Dear Washington Post,
Are you fucking kidding me?
And I didn't even make it to your atrocious op-ed page today. No, I was revolted merely sifting through the sections of your paper.
I was having an omelette at Whole Foods this morning before I did my weekly food shopping, perusing the WaPo that the nice woman who had been sitting in my seat before me had left. Washington Post, I was in a fabulous mood. It is a beautiful day today, spring is in the air, my omelette was divine, and I was sipping some freshly brewed coffee. Life was lovely! Until I nearly choked on a roasted tomato when I saw this:
Would Reagan vote for Sarah Palin? REALLY, Washington Post? Was nothing else going on in the world today that you could write about, and therefore you were forced to resort to this?
Look, Washington Post, I believe you are in the business of "journalism"? And perhaps maybe you could have had some "journalists," whom I would presume you actually employ, look up some "facts"? Namely:
1. Sarah Palin is not running for anything, so there's no way to vote for her; and
2. Ronald Reagan is dead, so I do not see him voting for anyone anytime soon.
Given these two facts, this article is as useful an exercise as me waxing poetic for several webpages about whether James Joyce would appreciate my blog writing.* (Also, **).
Washington Post, you are such a terrible waste of trees.
* Answer: no.
** I am in no way comparing Ronald Reagan to James Joyce; I am merely pointing to the futility of engaging in stupid, impossible hypotheticals. Ronald Reagan was an asshole; he left us with a destructive and unsustainable tax structure, an increased margin between the rich and the poor, gutted social services, more institutionalized racism, and the ineffective and expensive War on Drugs. Whereas I have read that although James Joyce was kind of an asshole in person, he left us with Dubliners, which is one of my very favorite pieces of English literature.