Friday, September 26, 2008

Study up, Sarah!

In the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman", physicist Richard Feynman relates this situation he encountered while teaching in Brazil:

His students were smart but every question on every test was answered in the exact same way by every student. He quickly found out that when they studied, they only memorized the laws and theories of physics with no idea of their real-world applications. They couldn't even recognize those laws in action when they saw them being practically applied. Physics, as Feynman knew, is practiced.

Sarah Palin would have made an excellent student in that class in Brazil. When Katie Couric asks about Rick Davis and money his firm received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, she gives as much as it seems she knows - which, once again, isn't much.

"My understanding is Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings in the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago and that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I would — I would hope that that's the case."

I hope so too, Governor, but aren't you supposed to KNOW?

Couric asked a follow-up:

"But he still has a stake in the company, so isn't that a conflict of interest?"

What should I do here? Should I just paste Palin's response from above, 'cause she sure did.

"Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there."

(And cue McCain's first law of government: No more politics as usual!)

"And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've been on a more local level been on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made."

There it is. Steer the question away from the practical into the theoretical and leave it there. Stymie everybody with another blizzard of words and leave them guessing. We covered this on day one of your run for VP, Governor. You're here to clean up Washington. Wouldn't it be good, then, to make sure that Davis is not in a conflict of interest? I would hope that that's the case, but I guess it can't be. You can't give a firm answer not because you've been told not to, but because you don't know. The only answers you know are what you've read in the campaign playbook.

Pretend with me now. Sarah Palin is your real estate agent and she's showing you a house. It looks fine from the outside but let's go on inside.

"Hey," you ask her, "what are all these cracks in the corners? Is the foundation okay?"

"Well", she answers, "American home inspectors do a good job for American homes. Let's go on back outside. Isn't this a nice house? But you can't blink. Inaction is not an option."

Nevermind the specifics. She doesn't know the answers, why should you? Specifics aren't necessary. Oh, those details that those reporters like to jump on. What's needed is resolve and commitment. All of her rhetoric sounds like someone trying to keep her head above water.

You know that person. We've all known that person: has no firm ideas on how to move forward but talks the talk of the hopeful. When you live with that person in a dire situation what else can you do but trust they'll get you both out of trouble with a good idea sometime down the road? All that person needs to you to do is move without hesitation. Just shut your eyes and take the plunge.

That's what McCain and Palin want from us. Not questions for a reasoned discourse, but immediate action. Inaction is not an option. Here we have the next thread being woven into the narrative and an idea of the Palin strategy: Get America to find something of themselves in her, and then jump when she says to. If she's like me, then it's got to be a good idea. Why wouldn't it? We and Palin think alike, don't we? But we never know what she thinks. Every answer on every test is always the same and we're expected to realize it's the only answer worth giving and the one we'd give ourselves. The book she studies from is thin and we're expected to only look for answers from it instead of the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ

No comments: