Slashdot Mirror
McCain Picks Gov. Palin As Running Mate
Many readers have written to tell us about McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice. "Palin, 44, a self-described 'hockey mom,' is a conservative first-term governor of Alaska with strong anti-abortion views, a record of reform and fiscal conservatism and an outsider's perspective on Washington. [...] If elected, Palin would be the first woman US vice president, adding another historic element to a presidential race that has been filled with firsts. Obama, 47, is the first black nominee of a major US political party. The choice of a vice president rarely has a major impact on the presidential race. Palin will meet Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a debate in October."
What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.
Because when people talk about presenting "both" sides of an issue, they usually don't mean the "informed" and "uninformed" sides.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.
Yeah, history class, not science class. You want to teach different theologies in history class? Be my guest. I loved learning about all the Abrahamic religions in my high school world history class.
You want to teach that in science class? Screw you, you're not teaching your religion as though it's science.
The enemies of Democracy are
Are you saying she should have? I thought it was all about the "woman's right to choose" with the abortion crowd.
Seeing as if he (McCain) somehow manages to get elected, I give his remaining lifespan a duration somewhere between James Garfield & William Harrison's presidencies. The good news is we'll have our first woman president. The bad news is she has experience leading about 670000 people total (9000 if you just want to go by her mayoral experience), is rabidly pro-life & loves Big Oil. It will be kinda like Bush, but with a vagina.
And don't bother to rail on me either, I'm voting for Barr. I've given up on the Republicrats, the only thing that will make our leaders stand up & take notice is another political party coming to power & taking it away from them.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I am not so sure this is a great political move by McCain.
One of the things the Democrats have been hammering McCain on is his lack of judgment. I can easily see Palin as another example of poor decision making.
While selecting a VP as a strategy to win the election is part of the decision tree (going after the disenfranchised Hillary votes), choosing a VP is also about having someone that can step in and do the presidents job competently.
I have a feeling this is going to backfire.
"A sample size of one is really just statistical masturbation."
The ability of a VP to become President has to be considered. 9 VP's took over for the president. Out of 43 presidents, that is 20%.
Somehow you're COMPLETELY overlooking the Hillary/Obama race, and I'm honestly shocked you don't see it.
Hillary/Obama race was often summed up as: First woman or First black man?
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Now McCain gets to tap into that vibe, and probably shore up at least a few of those voters that would have preferred Hillary over Obama. They didn't really WANT to vote McCain before, but they would have just for the woman factor, and because they have some kind of irrational hatred for Obama. Now they've been handed a reason to want to vote for him, too.
In short, my grandmother who has voted Democrat for the last 50 or 60 years will now almost certainly vote Republican.
Genius, really.
This is the type of shit that pisses me off. Very, very few of us "blacks" are 100% African anymore. Being black in America is not a position to which one ascends, it is a position to which we have been assigned due to not being white. If you removed all the blacks who have any Anglo heritage from the US you would be left with immigrants fresh from some African country. I can't even find the words to express how sad ignorant statements like these make me.
that's my word, holla...
You don't remember that?? Because, at least in my neck of the woods, there are still many who wish it had gone the other way. Many who would rather give the woman thing a go first...
Because they've outgrown misogyny but not racism?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's because it is? How concerned have you ever seen the Republican party over women's rights? Hell, they have a hard time caring about anything other than wealthy, property owner rights.
That is all.
>Both sides of the abortion debate are wrong.
One of the most sensible things ever said about the whole matter. (especially on /.) I said one of the other most sensible things about abortion, when talking to a pro-life friend:"
"Do you want to forbid abortion, or do you want to stop it?"
Abortion isn't a hobby, people don't do it for fun. I don't even think people do it lightly - I think most people feel that they are forced into it by circumstances. (Whether or not those feelings are "valid" or not is a different matter.)
But I think things can be done to address the underlying circumstances that cause people to feel that they need an abortion, and perhaps one of the foremost is to instill in girls the self-esteem that can help in postponing sexual activity. I once heard, "The most important give a father can give his daughter is to love her mother." Model a healthy relationship. We're talking *real* family values, not the fake tripe generally peddled by politicians.
My biggest fear about overturning Roe v Wade is that people will feel that the job is done, and even start dismantling the things that are in place now, like counseling, adoption assistance, etc. Oh boy, we've written a rule! That'll stop it! Then self-righteous heads will plop back down into the sand.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And lets face reality, McCain's age + skin cancer concerns raises that figure for this round.
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
She only said the "not part of the curriculum" and "no litmus test" stuff after there was a backlash against her mentioning it in the debates. During the debate, her exact wording was: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
Maybe, but I can barely make out what you're saying because your horse is too high.
That depends. How much of the scientific method was used on the creation experiments? How much was used on the ones in the textbook? In some cases, creationists do the scientific method better.
Really? I've never seen that. Can you present any paper (suitable for education or not) that presents creationism as a testable hypothesis, or better yet as a tested theory?
Personally, I don't care if the source is alien chasers or whoever. If they have a repeatable scientific experiment, regardless of whether it is damaging to some tenet of evolution or the big bang or whatever, I want it taught! Anything else is censorship of the truth, and holds back the progression of scientific understanding.
So here's the thing, not all theories are equally supported. Things like gravity and evolution have centuries of testing and support and huge amounts of known science are built upon them. They're staples of science and as such have earned a place in the basic curriculum. Even if someone comes up with a creation hypothesis and tests it with an experiment that is repeated, that doesn't bring it the level of credibility of the more tested theories.
Just last year there was a theory that there was an extrasolar planet similar in size to the earth because of a peculiar observed dimming of the star. They tested it with more observations and it seemed to hold up as a theory and was peer reviewed and repeated. Then a few months ago a counter theory appeared that it was not a planet causing the dimming and they predicted some other characteristics if it was more closely observed. Those predictions proved true and we have a new best theory to fit the data. This happens all the time. No one teaches these brand new theories in undergraduate education because they aren't the basic theories we know with great likelihood won't be outdated in another few years.
It isn't censorship to not teach either the theory about the planet I mentioned or creationism because they aren't well accepted and proven science. It is especially not censorship to not teach such unproven theories when they are championed by religious cults desperate to try to promote their religious beliefs in public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. For a creationism theory to earn a place in the basic curriculum it first needs to be proper, testable science, then it needs to build up a large supporting body of evidence such that it is not a theory of the month and we have a good and rational expectation that it is the best theory to understand the truth (or at least close to alternative theories in the amount of supporting evidence and testing).
You see, you can argue about Creationism. You can make very good philosophical arguments for and against Creationism in all its forms -- Intelligent Design being one of them. And you can make very good philosophical and scientific arguments for and against Evolution.
What is clear, however, is that Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism isn't.
In other words: Right or wrong, Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. That's not an opinion, it's a fact -- by definition, "I think the Earth is six thousand years old because an old book told me so" is not science.
The only place Creationism has in a science classroom is as an object lesson of something that is not science.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
My concept is that a giant turtle named George barfed up the universe last Tuesday (including all your memories of stuff existing before that).
I demand my concept be discussed in elementary schools, so we can have a healthy debate and students can make up their own minds. You won't dare suggest I be censored, will you?
Too bad these people can't see that they'd eliminate a lot more abortions by supporting sex education and contraception then by pushing for absolute prohibition.
Now see, this is exactly what she was advocating--introduce both concepts and encourage healthy debate.
I disagree. She advocated teaching both "theories" which strongly implies them being placed on similar standing. A discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory does have a place in the classroom, but the topic of evolution versus creationism is probably one of the worst topics to use since their are so many religious people with a vested interest in skewing the facts and hence convincing children that the latter is the truth, and in the process undermining the lesson about what the scientific method is and how it works. A less controversial example, such as the theory of gravity versus the theory of directional falling would better illustrate the subject and be less likely to be undermined by religious "leaders".
Debate requires constant research, exploration, and effort. This strengthens the mind and carries us forward.
This assumes the people are interested in logical debate instead of emotional considerations and pushing their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a safe assumption with teachers today. Schools have a limited amount of time, so they should teach the scientific method using non controversial examples and preferably real, hands on experiments, and they should teach the fundamental and well supported theories like evolution, gravity, relativity, atomic models, etc. They should not bring in unsupported hypothesis which happen to be the subject of huge misinformation campaigns. Right now a significant portion of our populace doesn't even know what the theory of evolution is and it is a complex concept for children, yet you think we should be using it as an example for teaching the scientific method at the same time? I think we should concentrate on making sure kids know what the theory is and how it works and if they want to debate the topic later in life at least they won't do so from a completely uninformed perspective.