Monday, April 19, 2010

Sarah Palin's contempt for human life

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

Leaving aside the pomposity and shameless nationalist pandering of the Sarah Palin's other remarks, the conservative diva and Tea Party darling claimed, "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower."

For a woman who equated geographic proximity to Russia to foreign policy knowledge, it should be to no one's surprise that she has no clue that geopolitics is an Xbox game.

The lives lost are those of real humans beings. The lives lost are those of the sons and daughters of real Americans... as well as many of Palin's loathed "fake Americans" from places like Vermont and California.

Oh yea, some humans from the countries who Palin is happy for us to aggress are slightly impacted by all this too.

For her to be so flippant and casual about human life should automatically disqualify from ever being near the White House.


GenWar said...

I think, in the context you took the comments, which is a bit isolated, your inference and deductions are logical.

I don't think it is fair to assume, even logically, that Ms. Palin has no regard for human life.

Is it not acceptable for her values and yours to differ? She values the perception of military and political security through greater might and power. No one attacks the biggest dog on the street. You, apparently, value human life, above all else.

By extension, therefore, can we assume that you believe all military presence is worthless and we should let any country take any resource or possession from us without opposition?

Sarah Palin is not the sharpest tool in the shed. And she says some dumb stuff. A lot of it would make for very entertaining blogging. However, personally, I don't feel this is one of those times...


Brian F said...

What's unacceptable for me is for people to call themselves pro-life solely based on their position on abortion while at the same time supporting the death penalty or wars, the inevitable consequence of both being death of innocent human beings. It is particularly grotesque for a presumed wanna be commander-in-chief to be so blase about the shedding of American (to say nothing of foreign) life.

One could argue that there's nothing wrong with the United States being a superpower. But Pres. Obama at least got the tone right in pretending that while he thinks it's necessary, he also wishes it didn't have to be so. It's Palin's eagerness and her contempt for Obama's halfway decent reticence that I find obscene. Something may be necessary but that doesn't automatically make it pleasant or desirable, especially when it inevitably results in mass death and destruction.

I don't follow your logic. Of course, it's acceptable for her values to be different from mine. Just as it's acceptable for me to criticize her public statements which are presumably based on those values. Just as it's acceptable for to criticize her values in the same way she criticizes the values of the "fake America" she holds in so much contempt. She's no more immune from my criticism as I am from yours.

Additionally, I am criticizing her based on HER professed values. I'm not judging her because I "apparently, value human life, above all else" (your interpretation of my position). I'm judging her based on HER claims to value human life, above all else, claims that are very selective and situational. I am calling out what I view as her hypocrisy, thus the conscious choice of title.

As for your assumption, I've written enough here for you to know better. I do not object to our military being used for self-defense, for the defense of Americans on American soil. I just think it's quite self-evident that this has almost never been the purpose for which it's actually used. And on those exceedingly rare instances when it truly is used for self-defense, we may think it's necessary but we shouldn't be happy about it, we shouldn't embrace it like Palin wants.

The question is not her intelligence. The question is her values. In that, you are absolutely right. This isn't about being dumb, it's about being pompous to the point of it being dangerous for all of us.

She shares same arrogant values and warped worldview as Dick Cheney and the neo-con thugs who've gotten us into these messes and whose decisions have made our country and the world much more dangerous; or she is at least claiming their mantle. Obama at least realizes that Palin's worldview would give us an even bigger target on our back than we have now and that the tough guy macho bullshit has poorly served our national security. He is taking a more decent (and ultimately less dangerous for all of us) approach, at least in tone if not action.

Brian F said...

And my values set is based not on respect for human life above all else, but on respect for human dignity above all else. There's a difference.

semi234 said...

This is Palin we're talking about. Did you really expect her to agree w/ ANY of Obama's policy positions?

He could wrap himself in the blanket of her icon, Ronald Reagan, & she (as well as the Right) would find a way to criticisize him.

I'm sorry, they already did that (aiming to cut nuclear proliferation).

PlanetAlbany said...

I don't think you've made the case that Palin is saying the bad things you claim she is saying. It is possible for military weakness to invite attack, and cost more lives of American soldiers and civilians.

Brian F said...

If you'll re-read my essay and comment, my point wasn't about the necessity of the use of military force. My point was about the desirability of the use of military force. Americans with a conscience should always view the use of military force (inevitably causing the deaths of innocent human beings) as undesirable, even when they deem it necessary. Violence should always be a last resort. When it becomes desirable, it ceases to be a last resort. Obama (at least in rhetoric) reflects that decent reticence. Palin's heaping scorn on that decent reticence is how I came to the title's conclusion.