It Gets Raised All The Time

OK, let's talk about the debt ceiling. Everyone else seems to be. But they seem to be talking about it in terms of gloom and doom. Shocking, I know. And that's really not quite the case. I mean, it's doom-y and it's gloom-y, but that's nothing that's all that new.

The debt ceiling is supposed to be just what it says that it is. It's like a cap on how much debt the country can be in. See, the United States doesn't take in enough money to pay all of its bills. Yeah, that's a problem. So, the US has to borrow a boatload of money all of the time in order to pay for everything. And by "everything" I mean things like Social Security, the military, stuff like that. Stuff that (mostly) needs to be paid for. And if we don't raise the debt ceiling, then come August 3rd, things won't get paid. The country won't be able to borrow the money that it needs to pay its bills. And while that's bad, you would think that this would be a good opportunity to open up some discussion on the matter of what to do about all of that debt that we have. You would think.

I'm not trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue. President Barry wants the debt ceiling raised. According to USA Today, they want to "...to cut spending and raise taxes while raising the debt limit by the Aug. 2 deadline". OK. President Barry doesn't want to raise taxes. He says that "...the White House could reach $1.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years without new revenues". OK. Now, I have no idea if that $1.7 trillion is accurate. I have no idea if it's even close to being true. But there are some things that I do know.

I know that all of this posturing over whether or not one side or the other is going to agree to raise the debt ceiling is just for show. It will get raised. How do I know this? Mainly, I speculate a lot. But I do so based on things that I see. See, people that are in Congress want to get re-elected. If this thing doesn't get raised and a bunch of people don't get paid and it becomes the Republicans "fault", that's not going to go over well come election time. It's also not going to go over well if taxes get raised when our tax dollars are being pissed away right and left with wasteful spending. That won't help that whole re-election cycle that they all drool over.

But before I get to the real reason, I'd just like to suggest that perhaps they consider changing the name of this thing. In what way is the "debt ceiling" or the "debt limit" either a ceiling OR a limit when you can just keep changing it? It's like when you go to buy a car and there is a suggested retail price. That thing can move all over the place. (And hopefully if you're buying a car, you're haggling to get the price reduced and not raised.) It's not a firm price. And this magical number that we have for what our debt can be? That's not a firm number. And it never has been.

And that brings me to the main reason why the debt ceiling will be raised without the government shutting down. They do it ALL THE TIME. According to CNN Money, "Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001." Seventy four times?! SEVENTY FOUR?! Since 1962?! That's 49 years. That averages out to once every 8.1 months! Are you freaking kidding me?! That's not even a full term pregnancy! 8.1 months! Oh, for cryin' out loud. Just raise the damn thing and get over it. What the what?! This happens ALL THE TIME! Stop it with the phony posturing all ready! Geez. We're doomed. Doomed!

Sphere: Related Content

Witchy Woman

This Christine O'Donnell woman who won the Republican nomination for the Senate in Delaware might just be the gift that keeps on giving. Apparently, she appear on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" some 22 times during the course of its run. (Really? 22 times? In my reading up on this woman, it has yet to be explained to me why she was on any show at all. What does she do? What is her habitat? What does she feed her young? So many questions.) And now he wants her on his show. "Maher joked that he’s going to show a fresh clip of O’Donnell every week on his show until O’Donnell agrees to appear again on his show. “I’m just saying, Christine, it’s like a hostage crisis,” he said, “every week you don’t show up, I’m going to throw another body out.” And judging from the body that was thrown out yesterday, she's really going to need to think this one over...and quick.

The latest revelation to come via a clip from Bill Maher is brought to us by the fine folks over there at Think Progress. This was apparently a previously unaired clip. I have no idea why it was unaired, as it is simply fabulous. In the segment, Ms. O'Donnell, the anti-masturbation candidate, talks about her foray into (wait for it) witchcraft. That's right. Witchery. She said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn't know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that....We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar."

OK, hold on a minute there, lady! How does one "dabble" in witchcraft? You had a cauldron, but no stir stick? You had the eye of newt, but not the tongue of frog? What does that mean? And what does it mean that you hung around folks "who were doing these things"? Doing what things? Chanting crazy spells and acting like they have powers? Those sort of things?

I'd also like to know how one goes on a date with an alleged (and likely self-proclaimed) witch and doesn't know it. Seriously, wouldn't the pointy hat give it away? And what movie does one go to see on a witchy first date? I mean, is it a Witches of Eastwick sort of deal or is it more of a Harry Potter-ish genre? I also have several questions about the "little blood" on the satanic altar. Um, so...how'd...how'd that get there? What kind of blood are we talking here? Like, biting the head off of a chicken, a la Ozzy Osbourne blood? Or sacrificing a human being to the all mighty Satan sort of blood? If I had to guess, I'd probably go with the red paint from Home Depot wanna be blood. But that's just a guess.

You know, witches aren't real. There are people who call themselves witches. They're real. But the as for being able to do the real witch stuff? I'm not so sure that there's a lot of validity in their craft. (I mean, flying on a broom? That doesn't seem like it would work all that well.) But I'd really like to know what those two kids did on their second date, I can tell you that. Oh, but in her defense (if there is such a thing in this matter), she did make it clear that she did not join a coven, so that's something! I don't know what, but it is absolutely something. (What would that entail do you suppose? The whole joining of the coven? Like some sort of sorority initiation or something? Is there hazing involved? What about a keg?)

She's only been the nominee for less than a week and we've already be privy to her anti-masturbation stance and her tendency to go on dates with witches atop a satanic altar. (I still really want to know what they ate at the picnic.) And I'm sure that there are more glorious revelations to come. In the meantime, if you're still a little confused on who Christine O'Donnell is and what she stands for (sort of), you can check out the always amusing and sometime enlightening Taiwanese animation of the whole deal. Please do not let the scene in which the young farm boy is choking a chicken go by without acknowledging the double entendre. It's sheer genius is what it is.

Sphere: Related Content

Can't Touch That

Meet the latest "fringe" candidate to upset the incumbent in a primary, a one Christine O'Donnell, a Republican from Delaware. Ms. O'Donnell was able to beat out former Delaware governor and nine-term congressman, a one Mike Castle, for the nomination. While I am all for booting out folks that have made politics their lifelong career (while not doing much more than furthering their own power and ridiculously inflated egos), I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being...oh, what's the word I want? Controversial? Maybe, but not quite. Nutty isn't quite what I'm going for either, although it is closer. How about bizarre? That seems to work. Let me try it out. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being bizarre. Yeah, that's it. And so is she. Bizarre, that is.

This woman has interesting opinions on just about everything. Even things where you wouldn't think that you could have an opinion because you didn't know that a certain angle even existed, she does not disappoint. Take, for example, an appearance this woman made on C-SPAN in 1996. (I know, I know. It's a little weak to be going through footage from 14 years ago. I agree. But I'm assuming that, since this is her stance from a moral perspective, she pretty much still holds this opinion.) She stated that it is a "...misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality." Wait. She thinks that it's what now?

A misconception, that is correct. She went on to elaborate by saying, "The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality. So you can't get around legislating morality." Oohhh. I get it. Wait. No, I don't. What the hell is she talking about? Isn't this like proving a negative? If you're not doing one thing than you're automatically doing the opposite thing? That's not always true. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't true at all.

Now, if that was the only slightly strange thing that she had voiced in the past, I'd probably let it go. But she doesn't stop there. No, she's big on morality. In 1998, she was on Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect". I'm not sure why she was there, but she was. In fact, she was on a panel with Martin Mull, Jasmine Guy and Eddie Izzard discussing the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I cannot come up with one thing that all of these folks have in common. Jasmine Guy? Really? To discuss politics? Wow. It's like the iPod 'Shuffle' feature picked those guests. I'm actually finding having these four people on the same show for some reason a little more interesting that what Christine O'Donnell actually said.) She didn't want to let ol' Willie Jeff off the hook that easily. And do you know why? School shootings, of course. See, "If we as a nation tolerate sin, generations to come will reap the effects of that....For example, we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we're having weekly shootings practically." Oh, good Lord, woman.

It's hard to imagine that taking the Bible and pray out of public schools was the only thing stopping school shootings for all of the years prior to 1998. But what any of that has to do with a President getting blown in his office by a plowhorse of an intern is beyond me.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, she's not so much a fan of the evolution. In 1996, she was a spokeswoman for something called the Concerned Women of America. For some reason, she was on CNN debating a one Michael McKinney, am evolutionary biology professors over there at the University of Tennessee. Her take on evolution was: "The tests...they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory." Merely a theory? As opposed to what? Creation? Why, yes, actually. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

Thank you for breaking down what six days amounts to. She didn't really get into the evidence that she says is out there that supports that other than the Bible saying that it's so. She gives more evidence that there are 24 hours in a day than she does to prove creation. I'm also thinking that those concerned women should be a little more concerned that she is going around spewing out ridiculousness like she was.

And you know that I've saved the best for last! And what could be better to save for last than her views on masturbation? Not much, let me tell you. Would you be surprised to learn that she is pro-abstinence? Of course you wouldn't. We all saw that one coming. (No pun really intended there, though it's not bad.) Back in 1996, she was on MTV's "Sex in the 90s" speaking about her campaign

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can't masturbate without lust...The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue...You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" Has this woman ever had sex in her life?! Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Look, lady...if you think that taking care of business yourself is on a par with having sex, you are clearly mistaken. Taking care of business yourself gets the job done; there's no doubt about that. But it is a far cry from having sex. You know why everyone wants to have sex? Because it's great! Masturbation isn't a substitute for sex! You could sit around all day long pleasuring yourself like a monkey in a cage, but that isn't going to change the fact that you're not going to turn down sex instead should it present itself. And how in the world is it committing adultery? What if you're doing it, but you're not in a relationship with anyone? Are you cheating on yourself? I don't think that you are. And if you expect me to believe that this woman has never pleasured herself, that is more ridiculous than her statement that you're committing adultery if you do.

The good thing is that if she is elected to the Senate, it's highly unlikely that she'll be involved in any sort of legislation aiming to curb masturbatory practices amongst Americans. So you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things that she may do if she's elected, but dictating (again, no pun intended) the relationship that you have with your own genitalia is not going to be one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

I'd Like This Order To Go...Far Away

For today's account of just how completely stupid some people can be, complete with "feigning any inkling of knowledge about American society and what it will and will not find acceptable" antagonist who later gives the "I didn't mean to..." and "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" faux-pology which really won't matter because everyone will already think she is an idiot by the time her faux-pology hits the media (You know what they say..."An idiot can always apologize, but they're still an idiot." OK, maybe "they" don't say that, but I do. Well, I did.), we head down to Southern California where the leftist folks at the LA Times, bring us the tale of a women's club newsletter gone bad. To give you a hint of just how bad, I'll give you two words: Obama Bucks.

According to the LA Times, there is a Republican women's club in San Bernadino County. NO word on what a "Republican women's club" actually entails other than the obvious Republican women. They recently sent out their newsletter. There was a portion of the newsletter which seemed to get a few folks in both political parties a little bit riled up. Now, if both sides of the political system are both upset, let's just think about this for a minute because my God! They agree on something! Can't we just leave it at that and call it a little bit of progress? Please? Aw, crap. OK fine. But just remember, you guys agreed with each other. Next time, try agreeing on something that the public would actually give a crap about.

The agreeable offense, you ask? Well, in said newsletter, President Diane Fedele has claimed that she was attempting to "point out the outrageousness of Obama's statement that he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Now, I'm not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean. "The outrageousness" is the part that has me confused. Has this woman seen a dollar bill lately? (I'm assuming she has, she's a Republican.) Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about, I pulled out a dollar bill and looked at it and then I looked at a picture of Obama. They really looked absolutely nothing like each other at all. (I thought about comparing the picture on the dollar bill to Osama, because what if the woman was confused? That happens a lot these days. Osama, Obama. There's only a one letter difference. And to morons everywhere, that makes all the difference.) Therefore, I'm not sure his statement that he didn't look like any of our dead presidents who are emblazoned on our currency is all that "outrageous".

But Diane Fedele decided to illustrate the outrageousness of his statement anyway by throwing together a little illustration of how outrageous it really is. So, just as you or I would have done, she took a picture of Obama's head and put it "atop a donkey's body on a bogus $10 bill referred to as "Obama Bucks." Inscribed on the money are the words "United States Food Stamps" surrounded by stereotypical African American food." Sure, we would have done just that thing, right? WRONG!!

The "stereotypical African American food" that the story in the LA Times is referring to includes "fried chicken, watermelon, ribs and Kool-Aid." (Oh, good Lord, woman. What is wrong with you?) Naturally, she had to include a caption. What's an idiotic political illustration without a caption? Not much, that's for sure! The caption above the Obama Bucks reads "Obama talks about all those presidents that get their names on bills. If elected, what bill would he be on??? Food Stamps, what else!" Wait. What? Yep. Behold!

That doesn't even make any sense! First of all, Barry says that he doesn't look like all of the other Presidents on "the dollar bills". (Technically, that doesn't make sense either. I'm aware of that. But I'm bagging on this woman right now. I'll have plenty of time to give Barry crap after he's elected President.) He didn't say that he doesn't look like all of the other Presidents on the bills with Kool-Aid and KFC. And since when is a "food stamp" a "bill"? (I'm surprised she didn't answer her own question with "The Bill of Rights" or something equally as asinine.) But seriously, lady...fried chicken, ribs, watermelon and Kool-Aid? Are you for real? Why didn't you just take it a step farther and put him in an Aunt Jemima kerchief? Perhaps a little Al Jolson-esque look to him? Oh, what am I saying?! You have to keep up! You could have given him a nice toothy grill and a bunch of gold medallions! What in the world is wrong with you?

According to the LA Times, "The October newsletter went out to about 200 members of the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated, based in Upland." After it was brought to Ms. Fedele's attention that the illustration that she concocted could be seen by some as insensitive and stereotypical (not to mention highly inappropriate and in really, really poor taste), she issued her faux-pology. "I apologize to anyone who was offended because that was not my intent. It was poor judgment on my part. It was strictly an attempt to point out the outrageousness of Obama's statement that he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar ." The typical faux-pology. Once, just once, I'd like to hear someone say, "I was an idiot. I did it to poke fun at (insert ethnic or minority group here) because I wanted to. And I'll probably laugh about it when you're not around, but it was a stupid thing to do." Please note the absence of the word "sorry" or "apology" or anything else that conveys remorse. That's because there is rarely any remorse from those who are put in the position of having to give a public apology/statement. (Hello? Politicians who have been found having multiple affairs? John Edwards? Tim Mahoney? Idiot Elliot Spitzer? Helloooo?) \

Fedele said that it was in a "number of chain emails" where she got the illustration from. Of course, she declined to say who sent her the "emails" with the illustration. Translation: "I'm lying and there were no emails." Are you kidding me? If I've just been told that I'm a moronic racist for putting that in my newsletter, I'm not going to like being branded with that particular moniker very much and I'm going to defend myself. If someone else had created the illustration and I had not, I'd be showing off those emails to prove it and at least save one teeny, tiny shred of dignity. But no. Not her. She's just declining to provide that. (Lady, please. You have to understand that the Internet is a massively huge series of tubes and wires and strings and stuff that all connect everyone on the planet to each other. Even people we don't want to be connected to, the Internet connects us anyway. Do you really think that if an illustration like that was going around in a chain email (which are notorious for being forwarded millions of times, mostly by idiots) that TMZ or some other tabloid or media group would not have gotten hold of it before now?! Of course they would have! They have people who do nothing all day long except for monitor the tubes for things just like that! You're racially insensitive AND you're a moron!

She claims that her rationale for printing it in the newsletter was that she was offended that Barry was drawing attention to his own race with his claim. She did not claim why that would offend her. (Translation: It didn't.) She then pointed out that "she once supported Republican Alan Keyes, an African-American who previously ran for president." Oh, well, OK then! That makes up for it! It's fine! Um, NO, not quite!

Look, I suppose if you wanted to show that you were "offended" in some way, that's OK. You can do that. But don't tell me you couldn't come up with a better (at least non-racist-er) depiction of Barry on the US currency. You could have come up with something like this:

Yeah, HUGE difference. Big. HUGE. You could have even gone with something like this:

But no, you went with stereotypes on parade. Nice.

I think the point has been made that this woman is a moron. I think the argument could be made that this woman is a liar (if you base that on her explanations for this debacle). I don't know that you could make an argument for or undeniably conclude that she is a racist. Granted, a lot of racists aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, thus racism tends to be perpetuated by ignorance. But while I'm not going to call her a racist, I'm not going to call her a racist just yet. And if she doesn't want to be branded something a whole lot worse than just a plain 'ol ignorant "racist", she's going to have to do some serious backpedalling and get a lot better at apologizing. In the meantime, she should consider turning the newsletter writing over to some class of 6th graders which will undoubtedly be able to use better judgment than she did.

Sphere: Related Content

The Not-So-Shocking Sarah Palin

Sorry this is late. (Hey, Covad ISP Provider guys! Before you keep me on the phone for over an hour in the middle of the night with one of your reps in India because I lost my Internet connection, perhaps one of the first things you can have them look at is whether or not there is an outage in the area! An HOUR I was on the phone with India only to be told that there is an outage. And if you want to go one better than that, Covad guys, what say you make it so that I stop losing my Internet connection at all? Is that really necessary? It's been once a week for the past three weeks and it's cause me to become highly irritated. Oh, but thanks for recommending that I upgrade my modem for $150 when you gave me the one I have for free. Don't tell me that it's because the "one year warranty" ran out. You hand out modems left and right when people sign up, but a customer who has been with you for years, you want them to shell out $150? Screw off, Covad guys. Or fix it. Because right now, you suck.) I had an issue with my ISP. Blame them. Please.

Be prepared for a shocking statement from me regarding the world of politics. Two words: I'm confused. See? Shocking.

Do people who are actually in politics, meaning that it's their job, not understand how politics work? Clearly, at least some of them do not. That became evident after Grandpa John McCain's announcement that he has chosen Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate and/or running mate. (I don't know which one it is, but it's definitely one of them.) Oh, there were things that were said by those not chosen. But they were things that perplexed me because, like I just asked, don't these guys understand how this works?

Take Tim Pawlenty (a last name that reminds me of Paws o' Plenty for some reason) for starters. Tim was supposed to be on the short list of possible selections for McCain's VP. It was a much shorter list than Tim must have thought because, according to the seemingly reasonable The Trail over there at the Washington Post, "Though it was high in shock value, the Palin pick left bruised feelings among the short-list contenders who were not picked -- and infuriated some Republican officials who privately said McCain had gone out on a limb unnecessarily, without laying the groundwork for such an unknown."

I'll get to the "shock value" part in a minute. Right now, it's all about "the short-list contenders who were not picked." Um, they did know that they wouldn't all be picked, right? That someone wouldn't make the team? Actually, that most of those on the list wouldn't make the team? I mean, I can understand being disappointed at not being chosen to run for Vice President, especially with McCain as the guy who is running for President. In that instance, you're a little closer than just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. You're the heartbeat of a guy who is 72 and has had three bouts with skin cancer away from the Presidency. That's pretty darn close.

"Two senior Republican officials close to Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty said they had both been rudely strung along and now "feel manipulated." " Let me get this straight. These two guys, these politicians, they feel like they have been "rudely strung along" and they also "feel manipulated", do they? Hi, we're the Public. Welcome to our world! Oh, the irony. (Not to mention all the sarcasm here.)

And now back to the "shock value" statement. OK, I've never heard of Sarah Palin. Ever. I could not have told you who ANY of the Governors of Alaska have been EVER. (There might have been a guy named Evan, but that's my best guess.) I know where Alaska IS. I know that there are way more men than women who live there. I know it's abundant in wildlife that you only see on Animal Planet. I also know they're sitting on a lot of oil. That's it, that's all I've got. Now, just because I've never heard of this woman, does that mean that I am "shocked" that John McCain chose her as his running mate? Hardly. The only thing that is "shocking" is that he didn't have a heart attack after learning that such a person existed. Here's why:

McCain touted his running mate with statements like these:

• "Someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past. Someone who stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need, and put it back to work for the people."
  


• "Someone who reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and Independents to serve in government."
  
  
• "Someone who grew up in a decent, hard-working middle class family whose father was an elementary school teacher and mother was the school secretary...Both of them were coaches too, and raised their children to excel at sports."
  
  
• "...was a union member and is married to a union member, and understands the problems, the hopes, the values of working people.
  
  
• "Knows what it’s like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries."
  
  
• " A standout high school point guard, a concerned citizen who became a member of the PTA, then a city council member, and then a mayor, and now a governor."
  
  
• "A devoted wife and a mother of five."
  
  
• "She’s not from these parts and she’s not from Washington."
  

Well, thank God, she's not from Washington. OK, Grandpa John, we get it. That sounds promising, yes? Look, I'm not looking at this from the viewpoint of any party. The things he mentioned there are qualities that are going to pique the ears of those who are still trying to figure out what to do and who to vote for. So far we have a married, middle class woman with five kids, who is married to a union member, played basketball, worries about the mortgage, worked her way up to governor and isn't from Washington. What's not to like? Oh, but wait. There's more to like.

So McCain introduces Sarah Palin and how shocked was I when Tina Fey walked out? Pretty surprised, I'll give him that. I had no idea she was even up for consideration. Now that's diversity! Oh, wait. That's not Tina Fey? That actually IS Sarah Palin? Wow. She's hot. (And she's governor of Alaska where most of the residents are male. Huh. And she won an election, did she? That's a shocker.) But how cool would that have been if it were Tina Fey and then the John McCain guy unzipped his face and was really Alec Baldwin? That would have been awesome! But I digress (or fantasize, take your pick). Then Sarah Palin introduced herself to the country by providing us with informational nuggets such as these:

• "...my husband Todd. And Todd and I are actually celebrating our 20th anniversary today. And I promised him — I had promised Todd a little surprise for the anniversary present and hopefully he knows that I did deliver." (Married AND it's her anniversary. Nice touch.)


• "Todd...who is a lifelong commercial fisherman....He’s a production operator...in the oil fields up on Alaska’s north slopes and he’s a proud member of the United Steel Workers’ Union and he’s a world champion snow machine racer." (Fisherman, production operator, Steel Workers Union member and races...snow machines? Like snowmobiles? Cool! What a guy.)


• "Todd and I have shared many blessings. And four out of five of them are here with us today. Our oldest son, Track...on September 11th of last year...enlisted in the United States Army....now serves in an infantry brigade....on September 11th....will deploy to Iraq." (Five kids, the oldest one joins the US Army on September 11 and is now off the Iraq. Is the national anthem playing in the background at this point?)


• "I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office." (Thank God for that.)
  
  
• "My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school and my husband and I, we both grew up working with our hands." (The local elementary school. I'm sure I hear the anthem now.)
  
  
• "I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska." (Hockey Mom. Most excellent!)
  
  
• "I was then appointed ethics commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when I found corruption there, I fought it hard and I held the offenders to account." (Wait. Held people accountable? :::gasp::: :::choke::: Medic!)


• "When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically, and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska." (Gave money to people? I like money! Sign me up!)


• "I signed major ethics reforms and I appointed both Democrats and Independents to serve in my administration." (Ethics reforms? Like she has some ethics? I like ethics, too! And not just Republicans in your administration? Huh. That's new.)
  

And then she goes on with some schmaltzy 'Thank you' and 'I'm honored' stuff that's pretty much obligatory no matter who you are or what you're running for or against. The fine, very accurately transcribing folks over there at Clips and Comment have the full text of the speech if you're interested (though they do seem to be immersed in the tank for Barry Obama).

So, again, WHY are people shocked that this was his choice? Like I said, the only thing that shocked me is that such a person even existed. She practically bleeds red, white and blue. She's been in Alaska her whole life and I don't think that Alaska is exactly a breeding ground for scandal, and that's always a bonus no matter who you are. Oh, I'm sure that there will be some dirt turned up on her from somewhere. How much dirt and what kind of dirt is what the question will be when it happens. But what she has going for her is that she represents a lot of the issues that are key to a lot of people. Union member, for cryin' out loud! Elementary school teachers. Fishermen. Steel Workers Union. Mothers. Women. Anti-corruption. Giving away money. I'm still waiting for the shocking part.

And by the way, I have no idea if she is qualified to be Vice President of the United States, but only because I don't know exactly what it is that the Vice President does except wait around for the President to die. She is anti-abortion and I have an issue with that. Again, I don't know exactly how much of a bearing the Vice President's stance on abortion has on what they do in office, but that one is kind of a deal breaker for me. I'm not saying she's perfect, nor am I saying that I'd vote for her. I'm simply saying it's far from shocking McCain picked her (unless you think McCain is incompetent and then it's beyond shocking).

What is shocking about choosing someone who represents all of those potential voters? Not much. What is shocking about not choosing one of the guys on the short list like Tim Paws o' Plenty or Mitt Romney, both of whom are rumored to still be pouting and whining, "It's not fair!"? Yeah, I can't imagine what McCain was thinking there (or can I?). And really, what is shocking about choosing someone who looks like Tina Fey is smoking hot? Who cares? All I know is that if Sarah Palin ends up being Vice President of the United States, Tina Fey must rejoin the cast of Saturday Night Live immediately. Look at it this way, if nothing else, we just might end up with four years of some of the best late night comedy we've had in a long time. Priorities, don't you know?

Sphere: Related Content