Sarah Palin's (Knowledge) Problem.

“It’s pretty made up”, “That’s a lie.”

These were comments made by former VP candidate and newly appointed Fox News contributor Sarah Palin regarding the book “Game Change” just before she admitted to Bill O’Reilly that she had not read the book. The book written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann partakes on a behind the scenes view of the 2008 presidential campaign, observing the Obama, Clinton and McCain campaigns as well as the captivated rise (and fall) of Sarah Palin.

This is Sarah Palin’s knowledge problem.

During the 2008 campaign, Palin failed to nail several questions during the CBS News interview with Katie Couric. Unable to answer questions regarding the Bush Doctrine and making a fool of herself in respect to the questions regarding foreign policy and namely, Russia. It became apparent that evening that Sarah had failed to do her homework. It was downhill for the McCain, Palin administration after that.

Palin takes the soccer mom approach, which has gained her a lot of respect and notoriety from many, including hundreds who slept in tents the nights prior to her book signing. She has been a large part of the foundation of the right-wing grassroots movement and the astounding rise of the tea party.

Being a soccer mom candidate however, doesn’t get you the vice presidency, neither does a lack of research on issues that are important to the majority of voters. This brings me back to the discussion between Palin and O’Reilly; the fact that Palin has no plans to read the book Game Change shows that she still lacks the interest to gain knowledge not only regarding reports that affect her own character but facts that one needs to know in order to be a viable candidate.

Even what is now her current employer, Fox News ran stories on the subject of Sarah’s failure to learn the issues and to point blame at campaign staffers when she failed during news interviews. Just after the end of the 2008 campaign, The O’Reilly Factor aired a segment with Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, in which the two discussed Palin’s lack of enthusiasm for learning the issues. These issues included the lack of knowledge regarding which nations are part of NAFTA as well as the geography of Africa, which Palin thought was one country. Cameron notes that “she wasn’t actually able to name all the countries in North America…”

It’s not only Palin’s lack of knowledge that has dampened her credibility (and continues to do so), as much as the fact that she has refused to accept any tutoring on pivotal issues. She continues to this day to be the candidate of the conservative soccer mom, but until she can gain the urge to learn the necessary skills in order to be a viable candidate, she won’t be able to gain a larger backing and with that a larger portion of votes.

If Sarah decides to run as a presidential candidate in 2012 (and I suspect she will), she has a lot to learn and if she could pull that off, it could be her Susan Boyle moment. Few expect her to be able to woo the 2012 crowd, considering her knowledge background (or lack thereof). Her stubbornness will likely keep her face in front of the camera and public crowd, but her brain will be in the background, on the back burner of any future campaign she takes part of.

American’s are not dumb and our candidates shouldn’t be either.

Our Feverish Earth

During the 2008 Presidential election, we saw two completely different views on the subject of global warming. The topic was a hot issue in the debates, and I believe, may have impacted the results of the election. Barack Obama ran his campaign for the fight of global warming, making promises to produce renewable energy, while his competitor John McCain ran his campaign on a promise to “drill baby, drill”. Two completely different views, but who was really right? Should we rely on the studies and computer models of global warming and begin spending billions to produce renewable energy or should we simply produce more oil wells and continue our use of carbon producing products?

It seems that the campaign based on renewable energy to counteract global warming has won the debate. We often see articles in science magazines and nature publications about the subject, but are the facts as strong as the media makes them out to be? Are we just living in a time where being ‘green’ is trendy?

In last week’s New York Times Magazine Nicholas Dawidoff had an excellent article on scientist Freeman Dyson. Dyson claims that global warming is exaggerated by the media. Though he admits that coal is “moral evil”, he also mentions that its pollutants can be reduced to a low level.  The 85-year-old scientist is seeking more evidence on the issue.

The magazine Nature recently released an article stating that studies are finding that rising oceans temperatures in the Atlantic are largely caused by dust storms coming off the coast of West Africa. The article mentions that climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have found that particles over the sea, which reflect sunlight for the ocean surface, can explain 69% of the warming trends that have taken place between 1982-2007, the years examined by the study. Furthermore, once the particles from the African dust storms have settled, it results in a big rise in sea temperatures.

So are the computer models and scientific data we see today correct? Are the non-scientists, such as Al Gore biased and excessive in their findings? Gore once said “The Earth has a fever”. Some people have contradicted Gore’s results, as it seems there are probably just as many nonbelievers as there are believers.

It is clear that when an issue such as global warming arises and becomes a hotly debated subject, there will be followers and skeptics.  Thought, it is hard to say who is right and who is wrong, I believe that both are right and neither is wrong.

To understand the effects of global warming, we need little more than common sense. The truth is that the burning of coal and the exhaust of oil use has to end up somewhere. Indeed, it is filling our atmosphere as pollutants.

Here’s my view. I believe that in the case of developing countries, coal may be the only source of energy production. Nations that’s can’t create or develop alternative energy sources and therefore must rely on coal as a main source of energy, should get some assistance and foreign aid from developed nations in order to reduce the carbon footprint of their coal production. Countries like the United State however, have no excuse to rid itself of carbon. We have the research, we have the knowledge, but we must move forward on the issue. Maybe, as Nature states, most sea temperature rise may be the result of dust storms coming off the coast of Africa, but we have more than enough reasons to reduce carbon.

Leaders such as Al Gore take their focus to the subject at hand. To concentrate on natural effects as global warming, such as the Nature article, wouldn’t quite fit in the realm of the subject matter. Biased? Maybe. True? Absolutely.

The Obamas Lead by Example

Just before the 2008 Presidential election, I was speaking to everyone I knew about how our next President needed to lead by example. Whoever is elected, I hope they set examples for millions of Americans in their own back yard, I mentioned. Let them erect solar panels on the White House, put down an organic garden on the south lawn, create a green White House. Let them be a beacon as to shine on every American. After a few weeks, I’m sure people grew tired of my redundant speech.

To my delight, the White House announced last week that Michelle Obama will create an organic garden on the White House lawn.

For a Presidential family to lead by setting examples for Americans, shows a strength not only that the President cares about these issues, but that they are willing to do something about it (even if it doesn’t involve congress or the senate). In creating the garden, Michelle will involve Elementary School students in the process of organic gardening, teaching them about organic growth food and the environment.

I can only hope that the Obamas don’t stop here. My speech continues with the need for solar panels on the roof of the White House and rain water recycling for the mansion as well.

To revolutionize the “green” industry, we need innovated and leaders. The Obamas are leaders in this vision with their quest to show the world how easy the change can be.

An earlier President, Jimmy Carter was also a leader even before the dawn of the green revolution. He installed solar panels on the White House and offered tax credits for others to do the same. When Ronald Reagan removed the solar panels shortly after being elected and eliminated the tax credits, citizens thought the solar power industry was dead—and indeed it took a huge hit.

As the eyes of the world watch the Obamas let’s hope that they will continue to produce a leadership in the green industry by setting examples for millions to follow.

21st Century Revolutions in the U.S. and Abroad

One thinks of a revolution as protest and riots, but in the 21st century we can envision revolutions as stepping-stones. Reforms will change nations, one step at a time without the use of protest and revolts. This may be true for the United States, but sadly other nations need revolutions on a much larger scale.

I believe that what we will encounter at home is more reform than revolt. The 2008 Presidential election campaign brought about promises of healthcare reform, education reform and environmental issues from both sides of the aisle. The list goes on. Now that the election is over, we must look to the current administration to enact some of the movements that are taking place across this great nation. There are leaders in the “reformation era” including Al Gore, who shed light on the subject of Global Warming years before the Presidential election, Michelle Rhee who is head of the Washington, DC school district and is taking on a national role in education reform. Let’s not forget the current economic trouble we are in, which needs immediate action. Economic reform is on the top of the list and the front of everyone’s mind. Reform is what will take place in America, as we look to our politicians and community leaders such as Gore and Rhee for solutions. A full-blown revolution is not necessary at this time in our nation, but is pivotal in other countries, especially Middle Eastern nations.

The challenges that we face concerning our democracy may be fixed with reforms, but other nations are in need of a revolution. Arab countries in the Middle East need a separation of church and state (just as the United States needed in the 20th century). Fareed Zakaria in The Future of Freedom mentions that only the people of the area can create such a revolution, “For the most part, this task [road to democracy] of reform in the Middle East must fall to the people of the region. No one can make democracy, liberalism, or secularism take root in these societies without their own search, efforts, and achievements.” Even with the help of the U.S. and European nations, Middle Eastern revolution must start in the Middle East. It is truly up to the people of the nation to create a democratic state.

There is one major influence to political changes these days that wasn’t available in past revolutions and reforms: technology. The Internet makes it easier for any citizen to produce and distribute information and opinion regarding reforms. Al Gore has used this source extensively to get out his urgent message of global warming. President Obama also used the Internet—to his advantage—to win the Presidential election. Technology has changed since revolutions of decades past and no revolution will be the same.

As we look forward, let’s hope that our national reforms take place to better our already great nation as we keep our fingers crossed that Middle Eastern nations go through revolutions that will better their nation as well. As Zakaria said, it’s up to the people—let’s hope we make the best of it.