Stop the presses. Another Hollywood liberal has called Sarah Palin an idiot.
I know, I know, this is beyond the point of monotonous. So why point out that West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin has gone loco over the former VP candidate shooting a caribou on television?
Because columnist Dennis Prager does such a masterful job turning the tables on Sorkin's confusion, that's why. After listing all the inane accusations Sorkin leveled against Palin (she tortures animals for fun, she makes snuff films, she's the same as Mike Vick, she murders moose for political gain, she's deranged), Prager does some analysis:
Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost all of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the "fun" of eating meat. But when Sarah Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.
And while on the subject of torture, isn't there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?
As for comparing Palin's TV show to a "snuff film," what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.
Likewise Sorkin's use of the word "murdered." Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word exclusively for describing the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin's logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.
No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between Palin's shooting a caribou and Michael Vick's using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.
I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal, and murdering a human being ? especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?
If he sees no difference, then it is he ? not Sarah Palin ? who best fits the description of her he gave in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, in order to insult her, even if he has to turn moral standards upside-down.
The moral universe turned upside down...I can think of no better description for the Hollywood world Sorkin dwells in than that.