Furthermore, if soldiers operating under the influence of dangerous narcotics remain in the service long enough they will eventually screw up and get themselves killed. (Having fallen during a noble crusade against terrorists and other wicked people, they will be allowed to spend eternity in Purgatory instead of Hell. That should be a comfort to them and their loved ones). More importantly, their deaths will reduce drug use.
Make no mistake about it, we are engaged in an eternal struggle against evil. Even in our own country there are evil-doers who are constantly doing evil things, such as standing in the way of prayer in school, opposing religious tests for candidates for public office, and favoring civil liberties for their own wicked kind. Those of us who are righteous, morally superior individuals, who share a hatred-fueled love for this great country of ours, can never tolerate or accept the dirty deeds (done dirt cheap) of these godless infidels.
By definition, this struggle between true Americans and pretend Americans is a civil war. That does not mean we have to be civil in conducting it. We need leaders with the ability to spew hatred with a cheerful disposition and smiles on their faces. Leaders like Sarah the Impaliner.
We cannot allow Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska and fade from public view. We can not expect the lady who will smash the glass ceiling (that the impure Hilary Clinton could only crack) to go back to shopping at consignment stores after growing accustomed to stocking her closet with the finest clothes that other people’s money can buy.
The liberal media has been quick to proclaim the end of the Reagan Revolution. We true believers know that the revolution has just begun. The Gipper has been reborn in Sarah Palin. The Second Coming of the Gipper is at hand. With crusades launched simultaneously against evil-doers of every variety we can bring on the glory of the “end days.” We can herald Armageddon and The Rapture.
Hallelujah! Praise Palin and pass the ammunition.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Al Barger
"Channeling hatred" my ass. Palin ain't a hater, and being a conservative Christian doesn't automatically make her one. Very obviously, the hatin' is coming from the opposition, and directed AT her, not from her.
I for one would be HAPPY to see Palin run for president in her own rite.
Sarah Palin RULEZ!!!
2 - Clavos
Winston:
Check this article out and learn how to do political humor.
3 - Dave Nalle
Winston's article might be amusing if it were less meanspirited and stuck to amusing truths instead of divisive deceptions.
Dave
4 - zingzing
palin's pretty damn funny all by her damn self. of course, at this point, she's political poison, so it would take some doing for al's (admittedly silly) wish to come true.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Winston - Unlike the others, I liked your article. I guess there are some others who don't understand the danger inherent in religious extremism (which includes Ms. Palin's apparent beliefs).
Personally, I'm pretty sure she'll run for president in '12, if her spite for anyone who challenges her authority is any indication. I for one HOPE she does...because there is NO WAY that she'll win, and all she will do is split the Republicans further into two camps - one of the hard right extremists, and the other of moderate Republicans who will see her for the danger that she truly is.
6 - zingzing
fun with palin and paint.
7 - Clavos
I guess there are some others who don't understand the danger inherent in religious extremism
I understand the danger inherent in the practice of ALL religions. Most of the horrors perpetrated on humans throughout history have been at the hands of clerics of mainstream religions such as Roman Catholicism and Islam.
8 - Doug Hunter
Not really Clav. Most of the greatest horrors have been perpetrated by the very tiny minority of atheist far left dictators: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Hitler was questionably atheist and the leader of the National Socialists. That covers 4 or 5 of the greates genocides of all times and by far the largest in numbers.
Everyone has a belief system, some come from a big man in the sky, others believe they somehow logically divined the truth from with in themselves. In both cases, people believe what society has told them, religious and secular values and what is 'right' has changed over time often leaving death and destruction in it's wake.
The problem is not the source of the belief system or, in most cases, even what is believed it is the degree of fanaticism and the faith someone has in their beliefs. I do see self righteousness and blind faith in 'rightness' among some in the church, but I also see it in many posters on this site both right and left.
Unfortunately, fanatics and the self delusional tend to be more aggressive, more driven, and more purposeful than those of us that know we don't have all the answers. In a debate the wise moderates realize that there are indeed two ways of looking at it, and perhaps, waver in their position. The fanatic assumes that anyone who disagrees is simply evil or driven by negative forces (racism, 'the devil', power, greed, jealousy, etc) and continues unabated in their preaching.
9 - Clavos
Doug,
Granted that the modern day numbers of the dead are greater than those in previous centuries, but that's merely a function of technology and communications advances, especially in the twentieth century.
For sheer malevolence, nothing beats killing and laying waste in the name of god. Religion-sponsored killing has endured for centuries (The various Catholic Inquisitions alone lasted from the twelfth through the beginning of the 19th centuries), and some specific events have lasted centuries, while the ogres you mention were relatively short-lived, even though more efficient, thanks to technology.
And much religion-sponsored killing endures even today.
Imagine how pervasive and enduring it would be if there really were a god spurring religionists on.
10 - Doug Hunter
Well now, I don't think someone being killed cares whether it's because of better available technology or sheer malevolence. I was only speaking in terms defined by objective reality, you're now talking in beliefs where no amount of 'logic' can prevail. You believe religion is inherently evil because of x, y, and z but there is no control group, no way of knowing what world we would live in without it. Religion, much like government, seems to be simply a reflection of a culture and I see them being 'bad' in the same way.
In any case, religion is dying. Science wounded it and government is all too eager to reabsorb it's 'evil' twin.
11 - Dawn
I thought Winston's article had some very funny moments, clever at times. But as he/she wound it down, it became a too mean.
The best way to show the right how mean-spirited and vicious they are is to be less so. They call it liberalism, I call it compassion.
Other than that, it was pretty good. As was said by the zingster, Palin is a cutup in her own right, so you don't want to overdo it.
12 - Winston Apple
Dave (#3) and Dawn (#11 ) - I read back through my piece to see if I was truly “mean-spirited.” I don’t normally think of myself that way, but I know that attempts at humor can lead one astray - going for the laugh at the expense of truth or sensitivity to the feelings of others. The only really mean-spirited moment I could find was the first paragraph of the second page. I would be interested to know what else in the piece anyone found to be mean-spirited.
Satire, at least as I define it, takes things to the extreme to extrapolate humor from an otherwise tragic or dangerous situation. My concern, as I was writing this piece, was that it was difficult to exaggerate some of the bitter divisiveness that we witnessed in the recently concluded election cycle.
Glenn’s (#5) second paragraph sums up pretty well the opinion that led me to write this piece. Palin has demonstrated an extremely well developed ability to unite the evangelicals within the Republican party and to divide the party by driving more moderate members and independents into the arms of the Democrats. That is our best hope for keeping the Social Darwinists who masquerade as Compassionate Conservatives from regaining control of our government any time soon.
I’m not quite as confident as Glenn that she will lose. If she can avoid getting back in the ring with Katie Couric, or spends the next two or three years cramming for the test, developing at least a superficial knowledge of Supreme Court rulings or memorizing the names of a few newspapers or magazines, she could do better that I would like to think possible.
I have a lot of faith in our country’s ability to survive bad leadership. I think that good presidents are extremely rare and our politicians, as a general rule, are a very unimpressive group. On the other hand, I would be truly distressed to find our plutocracy (bad as it is) replaced by a theocracy.
As noted in the comments above, a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. It is equally true (as noted above) that numerous examples of man’s inhumanity to man can be cited where religion does not play a role. Competition for resources and the lure of raw, naked power over others often provide the motive. The combination of charisma and psychosis in a single individual is often a formula for disaster. We should also acknowledge that a great deal of good has been done by people who were (and are) inspired by religious belief.
I have a deep and abiding disgust for the scorched earth type of campaigning that has come to dominate election cycles in our country. I have a great hunger for sincere, well-intentioned discussion and debate about the best courses of action for us to take in addressing the problems we face as a nation.
I enjoy making people laugh. This piece was only my second attempt at doing so in writing. (A very difficult undertaking in my opinion.) While things can get a bit nasty at times here in the blogosphere, there are also moments when the discussion is positive and enlightening. I appreciate the fact that at least a couple of the comments above indicated that I had amused the reader. I hope that I did not go too far in contributing to nastiness in my attempt at humor.
13 - El Bicho
Winston, I thought it worked as a satire, but those who didn't find it funny may have found it striking to close to home. It's completely different than the link Clavos gives, so there's nothing to learn there other than it's funny when it's about "them" and not "us."
14 - Dawn
Oh, it was good, don't get me wrong. It's just that now that Palin has become the patron saint of all things wrong with the GOP, those folks are particularly "sensitive" and having been on the other end of things in 2004, I guess I am trying hard to dig deep and find some compassion for these misguided and depressed folks.
Overall, it wasn't any more mean-spirited than the Governor herself.
15 - Lee Richards
If the GOP is serious in 2012, Palin's chances of being nominated are 10 to 1 against. If they just want to offer up a warm sacrifice, the odds against her getting nominated would be maybe 5 to 1.
If she were nominated, she would lose by such a margin, she would set the party back another 5 years. Winking and tossing red meat to admirers isn't party leadership and wearing clothes well and reading speeches is not a comprehensive political philosophy.
Her fans' puppy love aside, she divides Republicans as much as she unites Democrats.
*** #8
Doug,
Hitler's, Stalin's, etc. crimes were not done in the name of spreading atheism. Christianity's and other religions' crimes were and are done in the name of their faith and gods. And Hitler was not a "far left dictator" as you imply.
16 - Dr Dreadful
I hear that Bristol Palin's fetus is already being touted as a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2048.
17 - Baronius
Lee - Stalin was deliberately spreading atheism, as well as exploiting his opportunity to kill those he didn't like. Actually, you could say the same thing about the Crusades - they were as much about pillage as about religion. Bottom line, people are scum.
18 - Baronius
Dread - The fetus has comparable national experience to Obama and Palin.
19 - Vicki Cassady
I'm on board with Sarah Palin for 2012. My comment is that I feel people are going to have a hard time with the Primary because, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal are all well liked and extemely knowledgeable and if will be very hard for people to decide who to vote for.
By 2012, everyone is going to be praying for a change and we hope to get corruption out of the White House. I'm really worried for all of us for the next 4 years.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius:
Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet and some people have already decided that his presidency is a failure and are discussing his replacement.
Introducing Gestational Tundra Barbie as a possible candidate to steer the country back on the right track following Vivienne Jolie-Pitt's disastrous 2045-49 administration seems almost as reasonable.
21 - jamminsue
For sheer waste consider the Crusades - they for the most part were due to religious zeal. Consider the side effects - the Plauge, political unrest and so on. Those kinds of side effects have to be considered part of the whole.
Further, Marxism should be considered a fanatical belief system, as the actions and motivations were much the same, and it was treated the same during it's height of power.
So, religious persecution has done more than secular.
22 - Cannonshop
Palin's been poisoned as a serious candidate on the national stage. Never mind that she didn't ban any books, vetoed a law banning gay marraiges and rights to gay couples, cut out un-necessary (luxury) spending in the Governor's office, and put corrupt officials out of office or in jail, what everyone obsesses on is that she's got the wrong religion, and took the hundered-fifty-grand the GOP offered her for a clothing budget, and clothed her family. Even "Troopergate" turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd.
Finally, she's associated with McCain's failure, and former McCain staffers are trying to lay the blame for that failure on her-and why not? it's not like she's got big-money-backers who'll be offended, after all, she's a one term governor of a tiny in population state, cut off from the real centres of American power in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.
23 - Lee Richards
Baronius:
Atheism isn't a belief system that can be spread or imposed by anyone's efforts.
It is a reasoned LACK of belief, and NOT systematic at all. How do you convert others with that?
Atheists' conclusions are reached by using available evidence and logic, not by faith, beliefs or force--Stalin's or anyone elses. Their conclusions can be altered by additional facts, but not by the spread of pro or con political opinions or religious dogma.
24 - Irene Wagner
jamminsue, no, for sheer waste--sheer waste of time that is--consider CONSIDERING and debating the relative evils of Communism and Christianity. I once participated in such a BC discussion, which, at 666 comments, threatened to topple over and crush us all.
There are decent people who are atheists and some decent socialists and Communists motivated by misguided altruism. There are decent evangelical Christians (now, who WERE those folks who spearheaded the abolitionist movement?) and decent Catholics who shelter the poor and neglected, and also those who have given themselves to efforts to put the United States government in charge of sanctifying the marriage bed which God has already pronounced holy.
I'm optimistic that there are a few from each camp who have the grace to accept and give help that will serve to smooth out a little of the rough edges. It's just my opinion, that purpose is best served by gentle humor.
I'm all for satire, but I see it as more effective for exposing the errors of out and out rotters, individuals, rather than entire classes of people.
Winston, you've written so many great articles in the past that I really can't say that this one was my favorite.
25 - Ruvy
Winston,
Re-read what Clavos wrote in comment #2.
As for Sarah Palin, she reminds me of a friend I made in law school many years ago. She's a good and decent lady, and on a personl level, I liked what I saw. On her own turf, she knows what she is doing. Beyond that turf, well....
But, scum that Obama might be, he can run rings around Sister Sarah intellectually. At this point, she's better off being a kick-ass governor than attempting to step onto your national stage to be made a fool of by her own lack of knowledge.