Here are the two simple points I wish to make: Regarding the Environment Sarah Palin's words: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." (Newsmax interview). According to John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, "She seems to be failing to acknowledge virtually all credible science." In a recent article in the Seattle Times dated Saturday, September 13, 2008, the headline claims that "Global Warming is Largest Rise in 1,300 Years." The Times article reports that a study published by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that temperature increased and decreased a little over the centuries, but from 1980 to now temperature increased sharply, more than any increase before and that "the new study establishes further evidence that the recent warming isn't just part of a typical cycle." This is a woman that wants to drill in Alaska, denying our dependence on fossil fuels and which will ultimately contribute to further warming, who has stated that she doesn't believe there's enough scientific evidence. How about wildlife? Okay, she hunts, but is she a good steward of wildlife and it's environment, ensuring their protection as a species? Apparently not. She sued the Federal Government after they listed the Polar Bear as an endangered species. "Palin and other state officials expressed concern that listing polar bears as threatened would impair oil and gas develoment in the state" according to an article published in the Anchorage Daily News dated May 22, 2008 (http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html). Governor Palin went so far as to write an op-ed to the New York Times in January, 2008 to garner support for her position regarding the Polar Bear listing, explaining that the decision was not scientifically sound (full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22Bearing%20Up%22%20Op-Ed%20January%205,%202008&st=cse&oref=slogin). It's not just the polar bear, either. Beluga Whales are not worth protecting: "Palin has also opposed efforts to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales, a genetically distinct population of whales located only in this Alaskan inlet. Scientists estimate that they numbered 1,300 in the '80s; now they're down to just 375. Environmental groups have been pressing for a listing to protect the whales, but Palin has urged the federal government not to list, again citing threats to the oil and gas industry. "I am especially concerned that an unnecessary federal listing and designation of critical habitat would do serious long-term damage to the vibrant economy of the Cook Inlet area," said Palin in a statement last year." (See the full text at: http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=309329&keyword=&phrase=&contain=) I understand the need, in exceptional circumstances, to "control" certain populations of predatory animals such as bear and wolf. Governor Palin's promotion of aerial hunting, however, crosses the line. It's cruel and inhumane. I've included an advertisement produced by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (not a politcal organization). It is harsh and brutal - so watch it only if you can stomach animal cruelty. (If the embedded video doesn't display, you can view it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU )
The purpose of the aerial hunting to control the predatory populations - especially wolf - is to INFLATE the hunting populations of moose and caribou - which draw hunters to the state! From an environmental news blog (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/30/20129/1935): "Palin has also drawn heat from conservationists for pushing to let citizens shoot wolves from the air, and for supporting looser bear-hunting rules aimed at reducing bear populations in order to inflate numbers of moose and caribou, which draw big-game hunters to the state. She opposed a ballot initiative to change the law and she drew even more criticism for using $400,000 of taxpayer money to "educate Alaskans" about "predator control." The article continues: "Decimating them with ongoing perpetual programs is in no way in line with environmentally responsible predator management," said Toppenberg of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. "The ecosystems up here are intact, but they certainly won't be if we decimate the population in order to artificially inflate the population of moose and caribou." Gov. Sarah Palin offered a $150 bounty for each severed left foreleg as proof of a wolf killed! Shall I continue? There's more! How about salmon? Not a friend, there, either! She influenced a ballot initiative on clean water by stating her personal opinion. Proposition 4 would have prohibited or restricted new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state's streams and rivers, and was crafted in order to prevent the development of the Pebble Mine, which if approved would be the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America. Toxic runoff from the mine would threaten the Bristol Bay ecosystem, and put drinking water at risk. It was widely opposed by commercial fishers, native populations, and environmentalists in the state. (See the New York Times article dated August 22, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/23alaska.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) The Right to Choose I love to read. I love the choices that are available to me at the public library! Whether it's a classic tale of fiction, current political viewpoints, history, biographies - the choices make me dizzy with excitement. The key word here is CHOICE! While some have reported that Sarah Palin tried, as Mayor, to ban certain books ... that isn't quite true. She did, however, ask about the process of banning books and claims she was "testing" the support and loyalty of the town's librarian - who Sarah Palin fired and then re-hired the next day (because suddenly Ms. Palin determined that she finally did have the full support of the librarian). Good grief, that smacks of an unethical abuse of power! We will probably never know if Mayor Palin actually wanted to ban books -- but to fire someone for lack of support and then re-hire them the next day? How secure would you feel? How much would you trust your boss? (Go to http://www.factcheck.org/ for complete info.) Incidentally, there had never been any discussion about banning books at the Wasilla library until Sarah Palin became mayor. I wonder if Mayor Palin might've tried to ban books at some point in the future? It's odd that the question was even considered. Just a thought. How about Roe v. Wade? Another topic regarding choice. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe v. Wade, the ultimate question is this: do you have a right to choose? Do you have a right to LIMIT the choices of other women who may not share your beliefs? As if to add insult to injury, Mayor Palin (who hand picked the Chief of Police) allowed that rape victims be charged for the costs of collecting forensic evidence. From an Associated Press article: "Lawmakers became involved in 2000 when reports began coming in that police departments were charging sexual assault victims for the kits and the forensic exams, which cost from $300 to $1,200 at the time. The kit, a package of sample containers, swabs and other medical supplies, is used to collect evidence from women after they are attacked. Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for the cost of doing the law enforcement necessary for solving the crime." And finally, the initiative process is critical to our government involvement as citizens. It is a powerful tool to let our voices be heard. As governor, Sarah Palin influenced or even blocked several initiative measures.
So, less than 100 years after receiving the privilege to vote, we have a chance to make an historical decision! Will we honor the dedication and spirit of those women who fought so hard to secure this privilege?
I intend to!
Comments are closed for this post.
