Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues
Revolution Radio writes "BetaNews has a short description of what we might expect from Governor Palin regarding technology issues. She demonstrated her familiarity with the internet by initiating an online education program for state workers, using the web for government transparency, and a supporting the general concept of 'long-distance distribution of services' (similar to net neutrality?)."
We've previously discussed Senator Joe Biden's tech voting record and compared the technology platforms of Obama and McCain. In addition to the above story about Palin, Betanews also has analyses of Obama, McCain, and Biden regarding tech policy.
... I don't care what her views on tech issues are. I just know she's a MILF!
They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska
Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism enough for a Slashdot reader? You can call me a troll/off topic, but I think if we have a FAIL in basic science, technology issues are unimportant.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I remember responses on Slashdot to Biden's poor tech record being rebutted with "well, he's just vice president." Couldn't you argue the same thing for Palin as well?
McCain/Palin 08
For a future without books.
Who cares what their policy is? They are all the same on the most important issue to techies. Namely, job-creation.
They are all extremely oriented towards increasing and streamlining the H1-B process. They can improve tech all they want, but they are VERY clear that they want it done by foreign workers.
This is just the same trickle-down economics that has been going on for decades. And it's telling that they aren't addressing the real issues, when the jobless rate is over 6%, and it looks like it is climbing.
Let me know when we have a candidate that supports both technology and U.S. tech workers.
She has declined access to all media, and I doubt if we'll even see her speak with anything but the rabid right pundits who'll fawn over her. I'm guessing that they only tough questions she'll face on any subject will be the vp debate.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Well, she is at about the age where many people understand the growing world of technology. So what? That does not some how help her record on other things.
Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism enough for a Slashdot reader?
Nope. Because even though I disagree with her on that issue, her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach. And THAT should be enough to convince the typical Slashdot reader to vote for her.
I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian, hoping that Palin will be at the top of the ticket in four years.
Anyone who says they will not vote for a candidate because of a single issue is simply not looking at the big picture.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now we know who taught Ted Stevens about the internets.
and the best they can do is a 72yo millionaire pensioner and a "hockey mom" who doesnt even know what the VP does
perhaps its Darwin in action for an entire continent
Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive. Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?
Perhaps to her small credit, Palin backed down from firing the librarian. She went ahead, however, with firing the police chief. There had been a bunch of serious drunken driving bashups. The bars in Wasilla are open until 5 a.m. The chief proposed the closing time be moved to 2 a.m. The bar owners where friends and backers of Palin.
The chief sued for unlawful termination. It went to the Alaska Supreme Court. They threw it out on the basis that in Alaska a mayor can fire a police chief at pleasure, without any requirement for justification.
At first, this may seem unconnected to tech policy - unlike Palin's desire for censorship. But consider how much of the Net is devoted to selling drugs. The Wasilla area is the meth capital of Alaska. Now, if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs. How else do you expect them to stay up drinking until 5 a.m., before they go off to crash their trucks? Palin's in good with these country folks.
So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Chances of starting WWIII:
John McCain is 100%
Barack Obama is less than 100%
Bob Barr is 0%
Palin is very attractive. Pictures of her are all over the Internet. And last time I checked, that's what the Internt is used for.
Porn.
John McCain did. You can blame us for nominating John McCain though.
For a future without books.
What gives you that impression, when both candidates are obviously quite intelligent?
I'm voting for the candidate(s) who most closely embody the Libertarian ideals I have - and this year, that's not Barr.
I always expected the Republicans would get taken over by libertarians, and this is the key year for that to actually occur. McCain might not be the most libertarian but Palin is more obviously libertarian than we have seen for some time - and she could well be the Presidential candidate four years hence.
You want to make Libertarianism as a philosophy matter? Take over one of the major parties and make it your own. The Democrats go further every year down the side of Big Government, and the last eight have unhappily seen a similar trend from the Republicans with government expansion as well - we MUST reverse this trend and inject libertarianism back into the system, or we will all truly become cogs in the large system of government.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So you vote based on one issue.
So you understand the anti-abortion crowd not considering Obama (or even listening to what he has to say) solely based on that issue?
*Cheers*
Here's to the thought of having Cybernanny installed on the backbone of the internet.
Want to learn about birth control?
*Blocked!*
Want to learn about the Crusades from a non-christian perspective?(
*Blocked!*
Want to learn about Heliocentricism?
*Blocked!*
Pity she doesn't support *those*, favoring abstinence instead. That really worked out well for her daughter...
And? To me, a vote for someone who professes a belief in creationism is a vote for the U.S. as a backwater religious theocracy. Sometimes a single issue is important.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Disclaimer: I voted for McCain in the primary, so I may be a bit biased. So far, I've seen nothing in her that convinces me that she's on board with McCain.
Sarah Palin took advantage of the Internet to create a online training program for workforce development. Called Work Ready/College Ready (since shortened to Alaska Career Ready), users can take a set of surveys to find out what skills they have or may need for a variety of desired jobs.
Where I come from, we call this "trade school", and it's offered by private enterprise, not by taxpayer dollars.
Tele-medicine has often been lauded as a solution for providing individuals living in rural or hard-to-reach areas (and Alaska has plenty of those) with care and good judgment from a qualified doctor who would normally be easy to reach in town.
Again, private health care providers can do a better job. Taxpayer dollars spent to cover all citizens? Clearly this is not the Republican party I've been voting for.
Transfer the natural gas pipeline affair to the net neutrality debate, and it seems like Palin would not object to companies agreeing on their own about how to handle traffic of competitors.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Making the assumption that her strategy on long-haul natural gas infrastructure is related to, say, Cable TV to the home is nothing short of a random guess.
Broadband speeds lag in Alaska...along with candidate Palin
She can't be blamed for Alaska's low bandwidth. If the demand is there, providers will come.
Gov. Palin has indeed taken that a step further by actually taking action in Alaska government. Currently, any check written by the state government over $1,000 is posted to the Division of Finance Web site.
Sadly, the same web site isn't able to describe what the check is for. Itemized invoices and contracts are what will keep things on the up-and-up. A list of people writing and receiving checks doesn't improve government - it just lets vendors mine the data for more financial "opportunities". Hell, CitiBank could be selling all of my transaction information to the highest bidder.
Her scandalous record on the environment alone should perpetually disqualify her from government.
you had me at #!
Some people are are her making fun of her tech record, but this undermines the seriousness of the issue. Her lack of knowledge on technology issues is cause for a major concern because we don't want someone who thinks like Ted Stevens ruling over the U.S. Senate.
While we may not agree with all of the legislation Joe Biden has been a part of, at least he is well informed and knows what he is doing. Less regulation is not necessarily always a good thing. Look at what deregulation did to the banking sector. The last thing we want is Republicans to do to the technology sector what they did to the banking sector.
Has anyone RTFA?
Pretty twisted series of leaps and assumptions all leading to a totally unsupportable conclusion.
Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?
because Internet == tax-funded library?
A vote for a creationist or someone who thinks both is okay is a vote for the U.S. as a backwater religious theocracy. The fact that you seem to think that teaching both in the classroom is "okay" means YOU don't understand the difference between the separation between church and state, or that you don't understand that creationism or intelligent design is NOT science, it it religious dogma masquerading as science. It has no testable hypotheses, it does not teach critical thinking, and it has no place in the science classroom! It does not deserve to be taught both as Palin states and the fact that you think she is "being reasonable" means you fell for the religious propaganda.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Again this so called tech source ignores the DMCA completely.
This is the equivalent of talking about global warming and failing to mention the US addiction to the open road.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This doesn't say much. Maybe they should repost it later when they have more information.
... for very low values of "they". Alaska's population is like that of a small city, 683,478, with basically one kind of business, oil.
Sara Palin has been Alaska's governor for two years.
Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a city of less than 10,000 people (not counting moose and caribou).
wow are you deluded.
Palin is a creationist and you need to read other posts in this thread about her sneaking about trying to ban books.
libertarian indeed.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Sarah Palin knows probably as much about the Internet as any other politician of her age does who did not work in tech. Which is to say, its unlikely that she'll be able to always avoid looking like an idiot to people who know tech, but she probably has a much better grounding than McCain or Biden and people of about that age.
In the end, the censorship aspects don't really bother me, because it tends to be a very local issue. You don't censor anything without some sort of agitation behind it, and she's much more likely to find a high percentage of similarly minded people in East Nowhere, AK than in national office.
And yes, I have to say that while her stance on certain things is not where I'd like it to be, the fact is that all indications are that she'll keep her nose out of the worst of it.
Ultimately, though, I don't know many people who will for for or against her based on her tech stance. Its going to be the Economy, the War, and then the various wedge issues like abortion, in some order.
There is a commerce clause in the US constitution that's broad enough to include technology but education is a state issue. (Well it would be if people would read follow the constitution.)
Now, if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs.
Citation needed. Sure, that sounds good, and might even be true, but if you're gonna generalize like that you've gotta back it up.
So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.
What? More drugs? Are you serious, or am I having a "whoosh" moment?
If what this guy said is true, they/she are not against the use of Linux at the state level.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The article basically has no proof, only speculation, and a record that ZERO books were actually banned. Obviously we do not know the whole story and just as obviously people are desperately trying to dig up anything negative on Palin they can find. So we should be very skeptical of stories like this until real concrete proof can be found of anything.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach.
Her other views -- and more importantly, McCain's other views -- make it highly likely that they'll be appointing more judges to the bench whose readings of the law allow *increasing* amount of power vesting in the federal executive and congress.
Do you really think they're going to pick people who are going to go with state's rights on abortion?
If you think habeas corpus and other procedural rights and civil liberties are important, do you remember how close Hamdan vs Rumsfeld actually was?
This is before we even touch the problems with Palin's qualifications as a candidate to even be in the whitehouse.
I think moving power more locally is a great idea, but I don't think handing the Presidency to Palin is really going to do the job.
Tweet, tweet.
Is her hovercraft full of eels?
Sen. Barack Obama has made government transparency part of his platform. Gov. Palin has indeed taken that a step further by actually taking action in Alaska government. Currently, any check written by the state government over $1,000 is posted to the Division of Finance Web site.
I am intrigued to see if this act spreads any. Having government spending records more freely available to the public is always good in my opinion.
Actually Creationism is an affront to God as it teaches us that God, who is supposedly all powerful and all knowing, was not smart enough to develop a dynamic system but had to settle for a static one.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The simple fact is, if she came out and said creationism was bullshit, she'd lose tens of thousands of votes. Actually, likely a lot more if she said it during the presidential election.
You *can't* be all out against it and get anywhere in the extreme conservatism of modern US politics.
It doesn't matter that pushing a version of how life arose which was discredited two centuries ago is insane for the US as a country.
Its all about the fact that if you say such things as 'Evolution is a proven fact, creationism is a philosophy with no basis in fact', you won't get anywhere in politics, at least not to a high level.
In reality this is all about pandering to the right wing christian voters.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
"St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn't have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town. And even if faith did play an unusually large role in her decision-making as mayor, it may have only reflected the continued rise of Evangelicalism in the valley, a growth that continues to this day"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Palin is a creationist and you need to read other posts in this thread about her sneaking about trying to ban books.
Ron Paul is a creationist as well, and he's rumored to be a bit libertarian.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It hardly seems like she has declined access to the media - she is out and about campaigning. Can you provide a link proving your assertion?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Man. DO you really believe these lies? How gullible are you to this far left trash propoganda?
This was on DIGG last week to show you how true(haha) it must be.
So according to this myth Sarah Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension.
Look at the list that was circulated to support this myth and youâ(TM)ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban...that hadnâ(TM)t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasnâ(TM)t published until 1998.
The left wing smear merchants who continue to circulate the list also failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus Sarah Palin Banned Book List is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of âoeBooks Banned at One Time or Another in the United Statesâ that has been floating around the Internet for years.
What is worse is that the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud. And itâ(TM)s spread to craigslist, where some unhinged user is posting images likening Palin to Hitler. And now here it is again on Slashdot.
The person who first spread the Palin smear is identified as âoeAndrew Aucoin,â a commenter on the blog of librarian Jessamyn West. West has done the right thing in keeping the bogus comment up and pointing out in her main post that âoethere appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.â
It is a fake. Not true. Total B.S. A lie.
But that won't stop the people on the left who in the tradition of Al Gore believe a good lie is ok as long as it serves the cause.
If it gets sent to you by a moonbat friend or family member, set âem all straight. Fight the smears. Theyâ(TM)ve only just begun.
I blame the mainstream media. They let the far left get away with making lies up because they are so lazy they will mention them on national TV as 'I read this on some site'. First it started with half-truth's now we are up to totally making shit up out of thin air.
Good luck with your country America, your press has become worthy of Joseph Goebbels, its only fitting that it is made that way by all the people that accuse Bush of being Hitler.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
"Palin eventually reversed her decision and let the librarian keep her job.
It doesnâ(TM)t appear, however, that any books were actually banned, says Pinnell-Stephens, who documents book challenges in the state but couldnâ(TM)t find any evidence in her files and doesnâ(TM)t remember any conversations with Baker about the subject. "
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6593199.html?desc=topstory
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Creationism has no place in biology class. Period.
However, I think a history and philosophy of science class would be very useful. In general, when I learn anything new, be it programming or physics, following the progression of the field from its beginnings to its modern understanding helps me understand the subject. In the same way, it would help for students to be introduced to the geocentric model of the solar system, creationism, the caloric theory of heat and so on. It would help them understand the deficiencies in these models and give them an appreciation of why our models are better.
Teaching past failed science also imparts a certain humility. It allows students to understand that while today's science describes the universe well, a future understanding may be better. It would put to rest this science-as-a-religion meme and allow students to understand that scientists are not merely priests in an arcane cult.
While we may not agree with all of the legislation Joe Biden has been a part of, at least he is well informed and knows what he is doing.
I don't think you can necessarily argue this is true, considering how wrong a lot of his tech policy seems. I think the best thing you can say about his track record there is that Biden was probably well-informed by a lobby he decided to be sympathetic to, and frankly, if I'd had his education and professional background, it's entirely possibly *I'd* be impressed when Disney or Columbia Records representatives dropped by to talk about the industry. As it happens, I'm a centrist web developer with a slightly anti-authoritarian streak, so my perspective is different (and, naturally, more informed. About the internet, at any rate. :)
And I'm not impressed with Biden's tech record at all. It had a negative impact on my previously great impression of Obama based on his tech views. I don't accept the "he's just the VP" argument -- a VP might be relegated to a wide and empty orbit, but chances are, they're going to be a part of the inner circle of serious policy discussion inside the white house.
Overall, I think the potential saving grace of this pick is that if Biden's a smart and curious person, then he'll have the chance to really be exposed to the other side of these issues by being associated with Obama's team, and perhaps understand the technical points of the arguments about important things like net neutrality. Will it happen? I don't know. I hope so.
But *neither* member of the other likely ticket have demonstrated real facility with these issues. Obama's was strong early on if alloyed by adding Biden, and for that reason, I'm still inclined to go that direction.
Tweet, tweet.
When that one issue basically exposes you as willing to accept something as truth based on nothing but word of mouth and a 2000 year old book, I'd say that's a pretty big one for someone with a scientific leaning (which I at least hope includes most of Slashdot).
Personally I just don't trust the judgement of anyone willing to accept something as truth not only without evidence, but also with the attached notion that evidence is impossible to produce and indeed not required. Feel free to disagree.
I honestly don't understand why people have a problem with her daughter being pregnant - she is after all engaged. Do people honestly think that these days people do not sleep with each other before marriage?
What I like about Palin, and now McCain, is that knowing that they are still supportive of the daughter (and in McCain's case, Palin). Let's pretend for a second that McCain did not know about the pregnancy - does it not speak even better of him that he is backing Palin 100% and not just opportunistically dropping support for her?
The key to understanding the whole situation is Palin's strong libertarian views. She can easily say that people SHOULD abstain before marriage, to set that out as a goal - but be understanding that the reality is many will not, and helping them anyway. It's the sign of a person who can hold views but not set out to make sure everyone has to have the same ones, or pass laws mandadting that they do so.
Obama for example thinks that volunteerism is great, so by God every single middle school student will forced to volunteer because the government thinks it best. And by the way, here's the list of "Approved" organizations you get to volunteer for, no need to think about what cause you yourself might like to support with manpower.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of the most important posts regarding this election campaign.
I won't touch "global warming" or most environmentalist nuts with a ten-foot poll, but this has got to be the stupidest plan for the environment I've ever seen.
Polar bears not facing extinction? She hasn't been to Alaska or even to her neighbours has she? Even the Nunavimmiut are only allowed something like 2-3 polar bears a year, and the government wants to try and stop that too. Whales are another issue. They're an important source of energy for them, but they are some of the most spectacular creatures I've ever seen. Intelligent, long-living (some have lived for 200+ years), beautiful, and tame (only orcas are fairly violent and they're not really whales).
She definately does not deserve to be anywhere near the US capital. We'd never let anything fly like this here, not even as candidates. I'm suprised you've let her get into the system. But she's appointed and not voted in isn't she?
Shooting animals from low-flying planes?
Sicko, total sicko.
Really? So how does a student see a "mistake" after learning Creationism? What does said student "learn" from that "mistake"?
No, you cannot. Not in a high school science class.
If you want to teach Creationism, then you do it a class on comparative religions.
NOT in a science class.
And when you want to teach BOTH in a science class you will only confuse the issue MORE.
SCIENCE is taught in a science class. Not religion.
Why do you have a problem with that?
Does she prefer Mac or PC?
Palin is for strong social and economic government controls, which last time I checked was quite the opposite of libertarian. As for what Slashdotters should vote... let's just say that most of them should actively support separation of church and state, for their own safety and welfare.
Look at the list that was circulated to support this myth and youâ(TM)ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban...that hadnâ(TM)t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasnâ(TM)t published until 1998.
My God! The woman is PSYCHIC! How can anyone stand against her?
I, for one, welcome our new Alaskan overlady!
This one is soooo cool:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card
You know, I don't care if they are right or left or nuts or both. But double standards are double standards and the right wing conservatives have a lot of issues where doublethink is required.
Disclaimer: I used to like McCain back in the 90s when I read some smart foreign policy stuff and when he was working for campaign finance reform and generally across party lines. But I am not sure if he would make a better president than Obama.
Citation needed. ...
You gotta get up to get down...
So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.
Hell, she's got my vote! Lemme tell you, with a $100/day smack habit, pr0n's really not a big priority.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I loathe Darkness404's views. But the above comment is not a troll. Darkness404 appears to genuinely believe his statements, and he is arguing in good faith. You may disagree with what he says, but the above comment is not a troll.
Extremely shallow "technology" analysis... just superficial mention of "broadband" and "Internet", hardly a vision about TECHNOLOGY, and its underlying basis, SCIENCE. It is well-known that Palin's position on science is appalling... and she has NO appreciation for the need for the US to INCREASE federal investment in Technology and Science RESEARCH. She would continue the US's backsliding in science and technology relative to the rest of the world. The US used to be the undisputed leader in science/tech... now it is rapidly becoming an also-ran, due to poor investments in science/tech education and R&D. Palin has demonstrated NO interest in reversing this trend, not even any evidence that she appreciates the issues...
I find the way science and especially empirically based science are taught very disturbing. We are teaching scientific knowledge rather than the way we evaluate scientific claims far too often - similar to date memorization contributing little to our understanding of historical causes and effects. We are taught that evolution and Newtonian mechanics are fact when in fact they are merely our best current model to explain the biological and large body mechanics. If we treated Newtonian mechanics as absolutely true in the same way many here want evolution treated, we would be depriving ourselves of high energy physics' and quantum physics' exceptions/refinements. Irreducible complexity is a criticism of evolution and while the irreducibility of any mechanism is questionable, there are a number of structures whose intermediate forms would be detriments. Many scientific models have been refined over time by accepting and trying to explain those observations that don't fit the model. ID's criticisms of evolution are valuable to the next generation of biologists' attempts to improve on our current understanding. Punctuated equilibrium for instance would have received less interest if not for prior objections about intermediate evolutionary stages.
If you want to teach Creationism, then you do it a class on comparative religions.
NOT in a science class.
Why not teach pre-scientific belief as pre-scientific belief to put the science in context? Teach what people believed before science, when science began to predict it better, and people's reaction to science (e.g. Catholic persecution of Galileo Galilei). This might help students appreciate the contributions of Charles Darwin and other pioneers of evolution theory.
Seriously, are we really asking what a creationist book burner thinks about technology? She's literally 1 step away from Ted Stevens, hell she even supported his Bridge to Nowhere (until it became a political hot potato) and was a major member of his PAC. Reading up on JUST what has been found out in the first 24-48 hours after McCain chose her (but, apparently before he vetted her) she's by far the most corrupt politician that I've read up on in a long while.
You guy should read the Open Letter (confirmed true by conservative sources) about what she's pulled in her short stint as a poltician. It's a laundry list of disgusting nepotism and mismanagement.
http://thezaftigredhead.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter-from-someone-who-knows-gov.html
In short, she's a female version of George W. Bush. Her views on technology probably involve leeches and "internet tubes." Don't be swindled by the current spin cycle coming out of McCain's campaign -- she's woefully inexperienced and completely unsuited to even run a small town of 5000 -- hell, the almost threw her out of town and she drove them so far into debt they won't get out for 100 years.
I had to think of that quip when you mentioned "Powerful people starting wars because they think their supreme being would like that".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that don't cite the AP release, but no particular rebuttal either.
Yum.
She is not libertarian. If your definition of libertarian is "good for business, and lower government spending", then you are woefully ignorent about true libertarianism.
Of course that is not my definition of libertarianism.
Selling the government jet on eBay, is my idea of libertarianism. Stating that she opposes abortion but that regions should be left to decide the matter for themselves, is my idea of libertarianism. Able to hold an opinion but not use the state to force those opinions on others, is my idea of libertarianism.
I am curious how you make out Obama to be the stronger libertarian candidate, or frankly even Barr. Because while Palin is not the "ideal" libertarian candidate, she is far more libertarian then most and like most libertarians I am a practical person. I will take what I can get when I see it ratcheting a party and a nation closer to libertarian ideals.
With Obama you have someone who wishes to create an entire new federal department of volunteerism, on the order of creating a new park service or housing administration. That sends up a lot of red flags for me, combined with his other positions I just cannot support his level of fiscal irresponsibility and government extension.
I can see where you'd be confused because Bush himself has been rather expansionist with government. What I am talking about supporting here is candidates that are opposite of Bush in that way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Liar, liar, run-and-hider
Sarah claims she's no insider
but look closely at this lass,
Karl's hand is up her ass
Hidden in her northern lair
avoiding questions that are fair
and balanced, unless your box
is bounded by the views of Fox
Says she's tight with our tax dollar
left her town in Wasilla holler
20 million in the hole
up the ladder, sold her soul
In her speeches she may claim
she sold the previous governor's plane
on ebay, but it wasn't true
she tells lies to me and you
Sixty days until we say
which candidate shall win the day
and whether this will come to pass:
Creationism, taught in science class.
I was just wondering if anyone else scrolled down and read some of the comments posted in response to TFA. There are some doosies.
I mean, I know that not everyone can have the brilliant likes of Slashdotters commenting on their sites, but good lord.
If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
Unless that one issue shows a huge underlying philosophy that can't be accepted by the voter.
I also am a one issue voter this time around. Obama and McCain both supported the warrantless FISA bill. I don't feel either one cares about protection of individual liberties and the idea of following the law. I further saw their support as both giving big monopolies getting what they wanted and the legislative branch not holding the executive branch responsible for breaches in the laws they swore to uphold. That's a vote breaker for me for both of them.
So yes I can somewhat understand the anti-abortion crowd although I think it's misguided as I lean more libertarian. What they're fighting for should be at most a state level issue and shouldn't be part of the federal election. But if someone stands for an issue strongly and doesn't vote for someone because of actual past policies or statements then that's logical enough for me.
Okay class, this week we will be covering the beliefs of the pre-European Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest.
Now imagine how long it would take to cover every belief.
That's why.
I attended a small high school in central Missouri. Galileo's persecution was covered. Why wasn't it covered in your's?
Again, wasn't that covered in your's?
I think we spent less than a minute on the "Scopes Monkey Trial".
And we did go through the early Geocentric model of the universe. Again, less than a minute.
WHY teach non-science in a science class? There isn't much time for teaching real science. Just look at the moderation points in this thread to see that.
Teach who Darwin was and what he did and how it was VERIFIED.
Then, if you have a minute or so, you can teach how he was persecuted for his work.
But do NOT waste time teaching non-science in a science class. If you must teach it, put it in the appropriate class. Such as comparative religions.
Her other views -- and more importantly, McCain's other views -- make it highly likely that they'll be appointing more judges to the bench whose readings of the law allow *increasing* amount of power vesting in the federal executive and congress.
How so? The model for judges McCain and Palin would put forward are those who voted down the DC gun ban, and also voted against the horrific eminent domain decision the court barley passed.
Because of their libertarian nature, Roe Vs. Wade is not under attack in any way.
Hamdan vs Rumsfeld is far less significant in the long run than the issues I outlined and I'm not convinced that judges they might appoint would necessarily go one way or the other on that. Scalias descent was in large part based on the fact that he thought the matter should not have been before the coiurt, period - based on laws that were passed. The job of the court is not to choose which laws to ignore and which to support, it is to interpret the laws passed.
I think moving power more locally is a great idea, but I don't think handing the Presidency to Palin is really going to do the job.
Then who are you voting for, because Obama is trying to do things like take very effective high school volunteering programs and bring them up to control at the federal level. That's a huge concern to me, not to mention that speaking of judges the models Obama would use would leave eminent domain is the same shape it is now, and uphold things like the DC gun ban.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here is where she stands on technology.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The article basically has no proof, only speculation, and a record that ZERO books were actually banned.
However, there are individuals who seem to be vouching for the fact that the librarian's employment was threatened, and it appears to be indisputable that she eventually left for one reason or another.
The actual accomplished banning is not necessarily the only problem.
(Unless you subscribe to the unitary mayoral theory that city employees serve at the will and pleasure of the municipality's chief executive...)
Tweet, tweet.
Von Neumann (the computer pioneer) thought that evolution was a joke and Newton believed in the Bible. So did Leibniz, the co-inventor (with Newton) of calculus. Should I mention Charles Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace? They were all awesome scientists and highly intelligent thinkers. The IQ of your average Slashdot reader looks like that of a watermelon in comparison. LOL.
One can hypothesise that the universe was created and still be a great scientist. I am sick and tired of the condescending elitist attitude of most atheists and Dawrwinists. You people look stupid especially when you act like you're smarter than everybody else and you will eventually lose the war of ideas because of it.
Do not forget that she herself had to fight fiercely against the same Republican party you hate, indeed many of the most vilified characters (like Ted Stevens) to get elected governor. Do not forget that McCain while he may have voted the same way as Republicans on a number of issues, when it mattered he went a different course - especially his views on tourture not matching Bush's, and his all-in support for the surge when even many Republicans wanted to just forget about Iraq.
Can someone please describe to me what POLICIES they like of the Republicans
Sure, I like when they are for lower spending (as in cutting earmarks) and reducing government control. The fact they have not much been that way recently much leads me to want to support McCain and Plain, who are far more in the direction I like than the Republicans in general or any Democrats, who have voted straight down party lines on issues to reduce earmarks (and while in control of the house and congress have shot up use of earmarks dramatically, of course with help from some Republicans).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They're going to have a long wait.
The fact is, we have no clue where Sarah Palin stands on anything. Since she was nominated to be vice president, we've heard her read a speech, and that's about it. The McCain campaign is now going to keep her completely isolated from the press, so her positions on issues will differ little from those of a Barbie doll.
I truly do not understand why people think that pushing decisions down to the state level solves anything. State governments are often larger than those of whole nations. Why wouldn't the same problems that the federal government faces in a given decision apply to the states? At least, if the federal government resolves a given issue, there is consistency between the states, and the federal government can use its massive economies of scale to solve a given problem more efficiently.
just fail.
When someone believes the earth is flat when we know different and can easily prove it.
She isn't saying the earth is flat though, is she? She's saying she doesn't oppose the teaching of ID.
Now I personally do not believe in ID. But it seems obvious to me it's not harmful to teach, for it can also serve as an introduction to the scientific method and explanations about why it's not a theory in the scientific sense.
Which leads me to the thing that really bothers me about your post. Precisely because ID cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproven - yet you claim in fact that it's easily proven. Where then sir is your grasp of the scientific method?
The simple fact is that Palin as VP, or President, would be fine even she she believes some things on faith that you do not. There has been a great tradition of scientists that also held strong religious views and I do not see that holding her back from making good choices in science policy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
*Looks at title*
*Looks at comments*
Yes, yes indeed.
Teaching non-science in a science class is not healthy debate.
Actually, I'm coming to believe a section in science class called "Challenges to the Theory of Evolution" could be extremely productive. You could take common problematic arguments like "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and address some of the reasons why they're poor challenges.
And there's nothing wrong with exploring any legitimate challenges there may be. Some people will choose to stick God or some other intelligent actor in those gaps, but many might even choose to refine existing theory or explore other alternatives.
Either way, I think we'd end up with a more informed population less likely to be susceptible to fallacious arguments in the discussion on the topic.
Tweet, tweet.
According to the Anchorage Daily News (Largest paper in Alaska) Palin asked the town's librarian during a town council meeting about banning books and was flatly refused.
According to the article:
Four days before this exchange took place the librarian had received a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters were also sent to the Police Chief, Public Works Director, Finance Director, and Museum Director.
Again according to the article (emphasis mine):
The article is not clear what effect the other letter had. The librarian did, due to public popularity, survive a call for her resignation but later resigned for a better job in Fairbanks. The Meusum director was let go when Palin cut his job from the city rolls.
According to the article there is no documentary evidence that any books were ever banned from the library although the article does not quote the present librarian.
It is known that Palin subsequently cut funding for an expansion of the library and the museum while pushing for the construction of a local hockey arena that, according to other articles remains in litigation as it was built on land that the town did not own clear title to.
From this I don't see it as fair to call her someone who is obsessed with banning books but it is apparent that she places an emphasis on "loyalty" and has priorities that focus more on hockey than education.
As to the less porn more drugs line or the "country folks" I'm not sure either one is deserved. Meth problems aside Palin's stance on the bars was a backers issue. And once in office she didn't spend, apparently, much effort campaigning against porn so much as for hockey. As culture warriors go she clearly stumps on it but only acts on it in general terms.
McCain is no libertarian. He supports lowering the corporate tax.
You totally lost me there. Not seeing why libertarians would not be for lower federal taxes in general, when obviously the federal government does not need to be spending the amount it is.
Limited-liability corporations don't exist without intervention from the state. They are perfectly free to structure themselves as standard partnerships and not pay the tax
Since I actually own a small business now and have had to work through those issues I can say emphatically that you chose to form a corporation in order to pay less money to a variety of federal programs. In particular your payment of medicare grows unbounded with income. You choose a corporation because the overall amount you pay is lower, why would it not be otherwise? And it only helps small businesses prosper if that tax is lower, especially because you have to pay estimated taxes ahead of time...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They should teach it, but it should be in a "world religions" class and not taught as science
Not taught as science, but taught alongside science.
So teach it in a class about make believe things people in the olden days believed.
I find it important for students to know where science came from. So I'd make the history of science, including some of the theories that later science superseded, one of the units covered in a science class. They already do this in math classes, with early topics that cover Roman numerals (alongside Arabic), the abacus, guess and check (alongside algebra), and the proto-calculus that prompted the redefinition in terms of limits. Even chemistry does this, presenting the indivisible, plum-pudding, Rutherford, and Bohr models of the atom before the modern quantum model.
"I'll say one thing for them evilutionist climate change conspirators," giggled President Palin, "their hard work to take away the ice and make it look like they were right has done wonders for us good and decent folk."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
"She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send each Alaskan $1,200 from the windfall surplus resulting from high oil prices."
Each of these plans taxes people, then gives them back their tax money in the form of credits. That is not libertarian.
But you can't retroactively put in tax decreases for taxes people have already paid. Or at least, it makes just as much sense to give some back when you find you have an excess. That's not really the same as a credit, that's an increase of a refund. If you view the fiscal needs for the government going forward as normally needing the same level of taxation you can't reduce rates either, as that is not being fiscally responsible.
No, to reduce taxes you reduce annual spending, and then you are free to use tax projections to see what you can lower taxes by as a result of spending. Sending one-time excess surpluses back is not anti-libertarian at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apparently I missed the memo where being libertarian meant loving federal tax dollars. Alaska is #1 in pork spending at over $600 per person. I guess she's a "government libertarian" in that you give the government money and she's free to do with it what she wants.
If net neutrality came up as an issue, she would be against it, b/c that's the standard GOP line. She owes everything to party bosses and their Rovian tactics. She has no clout as an individual policymaker to do anything else.
Sarah Palin is not a libertarian, just because she uses *some* libertarian rhetoric doesn't mean she is. She is a pro-business and screw everyone else neo-con.
She is not anywhere near qualified to make policy decisions on technology. She does not have the good judgment and will required to appoint advisors who will give her real quality advice and guidance. She's a prop for the GOP. She's an advertisement. The decision to select her as VP was purely for the most nihilistically political reasons and has nothing to do with her operational capability as a policymaker.
More on-topic, Palin is going to support the legislation she is told to support by her handlers. TFA is ridiculous to conjecture that b/c she supported some pipeline regulations that she will be in favor of net neutrality. For every instance of Palin supporting a logical policy, there are 10 examples of her doing the opposite.
The only way Palin would support net neutrality or any other policy that protects from unfair business practices is IF the GOP people tell her to.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Man. DO you really believe these lies? How gullible are you to this far left trash propoganda?
Sure, but I bet you believe the Right's lies that McCain is a Christian, that he doesn't eat children as part of his bizarre cult rituals, and that Palin is not in fact a transsexual. Gullible freak.
I am not a crackpot.
"I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian, hoping that Palin will be at the top of the ticket in four years."
And anyone who WILL vote for a candidate because of a single issue
What then is my "single issue"? The fact that she is generally Libertarian in thought and action? That is not by itself and issue, but a philopsophy - a way of acting that modifes behaviour in all things she does.
It's not like I said I support her because of any one action, but a general pattern of behavior and action I approve of (even if there are some specifics I do not approve of, true of any candidate).
Another general thing I like about both McCain and Palin is that they have gone against republicans as a group at times. They do not always do so of course, but the fact they both have at important junctures is pretty important to me and my Libertarian ideals. It means either one is not going to be influenced as strongly by party control or ideals - both live somewhat outside the party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well said and beautifully worded. I think I'll print a copy of that and keep it in my wallet to hand out next time I get involved in this silly argument.
"Here. Read this, then understand that no matter how strongly you believe in Creationism/God/alternative theories... you have missed the actual point of this debate and are twisting the argument into something it's not."
I'm sick of people claiming they want "both sides" to be heard. In scientific terms, Creationism is not a side to choose. It's not a candidate for a place in Science class because it ain't science!
"there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up."
It looks to me like Jessamyn's saying there is no evidence to back up the commenter's list, the one people are complaining contains books published after Baker left.
There doesn't appear, however, to be any evidence that Time's original claims regarding Palin's confrontations and threats against Baker are false.
Tweet, tweet.
That's true only if the view of the creationist in question rejects natural selection (many do, but some don't, believing God wouldn't make a system that's easy to break).
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Mostly because it does not appear to be libertarian. How can you seriously support McCain and Palin and still consider yourself any sort of libertarian? While the Democrats are pushing the welfare state, the Republicans are pushing the warfare state. They're both pushing the extreme-debt state, too.
Take this election seriously. Our economy is near, if not at, a disastrous tipping point. Neither major party has any plans to do anything about it.
Slashdot Poster Category A: "I find her stance on technology to be reprehensibly Luddite (when in fact it's just that I disagree with her politics and so will find anything I can to criticize her for)"
Slashdot Poster Category B: "I find her stance on technology to be laudably forward-looking (when in fact it's just that I agree with her politics and so will find anything I can to praise her for)"
Neither being actually forthright about their initial bias, and thus the 'discussion' reducing to a shouting match between two sides that aren't going to convince each other to change their position one iota.
Next question?
-Styopa
Palin is a social conservative, raised taxes numerous times, expanded the size of government in both her role as mayor and governor, and made questionable use of eminent domain to seize private property in a manner that had previously been unprecedented in Alaska.
Basically, her position is the exact opposite of the libertarian one on most issues you care to look at.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Have you ever spoken to an honest-to-god creationist, much less an actual Pentacostalist? (A born-again, fundamentalist, evangelical who places heavy emphasis on direct personal experience with god - including speaking in tongues, the gift of prophesy, etc.)
She believes the US military is literally doing god's work overseas. She believes the biblical apocalypse will occur in her lifetime. And she her finger will very likely be on the button.
Who cares how she feels about the internet?
I sure see a lot of lying on the Republican side too (Obama raising taxes, when he clearly plans to reduce them for 85% of the population, Mrs. Obama being a black panther etc.)
The thing is, I don't think that anyone who is a republican necessarily endorses lies, nor do I endorse lies on the "left", even though I lean that way.
Don't overgeneralize. It makes you sound like a douchbag and a radical.
Jeremy
I feel like this whole discussion about Palin and her policies is a big cosmic joke.
Fact is, she's going to do what she is told to do. Her convention speech was given to her. When she eventually goes to the media to answer questions about policy, she will say exactly what her handlders tell her to say.
Now, before the Trolls roll in and say, "But all politicians adhere to party platform, talking points, etc" I'm going to address that preemptively. It's like this: Palin is on another level of political servanthood. She is blatantly unqualified to be VP (or governor for that matter), but b/c of how the Rovian wing of the GOP works, she was chosen to be held up as an advertisement for how the GOP wants to be seen. It's all for image. No substance. She does not have the clout to stand on her own two feet as a policymaker (no matter what the GOP talking heads say).
As far as technology, it's a no-brainer to support technology in schools. Everyone knows this. It's like saying "I support driver's licenses."
Bottom line, Palin is going to do exactly what the GOP tacticians want her to do, just like Bush II.
Full disclosure: I supported Ron Paul in the GOP primary and Sen. Obama in the Dem's primary, and I support Obama in the general election. An Obama v. Paul general election would have generated real policy discussions. The McCain/Palin ticket is insulting.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Did you miss the part where she massively expanded the size of government while mayor, supported banning books she disagreed with, used eminent domain in an unprecedented manner to seize private property, ran for governor on a platform of lobbying for large amounts of federal funding for earmarked infrastructure projects, raised taxes while governor, and has generally been the opposite of a libertarian in any way you care to think of?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
....throwing the race with bad technical choices in his campaign.
I can understand not agreeing with everything the Libertarian party stands for. I'm personally only about 75% Libertarian. But only a moron would think that McCain represents Libertarian ideals in any shape.
I'm not really sure I follow you, given that Barr was also a Republican and only recently joined the party. There was actually a funny rumor floating around for a bit (I think disproven) that Palin was Independnant for a few years, as if that would make her LESS appealing!
Anyway, I actually like Barr quite a bit and that's where I was thinking about going with with my vote before Palin. But in one stroke McCain has made a few things happen:
1) He sets up a strong Libertarian candidate for the future (Palin). Palin is as far as I can discern more of a libertarian than Barr.
2) He shows that he might take party advice into consideration, but will go his own way when he feels it is best. You really think that before Palin's speech all Republicans were happy with him choosing her? No, many were quite against it.
3) If you believe McCain did not know about Palin's daughter being pregnant (unlikely, I think but even so still possible) then McCain deserves a lot of credit for not dropping Palin just because he's taking heat over it. Realizing that real people sleep outside of marriage is a plus in my book.
If McCain had chosen almost anyone else as VP I don't know that I woudl be voting for him, and I certainly would not have donated to his campaign (which I did the day after he announced Palin).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
She has GROWN state spending.
She has GROWN the size of her gov.
She has GROWN the handouts from the feds.
She has GROWN debt where there was NONE in the richest state of the union.
She wants to control at the federal level access to Abortion.
She wants to GROW the patriot act.
She has shown that she is as corrupt as those that she wants to replace.
The ONLY thing that is libertarian about her is that she supports NRA. Big Whoop.
Nobody is going to be able to take our guns. It is JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Far too much to lose at the poll. All in all, ppl like reagan/W/Palin are the exact opposite of what
I will take Obama because I think that he is far more likely to lower the deficit spending (though I seriously doubt that he will balance). And I hope that he will pass a number of anti-corruption laws as well as perhaps push a balanced budget amendment. God help us if we get Palin. America truly will be destroyed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Palin was picked solely for her ideology and physical appearance.
(NSFW) Schwing!
He is a neo-con. Conservatives are better than that. In fact, I have not met a single conservative that likes her, though I have seen nothing but neo-cons LOVING her.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Palin is for strong social and economic government controls
Patently wrong. I am agaisnt those too, but very much for Plain.
You, like many people, do not realize that what makes libertarians so appealing as a group is that people can have many different ideas as to what is right, all in disagreement - but fundamentally it does not matter because they ALSO support local control over policy.
Plain has already said as much on abortion, of course she strongly opposes abortion but has also said it's up to local governments to make the choice they consider right for them.
6. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?
Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.
Now THAT is Libertarian.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When states rights come up against traditional conservative issues, which way people split differs.
A large proportion of conservatives, for example, support the anti-states-rights position that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states as regards the second amendment, thereby prohibiting state or local regulation of gun ownership (the original, states-rights position was that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government).
A more interesting split was seen on medical marijuana. A number of southern Attorneys General wrote amicus briefs in favor of California's position, deciding that the issue of states rights was more important than conservative opposition to marijuana. On the other hand, Antonin Scalia, usually a libertarian-leaning conservative, voted for the federal-power position in endorsing an expansive interpretation of the interstate-commerce clause, apparently deciding it was more important to keep pot illegal.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well has she denied Kerry's assertion that she believes in a flat earth? As far as I know she hasn't.
I don't object to the idea of a god. In fact I would not be surprised if we're inside the ultimate Sims game and the fact is no matter how far you go back in time you still end up with the fact that something came from nothing to create this universe. So it's not that out of the question that a god exists.
What I object to is people feeling the need to input their idea of god into government.
A) that's not what the conservative party is supposed to be about.
B)If you do it for religion X then you have to do it for religion Y. By the time everything suits believers of Jesus to Scientology nothing will get done.
There is a good chance that there is some sort of life outside of earth whether or not it's a creator or not. But I would be very certain that humans don't have a clue what it is. So wasting time teaching something which won't be accurate and will be biased is pointless.
When they mention god are they going to mention that Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe the same basic religion but their interpretation of Jesus and his role is just different or are they going to mention that these religions are more or less the same story that's been told for centuries long before anyone every mentioned Jesus? Of course not, the Christian fundamentalists don't want an intelligent and fair discussion on religion so there is no reason people's tax money should pay for it.
The largest problem with freedom is that people don't want to accept it comes with responsibility. If you want the state to stay out of your religion then your religion should stay out of the state.
That and the fact that extremists always bang on about it being a Christian nation purely because Puritans came here first. Did they some how forget the Indians were here first and had their own religion?
I have babbled on too long but I will end by saying that the bible clearly states that you should keep your religion to yourself and it's something to be practised in privacy. Only someone who is empty and without god has to be out in the streets preaching to other. It also states that it's a complete package not to be altered with bits added or removed. So it's high time these "believers" quit picking and choosing their favourite bits to believe.
I read this post hoping to see a discussion of Sarah Palin's views on technology, which is what the headline suggested I'd see here. Instead, pretty much the whole discussion has been turned into another creation vs evolution flamewar. Next time, can we just mod this comment flamebait or off topic and be done with it?
This is a story about Palin on technology issues. Trying to switch this into environmental or any other issues is just plainly offtopic, and should be modded as such. It has NOTHING to do with the topic (technology issues) at hand.
When science says that oil corps and other big "resource extractors" should't just get whatever they want, Palin's hates science.
Though if being mayor of the meth capital of Alaska counts as "chemistry policy", Palin is ahead of the curve.
--
make install -not war
Then you've been duped by a woman you don't even know.
She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, coming out against it only after Alaska was asked to pay for more of it.
She got a tiny town with no debt $20 million into the hole, during a time of record surplus! And this after taking $27 million in federal earmarks for that tiny town (before becoming Governor and getting even more). John McCain called earmarks sought by her "pork" back before he tried to claim she was a "reformer."
The librarian and the police chief are the least of it. She's the kind of person to fire anyone she doesn't like. And when she's done with someone, she's done. She's even nastier than shown in that speech.
She presides over the Ultimate Welfare State. Alaska has a fund that it distributes to residents. They love Palin because it went up by about $500 under her. Never mind that it takes in $1.87 for every dollar it's taxed. So Alaska is spending everyone else's money.
She ran Sen. Ted "The Internet is not a big truck" Stevens' PAC. She hired a lobbyist to get those earmarks.
She's a skilled politician and if you think she's some kind of "libertarian" you've been duped. She's another borrow & spend Republican, just like Bush.
Our society seems to act like parents own their children. They put parents' rights over childrens' rights. Kids are at a critical stage in which beliefs are formed that they will (in most cases) retain for the rest of their lives. Don't children have a right to not be brainwashed? Consider that it can have a lifetime impact on them (or worse).
If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this news story (ABC News) about a Christian Science teen who died from a simple medical problem. I was disgusted by how people thought they actually had a right to indoctrinate their son with such insane and (as it proved) fatal beliefs. "Police Do Not Expect Criminal Charges to Be Filed in the Death". This is outrageous!
IMO, given that children are in a critical stage when it comes to forming beliefs, and given the impact that those beliefs can have on their entire life, it should be required by law that children be exposed to science, be taught critical thinking, and be taught about other belief systems besides their own. This should be considered a basic human right.
When you further consider the impact that religious extremism is having on the world (particularly with both Christian and Muslim extremism), this becomes an even greater imperative.
What relevance does the video you linked to have to Palin's stance technology issues? I see nothing in that video that had one iota of tech relevance.
Nice to see all everyone on the Angry Left use this one story to pour out all their offtopic smears, and wild allegations. This stuff is obviously offtopic, and the moderators aren't doing their job.
The closest I saw in the article was this:
"According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it [removing books on request]. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing."
"Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article."
"Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum."
"Palin told the Daily News BACK THEN the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin."
You must have been in China recently for the Olympics, because that was quite a leap there. Are you saying the police chief and public works directors ALSO refused to ban books?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> How many people on Slashdot (who are more knowledgeable than the average citizen) can name their state senators?
Kyl & McCain. And the latter has been replaced with some kind of doppleganger in the past 3 years.
I've _always_ supported for McCain in the past. But no more. Three years ago, when he decided to run for President, he changed completely.
He used to be a no-nonsense guy. He'd shoot the breeze with the press and take on any questions they wanted to give him. Now, he's become a fake. He started sucking up to Bush like nobody's business, and that's when this "vote with Bush 90%+ of the time" thing happened. He wasn't always like that, but right now, I have no idea what he really stands for.
He's opposing his own immigration bill. His own. He's become a "defender of sexism" after being the guy who loved the joke, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!" The Republican hypocrisy on experience & sexism right now is sickening. Watch the Daily Show clip if you haven't.
Every other issue is similarly confused. He hated the Bush tax cuts, now he loves them. NOBODY can tell you what he stands for right now, because it's an election year. Will he revert to who he was? Will he stay as he is now? Will he adopt some hybrid set of positions? Who knows? You'd do better to roll a die (or consult a poll...) if you want to know what he actually stands for right now. I can't tell you how HUGE a change that is.
This guy used to hate phony politicians. Now he's become one. He's hired Rove's protege AND the Bush adviser who put out the ugly rumors about McCain fathering a black child (that child was adopted). So much for family being "off limits" or his plan to run a "clean" campaign. Yeah, nobody with any sense thought it was ever going to *actually* be clean. But there's dirty and then there's hiring Rove's people.
I can't vote for McCain. He violated everything he once claimed to believe in for a shot at becoming President. I know someone will say "they all do that," but when I look at how far he's fallen, I know that he can't get up ever again.
First of all, your analogy goes "a scientific process is to a field of science as an object of study is to its own field of science." It does not succeed from the perspective of grammar, much less from a perspective of comparativeness.
It always interests me how over-emphasized the academic importance of evolution becomes in this debate. Presumably because the same elements of fanaticism distort things whether or not you are on the mystical side of things.
If you will just pause to consider this dispassionately for a moment, it's clear that evolution is nothing like molecules are in chemistry--the object of study. Flipping through my AP bio notes, evolution is the 8th section taught, with 6 coming thereafter. So apparently at least half of high school biology has nothing to do with evolution. Those sections are chemistry, cells, cellular respiration, cell division, heredity, molecular genetics, and then after evolution, biological diversity, plants, animal form and function, animal reproduction and development, animal behavior, and ecology.
Evolution is admittedly nice context for that latter half, and creationism--if it is exclusively "subbed in"--is going to mess about how you associate various hierarchies. But it would have zero impact on anything mechanic--kreb cycle, photosynthesis, phenotypes, etc.--not be all that debilitating on the rest--and if you were to hold your nose and compromise at "intelligent design," you'd be getting pretty much the exact same education. (Isn't that why ID is repeatedly accused of not being science--it produces no testably distinguishable results from "evolution unguided"?)
And, furthermore, I don't know where everyone else went to public school, but my distinct experience was that teachers could not be uniformly relied on in *any* subject, irrespective of religious or philosophical interests. Is there to be no similar outcry to how teachers are crippling students with bad science when they teach that the sky is blue because light reflects off the ocean? Or when calculus books refer to invalid proofs? Or any of a myriad of other fictions which often work their way into the public education?
My own assessment is that the objections are warranted, but the outcry is not. It's just not as huge of deal as slashdot makes it out to be.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
You don't really think those kids would be getting married if they hadn't been stupid enough to fuck without birth control?
I feel bad for them, mainly because they were kept in ignorance of birth control by a state (and parents at least in her case) that believed in abstinence-only.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I live in Utah. I think that moving more power locally is a fucking stupid idea.
The mormons were there before you you know. What right do you have to come in to a community and dictate how they behave or live?
It sounds more like you are a "fucking idiot" for moving there if you do not like how things are. I do not want to make the entire country the same policy wise, one of the great things about America is the differences between states and the ability to go somewhere where people are like you, not to make everyone like you. That for example is how we get gay marriage approved, some states are all for it and they should be allowed to proceed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Country First" was heir big theme at the convention and it was creepy to me.
Far better than "Party First".
Nationalism combined with Libertarianism means strong states rights. You are combining nationalism with a philosophy of tight federal control, neither of which Palin or McCain share, and which would indeed be "creepy". That's why Obama's national volunteerism program freaks me out, a whole new federal department to do something that high schools across the nation are ALREADY DOING quite well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
On the attempt to ban books: If you go to the first link in the linked article, you'll find plenty of links onwards about Palin's attempt to ban books. Even the Wall Street Journal reports it as fact.
On my claim that "if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs" ... well, you know, some things we learn from experience, not from somebody else writing it up. I have been in bars in small towns in the Northwest (and elsewhere) until closing time. After about midnight, most of the patrons of those establishments are also part of the drug scene. Often the people on the other side of the bar are too. Palin admits she used to be a pot smoker. She's not innocent of this stuff. Yet she fired the police chief for wanting to close the bars before 5 a.m.
There's also a strong correlation between serious drug use and communities with a strong evangelical presence. I could google up national statistics which show that (they're there, surveys done and articles written), but hell I've lived in those places too. If you've lived there, and spent some nights in the bars, you know this.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
They also love to talk about shrinking government by lowering spending while never doing anything of the sort-- if they really held to this libertarian idea
McCain held fast to his promise of zero earmarks.
Palin sold the state jet and reduced spending.
they would never have let Bush take the extreme liberties he did
I agree that Bush did too much to increase the size of government. I do not see the same trend in McCain or Palin.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So you say that every one claims to believe in God, but some do not.
Would not the worst people then be those that claim to do so only for political expediency? Should we not seek to elect those that generally tell us what they are actually thinking?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> Selling the government jet on eBay, is my idea of libertarianism.
She didn't sell it on eBay (that deal fell through). She had to sell it privately.
> Able to hold an opinion but not use the state to force those opinions on others, is my idea of libertarianism.
She'll fire anyone who disagrees with her, though. The bad cop probably deserved it (though I'm not sure she should use her office like that). The police chief might have deserved it if he had a history of protecting bad cops. But did the librarian deserve it? Did all the other people she stabbed in the back deserve it?
We get focused on the cases that grab headlines, but she has a history of being nasty when there are no cameras around.
> I am curious how you make out Obama to be the stronger libertarian candidate, or frankly even Barr.
I'm not the other guy, but I just want to make it clear that I'm not going to argue that Obama is libertarian. He isn't. I do think that there's some hope of him lessening executive power. He was a constitutional scholar; he has to have some appreciation for it. He also indicated that he might prosecute Bush administration officials who acted unconstitutionally.
There's no way in hell McCain could do that, even if he wanted to.
> I just cannot support his level of fiscal irresponsibility and government extension.
Then you might want to look into what Palin did in Alaska. She spent freely, taxed regressively, and took as much money as she could get from the federal government (i.e. everyone NOT in Alaska). That's why they loved her, after all. They got an extra $500/person, because they didn't have to spend their own money. Though she had sense enough to pretend that she hadn't when it became a political issue, that just proves she's politically crafty. Nobody denies that she's good at politics.
> I can see where you'd be confused because Bush himself has been rather expansionist with government. What I am talking about supporting here is candidates that are opposite of Bush in that way.
She's not. She's just like Bush in that way. She's just better at pretending not to be. She calls herself "libertarian" but that's just to get people who don't know her to vote for her. Once you get past the fluff, you'll find that she's been highly irresponsible.
A true libertarian should be writing in Ron Paul in this election.
The republicans can't possibly win this one anyway. /carries on with his wishful thinking and faith in humanity...
No it is not since I did not replace the terms at random. I did replace Creationism with another equally scientifically discredited "theory"
What you have just said is that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory. It has to be in order for the scientific method to discredit it.
The flat earth theory was disproved when we went around and up and saw, by golly, a ball. Intelligent Design is not disproved by strong evidence for evolution, because you can always say "well of course, there's intelligence behind the movements in evolution".
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I don't think it matters if the thought is presented in an educational context because I firmly believe people can think for themselves - and the need to learn the difference between science and faith is sorely needed, as evidenced by your post. You have started to confuse valid science with what some people are telling you is science.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Read this if you want to understand her management style. I would never work for a boss like her.
And if you have read any of the many books about problems in the Bush administration, you'll know that this paranoia over loyalty is one of the things that has made Bush such a terrible president. Bush hires cronies instead of people who know what they're doing, which is how we got to "Heck of a job, Brownie!"
At least there, you can make a stark contrast with Obama. His campaign has had the least internal drama of anyone and all the reports about how he manages people say that he does exceptionally well, as you can read here.
I don't know about anyone else, but I want a leader who doesn't think serving the community doesn't count as experience, but telling people "it's my way or the highway" does.
I did nothing of the sort. Flat Earth nutbars and Creationist nutbars have equal weight in the realm of science.
How so - you can observe the earth is not flat, you cannot "observe" a negative like "There is no god" or "God is not directing evolution".
Truly a dark day for Slashdot when supposedly scientific people are confusing basics of science like this.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I laughed so hard at the BSG reference.
You are most likely not reading this, but I would like to clarify that issue non the less, because I suppose my disclaimer was not sufficiant and maybe other people will fail to understand this as well.
I am not from the "angry left". In fact, I am not even from the Americas. And here in my country I also made some bad experience with people that call themselves "leftists". But what I did wrote was that it doesn't matter if you consider yourself left, right or whatever, double standards are bad. And I have seen them all do it.
I am just reading 1984 from George Orwell and I came up with calling it doublethink, because it is so fitting. And here is where the tech issue comes in. If you use doublethink (or double standards) on ANY issure, including technology, it doesn't really matter what you are saying, since you will turn around and say or do something entirely different.
And I still think McCain made some smart foreign policy speeches during the 90s. Foreign policy can be very difficult, and one of the good things about McCain is that at least he is smarter than Bush by a long shot.
I would like to close my argument with my opinion on the term "Angry Left". I am following US politics very closely and I always thought that the word "angry" would fit much better for the religious conservative than on any of the major left wing political groups. There is so much the right wingers hate. For example the Clintons. Hillary for herself and Bill for a b-job.
"Angry" would therefore be much better used to describe large parts of the Republican party. The "angry right".
So are you one of them? Are you Angry Right?
Selling the jet is not libertarianism.
Supporting federalism is not libertarianism.
She does not hold opinions and not use government to force it on others. See her behavior as mayor re: the library and police chief.
Why do you think I believe Obama to be a stronger libertarian? The fact that you put your political opinions into a box of the two parties shows that you are simply a Republican who thinks lowering taxes, federalism, and Laissez-faire capitalism is libertarianism. It is not.
I mean seriously, what woulf you say if some candidate wanted to bring pro-astrology textbooks into astronomy science lessons and pro-alchemy textbooks into chemistry classrooms, in order to have teachers "teach the controversy"?
Actually pro-alchemy books in the context of chemistry would be a pretty good combination, as it would teach what assumptions about material behavior led to, and point out more dramatically the differneces.
Pro-astrology textbooks in an astronomy course would at least lend some character to what I otherwise found very, very dry classes (though in my defense I had a friend in the class with me not in the least interested and it distracted from my attenion - I like Astronomy very much as a subject now).
Basically I think all subjects should be taught as a combination of history, subject matter, and sociological examples. It makes the learning much easier to retain when done that way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We've had 9 Presidents leave office (4 assassinations, 4 natural deaths, 1 abdicated) out of 43 people. That's over a 20% chance just to begin with.
Actuarial tables give McCain a 1 in 3 chance of dying in the next 8 years, though I don't believe that adjusted for things like the treatment he received as a POW or all the plane crashes he survived, both in training and the time he was shot down.
McCain's thousands pages of medical records didn't get much scrutiny, either. They gave a few friendly journalists a few hours to go over them. I don't know about you, but 100 pages/hour is a pretty good clip for me reading a story, let alone medical records. There's no way they could have read them all, so we just don't know.
It was ironic that Karl Rove attacked Obama over the mere idea that he might choose an inexperienced VP for "political" reasons. There's a great table about Rove contradicting himself here, as well as a link to the video.
This is not "Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues". This is "What BetaNews thinks Sarah Palin's Stance on Technology Issues are".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
'They', the family no one else, 'desided that she would keep the baby' is that sort of like makeing a 'choice' without government intervention ?
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I have heard this myth spread by uncountable numbers of people, but just because something is said a lot doesn't make it true. It might make more people THINK it is true, but it doesn't make it true.
In order to prove a statement, you need to present a solid proof starting with first principles, followed by provable deductions and ending with a logically following conclusion. Disproving something, however, is quite simple: one merely needs to find a counterexample. In your case, disproving your statement is child's play.
I have a sister studying at the second highest ranked vet school in this nation. There, she is pursuing a dual vetiranary degree and Ph.D. She does not believe in evolution, but believes in creationism. Yet she has had no trouble dealing with a VAST amount of different biological lifeforms, and understands them deeply enough to even treat their conditions, as most vets do. She has already contributed to research in both animal and human diseases as part of her Ph.D. reasearch. Before attending vet school, she recieved triple undergraduate degrees in biology, biochemistry and political science (for balance :D). Not all of the teachers she has had believe in evolution either. Yet it has not stopped them from making contributions to their field, nor has it stopped them from teaching biology in a meaningful way to others, as you claimed it would. If someone is capable of advancing knowledge of both human and animal diseases, I believe that others would agree that she must have been taught something meaningful, wouldn't you?
The statement that evolution must be believed in order to understand biology is patently false. Molecules must be understood to understand chemistry, but that is because they actually DO play an integral role in the day to day science, and are testable. Origins of biology do not play a day to day role in the field, and it's a good thing too, because even if evolution is true, it's quite clear that no one has really has much of a clue about it yet. Consider for a moment how often the books get rewritten on evolution... today they say man descended from this prior species of hominid, the next day they say we came from a different species, and then a few weeks later it's neither one, and the new claim is all three species are actually descendents of some other new in-between species. So think for a moment... if evolution truly had the bearing on biology that molecules have on chemistry, would we not be having to rewrite all biology, biochem, medical, and vetirinary textbooks just about every month? Instead, all these stories about a new evolutionary theory are usually greeted with a mild curiosity and then largely forgotten, as people go back to the work they've been doing for years, which hasn't changed one iota because of the new discovery in the "fundamental science" of evolution.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
The problem is not what her kid's personal life.
The problem is her hypocrisy, the proof of which is in her kid's personal life.
Additionnally, the problem is also your stupidity and/or your bad faith in this matter.
> She 'stood up' to the big oil interests and made them give her government a piece of the action.
Actually, it goes further than that. That money goes into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is like welfare for the entire state of Alaska. She managed to increase that by $500 (with Alaska taking in $1.87 for every dollar it paid in Federal taxes).
So she not only took millions of dollars from everyone not in Alaska to give away as part of a government welfare program, she increased our gas prices to help do it by taking money from the oil companies to spend on welfare checks!
Some "libertarian"! She took money from the other 49 states to bribe the people of Alaska for their votes! No wonder she had such a high approval rating...
I am not a creationist type person but to say that alternate beliefs cannot and should not be talked about in school is quite stupid. First things first...how you you expect children to learn your viewpoint or get educated on this subject if it is banned from discussion? Or do we just say hey Johnny, you are stupid for bringing up intelligent design/creationism so shut-up and sit in that corner? Obviously there is a small or even a large minority in the US that has some kind of belief in "other than evolution" theories or I wouldn't be posting about this. Flame away but if you ban any discussion about creationism then you miss the opportunity to influence and change minds. Also maybe I missed something while looking at the local school system curriculum but "World Religions" is not usually taught in the K-12 grades. So to all you who say the subject needs to be taught in a class that is unlikely to even be offered is just sweeping any discussion under the rug. Read this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206426.shtml
"... Palin is going to do exactly what the GOP tacticians want her to do ..."
If McCain/Palin get elected, McCain will be dead within a year. The neocons will then have a president that they will be able to dominate completely.
The GOP is making a big deal about how she's a tough reformer, etc. Not so hard when you're a in a small pool with some salmon and king crab, but if she goes to Washington she'll be in the deep end of a big pool full of sharks.
What are her views on space science, like the Hubble telescope, and exploration of Mars?
Since she believes that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, there would be no point in observing other galaxies that are millions of light years away, we wouldnt be able to see them now would we?
"Palin's current stance is that doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in school in addition to evolution,"
Except you are lying.
"In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both."
http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Instead of listening to random blogs, listen to someone who actually lives there.
I don't know what book list is right or not. I don't even care. Maybe she stopped orders (which happen before the book is released), maybe that list floating around is wrong. Either way, it's pretty clear that she did want to ban books until it became clear that she would suffer for it politically. I'd personally be willing to lessen the charge from "book banning" to "attempted book banning", but that won't give me a reason to vote for her.
I think the evidence indicates that she's a skilled politician in terms of avoiding responsibility for her actions, who is very nice in public, but who has daggers waiting for the backs of anyone who crosses her.
She appears to have the web skills to edit her own wikipedia entry.
(That or her new baby is a savant)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
I don't usually reply to my own posts, but while looking around further, I found this chart showing the actual federal dollars spent among the states. It also includes spending for the District of Columbia (58.6 BILLION DOLLARS). Alaska received such a small amount that there isn't enough room on the graphic to even write the state's name. The USA Today article referenced in the grandparent post doesn't mention total federal spending per state.
This kind of bullshit -- trying to show that Alaska is a boondoggle dollar sponge by listing per capita breakdown of a portion of federal spending per state instead of actual totals -- is why people think that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
It's not just Palin, McCain himself is avoiding the media these days.
McCain is my senator. He used to hate phonies. He used to shoot the breeze with reporters all the time and he'd almost never dodge a question.
To win this election, he has become one of the phonies he once hated.
"...create an entire new federal department of volunteerism"
Can you say New Deal Democrats?? who are largely why we're buried under the Big Gov't we are today.
I've sometimes considered that 2 years of required (and paid) national service might be a good thing for kids just out of high school -- so they can see the real world before they decide on a college and a career (given that our nanny state prevents kids from growing up in a timely manner). But a dept. of volunteerism?? WTF??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
McCain is 72 and has had cancerous growths
Oh no! How scary!
It's not like people have not lived decades after some kinds of cancer....
Or like his mother attended the convention and looked fine. She was 92...
You better hope no-one locks you in a home at 72 and says you are done with meaningful contribution. Myself I plan to reach 200 or 300, so I really can't see 72 as old.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
....Dick Cheney with tits.
Let me see if I can make this clearer for you.
Imagine a hypothetical candidate. They've got a platform, it's probably pretty good, they shake hands, kiss babies, they're wonderful.
But they've got an unusual opinion on one issue. Just one.
They want to nuke Atlanta. If elected, they will do everything in their power to ensure that nuclear weapons are launched at Atlanta.
That's just one issue, mind you.
Can you imagine maybe not bothering to see what else the candidate has to say based on their position on this one issue?
It depends on what the issue is. Fundamental and willful ignorance is extremely important. I can understand how some people might believe the same about abortion, but I do not accept that they are correct.
Do you think they really had a choice?
Of course McCain had a choice. One he was urged repeatedly by the media to take just after selection, many citing the previous example of George McGovern and Eagleton. Instead he stuck by here even through criticism from his own party, never mind the media.
What seems clumsy is the attempt to paint Plain negative by any brush that can be found. Including at one point the terrible charge against her of... having been an Independent for a few years instead of Republican! The horror! That was "disproven" quickly though when they realized it made her all the more popular...
Ignore Obama for a second. Look at the past 10 days since the announcement, is this the best that McCain can do?
You are not serious, right? You don't think tens of millions in contributons the days after the announcement, and as great a viewership of the Republican convention speeches as Obama got to be an amazing achievement? From what was almost a dead stop, the Republican ticket sprang back to life - and with huge momentum as well.
As an example, I wasn't even sure I was going to vote for McCain. After I read up on Palin a bit the day of the announcement, I donated money to his campaign - and more the next day after further thought. I have NEVER donated to a presidential campaign before.
Not only do I think that's the best choice McCain could have possibly made, the choice is so good and so intelligent it forces me to reassess my own judgement of McCain as I have said.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive.
False. No book was ever banned or asked to be banned. She asked about her views on banning books during the interview--and she was not fired. In fact, she survived one or two rounds of firings--the usual housecleaning that happens with an administration. She was later pressed out.
She was never asked to ban a single book, nor was her successor. There is no evidence of any book being banned or asked to be banned. Each community has standards for challenging a book being part of the library collection to serve as a check on library actions. It is rare for a challenge to succeed, as it is meant to be successful only where the library buyer has made a serious error in judgment, for example, the purchase of pornography with public funds.
This kind of politics is just as disgusting from the left as from the right. There are legitimate points of contention. There's no need for the cosmetic bullshit.
Could you point us toward a candidate who has? Seriously? Sci & Tech don't register on most politician's agendas ... and when they do they have to be careful. There's no civil rights movement style charisma behind electronic rights AND the money is on the other side.
Seriously. Where's the "Let my People P2P!" speech? Where's the "I have a digital dream" speech? Where's the "Ich bin ein Internetter" speech? Nobody stands up and says: "neutral fiber to every home and to every home a computer!"
So aside from the head of Al Gore in a jar (and his mission to save the moon men) I'd say no politician really "gets" geek issues.
Extremely shallow "technology" analysis...
just superficial mention of "broadband" and "Internet", hardly a vision about TECHNOLOGY, and its underlying basis, SCIENCE.
It is well-known that Palin's position on science is appalling... and she has NO appreciation for the need for the US to INCREASE federal investment in Technology and Science RESEARCH. She would continue the US's backsliding in science and technology relative to the rest of the world. The US used to be the undisputed leader in science/tech... now it is rapidly becoming an also-ran, due to poor investments in science/tech education and R&D.
Palin has demonstrated NO interest in reversing this trend, not even any evidence that she appreciates the issues...
[signature]
It is a "theory", true. Everything purporting to explain things is. And it was discredited, many many times over.
The term "scientific" as applied to theory usually means that a rigorous enough process was followed while constructing it. That is why Creationism is not a "scientific" theory, merely a "theory". But science can discredit all theories, especially those which are not scientific.
The Creationism, was, is and will remain disproved. Period. Only religious lunatics adhere to it, just like it used to be with Flat Earth "theory". The real problem is the abundance of imbecilic knuckle-draggers who figure that "science" is established by those who shout the loudest and whose spittle flies the farthest.
"Presentation" is not what is sought here. "Promotion", complete with multi million dollar brain-addling smoke-and-mirrors campaigns, featuring celebrities, churches, politicians and what not all aimed at confusing students to the point that they are unable to think critically, all so that their brains become fertile ground for a host of other lunacies, is the goal here, as it always was with organized lunacies in lust of power, power built upon control of perceptions of people from the very young age.
The proper acronym is VPILF. That may be hard to pronounce now, but it's just a heartbeat away from PILF!
>Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?
because Internet == tax-funded library?
Because authoritarian censorship crusader == authoritarian censorship crusader.
Promoting that sort of authoritarian crusader politician to higher public office has the inevitable effect of increasing the scope and reach of their censorship-crusade.
Seriously, if she wants to abuse her government powers to keep dangerous or offensive books out of the Wassila public library, do you seriously doubt she's going to see the internet as far more dangerous and far more important to apply government control? All the little children can be damaged and corruped by all the naughty naughty pictures on the internet and all the dangerous dangerous offensive ideas on the internet. She just wants to help parents protect the wee little children against the evil evil people spewing filth and dangerous evil ideas on the internet.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have heard this myth spread by uncountable numbers of people, but just because something is said a lot doesn't make it true.
That is doubly true for creationism.
In order to prove a statement, you need to present a solid proof starting with first principles, followed by provable deductions and ending with a logically following conclusion.
Not really. In science you typically have a pattern of observations and a model that generates the same pattern. The model is typically based on logic (often mathematical logic) but the observations are not absolute. You're never sure that there isn't some observation out there that contradicts your model. You're also never sure that your observations are accurate enough to exclude other models. Also, there are usually multiple models capable of generating exactly the same patterns (hence, Occam's razor).
I have a sister studying at the second highest ranked vet school in this nation. There, she is pursuing a dual vetiranary degree and Ph.D. She does not believe in evolution, but believes in creationism.
Science consists of patterns of observations and models that fit the observations. Some scientists specialize in the observations (experimentalists) and some specialize in the models (the theorists). There are also people who focus on applications of science (engineers and technicians).
A person can do applied and experimental science without knowing the theories in detail but it's hard to be a theorist without knowing the theories in detail. There are certain chemical engineering jobs that could be done without reference to certain aspects of atoms and molecules (e.g. how much insulation do I need for this reaction chamber) and there are certain "biology engineering" jobs (e.g. veterinary medicine) that can be done without reference to certain aspects of evolution.
On the other hand, I have to ask: How does your sister think bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance? God did it? And, more fundamentally, doesn't she sometimes wonder, just a little, why different animals have such similar physiology?
if evolution truly had the bearing on biology that molecules have on chemistry, would we not be having to rewrite all biology, biochem, medical, and vetirinary textbooks just about every month?
If the basics tenant of evolution (common ancestry and natural selection) were disproved then, yes, pretty much all biology related textbooks would have to be rewritten (of course, whatever disproved evolution would mostly likely also disprove creationism). On the other hand, new properties of atoms and molecules are discovered and disproved all the time without the need to rewrite books relating to basic chemistry.
Because at a state level, the people who are involved in electing the people making the decision that will control their lives live in a more constrained area and are smaller in number. I totally agree that the states are too fucking huge, but that doesn't mean the incomprehensible scope of the national level isn't much, much worse.
Now why does she not believe in evolution with all the background that she has? Because she puts the "information" in the Bible higher than everything else?
My humble opinion is that some people are imprinted with a belief system during childhood more than others. I grew up catholic with church every Sunday but at some point of growing up I started to see that the emperor has no clothes.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
However, anybody who knew me would be appalled by the idea of my being one 72 year old heartbeat away from having my finger on the button.
Give me somebody who understands habeas corpus, or the idea of separation of church and state, and who nows how to hire people who can keep up with developments in technology for them while they watch over the enduring and fundamental principles of our democracy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Mod parent informative!
I read some of the postings here and I have one problem with the ongoing discussion.
Firstly, her position to creationism vs. evolution is one argument discussed by the people here. But obviously she, as a politician, is just reflecting her voters ideas.
Secondly, she has only average knowledge about the Internet in technical term. So what? Who cares? She is not implementing or maintaining the thing. So this is of no consequence.
The real problem is, that she is right wing and conservative in her believes. Therefore she will preserve structures. This means:
- A new "culture industry" is not on her mind, she wants to preserve the existing content, music and other media industry.
- Multi cultural views are not on her agenda. And also a restricted view of what should be allowed and what should be punished is part of her. Therefore she will always be for more control of the Internet. If you want a big brother vote for her.
So the tech views are not really important. The thing is, does she allow different ways to life or not.
A static society is going to die, therefore every reasonable person should try to support dynamic aspects in a society.
But in the end it is the US Americans who vote. And I hope they choose better then last time.
but an oil filled tube!!! Several fibers travel along with it.
it teaches us that God, who is supposedly all powerful and all knowing, was not smart enough to develop a dynamic system but had to settle for a static one.
Ah, but it IS a dynamic system. I think those lines in Genesis were meant to tell us that WE are part of the creation plan. That is, God got the ball rolling, and now we're in the partnership and use our talents and abilities to carry things forward.
I sure see a lot of lying on the Republican side too (Obama raising taxes, when he clearly plans to reduce them for 85% of the population)
Yes, because raising taxes on 15% means he's not raising taxes... Er, I mean, only a partial tax raise means no tax raises. Or, uh...
LOOK OVER THERE! A MAYOR AND GOVERNOR FOR VP!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You wouldnt have to rewrite the textbooks on biology or even the ones on human evolution any more often than any other subject. Since the writers of the textbook know theres differences of opinion and present all the different models and the evidence for and against them. Have you ever read a textbook on evolution?
Because it's just a sob-story made for slashdot ?
Like that troll with the corporate guy that goes back from linux to windows, the "developers" are thanking him profusely for that, etc.
Or the asian wife who just want to be his servant, etc, etc.
...that the majority of /. does not approve of the Republican VP nominee??
I find it hard to understand why more folks don't see the US as *seriously* screwed if either Obama/Biden *OR* McCain/Palin wins.
Obama has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
Palin has *minimal* experience to be president, but has great stage presence.
McCain and Biden are both old-boy networkers, both are camera whores, both love the sound of their own voices, both are "old" Washington insiders, both just need to get lost.
Both tickets seem evenly matched... Just like the USA!
With the USA being ideologically split right down the middle -- a situation that I see becoming more and more entrenched with each election -- I wouldn't be surprised if all future elections are decided by a (judicial) coin toss.
The only remarkable difference in the current race is that the Dem's are stuck comparing their #1 candidate to the Rep's #2 candidate - which makes sense because I doubt McCain will make the full four-year term.
I seriously doubt there will ever be a candidate that either party can/will nominate that will be acceptable to a large majority of the country. No more will a candidate win a majority worth bragging about.
Third party candidates have (so far as I can recall) all appeared to be looney and have only the most laughable chance of winning.
I guess the only thing anyone on either side can do is bitch. Here was my $.02 worth (not factored for inflation).
Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...
There, fixed that for you.
What, and you're a psychic now? You can insert that in any statement and it may be true, but can't be proven. What can be demonstrated is pulling out the speeches and writings of all the ex-Presidents. The parent poster at least has some documentation on his side.
I know there's a high incidence of atheism on Slashdot, but Slashdot isn't very representative of the US at all. Hell, the world for that matter.
There's a pretty good line I'll paraphrase from Contact... most of the world believes in a Supreme Being of some kind, and you guys think we all suffer from some sort of mass delusion. Well then, why should we trust you? Why should we take your advice on things like politics?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs"
Yeah, because there was such an exodus when a Southern Baptist preacher was elected in 1976. There was such an exodus when a man backed by the religious right was elected twice in 1980 and 84. There was such a... well, I think you get the point by now.
In short, no one will be leaving the US unless they're a bad sport or a prima donna. Or a drama queen, in this case...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"I think you'll find that this is precisely the problem - education is being replaced with rote learning of stuff "
One, you're wrong. Two, I wish you were right.
Rote learning used to be part and parcel of US education, especially at the middle and high school level. It was absolutely essential. And we chucked it aside starting in the late 1960's in favor of more "organic" learning methods.
And that's precisely why students can't recall important dates, names, places, and events. This is one reason why we're worse at math. This is why we can't recite lines of important poetry anymore.
Rote learning is painful, boring, and hard work. It's also a necessary ingredient in a good, well rounded education, and I'm a bit tired of this faux-hippyish ranting against it. Learning... real learning... isn't all fun and games and personal fulfillment. Like anything else in this world worth achieving, it takes work, and not just the kinds of work we like
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit."
Hyperbole much there, Mr. Scientist Cop?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The article's extrapolation that Palin is pro net-neutrality is really drawing a long bow. The only thing it's based on is a completely irrelevant point that she started a bidding process for an infrastructure project, something that's pretty much a pre-requisite to not being corrupt. How you can go from "bidding process" to "she may be in favor of not having any one provider be given preference to build out broadband pipes to a specific area" like the article has is beyond me.
While I'm sympathetic to some of your argument, I'm dead set against other parts.
"Another restriction on freedom that's absolutely essential for a free society is mandatory education. Without education, the population does not develop critical thinking skills and falls prey to the first charismatic demagogue that comes along."
First, we (the US in particular) were a free society long before schooling was mandatory. Add to that the fact that even in the most free countries, education isn't a guarantee of good judgement (or "critical thinking", in your parlance). So education does not equal democracy... or for that matter, good judgement, as I said before. Consider that you still have Marxist "critical theory" types in the university system that say they're teaching critical thinking, but are mostly chucking dogma at their students.
Timothy McVeigh went to mandatory schools. The London Tube Bombers had a fine education. The followers of Jim Jones and Charles Manson all had to go to school. Mandatory schooling didn't seem to help their defenses against charisma and demagoguery. The people in 1930's Germany were pretty well educated compared to most populations, very advanced by the standards of the day. It didn't seem to help their judgment much. Sorry, I think the education=judgment is mostly a fallacy.
"Critical Thinking" is one of those things that we can try to teach... like public speaking or etiquette or ballroom dancing... and it just comes to some people better than others, and it doesn't necessarily have to come from a book or teacher, just an inborn sense of skepticism. In short, skeptical people in school were likely skeptical before they ever walked through the classroom doors. Skepticism, and thus "critical thinking" tends to be a personality trait, not necessarily a learned skill.
As far as charismatic demagogues,
"These things are restrictions on freedom, and for everyone's good."
And those restrictions have to be kept to a minimum, or it's not freedom anymore.
"Not only should school attendance be required, but private schools should be audited to ensure that their curriculum at least resembles reality."
We've had this thing called "accreditation" for quite some time now. And even if you didn't go to an accredited school, we have other ways to measure competence in learning... exit exams, the GED, etc.
"The more people are deluded by things like creationism and homeopathy, the weaker our democracy becomes."
Rubbish. One, we're not a democracy, we're a republic that simply uses democratic methods to govern. Two, if someone believes that a pill will make their penis larger, or that a magnet will take their pain away, the Constitution says they're still citizens with rights. The Constitution says nothing about them having to have a strong scientific education in order to keep those rights and vote their leaders in. In fact, the Constitution says nothing about requiring schooling at all. Because many of our forefathers couldn't even read.
Our country... our system... is about inalienable rights. Look up the word inalienable and get back to me.
Lastly, not only do I not agree with you that we should have some Orwellian standard for accrediting institutions, frankly, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we'd appreciate education more if it wasn't mandatory. Right now, kids (and I include us when we were young as well) consider mandatory school a chore, work, a bore... something to be forced upon them and endured, and not appreciated. Simply put, things aren't appreciated if they're free. Furthermore, "free things" that are forced upon us are resented.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
She wouldn't go thru the "formal book challenging process"? Why is there one in the first place. What happened to the 1st amendment?
I don't care if you are offended or not, that doesn't give you the right to remove a book from the *public* library. If it offends you then don't f-ing read it!!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Fired a librarian who refused to ban books at Palin's request. The librarian got her job of many years back after the towns people made a fuss.
Wants creationism taught is public schools.
And this psycho could be the President?? WTF!
I wonder if her flesh will burn when she swears on a Bible to protect and defend the US Constitution.
While this topic is about technology, this is nonetheless an interesting article, concerning her attitude to the environment, corruption and more;
Go here.
I don't come from the US, but the thought that she could quite easily become President, well, the thought is a scary one.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
Three times Palin when to the librarian trying to censor books
She asked only, IF ASKED, would the librarian pull books. She didn't even mention any books specifically - and this from the very article! Are you so dense you cannot see beyond your own hatred to read the words on the screen?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A link to a hyperventilating opinion piece on exaggerated problems with her environmental record has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the stance of Palin on technological issues. No respectable news organization would run a piece so full of spin and hyperbole outside of the opinion section, and the fact that this piece is in the news section shows a lack of integrity on the part of the independent.
I was giving a laundry list of reasons she isn't a libertarian. "Social conservative" was one of them and "expanded the size of government" was a separate one, not necessarily related to the first one except in the sense that both are anti-libertarian positions.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The DC totals include spending on things like the White House, since it happens to be located in DC (you might recall that it's the federal capital).
Comparing Alaska to the other 49 states, which also don't have a federal capital located in them, would be more meaningful, and on that measure Alaska is pretty pork-infested.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"I have to ask: How does your sister think bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance? God did it?"
Yes. That's what she would tell you. She would even go further and tell you how this trick works: a tiny fraction of the bacteria population were resistant from the very beginning. Then, you expose the population to the antibiotic and all non resistant individuals die but the resistant ones multiply. After a time, all the population is built up from the resistant ancestors. Easy.
"why different animals have such similar physiology?"
Even easier: That's because all of them come from the same author, the Intelligent Designer! No surprise all the creations of an author share a common "inspiration". On the other hand, believing on creationism doesn't mean believing on the "...and the seventh day He rested" tale. Maybe the Designer did create main phylla and allowed them to evolute from there on (I think it's probably much more fun that way).
"If the basics tenant of evolution (common ancestry and natural selection) were disproved then, yes, pretty much all biology related textbooks would have to be rewritten"
Bullshit. If evolution were to be discredited, it certainly would dramatically change the way we see the world surrounding us, but the vast amount of the scientific biology-related literature could go basically unchanged since most of it is just descriptive: the inner organization of a cell as observed is not going to change because god made it the way it is instead of evolution. That's exactly why the sister of the grandparent poster can be a creationist and still being a productive vet (that I think it's amazing for a PhD on a science degree to believe on creationism is quite a different story).
From your own link:
"Wasilla responds
Also, the city of Wasilla has issued a response to the multiple requests for information about "banned or censured" books at the Wasilla Library during Palin's mayoralty. "We have no records of any books being 'banned or censured' ever, the city states, describing the systematic process that unfolds when a library cardholder requests the reconsideration of a library item.
Before 1986, one challenged book was placed in a new Young Adult section. Subsequently, three books, one in each of 1986, 2005, and 2007, were challenged, and each remained on the shelf. Palin's mayoralty was from 1996-2002."
I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian, hoping that Palin will be at the top of the ticket in four years.
Yeah, that seems really likely. I dunno, McCain doesn't seem as healthy as his mother does.
I'm thinking of it as the Old Man - Palin 2008 ticket.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
who modded parent offtopic. please explain how the above is offtopic. i may be mistaken, but are we talking about bees and flowers here ?
Read radical news here
Sarah Palin ain't no Joe Biden. Side-show Joe I know very well from his 36 years in the Senate.
Joe Biden was arrogant and dismissive and went all "PHB" on a proud black woman with something to say in 1991 when Joe Biden chaired the committee in the Senate that got Clarence Thomas confirmed (as a favor to a Republican president, GeoHWBush.).
Thomas, after Biden voted for him, went on to decide the Florida 2000 Election that got the world Bush-II. Biden also got labeled (falsely?) as a woman-hater as the Thomas confirmation was the most contentious in Supreme Court history.
IT folks are people first. Joe fails that test. Sarah seems to be human, so she exceeds Joe Biden in that test, too.
The cunt need to get back in the kitchen and make me a pie. BITCH!
your post seems like a conservative bullshit, than what you speak of having any chance of 'liberal' press trying to block obama opponents.
Read radical news here
and gives one more experience than being a community leader in an impoverished urban neighborhood
I think you mean "community organizer". Which was Obama's job for a few years in the 80's before he went to law school. He's a career lawyer at a big firm, then politician - a brief stint after college isn't how most people would measure their presidential qualifications.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... a passionate, lame-ass, democrat who doesn't even have the balls to rebel against evil; who calls good bad and bad good; who's only sense of satisfaction comes from making everyone else as miserable as herself.
excuse me,but give me a polar state twice the size of alaska with 600.000 total people, and a budget that is overflowing with taxes from oil, always in surplus, and even i will run that state without my pants on. thats no qualification. the commissioner of my neighborhood district has more 'experience' than that woman, it thats any experience. experience is running stuff when things are tough and people oppose you. winning them over. not making enemies. making friends out of enemies. all these describe obama. not palin, who, at the first instant of her nomination speech, started attacking obama, the same guy who told his supporters that her family was off the limits. if it was 20 years ago, liberal press would have palin to bits, saying that how could this woman be trusted with conservative ideals and keep the country in check, if she were not able to get ahold of her kids.
let me tell you as a foreigner - we dont like 'cowboys' or 'hockey' moms (whatever the fuck that is) as presidents/vps/prime ministers of any country in the world. this earth is a small neighborhood. and noone likes an annoying, blunderous, aggressive neighbor.
basically, let me put it this way - you have chosen a total retard as president for the last 8 years. he has brought down the world relations and disrupted the established balance so badly that, we are in an economic crisis as of now. he estranged previous allies and trading partners, and now those partners are trading with other countries, than trading with u.s.. when we add the total irresponsibility that is the negligence of regulating the financial sector in u.s. causing them go haywire and employing dangerous schemes to the extent of fucking up the entire economy, and as a result world economy, u.s. is in a huge depression than the world is.
hockey mom, schmockey mom. if you choose morons like that again, the world will shove your choice in your butts.
no, excuse me, there is going to be no 'this is a free country' shit and whatnot. this world IS a small neighborhood, and you are just another neighbor in it. you cant fuck around as you please. your freedoms end where others' freedoms begin.
Read radical news here
SUPPORTING something is as good as pushing it. if your superiors support something, you, as an education commissioner, can come up with a plan to establish creationism in schools. from the courage you get from your superior.
Read radical news here
> Alaska is over 5 times as large as Arizona -- Alaska has a land area of 570,380 square miles, Arizona has 113,634 square miles.
Now there's a BS comparison. Does the undeveloped landmass need extra money or something? We have Phoenix (5th largest US city) down here, after all, and a border they're trying to fence off (in case you've forgotten).
At least you calculate per capita spending later, but you don't compare Alaska's per capita to anything but DC's.
If you want to make an argument, find out where they rank with the other states per capita.
Also, don't forget that they have the Alaska Permanent Fund, which paid $1,654 of welfare to everyone who has been there over a year. They love Palin because she increased that by about $500 in one year.
And don't forget! They take in $1.87 in federal money for every dollar they pay in taxes. Combined with the Permanent Fund, I think you CAN call them a "welfare state."
Just don't compare apples to oranges (you shifted from comparing Alaska in pure dollars to Arizona to comparing Alaska per capita to DC ... don't just tell us "but they're not the worst!").
Republican Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens is one of the most prolific in terms of getting earmarks. His Bridge to Nowhere is McCain's favorite example of pork. And Palin was for it before she was against it.
secularism was brought upon turkey by force, and it allowed turkey to transform into a modern country from the pathetic ashes that was the ottoman empire of the 20st century.
you need it in america too. proposing creationism to be taught in schools, is an indicator that how haywire things have gone.
Read radical news here
this is offtopic but important...
it seems like GOP trolls have taken over moderation in the thread my comment started. My post was definitely on topic, and definitely based on fact and personal insight. When it was originally posted, I was moderated up "insightful" then other moderators took me down to troll-0. The fact is, I talked about palin's policy positions relating to technology, which is on-topic and not trolling. I was strong in my language, yes, but my comments were based on fact.
Now, if you look at the responses to my parent comment, several pro-Palin (or anti-Obama) comments that have NOTHING to do with technology are modded up. Also, several comments supporting my parent comment are modded down. This is unacceptable, but not unexpected unfortunately.
I'm tempted to say what I think. I see GOP or Repug. trolls who are using their mod. points to suppress any comment they deem unflattering to their cause. It's not a two way street. On /. I've noticed that GOP and Neo-Con loyalist sheeple are willing to moderate ANYTHING they disagree with down, OTOH, the Ron Paul supporters, Independents, and Democrats are showing in their comments a wilingness to discuss the reality of the situation, based on the facts. Sure there are Ron Paul trolls, Indep. trolls, and Obama trolls...but never on /. have I seen one small group so willing to throw fair minded behavior aside in order to silence anyone that doesn't say exactly what they are comfortable with hearing.
I'm tempted to say that...but I know I'd get modded down again by GOP hyper-trolls. Go ahead. My karma can take it...can yours?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Lincoln made a point as president to fill his cabinet with his political rivals. Every one of them from the VP on down had campaigned against him and, at the start, did not wish him well. By and large his enemies (except for Jefferson Davis) were closer than his friends.
It's a testament to his skill and personal charm that he managed not only to win their backing but to earn their respect, a respect that, whatever you say about his politics, did make them an effective team.
"If you're dumb surround yourself with smart people, and if you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."
And it was discredited, many many times over.
How? and please don't say "carbon dating", that only proves that numbfucks who take everything in their particular traduction of the Bible literally are, in fact, numbfucks. Which has been known by the world since the Crusades at least.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Are you for real? Are you really expecting me to launch into a multi-volume dissertation on the evidence encompassing planetary history, geophysics, evolutionary record etc etc etc right here in this thread?
Bars open until 5am and tons of amp???? Really?...
I may have to vote Republican this time...
Well, you've all done creationism to death, so I won't dwell on that lack of critical thinking she displays on that topic.
Meanwhile, she also doesn't beleive in global warming, despite the evidence to the contrary, etc, etc.
Thats two important topics on which she is wrong.
'Palin' is Michael Palin. For all lesser and later namesakes, please be more specific.
He probably he is JS Mill-esque Liberal, which seems to equate to an American Libertarian. Do you have anything but right-wing politics over there anyway?
As an American politician, let's be fair that this candidate you speak of is just another pragmatic power-grabber, too dull to be productive, so damned to be a front for her financial backers. As such, she'll believe in precisely nothing, and say what she thinks will win votes (if that's still a requirement in America).
Yes. Because I want to see how knowing that dinosaurs evolved from fish in any way *proves* that our world wasn't designed by intelligent beings, which is the core belief of ID. Not, as some people around here think, that everything in the Bible is true, that's Catholic fundamentalism, a completely different brand of stupidity.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
The internet may not be a big truck, but at least she would know how to drive it if it was.
american nationalism is as bad as chinese, russian nationalism. preferring to ignore what kind of reactions your actions and your stupid choices in regard to who runs your country have won you the enmity of the world, and its a continuing trend apparently. modding down cold hard truth or objecting to it wont change your fortunes even a little bit.
Read radical news here
& probably is.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
It, combined with biochemistry, genetics and a host of other disciplines proves, rather conclusively, that humans evolved along other animals. And this what the core "belief" of the the US-brand "creationism" (or "ID") we are discussing here is riled up against, not the theoretical origins of the Universe. When the word "creationism" is used in the context of the US politics it does mean literal Bible interpretation, 6000 year old Earth, Eve from Adam's rib and wild "conclusions" such as Jesus in a saddle on a dinosaur etc etc etc. That is so because the most deranged lunatics are also the most politically active in the USA, and unfortunately very numerous, proportionally far, far more so then in Europe for example.
That meaning of the term "creationism" (which in the US political context means not only "anti-evolution" but also "Biblical literalism") seems to confuse a lot of people apparently, yourself included.
Washington DC is also an anomaly because it's where the Federal Government is headquartered. It's also NOT A STATE.
If you compare Alaska to other states (in terms of *people* not landmass), you'll find that it's 20x the per capita average.
You're pretty good at making statistics lie, though. But landmass doesn't need money, and the "takes in $1.87 for every dollar it pays" (while running a huge government give-away program) is NOT what any normal person would call "libertarian."
If Alaska were run by Democrats, people would call the state Socialist.
But it seems obvious to me it's not harmful to teach, for it can also serve as an introduction to the scientific method and explanations about why it's not a theory in the scientific sense.
Why not just teach the scientific method and leave it at that. If someone does bring up the question, it would be appropriate to explain why it isn't science. But otherwise, why mention it at all? That's just asking for a controversy to erupt, and given how "sensitive" religion is, I'm pretty sure the science teacher won't be on the winning side. It's hard enough to teach knowledge when parents are already so opposed to teaching knowledge they don't know.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I see the usual crew are out in force here on Slashdot. Palin is a Republican, so she must be evil. CNN Even said so. (or at least Michael Moore did.)
Once more, the extent of ignorance and blind hatred here is staggering. Oh well, at least Slashdotters don't vote. That might require logging off the net.
She has the highest approval rating EVER in Alaska. Even her enemies grant that. There might be a reason. I don't think the 10% that is serious about 'creationism' could swing that. So, why don't all you guys find out something real about a person before trashing them?
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot. That's never going to happen.
At least most of you will change your politics after you graduate. If you graduate.
Why are you intimidated by strong, independent women? Because of Palin, for the first time in my life I feel proud of my country.
10th amendment of the constitution, what the lawmakers swear to uphold - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Marriage, Education, Abortion, etc should all be a state level issue
Vote for her if you are in favor of more dumbing down of America
Karl Rove and his people?
And what does that have to do with the fact that she wanted to ban dozens of books?