Sarah Palin is Clueless about Egypt

...and just about everything else for that matter.

Jack Cafferty let her have it in his commentary yesterday.



One part of me hopes that she will run for President. But another part of me knows that the American people are actually boneheaded enough to elect her, so I can't really embrace that idea. I would really like to see the media stop giving this woman coverage, as if she is some who is knowledgeable, relevant or even credible. The free coverage only helps her build a brand that will put money in the bank for her and extend her 15 minutes of fame. No other VP candidate in history (who lost) has received anything remotely close to this kind of coverage...and most of those major VP candidates were actually qualified for the job. Why is the media doing this? All week...I have heard/seen, in one form or another, this constant coverage of Palin in the context of - 'What does Palin think about Egypt'? or 'What does Palin think about Obama's handling of the situation in the Middle East'? As if anyone cares. Why does the media act as if every event has to be validated or analyzed by Sarah Palin? This is a woman who recently forgot to sign her name on a Trademark application. And she thinks she is qualified to be President?

Stop giving this woman coverage.... please.

Does More Civility Mean We Stop Telling the Truth?

Why Republicans Won't Really Change Their Tone

I have been annoyed by the commentary over the last few weeks regarding the tone of the political discourse in America. The mass shooting in Arizona set off a huge debate in this Country, much of it dishonest, about what was/is to blame in general when these events occur. It is true that we don't know what exactly set off Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. However, it is dishonest to say that it was just an isolated incident and the ugly political debate, especially on the right, plays no part in contributing to an atmosphere that makes it more conducive for these sorts of events to happen. This is just intellectually and morally dishonest on a grand scale.

Something else that gave me a headache was this effort by those on the right to make the false equivalence claim - that "both sides are doing this equally".... "both sides are guilty".... yada yada yada. They are attempting to whitewash the last two years, and rewrite history to fit their own narrative post-Tucson. Almost as annoying... the media is playing right along with Republicans/Conservatives who make this argument. Of course both sides say things that are inappropriate... that cross the line, etc. But this idea that all sides are somehow equal in doing so is just laughable. There is no equivalence whatsoever in terms of the number of occurrences, the level of ugliness or seriousness of threats, or the outcomes. Clearly right wing pundits and politicians are at the top in all three of those categories...by far. I have been watching in awe as the media has pretended otherwise....playing right along, as if they are being told what to say. Time and time again I have seen/heard hosts....whether on CNN, NPR, or my local AM news station KMOX - St. Louis (the defacto voice of the Right in the midwest) play along with Conservative guests when the equivalence argument is made...failing to challenge the right in any way.... no follow-up questions...nothing. Beyond ridiculous.

Let's review shall we...

This is not simply about the comments that are being made over the national airwaves, it is also about the context...or the backdrop in which the comments are made. It is the context that matters more here.

And what has been the context over the last two years? Well, this most recent political context took shape in 2008 (and you could probably go as far back as 2007) during the Presidential campaign. Over that period (2007-2009) we know of two major reports that news organizations put out regarding the changing attitudes & changing tone in the Country. One was about the Homeland Security assessment regarding the rise of Right Wing extremism in America, due to the recession and the introduction of a Black President...or Candidate who actually had a real shot. The other report came from the Secret Service, describing the fact that threats against Obama were at unprecedented levels, with 2-fold & 3-fold more threats than his white predecessors. So knowing this.... you would think that the responsible thing for politicians (regardless of Party affiliation) would be extra careful about language and tone, right? But we know that is not what happened. Politicians on the right lost their minds...and the tone got out of control. Open racism was allowed to take root at Republican rallies in Pennsylvania, Ohio & throughout the Country. Despite these reports of increased threats, Palin continued to be irresponsible throughout the campaign. Instead of challenging followers behaving inappropriately...by telling them to stop racist comments.... Palin seemed to ignore them. Instead... she whipped up Republican followers and seemed to focus on a certain part of her base by using certain buzz words that challenged not only Obama's right to run for President...but questioned his citizenship and loyalty to the Country during a time of conflict and deep social/political division. By demonizing Obama & stripping him of his right to be a "real American", taking away his Americanness, suggesting he was a traitor & a terrorist, suggesting he was a socialist, and by dehumanizing him...in a way gives the green light to any number of lone nuts. Remember the context we were (and still are) in.

Everyone is suggesting that after Tucson.... pundits and politicians (especially those on the right) are suddenly going to play nice and behave in a much more civil and respectful manner. But if history is our guide... that is probably not going to be the case. This goes back to this attempt by right wing pundits and the media to frame Tucson as an isolated incident. People are acting as if Tucson was the first incident where a nut engaged in some sort of political violence or targeted a political figure. How media pundits do this with a straight face is a mystery to me. How they get away with it is even more perplexing. Just in the last two years, the number of high profile incidents of a political/ideological/religious nature...or influenced by the national debate at some level, has been unprecedented.

Just in the last 2 years or so... we have had the following (and keep in mind...we have already established the context.... and we STILL had folks taking guns to political events, and politicians suggesting 2nd Amendment remedies... the context...the reality of how volatile the Country was didn't stop those on the right from continuing their madness.)


♦ Jim Adkisson - shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee. Fueled by Right wing talk show pundits. The rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Raymond Hunter Geisel - threatening Obama. Republicans didn't stop. Just an isolated incident?

♦ Richard Andrew Poplawski - killed Police officers in Pittsburgh because he internalized rhetoric on the right that told Americans that Obama was coming for their guns. Just an isolated incident? Oh yeah... Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this either.

♦ Scott Roeder - Killed Dr. George Tiller (nicknamed "The Baby Killer" by the right). Isolated incident? Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this incident either.

♦ James Von Brunn - launched terrorist attack at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. Isolated incident? The violent rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Joseph Stack - out of work, anti-government activist flew plane into IRS building in Texas. Isolated incident? The rhetoric didn't stop. In fact, one GOP politician seemed to sympathize with the terrorist, who killed at least one IRS worker in the incident.

♦ Byron Williams - Was stopped by police in Northern California while enroute to attack Liberals. Fueled by Glenn Beck and others in the Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans refused to change their tone.

♦ Danny Ray Tollett - Brutally attacked Muslim convenience store workers in Louisiana. Shot 2 Muslims at close range...in cold blooded attacks. Fueled by anti-Muslim theme carried by Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to change their tone.

♦ The Denver Plot - see specifically counts 9, 11 and 12 - White supremacists planned to harm candidate Obama. Attack foiled in planning stage. Isolated incident? Republicans continued with their rhetoric.

♦ Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman - Allegedly planned to harm President. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to stop their rhetoric.

♦ Michael Enright - Stabbed NYC Cabbie in the neck because he was Muslim. Ahh what the Hell... just another isolated incident. Republicans continued on with their madness (particularly about the "Mosque at Ground Zero" which really didn't exist...but they knew that framing it that way would scare the Hell out of a lot of people...so they went with it...almost costing a father...a family man...his life).

♦ Charles Habermann - Charged just recently with threatening Rep. Jim McDermott. Just an isolated incident? Republicans carried on.

♦ Gas line intentionally cut at Congressman's home, after wrong address is posted online...with blogger encouraging followers to 'pay a visit to the victim'. Just an isolated incident? Republicans refused to stop their rhetoric that whipped followers into a frenzy over Health Care Reform.

♦ Travis Corcoran - Another right wing radical... praised the shooting of Giffords. Just an isolated event?

♦ Just in the past week, we have the backpack bomb found along the MLK commemorative parade route in Spokane Washington. Luckily...the device failed to detonate. An isolated incident?

♦ Now Conservative pundit/blogger Erick Erickson JUST THIS WEEK suggested that he may use a shotgun to threaten U.S. Census workers...gloating about it on the airwaves. An isolated incident? No condemnation by other Conservative media figures. So this is the change in tone that the goofballs on the news programs have been talking about over the past two weeks? Give me a break!

With the exception of the last three...these are incidents that took place before Tucson. So Tucson didn't happen in some vacuum... There is an abundance of context. This is what makes the behavior of those on the right so vile. And this is not even a full list.... there were threats against Pelosi....and arrests in several other cases. The list is long. Again...as I mentioned...the last two years have been unprecedented in terms of threats of political violence or actual incidents, which matches up with what the U.S. Secret Service has stated regarding their data on the increase in threats.

At what point can we stop using false equivalencies and stop suggesting these events are somehow "isolated incidents" separate from the volatile atmosphere created primarily by those in the world of right wing Conservative media?

I see nothing that would lead me to believe that some magical shift towards civility is going to take place after the tragedy in Tucson Arizona. Republican/right wing pundits are not going to stop what they have been doing for the past few years. This is their bread and butter (getting their followers riled up.... feeding them misinformation, and manipulating people). This is a key part of Republican strategy. Giffords & all the others are considered collateral damage to those on the right. Republicans can't afford to be civil because they have grown so dependent on a certain kind of volatile, ugly rhetoric to maintain media success & energize their political base. It has worked for them (unfortunately). And I see them continuing with that approach. Just this week... Rush Limbaugh... the Supreme Leader of the Republican Party & Conservative movement in America, engaged in more ugly behavior... joking about the way that the Chinese President Hu Jintao spoke during his official State visit to the U.S. Of course the media ignored this...just like it practically ignored the MLK bomb case in Spokane.

By allowing the pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts (the unofficial but true leadership of the Conservative movement) to spew the ugliest rhetoric and lies, the official political leadership and the so-called "stars" within the Republican party can get away with using the plausible deniability argument...and that's exactly what they have done here. predictably, they have used the Hell out of this argument since the Tucson attack. I have mentioned several times, including on my right wing media information page, that this is how the right operates. Of course, no one is actually suggesting that anyone on the right has given direct orders to any extremists or extremist groups.... but they have created an atmosphere conducive to violence...and in some cases, they have indirectly given a wink & nod approval for such actions (in some cases, simply by their silence when violence or threats of violence occur. Silence in this context...after they have worked so hard to rile the crazies up... equals tacit approval).

A few people on Social media (twitter to be exact) suggested that the Right has somehow been let off the hook by Obama after his call for civility. I initially wanted to agree with that. I think that the media at large may let Republicans off the hook, and networks may continue to play the false equivalence game. But I don't think Obama's speech in Tucson means that we shouldn't tell the truth. I plan to continue stating what needs to be said.

Six People Are Murdered and Sarah Palin Plays the Victim - AGAIN.

Well, Caribou Barbie finally made a videotaped statement about the domestic terrorist attack in Arizona.

OF COURSE, she tried to wrap herself in the persona of victim.

I'm really not feeling putting the video here at JJP, so I will link to it.

Here's the so-called key sentence in it, as she tries to bullshyt the whole ' both sides do it' meme:

Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that only serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

First of all, nobody has manufactured ANYTHING about you, and your creating of a hostile political environment, going back to the 2008 election, when you accused then candidate Barack Obama of ' palling around with terrorists'.

Nobody manufactured you putting 20 members of Congress in a graphic:



here is the Wikipedia definition of BLOOD LIBEL:

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

I will remind people, Congresswoman Giffords IS A JEW.

So, in her best Miss Anne'ism, Sarah Palin, after 6 dead, including a child and a federal judge, and many more wounded, including a Congresswoman that SHE put in crosshairs, it is Sarah Palin, attempting to wrap HERSELF in the victim role.
She just doesn't know when to stop.

God bless Jim Clyburn:

Clyburn: Palin intellectually 'not to be able to understand what's going on here'
By Michael O'Brien - 01/12/11 08:37 AM ET

A House Democratic leader on Wednesday lashed out at Sarah Palin, accusing the former Alaska governor of being intellectually unable of understanding why she's faced criticism related to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that Palin had missed the point by releasing a statement this morning blasting the media for "blood libel" for looking to assign blame in part to her rhetoric after the attempted assassination of Giffords last weekend.

"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."

Thank you, Andrew Sullivan

Palin's Test
12 Jan 2011 11:27 am

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

The leader of the GOP base has told us a lot today. She has told us two things. She can see absolutely nothing awry in the inflammatory and violent rhetoric she and others have deployed so aggressively in the past two years. Nothing. The attempted assassination of a congresswoman after relentless demonization of her, after her opponent brandished an M-16 at a campaign rally, after a brick was thrown through her campaign window, after she personally complained about Palin's own metaphorical cross-hairs on her ... this is an utterly, totally, completely irrelevant set of events:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.

Really? So why was it in any way relevant that Barack Obama was "palling around with terrorists"? If the acts of the radical left began and ended with them alone, why was Palin so insistent in the campaign on linking Obama to the Weather Underground - even though he'd met them decades after their crimes?

Then there is the usual shocking and inflammatory language. At a time when nerves are truly frayed, when blood lies on the ground, Palin offers us this:

Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.

Notice the paranoid and conspiratorial word: "manufacture." Now recall what actually happened, which is that a congresswoman was shot through the head after being subjected to extraordinary levels of hatred and demonization and threats. Because that very congresswoman had herself complained at the time of the "consequences" of Palin's metaphorical use of cross-hairs, reporters, bloggers and regular human beings on Facebook made that obvious connection.

There was nothing "manufactured" about this. It was the most obvious set of observations to be made in the immediate aftermath. To call this understandable concern about the impact of violent rhetoric and imagery on disturbed minds a manufactured "blood libel" - equating critics of extreme rhetoric of being the equivalent of Nazis or medieval anti-Semites - is to up the ante at a time when leaders really need to calm emotions. We know this much right now: Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message - even at a time of national crisis - was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.

One would have thought that Palin, like any responsible person in her shoes right now, could have mustered some sort of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of what she had done in the campaign and what happened afterwards. Wouldn't you? If you had publicly defended a map with cross-hairs on a congresswoman's district, and that congresswoman had subsequently been shot, would you not be able to express even some measure of regret at what has taken place, even while denying, rightly, any actual guilt? Could you not even acknowledge the possibility that your critics have and had a point, including the chief Palin-critic on this, who happens to be struggling for her life in hospital, Gabrielle Giffords.

But no. That would require acknowledging misjudgment. Palin cannot acknowledge misjudgment, as she cannot admit error. It would require rising to an occasion, rather than sinking to it. And to moderate that tone, to acknowledge that one can make an error, to defend oneself from unfair accusations while acknowledging the need for a calmer discourse in future - this is beyond her.

It is, of course, also her strategy. She can only win in a hugely polarized country. She has as little support outside the Republican base as she has a cult following within it. And she has decided that this occasion for introspection is actually an opportunity to double down.

There is something menacing about that.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on being put on Sarah Palin's ' crosshairs' website

This is from months ago. Please note Chuck Todd being a smartass in dismissing Rep. Giffords' concerns about the ' atmosphere' that was being created, as well as the eery comments by Rep. Gifford.

What Do Foreigners Think of Sarah Palin?

this was so funny and brutal that I just wanted to share.

hat tip-The Daily Dish

first the earlier comments from the Russians this week that they thought it was quite obvious that the recent Wikileaks cabledump was done to embarrass the President and now this.

Pravda On Palin, Ctd
30 Nov 2010 07:52 pm

Since we posted that link, it seems to have disappeared entirely. But the site itself is unavailable too. Maybe we crashed it.

[Update: a new link. Seriously, it's rip-roaring stuff - the kid of thing you don't actually see in the US media, even though Palin thinks she does.]

from Moscow Top News:

Spankin' Sarah Palin: A clown short of a circus

I have already called Sarah Palin a pith-headed bimbo from the back of beyond, in this column. I shall now go one step further. By attacking the democratically elected President of the United States of America at a sensitive time in her country's history, she shows the tact of a boorish drunkard bawling obscenities at a funeral.

If Sarah Palin is not some kind of a massive political joke in the USA, wheeled out to liven up the political scene from time to time with nonsensical and pastiche (one hopes) displays of sheer and utter ignorance, then it is worrying. It is even more so if anyone other than a manic depressive suffering from a chronic lack of lithium takes this...female...seriously.

Hockey Mum Sarah ex-Governess of Alaska is famous for her shrill shrieking style, displaying a pitifully shallow persona which one hopes is stage-managed to give the rest of the world a good chuckle at the Americans' ability and unique quality to make fun of themselves, a real-life female version of Homer Simpson-cum-Belching Barney at Mo's, giving us ever-more hilarious soundbites as she sets herself up as the dumbest woman on Earth.

Just occasionally, one encounters a bar-room idiot whose party piece is belching loudly before falling backwards off his stool, bouncing off the floor on his backside with a background provided by guffaws of laughter, yet who winks knowingly as he is carried out with his feet scraping along the ground and says "Don't worry son, most of it is an act".

The act. It reminds one of Marilyn Monroe putting on the act of the dumb blonde. But an act it was, a character projected by a shrewd, intelligent and charismatic woman with the ability to invent a persona. Sarah Palin, however, is the real-life thing. And it is becoming patently obvious that it isn't an act.

HILARIOUS!!


Read the rest at the link above.

I didn't know Sarah Palin was running for First Lady

She has to be, since she's decided to attack First Lady Michelle Obama.

From Huffington Post.com

Palin Slams Michelle Obama Again, This Time For Anti-Obesity Campaign
From Caribou Barbie on Laura Ingraham's show:

I think she has got a different worldview and she is not hesitant at all to share what her worldview is. And I will take heat again for saying it on your show Laura but she encapsulated what her view of America is, I believe, unless she has evolved and things have changed in the last two years, but she said it on the campaign trail twice that it was the first time that she had been proud of her country when finally people were paying attention to Barack Obama. I think that's appalling. We can think of this infinite number of reasons to be proud of American exceptionalism and it baffles me that anybody would have that view and then allow that view to bleed over into policy.

I'll ask...what other Presidential candidate decides to run by attacking THE FIRST LADY?

Oh, there's so much here. But, let's begin with worldview.

Worldview?

Michelle Obama has a worldview? What worldview would that be?

One in which this country respected working mothers and honored what they do and gave them the support they needed to fulfill their promise and help keep their families on track?

One in which the families of our military personnel were truly respected and not given the short shrift?

One in which the arts were honored and respected, and what the positive that they bring out in our children is honored?

One in which our young men and women are challenged and given the opportunity to get their chance in this country, no matter what their socio-economic background, and how that can be done through hard work and education.

I've followed the First Lady in nearly every public appearance she's made since they went to the White House, and THOSE are the themes that Michelle Obama has repeated over and over.

Proud exceptionalism?

W-T-F is she talking about?

Surely she doesn't count her no-talent, ill-educated, scribble-on-the-hand self as an example of American Exceptionalism.



Here she continues her attack on FLOTUS:

Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.

No, I don't believe the First Lady has said anything about not trusting parents. In fact, the First Lady repeatedly says that she knows parents want the best for their children, but, that possibly: a) they don't know, b) they haven't been given the tools to do what they want to do for their children. The First Lady has repeatedly brought up that this came to her attention because of her OWN CHILDREN'S DOCTOR sitting down and talking to her about it. And, once the INFORMATION was brought to her attention, she formed a plan of action to do what she could to help out her children.

I can read. I can Google. I can watch Youtube clips of the First Lady speaking about how she came to this path. If I can do all this, and can comprehend the English coming out of the First Lady's mouth, then why can't Palin?

The First Lady didn't create the crisis that this country faces with obesity and it is a CRISIS.

We are an OBESE country. And, it costs us on many levels.

But, the First Lady is separating the Obese adults from the Obese CHILDREN. Her focus is on the CHILDREN.

We are raising the first generation in this country that might not live longer than the previous one not because of some disaster, or plague, but because of OBESITY and all the diseases that come with it.

Statistically speaking, the chance that an overweight child will become an overweight adult is pretty high.
It's also easier to begin better habits when kids are young.

What comes from obesity in children?

A group of diseases that until now that had only been seen in ADULTS:children with HEART PROBLEMS...children with TYPE II DIABETES...obese children with ARTHRITIS.

The frightening statistic that one of of THREE children born after 2000 WILL COME TO HAVE DIABETES.

Obesity shortens the lifespan of anyone it touches, so why shouldn't this country be alarmed when the obese rate of children has passed 30%?

From the Let's Move Website:

Obese children and adolescents may experience immediate health consequences and these may then lead to weight-related health problems in adulthood. Obese children and teens have been found to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and abnormal glucose tolerance. In a sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, almost 60% of overweight children had at least one CVD risk factor while 25 percent of overweight children had two or more CVD risk factors. In addition, studies have shown that obese children and teens are more likely to become obese as adults.

Roland Martin had another point that maybe went over the head of the Kim Kardashian of politics (Roland's description- BWA HA HA HA HA):

A study released in April by Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit group of more than 150 retired generals and admirals, concluded that 27 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are too fat to join the military.

The culprit? Junk food and too much fat in school lunches.

Said the study: "Today, otherwise excellent recruiting prospects, some of them with generations of sterling military service in their family history, are being turned away because they are just too overweight. Our standards are high because we clearly cannot have people in our command who are not up to the job. Too many lives depend on it."

In testimony before Congress, the former head of the California Army National Guard, retired U.S. Army Major Gen. Paul Monroe, said that "80 percent of children who were overweight between the ages of 10 to 15 were obese by age 25."

He and other military leaders want Congress to enact a massive child nutrition bill to remove all junk food and high-calorie beverages from schools, improve nutrition standards in schools, upgrade school menus and, the group said, "help develop new school-based strategies, based on research, that help parents and children adopt healthier lifelong eating and exercise habits."

Monroe testified: "In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act as a matter of national security. In the past, retired admirals and generals have stood up to make it clear that America is only as healthy as our nation's children. Childhood obesity is now undermining our national security and we need to start turning it around today."

So, Sarah Palin, are you going to also rip into this decorated American and say that he and 150 other military leaders are dead wrong?

If these children are too fat to join the military, then they are also too fat to qualify for the jobs on the local level that would affect every local community: police and fireman. The same mentality that gets someone to join the military, is the same that gets a man or woman to say, ' I'm willing to get a badge and protect the streets of my local community' or ' I'm willing to go into burning buildings to save lives'. We aren't just losing candidates for the military, we're losing candidates for policeman and firefighter too.

This isn't about forcing parents to do anything. It's about confronting an issue which has vast ramifications for us as a country. The health issues are enormous, and the costs associated with Obesity run into the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars. But, what does she care about healthcare costs, since HER healthcare is PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT, all the while she opens her mumbling mouth to complain about 'socialized medicine'.

Thanks to a terrific hat tip from SouthernGirl2, she caught this from Caribou Barbie:

We’ll focus on preventing disease and promoting healthy living. I’ll ask that physical education be incorporated into daily school schedules, too.

We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity – and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won’t stand here and lecture – for very long – but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.

It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it’s hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors – and when you live in the Great Land, there’s no excuse.

Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future.

So, what did she say there that was any different from what the First Lady has been saying?



So, why is she doing this? Antagonizing the First Lady?

It's because she tried going after the President, and, what did he say to Barbara Walters?

When asked specifically if he thinks he can beat Sarah Palin in 2012, the President told Walters "I don't think about Sarah Palin."

She wants the First Couple to respond because that would elevate her to their level, but the problem is for her, is that they won't do it.

She's a piece of trash, and it's not up to the First Couple to swat back against Caribou Barbie. It's up to other folks. It's up to US.

As the wordsmith Town so righteously put it:

But here you have this simple b---- attacking Michelle Obama. And Michelle Obama is going to ignore Palin like the temp from the secretarial pool that she is, and Palin's going to start putting Malia and Sasha's names in her mouth. You watch, Palin's going to start attacking Michelle Obama on her mothering skills by name OR she's going to be slick and start talking about "welfare moms" and "ungrateful people" and stuff of that nature.

Just sit back in the cut and watch.

We will sit and watch. We also will respond.

Myth About Sarah Palin's "Real American" Family Values Debunked

The Right loves to promote the idea that their Conservative family values are superior. Sarah Palin does this in just about every speech, when she talks about her mythical "Real America". Of course for Palin, and many others, "Real America" is code for Southern values, rural, Conservative, and white.

But new research from the authors of the book "Red Families vs. Blue Families", shatters this Conservative myth into a thousand pieces. Hear story....

Louisiana Governor Jindal Rediscovers Federal Government- Asks For Aid As Oil Spill Reaches Coast

Huge Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico Now Making Landfall

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Requests Aid From the Federal Government (After Lambasting It).

Where is Caribou Barbie? The "Drill Baby Drill" folks have been awfully quiet during this calamity.

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill Baby Drill' should have to report to the Gulf Coast today for cleanup duty." -- Bill Maher


The current spill could rival or even surpass the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Read more

Sarah Palin Shows More Ignorance - This Time On The Issue of Religion and State

Has she even read the Constitution?

A Challenge To Sarah Palin

I want to offer a challenge to Sarah Palin. Of course she won't (can't) accept such a challenge....but I want to offer it anyway.

I want to challenge her to a general knowledge quiz (100 questions, true and false, multiple choice, short answer/fill in the blank, and one 2-3 page essay question).

This quiz would cover general knowledge in areas of American history, current events, international affairs/international affairs history, geography, The Constitution, basic civics, the functions of government, global conflicts, etc. Nothing too complicated. The material would cover items that a high school student or undergraduate college student should know. It would certainly consist of items that a former Governor and former VP candidate...and likely future candidate for major office should know. I'm talking about 8th, 9th, 10th & 11th grade level stuff here.... the kinds of basic questions that might be found on a citizenship test... perhaps a little tougher, depending on the topic.

None of the questions would be known before the quiz. The quiz could be put together by any neutral high school teacher or college professor/instructor....or a panel of the same. The quiz should be proctored by academics at local colleges/Universities (because i'm not going to travel).... or it could be administered completely online. One caveat... I would be able to maintain my anonymity.

I'm just a guy of average intelligence.... just a blogger/nobody... certainly a Presidential or Vice Presidential hopeful and former Governor and VP candidate should be able to cream me in a challenge like this.

Sarah Palin Is A Complete Idiot

And that's probably why the Right loves her so much. This week she attacked Obama for his position on nuclear weapons.
(notice the Faux News caption).

Obama responded by basically stating the obvious...that Palin is a dimwit.


Sarah Palin is completely clueless about the fact that the START I Treaty, START II Treaty and the recent SORT Treaty were the projects of 3 different Republican Presidents (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush). Now all of a sudden Obama's work to reduce these weapons is a signal that he is weak on national defense?

Obama's policy change on nukes is modest. It doesn't fully embrace a "No First Use" approach, which is what the U.S. should have adopted. It unfortunately still leaves the "First Strike" option available in theory. But a "No First Use" position, even if it were fully adopted, would do nothing to harm national security. Deterrence, the main purpose of the nuclear arsenal, would still be effective.

Sarah Palin is an example of why the U.S. is screwed as a nation. It's one thing to have idiotic voters... But now we have idiotic and dangerous political figures to match. If these are the kinds of people who the electorate will vote into power... (and this appears to be the case... it has already taken place with George W. Bush).... then the U.S. is in deep trouble.

Once again, stupidity rises to the top in American media and in politics.

Now all of a sudden the U.S. Senate.... which usually approves such treaty agreements without a problem... (overwhelmingly in fact)...is grumbling about the deal. For theatrical purposes... I suspect the deal may be held up...delayed, etc. Republicans will play politics.

At the end of the day, it may not matter much. There is a good chance that Russia may back out of the deal as a way to protest U.S. missile defense plans in Europe, which Obama should abandon. He only partially abandoned a missile defense system for Europe when he canceled a plan to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. He should explore a Sea based system (which we already have the systems and technology to deploy)... or scrap the idea altogether.

John McCain Laughs Off Wave of Threats Towards Members of Congress

McCain completely laughs off the threats made against members of Congress and their children. He says Palin's actions are no big deal. According to him, the incidents that we have seen over the past week represent normal politics in America. He defends Sarah Palin's behavior (and by extension...he is defending similar behavior by others that is clearly aimed at ginning up followers to take action on their own....while the politicians use plausible deniability).

The coded language of Sarah Palin is really of no concern. It's all a part of our imaginations. Stop worrying. Go back to sleep.

(Of course he desperately needs Sarah Palin because she is the only hope for him if he's going to win re-election).

This guy is COMPLETELY senile and creepy to me. Maybe it's just me.

You have to see it to believe it.



Yeah... tell that to Congressman Periello and all the other members of Congress and their families, "targeted" by these fanatics. Laugh in their faces and tell them that it's no big deal. Of course Periello is a part of the real world and disagrees with the giggling idiot from Arizona.

Live from New York....

On the most recent Saturday Night Live, McCain appeared in the opening skit where he and running mate Sarah Palin (a.k.a. Tina Fey) sell campaign memorabilia on QVC. His appearance gave him the opportunity to poke a little fun at himself.

In less than 5 minutes, McCain and Fey manage to poke a little Saturday night fun at Obama's 30-minute infomercials, Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, the various Joe's of the campaign (Joe the Plumber, Joe Six-Pack and Joe Biden), McCain's proposed vetoes of pork-barrel spending, Palin's potential run for President in 2012, McCain's maverick status and Obama's many celebrity endorsements. Whew...that's a lot of much needed satire in a presidential race that is becoming more tiresome by the minute.

How Sharp would You Like Your VP to Be?

What would you do with 150 thousand dollars? Better yet, what should a political party do with 150 thousand dollars? Obviously, the Republican Party thinks it is best to spend it on the wardrobe of their Vice-Presidential nominee. I am not writing this particular blog as a diss to the Republican Party, or any party or person for that matter. I am just trying to wrap my head around the facts and what I believe is right and/or wrong with the spending of 150 thousand dollars on a person’s wardrobe.

To be honest for one second, I shop. In fact, I shop a lot….probably more than the average person. However, when I shop, it is done with my own expenses. I believe my main argument against the spending of donations on Palin’s wardrobe is primarily wrong because it was done with donations through the Republican National Committee. Especially since in 2002, McCain put his name on a campaign finance law that barred any funds from being used for personal expenses such as clothing.

Furthermore, the committee has spent more on Palin’s wardrobe in the last month than the average American spends on clothing a year. None of this is what upsets me the most. The United States Congress recently voted on a bailout plan worth billions of dollars in order to “save” Americans while we are in a recession. Just three months ago, gas prices were at the highest they had ever been. States such as Texas and Atlanta were recently struggling to find gas at all due to damage from natural disasters and the Republican Party has money to spend on clothing? I am shocked and appalled.

The committee is trying to use the fact that the clothing will be donated to charity after the election as a positive spin. However, with Americans currently losing jobs on a daily basis, I am sure many people would rather love food on their tables versus $1500 suits stitched by Roberto Cavalli for Neiman Marcus. Is this the party that I want ruling the country?

And it really gets me that Fox News is trying to use excuses such as Palin looking good, sexism, and new anchors constantly getting freebees as a justification, but that would be an entirely separate blog in itself.