The Sarah Palin VP announcement

[Reaves]

Very, very interesting article. Thanks for that

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I scanned the article, and while it was interesting, perhaps it has changed since you posted? I didn't see it closely tied to the conversation, though it was relevant still. Maybe direct me to the parts I should read more carefully?

I think we can compare the two when Pallin takes to spending the day lambasting Obama for lack of experience. Now the hypocrisy has fallen into her lap. Sure, experience can help, but it's not a requirement, if that's all you got as ammo, you haven't got much.

[Skar]

The article was relevant to the thread in general and should not be seen as a reply to you specifically.

As for the experience discussion:  I think a lot of assumptions that don't agree with each other are being held by the folks involved.  One of the things I object to when people discuss politics is when one holds an entire spectrum of people responsible for the statements of individuals.  If you want to say that the same people who were blasting Obama for inexperience are now happy with Palin I'd like to see quotes from those people, with bylines.  I for one never got into too much of a huff over Obama's lack of experience, yet, as a Republican by voting preference, you have just accused me of hypocrisy.  A little more precision would set my mind at ease.

As for experience in general, I honestly see quite a difference between executive experience (actually being responsible for people, money and infrastructure) and legislative experience where you are responsible for nothing but your own re-election or even 'community organizing' experience, whatever that means.  So I don't really have a problem with the people who went on about Obama's lack of experience and yet are happy about Palin.  Apples and oranges and all that.

Edit: Oh, and I just watched Mrs. Palin's speech at the Republican Convention.  She's got a lot more ammo than Obama's inexperience. A lot more.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Her bringing up the bridge to nowhere twice, after she was called on it at her "Dayton" speech (which was in my hometown of Fairborn, in an arena whose roof can be seen from my parents' kitchen window, at least in the winter when there are no trees in the way), seems dumb to me. I believe the reports that she supported the bridge during her election campaign, saying it was essential to Ketchikan's economic future, and it seems like she decided against it only when it became politically prudent. I don't think calling it a "bridge to nowhere" was fair, since it was to be a bridge connecting Alaska's 5th largest city with its only airport (the airport is what matters, not the handful of people living on the island), but let's get some more perspective: The "city" has only 7,368 people, and an improved ferry system sounds to me like more than suitable enough to handle 200,000 airline travelers a year. The bridge would have cost $400,000,000, and that's an obscene amount.

Palin made the right choice by canceling it, but she shouldn't have supported it earlier, and she shouldn't be championing it now as if Alaska gave the money back or something (it didn't give it back, but by the time Alaska got it it was no longer an earmark for the bridge and was just for general Alaska transportation infrastructure).

Palin's desire to ban books at her local library while she was mayor, her spending policies (give money back to the people and instead use bonds to pay for projects), and some apparent abuses of power bother me.

However, I think it's extremely exciting that she's in the race, and most other choices McCain could have made would have been boring (except for maybe Lieberman). Maybe this will get McCain elected. I liked McCain's speech tonight. I was watching on PBS with Jim Lehrer, and a couple commentators were confused by his speech—they said he didn't sound like someone running from the party that's been in power the last 8 years, but that he gave a "kick the bums out" speech. They said McCain made it clear he was running as McCain. I agree. Even though McCain picked Palin rather than Lieberman, I think he really does want to be bipartisan and work to actually get things done instead of just push a party agenda.

Plus I'm socially conservative as far as abortion and protecting traditional marriage. Though having dealt with the real world issue of health care in the last couple months, I think the nation's health care system, and all insurance in the US for that matter, has serious problems. Health care (and all insurance) should be for the people, not for wall street investors who want their stock price to go up. To heck with capitalism where insurance is involved. Insurance companies should turn their excess profits (beyond a certain safety cushion) back over to the people who have to pay premiums. That's what my car insurance company does.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Skar, please re-read this quote from my post (emphasis added):
"just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket"

Note that I did not accuse *any* republican that did *not* make a big deal of experience of anything. Thank you.
I think specifically of my friend online whom I do work for, who in many ways represents to me what is wrong with conservative voters in general and seems to ignore my statements.

I too am irked by generalizing a large group by the actions of one. This is my biggest problem with political speeches in general, because speeches, by the nature of their format, don't go into details and (not by nature) tend to generalize groups. Which is why I went to bed in the middle of McCain's speech last night. I'm sure had I listened to Obama's, I would have done the same for him. I'm slightly irritated at my wife for making me turn off Six-Sting Samurai last night so she could listen to something that was just going to make me angry.

Again, i repeat that Lincoln, a model for the GOP, had zero executive experience and less federal experience than Obama when he was elected. I seriously can't see how experience is still an issue in this debate. It may be nice to see some to judge behavior, but it's hardly decisive.

I'm sure Pallin does have more ammo, which makes me wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience. Or why it's the first thing I hear out of the mouths of 90% of Obama critics. Why don't they talk about policy problems. His vagueness in his plans for carrying out his ideas is a much bigger problem for me than his lack of experience. It seems like a more substantial issue and a better demonstration of his not being qualified.

(also, i think that's an unfair description of legislative procedure, Skar, but that's a matter for another discussion, I think)

[White]

Yeah, I'm disgusted by this choice. I mean, honestly? She may be a woman, but she's a dumb one to in an interview say she's "Not really sure what a vice president does". Yes, not knowing exactly what a VP does? Not a crime. Being stupid enough to say that in AN INTERVIEW?
Not impressed. Plus she manages to completely go against what most women voters actually want - as I recall she's against universal healthcare, anti-abortion, and with 17 year old daughter pregnant and getting married? Great, way to convince me your party is pro-feminism and *doesn't* think women should be popping out as many babies as possible with little say in the matter, irregardless of what's best and right for their lives.

Wasn't voting Republican to begin with, but now after this I really feel like doing some good ol' propaganda art for the other side.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Who said she was trying to appeal to women who are pro-abortion? She's pretty obviously trying to appeal to women who are anti-abortion. You think she went about her political career while her husband decided when she should have kids? Not likely.

[darxbane]

I love when people who already have an opinion take something out of context and then use it to support their view.  Her comment about the VP's role was a jab at the fact that a VP has no real responsibility.  Sure, he or she assists the president as a rep for the country in foreign affairs, but has no control over anything.  The VP makes a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, but when was the last time that happened?  Please make sure you understand the point before saying something that is incorrect.  As for the book banning; from what I have read, she asked the people of her town whether it was something they wanted to do.  I don't know the whole story, but isn't it possible, even likely, that it was brought up by some group in the town and she was attempting to quell the issue?  My point is, you need to find out for yourself what the details of these situations are, because journalism nowadays is more biased than ever, and have proven repeatedly that checking your sources and being responsible are secondary to scooping the competition.

[Skar]

THSGHPMME:
I apologize for my misinterpretation. You were perfectly clear in your statement; I was hasty.

"...wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience."

From the context of the speech I got the impression that she was responding to the Obama camp having 'fired back' at her 'lack of experience'.  Both parties have now made an issue out of it against the other side. I'm in agreement with you.  Judging the candidates from past actions on a top level political level is nice, but not crucial to the debate.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I read that she called up the librarian and asked her the procedure for getting a list of books banned. But you're right about the source being dubious.

[CthulhuKefka]

I am vehemently against banning books.  I don't think there is an actual list of books she wanted banned (I think she didn't get that far), but the fact that she was trying to is a big no-no for me. I'm all for freedom of speech, as long as it isn't hate speech, and usually people who try to ban books want to do so for more of a personal bias against either the subject matter or the author themselves.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Here's a story about the book banning incident.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/05/palin_book_banning.html

The whole "loyalty test" thing bugs me. I don't get how asking people to resign is a loyalty test, or why loyalty should be tested anyway.

[Miyabi]

I think attempting to take away ANY right of freedom is wrong and can and WILL lead us down a patch of totalitarianism and oppression.  Agamben spoke a lot about this in his book Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.  I can't seem to find my PDF version of the book I'm making reference too.  I am however summarizing what is found within his book.

-I read a lot of philosophy and have many of my own opinions, however I strongly agree with Agamben on these point.-

What the following quote boils down to.

• Taking one right away will give the person/group taking it away feel as if they are in control of the other goup.
• The group who has the right being taken away feels as if they aren't meant to have a say and that they NEED the other power to control them.
• All people involved in said situation form what Agamben calls a "homo sacer" relationship where one group autonomously controls the other and it is situations like this that allow things such as slavery, xenocide, and genocide to happen.

[/color]

NOTE:  This is not a direct quote, more a summarization and simplification and a relation to our topic.

Claim:  When someone/group of people creates the notion in their mind that they need to "help" someone because the other is "incapable" this creates the mindset that they are better than the other and that the other needs them. (This state of mind is called Sovereign Power.)

In the case of this discussion:  She feels that some books are better left unread and that we are better off not reading them, but it is OK for her to have read them.

Support:  If we look in history, whether it be slavery all over the world, most genocides that have happened, the subserviantism of women in many cultures, wars fought over someone bing "better", the making Native Americans "more white".  We see that one group seems to think that there is something wrong with the other and that it is their responsibility to help them.

Claim:  The group that is being "helped" will feel as if they are useless and less than the higher group.  This will cause them to move about their daily lives feeling insignificant and as if they need someone else to dictate their lives.  It isn't easy for people to come out of this state once the entire populous is within it.  (This is called Bare Life because they feel as if they have no purpose but to do what has been defined for them to do.)

In the case of this discussion:  Many people won't even know of the books existence and therefore will never read them.  Those who do know of the book will think that it is best they don't read them because there must be a reason they are banned.

Support:  The lesser groups in all of the afore mentioned issues have a general feeling that this is what they are meant to be and there is no way to change it. (Granted some action by a few can cause others to rally against the Sovereign Power.)  In many cases though it is someone belonging to the Sovereign Power group that helps to cause the change.

Claim:  Once this relationship is established both sides agree that one is better than the other.  This, over time, escalates to the group with Sovereign Power believing they can choose everything, even life or death, of the group living a Bare Life. (This state of coexistence is called Homo Sacer.)

In our discussion:  If the government is allowed to take one of our rights they will eventually start to take more and more until they have totalitarian control over the people.

Support:  This relationship can be verified in most of the afore mentioned situations.  Those that it hasn't been proven in it can be proven that they were headed in that direction before change occurred.

Now in my opinion the U.S. government already controls more things than they should. (i.e. the FCC)  We are already headed down this road and we need some serious reform in our government to fix it.  Now I personally see myself as Libertarian.  But I also believe that our country could currently not move directly to the desired state of governing without many many years of slowly moving towards it.

In any case this is my argument about Palin not my what government should do shpiele.

BTW Does anyone know what books she was trying to get banned?  I want to read them out of spite.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

No one knows. There is a list that is circulating, but it's fake and is just a mishmash of books that have been banned at various times all over the country, even some that were written after Palin was mayor, like the later Harry Potter books.

[Miyabi]

Thanks for the article Ook.  It was a good read.  I wish there was a list.  I want to know what she wanted to ban and why!