I know, I know, he's a lefty who writes about political stuff on occasion. But, honestly, I couldn't give a damn about his opinion on just about anything about the position of his thumb in regards to a movie.

That said, fatboy is given a forum in a Chicago newspaper to be incredibly condescending toward Sarah Palin, who (horrors!) has never been to Europe:

And how can you be her age and never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.

You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a hopeless provincial.

You know what? I've never been to Europe, either. I'd like to go someday, but the fact that I haven't been there doesn't make me feel stupid. In fact, I've never been outside of the United States, but I've been all around the country. I've met people from many different regions, and I've met people right here in the US who come from all over the world. Am I a provincial? Are you sure you want to make that kind of argument, Roger? You don't have to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad, but you might just be a dick if you suggest that if you've never been to Europe, you're some kind of hillbilly.

Furthermore, as Ebert acknowledges, Palin has been to Iraq, which, if I'm not mistaken, is still technically a warzone. Which, if you ask me, sounds a little more challenging than riding around Rome on a Vespa. I know, the traffic there is notoriously bad, but there's relatively little chance of being blown to hell by an IED in Italy. Well, that's just a guess, seeing as how I'm the kind of rube who's never been there.

Ebert calls Palin "a shallow, chirpy person with those vaguely alarming eyeglasses," and writes that he trusts that "the American people will see through Palin's facade, and save the Republic in November." You know, because electing Sarah Palin the Vice President would be an unmitigated disaster on the level of the Civil War, whereas electing Ebert's hometown hero, an empty suit who's arguably the least-qualified major party candidate ever to get the presidential nod?  Draw your own conclusions.

(h/t)

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:52 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.