Sarah Palin Makes Me Sick

Seriously, sick to my stomach. I'll get into that in a second, but I'll go through some other quick things first. I've stated before how this blog is at times a chronicling of the evolution of my views, and that rings true now more than ever. It's been a while since my last post, I've got a new look to my page, and I'm no longer using bible quotes. You already know that I had severed any official ties to organized religion, but I'm now fully out of the Christian faith. I have been trying, for a long time, to find my place in that faith and only recently realized that there is no place for someone like me there. Although I do find the general message behind a lot of the bible to be both good and inspiring and the basis for my personal beliefs, I found that the actual writing and rhetoric do not properly convey what I feel to be true. Jean Baudrillard, in his book Simulacra and Simulation, writes about how in modern society often the iconography, which he calls simulacra, becomes more important than that which it represents. This is how I feel about Christianity. I feel that the underlying values that it represents-tolerance, patience, respect, community, responsibility-are lost in the manner in which they are presented. I also feel that limiting myself to one definition of spirituality does more harm than good. I don't necessarily disagree with the bible, but I do think that we, in a global society, owe it to ourselves to look at life and spirituality through more than just one perspective. I don't see any benefit to associating myself and my personal beliefs and self-image to one dogmatic order. I also have, for a good deal of my life, studied the bible. My latest attempt to do so in a more open-minded manner than before was a final attempt to connect with a spirituality to which I have never felt a bond with. In the end, I realized that the bible had nothing more profound to offer me than that which I had already learned. I searched its pages for some profound revelation, some higher knowledge, some spiritual experience, and found nothing. I am still a big believer in spirituality, in forces and phenomena that are beyond our understanding, and in the principles of Karma. I just don't believe that any one order can encompass the varying views on spirituality found throughout the world, and I don't believe that I can find my spirituality in Christianity. I now consider myself to be an Agnostic.

On to politics. This will be an area which I will be exploring in greater detail. Whereas my previous views on the subject were largely apathetic, I have since matured in my understanding of process and seek to understand the matter rather than dismiss it is as pointless. SO back to my original statement, Sarah Palin makes me sick. Frankly, I have no idea why McCain chose her as a running mate, although I did see a hilarious segment on the Daily Show with Samantha Bee that offers some insight. Honestly, there are so many places I could start, I just can't figure out where to. Maybe I'll start out with her idea of education reform. It's no secret that both McCain and Palin are anti-abortion, and that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter (I'll be using the terms ant and pro abortion as they represent a value-free definition, as opposed to the loaded pro-life and pro-choice). What you may not know, and what has largely gone uncovered in the national media, is that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only programs as opposed to sex education. I'm going leaving the tilt-free zone now, after all we know that it is actually anything but. I don't see this as anything but creating less choices and opportunities for women. You don't want women to have access to education about safe sex, you don't want women to be able to have abortions, so what do you want, Sarah Palin? Do you want a spike in teen pregnancies? Do you want young women to be press ganged into raising a child because you would neither educate them about sex nor provide them with an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy? Do you want women to keep gaining opportunities in today's economy, or would you rather sentence them to grudgingly accept the role of a homemaker when they didn't choose it, or worse yet, have to fend for themselves as single mothers whose baby daddies walked out on them? I'm sure Sarah Palin would hold single mothers up as role models and use their struggle to help her campaign, but when she gets into office would she try to prevent situations like that from occurring? No, in fact she'd try to cut women off from resources that help prevent situations like that from occurring. Sarah Palin may be trying to pass herself off as a role model for women, but in actuality she is doing nothing to help their cause.

Speaking of her daughter, Palin is attacking the press for covering the pregnancy, trying to paint it as if the "evil liberal media" is out to harass her family. Of course, we all know the media has never covered situations in any other political family. When the Bush daughters had their alcohol scandals, no media outlet ever covered it. Oh, and let's not forget Bill Clinton's impeachment. Yes, the entire nation turning his personal life into an investigation and trial is completely different than the media taking notice of a pregnant 17-year-old. Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if Palin supported sex education. After all, most research done on abstinence-only programs reveal that the teen pregnancy rate is likely to be at least equal, if not higher than in areas with sex education programs.

This also brings up another interesting point. I always hear Republicans using strong Libertarian rhetoric. The government has no right to do this or that to you, the government should give you more freedom. That's all fine and well, but when it comes down to value positions they take the complete opposite stance. The government should support abstinence-only programs, even though they essentially limit the resources available to young people and cater exclusively to a certain belief style. The government should outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage, even though they provide people with more freedom, more options, and the right to the same opportunities as every other American family. But don't touch guns, no that's government going too far. Please, keep violent weapons in your house, with your children, but whatever you do don't educate them about sex so that they don't end up making a mistake that could ruin their lives. Please, carry a weapon so that you can feel safer, even if it may mean an accidental shooting, but for god's sake do not let homosexuals enjoy the same support as any other American family would. Sarah Palin is against sex education, but is for holding youth gun education classes. Yes, let's not educate children about creating life, after all that's dirty. Instead, let's teach them about ending it. That's a much better alternative.

For too long the Republican party has tried to paint these issues as integral. This country was founded because people wanted to be free of those who would tell them how to live their lives, but has it not become exactly that? Is it fair to base laws on Christian values? Is it fair to expect other people to live by those values, even if they don't necessarily share them? As it stands, those who see abortion as a viable option may use that resource, those who don't may have their baby. You have freedom for both parties, so why change it? Outlawing abortion is no more right than outlawing pregnancy. I'm sure conservatives would not like it if doctors refused to deliver babies and would abort them instead. Republicans preach freedom and choice, so why do they support a lack of choice when it comes to abortion? What if gay marriage were legal? It would provide homosexuals with the resources that every other American couple has, to tax benefits and the right to legally share their lives the same way any other couple does. As it stands, homosexuals don't have those rights. What gives conservatives a right to declare them any less deserving of equal treatment under the law? The law is supposed to be devoid of prejudice, so why do our laws support it? What would happen if gay marriage was legalized? It would mean more freedom for homosexuals. What is the matter with that? Sarah Palin has even said, "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." Sarah Palin, though, has supported an amendment to deny homosexual couples the right to state health benefits. Individual freedom for whom? Your select few? The chosen people? America is a land of freedom for all, if Sarah Palin is really for individual freedom then why does she always put her own beliefs first?

Another thing about Sarah Palin that makes me sick is her support of big business. Did you know that as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin cut property taxes while increasing sales taxes? What this means is more money from out of town business, but it also means that businesses are paying less taxes and that average citizens are paying more. It means that poor areas, which pay less in property taxes, are now shouldering an equal tax burden to their well-to-do counterparts. There had been talk in the primaries of a so-called fair tax, in which the IRS would be replaced by a national sales tax. Frankly, this idea is massively outdated. Most economists agree that a flat tax is not only detrimental to the balance of a society, but is economically infeasible. Flat taxes lead to greater class stratification. Those with acquired wealth pay the same taxes as those with little acquired wealth, therefore the latter, no matter how hard they work, cannot ever feasibly catch up to the former. The rich get richer, they stay richer, and it becomes increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, for anyone to move from the lower or middle class to the upper class. Basic principles of reproduction state that since the middle and lower classes are much larger than the elite, they will continue to grow while their economic status decreases. This is the end of a meritocracy and the beginning of an aristocracy. Apparently, according to Sarah Palin, that is what will stimulate the economy, increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes while alleviating that of the rich.

I could go on about Sarah Palin. Let's talk about her stance on the environment. Sarah Palin doesn't believe that man has had an adverse effect on the environment. Well, just this week an ice shelf larger in area than Manhattan broke off from northern Canada, and scientists attribute it to the increase in global warming in the recent century. They also say that this trend may be irreversible because whereas ocean temperatures in the past had been low enough to replace these ice formations, now they are too high to do so. If you haven't already, go out and rent An Inconvenient Truth. Look at projections of how much of the world would be underwater should just one of the world's largest ice formations melt. Now is not the time to be dragging our feet, not when we might already be too late to reverse the damage we have done.

Let's talk about more of her environmental stances. Sarah Palin objected to Alaskan polar bears being put on the endangered species list. She sued over it because she claims not enough research has been done, but what she won't tell you is that if polar bears are put on this list it will halt oil development in Alaska. Palin also authorized the hunting of Alaskan wolves from helicopters despite warnings from wildlife experts that it was a bad idea. Then there's her stance on the protection of beluga whales, which she opposes in favor of developing oil.

Let's talk about Palin's energy stance. Palin would like to drill for oil in wildlife preserves. Many experts in the field of energy agree, drilling is not a long-term answer. It's even worse when you consider that it would come at the cost of a precious natural habitat. There have been many proposals in recent years that call for more alternative energy sources, and Barack Obama has promised to be running on completely environmentally-safe energy sources within 10 years, but Sarah Palin would rather lay waste to the natural environment and deplete what little fossil fuels we have left before exploring these options.

Last, but by no means least, I would like to address Palin's experience. I never have thought that Barrack Obama was not qualified to run this country. Obama is young, but he served as a state legislator for 7 years and has been serving as a U.S. senator for the past 3. Obama is well-versed in the daily goings-on and procedures in Washington, even if he is fairly new.

I would never have questioned Palin's experience, except for a couple of reasons. The Republican side has held nothing back when accusing Obama of inexperience, yet this standard does apparently not apply to them. Furthermore, Palin has shown her inexperience in the way she deals with government in Alaska. From pushing her tax agenda through, to supporting conservative value causes no matter what, to firing whatever officials speak up against her, Palin has dealt with Alaska's politics with all the tact of a drunk at a bar on Labor Day. Upon hearing of her selection, she openly admitted to knowing nothing about the responsibilities the job entailed. Yet when the media begins to question her experience, she lashes out and calls them, "elitist." Pay no mind to the fact that her camp continually launched the same accusation at Obama, people who criticise her experience are elitist. There's a subtle pattern forming in her political beliefs, that of a double standard. Sarah Palin is right and anyone who opposes her is wrong, period. That's the way it works. I haven't been the biggest fan of the Democratic line of another 4 years of Bush, but Palin certainly seems to reflect Bush's ideology. If you thought Cheney was a stubborn old coot only concerned with protecting the status quo, then look out for Palin.