Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues 1115
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.
Internet in Alaska (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Internet in Alaska (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 . . .
Re:Internet in Alaska (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internet in Alaska (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Internet in Alaska (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 [nytimes.com]
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6422443 [ktuu.com]
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.
Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you got one out of three.
Re:Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town. (Score:5, Insightful)
USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of bullshit -- trying to show that Alaska is a boondoggle dollar sponge by listing per capita breakdown of a portion of federal spending per state instead of actual totals -- is why people think that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama.
Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale (Score:5, Informative)
They make so much in oil that each citizen is paid $3,200 [google.com] annually.
The fact that they're getting any federal money when their state is positively rolling in oil money is substantially more outrageous than if you examine the per-capita federal money sent to that state.
My brother is an Alaskan citizen, people who are complete hermits can still get this money without contributing anything at all to either their state or federal government. This is more than most Alaskan citizens pay annually in federal taxes.
Sorry, it doesn't make sense to examine per-capita money when the Alaskan government makes so much more in alternate channels.
A lot of people maintain a mailing address in Alaska and maintain their Alaskan citizenship, then just have the check forwarded by a buddy to the lower 48 states. They shouldn't be receiving any federal money as long as there's this sort of absurd excess.
In fact, this amount of excess speaks significantly to the unsuitability of Palin for VP role. She hasn't had to balance a budget even for a small town. She hasn't had to deal with limited funds at all in fact. Their government doesn't even know how to spend all the money it does have.
Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale (Score:5, Insightful)
Your numbers are generic. There is no split of Federal funding on a per-capita basis from what is spent ON the Federal facilities and historic landmarks, defense, etc in the District of Columbia. It isn't a fair comparison when your source number is just a "X$ 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.
Re:USA Today Bullshit-o-meter offscale (Score:5, 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 [tnr.com], and pulls out of the federal government nearly twice as much as it puts in.
Re:feels silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:feels silly (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 [spreadit.org] letter has any truth in it (and it appears to be legit at first blush), she has a lot to answer for on her record, and our country is in great danger if this person ever gets put into power. I think we have had enough of authoritarians already. I get the impression that she is a female Cheney or Nixon.
Re:feels silly (Score:5, 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 [huffingtonpost.com]) I wouldn't exactly trust any town hall that was set up by McCain's camp.
Re:feels silly (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!
Re:feels silly (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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?
Re:feels silly (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [flickr.com], 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/ [barackobama.com]
Re:feels silly (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:feels silly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and you will notice that I linked to a mild article with an actual title of "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor". If you read even that mild article you will still easily realize she just hasn't pushed the issue in the past, yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone) and she would obviously like to see creationism taught. Go ahead, give her the power :)
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
yet she does not believe in evolution
I think she may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Most people do.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, she's confusing the bible with science.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (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
Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (Score:5, 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 [yahoo.com]
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that don't cite the AP release, but no particular rebuttal either.
Yum.
Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (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...
Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (Score:5, 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.
Re:Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Palin (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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Interesting)
--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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Presidential belief in God (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hello... Evolution? (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.
Rote Learning (Score:5, 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
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to teach your kids religion? Fine, send them to church. But leave it out of schools!
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] for details. Note there's no mention of religion in that article.
Just try to consider that being a Christian does NOT necessarily mean "blind belief".
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
To quote the late, great Douglas Adams:
"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude you are a spaz!
First your morals of right or wrong is actually completely social based. Case in point, steal in Islam countries hand is coped. Muslim countries allow multiple wives. I am not saying that Islam and Muslim are wrong since that would be saying I am right and they are wrong. It is my point to illustrate to you that there is no absolute right or wrong.
Ever watch a wolf pack? dog packs? Or how about an elephant herd? They have some pretty amazing morals and right vs wrong.
We keep multiple dogs and there are some very interesting morals...
1) the female in the pack when outside the house typically does not greet the dogs first, the alpha dog does.
2) If the alpha dog disapproves of contact with another dog, then the pack will not greet the dog.
3) One dog will always remain on alert and on noise will start storming around.
4) When one dog of the pack is injured or scared the other dogs will attack or storm the problem - This one actually amazed me...
When you keep a single dog the normal dog behaviors seem "gone". I think most people don't understand the "morals" or socialization of a the dog world. Yet if you raise multiple dogs from pups in a pack with your family they are completely different.
Christian
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Funny)
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":
... right, pull my other one!
"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."
There, I hope this gets through better.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I did nothing of the sort. Flat Earth nutbars and Creationist nutbars have equal weight in the realm of science. Flat Earth Theory and Crationism are nearly identical in their lack of evidence in support of these "theories" and their opposition theories have veritable mountains of evidence on their side, cross-referenced across a multitude of scientific disciplines.
The only difference between Creationism and Flat Earth is that the most proponents of Flat Earth simply died out, cluctching to their "Truth" until their last breath, leaving a pitiful band of lunatics to carry their mantle. Creationists are still abundant and their bone-headed fight with the rock of the obvious still goes on. But, as such things go, it will be their skulls which crack before the rock gives out, just as it was for the Flat Earthers ...
The reason I did such a substitution is because Creationists abhor when they are being exposed for what they are, and will do everything in their power to cloak themselves in pretense of "respectability", as if such posturing somehow gave weight to their abject lunacy.
Re:Not equal at all (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re:Not equal at all (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I sympathize with that way of teaching but evolution is much, much harder to demonstrate in the classroom as it is a process which occurs over very extended periods of time. Some enterprising schools apparently attempted to demonstrate evolution in fruit-flies and bacteria but even then this covers only a small section of the whole comprehensive theory and the wackos are ready with plausibly sounding (until you spend a lot of time dissecting them) "explanations". That is why Flat Earthers went relatively extinct, their particular stupidity was too easily demonstrable. Anti-evolution crowd is safer because their lunacy is not as straightforward to demonstrate and they of course do everything in their power to convolute, obfuscate and obscure whatever they can, making the process even more atrocious. This, while not effective against dedicated scientists, is unfortunately quite effective against laymen, especially when coupled with and reinforced by the other scourge of humanity: religion.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That only applies to random and unwarranted substitutions.
That is because such fallacy does not exist. The validity depends on what you are substituting with what.
NO (Score:5, Insightful)
No you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Hello... Evolution? (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One's history, one's science.
its more about the reality of modern politics (Score:5, 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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (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.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] man myself.)
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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 [amazon.co.uk] 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?
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Informative)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
---
Note the bolded part. The prime intention of the first amendment is to prevent an established state religion. To establish a religion, you just have to teach its precents at the exclusion of other religion. To teach only "creationism" in science class, which is exclusively the judeo-Christian god's creation story, just as "intelligent design" really is only the judeo-Christian story of design, you have in fact established an official religion in terms of which one is taught as fact in public education.
Also teaching evolution doesn't fix that - nor does placing it in science class make it science.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but they each have a different creation story, which is very frequently one that is incompatible with either creationism or intelligent design. Many have mankind springing or gods springing from food items, or being created by talking animals, or any number of ways that don't fit with an intentional creator, or with the creation story told in creationism.
Just because the word creation or intelligent design is used doesn't make it anything like most of the religions in the world. And that makes it an establishment of religion.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"She would like to see it taught, but won't push the issue" would be a more accurate description.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
The key here is healthy debate. While I think creationism is not even worth being called science, what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it. The US education system needs to teach critical thinking and you can not teach critical thinking by ignoring or banning things you disagree with.
Another action that is a very big plus for the next Vice President of the U.S. is directly from the article you linked.
But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.
This is perhaps the best part of the article. She made a pledge and has kept. Unlike so
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible, like it or not, has had a huge impact on the world and shouldn't be ignored. Really if you're not at least passingly familiar with the bible you're uneducated. So schools shouldn't just skip it altogether, they should teach it as a piece of literature, along with the Koran, the writings of Marx and Lenin, and other shit that has had a huge impact (good or bad) on history.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching non-science in a science class is not healthy debate.
The debate belongs in a philosophy class.
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Hello... Books? (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 [libraryjournal.com]. 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 [juneauempire.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Palin is obsessed with loyalty. (Score:4, Interesting)
Read this [crosscut.com] 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 [politico.com].
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.
Re:Creationism == dumb God (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello... Evolution? (Score:5, 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.
Or, Judge Picks will Increase Federal Power (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Republicans talk up the Economic issues (which are not the only ones libertarianism hold to) and totally ignore the most important governance portion.
It ain't libertarian if you support the Republican governance platform. It is mild fascism.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that creepy? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Hello - Libertarian? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hello - Libertarian? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with teaching *about* creationism, different religions, etc. because it never hurts to have knowledge of other methods of thinking. (Frex, in my junior high anthro class, we learned about ancient Egyptian gods. What's wrong with knowing about that??)
However, I would have a problem with any of them being taught as Correct Thought.
As to stances on technology, I found this more disturbing than Palin's lack of same:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Where_does_Joe_Biden_stand_on_technology_issues/1219872202 [betanews.com]
"Biden's pro-business stance is evident in his efforts to expand copyright legislation, often siding with the entertainment industry. His pen has produced significant pro-copyright legislation, and most notably in 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a tougher stance on those who commit copyright infringement."
OTOH, this is noteworthy (from TFA of today):
"[Palin] used the Internet to make Alaska government more transparent. Sen. Barack Obama has made government transparency part of his platform. Gov. Palin has indeed taken that a step further by actually taking action in Alaska government. Currently, any check written by the state government over $1,000 is posted to the Division of Finance Web site."
I see shining a bright light on how gov't spend our tax dollars as a GOOD thing.
That itself shows a weak understanding of science (Score:5, 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.
Does it matter? (Score:5, 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?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
McCain is 72 and has had cancerous growths. Obama is 47 with a good health record.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the list [infoplease.com] and a brief explanation of how succession works.
Gerald Ford [wikipedia.org], President of the United States from 1974 to 1977, never won a national election. He was appointed to be Vice President when Spiro Agnew [wikipedia.org] resigned, and then became President himself when Richard Nixon [wikipedia.org] resigned. He lost the next election to Jimmy Carter [wikipedia.org].
In the TV show The West Wing, which I highly recommend watching in its entirety (starting with the pilot), there's an incident that prompts President Bartlett to temporarily turn over the Presidency to the next in line. Normally this would be the Vice President, but the VP had just resigned, so it fell to the Speaker of the House. The awkward thing was 1) the President is a Democrat while the Speaker of the House is a Republican, and 2) the Speaker of the House must resign from Congress before he can be sworn in as President (only the Vice President can serve in two branches of government at the same time), and when President Bartlett decides he's ready to resume his duties as President, the former Speaker of the House cannot simply return to the House; he's out of a job until the next election (House elections are every 2 years). Interesting stuff.
Oh Great. (Score:4, Funny)
I think Palin understands the Internet very well (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Technology? (Score:4, Informative)
The elephant in the room, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bleh (Score:5, 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.
Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
If what this guy said [slashdot.org] is true, they/she are not against the use of Linux at the state level.
Checks and balances (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The Daily Show (Score:4, Interesting)
This one is soooo cool:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card [thedailyshow.com]
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.
Bullshit. (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".
Re:Having books removed from libraries... (Score:4, Informative)
How so? They quoted both the former Mayor and the Time magazine, who interviewed other people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A) If that is so, why didn't you go on Kos to point it out, specifically which ones? They are not like a typical right-wing site, they do not insta-ban people just for voicing dissent. If you are not obnoxious or insulting, you have nothing to fear.
B) They were quoting the Mayor and the Time Magazine. These are the original sources of the information, not Kos.
C) It is q
That's not what the librarian.net post says (Score:4, Informative)
"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.
Re:Having books removed from libraries... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Obama/Biden 08 - live on hope, government chees (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Palin is a very non-libertarian candidate (Score:5, 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.
Re:Sarah Palin is a creationist (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Actually (Score:5, Funny)
The proper acronym is VPILF [vpilf.com]. That may be hard to pronounce now, but it's just a heartbeat away from PILF!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hence the pregnancy...