Dear 100 Hour Board,
I gotta say, I was pretty disappointed with Portia's and Linoleum Blownapart's responses on the Palin question (Board Question #47579). Governor Palin certainly isn't perfect, but let's be accurate in our statements and accusations. Hobbes already corrected Linoleum, so I'll focus only on Portia's reply.
First off, the LDS church doesn't condone abortion or say that it is abortion is an approved practice in cases of rape. Official policies are simply that in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger, the decision of whether an abortion should take place should be made after seeking the Lord's will through prayer. The church doesn't say it is ok. It simply says that in those situations, the member won't be penalized or sanctioned for having an abortion if after prayer they believe it to be the right thing. I believe that the difference between approving of a practice and choosing not to sanction someone in certain circumstances is a very significant distinction.
Specifically regarding Governor Palin, so what if her personal beliefs are more stringent than that? The question is whether she would work to pass legislation that would outlaw all abortions. What does her record have to say about that? Check out this Newsweek article that is critical of her for not pushing more pro life policies and bills based on the beliefs she espouses. The abortion legal issues she was most outraged over? The overturning of a state law that required girls under the age of 16 (read: CHILDREN) to get their parents consent to have an abortion. Sorry, but I will side with Gov. Palin on this issue as I can't agree that such young children who can't are deemed too immature to even drive a car should be able to legally hide and conceal from their parents their making of major medical decisions and their undergoing of elective medical procedures.
Yeah, Gov. Palin has some pretty tight views on abortion, but she isn't looking to make you live by them.
Your claims are false and way off base. Can you show any proof that she 1) had knowledge of the policy, 2) approved the policy, 3) that anyone was actually charged by the police department for rape kits? I'll take a stab that you can't because every article I could find failed to show any proof. Their proof amounted to the police chief whining about a new law and their opinion that the mayor should know and approve every policy and opinion of the police chief.
I'll go one further than showing that no proof has yet surfaced and direct you to this article that goes through and refutes every argument about the rape kit issue that has been brought up.
WAR & THE GEORGIA/RUSSIA CONFLICT
Item 1: Georgia is slated to be admitted to NATO (see the NATO page on Georgia relations and scroll down to "Intensified Dialogue" to read about Georgia's impending membership).
Item 2: According to the North Atlantic Treaty, member countries are obligated to view an attack against any one member country as an attack against all member countries. Now, the treaty was written in 1949 and does stipulate that the attack must take place in North American or Europe. At that time, no countries that didn't fit that description were members. I don't think it is at all a reach to believe that as more countries outside of those geographical areas are admitted as members of the Alliance, that the restriction of where the attack takes place will be removed/ammended or will simply be ignored in current policy and actions. Ater all, Georgia's not even a member yet and after the previous aggression by Russia NATO is already supporting Georgia in "assessing the damage to civil infrastructure and the state of the ministry of defence and armed forces; supporting the restablishment of the air traffic system; and advising on cyber defence issues" (from previous link).
Item 3: As a member of NATO, the USA would (most likely, see previous item) be obligated to consider an attack against a NATO member Georgia and thus be required to respond to "assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain . . . security."
So, Gov. Palin was right on the money with what the USA would be required to do. Either we assist in beating back Russia or we violate our treaty agreement.* Would you rather we break our word? I would have thought that based on our current favor in the eyes of the rest of the world, the USA should be doing what it can to reinforce our willingness to live up to our word and agreements with foreign nations.** Would fighting Russia be a great, fun time for all and the best thing for our own personal interests? Probably not, but we should abide by our word.
I'm no economist so I'll forgo saying much here except that I'm not sure that giving the regulatory system a "complete overhaul" and "getting the government out of the way" are mutually exclusive. She said overhaul the system, not necessarily expand.
I've got no qualms with criticizing and critiquing those running for public office. Taking a good hard look at them is essential. The more scrutiny the better. I just like to see it based on fact and voting records, not inflammatory speech, empty rhetoric, rumored stories, idle speculation, deceit, and comedy television.
- Rafe, who is pretty disgusted by the offerings from both sides of the aisle in this election
*It should be noted that NATO does not require any individual country to respond to an attack through military means. This means that the USA doesn't necessarily have to go to bat against Russia. But as we do have the best, most well equipped, most well funded, and largest army (well, China's is bigger, but do you really see them stepping up to the plate against Russia?), which country do you think will end up shouldering the majority of filling the NATO troop requirements?
*I'll note here that I am generally opposed to USA participation in NATO and UN type organizations. I much more agree with George Washington's policy articulated in his 1796 farewell address: "'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." Emphasis mine.
Woah there sparky. Portia said she didn't agree with Palin's stances and used the phrase "I do not find..." which means it's her opinion, which she's perfectly entitled to.
If you're suggesting that we'll ever go to war with Russia over little old Georgia, you're delusional. But I forget myself. Sarah Palin knows everything about Russia. After all, you can see it from an island in Alaska, the state she's the executive of.
Seriously though, she's not right on the money about what the U.S. would be 'required' to do. To attach obligation jumps huge chunks of logical steps. Also, the actual U.S. getting personally involved and using NATO forces (though they may be mostly U.S. soldiers) are two entirely different things.
And dear dear rafe, take it from someone who spends a considerable amount of time studying various aspects of foreign policy: a statement made in a speech 212 years ago before free trade agreements, global communication, global economy, military technology beyond muskets and cannons, and international politics is not any sort of foundation for modern foreign policy. We can't hide between two oceans anymore.
May you have a blessed day, and may your blood pressure not explode before Election Day.
-habiba (who can't wait for elections to be over so we can move on with life already)