Sarah Palin recently wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post regarding the conservative manufactured controversy of "Climate-gate." Believing that climate "experts" fudged some data, Palin calls for Obama to boycott the climate change conference in Copenhagen. "I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics," Palin wrote, which I found interesting because she does not seem to take her own advice, especially when you apply it to other areas that Palin had delved into, such as the "birther" conspiracy or "death panels". I did not realize that Sarah Palin had the ability to gauge the expertise of climatologists, but apparently she does seeing that she had placed the word "expert" in quotation marks.
One particular part of her op-ed piece that I found interesting was where she references her experience with climate change and how she acted in the interest of real science, not politics, like when she sued the Federal government for placing polar bears on the threatened species list or when she formed a subcabinet in Alaska to deal with climate change.
First, I would just like to mention that the Palin administration in Alaska sued the Federal government along with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Mining Association (NMA), so Palin wasn't just crusading on behalf of the common man, she was accompanied by industry against the Federal government. I would think that siding with big business over the little guy would be very political in nature...
Secondly, I found interesting her reference of the subcabinet she created because she was so concerned with climate change. Palin had publicly denounced Obama and his support of cap-and-trade, calling it in a July 14th op-ed piece for The Washington Post an "enormous threat to our economy," yet according to the very subcabinet she credits herself for creating, the subcabinet would develop recommendations for dealing with the "opportunities for Alaska to participate in carbon-trading markets, including the offering of carbon sequestration." As a side note, it is interesting that the API also lobbies against cap-and-trade, so either Palin understands nothing about her administrative orders as Governor of Alaska, or she is a damn good maverick. Funny, because that very subcabinet would also have been responsible for establishing a climate change strategy regarding the polar bears, but because saving the polar bears would be detrimental to industry, Palin sided with industry, completely ignoring the purpose of the subcabinet in her suit against the Federal government.
All this is proof that Sarah Palin is nothing but a shell. She claims to be in the game because she was governor of an arctic state and was familiar with all things, from energy production and natural resources, to foreign policy, but when you chisel away at her public persona, you discover that there is no real substance; only contradictions.
Two things spring to mind:ReplyDelete
1. If she believes "sound science" should guide policy, then she ought to oppose the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in schools.
2. I'll bet she initially supported cap and trade only because the concept doesn't offend her as much as carbon taxes (a more effective policy, BTW).
Excellent point about teaching creationism.ReplyDelete
It is funny because those who advocate intelligent design believe it to be a scientific theory, and it's name implies that it is not supernatural, but a scientific fact.
A leaked manifesto from the Discovery Institute tells supporters that they"are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Apparently, only one creationist belief is valid, and that is Christian creationism. Palin believes teaching in both, as she had stated in the past. Apparently, having one highly supported scientific argument (evolution) is not enough. Schools should be required to teach unproven "science" as well for the purpose of what palin calls "debate." I believe there is another word for this - conversion.
To teach intelligent design, which is predicated on Christian theology, serves only to prove that Christianity is the one true religion, so for Christians, this debate would be good, but lets say someone worship Vishnu or Thor, then obviously their beliefs would be further marginalized by the teaching of intelligent design.
And now she's getting $200 grand for speaking at a fundraiser at a socialist Canadian hospital that practices abortion and has death panels.ReplyDelete
Not to be mean, but I consider her to be the Paris Hilton of the GOP...ReplyDelete