We Don’t Need a Hockey Mom as Vice-President. Period.

I keep wondering what it’s going to take to keep the media and the Republican party (and to a lesser extent, the Democrats, who are not as skilled at such things) from confusing the Presidency of the United States with a dandy script for a movie.

This is not Jane Doe Goes to Washington, folks. This is real life. And in real life we have a self-described moose-shooting hockey mom, with no notable qualifications outside of the fact that she has been the governor of a relatively unpopulated state for about 2 years, in line to become Vice-President. Worse, the candidate for President appears to be in questionable health, so this little nonentity could become President at some point.

This is not the time to treat Little Miss Muffet as if she just won an Olympic gold medal in figure skating. This is not fluff. This is very real, and it is very dangerous.

Here is the truth if you can handle it (and if you’re Republican, you probably can’t): Sarah Palin is NOT cute, popular, and/or a plucky little rebel.

Cute? She’s undoubtedly a pretty girl, but bears an unnerving resemblance to something that might be a cross between a motorized Barbie doll and a robot Stepford wife. Her onboard computer is malfunctioning and she can’t even get her scripted responses out straight, but instead keeps running them all together until they make as much sense as a typical Dubya speech. If you like her, undoubtedly if she let loose a major backfire you’d find it cute. If you don’t like her, it’s all kind of horrifying.

Cute? It is not okay for her to be completely inexperienced in response to Barack Obama’s perceived inexperience, or even Hillary Clinton’s (these are subjects the Republicans have been howling about all along; in Clinton’s case, it seemed she would never have enough experience no matter what she did). Or come to think of it, let’s talk about George W. Bush’s inexperience — he came to the White House untouched by Washington except that his daddy had been President before him, and after nearly 8 years in office he still looks vague and confused most of the time. But that’s been barely spoken about. And since the Republicans failed in their whining about the supposed inexperience of the two front-running Democrats, it’s now supposed to be considered cute for Palin to be the Vice Presidential-candidate equivalent of a fetus. But guess what? It is not cute.

Popular? She was instantly declared Little Miss Superstar by the media, but very few people who actually live in the world seem impressed. No self-respecting woman is going to vote for her simply because she has an overused uterus, (there are a few who are grumbling that she really ought to stay at home and take care of her youngest, disabled child), and there are possibly over a thousand people in Alaska who do not like her. I’m basing this last comment on the “unprecedented” numbers who attended an anti-Sarah rally recently, as reported to me by an acquaintance who lives in Alaska. Over a thousand people is quite a number in that state. One has to wonder why nobody has bothered to count how many of the rest of us are bemused, bothered, and just plain offended at having this mediocrity pushed at us as America’s Sweetheart.

But she’s a plucky little rebel, you counter? “A pit bull in lipstick,” as some Republican partisans love to think of her? Fine. Then why not show her the same deference that was shown to Hillary Clinton? I know why not, and the Republicans know why not: Take her out of her element and Palin shows about as much pluck as a chicken.

Truth is, you literally can’t be “conservative” and “a rebel” at the same time, and that may be her problem. But I don’t expect that anyone in the McCain campaign would be able to understand that, since that is also the way they are trying to portray their Presidential candidate.

Think I’m unfairly picking on your latest neocon darling? Too bad. I’m not done yet.

To put it concisely, Sarah Palin is in over her head. And the fact that she was even considered as a Vice Presidential candidate by the McCain camp shows a profound contempt for the American people and for the country itself.

Is that really what anyone wants in Washington right now, when the country is in its worst shape in nearly 80 years? In other words, is that what anyone really wants in Washington after 8 years of George W. Bush?

Honestly, the more I learn about her, the less I understand why I wasn’t chosen to be McCain’s running mate. I mean, I have qualifications too. I once saw Canada across a lake.

It Does Not Work

First of all, I am not a Nobel-prize winning economist. I can barely manage my own checkbook most of the time. However, I can still see 20/20, albeit with glasses on.

For instance, I think I know why the economy is in such rough shape: let’s call it karmic backlash at the West for the attempted importation of a slave class. This was done in the name of “globalism,” but for the life of me I could never see “globalism” in the fact that it seemed like at least 1/2 the world wanted to live in the the U.S. No matter. “Globalism is the future and you cannot fight it” became the mantra of business.

From the restaurant industry right through the lofty arena of high tech, voices are always clamoring for more, more, more foreign-born bodies to fill the roughly 600,000 fewer U.S.-based jobs than there were 8 years ago, in spite of the fact that the U.S. population exploded from 200,000,000 in the late 1960’s to more than 300,000,000 today.

In other words, we have seen the future, and it does not work. (Paraphrased from a column in the Chicago Sun-Times.)

This scheme is actually nothing new or novel. For years U.S. business has been fighting against native-born workers who wanted living wages and comfortable working conditions, or at least working conditions that were a bit better than torture. U.S. business always maintained that this was too expensive. And so jobs started being exported in record numbers. (Mysteriously, this was also touted as a benefit of “globalism.”)

If the locals objected, we were simply told that we (1) lacked the qualifications for the higher-paid jobs because of our poor education, never mind the fact that our supposedly lackluster schools and universities are crowded with foreign-born students, and (2) we would rather sit at home and collect welfare than take the low-paying jobs that the vast majority of immigrants were taking, and (3) we were racist. To put it simply, we were fat, lazy and stupid. So they brought on the bread and circuses to shut us up, only they forgot about the state-provided welfare that ancient Romans enjoyed. In the U.S. you have to somehow pay for your bread and circuses yourself — and in the case of the circuses, pay handsomely.

Which brings us to the basic problem: leaving alone the fact that the average U.S. worker is not any more fat, lazy stupid or even racist than the average immigrant worker, the U.S. has become a relatively expensive place to live. It wasn’t always — things were fairly affordable throughout the mid-20th century, until the 1970’s, when labor unions started to collapse, things went out of balance, and immigration exploded — but it is now.

It is less expensive, however, than many other countries where there are no jobs and nowhere to live unless you inherit something. These countries’ people are the ones who are flooding the U.S. to provide slave labor, and have been for years. Yet very little or nothing is being done to correct conditions in the feeder countries, which would solve a lot of problems right there.

Anyway, with the flood of immigrants came the mistaken impression that growth was limitless. We had thought we had outgrown this impression during the 1960’s when the word “overpopulation” was regulary used without religious groups screaming foul, but alas…

And so houses were built where they didn’t need to be, and sprawl and congestion mushroomed, and people ended up living next door to each other whose countries of origin were fighting wars to the death, and in some areas native-borns vanished into the mists, and faded to legend. The U.S. became a little crowd of unrelated worlds rather than a country; I heard one person refer to it as a “human zoo.” A statement like that, folks, is not praise for globalism. And it isn’t racism, either. It’s just human nature. (I should add that the person who who had this gut reaction is what is locally known as a North Shore liberal, meaning she would not be inclined to say anything racist in public.)

Meantime the new houses got bigger and bigger, and the prices for the bigger houses started to average close to 1 million dollars in many areas. With so many people not even earning $30,000 a year, the houses were not affordable. And then the prices on older houses — in many places relative shacks built en masse in the 1950’s to support the baby boom — started to skyrocket.

Meantime, with the influx of cheap labor, wages remained stagnant and working conditions declined. No one seems to have given a thought to the fact that when you have slaves, you have to support them. And human beings make expensive pets. Anyone with kids can tell you that.

Life became unworkable for people who tried to play by the old rules of the American Dream. As an example, during this period a U.S.-born friend of mine — a secretary who earned around $40,000 a year and had been living frugally her entire adult life — was told that she could never get a mortgage because she didn’t earn enough. Meantime, three immigrants who lived in the apartment below me (two self-employed house painters with bad drinking problems and one self-employed maid, who among them owned 3 new minivans and an apartment full of expensive clothes and electronic gadgets), did manage to get a mortgage. Discrimination, anyone? Well, yes…unless you consider the kind of mortgage the immigrants were probably given, that my friend never wanted: an ARM, or adjustable-rate mortgage, likely given without any consideration of the creditworthiness of the applicants — which in the case of my ex-neighbors, could not have been very impressive.

People like this took to living like sardines in houses in municipalities that would turn a blind eye to such things for fear of being labeled “racist,” which is a word that as of now has been hurled around so much that it has lost any kind of meaning. And so the general standard of living, of which we had been so proud, took a nosedive that went officially unnoticed. So much for the usual whine, “but they’re only coming here to build a better life.” No. They’re coming here and continuing the bare existences they had in their home countries, only accented with elaborate toys that they bought with easy credit. In the end, it is a marginally better life for people of the sort who, I’m told, sometimes starve to death in their home countries because they spend all their money on the latest fashions rather than food.

This is also not that American Dream anyone is familiar with.

It’s not about racism. It is the result of business trying to create a slave class with the support of our government. This is happening every day, right in front of our eyes. To paraphrase what one Chicago Sun-times newspaper columnist writes repeatedly in his column: “we have seen the future, and it does not work.”

What did work is the U.S. we had back in the 1960’s. We could adjust and update it so we could live without the (all too real) racisim, sexism, pollution and various other problems we had back then. And we could encourage countries that are neglecting their populations to stop doing so — closing the immigration floodgate almost instantly. Then we could trade with them to get the stuff we don’t have locally. That is globalism, not this mess we have now.

We could also face the fact that the age of oil — the age that ended up fostering mass migration when it was supposed to improve conditions for everyone so much that they would happily stay at home, traveling elsewhere at their leisure only for business or fun — is nearing its close. That is no threat; certainly globalism (a.k.a. the age of oil) has not brought peace to the world. Localism just might bring relative peace, at least on a global scale; there will probably never be complete peace locally — which is, oddly enough, another reason mass immigration does not work in terms of creating a peaceful, cohesive community.

It’s that simple. Yet it seems unfathomable to the same idiots who caused the present crisis, and continue to insist that it will work — kind of like the few builders who keep knocking down perfectly viable older homes and putting up McMansions, insisting that the market will return to its former bloated state sometime soon and they will make millions on their investments.

To which I say, “No, idiots. You have only to read the headlines to know it’s a frickin’ disaster .”

And again, “we have seen the future, and it does not work.”

Lifted from the Chicago Tribune

I’ll be writing more on this subject later; meantime, I’ll let this speak:

Why Sarah Palin would be
a good choice for vice president…
R.W. Huppke, Chgo Tribune

Offers proof positive proof that the only inexperience
that matters is Barack Obama’s inexperience.

Will ensure that no American child
will ever grow up without learning to spell
the word “Iditarod”.

Her peppy, youthful demeanor will make McCain
look grandfatherly rather than just old.

Will be a highly motivated candidate,
as election victory would get her the
hell out of Alaska.

Has a degree in journalism,
a surefire sign of brillance.

Believes nothing would spruce up the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
like a few hundred oil derricks.

Nearly 30 years McCain’s junior,
she’ll open up the door for
him to frequently use the word
“whippersnapper”, thus making
more appealing to octogenarians
and people yelling at kids to get
off the damn lawn.

Has kids named Track, Bristol,
Willow, Piper, and Trig. Those
are some names.

Should easily attract disaffected
Hillary Clinton supporters.
As long as they close their eye
and abandon every ideological issue
they’ve stood for.

Country couldn’t have handled the
international indignity of a
vice president named “Mitt”.

She’s not Dick Cheney.

I would have made an election-year commentary…

…and I probably still will. But whether I do or don’t, this about sums up my attitude entirely: