C
A
T
E
G
O
R
I
E
S

&

R
E
C
E
N
T

Elaboration on last post

Posted by tigerhawkvok on October 16, 2008 15:03 in General , politics

Well, since my blog is being weird with comments, here's a comment John sent me:

I was gonna leave a comment, but your blog won't let me... ;(
Anywho, I was mildly surprised not by your opinion of Gov. Palin, but by your how strong it was. I haven't had the chance to read the links at your blog, but I have a general understanding of the Governor's view on science (your main source of opposition, I presume). Although she doesn't share all the views you and I do on climate change, creationism, and the like, I'm not convinced that somehow she could be worse than an Obama adminsitration - especially one backed up by a Pelosi House and a fillibuster-proof Harry Reid Senate.
Creationism makez ZERO sense. "Climate change" will potentially kill all of us (I'm a skeptic,remember) [Well, humans as animals would be fine. But the whole farming thing, and if something happened to a critical food web element .... wolves in Yellowstone decreased erosion, remember!]. Embryonic stem-cell research will cure all problems. I get all of those, and I get that Palin doesn't support any/all of those as much as you like. But compared to a nuclear Iran, a loss in Iraq, tax incerases, runaway spending, and a lack of development of nuclear power, how is voting for McCain/Palin worse than Obama/Biden - espeically since Palin's at the bottom of the ticket?
Or has Berkeley finally corrupted you? ;)

I think this merits a blog response ... one that will hopefully allow comments this time!
Basically, John brings up some good points. On paper, McCain is better for tax reasons & spending, and indisputably better for nuclear power. Every metric says that he has had a longer and wider breadth of foreign policy experience. However, there are reasons to be skeptical, and reasons to be cautious with the vote.

His tax policies and Obama's are comparable for the tax bracket we are in (at least the one I am in), and both of their (proposed) policies have numerous increases in government and spending measures in a period of recession. While I strongly doubt either will balance or surplus the budget, admittedly the money must come from somewhere. This would be a moot point if I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of McCain's proposed spending freeze went through, but I doubt it will actually happen. So what we actually have are two different large spending policies from two different candidates, and one has a realistic way to pay for it and one doesn't. Trust me, I've been burned by taxes, but I think for the overall economy it might be burned by it. Sadly, the fiscally conservative Republican simply does not exist in politics anymore. So that is why I ignore his tax and spending credentials. Also got to admit, it irritated me he didn't research the "projector" he was talking about.Planetaria star projectors are exceedingly expensive pieces of equipment.

I think that both candidates' wish to be completely independant of foreign oil within ten years is a very smart foreign policy decision, which may retard the growth of nuclear powers in the region (I do think Obama's essentially only non-nuclear renewables is shortsighted, and both endorsements of clean coal is somewhat foolish. And I wish one of them would bring up breeder reactors ...). In a way, I wish both had a stronger stance on ME nuclear developments -- something like a kick in the pants. Perhaps complete trade embargo until they remove all their centrifuges through the UN or something, and encourage our allies to do the same. I am, however, concerned about the overextension of our military from McCain (leading to a loss in Iraq) and an over-reliance on diplomacy to the exclusion of stronger effects like economic sanctions and possible military action from Obama. I think in the long run, however, a few years of over-reliance on diplomacy may garner enough international favor that more strict economic sanctions can be placed from larger arrays of nations as a nuclear development deterrent. So this is a bit of long-term strict-policy thinking on my part that doesn't put me strongly in favor of either candidate.

Obama's biggest turn-off for me is his criminally shortsighted weak endorsement of nuclear power. I would love to see 45 new reactors commissioned. Its a fools hope to think that congress with push it through without presidential backing. However, Obama has an overall better science policy. Furthermore, McCain last night implied that he suscribed to the debunked link between vaccines and autism. But, Palin one (lack of a) heartbeat from the Oval Office, and given a spot of incumbency in the 2012/2016 election is unacceptable.

Remember, as the LA Times published, Palin believes humans and dinosaurs coexisted. That level of incompetence should be relegated to a waitress or sales, not to any level of government.

Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger. [See: Paluxy trackway]

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.



Add comment

 This is the ReCaptcha Plugin for Lifetype

Comments

Palin

John | 10/16/2008, 16:18

I still don't buy it.

Yes, creationism - especially regarding dinosaurs - is pretty dumb. But how that manages to make her completely incompetent in the politics is unknown to me. Her creationism didn't stop her from breaking up an oil monopoly in Alaska and keeping taxes low there, improving the overall economy and becoming quite versed on all things energy-related.

You also short-sell McCain's plus on foreign policy, which is unfortunate, considering that that is 90% of the President's job description, and the problems of having an undivided governmnet (ie, a democratic House, Senate and President) and what that means for the country not just in 4 years, but in 40 years, since there are 6 (count 'em SIX) Supreme Court Justices over the age of 65.

Not to mention that Newsweek, the LA Times and most of the MSM have been BLATANTLY anti-Palin and pro-Obama since either of them appeared on the National Stage. Look at this LA Times piece: It has ONE QUOTE from ONE GUY that says Palin TOLD HIM this. No direct quote from Palin regarding this or anything. For all we know, he could be making it up! (I don't think he is, btw). And then there's this gem:

"But since taking office in December 2006, Palin has made no moves to impose the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design," the modern version of creationist thought, in Alaska schools."

Yeah, that's right, she might believe dumb things, but she doesn't attempt to force everyone to believe it. That's called small-government consrevatism. That's what your sacrificing because she believes something you think is ridiculous (and so do I).

I'm gonna post more about this at my blog later. For now, dinner is being cooked - and it's tacos!

Re: Elaboration on last post

tigerhawkvok | 10/16/2008, 16:34

tigerhawkvok

Super quick, since I've got to leave the house in a few minutes:

I'm not confident there's a winning side to pick for the USSC's sake ... both parties will use ideological litmus testing, and there are aspects of both their ideologies that I like, so I think I lose either way. My religious (or lack thereof; seperation of church and state is your friend) and abortion ideologies would favor democratic judicial nominees, but my governmental stances will mostly favor republican nominees.