Sarah Palin, responding to criticisms from animal lovers everywhere after posting a picture on Facebook of her youngest son using the family dog as a step stool, decided to begin her tirade by squaring off against PETA, of all organizations, lambasting them as “out-of-touch Louboutin-wearing city-dwellers.”
Typing “Sarah Palin” and “PETA” in the same sentence just pinged my IQ by about 10 points.
Palin recently posted a picture of her youngest son, Trig, standing on the family dog New Years Eve. This raised some eyebrows — after all, spoken even as a cat lover, dogs aren’t step stools.
Perhaps it was inevitable, but PETA issued a statement condemning Palin, saying that “It’s odd that anyone — let alone a mother — would find it appropriate to post such a thing, with no apparent sympathy for the dog in the photo. Then again, PETA, along with everyone else, is used to the hard-hearted, seeming obliviousness of this bizarrely callous woman.”
Now, to their credit, PETA does have some stopped clock moments. This is one of them. The president, Ingrid Newkirk, is right on all counts here.
Naturally, Sarah Palin had to respond. And she did so in typical Palin fashion — an absolutely bizarre Facebook tirade.
She made the post on her Facebook Saturday afternoon, citing stories about young Barack Obama eating dog as a child while living in Indonesia. Now, dog meat is haram, and Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. A few of the minority groups eat dog meat, but the majority Muslim population does not. Do you think these accusations are going to cause any sort of trouble with the “OBUMMER’S A MARXIST MUSLIN (sic)” crowd that Palin hangs with?
My Magic 8 Ball says, “You’re kidding, right?”
Her post begins with “Dear PETA, chill. At least Trig didn’t eat the dog.” What follows is a 116-word stream-of-consciousness list of attacks on PETA staffers. And it’s not the sort of stream-of-consciousness writing found in Les Lauriers sont coupés or The Sound and the Fury; The literary commonalities of Palin’s rant and those novels begins and ends with all three using words.
“Aren’t you the same anti-beef screamers blogging hate from your comfy leather office chairs, wrapped in your fashionable leather belts above your kickin’ new leather pumps you bought” She asks. She continues:
Aren’t you the same anti-beef screamers blogging hate from your comfy leather office chairs, wrapped in your fashionable leather belts above your kickin’ new leather pumps you bought because your celebrity idols (who sport fur and crocodile purses) grinned in a tabloid wearing the exact same Louboutins exiting sleek cowhide covered limo seats on their way to some liberal fundraiser shindig at some sushi bar that features poor dead smelly roe (that I used to strip from our Bristol Bay-caught fish, and in a Dillingham cannery I packed those castoff fish eggs for you while laughing with co-workers about the suckers paying absurdly high prices to party with the throw away parts of our wild seafood)? I believe you call those discarded funky eggs “caviar”.
“Kickin’ new leather pumps.” No. Just . . . no. This is why I try to avoid as much slang as possible; lest I sound too outdated. So instead, I just reference obscure and ancient works of art like Ipomadon or Who Killed Roger Rabbit.
Palin continues in this vein, noting that “you’re real credible on this, PETA” and that it’s “a shame, because I’ll bet we agree on what I hope is the true meaning of your mission — respecting God’s creation and critters.” She added that all pets “are loved, spoiled and cared for more than some people care for their fellow man whose politics may not mesh with nonsensical liberally failed ways or don’t fit your flighty standards.”
“Liberally failed ways?” This woman doesn’t veer into self-parody, she is self-parody.