Part II, Palin Derangement Syndrome

Here's an article, or two, I read this morning, emphasizing the point of my last post. And this one is just funny. Read at your own leisure. (Note: The articles are from The Blaze, which is extremely right-wing, enough so to make even me shake my head in shame at the overt bias from time to time. But it helps me remember that extreme Repub Conserves are whacked out too, so I consider it my way of staying balanced when I see what I don't want to become.)

So, I wrote this blog post at the same time as the last one, and it was quite a bit shorter, which I thought would be exciting for you. But now, I will make it longer, and add pictures!

Ironically, one week after posting some offending words directed toward Hollywood, I found myself in Hollywood, with time to kill even. It's just as dirty, maybe dirtier, as I remember. I took pictures. Here is me showing my distaste for Hollywood by eating the sign:



I can sense the oxymoronic concern that is humming in your mind right now. If I have a distaste for Hollywood, why would I eat it? Well, I spit it out later. Then I squished it:



I ran into Albert Einstein at the planetarium! We were immediate friends. I tried to show him all the things he's missed in the decades that he's been gone. He was particularly intrigued by the touch technology of my iPhone:



Then he tried to show me something:



When I couldn't figure out what he was trying to show me, he poked my in the eye:



He's a nice guy, but has quite a temper.

I took a picture of Uranus on my phone, but can't figure out how to get the picture here. It was going to be a great joke, but it's not worth the effort now.

I even had a picture of the show (Les Miserables) that I caught while I was there. My ridiculously expensive balcony seats were in a prime location to see everything that was going on. Obviously I couldn't take pictures during the performance, not that I would want to anyway, because that would mean I would have to take my eyes off the stage for a second, and it was way too good for that.

That's enough of actual blogging, here's part II (if you missed part one, scroll down and read it. But it's not necessary because these read pretty well independently from each other):

As I've said before, I don't have anything against Sarah Palin, but I don't really endorse her either. I don't know why, but I think it's mostly because I'm afraid that people aren't ready to vote for her yet, and I want someone besides Obama to be in office so badly. She also is not my first choice, but if it came between her and another term for Obama, she would have my vote! But that's not really saying much because at this point there aren't many people I wouldn't vote for over Obama. She has said she isn't going to run anyway, so unless anything changes, I'm not going to put too much effort into researching her more.

Besides, the Washington Post is doing a fine job promoting her for us.

About 24,000 pages of Palin's emails have been thoroughly looked over by The Washington Post, some of their recruited readers (yes, WP readers exist), and even the New York Times jumped in on the action. I think I disagree with this ethically, but at the same time it's been refreshing to see a person who has nothing to hide, and has, in fact, come out shining brighter than ever. It makes me wonder, as this article suggests, what would happen if we treated all politicians this way.

What if we rummaged through all of Obama's emails from 2007 to now? What would we find? I'm not sure that we would find anything more incriminating than his destructive political track record already shows. But, geez, it was a 3 year fiasco just to get him to show a long form birth certificate (I'm not a birther either), we still haven't seen his college transcripts, or records from the Illinois State Senate, fer cryin' (to name a few), and what about the anti Israel rally tape that is allegedly withheld since before the election? It may not actually exist, but don't we have a right to know for sure? It would definitely put his current ultimatum to Israel into the light. You can imagine that there might be something in his e-mails. I don't really care that much, except for the principle behind it. If we're going to put such scrutiny on Sarah Palin, a non candidate at this point, why not do the same for real candidates? Why the double standard, AGAIN? I mean, seriously, wouldn't it be more fun to rummage through, say, randomly off the top of my head, Anthony Weiner's emails?

What is refreshing about this whole e-mail search is how spectacularly it has backfired on those who were only trying to find incrimination against her. At start, I was instantly intrigued by the fact that, as far as I could determine, there were no efforts on Palin's part to stop the examination, and she didn't seem flustered at all by it. That should have been the first indication that she had nothing to hide. And when "incriminating" e-mails started to emerge (e.g. her excessive use of the word "flippin,'" her sadness for her daughter, Bristol's exposure to hateful media, and a discussion about dinosaurs), she came out on top as a genuine, honest, God-fearing, sincere, level-headed, intelligent person with a skeleton-less closet. So the question that begs to be asked is: since this group of liberals did not find any dirt on her, doesn't that merit their support for her? You don't have to agree with her views, but for her values? Unfortunately, the media doesn't work that way. Instead the whole operation has been kept quiet while they wait for it to be forgotten: "Move on, nothing to see here." This is a good article about the money, time and effort that was invested into this miserably failed tactic. What's sad to me is that they put so much investment into reading 24,000 pages of personal e-mails at no benefit to them, yet no one could seem to put half as much effort into reading the 2,500 page healthcare bill. Hmm, where are our priorities? Are we so concerned about partisan "wins" that we forget to examine what is actually good for us? Meanwhile, our economy is going to collapse because it’s not sustainable. As a side note, Healthcare reform is named the biggest “victory” for the Democratic party in the last 100 years. We may not be able to afford it, but they won! Good job? Why are we more concerned about winning the battle than what the battle is about?

Why do we hate her? Oh yeah, because of Hollywood. So many people mocked Palin for saying "I can see Russia from my house." That's great, but Tina Fey said that on SNL, not Palin. I guess people believe that if Palin is being mocked on a popular show, everything Fey is saying MUST have been said by Palin. Either that or SNL's Weekend Update is considered legitimate news by some (no surprise here). Bristol Palin appeared on Dancing with the Stars, to add a little "political drama." Goodness, is this what is considered political drama these days? Oooh, look at that spawn of Sarah dance, I just hate her and those flippin' foreign policies! I actually do know people personally who wanted Bristol Palin to be eliminated SOOO badly from the show just because she was a Palin. I never watched the show, so I can't weigh in. If I were to weigh in: Is she a good dancer? If yes, keep her. If no, eliminate her. The merits of a person are not applicable anymore, obviously.

Michelle Malkin aptly calls the media's obsession with Sarah Palin, Palin Derangement Syndrome. Some are suggesting that the reason for such irrational e-mail investigation is because the left believes that she is powerful enough to sway the 2012 election. They want to find dirt against her, because they're afraid of what she's going to do to them. Even if she's not running, an endorsement for another candidate might be enough. If she wasn't a threat, then why not just leave her alone? If she is the idiot that you think she is, then ultimately she will just help your cause anyway. Similar to the way that the Washington Post helped Sarah Palin's image. Understand, libs? Stupid hurts.

I've thought about how unfairly she has been treated ever since she was illogically blamed for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting last year (similar to this instance, that was inexplicably kept silent; nothing to do with media bias, I'm sure.). It intrigues me how much she was hated for an event that she had no relation to for virtually no good reason. Well, the "good" reason is because Palin used the word "crosshairs" when talking about politicians we want to kick out. Anyway, the double standard displayed by the liberal blame game is astounding. "The right's hateful rhetoric is out of hand! Why can't we just hold hands with rainbows and love everyone like the left does?" Oh wait, I was talking about a double standard: Here are some things that the left has said and done (Language and Graphic Content Warning). Yeah, WE'RE the hatemongers. . .

Now, I'm not stupid enough to say that no Republican has ever done anything stupid or hateful. Unfortunately, white supremacists and anarchists align themselves to the (far) right because it is most conducive to their idealogy, and they will resort to violence to make the country even more conducive for them. But let's examine this: Radical Liberals are anti Capitalism, and anti free market (among other "antis" and "pros"), both principles that made this country great to begin with. It's not a secret anymore that they want a revolution. For a revolution, as history will show, you have to use force against your opposer to get them to conform. I haven't heard of any Conservative that wants a revolution. In fact, it's the opposite. It's not that we're scared of change, but we know that upholding the inspired Constitution is the best way to promote the most freedom, and more freedom is how you are able to embrace more change.

K, i ned to brb cuz jursey shor iz on.

(this is an interesting video; not sure if I agree with all of it, but some of it seems pretty logical. It's kind of annoying. Watch at your own risk. May cause death.)