sarah palin, the politico whose main qualification for anything falls under the heading of "big yenta" has spoken out in favor of the chick-fil-a owners' bashing of same sex marriage. yep, THAT sarah palin-the one who disappeared from the news when rumors of her (and her husband's) extramarital affairs were being made public. you know, the one whose teenaged daughter has managed to get knocked up who-knows-how-many-times? without benefit of marriage. yeah, the one who was introduced this week for a televised interview with a recording of pink's "stupid girl"...and didn't get the joke.
she said, "i love me some chick-fil-a!" begging the question, "does she think she might have a better chance at being elected for something if she goes ghetto?".
IN THE "SHOW ME A BANDWAGON..." CATEGORY................
By the way.. as for Mitt... Did he show his tax records yet? Or are the teabaggers satisfied with asking only for Obama's birth certificate? Seems a bit hypocritical, yes? (of course you wouldn't agree..)
Or are we still sticking with the chick whose experience with foreign affairs comes from eating at an "International" House of Pancakes outlet?
It is disappointing to me that name-calling has to enter into a mature discussion. Whether one likes Palin or dislikes Palin is not nearly as important as the reasons why.
I long for political discourse to actually discuss issues rather than castigate and point out the deficiencies of the opponent. Political issues should be about informing the electorate - instead it is all about winning and power...
I am much more interested in the reasons why one has the opinion he expresses. I ask myself such questions as "does he have valid reasons?" I may or may not agree with the reasons offered but at least I will read them.
It is easier to listen to (in this case read) about the opinions of others when obviously incendiary comments are not interjected. One example I have at times is "conservative, pro-NRA, anti-gay Republicans..." or, another one, "leftist, liberal-thinking, anything-goes Democrats..." (or any variety of such statements). As soon as such a comment is entered into the discussion everything else that person has to say is suspect and I lose interest immediately.
So it is in name-calling. It is just not appropriate and does not advance the position of the one who includes such comments in his remarks.
Of course, this is not a political blog (thank God! - got enough PAC-sponsored crap on TV with this election coming up) - but the point equally applies to discussions on whatever topic through a blog like this one. There just is no place for belittling the other even when one disagrees with his position or statements. Correction is one thing, personalizing an attack is another. Just not needed guys...
Our ability to have civil discourse in this country is in peril. I would like to see a more elevated and mature exchange.
Like the old adage goes, Attention whores never die. They just..well.. do the stuff attention whores do I suppose =)
Most recent among them were Sarah Palin's recent comments during a Fox News interview after she was asked about the growing Chick-Fil-A boycott:
"That calling for the boycott is a real -- has a chilling effect on our 1st Amendment rights. And the owner of the Chick-Fil-A business had merely voiced his personal opinion about supporting traditional definition of marriage, one boy, one girl, falling in love, getting married."
While sussing out the fallacies in a Palin argument is a bit too easy - one could even argue that it violates the old adage about not engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person - the erstwhile vice presidential candidate does have a knack for channeling the thoughts and moods of the hard-line right-wingers, among whom she continues to have considerable influence. As such, it is important to make sure that even positions as logically and morally flawed as those espoused by Palin do not go unaddressed. Hence, here are the top three problems with Sarah Palin's opposition to the Chick-Fil-A Boycott:
1. Palin misunderstands what the First Amendment says about freedom of speech.
Here, in its entirety, is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment rightly prohibits Congress (and by extension the federal government) from "abridging the freedom of speech," it says nothing about how regular individuals choose to react to political and social views they find objectionable. Just as Dan Cathy is constitutionally protected in his right to oppose gay marriage, so too are his fellow citizens constitutionally protected in their right to express disagreement with his position by circulating petitions, penning editorials (like this one), and refusing to purchase his product en masse. When Palin protests these things, she is betraying not so much a love of the Constitution, as a bitterness toward people who don't share Cathy's views on gay rights. That isn't patriotic, it's whiny.
2. Palin misunderstands what the First Amendment says about freedom of religion.
As those who read Cathy's controversial statement may have noticed, it placed a considerable emphasis on religious arguments when explaining why gay marriage should be legally impermissible (a viewpoint with which Palin clearly sympathizes). This, ironically, does violate the spirit of the First Amendment. As Thomas Jefferson once put it, "religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights." While it is perfectly appropriate for public figures to be open about how they've been personally inspired by their faith, it is dangerous for religious opinion to be used as the basis for shaping actual government policies. Not only does this engender discrimination against anyone unlucky enough to have been targeted by a given religious group's prejudices (in this case homosexuals), but it implicitly elevates the religious views being cited to a status of legal superiority over the perspectives of "persons of other faiths, or of no faith." Again, the right of individuals to base their own personal systems of morality on their religious faiths is not being questioned. The line must be drawn, however, when they attempt to use the law as a means of imposing the teachings of those faiths on those who don't share them.
3. Palin's view is anti-capitalist.
One of the greatest things about capitalism is that it provides consumers with a vital economic liberty - i.e., the ability to choose their own products and services instead of having the state make those choices for them. While politicians like Palin may not agree with the consumers who refuse to patronize a fast food chain because of its views on gay rights, there is no denying that that decision - whether made on an individual level or as part of a concerted boycott - is entirely consistent with the liberties to which they are entitled as participants in a free market economic system. Should Palin and those like her decide to boycott businesses that support gay marriage (such as the Jim Henson Company, which has severed all ties between the Muppets and Chick-Fil-A over this issue), this would also be their right. That said, when they simply caterwaul that a company which has expressed a controversial view is being punished by a consumer demographic for their opinion, they reveal themselves as poor disciples of capitalist philosophy.
Erlybrd, there is no denying (no matter what details Rae has hyped for emphasis) Sarah Palin is a stupid (yet arrogant) woman who has capitalized on her brief fame and position to market her whole family and accumulate millions from reality TV, publishing, etc.
Here are just a few quotes that prove what I say:
1, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." –-Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook lying about end-of-life counseling in Obama's health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009
3. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)
4. "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)
5. "'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" --a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010
6. "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, botching the history of Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
7. "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
8. "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible." --Sarah Palin, defending her fiery campaign rhetoric in the wake of the Arizona shooting massacre by invoking a phrase ("blood libel") that typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, Jan. 12, 2011
9. "We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" --Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010
10. "Ohh, good, thank you, yes." --Sarah Palin, after a notorious Canadian prank caller, posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, complimented her on the documentary about her life, Hustler's "Nailin Paylin," Nov. 1, 2008 (Read more about the prank call, watch the video and see the transcript)