old cancer survivor. I mean, Monty Python could have written it.

By the way, Cleese is not politically naive: he has been a long term supporter of the Liberal Democrats (the party I am a member of) here in the UK.

Now I am not sure that the media have been fair to Sarah Palin. I stand by my initial impression of her as a small town politician with integrity and a genuine Christian faith.

I think Sarah Palin was right to insist that an allegedly violent state trooper, accused of

using a Taser on his stepson, drinking beer in his patrol car, illegally shooting a moose and threatening his former father-in-law

should have been fired, if the allegations were true. It was quite wrong and morally reprehensible for Walter Monegan to rely on the argument

He didn’t do anything under my watch to result in termination

to wash his hands of the fact that what Trooper Wooten allegedly did when off duty should have led to him being fired. The way in which Palin intervened was of course unwise, but this is the way things are done in small towns.

Nevertheless I agree with John Cleese that “Sarah Palin is no way good enough … to run the United States”. Experience of running a small town is just not relevant. McCain may have thought he was making a smart move, but it looks like it has backfired on him.

9 thoughts on “The Live Parrot Sketch

  1. Right.

    I care as much about this “Troopergate” thing (what is it with we Americans and gates anyway?) as much as I care about Ayres and Acorn. I do care about the “pallin’ around with terrorists” remark, her consistent flubs on the Couric interview, her canned persona in the debate, and that she has given us know evidence yet that she knows what is really going on in the world.

  2. While all the candidates are not ideal, I would much rather have a woman in the whitehouse that relies on God than a man in the whitehouse that relies on himself.

  3. Interesting that the argument is ‘to run the United States’ when she is actually running to be VP, which is by general consensus the only form of training to be POTUS. Assuming they lose this time, would your objection still hold if she runs for POTUS in 2012, ie after six years of running one of the more critical and complicated states of the US? Or is it just an intellectualist bias?

  4. As always, democracy will decide in November. Or at least, people’s views will decide through the democratic process.

    What is a shame though is how the competition between the candidates and associates is so prominent, with personal attacks thrown in as if it were normal or reasonable to do so. The UK is not exempt from such flaws either, and I am sure around the world a similar thing is seen.

    Wouldn’t it be great if a revival in the realm of politics were seen (and shouldn’t we be praying that this be so, so that the very core leadership of a nation itself are truly under God, rather than continuing a humanistic dynasty of one leader to the next who refuse to acknowledge God as the true Head of State.

    Naive? Perhaps. Possible? Maybe. Better than leaders who don’t know God? We’ll not know this for many years.

  5. Kelly, better still is a man in the White House who relies on God. For all his weak points Obama is such a man.

    Sam, implicit in John Cleese’s comment about “a 72-year-old cancer survivor” is the realisation that there is a real possibility of any VP but all the more so this candidate actually becoming President. If Obama wins now and Palin runs for President in 2012, she will have had four more years’ experience which will put paid to the “inexperienced” objection. She will then have to be judged on her other strong and weak points. But I doubt if she will defeat an incumbent Obama unless things have gone badly wrong for him.

    Jamie, I agree that in elections there should be more focus on policies and less on personalities. But it is important that a president has adequate experience, and I’m afraid being a small town mayor is not adequate.

  6. Peter,

    True, experience is vital for such an important role as POTUS or VP, , or PM, MP or whatever. I wasn’t saying that experience was of no or lesser value. But this ‘let’s tear down the other person’ is no way to be. Anywhere.

    It’s a shmae, and hopefully things will get better.

  7. Obama no more relies on God for his decisions than I can fly to the moon.

    His complete disregard for the sanctity of life is shown by his voting record in the Senate and his pronouncements during campaigning.

    1. Obama “has promised to seek repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which has for many years protected pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.”

    2. Obama has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” ( FOCA). This would make abortion a federally guaranteed right through all nine months of pregancy for any reason. Virtually every state and federal limitation on abortion that is currently on the books would be abolished (e.g., parental consent and notification laws for minors).

    3. Obama opposes the ban on the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion and strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ban.

    4. Obama wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need.

    5. Obama refused to support the pro-life Democrats’ “95-10” legislation (designed to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in 10 years by strengthening the social safety net for poor women). This would not have made abortion illegal; it would seek to reduce abortion.

    6. Obama “opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.” The bill contained a specific provision that ensured that the bill would not affect abortion laws (Obama and his campaign lied about this fact until it was proven in the records).

    7. Obama has co-sponsored a bill authorizing the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. It would require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning, and would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term.

    8. Obama was one of the few senators to oppose a bill that would have put a modest amount of federal money into research that would develop methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. “From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. . . . Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.”

  8. Glenn, I do not endorse Obama’s policies on abortion. However I consider them less evil than McCain’s policies on war. Like every Christian Obama has his blind spots, but let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

  9. There are at least some restraints on war, but with Obama there would be no restraints on the willful slaughter of the unborn, or in the case of Partial Birth abortion the born.
    You think war cheapens life, it is as nothing compared to the worthlessness attached to the unborn by this wholesale slaughter.
    All of the wars going on at the moment and those dying in them do not come remotely near in numbers to those murdered by abortion.
    In war people do survive, but if you look at number 6 in the list I provided you will see that Obama would remove protection even from a child which survived the abortion attempt.
    Despite what some may construe from what I have written, I am not a rabid warmonger, but I submit that Obama is a rabid abortionist with no respect for human life at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image