Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Palin's Idiocy: So Much Material, So Little Time

The more we learn about Sarah Palin, the more incompetent, clueless, and downright disingenuous she appears. From a survey of gubernatorial candidates in 2006 we get these mind boggling answers from the would-be vice president:

"Q: Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

A: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught."


In other words, ignorant parents should have the right to shackle their children with the same ignorance, according to Palin. To hear her talk, one would think the purpose of a public school system is just as a babysitter so the parents can go to work. Public schools exist, in part, to allow children to get exposure to the best knowledge available, rather than be limited to what their parents know, or find unobjectionable.

"Q: Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?

A: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children."


Palin either has serious reading comprehension problems, or she is blatantly pandering to the Parents Uber Alles wacko wing of society with this nonsense answer. Her stated position would imply a desire to raise the mandatory age, thus effectively eliminating it. Further, Palin reveals the typical ignorance among those with such views of the skill and expertise involved with being an educator. What, might we ask, is the basis for her claim that parents know better than professional educators how to educate? Do parents know better than professional engineers how to engineer? Do they know better than professional painters how to paint, or better than professional plumbers how to plumb? Of course not.

"Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."


It is downright frightening that a public servant in high office could be this ignorant of our history. I guess it explains why she thinks anyone off the street knows as much about educating as professional educators do. Nonetheless, someone needs to tell Ms. Palin that the Pledge was written in 1892, by a socialist no less, and the "under God" phrase was added in 1954. The founding fathers were long dead before it ever existed.

Palin is a clueless parrot of neo conservative and Dominionist talking points. She is not qualified to be Vice President of the United States

2 comments:

OxMonkey said...

I thought you would enjoy these 30 sec vids - a two year old ranting about McChicken and Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdpIRNe-dwY&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jG_mMv-lcs&fmt=18

Enjoy! Share!

Thanks.

David said...

I am interested if you think that a child who is 4 years old should be enroled in public school? The studies I have see show that there is no difference in the learning of those who go to pre-school as opposed to those who start school at age 5. The developmental processes going on before age 5 preclude the person from retaining well what was learned. Some striking exceptions to this - like Mozart prove the broad rule, Mozart is an - exception.

Also, since males tend to mature verbally later than girls, it is best at times to wait until the child is verbally ready for the school environment. Something the parent is highly qualified to judge.

By the way, I learned this while taking my Master's degree and studying early childhood education. I have two children.