Sarah Palin Vs Syria

Ever the genius (and craving media attention), Sarah Palin took to Facebook to voice her opinion about the U.S. possibly taking action in Syria, in a post called Let Allah Sort It Out:

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”

 Well, Mrs Palin, if you put it that way, then, yes, you truly are.

Which doesn't mean I support a military intervention. At the most, I think the capitol building in Damascus should be destroyed, as well as other key government decision-making places and perhaps a few army buildings. Take away their permanent locations so they have trouble orchestrating dangerous maneuvers against outsiders and mass quantities of their own people.

However, I am against an occupational invasion (as always), and even a single civilian death or the destruction of anyone's home is unacceptable. Let's not forget we're talking about one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world, home to 2.5 million people.

This particular revolution is (yet another) previously-unseen situation, two years in the making: in the wake of the Arab Spring, millions of Syrians took to the streets in 2011 to protest against the government, which not only stayed in power defying its citizens' will, but effectively ordered its troops to shoot at protesters with live ammunition, even going so far as to go door-to-door to find some and execute them.

What started as a peaceful protest turned into a Civil War in the Fall of 2011, when army defectors started a counter-army (Free Syrian Army) and enlisted volunteers to join their ranks.

In terms of a Revolution, this one was ''going by the book''; ideally, you want to skip the armed conflict, but humans are prone to violence, and not everyone can achieve a ''peace process'' without resorting to guns - for every Slovakia there are dozens of Chechnyas. Even the Chinese went to war to unite; the United States revolted against the British to form several states, then went to war with each other to unite (and eliminate slavery).

But this one took so long to bear its fruits that the inevitable (for the region) happened: ''terrorists'' started helping revolutionaries. So instead of remaining a battle between ''good and evil'', it's ''the enemy of my enemy is my friend''. And while the world watches in horror as the State uses deadlier weapons against its own people every time, pressure is mounting on the U.S. to intervene, as the world's largest military structure.

Except the U.S. has already invaded two countries - one in a disproportionate retaliation, the other without a valid reason other than to depose its leader and take over their economy - in the past decade or so, now have a President who has vowed to not repeat his predecessor's mistakes, and - more importantly - would now be working hand-in-hand with some of their enemies to defeat Bashar al-Assad.

Which puts Barack Obama in a hard place.

Already labeled weak by his opponents, he is now forced to play into the Republicans' hand, who win on all sides: if he forgoes intervention, he's ''soft on terror''; if he decides to act, he's reneging on his promises - and going opposite his Nobel Peace prize - and ''working with the terrorists''. Which is likely just what some forces in the Middle East wanted to test him on. The United States remain the military equivalent of boxing's heavyweight champion - to get him on his knees even by means of an illegal blow is a feat worth bragging about, and to have him withdraw from combat even more so.

What's funny about Sarah Palin is she was probably explained all of this but didn't understand a thing, other than the conclusion: ''you mean to say I can still say the exact opposite of what Obama says, and this time I'd even be right? Bring me a laptop!''

Ironically, one of Obama's most ardent allies on this issue now is John McCain, the man responsible for giving Palin her platform. After toying with the idea of not supporting Obama on this matter, he had this to say this morning:

A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States.

Ever the politician, he realizes image counts for a lot, particularly when it comes to pretending to have the means to take over the world.

Which is also the reason why everyone else on the planet is against a strike.

Is John McCain Becoming Human Again?

John McCain used to the the Right's Conscience, the guy who embodied cautious responsibility in management, preferred smaller government, and fought for ''freedom'' and ''individual liberties''. With a military background (and former POW star-status), he was pretty much what Republicans are trying to make us believe Ronald Reagan was.

Then he lost the GOP nomination to George W. Bush, whose cronies destroyed his public personae as a means to show him ''how to play the game''. In the 8 years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. (and Republicans, mostly) became a caricature of its former self, with talking points turning to extremes more and more every day - and baseless insults to put down the opposition became the norm.

That's when a Democrat comes up with an idea - even if it was proposed by a Republican first - it'll inevitably be taxed as ''communist/socialist'' and irresponsible. The only things politicians should advocate is lower taxes, tax cuts for the rich, war and other types of death (no to killing future babies, yes to killing as many adults as we can), less laws (but, ironically, stronger penalties to those who commit crimes).

And, above all, ''less - smaller - government''. Yet no Tea Party-related cronies are willing to sacrifice their own healthcare-provided jobs to make a point and/or get the ball rolling. No, in Congress and the House - strength is in numbers. Duh.

In any event, McCain has not only been a shadow of his former self, he's also gone against just about everything he's ever stood for (''no wall to separate us from Mexico'' / ''build the damn fence''), a position most thought would end with the ''Sarah Palin as running mate'' debacle, but he continued in his Senate race two years later. Jon Stewart had a great bit about that, look it up.

But now, he's standing up Palin 2.0 - Michele Bachmann - on the Senate floor. Now, we're still a far cry from the reasonable guy of yore, the score's still 45-3 and he has a long way to go before making amends for his temporary fit of being delusional, but he hasn't given up quite yet. Let's see where this goes.

Sarah Palin Knows Polls

It seems she may have experienced poles while, uh, cross-country skiing. Yeah, that's it.

You see, there isn't much to do in Wasilla, except, you know, take to the poles. 'Cause it's right next to the North one, too.

Who Says Politicians Are All Alike?

Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin not only share half a brain and a knack for saying the dumbest shit, they also apparently see the same handlers who use the same marketing team and focus groups who are then sent to the same tailors.

Or maybe the Tea Party responds to prefers just one type of human being.

Or maybe they were all made at the same clone factory, which would make sense considering both were pretty much non-existent nobodies until mere months before a national election.

Which is also true for Clone #3, Michelle Bachmann:

For fuck's sake, people. Can't you see through this shit?

Huckabee Versus Portman (Whether She Likes It Or Not)

Three years ago, when he was running for President as an unknown ordained Baptist minister and went on the Colbert Report, I thought he seemed like a reasonable, cool man - you know, for a Republican.

I don't know if he's just playing for the Party's base or if his real face is finally showing, but Mike Huckabee's been saying some nasty, confusing things about, well, just about everything. From homosexuality to single moms to welfare to health care to terrorism to war to race to (the sanctity of) marriage (4 of which are mentioned in this clip alone), it seems like he's trying to one-up Sarah Palin at every turn, either forgetting she's a total nutjob or just not giving a shit. Then again, they're both full-time Fox News commentators, so maybe it's something they put in their water coolers.

Mama Grizzly Gets Her Claws Out

So Vanity Fair wrote a scathing article on Sarah Palin using mostly anonymous sources... and Mama Grizzly fights back!

“I hear there is some pretty ugly stuff right now. Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous — sources that are anonymous — and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references. It just slays me because it is just absolutely clear what the state of yellow journalism is today that they would take these anonymous sources as fact. When a story is filled with those, we know it’s bogus.”

 Impotent, limp-dicked writers, apparently, are the only ones who write unsubstantiated news reports... she should know, since she's a regular correspondent on Fox News. Which is weird considering all the hot babes working there. Video evidence here.

Then again, most male anchors there are well over the age of retirement; maybe Viagra can't do miracles for everybody.

The complete speech is here.

On the other hand, the VF journalist, Michael Joseph Gross, claims the ''worst isn't even in there''. Now I want more.

Family Guy Has Balls

I haven't always been a fan of Family Guy. I've thought their strong points, the only funny parts, were in bits that usually had nothing to do with the story line, as opposed to, oh, say... The Simpsons, who fit their jokes into a story line, which when done right is much better, subtler, smarter, but when done wrong becomes obvious, apparent, contrived and cheap. In recent seasons, The Simpsons have gone back to doing it well, for a viewership in the modern era, when they had gone more '50s and forced on their base in seasons previous.

But Family Guy has taken a few bold stances worth noticing recently, and it would be wrong to not mention it at all. For instance, this clip takes a bold stance on the upcoming U.S. Presidential election by showing a nazi who supports the McCain-Palin ticket - of which I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

It remains to be seen whether Family Guy can go the South Park way and become a quintessential big-audience animation show that ignites position-taking and provokes thoughts on a constant basis (on current divise issues, more often than not) rather than just go for a cheap pop-culture laugh - and I'm not even sure it's their intention to get there either. But this particular shot was bold, and deserved mention.

On either side of the political spectrum, when someone has balls, it's good to talk about it; even more when they're on the right side.