Terrorist

17 November 2015

Look into a child's eyes

tell her she cannot have shelter

food, home, the head on her shoulders

because her father might kill us;

tell a boy he isn't welcome

to a childhood he'll never have

because his parents might

detonate a bomb.

Create a terrorist.

Sarah "Joe Six-Pack" Palin

Make it stop.

...Please?

I've read a couple of articles this week which say that Sarah Palin is getting a lot of unfair flack from a series of severly unfortunate interviews which pretty much confirm that she has rarely given a single thought to any political issue which falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Great State of Alaska. They say that Joe Biden has flown safely under the radar recently, because of Palin's very bad, very loud press, but that he is just as prone to political blunders in interviews as she is. This video from cnn.com warns that Joe Biden has a fine line to walk with Sarah Palin in tonight's debate, and that the American public should not underestimate Palin's debates skills, nor her odds of coming out on top.

To compare Sarah Palin's blunders of galactic political ignorance with Joe Biden's lack of verbal filters seems a bit ridiculous to me.

First of all, I've seen a few of what the press dubs some of Joe Biden's biggest gaffes. The comment about his opponent's wife was entirely uncalled for. He should know better, I don't care if he was kidding. But the other "gaffes" in the video above don't strike me as such at all. The first, his one-word answer to a question regarding criticism he has received about his tendency toward verbosely putting his foot in his mouth, was clever and funny, and there was really no other way for him to answer without doing exactly what detractors say he is prone to do. The second, "Some things are worth losing an election over..." strikes me as a statement of conviction that any politician should hold to, and that doesn't strike me as politically incorrect or blundersome. It strikes me as a sign that although he can be very brash, he has some notion of integrity of which he is not ashamed.

On the other side of the fence, I have no doubt that, when informed on the issues, Sarah Palin is a formidable opponent. However, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that she has ever given enough thought to national politics or foreign affairs to be able to hold a firmly grounded opinion *of her own* on any of the very pressing issues involved in this year's election. NO EVIDENCE. They can coach her and she can cram all the information into her head that will possibly fit in a few months' time, but that cramming and coaching will not make up for the fact that she has been fundamentally ignorant of history, politics and political issues up until the point that she was asked to be McCain's running mate. In my opinion, she had no business accepting the nomination.

I'm not a democrat. For that matter, I'm not a republican. But while I had been seriously considering the 3rd party tickets, and still am, I'm almost frightened to contribute to the 3rd Party Phenomenon if it means that I'll be taking votes away from Obama, and thus helping to give the election to McCain and Palin. This "[Jo] Six-Pack" has *serious* reservations about contributing to putting her, and the man who's judgment saw fit to choose her, in office.

More Politics

Is it just me, or do Katy Couric and David Letterman seem to have a stronger hold on the issues than Sarah Palin? I think I would be scared witless if I were her. But then, she accepted the nomination. I guess she signed up to play with the Big People. That interview was painful to watch.

I have wondered recently why it is that Condoleeza Rice wasn't chosen. She would have served every purpose Sarah Palin has served, only she would have served so much more competently, and she would have been a political force to reckon with in her own right. I don't know if Rice would have secured my vote (I have become increasingly disillusioned with both the Republican and the Democratic parties), but Palin has certainly lost it.

Thoughts Political

I find myself in a conundrum for the upcoming election, and because of a comment thread I read online yesterday, I'm beginning to understand why.

In a conversation on Facebook, TJ Schwab was discussing the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Hear me-- he was not debating the highly emotional issue of abortion itself, and I have no idea what his position on the issue is. What I find incredibly freeing is that in this instance, it really doesn't matter. He was commenting solely on the fact that Roe v. Wade is a prime example of the federal government passing judgment and creating precedences which pave the road to unconstitutional federal laws.

But the gist of it is, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade on the 14th amendment, even though at the time that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1867 (i think) there were abortion laws in nearly thirty states, which would insinuate that the 14th amendment was passed to not include "the right to an abortion". This is what we conservatives call "legislating from the bench". The 10th amendment states that all issues not addressed herewith shall revert to the States. Therefore, this is a states rights issue and Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly. So can someone be pro choice and against Roe v. Wade? You bet. The states shall decide this issue.

The issue that I'm wrestling with after reading his comments is a bit removed, though not completely, from the original conversation, which involved the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of "legislation from the bench." Roe v. Wade is just an example of how we've gotten to the point where certain things that should not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, now *do* in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government

When this country comes to election time, each voting citizen must make dozens of decisions with the pulling of a lever. In a matter of moments, we elect officials who will make decisions about national defense and domestic maintenance. Those same officials will set the moral climate of the country-- they often build their platforms around the influence they will wield on such subjects, and I find this to be a most vile form of political manipulation. It is well nigh impossible for me to vote for someone whose political agenda I respect, because I often find that person's social or moral agendas unconscionable. And it is impossible for me to vote for someone whose moral agenda is more in line with mine, because I am so profoundly at odds with their ideas of what national defense should look like.

Our laws are very much the same way. Apparently if you read laws from the 1790s (I have my reading cut out for me for the next few weeks), they are single page documents, simple and to the point, and there's no question as to what they mean. These days, a single bill may span 20 pages and such unrelated issues as "highways and pig farming and toenail cutter manufacturing," to quote my husband, "and then there's something in there about opposing child torture, and nobody can veto that. So we have a toenail clipper factory built in the middle of a pig farm, and nobody understands why."

Exactly.

So as I was saying, when I go to the polls this year, I should be able to vote on issues of national defense and domestic maintenance without the emotional and religious albatross of abortion and similar moral issues on my mind. Those issues can be tackled more locally, at the state level, where I can actually hope to make a difference. But as it stands, I cannot vote for either candidate without supporting 21st century military imperialism on the one hand, or partial birth abortion on the other. What we should be voting on are NATIONAL issues, not moral issues. Anything that does not directly violate the constitution, as I understand the original plans for the governance of this country, should fall to the states to decide, and so should have nothing to do with the presidential election.