Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
No I wasn’t because that was true.
Uhuh. And after they discussed it day after day, week after week, did you feel there was any bias at that point?
But apparently it’s different if it’s true that Palin ran up debt, went for federal earmarks, and so on. that’s stuff the media should ignore because, gosh darn it, she’s got a family that needs protecting! (small print – never mind that debt and federal earmarks have nothing to do with her family)
Btw, did you watch the clips the Daily Show put together in that video I linked? Were you embarrassed by any of that? I hope so, because it certainly doesn’t help the right-wing’s case any on Palin, on their criticism of Obama or the media.
sorry i forgot the last part.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
If you don’t think we have a right to know those things, then I’d hate to see what kind of government you expect us to live under.
Please Craig now its your turn to cut the bs.
Question away! Just keep the questions relevant.
Posted by Craig J. Ries:
Btw, did you watch the clips the Daily Show put together in that video I linked? Were you embarrassed by any of that? I hope so, because it certainly doesn’t help the right-wing’s case any on Palin, on their criticism of Obama or the media.
sorry, forgot about it while typing, but just got done watching it.
Sorry No, not a bit embarassed.
If the second oldest daughter were to get preggers like in the Spears family situation then I guess I would blame the parents also.
Just keep the questions relevant.
And the *media* is. It’s the internet, with all it’s blogs and forums and pørņ, that isn’t.
And there’s a big difference between the media and the interwebs. 🙂
KET wrote:
“Because Obama has been boycotting Faux News like the plague it is for quite some time now.”
— 9 months ago Obama told O’Reilly face to face he’d appear on his show… and Bill kept on this promise and wanted Obama to keep his word. Obama finally did. But I’d hardly call that “boycotting” on Obama’s part.
“Faux News”?
— Well, I guess it’s no secret you’re not a fan of FOX NEWS CHANNEL, huh? I hope you’ll understand if I take anything you say with a grain of salt when you make another FNC accusation.
“…appears that Murdock brokered a backroom deal…”
— Can you please provide some evidence of this? Or is this just another bad case of a conspiracy mindset against FNC?
“In addition, Mr. “F**k it, we’ll do it live!” isn’t exactly well known for controlling his temper under pressure.”
— That old Inside Eition clip from the early 90’s was amusing… but if you ask me, Bill showed amazing control as he was able to cut off his anger in a heartbeat.
— Well, part one of the Obama interview aired and I did not see any “foam” coming from O’Reilly’s mouth. What happened? You seemed quite sure of yourself with that prediction.
I hope you’ll understand if I take anything you say with a grain of salt when you make another FNC accusation.
I ask that you please view the link I posted last night, the clip of the Daily Show which compares various clips from talking heads on Fox News, including Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. Then try and tell me with a straight face that the accusations of bias are false.
>That said, she handled it perfectly the big bad transparent media tried their best and she didnt even flinch.
She did? Funny! Right now she is running and hiding from the medialike the poorly vetted choice she was. The McCain campaign says we can all learn everything we need to know from her carefully written speeches that she had no hand in crafting. She will not be answering any questions. The first attempt at a stealth VP candidate in history. Obviously she can’t handle the heat of being a money wasting, bridge to nowhere supporting, abuse of power, parenting failure.
Brian
Palin poster child for lies.
I ask that you please view the link I posted last night, the clip of the Daily Show which compares various clips from talking heads on Fox News, including Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. Then try and tell me with a straight face that the accusations of bias are false.
But aren’t O’Reilly and Rove used for opinion pieces? Would a collection of Keith Olberman clips prove bias at MSNBC? (And ulike Rove and Orielly isn’t Olberman actually being used as an anchor for the convention coverage?)
So, did anyone actually watch the Obama interview? Other than him saying that he Surge has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams did anything else of note occur?
But aren’t O’Reilly and Rove used for opinion pieces?
Yes, but I’m not the one holding up Fox News as a bastion for “fair and balanced” news; I personally don’t think of Fox News or MSNBC as actual news stations in the first place.
But O’Reilly is the biggest attraction on Fox News. He “reports” in his show as much as Olbermann does. And I don’t see Fox News challenging the comments made by Rove and others when they clearly show bias in favor of Republican candidates.
All I see are Republicans outright ignoring this video and the statements made by Republicans within. They know that they cannot defend it, they know it clearly shows their own bias, but they apparently believe if you just act like it’s not there it will go away.
But if this were of people appearing on Olbermann’s show, or Olbermann himself, the right would be all over it as just another example of liberal media bias.
There are different standards at play here, whereby Republicans are judging Democrats far differently than they are judging fellow Republicans. It’s hypocritical and it’s sad.
Well, I for one don’t expect Rove to be unbiased. I can’t believe anyone does. When TV shows trot out 2 people, a conservative and a liberal, to discuss something is there anyone surprised that they end up disagreeing and saying that the same even t supports their view of things?
So I don’t see the problem here. Rove is a partisan who will say anything to advance his agenda? Wow. Shocking.
But if this were of people appearing on Olbermann’s show, or Olbermann himself, the right would be all over it as just another example of liberal media bias.
I don’t think so. Everyone knows that Olberman’s show is liberal. Olberman is proud of that. Hypocritical would be those who want to ban Fox news or single it out for criticism for bias even while they agree that MSNBC does the same thing, just in favor of their own bias’ (and thus permissible). Note–I’m not saying you are in that category.
One thing that may be in favor of O’Reilly over Olberman–and I can’t say this with authority since I seldom watch bits of either show and I doubt I’ve seen either one from beginning to end even once–is that O’Reilly seems to have on people who argue with him while Olberman seems to mostly have people on who agree with him. That might be just so O’Reilly can shout at them but it’s still more interesting than watching an echo chamber. But I could be wrong, maybe Olberman welcomes debate and I’ve missed it.
I hope you are right, Pat. I hope Palin’s “supposed” book banning tendencies are just a unfounded rumour, and I hope that she is a staunch believer of freedom of expression. I hope Mary Ellen Baker is lying.
Obviously, the thought that someone like Sarah Palin would even consider removing some books from libraries because children might be exposed to all the adult, unChristian themes there is soooo very hard to believe, right?
After all, it’s not like Palin believe parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught and should shelter kids from material that is offensive to their religiob, right? Ooops, no, she does. She said so herself.
If Mary Ellen Baker is lying, she’s got company. I found this letter very interesting…
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
TWL
Hypocritical would be those who want to ban Fox news or single it out for criticism for bias even while they agree that MSNBC does the same thing, just in favor of their own bias’ (and thus permissible).
If I say Fox News and MSNBC are both biased, how am I being hypocritical?
What’s going on is that right-wingers refuse to admit that Fox News is biased, while at the same time they bash every other media outlet.
That is hypocrisy.
is that O’Reilly seems to have on people who argue with him while Olberman seems to mostly have people on who agree with him
I haven’t watched Olbermann’s show much recently, but I know Pat Buchanan was a frequent guest, and I think it’s safe to say that Buchanan and Olbermann probably don’t see eye to eye on much. 🙂
The thing is, O’Reilly isn’t interested in a debate. He’s interested in stepping on people and in his mind putting them in their place in front of a national audience. He disrupts them, he insults them, he doesn’t give them a fair chance to make their case. So in that regard, at least I go into Olbermann’s show knowing I won’t be be disappointed that I won’t be hearing a lot from the other side.
If I say Fox News and MSNBC are both biased, how am I being hypocritical?
Jeezley peezley man, the very next line was Note–I’m not saying you are in that category. So not only am I not saying you’re a hypocrite I explictly saying you’re not!
I haven’t watched Olbermann’s show much recently, but I know Pat Buchanan was a frequent guest, and I think it’s safe to say that Buchanan and Olbermann probably don’t see eye to eye on much. 🙂
Well, Buchanan is against the war, against Bush, hates neocons, and thinks the republican party is a disaster. I think they might be able to have a warm conversation!
The reason Fox is # 1 is simple. They offer something that others do not.
A centre right perspective after decades of just the other side. “Fair & Balanced” is the biggest FU in history. They are not, but they slyly admit it and everyone knows.
The centre left is split between:
NBC ABC CBS CNN PBS MSNBC etc etc etc and those news organizations have never admitted it.
So for years media coverage has made being centre-left to be normal, which is the biggest issue.
If you are a centrist your suddenly on the outside scratching your head thinking, wait, I’m not a bad guy? If your are centre right, you are a wacko. If you are fully right wing you should be locked up. While Left wingers are just quirky. Obviously my biased here.
As an example
I present to you NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
A sample question that Mitchell asked Giuliani:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwdLc9KJLbc&eurl=http://corner.nationalreview.com/
NOTE HOW DEPRESSED SHE IS
Let me ask you about your own speech, just briefly. You went after [Obama], you went after him hard, you were sarcastic. Barack Obama has 18 million votes and has survived a very tough Democratic primary test of 20 months. Did you have any pause at all in going after him this hard and belittling him the way you did?
A sample soundbite from Mitchell’s coverage of Obama’s speech last week:
Well, one of the most startling things about this was, as exciting a speech as this was to the delegates down here on floor, they really didn’t get fired up until Barack Obama went after John McCain on exactly what you guys were talking about, his perceived strength, when he — he went right after him and said, if John McCain wants to have a debate on who has the judgment and temperament to be commander in chief, that is a debate that I will have, and then when he said, you know, John McCain likes to say that I will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hëll, but he won’t go to the cave where he lives.
So, it was those — those moments where people started jumping up and shouting, whoo-wee, whoo-wee. I mean, they were really into it.
This was the red meat that this crowd has been wanting, they have been waiting to see. They’re Democrats. They’re rank-and-file Democrats. Some were Hillary. Some were Obama. Some were still undecided. They were waiting to see if this man is a fighter, because this is a change election
Jeezley peezley man, the very next line was Note–I’m not saying you are in that category. So not only am I not saying you’re a hypocrite I explictly saying you’re not!
You’re reading too deeply into it, Bill. I’m simply using myself as the POV.
So, let’s rewrite this then:
If Person X says Fox News and MSNBC are both biased, how is Person X being hypocritical?
😉
Pat Nolan: sorry, forgot about it while typing, but just got done watching it.
Sorry No, not a bit embarassed.
If the second oldest daughter were to get preggers like in the Spears family situation then I guess I would blame the parents also.
By what possible logic would the second daughter be embarrassing but not the first? Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin are the same age and did the same thing. To say that moral outrage is justified in one case but not the other is absurd. Besides, they’re both the second child in the family, so you can’t even say the Palins were first time parents. So the incredibly fine point you’re putting on it is obviously a weaseling out point, not a real argument.
If Person X says Fox News and MSNBC are both biased, how is Person X being hypocritical?
That’s cool. Well, they wouldn’t be. I just don’t see anyone getting at all upset with MSNBC while Fox bashing is pretty much the norm. Actually, I take that back–I think some Hillary supporters were pìššëd at MSNBC for being so pro-Obama. Though I don’t think it was the liberal bias they objected to, just the fact that it was favoring the “wrong” liberal.
Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin are the same age and did the same thing. To say that moral outrage is justified in one case but not the other is absurd.
If the Spears family deserves any criticism it might be due to the fact that the family sometimes seems like they are more interested in their kids earning potential than their well being. But that might just be a perception fed by nothing more than gossip.
(I think they’re situation also received special attention due to the fact that the mom was supposed to be releasing a book on parenting. That struck a lot of people as odd since there was nothing anyone could see that indicted much in the way of great parenting skills. Her daughters are successful because of their talent, not sure if mom had much to do with it. And since Brittany is such a bad mom the court actually awarded the kids to the dad (!) Keven Federline (!!!) one might ponder whether too much time was spent cultivating that talent over other skills.
Frankly, we’d all be better off not worrying about Brittany and Jamie and Bristol, so in that sense yeah, boo on the folks who tried to make political hay out of it. Though let’s be fair to Bristol, she has a looooong way to go before she’s in the trainwreck territory of the Spears kids.
Both girl’s lives should be off the table, Bill. The important detail is the hypocrisy behind the people who are saying one thing in one case and something different in another.
Another lie about Palin bites the dust. Surprise. She didn’t push to have creationism in the schools while governor of Alaska. The great reveal in this story – She made a campaign promise…… AND KEPT IT!!! Wow. That right there makes her a cut above the Washington crowd.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
Timothy, where is the lie?
There is no doubt that she has said she was in favor of creationism. Your own link states as much.
But you’re going to have to find me other links to show that anybody has made the claim that she actually tried to push it on others. That AP article makes no mention that anybody else has done such, nobody in this thread has done such.
So where’s the lie? That because some of us are against creationism the conclusion must be leaped to that we assumed she pushed it while in office, when no such assumption has been made?
That is a good thing. I’m not ashamed to admit it if I’m wrong. And I hope I’m wrong. The same place where I’ve read the worrying book banning thingie, also says Palin vetoed a bill
that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships.
I’ll be very happy if Palin is playing up the Christian Warrior thing just to attract the Religious Right vote, but once in power she will be far more moderate. I can understand that, and I think it’s cool.
Still wouldn’t vote for her, though.
By what possible logic would the second daughter be embarrassing but not the first? Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin are the same age and did the same thing. To say that moral outrage is justified in one case but not the other is absurd. Besides, they’re both the second child in the family, so you can’t even say the Palins were first time parents. So the incredibly fine point you’re putting on it is obviously a weaseling out point, not a real argument.
I was asked if I was embarrassed over the pundits hypocrosy. I seem to have my Hollywood misfits mixed up and was going on the notion that big sis Brit did the same thing but she actually got married first, her melt down happened later. I have never claimed one was ok and the other wasn’t, both are sad that that was/is the way they went into adulthood. Bill O’Reilly is the hypocrite.
Pat Nolan said:
“Bill O’Reilly is the hypocrite.”
Yes, he is.
Bill O’Reilly is the hypocrite.
Vindication! 😉
Posted by Craig J. Ries:
Bill O’Reilly is the hypocrite.
Vindication! 😉
Vindication??? I guess if that makes you feel better. I dont recall claiming Bill wasn’t a hypocrite or Fox news was unbias.
Marc Ambinder is reporting that the Obama campaign is urging its surrogates to mention Eagleton as often as possible, to raise doubts about Palin’s viability. I don’t get it. That ship has sailed. Eagleton was never the most popular of the 4 people on both tickets, as Rasmussen polls now indicate. I don’t know anyone who could honestly claim she hasn’t been a shot in the arm to the McCain campaign.
And lastly, how stupid do they think we are? If she was really a liability the LAST thing the Obama campaign would want is for her to be kicked out. I don’t mind them playing politics but this is just silly. For God’s sake, they should ignore her. Vice presidents are usually not the major campaign issue and it doesn’t look like this is the best time to try to make her into the main issue. It isn’t a winner for Obama. Move along, talk about the economy. Unemployment jumped, that’s an issue. I’m amazed at how badly this pick has rattled what had been a pretty savvy operation.
And lastly, how stupid do they think we are?
Bill, let’s face it, the American electorate, as a whole, isn’t very bright. Otherwise, the same old, tired tactics wouldn’t keep working over and over and over again.
You have to very careful when you are asking people for something that you don’t let on how stupid you think they are. Otherwise they may pick up on that and deny you whatever it is you are asking of them. Which of course might bring into question just who is was that was the stupid one. 🙂
Y’know…when I said that I would vote for Sarah Palin to be the president of a book club, I didn’t know at the time that I wrote it that–as mayor–she wanted to fire the town librarian because the librarian wouldn’t agree to removing books that Palin objected to.
That’s the problem with the GOP: You can’t even make a joke without it turning out to be not funny because of things they’ve done.
PAD
Another lie about Palin bites the dust. Surprise. She didn’t push to have creationism in the schools while governor of Alaska.
I never said she did. And running a google search on the topic, I’ve been unable to find anyone who said that she did. I’ve found plenty of conservative websites claiming that the media or liberals or Obama or whomever accused her of doing so…but actual accusations? No. Only quoting her as saying that she believed in creationism and thought both should be taught. Which she did say. That’s not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether she said that she would push it onto science classes. Which no one is claiming she said…except conservatives who are shouting she was accused of saying it and it’s a lie.
Don’t you find it at all bothersome that after eight years of having a president who is stridently anti-science, we’re faced with the prospect of having more of the same? How does that tie in with the claims of change that McCain is claiming he advocates?
PAD
I find it bothersome that after 8 years of a President who treated his job as a constant campaign, we’re getting a lot of “We deny the Democrat rumor that Sarah Palin killed a man with her own hands and ate his heart!”
It’s amazing how often the Republicans are getting outraged about stuff that the other side didn’t actually say.
Fair enough. The closest I can find to a seeming claim to that effect is Brandon Keim’s article in WIRED headlined McCain’s VP Wants Creationism Taught in School which quotes much of her statement and goes on to discuss attempts to legislate creationism in the classroom…but leaves out the statements she made explicitly stating she would not push the Board of Education to add creation-based curriculum.
That seems deliberately misleading and is at least as unfair as taking Michelle Obama’s words out of context vis a vis the whole “proud of her country for the first time” imbroglio. Sins of omission are not as bad as making up charges out of whole cloth but they make me think the writer was banking on people not being willing to get the whole story.
Two other points–does being in favor of teaching both make one necessarily a creationist? Especially since she framed it as allowing debate. I mean, I’m all in favor of debating Marxism in class, doesn’t make me a Marxist. If I was “forced” to present creationist arguments in biology class I would see it as a great opportunity to show why evolution is such a great scientific theory. One of the best teachers I ever learned from invited 2 ministers into class to present their opposing views. Let’s just say…it wasn’t pretty. The kids ended up making fun of the creationists lame arguments.
(I’m not in favor of adding any kind of creationism to the curriculum, since I have no illusions that some teachers would manipulate the presentation to fit their own bias’. But I haven’t seen any reason to think Palin does either.)
Second point–Is Palin a creationist? If I were a betting man I might bet that way but that’s just an opinion based on very little. It seems to be assumed that she must be but do we have anything to base that on other than her willingness to allow it discussed to some degree within a classroom?
Good chance she is if she doesn’t qualify her statements heavily. It’s a pretty clear dog whistle that’s been used by the Discovery Institute, the creationist Kansas board and so forth.
Bill, yes, she’s a Creationist. She’s a heavy duty Born Again Christian. There’s a video of her in church talking about how the pipeline she’s trying to get for Alaska is part of “god’s plan” and how she’s working hard for Alaskans, but only if they’re “right with God.”
I’ve never heard of anyone wanting Creationism in school who wasn’t a Creationist. Anyone who isn’t one knows that talking about it in school a) wastes everone’s time and b) makes it look more important than it is by giving it more time than it deserves.
Maxism is different because it was something that people actually believed. Nobody actually thinks Creationism is science, some people just pretend they do because they’ve decided that science threatens their religion. It’s worth talking about the Bible in history class where appropriate, but not in a science class.
As long as she doesn’t ever try to push it, I see no great problem in a VP that is a Creationist. She is entitled to her beliefs.
There are plenty of other things that make her scary, though.
BTW, I just read in wikipedia that 47% of Americans believe that the Earth is only ten thousand years old. Holy šhìŧ! Is that right?
I’ve never seen that particular statistic. Where on wikipedia did you see it?
“Don’t you find it at all bothersome that after eight years of having a president who is stridently anti-science, we’re faced with the prospect of having more of the same? How does that tie in with the claims of change that McCain is claiming he advocates?”
You mean the ‘change’ McCain keeps trying to co-opt for himself? Because in the end he’s still running on Bush’s old platform, as he couldn’t convince the Repub rank and file to change anything.
Palin’s merely yet another DISTRACTION from reality, which is what McCain’s campaign was hoping for all along with this pick.
KET
Hillary felt the exact same way about her war-vote, and it got her clobbered on the issue. Her campaign only started recovering at the end when she got Obama to back off the issue by saying her vote got Saddam to agree to inspections, which he did the week before the invasion.
This behavior has been demonstrated by everyone here who’s called me a troll, while they’ve failed to demonstrate the same for whatever behavior they’ve held against me. Hypocrisy has no virtue that isn’t predatory, yet people will tolerate hypocrisy that benefits them. It’s how we trade away a dollar of problem-solving for a 3¢ privilege.
BTW, I just read in wikipedia that 47% of Americans believe that the Earth is only ten thousand years old. Holy šhìŧ! Is that right?
Really? I read an article that said 74% of Americans believe what they read on wikipedia, which I find even more alarming. Then again, I also heard somewhere that 83% of all statistics are made up…
PAD
That seems deliberately misleading and is at least as unfair as taking Michelle Obama’s words out of context vis a vis the whole “proud of her country for the first time” imbroglio.
Not really. Whether Michelle Obama is proud of her country or not is of no consequence. No one’s voting for her, and her respective pride will have no impact on anything. An anti-science creationist being a heartbeat away from the presidency, on the other hand, has potential for HUGE impact.
Sins of omission are not as bad as making up charges out of whole cloth but they make me think the writer was banking on people not being willing to get the whole story.
The point is, it was one story, and it was accurate, which the GOP spin machine tried to transform into an inaccurate attack on their candidate. Which it wasn’t. Furthermore, a promise made by a candidate for governor of Alaska is irrelevant. What matters is what she would do as President of the United States. And she’s made no promises in that regard. All she’s done is read a canned speech, made some folksy jokes, and hidden from interviewers.
How is ANYONE impressed by this woman?
PAD
Found this link at the Tony Isabella message board. It is at snopes, and the letter is written by someone who has known Sally Putin for over 15 years.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp
The woman, Anne Kilkenny, is definitely NOT impressed by her.
Rene: As long as she doesn’t ever try to push it, I see no great problem in a VP that is a Creationist. She is entitled to her beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Except that these issues occasionally become legally actionable, as in the Dover trial. If a creationist-controlled Board of Ed institutes a creationist policy in a public school science classroom, and non-creationists complain, who do you think the creationist mayor/governor/vice president is going to side with? At some point or another, this type of belief may lend itself to action.
Peter David: Really? I read an article that said 74% of Americans believe what they read on wikipedia, which I find even more alarming.
Luigi Novi: Well, if the Americans in question automatically believe the material regardless of whether it’s properly sourced by a reliable, third party source (a core Wikipedia policy), and ignore the overall quality of the article (at one end of the spectrum are Featured Articles, which have undergone peer review, which unsourced stubs at the other end), then yeah, that is alarming.
Jason, your post deserves a thorough reply.
Bill, yes, she’s a Creationist. She’s a heavy duty Born Again Christian.
So was Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and any of a number of people who have no trouble with evolution. By “born again” I assume you mean she was rebaptised at a later age, which is true enough. She’s been Catholic, Pentecostal and is currently at a non-denomination church. None of which is prima facia evidence of being a creationist.
Obama has talked of the time he “accepted Jesus into his life”, kneeling in front of the cross at Trinity United Church of Christ and feeling his sins redeemed as he submitted to God. Around here that would be a “born again” experience, though I don’t know if he actually was rebaptized.
The point is, “born again” should not be short hand for any political belief any more than “devout Catholic”, “orthodox Jew” or “longtime atheist”.
(As an aside, I feel a little bad for my atheist friends because whoever they end up voting for it looks like it’s going to be God, God, God all the time.)
There’s a video of her in church talking about how the pipeline she’s trying to get for Alaska is part of “god’s plan” and how she’s working hard for Alaskans, but only if they’re “right with God.”
yeah, yeah, and Nancy Pelosi said that “God Has Blessed Us With Obama”, with no correction from Obama. (For that matter, God was also unavailable for comment.) This is politics, God bless this, God given that, Thank God the hurricane missed us (and butt raped those heathens in Haiti, one must assume). Again, believing in God does not make one a creationist.
I’ve never heard of anyone wanting Creationism in school who wasn’t a Creationist. Anyone who isn’t one knows that talking about it in school a) wastes everone’s time and b) makes it look more important than it is by giving it more time than it deserves.
Depends on what you mean by “wanting creationism in school”. s I’ve said, I have no problem with the topic when we cover evolution. Far from wasting time it is a great way to compare and contrast science and nonscience, what a scientific theory is, the importance of falsifiability, the role of science in society, the courage of Charles Darwin, challenging assumptions, etc etc. I love it. And as my friends will tell you as they role their eyes in memory of discussions that were probably of interest only to myself. I am definitely no creationist.
Now if you mean spending 3 weeks actually presenting crap evidence of a 5000 year old earth, hey, I’m with you. But Palin seemed to specifically rule that out.
Maxism is different because it was something that people actually believed. Nobody actually thinks Creationism is science, some people just pretend they do because they’ve decided that science threatens their religion.
If only that were true. No, they really believe. You claim to have found a fossil T-Rex with Fred Flintstone’s tie in its stomach and they will be all over that šhìŧ. They are always trying to find that one golden piece of evidence that will show the Earth to be way younger than it could be under evolutionary theory. They mount expeditions to Turkey to look for Noah’s Ark in the mountains. That’s not a fun vacation. They really believe. That’s what’s sad.
(And arrogant. Assume, for the sake of argument, that God really did make the Earth 5000 years ago and did everything in his power (ie everything) to make it look like it was many many times older. Do these people think they are gonna find something God missed?)
It’s worth talking about the Bible in history class where appropriate, but not in a science class.
True, true, though there are more creation myths than just the Adam/Eve version. But if anyone has evidence of an alternative to the principle of Uniformitarianism, hey, give it your best shot. Better have the facts on your side though.
Guys, the statement that 47% of Americans believe the Earth is ten thousand years old is in the “Creationism” page of wikipedia, the setion on “Young Earth Creationism.”
I’ve dug further, and actually the number refers to a Gallup poll that says 44-47% of Americans believe “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Luigi–I was joking. It was a joke.
You gotta lighten up, man. Seriously.
PAD
The issue in dispute is whetther to present creationism as a an equal competing scientific theory to evolution. I think it would be reasonable to assume that if someone says they want creationism in class, they mean it in that sense, unless they said specifically that they want — as you say — to contrast scientific theory with philosophy/religion/myth.
I think if you told creationist that yes, you are going to present their beliefs in science class, but only to contrast them with science, they might reconsider the idea of having it in class.
“It’s worth talking about the Bible in history class where appropriate, but not in a science class.”
That’s a whole other hornet nest that hasn’t been touched in your country, mostly because its less relevant. In my country being a biblical literalist is believing that the bible is an accurate account of the history of the Jewish people. But what happens when you start treating the bible not as a sacred text, but from a secular point of view, as a historical text (or as a literary text for that matter)?
Me- That seems deliberately misleading and is at least as unfair as taking Michelle Obama’s words out of context vis a vis the whole “proud of her country for the first time” imbroglio.
PAD- Not really. Whether Michelle Obama is proud of her country or not is of no consequence. No one’s voting for her, and her respective pride will have no impact on anything. An anti-science creationist being a heartbeat away from the presidency, on the other hand, has potential for HUGE impact.
I wasn’t saying anything about the relative importance or unimportance of the statements in question, merely that both were taken out of context and presented in a way that could be seen as misleading.
All she’s done is read a canned speech, made some folksy jokes, and hidden from interviewers.
How is ANYONE impressed by this woman?
A good speech, well delivered, can do wonders for a career. Look what one did for Obama. As for it being written by someone else, it’s true she didn’t come up with any great line’s like JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”…but then again, neither did JFK (or even his speechwriters, for that matter).
Bill Mulligan: So was Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and any of a number of people who have no trouble with evolution
Bill, I was making two separate comments. She is creationist and she is a Born Again Christian. Both of these things are how she has described herself in interviews, so you’ll have to ask her what precise definition of the terms she’s going by.
And yes, I do worry about any politician who brings faith into politics. There’s stuff that Obama has promised that worries me too.
Religion is where most people get their morals, so it’s absolutely true that almost all politicians are going to be guided by their faith in their daily lives and their job. But I don’t believe it’s the least bit appropriate to have a leader saying that she can do her job, but it won’t do any good if her constituents aren’t “right with god”. Even if a politician believes her religion is the only true religion, she shouldn’t be saying stuff like that. It’s like a referee who loves to go on about his favorite team.
As for whether a “debate” of Creationism should be in the classroom, I see that as the same thing as suggesting that Art Class should include a comparison of figure drawing vs. eating a sandwich. The first half of the class they draw a person, the second half they eat. Eating may be necessary, but it is supposed to happen at lunch time and the comparison just cheats those kids out of half of their art class. A “debate” about Creationism is just their way of sneaking it into the classroom, which would be time not spent learning science.
Bill Mulligan: A good speech, well delivered, can do wonders for a career. Look what one did for Obama. As for it being written by someone else, it’s true she didn’t come up with any great line’s like JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”…but then again, neither did JFK (or even his speechwriters, for that matter).
Bill, you’re looking at the wrong words in PAD’s statement. The fact that someone else wrote the speech wasn’t the important part. The important bit was, “All she’s done…”
It’s *all* she’s done since being announced as the VP pick. We’re all in agreement that giving a terrific reading is a powerful skill. The problem is that she refuses to do anything else. She’s refusing to give any interviews, so the only opinions she shares are the ones that will make her look good.
That’s unimpressive.