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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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?
Is that you, David Jaffe?
Mada mada dane.
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.
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.
Hence the pregnancy...
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.
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
Hawt before she was pregnant.
There is nothing hot about a preggo.
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.
with basically one kind of business, oil.
That is completely untrue... Alaska's primary business sources may almost exclusively be exploitation of natural resources, but there's a lot more to it than oil.
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.
That statement shows such a simple-minded understanding of things that it would be the equivalent of saying that California only has the Movie industry.
"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.
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?
You must be new here.
Does she prefer Mac or PC?
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.
That's right--she's engaged! Here's a link about that.
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.
>What I like about Palin, and now McCain, is that knowing that they are still supportive of the daughter
Do you think they really had a choice? Considering its a political campaign, it all seems so ... clumsy. The story was broken by the National Inquirer. The first thing we heard about the father of the child is via a Facebook page. There are still questions regarding her actions during her time as mayor and governor.
Ignore Obama for a second. Look at the past 10 days since the announcement, is this the best that McCain can do?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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...
It doesn't matter. Her platform is telling children not to have sex before marriage while not educating them about birth control. Her own child went and got knocked up despite all this. Getting married because you failed doesn't make you a success.
Freeper denial - it is sweeter than gypsy tears.
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.
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.
Right. "Many eyes makes all bugs shallow" applies as well to science as it does code. As long as criticism is made in good faith, we all benefit in the end.
The problem is that creationists often ulterior motives. Instead of trying to achieve a more perfect understanding of the world, they try to undermine our confidence in the scientific method itself in order to make room for religious doctrine. They use fallacious arguments and deliberate obfuscation (I'm looking at you, Behe) to confuse the general public instead of educating their fellow scientists.
Another telltale sign that creationists do not argue in good faith is that they never propose alternative methods. "The eye cannot have evolved", a creationist might say, "therefore, the designer [God] did it." That's like saying "we have a descriptor leak in syslog(3). Therefore, system logging is a flawed concept."
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
Alaska doesn't. Oil accounts for the vast, vast majority of income for that state. If oil income stopped in Alaska there would probably be a mass exodus (of the only 700k people), because it simply doesn't have the economy to support that population without oil. You can argue Alaska has a competent non-oil economy as much as you want, but if you look at the numbers, there's nothing to support that the economy could sustain itself sans-oil.
On top of that, Alaskans like to credit themselves as living an independent life from the government, but the truth is the federal-money-spent per Alaskan is higher than any other state.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Wait.. isn't that the whole argument FOR birth control and sex education in schools?!
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
"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."
Has anyone RTFA?
Yes. But not me.
I started to read it, but found that it was "offtopic", since it didn't deliver what its headline promised.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
Economist:
...Alaska's economy is built on two things... The first is federal spending, especially the little-scrutinised grants known as earmarks. Between 1996 and 2006 per-capita federal spending in Alaska rose from 38% above the national average to 71% above. Scott Goldsmith, an economist, reckons a third of all jobs in the state depend on it.
...the other pillar of Alaska's economy: windfall taxes. Last year (Palin) championed a tax hike on oil companies which is helping bring in huge sumsâ"more than $10 billion in the fiscal year that ended in June... Suddenly flush, the state has promised $1,200 to every man, woman and child...
So Alaska's growth streak, now in its 21st year, is unlikely to break soon. But the good times obscure a big weakness. The state government has become dependent on revenues from oil, which are likely to decline as the major fields dry up.
Palin is a social conservative, raised taxes numerous times, expanded the size of government in both her role as mayor and governor, and made questionable use of eminent domain to seize private property in a manner that had previously been unprecedented in Alaska.
Basically, her position is the exact opposite of the libertarian one on most issues you care to look at.
10 PRINT CHR$(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
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.
Well the biggest problem with her daughter being pregnant (despite being engaged) is that the girl is 17. A bit young by modern standards.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
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.
Wikipedia is a liberal propaganda site. The marriage of these two was clearly part of God's divine plan.
I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian
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
is like that of a small city, 683,478, with basically one kind of business, oil.
Considering that's more people than live in such "small cit[ies]" such as Baltimore, Boston, Seattle, Denver, DC, Atlanta, etc., I'm curious as to whether you're living in Mexico City or Sao Paulo....
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?
Does it make a nonsense "theory" more palatable if certain people believed in it?
This is not elitist, this is about basic facts. Evolution is a fact that can be proven in nature and in the lab all the time. Just because it usually takes a long time doesn't make it nonexistent. And that a 2000 year old book says otherwise doesn't either. The Bible is wrong, live with it.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
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.
"Considering that's more people than live in such "small cit[ies]" such as Baltimore, Boston, Seattle, Denver, DC, Atlanta, etc.,"
That is deceiving. Seattle's city limits, for example, is approx 8 miles wide (2 miles at its narrowest) by ~15 miles long. That is extremely small. But the houses, businesses and people don't stop at those boarders. How about we say the metropolitan area for each of those respective cities.
The $346 million dollars that Alaska received is about three times what Arizona (the lowest earmark beneficiary) got. 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.
When you consider the sheer size of Alaska, along with the remote setting, and that the federal government has prevented Alaska's economic development due to environmentalist protests, I'd say that implying that Alaska is a welfare state is unfair.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
The republicans can't possibly win this one anyway. /carries on with his wishful thinking and faith in humanity...
So, all those cities you mentioned are isolated from their suburbs and exurbs by 2500 miles of foreign soil? San Francisco is smaller than San Jose, but the mayor of San Francisco (at least before Willie Brown and Gavin the Model-Boy) is considered to be a far more difficult position.
Thanks for saying all that - I agree completely. It's sad that this election is, like the 2000 election, going to come down to exactly one thing: who puts up a better identity.
I really used to like this country. And I blame most of the reasons I don't on the GOP.
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.
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.
As someone who has experimented with GA can tell you, evolution works only when the search space is trivial. Once the search space crosses a certain very low threshold, the number of combinations begins to multiply exponentially making any subsequent search impossible, no matter how fast. The extremely slow pace of evolution (mutations + natural selection), the existence of which nobody in their right mind would deny, is not going to generate millions of species stating from single self-reproducing cells. Hell, not even the cells can exist to start with. This simple observation is the reason that smart people like Von Neumann understood that the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species is a complete joke. Darwinists cannot accept this because they have an agenda to defend and it makes them look stupid.
Besides, Darwin did not discover natural selection. Generations of farmers and herders around the world had observed it for millenia. Even the Bible, which you despise, mentions it.
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
The Denver metropolitan area (where I live) has a population of 2.7 million people, and the "Front Range" corridor has over 4 million. The Seattle metro area comes in at over 3.2 million. Population of Colorado itself is 4.7 million.
Point being that most "cities" have the official "legal" population of their incorporated centers, which discounts all of the adjacent and surrounding metro areas which by-and-large is considered to be part of the city.
So considering I live surrounded by 2.7 million people, an entire STATE of only 670,053 people, in an area more than twice as large as Texas... is pretty damn thin.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
...fish, lumber or gold. These are also things that will eventually disappear...
Well, you got one out of three.
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.
Hey nutbar, you can observe there is no proof of any god, therefore there should be no teaching in how things have been created by the unprovable supernatural invention.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"...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
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
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.
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.
Generations of farmers and herders around the world had observed it for millenia.
Yup, they created new species by pushing evolution through selection.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
We can, and did, observe the process of evolution. Note that "God" has nothing whatsoever to do with this physical, replicable in the lab, observable process with mountains of evidence to support it. Just as it is with the shape of the Earth. Creationism on the other hand has exactly zero scientific evidence to support it, very much like the existence of "god".
This statement indicates that it is you who does not grasp even the most fundamental principles of science and wish to confuse your audience with your fained "outrage" as to our supposed scientific "heresy".
If one feels that Palin is unqualified to be VP, then certainly Obama is unqualified to be President. And, by your same reasoning, Obama is being told exactly what to say and how to say it.
I know who is pulling Palin's strings - who's pulling Obama's?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
He's saying something which is demonstrably false carries less weight than something which is not demonstrable at all, contrary to your claim that flat earth and creation theories have equal weight. And he's right.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The proper acronym is VPILF. That may be hard to pronounce now, but it's just a heartbeat away from PILF!
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.
Sincerely, Derek
A curious little blog
>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.
Huh? The last time I looked, cows are still cows and goats are still goats. Even in species like dogs and cats where extensive breeding (selection) is the norm, chihuahuas and pit bulls are still part of the dog species. I haven't seen farmers creating hippos out of cows or dolphins out of pigs. Besides, natural or artificial selection does not create new genes. The genes had been there for millions of years. Where did they come from? If this is the best you can do, you got a long way to go.
And why ignore my argument regarding the exponential growth of the search space and respond with something as stupid as farmers creating new species of animals? Von Neumann was right about Darwinism. It's a complete joke. LOL.
PS. Don't bother responding. You're boring me.
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.
Sorry, but she helped write that speech with the aid of a speechwriter. She;s very much her own person which you'd realize if you studied her past - especially in relation to the Republican party which she had to fight VERY hard to become governor.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Evidence, please.
If you've heard her speak on her own, or seen things she writes, you know that she can barely put together a grammatically sensical sentence. Sometimes "with the aid of a speechwriter" means polish, and sometimes it means that the candidate stood there and had maybe a little input.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
So would you consider Chihuahuas and Great Danes one and the same species? Hint: They're mechanically incompatible. That's one of the problems we have with today's definition of Species. On one hand it is not appropriate to call all dogs part of the same species, on the other hand some species that have been called separate for a long time seem to be the same species in fact, like wolves and coyotes.
And what's the search space got to do with it? The number of dimensions does not change the speed of evolution, only the number of possible paths. The more dimensions you have, the more possibilities evolution has to explore and the quicker a random walk will move away from its origin.
Ever wonder why evolution has mathematical rules behind it?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Actually, no, he is not. I already addressed that. The process of evolution, like the shape of the Earth, is scientifically demonstrable, as opposed to the shape of make-believe beings like "flying reindeer" or "bigfoot". The GP was simply utterly confused as to what "proving the negative" means.
Evolution has not place at this moment in the discussion. This particular tangent of the thread was comparing Creationism and the Flat Earth Theory. On the rung of plausible theories, Evolution most certainly is in better shape than Creationism (if you even want to insist that they are mutually exclusive, which not all people do). That's a given. HOWEVER, as the GP stated, the Flat Earth theory is NOT on equal footing with Creationism, because FET can be and has been proven false. Cretionism cannot be proven true or false either way.
To throw in the o' so common metaphor needed for a proper Slashdot post, lets assume I make three statements:
1. I banged a hot redheaded chick last night.
2. I had dinner with Sir Issac Newton last night.
3. I posted on Slashdot last night.
Well #3 is akin to evolution. If you lookup my post history you can indeed see that I DID infact post to Slashdot last night.
#2 is Flat Earth Theory. Given that Sir Issac Newton as been long dead, it's is demonstrably impossible that I had dinner with him last night. This statement is proven false.
#1 is Creationism. Given that I'm the typical Slashdot nerd, it's highly unlikely that I did the nasty with the aforementioned redheaded gal, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility. It also can't be proven true or false (at least within the context of a Slashdot audience).
Therefore even though #3 is by far the most sound statement made, #1 is most certainly sitting in the "more probably than #2" camp.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
What?! Anti-evolution "theories" are exactly what is meant by "creationism" (or more precisely "Intelligent Design" as these cooks call themselves these days in a bid to sound more "scientific") in the school curriculum context, as it always was ever since the Enlightenment. Specially in the USA. Were you living under a rock for the last 100 years of US politics?
Since the rest of your post is based on the silly premise that we are not discussing evolution, I won't even bother with it.
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.
So would you consider Chihuahuas and Great Danes one and the same species?
And what's the search space got to do with it?
You got the IQ of a watermelon. See ya.
Mod parent informative!
but an oil filled tube!!! Several fibers travel along with it.
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?
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
Bottom line, science can "prove" (as far as it is possible to "prove" anything outside of mathematics) that almost everything factual written up in the Bible is wrong. Consider for a second that you can't nail a person by the hands - the nails simply slip out when the body weight hangs off the arms. That's been tested numerous times (on fresh cadavers of course.) Or the fact that historians tell us that the Romans never nailed anybody to a cross, they always (as far as the available data shows consistently) tied them to the cross with ropes. Or that they didn't let people die on the cross - they were killed beforehand and then tied up as a deterrent.
So... if the central tenet is, umm, untenable, what does that tell you about the reliability of anything that's written in the Bible?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
...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
I think Obama has far out-proven his qualifications for being president over McCain. Although I don't agree with all of his policies, his policies make sense and he has good and well-supported reasons for them. He has a good clear vision for the long-term and near-term future.
Way more significantly he has demonstrated decades more maturity than nearly anyone in the GOP. He has refused to reciprocate the meaningless character attacks and outright lies that the GOP and John McCain has leveraged against him. He has so far held true to his word. He has so far in his life proven that he's willing to put the needs of average citizens above his own greed.
The GOP has the audacity to MOCK his time as a public servant and community organizer in Chicago. Here's a guy who, with his Harvard law degree, and the ability to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, instead put aside his own greed and got his hands dirty on the streets.
This isn't a guy who's running for self gain. His pre-political career proves it unless you want to call those years merely a political tactic.
Here's a guy who sees something wrong with the system. Here's a guy who has the intelligence, charisma, and wherewithal to unite this country and make us feel good about ourselves again. He's got the necessary skills to make the world once again love the USA, or at least not despise us.
George Bush has spent the last 8 years using international good will toward the USA as form of currency to purchase the ability to misbehave in the world. International good will toward America has risen merely on the prospect that we'll be wise enough to elect this man president.
It's time the USA became a force for good in this world again. McCain won't lead us there, he's too busy slinging mud to even spend time forming a cogent policy on how to run this country. Obama can take us there.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
"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
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.
"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
Someone (possibly Thom Hartmann during his radio show) talked about a conversation he had with disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters. Unhappy with both McCain and Obama, they would have supported Dennis Kucinich! Paul and Kucinich seem in many ways polar opposites, but they share honesty and the willingness to speak truth to power.
I don't blame them. Bringing back accountability, ethics, and good old fashioned non-felonious conduct is a top priority in my book. For what its worth, I don't trust Palin to move us in that direction.
"Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit."
Hyperbole much there, Mr. Scientist Cop?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"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.
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.
The demographic is not huge but they are an important minority because they will enthusiasticly jump on the church bus at polling time.
You are not from America so i will excuse your ignornace. Even in ultra liberal Seattle i see lots of crazy religious nuts. I have also been to the south and its ever more prevalent there. The religious base is not a minority at all.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
There are plenty of theologians, philosophers and scientists who would disagree with you. In fact if people weigh up evidence and act based on the conclusions they reach, having made good use of their mental faculties, then it could be said that they are acting reasonably. Just because someone else comes to a different conclusion based on the same evidence does not necessitate that one or the other party must be acting irrationally.
You must not be very well read on the subject to make a comment like that. There are vast numbers of books and reams of scholarship on the very subject of evidence for Christianity. Again, you may draw a different conclusion form the evidence, but that does not mean there is no evidence or that it isn't good evidence.
God being the best solution is not the same as God being the only solution. Sufficient evidence is not the same as absolute proof. By your standard, pretty much all of science would have to be dismissed because it's always possible that every experiment has gone wrong due to faulty equipment or incorrect measurements being taken. Extremely unlikely things, but possible.
Just because God doesn't make a useful scientific hypothesis doesn't mean he isn't real. The thought isn't antithetical to science, but rather irrelevant. There is no way of telling with science whether God moves the photon or if the photon moves itself. It doesn't matter to science and it says nothing to support either viewpoint.
Science has nothing to say about that. And just because a belief is old does not make it false (not that I'm saying you meant that).
What makes a teacher insightful?
To a certain extent, Jesus encouraged scepticism - he warned against false teachers, including the teachers of the day. At the same time he taught about the utter reliability of God and the Scriptures he had provided and encouraged faith in both them and himself.
How can science possibly answer spiritual questions? Christianity makes claims that are utterly untestable by science. In fact, science ultimately tells us very little about reality. All science does is allow us to construct models that fit our observations of reality. These models do not necessarily reflect the workings of reality, but they don't have to as long as the results the models produce line up with the observations we make of reality.
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
Well they really fucked up if that was their plan. Palin has shown no indication that she with just go with the flow.
Obama could fuck a squirrel in Millennium Park on live TV and the press would be gushing over his presence.
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
Is that hyperbole or do you actually mean it? If you actually mean it, well, I'm not sure where to start correcting you because there's a lot of facts there and people keep on findiing evidence to verify said facts. Perhaps we should start with geography and establish the many places named in the Bible exist, then move on the correct distances between them, accuracte depictions of climate, vegetation and wildlife...
Consider for a second the fact that the Greek word translated 'hand' refers to part of the arm as well and that even in English, the wrist can be spoken of as if it was part of the hand. Do you include linguistics as a science?
Flat out wrong.
Again, flat out wrong. Even Wikipedia gets this right and can point you to a number of useful sources.
Before you make absurd and unsubstantiated claims, consider for their implications. If no-one was killed by crucifixion and all the details concerning the crucifixion were wrong, how would the gospels have carried so much weight early on when people could have read them and said 'what a load of nonsense, that never happens'? And don't you think that people might have made a bigger deal of it by now?
Why is it that creationists are generally unable to have a meaningful discussion about the subject of evolution?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Here's a guy who, with his Harvard law degree, and the ability to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, instead put aside his own greed and got his hands dirty on the streets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
If you notice, the Harvard Law degree came after the Community Organizer phase of his life.
It's good to keep your facts straight, just so people don't use those errors to pull apart your argument.
That said, after reading your post, are there any presidents in recent memory that lived up to their campaign rhetoric?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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
Huh, kinda like Obama won't go to a debate with McCain until just recently? Or how he wouldn't take Hillary up on her debate proposition?
Sure is ready.
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).
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).
The fact that Obama-supporting talk shows don't want to allow her the opportunity isn't really her fault. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-opr.html Yet another attempt of the Liberal mainstream "press" trying to blot out a conservative candidate. Even Fox News is interviewing Obama...
You cannot observe macro evolution. Unless (according to the ToE) you are a few hundred million years old. Not once has a divergence of a species into another species been recorded.
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.
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)
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
Palin mocked his community organizer gig after he dissed her qualifications (when asked) by completely downplaying her mayoral experience, calling the town Wa-silly, and absolutely ignoring the part of the question that referred to her gubernatorial experience.
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
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
If that were true, the GOP would have had McCain pick Kay Baily Hutchison, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee. McCain himself wanted to pick Lieberman, but was pursuaded at the last minute to pick Palin by Rove, etc. There were several more qualified, longer serving Governors, Senators, and Congressmen that would have been more qualified than Palin.
Palin got picked b/c she would take orders and appeal to this fictitious demographic of disgruntled Hillary supporters that the MSM invented.
All Palin will do in the end is energize Democrats and level headed independents. Only Neo-Con stalwart Repub's will support McCain now. Sure there was a (significantly smaller than the Dem's) convention full of GOP'ers cheering their heads off for Palin. That happens at EVERY convention these days. Delegates are the most committed party workers. They would cheer for a cardboard cut-out of Ronald Reagan in a cowboy hat if the GOP nominated it.
Fact is, the MSM got nervous b/c they didn't want to be accused of being 'sexist' (btw, all of the sudden people have forgotten what that word means) by the GOP. But slowly and surely they will start demanding of Palin what they demanded of Obama, and Palin will come up severely wanting.
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."
It's time the USA became a force for good in this world again. McCain won't lead us there, he's too busy slinging mud to even spend time forming a cogent policy on how to run this country. Obama can take us there.
You know, your post makes a lot more sense if you listen to Living Colour's "Cult of Personality" playing in the background while reading it. And I may have missed what Obama was going to do make the USA a force for good in this world again. So please recite them or point me in the right place.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
We're absolutely not discussing evolution right now.
The original premise was that Governor Palin believed in creationism but has not made a push towards moving into school curriculum at all. She was being commended for doing so. A second post in the thread then threw aside that commendation for not pushing in her beliefs into the curriculum by ridiculing them and comparing their validity as being the same as the Flat Earth theory. Several people demonstrated that the Flat Earth theory is not on the same level as creationism because it can be proven false while creationism is unprovable in any direction.
I'm not sure where evolution is even coming up here. If you wish to provide a counterexample to creationism, then yes. But we're not trying to prove or disprove creationism - we're simply comparing the standing ground of two ideas - neither of which are evolution.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
There is no such thing as "macro" evolution, nor is there "micro" evolution. There is only "evolution". These other terms were invented by Creationists in order to try to sow confusion and somehow divide evolution into different categories after their asses were handed to them when laboratory tests confirmed evolution in bacteria. The exact same process which is responsible for divergence of species in bacteria is also responsible for divergence of species in higher animals. All that is different is the time scale due to longevity of each generation and much lower population counts.
Listen dude, you keep saying "creationism" as if this term somehow did not mean "anti-evolution" in this context. No matter how many times you do it, it does not change the fact that "creationism" in this case means no evolution, 6000 year old Earth, dino-riding Jesus and the whole lunatic ball of wax that the nutbars have concocted, for that is who Palin's constituents are: fundamentalist wackos. It is not what you and some other posters here purported, that is an (utterly unscientific in its own right) discussion of a possibility of a Deity who somehow was responsible for the Big Bang, while respectful to all the other scientific discoveries.
So just quit pretending.
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.
True; just follow the body count of political enemies who got in her way. The librarian who refused to ban the books she wanted banned. The police chief who tried to crack down on the bars to reduce Wasilla's drunk driving problem (the bars were big contributors to her mayoral campaign). The loyal aide who had an affair with a family friend. The police commissioner who refused to fire her already-punished ex-brother in law. Hell, even the entire freaking *dairy board* who didn't want to subsidize a crumbling dairy in Sarah's hometown (it collapsed anyways, but not after soaking hundreds of thousands of state dollars and a statewide milk price hike). The list of people, usually former allies, who got in her way and paid for it could fill a book.
Don't underestimate this woman. She can't write a speech to save her life, and she may be a religious nutcase who believes that Alaska is a safe haven from the rapture (1:37), but she's not stupid. She could give Machiavelli lessons.
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
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?
What insight. Why didn't I realize that? Palin is more qualified than Obama! Let's just run down the timeline here:
When Obama was graduating from Columbia University (Ivy League) with a degree in Political Science with a focus in International Relations, Palin was graduating high school and competing in beauty contests.
When Obama was President of Harvard Law Review, then organizing Chicago's largest voter drive in history and teaching Constitutional Law, Palin was switching between six low-key colleges before finally getting a degree in journalism (polisci minor)
When Obama was in the state senate drafting over 800 bills (so many that he created a backlog; there's still some working their way through today), Palin was being elected of a tiny town of 5,000 (at the time) with 53 employees that she didn't even control (a city administrator did that) with just over 600 votes. Pushed for policies that drove the town into $22 million dollars of debt -- and that *with* the massive sales tax increase (spending increased ~34% during her tenure) and over $20 million in federal earmarks. $1.5 million of the debt due to bungling an attempt at eminent domain to build a sports complex.
Obama was elected to the senate from one of the US's largest states with 3.5 million votes, where he has served for twice as long as Palin has been governor (elected with 114,000 votes, to run a state with about as many people as Fort Worth, Texas). Obama served on 13 committees, including the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee, and has met world leaders in dozens of countries across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Palin got her first passport in 2007, and her campaign claims the following foreign policy experience: Canada, Kuwait, Germany, Ireland, and Russia. Canada because she's crossed the border before. Kuwait because she flew there to visit the Alaska National Guard (never left the base). Germany because she stopped at a base there on the way back (never left the base). Ireland because her plane stopped there to refuel (never left the airport). Russia because "Alaska is close to Russia".
Hmm... since Obama's senate term (involving sponsoring over 500 bills and drafting over 100, including the most sweeping piece of ethics reform since Watergate) is twice as long, that's probably not a fair comparison. I guess we should merely compare his *presidential campaign*, which is about as long as her governorship. 1.5 million donors versus ~680,000 taxpayers. ~80,000 campaign volunteers versus ~50,000 state employees.
You're right -- Palin is clearly more experienced!
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
If one feels that Palin is unqualified to be VP, then certainly Obama is unqualified to be President.
I would believe that you should be able to reverse that statement and say that if Obama is unqualified to be president, then Palin would be unqualified to be VP. After all, a VP should be qualified to be president if they could assume the office at any moment if something were to happen to the president.
If John McCain believes as he claims that Obama is not ready, and the above reasoning is sound.. it just shows that there is not reason within politics.
Oh, darn, I wasn't fair to Sarah there. She didn't do nothing from the time that she majored in Journalism to when she ran for mayor. She served as a sportscaster, part time fisherman, and city council member. Also, later, she was appointed to the oil board, where she stayed briefly before making a name for herself by outing the commissioner for using state eq for Republican Party business (this right after her failed Lt. Governor run in which she ran her campaign out of her mayoral office, using taxpayer dollars for mailings) My apologies for demeaning her career by not mentioning these things.
.
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
"He's saying something which is demonstrably false carries less weight than something which is not demonstrable at all,"
No he isn't. If that is what he meant he should learn to express himself differently.
", contrary to your claim that flat earth and creation theories have equal weight."
I did not claim this.
Though I would agree.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Maybe I read it wrong, but your post implies Obama has a cult of personality. If I didn't misread that, you're confusing charisma and perspicacity with what a true cult of personality is - where the government forces the media to unquestioningly and unhesitatingly extol virtues of a political leader - real and fake - in order to prevent citizens from ever hearing anything bad about their whitewashed leader.
Cult of personality notably has a negative connotation, and indeed it should, it's a form of repression. If you want to see what a true cult of personality is like, examine Eric Lafforgue's Flickr photo set from North Korea, where citizens are required by law to wear patriotic pins, and required by law to have photographs of their illustrious leaders in their home, tilted slightly downward so the eyes follow you everywhere. Where citizens are required by law to have a radio in their home which they cannot turn off that periodically spouts political propaganda. Where every hour, on the hour, from 6 am to midnight, loudspeakers blast out a patriotic song. Where reading material for children is war propaganda espouting the virtues of their leader and speaking in vague terms of the threat of the west.
Obama doesn't have a cult of personality. He has the clarity, insight, and speaking ability to make people feel good about the chance for change in the future, to feel good about themselves and who they are and can be. He inspires people. And even though you try to make that out to be a bad thing, it is in fact a very good thing.
Perhaps you haven't looked. Here, Obama covers current foreign policy issues in detail, giving a good background on each, and detailing his plan for each: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
"We're absolutely not discussing evolution right now."
No, you are bitching about semantics in an attempt to make creationism seem plausible.
"The original premise was that Governor Palin believed in creationism but has not made a push towards moving into school curriculum at all. She was being commended for doing so."
Which is sick - should she be commended for not wanting to teach that Bigfoot created the world by snapping his fingers as well?
"Several people demonstrated that the Flat Earth theory "
Nobody demonstrated anything, but several people showed their support for creationism.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I'm not familiar with the "Wa-silly" comment, and it seems unlike Obama. Can you provide a link to back that up, preferably a video? Are you sure it wasn't misspeaking?
Anyway, from your own description, it sounds like Obama was responding to questions posed by reporters, and people sometimes make bad statements at times like this. Obama has by and large refrained from commenting at all on Palin and her experience and/or lack of it. Yet Palin mocked his community organization experience during a prepared speech at the RNC. It was intentional, calculated, premeditated, and a lot more directed.
Palin and McCain have repeatedly directed low blows to Obama and Biden attacking them on matters from which they purposely draw incorrect conclusions through the fallacies Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent.
If you ignored policy, it seems evident that McCain/Palin are running a campaign where they're more concerned with making others around them look bad through any means available, while Obama/Biden are running a campaign where they work to make themselves look good through cogent well defined, well thought out policy.
This speaks to character and the lack of character in the candidates. Certainly McCain doesn't have any solid policy that he's running on, he's only got his internal pendulum that swings back and forth until he gets the best response, where he keeps that policy. No regard for plans that make a good future, just let's see what makes people smile the most and boo the least. Without a solid thought-out policy, the only other thing to vote for him through would be
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
First, Obama and Hillary had 21 debates, including four one-on-one debates. I believe it set a record for debates during the primaries.
Second, McCain and Obama just recently finished making the schedule for debates, on August 21st. Three debates and a VP debate is pretty much standard.
Third, McCain invited Obama to town halls to debate questions from normal folks, and Obama never showed up. But wait... turns out that the "town hall" was actually invite-only, and filled with only Republican supporters. (link) I wouldn't exactly trust any town hall that was set up by McCain's camp.
That's a very good argument about the other choices he could have taken. I hadn't looked at it that way but now that I do choosing Palin seems an even more cynical choice than I had suspecetd.
"All Palin will do in the end is energize Democrats and level headed independents."
That's what I meant by shooting himself in the foot. I also suspect a fair proportion of level headed republicans will have a hard time voting for anyone on polling day and simply stay at home.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Why would the press be Liberal-biased when it is mostly Republican-owned?
Unsupportable things are simply not taught in school. Why don't we start teaching the "possibility" that we live in the Matrix? You can't -prove- we don't.
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).
Good points. On all counts. At this time, with so many of the states having adopted optical scanning for the voting, the Republicans may have stolen the election already. Which is the most important 'technology' issue of all.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxUCfdfRnP8&feature=related Notice how he completely ignores her gubernatorial experience.
OK flamebait. Since nobody had time to do sit-down interviews after the veep announcement, several networks re-ran long format interviews from her time as governor of Alaska. I stumbled on one while channel flipping one night before I knew who she was. She was talking about a wide range of topics, particularly energy policy when I stumbled on it. She was very impressive and deeply knowledgeable on the topic - which is unusual for an attractive woman sitting on a bearskin couch. So I sat through about 20 minutes of the hour-long interview, and although I'm not convinced that she holds positions that I can get on board with on some issues, claiming that "she can barely put together a grammatically sensical [sic] sentence" is stupid in the extreme - even without the made-up word. In fact it seems that the two most thoughtful and articulate (in the non-speech forum) people involved in this year's race are women. Clinton may give somewhat forced speeches, but she is terrific in sit-down interviews, as is Palin. Obama is the one who is much better in a prepared speach and appears to fumble for words in the unscripted format - probably looking for the perfect word to use rather than just speaking his mind. Actually, both of the old farts in the race are much better in the sit-down interview forum as well.
I'm still waiting to see the "proof" of evolution that many people claim exists...out of either innocent ignorance of the facts, or intentional distortion of the truth. Surely one of you can provide a few links to some of this supposedly abundant "proof". If you, IgnoramusMaximus, have "observed the process of evolution", as you claim, then please, by all means, share some of the details of your unique experience.
Palin won't even talk to the press. What does that say about your "not ready" logic?
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
It doesn't sound to me like his pronunciation is intended as some covert dig. In fact, it's not far from how many people pronounce it (though not technically correct). For example, on a guide on how to pronounce the name Wasilla, it mentions the Wasilly pronunciation specifically as a common mispronunciation.
Second, he's not ignoring her gubernatorial experience; the question was specifically about her mayoral experience compared to his senate experience. He directly addresses the question posed to him which did not talk about gubernatorial experience. He points out that her mayoral experience compared to his campaign experience leans in his favor. He's got a substantially larger staff, and he's got a substantially larger budget than she had while as mayor. That was the question, and I think he addressed it directly and adequately.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
& 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.
Let me get this straight. You wonder why Palin has not appeared on the Sunday political talk shows. She accepted the nomination as Vice-Presidential candidate a few days ago. There has only been one Sunday since then (actually, only a fraction of a Sunday). Sounds like you may be parroting statements made on left-wing blogs. If you all will be a little bit patient, I'm sure you will see her on Sunday political talk shows in the near future. Then you can judge her based on her statements and not on speculation and misinformation obtained from blog sites.
I do not get paid for educating you.
However, you can start here.
As to evolution-in-progress observations, not only that site and others like it have many, even Slashdot carried stories, such as this, recently.
Too bad both proven reserves and production have been on the decline in Alaska for years.
I am happy we agree that she is not ready, at least in the capacity to hold a press conference. The fact that she is not able to face the press now, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of curiosity about the world and our nation. I mean, Joe Biden is doing press conferences, and also just got nominated.
I doubt it. Several reasons but I will only list a few choice ones.
First, if they (McCain/Palin) win, it will most likely be because of Palin. I was personally planning to vote McCain not because I like him, but because I dislike Obama that much. Now with Palin on the ticket, if she is half of what they make her out to be, it will be happy with that choice. This puts the GOP in precarious situation of trashing their own party and destroying about all of it if they push Palin around. She is basically McCains support and if she wins, they will know why the win is there.
Second, Palin doesn't seem to be the type of person who will take things lying down. She may be small time but I'm sure she could yell just as loud from the presidential pulpit as anyone else. The media will gladly air any controversy she deems necessary to put forth. I don't think the GOP is dumb enough not to get that.
Third, A lot of republicans actually like her. She seems to be back in the roots of the days were people could hold their head high when saying they were a republican/conservative. She would do more in the next 4 years (or 3 after McCain's death) to reunite the party and clean house then the GOP could expect people to believe.
For these major reasons which could probably be boiled down to two (popularity and expectations), I don't see anyone running her over despite how small she is. In fact, I think if congress attempts to shut down the government to get something passed, Palin would probably put up a counter of how much the government is saving by congresses asshatery just to make it look like she is doing good. Imagine the cunning of Dick Cheney with a face people like.
I for one look forwards to saying MY VICE PRESIDENT IS A BABE. Then I look forwards to the internet porn of her according to rule 34.
So anyone who is prolife, procreation, or anti gay has to be taking orders from their church?
You have a lot to learn about people. I'm prolife, not anti gay but against Gay marriage for various reasons, and see the creation myth on the same level as evolution and abiogenesis stories. And no, I don't attend a church, is there some past life regression telling me what to do? Or is it possible that people can make up their own minds about things?
McCain shot himself a long time ago, All Palin does is distract the dems from that fact. They instantly started trashing her, full media force and all. In the end, it turns out to look like the media (who is in love with Obama) is out to get them which is more valuable to McCain then anything he could have done himself. Media bias is one of the biggest republican motivations out there and one of the biggest "uniters" of the party. One thing they hate worse then a phony among them is a liberal bias in the media attacking him.
But mote importantly, it allows an attack front on Obama by the little ol'lady down the street. And Obama is failing to respond by picking half sentences and half statements and commenting on them. Before the end of the race, they will be playing cuts of Palin and cuts of Obama's responses where he missed the entire point and major parts of the meat of the issue and ask which candidate is more senile. It's actually brilliant it they can pull it off.
Wow.. It sounds like she has a lot of you guys really scared. This makes me like her all the more.
That's one powerful bitch.
She won't, well why not? Or have you had your head under a rock?
She has had several interviews before she announced her candidacy. After she was reveled as the VP pick and the convention, she has went on a tour with McCain and it has only been 10 days since the announcements. Actually less then that considering they wanted to wait until the convention to introduce her to the rest of the world. ABC is going to interview her later this week, and I'm sure others will follow.
Don't excuse your own ignorance for something she hasn't done yet. There is only so much time in a week and there will be plenty of time for interviews that are already scheduled.
The owners don't dictate the reporting. The reporters and editors do. This is true regardless of the owners and you will also find that the owners are smart enough to have managers who manage their properties.
Your not under the impressions that the owners of multi-billion dollar outfits are occupying an office in the corner are your? After you build something so big, with few exceptions, you generally step back and let more competent people take over. Maybe keep a position on the board of directors but they don't dictate what or how the reporters cover something.
First, Obama and Hillary had 21 debates, including four one-on-one debates. I believe it set a record for debates during the primaries.
Second, McCain and Obama just recently finished making the schedule for debates, on August 21st. Three debates and a VP debate is pretty much standard.
Third, McCain invited Obama to town halls to debate questions from normal folks, and Obama never showed up. But wait... turns out that the "town hall" was actually invite-only, and filled with only Republican supporters. (link) I wouldn't exactly trust any town hall that was set up by McCain's camp.
No, of course I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the offer from Hillary that he never took her up on, the unscheduled 1h un-moderated debates where the real issues could have been presented and we would have found out exactly where they stand and what they know, and they would have had to argue to the bone on their stuff. Those would have been the most interesting, but would have required Obama to be on his feet, which frankly he's not without his speechwriters.
And secondly, why does going to a town hall with republicans matter? Let your words speak for themselves, if indeed they are truth. I think he feared he wouldn't have had as much support for his usual change, hope, and change for America speech that we've been hearing since A WHOLE YEAR AGO.
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."
"You have a lot to learn about people."
I learnt a long time ago that your opinions match your username, good day to you.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Good to know that you like book burning law-breaking religious nutcases who will gladly destroy a family friend if it will promote their career.
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
Yes, as apposed to stepping over a proven black women state senator who has a record of doing good for the people so they can run unopposed to state office or somehow auto magically receiving the benefit of a judge who unseals sealed court documents from a bitter divorce close enough to an election so he can run unopposed again.
Yea, check into your choices and see who steps over who. If the family friend is corrupt or abusing their position of power, I'll gladly step over them. But when it is just more convienient to somehow manipulate them out of the race so I could win, well, that's an entirely different breed of person.
Like I said, she has you scared and I find it funny. I find it more funny that Obama is over looked and sometimes championed for this while Palin is demonized. Keep up the one sided attacks, I'm wanting to vote for her more and more.
As to Wasilly -- this was certainly a prepared comment. He cited the number of city employees and the annual budget, but you're telling me that he didn't know the correct name of the town AND the name he chose just happens to jive with the impression that he was trying to give - that of trivializing her small town experience. Riigghhtt.
Furthermore, to equate the running of a town with running a campaign is completely misleading. The two experiences are almost the inverse of each other. When you are a mayor, you are the servant of the people. Your job is to keep things running for the people.
On the other hand, when you are at the top of a high-profile campaign, everyone (and I really mean everyone) is there to serve you. Everyone else in the campaign is working to make you happy and to look good. In effect, it is very similar to being a movie star.
No. I despise authoritarians. I would say I've read enough that she, by and large, fits this bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism
Nixon also created the EPA and OSHA. In this sense, he bears no resemblance to Palin. My point is that they are both authoritarians.
I am completely baffled why you think there cannot be an explosion of species. All I can figure is that you think there is only one line of evolution and that all the species have to have been arrived at in a straight line, which is the same as saying that there is exactly one animal on earth and it only gives birth to one offspring.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of linear time.
Palin had several interviews before she announced her candidacy? That's absurd logic.
Just as silly is your argument that she has been interviewed by the press *in the future*.
Unfortunately, your response is typical of conservative spin - you distort even clear simple facts into some sort of weird alternate-reality where everything Republican is perfect. "It's bad that she hasn't talked to the press - so let's just SAY she has."
I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.
Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.
But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.
I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).
If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).
McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.
I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.
Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.
Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.
McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Amazing that you have an inability to distinguish between "political opponent" and "family friend" (as well as "politically motivated retaliation" while we're at it). And I completely missed the part where you responded about book-burning religious nutcases. I assume it must have been in there somewhere.
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
If you notice, the Harvard Law degree came after the Community Organizer phase of his life.
Well, that's only true if you consider solely his experience as director of the Developing Communities Project. But according to that same wikipedia article*, after he graduated from Harvard and returned to Chicago, he was closely involved with Project Vote, Public Allies, the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and the Center for Neighborhood Technology - all of which can quite reasonably be described as community-action organizations.
* - Please note that I haven't vetted that wikipedia article's sources, and am assuming their accuracy for purposes of this discussion. Feel free to enlighten me if the article is bogus - It looks good at first pass, but we all know that wikipedia can be less-than-reliable when the topic is controversial.
Yeah, something people don't realize is that most of the state is frozen for a good chunk of the year. You try doing businesses in an area that's a block of ice. See here for detailed climatology.
Not only does this make it hard to grow things, it also makes transportation a nightmare. They spend gobs of money every winter just to keep things moving while the state freezes-over.
Without oil money, sure, some areas will remain populated. There is, for example, a sizeable fishing industry based in Alaska that's not going anywhere. But I imagine everything north of Anchorage (except coastal towns) will simply be abandoned when the oil dries-up. At least that will make the conservationists happy.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I lived in Alaska for 5 years and never heard Wasilla pronounced as Wasilly. As so many of BO's "regrets", he got caught, again, revealing his true feelings.
Obviously, the BO camp wasn't taking Sarah seriously and tried to trivialize her accomplishments. A Freudian slip, if you will.
Obama is just another political hack. His constant lies reveal his insincerity. I don't believe he truly is a racist for associating with Rev Wright for 20 years, but joined the church to achieve black cred. He wasn't black enough for Chicago politics. Now that he doesn't need it any more, he simply dropped it.
The One is an empty suit. He has accomplished nothing other than writing books about himself.
As the most liberal members of Congress, BO and Biden have not shown any evidence of working across the aisle, like McCain has. America is tired of partisan politics. The Democrat party has chosen the most liberal members of Congress and plan on ramming all of their bad ideas through, overriding any opposition with no regard to compromise. This will not happen. Why do you think this Democratic Congress has the lowest approval rating in history? It's pretty embarrassing to have a lower approval rate than Bush ...
Of course, when the Socialist Democrat ideas get rejected, again, they will claim it is because of racism. You guys really need to get a clue. There's a reason why McCain/Palin have jumped ahead of BO, and it's not because of racism.
You forgot about her attempts at censorship: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=15 or perhaps you don't have a good analogue on the Obama side.
Oh, that one debate he didn't participate in? Yeah, I guess that nullifies the record 21 debates he had with Clinton!
Ah, it was only in that particular debate that the REAL issues could have been presented? All the 12 other debates were just nonsense, obviously.
To republicans, words do not speak for themselves. Words are spun.
Or maybe he wasn't interested in playing the dishonest games of wannabe fascists.
Clever signature text goes here.
I recall a previous charismatic leader that was elected in the 1930s, that had few accomplishments other than writing a book about himself. He had a funny moustache and didn't even come from their country! But he sure taught those oppressive French, Brits, Poles, Russians, etc. a lesson.
Now I understand how these people get elected.
Godwin's law: Check. All other arguments by you: void.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
We're getting off-topic from the original point about why Sarah Palin went after Obama and I have validated my point. Since, I doubt that anyone else is reading this and I'm pretty sure that neither of us is going to sway the other, I'll say good-bye.
Well, I also forgot to mention that she didn't *actually* serve as governor for 20 months. According to the Anchorage Daily News, she spent most of her time as governor living in Wasilla, over 500 miles away from Juneau (kind of makes the whole "I fired the chef" thing (which she didn't actually do -- she just had them cook in the legislative cafeteria, basically buying the goodwill of legislators) kind of seem silly, doesn't it?), and outright disappeared for the entire summer to go fishing.
Do you work at Taco Bell? The guy at the drive-through said that to me last night.
Yeah, something people don't realize is that most of the state is frozen for a good chunk of the year
Don't worry, we're working on that ;) One Hummer at a time......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As the most liberal members of Congress, BO and Biden
You don't have to like Obama/Biden but could you please stop repeating this stupid Republican talking point? "Most liberal member of the Senate". Really? He's more liberal than Russ Feingold? How about the self-described socialist (Bernie Sanders)? Is he more Liberal than him?
The Democrat party has chosen the most liberal members of Congress and plan on ramming all of their bad ideas through, overriding any opposition with no regard to compromise
If you replace "Democrat" with "Republican" and "liberal" with "Conservative" that sounds an awful lot like the first six years of GWB's administration. How many of their ideas were rammed through a rubber-stamp Congress with little to no debate?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I recall a previous charismatic leader that was elected in the 1930s, that had few accomplishments other than writing a book about himself
I must have missed the part of Obama's books that blamed all of our problems on a religious/ethic minority and which talked about the plan to acquire living space in Canada. Can you point it out for me?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I really used to like this country. And I blame most of the reasons I don't on the GOP.
That's funny because a Republican would probably blame most of the reasons on the Democrats.
That's why we need to move past this partisan mentality. Do we really want to be remembered by history as fighting over abortion, guns and gay marriage while Russia went on the march and China built the economy that kicked our ass?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually, I didn't state that. I said their experience is in the same ballpark. I'll granting Obama the edge but she is running for the position of understudy, he is running for the leading role. Her experience is not as anemic as the Democratic talking points suggest, nor as robust as the padded resume produced by McCain's campaign. Political neophytes like Obama and Palin always end up doing some ill-advised resume padding. Palin's "foreign policy" experience is non-existent and the lame attempts to suggest otherwise are self-defeating. Obama's executive experience is likewise non-existent, spinning the running of his own campaign (apparently without a campaign manager?) as executive experience is pretty lame.
Let's all agree though. People who disagree with us are not just wrong but unqualified, obviously liars and cheats whose every accomplishment is fraudulent.
But you haven't learned to not say stupid shit. Imagine that. Well, good day to you too.
Is your google finger broke? She has done numerous interviews as governor as well as mayor. She did a phone interview with an Alaskan reporter just after the announcement of being picked as VP and ABC is reporting that they will have the first televised sit down interview with Palin since she became the VP nominee. I mean a simply google search will show all of that. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your world view or the way you want to frame the issue but that a fault of yours not mine or the rest of the worlds.
Seriously dude, lay off the caffeine, get your head out of your ass, stop falling for every conspiracy theory, and actually look something up yourself instead of talking DNC and Obama talking points at their word. The only think worse then some arrogant liberal is one that is too intellectually lazy to double check the shit they are spewing or at least investigate the claims they are attempting to refute. Unfortunately, as the election draws closer, we will find more and more of people like you on all sides doing just the same. Do the world a favor and either crawl back under the rock or open you eyes and think for yourself a little. I wish I could say your a typical liberal but I feel I would be insulting a lot of people I personally know to be better then you.
I guess your too much of a dumbfuck to know who Alice Palmer palmer is or how her being a "family friend" got Obama interested and started in politics. You really should learn some more about your messiah before attempting to argue with someone who has actually checked into more then his empty speeches and half stated recountings.
No, your not that stupid, I'll give you credit for attempting to be though, but I didn't address that comment because it is idiotic and unsupported. Fist off, you have to go way off the rocker in order to make claims like that. In fact, in this day and age, it is only opinion and a wrong one at that. I know your proud to be ignorant and your proud to show off your lack of intelligence, I am too, That's why I picked this name, but I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I suggest that you settle down a bit and get a grip on reality.
Oh.. BTW, I still didn't address your religious statement. It's because I'm not going to. I don't have to. And all it does is make you look like a fool. Especially since you didn't even know who Alice Palmer was or about her relationship with Obama. You go ahead and remain ignorant and grasp at anything you can to make your enemies appear worse then they are. You will eventually reap what you sow which is why you sound so bitter. But when the shit hits the fan, well, I won't go there because I'm still laughing at the rest of your post and don't want to ruin the humorous occasion.
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
I shouldn't be really feeding ACs, but this is just a perfect example of the sort of ignorance that goes around. Read this.. Then go away. And don't even bother claiming that these traits existed in the DNA of the bacteria already, as all traits of all the modern living creatures are composed of just four DNA coding blocks and it is merely their sequences that change.
Vote for her if you are in favor of more dumbing down of America
And what does that have to do with the fact that she wanted to ban dozens of books?
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.
No dice. Replanting is a relatively recent development, and in no way makes up for the loss of old growth forests that took hundreds or even thousands of years to develop.
I said their experience is in the same ballpark.
Which is a laughable thing to say for even a drug enhanced imagination.
Palin mocked his community organizer gig after he dissed her qualifications (when asked) by completely downplaying her mayoral experience
Garbage.
1) McCain camp mocks Obama for months for his supposed lack of experience
2) McCain then appoints someone with far, far less experience than Obama
3) Obama camp rightly points out McCain's hypocrisy by pointing to Palin's razor thin resume
4) McCain camp pretends to be victims, saying Obama "made us do it" while they smear him some more.
Obama has spent months touting his judgment in opposing the invasion of Iraq and supporting additional troops to Afghanistan. Imagine if he then picked Donald Rumsfeld as his running mate, and then tried to spin the subsequent Republican cries of "bullshit!" by saying that were just highlighting McCain's own lack of judgment.
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Nixon ended the Vietnam war.
Wrong, that was Ford, and only after Congress refused additional funding. LBJ may have started the quagmire in Vietnam, but Nixon escalated the hell out of it.
Right, which explains why MSNBC fired Donahue for questioning the Iraq war when he had the highest rated show on the network in 2003, and why they just benched Keith Olberman when he has the highest ratings for MSNBC in 2008.
As is usually the case dumbass, take the opposite of your opinion and we have reality.
Another wingnut talking point runs into reality's well known liberal bias: Obama wanted five debates and McCain said that was too many.
Lol.. And that was the decision of the owners? Or the fucking management? And your going to claim that MSNBC is a right leaning station? Lol.. Man you are screwed up. The fact is, he alienated three quarters of his audience by those comments and while a shining example of MSNBC programing, his rating compared to other programs were abysmal. They probably used that as an excuse to wash their hands of the failure he was.
If you look, you will see that their ratings went up with him gone. I guess this wasn't as you say or want to manufacture. Or perhaps you have another blindingly ignorant example that you would like to hold up and the truth and shining light of the day, perhaps what happened to Keith olberman? No wait, that sort of counters your comment. I'm sure you can find something. Keep looking and keep distorting.
You're letting your partisanship get the best of your objectivity. They are both rookies only part way through their first terms in nationally prominent offices. Even granting Obama double or triple, or four times as much experience as Palin (not that I think the gap is quite that large) they are still in the same ballpark when compared to almost any other serious candidates for the presidency through history, and particularly when compared to McCain who was first elected to congress in 1982 and prior to that had some fairly significant life experiences outside of politics. We're talking about two and four years in nationally prominent, consequential offices next to the decade or two that are the historic norm and over three decades for McCain. Listening to Obama supporters bash Palin on inexperience is like witnessing a second grader boasting that he's more mature than his kindergartner sister. He's got a point, and the difference seems huge to him. But the end result doesn't impress the onlooker with his vast maturity but emphasizes the lack of it.
Inexperience isn't always a bad thing in politics. Voters like new blood, change, reform, outsiders that can shake things up etc. Obama is running on the theme of change. That's an appropriate theme for a young optimistic and relatively inexperienced politician. Letting your much older and much more experienced opponent bait you into a pissing contest over experience with his VICE presidential pick is a suckers game that does serious damage to Obama's campaign.
You guys crack me up. "Mutate" and "evolve" are synonymous as mutation (alongside of cross-over) is one of the driving forces of evolution.
That is because bacteria lack the "evolution acceleration" system, which higher organisms possess, i.e. the sexual reproduction system thus are unable to take advantage of the cross-over mechanism which accelerates the search algorithm of the evolution by many orders of magnitude. Instead, bacteria and other single-cell organisms depend on vast parallelism of their huge populations, which under lab conditions is severely limited thus prolonging the process drastically in the lab.
Apples and oranges. Higher organisms evolve much more rapidly then bacteria at the expense of slowly increasing limitations of the breadth of the scope of the possible changes. You simply have no understanding as to the mathematical foundations of genetic processes.
See above. The much more advanced process by which Hominids evolve is far more rapid than that of bacteria, but at the expense of Hominids being unable to effect radical changes which bacteria is capable of. By "radical" I mean processes which alter the fundamental nature of cell chemistry, which is what the bacteria did in the article I linked to. It would be an equivalent of a human child being born capable of living in vacuum and thriving on photosynthesis. Such avenues are no longer available to higher organisms as the fundamentals of their cell chemistry were set early on in their history but instead they gain an ability to rapidly alter other factors of their bodies, such as brain connectivity or shape of their limbs.
As you can see I did read it. It is a very interesting experiment. It is just too bad that you did not put more effort into understanding it in a wider picture of evolutionary processes.
The fact is, he alienated three quarters of his audience by those comments and while a shining example of MSNBC programing, his rating compared to other programs were abysmal.
No, the fact is Olbermann has his ratings because of his attitudes and opposition to Bush, not in spite of them.
If you look, you will see that their ratings went up with him gone.
If they were going to draw higher ratings with other hosts, they already would have drawn higher ratings with other hosts on their other shows. You aren't very good at this, are you?
Palin was a mayor while Obama was a state senator. Her town had less than 10,000 people, while his state senate district has a larger population than the state of Alaska. I hope those are some good drugs, as saying Obama and Palin are in the same experience ballpark is indefensible garbage.
Listening to Obama supporters bash Palin on inexperience is like witnessing a second grader boasting that he's more mature than his kindergartner sister. He's got a point, and the difference seems huge to him.
Contrary to the wingnut line, it's not:
1) McCain appoints Palin
2) The Obama camp attacks her inexperience
Reality:
1) McCain dismisses mayors and short term governors in the primaries
2) McCain camp spends months attacking Obama for having less experience
3) Republicans dismiss mayors and short term governors when they think Obama might pick Tim Kaine.
4) McCain picks a mayor of 8,000 and governor of 1.5 years to be his VP
5) Obama camp says WTF?
6) Obama camp points out the insane hypocrisy of the McCain camp
You're letting your partisanship get the best of your objectivity.
Pot. Kettle. Black. The right wing doesn't really care about experience, it's just the new round of Calvinball. Otherwise Republicans would have voted for Gore (30 years public service) over George W. Bush (5 years as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful politician in Texas (lt governor has more power than gov in TX)) in droves. Just like how military experience was vital, absolutely vital, when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against Gore, McCain and Kerry.
And did his ratings stay up? Actually, MSNBC's ratings have been laughable at best and it was Donahue's ratings I was talking about. They benched Olberman's and Mathews because they were too slanted in their reporting of the election news. This was obvious when Olberman made the comment about the 9/11 tribute during the RNC convention. NBC, benched them and decided to put their own anchors in citing issues with regulatory agencies in accusations of biased reporting.
Again, I was talking about Donahue, and yes, they drew higher ratings with other hosts after firing him (donohue). Everyone saw him as the suckup day time talk show not the issues man and no one could stand watching him.
As for Mathews and Olberman being benched, that's not because of any political bias on the owners part but because of an uncomfortable situation they were putting the network and the parent network in. They were mixing commentary with news which wasn't what they were supposed to do and could call some regulatory effects into play where the would of had to offer equal time to opponents. Their coverage ratings dropped and they had some serious image issues. The New York Times spells this out pretty well when they broke the story.
Lets face it, Olberman is embarrassing to NBC. It has nothing to do with any owner (which is GE and some french company). MSNBC's ratings are in the tank and about the only reason Olberman increased ratings is because when your at the bottom, it is easier to go up. Have you ever checked Olberman's ratings compared to other show on CNN or Fox? In fact, MSNBC is last in "cable news" news channels and if you add the specialty cable news channels, only CNN headline news and CNBC (NBC's financial news station) is lower. If you take the ratings for lets say September 12th 2008, you could add all of MSNBC and CNBC's viewers together and still not touch CNN's viewers or Fox's viewers. If you go with the 8:00 pm ratings for ages 2 and up, Olberman's countdown had around 1.726 million viewers or O'Reilly with 4.151 million viewers. Granted Olberman had increased MSNBC's over all ratins but they would be much better as well with an actually talented person filling the seat. That's just facts, not some mythical owner's decision based around the owners political leanings.