What surprises me is the lack of pro-Palin literature I have come across. Whilst I’m sure it’s out there and is equally as well written it’s not the information getting most exposure.

Now I have to mention my limitations on the subject, while I may have access to international new sources and both on the internet and in print the coverage of the US election in the UK is minimal in comparison to the massive coverage received in the US itself. Further with the massive cutting back of the republican convention means they are not giving themselves the same opportunity to get their side out there as the democrats had. Although I should also mention that I have not gone looking for these anti-Plain articles and that I have not seen as many negative pieces about any of the other candidates (including McCain) so it would seem that Palin is genuinely unpopular?

My dislike* of Palin however (regardless of the articles and the references they offer) does not come from her. Instead my dislike came from watching Channel 4 news as a republican party representative was interviewed. The representative did that thing that all politicians (and people of that type, i.e. their spokespeople) do where they don’t answer the question but instead choose to answer a question that is completely unrelated such as what the weather is like or what they might be having to eat later. It was more the fact that there must have been a good way of answering the question  (because that is what those people get paid to do, right?) and if there was no good answer, even with copious amounts of spin, is there a real problem?

I welcome comments about Palin both for and against, so comment away.

–

* I say I dislike Palin but this must be qualified by the fact that I dislike all politicians for their ability to not answer the question and so this dislike is no more than usual (in the same way that the only reason I like Jeremy Paxman is that he keeps asking them the question)
At this point I bring in a comment by Mark Watson he makes in his book ‘Crap at the Environment’ where he said that he often finds himself in a position where he is informed on both sides of an argument and so is left with no other choice than to sit on the fence.
Now whilst I may not be well informed on all subjects and certainly am often unable to gather information on both side of an argument I am willing to concede that it is almost always true that there is at least one counter argument to any argument and so I find it hard (well I don’t I do it all the time) to make statements without assuming that there are likely facts I am unaware of on the other side of the argument. So whilst I may be unaware of these facts and may take sides I urge you to please not see anything I write as a basis for your beliefs/position.

The story states how the US has release figure stating that this year it has released 11,000 Iraqi ‘detainees’.
Most were held without charge (the BBC World Service stated this morning that many had been held for more than 1 year without charge) and were considered security risks but could now lead more productive lives.
They were offered vocational training and the chance to:

‘obtain what is described as a better understanding of Islam during their detention’

A spokesman aso stated that the reoffending rate is less than 1% for these ‘detainees’.

I see several problems with this:

1. How can predominantly Chrisitian country with only 0.6% Muslim population (accoring to their own figures) be properly equiped to offer these people a ‘better understanding’ of their own relgion.
2. The reoffending rate may be less than 1% but:
   • Someone who has not been charged has not been proven to have committed a crime
   • Someone who has not committed a crime cannot reoffend at all
3. The prisoners were only prevented from leading productive lives by their unjustified imprisonment by the US

I should qualify my comments:

Although I do agree that those who are religious extremeists do not have any understanding of the true teaching of their religion (that applies to all religions). Therefore a monkey could surely teach them more about the true teachings of their religion than they are aware. However I also think that it is unlikely that more than a few (if any) of the uncharged innocent ‘detainees’ have these veiws or lack a proper understanding of their religion.

Further we have the issue of the very low reoffenring rate, for those of you that have not already realised  the statement is nothing more than a massive case of political spin designed to sound good but is in fact bullshit.