Saturday, September 6, 2008

Sarah Palin--We've Done Worse


I  like this Sarah Palin choice.  Of course, I won't vote for her.  After all, she has confessed publicly to being a Republican.  But that aside, she rests well with me.

All those things McCain says about himself like "maverick" and "independent" that were probably true about him long, long ago, before he married into all that money and then got caught up in the Keating Five mess, may still be true about Palin.

First, is experience really necessary for the presidency or any other position of power?   I think choosing Congressmen based on who last won a multimillion dollar lottery in the district would be a good idea.  I think judges should be chosen randomly, a big drawing, say on the courthouse steps with ping ping balls, among the lawyers qualified to serve.  One big national drawing, with many, many ping pong balls, to choose the president based on all eligible voters would work for me.

Sarah Palin is about as close to a randomly selected candidate as we could get without throwing 250 million ping pong balls in a giant hamster cage.  She far more represents our demographics that the traditional rich, white, male, Yale, Skull and Bones vs. rich, white, male, Yale, Skull and Bones that was inflicted upon us in 2004.

She is a woman.  This is good.  The six years, six colleges including a junior college is endearing to me as well.  I like the basketball playing, the moose hunting, the beauty pageants and the marihuana sampling.  I like this messy bundle of kids of all ages and the Eskimo husband.  I also like that she drove everybody nuts when she got elected Governor.  I feel like I could be related to her or maybe she was the type of girl who could have had a thing with Uncle Tiger when he was a football star in high school.  

I see her as a wild, loose cannon who is too new and too little connected to be controlled.  I saw Huckabee much the same way.  If she can become president quickly rather than waiting until the lobbyists have an opportunity to give her some "experience," she could prove to be a surprising treat and a nightmare for the oligarchy.

I know she presents herself as an anti-environmentalist and a war-monger, but we seem to get those characteristics no matter who we elect.  

There are the only a couple of things that give me pause:

1.  I fear she doesn't believe in dinosaurs.  There are ways to reconcile dinosaurs with creationism and she may have decided upon one, but so far I cannot find it on the internet.   This should be her first major policy statement.  I would like a president who believes in dinosaurs.

2.  I still haven't heard if she has read Shakespeare and the Bible.  I understand that you can get a degree in journalism and miss these things.  Also, I don't mean reading the Bible in that "verse for a day" sort of way that you get at Sunday School.  I would like to think she has struggled with people like Lot, Onan and sick, crazy old David.  If she has not, rather than wasting a bunch of time with Joe Lieberman being "briefed," I urge she head out to the tundra with the Collected Works and that big Bible on the coffee table.

We could do, and usually have done, worse.

14 comments:

Becky Syck said...

Sarah Palin doesn't seem like a bad person, and I like the whole ping pong ball idea. But is there really a way to reconcile dinosaurs and creationism without resorting to stuff like denying the legitimacy of carbon dating techniques?

If her method of reconciliation is bad, that seems to me as bad as disbelieving dinosaurs.

Becky

Minmex said...

Ed Says: "One big national drawing, with many, many ping pong balls, to choose the president based on all eligible voters would work for me."

Sadly, I agree...

Unknown said...

Hey Ed, You're a lot older than I am. I know this because your picture shows you to have less hair. So would explain a couple of things for me?. a) "the Keating Five mess". b) How would you reconcile dinosaurs and creationism?. and c)do you really think she would hang out with a guy called Uncle Tiger?

Anonymous said...

1) 1 real rich guy and 4 more rich guys trying to save their ass during the savings and loan scandals during the late 80's.
2) Who cares? It was before all of our times and much like the savings and loan scandals we had and have no control over it.
3) All the cool kids did.

GI Joe

Becky Syck said...

GI Joe,

Don't you think understanding the past (and indeed the present) helps us improve our future?

Unknown said...

1) McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, John Glenn of Ohio, and Don Riegle of Michigan were “The Keating Five”.
The Senate Ethics Committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because McCain was the lone Keating Five Republican.
Senate Ethics Committee found McCain’s actions were not improper.
2) Fossils would seem to indicate that plants and dinosaurs were dying 10 to 15 billion years ago, whereas the Scriptures indicate that Adam and Eve came into being perhaps 6,000 years ago. From these 2 we have all human life.
Science seems to say that there were a number of humanoid like species around, which evolved and reproduced starting perhaps 40,000 years ago. That Adam and Eve came about only 6,000 years ago (not 40,000), and that, even more recently, all dinosaur and human life on the Earth was wiped out in a monstrous flood, would seem to suggest that all the Dinosaurs and those original humanoid populations that were NOT infused with a human soul by God simply died out.
3) I’m not sure but I think Uncle Tiger was an 80’s porn star.
4) I don't mind answering my own questions. (chicken)

Becky Syck said...

If the attempt at explaining a reconciliation between creationism and dinosaurs was sincere:

Why would a god be so cruel as to not give these original humanoids souls and allow them to die unsaved without knowing his word? Did he screw up when he created the first humanoids and dinosaurs? Or did he not come into the picture until 6000 years ago? If that's the case, wouldn't the "first creator" of the dinosaurs and humanoids be more all-knowing and omnipotent than Adam and Eve god? After all, he did figure it out first.

If you're kidding, do creationists really use that argument?

Anonymous said...

I'm offended, I did not have time to star in any porn movies I was to busy running the Veer and romancing the High School Cheerleaders.

Uncle Tiger

Unknown said...

Becky,
Don't ask me. Ed threw out "There are ways to reconcile dinosaurs with creationism". I was just offering an off the wall attempt to help him out since he hasn't offered to explain it.
Maybe you can.

Becky Syck said...

mj,

I'm not aware of any good ways to reconcile the two. But I'm always open to new evidence.

Truth Seeker said...

Isn't the real issue whether or not we want Sarah Palin in all of her glorious wackiness to appoint Supreme Court Justices? A chilling prospect, I think, when you consider McCain's age.

Unknown said...

Becky,
The New Scientist:

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution", a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14751-vatican-says-it-does-not-owe-darwin-an-apology.html

Becky Syck said...

mj,

I have no problem with Catholics and theistic evolution. It seems that evolution would make a personal god unnecessary, but to each his own. I only disagree with the teaching of "young earth creationism" and other types of creationism. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of natural selection is currently the best theory we have to explain it. "Creationism" is neither scientific nor a theory. It simply states that because there are currently gaps in our scientific knowledge, that a god must have done it. Because it is not scientific, creationism must not be taught in science classes. Palin is a dangerous choice if she wishes to take this backwards road.

Anonymous said...

All tied up and in arms defending your pride in an unending; he said, she said; GOP,DEM Hinojosa-machine campaign retort that will keep you right where he wants you.

So easy and so simple our leaders that be, sway with the breeze.

It's really to late for the science lessons and doubt. You had better make peace with your maker at this point, and deal with reality.