For the sake of balance, vis-à-vis Obama’s Taking It Seriously, here’s one for Sarah Palin.
WHO: Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
WHAT: In an op-ed, Palin, who favors opening ANWR to drilling and whose husband got a $46,790 paycheck last year from BP, laid out her reasons for why the Bush administration shouldn’t have added polar bears to the endangered species list.
WHERE: “Bearing Up” [NYT Op-Ed]
THE QUOTE: “The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat…”
BONUS QUOTE: “If you are not for opening ANWR, in the state of Alaska, you couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.” – former Alaska state Rep. Ray Metcalfe in an AP article.
“Taking it seriously” is a phrase companies (and politicians) use over and over again to appear contrite or thoughtful without actually saying or doing anything. Our series of posts documenting the phrase’s attempts recurrences are our attempt to question how much seriousness-taking is actually going on.
(Thanks to Michael Belisle!)
More From Consumerist
-
McDonald’s Ad Guy Explains The McRib’s Holiday Timing: “We Don’t Really Do Polar Bears”
-
If A Bear Is Going To Break Into A Candy Shop, He Can At Least Be A Very Careful Marauder
-
Polarizing Video Asks “What If Those Coca-Cola Bears Actually Drank A Lot Of Soda?”
-
Potty Training Your Kids At The Restaurant Table Might Possibly Upset Nearby Diners
-
California Attorney General Warning App Developers They Can’t Mess With Consumer Privacy
Another for keeping politics out of the Consumerist.
Well, she’s a creature of the mining/oil industry, being strongly in favor of ANWAR drilling in spite of the fact that it’s in an environmentally sensitive area, won’t be online for ten years, won’t impact gas prices more than a dime/gal even under the most optimistic situation, whose output will most likely be shipped out to China rather than being used by the US. Big Oil already has thousands of oil leases they could drill, but instead let lie fallow.
The big picture is that the total amount available in the US, were we to drill everywhere, is only 3% of the global reserves. It SOUNDS like she’s doing something about the problem, but not really, in other words. At the cost of despoiling a national preserve to benefit Exxon.
Regards non-oil sectors, she fought very hard to kill a modest proposal to make mining companies clean up after themselves, so sensitive salmon spawning grounds might recover. She’s credited with killing it.
So, about as bad/worse than Cheney, Bush and the rest: 4 more years of the last eight years? Doesn’t sound very smart. But it fits great on a bumper sticker.
@Trai_Dep: Yay! On topic!
Well, she’s a creature of the mining/oil industry, being strongly in favor of ANWAR drilling in spite of the fact that it’s in an environmentally sensitive area,
Everyone who lives in Alaska, or at least one hell of a majority are all in favor of “despoiling this environmentally sensitive area”. So basically you’re indicting the entire state for holding this position. That she represents the majority opinion of her state should say enough.
won’t be online for ten years,
All the more reason to get going on it now, as far as I’m concerned. Had we done this ten years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate.
won’t impact gas prices more than a dime/gal even under the most optimistic situation
Supply won’t affect demand in our own country? This would appear to go against the laws of the market place.
The big picture is that the total amount available in the US, were we to drill everywhere, is only 3% of the global reserves.
So we only have 3% (that we have confirmed). Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? I don’t follow your logic.
It SOUNDS like she’s doing something about the problem, but not really, in other words. At the cost of despoiling a national preserve to benefit Exxon.
But what about the fact that this is exactly the same position as the vast majority of Alaskans? Aren’t politicians supposed to represent their constituents?
Regards non-oil sectors, she fought very hard to kill a modest proposal to make mining companies clean up after themselves, so sensitive salmon spawning grounds might recover. She’s credited with killing it.
Citation needed, please.
4 more years of the last eight years? Doesn’t sound very smart.
Nor does “handing the keys of our economy over to the government” sound very smart, which is what Obama is selling.
No thanks.
“Had we done this ten years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate.”
Unfortunately, the amounts that even the most optimistic projections predict for ANWAR means that, had we done it *twelve* years ago, we also wouldn’t be having this conversation, since ANWAR reserves would have been sucked dry and shipped to China in anywhere from several months to two years.
There just ain’t that much there. Or down here. It’s over there –>
(pointing to the Middle East and a fingerjab at Venezuela)
Google “palin salmon mining” and you’ll get many hits, including a solid NYT article.
The “priceless headwaters of one of the world’s last great runs of Pacific salmon” was opened up to vast strip-mining, mainly for foreign companies, with few safeguards. It’s where much of our wild salmon come from these days. Irreplaceable, soon to be a parking lot, basically. And of course, it’s much more than salmon, but they’re a marker.
And, y’know, even in the FDR days, Dems weren’t that socialist, let alone now. You want REAL gov’t interference in the markets? Vote Republican. Gov’t is always larger under them (Bush, WAY over, and McCain promises more of the same). Gov’t spending is always up. Google it. Let alone with keeping the gov’t out of our bedrooms, homes and doctor’s offices.
@Trai_Dep: Did you just say “solid NYT article”? With a straight face? Just checking!
@Trai_Dep:
we also wouldn’t be having this conversation, since ANWAR reserves would have been sucked dry and shipped to China in anywhere from several months to two years.
So we would send all of our oil to China? You logic eludes me yet again. It makes no sense for anyone to say we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because “it isn’t enough”. More supply will help the issues we have related to demand. And I don’t think you fully inderstand the dynamics of the market if you think that this wouldn’t help.
By the way, we get most of our oil from Canada. It’s “up there” —->
Your NYT article didn’t mention Palin once. Try again.
iAnd, y’know, even in the FDR days, Dems weren’t that socialist, let alone now
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!…….Jimmy Carter? HAHAHAHAHAHA!@!!!
I might agree with you that Bush hasn’t done a very good job with slowing the growth of government, but to make the argument that the democrats are for smaller government is absurd. Obama’s economic proposals will create one of the largest wealth transfers in history.
From todays WSJ-
According to the Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama’s tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years. He would authorize refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.
About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.
“Google it” indeed.
@IamNotToddDavis: You weren’t supposed to google it, you were supposed to just give up and concede.
In addition to what you said, the taxing would fall heavier on businesses and investors, and would ease consumers. Unless, of course, you are a consumer who buys from businesses, or, work for a business, but other then that, you should be good to go. Obama’s tax policies don’t make sense, because he has no idea how economics work, or how historically tax fluctuations have effected the economy. It’s almost cute that he thinks he can tax the rich more, and it somehow, won’t affect the rest of us.
So ya, while most of our income taxes could go down, as a democrat, he will still increase government, which will require more tax revenue, which means somehow, I’lm going to NET in the end LESS. If you don’t understand this, or agree with me on this, you should just stop commenting. If you understand/agree, but further believe expanding government is good, then we have something to debate atleast.
Everyone is talking about Sarah Palin’s daughter being young, pregnant and unmarried, but correct me if I am wrong, isn’t Barack Obama a bastard child as well?
For those of you from public schools, look up the real meaning of bastard in a dictionary.
@jstonemo: Oh, yeah, that’s right: “libural media”. Check.
@jstonemo: Again, it’s context: only the Repubs, Palin in particular, is suggesting we ONLY teach abstinence, we remove EVERYONE’S choice in reproductive matters (except her daughter, who according to Palin’s press release, chose to carry the fetus to term, etc.) Because in the real world, things happen differently than they do on bumper stickers. And because, in this country, we trust individuals to make informed, personal choices, not the state. The Dems recognize this and their policies reflect it. Hence out-of-wedlock births don’t raise the hypocrisy issue as they do for Republicans.
On a different tack, here’s a fun hypothetical. What would you think of a woman who… Oh wait, medical backgrounder first, for you non-OB/GYNs:
You shouldn’t be traveling (actually, your doctor would probably be sued for malpractice for recommending it and harm later happened), but you did. Your water breaks, but you have a speech scheduled. There are many (better than your own states, really) hospitals nearby, rather than flying 2/3 the globe where you live. This, beyond the layovers and transportation to and from the airport(s).
What kind of (supposedly) child-loving, pregnant woman would risk a special-needs baby who’s already in labor? What does it say about that woman’s judgement, her values? What does it say about her competence to accept the proverbial 3am call and lead a nation such as ours in such a complex time as today?
There was a decision tree on Sean Hannity’s site before he flipflopped and it was taken down that laid it out graphically. Worth a look.
> Her judgement and values are abysmal. Repulsive, even.
Actually I learned in business class that almost all of the oil we drill is exported because we make more money doing so, and in return take the money and profit and buy our oil supply from middle east.
@snoop-blog: The top 2 we buy from is Mexico and Canada.
@Bladefist: Yeah the point the prof was trying to make was that we don’t use our own oil…
If you’re going to cite, can you cite the article? Makes it hard to get the context (let alone if it’s from the certifiably insane WSJ Editorial pages). I’m assuming it’s not behind their pay wall? Thx.
The reason I cited Google, btw, is, like most environmental issues, it’s complex. The NYT article gives a foundation (e.g., what’s a “headwater” and who cares? Everyone downstream AND the entire ecosytem). The other links err link Palin to playing a large role in allowing Canadian mining companies to nuke one of the few of these things that Alaska has. Goodbye commercial fisheries, tourism, photogenic critters and anyone living downstream. But the mining companies? VERY well taken care of. YAY!
(That’s the thing: we Progs are for development, but balanced against other industries, and sustainable. Y’know, for the kids (well, and us).
So long as we’re talking parties and growth, the former vice-chair of the Fed (hardly a commie) did an interesting study [www.nytimes.com] – a statistically rigorous one, with cited sources) – comparing income equality and growth. He also charts [graphics8.nytimes.com] it.
Unsurprisingly, those at the lower 80th percentile do better under Dems, by far. Income distribution is, by far, fairer. What may surprise you is that overall, the overall growth under Dem leadership is huge. And that “the 1.14-point [GNP] difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.” Even more surprising is that even the wealthy do only nominally better under GOP rule: a couple tenths of a percent.
These figure are of the entire Post-War period until present, so it’s beyond one President or two: it’s the approach the two parties take and which results in more – and more fair – growth.
Of course, by “fair”, that’s the lower 80th percentile: GOP policies are equally hostile to mid/upper mid classes as they are to the poor.
And, since Reagan, most of the inequality has been because of changing tax codes, not the dynamism and innovation of entrepreneurs. It’s a bureaucratic money-grab, in other words.
There’s enough material there, sourced [www.amazon.com] to convince any rational, independent-thinking person. It won’t convince the faith-based thinkers, but what will?
The simple fact is that our economy is in trouble, and it’s been that way over the last eight years. McCain & Palin promise more of it, while history shows their policies won’t correct things as they need to.
If you have credibly-sourced, equally rigorous cites to contrast this (I’m betting: nope!), we’ll talk. Otherwise, I’m tired retreading whatever talking points AM radio guys are emphasizing today. Let’s leave those circular conversations to RedStateGreenFootballs or whatever, not Consumerist.
Argh: embedded urls are broken, so no coolly-formatted cites. Sorry!
snoop: so when the GOP says we need to drill our way out of the problem by extracting OUR oil to drop OUR gas prices, it isn’t really true? I’m shocked!
No, and we wouldn’t even benefit from the drilling until 4 years after it started. In four years, I’d rather be closer to alternative sources for fuel. And FUCK drilling, there I said it. We need to quit raping this planet and respect it if the human race intends to survive for another 2000 years. You can only drill so much, when that shit is dry and done what do you have? Nothing.
I’m thinking about going amish. Seems to be the only group not affected by all the bull-shit these days. In fact the amish are thriving while our economy tanks. A simple life outside of all the tech advances, sounds better everyday.
@Trai_Dep: Here is the link to todays “certifiably insane”(?) WSJ article I referred to. The same “certifiably insane” paper that is actually turning a profit, as opposed to your “certifiably NOT insane” NYT.
[online.wsj.com]
(Not sure if it is pay-to-view, but I’ll email you the text if you want.)
The NYT article gives a foundation (e.g., what’s a “headwater” and who cares? Everyone downstream AND the entire ecosytem).
And doesn’t mention Palin once. So why did you link it? I “googled” the issue you refer to and I find that most Alaskans appear pretty divided equally on the issue. But what I do find hilarious is that you expect me to believe that Palin is going to work to destroy commercial fishing at the behest of the mining industry in the region WHEN HER HUSBAND IS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN.
That’s some powerful stupid right there.
we Progs are for development, but balanced against other industries, and sustainable.
What a load of crap. If that’s true, why are most progs anti-nuke?
Your NYT economic artilce was ridiculous. I don’t care who the guy is – this statement is wrong on its face- “Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class.”
The majority of “poor” folks in Obamas economic plans DON’T pay any income taxes to begin with. How do you “lower their taxes”?
And as far as the rest of it goes, he uses some suspicious timing when using his statistics. I’ll let Donald Luskin explain further-
[www.poorandstupid.com]
The simple fact is that our economy is in trouble, and it’s been that way over the last eight years.
This is also ridiculous. Unemployment has been lower under Bush than Clinton. Here’s some more statistics from todays “certifiably insane” WSJ-
[online.wsj.com]
Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
Your arguments are lacking in logic and merit. It is simply absurd to make the case that the Democrats are the party of smaller government. I will admit that Bush has not lived up to many conservative ideals of smaller government but to argue that the democrats would shrink the size of government goes against all logic and data.
But please, go ahead and throw some more NYT’s articles at me.
Even though I am guilty of this, providing known biased newspapers as sources is laughable.
I’m pretty liberal, and think that Palin is one of the worst choices McCain could have made…yet after reading this post, I would prefer that we leave politics off this site. Yes, politics can affect everything in our lives, but this site is about consumer rights and protections. There are MORE than enough political sites.
Sorry, I missed the post by the moderator.
mOhr Sir@ p@l1n pix plz!
*word
damnit, i want an edit button!
She’ll be shooting them bears and chilling out in a local Alaska Fishing Lodge