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.

Comments

Hello... Evolution?

[Ecuador]

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.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[Cairnarvon]

Is that supposed to be insightful? By the same token it's pointless to discuss her stances on technology-related matters because she doesn't single-handedly write and enforce every single law.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[RightSaidFred99]

They should teach it, but it should be in a "world religions" class and not taught as science as it's just a bunch of stories made by the ancients to explain things they didn't understand. So teach it in a class about make believe things people in the olden days believed.

The Bible, like it or not, has had a huge impact on the world and shouldn't be ignored. Really if you're not at least passingly familiar with the bible you're uneducated. So schools shouldn't just skip it altogether, they should teach it as a piece of literature, along with the Koran, the writings of Marx and Lenin, and other shit that has had a huge impact (good or bad) on history.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[zoogies]

Palin sounds so very reasonable when she says those things. Fact is, she believes creationism is an alternative theory on equal grounding with evolution. Psh. "Healthy debate is so important." Hah.

There's no debate here: evolution is biology, creationism is not.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[modmans2ndcoming]

Teaching non-science in a science class is not healthy debate.

The debate belongs in a philosophy class.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[Tubal-Cain]

yet she does not believe in evolution

I think she may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Most people do.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[kanweg]

Well, I'm one of those people living outside the US borders not worth counting if we get shot because the US must be defended 8000 miles away, and WE are concerned when a (vice) president chooses to ignore facts just because there is something else he/she'd like to believe. Powerful people starting wars because they think their supreme being would like that or just because they have created an environment in which scare mongering over WMD can flourish scares the shit out of us. Your last regime caused tens of thousands of deaths among inhumans, and over 3000 patriots because of that.

A tendency not to want to hear facts is NOT something we'd like to see. Thank you.

Bert

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

And honestly, teaching creationism, evolution or that we all ended up here from the decedents of an alien race, doesn't affect the country much.

Evolution is to biology is what molecules are to chemistry. You really can't teach biology in any meaningful way without evolution.

I don't know what's scarier: the possibility that Palin doesn't understand this or the possibility that she does actually understand this but she doesn't care.

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.

Personally, I think it's important for the USA to stay competitive scientifically - but it seems that a lot of Republicans don't agree.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[QuoteMstr]

I'm sorry, but no. A civilization cannot stand while allowing absolute liberty. We accept certain restrictions so that we may continue to have a society. Murder is illegal. Rape is illegal. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded room. These things are restrictions on freedom, and for everyone's good.

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.

Allowing parents to send their children to schools that refuse to teach the facts is equivalent to allowing them to not educate their children at all. Both are unconscionable for a variety of reasons. Not only should school attendance be required, but private schools should be audited to ensure that their curriculum at least resembles reality. The more people are deluded by things like creationism and homeopathy, the weaker our democracy becomes.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Of course it does affect the country! Teaching superstitious beliefs in schools (be it the creationism or the Van Daeniken blithering) makes the country (resp. it's residents) dumber and even more ignorant of science.

Want to teach your kids religion? Fine, send them to church. But leave it out of schools!

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Although it may garner some lolz from those who agree with you, associating your opponent's stance with straw men does not make your argument any stronger.

I did nothing of the sort. Flat Earth nutbars and Creationist nutbars have equal weight in the realm of science. Flat Earth Theory and Crationism are nearly identical in their lack of evidence in support of these "theories" and their opposition theories have veritable mountains of evidence on their side, cross-referenced across a multitude of scientific disciplines.

The only difference between Creationism and Flat Earth is that the most proponents of Flat Earth simply died out, cluctching to their "Truth" until their last breath, leaving a pitiful band of lunatics to carry their mantle. Creationists are still abundant and their bone-headed fight with the rock of the obvious still goes on. But, as such things go, it will be their skulls which crack before the rock gives out, just as it was for the Flat Earthers ...

The reason I did such a substitution is because Creationists abhor when they are being exposed for what they are, and will do everything in their power to cloak themselves in pretense of "respectability", as if such posturing somehow gave weight to their abject lunacy.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Your argument is invalid even if true because it is position independent(*). Take anything anyone has said about anything and you can make their argument sound silly by replacing the nouns just as you have. This is a form of begging the question (because it relies on an implicit analogy who's validity depends on the conclusion), with a touch of ad-hominem and a dab of snobbery (by assuming that alternative conclusions can only be reached by ignorance).

No it is not since I did not replace the terms at random. I did replace Creationism with another equally scientifically discredited "theory". Not some random view.

While it sounds like a witty and compelling recrimination of flat earth believers, it can be used against anyone by inserting "round earth believer", "religious", "atheist" or whatever

That only applies to random and unwarranted substitutions.

(*) Positions independence implies truth independence since some positions are true and others false in a non-trivial consistent logic. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the formal name for this fallacy.

That is because such fallacy does not exist. The validity depends on what you are substituting with what.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[Alsee]

I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it.

Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit.

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"?

There is political controversy over evolution, there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no scientific controversy over evolution. You are suggesting we should bring in flat-earth textbooks into science class and "debate" the issue.

Lets take a concrete look at what we are talking about here, a concrete look at how your proposed education and "debate" would have to go:

It's science class, we teach what the Second law of thermodynamics says, and we teach what it means. We teach that the 2nd law of thermo says that the average entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases, or at best stays constant. We teach the significance of the word "average" in there - that it means that one party of the system can become more ordered if some other part of the system becomes even more disordered to "pay" for that increase in order. Then we also teach the meaning and importance of "a closed system", we teach that if outside energy comes into the system, that energy can be used to do work and can pay for the work to create an increase in order in the system. We then teach a variety of common examples where nature spontaneously produces order out of chaos. We show how a flowing river will automatically separate, sort, and organize different size pebbles. We cover how chaotic disordered water atoms automatically form into complex highly ordered snowflakes. We cover how the sun provides energy to do work on earth melting and forming snowflakes. We cover how energy from the sun can do work to increase order on earth, and how increases in order are *not* a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

We then "teach both sides" of the evolution issue.... we bring in a standard science textbook to teach evolution. Then then we bring in an anti-evolution textbook to teach "the other side". And in that anti-evolution textbook they present arguments such as "evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics". It teaches that evolution involves an increase in order and information, and it teaches that that is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And then you let the students engage in a "debate" on the evolution issue.

And during that debate one student remembers the snowflake example, that student points out that the anti-evolution textbook is wrong for claiming that increases in order and complexity is impossible. Points out that the anti-evolution textbook was wrong in it's claimed proof against evolution. That student points out that the anti-evolution textbook did not correctly understand the science of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, points out that the anti-evolution textbook gets the science wrong. That the textbook is filled with errors and misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Then a second student stands up to argue the other side. A student who did not understand the lesson on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That student misunderstands it and makes errors. That student presents an invalid argument filled with errors and misunderstandings.

You then give the first student an A and you flunk the second student.

That is how a "scientific debate" on evolution has to go in a legitimate science class. All of the "scientific" arguments against evolution are based on misunderstandings or ignorance errors or misrepresentations or the like.

A science classroom debate on evolution is no different than such a debate on chemistry. In science class they can only end the exact same way.

Also, many Christian schools do teach evolution as well. Some call it a the

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[PopeRatzo]

I think she may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Most people do.

And, she's confusing the bible with science.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[Miseph]

Because if they don't, their political opponents will, and they will use this difference oif position as leverage.

US churches are, despite laws and tradition supposedly preventing this, highly political organizations which wield a great deal of clout at both the local and federal level. The Evangelical movement, in particular, has become perhaps the single largest and most influential voting bloc in US history, and has aligned itself very strongly with the Republican Party and neo-conservative politics.

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[UncleTogie]

Evolution relegates mankind to the level of an animal and when we consider ourselves animals there isn't any sin anymore; people can then feel like they can do anything without consequence.

"Sin" is a relative term, depending on the religion [or lack of] that you believe in. What's "moral" or "right" by the lights of one religion may very well be heresy in another.

As for taking actions "without consequence", there's almost invariably a consequence, whether it's immediately evident or not. Have a look at Kohlberg's stages of moral development for details. Note there's no mention of religion in that article.

Just try to consider that being a Christian does NOT necessarily mean "blind belief".

Re:Hello... Evolution?

[TheRealJFM]

Exactly! It seems like so many of the problems in political and media debate about science are caused by a total lack of understanding about what a good method is, and what isn't a good method.

I've just finished reading the excellent Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, a book which really hammers down where all the misconceptions about science and medicine come from in a few specific British examples.

Basically, politicians and journalists want there to be two sides to every story, a "for" and an "against". Therefore the people promoting creationism, or the belief that homeopathy works, or whatever other example are printed in the same standing as people who are just talking basic sense.

Science is complicated to understand, and ordinary people (and doctors!) have to rely upon other people to collate and conclude on all available data. Our newspapers and governments should be providing a sensible properly worked-out conclusion on science stories, not taking the lazy option of equally weighted "he said, she said" stories that treat people who believe Vitamin C can cure HIV, or that special water cures cancer as legitimate.

All this just makes science seem confusing and casts doubt upon scientific method. While individual theories can be argued, doubted, tested, or whatever (that's the point) - the basic idea of "evidence based" science is undoubtedly the best way to do things. Seems sad we're still arguing about this after more than a hundred years of Darwinism, doesn't it?

Does it matter?

[CSMatt]

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?

Re:Does it matter?

[martinw89]

McCain is 72 and has had cancerous growths. Obama is 47 with a good health record.

NO

[je ne sais quoi]

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.

Bleh

[tnk1]

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.

Re:Creationism == dumb God

[arthurpaliden]

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.

its more about the reality of modern politics

[thermian]

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.

No you don't.

[khasim]

We learn as much from mistakes as correct actions. (More in some cases)

Really? So how does a student see a "mistake" after learning Creationism? What does said student "learn" from that "mistake"?

Seriously, you can teach the difference without saying "Your wrong and have no business being here."

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.

Do you know how few people can tell the difference between a theory and faith?

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?

Re:Hello - Libertarian?

[toadlife]

It ain't libertarian if you support the Republican governance platform. It is mild fascism.

The vibe I get from the current RNC platform is that of nationalism.

"Country First" was heir big theme at the convention and it was creepy to me.

That itself shows a weak understanding of science

[SuperKendall]

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.

Bullshit.

[DaveV1.0]

This is not "Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues". This is "What BetaNews thinks Sarah Palin's Stance on Technology Issues are".

Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town.

[Toonol]

...fish, lumber or gold. These are also things that will eventually disappear...

Well, you got one out of three.

USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale

[pallmall1]

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.

Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale

[RicoX9]

Your numbers are generic. There is no split of Federal funding on a per-capita basis from what is spent ON the Federal facilities and historic landmarks, defense, etc in the District of Columbia. It isn't a fair comparison when your source number is just a "X$ spent" globule.

As other posters have noted, the fact that they get more per capita than any other STATE (DC not being a state), and are rolling in so much cash that they send citizens a check every year, is a criminal waste of our money.

Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin

[shmlco]

If someone thinks that "god" is talking directly to them, then we need to find them a nice little padded room so they can do no harm to themselves nor to others.

And if "god" wants a pipeline then He can damn well snap His fingers and whip it up Himself. Should be no problem whatsoever for someone who can create an entire universe in a mere six days...

Re:Internet in Alaska

[Oligonicella]

Well, FUD to you too. The jet was draining the budget, jets require on-going maintenance, even if parked. Getting rid of it saved money. It depreciated, hence the 600K drop from purchase. Where did you find the market value and did you consider transportation? Good spin, though.

Re:feels silly

[dcroxton]

You should feel silly, for making such a joke of a comment. You pre-emptively call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, yet your post is full of completely unsupported assertions about Palin's supposed inability to make independent decisions. If her background says anything, it is that she does not just do what she is told.

Re:feels silly

[mrseth]

Here's one measure of "readiness" to be president: The ability to face the press. Where is Palin on the Sunday talk shows? She is missing (we do not see Obama hiding from the press). This is highly unusual for a VP candidate. If that Kilkenny letter has any truth in it (and it appears to be legit at first blush), she has a lot to answer for on her record, and our country is in great danger if this person ever gets put into power. I think we have had enough of authoritarians already. I get the impression that she is a female Cheney or Nixon.

Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin

[TheRaven64]

God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies

I think that one quote sums if in a single sentence everything that's wrong with the Republican party's current ideals.

Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town.

[ravenshrike]

Considering that the vast majority of American(possibly all, but I'm not certain) logging companies specifically plant their own supply to avoid deforestation and much of Alaskan salmon(Not all by any means, but a quite sizable portion) is grown in fisheries, you're barking up the wrong tree on those. Yes gold is limited, but I'm pretty sure they know that and they also know it's completely non-renewable.

Rote Learning

[DesScorp]

"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

Re:Presidential belief in God

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Anyone who votes for candidates because they say they have 'faith' is a moron.

1. Belief in God has nothing to with whether a person has the attributes for leadership.

2. True people of faith don't wear their faith on their sleeves and brag about it; they walk humbly, respect and honor other human beings, and never assume that their 'faith' makes them better than someone else or that their faith is right while someone else's is wrong.

No I am not a 'psychic'. But I am an intelligent consumer. And I don't buy bull.