Palin's resignation, explained

An article in the Wall Street Journal today goes a long way to explaining Sarah Palin's resignation in terms that not only make sense, but actually agree with why she said she did it. She was being harassed by so many Freedom of Information Act requests and trivial ethics investigations (according to one article I read, she had been acquitted on all 15 of them so far) that she didn't have time to do her job. Resigning was therefore the best thing for Alaska, even though she knew it would hurt her politically.

I can't prove this is correct, of course, but it fits both with the facts and with what she said in her resignation speech; and, by Ockham's Razor, it seems like the best explanation until someone can prove something different. Even otherwise supportive conservatives have been critical of her decision to step down, and Rich Lowry goes so far as to say that her stated reason -- it was for the good of Alaska -- is absurd. Mr. Lowry should be ashamed of himself, not for being critical of her decision, but for giving no credence to her own reason. Granted, that reason may not have been apparent, but you would expect at least the benefit of the doubt from someone who claims to support the conservative movement. It seems that Palin has divided America into two categories: those who think she is the best thing since peanut butter, and those who can't stand her. (I fall into the former category.) No one has a moderate view.

Palin's biggest failing seems to have been that her speech was awful. I didn't see it, but I believe those who say it was. One wonders why she didn't make her reasons more explicit, but I'm sure people would have found things to criticize even then -- why shouldn't she fight? Why back down from the challenge? But if we believe her, it wasn't about backing down or fighting; it was about doing what was best for Alaska. I suspect she will have more to say about it in the future, and this gives me hope that she isn't resigning for completely personal reasons (which would suggest retirement from politics in general).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

What Are Pronouns For?

 Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly):  If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you."  No one disputes that.  If I am talking about you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business.  I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it.  Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings.  Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with).  So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.
Read more