Monday, September 01, 2008

This Sarah Palin Post Will Not Mention the Pregnancy Thing...

Oh, wait...damn it...

Anyway, I'd just like to again point out that I think Democrats are focusing on the wrong arguments against the Palin selection here. The big issue is not that she's inexperienced, or that her daughter is pregnant. The big issue is that she's fucking crazy. And apparently not particularly well-versed in the history of our nation.

Blog The Stone of Tear has posted a questionnaire filled out by Palin when she was running for Alaska Governor in 2006. (Thanks to PZ for the link). Her answers are frightening:

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.


But what if a child's parents are stupid? I mean, we can all allow for that, right? It's possible, at least theoretically, that two stupid people might breed. And as we all know, two stupid people are genetically capable of parenting an intelligent offspring. So why are we dooming each generation to be no brighter than the generation that passed before it?

An answer like this basically rejects the entire notion of public schooling. Why send kids to a communal institution like a school if you're going to restrict their education to what their parents already know and believe? Why take on the expense? Just let the kids figure shit out from Mom and Dad, and be done with it, cause an attitude like "parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught," rather than, oh, I don't know, "professionals with a fucking clue should have the ultimate control over what children are taught" isn't gonna make any kids any smarter.

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.


Even though it totally doesn't work? That's sound. This is Bushism in its rawest form, folks. Sticking to a failed policy after it has clearly failed because it's the one you like the best.

This next one's actually kind of funny and sad at the same time:

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.


Really? Really? REALLY? Who doesn't know that "Under God" was added in the 1950s? Who doesn't fucking know that? It's one of the most famous pieces of trivia, like, ever.

In fact, the Founding Fathers never said the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in the late goddamn motherfucking 19th Century, you idiot! The Founding Fathers, a group of philosophers and radicals, many of whom were atheists, agnostics or Deists, would probably not have liked the idea of mandating that people say the phrase "Under God" nor saluting the flag while offering a loyalty oath. You may recall, they started a war to avoid having to pledge allegiance to King George III. Thomas Jefferson basically felt that you had a right to murder your leaders if they were cramping your style too much.

Now, I don't need Sarah Palin to have an intricate, nuanced understanding of the issues at play in the Second Continental Congress. But in addition to not offering an opinion about almost any of the major issues our next president will face, and responding to these kinds of policy questions with standard nonsensical evangelical boilerplate, she here demonstrates an outright ignorance of American history that's entirely off-putting from someone who wants to, you know, run America.

I say, before you can become vice-president, you should have to pass the same tests we give people who want to become U.S. citizens. Would Sarah Palin make the cut?

UPDATE:

Oh, and this? I mean, come the fuck on:



When did our overlords become so dumb? Say what you will about Dick Nixon - the guy was crafty. I mean, I expect these people to be kind of evil. But I expect them to fiendishly evil, not completely idiotic and evil. Warmongering Republican political candidates should be master criminals, not hapless bungling small-time crooks. I want Heath Ledger's joker, not Cesar Romero's.

UPDATE AGAIN:

Okay, I know I said I wouldn't mention the pregnancy, but I think Mahalo may have the first page on the Internet about the likely father of Bristol's baby, Levi Krueger. That's noteworthy, right? Come on, I'm doing something with my life, right? Anyone? Anyone?

7 comments:

The musishian said...

Taken one by one, each point you bring up is not a deal breaker, necessarily, to the American electorate.

My main issue is that the McCain camp was taking a huge risk on her being an unknown, because she didn't have a chance to be properly vetted beforehand. And there are people out there who will dig this stuff up. And, apparently, there was a *lot* of stuff. Overwhelmingly so.

So yes, you are doing something useful/important with your life by helping people find information they can trust.

tim said...

Your points are for the most part valid, except for your first. There are lots of ignorant people out there, but the education system isn't so hot either. Although their justification for removing their children may be ridiculous, you have to admit that the freedom to do so is part of what makes the US so great. There's a line of personal freedom that shouldn't be crossed and I feel like government mandated education could be crossing that line. Now if we could just get rid of all the ignant people it wouldn't be a problem...

Anonymous said...

I bet McCain is wishing he had a mulligan.

Beowulf said...

Regarding your third point, isn't it possible she was refering to the Declaration of Independence?

Lons said...

Beo:

Here's the quote: "If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Seems pretty clear to me she's discussing the Pledge, not the Declaration of Independence, which was written over a century earlier and does not contain any loyalty oath.

Anonymous said...

Lons...... You're an idiot. And a self riteous one at that.

Don't bitch about not knowing history and the duck things up by claiming the founding fathers were athiests. Some were deists yes, but even though they didn't have a personal relationship with god, they did believe in a higher power.

Most people are ignorant about history because they learn it in a public school. The same argument you use for abstinence only sex ed works for all public education. Parents should be free to send their kids anywhere they want, and I should be free not to pay for it.

If you have an iPhone you know what duck means

And sorry for the rest of the spelling errors, I learned that in public school too. No time to check.

GimmeDaWatch said...

Fwiw, I'd never heard that bit about "Under God" being added to the Pledge in the 50's, retarded as it is. And I even like history. At any rate, I really fear this whole Palin thing is actually helping the RepubyCons. They'z mad clever Yo. I was watching a bit of Fox tonight. They're really hoping to re-create the whole "everybody's ganging up on the women ergo female voters rally to her defense" phenomena that Hill Clints supposedly enjoyed. It's so sad, like most of their tactics, and even sadder that it'll probably work to some degree.