McCain's Choice of Sarah Palin Has One Real Advantage: Great Skin Tone! (satire)

Saturday, August 30, 2008 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) Tags: Sarah Palin, John McCain, health news

(NaturalNews) In a seemingly brilliant political move, John McCain has selected Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. She's 44 years old, which makes the average age of the pair somewhere around 75. Their average IQ is, thankfully, slightly higher.

Of course, that criticism isn't reserved for Republicans alone: Many Obama supporters seem to be mesmerized by a political messiah rather than engaging in any actual critical thinking about Obama's platform and how it might impact America. "Change" is great. Unless it's not. Because, remember: Bush brought us change, too. And that sucked.

I think we need real change as much as anybody, but I'm more of a Ron Paul kind of change person. I'm talking about revolutionary change, not two-party monopoly status quo mind games. See www.RonPaul2008.com to view a real leader, and sign up for the "Rally for the Republic."

Back on McCain's news, Sarah Palin has one thing going for her: Good skin tone. At 44 years old, she's got the face of a CNN news anchor, and we all know that looks counts more than anything else in elections these days. It's almost like they don't even need to talk at all. Just show up, smile, move your mouth as if you were speaking, and the mainstream media will decide what words to dub over your lips.

Is America ready for a female President?

I love the idea of a female VP, by the way, but I was rather expecting Obama to choose one, not McCain. So now, Obama has a Washington insider VP candidate (Biden) and McCain has a little-known female outsider with great skin (Palin). I guess if McCain loses the election, Palin can always come out with a line of highly toxic cosmetics, just to be in full compliance with the Repubican mindset and her alignment with Big Oil on issues like drilling in Alaska -- which she openly supports.

And if Obama loses, Biden can introduce a line of "compassionate weapons" that ask innocent Iraqi civilians if they really want to die before blasting them with Depleted Uranium shells. (Biden is a pro-war military insider man...)

The Illusion of Democracy

All this demonstrates more than ever that the two-party system is really just a one-party political monopoly dressed up like a two-party system. Every vote for either a Republican or a Democrat is still just a vote for the status quo. There will be no significant changes from either camp. The only thing this upcoming election will decide is who gets blamed for the financial collapse of the United States of America.

Sarah Palin's husband, by the way, actually works for a major oil company (BP). She opposes listing polar bears as endangered animals, and supports drilling for more oil in Alaska. She's against same-sex marriage, but she's been married to the same person for nearly twenty years, and isn't that basically sex that's always the same?

Sarah's good points include the fact that she was a very competitive athlete in high school and college (good for positive views about exercise) and she put her career on the line more than once to go public with charges of corruption in Alaska's political arena. So she's got courage, and she seems as smart as a whip, but she's still part of the Republican corruption machine that will destroy your freedoms, enslave your children and poison the air, water, soils and food. And that's not to even mention the Republican affiliation with Big Pharma.

Sadly, my prediction at this point is that the appointment of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP will cause McCain to now win the election. Just what we needed, huh? Then again, when the whole bread-and-circuses charade of debt spending and military imperialism comes crashing down, it is only appropriate that a Republican take the blame for it all. Not that that will make anything better, but at least history will record that twelve years of Republican rule led us to the brink of disaster.

Voting is for suckers

The bottom line in all this ia that voting is for suckers. Real change doesn't come from punching chads, folks. It comes from genuine grassroots action: Protesting, speaking out, opposing corruption, posting online "action" videos, and especially changing your own buying and eating habits. (Voting with your dollars is more powerful than voting with hanging chads, because you can vote ten times a day as a consumer.)

I'm not against voting, but thinking you're going to change the world by voting is about as foolish as thinking you're going to change the climate by driving a Prius (which still burns gas, by the way). Real change comes from revolutionary ideas like selling your Prius and buying an electric bicycle, or growing food in your own garden so you don't have to drive to the grocery store as often. Real change comes not from voting for Republicans or Democrats but from firing them all, disbanding Congress and ushering in a new political system based on protecting the People, not the corporations.

So vote all you want, suckers! But don't think it's going to really change anything. Remember this: No matter who you vote for, you're still voting for the status quo.

Revolutionary candidates are not invited to the debates, folks. The press won't cover them, and they're rarely on the ballots.

I, for one, have decided not to vote any longer in the United States of America. It is a foolish business that distracts us from the real revolutionary work that needs to take place now if we are to create a better society after this current one fails.

Clarification Update: Some people took this article a little too seriously, and I received some questions and concerns after its publication. So I'd like to clarify a few points that I didn't make clear in the original article:

Point #1: When I say "Voting is for suckers" I mean voting for the Presidential election. I didn't mean voting for local candidates or legislative proposals. On local matters, voting can be valuable.

Point #2: If Ron Paul were in the running, then I *would* vote! I'm just not bothering to vote when the candidates both stand for the status quo.

Point #3: Yes, driving a Prius is *better* for the environment that driving an SUV, but what I meant to say is that driving a Prius is still only an incremental change in habits, not a revolutionary change. Avoiding a global climate disaster is going to require revolutionary changes, not incremental changes. If everybody drove a Prius, we'd still be heading for climate disaster. But if we redesigned our cities and made them bicycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly -- banning vehicles in the cities -- that could make a real, revolutionary difference.

Point #4: Yes, global warming is caused by man. I've seen many people question this. I just wonder: Which part are they questioning? That CO2 doesn't cause global warming? That burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2? That mankind isn't burning fossil fuels? The global warming deniers seem to be living in a fictional reality where cause and effect doesn't operate...