Project Runway: Meh, Feh, and HOLY HELL!

So, like most people who like shiny things, fisticuffs, and the crazy, I am a PR girl. Or was, then wasn’t, and maybe kind of am again. I was, like many, nauseated about the idea of having to watch it on Lifetime, even though technically speaking I have two cats and am therefore completely eligible to watch Lifetime. And last season certainly validated all my fears about the switch. But so far this season shows a bit more promise than the last. Which isn’t to say that it is at ALL near the epic levels of awesomeness that were Seasons 2 and 4, or even the less awesome Season 5.

Here are some insights and rants to the Season 7, brought to you by SFL and my fellow PR ladyfriends, guest SFL commentators Big Red and Iris Tramm.

Welcome ladies. How the hell are you? Can I pour you a HUGE glass of wine? Good – let’s talk about…

How PR has sucked since the move to Lifetime:

Iris Tramm:  Meh.  WTF is with these lame-o challenges?  Run to Central Park and stuff some fabric in your bag and then make a design that reflects your vision as a designer.  Blech.  That’s what the freakin’ finale is for.  The run up is a whole bunch of crazy crap asking them to make outfits out of car parts, foodstuffs, and recycled garbage?  This was one of my biggest beefs with the last season (right after the almost total absence of Kors/Garcia).  Every single challenge was “make a dress out of fabric”….I fear the show has peaked.  Was LA jumping the shark?

Also, and I say this as a totally heteronormative female, but Heidi Klum is the hottest pregnant woman ever.  I don’t know why she’s not making a bijillion dollars from mom-n-baby-related endorsement deals.

This Season’ contestants and challenges:

IT:  So far, I am not impressed. [Episode 2] was another uninspired, post hoc, make-a-garment-out-of-fabric, bullshit design challenge, I do recall that.  WTF was the point of standing in a field of mud if they weren’t going to, you know, have to actually USE farm stuff for their design?  Oh, and here’s some end caps from Mood with buttons, go shopping!  In the mud field!  Whee!  Now let’s all go back to Manhattan and sew!  Why not say, look, here’s a barn and some tack.  Make a party dress!  Oh, and you can only sew with horse hairs you pull yourself from that giant Tennessee Walker Stallion galloping towards us!  Now, THAT would be interesting, yes?

I did give props to the Sconnie girl for being the only one to use an actual farm product (a potato) in her design.  Unfortunately, I don’t think the girl’s gonna go far in this competition.  Her designs are not very sophisticated (a Lanvin lover, I had hopes), and they don’t show enough of her work for me to tell whether it’s well crafted if uninspired.

Big Red:  So I’m cautiously optimistic about this year’s designers.  There is some talent, although I’m not sure on what i base that because I wasn’t overly wowed by any end results, and there is definitely some crazy for entertainment purposes (hello Ping?  hello Anthony?).  Although I also must note that I disagreed with most of what the judges said.  Ping’s [first] outfit…..Seriously?  It just looked like a bunch of fabric wrapped around her model’s body.

But the [second] challenge was again a bit of a snore; if you are going to make contestants whip up an outfit from farm materials, they could have done way better than just use a potato sack.  I’m from farm country and trust me, there are lots of “organic” materials available for construction that would have been much more interesting. I did like the Sconnie girl’s outfit, and the intriguing use of the potato to create a print that disguised the potato sack. And Jesus with the skirt that wasn’t really potato sack but just ribbons covering a potato sack…..so last week I liked Jesus’s brown leather look dress; well, maybe not liked but hated less than everyone else.  It was good enough for me to want to see more from him.  This week…..not so much.  I’m ready for him to go as well.

LISTEN TO THE GUNN OR FEEL MY FURY!

SFL: The challenges are not challenging in the least. Unless one of the contestants is my dad, and then yes, telling him to make something out of fabric would indeed be challenging. Actually, I am pretty sure that whatever it was that Ping non-sewed [in the first episode] would pretty much be what dad would make. I do think that there seems to be a LOT more talent – at least I thought so until I saw the veritable yawnfest that was the parade of WAY too crotchtacular sundresses. Ummm….call me crazy, but I don’t think that “youthful” really needs to be the sole criteria for fashion. Seriously, WTF? Are they designing for Target? Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of the Target Designer Collaborations, but I am just NOT that interested in watching a season of cheap looking Rodarte knock-offs.

[As to episode 1] OH THE HORROR what was UP with that fakeskin tube of poop?!? He should have gone home for sheer failure to design, but I am glad chickie went home because her dress was an insult to dresses. Kind of was hoping Season 7 Cryer would go home. You know who I mean. The one that cried her way through the whole show. NO CRYING AT ALL EVER ON PR OR I WILL HATE YOU AND ALL YOU STAND FOR. She has now inherited the mesh hat of shame and I will forever refer to her as Mesh Hat #3. Also? The dude with the Gwen Stefani red zipper dress? What the hell is up with his carefully crafted “Dirty Bartender” look? Ewww…. looks like the kind of guy that takes a 16 year old to her prom when he is 26.

[As to Episode 2] I *really* could have gone the entire run of PR — from its quirk-tastic crazy beginning through the sluggish decline into mediocrity and Lifetime all the way to the inevitable end where Bachelor rejects are brought on as “celebrity” contestants and the “challenges” all involve ill-matched product placement and poledancing — without seeing 100% of a model’s ass as it awkwardly horsestomps down the runway.

Ping, generally, and her HOLY HELL MODEL ASS thing, specifically:

SFL: Ping is clearly Pingtastic. And full of what we observers would have characterized as ‘agonizing whimsy’ in another season.  During the first ep, I looked at her “creation” and thought, kind of neat, but I bet she can’t sew for shit. So, yeah, she did well on artfully draping some fabric. But this is a *DESIGN* contest. We aren’t looking for the next budding display associate for Hobby Lobby.  And it turns out, I was right.  Second ep Ping made a contractor’s belt/apron and matching roadside public service vest out of a potato sack. And by “made,” I do NOT mean “sewed” because while Ping the Faux-Arty Fairy of Layering and Nachos did many unspeakable thing to the sacks, ‘sewing’ is not one of them. I could see keeping PTFAFOLAN around for entertainment value IF she had a grasp of basic necessary skills. Like, say, sewing and covering your model’s special places. But nay. I was and remain horrified.

IT:  I didn’t like Ping’s [first] outfit either, but it was the most interesting thing out there, which isn’t saying much.  Everything else looked like something I swear I stocked when I worked the Junior Misses department at JC Penny’s in the late 80s.I do adore Ping — as a contestant.  She really shoulda been auf’d for the bareass model, though.  In fact, I think there should be an AUTOMATIC auf’ing for something like that, regardless of the aesthetics of the rest of the design.  And she was warned!  Tim made a (rather hilarious) point about the height of the runway and the angle of perspective of the judges.  (BTW, does it seem to either of you like Tim’s phoning it in these days?).

BR:  First of all, any contestant who ignores the advice of the most awesomest Tim Gunn should be auf’d based on that kind of stupidity alone (Ahem…Ping…Jesus are you listening?).  However, based on design (or lack thereof) alone, Ping should have been auf’d.  Anyone who intentionally or unintentionally sends her model down the runway with her ass hanging out, particularly after having been told “your model’s ass crack and lady bits will be more exposed than they should be”, should just be automatically disqualified.  But pursuant to Santino theory, crazy people with bad designs can stay, so long as they continue to bring the crazy/ratings.

Add to that injustice is that Ping really doesn’t know what she is doing.  I hated last week’s design, it was just fabric draped all over the contestant, but OK, whatever.  This week it looked like she glue-gunned all the potato sacks together.  She clearly doesn’t have the technical skills necessary to be a contestant; if I were a rejected wannabe contestant, I’d be furious.  As for the losing outfit, it looked ridiculously dated; I did admire how she was able to transform the fabric to actually look like denim, but then to make an ugly denim dress?  Come on.  Hello, 1990s?  But still better than Ping’s disaster.

XX

Tim Gunn is Perfection.



Advertisements

United States of Skittles

And a little random awesomeness to round out the day:

H/T Southern Beale

SFL Ham of Excellence

Ham of Excellence

It is true that I spend a LOT of time mocking things and pointing out general suck. However, in addition to being occasionally for the children,  SFL is also about recognizing random awesomeness, local WINs, and, beginning today, the Ham of Excellence.

The HOE is a very special and tasty award that recognizes outstanding achievement in the field of excellence. Not every WIN can be a HOE. HOEs are for those who most truly and steadfastly rock, sometimes in ways we cannot even see or hear. An SFL HOE is someone or something that goes above, beyond, around, and through general excellence, past random awesomeness, and into a realm where unicorns frolic while drinking prosecco and listening to the New Pornographers cover ELO.

So, without further ado, I present to you the first winner of the SFL Ham of Excellence:

Elizabeth Warren - Ham of Excellence Winner

Elizabeth Warren is the the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel and tireless champion/protector of the American middle class. You can read more about her outstanding excellence here, peruse her books here, or simply bask in her awesomeness and watch the clip below.

Rock on, Elizabeth Warren. Rock on.

Grassroots Gold Mine

“If there is any profit, the money will go toward furthering the cause of conservatism.”

Sherry Phillips, Tea Party Nation founder, on the whopping $549 it will cost a person just to get into the Teabaggin’ Clustersnuggle.  From today’s NYTimes. Note that Phillips also refused to discuss the reported $100,000.00 (yes, one hundred thousand dollars) that Palin is receiving to preach fist pump spew garbled homilies hopefully just show up speak. WTF people?

A hundred grand can do a LOT of *real* good. Hell, $549.00 can do a lot of good. You know, the kind of good that doesn’t involve shelling out one’s hard-earned dollars to be crammed in a hotel with a bunch of confused and angry white people who are being scammed by money-grubbing opportunists into thinking that the soggy chicken kiev they are eating is chock full of tasty patriotism. All while certain people are making BUCKETS and BUCKETS of money off of you.

WHY?

How ‘grassroots’ is that?

Couldn’t YOU do so much more with your money? Seriously, even if charity isn’t your thing, then for the love of whatever you consider holy, KEEP your dollars and either spend them on yourself and your loved ones, or donate it to a REAL candidate of YOUR choice.

And yes, I know that not all TEAfolk are white, angry, and confused. Likewise, I know that not all white, angry, and confused people are TEAfolk. But I think we can all agree that the TEA functions aren’t exactly a shining example of irenic diversity.

You can read more about the quickly disintegrating “organized” total TEA whatever here or you can read more of my mockery on the subject of teabaggery, Palin or other such shenanigoats by pretty much picking a post at random.

No thanks. I'm married.

Citizens United v. FEC: The Moral High Road to Corporate Dominance

“It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. Indeed, a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling. Here, the lack of a valid basis for an alternative ruling requires full consideration of the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin.”  J. Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC.

No. Judicial restraint would be refusing to hear a case on the grounds that the arguments presented were unsound and there is no clear and compelling argument presented for judicial intervention in the legislative process.

I.  INTRODUCTION

Last week SCOTUS handed down Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Long LONG story short, this case involved a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (you may know this as the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Act. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to it hereinafter as BCRA), specifically to U. S. C. §441b, which prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.

To put this in perspective, SCOTUS has previously determined that restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates were kosher, Austin v. Michigan Chamber Of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) and upheld numerous provisions of BCRA in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, No. 02-1674 (Decided December 10, 2003), including the provisions that limited spending by corporations and unions.

In January 2008 Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a “documentary” bashing Hillary Clinton.  Citizens United’s intent was to run the video on cable television via video-on-demand 30 days prior to the primaries. Citizens United also put out tv ads promoting the documentary on regular and cable television. Citizens United then filed a declaratory judgment action (effectively an action that asks a Court to determine the rights of a plaintiff, sometimes indistinguishable from an improper request for an advisory opinion) and requested injunctive relief proclaiming that it was not subject to the restraints of §441b. In its claims for relief, Citizens United made a number of arguments pertaining to a narrow construction of the statute in addition to the generic claims that the statute itself was broadly unconstitutional. NB:  this is a standard approach – one ALWAYS sets up a blanket assertion of fundamental unconstitutionality to balance out the more narrow – and realistic – unconstitutional as applied arguments.

SCOTUS, in a jaw-dropping example of sua sponte policy making by the conservative arbiters of judicial restraint, ignored all the narrowly drawn arguments and determined that this case could only be decided on large-picture 1st Amendment grounds, coyly found that Citizens United had not waived any such arguments, and then proceeded to overrule long-standing precedent and determine that corporations have the right to engage in unlimited and unfettered political spending in the guise of free speech.

To say this decision came as a shock is an understatement. Most people thought this was just a quirk of a case, and one that would be decided on very narrow grounds thus having scant little impact on future political speech activity. Not so much. For those of you who like to torture yourselves, you may read the opinion here in its 180+ page glory, including the very eloquent, if stunned and horrified, dissent penned by Stevens. For those of you that don’t feel like engaging in such an endeavor would be a good use of your time – or may be likely to increase your rage level beyond the range of acceptable – I will give you a quick and dirty summary of WHY the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, the so-called bastion of judicial deference, decided that it had to go all judicial activist on the collective ass of the citizenry. Bottom line? Because it is *GOOD* for us.

II.  SUMMARY.

A.  Support of Candidate A and Attacks on Candidate A’s Opponents Are Two Legally Distinct Activities.

“[B]y definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.” In other words, the majority insists that there is a meaningful and substantive difference between giving a bazillion dollars to Candidate A to get him/her elected and spending a bazillion dollars to get Candidate A’s opponent defeated. First, if we were a multi-party country, this argument might actually have some (very little) merit. However, as we are inarguably a two-party system, money spent to defeat Candidate B is inherently money spent to elect Candidate A.

Think of it this way:  Leno want the Tonight Show back from Conan.  Wal-Mart, being generally evil, wants Leno to get the Tonight Show. Under the Citizens United theory, Wal-Mart cannot give Leno more than $2,400 to assist him in his jackassery.  However, Wal-Mart can spend unlimited amounts of money to get Conan to leave.  What, praytell, is the substantive distinction here? Is SCOTUS trying to pretend that tanking Conan doesn’t necessarily promote Leno? Or, and this is my thought, is SCOTUS simply being difficult and insinuating that Congress set up this false distinction, so they will have to live with it?

Either way, I cry bullshit on this line of reasoning.

B.  There is No Principled Way to Distinguish Between “Media” Corporations and “Other” Corporations.

Basically, EVERY argument of principles/moral/philosophy/religion/politics boils down to this simple diametric:  ‘slippery slope’ v. ‘de minimus.’  In other words, unspeakable horrors will/may result v. you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

Here the majority engages in the long-favored rhetoric of those adhering to an unprincipled argument – insist, instead, that the other approach would result in greater lack of principles down the road. Bait and switch – NICE! What the majority “fears” on this issue is that the provisions of BCRA at issue, if left unmolested, would prohibit “…[i]nternet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, …[from] provid[ing] citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues” as the language of section 441b “…would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds.”  [NB: As Steven’s dissent rightly points out at fn 31, these provisions are expressly inapplicable to print media; so unless your blog is spoken word, the majority’s alarmist potentials do not apply.]

The majority further insists that under the current law, Congress could theoretically ban showings of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Because “[a]fter all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.”

Really? So now Congress, in addition to attempting to limit campaign contributions, is also necessarily attempting to limit obviously protected free speech?

Come on

C.  Not Allowing Corporations Free Rein To “Speak” Is an Infringement on OUR First Amendment Rights.

Warning – this may nauseate you.

The majority additionally asserts that their decision to grant the full unfettered political speech rights of a U.S. human citizen to corporations is to protect US – the U.S. citizens.

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

So yes, restrictions on a corporation’s ability to spend a kabillion dollars to get its favored candidate elected infringes on our 1st Amendment rights to hear them “talk.”  And why does this suck for us? Because, apparently, corporations are inherently good and all-knowing (ummm…does this mean they are God?). The majority gives the following as ‘support’ for its rape-stand of an argument:

The Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”  McConnell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.).

And “the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).

By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of “destroying the liberty” of some factions is “worse than the disease.”  The Federalist No. 10, p. 130 (B.Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, see ibid., and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false. The purpose and effect of this law is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public.

D.  The Dissent’s Concerns Are De Minimus Because Corporations Can Spend to Influence Already

Just in case, or perhaps it is their usual response to liberal slippery slope arguments, the majority observes that its actions are really not that big of a deal and will likely not result in some sort of Atwoodian policorporodystopia because corporations already have the ability to buy their candidate.

“Even if §441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional, wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials, although smaller corporations may not have the resources to do so. And wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures.”

But never fear, actual living breathing human people, for SCOTUS assures us that “[t]he fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.”

III.  CONCLUSION

So, what does this opinion mean? And what the hell do we do?

Well, it means, quite simply, that SCOTUS has greatly expanded the constitutional rights of a corporate “person.”  So now, in addition to simple and logical “rights” like ability to bring or defend a judicial action, a corporation now enjoys rights that seem necessarily tied to human existence and experience.

And yes, it does open the door for rampant corruption. Or, if you prefer, takes what was a very open, regulated, and transparent “window” and just gives the whole damn building to Wal-Mart. And yes, that may well be histrionic, but it simply illustrates my point that ALL things are either a slippery slope or de minimus. And when it comes to corporate involvement in elections, yes, I tend to fall on the slippery slope side.

Because a corporation simply is NOT a U.S. Citizen in the same way that you or me or my child or Bill Gates or my odd-bird neighbor is a U.S. Citizen. A corporation does NOT in any way whatsoever have the same interests at stake in a political election – its interests are SOLELY economic. A corporation cannot get laid off, get sent to war, go to prison, get married, have a family, get an education, go on welfare, get a divorce, retire, collect social security, be born or die.

And it is utterly offensive to everything on which this country was founded to suggest that a corporation is fundamentally ‘the same’ as a human U.S. citizen.

So, if you feel the same way, start contacting ALL your elected officials NOW and insist that they get on the ball with a Constitutional Amendment. Check here or here for more information. And check out the video in my previous post on this matter for more information.

The United States Government is Brought to You By…

I intend to blog about the recent SCOTUS 1st Am/corporate personhood decision in depth, just as soon as I calm down, conquer the raging Idiocracy-themed nightmares, and stop vomiting long enough to read the decision. However, I can write with confidence that I do *not* like this decision one bit and feel very strongly that we need to get our shit together and force our congressional reps to sack up and do the right thing.

Let these fine people tell you more…

H/T to Southern Beale

Pie Worthy

Quote of the Day:

“Just stay in your house baking and maybe God will throw a man through your window.”

From the always wonderful sftubelievers.com. You can see the original image here.

Here Comes Your Man...

Dear Pat Robertson/Random Awesomeness

The SFL Random Awesomeness of the Week Award goes out to Lily Coyle of Minneapolis for the elegantly ghost-written letter to Pat Robertson from Satan, found here in the Star Tribune:

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll. You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

LILY COYLE, MINNEAPOLIS

H/T to the ever awesome Lawyers, Guns and Money .

Soup.

I really love making soup. LOVE it. It is easy, makes your whole house smell like a good place to be, and it is pretty hard to screw it up. Winter is one of my favorite times of the year to make soup because there are so many tasty root and bulb vegetables in season. Also, there is the cold. So, since our local grocery had some pretty sexy looking cauliflower and parsnips, I decided to make Cream of Cauliflower and Parsnip soup.

I don’t really use recipes when I make soups so much as a suggested ingredient list. First, when I make cream-based soups with pureed vegetables, I find that you really don’t need that much cream at all. Basically, I used a stick of butter, 3 small bulbs of shallots, one medium onion, three leeks, a good-sized head of cauliflower, about a pound of parsnips, 4 cups of chicken stock, fresh bay leaves, fresh thyme, about a cup of cream, some grated parm/reg, a pinch of powdered dried chipotle (because the parsnips are pretty sweet) and salt and pepper to taste. I use both ground black and white pepper when making soups.

Chop all your veg.

Mis - soup

Make sure to soak the chopped leeks in water rather than just rinse them. They are dirty, dirty veg.

Dirty, Sexy Leeks

Sweat the onion and shallots in a dutch over or big pot over med-low heat in the butter. Yes the whole stick. Don’t be such a pansy. Add the fresh herbs and S&P. Add the leek, re-season, put the lid on and let the veg soften completely. Add the stock, bring it up to boiling, add the cauli and parsnips, re-season, turn the heat down to low, put the lid on, and go do something else for a while. I folded laundry and drank some wine. Okay, and ate some chocolate.

Almost Soup

When the veg are COMPLETELY soft, turn off the heat. Puree in blender or food pro in small batches and put pureed portions in a separate bowl. Now PAY ATTENTION here unless you want to burn the living shit out of yourself and spend 47 minutes cleaning crap off of your ceiling. When you put hot substances into a blender, DO NOT PUSH THE LID ON. Catch that? Because the heat plus the motion of the blades will blow the top off of your blender unless you have it vented somehow. And no, it is NOT a good idea to just remove the oil cap. Instead, carefully place the lid on the top of the blender without smooshing it down and hold it in place. You can even drape a dish cloth over the top – just make sure to hold the lid in place because it WILL push up. Also, do not ever fill the blender vessel more than 1/3-ish.

When you are done with this and/or have tended to all your burns, return the whole pureed lot back to the original pot. Add your cream SLOWLY. Then your powdered chile and cheese, taste and re-season as needed. I sometimes add a couple of slices of crumbled bacon. Keep over low ’til you are ready to eat it.

Cream of Cauliflower and Parsnip Soup. And Maybe Some Bacon.

We had this with some totally old-school BLTs.

OMGBLT!

D. All of the Above

So, the other day my good buddy, the Cryin’ Ham himself, Mr. Glenn Beck had a little “interview” with the Palin. Now, I fully expected ANY to ALL of the following to happen:

1.  Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin giggle like schoolgirls while brushing each other’s hair and listening to Miley Cyrus sing about pretending to know who/what Jay Z is.

2.  Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin clear the desk and make out like the ship is sinking.

3.  Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin melt/explode/implode into some whirling black hole vortex of villainry, like when Bad Guy and Future Bad Guy touch in Timecop.

4.  Glenn Beck draws maniacally on the chalkboard while Sarah Palin outlines her plan to take over the White House Alaska the Republican Party Fox News his show.

I, however, certainly did NOT expect Glenn Beck to cry “BULLCRAP!!!” when Sarah Palin non/mis/faux-answered a basic civics question my 10 year old would have rocked. Hell, I am pretty our Fat Cat could have lazily pawed out a “J” or something.

And really? Two minutes of fumbling for an answer and all you can come up with is WASHINGTON? Argggg.. That is kind of like saying your favorite painter is “all of them,” then stumbling around until you can cough out something that sounds like ‘Monet.’ Which would be okay if you were my grandma and Monet was the only artist you had heard of. But when you are a Mayor Governor VP candidate 2012 Presidential Prospect Commentator on a News Network, I think we can agree that the bar is just a wee tad higher.

Which makes me wonder – this seems like such a gaffe – could it possibly be that Sarah Palin has a bit of performance anxiety? You know, where she actually *knows* the answers to the questions, but gets nervous and then thinks ‘what if I forget?’ and then she ACTUALLY forgets? Because I TOTALLY do that all the time. You know, like how you *know* someone’s name, but then you have to introduce them to someone else, and you think ‘ah wouldn’t it SUCK if I forgot his name?’ which jinxes you because then you DO forget his name and have to just pretend you are a rude jerk who doesn’t pay attention to social niceties like introducing people?

I think *someone* needs to put “Handlers” on her Amazon Wish List.

« Older entries