Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Another Palin Interview

Couric and Palin, again. My comments on the interview are below the video



00:41 - Palin claims she's a feminist who supports equal rights. I don't believe that is possible for someone who is pro-life. Of course, you actually have to have a significant understanding of the philosophical issues surrounding the abortion debate to see that the positions are inconsistent, so I can't fault Palin for thinking she's a feminist. Not many people know the philosophical nitty gritties of the abortion issue.

3:30 - She can't name 1 magazine? If she really read them, wouldn't she be able to name at least one? Wow. That's sad. What's sadder, though, are reports that in part of this interview that hasn't aired yet, Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. At that's really sad. Without any prepping (which she's been getting constantly from the McCain campaign), here's a few SCOTUS rulings that immediately come to mind: Marbury v Madison, Dredd Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Ed., Edwards v Aguilard, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence v Texas. Oh, and of course, Bush v. Gore. Hello!!! Now, I don't think I'm anywhere near qualified to be VP, or even assistant to the assistant to the VP. But I can crack off a few of the major historical cases in US history. Do you really want a VP who can't name Marbury v. Madison, which gave the court the power it has today, or Brown v Board of Ed., which ended segregation? Christ that's scary.

4:34 - Here's a transcript of what she says: "You know there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now with these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there". Now, I know that no one speaks perfectly. We use run-on sentences and fragments. We sometimes fumble over words. But this woman's speech seems to be a continuous barrage of linguistic ineptitude. To me, that denotes stupidity. Of course, it's statements like that that get me called a "liberal elistist".

What's really scary is that she goes on to say "But it kinda doesn't matter at this point". What?! What caused the problem doesn't matter when you're trying to fix the problem? I kinda wonder how she might fix a leak in her snowmobile if she never looks to see where it's coming from. Incidentally, Palin's nods toward the notion that climate change is partially manmade are not in accord with her previous statements on the issue.

5:25 - She would counsel to "choose life". If that is really all you would do, then no pro-choicer on the planet would have a problem with you. Pro-lifers really need to quit talking about "choosing life". Guess what, if abortion is legal, women can choose to have the baby. If it's illegal, then women have to have the baby. If you are pro-life you are not for women choosing to take the pregnancy to term. You are for forcing them to do it. Period. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

6:16 - She claims that women shouldn't be put in jail for having abortions. Wait... what? If you're pro-life, it's because you think abortion is the unjustified killing of another human being - you think it's murder. Since when do we not put people in jail for murder? Look, either it is murder, in which case it's illegal and punishable by a long prison sentence or, in this country, the death penalty, or it's not murder. If it's not murder, then why should it be illegal?

6:31 - She's all for contraception. That's nice. Oh wait. It's not true. She opposes funding comprehensive sex-ed. How can you be for contraception if you're against letting people know it's out there? Her answer on the morning after pill also seems inconsistent with this claim. She says she wouldn't use the morning after pill herself. She's also claimed that life begins at conception. Let's put two and two together here. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy the same way birth control pills do (it's just a high dosage of the same hormones). It (1) prevents ovulation, (2) thickens the lining of the cervix, and (3) in rare circumstances, prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Now, if you believe, as most hard-right people do, that conception=fertilization, then you consider any method of contraception that prevents implantation to be an abortifacent. Given Palin's far right credentials, and her claims here, I find it highly likely that this is her view. If she doesn't believe that fertilization=conception, then why does she hedge so much about the morning after pill?

7:29 - A respect for science? She's a young earth creationist!!!! To seriously believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, you have to reject almost all of modern science! You must reject modern biology because of evolutionary theory. You must reject chemistry because of radiometric dating. You must reject geology because of plate techtonics. You must reject astronomy because of the measured size of the universe based on the speed of light. You get to keep physics, and that's about it. Heck, you even have to reject archeology, since archeologists have found evidence that humans invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. Perhaps Palin had another problem with her words here. "Reject" and "respect" do sound a lot alike.

8:20 - Her friend who is gay "happens to have made a choice" to be gay. So being gay is a choice? Really? I guess that's why Palin believes her "best friend" shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

All in all, I think this interview is another bust. Her answers will make the republican base sing "hallelujah", but they will scare liberals to death and maybe a few moderates too. And either way, she still sounded inarticulate and uneducated.

6 comments:

Tea said...

man, am I glad I'm out of there...
this is a fucking freak-show!

and btw, what do you mean you're not qualified? can't you see Mexico from your porch? well, that settles it then.

Artemis311 said...

Think I could immigrate to your country, Tea? I'm a quick study. I could learn the language. :)

Then again, maybe you're right. NM is right next to Mexico. I have great foreign policy cred. On top of that, we're bordered on our East by the foreign country of Texas and on the West by the foreign country of Utah. I should be VP!

By the way, I miss you Tea!

ShinyObject said...

If that's the case I have tons of foreign policy experience. Not only did I live in NM next to all the countries you mentioned but I actually live in the middle east! ShinyObject for President! has a nice ring to it.

Not knowing much about feminism, is it really the goal of the movement for women to "do everything the boys would do" including "filling the freezer with good, wild Alaskan game?"

Artemis311 said...

Heck yes! ShinyObject for president!!! Can I be your VP? Pleeeese? I'd bring the crazy philosophers vote. :)

As for feminism and moose hunting, believe it or not, there are probably some feminists out there who agree with her. A second-wave non-difference feminist would likely be on her side. Since I'm a third wave difference feminist, I did find that comment rather interesting, especially because she uses it to prove her feminist bonefides. I didn't know that killing a wild beast and putting its carcass in your freezer made you a feminist. That's a new one on me. I guess I better go get a gun and find me something to shoot.

(Sorry about the complex names of "this type of feminist" and "that type of feminist". Sometimes I just can't leave the philosophy in the ivory tower, much to the chagrin of people who just want to have a normal conversation.)

ShinyObject said...

My philosophy experience is male and high brow French. I know nothing about waves of feminism and whether there is a difference or non-difference between them. But you make me want to look it up as long as I can find it on wikipedia. Otherwise my ADD kicks in and I go chasing shiny objects.

ShinyObject said...

Oh...you can definitely be my VP. I need someone to whisper in my ear and tell me what SCOTUS means (I know what that means, but not anything about what they do).