Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Sep 06, 2008 01:18 PM
from the wait,-alaska-has-electricity? dept.
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues 877 comments
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
[+] A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record 603 comments
Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Davemania (580154) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:23PM (#24901757) Journal
    They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska
  • by Ecuador (740021) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:23PM (#24901763) Homepage

    Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] 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.

    • by houstonbofh (602064) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:32PM (#24901851)

      Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] 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.

      • NO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:54PM (#24902101)
        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.
          • No you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:22PM (#24902419)

            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?

      • by zoogies (879569) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:00PM (#24902171)

        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.

      • by thermian (1267986) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:06PM (#24902227)

        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.

        • by strabes (1075839) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:57PM (#24902145)

          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.

          • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:57PM (#24902751)

            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.

    • by ral8158 (947954) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:33PM (#24901859)
      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.
    • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:06PM (#24902221)
      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.
      • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:52PM (#24902077)
        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.

      • by modmans2ndcoming (929661) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:00PM (#24902175)

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

        The debate belongs in a philosophy class.

      • by zoogies (879569) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:02PM (#24902189)

        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.

      • 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.

        • by toadlife (301863) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:58PM (#24902777) Journal

          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.

      • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:08PM (#24902245) Journal

        yet she does not believe in evolution

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

        • by kanweg (771128) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:17PM (#24902357)

          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

        • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Saturday September 06 2008, @02:53PM (#24902709)
          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!
  • Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:24PM (#24901769)

    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?

  • Bleh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tnk1 (899206) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:58PM (#24902147)

    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.

      • by fremsley471 (792813) on Saturday September 06 2008, @01:40PM (#24901943)
        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 [time.com]