Sarahpalooza!

This took far too long to get right. My apologies.

Palining around with Terrorists

"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead"

said Miss Maverick to Barbara Walters, thinking as she does in lock step with the PsychoChristian Book of Revelation terrorist Church. At least this time she's speaking in almost understandable English rather than in tongues.

Like many euphemism addicts, she seems as well to avoid the use or the word Jew as though it were a socially offensive term, which it is not, but neither is it surprising that she has problems with Judaism, seeing Jews as anything but pawns or with the notion of a government that derives from the will of the governed.

I have to ask myself how we get a Maverick, a renegade or anything but a victim of another sort of politico-religious correctness in Sarah Palin. I have to ask myself how many Americans really want our foreign policy derived from John of Patmos or even Billy "The Jews are ruining the country" Graham, currently suffering from Alzheimer's, who she recently visited to get some guidance about what the Bible commands our country to do in Iraq, Iran and Israel.

I actually get a lot of amusement out of this breathless 2000 year "any minute now" wait, although horrors like Jonestown do put a damper on it. But face it, Palin is a rogue only in the sense of being an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. She hasn't separated herself from the herd of regimented thinking, she's embraced myth as truth, defined a demented dogma as independent thinking and yearns for absolute theocratic rule as much as any medieval Pope -- and lower taxes for the rich who are more favored by God, of course. Most and worst of all, she is part of and is informed by a cult anticipating the greatest act of terrorism since Noah's Flood.

Sorry Sarah, Jesus has been here and gone. I'm not interested in your ambition to promote a war in the Middle East, I think Israel should stop building settlements in occupied land and that people should live in peace. I'm not converting to your hare-brained death cult and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you throw away two centuries of secular democracy. I'm not "flocking" to Israel, nor is anyone else and if there is some damned god who wants a war there, he'll have to start it himself.

Dr. Joseph Suglia Reviews "Going Rogue"

Dr. Joseph Suglia, PhD, is the author of two critically-acclaimed literary novels: Years of Rage and Watch Out. A social-networking friend for years now, he emailed me his critique of the new Sarah Palin memoir and graciously agreed to let me post it here.

GOING ROGUE / GOING ROUGE

by Dr. Joseph Suglia

The title of Sarah Palin’s martyrology, GOING ROGUE (2009), is richly significant. “Rogue” can mean “renegade” and thus point to Palin’s illusory departure from the ever-redefinable “political” and “media elites,” as well as from the McCain camp. Reactionary politicians, these days, like to style themselves as “mavericks”—when, in fact, they represent this country’s most powerful insiders. They endorse tax cuts for the affluent; they serve the gluttonies of the wealthiest financiers, corporate executive officers, and industrialists in America.

A slight logogriphic substitution would transform “rogue” into “rouge.” The title, then, could be rendered: THE REDDENING OF SARAH PALIN. Red, obviously, is the color of the Republican Party, but it is also a highly sexual color and evokes the menses. (“Rouge,” in particular, recalls a shade of lipstick. Would “rouge” refer to the pig’s lipstick-smeared mouth?). It is, as well, the color of fury, of blood, of rapine and viciousness. It is the color of ecclesiastics, of cardinals. In the iconography of National Socialism, black swastikas were emblazoned on red backgrounds.

This is a book that is drenched in red.

There is discussion of the animals Sarah Palin enjoys slaughtering, the caribou and moose she takes pleasure in shooting, the salmon she skins and guts. A photograph of the Arctic Huntress beaming with the psychosexual thrill that comes from killing game, the bloodied corpse of a caribou under her heel. “I love meat... [I] especially love moose and caribou. I always remind people from outside our state that there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals—right next to the mashed potatoes” [18-19]. Little commentary is required; what is said is clear. The only room for animals, even endangered animals, is inside of us. Kill animals and then internalize them, kill animals that prey upon those other animals we want to internalize: “[W]e HAD to control predators, such as wolves, that were decimating the moose and caribou herds that feed our communities” [134].

I wish someone would tell Sarah Palin that “to decimate” means “to kill every tenth being.”

Sarah Palin thinks that animals exist only in order to be devoured by human beings. That is their purpose, their end, their divinely ordained telos. Like a “red kite” [83], Sarah Palin’s mind is connected by an invisible string to the mind of God: “If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?” [133; in italics].

In other words,

1.) Animals can be meat—meat that is devoured by human beings.

2.) Therefore, animals exist only to be devoured by human beings.

We have here both a non sequitur and a teleological argument. It is equivalent to saying:

1.) The human genitalia may be used for rape.

2.) Therefore, the human genitalia exist only for the purpose of rape.

Red, in this context, connotes the blood of animals. It also denotes shame. One is reminded of the red face of the unnamed Alaskan politician who observes Sarah Palin with horror as she gleefully breastfeeds her daughter on a radio program: “I acted like I didn’t see the shocked look on the politician’s face as he turned red and pretended it didn’t bother him at all” [67]. A flocculent creaminess mingles with the blood that rises to the politician’s cheeks.

The color red reappears when Sarah Palin douses herself, Countess Bathory style, in the blood of political martyrdom or of “the popular political blood sport called ‘the politics of personal destruction’” [352]. Seldom has self-imposed victimhood been exploited so meretriciously as it is here. Sarah Palin bemoans the fact that she was “slapped with an ethics accusation” [355]. And yet WHICH “ethics accusation,” precisely? There are many. That she misappropriated her governorship for personal and political gain? That she used the Alaska Fund Trust to cadge gifts and benefits? She never tells us. She merely dismisses all ethical grievances as personal attacks issued by the monolithic Left: “One of the left’s favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints” [363].

Sarah Palin’s silence over her ethical misconduct is only one of the many silences that perforate GOING ROGUE. She never attempts to wash away the record of her ignorance of Africa, the Bush doctrine, or NAFTA. Certain things are so shameful that they cannot be erased with lies. Let me cite one more instance of this studied silence: As Mayor, our gentle authoress called for the banning of “objectionable” books from the Wasilla Public Library. She claims to have merely asked librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, “What’s the common policy on selecting new titles?” [77]. And yet nowhere does Sarah Palin, meek and mild, mention that she fired Mary Ellen Emmons two days after this conversation took place. So many of this book’s pages are devoted to assaulting her critics (169 out of 234, by my count), but those criticisms for which she has no rejoinder, those words and actions that are truly indefensible and cannot be mangled and distorted, are consigned to a willful silence.

Sarah Palin is a ventriloquist’s doll, a cue-card reader, a red harpy, a Venus in Carmine.

Dr. Joseph Suglia

The great dollar plot -- There's a conspiracy in my coin!

It's not only the idiot Sarah Palin who sees a conspiracy in the current dollar coin issue. I've had shopkeepers refuse to take it (in violation of the law) because they too see a conspiracy. I confess to using them as often as I can, just for the petty pleasure of irritating the subhuman ascendancy.

Yes, I know, the idiot Palin sees conspiracies and witches ( and uninhabited Russian islands) all the time and likes to talk about such things to cover up the total absence of any constructive ideas, much less a child's knowledge of American history and current affairs.

Palin's Wisconsin speech last Friday night wasn't recorded because forbidding all recording and communications devices has become a standard tactic in her war on sanity, but still it isn't necessary to have audio or video to stun the rational public with -- well, with her idiocy. At the "Right to Life" rally, writes Jonathan Martin at Politico, she dishonestly extrapolated the legality of abortion rights to the government's desire to cut off all health care to the elderly and children with birth defects just to see them die and re-iterated that euthanasia would be a likely result of extending Medicare-like coverage to the general population. Yes, she's still raving about death panels as though her constant yammering and stammering could create an alternate reality in which she made some kind of sense and where she wasn't lying through her cheap lipstick.

“It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn’t strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live”

said the idiot Palin. Those of us who still remember some English will wonder why more people don't laugh, since bogus means counterfeit and what she is really saying is that society is not sending that message, but of course people who line up to hear the idiot Palin aren't able to see the idiocy. It's proof that with stupidity, it takes one not to notice one. It takes one not to have noticed that the "message" that a woman can pretty much do what she damn well pleases with respect to having a career and children, is a Liberal one that's been fought hard against and took centuries to achieve in the face of conservative intransigence, dishonest appeals to "family Values," fictitious fears and the kind of pseudo-Biblical claptrap the idiot Palin is famous for.

That would have been enough, as the old Passover song goes, but the idiot Palin, finding the audience less than mindlessly ebullient about her incoherent rants, launched into a riff on the sinister conspiracy behind putting "In God We Trust" around the rim of the dollar coin instead of the obverse. Stopping short of blaming it on the Elders of Zion, she asked her audience to fill in the blanks from their own piggy banks of bigotry, ignorance and idiocy. As Martin writes:

"Noting that there had been a lot of “change” of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved to the edge of the new coins."

Of course the coin in question was issued by the Bush administration and perhaps the Treasury Secretary thought it would be fine to follow not only what much of the world has done with their coinage, but what the US $20 St. Gaudens gold coin displayed from 1907 to 1933 and mint an inscription around the edge. Traditionally such things have been done for 200 years to make it impossible to shave off precious metal without detection, but many countries still follow the practice with the brass tokens we use today. So far, YHWH hasn't dispatched them like Gommorah. None the less, the inscription was put back on the face of the coin to please the unclean and unintelligent rabble that sees conspiracy in everything -- years ago. Hasn't anyone noticed? Certainly not the idiot Palin. None of our more common coinage has an edge inscription - hasn't the ambassador from the Pleistocene noticed? Apparently her demand for outrages to put around the edges of Liberals has exceeded the supply and so she's minting these counterfeit slugs herself -- and the Republican rubes are filling their pockets with them.

“Who calls a shot like that?” she demanded. “Who makes a decision like that?”

I've asked myself the question of who thought up the practice of putting theistic proclamations on coinage in the first place. It certainly wasn't the 'Founding Fathers.' According to the Treasury Department itself, it began during the Civil War, which coincided with a large influx of the huddled masses yearning to retain theocracy and the Union's need to find a "God is on our side" justification for all the carnage. The practice has certainly not extended to all coins in all years, and that fact hasn't been made much of in the past, but never before have these United States been in such a fugue state of holy rolling, snake handling, tongues talking, foaming at the mouth, apocalyptic insanity.

The answer to her question of course was Republican Senator John Sununu with heavy Republican support in the Senate and House and with the blessings of George W. Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury and the idiotPalin is going to have to outdo herself in order to convince me that Bush or any of his cloven-hooved accomplices was plotting a war on Christianity by removing a religious oath from where God told us not to put it in the first place.

“It’s a disturbing trend.”

She said, illustrating either her disregard for any actual meaning or applicability to reality her words might have. Something that happens for a year and then returns to the way it's been for 150 years is not a trend, but hey, that's why she's called the idiot Palin and that's why the angry, fearful, confused, uneducated, unintelligent, underclass finds her mysterious pathological fears so appealing. That's a a disturbing trend indeed.

Going Rouge

Oddly enough, before the Newsweek staff announced this project my dear friend Marc Mitchell had already written two chapters of his own parody, titled Going Rouge: an American Life.

Chapter 1.

To begin my life with the beginning of my life, I record that I was born. I can prove it. Birth certificates, particularly long-form birth certificates, are a handy thing to have, and I have one. It says plainly, that I was most definitely born in Sandpoint, Idaho, to Sarah (my mother) and Charles (my father) Heath (their last name, which I proudly took). All of my relatives are American. We were all born in the US, so I am an American, and this is my American life.

You know, people who aren’t born American are unfortunate souls. In my travels, and when looking out of my kitchen window at the land beyond, I can see into the eyes of the foreign people, and there’s nothing in those eyes but sadness and yearning. When I speak to people in other countries, they hang on my every word, waiting for me to tell them how wonderful they are, perhaps, or that everything is okay even though they’re not from Alaska. Or Idaho. Or any of the states comprising real America.

I recently went to Taiwan, I think, and was struck by the despair of the Chinese people who want desperately to be American, but can’t be because their government is Chinese. I said to the people, “It’s okay. Not all of us can be as lucky as me. America needs you to make our stuff. You serve a purpose.” A timid young man in the third row raised his hand and spoke in the native tongue--the Chinese have a beautiful language! It’s so full of vowels!--which the interpreter interpreted for me: “But lovely Sarah, if we can’t be American, we at least want to have you as our leader.”

Click here to read the rest

Palin Flakes

Adding: Sarah Palin's speechwriter speaks out on "death panels":



What I'm referring to

The Coulter Lesson

For years we leftward leaning folk have been lining the pockets of Ann Coulter. Yes we have. Let's not make the same mistake again by lining Sarah Palin's pockets as well.

AC is a mouthpiece. She holds no political office. Her only power (and source of wealth) is her mouth and the people who hire her to speak with it. Currently this is also true of the GOVERNOR WHO QUIT. She is also nothing but a hired mouthpiece with little to say of worth.

AC has made a bloody fortune by writing books about liberals who attack her. Yeah - it can pretty much be watered down to those simple terms. She self-righteously whines about how we whine about how mean she is. She scoffs. She mocks. We get mad. We yell & call her names. She gets asked back on talk shows to talk about the LOUD liberals complaining about her, she mocks, she smirks ad infinitum.

We leftward leaning folk VALIDATE her every time we mention her name. Every time we buy one of her books to rip her to shreds. Every time we even mention her books. She has the last LUCRATIVE laugh ripping us to shreds in turn in her next book! She loves us! We are fodder for her greedy egocentric appetite. If we would just IGNORE her she just might no longer be all that controversial. It takes two sides to spin a controversy and we continually play into her game like suckers.

S. Palin is on course do just the same thing. The title of her forthcoming book says it all - I refuse to actually name it - it deserves no such validation from me. You can bet that her publisher is COUNTING on we hotheads on the left EMBOLDENING SP to her followers by attacking her book. Just like AC. And an emboldened martyr sells books and speeches to her MANY faithful followers.

Let's not make her a martyr like AC - which is precisely what AC has always counted her riches on - our allowing her to play victim by our attacking of her.

So let's just pretend that SP hasn't written a book. OK? Let's be mute on the subject. Entirely. Let's refuse to be suckers this time. She's spoiling for a fight but who says we have to play? Sure some of her followers will buy it. And they'll try to needle us with what she says in it, they'll try to provoke a heated response. So let's NOT give it to them. Let's make SP sell her book (and her speaking engagements) on the merits (?!) of what it/she says and NOT on the merits of its author's self-manufactured martyrdom.

Feeding the birds.

We had only a jumble of disconnected phrases from which to discern Sarah Palin's plans for the future and a possible reason for her abandonment of the governorship of Alaska. We have a few more complete and coherent sentences from Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez but probably no better idea of why he's walking away and where he's going. "Feeding the birds" is the clearest hint he's given us of his plans.

I wouldn't blame anyone for not being aware that a US senator from a large state spontaneously resigned yesterday. The press has been otherwise occupied with trying to make it less obvious that Big Pharma and the Republicans are trying to disrupt any rational discussion of health care reform using violence and intimidation and symbols and tactics of the Third Reich. Martinez tries hard to emphasize however that it is indeed spontaneous and of his "own free will" and nobody is pressuring him. That he brings up that strange notion, rather suggests that someone is.

It will be up to Governor Charlie Crist to replace Mr. Martinez, but Crist will be leaving the Governorship to run for Senator himself and so isn't going to be motivated to replace him with anyone unbeatable -- which is a nice, but unavoidable conflict of interest.

On a more local level my State Representative Ken Pruitt recently resigned "for family and financial reasons." As Pruitt wasn't shy about endorsing the fundamentalist agenda, I'm not sorry to see him go, even though I have to wonder what the family and financial problems were and what improprieties might be involved. Of course his replacement is no less fond of government support of Christian institutions and the first thing one notices about him is his striking lack of intelligence, but one has to expect that in Florida.

But something is happening here and neither I nor Mr. Jones knows what the hell it is.

Poor little Palin, part II

"I continue to be surprised at the vicious attacks on her. I've never seen anything like it"

says John McCain on CNN.com. Of course that's not nearly true or credible and of course "viciousness" is not what distinguishes the many criticisms of Palin from the criticism McCain himself endured; criticism that he handed out and that he observed being handed out to people like John Kerry while standing by saying little or nothing. Indeed the hypocrisy of anyone in any way part of the Republican establishment of the last decade who is still crying about how poor Sarah has been treated is something the like of which I've never seen. What distinguishes complaints about her ethics with accusations that McCain sired an illegitimate, black daughter or that Barak Obama was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who wants to destroy the country, are the facts behind them -- or not behind them.

McCain and his party would very much like you to think that what really sours people like me on candidates like Palin are her daughter's pregnancy or some details of her private life that should be beyond public scrutiny. Indeed the campaign was complaining about such things far in advance of public awareness, making it apparent that they intended to make her an antihero and to run on sympathy rather than on any strong capabilities she might have. Of course any suggestion that anything in a candidate's life should be beyond scrutiny when made by a Republican is so hilarious as to be horrifying while there is ongoing hysteria about things that are not part of Obama's life being treated as controversial by people who know better.

That Palin lied about refusing earmarks, about being opposed to running up debt, is a small matter compared to the accusations of treason she smilingly made againstBarak Obama in her pedantic sing-song tones and nothing said against her suitability compares with Republican accusations against McCain made by the Bush camp. Of course complaining about criticism alone and without reference to the content and the facts of the matter constitutes deliberate misrepresentation. Is it vicious to accusePalin of ethical violations when there are legal proceedings based on formal accusations? Is it vicious to mention misstatements, to mention lifelong dedication to witch hunters and heretic persecutors or other things which are incontestably true?

If so, what then are accusations based on lies and distortions? If so what do we do with a candidate whose entire campaign was run upon such things while she whined about how unfair it was to criticize her at all?

It's rare enough for a governor, even a governor under indictment, to simply walk away from the job without explanation, yet Mr. McCain would like us all to believe that she was forced out by the nefarious and vicious Liberals who just can't stop asking why she did it. It's an insult to the electorate, of course, but no more of an insult than the McCain/Palin campaign was. They've been getting away with insulting and assaulting us for a long time -- because we're stupid, because we're emotionally and tribally driven and too often only informed by those who insult us.

That McCain is still playing the victim game; the poor, suffering and forgotten hero game, doesn't speak well for him. That he's still viciously attacking efforts to fix the problems his party created while offering no other suggestions than the same policies that caused them and the same policies that turned the crash of '29 into the Great Depression, doesn't recommend him either, but his misplaced loyalty that drives him to cover up for the VP candidate who may have cost him the election all by herself certainly suggests self-delusion, a total lack of independence and the kind of situational honesty that makes me so very glad he lost.

Whither Sarah?

I have to say I'm grateful that Sarah Palin has somewhat abated the psychotic media obsession with a dead neurotic surgery addict. She has the media and the bloggers back to doing what we all do best: speculating. So why is she doing this? It's nearly impossible to tell from her tangled and mangled speech, which of course makes her verbal mulch the the perfect medium for hydroponic conjecture.

David Wallechinsky seems to think Fox has made her an offer she can't refuse and we'll be seeing her in their little shop of horrors before long. He offers no evidence to interfere with belief, but it's filling and very satisfying, like comfort food, so I'll go along with it.

Max Blumenthal has what I think is a more credible scenario, based around the theory that an Alaska construction company, the same one that built the huge sports complex in Wasilla ( putting the town into serious debt) built her house as an inducement to get that job and future jobs after she became Governor. Todd and she have had personal and financial ties to the company of long standing.

Blumenthal also speculates about the effect a recent Salon article might have had on her decision. Revelations about her attempts to kill the stories about Husband Todd's affiliation with that Alaska secessionist group and provide false cover stories, may be about to blow up on her. Who knows, but of course the delicious irony, considering her attempts to portray Barak Obama as a "terrorist" who hates America, makes the idea hard to resist.

There are so many possibilities to delight the palate that I may be sorry if and when we ever figure out why! In a way I would love to see her as the next Republican presidential candidate, since she's so amazingly unqualified, but to be disgraced as a hypocrite and possible felon would satisfy my taste for justice perfectly. The worst outcome, in my opinion, would be to have her take her place on the Fox News Chorus, where hypocrisy, incompetence, dishonesty, lack of intelligence, irrational hostility and incipient dementia are prime qualifications . She could be as big a threat to our country as she would be in the White House, and of course there are no term limits on Fox.

PALIN QUITS!

One would think such a headline would push the Michael Jackson insanity aside long enough for some news to leak through, but although Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has just announced that she will resign from office within the next few weeks, further explanation seems elusive.

Can we start singing the Wicked Witch is Dead song, or is it too soon? Is she resigning because Pastor Muthee told her the Rapture is coming? What will this mean for Michael Jackson, the patron Saint of Pop?

It's very tempting to speculate, but perhaps we'll just have to wait for the hysteria to abate before the networks can spare any personnel to find out what's happening outside the world of Michael Jackson - and that could take a while.

What we have here is a failure

Sarah Palin says Obama is driving the country toward Socialism, although she's not exactly sure what that is or how he's doing it.

"We’re borrowing more to spend more ... it defies any sensible economic policy that any of us ever learned through college."

said she to Insanity Hannity although that's been the main thrust of GOP economic policy since Reagan. Never mind that she didn't actually study economics in her long, picaresque romp through a series of fourth rate community colleges and hasn't any real idea of who owns what part of American industry. If she did, perhaps the failed beauty queen, failed VP candidate and desultory student would have to blush about Alaska's state ownership of oil and gas resources and her failure to bring capitalism to her state.

But that's OK. Former Speaker of the House and thoroughly dispicable human being Newt Gingrich says that whatever Obama may be driving us toward, President Barack Obama’s plan to fix the economy has “already failed” and “bowing to the Saudi King is not an energy policy.” Of course not, and Obama would agree. Playing basketball after hours isn't either, but neither is it supposed to be, any more than being a serial adulterer like Newt is a guarantee he means what he says. Of course none of us will get the chance to ask him whether Cheney's collusion with oil magnates about raising the price of oil is an energy policy either, but it helps that whatever Obama has been falsely accused of doing, he's failed to do it.

Rush Limbaugh isn't ready to call Sonia Sotomayor a failure yet, but he hopes she will be. Racist and hack yes, he's ready to say that, but as he does with our president and our nation, he hopes for a good, solid failure. And besides, of course, as with Michael J. Fox's Parkenson's disease, Ms. Sotomayor's recent broken ankle is certainly evidence of lack of character.

“Now, the question is, would a white, male judge have fractured his ankle in the same circumstances?”

No, actually the question is whether Rush can say anything at all without his racism and misogyny creeping through, but we won't embarrass him by asking it, not while he's back on the Vikes and babbling.

Drug addicted, draft dodging Limbaugh however, hardly compares with Gordon Liddy, the convicted felon/conservative radio host who thought it important to speculate as to whether the judge's menstrual cycle will interfere with her judgment.

"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate,"

Liddy said in a conservative fashion.

"That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

Yes, Mr. Liddy, and the Lord knows that would be bad regardless of which Lord you mean, just like conspiring to overthrow democracy in the US and bragging about it -- which seems to be your main "conservative" credential.

Yes, 4 months is soon enough to talk about failure and face it -- who is more qualified to talk about failure than the Republicans?

Ugly is as ugly thinks

This is still America, the discomfiture of the Republican Party notwithstanding, and so no triviality, no irrelevant, inconsequential or plainly idiotic dispute is going to go away without the final word being had by our ad hoc committee on the meaning of everything. The current committee heads seem to be Sarah Palin and Charlie, Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

As the swells slowly die down on that limitless sea of Who Gives A Shit, we can hear the voice of Mrs. Palin (perhaps all the way to Russia) telling us that:

“Our Constitution protects us all, not just those who agree with the far left.”

Saving the discussion of just what, to her, constitutes the "far left" for another paragraph, it might be worthwhile to wonder just what protection it offers from the superstition and bigotry of those who listen to psychotic monsters like Pastor "death to witches" Muthee. We won't get an answer from her, I'm afraid, but her feelings are clear. The Constitution protects her religious views against the "Liberal" onslaught.

It doesn't, of course -- and I have a hard time seeing the First Amendment as protecting someone's standing in a private, for profit beauty pageant, else we'd be hearing a lot of court cases from ladies with big noses, large bottoms and A cups, but that's the Procrustean bed Palin would like to strap the sad case of Carrie Prejean into, as poor a fit as it may be.

Does Sarah care who wins a contest designed to facilitate the commercial self-objectification of young women? I would guess that she is only interested in portraying her as a noble victim of people so un-American as to assert that the Constitution protects everyones rights, including the right to enter into a contract with another, regardless of race, creed, national origin or gender. That's being a farleftliberal, of course; the catchall term for anything that stands in the way of going back to the days when a real estate broker (we didn't have Realtors back then) could refuse to show you a house in a white neighborhood, a Jew couldn't book a hotel room in Palm Beach, schools, restaurants, public parks, drinking fountains train stations and city buses were segregated, marrying someone of the wrong race could land you in jail and non-missionary position sex was a crime -- and all was well with far right neanderthals like Sarah the moose killer and her Cave Christians. All was right with Sarah's Grizzly God.

No, “the liberal onslaught of malicious attacks” as Sarah growled from her wilderness den -- or in other words, the disgust with people like Prejean, Palin and the Plumber dude who want to have the law interfere with private and personal relationships and strip us of the right to determine just who our families are: the Liberal assault is what what we should be concerned about, or at least the losers who run and watch and participate in beauty pageants should be. It's a "onslaught!" We shouldn't notice that in fact nobody is censoring anyone and Sarah the Idiot is confusing equal protection under the law for all citizens with some kind of an outrageous affront to her primitive religious beliefs.

So it seems like Sarah's "far left" is actually the core of American values, at least the values the constitution was meant to be a means to facilitate. It seems like Sarah's center lies in a culture that died out with the "onslaught" of the Age of Enlightenment, if not with the disappearance of woolly mammoths. Far Left Liberals like me feel little more than sad, queasiness at the ugly programmed responses of would be beauty queens, and that's about it. Some may be outraged at her, some might hate her, but they are a subgroup as small as Palin's witch hunters. Most of us care more about how our representatives vote and how well our freedom is protected against its atavistic enemies, but ugly words make people ugly, and this is a beauty contest, isn't it?

It's not fraud when we do it

We've certainly seen and heard plenty of haughty harumphment aver the tax problems of Tim Geithner. We've had more of the "more of the same" from the same folks who gave us, or tried to give us Sarah Palin as a Joan of Arc reformer and an upholder of the kind of ethics Republicans like to talk about while trying to keep us from examining their own failings.

We're not seeing a hell of a lot about Sarah Palin's tax problems. It seems that it hadn't occurred to her that the additional "travel related" money she was being paid for staying at home in Wasilla ( since her home isn't in the capitol, Juneau) was taxable income. Of course we learned a long time ago that the State of Alaska has been paying for all kinds of family expenses like tickets to basketball games, and sled races, but these things are "private matters" according to her spokeswoman. That's because she's a Republican in a Red State. otherwise any personal detail would be a public matter and could and would be used against her by her party's scandal machine. I'm still waiting for the "Liberal Press" to make a fuss about it. I'm still waiting to hear why everything we do or say on the phone or in our mail: why everything we buy and everywhere we go is no longer a private matter as far as the Government is concerned.

Next time they tell me what a bad break Sarah got from the mean old media, I might just have to mention this, as well as to relate my litany of her other lies.

Of course Alaska is in for some hard times, since 90% of its revenue comes from soaking the oil companies, hard as that might be to explain to laissez faire lovers who supported her anti-Tax rhetoric. " living within our means and putting money aside for a rainier day" is something, like ethics, that Sarah likes to give lip service to while running up debt like a mainstream Republican.

But they're still talking about her as a Presidential Candidate, which is fine with me. Let her select Joe the Plumber as VP too and maybe the accountant she used to hide her expense account shenanigans for Secretary of the Treasury as well. The country's going to hell anyway and we might just as well get it over with. You betcha!

OMG, ANOTHER BIRTHDAY!

Rocky, please forgive this interruption of our Swash Zone Saint Valentine’s Day Love-Fest. Breaking news (February 11, 2009) - Today is also Sarah Palin’s 45th birthday:


Congratulations, Sarah.  We see where your political ambitions lie:

Capital One. Who's in your wallet?

Now, back to our party!

H/T to Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Open door policy

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is,"

That's what Sarah Palin was like yesterday on like Fox News, not that there was like much doubt about like what she was like all along. So I'm like hoping that one of the voices in her head will like tell her to like step through that open door, to like lead her whole party; witch hunters, gay bashers, heretic haters, Bible thumpers, Crusaders and glossolalian Godbothers down an open elevator shaft.

I'm sure there are many Republicans who feel the same way, but will they be like able to divorce themselves from like the religious psychos and the market fundamentalists and the clepto-capitalists and like become a loyal opposition able to present like constructive criticism of the Democratic majority?

In a way, I hope so, but in another way, I'm like having so much fun rubbing the noses of the gobbling turkeys in their own folly, I hope not. Perhaps there is like a God and like maybe he's like giving us this polished boot wearing, Hitler saluting twit as a cautionary example lest we be tempted to like continue the plague of Crazy Christian expansionism, but like maybe not. Maybe it's like time to save ourselves.

IS ROBERT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE? HELP WANTED.

I need your help to determine if Robert, the Conservative, is qualified to vote. It seems Robert has very strong opinions about who should have, or not have, the right to vote. He brings terms like “apathy” and “uninformed” into his discussion but fails to quantify what measures of “apathy” or “informed” should apply.

In applying an arbitrary standard to voter eligibility, what Robert is really saying is this: “Let me decide.” Fair enough! If he wants to assign himself this role, he should understand that “two can play this game.” So let us judge Robert by his own standards and determine whether or not he should have the right to vote.

Here is the gist of a conversation I had with Robert earlier this week:

Robert:  I belong to the crowd that doesn't want everyone to vote.

(O)CT(O)PUS:   Lucky for the rest of us, there are laws to protect us from people like you.

Robert:   I wouldn't deny anyone the right, of course, but Saturday elections would mean that many people who have such apathy to the process that they wouldn't vote during the week would cast votes on Saturday.

(O)CT(O)PUS:   And who are you to make this judgment? Who are you to decide when one votes or who gets the right to vote? By this definition, you would disenfranchise anyone at the drop of a hat for failing to meet any narrow-minded criteria you can think of.

Robert:   It is sad that so many people are uninformed on issues.

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Like you! By this standard, you should not have the right to vote either. What makes you think your opinion or your vote is more worthy than mine or the next person. Do you think you are smarter than me? Or more educated than me? Or more democracy-worthy than me? Or more entitled than me? Obviously you have no concept of equal rights, equal protection, and equal access under Law.

Robert:  I think that half the people who vote now would do us all a favor by staying at home.

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Then do us a favor and stay home yourself.  For someone who claims to value liberty and freedom, you have a damn strange concept of what these mean. Or are you one of George Orwell's … pigs who would have our Constitution restated to mean: "Some animals are more equal than others." Damn, you are even worse than stupid!

I have extended an invitation to Robert to visit our humble shores and take our voter eligibility test. That is why I prevail upon you, my fellow creatures of the deep and pilots of the waves. What would you ask Robert to determine his eligibility to vote?

My question for Robert begins with this 48-second segment from a Sarah Palin speech:



Fruit fly research does sound a bit silly … especially for the likes of Joe-Six-Pack and Joe-the-Plumber.  But a recent study shows that “Drosophila” fruit flies have an abundance of neurexin, a protein essential for proper neurological function.  This discovery has important applications in autism research.

Of course, everyone knows that Sarah Palin has a “special needs” child, and it would seem hypocritical of Petite Sarah to debunk this research. So here is my voter eligibility question for Robert: Read this paper and give us your opinion as to why funding for this research should be cut.

Next?  My compatriots above and below the waves, can you think of any voter eligibility questions you would like to ask Robert, the Conservative?

The unbearable Liberalness of Truth

Remember when Sarah Palin asked just what it was that Vice Presidents do? Evidently, she's seen a post card of Washington so now she's qualified to tell us:

"[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

According to a spokeswoman for Mrs. Palin, the statement was a reply to a third grader's question; as though the innocence of the listener justified a misstatement of Vice Presidential powers. In a year or so, that child will have to learn What the qualified Mrs. Palin has yet to learn: that the VP is not in charge of the Senate; unless of course the constitution has been by then abandoned in favor of "whatever the Party says."

Of course Palin, like George W. is fond of talking to us as though we were all in the third grade and none too bright. It's easier to do than to appear intelligent and it appeals to those who read and think at that level and it's typical of many cult leaders. Listen to tapes of Jim Jones, for instance: he refers to his wife as "mother" and explains things like the need to drink the poison to his followers as though they were babies not old enough to know that the cyanide in the Flavor-Aid was for their own good because the Liberals were out to ruin them.

Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I don't think so. The people who will readily believe that Palin can as VP, draft legislation, that she's as competant in world affairs as Zbigniew Brzezinski because she could, if she wanted to, but never has seen an unihabited arctic island; the people who will fight you to the death to defend their position that Obama is an Islamic terrorist: these people are cult members. You and I are the enemy and they are not stupid at all. It's just that the facts have a Liberal Bias.

Learning From the Younger Crowd

I've been noticing a certain acerbic tone in my young child’s manner of speaking to me lately. Ill-tempered & impatient, to be exact. Now – I could, of course, explain this away by saying – “oh well, it’s the age” or “kids will be kids” etc. Yes. Mmmm Well. Um. Except for the fact that my child’s tone, manner, demeanor is beginning to seem oddly familiar. Like I’ve heard it before. Many times. Recently. A lot. Yes - hauntingly familiar. As if I am listening to my own reflection in a mirror. Could it be that my child is taking cues from dear old mom about how to communicate?

What’s that old expression about things going around & coming around?

Today as I was approaching my classroom building for my next class I was wading through the usual crowd of my students hanging around the door smoking like chimneys & generally lollygagging. Out of the corner of my eye I noticed one of my students grin & wave at me. I aimed my patented, squid-sarcastic look in his direction. As I passed into the building I heard him say, “She hates me, I know it.” Rolling my eyes heavenward I headed to my classroom.

A few minutes later as my students strolled into class, my “she hates me” student headed for his seat. I called out – in an ever so SO sarcastic voice – “Hello so & so. I like you so & so.” He turned & grinned sheepishly & said “See – I thought so, but I’m never quite sure.” Then we both laughed heartily.

It struck me later that this incident – like my struggles with my ornery child – is yet another example of the cycle of human interactions. How one person behaves or speaks informs how another person behaves & speaks, etc etc etc . . .

Both my child & my “she hates me” student have reflected back to me my own moodiness & manner respectively. Reminding me that I can not act & react in a vacuum. That I must bear responsibility for HOW I am.

What has this got to do with anything at issue on this blog?

It seems to me from recent posts on this blog - reporting about happenings on the campaign trails - that there is a lot of meanness & ill will being circulated around this land of ours. The debating of political issues has become thoroughly dumbed down into overly & overtly personalized & poisonous rhetoric. I too am guilty of this. I have been mightily & heartily sarcastic – not just critical – but sarcastic – about Sarah Palin. And it is my sarcasm that I am increasingly bothered by. Towards SP I am not playfully sarcastic as I am with my students. No. I have been aggressively sarcastic towards her & her running mate. And this sarcasm does NOT make me feel any better. It is not healthy blowing off of steam. No. It’s not. Call me a whimp – but it is really bothering me. I have allowed SP's own idiotic rhetoric to suck me into more of my own idiotic - yes, idiotic - rhetoric in retort. Where does it end?

I am not claiming that I am ready to go out & start slashing the tires of cars bearing McCain/Palin stickers. However – the angry desire to slash someone’s tires starts somewhere, doesn't it? People are not born inherently disposed to have evil tendencies towards tires. So how did we go from name calling to vandalism? What will be the next leap into the depths? As a collective electorate – what are we now demonstrating about ourselves? And I do mean COLLECTIVE. Are any of us really above the fray at this point?

Perhaps the phrase “what goes around comes around” needs to be modified to “be mindful of what you send around because it may come back around upon you in an even more disturbing form.”

Or maybe I am just an idyllic, idealistic, delicate flower in need of watering. I don't know.

BUT I do know - that if I want my child to learn how to speak in a more reasonable, polite voice it would be nice if I modeled such behavior for him. Might there not be a lesson in this? As for my "she hates me" student - a reminder to me that sometimes by simply owning our behavior we can get a smile & be understood.

VIOLENCE AT PALIN RALLIES

The über-patriot in action again, here is Sarah Palin delivering a speech at Elon, North Carolina, yesterday :

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Does Petite Syrah mean to imply that other parts of America are less wonderful, less patriotic, and less pro-America?  According to another report, her speech was briefly interrupted after a protester was led away in handcuffs.  Here is how Sarah Palin responded:

"You know what, maybe we need to tell security that maybe he need not go," she said.  "Maybe he needs to stay and learn a little from all of you."  The crowd then cheered.

What exactly did Sarah Palin have in mind? Did she intend to have the protestor drawn and quartered?  Have him fed as raw meet to the cannibals? Here is another account from Mark Binker who was covering another rally:

I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish.  As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.

"Hey, hey, " I said. "I'm trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay?"

The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building.   We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.

This was met with curses, screams and chants of "U.S.A" by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.  It was a moment of levity in an otherwise very tense situation and so I let out a gentle chuckle and shook my head.

"Oh, you think that 's funny?! " the large bearded man said.  His face was turning red.  "Yeah, that 's real funny…" he said.

And then he kicked the back of [my] leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

Yup, it’s sure getting ugly out there.