Alaska Governor Palin's Contempt for America.

CBS's Katie Couric asked her if she could name another Supreme Court case besides Roe v Wade. Word has spread that she had no answer. It is doubtful that her knowledge of the realities surrounding Roe v Wade would be any more substantial.

This reluctance to offer an answer to that fundamental question reveals a contempt for American history by the governor. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow rattled off at least 4 during her program. But, it isn't fair to compare the two: Maddow relishes information, Palin diminishes it.

How is it that Palin couldn't provide Couric any answer, even a wrong one? Is it enough to just say that Palin doesn't like information? What else about common American culture is she unaware?

Educator E. D. Hirsch, Jr. conceived of the idea of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hirsch_Jr.#Concern_for_cultural_literacy">"cultural literacy" in the late 1970's, early 1980's, surmising that there are basic "nuggets" of knowledge that people should know in order to understand the world in which they belong. Those "nuggets" are the sayings, the history and names of people, places and things that are specific to a people of a certain place and time. A person belonging to that culture might not know all of them, but they should know some of them. Culture-changing court cases, for instance.

Is Palin's non-answer indicative of the GOP's overall hatred for knowledge, or is it related to her religion's cloistered beliefs and something she has relied on all her life? Or does it stem from the belief that any knowledge diminishes a woman's femininity?

There is a school of thought in business that says it is reasonable for someone to accept a job despite not being qualified. "Fake it til you make it" says that as long as you get the job, you can make up for not being qualified by eventually learning enough to do the current job before the next opportunity comes along. Has Palin relied on this strategy all her life, jumping from college to college, office to office keeping one step ahead of her reputation? Or has she been lead about unwillingly (and possibly unknowingly) by a formidable political machine to be the face that sells the policies in exchange for the prestige and glory of the office?

Or is it both?

A narcissist reliant on her looks, charm and the kindness of strangers, Palin finds herself caught up in a mutually exploitative relationship with a political party that is known for celebrity and personality more than policy substance and the common tenets of democracy. Whether the name recognition is from the sports world, or Hollywood, the GOP has in recent years gone to the celebrity well many times for candidates. When celebrity is in short supply, the GOP digs deeper for pure personality and it is from here that Palin (and McCain for that matter) springs forth.

Palin is simply someone who fits the lowest superficial criteria for a position (desire and a sense of entitlement for it), but fails in every measure of competence (a lifetime of public service or intellectual curiosity in landmark court rulings). She is the perfect GOP candidate: a face and a name more than willing to get out of the way of the party operatives doing the real work behind the scenes. She is content with this situation such as this, so long as she is in the spotlight and there is the promise of a promotion and more attention later on.

In a country that believes hard work is the essential quality for getting ahead, ignorance of elemental history and a lifetime spent avoiding participatory democracy is the very definition of contempt.

In just two minutes I was able to rattle off 46 cases

Plessy v Ferguson
Dred Scot Decision
Brown v Board of Education
Bush v Gore
Flynt v Falwell

I couldn't come up with any more.

Miranda vs. Arizona

A few that we might want to be familiar with

Mapp vs. Ohio - Private property protection extension to state authority - illegal search and seizure protection from local authorities

Gideon vs. Wainwright - 6th ammendment is a fundament right in criminal cases, and if a defendant can not afford an attorney, the court has to provide the aid of counsel to ensure a fair trial.

... off the top of their heads.

Rachel Maddow mentioned "Brown v Board of Education", which is one I'm sure Palin hates along with Murray v. Curlett, LOL!

:rofl: She's a fucking clueless wannabe beautyfuckwit. and on edit who isn't that beautius. My dog is more beautius than she.

Her facade is not even skin deep.

... I mean the general public morans who support her because they are fooled by her looks.

:puke: plastic or otherwise. :D

tonight I met someone who had met Palin when she was in college in Idaho. Said she was a real party animal. Like Shrub she just laughs off her own ignorance. I'm sure she'd be fun to have a beer with.

Sarah Palin has suddenly taken the cause of women in high levels of government back by several giant steps.

And everyone knows her husband is involved in the politics and running of whatever office she's elected to.

What an embarrassment.

I mean, what kind of influence is he over her?? Just how much DOES he influence her?

Great job, CW. Her tale at the same time explains the decline and fall of America.

I have a feeling she reads only the Bible. This. Is. Not. Okay!!!

in order to be able to be President...possibly even the Senate and House also!

I am not a lawyer and do not believe our President and VP should be limited to constitutional law professors at all. These cases should be taught at elementary, junior and senior hs history and civics classes. I recited the gettysburgh address to my doctor when I was 2 and half or 3, and recall learning about the history of our country in grade school, the rights we have as citizens, and about these court cases in US history classes in middle and high school.

A CEO, not from a bank but a company like P&G, UPS, or IBM the ideal choice IMO because they have the experience creating a synergy between different organizational groups, countless projects, all over the globe and having them following the same strategic vision and working together. This means they have corporate management, Human Resources, Marketing, Operations, Warehousing, Sales, Purchasing, Research and Design, Finance, etc. with possibly 1000s of people in each department scattered over 5 ot 6 continents, 100s of offices, plants, or projects all following your direction and your doing this while satisfying your employees and turning a profit of 10% on 100B in sales. You also have foreign relations experience from dealing with leaders of global corporations, speaking at summits on global technology and trade issues, meeting with ministers of India, China, etc. and discussing your companies interest in expanding operations in their country, etc.

I personally don't think a lawyer would be best qualified to be President, Lawyers rely on precedent, things that have occured and been decided already and base their arguments on that. They tend to be good orators and give sound speeches and can debate, but most CEOs give presentations in front of large crowds many times in their career. Im sure at some point they have had to make caes for strategic decisions and understand the concept of debating, which usually is largely a showcase of your ideas. Lawyers generally are not workintg in large complex organizations, their leadership is telling junior partners and law clerks to look something up or secretaries to type out the brief you recorded last night on a tape. The founding fathers needed the skills of lawyers to draft up the laws that protect our citizens and created the system of law and government that unifies our republic of states without total anarchy. The supreme courties there to adjust and tweak the laws as needed. The President now would ideally be run by a brilliant innovative leader from the business world but the pay, stress and scrutiny isn't that attractive. Just like corporations have teams of lawyers advising them on situations like international trade, taxes, etc. The CEO President will have a team of lawyers advising them on judiciary law, world trade laws, etc.

in order to be able to be President...possibly even the Senate and House also!

You should have to have a degree in a science, since our lives are so determined by it these days ( smallpox, artificial fertilizers which help feed millions ) . I cannot tell you how many times I've groaned when I heard some congresscritter talk about science. They usually don't have any idea about the limits of science or how far its taken us.

Besides, they all have law degrees right now in congress, or at least 75%-90% do I think. Look where that got us.

Lately every time we have had a non-lawyer president he has turned out to be a fucking idiot and a disaster for the nation ala Reagan, Bush I and Bush II

the dumb*sses pushing intelligent design..... all lawyers

History is for suckers.