Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_beastie]

Dart

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?

A “healthy debate” means that both sides can present strong evidence that can be debated in a fact-based environment. You can’t have a “healthy debate” when one side is a scientific joke. You can expose it for the fact that it has zero scientific evidence, but that’s hardly a “healthy debate”.


Beastie:

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. 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?

Dart:

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

LOL! Where did Palin clarify that she wants creationism to be mentioned along with the clarification that it has no scientific support and is a religious theory?

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.

Again, LOL! According to this, McCain is as unqualified as Obama.

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.

McCain does not believe that invading Iraq was a mistake to begin with. He believes, like you seem to believe, that invading Iraq was justified, but mishandled. I made this point clearly in my previous post:

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.

You are one sloppy reader and…

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.

naïve to boot.

by the way, if Palin were a man, would Palin still be McCain’s VP choice?

[_krose]

Like Bush or not he was Governor of one of the largest states for six years before he was elected. He was and is light years ahead of Obama far as executive leadership.

This looks like the very best evidence that "executive" experience is probably a terrible indicator of a good president. Based on this alone, perhaps we should never elect a governor again.

[_harmony]

I am delighted at McCain's choice for VP. Finally we have a chance to actually have a woman at the top.

As for McCain, I'm a long time supporter, since he took on Big Tobacco when no other Republican would even think of damming that money river. If he can take on Big Tobacco and succeed, he can take on Big Oil and their obscene profits at the expense of everyone else. He's a maverick who votes against his own party whenever he disagrees with it.

As for Obama... no thanks. All I see is smoke and mirrors, not leadership. What has he ever done that changed the country? He's been in the Senate; big deal, McCain's been in the Senate too, and he's actually accomplished something while there. Obama's Black; big deal, Palin's female. One Trump's the other. He's young; big deal, so's Palin. Biden's a Washington insider; big deal, so is McCain. He's the party line. And that is why I won't vote for him... I don't need another loyal get-in-line non-leader who votes the party line instead of thinking for himself.

[_beastie]

Does Experience Matter?

[_beastie]

As for McCain, I'm a long time supporter, since he took on Big Tobacco when no other Republican would even think of damming that money river. If he can take on Big Tobacco and succeed, he can take on Big Oil and their obscene profits at the expense of everyone else. He's a maverick who votes against his own party whenever he disagrees with it.

I once respected McCain, too, before he completely prostituted himself in his desire to be president.

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

McCainBush

I'd like to see some answers to the question I asked Dart: does anyone here believe that if Palin were a man, Palin would still be McCain's VP pick?

[_antishock8]

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

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

I live in the Bible Belt, and that was the gist of what I was saying before. I think it's funny, because uber-Conservatives will vote for a woman because she's pro-life and a Christian, but this in of itself creates a problem for many Conservatives because in their minds women shouldn't be in the public arena in the first place.

It's funny, and disheartening to see Liberals spew vile bigotry to take this woman down, and at the same time know that some Conservatives will reluctantly vote for her simply because she's a woman.

[_Droopy]

I think it was a political mistake because, in declaring Palin "ready to be president", McCain has eliminated what may have been his most effective criticism of Obama, which was that lack of experience rendered him not ready to be president.

Palin done substantially more than Obama ever has in the area of governmental reform and proactive political initiatives while in office and during her political career. Palin has also, although lacking direct foreign policy experience, something Obama quite patently does not have, and that is sound judgment.

I also wonder if this choice will alienate some uber socially conservative republicans, who have already had some issues with McCain. Some of these folks don't even believe a woman should be a preacher over a congregation, much less President.

This is a relatively tiny minority of fundamentalists who have little effect upon the Republican party per se and are a minority among the general EV population, which is philosophically much more diverse. The fundies are not the Republican base, conservatives are, and this is hardly monolithic.

by the way, I don't think there's inherent sexism in stating the obvious - given Palin's lack of experience, and given the fact that McCain has already been making serious overtures to the disaffected Hillary supporters, it is quite likely that hoping to catch those disaffected Hillary supporter played a significant role in his decision.

Certainly it did, and this could be an end run around Obama, who foolishly perhaps, has snubbed Hillery and settled for standard, cookie cutter leftist who's been in office for upwards of forty years and again, has displayed very poor judgment on key issues, especially national security and economic issues. Keep in mind that Margaret Thatcher came into office with little foreign policy experience, and then surrounded herself with those to did have it. Experience is one thing, but relatively meaningless without sound judgment.

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.

1. Our future economic situation has precisely zero to do with the status of evolutionary theory.
2. Anti-intellectualism and junk science occurs on both the Right and the Left, but I would have to place the Lion's share of the blame for both the attitude and the contentiousness of such debates squarely on the shoulders of the Left. The Left's long dalliance with junk science, primarily in the guise of neo-primitivist and technophobic environmentalism is now infamous, and has had far greater effects and is far more widespread among the Left than Creationsim is among the right (again, this is a pet shibboleth of Protestant Fundamentalists, not in any manner a majority of evangelicals)

As to Beastie's claim that Palin supports the teaching of Creationism in the schools, Beastie has apparantly failed to do sufficient homework here, as we see from this post at LGF:

Sarah Palin and Creationism

Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:15:58 pm PST

LGF readers are probably aware that I am no creationist; in fact, I am strongly opposed to the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creation science,” or any other name the advocates for creationism concoct in their relentless quest to promote pseudo-science.

So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.

But this is going to be a point of attack for the left, as Wired Magazine’s Brandon Keim demonstrates in this article: McCain’s VP Wants Creationism Taught in School.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska trotted out the usual creationist education canard: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Teaching evolution and creationism in a scientifically balanced way is simply impossible. Evolution is accepted by scientists as driving the development of life on Earth. Creationism, which puts a (Christian) God in the engine room of life, is unsupported by science. Its arguments have been roundly dismissed by scientists — many of whom, it should be noted, believe in God. They’re just sensible enough to understand where science ends and religion begins.

This is all true as far as it goes, but it’s a bit dishonest of Keim not to quote the rest of Palin’s statements in the article he linked: ‘Creation science’ enters the race.

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.

Looks like Palin made an off-the-cuff statement during a debate on a hot topic, didn’t really expect the criticism she’d get, and then softened her position considerably in a follow-up interview. But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort.

Aside from that, I think the fact that Hillary was a serious contender and now Palin is a contender for VP is very exciting, and probably means we'll see a female President in our lifetimes.

Which is nice, but not pivotal, as, again, the point is intelligence and judgment, not gender, race, or even experience (can we say "Earl Warren"?).

[_Pokatator]

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

I'd like to see some answers to the question I asked Dart: does anyone here believe that if Palin were a man, Palin would still be McCain's VP pick?

So which way do you want it debate or no debate?

[_Jason Bourne]

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

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

No but I hang out with a lot of conservative Mormons. And I know a lot of EVs as well.

I could be wrong though. People are odd creatures.

[Tator]

I live in the Bible Belt, and that was the gist of what I was saying before. I think it's funny, because uber-Conservatives will vote for a woman because she's pro-life and a Christian, but this in of itself creates a problem for many Conservatives because in their minds women shouldn't be in the public arena in the first place.

It's funny, and disheartening to see Liberals spew vile bigotry to take this woman down, and at the same time know that some Conservatives will reluctantly vote for her simply because she's a woman.

It's all about tribe. Political party affiliation and religion perform mainly as tribes, in my opinion. We are all hypocrites at heart - everyone, everywhere. We will overlook all manner of "sins" in our own tribe, even the "sin" of violating our tribal standards (such as not discriminating against women, or not approving of women in powerful positions), while having hissy fits over the other side doing the same thing.

That's why, the older I get, the more I relate to George Carlin's statement:

I don’t believe anymore in my fellow human, or my fellow American. I divorced myself from these two groups a long time ago, somewhere around 30 years ago. I found myself feeling completely outside of the human race and the American experience. Abraham Maslow, the psychologist said, the fully realized man does not identify with the local group. And when I read that it really hit me. I said, “That’s me.” I really don’t identify with these people, I don’t feel a part of this - I’ve never, never felt a part of this. And by “this” I mean - the human race yeah I know, I’m human, by definition I’m in it, I mean feeling like I’m in it. I mean feeling like I’m American. I just don’t give a crap anymore. I stopped giving a f***. And because I did that, it gave me a great deal of artistic freedom - it gave me emotional detachment from which I could operate with a more even-handed look at everything. I didn’t have a rooted interest. I didn’t have an outcome I was interested in. I didn’t have a rooted interest. I wasn’t a cheerleader. I was really just an observer. When you’re born in the world you’re given a ticket to the freakshow; when you’re born in America you’re given a front-row seat. And some of us in the front row have notebooks and pencils.

http://www.nullsession.net/nullsession/?p=1102