Why Sarah Palin should be ignored.

Three reasons:

1. It is amusing to see Palin become a celebrity now – in the context that her (team’s) opponent in ‘08 was criticized for the same thing. No one is questioning her for it – perhaps appropriately, because she is in fact a celebrity now – or perhaps because criticizing Obama for it last year was silly anyway.

2. It is very, very entertaining to wail on her, and endlessly describe her incompetence. Heavens, little else is worth watching on TV, these days. But addictive though it is, I would caution against it; the more (necessarily negative) attention is paid to her, the more justified she and her followers will feel. The self-perpetuating cycle thus continues.

3. Incidentally, her claims to “true Americanism,” with which she rallies her followers, is more aptly the very elitism she derides. By her words, only a few true Americans are left, and they don’t live in the industrious cities for which this country is known and respected. Nor do they have education from Ivy League colleges. They are a select few, and “they” want “their” country back. It’s “theirs.” In other words, a small(er than the general populace) group of people, which by its nature does not and cannot include everyone. In one word, an elite.

So – no one is calling Palin out on becoming (and doing) much of what she helped criticize last year. No one is asking important questions. People are more concerned with private matters, or with her book tour, which in turn helps her portray “the media” as “biased.”

So, my suggestion to all: stop talking about her. Ignore her for a bit, and wait.

See if she decides to do something else, like run in 2012 – not with Glenn Beck, as some now suspect, but with Michele Bachmann. (Just think: two powerful Republican women with a propensity for attracting the same crowds. Seriously. Tell me NO ONE ELSE has thought of this).

Wait, my friends, for then shall the hilarity truly begin.

Unless, of course, the Democrats fumble hard. And, apparently, it has happened.

Evolution vs Creationism

SUMMARY:

Critics of evolution fall into two main classes: People who don’t understand it, and people who are unwilling to consider it because it clashes with their religious beliefs. To both, I recommend studying – or reading up on – the theory with an open mind.

FULL ARTICLE:

Evolution has far more substantive research and evidence to present than “creationism” and “intelligent design” do. The latter two claim a pre-designed origin of species, based solely on the complex appearance of said species today. Evolution, on the other hand, shows how species are related by studying the changing characteristics of organisms over very lengthy periods of time – correlating those changes with changes in the earth’s ecosystem – and linking them to certain similarities that all species share today.

Evolution is a ‘theory’ because all missing links haven’t been found yet. The links that have been found are enough to provide a basis for its claims – not least because these links have been extensively researched over many years by many scientists and specialists. Creationism and intelligent design, on the other hand, present neither evidence nor proof – only persuasions  based on religious texts and beliefs, which stem from a time when humans could easier understand the natural world by anthromorphizing the causes of natural events.

It’s absurd to ask, “Do you believe in evolution?” Evolution is not a belief: it is a well-researched hypothesis. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it may inspire you to consider its evidence from a different perspective, and form a new (testable) hypothesis that accounts for its evidence (re: fossil record). Creationism, on the other hand, is a belief: you believe in something/someone that created everything. You can’t prove it, and  by nature of the belief – you won’t. You just have to accept that everything is complicated because it was made that way.

And briefly, to the few who decide to dovetail both ideas: Evolution does NOT claim to explain why everything came to be. (See Cosmology, if I’ve got that right). Evolution only posits the hypothesis that everything on earth is related to a single primordial organism.

In conclusion:

If you don’t “believe” in the theory of evolution, then you don’t understand it. Evolution doesn’t require faith, unlike creationism and intelligent design. Evolution is not a religion, nor is it based on one. It is a theory because it has not been conclusively proven (i.e., we don’t have ALL the fossils of ALL organisms that have existed on earth since the beginning of time). However, it is a theory that is built on well-researched facts. Creationism is based on religious belief, and by its nature, it cannot be proven. There is no legitimate contest between the two, and in my opinion, creationism deserves no more place in our schools than does the old belief in a flat earthed, geocentric universe.

Let’s talk terrorism.

Or, more appropriately, let’s discuss a recent and most disturbing trend in public discussions concerning terrorism.

I’ll get to the point. The most recent Bush administration was quick to label recent acts of terror as “Islamic terrorism,” and if memory serves, Dick Cheney criticized the sitting President this year for not using the same term.

Today, I found an article from the Associated Press concerning an event in Connecticut. The short description: Construction of a memorial in Connecticut, planned to honor a 9/11 victim, was halted indefinitely. The victim’s father insists that the memorial should refer to “muslim terrorists” as his son’s murderers. The town refuses. (Subtext: Father doesn’t understand why the town refuses).

Well, let’s help him – and everyone else who has found the term “Islamic” or “Muslim” terrorism to be right. But instead of a long-winded argument, let’s just turn the tables slightly.

Would it be appropriate to commemorate every atrocious act of the Ku Klux Klan to “White Terrorism?”

Or – let’s step back from race. They did, after all, burn crosses. So – shall we call them “Christian Terrorists” instead?

Alright – how about the numerous acts of violence against abortion clinics (and the service providers therein, some who have not survived said acts)? These actions are most often quoted as being “for life,” and both (a Christian) God and (a very Christian) Judgment are frequently called in on the side of the perpetrators. Shall we call them all “Christian terrorists?” No – I think “domestic terrorism” is used instead, and I don’t hear anyone demanding it be changed.

So why, suddenly, must it be Islamic terrorism? I hope you now see the danger in applying a wide label to a small, dangerous group. That the recent Fort Hood incident involved a muslim is no more evidence for Islam being violent than cross-burning Klan members represent a violent Christian religion. Let he who is sinless cast the first stone. Until then, learn true tolerance.

HAHAHHAHAHA

On January 22 this year, two days after the Presidential inauguration, I wrote a post on this blog. It was titled “The Scary Part of Obamamania.” I have quoted the most important aspect of that post below:

However, as President of The United States, Obama inherits more than 200 years of history, and at least 40 or 60 years’ worth of fuddled International Relations. Other world leaders – the President’s new classmates – aren’t going to suddenly change their ways because America just elected an African-American into the post of P.O.T.U.S.

In short, Obama is more of a Politician now. To do his job, he must be a politician.

I’m talking about diplomacy – which is at the heart of every political position. There are many messy intra- and inter-country situations. It’s hard – no, impossible – to please everyone.

…

So, to be a politician, you’ve got to be a diplomat. To be a good diplomat, you’ve got to make compromises. And here’s where Mr. President comes in.

…

President Obama, by necessity, cannot – and will not – be perfect. He too has acknowledged this.

Barely 100 days later, the press was abuzz with accusations that the President had failed at his job.  And now, in November, common discussions still largely aim at the idea that the President hasn’t tackled campaign promises aggressively enough. The accusations range from “He’s too liberal” (from Conservatives) to “He’s not nearly liberal enough.” I hear echoes of “He’s not black enough” – only this time, I hear their true meaning: He’s not good enough.

I am yet to hear a serious discussion about an opposite scenario. No one seems to have seriously considered the implications of Obama cramming everything he campaigned on into the first year of his first term. I’m going to make another prediction, which I doubt this blog will survive to see.

Premise:

David Plouffe stated on The Daily Show (with Jon Stewart) last night that the President is a chess player. (I’m not, but I like strategy). Mr. Plouffe also said something hilarious (and quite believable) about the President, in response to a quip Jon Stewart made about Obama being “a Jedi master;” “He knows when to turn the light saber on.”

I agree. Where most people see a president who isn’t “cashing in” on his promises, I see someone who knows far more than people think. Furthermore, he’s content with that. When public misconception poses a threat, he’ll address it. Until then, it will give his administration a much-needed cover.

Background:

Obama ran on “change,” and sold it so convincingly that he won, and people were excited that he did. He’s likable, and his administration strategically influences the lawmaking process behind the scenes (Case in point: in NY 23rd Congressional race, Dede Scozzafava didn’t just endorse the Democratic candidate after dropping out: it was reported that the White House talked her into it). Obama clearly plans to run for (and win) a second term. And unlike most, he understands (very well) the implications of his 2008 victory.

Prediction:

He plans to tackle the most sweeping changes in his second term, at which point he will have nothing (but popularity) to lose. He won’t call it “change” anymore. He’ll point to his most sweeping legislative changes, and the new improved perception of the US in the world, then he’ll say something like, “Let’s finish what we started.”

Caveat

He’d better hope what he started is just as relevant then as it is now. Else, in a shoot-nose-to-spite-face move, he’ll lose to someone who is clearly a worse choice – because some people will want to “teach him a lesson.”

Here’s why I agree with President Carter.

I will quote what he said  (with added emphasis):

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”

The most important words in that sentence are in bold. I have a feeling that they were glossed over by most listeners, who went right to “based on the fact that he is a black man.” Since this follows on the heels of the Joe Wilson event, it has been quickly turned into a criticism of all Obama critics. It is this part that is untrue.

What Carter said was that some of the more extreme demonstrations against the President may be motivated more by the President’s race than by actual concerns. Because he didn’t say all, and because actually racist depictions of the president have surfaced at various protest rallies, President Carter’s statement is true. But you have to be careful how you take it.

Certainly, some African Americans feel obliged to intimidate Caucasians for reasons beyond me. They play the race card during almost every interaction with a Caucasian, even when they are in the wrong. I have met such people. I know they do not represent all Blacks.

On the other hand, some Caucasians are inclined to treat black people first with suspicion – regardless of how little (or how much) they resemble the popular stereotype. (See “Well dressed while black” on this blog). This can lead to very awkward interactions. When I lived in Georgia, I was told on two different occasions by two different Caucasians, “I don’t have a problem with black people, but my family does. And because of that, I can’t talk to you.” In both cases, these were people with whom I had established rapport, and conversed with for more than a day. One of them was a next-door neighbor. I know these people do not represent the majority of Caucasians either.

President Carter called out this modern, stealthy version of racism in some of the EXTREME CASES (see “intensely demonstrated animosity“) of anti-Obama demonstration. This is worthy of note. Some media outlets, eager to drag the President into it, have variously misreported this event as either “Obama plays the race card,” or “ALL Obama opposition is racist,” or even “Carter calls Wilson racist.” Today, FOX carries the headline, “Left concludes: We are all racist.“

Naturally, the White House has been forced to distance itself from Carter’s statements.

Do you remember when Gen. Wesley Clark said a military career was not enough to qualify someone to be president? Republicans, with the help of the media (which should have corrected the error), responded that their candidate’s “patriotism” was being attacked. Wesley Clark had to apologize for an offense he didn’t commit.

I was impressed by what Gen. Clark had said, especially because he was a decorated service man himself. I also knew exactly what he meant, and was rather taken aback by the circus that ensued. In the same way, I heard President Carter clearly. I am saddened that a circus must be attached to this as well – and what an unfortunate circus it is.

If you have been, or lived around minorities, then you may easier understand the feelings of fear and “otherness” that can arise from demographic differences. If you have never been a minority (or around them) where you live, you may not understand where President Carter is coming from.

It’s all about context. Listen to WHAT Jimmy Carter actually said, not just what-you-feel-about-what-you-heard-people-say-he-said.