Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_antishock8]

I also hate the idea of having yet another leader who encourages the current anti-scientific bent of this country, as demonstrated in her support of teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution. Although this may seem a minor issue to some, it's a serious issue to me. It seems to me our future economic welfare partly depends on improving our science education, which will widen the field for gifted individuals to invent a new, world-changing technology.

I understand your sentiment. I share it it. I don't think Creationsim has a place in the classroom.

"In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise 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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said."

Personally, I think her "Creationism Stance Comment" was an off-the-cuff statement. She seems much too lucid and pragmatic to be a Creationist.

[_beastie]

Palin Creationism

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "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 backpedaling:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise 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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

There is no "healthy debate" in terms of two scientifically supported theories being debated to see which one is stronger. There is one side that is fully supported by science - evolution - versus another side that has no scientific support and is a religious theory - creationism.

Sure, creationism should be "mentioned" in school, but only if this essential difference between the two is emphasized. You think that's what Palin had in mind?

The spin is now "executive" experience is what really matters, eh? If so, then McCain is as unqualified as Obama.

And you act as if Obama has done nothing his entire life. Just because he was engaged in productive accomplishments you don't value doesn't mean that others don't see as much value in his accomplishments as those of Palin.

The fact is that one of the primary divides between republican and democratic parties is whether or not invading Iraq was actually justified, and simply misdirected, or was a mistake to begin with. I'm in the latter camp. And spare me the "evil dictator" routine - there are plenty of evil, repressive regimes whom we fully support. Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Just a warning - I will not engage in an endless political debate. They're worse than religious debates.

[_beastie]

So does anyone agree with me that this may alienate some of the uber religious conservatives, who don't even believe women should be preachers?

[_beastie]

Palin is a hell of alot more presentable than Hillary. It isn't just the looks, but the fact that Hillary is so damn fake.

LOL! How fitting for this thread. :)

[_Jason Bourne]

I always felt like we needed a woman in office, but Hillary always annoyed me. Palin is a hell of alot more presentable than Hillary. It isn't just the looks, but the fact that Hillary is so damn fake. I.

I just never could stomach Hillary. And I think what you say above is why. She is not genuine. And her delivery in speaking is just hideous. As I listened to Palin speak I contrasted her style against Hillary genuine was what kept coming up. Hillary also always struck me as terrible condescending.

[_Jason Bourne]

So does anyone agree with me that this may alienate some of the uber religious conservatives, who don't even believe women should be preachers?

Yes But I think it will be very few and only the extreme.

[_beastie]

Yes But I think it will be very few and only the extreme.

You don't live in the Bible belt, do you?

[_beastie]

Quick newsflash:

All politicians are fake. It's just that some of them are more polished in their fake presentations.

[_dartagnan]

The backpedaling?
What you call backpedaling is clearly a clarification. There is nothing in the radio interview that demands the interpretation you insist upon. Your fear is that she wants it "taught as a theory just as legitimate as evolution." That is your gripe. Well, when asked if that was her position she clarified and said no. But that isn't good enough for you huh? You're still going to present her position as if this is what she wants. That's dishonest.

There is no "healthy debate" in terms of two scientifically supported theories being debated to see which one is stronger.

Why not? If your scientific position is so strong, then what does a science teacher have to fear from a bunch of inferior kids asking simple questions about God? Sudenly EA's whine about exclusion suddenly smacks of hypocrisy for these atheists. You guys want to claim exclusion status because the national motto on our currency mentions God. How do you think religious children feel when science teachers belittle them for ever mentioning God in this context?

There is one side that is fully supported by science - evolution - versus another side that has no scientific support and is a religious theory - creationism.

If you are talking about the typical understanding of God creating man and the earth, then you're right. But if you're referring to the typical understanding of God creating the universe, then you're wrong. More and more scientists, formerly atheists, are converting to some form of theism due to the evidence presented in the anthropic principle (i.e. Glynn, Flew).

eationism should be "mentioned" in school, but only if this essential difference between the two is emphasized. You think that's what Palin had in mind?

Yes, that is what she said she asked to expound on it.

The spin is now "executive" experience is what really matters, eh? If so, then McCain is as unqualified as Obama.

The spin is coming from your side. You really think "experience" in any kind of politics should count towards qualification? Give us a break beastie. Of course executive positions matter. That is precisely what the Presidency entails. Obama was in legislature and voted on laws. That was his job. He never stapped out of his shell and fought and accomplished certain feats. He rode on in using his impressive lecture styule, along with his skin color. I mean for crying out loud, he is the only other person aside from Dr. Phil to "amaze" Oprah Winfrey. Phil is a crackpot psychologist who just knows how to capture everyone's attention with his mannerisms, and so is Obama. But if he were white, he never would be the candidate.

And you act as if Obama has done nothing his entire life. Just because he was engaged in productive accomplishments you don't value doesn't mean that others don't see as much value in his accomplishments as those of Palin.

That isn't it at all. He became a senator and then immediately shot for the stars to see how far his skin color would take him. He is all about himself. Overly ambitious just as Hillary was. Obama cares about being the first black man to do this and that. Hillary cared about being the first woman to do this and that. It wasn never about what's best for the country. Their silly motto about "change" is hilarious since he chose Biden, who is about as old school an attack-dog politician as one could find. McCain wants a respectable campaign, Obama wants Biden to do all his dirty work for him.

The fact is that one of the primary divides between republican and democratic parties is whether or not invading Iraq was actually justified, and simply misdirected, or was a mistake to begin with. I'm in the latter camp. And spare me the "evil dictator" routine - there are plenty of evil, repressive regimes whom we fully support. Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Who said anything about an evil dictator? The fact is you cannot blame McCain for Iraq. Trying to do so is pointless. Iraq was Bush's idea. He had it planned before he came into office.

Just a warning - I will not engage in an endless political debate. They're worse than religious debates.

Good, then the discussion will instantly become more informed.
Incidentally, I came across this article that was written a week ago. I found it very interesting and this might be one of the reasons why McCain picked Palin; the VP debate.

Well, Barack Obama has made his VP selection, taking Washington's most vicious attack dog, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. So, the question has now become how to combat the fast-talking Biden and his decades of foreign policy experience. Unfortunately, most of the Republican punditry is running scared from Biden and, in my opinion, suggesting that McCain adopt a disastrous strategy with his own pick. So, here are my thoughts on how to beat Biden, and they are probably different from what you've been hearing on the news:

Biden is a fast-talker who pulls no punches. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy, and will try to bludgeon any debate opponent with all of the minutia of different situations. He is also a hothead who is overly fond of personal attacks. The best way to beat him is to make him look like a mean-spirited jerk (which is not hard), but unfortunately the punditry seems to think that McCain should now be forced to pick an aggressive VP who can crawl into Biden's gutter and beat him at his own game. I think that that's a horrible idea, and I'm not just saying that because I'm promoting Palin.

Biden is without doubt the best attack dog in the country, period. We aren't going to find someone who can beat him on that front. Furthermore, sinking to Biden's level would make the ticket look sleazy. Instead, we should note that Biden totally undermines Obama's "change" mantra, which McCain can now seize for himself by taking a reform minded VP from outside Washington. We can also show up Biden in the debates by selecting a calm, collected candidate who will show Biden for the hothead he is. Sarah Palin fits both bills.

For one, Palin has actually produced the sort of change that Obama and Biden can only talk about. Secondly, she will refuse to play in Biden's mudpit, which makes him look even worse. Third, she knows how to debate hotheaded opponents. Biden compares very well to John Binkley, another fast-talking attack dog who ran against Palin in the 2006 primary. Palin filleted Binkley (and incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski) by sitting back while they ranted and then delivering crushing one liners that made them look like bratty kids ("Alaskans deserve better than this."). Finally, Biden will do everything he can to attack his opponent on personal terms, which is very dangerous when you are running against a woman or a military parent. Biden WILL say something stupid in the debates, probably belittling Sarah for having been a housewife or mentioning that Track Palin is in the Army, and Gov. Palin will be ready with with a "you're no Jack Kennedy"-style response.

Biden must not be allowed to interrupt the McCain game plan, which likely calls for a young, reformist VP. And when it comes to the debates, the secret will be to allow a cooler head to prevail over the fire-breathing Joe Biden. Gov. Palin is that cool head, and a reformer to boot. If she plays the debate right, she could reduce Biden from "distinguished senator" to "schoolyard bully" and nullify any gravitas that he brings to the Obama ticket.

[_dartagnan]

All politicians are fake. It's just that some of them are more polished in their fake presentations.

That isn't true and it is a very lazy way to approach the issue, while giving your own unoriginal candidate an excuse for being ungenuine.

Palin is fake? How so? Just reading about her life's accomplishments is impressive, it seems she has gotten to be where she is because she isn't fake. She isn't where she is because she was shooting for it. She was picked to be where she is now because of who she is. She isn't the typical politician, and that's what McCain wants.