Sarah Palin: Evil, Expensively Outfitted

The Comcast forum was lit up today with a discussion entitled: "Is Sarah Palin more powerful as an advocate for the people?"

No.

No politician is. Show me a politician who honestly can empathise with "the people" and I'll show you a bridge in Brooklyn that I have to sell. Think about it, right? Politicians' primary incentives are getting into office and staying there. (Never mind the obvious power and authority issues that people such as these must have; that's for another blog post, another day, another chocolate bar.) Which means they have to make people like them. Which people? The voting majority. Which means the lowest common denominator. Which means the reactionary and the ignorant. Which means that politicians are primarily concerned with winning the affections of SHEEPLE.

Palin is a heartless, wolf-killing, evil woman. The day she just shuts the FUCK up can't come soon enough for me. Her Neanderthal ideas about women's rights are chilling. (That isn't meant to insult Neanderthals. For all I know, they were quite balanced in their treatment of both genders. But I'm using them in a stereotypical caveman sense. Sorry, Neanderthals.)

She has quite a bit of charisma, which I think makes her appealing to people who don't think for themselves: She laughs a lot, and she's bubbly. Bubbly is good, right? Palin projects a happy, smiling, easygoing, hockeymom (and definitely lipsticked) image, behaviour and imagery which also coincide with the general public's ideas of how a woman should behave. And which gloss over her lack of experience and her horrifying ignorance with regard to global affairs. For if you actually listen to, and try to analyze, what she says, it turns out that she has hideously uninformed opinions about virtually everything. Riding astride this ignorance is the fact that apparently, she never reads (according to that infamous interview with a local newscaster that had Palin literally stuttering because she was caught in a lie about what she reads). So you have to ask yourself: If she doesn't read, then where does she get her knowledge of history, current events, politics, culture, human nature? A) She doesn't have any knowledge of these things; or, B) Someone tells her, which begs the question, to whom is she listening? What bee is buzzing in her ear? Is this a trustworthy bee? Is this a bee with an agenda?

It sounds like I'm hung up on the issue of reading. That's because I am. Reading is correlated strongly with critical thinking & analytical skills, a stronger imagination (because, unlike television and moving pictures, books rely upon you to wield your own brush and palette and breathe colour into scenery and action), and a wider array of general knowledge. Depending on what a person reads, that general knowledge could be stunningly powerful. Scientia potentia est: Knowledge is power (in Latin!).

Reading is important. Palin doesn't read.

I don't think she has the sense to pour milk into her cereal, which makes leading the country out of the question for her.