In Defense of Trump Supporters and Why They're Wrong

Before I get to the Trump supporters, I must write about the petition that is attempting to stop Trump and why I signed it.  I am politically opposed to Donald Trump, and I have grown to like Hillary Clinton, to the extent that I can like a politician, that is.  But those things have nothing to do with why I signed the Change Dot Org petition.  I signed it because Donald Trump is dangerous; he is a threat to everything that makes America great.  Did you see what I did there?  I turned his motto against him.  I go girl.

The petition is asking the electors to not vote for Trump even if they're "supposed" to since the whole point of the Electoral College is to keep the people from voting for someone who is unfit for the presidency.  Since Hillary won the popular vote anyway, going "against" what the electors are "supposed" to do wouldn't actually oppose the will of the people.  I think the other point of the Electoral College is to help the smaller states be more represented, but I feel like that is less important than the popular vote and the understanding that Trump is dangerous.  I don't know if the petition will actually make a difference, but I signed it anyway, because it's something I can do.  I did hesitate before signing because of things like democracy and the peaceful transition of power, but decided to do it for the reasons I just stated.

I want to be clear regarding my reasons for signing the petition: it isn't because I disagree with Trump politically, even though I do.  This isn't about politics.  It's because he is dangerous.  I would never have signed such a petition against George W. Bush, for example, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and even though I knew (and was proven correct) that W would start wars, run the country into the ground economically, and stifle stem cell research.  Those are political things; he was not a danger to the very fabric of what America stands for. 

As I understand it, the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from becoming president.  I have to admit, I had to look up the definition of demagogue to gain a clearer and better understanding of what the eff that means.  Alarmingly, both Google's and Webster's definitions of demagogue seem to be providing frighteningly precise descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior.  The Google definition is clearer: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

And now, onto the actual purpose of this post: my defense of Trump supporters.  Before I defend them, I shall offend them.

There are many (two that I know of anyway) people who feel that many Trump supporters are some form of piece of crap, or deplorable, as Hillary more eloquently put it.  I don't think she was wrong to make that statement, since the things she was describing are unquestionably deplorable, and she was obviously not talking about all Trump supporters.  This deplorable sect of supporters seem to be racist, homophobic, white supremacists, opposed to religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.  I am quite sure that there is at least a portion of Trump supporters that fit these categories of pieces of crap, evidenced by the fact that the KKK support Trump, since the KKK is obviously composed of pieces of crap as described here.  For the record, I don't think the pieces of crap are limited to the KKK, based on things I've heard from non-KKK Trump supporters.  However, I am quite sure that these categories do not apply to all Trump supporters; in fact, I personally know at least one who is none of those deplorable things.  But even the non-deplorable among them have chosen to elect a distributor of deplorable; I saw on Myface (Facebook) a post that stated that all Trump supporters might not be racist, but racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them.  That sums it up nicely, I think.  So now that I have offended the Trump supporters, I shall, at long last, defend them.

I will not be defending the deplorable portion of Trump supporters, i.e. the racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.  I will be defending the ones who are not deplorable, for whom deplorable things about Trump were not a deal-breaker.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there are people who wanted to vote for someone who holds their political views.  Some of those people, mostly Republicans probably, only saw one political option, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.  To be honest, while I understand the political opposition to Hillary by Republicans, it strikes me as odd since she seems moderate to me, and therefore potentially appealing to both parties.  But then again, I also think the same thing of President Obama and John McCain, both of whom are opposed by the other party.  Perhaps this is reflective of people's inability to compromise on anything.  But I digress.

Those Republicans were left with one awful candidate who claims to hold their Republican views, and I think they felt like they couldn't bear to vote for someone on the Democratic side, even though she is moderate.  Oh, I guess the above paragraph wasn't actually a digression after all.  They couldn't bear to compromise their political views, even if it meant electing a dangerous demagogue.

I had trouble empathizing with these voters, until I really imagined myself in their position (I'm normally better at empathy than that, I think).  I imagined a scenario in which an alleged Democratic version of Trump (so Trump from a few years ago then) but with the current state of crazies would run against a Republican whom I find vile as a person (because it seems there are people who hate Hillary as a person as well as a politician) and whose political views are contrary to mine.  So Ted Cruz.  I imagined a Democratic but still just as dangerous version of Trump running against Ted Cruz.  What would I do?  I disagree with Cruz on probably everything, and I don't like anything about him at all.  But he's not a danger to our beloved country the way Trump is.  Cruz wouldn't start a nuclear war because someone hurt his feelings on Twitter.  He wouldn't scapegoat entire races of people the way Hitler did.  He wouldn't attack journalistic freedom.  I would like to believe that I would be able to look past the politics, since this really isn't about politics, and vote for the person who is least evil and least dangerous for our country and its people.  I think I would be able to do that, as hard as it would be to vote for Ted Cruz, because ever since I was little, I understood that politics is always a choice of bad and worse, and we must vote for the lesser of the evils.  In my scenario, Ted Cruz is clearly the lesser of evils when compared to Trump.  While I believe I would ultimately make the right choice and cast the sane vote for Ted Cruz, it would be an incredibly hard decision to make and it would hurt my soul to cast that vote.  So I understand the non-deplorable Trump supporters; it probably would have been too hard for them to vote for Hillary.

And now, I shall get to the part about why the Trump supporters I just defended are wrong.  I do understand how hard their decision was, but they made the wrong one.  They should have been stronger; they should have made the difficult decision to vote against their views that are merely political, and vote for the person who is not a danger to our beloved country and beautiful Earth.  They made the wrong decision.  Now we must all suffer the consequences.  This isn't about politics.

More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.

Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!

One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.

Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!

Where are the 2012-ers?

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not intend to be insensitive or offensive to anyone or anything. Any statement that appears insensitive or offensive is intended as sarcasm and/or hyperbole (an exaggeration to make a point; I am providing that explanation so you don’t have to Google the definition as I once did). If anything offends anyone, I apologize sincerely in advance.

With all that’s going on with the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, tsunami, and radioactivity in Japan, where are all the people who have been insisting that an apocalypse is coming, particularly the ones who say it’s coming on December 21, 2012, or as my sister called them just now after I brought this up with her, the 2012-ers (patent pending…in my dreams!).

After other major disasters, such as Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, the 2012-ers and other Armageddon-ers were so quick to say those were signs of the upcoming apocalypse. However, the current Japanese disasters that are of much more Biblical proportions don’t seem to be generating the same apocalyptical warnings. Where are you, fear-mongering 2012-ers?

The current disasters seem so much more extreme than the previous ones, particularly since this time, nuclear radiation is involved, which could mean the beginning of some crazy genetic mutations, assuming humans survive at all. These disasters are far more doom-ridden than a mere ginormous hurricane and a mere 7.0 magnitude earthquake that happened in different locations.

I wonder if the difference is the perceived blasphemy happening in the location of the disasters. Maybe it’s only a sign of the apocalypse if the people are not strict Christians, like the blasphemous New Orleans people with their Mardi Gras and their New Orleans Voodoo, and the Vodou wielding Haitians. I’m pretty sure Christianity has infiltrated Japan, but then again, there must be lots of blasphemous Buddhists there too, so I really don’t understand where the Armageddon-ers are.

I found some 2012-ers when I googled for them (here is one example). It’s nice to see they are out there, mongering their fear, but they are not doing it loud enough, because I had to seek them out. Previously, they made themselves known, and I heard about them on the TV. Some religious extremists such as Glenn Beck are doing their traditional Pat Robertson-like blaming of the blasphemous, but there doesn’t seem to be enough Pat Robertson-like talk of the end of the world as we know it.

Come on, 2012-ers, you’re here, you fear, get loud about it!

UPDATE April 10, 2011
Finally, someone (that I’ve seen) made the connection between the 2012 apocalypse that the Mayans predicted and all the bad things happening now. And of course, it was that fear-monger (satirist) Jon Stewart! He also alluded to it during his beautiful farewell to Glenn Beck. Thank you, Jon Stewart!

Update May 7, 2011
OMG, I just discovered some relatives of the 2012-ers, and they are crazy – I mean they are May 21, 2011-ers. If you click on the “listen” thing here, you will hear that some of the May 21-ers sound like they are on drugs – seriously, their voices sound drugged to me, though I obviously make no claim regarding whether they actually are drugged. These people have left their families and quit their jobs because they are awaiting the rapture that will come on May 21, 2011. They explain that if you’re still here on May 22, then you are in Hell. I bet they will be in Hell, since they will have left their families and jobs for nothing and will then be left to either mend their burned bridges or find some way to move on from them, at least for the next 153 days, since that is when the universe will cease to exist. Maybe they can all join together and form a cult, or maybe they already have. Am I being too judgmental about the impending Judgment Day believers? Then I guess I’ll see you in Hell! Hahahahahahaha! Just kidding.

UPDATE May 20, 2011
When I wrote the previous update, I felt bad for the extent of my harshness, particularly the part about seeing ya’ll in Hell. However, I now feel better about that, since Stephen Colbert said the same thing, after providing a moving recap of Earth’s history. Thanks, Stephen Colbert!

UPDATE May 22, 2011

So, here we are in Hell. Hell seems an awful lot like Earth in the pre-Rapture days. The only apocalyptic sign that I witnessed was that in the part of Hell where I live, it was a beautiful sunny day until it suddenly became cloudy and rainy within an hour of the time of the Rapture, and the sun came back about an hour after. I guess G-d was being subtly apocalyptic. I didn’t see anyone floating up to the Heavens, but if you witnessed any floating virtuous people, feel free to comment below, Fellow Hell-dwellers.

UPDATE August 23, 2011


The 5.9 earthquake in Virginia that I felt in NY and that others felt throughout the Eastern part of the country (according to my Myface newsfeed and the CNN part of the TV) is clear and undeniable evidence of the apocalypse! This is particularly obvious since we are rapidly approaching December 21, 2012 and even more rapidly approaching October 21, 2011, Harold Camping’s new judgmentally apocalyptic prediction! Run!

Idol Post-Predictions

My DVR decided to not have enough room to record all of the first American Idol results show of the season (though I was sure it did), so I didn’t see most of the watered down wildcard portion of the program. I saw through Stefano Langone’s rather impressive performance, and then read about the rest here and here.

As I mentioned, the wildcard process this year has been grossly diluted in that the judges chose wildcard contenders only from the Top 24 they had selected previously rather than from all the contestants thus far as I recall they have in the past. By only selecting from the 14 contestants that America chose as losers, they are implying that only America could have made a mistake, and that the judges are infallible. However, it is clear that as a group, their judging skills are tepid at best, paling in comparison to those of a judging group containing both Simon Cowell and the somewhat Cowell-esque Randy Jackson. Of course, Cowell is not perfect either, and I certainly didn’t always agree with him, but I did always respect his opinion because he always had one other than “wow you’re spectacular.”

I’m not just saying these things about the new wildcard process because it inherently removed any possibility that I could be right about who the wildcards would be, or because it inherently meant that the two pre-Top 24 contestants I was most hoping to see as wildcards, Colton Dixon and Chris Medina, couldn’t possibly be selected. It is the arrogance implied in the new wildcard process that bothers me most.

With all of that being said, I am generally happy with the Top 13. The Top 24 contestants that I loved most made it through (Thia Megia, Lauren Alaina, Scotty McCreery, and James Durbin). A couple of the contestants that I liked made it through (Naima Adedapo and Jacob Lusk), as did the contestant that I newly like, Stefano Langone. I was sad though not heartbroken to see Brett Loewenstern and Rachel Zevita go. I was obviously thrilled to see the evil and untalented Clint Jun Gamboa get voted out. Finally, of the Top 13, I only really dislike two contestants, Paul McDonald and Ashthon Jones.

While Paul McDonald simply has the kind of voice and musical preferences that don’t generally appeal to me, Ashthon Jones is just not that good in my opinion. I admit that she is all right, maybe even sort of good, but I really don’t like the tone of her voice, and I find her arrogant attitude absolutely irritating. The judges think she is confident, but in my opinion, she ran past confidence a long time ago and resides deep in the depths of arrogance. I might like her a little better if she realizes she’s not as great as she thinks she is.

SPOILER ALERT – Glee Season 1 is briefly mentioned below.

Speaking of over-praised contestants, I’m rather puzzled by the judges’ reactions to Pia Toscano’s rendition of “I’ll Stand by You.” I thought it was good, but not great, and I really can’t understand what greatness they saw in that performance. I think Pia’s standing ovation might have been a delayed reaction to Thia’s performance, since the mix-up is understandable considering the rhyming names. However, assuming the ovation was intended for Pia, perhaps my perception is unfairly biased. I was not only comparing Pia’s performance to the original Pretenders version of “I’ll Stand by You,” but I was also comparing it to the greatest version of that song that I ever heard: Cory Monteith as Finn singing it to what he believed was his unborn baby on Glee. If that is in fact why I stared stolidly at the TV during Pia’s performance, then the TV has gone full circle and has begun to eat itself. American Idol gave rise to Glee, and Glee has reduced what might have been a great American Idol performance into a somewhat-better-than mediocre one. Perhaps this is a sign of the Apocalypse.

UPDATE March 9, 2011

Well, it seems that Ashthon Jones took my advice and tried to show a less arrogant version of herself tonight…and now I like her even less.  Her attempt to soften her image came off as blatantly fake, and her arrogance still seeped out from her essence, along with her obscene lack of talent.  I don’t think she sang a single note on key, and I’m pretty much tone deaf.  The judges frantically tried to make sense of their horrible decision to keep her in the competition by praising her alleged ability to find her way back when she went off key, and they tried so hard to make that sound like a good thing.  I suppose it is a good thing, but I don’t think it’s so great when she had to spend the whole song doing it repeatedly.  If she had any real talent, she wouldn’t have had to spend more time finding her way back to the right notes than she did on the actual notes.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “Sundown”

Sayid’s Choice

There seems to be a theme on Lost about making choices, and that theme was painfully present in “Sundown.”

The Lost characters have made several choices throughout the series, involving getting off the island, getting back onto the island, saving their friends, and saving themselves. Sayid’s choice in “Sundown,” however, was the ultimate choice; it appears that he has sold his soul to the Devil to bring Nadia (the woman he loves in both realities) back to life (or perhaps to kill Sayid so he can eternally be with Nadia). Not only did he sell his soul, he sold out his friends, and he might have sold out all of humanity.

In the new reality (or flash-sideways as everyone else calls it), Sayid’s life isn’t much better than it had been in the reality we are familiar with. In both realities, he regrets the person he was and the torturing he did. In both realities, he wants to be good. In both realities, he ends up making choices that force him to question whether he truly is good or evil. In the new reality, he punishes himself by not allowing himself to be with the woman he loves because he doesn’t believe he deserves her, which suggests that he believes he is evil. In the reality we are familiar with, he chooses to be with her even if it means the end of all good in the world, and he does this after he proclaims that there is good in his soul. In both realities, he kills because he believes the murders have good purpose (avenging the death of Nadia in the reality we’re familiar with, and helping his brother and Nadia in the new reality); and in both realities, he kills even when that good purpose ceases to exist (after he succeeded in helping his brother and Nadia in the new reality, and after he sold his soul to The Smoke Monster in the reality we are familiar with).

Sayid’s battle between good and evil within himself might have been lost in the reality we are familiar with due to forces that were beyond him. Before he came back to life and became “infected,” and even at times after, Good appeared to be triumphing over Evil. When he realized avenging Nadia’s death lacked purpose, he did stop – he did choose to try to lead a good life again.

The Darkness

This episode was difficult to watch; it lacked the warm fluffiness of all the other Lost episodes. I’m sure you’re all saying, “What? Yel can’t possibly be talking about Lost.” Despite my exaggeration, however, this episode really was a lot darker than other episodes have been.

The evidence is becoming clearer and clearer that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster is the Devil, particularly since Dogen told Sayid that Fake John Locke is evil incarnate. I maintain a healthy modicum of doubt regarding the Good v. Evil nature of things. Dogen also confirmed that The Smoke Monster is (or was) trapped by Jacob, and explained that since Jacob is dead, The Smoke Monster/Fake John Locke is now free and will annihilate everyone on the island. Of course, we had to witness this, as The Smoke Monster, like the Angel of Death in the Passover story, came through the temple, and murdered all who could not escape and all who would not go with The Smoke Monster/Fake John Locke off the island.

This darkness is beginning to shed light on what the purpose of the island might be. Perhaps The Smoke Monster (the Devil) was trapped on the island because perhaps that is how Jacob (G-d) contained evil, in order to keep the world safe from evil. Perhaps this was foreshadowed by the Swan confining the powerful electromagnetic forces emanating from the island in the reality we are familiar with. When, Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster rhetorically asked Sawyer in “The Substitute” what the island needed protection from, I think we all muttered aloud (or I did anyway), “From you, Smoke Monster – from evil.” Perhaps Jacob – or whoever takes over his job of Protector of the Island – protects the island from the evil forces of The Smoke Monster/ The Devil (and/or Man in Black), and, thereby protects the world from his evil forces by detaining him there on that bizarre island.

World, I mean Word Coming to an End!

I was shocked to learn today that some small company from America Junior (Canada, as Homer Simpson called it) claims to have a 1998 patent for the way Microsoft Word works (something about the XML implementation, like I know what that means) and they're forcing poor, poor Microsoft to stop selling Word and Office on January 11, 2010. This will screw over computer sellers and stores that sell Word and Office, and obviously it will screw over every business on Earth, every student on Earth, and every computer-using person on Earth.

So the world won't end on 12/21/12, it will end on 1/11/10, or the Word will anyway.

I think it’s patently clear (pun intended) that the Canadian company is a vengeful one, since its name is i4i.

Fortunately, the copies of Word and Office that we already have will still be supported by Microsoft, and hopefully they'll be able to fix the patent-infringing problem before doomsday.

UPDATE February 1, 2010
I guess I should have updated this on 01.11.10, but I guess I was too distracted by all the excitement of Binary Palindrome Day.

Anyway, Doomsday came and went, and both the world and Word continued to exist. Microsoft was forced to remove the XML thingie from all copies of Word 2007 and Office 2007 sold on or after that day, and they are required to pay $290 million in damages. Microsoft is appealing this decision, particularly the damages part, in hopes that they will reduce that massive sum, for the sake of the future (since they don’t want to set a precedent for such a large amount in damages).

I know it’s “wrong” to root for big business, but I can’t help it – I hope Microsoft succeeds.

The Deadly Effects on Humans of Sarah Palin’s Book

While watching this segment from last night’s Daily Show, I realized that the adorable young children to whom John Oliver read excerpts from Sarah Palin’s book (Going Rogue) have clearly been watching David Letterman’s series, “Things More Fun than Reading the Sarah Palin Memoir.”

The children’s examples of things that would be more fun than hearing a reading of Going Rogue closely parallel those of The Late Show with David Letterman. I believe my jocularity regarding the young children’s viewing of The Late Show is obvious. However, the analogous reactions formed by the young children and David Letterman and his writing staff indicates a potentially universal human reaction to Sarah Palin’s memoir – a reaction involving a preference for violent destruction, physical torture, and even suicide over being exposed to the intensely boring torture of Going Rogue.

This clearly elucidates the very obvious fact that Sarah Palin is evil and perhaps even dangerous to all humans, but particularly to young children. Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sarah Palin’s perilous evil is even recognized by the Mayans, who, according to David Letterman, states that their calendar does predict that "the world will end in 2012, but not from floods, earthquakes, or fires,” but rather from the threat of a Sarah Palin presidency.

This brings me to another segment from last night’s Daily Show. Simply put, I agree almost whole-heartedly with Jon Stewart. He presents the belief of the conservative media that we non-conservatives hate Sarah Palin because she is pretty, she hunts, and she’s Alaskan. That is clearly not the case at all. I actually want to like her because she is pretty. I know, that’s wrong, it’s anti-feminist, etc, but it’s just how I feel. Also, she looks a bit like my mother, whom I love like my own mother (probably because she is my own mother), so that’s actually another reason I want to like Sarah Palin. I don’t particularly like her hunting, it seems wrong, especially when she hunts from a helicopter. But I can’t really hate someone who eats what they hunt, for as a non-vegetarian, I’m one step away from doing that as well, though I could never kill anything directly…I mean, except for spiders and some other insects. Regarding her Alaskan origins, I certainly don’t hate her because she lives in Alaska – that’s ridiculous. The only reason I might hate Alaskans is that they elected Sarah Palin governor. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with Alaskans. I mean, it’s not like they’re New Jerseyans. Anyway, I can forgive the Alaskans for electing her since she resigned as their governor so she could write her memoirs.

So, no, I don’t hate her for those superficial reasons as conservative news people from the land of Fox News might like to believe. Rather, I hate her for, as Jon Stewart says, her emptiness, her non-substantiveness, “the nothing…a conservative boiler plate mad-lib…delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived…It’s…the boasting about [her] straight-shootin’, when [she’s] not straight shootin’, [she’s] just a talking point machine.”

But I also hate her on those occasions where she does have some degree of substance. I hate her for her overly conservative political beliefs. I have no problem at all with people believing things that differ from what I believe, of course, but I do have a problem with people who feel they should impose those beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on the rest of the world. That is precisely what Sarah Palin wants to do. Things like forcing her pro-life perspective on women who should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies and abstinence-only sex education – these are some of the reasons I hate Sarah Palin.

Another reason I hate Sarah Palin is discussed in this segment from last night’s Colbert Report. In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin does not take responsibility for anything; she blames others for anything that goes wrong. Additionally, Going Rogue is factually flawed, and she can’t even accept responsibility for that; it’s not her fault, it’s the fault of the fact-checkers who dare to bring her false facts to light.

I hope that reading this blog has been more fun than reading Sarah Palin’s book.