The problems with this pick are pretty clear. If the problem with Obama is lack of experience, then McCain (not a young man) just chose a VP candidate with even less experience. And while it is notable that she is a woman, I am not sure that will appeal to feminists who wanted Hillary, or will completely shore up that religious right group--many of whom like to talk about women being submissive and staying home. Of course, they also believe in morality and humility, but they had no problem with Bush, so we can't discount their ability to self-deceive.
But while I think Obama chose Biden primarily for his ability to actually govern (not saying there weren't political considerations), McCain chose Palin ONLY for the politics of it.
Then this morning, I see this interview where Palin was asked about teaching intelligent design in schools:
"Next, Carey asked about teaching alternatives to evolution - such as creationism and intelligent design - in public schools. […]Right, because they are of equal weight and value. The same logic would lead us to teach the holocaust deniers right next to the actual history, or the mound builders as aliens right next to, real history. Any alternative explanation is equal.
Palin: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information."
During the olympics, someone noted that China's great economic expansion is helped by the fact that they don't have debates about evolution and intelligent design. Of course, they are not a democracy, so that changes it too, but they are too busy using science to fuel their economy. But we must spend half our damn time arguing about a faux science.
Our global competitiveness is at stake. But this "alternative viewpoint is just the other side" is also part of our problem. Kudos to the Republican party for being the party of anti-science. And kudos for opposing equal pay for women but deciding that you can still use them for political means.
13 comments:
Republicans are done. Done, I tell you. I just posted on this as well, not nearly as coherently, but didn't look at it from the feminist angle. I think you are right; whatever McCain tried to accomplish choosing her for youthfulness (she's 44) and vibrancy he lost in experience. Obama made up for a supposed deficit in Biden. McCain obviously cannot think more deeply than "I'm a he, she's a she" and "I'm old, she's young."
Republicans, just give up.
Brilliant move by McCain. Palin is far more qualified to be President than is Obama.
Evolution is a religious belief. It has never been observed and can't be tested by scientific means. Science it is not.
I agree, Tony.
Brilliant move by McCain. Palin is far more qualified to be President than is Obama.
Why? Because she is conservative?
Evolution is a religious belief. It has never been observed and can't be tested by scientific means. Science it is not.
Ok then. Nice chatting with you. Since there is absolutely nothing accurate about your statement.
Obama seems to have chosen Biden for what he brings to governing, not what he brings to the campaign. From what I have seen of Palin so far, it appears that McCain chose her to be an asset in the campaign. I agree that he chose a woman to entice Clinton supporters, but wonder what Palin brings to the ticket in terms of leadership.
Here's the thing about the equal pay part, though. John McCain is showing he's a deficit hawk already because he can hire a woman to serve as VP for about 72 cents on the dollar. Of course, he might have been able to find an undocumented worker to do it for less than that.
As far as "Science it is not," please remember Yoda you are not. Words have meaning.
With the exception of the current administration, the President and the Vice President are not some kind of ruling team. The President is ultimately the one who makes the decisions and the VP contributes by attending funerals and casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate.
Obama's 'lack of experience' is only going to be made up for by Biden if he gives Biden that authority. Frankly, I don't think it will make a difference. Obama has some good substantive ideas and I think that is what matters. Hell, Dick Cheney has a ton of experience. Does that make him more agreeable?
The comments on ID are not good, but is there any evidence that where she tried to make this into Alaskan school policy? If not, then I think she should be pressed on it, but I also don't think that comment is that big of a deal.
Steves, I agree, but think that Dick Cheney completely changed the role of VP. I doubt very much that Obama will send Biden out on the ribbon cutting circuit. He won't delegate as much, but Biden would be much more powerful.
And I don't guess I understand about ID. We should press her on what she says unless she tried to turn it into policy?
Possibly, though I haven't heard much from Obama at this point as to what specific role Biden will have.
I was saying that hopefully Palin will be asked to clarify what she thinks the role of ID should be in the public school system.
I dug around and found this other statement by Palin in regards to ID from the Anchorage Daily News:
"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."
The governor also appoints the members of the state school board and said that she does not use religion or a persons view on ID as a factor in making the appointment.
Is ID taught in Alaskan schools?
all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. First, she still treats ID as an equal interpretation to evolution. As I noted in my post, why not say that we should teach the holocaust deniers, and "let the students sort it out. No need to be afraid of information."
Second, if she says this stuff, but doesn't follow up on policy, then she is just pandering to the fundies.
Either way, I am unsure why you suggest that it is not a valid point of criticism simply because ID is not taught in curricula in Alaska.
First, she still treats ID as an equal interpretation to evolution.
Saying that a debate or discussion should be allowed is not the same as saying it holds equal weight. There are many debatable issues that are not equal. A blanket prohibition on any mentioning of ID would violate the 1st Amendment. If a student brought it up, I see no problem with a discussion.
I also think there is a difference between having a discussion and having ID be taught in a science class. I would certainly not support this in a public school. The fact that it isn't part of the curriculum or in any proposed curiculum does make a practical difference or are you suggesting that people that believe in ID should not hold public office or that they are the same as people that deny the Holocaust.
Steve, I guess I think that telling teachers that they should allow a debate raises ID to a level of the holocaust deniers. That example is a bad one because of the anti-semitic aspect. ID doesn't have that problem. But the problem is one of a way of knowing. It is mixing approaches in a way that I am not sure students will be able to distinguish as easily as people think.
Of course you know that, contrary to our commentator's position, evolution is observable and testable and occurs in small ways all the time. ID is, as far as I understand it, inferential. "Look at this complexity and you have to infer design." Those are contradictory methods of knowledge.
I would have no problem with a creation v. evolution debate in a religion class, where the terms of the debate were specifically about origins and story.
And I don't think this is a first amendment issue. This is a curricula issue, and from what I saw, Palin wanted to skirt around that. Nor am I suggesting that this makes Palin unqualifed to hold office, but I do think her statements on it are fair game, and she should be challenged on this. That was my point at the beginning.
Besides weighing in on something that she should really be delegating to her Secretary of Education, there is also the issue that if she dissents from the federal rules of evidence and doesn't believe scientists are experts whose collective testimony in their area of expertise is decisive, there is no reason to believe she will approach environmental, medical and public health issues responsibly. This is arguably a bigger deal for a governor than a VP, but it isn't small potatoes even in the latter situation.
Steak, you may have a point. I am not a teacher, so I won't claim to know how best to handle that type of situation. Certainly, ID should not have equal footing with evolution in a science class for the reasons you mention.
leighton, I am not sure what you mean in reagrds to the FRE and expert testimony.
Post a Comment