Protesta, parte II

So, I figure I should justify my barbed anti-Palin remarks of the previous post by giving a brief (ja-ja) litany of my complaints against her. I could bag on her appearance and her annoying voice, but rather than stooping to that I’ll just tick off a wee list of some of my deeper concerns.

1. Book banning. While the media reports cannot confirm that she ever actually banned anything in the public libraries while serving as mayor of the thriving metropolis of Wasilla, there are confirmations that on at least three separate occasions she asked the public librarians how they’d feel about banning some books, and may have submitted a list of possible blacklist candidates on one of those occasions (rumored). That means she's okay with it, people. Not just that she thinks it's acceptable, but that she outright supports the whole atrocious possibility. She’s also in support of making individual’s library records accessible to government entities, which leads me to think she’s nowhere near a position that the Patriot Act ought not to be renewed. Our freedom to read whatever we please and other civil rights are at risk here.

2. Thinks creationism is science. I’m not strictly opposed to teaching creationism in schools, if it’s in a comparative religion or possibly a philosophy class (generally not offered at the K-12 level, last time I checked). It may have a place as background info in a Western Civ course. But, it’s not science, and has no place in a science curriculum. Here’s some science: the earth is at least billions of years old, fossils are not the creations of the devil meant to lead good Christians astray, the universe is expanding, and evolution of species by the mechanism of natural selection is a natural law, not a theory. Theories of human evolution are yes, theories. The law of evolution is not. I’m just waiting for her to come out against gravity and the rest of physics.

3. Thinks God is down with warfare, and apparently that she can read His mind. While I don’t assume to know exactly what’s He’s thinking, I do not say that I don’t know and then go on to put words in His mouth in the next breath. Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think we shouldn’t pray for our soldiers. I don’t think we shouldn’t support them in their work. I don’t think we shouldn’t be trying to stamp out terrorism. I do think we need some better leadership among the upper brass, and some better efforts at diplomacy instead of just invading and pissing off the locals, giving them further reason to listen to Taliban-types. I suppose it could be argued (in a circular way) that we’re in Iraq “on God’s errand”, as she calls it, if you take into account that we’re cleaning up a hideous mess and trying to restore order and establish infrastructure—from what I’ve read in scripture I gather that God wants His children to be able to live in peace instead of perpetual fear (I could be mistaken on that, of course. Heaven knows that's not what Ms. Palin got out of it). However, if you recall that we created this mess in the first place by invading and removing the former government (dysfunctional and evil though it may have been), we’re only there to make a (flailing) effort to make up for what we’ve done. I also get the impression that she’s already gunning for Russia.

(A little caveat here of my personal, possibly wacky, philosophy on liberation of oppressed peoples: people have to want to be free, and they have to be willing to fight for it. You can’t “liberate” people who don’t value liberty enough to put everything on the line for it. I do think it’s okay to answer pleas from people who can’t do it alone; remember that a fledgling U.S. petitioned the French in our cause for independence from colonial oppression. But, to go around the world trying to “liberate” people who may not necessarily want democracy is a recipe for disaster and myriad dangers, not the least of which is being perceived as bullies and colonialists by the rest of our fellow earth-dwellers).

(Another caveat/plug: read “Three Cups of Tea”. Now that’s an anti-terrorism campaign. But who in government thinks of winning over enemies by exercising faith in humanity?)

4. Makes uninformed decisions about hunting and other means of wildlife management. Shouldn't a gun-toting "chick" from Alaska know a little more about this stuff? I’m not opposed to responsible hunting. I’m not opposed to responsible firearm ownership and usage within the citizenry. Understand, I’m from a family with a long history of ranching and hunting, and such activities are merely a part of everyday life in many parts of the West. Being pragmatic about it, it’s not too far off-base to see hunting as a necessary component of wildlife management, to keep down herd populations and cull unhealthy animals to protect the health of the species. Of course, if we hadn’t driven out and decimated natural predator populations we wouldn’t have this wildlife management situation on our hands. That said, I highly object to Ms. Palin’s means of wildlife population control. Alaska’s caribou herds were reaching lower levels than is healthy for the gene pool due to overpredation, so instead of issuing fewer hunting permits (a more practical and far less expensive solution), she had the state Game and Fish officers out shooting wolves in a bizarre effort to restore some kind of “balance”. ¿Qué? I can’t help but wonder, with her touting that her father was a science teacher, why she has such a feeble grasp on physics, biology, geology, and ecology, and who knows what other –ologies.

5. Thinks that being able to see the Siberian coast from Alaska constitutes foreign policy experience. Was she able to hear Russians shouting at each other at that distance, too? I’m sure that’s a fine way to learn a language, standing there at the far end of the Aleutian chain. I bet she understands the culture, too.

6. Can’t keep from sticking her foot in her mouth, even when she’s apparently been “coached” before an interview. See above complaints. (At least, the GOP claims that they’re coaching her. I’d hate to see her unrehearsed again).

7. Hypocrisy. I know this is common among politicians in general, but I have to bitch about it this time. She claims an anti-abuse-of-power stance, and yet. . .I cite the trooper-gate mess. Recent McCain-Palin campaign ads hype that she stopped the construction of the “bridge to nowhere”, despite the fact that she earlier campaigned on a promise to build the thing.

8. Lack of experience. To avoid the risk of repeating everything everyone else has said on the subject, I’ll refrain from citing the numerous available examples.

9. Even more ambitious than your average politician. Was anyone else shocked and creeped out by her comment that she believes she's ready to take the helm? Did anyone else get the impression that she's anxious for Mr. McCain to bite it so she can be Ms. President? I wonder if her handlers coached that comment.

I could go on, but I’ve got other work to do. I’m puzzled though, at why McCain/GOP advisors made such a blunder. She’s definitely getting lots of press and drawing some air time away from the Obama camp, but what good is media attention when it’s overwhelmingly negative? What were they thinking? Is this some feeble attempt to win over female voters? I feel both patronized and insulted. I’m not sure even the GOP respects her all that much, given those ridiculous “Hot Chick from a Cold Place” buttons many of them were sporting at the RNC. Is this really the way they want to be perceived in their oh-so-modern views of the value of women? Forgive me, I know very good people who are card-carrying Republicans, but the party as a whole freaks me out. There’s plenty of womanizing going on at all levels of government and on both sides of the party line, but the Republicans seem almost proud of their archaism.

Lola’s not converted to Obama (yet), but pleads with us all to consider who’ll be sitting behind the Oval Office desk when McCain screws us by kicking the bucket before his term’s up.