even FOX News won’t pony up the money to retain you:

(Sarah) Palin was a hot property when Roger Ailes landed her in 2009, fresh off her colorful run for vice president, and paid her an annual salary of $1 million. Fox even built Palin a studio at her Wasilla home.

But relations cooled between the two sides, and Palin was appearing on Fox less often—complaining on Facebook one night during the Republican convention that the network had canceled her appearances.

The new contract offered by Fox, say people familiar with the situation, would have provided only a fraction of the million-dollar-a-year salary. It was then, they say, that Palin turned it down and both sides agreed to call it quits.

A friendly announcement was planned for Friday, but a source close to Palin leaked the news in the afternoon to Real Clear Politics, saying the former Alaska governor “decided not to renew the arrangement” and “remains focused on broadening her message of common-sense conservatism.”

In just one sentence, today’s New York Times editorial summarizes the Grand Old Party’s hypocritical vision for America that has somehow limped along for the past 30 years:

It sometimes seems as if they (Republicans) are the only ones who talk about their values, but they put forward an elitist and narrow vision that largely favors the upwardly mobile, the healthy, the native-born American and the needs of the corporation.

The editorial later adds specifics:

The Republican template has been in stark view at presidential debates lately. It is a program to wind down the government’s longstanding guarantee of health care to the elderly and the poor and incinerate the Democrats’ new promise to cover the uninsured; to abolish the Department of Education and its effort to raise national standards; to stop virtually all regulation of the environment and the financial industry; to reimpose military discrimination against gays and lesbians, deport immigrants, cut unemployment insurance and nutrition programs, raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich.

I continue to find it remarkable that these folks talk a lot about small-town American values, morals and having the interests of regular folks at heart when their real interests, as witnessed by their stance on tax policies, etc., are in protecting inanimate corporations and the affluent, all the while garnering support from small-town America, when GOP policies do not in the least favor the average Joe the Plumber types, if I, with a cringe, may summon that Palin shill of 2008 election lore.

Hmm, pretty sure this is illegal …

This article doesn’t make a conclusive decision on the subject, but it indeed seems that Sarah Palin penned her signature to the American flag on a recent campaigning expedition in Reno. While we can admit that Palin was obviously preoccupied with talking to members of the press in signing books, etc., and thus may have not realized what she was signing her name to (Although the stars and stripes might have been hard not to notice), at about the 1:40 mark in the video, she then grabs a piece of paper from a supporter along with the American flag, which was on top. She takes the pen and scribbles her name on the flag. It seems conclusive to me since the piece of paper that she grabbed along with the flag was still underneath the flag when she handed the items back to the supporter, she did desecrate the flag thusly.

Of course, if this was the case, that would have been in illegal and in violation of the “Respect for flag” section of Title 4 of the United States Code, Chapter 1, which in part g, reads:

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

So much for the ultra-patriot credo of the Tea Party crowd, ay? Here is the video (And to see stupid heaped onto more stupid, by all means, watch the rest):

and a still shot:

Palin signs flag?

I was glad to learn yesterday from Sarah Palin that it’s actually the conservatives who are the victims of the liberals, the government and nasty critics, not necessarily the actual homeless, downtrodden, unemployed and uninsured folks in this country, for what do they matter when Reps can seize upon yet another opportunity to rail against their political nemeses? In defending Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s recent and multiple uses of the word, “nigger” — a use that I, as it happens, mostly defended as well — (That is, I defended her freedom to use the word in an honest debate about language. I obviously don’t defend her berating attitude toward the caller, nor her obnoxiousness in saying the word over and over just to irritate the caller.) — Palin even frames a recent Facebook post thusly: “Defending the Fight to Cast off a Conservative’s ‘Shackles’.”

Palin’s choice of the word “shackles” is enlightening as much as it is ironic and offensive, since “shackles” is often used in speaking of slavery, and the central issue here is about Schlessinger’s use of the word “nigger,” but I doubt Palin is far-sighted enough to catch the nuance. Also, speaking of modern conservatives in any analogous context alongside slaves is laughable, in the best case, and utterly contemptible, in the worst.

And here is a recent Twitter post by Palin:

Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)

Now, commentators on cable news shows this afternoon (Aug. 19) were conjecturing over what Palin might have meant by the word “reload!”

The Rev. Al Sharpton, for instance, thought “reload!” meant that Palin was advocating the continued use of questionable and derogatory language to egg on black folks. I’m not quite with him there. Actually, I’m convinced that Palin didn’t really know what she meant by “reload!” other than some very ambiguous, big-feeling, neoconservative woman-power term to encourage Schlessinger to fight a good fight, whatever that might mean. Again, Palin knows not.

Post script: While I’m at it, Palin also in a separate Facebook post said she was “traveling with Greta Van Susteren to Alaska’s North Slope and ANWR to discuss how developing our resources can contribute to America’s energy independence, security, job growth, and economic stability.”

Traveling with? That’s peculiar. And any guesses as to where Susteran works? The answer is obvious and foxy. See previous post.

And these are words from the person who ran for vice president in 2008 and who will likely run for president, no less, in 2012:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.

Notwithstanding the illogical statement that “peaceful Muslims” should not welcome a peaceful place of worship at Ground Zero, try to find ”refudiate” in the dictionary? Of course you can’t because it’s not there. The word Sarah Palin was looking for was repudiate, or simply, refute. Palin has since modified the original Twitter post to read:

Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing.

Yet, she still retained this apparent, yet pitiful excuse for the previous error:

“Refudiate,” “misunderestimate,” “wee-wee’d up.” English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

“Wee-wee’d up??? Palin is now comparing herself to Shakespeare? And we should celebrate what, exactly? That public figures, past vice presidential candidates and likely presidential candidates scarce know their own language. And yet, these conservatives like to rail against Hispanics for not knowing English? They are ones to talk. Learn your own language, and then we can talk about refuting those who enter this country without knowing ours.

Since Tuesday will mark the most active day this primary election season, with residents from 11 states heading to the polls to select which House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates they want to see in the general elections, set for Nov. 2, I thought I might run down where we’re at right now. On Tuesday, votes will be taking place in California, Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia.

Obviously, as the general election nears, the big question is whether Democrats will continue to hold majorities in both houses of Congress. The New York Times in this graphic estimates whether each of the 435 up for grabs in the House and 36 in the Senate are either solidly Democrat, solidly Republican, toss-ups or leaning one way or the other. In the House, 114 seats fall outside of the solid category and are either leaning toward the Reps or Dems or are toss-ups. On the Republican side, 164 will most likely stay red, and on the Democratic side, 157 will most likely stay blue. The party with 218 seats will have a majority.

In the Senate, 17 seats are uncertain. Forty-eight are solidly for Democratic and 35 are solidly Republican.

Here is how the 11 primaries set for Tuesday break down:

• Arkansas — House, toss-up; Senate, leaning Rep
• California — House, solid Dem; leaning Dem
• Iowa — House, leaning Dem; Senate, solid Rep
• Maine — House, solid Dem
• Montana — House, solid Dem
• Nevada — House, solid Dem; Senate, leaning Rep
• New Jersey — House, solid Dem
• North Dakota — House, toss-up; Senate, solid Rep
• South Carolina — House, leaning Rep/Senate, solid Rep
• South Dakota — house, leaning Dem/Senate, solid Rep
• Virginia — House, solid Rep

In addition, all but 13 states will vote in new or returning governors. These races seem more contested, with only seven solidly Rep or Dem. Thirty are listed as toss-ups.

Needless to say, this election could be critical as to whether President Obama can get any other major initiatives passed during his remaining tenure. Already, the health care bill barely passed without a single nod of approval from the right, that would be to say, in spite of Republicans. If the right captures a majority in either house, future measures, including energy or immigration reform, could be doomed before they get hatched.

NPR has a large collection of stories covering many aspects of the primaries, including the rise of anti-government and anti-incumbent sentiment that has swept, interestingly but not surprisingly, a number of Republican women, in Palin’s wake,  into the fray, with 14 women on the right already headed for battles for Senate seats. Here’s a feature on that topic.

In my own criticisms of the Tea Party movement, I was made well aware that supporters don’t take kindly to the term, “tea bagger,” which I used more than a year or so ago, and loosely, in my correspondence with some of the movement’s followers.

President Obama has apparently learned this lesson as well. As reported by this article:

Reading through Jonathan Alter’s new book on President Obama’s first year, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” Tapper comes across a November 30, 2009 interview in which Obama declared that the unanimous vote of House Republicans against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”

Never one to hide her ill-gotten feelings on all matters of the Democrat Party or of progressives, Michelle Malkin chimed in thusly:

Really. How many more selective civility police lectures can we take from this vulgarity-clogged White House?

And as Ian Lazaran with Conservatives4Palin (Yes, you read that right) said:

Obama may be the most thin-skinned President we’ve ever had. It’ll be funny to see him apologize for his crude, offensive, and juvenile language when this book officially comes out.

The Tea Party crowd represents an illogical, anachronistic and sheepish antagonism toward something; although, as of yet, we haven’t been given a clear answer as to what that something might be, and we have less notions of any proposed solutions. Thus, the message is: We rail against increased taxes (Which, in reality, would only affect those making 250K a year or more) and government spending, yet we can offer no solutions other than pouring anti-government rhetoric down your collective throats. And the ignorant masses who actually stand to gain the most from this administration’s efforts, who know no better, align with the other side, which, it’s no secret, is far removed from having the poor and middle class’ interests at heart.

But enough.

I’ve shredded the “Don’t Tread On Me” crowd and their arguments before, so I’m done for now.

Really the only response needed toward the Tea Party crowd and this wellspring of irrational, anti-government vitriol is a good measure of ridicule, and on that, I’ll stake my ground.

Stupidity No. 1: We at the newspaper I work for attempted to write an editorial about this foolishness, that is, the porn industry’s plea for a $5 billion bailout, but found it far more of a challenge to write the piece without including 10 puns rather than flesh out the 500 words required for the piece.

(Larry) Flynt’s and (Joe) Francis’ announcement coincides with the start today of the four-day Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. They hope to find support for the bailout bid from other industry leaders.

“People are too depressed to be sexually active,” Flynt said in a news release. “This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such, but they cannot do without sex.”

Too depressed to be sexually active? Heck,  that’s one of the few joys folks have left: the mortgage payment is beyond reach, credit cards have thousands of dollars in balances and the recently bought Christmas presents are being more a burden than a joy on the giver. Flynt is right: Perhaps aside from the joy of enjoying the outdoors and natural wonders or the joy of raising children, sex is at least in the top 3 joys of being human. I don’t think folks are going to neglect it; I don’t think folks can.

But that’s a moot point. Of course it’s a publicity stunt. For financial security, one can seek one of a few professions: nursing, teaching, law, modeling, the gambling industry and porn. (Notice, I listed them descending further down the moral rabbit hole.) But I digress. …

Stupidity No. 2: Palin (urgh). She’s not going away. You know, it’s amazing to me that whenever I post something on this blog and mention her name, my hits go up exponentially. But if I attempt to talk about something vastly more important, and meh, the hits are minimal. I suppose that begs the question: Am I only mentioning her now so I can get hits? While I admit there is a level of euphoria involved in seeing that magical WordPress stat graph go up and up after a Palin post, I mention her occasionally as I do simply for that reason: She’s not going away and there is a good chance she will vie for the presidency in 2012. Why shouldn’t she? She’s clearly still got the media and certain segments of Republicans captivated by … something … I’m not sure what. Her knowledge of moose and grizzly bears? Her “You betcha’s” and “Darn tootins?” Pleasant she is, but competent enough to lead the free world, she is not, and unless she suddenly becomes a tower of erudition and foreign policy, my view won’t change.

For many, I’m sure the thought of a genuine “soccer mom” sounds like a dream come true, but soccer moms aren’t qualified to negotiate with folks like Putin and Kim Jong Ill. The thought of Palin and the latter sitting across from each other in serious negotiation can’t even be rendered by my feeble mind.

In this most recent story, Palin thinks the coverage on Carolina Kennedy has been soft and the result of some “class issue.” In favor of Kennedy because of her family? Because the Kennedys are richer than the Palin? We aren’t talking about the difference between Tiny Tim and Donald Trump. We are talking about levels of richness. The Palins and Kennedys have it. Most of us do not. The complaining over favorable press coverage can stop there. The fact is that Katie Couric (though a bit brashly) asked tough questions, most that even average citizens could answer, and got insufficient answers (from a vice presidential candidate!).