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.

67 of 1,115 comments (clear)

  1. Internet in Alaska by Davemania · · Score: 5, Funny

    They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska

    1. Re:Internet in Alaska by adisakp · · Score: 5, Informative

      They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska

      Hey... she knows how to use EBay***

      *** Sarah Palin remarked on her ability to reduce graft by putting a state-owned luxury jet worth $2.7 million dollars on EBay.

      Technically, she told the truth -- her exact quote in her speech was "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay."

      The whole truth is that the jet never sold on EBay. Sure she "put it on EBay", but if failed to actually ** SELL **. The jet only received one bid and that fell through -- apparently the buyer wasn't "vetted" thoroughly.

      Instead, the plane was sold for $2.1M to Republican entrepeneur Valdez in a no-bid transaction that basically had no oversight at a $600K loss from the original purchase price.

      The same plane sells on the open market through airplane brokers for about $2.4M. Still the $2.1M sale price was $300K below the price she should have expected on the open market if she went through a broker than doing it herself on EBay -- which contrary to Republican opinion, EBay is not the best marketplace to sell a luxury commercial quality jet.

      But selling off a gov't resource to a rich friend of a fellow republican at $300K below market value in a no-bid transaction doesn't sound nearly as down to earth as, "she sold a luxury jet on E-Bay because she likes to drive to work".

      Wanna know how McCain is telling this story now : "You know what i enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold* it on eBay â" made a profit*," McCain said, introducing Palin. (*Technically not true statements)

      . . . Nope, it didn't *SELL* on EBay and it certainly didn't make a profit . . .

    2. Re:Internet in Alaska by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Internet in Alaska by adisakp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, I should quote my sources. The $300K below market came from the Chicago Tribune. I'm sure you will continue to say that number is just "spin" though because all the press is "liberal media" trying to smear Palin rather than an actual attempt to get news out about an unknown candidate who's suddenly a possible VP for our nation.

      Instead, the 23-year-old 10-seat Westwind II was sold in August 2007 for $2.1 million to a Valdez, Alaska, entrepreneur; that's about $300,000 less than a broker's asking price, according to news accounts. -- Chicago Tribune

      Sarah Palin did not need the jet because she could drive to work. However, there are areas of Alaska where there are only two forms of transportation: airplanes and boat. Any Alaskan can tell you that air transportation would be a necessity for a governor who lived in one of those areas since boat is too slow for state business. However, there is no reason such a governor could not use public air flights instead of a private jet.

      BTW, there is one small mistake in my post, the entrepeneur is not named Valdez but from Valdez. His name is Larry Reynolds and he is a good friend of Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, who brokered the no-bid deal. Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007.

    4. Re:Internet in Alaska by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, I should quote my sources. The $300K below market came from the Chicago Tribune.

      It's not $300K below market, but $300K below the offer price. Given the aviation slump, this is not unusual. How about some sources from the time, free of the election spin and the Chicago-spin:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?pagewanted=all

      http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6422443

      Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, who brokered the no-bid deal.

      Not true. The plane was sold through a private aircraft broker named Heckmann, who is anything but a state lackey, having had prior legal encounters with state contracts.

      The final price did indeed end up saving money, given the costs of insurance, storage, maintenance. The bid fell through because the buyer backed out.

      As a lifelong liberal, even I am disgusted at this smear campaign. It's okay for Obama to be selective about stories from the past, but not for Palin? Let's not lose sight of the fact that she pledged to get rid of the plane and did so, responsibly and through a private broker who signed off on the deal.

  2. Hello... Evolution? by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hello... Evolution? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      Did you read the article you referenced?

      "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor"
      "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools."
      "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""
      "In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
      "Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members."
      "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them."
      "Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans."

      Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine. Also she seems to have a grasp on that "separation of church and state" thing.

    2. Re:Hello... Evolution? by ral8158 · · Score: 5, Informative

      um, Palin's current stance is that doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in school in addition to evolution, but that it should not be a prohibited topic. If you're going to diss a candidate, at least don't act like a raving fool and use actual arguments and assessments.

    3. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Cairnarvon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Hello... Evolution? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine. Also she seems to have a grasp on that "separation of church and state" thing.

      Err... no.

      Let me put this in a way you might understand, since you too apparently have a difficulty with grasping this "basic science and theory":

      "Palin has not pushed Flat Earth Theory science as governor"
      "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools."
      "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about Earth being spherical and Flat Earth Theory, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""
      "In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the shape of the Earth should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
      "Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add Flatness-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for Flat Earth Society members when she appointed board members."
      "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have Flat Earth Theory taught in them."
      "Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." ... right, pull my other one!

      There, I hope this gets through better.

    5. Re:Hello... Evolution? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They should teach it, but it should be in a "world religions" class and not taught as science as it's just a bunch of stories made by the ancients to explain things they didn't understand. So teach it in a class about make believe things people in the olden days believed.

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

    6. Re:Hello... Evolution? by strabes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings.

      It is in at my university. I attend Wheaton College (IL) and most, if not all of the science faculty (not sure about the rest) "believe in" macroevolution and are also hold to old earth theories (as do I).

      The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money. Some affluent parents have chosen to send their children to religious schools where they may or may not teach 6-day creationism, and that is fine and dandy for them. Unfortunately, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents who are not as affluent, so their children are stuck in whatever government school they are zoned for. Thus, "teach both" really isn't a lasting solution because someone is always going to complain about one side or the other, let alone the church/state issues about which people will complain. The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children. People will still complain but they may choose to send there children to a different school.

      Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not. A large reason private schools exist is to escape and rise above the government monopoly and bureaucracy.

      Hope this helps. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or even be unfriendly.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    7. Re:Hello... Evolution? by zoogies · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    8. Re:Hello... Evolution? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      The debate belongs in a philosophy class.

    9. Re:Hello... Evolution? by zoogies · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is this a knee jerk reaction? Creationism as you say, is not worth being called a science. You don't teach evolution and creationism side-by-side. Agree with other comments here: teach about it, fine, in a *world religions* class. Not present it as an alternative to the evolution model, which it is not.

    10. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yet she does not believe in evolution

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

    11. Re:Hello... Evolution? by kanweg · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      Bert

    12. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

      Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs.

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

    13. Re:Hello... Evolution? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Another restriction on freedom that's absolutely essential for a free society is mandatory education. Without education, the population does not develop critical thinking skills and falls prey to the first charismatic demagogue that comes along.

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

    14. Re:Hello... Evolution? by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    15. Re:Hello... Evolution? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    16. Re:Hello... Evolution? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

      That only applies to random and unwarranted substitutions.

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

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

    17. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      I mean seriously, what woulf you say if some candidate wanted to bring pro-astrology textbooks into astronomy science lessons and pro-alchemy textbooks into chemistry classrooms, in order to have teachers "teach the controversy"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Hello... Evolution? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no second scientific side.

      Just to add to your excellent comment, when there is legitimate scientific disagreement, teachers generally do introduce students to the conflicting points of view. Consider the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. (I'm an Everett many-worlds man myself.)

    19. Re:Hello... Evolution? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    20. Re:Hello... Evolution? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      And, she's confusing the bible with science.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Miseph · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    22. Re:Hello... Evolution? by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    23. Re:Hello... Evolution? by Digital+End · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
      --Obama

      This is the viewpoint on religion that earned my vote.

      The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.

      Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.

      So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.

      --Obama

      This is why he earned my vote on technology. It was recorded 2 years ago, so he isn't just acting nice for the election.

      He was fighting against the war since not long after it started (I can forgive being blinded by the situation, everyone was.)

      I'm not going to say I agree with all of his views... immigration and gay marrige for example (though to be fair, he's been good with his views on homosexual couples except for being pro-civil union). However, he's 100x better then McCain and his puppet woman.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    24. Re:Hello... Evolution? by TheRealJFM · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Joseph Farthing
      http://josephfarthing.com
  3. Does it matter? by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Does it matter? by martinw89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Hello... Books? by wytcld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Having books removed from libraries... by fremsley471 · · Score: 5, Informative
    That allegation is simply a *fabrication*. It started on Daily Kos - and it's utter nonsense.

    Sorry to disappoint:

    Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

    Source http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

  6. NO by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  7. Bleh by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Or, Judge Picks will Increase Federal Power by weston · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Checks and balances by sskagent · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFA

    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.

  10. Re:Creationism == dumb God by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. its more about the reality of modern politics by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. No you don't. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

    No, you cannot. Not in a high school science class.

    If you want to teach Creationism, then you do it a class on comparative religions.

    NOT in a science class.

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

    And when you want to teach BOTH in a science class you will only confuse the issue MORE.

    SCIENCE is taught in a science class. Not religion.

    Why do you have a problem with that?

  13. Re:Hello - Libertarian? by toadlife · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  14. Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin by Choad+Namath · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can find the videos on Youtube. She probably doesn't sound that scary to anyone who was raised in a modern evangelical church (like myself), but if you step outside of that experience it sounds a little odd to hear someone call the Iraq War and the building of a natural gas pipeline "God's will." Anyway, here are the videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

    2. Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin by jensen404 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The AP article you linked:
      "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

      The full quote:
      "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

      The AP totally changes the meaning of the quote by starting it in the middle of a sentence.

    4. Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Re:Hello - Libertarian? by Lurker2288 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thing is, though, she's not even for less government spending. She took plenty of handouts from Ted Stevens until his fortune started to sour, at which point she jumped on the bandwagon in labeling him a pork peddler. She was for the bridge to nowhere, until that became politically sensitive. And from what I've read of her time as mayor, she took a town that had a budget surplus when she came into office and squandered it, taking out loans to cover unnecessary civic works projects and leaving the city with massive debt. Hardly in line with even the most basic libertarian viewpoint.

  16. That itself shows a weak understanding of science by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. Palin is a very non-libertarian candidate by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Bullshit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  19. Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town. by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Well, you got one out of three.

  20. USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale by pallmall1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They make so much in oil that each citizen is paid $3,200 annually.

      The fact that they're getting any federal money when their state is positively rolling in oil money is substantially more outrageous than if you examine the per-capita federal money sent to that state.

      My brother is an Alaskan citizen, people who are complete hermits can still get this money without contributing anything at all to either their state or federal government. This is more than most Alaskan citizens pay annually in federal taxes.

      Sorry, it doesn't make sense to examine per-capita money when the Alaskan government makes so much more in alternate channels.

      A lot of people maintain a mailing address in Alaska and maintain their Alaskan citizenship, then just have the check forwarded by a buddy to the lower 48 states. They shouldn't be receiving any federal money as long as there's this sort of absurd excess.

      In fact, this amount of excess speaks significantly to the unsuitability of Palin for VP role. She hasn't had to balance a budget even for a small town. She hasn't had to deal with limited funds at all in fact. Their government doesn't even know how to spend all the money it does have.

    2. Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale by RicoX9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    3. Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale by ericspinder · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a pretty big haul of pork for a district which doesn't even have a single voting representative to gather the pork. What do they mug congressmen on the way into congress?

      That's not pork, it's a chart of Federal Government Spending. You might be surprise to find out that Washington, DC is chuck full of Federal Government buildings. Those buildings need services, including roads, security, and your figure likely even includes the salaries of the Congressional and Executive staff. Truth is that Alaska is practically a welfare state, and pulls out of the federal government nearly twice as much as it puts in.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  21. Re:Not equal at all by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

    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".

    Truly a dark day for Slashdot when supposedly scientific people are confusing basics of science like this.

    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".

  22. Actually by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    The proper acronym is VPILF. That may be hard to pronounce now, but it's just a heartbeat away from PILF!

  23. Re:feels silly by dcroxton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  24. Re:feels silly by mrseth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town. by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. Rote Learning by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  27. Re:feels silly by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.
  28. Re:feels silly by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  29. Re:feels silly by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    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.

    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/

  30. Re:feels silly by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  31. Re:Presidential belief in God by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful