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.
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
The key here is healthy debate. While I think creationism is not even worth being called science, what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it. The US education system needs to teach critical thinking and you can not teach critical thinking by ignoring or banning things you disagree with.
Another action that is a very big plus for the next Vice President of the U.S. is directly from the article you linked.
But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.
This is perhaps the best part of the article. She made a pledge and has kept. Unlike so many other politicians who make campaign pledges such as Obama's choice to not accept Federal matching funds and the limits that come with them or McCain's pledge to not fly on corporate jets.
So she has been honest with her opinion and at the same time kept her word.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
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
I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings.
It is in at my university. I attend Wheaton College (IL) and most, if not all of the science faculty (not sure about the rest) "believe in" macroevolution and are also hold to old earth theories (as do I).
The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money. Some affluent parents have chosen to send their children to religious schools where they may or may not teach 6-day creationism, and that is fine and dandy for them. Unfortunately, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents who are not as affluent, so their children are stuck in whatever government school they are zoned for. Thus, "teach both" really isn't a lasting solution because someone is always going to complain about one side or the other, let alone the church/state issues about which people will complain. The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children. People will still complain but they may choose to send there children to a different school.
Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not. A large reason private schools exist is to escape and rise above the government monopoly and bureaucracy.
Hope this helps. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or even be unfriendly.
Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
There is a simple example where it is easier to see. Consider the joke "intellectually honest, grasping basic science, and a flat earth believer; you can be any two but not all three".
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.
(*) 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.
Her daughter was not the only one fooling around before wedlock, count the weeks between her marriage and first born and the first born was not born pre-mature.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
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.
If oil were to shut down tomorrow, Alaska would be hurting, but it wouldn't become like a 3rd world nation or anything - it would continue to have a steady source of revenue.
Yeah. In the form of welfare from the federal government.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
You know, one of the things that many students have problems with is the ability to think critically (hence the prevalence of many stupid beliefs). That's why I'm in favor of teaching creationism. Have the student's cross examine it with evolution and see what they come up with! Seriously, why try and shelter the students from such a popular belief instead teaching them about it and all the intricacies behind it? Get them to think critically and make rational arguments. If all that is to be gained by teaching creationism is to show that there is little to no evidence behind it, it would still be a worthwhile endeavor.
And BTW, go ahead and teach Flat Earth Theory.
Have students cross examine it with Spherical Earth Theory and then show them how to prove the latter.
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.
where did god come from to "just happen"?
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."
What's this got to do with the technology decisions made by Palin? Every one of the US leaders has believed in a Supreme Being since the inception when it gained independence. It has maintained roughly the same 'regime' ever since, has has caused millions of deaths as well as saving millions of lives. You don't say where this 8,000 miles away is, but there is a good chance it benefited from the alliance of the US during the second world war.
And what is this 'we'? You don't speak for every person outside of the US.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
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.
Ah, but they each have a different creation story, which is very frequently one that is incompatible with either creationism or intelligent design. Many have mankind springing or gods springing from food items, or being created by talking animals, or any number of ways that don't fit with an intentional creator, or with the creation story told in creationism.
Just because the word creation or intelligent design is used doesn't make it anything like most of the religions in the world. And that makes it an establishment of religion.
Ryan Fenton
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.
No, but she IS opposed to sex education, contraception (obviously), unemployment insurance, Social Security, funding for stem cell research, public education, universal health care, alternative energy sources.
She also fired her town's librarian for refusing to allow Palin to ban books.
Ms. Palin is a dumb bimbo who loves power. We've had one of those in the White House for the past 7 years. As a smart man said a few weeks ago: "Enough!".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Even speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with teaching *about* creationism, different religions, etc. because it never hurts to have knowledge of other methods of thinking. (Frex, in my junior high anthro class, we learned about ancient Egyptian gods. What's wrong with knowing about that??)
However, I would have a problem with any of them being taught as Correct Thought.
As to stances on technology, I found this more disturbing than Palin's lack of same:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Where_does_Joe_Biden_stand_on_technology_issues/1219872202
"Biden's pro-business stance is evident in his efforts to expand copyright legislation, often siding with the entertainment industry. His pen has produced significant pro-copyright legislation, and most notably in 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a tougher stance on those who commit copyright infringement."
OTOH, this is noteworthy (from TFA of today):
"[Palin] used the Internet to make Alaska government more transparent. 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 see shining a bright light on how gov't spend our tax dollars as a GOOD thing.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Just try to consider that being a Christian does NOT necessarily mean "blind belief".
I never said it does mean that. I see evidence every day all around me that we aren't here by accident and that the whole environment (terrestrial and non-) is here for us instead of us being here because of it. I don't need blind faith/belief when I already have evidence right in front of me. Those who choose to interpret that evidence differently for their own agendas (1) are the ones who should be reconsidering what they think.
1) What agenda would I have for believing what I do? I'm not in a position of power to influence others.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
If I were a woman I'd be insulted.
Can almost see the discussion that went on:
"What do we need to seal this deal... a woman? Find me some random pair of tits and tell her to shut up and do what she's told."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe She's amazingly qualified and has no skeletons which republicans would normally run screaming from (say a pregnant daughter for example).
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
As for "mandatory indoctrination": we're not talking about matters of opinion here. Nobody is going to indoctrinate students into thinking that Faulkner is better than Geothe. We're talking about objective facts, and yes, mandatory "indoctrination" of reality is both a legitimate and a desirable goal of government.
When you get kids at a young age you can teach them how they are expected to act and think.
History is completely subjective although it is taught as fact.
Literature, Music, and art can be censored and ignored if it is art the government thinks is threatening or wrong.
Please look at the Chinese educational system and tell us again how public indoctrination in public education isn't possible and how only facts are taught. Their college students don't even know that the Tiananmen Square Protests even occurred. When you give the state power the people in charge will almost without fail abuse their power.
Einstein hated traditional education, maybe he was for ignorance as others in this thread have said? The government is almost always the worst choice when you want quality, not even considering people's liberties which you seem to place on a low pedestal.
Additionally, how you can stand up for a system with zero accountability poor results with gobs of money thrown at the problem is beyond me. You're assertions that we must improve our educational system are pointless. People have been saying this since the 70's and our schools haven't gotten any better as we've spent more and more money.
Usually students who get F's don't get to advance. The Federal Government has expected us to put up with decades of D's and F's. It's about time we try another approach that doesn't involve the command and control of the Federal Government.
Dude you are a spaz!
First your morals of right or wrong is actually completely social based. Case in point, steal in Islam countries hand is coped. Muslim countries allow multiple wives. I am not saying that Islam and Muslim are wrong since that would be saying I am right and they are wrong. It is my point to illustrate to you that there is no absolute right or wrong.
Ever watch a wolf pack? dog packs? Or how about an elephant herd? They have some pretty amazing morals and right vs wrong.
We keep multiple dogs and there are some very interesting morals...
1) the female in the pack when outside the house typically does not greet the dogs first, the alpha dog does.
2) If the alpha dog disapproves of contact with another dog, then the pack will not greet the dog.
3) One dog will always remain on alert and on noise will start storming around.
4) When one dog of the pack is injured or scared the other dogs will attack or storm the problem - This one actually amazed me...
When you keep a single dog the normal dog behaviors seem "gone". I think most people don't understand the "morals" or socialization of a the dog world. Yet if you raise multiple dogs from pups in a pack with your family they are completely different.
Christian
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Bullshit. Every parent has the right to teach, or not teach, their children whatever they choose. This is one of the components of parenting. And, for that matter, you do not have the right to live in a society of $classification. You have the right to live in society. If you don't like this country, pick a different one, or try to convince people in this one to change it. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like that don't hurt anyone.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
--Obama
This is the viewpoint on religion that earned my vote.
The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.
Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.
So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.
--Obama
This is why he earned my vote on technology. It was recorded 2 years ago, so he isn't just acting nice for the election.
He was fighting against the war since not long after it started (I can forgive being blinded by the situation, everyone was.)
I'm not going to say I agree with all of his views... immigration and gay marrige for example (though to be fair, he's been good with his views on homosexual couples except for being pro-civil union). However, he's 100x better then McCain and his puppet woman.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
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.
I never said it does mean that. I see evidence every day all around me that we aren't here by accident and that the whole environment (terrestrial and non-) is here for us instead of us being here because of it.
...and an agnostic might see the same "evidence" and come to a different conclusion. It still doesn't prove that the "morals" you mentioned in your first post came from any other source than man....even if you choose to believe differently.
I don't need blind faith/belief when I already have evidence right in front of me.
Could you give us some examples, please? I'm not slamming your beliefs, but am willing to bet that your evidence can be viewed in more than one way.
Those who choose to interpret that evidence differently for their own agendas (1) are the ones who should be reconsidering what they think.
Here's where you lost me. Agendas? Are you even remotely suggesting that atheists and agnostics have an "agenda" that MAKES them believe as they do?
"And tonight, Pinky, we'll inspire the believers to abandon God, so we can take over the world!"
Just where does agenda come into play here?
1) What agenda would I have for believing what I do? I'm not in a position of power to influence others.
Belief doesn't require an agenda... and unless you live in a cave, with NO human contact whatsoever, then you have the power to influence others. In fact, I'd venture that it's unavoidable.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
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".
I think it's demonstrable that belief in God is purely irrational, and born of wishful thinking. When you quiz people on why they believe in God they can't produce anything with real weight - they can provide absolutely no observation or experience that necessitates the existence or presence of that character. People may have really high experiences and feel the presence of immense power, pure love and benevolence, but we know that these are brain states that can be produced chemically - Yahweh is not the only possible explanation.
In a laboratory, and elsewhere, we see light propagating at 186,000 miles per second. It might be the scientist's belief that God is moving that photon, but such a thought has no use in the lab, and is antithetical to science. Whatever we may observe, we can only ever say - that is the nature of the thing. Some would say that's equivalent to God (or gods) but there will never be any scientific backing for that notion. Science - our senses - will always and ever see only natural phenomena, and that's it. The photon moves because that's what photons do.
Fact is, we can only understand the true nature of ourselves and reality by letting go of outmoded beliefs like, for example, that the Old Testament version of God is authentic and literally true. In fact, I would argue that the most insightful spiritual teachers - including Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha - have emphasized the virtue of skepticism and independent investigation, that in fact the highest kind of faith is that which doesn't need to cling to the old mythic tethers, but trusts that "the way has been prepared" for us, and exists in our nature, and our ability to observe the universe scientifically is the proper way to approach questions bearing on material reality, and will ultimately answer many spiritual questions as well.
When people say proudly that they believe in God, and that they believe mankind was created in three days just like the Bible says, they are trying to demonstrate that they have "faith" and believe this is a virtuous state. But I would argue that this kind of belief has nothing to do with "faith" at all. And in fact, a true mature Faith is willing to let go of these childish ideas and trust in the senses and reason (i.e., Science!) that we have in hand. In my view, it is those people who are courageous enough to accept "not knowing" that represent the true faithful.
It's when people separate the physical world - thinking of it as inert and dead - and the spiritual realm - considered immaterial and perfect - when they divide against themselves. We have a certain kind of brain, and it works best when we use it properly. Spiritual experiences are something that we have and we can bring about in various ways. When people get hung up on the irrational for the fabulous chemical rewards it provides, it's no different than being hung up on drugs, sex, or power - all of them are misuses our innate natural faculties. Likewise, we do ourselves a huge disservice by poisoning reason with literal interpretations of stories and myths which are rich in analogy. The bible has some literal truths in it, but the real wealth is veiled in poetry, in the analogies that illuminate aspects of our own psychology. When people treat it as literal they completely miss the real meaning, which is sad. It takes some real magic to get a person to rise out of their banal literalism and consider the possible interpretations - and it takes some real insight and life-experience to grasp what they mean with any depth.
Gosh, this coffee works!
-- thinkyhead software and media
You can certainly say that you disagree with her. Certainly on that basis she is "unqualified" in your eyes. But in terms of resume she stacks up pretty favorably against Obama and certainly against Paul. Don't get me wrong, I was a Paul supporter and intend to vote libertarian in the general election... I just find the whole inexperience thing a bit rich coming from the supporters of a rookie Senator or in our case a member of the house.
We usually end up electing governors precisely because they have the most relevant experience. Let's face it being a Chief Executive of a state is much more akin to being President than being a member of a committee of 100 or in the case of the house: 435. Her short time in office has been marked by a lot of "Energy in the Executive" sacking Murkowski's cronies, negating the sweetheart deal he had made with the big oil companies and renegotiating it on terms much more favorable to the state. Needless to say in a state where more than any other politicians are "owned" by big oil, pushing through the new plan over their active opposition isn't something to be demeaned.
Remember the political appeal that let her defeat the incumbent of her own party, and then a still popular former Democratic governor wasn't her stint as mayor of Wasilla, but as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She took on the oil companies and her own party on the issue of corruption ultimately resigning in protest and filing ethics complaints against a fellow board member (and Republican party chairman) that led to his resignation & a record fine as well as the resignation of the (again Republican) State Attorney General.
The above also speaks to this idea that she "..is on another level of political servanthood." It will probably be true since she'll be a VP candidate and they all do as they're told. But there's nothing in her resume to suggest that she is more pliable than other politicians to do as she is told, not rock the boat or put her party above the responsibilities of her position. In fact there is a great deal to suggest the opposite.
Granted, in normal usage I have no problem with "a task from God" or "God's Will," but when you start to use them to justify military actions (or really anything political) it starts to get scary.
"She's very much her own person
As an Aussie watching the circus from a far, I agree. I belive she was picked because she is pro-life, pro-creationist, and anti-gay. She will draw the vote from a certain demographic that votes for the person their church tells them to. The demographic is not huge but they are an important minority because they will enthusiasticly jump on the church bus at polling time.
In other words McCain is throwing a bone to the far-right religious crowd, he doesn't share their values but he has given them a voice that makes it possible for them to vote for him in good faith (pardon the pun).
IMHO he has shot himself in the foot with a bazzoka.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I never said it does mean that. I see evidence every day all around me that we aren't here by accident and that the whole environment (terrestrial and non-) is here for us instead of us being here because of it.
To quote the late, great Douglas Adams:
"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.