I Don't Hate Sarah Palin

Over and over, I read and hear about how the Right loves Sarah Palin and the Left hates her. I consider myself on the Left, and I don't hate Sarah. I just can't understand why anyone thinks she is so great -- much less, good enough to love?

When she came onto the national scene as McCain's running mate she took a lot of flack. It wasn't her fault she was unprepared. It was McCain's fault for picking someone so unprepared to stand up to the public scrutiny. But her failure to take off running only led to more suspicion of her qualifications and thus began the "left hates her" or the VICTIM defense. Every time she failed to perform to what the public expected of a Vice Presidential candidate she and her people held her up as a victim of left wing hate. And so it goes on to this day.

The first time I vividly remember the Palin Victim Defense being utilized was when Rudy Giuliani was speaking before the Republican National Convention. He kept stating his disgust in how the Left had questioned Sarah's maternal abilities -- from the transcript[1] he said, "One final point. And how — how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"

After that speech I spent the next hour Googling, trying to find a single source for who the "they" were that Giuliani was referencing. I couldn't find a single article from a reputable news organization where anyone was quoted as questioning Sarah's motherly abilities. In fact, from everything I could find, it appeared that the Left was bending over backwards not to mention that Sarah was even female. The left was probably skirting the subject even harder than the right was trying not to mention that Obama was black.

So what was Giuliani doing? He was creating a victim. No woman should be treated this way, was the clear message, and it was the evil left ( the They) that had done it. He made poor Sarah a subject for sympathy. It's good to love her, so it's hateful not to love her.

From that day on Sarah was a consummate victim. If she couldn't answer a question like Katie Couric's, "What newspapers do you read?" well she didn't answer because she was being harassed, victimized. It certainly wasn't because she didn't have an answer, as one might believe form the following transcript of that interview conducted about two weeks after the Giuliani speech:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

Okay, so this was the proof that led Sarah to believe that the main stream media (MSM) were unfair in their treatment of her. After all it had only been a little over a month since she'd been selected as McCain's running mate and this being her first interview by the MSM (i.e.: not Fox News media). So how could she be expected to answer so difficult a question?

But Sarah hasn't just been victimized by the MSM. From reading her book, Going Rogue, it seems she was victimized by her own Alaskan citizens. For instance, she felt it was necessary for her to resign her governorship eighteen months early because of the all the nuisance, ethics violations filed against her by them Alaskan liberals.

Alaska doesn't have a rule like other states where the attorney general defends the governor against nuisance suits -- yep that would be too wussy for them independent and tough Alaskans. Even the State Personnel Board, was against her as evidenced by the appointment of Thomas Daniel to investigate one of the more recent complaints about her starting an Official Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.

Here's how she was victimized: The so-called "independent counsel" who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama's law firm.[2] That would be Daniel who is a partner in a national law firm with over 700 lawyers that has on occasion represented Obama, other democrats, and with a number of Fortune 100 company clients where you might find a republican or two.

Well in his alleged biased investigation Daniel found that using the term "Official" did in fact make the appearance that the Fund was state sanctioned which violates the Alaskan Ethics Act.[3] For this he was attacked on Fox News[4], numerous blogs, and on Sahara's own new defense fund and Facebook Wall as a "so-called 'independent counsel'."

Here's what Daniel had to say in his own defense: “They are trying to make the argument that because I’m a registered Democratic and have given money to Democratic candidates that I’m biased. But in fact, you know I’ve dismissed five complaints out of six,” Daniel said. “If I were out to get the governor because of politics, I doubt that would have occurred.”[5]

The six complaints Daniel referenced were all against Palin. And as more evidence of his independence, in 2004, Daniel was hired by the Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint against then-Attorney General Greg Renkes. That complaint was brought by Sarah Palin and state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. Renkes resigned amid conflict-of-interest allegations, and the case was settled. Oh and by that time Sarah Palin had already resigned her position from the State Board where her complaint originated. Yes, Sarah had resigned, because she didn't like the way things were being run.

The obvious point though, is that Sarah was not being victimized by Daniel or the Personnel Board. She and her attorneys made a mistake, and she could have moved on without the bias claims, but then that wouldn't promote her victim persona. And she now has an unofficial legal fund that has reimbursed her for most if not all of her expenses. As a side note, she never attempted to use a $100,000 reimbursement fund established by Alaskan legislature to aide in her ethics defense, "because she and her attorneys decided not to use (it) because of the difficulty in separating the alleged ethics violations as against her official governorship duties or those associated with her fund raising or other activities."[6]

There were other plenty of other conflicts for Sarah in her political life. In her Going Rogue she points to conflicts she had with the Wasilla Mayor and later with the Police Chief as if these were badges of courage, because well... she was on the side of truthiness. And can anyone forget Sarah's widely reported conflicts with and within the McCain campaign staff. But Sarah also explained away those conflicts in Rogue, and it sure wasn't her fault.

I can't believe it's this "poor-is-me" causing all the loving for Sarah? Sympathy maybe, but not love. So then is it the common sense, ideas she has that will fix America? Maybe, but without facing the MSM, answering the tough questions, how will we ever know? And while just playing the "Regan" card gets her respect (maybe love?) from the conservatives, it's not going to do it for me -- Regan wasn't all the good for this country, but I'll save that for another blog entry.

In conclusion, I'm a left wing, liberal who has difficulty understanding the conservative love affair with Sarah, and who also definitely doesn't hate Sarah -- or Tag or Willow or Todd or Bristol (or even the little dick-head that was doing what boys try to do to Bristol). I don't hate any of them. They look like nice people. Misguided? Yes, but aren't we all. Maligned? Not as much as they would have us believe. No, I don't hate her or hers. But do I expect her to explain herself as something more than a victim of persecution, conflict and resignation before her or any of her clan occupy the White House? You betcha!

[1] http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/03/transcript-rudy-giuliani-speech-republican-national-convention-2008/

[2] http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/about.php

[3] http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/07/21/14/Legal%20Defense.22542.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/palin-investigator-ties-democratic-party/

[5] Anchorage Daily News, ADN.com, From Lisa Demer, July 24, 2009

[6] http://community.adn.com/node/142582#ixzz14c4r6ygk

Creationism --What Me Worry or Should I?

So why should I care about Creationism or its most recent incarnation: Intelligent Design (ID)?

Creationism teaches us that there was a creator whose design resulted in nature as we see it, so that every change or mutation is just a step in the designer’s process. The alternative, evolution teaches us that nature is a function of natural selection: if a mutation improves an organism then nature will embrace it (survival) and if the mutation fails to improve then nature will reject it (extinction).

ID attempts to take a turn away from a faith based ideology, by not specifying that the creator was God, but as the promoters of ID are all Christian based organizations those attempts are somewhat weak. However even evolutionist don’t deny that the existence of a creator, so where is the conflict of ideas.

Evolutionist many of whom believe in a creator believe that if there were a creator he started the process and then stood back letting natural selection take over. And accordingly, there’s no reason to believe natural selection is finished. Some doubters even joke that if the Creator took the path of an intelligent design, He made it look like evolution to a scientific mind. Regardless the process is still 'evolving'.

ID however seems to view the present as the end of the process. And with humans currently residing as the top dogs in nature, then humans are the ultimate design. The creators masterpiece. And here is where I see danger.

Evolutionism tells us that humans are just a point on a timeline: subject to extinction, whereas ID can be used to posit the creator will protect humans from extinction -- at least until He’s decided in His wisdom that it’s time for the Apocalypse.

Then ID/Creationist can take a fatalist view to nature – “what happens is destined”. While evolutionists understand that we humans are probably one of the first species ever capable of intelligently designing our own extinction, so we better take precautions.

Maybe that’s why I as a believer in science and evolution have a greater respect for the possibility of man made global warming. And I wonder if my friends who deny this possibility aren’t relying more on their Creator to take care of these kinds of problems than taking any personal responsibility.

Are the two equations?

Creationism = don’t worry, be happy: it’s all decided.

Evolution = be careful or you might end up extinct like 98% of all the other Earth life forms that preceded you.

If so there’s danger in the differences. I and every other evolutionist should resist the Creationism and Intelligent Design movement if only as a survival for mankind strategy.

Update 2/28/2010: Just found this quote by Rush Limbaugh from a book he wrote in 1992 (The Way Things Ought to Be) that illustrates my concern better than anything I could say:

"My views on the environment are rooted in my belief in Creation .... I refuse to believe that people, who are themselves the result of Creation, can destroy the most magnificent creation in the entire Universe."

Scary? And Limbaugh is now regarded by many as the voice of the Republican Party.

Words and Labels of Hate and Stupidity

Before any commentary, there needs to be an understanding that ignorance is the basis of hate. We fear what we don't understand. Fear makes us uncomfortable. In fact, we really hate what makes us fearful and that's the problem. So what makes us afraid? That's easy -- things we believe might do us harm. Categorizing helps make sense of a problem and brings me back to the subject ...

What are the labels of hate and what do they really mean? More importantly what's the progression from a difference of opinion to hate. I'll start with categories, names, labels ...

A good beginning is with stereotypes or a generalization about a person or group of persons. Then there's a bias developed when individuals are unwilling to obtain all of the information they would need to make fair judgments about people or situations.

Stereotyping creates the framework for a bias. Bias referring to a type of selective thinking whereby individuals tend to favorably view what confirms their stereotypical beliefs, and ignore or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts those beliefs. Actively seeking out individuals who share a bias is sometimes called bias confirmation.

Next is prejudice, often derived from stereotyping and bias confirmation, that is just the prejudgment of a person or situation that fits a negative stereotype or bias; and when left unchecked can result in bigotry. A bigot being an extremely biased, narrow-minded, individual who's very intolerant of persons to whom conform to their prejudice or oppose a bias.

A racist believes that a person's race dictates their human traits. Racist beliefs are almost exclusively opined as a negative thereby allowing the racist a feeling of superiority.

While a racist always has a prejudice and is often bigoted, a bigot or prejudicial person is not always racist. Example: Joe's a misogynist, a woman hater. Joe hates all women regardless of their race. So although Joe's bigoted toward women, he's not a racist -- well, not unless he hates Asian women more than other women. To keep the word game going we can also bet that Joe's a chauvinist; or persons convinced of the superiority of their own gender.

Another important word to define is race. In 'today speak' the concept of race is often confused with ethnicity, and this is especially true when considering racism. Technically speaking race is genetic and ethnicity is learned.

However racism today seems to include both. Obviously, a white supremacist is a racist. And so is a black man that hates white men. But why is a Jew hater called a racist -- isn't anti-Semitic enough? And then why is it that a Muslim basher can also be called a racist -- since when is a Religion genetic and not learned?

Why? Because hyperbole rules hate. When someone says or believes something stupid, why stop at calling them ignorant when you can label them prejudice or a bigot or even better -- a racist? And isn't it easier to hate (or love depending on your bias) a racist, than it is to hate (or defend) someone who's just stupid?

If there's any solution for this hate proliferation, it will come from understanding, resisting fear, breaking the cycle of confirmation bias. We need to start listening to people who sincerely want to ratchet back the hyperbole. I'm not going to look to politicians or news reporters or anyone else that has something to sell me to reduce the hate. Their job security is fear -- pick me! I'll protect you.

Nope the solution is yours. Listen to yourself. If that (politician/TV talking head/cleric/retail salesman) says my only possibility of (security/happiness/redemption/rests) is in accepting their message -- then it's probably bullshit! Don't let that message be your belief foundation.

Final note: Oh and has anybody noticed that one of the few truly large groups you can hate anymore without being called a racist are homosexuals. Is it because they're everywhere? In your race, your gender, your ethnicity, even your own family. Oh well, I guess bigotry, prejudice, and stereotyping will have to suffice.

Redistribution of Wealth: Let's Start Here...

I'm starting to get interested in the Tea Party's anti-redistribution of wealth stance -- taking from the rich and giving to the needy is apparently a bad thing. And as it's the Feds that are doing the nasty, let's start by not redistributing federal taxes paid from rich states and giving it to poorer states.

As of 2004[1] for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid, California only received $0.79 back in federal spending. Some of the biggest Tea Party membership states faired a lot better. For instance for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid here's what some of those states got back: Kansas, $1.12; Oklahoma, $1.48; Idaho, $1.28; Kentucky, $1.45; Mississippi, $1.77; Alaska, $1.87 ...

So shouldn't us Californian's demand a 21% deduction from our tax bill, and shouldn't Oklahomianites get a 48% tax increase, and Mississipianiters get a 77% tax hike, etc. ?

Of course it's not as simple as that, but I'm also not as simple minded as a lot of those tea baggers --like Sarah Palin. for instance. I doubt I'll make it to her next Tea Party appearance. But if you're there. ask her about that 87% redistribution of wealth to Alaska. Golly-gee, I bet she's not gonna offer to give that back.

---

[1] Not the most recent info, but a pretty good picture of the present trend HTTP://Taxfoundation.org

Another Rush Job

Another Rush (Not a lie. Just a distortion of the facts.) - disclosure.

I looked at Rush's site today and found this story ripe for investigation. Basically his story indicates that a MS-NBC news woman, Andrea Mitchell, was pleading with a black congressman, Elijah Cunningham, to get the health care legislation passed. Especially suspcious was the story headline - Andrea Mitchell Makes On Air Plea: "You've Got To Get This Done for Him!"

Next, read the 1st picture story top of this page: Rush's story taken as a snag-it picture from his website.

The headline caught my attention, and I read the story. It didn't make a lot of sense either. So I did some research starting with a Google search. Most of the hits were right wing blogs decrying how a supposed journalist of the MSM (main stream media) had been caught, concluding with proof like this how could the left (with reporters like Andrea) ever criticize Fox News.

It took awhile before I could find a site with an actual video clip and not just a transcription. I could have heard the audio of Rush's show but I was unwilling to become a "Rush 24/7 Member" at the bargain price of $6.95 a month. Finally I did find a video clip a video clip of the interview that also didn't make much sense . Although within the nineteen second clip, it did appear Andrea was saying what had been reported. However it didn't sound like a plea as much as an argument -- like, "This is what you're trying to do, Isn't it?"

When I finally found the full length video on Andrea's Face Book wall (picture 2 above), I confirmed my suspicion. Andrea and Elijah had been talking about the black congressional caucus and how they were trying to support the president who had been a member. So her words were more a recap of her understanding of the situation of how YOU, the caucus, feel about Obama and his efforts on health care reform, and are going to work to get this done for HIM.

So except as a stand-alone Rush/Blogger sound bite, what Andrea said was in no way a personal plea or even a personal opinion. The greatest misstatement (besides Rush's) was Elijah's response to her statement, "Andrea, I agree with you a million percent." What he should have said is that he agreed with her understanding of the situation.

Now Rush and the bloggers didn't listen to the interview in its full context. Or more likely they did, but the full interview didn't present the opportunity to distort the "NEWS" to their benefit/satisfaction. The sound bite allowed Rush and the bloggers to rage on about how all Obama does is just about HIM, his legacy, his efforts, his sense of power... Had they only have played the next few seconds of the interview their audiences would have heard the next words, as spoken by Elijah, "But it's not just about HIM, it's about getting ..." and he continued on with something maddening like "... It's about getting affordable health care for millions of Americans." etc., etc.

This is my third shot at taking a Rush story -- almost at random -- and doing a little research of my own. Regretfully, for America with its millions of Rush followers, I have been able to discover misleading, misdirected, and/or missing information in each story that demonstrates Rush's distortion of the facts. "But ah, ah, ah folks, he just wouldn't be interesting if he were truthful -- or fair and balanced."

A good quote from Bertran Russell appeared on my Google page today that seems to fit here:

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.