You Keep Going, Girl!

In all the hurly-burly of America's best political and economic year ever, let's not forget about the lonely struggles of loyal reader Sarah P. of Wasilla, Alaska, who continues to be pestered by haters who are all like "ethics, laws, blah, blah, blah" when she's all like "Obama, terrorist, nig-- uh, terrorist, America, rah, rah, rah!"

America needs more rah-rah and less blah-blah, my friends. More rah, less blah. That's change you can trust.

Anyhow, the legal midgets in the Alaska Senate concluded that Sarah P. broke state ethics law by trying to get some guy fired just because he was like a total douche-cob to her sister Molly. First, like why even be governor if you can't shitcan guys who divorce your sister? Second, haven't people in Alaska heard about the "tainted investigation" defense, in which a defendant must be found innocent if he or she says that the prosecutor doesn't love him or her enough to be objective?

Fortunately, Sarah P. and her crack legal team know have been able to fall back on the "Nuh Uh" defense. The Nuh Uh defense was established by landmark Fantasy Court decisions in Bush v. National Intelligence Estimate and Bush v. Climate Change, in which Fantasy Court judges ruled that official or legal findings must be declared null and void if the person inconvenienced by them pinky-swears that those findings seriously didn't happen and then refuses to talk about the findings ever again (starts about 1:20):



As always, we'll keep you updated like all get-out on this one, America.

Elitism

Doonesbury has been running some funny strips on Sarah Palin lately, and the strip's site has a related poll asking readers to say whether they think they're qualified to be President. The variation in response by age is interesting, though I don't know if it marks a shift in attitudes based on the era of one's birth or simply the gloomy realism that comes with getting older.

I may say more on this when I have time and brain to think more clearly about it, but for now, I just want to say that I'm depressed how childish the American electorate seems to be (to have become?). All of these people who dislike Barack Obama for being "elitist," all of these people who look at George Bush (grandson of a Senator, son of a President, graduate of Andover, Yale, and Harvard) and John "Many Houses" McCain.

Sure, some of this "elitist" talk is just code talk for "uppity Negro"--and that's depressing in its own way--but some of it is sincere. It seems to be based on the idea that Obama doesn't have Americans' interests at heart because (unlike Bush) he talks like he has the education that he has. And probably it goes beyond education--I think that people don't like that Obama talks like he's smarter than us, more thoughtful than us.

You know what? Odds are that he IS smarter and more thoughtful than us. And he flippin' should be. The Presidency requires somebody of extraordinary abilities. A President can have an ordinary background--that's better, probably--but he or she needs to outstrip the rest of us in some pretty substantial ways if the country's going to thrive. Or survive.

And I'm fine with that. Abraham Lincoln was nobody's elitist, but he was smarter and more thoughtful than almost all Americans alive at the time (and now). You know that story about his teaching himself to read on the back of a coal shovel? That shows not just that he came from humble origins but also that he was quicker to learn and more disciplined about learning than almost all of us. How many of your high school buddies would have worked that hard? How many of them did work that hard? Did you? (I didn't.) And can you imagine George Bush learning to read under similarly difficult conditions? He barely managed at some of the richest schools in America.

If Lincoln were alive today and from Compton, he would probably have taught himself Spanish and Chinese in elementary school and learned UNIX on the middle school computer. And, if he had a little luck, he would have gotten a scholarship to the same schools that George Bush went to as a C-student legacy case. And he might talk and act much like Obama does now.

Am I saying Obama is a Lincoln for our times? No. He hasn't been tested yet in a way that would let him prove or disprove that claim. I am saying that I'm afraid that a Lincoln in our times might be like a caveman Shakespeare: somebody whose gifts are unvalued or actively despised by the people whose lives they could improve.

And Now I'm Disabled by Incredulity

I have a friend who's convinced that American Spartacists (the vulgar Marxists who show up at every vaguely lefist event and tell you that Castro and Chavez love vigorous debate, liberty, and puppies) are all CIA operatives designed to make the left look like a bunch of buffoons. And I thought at first that Sarah Palin's nomination was proof that Rahm Immanuel had activated a sleeper agent in McCain's inner circle (who knew that résumés are now supposed to begin with a "Disqualifications" section?)

And this? Well, this just seems like a scheme rigged by small-government conservatives (remember them?) to embarrass government, unions, and anybody who's ever said anything nice about them.

Still Working the Taint

Well, my friends, I'm delighted to report that the party of law and order rides again and that a new deputy has joined the posse.

Loyal reader Sarah P. of Wasilla, Alaska has been joined by her husband Todd in her brave effort to defend her constitutional right not to answer questions if she doesn't like the official investigator asking them.

Or, in this case, their constitutional right to ignore an Alaska state senate subpoena.

Well, you go, Todd and Sarah! And you tell that mean ol' Alaska Republican senate president that she's a super-big jerk for sending all those subpoenas that everybody's ignoring.

Amateur Legal Advice for Corrupt Politicians

So occasionally in this space I like to offer amateur legal advice.

Today's Tip: Working the Taint
My friends, you don't have to answer prosecutors' or police officers' questions if you think the people asking them might not be on your side. This is called the "tainted investigation" theory, and is based in landmark cases Hubris v. Juris (1943) and Self v. System (1973), which established that any bastard who would dare to question you doesn't deserve a goddamn answer other than "go screw, bucko."

Thanks to loyal reader Sarah P. from Wasilla, Alaska for reminding us of the tainted investigation immunity. Sarah, do be sure to keep us updated on how you're doing with your invocation of the TI immunity.

.

All Right, That's Enough

So grinnin' John McCain and his chicken bull running mate are now LEADING in the polls.

I, along with much of America, was initially shocked to discover that all it took to get the GOP base fired up was a good-looking goofball with minimal executive experience, a hostility to books, and an authoritarian streak wider than Larry Craig's stace.

Then I remembered the 2000 election.

We need to take this seriously. These two could be your future presidents.

Really.

I'm pretty lazy, I admit. But I'm not deluded enough to think that blogging makes much if any impact. There are far more practical things to be done. So I'd like to encourage people to post to the comments sections ideas about practical steps one can take to help register new voters, how to make calls to get voters to polls, etc. Information (phone numbers, URLs, etc.) about such practical ideas are also much appreciated.

If nothing else, it'll help me figure out how to spend my time and money between now and election day.

Thanks!

And THIS Should Be a Scandal

So, in addition to apparently being more about loyalty than competence or legality (sound familiar?), Mayor Sarah Palin was an aspiring censor.

From CNN/Time:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Yeah, I'm guilty too (see below), but doesn't the fact that someone potentially second in line for the Presidency wants to ban books for naughty language and Unchristian sentiment sound more important than a pregnant teenager? Not to mention that her MO seems to be trying to fire everybody who doesn't support her crackpot authoritarianism?

My guess about some of the inappropriate language? I think it involves words like "tolerance, intellectual inquiry, dissent, skepticism, freethinking, investigative reporting, moderation, atheism, Islam, New York, and polyglot."

Like Juno, Only Under Surveillance

As Mike's comments suggest, he and I noticed this comment in a post below:

I just don't know where to indicate my confusion about the absence of Palin-related inappropriate commentary on this blog. I mean, where else does one go for mean-spirited political snark about Alaskan rednecks with pregnant teenagers? I suppose I can understand leaving the softballs for lesser observers, but still.
--Emily

Since our Google metrics indicate that Emily constitutes 33.3% of our regular readership and 59% of replies that I didn't make, Mike has already sprung into action.

I guess I've been reluctant to touch on the issue because, well, somebody's teenage kid got knocked up and is keeping the baby. Mostly, that's none of my business. I guess it might be legit political news if one were to find out that Sarah Palin is pressuring her daughter Bristol to carry the baby to term and to get married because it would hurt Palin politically for Bristol to have an abortion and/or conceive out of wedlock. But there's no evidence of that out there.

I guess I have the same thing to say about this that I have to say about most conservative sex scandals: it may tell you something about the accuracy of your beliefs and the efficacy of your social policies if you and/or your close family can't practice what you preach no matter how sincerely you try or how loudly you yell.

If, as a man, you find that the faith-based homosexuality cure just won't remove those pesky cocks from your mouth no matter how many times you renounce Satan and his veiny snares, then it's probably time to consider the possibility that human sexuality is more complicated and difficult than your legislation acknowledges. Maybe you have to consider that if you didn't spend much of your public life trying to stigmatize gayness, you might not have to seize your only moments of gayness through glory holes.

And if, as an advocate of abstinence-only education, you find that your strategy doesn't work even on your own child--the kid you most closely supervise and mentor--you may have to ask yourself whether it's good enough. Or whether it might even be more a cause of teen pregnancy than a cure for it.

Heck, the entire Republican party might ask itself this: Is it just bad luck that the party of family values has on its ticket a divorced man whose second wife refuses to acknowledge the existence of her half-sister and an abstinence-only advocate whose teenage daughter didn't get the message? And that the nominees of the party of butt-love and dental dams has families that better exemplify the family values message? Or--just a thought here--is there something pernicious about the right's need for the Ward & June fantasy that actually encourages people to scorn and dismiss more stable, successful domestic arrangements that aren't desperate, doomed imitations of chez Cleaver?

Past that, I dunno, I feel bad that Bristol and her hubby-to-be have gotten dragged out in front of everybody. I mean, this is worse than being sixteen and having your parents walk in on you masturbating. It's more like that happening, and then having your parents shoved out of the way by Anderson Cooper and his camera crew.