In the day's second interview, when it came to the discussion of energy policy, turf the Alaska governor is far more comfortable discussing, many of the differences between she and McCain were exposed.That's professional writing? Lord help us.
Anyway, on that turf where Sarah Palin is supposedly not quite so comfortable, she refused to say that she knew for a fact that global warming is caused by the activities of the human being.
"Do you still believe that global warming is not man made?" Gibson asked Palin.I don't know why she's being characterized as not "comfortable" there. It seems to me that she did an excellent job of putting doubts about human-caused global warming in a moderate and appropriately scientific way. Who claims to know for sure that global warming is entirely, wholly caused by man's activities?
"I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our Union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution."
Gibson follows up with the key question. (Look at the film clip at the link.) If you don't begin with the premise that human beings are the problem, then how does it make sense to talk about human beings doing something it?
If I'd been asked that question in her situation, I'd have had to bite my tongue not to say: That's the real reason for the demand that everyone sign on to the theory of human-caused global warming. People want to convince us to conserve, cut back, and change how we live, and that goal is served by getting us us believe that global warming is our fault. But the usefulness of the belief doesn't make it true.
But she doesn't say anything like that. She seems to think we can consider doing something to stop global warming even if we may not be causing it.
"We gotta do something...."
Posts
73 comments:
Maybe this is just common practice and I've never noticed it before, but what's up with ABC transcribing Palin's speech leaving in the verbal "gonnas" and "gottas" rather than transcribing as "going to" and "got to"? Is really standard procedure for all interviews or special treatment for Palin?
The nominative case is used for objects when importance is needed.
She has a lot of nerve question the global warming conventional wisdom.
I'd like to see Charles Gibson address the issue of whether a warmer planet is entirely a bad thing or why the climate of 1970 is considered optimal.
"The nominative case is used for objects when importance is needed."
Thou art entirely correct, oh lord of lingo.
Who claims to know for sure that global warming is entirely, wholly caused by man's activities?
Oh, Al Gore and his gang of fifty scientists, plus all their marketing and propaganda people; in the face of hundreds of real scientists who kepp proving them wrong. Proof that you can sell anything to anybody at anytime.
As to the second question, she could have responded honestly. There are billions of dollars at stake here. it is not about the planet, it is about the money. It is always about the money. Global warming advocates are just more of the same corrupt special interest groups and lobbyists. The kind of groups John McCain and I want out of Washington.
Whether global warming is "anthropogenic" (human-caused) is irrelevant. If an giant asteroid was hurtling toward us, which would wipe out all life on earth, it wouldn't matter that it was natural. Nor would it be bad if we unnaturally pushed it off course.
But many people intuitively believe "nature good, people bad." So to them, the cause is the most important thing. This is, of course, where much of the emotional energy in the global warming debate comes from.
The first ten minutes of 20/20 last night, instead of appropriately introducting Palin and her ideas, was a complete an utter hit piece. They parsed her campaign speech, point by point, purporting to find things wrong with each sentence, when in fact their parsing was filled with lies, disinformation and leftward pandering. I have never been so disgusted in my life. When, when, WHEN has ANY POLITICIAN, liberal or otherwise, been screwed over like that? If McCain and Palin Do in fact when, I can pretty much guarante that ABC will be persona-non-grata at press events.
"When" in the above post should have said "win"...
Roger Sweeny said...
If an giant asteroid was hurtling toward us, which would wipe out all life on earth, it wouldn't matter that it was natural. Nor would it be bad if we unnaturally pushed it off course.
It would be evil if we pushed it off course. It would harm a force of nature. This is what is causing global warming; humans interfering with nature.
You do not understand, the planet must be saved, not the people. Our Mother Earth (bow your head if you must) must be saved from people, not by people. The asteroid is natures way, people are in natures way. If people must perish to save the earth, so be it.
I would bet that the global warming folks, if enough of them get in power, will propose legislation making it illegal to prevent an asteroid from striking the earth. The asteroid must be protected.
Related to this, there is the latest Dem meme that Palin is a know-nothing. I was flipping thru the news channels Friday night and caught a clip of Palin and Gibons during the Campbell Brown show on CNN. Right afterwards, it appeared there were four libs or dems and no GOP supporters discussing the interview and it was constant (paraphrased) "You may like Palin for her background in spite of her lack of knowledge or qualifications". My wife and I were incredulous. I fear for what is happening when such outright propaganda is treated as common sense in the MSM. and will this constant refrain tilt some people who were predisposed to vote for McCain-Palin?
It's amusing to me that the ancient man vs. nature dichotomy is still alive and well. I would have responded to Charlie: why do you understand man as something outside of "nature" when man, and indeed everything on the planet, is nature. Our intelligence is a product of the processes of nature, as much as the evolution of plants, the movement of tides, the changes in temperature.
"Global warming" and "climate change", as understood and peddled by the media and quite apart from the scientific realities of actual climate change, is a complete and utter scam. Not unlike the "Red scare" of the 1950s except that in that case there were actual Communist infiltrations of our government, and Communism was a clear and present danger to our society and to the world. The "Green Scare" plays on ignorance and fear and impels people to alter their lives and make sacrifices when such sacrifices will do absolutely nothing to affect "climate change". There are good, selfish and altruistic reasons to conserve and not be wasteful, but none of them have anything to do with "climate change". I'm sorry that Palin felt the need to pay fealty to these charlatans. We do "gotta do something": stop lying to people about this unscientific nonsense.
If anyone is expecting the media, with the exception of Fox News, to be remotely fair to Sarah Palin, you are going to have a long wait. And it will be longer than two months or even until January when she is sworn in. It will be until 2012 or 2016 or, hell, we all know it, forever.
Every time they attack her unfairly - or even fairly now because they hit her so hard unfairly at first no one thinks they can do any different - she gains in popularity.
I almost feel sorry for Barry. Almost.
Now you see why I no longer watch TV talking heads or read the newspapers.
It's all-Democratic Party, all the time. Every interview, every story, every image is filtered through that lens. They even call themselves "we" when TV folks speak about the Democrats.
I expect they'll win this round, but I hope 45-50% of the country as viewers generates sufficient revenue to keep them all afloat, because I gave up giving a shit long ago.
If people are foolish enough to endorse one-party rule, I cannot fix it. I feel sorry for my kids and me, having to shell out ever-increasing tributes to their failed programs.
Me? I'll never watch or read their crap again. It won't matter to them, I know, but why bother reading Pravda? I already know that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
It says much about the mainstream media that Obama's toughest interview has been with Rick Warren.
I too am a left-leaning independant who likes Palin, but I think you're stretching it a bit here, Ann. Wait... sorry, 'stretching' has sexist connotations, doesn't it? I apologize for my comment (sexism from the left, omg!!).
Just once, I would like somebody to answer this question by talking about the lack of sunspots and the fact that the earth HASNT been warming for the past what 8 years? I mean, come on?
Even the people who love this stuff are subtly trying to call it "climate change" now so they don't look like idiots.
Life is good here--no TV and no plans to get one. Don't need one to know what the talking heads are going to say
She seemed much more relaxed and self-confident than in the previous interview. There is simply no getting around the fact that she is an extremely likable and level headed woman. She argued her positions, some of which are debatable, with good humor and tolerance. The wish to portray this lovely woman as a dark threat to the nation and possibly the world is inherently self defeating. It reminds me of Christopher Hitchens efforts to blow the lid off the lies and deceit of that she-beast Mother Theresa....The Catholic Church for all its scandals occasionally produces saints. The United States for all its venality occasionally produces politicans like Palin. I'm trying not to get into a cult of personality with her, but the media's efforts to discredit the prayers a mother offers in her own church for her son and the sanctity of his (our) cause lead me to doubt the validity of all other criticisms. There are people in whose goodness one wishes to believe. Sarah Palin is one of them.
The nominative case is used for objects when importance is needed."
Thou art entirely correct, oh lord of lingo.
Who knew that among his many talents, RH Hardin was a cunning linguist.
You never cease to amaze me dude.
Face it, Palin isn't an expert on energy issues. She has ties to the oil industry and not much else.
The fact that Alaska is close to Russia doesn't make Palin an expert on national security issues, and the fact that Palin is close to oil companies doesn't make her an expert on energy issues.
That whole interview was just one lame attempt at a "gotcha" after another. Most of her answers were perfectly decent, but Gibson kept acting like they he'd caught her up somehow. I too thought her comments on the environment were just fine. I didn't understand why he kept acting like she was being evasive.
The series of questions that really made me angry was when he asked if she ever felt "frightened" or "overwhelmed" by running for VP. The whole thing just reeked of "come now pretty lady, you're in over your head, just admit it" attitude. Sexist? I "dunno," but very condescending.
It pisses me off, but there's comfort in the fact that the media are sinking themselves and Obama.
And the fact that the demonstrable twit Biden sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee likewise is no proof that he knows the first thing about foreign relations (he thinks that Iran is an Arab country, among other gems).
Oh! Me next, krylovite.
This is fun!!1!
The fact that CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and PBS all have broadcast TV shows doesn't make them actual news organizations.
The fact that the NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, and USA Today all publish their propaganda on newsprint doesn't make them actual newspapers.
Another thing... Palin has to stop saying that ANWR is only 2000 acres. It's actually almost 20 million acres so her lie is a pretty big whopper.
Another thing... krylovite has to stop stating near-truths as facts that create a pretty big whopper.
I dunno, krylovite, you aren't nearly as good as Charlie Rose at this stuff.
The fact that the NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, and USA Today all publish their propaganda on newsprint doesn't make them actual newspapers.
WTF? I hear Althouse brag about her clever commenters on bloggingheads and I keep waiting for them to show up. Where the hell are they Althouse? So far all I've seen are dunces like Pogo.
I dunno, krylovite
You're right Pogo, you dunno.
A dunce? Me?
Mebbe so.
I'd say we both have pointy heads.
But mine is a hat.
Palin has to stop saying that ANWR is only 2000 acres.
The 2,000 acres refers to the area of land that will actually be used for drilling, i.e. the footprint of those operations.
But then you probably knew that, right? Right?
But mine is a hat.
Ass-hat
Peter v bella - If people must perish to save the earth, so be it.
That is not an unreasonable proposition if people are endangering the Earth with excessive numbers/ecosystem collapse/AGW/mass species extinction event.
It follows the logic of the ship captain who may sacrifice lives to save the ship, the general who sends a brigade to slaughter so that the Army escapes encirclement and destruction, which would lead to his civilian centers enslaved or wiped out by the triumphant enemy. We may need to not go from 6.7 billion in 2000 to 11.5 billion in 2050...but back down nearer to the 1.5 billion we had populating the Earth barely 100 years ago, in the year 1900.
One key question is IF man causes AGW to any appreciable extent. But that is only one. There is no question that exploding populations of humans HAVE wiped out major ecosystems in Africa, Asia, the ME by deforestation and desertification. And triggered major extinction events.
There is no question that the "carbon" use is a function not just of conservation, but number of resource users. And that energy is not the only natural resource man is running into hard stops against - scarcity of water and arable land has met technological limits that have no pending "miracles!!" on the horizon.
If we all do as Noble Algore preaches, but not practices, and as good little Green minions we sacrifice tremendously to lower our resource consumption by 50%, that means we only free up creating another energy, land, wood user as population grows
from 6.7 to 11 billion, given that Rising China and other lands that lived a miserable starving peasant existance for the most part want better and are going to do wahtever it takes to increase their standards of living.
Given that, the conversation soon must turn from Gore flourescent bulbs and forcing vegetarianism as the moral thing to do to stretch crops - to the matter of population and imposed population constraints. The days of the US welcoming in 10s of millions of refugees, chain migration, and illegal foreigners because things suck in their many times overpopulated shitholes is coming to an end.
Nor can advanced nations go to ZPG and then be expected to support excess numbers in 7 kids per family Malawi, Gaza.
WE could just let nature cause mass die-offs from disease, famine, war. But perhaps better we manage it with limits on family size, even though Fundies and civil liberties people say that having as many kids as you want even if taxpayers or other nations pay for them is - a moral duty and God-given right from Jesus/Allah....
Compared to the larger problem of overpopulation - with developing nations striving to advanced nation levels of resource use, and the ecological collapses we already see - Global Warming is a side issue of that only.
=======================
Krylovite - Face it, Palin isn't an expert on energy issues. She has ties to the oil industry and not much else.
The fact that Alaska is close to Russia doesn't make Palin an expert on national security issues.
Face it krylovite, no person running or occupying high office CAN be an expert in just about anything. Not since Thomas Jefferson in a much simpler world, and even he admitted vast gaps of comprehension in a number of fields.*
WE go by - "Can this person LEAD?". And, if surrounded by the true experts, can they make the right decisions? Or, make the right decisions most the time?
* - No President since Hoover has been a true expert in a knowledge field. (Hoovers books on mining and logistics engineering are still read in degree programs). The last true brilliant Presidents were Nixon and Clinton. Both gifted, but with inevitable knowledge gaps despite that, and also cursed with personal flaws that hurt the Presidency.
No one is putting Palin, McCain, Obambi, and Biden in the league of Jefferson, Clinton, or Nixon. Or to be "expert" as Hoover was, or as Noble Algore claimed to be.
Fortunately our system is set up to run with a decision-maker, not an uber-brain idependent of experts in 500 fields.
Palin and McCain are proven decision-makers. With Palin not having a long track record. And McCain having a long enough record we know he can, and has, made decisions sometimes of teeth-shivering stupidity....but also a pack of very good, courageous calls on controversial issues and stepped up and took his licks like a man.
Obamba is someone that all his life has sought to insulate himself from accountability of any decision he was forced to make. Looking good mattered more. Biden is just a bloviator.
@Krylovite:
McCain/Palin may not be energy experts, but they are more convincingly so than Obama/Biden. BTW, have you seen the electoral count recently? That's climate change I can believe in.
Seriously, you need to expend more energy promoting your side than trying to undermine McCain/Palin.
Face it krylovite, no person running or occupying high office CAN be an expert in just about anything.
Dude, don't tell me, tell the rightwing loonies who keep promoting the lie that Palin is an energy expert. Tell McCain who recently said:
"She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America."
Ask yourself why the republicans keep promoting this lie and blame the job applicant for the fake resume.
And McCain having a long enough record
Yeah, that's why I won't vote for him. He has an established record of being wrong most of the time. His vast experience with getting things wrong isn't a qualification. Been there, done that. We don't need more of the same.
The 2,000 acres refers to the area of land that will actually be used for drilling, i.e. the footprint of those operations.
It's not true, but I'm guessing she means something like that. If that's what she was actually saying, I'd criticize her for an incorrect and misleading assessment of the size of the direct environmental impact. But that's not what she's saying. She says that ANWR is 2000 acres - a real whopper of a lie. She has to stop lying about that.
f, I agree that the interview was disgusting. They made sure to include the photo of the dead moose, too, just to show us what a bloodthirsty rube she is!
Go to newsbusters to see the transcript--what they left out and edited will make you even madder.
McCain/Palin may not be energy experts, but they are more convincingly so than Obama/Biden.
They aren't more convincing to me. Politicians with ties to the oil industry will promote the same shortsighted energy and environmental policies that we've seen from Bush/Cheney. Do you remember Bush's 2006 State of the Union address?
America is addicted to oil...
The McCain/Palin solution? More oil! More drilling! Offshore drilling! Drilling in ANWR! Because everyone knows the best way to beat an addiction is to give in to it.
Sounds like more of the same.
Seriously, you need to expend more energy promoting your side than trying to undermine McCain/Palin.
Hey, beating back the McCain/Palin/GOP lies is a full time job!
Not just professional writing, but professional editing. Layers and layers of editors.
They made sure to include the photo of the dead moose
What the hell do you think happens when you successfully hunt moose?
krylovite said: Hey, beating back the McCain/Palin/GOP lies is a full time job!
Ease off on the "lies, lying, liar" verbiage too. It is ineffective, no matter what your intent is.
krylovite said...
Another thing... Palin has to stop saying that ANWR is only 2000 acres. It's actually almost 20 million acres so her lie is a pretty big whopper.
Krylovite, you are WILLFULLY lying about what Palin said. She said that the drilling section of ANWR is 2000 acres within a 20 million acre reserve. She said this with Charlie, and she said this on CNBC:
BARTIROMO: SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A TINY LITTLE FOOTPRINT, ACTUALLY THE OPERATIONS IN PRUDO BAY, BUT PEOPLE THINK OF IT AS SO EXPANSIVE AND SO MASSIVE THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT IF IN FACT WE WERE TO SEEDRILLING THERE ON THE WILDLIFE AND ON THE COMMUNITY.
PALIN: WELL, ANWR AT THAT POINT IT'S ABOUT 2,000 ACRES THAT IS BEING ASKED TO BE LOOKED AT AND TO BE EXPLORED AND TO BE PRODUCED. 2,000 ACRES OUT OF 20 MILLION ACRES.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26462569?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS
She said the EXACT SAME THING on Thursday with charlie. They were standing by the pipeline, remember? Oh, ignored it? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU SCROTE SACK.
What the hell do you think happens when you successfully hunt moose?
The same thing as a successful abortion, I'd guess.
Krylovite, you are WILLFULLY lying about what Palin said.
No I'm not. Here's the relevant section from the transcript (emphasis added):
ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we're asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.
There are lies embedded in lies here. ANWR is not "a 2,000-acre swath of land." The 2,000 acres Palin refers to is the estimate by drilling proponents of the eventual footprint of the drilling platforms. That's not a "swath of land" but an estimate of the total area that would be covered by drilling platforms. It wouldn't be contiguous acreage. But that's not what Palin says.
Palin also says that exploration and development is only proposed for 2000 acres. That's a lie and the "energy expert" Palin must know it. The area considered for drilling is known as the "1002 area," the coastal plain, and consists of 1,500,000 acres. The truth is that Palin and other drilling proponents want 1,500,000 acres of ANWR available for oil exploration. Not 2000 acres for exploration... 1.5 million acres for exploration. That's a huge whopper of a lie!
You can put your head in the sand if you want, but that won't make the lies go away. It just means you won't hear the lies.
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU SCROTE SACK.
Thanks for stopping by! Come again!
I asked:
"What the hell do you think happens when you successfully hunt moose?"
Pogo answered:
The same thing as a successful abortion, I'd guess.
There you have it, folks! Pogo thinks a successful abortion results in a dead moose.
No President since Hoover has been a true expert in a knowledge field
I would say Ike knew a bit about war. JFK & Clinton were experts at picking up women not their wives.
"Between she" sounds like she-it. Herself is much better.
Does anyone besides landscapers discuss turf?
Krylovite, So she obviously, once, had a slip of the tongue when she said that 2000 acre bit. If you are going to jump up and down and scream "Liar, Liar!" over that, then I get to continue to quote Obama's "my Muslim faith" slip. Agreed? No? What about that "57 States" in Obama's country?
Debate and civil conversation is about understanding what people say, not parsing for gotcha clips. Tends to make you unwelcome. And get a sense of humor, dude. You're boring us.
Krylovite, So she obviously, once, had a slip of the tongue when she said that 2000 acre bit.
Ease up on the kool-aid Christy. She's said the same thing numerous times. That means more than once, dude.
As I explained, it's not a simple lie, it's a compound lie. She's lying about what the "2000 acres" is and she's lying about the extent of exploration and development in ANWR. She's either repeating this multiple lie because she wants to mislead or because she doesn't understand the issues. Which scenario do you prefer?
And get a sense of humor, dude. You're boring us.
Dude, if you came here for Pogo's humor, poor poor pitiful you.
What's the worst thing that happens if I bore you? You stop reading and posting in the comments section? I think I can live with that. :o)
What's the worst thing that happens if I bore you?
You continue to post, ad nauseum.
Links! Links! Give us links for the >2k acres needed for drilling.
It says much about the mainstream media that Obama's toughest interview has been with Rick Warren.
Man, ain't that the truth. And he did it in a jovial, almost kindly way. He wasn't trying to GOTCHA Obama. He merely wanted to explore his answers. The Christian crowd were receptive to him, in fact, very gracious.
There was none of that adversarial position that MSM take, especially with Republican candidates.
I dearly hope Rick Warren will do another version of his Civil Forum with Biden and Palin.
Christy, here's a government reference:
Clough, N. K., P. C. Patton, and A. C. Christensen, editors. 1987. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, coastal plain resource assessment - report and recommendation to the Congress of the United States and final legislative environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC, USA.
You continue to post, ad nauseum.
I'm just following your lead.
"Politicians with ties to the oil industry will promote the same shortsighted energy and environmental policies that we've seen from Bush/Cheney."
Politicians with ties to Marxist radicals will promote the same discredited economic and social policies that we've seen from Lenin/Stalin. I'll take the oil companies any day. At the very least, they've killed many orders of magnitude fewer people.
Who knew that among his many talents, RH Hardin was a cunning linguist.
Troop, I would bet he is an Anthropologist too.
He will explain to us the difference between a tribe of pygmys and a Girl Scout troop.
Ralph said...
Does anyone besides landscapers discuss turf?
Yes, actually; the people who do Bidens hair plugs.
ABC's opening: "In the day's second interview, when it came to the discussion of energy policy, turf the Alaska governor is far more comfortable discussing, many of the differences between she and McCain were exposed."
ANN: "That's professional writing? Lord help us."
*My guess: The comma is nothing more than a typo that was missed.
And then Ann goes on to misquote what she says is poor writing.
ANN: "Anyway, on that turf where Sarah Palin is supposedly not quite so comfortable, she refused to say that she knew for a fact that global warming is caused by the activities of the human being."
The ABC opening says "...the Alaska governor is far more comfortable...", not as Ann says; "not quite so comfortable."
Now that's poor reading comprehension...and poor writing.
Christy, this is from the State of Alaska / Palin website:
"The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres."
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1229
Ralph says...
"JFK & Clinton were experts at picking up women not their wives."
Kind of like...McCain?
That's funny.
Yes, but McCain knew when to quit--when he married an heiress with a pre-nup. For a short guy with stubby "fingers" and prematurely gray hair, he apparently was pretty good at it.
Politicians with ties to Marxist radicals will promote the same discredited economic and social policies that we've seen from Lenin/Stalin.
Hee hee! The drooler junior varsity just arrived!
Hey Michael,
Christy doesn't really want links. She's just looking for an excuse to put her head back in the sand.
Two important things have come to light regarding the supposed "gaffes" of Sarah Palin:
http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-anne-marie-slaughter.html
All those who have condemned Sarah Palin on her Bush Doctrine comment should now realize what complete IGNORAMUSES they are!!!
And here's the second, which I'm now calling "ABCgate":
http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/09/abcgate.html
Michael, that wasn't the only grammar fart, keep reading.
Hey Pelalusa,
If you're going to post links, learn how to post them correctly.
Palin negotiated and agreed to the terms of the ABC interview. She has only herself and her campaign team to blame if she decides after the fact that she doesn't like how the interview turned out.
This sort of thing happens when inexperienced, unqualified people run for public office. It's easy for them to get caught out when they don't know what they're talking about.
Jesus, you'd be the stupidest Republican pundit alive if you didn't have competition from Jonah Goldberg.
"Krylovite, So she obviously, once, had a slip of the tongue when she said that 2000 acre bit."
No, she didn't.
"Anwar" is the shorthand people use for the whole issue of drilling. If you say Anwar people know what you're talking about. So it's not a slip, it's the same word popularly used for two distinct things.
Seriously... if someone said "I oppose Anwar," would we accuse them of opposing the nature reserve? Or would we assume they meant they oppose drilling for oil there?
This isn't a slip of the tongue, it's a child pretending not to understand abstracts, on purpose, when all the adults are talking and using words to reference ideas.
_Anwar_ is short-hand for drilling and what drilling people want done. It it *called that* because the location is part of the Anwar nature preserve.
Trying to insist that Palin doesn't very well understand when she is on video talking about this over and over and over, that the footprint of the proposed operations in Anwar are about the same size as LAX and that is only a minute part of a HUGE nature reserve is either being terminally stoopid or deliberately obtuse.
There are things one may criticize with Palin but suggesting that she doesn't understand the issues surrounding drilling for oil in Anwar, the geographical location, and the larger context AND that she doesn't explain this clearly in a way that is easily to understand... that's just silly.
She really does know about this issue. She really has been lobbying strongly for it since she became Governor of her state.
That the Dem party line has been that drilling in Anwar is bad, bad, bad, and Palin doesn't *agree*... does not mean she doesn't understand the issue inside and out.
Also... as Governor of her state she was responsible for getting as much as realistically possible from Big Oil through the contracts for production there.
She was on the *opposite side* from Big Oil... not the same side like Dems want to claim simply because she's not all, Boo Hoo... we have to protect a couple thousand acres of truly barren arctic coast-line because there are polar bears and some pretty mountains and flowery meadows about 200 miles in *that* direction... but it's all Anwar so obviously it's all the very same thing.
"...when it came to the discussion of energy policy, turf the Alaska governor is far more comfortable discussing..."
So why do you say that energy policy was something she was supposedly less comfortable discussing? It was in the middle of some bad grammar, but that part seemed clear; well, except for the "discussing turf," but we can tell what was meant.
She really does know about this issue.
I'm not so sure, but if you prefer to believe she's an informed liar, that's okie dokie with me..
She was on the *opposite side* from Big Oil
Oh bullshit! She has her agenda, "Big Oil" has its agenda, and it turns out that they have a whole helluva lot of common interests. She's as cozy with "Big Oil" as any other Alaksa politician; in fact, probably more so.
but it's all Anwar so obviously it's all the very same thing.
Jesus, the stupidity!
Look, if you're going to post about this subject and pretend you know what you're talking about, it's ANWR, not Anwar.
Arctic
National
Wildlife
Refuge
ANWR.
Just because you have a keyboard sitting in front of you doesn't mean you should use it. Save it for those special and rare occasions when you know what the hell you're talking about.
Post a Comment