Mark Steyn On Palin

Substitute "Bowling" for "Basketball", and you can see how silly Steyn is being.

Imagine someone with an identical background to Palin's, with identical experience, life experience, executive experience, propensity to eat moose burgers, etc -- everything identical except for one thing: she was ideologically a liberal democrat.

I think that if Obama (or any democratic candidate for president, any at all) picked this hypothetical person for the VP slot, most of Palin's defenders, including you Rand, would have hooted with derision. Do you agree?

Obviously, you can throw this question back at me, and ask me to imagine a conservative with Biden or Obama's background, experience, etc. It is a good exercise for everyone.

Substitute "Bowling" for "Basketball", and you can see how silly Steyn is being.

Obama needs to win the bowlers votes, too. The hoops fans won't be enough.

Imagine someone with an identical background to Palin's, with identical experience, life experience, executive experience, propensity to eat moose burgers, etc -- everything identical except for one thing: she was ideologically a liberal democrat.

Hard to imagine that. Seriously.

That is not the kind of arc of life that leads one to be a "liberal" Democrat.

I think that if Obama (or any democratic candidate for president, any at all) picked this hypothetical person for the VP slot, most of Palin's defenders, including you Rand, would have hooted with derision. Do you agree?

Of course, but it would be because she was a "liberal" Democrat.

Alaska has plenty of liberal democrats. I once worked with one who hunts, fishes, etc, and his father ran for the Alaska state legislature. (He lost, but not by all that much.) If you merged the characteristics of the father and the son (who himself has little interest in running for office, although he worked on his father's campaign), you'd get someone rather like a liberal Gov. Palin. I'm surprised you can't imagine someone like that. I wonder what mental model you are using, to think that people can't be pretty much like Sarah Palin, but have liberal ideologies.

Fourth, Governor Palin has what the British Labour Party politician Denis Healy likes to call a "hinterland" - a life beyond politics.

It's just fabulous to live "beyond politics" out in Alaska while those quarrelsome socialists in the lower 48 pay your taxes for you.

Sarah Palin's personal life story is fine. At least she worked for a living at real jobs. But there is something very wrong with the political experience in Alaska, and it's the same thing that's wrong with John McCain's personal path to wealth. It's the false lesson that the American ideal is to have money appear out of nowhere. You can have a complete array of government services without paying taxes, or you can seven houses and a private jet just by birthright or marriage. It's very easy in either case to conclude that taxation is theft, and that hard times are just ghost tales.

Again, there are plenty of men of privilege who learned that not everyone can get the free lunch that they got. FDR, for example. You don't need to be Einstein crossed with Lincoln to figure it out. The problem is that McCain and Palin are under tremendous pressure from the Republican Party to not understand it. So all of their economic policies will be half-trustworthy at best.

"It's just fabulous to live "beyond politics" out in Alaska while those quarrelsome socialists in the lower 48 pay your taxes for you."

Gee Jim, Want some cheese to go with that whine? Perhaps you need someone to call a waahhambulance?

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

Don't get me wrong, Mike, it's not the end of the world if Alaskans live a nationally subsidized life. The main point is that political experience in Alaska is in some ways backwards from good statesmanship in most of the country.

Beyond that, if you want to endorse Phil Gramm's position that it's McCain vs a "nation of whiners", go right ahead.

The Selection of Governor Palin smacks of desperation

1) She's very popular with the evangelical right,
which means McCain needed to desperately attract them
to secure the GOP Base.

2) She's completely unproven as a fundraiser, which
means she can't fundraise. She's not a billionaire like
Bloomberg or Forbes or Romney who could underwrite
the ticket.

3) She's never had the klieg lights on her, so the potential
for gaffes is amazing.

4) She's completely unprepared for debate on Foreign Policy,
National Security, NATO, China.

5) She knows nothing about the national economy.

6) She's totally unprepared for a discussion on health care.

7)She has no idea what the federal government does.

8) She makes Goerge Bush look credible

She is unqualified on grounds of good character.

john smythe, you're not totally wrong, but consider this from another point of view:

The American people expect much of their Executive; both in experience and character. Bush II was brought in (by the Right) on character, with the understanding that Cheney and Rumsfeld would lend him the benefits of their experience. I think Obama has the character the Left is looking for, but he is "desperately" short on experience. That's why he brought in Biden.

John McCain has more relevant experience than any two Presidents would need. He also have strong character in some respects, but many on the Right don't trust him. They need someone to represent their interests at the White House. They don't need more experience (McCain's got that covered). They need the character. She's got that.

What's more, if anything happens to McCain, "President Palin" can then bring in Joe Lieberman as her VP.

Was it a bold, risky choice by McCain? You bet. But that doesn't necessarily make it a bad one.

-------

Re: the lower 48 pay your taxes for you

Palin has repeatedly turned away Federal money, pointing out that Alaska's budget is in surplus. The Bridge to Nowhere is a good example, but not the only one. Don't ascribe the Alaskan culture of corruption she fought to her character. If you don't like her actual positions on something, fine, make the argument for that. But lies and misrepresentations make you look bad, not her, and hands the election to your opponents.

Hmmmmm.

@ Jim Harris

"...and it's the same thing that's wrong with John McCain's personal path to wealth."

Which is? He married a hot blond heiress of a beer distributorship.

WTF is wrong with that?

"The problem is that McCain and Palin are under tremendous pressure from the Republican Party to not understand it. So all of their economic policies will be half-trustworthy at best."

And my gastrointestinal distress puts me under tremendous pressure to ignore you.

Palin has repeatedly turned away Federal money, pointing out that Alaska's budget is in surplus.

Brock, when money grows on trees for you, you can even stitch some back onto the branches to feel self-sufficient.

Alaska's petroleum severance tax doubled from $1.2 billion in FY2006 to $2.3 billion in FY2007. It's probably even higher this year. On top of the petroleum revenue, federal revenue held even from FY2006 to FY2007 at $1.9 billion. With that much manna from heaven, it's easy for Palin to do it all. She can keep the state budget at 20% of GSP, she can announce $1,200 in negative taxes for all Alaska residents, and she can even criticize a bridge to nowhere that would be cancelled regardless.

http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/financial_reports/resource/07cafr.pdf

If zero state taxes in Alaska doesn't tip you off, $1,200 in negative taxes certainly should. Or if even that doesn't instill a clue, why stop at minus $1,200? Would Palin be even more libertarian if it were minus $12,000 or minus $120,000?

Which is? He married a hot blond heiress of a beer distributorship. WTF is wrong with that?

At a personal level, nothing is necessarily wrong with it. (Well, he cheated on his first wife and their children, but it's still his personal business.) But he's a bad choice for president if he loses touch with how most Americans have to live. If he doesn't know how many houses he owns or what car he "drives" --- of course the real answer is a private jet and a chauffeured stable of cars --- and if he also didn't earn the fortune, then he could easily sleepwalk through a mortgage crisis or an energy crisis.

Jim,
I'm not sure where you live, but how much did YOUR state get from the Feds?

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Selection+of+Governor+Palin+smacks+of+desperation&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIH

Gee John Smythe, ever have an original thought instead of spewing idiotic talking points?

I'm not sure where you live, but how much did YOUR state get from the Feds?

Unlike Alaska, my state pays the Fed more than it gets back. And no one is about to propose a flat $1,200 state residence credit.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/545_federal_balance_of_payments_per_capita.html

(Okay, this is old data, but the balance hasn't changed all that much.)

Harris "forgot" to mention that the federal govt controls the vast majority of Alask's land.

Since we've taken that land for our benefit, is it really unreasonable for us to pay?

Note that Alaskans would be more than happy to not get the money if they got control of the land, so if Harris also objects to the deal, let's end it.

I'm guessing that Harris likes gas taxes, so why does he object to Palin using them to pay for Alaska's govt?

And, as I've noted elsewhere, Palin may have requested federal money, but she wasn't in a position to vote on whether it was provided.

Biden was, and got far more for MBNA with the bankruptcy reform act, and that may not even be the bulk of his recent bacon run.

Obama's only legislative achievements are pork, in amounts that greatly exceed Palin's.

Since we've taken that land for our benefit, is it really unreasonable for us to pay?

Pay who? "We" didn't "take" the land from most of the people who live there now. The federal government bought the entire area from imperial Russia. Is it unreasonable to pay people to move to Alaska? It may not be such a terrible thing, for one reason because it's not very many people, but it's not as if we owe them. Do I owe Sarah Palin her state taxes just because she moved from Idaho to Alaska? No I don't.

Note that Alaskans would be more than happy to not get the money if they got control of the land

Again, that land was bought by all Americans from another country. You don't deserve to be granted your own land just because you decide to move to a state. Alaskans deserve that even less than they deserve free K12 education.

Do you mean just the 15% of Alaskans who are Eskimos? Maybe they do deserve some kind of land grant, but not the entire 650,000 square miles. That's out of proportion.

I'm guessing that Harris likes gas taxes, so why does he object to Palin using them to pay for Alaska's govt?

It's true that US gas taxes are too low, but the point was never to tax things just for the sake of having taxes. The point of gas taxes is to hedge against peak oil, not to let Alaskans live fat. That use of taxes simply puts Alaskans on the same side of the problem as the Saudis.

Instead of arguing that Alaskans inherently deserve all that free money, you could plausibly claim that Alaska and its oil are necessary for the US and that justifies a subsidy. Even so, it does not remotely justify the smug Alaskan brand of libertarianism: You pay my taxes for me, so I can say that taxation is theft.

And, as I've noted elsewhere, Palin may have requested federal money, but she wasn't in a position to vote on whether it was provided.

I'm not saying that she stole the money. Rather, it's easy to pretend to oppose a subsidy that you will get either way. In Alaska, you can protest your free cake and still eat it. Maybe Palin would make a good governor of Alaska in the long term --- it's too early to tell. The point is that this is an artificial government experience that would lead to bankruptcy in any other state.

Jim,

Are you kidding? Are you actually trying to use the rhetorical device that Alaska is not the right kind of state? I've seen mention of desperation regarding this VP nominee but the desperation I see is in the childish attempt to run down Palin based this type of nonsense.

We are constantly reminded that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Which is great if you're trying to get an interview as an Associate at the firm of Pissant, Who? and Nobody but it seems like a pretty - what's the word? - desperate way to pad the resume of a presidential candidate. Tell me, did he participate in his High School production of Godspell too? That would really seal the deal.

Honestly, are you so dimwitted and stupid as to imagine that Palin is going to be hurt by anything you have to say about Alaska? Or is it desperation?

Honestly, are you so dimwitted and stupid as to imagine that Palin is going to be hurt by anything you have to say about Alaska? Or is it desperation?

This seems to be Bob's approach as well, and it is equally ineffective. All it does is make me compare Delaware to Alaska, and it never comes out well for Bob and Jim.

> "We" didn't "take" the land from most of the people who live there now.

Yup, Russia had all of those national parks and so on when we bought it.

Wrong.

> I'm not saying that she stole the money. Rather, it's easy to pretend to oppose a subsidy that you will get either way.

Wrong again. Harris wants to argue that asking for earmarks puts Palin in the same camp as Biden and Obama. It doesn't because of her position and their magnitude. And then there's the personal benefit angle. Hire one of their relatives, and they'll shovel federal money to you.

If Harris actually cared about excess pork, the far greater acts by the senator from MBNA and the Messiah would rate a mention. Since they don't, we can safely conclude that Harris either doesn't actually care about pork or really thinks that Palin didn't go for enough.

So, let's find out. What does Harris think that AK and Palin should do in their situation? He clearly thinks that they've done the wrong thing, so what would have been the right thing?

> The point is that this is an artificial government experience

Harris suggests that this is something new for Alaska - it isn't. AK had negative and low income taxes before Palin and will after.

> that would lead to bankruptcy in any other state.

Huh? Palin's AK didn't increase spending when it got an unexpected increase in revenue. How does that lead to bankruptcy?

Harris seems offended that AK can support its govt from oil taxes.

Is the problemt that they have too little govt or that they're making money from their resources?

I ask because other states use money from their resources to subsidize govt.

Or, is this just another example of "Repub, wrong no matter what"?

What does Harris think that AK and Palin should do in their situation? He clearly thinks that they've done the wrong thing, so what would have been the right thing?

Other than her obsession with Mike Wooten, I don't know that Palin has done anything "wrong". She can go on being governor of Alaska, no problem. It's just that her job isn't libertarian, and it also isn't relevant for national office.

Her own stated positions reflect that irrelevance. She has floated several fanatically conservative initiatives --- like banning abortion and teaching creationism --- and then turned around and said that she wouldn't govern by them. So her message is also that she's a blank slate.

Is the problem that they have too little govt

Alaska has far more state government as a fraction of GSP as other states.

or that they're making money from their resources?

"Their" resources? They moved to Alaska, so that makes the oil "theirs"? Rand Simberg has an interesting answer to that:

It's a shame that we can't wave a wand and make oil worthless. Perhaps the only other solution is to take it away from them. There's something wrong with a system that gives people so much wealth who have done absolutely nothing to earn it or create it, and use it to subvert the rest of the world.

As the last clause suggests, he had in mind Saudi Arabia, but everything else is equally true of Alaska. I do not agree with Rand that the oil should just be confiscated, but no oil dwellers anywhere ever did much to earn or create their wealth.

As a start, the rest of Congress should whittle Alaska's balance of payments down to break even. Federal money in should equal federal money out. Then the governor's job in Alaska would look a little more like the jobs of other governors.

Or, is this just another example of "Repub, wrong no matter what"?

Nope, it also applies to Tony Knowles. He has solid political experience in Alaska, but very little of it says much about national office.

> >or that they're making money from their resources?

>"Their" resources? They moved to Alaska,

What are you babbling about? Yes, some Alaskans moved there, but most didn't. And, there's nothing stopping other folks from moving there.

What - you want the benefits of being an Alaskan without being one?

And, we're still waiting for why it's wrong for Alaskans to benefit from Alaskan resources. Californians benefit from CA resources. Texans benefit from TX resources.

Yet, it's wrong for Alaskans to do so.

However, it was nice of you to argue that Simberg is an indisputable authority. I disagree, but you can't - you're now stuck with all of his positions.

> Other than her obsession with Mike Wooten, I don't know that Palin has done anything "wrong".

Hmm. Harris claimed that Troopergate was unethical. Most people think that that implies wrong, yet ...

The modest (by Dem ticket standards) about of pork was a disqualifier, but now we find that it's not "anything 'wrong'".

Harris' big objection to Palin is that she hasn't been as unethical and porking as Biden and Obama. Not, apparently, that there's anything wrong with that.

Governor Palin Makes George Bush seem like a real heavyweight
comparatively.

Jim Harris said, "She has floated several fanatically conservative initiatives --- like . . . teaching creationism." For what it's worth, if you read her statement on that in context, she never said creationism ought to be taught. What she said was that discussion of it should not be banned from the classroom. I can agree with that. When I have taught high school biology I have been happy to engage students who bring up creationism in an academic debate. It helps me to teach evolution and the fundamentals of science by comparing the actual evidence and arguments for both propositions. I am able to show why evolution is science and creationism is not.

Michael, I am quite sure that you are doing as you say and debunking creationism as not being science. But you and I both know that allowing the teaching of creationism in any form will also allow other teachers to "debunk" evolution using biblical authority as "evidence", using clever rhetoric instead of logical argument; and how are the students to know the difference?

One thing that outsiders find mystifying about the USA is that this sort of fundamentalist nonsense - which arguably also includes the notion that a single-cell zygote is fully human - is taken seriously at all by any significant fraction of the population. To my knowledge, the only other places where creationism is taken seriously are the fundamentalist hellholes in the Middle East.

Creation "science" and its disguised version, "Intelligent Design", ought to be banned from discussion in schools in any civilised country. It is impossible to ensure that the discussion will be hostile to it, and since evolution is fundamental to the study of biology creationism deprives the country of biologists as well. Since the USA (and the UK as well) is seeing a rapid decline in the study of real, hard science and the supply of scientists, that matters.

For what it's worth, if you read her statement on that in context, she never said creationism ought to be taught.

I did read her statement in context, and that's exactly what she said:

Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

What is true is that she waffled the next day. She claimed that she only meant that discussion shouldn't be banned. That is not what "teach both" means, and it is also not what "don't be afraid of information" means. She evidently found reasons to waffle after the debate ended.

What she still may not understand is that we should be afraid of misinformation. Teachers should not teach misinformation alongside correct information as if they are two sides of a debate. It's not just that creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum", as Palin said it the second time. Since creationism is a dishonest, sectarian attack on science, it does not belong in a biology curriculum, although of course students should be free to air their preconceptions.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Well, public schools are always going to teach whatever "truth" the teachers believe - in Kentucky, that is creationism; in Illinois, that is environmentalism. Neither is worse than the other, and teachers typically do not allow discussion - their opinion is to be accepted as fact. In my case, my 7 year old daughter was insulted by her teacher because she tried to say that walking caused more CO2 release than driving (we had discussed that over dinner the previous night - and yes, it is true, cars are more efficient than people).

Now I'm not necessarily bagging on the teacher - they have to control the flow of information somehow, though I wish they were more nuanced in how they did that. But it's not like every teacher doesn't bring their own preconceptions into the classroom. Teachers are just as human as the rest of us, and they all teach their own personal biases as fact. That is why parents have to track what is being taught - to try to point out where facts are actually opinions.

You don't like creationism discussed in schools. I don't like environmentalism taught in schools. But perhaps it is better for society if both subjects are treated in the manner most of the locals would - that way, at least you will understand your neighbor's irrationalitties.

bicycling is way more efficient then cars,
busses are way more efficent then cars given a
passenger load fraction.
Hybrids are way more efficient then SUV's
(NRO Stupidity aside)

And the standard for curriculum is set by the
state or county school board.

And the claim for cars being more efficient then people
makes assumptions based upon food production, vehicle
efficiency and distance.

Besides walking is healthier for you.

Precisely why I was discussing it with my daughter - it was complicated, and I want her to understand that life is complicated. (She's smart, and can handle that)

And you are completely wrong in meaning, though your exact sentence is correct: The school board does set the curriculum - but that curriculum makes essentially no difference in what is taught by teachers... teachers are human, and will teach their biases as facts... especially if those biases are popular in their local culture.

(And hey, I walk a miles each way to work every day - I just know don't go around saying how much I am saving the environment by doing it!)

I wouldn't assume as fact that walking is lower carbon emitting
then driving, but, it's an interesting argument.

I'd really have to check the numbers before I made the claim.

carbon balance calculations are extraordinarily complex
which is a real hazard in all the claims on global warming.

Now I personally believe we now have provable data on
global warming, mostly, the clear fact
is the northwest passage is now open to small boats,
that are running in it a matter of days, where it once took
years for big boats to run.

now is this anthopogenic, there is room for debate, but, little
time for the debate.

The preponderance of evidence is shifting and shifting fast.

"taxes simply puts Alaskans on the same side of the problem as the Saudis"

LoL! Hellva yea! We should re-align the axis of evil to identify the true threat.

"Alaska has far more state government as a fraction of GSP as other states.

Well, then she should win over the liberals no problem. Someone with such a socialistic pedigree is a slam dunk.