(Cross Posted from the ever stupid http://happysockfuntime.com)

I don't know about you folks, but all this "Hoopla" and "Whoop De Doop" about putting cosmetics on our beloved animal friends has gotten my dander up!

First off, Sarah Palin herself said that the only difference between a "Hockey Mom" and a "Pitbull" is "Lipstick." And Barack Obama had the "Audacity" to talk about putting lipstick on a PIG!

Now, I don't want to be "Outrageous," or "Obscene," or "Sexist," or anything like that here (as this is a family type blog), but where I come from folks who refer to "Lipstick" when they're talking about a "Canine" type of "Animal" are generally not referring to "Cosmetics." So now I wonder -- is there some type of hidden subliminal message in this statement? Is Sarah Palin echoing "Freud" here? Is she trying to tell us that the average "Hockey Mom" feels emasculated? To follow the analogy -- Sure, she's got sharp hearing, a keen sense of smell, and a set of jaws that can crush a "Sack" of "Marbles"... but she lacks "Lipstick."

Frankly, dear friends, this this worries me -- because if it were true, then maybe it might indicate that Sarah Palin has some type of "Complex." I mean, if she were to try to compensate for this lack of "Lipstick" -- what might she do?

Observation tells us that, if she were to follow the stereotypical "Male" pattern of "Compensating For A Less Than Ideal Quantity Of Lipstick," she might buy a "Humvee," or a "Sports Car." She might also buy "Large Caliber Hunting Rifles," and use them to kill "Gigantic And Powerful Wild Creatures." She might start "Dating Younger." She might begin to "Listen" to "Coldplay." So let me ask you... has she followed this pattern? HAS SHE???

No really -- has she? I'm too lazy to look it up on the "Google" -- let me know what you find out.

Anyway, all of the above is really sort of beside the point, because I honestly don't care about it too much. But what I do care about is all this barbaric talk of PUTTING DANGEROUS COSMETICS on our ANIMAL FRIENDS!!!!

What has the noble dog done to deserve this? Honestly, who would be so cruel as to tart up the family pooch by smearing it with a bunch of carcinogenic waxy pigments? And why? For God's sake, WHY? Is the dog not beautiful enough for you? Does the dog somehow lack appeal? Why not just accept the dog as it is? Love the dog (Platonically) for its dogness, and do not seek to anthropomorphize it! (Spot actually wrote this part... credit where credit is due).

And the pig! The dear, sweet pig! The pig -- who is made of "Tasty Bacon!"
Why would anyone pollute the delicious and beautiful flavor of the pig with cosmetics? Why? Can we not love the pig as it is? Why must we seek to feminize the pig?

Well! Ask yourself this, dear friends. Do we really want an America where pork chops taste like Max Factor? Do we want an America where the family dog can be easily mistaken for a "Vogue Model" in "Low Light" conditions? Do we?

NO I SAY!

So, for "Barack Obama" and "Sarah Palin" I have this message:

KEEP YOUR DANG LIPSTICK TO YOUR OWN DANG SELVES AND LEAVE OUR ANIMAL FRIENDS ALONE!

+End+