Rejecting Sweet Innocence, a key to the Democratic Sweep
Some are inclined to decide she represents either goodness or evil, which is bad for our internal well being as well as all our general understandings on how this world operates.
To take out of the mix, whether she represents ultimate good or evil, I want to compare her to another person who succeeded in a lot of different fields, and during World War II, was an advocate for the entire country, against Hitler’s Germany. The, after the war was an advocate for Black Rights, and the Rights of the African Peoples’ plight in a Colonial World. He, like Sarah, as an advocate, got many mad at him.
Both Sarah Palin, Paul Robeson, and their friends claimed, they are being picked on for prejudicial reasons. Robeson’s supporter claiming The White Man wants to run the Black Man’s World. This was before the Civil Rights Movement. And Sarah’s supporters claim that women aren’t supposed to succeed, unless they hide their femininity and dress and act, kind of like, a male politician does.
There is an old piece of sheet music, "At the Devil’s Ball" and the album cover has the devil going after a sweet woman,
The woman has an uncanny resemblance to Sarah Palin and a blog site noting the image, hinted that this may have something to do with her being a representative of what is bad. I suggested super imposing glasses on the album cover, and was bleeped.
Sara Palin spends a tremendous amount of effort trying to look, and be, sweet innocence. And it is uncanny as with Paul Robeson, she can so much physically looks the part she was trying to be. Her mannerisms and lipstick, and even her glasses is what an innocent woman would wear. How she responds to insults, such as someone calling her claiming to be an important person, and during the phone call hinting that he wasn’t, is exactly like a sweet, young naive thing would do.
The American people weren’t keen on the idea that someone who was sweetly innocent might be in charge of the country some day. And compared Bush telling Saddam "No!" when Saddam offered to leave Iraq if he could take the treasury with him and have a US assurance that there would be no war crimes trials, to the kind of President Sarah Palin might be.
Fusing Sarah Palin to John McCain also made McCain’s advocacy seem like sweet innocence. As if McCain wants to return to a naive world where those in the US believe they represent goodness and those who disagree with us represent evil. Come to think of it I just realized that Reagan and Bush Jr. also represent a craving for a belief that the US represents the ultimate good in a naive way. And perhaps there is a touch of this naivety in the Obama revolution as well.
I wonder whether Paul Robeson’s crusades had anything to do with the liberation of Africa colonies, the Civil Right’s Movement and the election of Barrack Obama, or whether if our Western Society ends up deciding that developing babies have rights besides what their parents’ want for them, whether or not Sarah might become part of the reason why.
So much for trying to cool off the most shrill supporters of Sarah Palin who think Satan won this election cycle. However, it’s not only the other side. When those among us who react to the recent election as good triumphed, over evil, we may be looking at the world in a more naive fashion than we realize. Those of various political stripes who don’t condemn President Bush for telling Saddam "No!" to leaving Iraq with the treasury with him also see the world in a naively simplistic way.
I know there are some others who agree with me that it’s a mistake and harmful to the future to interpret election events as either good smashed evil, or evil triumphs, and to not note that Obama never even suggested such things as a gas tax to fund eco-conversion to safe energy, which got Kerry and Gore in trouble with a lot of voters. When polls said McCain was better on foreign policy, instead of Obama trying to correct this assumption by mentioning that not dealing with and endless hate of US imperial, threatens our children’s and our grandchildren’s well being, he made Biden the Vice President. Meanwhile a depression is looming getting in the way of Obama’s efforts to create unfunded improvements in the services we get.
One issue no one wants to discuss, that Obama might have to deal with is "What if al Qaeda inherits Pakistani nukes?" US policy needs to only dwell on that instead of worrying about whether women over there are forced to wear burkas, or execute new Christians. I could be wrong, maybe it is the US’s job to prevent 13-year-olds who have been raped, from being stoned to death for illicit sex in Somalia.
At any case both Obama and the American people should decide ahead of time when and where we are going to fight. Instead of another misreported incident getting us into war. A policy that goes all the way back to Pearl Harbor where the only surprise for the US government was that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor instead of Guam.
I keep asking the hard questions and get very little response back.
Asking these questions can prevent a future war, unless the American people decide to fight, which possibly could be the case. Answering these questions will have a lot to do with what future America will look like as well as the legacy of the Obama administration. To decide not to ask these questions means these questions will be certainly decided for us.
Perhaps there is a way for us who believe that looking at harsh reality is a straightforward way is a necessary component to the American people successfully dealing with the crises we are in, could get together in some joint way to make our ideas more known to those who think certain causes and the latest hype is the only thing that matters. I hope anyone who finds the above useful will study my much more extensive posting that wasn’t commented upon and post or link to this post other such essays as well,