Palin Prefers Homilies to Homework-“Drill Baby Drill”


From the moment Sarah Palin came to the attention of the national media, the only “policy” slogan we might associate with her, that was more specific than “common sense conservatism” was “drill-baby-drill.”  Admittedly, Barack Obama advocated a more environmentally responsible program of energy development, with the clear goals of protecting the environment and working towards energy independence.  Initially Obama was not in favor of additional off-shore drilling, but on March 31st he unveiled a plan to expand the U.S. coastal areas available for offshore drilling.   Some might have expected Palin to have claimed victory.  Some might have anticipated that Palin would have suggested that the President had learned something from her.  Wrong!  Instead Sarah now complains that Obama’s plan is a “joke”.  (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/sarah-palin-explains-why-the-news-of-offshore-drilling)

Sarah’s new slogan is “stall-baby-stall”.  Palin explained that she doesn’t like the President’s plan because there were going to be “studies” associated with the proposed plan for off-shore drilling.  Palin explains:

“As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action…”

—Sarah Palin

This quote from Palin lacks persuasiveness because…

    1. She resigned as the Governor of Alaska.
    2. She resigned from the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (“Rebuttal to the Rogue” pg. 37)
    3. Palin has never been fond of the people who study in high school or at the five colleges she attended.  She seems to prefer friends who are interested in the weather and smoking pot.  (“Trailblazer”)

Palin was also quoted as saying:

“…Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process.  Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”  (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/sarah-palin-expalins-why-new-offshore-drilling)

How would delays caused by an effort to be “environmentally responsible” not be in the national interest?  The only logical conclusion is that Palin feels it is in our national interest to be “environmentally irresponsible”, or that the state of Alaska is interested in environmental irresponsibility.

Before Palin resigned as governor, Richard Feinberg was an oil and gas analyst who consulted with Palin’s administration during 2007 and 2008.  See, http://www.globalresearch.ca/indes/hph?context.  Jamail, Global Research.com, and Insider:  Palin Failed to Lead on Oil and Gas Safety in Alaska.  Feinberg said:

“Based on my first-hand experience, I can tell you that Sarah Palin is misinforming the public on ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share-one of three pieces of legislation for which she takes credit.)-as she does on many other issues. “Ibid.

While Palin takes credit for ACES, it was in fact not a new system, but modification to a new tax plan her predecessors put in place before she became Governor.  More importantly, the major part of the ACES gains is the direct result of the Alaska Legislature’s reversal of key elements of Palin’s proposals.  Ibid.  Feinberg concluded by saying:

Palin “deliberately perpetrates myths about her performance as governor…and…why would anyone believe she is competent to govern?”

“When it comes to the craft of governance, Palin exhibits a superficiality that I find frightening.  She tends to prefer homilies to homework and all too often over-simplifies or distorts issues.”  Ibid.

To make matters worse, it appears that several spills in Alaska would be an indication that a little more study was merited.  On Dec. 23, a tugboat hit the Bligh Reef (the same reef Exxon Valdez hit 20 yrs ago); on Nov. 28 there was a spill at a refinery in the town of North Pole; and on Nov. 29th, there was a large spill on the North Slope.  The risk of environmental damage in Alaska is not only real, but it has happened in the last few months.  As long as people believe what Palin says, instead of considering what she has actually done, the risk of damage to our country is not only predictable, but happening daily.  While energy independence is important to the country, I am glad President Obama is studying the issues, before taking action.  We have proof of the outcome from a leader who prefers homilies to homework.

5 thoughts on “Palin Prefers Homilies to Homework-“Drill Baby Drill”

Add yours

  1. What an excellent post! I love your style, your documentation, and your veracity. Dugg & also Tweeted about your post, then added your feed to my Netvibes “Right Wing Watch” tab. Do you submit to The Huffington Post or other venues?

    Like

  2. malia, i LOVE your blog. you somehow manage to keep a level head (not easy when dealing with palin), and you have all this research to back up your views. you don’t just spout information. marks of a thoughtful journalist.

    i’m honestly not surprised that she’s decided to see-saw AGAIN on pertinent issues. there’s not enough research to know that the places where she wants to drill (like ANWR for instance) have a significant amount of oil to be had. it would be prolonging the inevitable for an insignificant amount of time.

    her “many such studies” probably reiterated over and over what she didn’t want to know (ignorance is bliss, you know). over and over, studies concerning oil drilling and pipelines document the negative impact on wildlife. a study that i found from the 1970s documents that the animals who suffer most are wolves, bears, and deer. so what do we do? shoot them. all of them. wolves and bears for predator control, deer for sport. she’s the queen bee of misinformed because she’s too stubborn and lazy to actually take anything but her own greed into consideration. it’s no secret that she has her hands in oil, but because obama’s going about this the RESPONSIBLE way, she wants no part of it. “drill, baby, drill” was, for her, just one more way to fill her pockets. with environmental safeguards in place, she won’t be able to because drilling won’t be done recklessly.

    i can’t wait to read your book.

    Like

  3. Great post and great website. I’ve bookmarked it THIS time, as I didn’t on a previous visit. Your style and incredible research is one to commended. Thanks for all you do concerning Palin. Her demise is not coming fast enough for me.

    Like

  4. Like you, I thought, given her predictability, Sarah would immediately jump on the bandwagon to declare victory. She might resort to her “victory” dance if “drill now” goes nowhere. The woman is a menace to society, the environment, animals and all living beings.

    Sarah thinks the energy companies should have unfettered access to drill anywhere, everywhere, anytime on our lands and sea. And that “studies” are unnecessary because… they would take too long?

    First of all it takes 8 to 10 years to lease land, explore and build a rig. But with a shortage of engineers it will probably take longer.

    Secondly the energy companies already hold over 7000 leases for off-shore drilling stretching over 68 million acres. (Do they really need more?)

    Thirdly off-shore oil platforms are environmentally hazardous and costly. Each platform can have 4 to 100 wells. Due to Hurricane Katrina at least 20 completely disappeared and others were damaged and lay on the ocean floor. The costs to re-build, repair, replace and/or clean-up are staggering.

    Fourth there is no guarantee the oil will be sold to the US. By the time the oil is produced, even if it is sold to the US, it’s unlikely to be enough to last very long. There is only a finite amount of oil and one day we’ll run out; it is just a matter of when — predictions range from 2 to 25 years, give or take. Not even 40 years, IMHO, could justify additional off-shore drilling.

    Furthermore we’ll still have to depend on foreign oil to fuel US warships, tanks, drones and fighter planes, etc. for the next ten years and more.

    At the very least, Sarah knows or should know how long it takes to produce oil. So why rush? I realize her loyalists don’t care much about the environment, however, they do care about jobs and the cost of energy consumption and how long it will take. Because Sarah implied as much, her loyalists seem to be under the impression that taking action now would immediately “result in job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide.” But it won’t be immediate nor will it bring down the cost of oil, so if the president did take her advice they would blame him, not Sarah. Thankfully he rejected her advice.

    I’d still like to know what prompted President Obama to change course. Hopefully he will do so again.

    FYI:

    Lester Brown, a world renown scholar and authour, has 3 solutions that would effectively stabilize our climate and lessen the costs. His credentials include:

    He founded the Worldwatch Institute in 1974, the first research institute devoted to the analysis of global environmental issues. In 2001, he founded the Earth Policy Institute to provide a road map for achieving an ecologically sustainable economy. Dr Brown has authored or co-authored over 50 books, most recently “Eco-Economy” (2001) and “Plan B” (2003). He is the recipient of many awards including more than 20 honorary degrees, the 1987 UN Environment Prize and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize for his “exceptional contributions to solving global environmental problems.” The Washington Post has called him “one of the world’s most influential thinkers.”

    First the costs:

    In 1991 the US Department of Energy did a wind resource inventory and reported 3 states: Texas, Kansas, & No Dakota have enough wind to convert into electricity to supply electricity for the entire nation. During the 1980’s California’s wind farms cost $ .38 cents per kilowatt hour. Today that cost ranges from $.04 cents per kilowatt hour, some long term contracts are as low as $.03 cents and by 2010 that cost could be as low as $ .02 cents per kilowatt hour.

    The downside is that it would shut down 100’s of coal mines.

    The steps:

    1) phase out old incandescent light bulbs to be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs which uses only a third as much electricity

    2) suggests using hybrid cars that run on wind and electricity

    3) convert wind energy into electricity

    The first step would be to phase out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs. These would be replaced by compact fluorescent bulbs which use a third as much electricity. He then proposes a shift away from petrol engine vehicles to hybrids such as Toyota’s Prius.

    Emissions could be further reduced if hybrids were to incorporate a second battery that could plug in to the grid. The grid could then be supplied by wind energy, sufficiently abundant in Europe and in the US. This would mean that the hybrid cars of the future could run on renewable energy.

    Recorded: December 2004

    Listen here if interested:

    http://big-picture.tv/index.php?id=62&cat=&a=150

    http://big-picture.tv/index.php?id=62&cat=&a=150

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: