RKNet Blog... Thing

Call this liberal horse hockey. Call this leftist ideology. Really, you can call it whatever you want, because I don’t give a flying shitcake. If what you get from this post goes anywhere near “anti-American” than you can feel confident that you have severely missed the point and there is a lonely noose in a stuffy room somewhere, looking for a dinner date with you know who.

My hope for this article is for it to be the nailgun-to-the-temple for the chronically confused. Those who think Jason Giambi is an amazing athlete. Those who mistake Irving Kristol for an American Cowboy. Those have never seen a Kohran, a Torah, or a copy of The Bluest Eye. Those who think of Gary Glitter and say, “well… he did have a couple good hits…” These words are for William Donahue, Clarence Thomas, Chris W. Cox, Eliot Spitzer, Dorchen Leidholdt, and the ghost of Isaac Hayes.

“Hey man, leave Black Moses out of it.” Fuck you.

Let me start by saying there are things about John McCain that I really like. He is certainly one of the better representatives from his party. Do I think the forty-fourth old, crusty white-man in a row is what is going to bring change to the White House? No. But is he a decent Republican candidate considering the last couple elections? Yes.

Some people (mostly supporters) have called him a “Maverick.” Let it be known that the only true Mavericks are Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise – and one of them is an undeniable racist, while the other is more out of control than Criss Angel’s ego (and just as creepily homo-erotic). John McCain may have been a Maverick back in his day, but the 1920s are long gone and – while he does maintain some strong attributes – “Maverick” is most certainly a bit of an overstatement.

But this isn’t about John McCain.

This isn’t even really about politics - more about “what the hell are people thinking these days?” What’s that? Get to the damned point, you say? Fine. This post is about McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. So let me start my argument off with SARAH PALIN, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?? Have you seen Sarah Palin? Tell me this is a dream. A bad, bad dream. Just when I was starting to think that there may be two interesting Presidential candidates in the upcoming election Father Time from Arizona has an Alzheimer relapse and decides it would be best to pick a retardedly unqualified Governor from a state that many people forget is even part of the damn 50!

If you wanted to win the election by picking a surprise Governor with relatively limited executive experience you should have gone with Arnold. Oh well, John, there is still 2012 – if you’re still alive. I am struggling to understand this move, especially when political analysts and some right-wing pundits are calling it “brave,” “courageous,” and “shit your pants exciting.” I think I have at least enough of a grasp on it to explain why it is a mistake. An unfortunately devastating mistake.

Last week I was engaged in a fly-by interview with a “street team” reporter and subsequently misquoted in a small-circulation newspaper in an article discussing the topic of the GOP vice president hopeful. In my mind this makes me about as qualified to talk about Sarah Palin as Bob Costas is to talk about Olympic trampolining and that didn’t stop him, so buckle up.

Alaska is a beautiful state with many breathtaking natural surroundings and in many cases holds some of the country’s last glimpses into pure wilderness, unspoilt terrain, and incredible wildlife. Alaska is even one the last homes to several endangered and threatened species. Bald Eagle ring a bell? It’s the symbol of our nation.

Did I mention that Sarah Palin wants to drop pipelines and drill into Alaska’s pristine countryside? Well she does.

Let’s pause for a moment to review what we’ve already learned about the potential Vice President. She’s a heartless bitch with zero foresight. More fun facts? Sure thing. Her political career started less than two decades ago, when she was on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska. Oh, haven’t heard of Wasilla? That’s ok, let me reiterate: Less than twenty years ago Palin had very limited weight in trivial decision-making on behalf of less than 5,000 people. How many people are in the U.S.?

In comparison, two decades ago McCain was already representing the entire state of Arizona in the U.S. Senate, commiserating with John Kerry about POW/MIA’s, calling himself a Maverick, and turning 57 years old. So we can tack inexperience on to Palin’s list of incongruence for this gratuitous nomination.

I’m not going to mention that Palin looks like Katey Sagal if she had gone the out of touch, soccer mom, I-only-fuck-when-I-plan-on-popping-out-more-useless-children, Streisand leaves me in stitches, life is swell route, because that would be unfair. I’m also not going to question her personal ethics just because her 17 year old daughter got knocked up by a hillbilly. And furthermore I refuse to suggest that Palin may be slightly if not completely mentally handicapped.

However, I will say this: It’s 2008. I don’t think good change is going to come from someone who’s husband is in the oil business, who supports abstinence education in place of health class (meanwhile her 17 year old is about to dump a “fully supported grandchild” out of her vagina), who opposes gay rights and same-sex marriage, who is in favor of destroying national parks in her home state to drill for oil, who is pro-life and just gave birth to a child with Down Syndrome because she’s an idiot and thinks it’s ok to be reproducing while pushing 45, and is both a creationist and environmentally retarded.

So what do people see in this bitch?

She’s a woman. Yes, that’s all. Sarah Palin was selected by McCain because he wanted people to think that he was a progressive thinker, a political reformer, and yes of course, a Maverick. “Why Palin? There are plenty of decent women in politics.” 1) Palin has yet to fuck anything up on a grand scale (because she has never been in a grand position) and therefore doesn’t foster many haters. 2) It was an impulse purchase, so to speak. <a href=”http://www.onevotematters.com/why-did-mccain-pick-palin/” target=”_blank”>Palin was glanced at</a>, McCain’s ancient brain had a fleeting thought of underdog glory, and he went with his gut feeling. Old people are crazy. 3) McCain is about as boring and dry as Fig Newtons. In order to get some attention he needed a face that at least a few people could stand looking at – and unfortunately in the sad state of affairs here in the good ol’ US of A Sara Palin is somehow considered attractive!

Sorry about that last comment. You may take the time now to brush your teeth if you don’t think you can finish this post with the taste of fresh vomit in your mouth. I’m assuming that point of view comes from sexually repressed, aging individuals with very little to live for. Palin isn’t hideous, but she’s certainly not hot either. All opinions aside, is talk of the “America’s hottest governor” really making national news? Give me a fucking break.

Let’s finish up with a little Q&A: Having a woman in office? Fine by me. McCain picking a woman as a running mate? Still all good. Picking a grotesquely unqualified woman with close-minded ideals and too much make-up? No, no, sir. Now you have crossed the line.

They overshot the number for maximum snarky humor by 222.

The Daily Kos has provided a link to the list of committee members who will be dealing directly with this bill in their lengthy commentary. I have no idea why only the Democrats have outbound links.

As with any law-related item, it is strongly encouraged to read the proposed bill yourself prior to espousing your thoughts to a positive or negative. With that in mind, here is a small portion of the opening statement. Those with little tolerance for religion, and those who are disinclined to see our government’s time wasted with trifling arguements for meaningless memorials would do well to take a few deep breaths first.

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

Whereas religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization, and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all 3 branches of American Federal government from their very beginning;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring `This is a religious people … From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation’;

Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;

Whereas the first act of America’s first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;

My thoughts? It’s a waste of human resources to even consider talking about this. This bill strikes me as demonstrating no effort at honoring “American Religious History” so much as it wishes to remind everyone how important Christian religion has been in the history of this country. Regardless of that observation, to approve any bill citing any one faith as essential or preferred in this nation’s past is to imply that it is essential to its present; in short, the bill flies in the face of separation of church and state and is therefore simply not acceptable. I absolutely respect the rights of citizens to practice and celebrate and share their religious beliefs - up to and including sharing their beliefs on how their faith may have shaped this nation’s history and practices - but I cannot and will not condone signing anything into law which then places the state’s official position as one of direct endorsement of a specific group’s personal beliefs. Focusing in such a manner belittles the historical significance and current cultural relevance of all other theological positions, and engenders ill will between differing faiths by inciting heated debate as to why one religion is preferable in the eyes of the government.

I support separation of church and state. I support the equal exchange of ideas. I support the pursuit of history, unbaised by the agendas of the few. Please share your thoughts with me, and more importantly, please share your thoughts with the representatives of the committee if you feel strongly about this issue (one way or the other).