OMG, LIKE, SARAH PALIN!
I’m back! And a bit weirded out by the new look of the typing box. It’s cool though. So far. (Everything quoted is taken from OnTheIssues.org unless I say differently.)
Anyway.
Sarah Palin. Did anyone know who she was before McCain chose her for VP? Did all of these women support John McCain before he picked her? (Actually, the answer to that one is no! Several TIME Magazine polls say that before VPs were announced, John McCain was 10% behind Obama in the number of female voters. Now it’s only 1%.) Did anyone care? I don’t think so. A lot of people forget that Alaska is part of the United States. I don’t remember hearing anything about the Last Frontier on the news until the entire Palin family was catupulted into celebrity. I think the only other time the nation might have heard her name or seen her picture was the contreversy with the whole Bride To Nowhere thing.
I don’t want to get into the experience thing, because I believe it’s kind of irrelevant. If someone without a medical degree discovered the cure for cancer, would we ignore them because of “lack of experience”? I doubt it. But Sarah Palin has a lot of ideas I don’t agree with at all.
For on thing- abortion.
She is opposed to abortion except to save the life of the mother. When she learned that her infant son would be born with Down’s Syndrome, she said she never considered ending the pregnancy. When Trig was born in April, she penned a note to loved ones in the voice of “Trig’s creator, Your Heavenly Father,” rejecting sympathy for her son.
Source: Boston Globe, “A valentine to evangelical base”, p. A12 Aug 30, 2008
Anyone who is a regular reader (hi!) knows my stance on abortion. But,for those of you who are not- not after the second trimester, people. 6 months is enough time to decide whether or not you want a baby. Because it is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have a child, not the government’s.
Also, gay rights.
Ms. Palin said she supported Alaska’s decision to amend its Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But she used her first veto as governor to block a bill that would have prohibited the state from granting health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees. Ms. Palin said she vetoed the bill because it was unconstitutional, but raised the possibility of amending the state Constitution so the ban could pass muster.
Source: New York Times, pp. A1 & A10, “An Outsider Who Charms” Aug 29, 2008
Why oh why? I just don’t understand why anyone would do that! Why would you deny someone the right to get married? Why would you deny someone health benefits based on orientation? I don’t care if God says it’s wrong. I wouldn’t care if Jesus walked up to me and said, “If a person is gay, they can’t get married.” Seperation of Church and State, Sarah. There is such a thing.
Crime-
Q: Will you support an effort to expand hate-crime laws?
A: No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.
Source: Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006
This one took me a bit of thinking; I knew I didn’t like that statement when I read it but I wasn’t sure why. Now I do, because I do not believe every heinous crime is based on hate. What about, like, a woman kills her daughter because she has a disease that will without a doubt give her a slow and painful death? That’s not a hate crime.
Q: Would you introduce–or, if introduced by a legislator, would you support–a bill to adopt the death penalty in Alaska? If yes, which crimes should it apply to?
A: If the Legislature were to pass a bill that established a death penalty on adults who murder children, I would sign it.
Source: Anchorage Daily News: 2006 gubernatorial candidate profile Oct 22, 2006
The death penalty just cause you killed a kid. I can’t believe someone would say that. What about killing a 20 year old? Or a 90 year old? Is someone not as good just because they’re older than others?
Education-
I read through the quotes OnTheIssues has for her, and I am tired and I think my finger is broken so I guess I really just skimmed, but I think I agree with her for the most part. Especially with the teaching evolution alongside intelligent design in public schools thing.
Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information…. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher.”
Source: Boston Globe, “A valentine to evangelical base”, p. A12 Aug 30, 2008
I understand that Science class is Science class and intelligent design is not really Science…but Science is about taking a hypothesis and eliminating all of the would-be answers until you find the answer. Right? So why not expose students to a debate? These children are only the future.
Energy-
The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw away more an[d] more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies … or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia … or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries … we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We’ve got lots of both.
Source: Speech at 2008 Republican National Convention Sep 3, 2008
I guess I sort of agree. It’d be nice to know that, like, if these Middle Eastern countries decide they really don’t like us and want to cut off our oil supply we won’t all die. But I think America should put its energy and money into finding alternative energy sources.
Okay, so, this is the end. All good luck to Sarah Palin and John McCain. (But she still bothers me.)
i enjoyed your blog, you sound like ya’ got a good head on your shoulders. As a gay guy, Palin is truly frightening to my core.
give us your opinions on the charges around ‘media is sexist in requesting more information and clarification from this unknown quantity. you women have a much stronger voice on this issue.
Sarah,
I’m glad you’re blogging again.
You need to clarify a few things. First, on gay-rights, Palin stopped the legislation that would have prohibited the state from granting benefits to same-sex couples. In other words, she took action to protect what many believe is a right same-sex couples should enjoy, although she may been holding her nose while she did it. It sounds like you misread the quote.
Your example about a woman killing her daughter is hard to understand. Are you thinking about euthanasia? What you describe isn’t a typical scenario, and it’s not clear how it connects to your point. As an alternative example, consider a mother who robs a store to get money to feed her starving children. That’s a crime, and heinous one if you’re the clerk behind the counter facing a loaded gun, but it’s not a crime based on hate. Palin’s answer is absurd because it doesn’t intersect with the wide variety of reasons people commit crime, and fails to recognize that some crimes are motivated by nothing more than hatred for a particular class of people.
Finally, you ask about exposing children to debate regarding Intelligent Design. But you cannot expose children to what does not exist. There is no “debate” among professional scientists regarding evolution vs. Intelligent Design. The controversy is entirely made-up, and serves only to fuel the myth that ID proponents are being discriminated against. The reality is that ID makes no substantive contribution to science.
Keep writing!
She stopped it because she said it was unconstiutional, but she said she would support changing the constitution of Alaska so it *could* happen, right? That’s what I thought it meant. I respect that she turned down something she supported simply because it went against the constitution. Not a lot of leaders seem to be doing that.
Yeah, sort of like euthanasia. There was an episode of Law and Order where the daughter had Tay Sachs or something like that; it’s what I was thinking of. I see what you mean about it not relating to the point I was trying to make. What I meant was, not every heinous crime is based off of hate. That is a matter of opinion.
Are you saying that no one in the scientific community believes in ID? I think that’s what you meant, and if it is then I understand what you’re saying. But if that’s not what you meant then you’ll need to explain more.
Sarah, I enjoyed reading you eval of SP. Obviously you think McC. could have done better. However, I want to comment on the Intelligent Design part. I wish someone could tell me who the Intelligent Designer is. If we believe in God then are we saying he is not intelligent and some other Being designed the universe? If we don’t believe in God then what evidence is there to support another Being ontelligent enough to create the universe? Seems as if we are left with evolution which does not really answer all the questions either. I hope some of your readers will comment.
Keep in mind that science can not speak to the question of a supernatural designer, because, by definition, such an entity would be beyond natural, and science can only evaluate what is natural.
Sarah, I meant this: the great majority of professional scientists, especially biologists, do not see ID as a serious alternative to evolution. I’m not a biologists (as you know!), but I as understand things, there are two reasons for this. First, ID does not make any predictions that can be tested, beyond Behe’s original idea of “irreducible complexity,” which has been discredited in so many different contexts that very few people still give it serious consideration. Second, evolution explains things well enough that no one feels the need to abandon it for a completely different theory.
Mom, proponents of ID ordinarily refrain from identifying the “designer.” It could be a supernatural entity, a super-intelligent alien species, or something else. But in fact the ID movement is spearheaded by the very same individuals who were active in the “creation science” movement in the 70s and 80s. After they lost enough court battles to convince themselves that Creationism would never be taught in the public schools, they redressed Creationism as Intelligent Design under the theory that without a direct reference to God, the courts would allow them to force it into the public school curriculum. Privately, virtually everyone in the ID movement identifies the “designer” with the God of the Bible.
Madrocketscientist, ID proponents will answer this by saying the designer could be a natural entity, such as a super-advanced alien race. But they don’t really believe this.
I see now. It makes sense to me that ID is not taught on public schools, and I’m not saying it should be. But if it was, that wouldn’t be the end of the world. Thanks for clarifying