I haven't ever posted anything really political on this blog, mainly because I am not that interested in politics and political shenanigans. I don't like to write about stuff that bores me. I'm not funny if I'm bored with the subject, and I like to be funny.
Yesterday a friend of mine, whom I normally consider intelligent and logical, said that he supports Sarah Palin. I'm a little dumbfounded by this. I've been thinking about this every since, and I've come to the conclusion that he is either a) not the person I thought he was, or b) not listening to a word she says.
For anyone to agree with such rampant hypocrisy is mind boggling to me. How can anyone listen to a her expound on the effectiveness of abstinence-only education when there is living, breathing proof of its inadequacy standing two feet to her left? For the record, I could give a rat's ass that her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant. Obviously it is not an ideal situation. In and of itself, not political in the slightest. But Palin made it political by shoving her agenda in our faces with her daughter standing next to her putting lie to her every statement. Abstinence-only education simply does not work. I bet if someone told Bristol that she could have prevented this pregnancy by simply taking a pill or having her boyfriend wear a condom, she would break into hysterics. I know I would. Her entire view on women's rights is an antiquated agenda, which includes such gems as forcing rape victims to pay for their own "rape kits" in order to gather evidence against their attackers, wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, even in the case of rape or incest, and cutting funding for single mothers (who shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, never mind if they were raped. Obviously they deserved it.).
Beyond the domestic sphere, her views on foreign policy are, literally, terrifying. In an interview with Charlie Gibson, she demonstrated that she clearly has no idea what the Bush Doctrine is. The Bush Doctrine states that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate. What this boils down to is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Pretty simple concept.
In that same interview, Sarah Palin also said, "that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable." (Russia's "exertion of pressure" was not unprovoked, by the way. Russia and Georgia fought a five-day war in August when Russian troops poured into South Ossetia to repel an attack by Tbilisi's forces.) So let's review. If Georgia were a member of NATO, and Russia responded to military action with military action, the US would be expected to go to war with Russia. Russia. They have nuclear weapons. Just thought I'd remind you, in case you forgot about the Cold War.
How about this: does the Bush Doctrine only apply to the US? Are we the only nation allowed to defend itself with a preemptive strike? What if Dmitry Medvedev likes the way Bush thinks?
It is entirely possible that, were Sarah Palin to get into the White House, she could say something that would represent a threat to Russia, especially considering that she already has. If Russia were to perceive a threat, according to the Bush Doctrine, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to attack the US.
And my friend wants to vote for all of this?