Tuesday, 25 November 2008

Debate With a Christian, Part I

With regards to my early post: " Religion & Child Abuse", a Christian by the name of Marcus Mok has sent me a rather verbose reply. Instead of replying on intensedebate, I thought it would be best that I write a separate post to explain and elucidate my point of view here.

(Just to keep things up to speed: I have been asking Marcus to debate with me for quite some time; due to his hectic schedule he was unable to find time for a proper debate with me. So maybe, this can be a nice platform to maybe exchange and discuss our stances in a hopefully amiable manner.)

Marcus's comments in red, mine in blue:

1. Beast,
This is the first time I’m commenting on your blog. I’m not here to pick up a quarrel; I come as a friend to share my 1 cent’s worth. I said this because I am not sure what kind of response you and your readers might heap on me. But I hope you can read this, as well as any future comments from me, in this friendly tone, because this is the tone I will be speaking in.
I have no intention to defend the abuses of some religions you have mentioned. But I do have a problem accepting the verdict you placed on the mother of the 4 year old:

"Unfortunately for her child, her childhood will be a period fraught with fear and undue anxiety. Not only does she have to contend with a half-brained mother who thinks she is a wretched sinner, she has to deal with the insecurities of dealing with an imagined deity who is no better than Hitler and Mussolini and all the rest of the tyrants and despots who have walked on this planet at some point of time."


At no point have I assumed that you are here for a quarrel. While I cannot assure you the kind of response you will be getting (After all, I can't control the thoughts and reactions of posters who visit my blog, even if they do have nefarious motives), what I can assure you is that as long as we stick to the same decorum as we have done in the past, I am sure we can take this debate to some kind of a meaningful level.

Writing, in your opinion, as a “half-brained father-to-be who thinks he is a wretched sinner”, I don’t see why that will spell “fear and undue anxiety” for the daughter’s childhood. The fact that we have sinned is part of the story—the fact that God still love us despite our sinfulness, and made provision for us and this child through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the greater part of the story. And, frankly, the assessment that God is no better than Hitler and Mussolini is really bias in its very extreme. You have overlooked all the truths about God as good and loving in His nature. It is myopic. But I’ll touch more on this next time.

I would remind you that the Christian Bible reveals to us that we are first created in the image of God—the highest definition of human dignity possible. There is no higher honour$ for man than to be made for a loving relationship with his Creator.

While one can speak of God in the context of the new testament (i.e Jesus), the truth is that both the livid, murderous and jealous God of the Old Testament and the long haired, hippie Son of God of the New Testaments are in essence deities that can only be described in extreme polemics.

When you flip through the annals of the Old Testament, you will no doubt find chapter upon chapter of erroneous Biblical laws, coupled with the "smite thy infidel" ethics of the Hebrew Yahweh: The Story of Job and how he was sent into the hands of the Devil to be tormented simply to prove the ego of Yahweh, the story of Judah and how his son, Onan was smite by God for "spilling the seed", and the ecological and total obliteration of Earth with a catastrophic flood in the Noah's Ark episode, God is, in more ways than one, a tyrant, a despot and a terror spawned from the worst depraved imaginations of the human mind.

While Jesus was slightly better in terms of his more humane quality, one can't help notice that he also did curse fig trees which did not bear fruit off-season, and for the animal abuse he committed by casting demons into pigs so that they did commit suicide.

In the minds of PETA, Jesus is a murderer many times over.

That said, Jesus did add one small chink into God's supposedly impervious armor (Of course, there was Jacob, who wrestled with God the whole day and prevailed): His all-too-human frailty and his subsequent Crucifixion meant that the idea of the omnipotent deity was all but extinguished by his rather ignominious death.

In that sense, my statement which compares God to the worst despots and tyrants in history is made by taking into account both the old and new testaments' visceral versions of Yahweh in terms of the Holy Trinity(Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

As for Man being created in the image of God, I claim the exact opposite: We created God in our own image: Jealous, cruel and very vindictive. A benevolent God can hardly be expected if all God ever lusts is the smell of blood sacrifices (In the OT, pious men and women were expected to offer sacrifices of lamb unto the Lord) and the cruel decimation and forced assimilation of other non-Yahweh worshiping tribes (Read Numbers Chapter 31).

It is unfortunate if a mother is so preoccupied with the original sin/the fall of man (Genesis 3) and forgot that we are first made in His image for a relationship with Him (Genesis 1-2). But I don’t think that is what the mother meant in her blog. She is highlighting a biblical truth which she’s applying in the way she view the child. That does not suggest at all that she is going to mistreat her and abuse her and make her existence ‘wretched’. I don’t think you’re reading her rightly.

I myself am fully convinced that I am a wretched sinner, and my daughter to come is also born under the curse of sin. But that is not my preoccupation as I parent my child. On the contrary, the child is a precious gift from God. She is a child made in the image of God. I do not possess her, such that I have the right to abuse her, but I must nurture her, guide her and instruct her, and lovingly discipline her if need be, but not in an abusive manner.

Marcus, I am not suggesting that the mother is physically abusing her child. What I am worried about is that, as a matriarch, the mother is an important figure in terms of guiding the child to a successful life; instead of coaching a child to be positive, this mother chooses to teach that her daughter is a wretched sinner who bears the tainted blood of the Original Sin. Such an archaic form of abuse is counter-productive to her mental development in her formative years, and this was manifested by the way her child thinks.

As the mother wrote on her blog, her child told her one day that she was a bad sinner: "But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can't do it. I can't be a good girl".This only sums up the extent of mental abuse she has undergone at the hands of her deluded mom.

If I lost my temper and disciplined her too severely, that is precisely because I am a wretched sinner, and I do well to repent and ask God to heal my wretched heart as I nurse her. It is the humanness in me (or the lack of it) that needs to be corrected. Not my theology.

To accept the biblical view that human babies are fallen in sin is not to paint an abusive picture of them. Rather, it is to acknowledge the reality of our fallenness and our need for restoration. If I see a fellow human being well and good, I do not bother myself much with him; but if I see him wounded, bruised, injured, battered and devastated, I run to him with water and tend his wounds.

Wretched sinner or no, you should not be abusing children, physically, mentally, or both. They are the progeny of adult humans and are necessary to carry forth the next generation of ourselves. I do not need to be a God-believing, bible touting follower to know this very simple fact.

The ability to perform charitable deeds comes inanely in all of us. No deities need to be invoked.

And to recognize that I myself is equally broken and battered like him is to recognize that we both need the grace of the Healer. I gently lead the broken friend to the Friend who is broken for us all, for healing.

That is what it means to see others as God sees us. It is not a pessimistic picture. It is a realistic one.

If you disagree that human beings are sinful from birth, I could only say, well, I don’t share your optimism. Perhaps we might both change our minds when we have our first child. :)

I do not believe in the idea of Sin, other than the Sin of stupidity (In Darwinian terms, stupidity will get you killed in no time, sometimes too early for you to propagate your genes.).

The idea of the Original Sin is so bad that Christians and Catholics have to invent the ludicrous idea of the "limbo" (The idea that babies stay in some kind of suspended animation after they die) to justify it, without which, even babies will be tossed into the raging inferno of hell.

Secondly, you lamented that she doesn’t believe in self-esteem. Frankly, that is not a big problem to me. Do you believe in self-esteem? Why do you believe in self-esteem? What is there worthy in the self to be esteemed? You mentioned Hitler and Mussolini. I am not sure what level of self-esteem they have, but my guess is that they are doing quite a lot to boost it! =P

My point is this: there is nothing much to esteem in a self that is a by product of chance and evolution—one self is not necessary higher than another self to serve any special esteem (nor, for that matter, the dog across the street, or the dirt under my toenail). But if we fully realize (ok, maybe partially realize) what it means, that we are created in the image of God, that though fallen, God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ—if we fully realize what that actually mean, than we are esteemed far higher than any form of esteem we can bestow upon ourselves.

It is not who we are. It is who we belong to.

Self-esteem belies self confidence; without a healthy dose of self-esteem, a child is not going to perform well in anything he or she performs.

A child who grows into adulthood without any sense of self-esteem is going to be a walking disaster: Would you, for example, utilize the services of a surgeon who has no confidence in performing the operation on you? Or, for the matter, would you trust a mechanic to fiddle with your car if he displays a complete lack of confidence in his stated profession?

I must say I am quite appalled by your general comparison of Hitler or Mussolini to self-esteem: If anything else, tyrants display a high level of narcissism, and self esteem has got nothing to do with their evil deeds.

You assume that if we own our existence to a game of chance or evolution, then self esteem becomes meaningless. I totally disagree with your point. The truth is, as homo sapiens, our intellectual faculties, which we owe to Mother Nature, has given us more reason than anything else to feel proud about. No doubt, human civilization has made mistakes, more than its fair share I feel sorry to say, but we are in general masters of our own destinies. The triumph and nobility of the human spirit should not be dissed off by some silly imaginary father figure in the sky.

That's all for this post. I shall await for the next response.

Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Religion & Child Abuse

A Typical "Kumari", or Nepali Child Goddess, Decked out in Ceremonial Clothing

In one of my earlier posts, I did a cover article on the case of little Audrey (link here), which, in most cases, constitute one of the most common forms of child abuse.

In Nepal (link here), for example, Buddhist clans maintain a system of selecting young girls, often as young as two, designed to elect a child goddess for the pious masses to venerate and fawn upon. Child goddesses are elected by a Buddhist clan; as with other sex-starved religions, virginity is a definite must, and a series of bizarre, grotesque rituals, such as holding the severed thigh of a deer and staying in a room accompanied by a dead buffalo carcass are performed. If she endures the whole disgusting process without shedding a single tear, she will clear the first series of hurdles; throughout her time as goddess up till about the time she menstruates (between 9-12 yrs old), she is closeted largely from the outside world, only to show her face for religious rituals.

Besides the utterly misogynistic idea that menstruating women are "unclean", the idea that a innocent child can be wrenched away from the love of her parents, forcibly against her will, to be raised in a deeply insane environment, subjected to mental abuse and indoctrination that will not augur well for her future once she is discarded and subsequently forced to fend for herself with what little secular knowledge she has gleaned from the religious establishment, can only be deemed as archaic and blatant child abuse.

Yet, such blatant child abuse is tolerable because it is carried out under the auspices and behind the evil veneer of Religion; try keeping a child locked up under lock and key, and you can be sure that you are committing child abuse under secular law. Do it under the cover of the most absurd of religious rituals, and you are a pious, religious, moral man, or for that matter, a woman.

The Wretched Child

Like the Buddhist clan which nominates one child victim every few passing years, Christianity's doctrine of eternal damnation is, in every sense of the word, mental brainwashing bordering on lunacy.

A Christian family, armed with the toxic verses of the bible, is not going to have a very rational, open-approached view of children:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
(Deut. 21:18-21)

Of course, in modern times, we no longer stone children for mere disobedience. Unlike mere biblical times, humanity has progressed to a point whereby we value children as equal human beings, albeit attached with the "minor" tag, and stoning, if anything else, cannot be condoned in any secular setting.

Yet, religious parents, well-meaning as they are, will not hesitate to educate their children in the footsteps of religious hucksters. By demeaning children and telling them they are no better than wretched little sinners born into a world in which they will have no other recourse other than through their respective religious sects, children are being mentally abused and sedated from the real world as it is.

In this blog post written by a "Virtuous Woman" (Fuck, I always thought virtuous women are fucking hypocrites.......I have been right so far. Sluts are better!), the writer writes about her systematic breakdown of her child, first by insinuating the love of Jebus, and subsequently breaking her down and reducing her to no more than a "wretched little girl". Classic Carrot-and-stick method to drive a slow-moving ass.

Excerpts from her blog post. Be prepare to cringe:

A Four-Yr Old Girl Knows She Needs A Savior!

O wretched little girl she is, who will deliver her from her body of death.

First thing in the morning my 4 year old daughter normally says to me, "I am going to be a good girl today mummy". When she says this she really means it, and I can see how she longs to finish even just one day in her life without doing anything wrong. However my daughter knows as well as I do that within at the least an hour of saying she is going to be good, that promise will be broken. Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her. I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good. I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not. My daughter is a normal 4 year old who loves to play with her dolls and dress up, but everyday she finds that she is doing things that are wrong like doing something to upset her baby brother or not doing what she is told by her mum. So we have a problem, and this is an everyday battle. The problem is sin. I never taught my daughter to sin. This is because she, and as well as the rest of the human race have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. From the moment we are conceived we are sinners, Pslam 57:5. We are born with a desire to sin. We are all born God hating and evil.

Here is a mother who believes her child is an eyesore in the eyes of Gawd, a blemish of sorts only to be rectified by the grotesque blood of Jebus. While she refuses to admit it explicitly, it is clear that her child has been brainwashed to the point of paranoia: Heck, she doesn't even believe in the trait of self-esteem!

Unfortunately for her child, her childhood will be a period fraught with fear and undue anxiety. Not only does she have to contend with a half-brained mother who thinks she is a wretched sinner, she has to deal with the insecurities of dealing with an imagined deity who is no better than Hitler and Mussolini and all the rest of the tyrants and despots who have walked on this planet at some point of time.

Religion is Child Abuse

Hizobollah's Latest Recruits: Children Trained to Fight Against the Tried and Tested Army of Israeli

If anything else, Religion is a subtle form of child abuse: Not only does it keep children closeted (mentally, physically or both) within their community, hence promoting sectarianism, it instills a child with the unnecessary dread of eternal condemnation and evokes a sense of piety and irrationality that renders them susceptible to all kinds of hucksters and fraudsters who wear the veil of religion to deceive the gullible masses. Children, being born with an instinct to copy and learn from their parents and adults, are more apt to be indoctrinated and in the case of terrorist organizations, children are the best candidates for self-strapped suicide bombers: They are more inclined to obey, and are less inclined to be rational if they are trained to be pious and execute orders without question.

It is important that as parents, adults should impart the right skills and knowledge to their kids. Telling children that they are no better than the irks and criminals who deserve to be burning in eternal abyss is just what it always has been - child abuse.

Saturday, 8 November 2008

The Standard Requirement for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

The Right President With the Right Credentials

With the demise of the Bush Administration and the last, flickering hopes of yet another 4 years of insipid Republican rule all but extinguished by Barack Obama's electoral win, it is perhaps time to fathom out what exactly should be the minimum criteria for selection, given the sheer degree of ineptness exhibited by the Republicans and their inept candidates.

This may sound appalling to some, and ludicrous to most, but the selection for presidential tickets has been quite erroneous to say the least; to that end, I would perhaps draw lessons from the latest election and maybe, just maybe, the party concerned (Hint: It ain't the Democrats.) can produce decent, viable candidates, regardless the political affiliation (moderates, conservative, liberal or otherwise), race and religion (or lack of).

The Health of the Candidate
: The Sick, The Infirmed and the Elderly Need Not Apply

As President of the United States of America, the billet of being the most powerful man on the planet (some would dispute that), the pressure that entails can become overbearing, unless you are of the simian variety who happens to initiate wars on a wing and a prayer.

Barring such buffoonery, any nominee standing for elections must have at least met the standard minimum health requirements to hold office. When your body is not functioning normally, chances are, you are not going to think straight, and if something does happen to you while you happen to be the President of the United States of America, your country will be thrown into a sea of turmoil, albeit for a short period of time if your vice-President is savvy enough to ride out the tough ride.

Mc Cain's Nemesis: The Grim Reaper

On that note, no 72 yr-old retiree who has a long history of cancer, or any form of critical, terminal disease, on his resume should be chosen for such a critical post; when the Grim Reaper's sickle is constantly hanging over the President's fate, the health of the economy cannot be too far away from yet another wild ride.

Know Your Own Party Mantra

In the mostly inscrutable world of petty politics, there are a few outright, cardinal sins, some of which should never be committed at any cost (unless, of course, you want to lose your elections and drag your whole party down to the dumpster).

When Sarah Palin was asked in an interview to state her opinions with regards to the Bush Doctrine, she was just as clueless as the next virgin nun is with regards to sex: This is the ultimate cardinal sin, quite akin to blaspheming the Holy Spirit (of which there is no recourse to Salvation), and one would be hard-pressed to find any straight answer to such ignorance. It is as if the car salesman is selling you the product without actually knowing anything about the features and ergonomics of his purported machine.

Knowing your own party mantra is the basest, minimalist requirement, in my view, and if a candidate is clueless with regards to the party he or she is running for then he or she should be automatically disqualified for running for Presidency, or any kind of political office for that party for the matter.

Know The Roles & Responsibilities of The Post You Are Nominated For

This, again, is another basic requirement for nomination, and indeed, for every man on the street: If you are applying for a job, then you should jolly know the scope of work that entails the position you are applying for.

In this latest elections, Palin admitted, rather too candidly, that she had absolutely no clue (Jeez, this is getting to be quite a drag!) with regards to the Vice-Presidency.

In the words of Sarah Palin:
"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Ah, yes, she works REALLY HARD (Mc Cain should know...), but that's beside the point: Not only was she caught dead dissing the job she was nominated for, as well as showing scant regard for the VP post in the process, she was all-too-candid in telling the whole world that she doesn't know what the Vice-President does everyday: Playing nanny to an elderly President who is but a heartbeat away from his failed pacemaker? Or giving head to the White House honcho when no one else (except the Secret Service) is prying?

To be nominated for the Presidential ticket is a once-in-a-lifetime honor for a select few; to display such abject indifference and ignorance to a second-in-command post of the most powerful presidency in the world (for now) is really repungent and downright immoral. If you do not want the job, or don't bother to check out the job obligations that comes along with the title, past the buck to someone else who is more capable than you.

Know Your Geography

Contrary to popular belief, a Presidential nominee does not have to know everything under the Sun: You can excuse the nominee from knowing the intricacies of the diesel engine, or understanding the fundamentals of skydiving, but a Presidential nominee should at least understand a fair bit of current affairs, and most importantly, geography.

Describing Afghanistan as "America's neighbour" projects the sort of stupidity and hermit mentality that tarnishes the image of the nominee to the point of no return.

Pronounce Nuclear, "Nuclear"

This sounds really, really stupid, in my view, but we all know that the George Bush era has had its slip-ups and hiccups when it comes to juggling with words and linguistic tongue twisters (including Bush's hilarious "your left hand now knows what your right hand is doing" jibe and then simultaneously raising the wrong hands while uttering the tongue twister), and Palin and Mc Cain have carried forth this proud tradition, with Mc Cain's spectacular, glowing report of the American economy ("The Fundamentals of the American Economy are strong") being the last straw that broke the Republican camel's back.

Going Nu-cu-lar, the Republican Way

Add to that, Sarah's preference to pronounce nuclear as "nu-cu-lar": While village vernaculars and colloquial language can be tolerated for various election topics, one would venture that folksy language with regards to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) weapons does add a touch of chill to the hearts of voters: Do you want to hand over the "nu-cu-lar" buttons of the US of A to someone who can't even pronounce "nuclear" right?

Nominate Suitable Candidates, Not Animals From the Zoo

It is imperative that any country, besides America, has a herculean task at hand with regards to putting up leaders for elections: There should be a required standard requirement for people who apply for such a prestigious and pivotal post.

I doubt anyone of us would want a surgeon who can't tell the difference between a liver and a bladder to operate on us: Such a move would be deemed suicidal by the average sane Joe (that may or may not include Joe the Plumber or the six-pack Joes), but why should Americans settle for a half-assed President who is as clueless with regards to his or her job as the disgruntled begger selling pencils from a cup, wondering why the hell he is doing there instead of living in the posh condominium in the first place?

Judging by the quality of the candidates being bantered about by a certain right wing party, it wouldn't be too far from the foreseeable future when we finally will witness the first non-homo sapiens for the Presidential tickets:

The Presidential Nominee for the 2012 elections: Feel free to grab an Olive branch

"Presenting the Republican heavyweight for the Presidential ticket, weighing in at 2000kg, measuring 3 m in height, Dumbo the Elephant!!!!"

Wednesday, 5 November 2008

The People Have Spoken: Three Cheers to Liberty!

Three cheers for Obama! Hip hip hurray! Hip Hip, Hurray! Hip Hip, Hurray!

Finally, after 8 years of insipid meddling by the archetypal simian-in-chief, George Wacked-up Bush, and more unctuous stupidity in the nomination from the Republican ticket, Americans have finally awakened: You can't be stupid and moronic and still run for the Presidential ticket anymore.

Too bad for those stupid Christians who prefer the stupidity of Palin to the astuteness of Obama's genius: I suppose those Creationists who want to smuggle their ridiculously-crafted "Intelligent Design" nonsense are not going to get any more support from the President.

And you can bet that stem cell research will be more prevalent in the United States with Obama in charge.

Three cheers for Science, Three Cheers for Liberty and Three Cheers for the Economy (Plus my AIG investments!!!)

The Road is Long......

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep." Obama's victory speech.

Saturday, 1 November 2008

Why the Republican Ticket is Scary, & Why Americans Shouldn't Vote for them

As America edges ever closer to polling day (some states are already polling as I type), one of the most disturbing traits is the insipid pickings by the Republican ticket for the Presidential and vice-Presidential ticket. Ever since George Simian Bush took office 8 yrs ago, it seems that the Republicans have never really learned their lesson: The post of the Presidency for the United States of America is an extremely difficult post to fill, and nominating morons and other forms of invalids can prove disastrous not only for America, but the world as well, as the current financial turmoil has proved.

The Republican Ticket's Symbol.........

Alas, in the spirit of the recently departed Halloween, let us examine the Republican ticket closely and perhaps inspire some fear amongst some of the more beagle eyed voters who think that the Republicans are the only ones who can save America from economic hell.

John Mc Cain (aka The Departed)

Looking eerie: Mc Cain's Funeral Photo?

A close look at Mc Cain's age gives us a close insight to the ailing health of this self-proclaimed "maverick": At 72 yrs of age and a survivor of several bouts of life-threatening cancer, the prospects of McCain surviving his first four years of his Presidency are not very promising. Take into account that he spent his early years in the Vietnamese prisoner camp (He was shot down as a pilot during the Vietnam War), it is perhaps a minor miracle that he has lived this long and this far.

As David Letterman enthused, he could simply retire, become a national hero of sorts (despite his apparent involvement in the Keating 5 scandal), and bask in the glory of his past. No one could fault him for doing that, surely, but by putting himself in the firing line for the most coveted post in American politics, he might actually be doing the American public a huge disfavor.

And if indeed, Mc Cain does kick the bucket while serving office, his vice-President should be ready to step up to the plate. Or maybe not.......

Sarah Palin (aka The Beauty Queen)

Ah, the bambi-eyed, self-styled hockey mum and maverick (damn I hate this word!), Sarah Palin is the youngest of the two tickets. Obviously the MILF looks go down very well with horny, middle-aged men, and her renowned far-right conservative views makes her nomination an obvious calculated move.

That said, the advantages stop here, full brakes and a full-stop. Her abject ignorance in world politics were exposed to all and sundry in a series of interviews which really exposed a stupid, Alaskan barbie-doll look-a-like who is totally out of her depth with the task at hand:

1. Palin thinks that the proximity of her home from America's arch-enemy, Russia, makes her qualified in terms of foreign policy credentials (Heck, I live near Malaysia too. Does that count???).

2. In an interview, Palin can't give a decent example of a newspaper that she has read and derived her world views from (Could it be that, she is more interested in reading the Holey Babble?).

3. Can't give her opinions on the Bush Doctrine (Not knowing your own party mantra is a cardinal sin!).

4. Doesn't know the roles and responsibilities of a Vice President (She probably thinks giving head to Mc Cain is her primary role in the White House. Cue Monica Lewinsky).

What makes it more cringe-worthy is that in conjunction with her all-too-apparent stupidity, she mixes that with a slew of folksy language in a bid to endear her to the hill billies. "You betcha!" and "Dog-Gone-It" aphorisms can be powerful political tools for adept politicians, but when the politician involved is in the Bush category of all-time stupidity, it becomes an endless stream of meaningless diatribe that makes the politician look like a half-ass simian with a screw gone loose.

And given the frailty of Mc Cain, Sarah Palin is but a heart-beat away from the Presidency. Imagine, then, Mc Cain is dead, and Sarah takes the incumbent seat. She's faced with a crisis in the White House involving her favorite nation, Russia.

General: Madam President, may I confirm with you the executive order to fire nuclear missiles into Moscow?

Palin: Firing nu-cu-lar weapons? Dog-Gone-It, the Russkies have it coming.....

Clearly, hockey mums with cute, folksy dialects have no place in the world of deadly nuclear weapons.

In addition, Palin's close association with an Alaskan Church that expounds on expelling witches (She was "ordained" to cast witches by the notorious pastor), and her anti-abortion antics (she thinks abortion, except those pertaining to the lives of mothers should be banned. This explains why her pregnant 17 yr old daughter Bristol is about to be a mom herself. Talk about village fecundity) makes her a dangerous extremist from the far right.

The current financial crisis has also exposed the Republican ticket's myopia in economic terms: Hours before the Lehmann bank collapsed, Mc Cain was caught dead talking about the American economy in glowing terms: "The fundamentals of the American economy are strong."

Yes folks, the Republicans are indeed scary, not only because they represent the worst of the right-wing nuts; it is made worst by the fact that a continuous stream of non-qualified, mental retards can somehow be in contention for the all-important presidential tickets.

If all these doesn't quite scare you off the Republican ticket, a quote from New York Times should:

"Palin is a conservative Protestant and has also been a member since 2006 of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion group. She has supported the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, alongside evolution. She is a member of the National Rifle Association, and has said Alaska's economic future depends on aggressively extracting its vast natural resources, from oil to natural gas and minerals."