How Much More Foreign Policy Experience Do You Have Than Sarah Palin?
Je suis la révolution
- I was born in Pakistan and lived there for 9 years.
- I lived in the Dominican Republic for almost a year.
- I speak fluently two languages and have since birth; I am conversational in two more languages.
- I have travelled to Dubai and Frankfurt.
- I befriended high school exchange students from Germany and Norway.
- My undergraduate thesis advisor spent a year abroad in Norway.
- Some very good friends are speckled throughout the globe in places like Ireland, Belgium, South Korea, and Jordan.
- I’m going to the West Indian Day parade today (which will have two million people in it) and it passes right in front of my house. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there will be more people at this parade than in all of Alaska.
But, best of all, I live in New York City where 187 different languages are spoken so I for sure have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin.
Check out this great Facebook group I have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin
well, I’ve been to Europe a dozen times and Canada more times than I can count.
PICK ME, JOHN! PICK ME!
loomisnews
Monday, 1 September 2008 at 10:27 AM
BUUUUUUUT, is your God-fearing 17-year-old daughter pregnant!? Hmmmmmmmm?
Is your (drunk) husband a production operator (ex-production supervisor) for BP (you know, Big Oil)? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
Are you being investigated for trying to use your power to have a state trooper fired who just so happens to be your brother-in-law who is going through a messy divorce with your sister? AAAAAAHHHEEEEMMMMMMM???????
Are you an evangelical Christian (enough said)? AAAMMMMMMEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN?
*Also see:
-Are you an idiot?
-Are you possibly the least experienced politician in the public eye, having held a mayorship over a town of 7,000 people, and a governorship (for less than two years) of a state whose population is 1/3 that of Brooklyn, NY?
-Do you think a qualifying factor for your vice presidential role is that you served as a member of the PTA?
-Do you vehemently protest abortion whilst praising the death penalty?
-Are you a lifelong member of the NRA?
-Are you stupid enough to believe that Hillary Clinton supporters are going to vote for your ticket just because you have a vagina, despite standing for everything Clinton has fought against in her political career?
-Did you win Ms. Congeniality in Alaska’s “Miss Wasilla” beauty contest?
-Are you a total cunt?
-Do you use “your” 5-month-old son’s Downs Syndrome as a political tool to garner sympathy and to exude a sense of strong faith?
-Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
-Will you please kill me if you and that goddamn cobweb you’re running with win in November?
Lee Transue
Tuesday, 2 September 2008 at 9:06 AM
Putting aside the less offensive things mentioned by the above comment, I wish to know how that commenter can reasonably compare abortion to the death penalty, in his attempt to suggest it is a contradiction to oppose one and support the other. Now I will be the first to say that babies can be annoying: throwing up when it is least convenient, crying at all hours of the night, etc. Is this the same as violent crime? One of these actions seeks to remove from society a member who has consciously disregarded its laws, and has in the eyes of the people, forfeit his right to live. The other wishes to remove the possibility of a child being born into this world. (Now that language is careful enough, I think, so that it does not suggest whether what is removed is already alive or not, but rather that regardless of that opinion, it is true that no baby is produced.) It is horrible to suggest that these two are the same.
Yosef
Tuesday, 2 September 2008 at 11:17 AM
I believe it is perfectly legitimate to point out what is inarguably a hypocritical political stance. The death penalty is a barbaric practice suited only for lands of warlords, brutish power-mongers, and religious ideologues. Maybe that is why the United States is the only Western nation that puts its criminals to death as a matter of institutionalized retribution. Conversely, the “pro-life” movement — a collective whose vast majority is composed of evangelical Christians and other non-scientifically- and factually-minded individuals — claims to value each human life (or their definition of it), and therefore devote themselves to political activity, protests, and in extreme cases assassinations of doctors and bombings of abortion clinics (Eric Rudolph is a notorious example).
On these grounds, I simply find simultaneous support of the death penalty and opposition to abortion irreconcilable. If Sarah Palin is indeed an evangelical Christian, is it not her life’s purpose to obey God’s plan, and aspire to live by Jesus’ teachings? How, then, can she “Judge, lest (s)he be judged” and condemn men and women to death if, based on her fundamentalist views, it is solely God that has that right? If Palin – or anyone – is so eager to demonize women for having abortions, I think it is reasonable to ask how, then, they are so willing to do God’s dirty work on powerless people in cages. Have they forgotten that those people where tiny flecks of lifeless cells once, too?
Lee Transue
Tuesday, 2 September 2008 at 1:22 PM
In the first place, I think that saying the death penalty is “is a barbaric practice suited only for lands of warlords, brutish power-mongers, and religious ideologues” presents an inaccurate view. A criminal who has broken society’s laws should be removed from that society. If it is a violation the society considers minor, it could be a temporary removal from the society followed by a probationary period. If it is a major violation, such that the society can never again conceive of this member as a part of it, it must rid itself of such a person. Now, the society has three options.
The first is purely a removal of the person with the certainty that they will never again return, or banishment. In the modern world this is out of the question for two reasons: a nation cannot simply throw it’s criminals onto others, and in any case it is wrong to subject other societies to potential harm.
The second option is to kill this person. This method guarantees that this person will never again commit crimes against this or any other society. The only issue with this method is the question of whether any person or collection of people has the right to take of another. To this I say that so long as the consequence is made clear, and the citizenry have the right to freely move from the country, that a pact has been made between society and its members. This reason is twofold. First, it is based on the idea that people are free to take their own lives, as their lives are their ultimate possessions for which they are the sole arbiter. The second is the idea that people are free to enter any form of contract that is mutually agreed. The two combined mean that people are free to enter into a pact that will forfeit their life under certain terms. Citizens who remain in a country which has on its public record that a violation of a certain laws carries the penalty of death have therefore agreed to this. The issue of whether their life can be taken is then moot. This of course begs the qualification that a citizen must be properly defined (a person of majority age, with established mental capabilities, etc.) and that the death penalty only be carried out against citizens.
The third option is life time imprisonment. Under this option there is again the guarantee that the person will never again commit such a crime against this or any other society (it is, of course, not as complete a guarantee as the previous option but I am willing to look past that.) Under this option, however, the person is kept up at the expense of the citizenry. Certainly it can be said that such a “safety tax” can be reasonably taken from the people. But for what purpose? To what end should resources be spent keeping alive a person who has violated the rules of a society? This person will never again enter society, will add no value to it. Those resources could be better spent on members of society which have kept their end of the bargain. If such prisoners could be put to productive use, this may be a more viable option.
At best I could say that the second and third options are equivalent under the circumstance where prisoners are put to good use (such that their production is greater than their intake). Even then, however, there is nothing barbaric about the death penalty. It is simply the fulfillment of a contract. That “the United States is the only Western nation that puts its criminals to death” is simply proof that we chose such a contract, and is no moral issue.
As to the matter of holding this view while also opposing abortion, there is no inherent hypocrisy. This argument is not about the “pro life” movement, nor can it be framed in such a way. As a non Christian, and as a scientifically minded person, I will insist on this point. This is not about Sarah Palin and if she believes she is doing God’s work, it was about your statements that the two views are incongruent. One can hold both without any regard to God, as I could say I do. The argument can in fact be framed in a perfectly secular way, as I just did for the death penalty. To opponents of abortion it is an act of killing a living thing without any regards to that being’s action. This is an exact opposite of the death penalty, which is based on the action of the individual. You can already say that the two can be held together under the simple moral rule of ‘people should be dealt with based on their actions.’ So, if you are a person who believes that life begins at conception, you can hold both with no contradiction. Again, this is not a discussion on whether such a belief is accurate, but whether there is hypocrisy in holding such a belief alongside the death penalty. One can even support abortion and the death penalty without hypocrisy, assuming they believe that life begins at birth. Under such a belief, the abortion is not a removal of life, and therefore it is only the parent’s actions which matter, while the death penalty is perfectly a function of the c criminal’s actions.
To sum up, opposition (or support) of abortion and support of the death penalty are not incongruent beliefs. Furthermore, so long as the death penalty is handled properly (as an act of contract between society and citizens properly defined) it is not something to dismiss as barbaric. Finally, as a scientifically minded person, I greatly disapprove of the final remark in the reply comment. “Have they forgotten that those people where tiny flecks of lifeless cells once, too?” No sir, they did not. Rather, they could say, that unlike their opponents in the “pro choice” camp, they kill people based on their own actions and not simply on the fact that they are being born.
Yosef
Tuesday, 2 September 2008 at 7:49 PM
That is all well and good, but it should be noted that a man in, say, Saudi Arabia, could similarly justify murdering (or “giving the death penalty to”) his daughter if she is seen with a male that is not a member of her family. His justifications do not excuse his zealotry, even if such an outrageous practice is accepted among his peers (or ignored by his King). Murder is murder, whether it is committed by the criminal or the state, and as easy as it is for some to accept crimes committed by a nation and not an individual, that does not make them acceptable or any less animal. I’m glad to see that many of our more progressive European and Asian contemporaries have realized this, and I look forward to the day when we can all agree collectively that it is not the right of man to kill man, no matter what justifications we create. I don’t believe in God, but if I did I would have to believe that such an omnipotent thing would find it strange that we punish criminals with the same crime they committed. I would hope he wouldn’t differentiate for the sake of politics.
Lee Transue
Wednesday, 3 September 2008 at 8:58 AM
Your response makes me wonder if you even bothered reading my reply with care, which in a way makes replying again almost pointless. But I will try again.
You cannot compare the government death penalty in my example to the father killing his daughter in yours, at least not as you have stated it. The difference in justification is stark.
The death penalty as I have laid it out is a function of a democratic country, with the free mobility of its citizens outside of the country. Rather than lay out everything again, I will say how the Saudi man’s action could be considered the same as a death penalty. If, and only if, these circumstances hold, then is your position that these of the same will hold.
First, this daughter would have to be of majority age, be of established mental capacity, and be recognized as a citizen by the country.
Next, the laws of this country must be established as the consensus of its citizens. This can be accomplished either through a democratic process, which by itself means that the laws are the choices of its citizens, or by allowing the citizens to freely leave the country, thus voicing opposing to the rules.
Thirdly, the consequences of these laws must be made public, so that the full terms of the citizen contract are clear.
So if a country has laws that its people fully recognize as legitimate, or can leave otherwise, and these laws have as their consequence death, it is a reasonable response of the government. Your Saudi Arabia example, and any such example, fails this test. This daughter in Saudi Arabia (I will assume she is of age, or else it fails on another count) does not have the freedom of mobility. That is, she does not have the right to chose to opt out of the citizen contract, and chose to live under a different society. Under such a situation, there is coercion by the government to accept this contract. This is completely different from the death penalty situation I had explained.
Let me finally say that while God would not differentiate between parties in politics, he would differentiate between actions. Your suggestion that we “punish criminals with the same crime they committed” suggests that there is no account for intent to account for in actions. Your point is that killing a criminal in response to a violation of law is the same as killing a person in disregard of the law. Is your idea then that “killing” or “taking a life” exists in a vacuum of intent? If so, then you could not account for killing someone in self defense. Before you misconstrue that, I do not mean that the death penalty is a self defense killing. What I am saying is that there are differences in between killings, and that the death penalty is not simply repeating the same crime as the criminal.
Yosef
Wednesday, 3 September 2008 at 9:35 AM
If democracy is used as a means to institutionalized euthanasia, consider me outside of that dark definition. I judge each human killing another human equally, no matter what his or her society deems a legitimate justification. Our culture decries a culture like that in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi culture similarly decries ours. And though I find their practice of honor killing much more reprehensible than our practice of killing criminals, I still view them as part of the same whole, which is that it doesn’t matter how much paperwork or politics are involved, a public stoning is a public stoning. Just because we own the power in the world doesn’t make our way of doing things fair or kind. I certainly don’t believe criminals should be running free, and I also don’t believe that we should be taxed heavily to keep them alive. But we aren’t taxed heavily, and the little public money we do pay is a fair trade off for living in a society and in communities that are a bit safer than they would be in a lawless land. We pay for all of our luxuries, and having a prison system is certainly a luxury for those outside of it. Many places are so fortunate. But I just can’t excuse killing people – we do not have that right, even if the criminal has given up their right to freedom. We can take away freedoms. I absolutely support removing man-made liberties from criminals. But I cannot support or justify taking away their lives. To me, a murderer is a murderer no matter their title.
Ironically, I do support vigilantism when it is absolutely provable. For example, if I walk into my home and find someone there that is a threat to me, I will kill them if I must. But I don’t have that right once they are apprehended and no longer pose a threat.
Lee Transue
Wednesday, 3 September 2008 at 10:49 AM
Sorry, Neelofer, for using your comment space as a bit of a forum here. And thank you, Yosef, for the lively debate! No hard feelings, of course.
Lee Transue
Wednesday, 3 September 2008 at 10:51 AM
No hard feelings at all, and I appreciate this too. In fact, assuming future posts will be of similar interest, I will be in your debt for just such an exchange. I too would like to apologize for using this space in somewhat disregard to the original post.
I think, based on your last reply, that any further debate on the legitimacy of the death penalty will prove pointless, because of a differing view on the value of life. Your opinion seems to be that life is inherently valuable, and that value can never be lost. That even after committing a terrible crime, the person still holds within them a thing of value that no other person may dispose of. That is a fine opinion to have. We differ in that I believe a person can in fact squander that value, and by their own actions render their life valueless. The two views are of course incompatible, and there is only one policy solution that I see that is applicable to both. We both mentioned it, in the form of life captivity. It is the first option of you philosophy and the second in mine. It is less desirable for me because it means that resources are diverted from other people.
When I mentioned the “safety tax” and you mentioned the public spending on prisoners we are in general agreement. It is reasonable and proper to have citizens pay for their protection, and it is not a hefty sum by any means. The problem is that those resources are ones that could be used for other people. We live in a world of scarcity, and by the simplest definition, the food a prisoner eats is the food someone else doesn’t. Now, as I mentioned before, I am fine with this so long as these prisoners produce more than they consume. If they are put to work, and the value of their work to society is greater than the value of their intake in resources, than life imprisonment is a fine alternative to the death penalty. The problem is that such a calculation is amazingly difficult. If you are familiar with the economic term of opportunity cost, you can understand.
If live imprisonment can be proven “profitable” in that sense, then it has my support. Until then, as agreeable to my view on a person wasting the value of their life, the death penalty is a reasoned option.
Yosef
Wednesday, 3 September 2008 at 11:19 AM