FTN wrote:Back to criticizing the Palin pick. Its a few days old, but I just read it anyway

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars.

Sam Harris = not a fan of Palin, but this part of the article is kind of amusing.

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."

cshort wrote:According to Newsweek, a number of the Palin "stories", including those about book banning and creationism, were false or exaggerated. Apparently someone with an axe to grind went as far as cutting and pasting items to create false information, and the media was happy to run with it. One of the more obvious errors was the inclusion of Harry Potter books on Palin's banned list - books that didn't exist when the list was supposedly supplied.

Regarding the "God's will" stuff from Palin, I get the sense that she doesn't see things as a plan and that she's been given marching orders. My impression is that she hopes there is a plan, and if things work out, then God wanted it to work out that way, if they don't, then he didn't.

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 above was really a more religous way of saying let's hope we're doing the right thing. It wasn't saying that God sent us on a mission.

Is she influenced by her faith? Sure, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It seems to me that she's really talking about literately praying that she makes the right decisions.

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:According to Newsweek, a number of the Palin "stories", including those about book banning and creationism, were false or exaggerated. Apparently someone with an axe to grind went as far as cutting and pasting items to create false information, and the media was happy to run with it. One of the more obvious errors was the inclusion of Harry Potter books on Palin's banned list - books that didn't exist when the list was supposedly supplied.

Regarding the "God's will" stuff from Palin, I get the sense that she doesn't see things as a plan and that she's been given marching orders. My impression is that she hopes there is a plan, and if things work out, then God wanted it to work out that way, if they don't, then he didn't.

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 above was really a more religous way of saying let's hope we're doing the right thing. It wasn't saying that God sent us on a mission.

Is she influenced by her faith? Sure, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It seems to me that she's really talking about literately praying that she makes the right decisions.

She said we could 'debate both sides' in class and asked a 'what if' books were banned. Yeah, I certainly feel better about those ideas.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will speak at her son’s Army deployment ceremony on 9/11 and spend two days with ABC News crews later this week as part of a McCain campaign plan to increase Americans’ comfort with her as a leader.

Campaign and network officials had said on Sunday that her first television interview would be a sit-down with Charles Gibson of ABC’s “World News.”

But it turns out that she is spending much of Thursday and Friday with Gibson — at the ceremony in Fairbanks, Alaska, and at her home in Wasilla, Alaska.

Campaign aides said the anchorman will get extensive, repeated access to Palin throughout her first trip home since becoming the nominee.

“ABC News will have plenty of time to question her and examine her and spend time with her,” a campaign official said. “They’ll do multiple interviews over two days. No topics are off-limits – there are no ground rules. There’s tons of time to talk to her about every topic.”

The remarkable rollout reflects new confidence in Palin by her handlers, who initially had suggested it would be a while before she did interviews. Now, there will be several.

cshort wrote:

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:According to Newsweek, a number of the Palin "stories", including those about book banning and creationism, were false or exaggerated. Apparently someone with an axe to grind went as far as cutting and pasting items to create false information, and the media was happy to run with it. One of the more obvious errors was the inclusion of Harry Potter books on Palin's banned list - books that didn't exist when the list was supposedly supplied.

Regarding the "God's will" stuff from Palin, I get the sense that she doesn't see things as a plan and that she's been given marching orders. My impression is that she hopes there is a plan, and if things work out, then God wanted it to work out that way, if they don't, then he didn't.

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 above was really a more religous way of saying let's hope we're doing the right thing. It wasn't saying that God sent us on a mission.

Is she influenced by her faith? Sure, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It seems to me that she's really talking about literately praying that she makes the right decisions.

She said we could 'debate both sides' in class and asked a 'what if' books were banned. Yeah, I certainly feel better about those ideas.

So you're saying that if a child wants to bring up intelligent design (which I don't believe in), then they should be ignored, and not have an intelligent discussion around the issue? Sounds like a school I want my kid to learn in. Don't question anything, just regurgitate what the teacher tells you. You fail to mention that she said she doesn't want it as part of the curriculum.

And the what-if statement doesn't provide any context whatsoever, so how would you know what question was actually posed? Her question could have been "What if books were banned by another party (court, whatever)- could we fight the judgement?" or it could have been "What if I give you a list of books, can we ban them?". The article doesn't say.

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:According to Newsweek, a number of the Palin "stories", including those about book banning and creationism, were false or exaggerated. Apparently someone with an axe to grind went as far as cutting and pasting items to create false information, and the media was happy to run with it. One of the more obvious errors was the inclusion of Harry Potter books on Palin's banned list - books that didn't exist when the list was supposedly supplied.

Regarding the "God's will" stuff from Palin, I get the sense that she doesn't see things as a plan and that she's been given marching orders. My impression is that she hopes there is a plan, and if things work out, then God wanted it to work out that way, if they don't, then he didn't.

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 above was really a more religous way of saying let's hope we're doing the right thing. It wasn't saying that God sent us on a mission.

Is she influenced by her faith? Sure, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It seems to me that she's really talking about literately praying that she makes the right decisions.

She said we could 'debate both sides' in class and asked a 'what if' books were banned. Yeah, I certainly feel better about those ideas.

So you're saying that if a child wants to bring up intelligent design (which I don't believe in), then they should be ignored, and not have an intelligent discussion around the issue? Sounds like a school I want my kid to learn in. Don't question anything, just regurgitate what the teacher tells you. You fail to mention that she said she doesn't want it as part of the curriculum.

And the what-if statement doesn't provide any context whatsoever, so how would you know what question was actually posed? Her question could have been "What if books were banned by another party (court, whatever)- could we fight the judgement?" or it could have been "What if I give you a list of books, can we ban them?". The article doesn't say.

'regurgitate' what...facts? actual science? how absurd, let's instead validate goofy bullcrap because it's a 'side'.

jerseyhoya wrote:Ron Paul on the ballot in Montana as the Constitutional Party candidate. I imagine this hurts McCain, though it's not clear the magnitude of the pain will be that great, considering Paul voters might not have voted for him anyway, and some will be young nuts who might have otherwise voted for Obama.

cshort wrote:Learning is not about memorization. Especially in science, it's about taking information, processing it, challenging it, moving it forward. There is no reason why someone couldn't discuss that in a classroom, and allow the teacher to debate it with them. Why stifle the debate? What are people afraid of? It's not a validation, it's an opportunity for the teacher to progress the student's thinking, poke holes in the intelligent design argument.

I remember sitting in a meeting with room full of PhD's a number of years ago, right after the Dolly cloning announcement was made. One of docs was so sure it was untrue (and most of them didn't believe it), he swore he'd "eat his hat" if she were a clone. When Jurassic Park came out, there were many articles debunking the possibility, claiming it would never happen. So much for goofy science/science fiction.

It's that kind of thinking that prevents innovation. Even if someone is wrong, why do we want to silence them?

VoxOrion wrote:Modern journalism is a joke, that's not a right left or otherwise thing, it's just true. There are a billion million reasons but it's a joke nonetheless. Yeah, I'm sure that dude from the Wire is really out there beating the streets (figuratively) but he'll never make it to tee-vee, and hardly anyone reads newspapers. News organizations have lost a ton of respect and almost all of their gravitas - some of it due to their own fault and some of it due to the fault of the impatient viewer.

Here's a timely article on the (sort of) subject, actually.

cshort wrote:I don't think anyone is saying we need to have it brought up as part of the curriculum. The teacher can always discuss it with a student separately. Educate them as to why it doesn't make sense. No one is saying it has to be treated on the same level as mainstream science, but why not help them work through the thought process as to why their position doesn't make sense. Palin's final position was to not prohibit a debate if it comes up. I don't think it's an issue that a class would even need to spend a lot of time on. Carl Sagan had an episode in his Cosmos series that is a perfect tool to help kids work through a question like this, and it would take all of 1/2 an hour.

Philly the Kid wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Modern journalism is a joke, that's not a right left or otherwise thing, it's just true. There are a billion million reasons but it's a joke nonetheless. Yeah, I'm sure that dude from the Wire is really out there beating the streets (figuratively) but he'll never make it to tee-vee, and hardly anyone reads newspapers. News organizations have lost a ton of respect and almost all of their gravitas - some of it due to their own fault and some of it due to the fault of the impatient viewer.

Here's a timely article on the (sort of) subject, actually.

THat's all well and good. Do you want Britt Hume off the airwaves? His panels filled with right-wing extremists and veteran conservatives? If not, then you must support Olbermann and his ilk remaining on-air for balance no?