…and this is a 
From the horse's mouth
Category: Politics
Posted on: September 1, 2008 11:16 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's the other side: Sarah Palin made some policy statements in her run for governor, so we can see what to expect. She's pro-ignorance and anti-civil rights all the way, opposing gay marriage, sex education, and reproductive rights for women. No surprise at all, I know. Here are some answers that jumped out at me:
2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?Why or why not?
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
She wants kids to be taught only what the parents believe, which is a disaster for education. It dictates that the next generation can be no wiser, barring exceptional effort from the kids themselves, than the previous. This is an angle to give religion a trump card over science, and jingo priority over history, by making it easy to prevent kids from being exposed to reality.
10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.
The constitution once reserved voting rights to men, and allowed people to be held as slaves. So?
And this last one is simply hilarious.
11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
See Question 2 above. Do we really want stupid people dictating what people should learn?
Here's another answer from Palin that suddenly has more significance:
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
Now, are you ready to hear this?
Sarah and Todd Palin say their 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant.The couple said in a statement released by John McCain's presidential campaign that Bristol will keep her baby.
I'm flummoxed. Here's another personal issue that is none of the voters' business, that will distract the media from discussing the issues, yet it speaks directly to Palin's support for bad reproductive and educational policy.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Jared | September 1, 2008 11:19 AM
I think McCain shot himself in the foot here, I sincerely hope Palin never gets into any public office again.
Posted by: Maria | September 1, 2008 11:20 AM
I wish people (and by that I mean pundits) would stop just saying that she's a woman, and would focus on her policy stances. Just as they would with any other candidate.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | September 1, 2008 11:26 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 1, 2008 11:26 AM
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me "
Well, it wasn't. So it isn't good enough for you, then?
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 11:27 AM
Our founding fathers from the 1950s..
now that is effin' funny..
Posted by: Rob J | September 1, 2008 11:27 AM
Wow, "under god" wasn't added to the pledge until the 1950's, which means our founding fathers were pushing 200 years old at the time.
Posted by: Matt7895 | September 1, 2008 11:28 AM
Indeed. Here in the UK there's so much excitement around the Republicans picking a woman for their VP candidate, that nobody has actually said, "Hang on, what does this woman actually THINK?".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2008 11:29 AM
"I believe that additional representation should be given to the states based on three-fifths of the Other Persons who reside within them. . . ."
Sung to the tune of "That Old-Time Religion":
It was good for the Founding Fathers,
It was good for the Founding Fathers
It was good for the Founding Fathers
And it's good enough for me!
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 11:29 AM
I just realized she is going by a creationist time scale,,,so she may be onto something there...
Posted by: mona | September 1, 2008 11:32 AM
Oh, I get it. The US was founded by Joseph McCarthy. It all suddenly makes sense now.
Posted by: S.Scott | September 1, 2008 11:32 AM
If you've been following the rumors about Palin, you will laugh your arse off with this one. Maybe PZ can make it go viral. This girl just posted it today.
Posted by: Monimonika | September 1, 2008 11:33 AM
One of the obvious replies to this would be stating the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance did not have "Under God" in any of its lines until 1954, loooong after the founding fathers could approve of anything.
Of course, she's of the mind that she has the right to rewrite the history taught to her children to whatever she wants, so I guess she's being consistent(ly ignorant).
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | September 1, 2008 11:39 AM
Unreal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU
Posted by: Sili | September 1, 2008 11:40 AM
I don't care that she's a woman. And idiot's an idiot's an idiot.
Presumably she's the real deal and not a deep (deep deeeeep) undercover liberal?
Posted by: Shane Killian | September 1, 2008 11:41 AM
"She wants kids to be taught only what the parents believe, which is a disaster for education."
No, she said she wants parents to be in control of their children's education. What's the alternative? Kidnapping them and teaching them something the parent doesn't agree with? How would you feel if the creationists got into power and did that to YOUR children?
"It dictates that the next generation can be no wiser, barring exceptional effort from the kids themselves, than the previous."
I don't see how that logically follows. Parental control of education doesn't mean you only teach what the parents know. That isn't even true of the home-schooled!
The creation/evolution debate must be wrangled out in the marketplace of ideas. And I'm completely confident that evolution will emerge the victor. What we're seeing from creationism is, I believe, dying gasps.
"Do we really want stupid people dictating what people should learn?"
No, but with government education, I don't see how that's avoidable.
I also don't see why we need a Pledge of Allegiance AT ALL. I thought we were supposed to be a free society? That's the biggest peeve I have with the "Under God" debate: it implies that the rest of it is a-OK.
Posted by: Joel | September 1, 2008 11:41 AM
If you've been following the rumors about Palin, you will laugh your arse off with this one. Maybe PZ can make it go viral. This girl just posted it today.
I don't know, looks like a cheap shot to me and I don't find it funny at all. Originally I was going to comment about how I appreciate that PZ has taken the high road here and kept the argument about the issues.
Posted by: Bad Albert | September 1, 2008 11:44 AM
She wants kids to be taught only what the parents believe, which is a disaster for education.
Never thought I'd say this. I guess it's a good thing kids don't listen to their parents.
Posted by: Al | September 1, 2008 11:46 AM
#7 Matt7895
I don't know if it's in the dead tree editions, but the online version of teh Grauniad has mentioned Palin's political leanings;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/30/johnmccain.palin2
(And slightly off topic, their science section has a link to the video of Richard Dawkins reading his e-mail:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/aug/26/dawkinsemail )
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 11:48 AM
I am takin' a wild guess and suggest some of the people posting in here are card carrying Libertarians?
Posted by: Roxie Gemini | September 1, 2008 11:50 AM
I'm posting from the future via my chronocomputotron to bring you good news and bad. The good news is that John McCain will not win the presidency. The bad news is that due to the sheer number of people not happy with the current choices, Tom Cruise will win the election thanks to overwhelming support via write in votes, thus ushering in the Age of Scientology.
All is not lost though, as this sets up the second Rennaissance. Which is unfortunately followed by the Monkey Uprising that only lasts for nine hours but is quite devastating.
Posted by: Kryth | September 1, 2008 11:51 AM
What a stupid tool.
Is she just stupid, ignorant, a lier, or just does care?
Posted by: Sili | September 1, 2008 11:51 AM
*An
(Now who's the idiot ...)
Posted by: Bevans | September 1, 2008 11:51 AM
Yay, more stuff to infuriate me!
I agree that the media really needs to stop going "omg it's a woman!" or wondering about whether her newest kid is really hers or her daughter's and focus on her insane issues. If they did that, she'd become a cement block tied around McCain's leg, holding him back. Maybe that's why they're not...
As for the pledge issue, I wrote a post about that on my blog a few days ago, if anybody cares: http://dubiositysite.blogspot.com/2008/08/pledge.html
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2008 11:52 AM
The problem with the "marketplace of ideas" is that the idea which grabs the largest share is the one with the sexiest advertising, not necessarily the one which best corresponds to reality.
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 11:56 AM
"The problem with the "marketplace of ideas" is that the idea which grabs the largest share is the one with the sexiest advertising, not necessarily the one which best corresponds to reality."
And the fact that almost everyone thinks they have the right to vote on the reality of the idea based on how they feel about it, rather than what facts support it,,,
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2008 11:56 AM
Al (#18):
That video link isn't working; at the moment, this one seems to be better.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | September 1, 2008 11:57 AM
As far as #2 goes, parents have always had the right to opt out of public schools alltogether and send the welps to private schools. There's even scholarship programs that allow less financially able parents to send the kids to a christian school. If they don't like what's in public school curriculum, that's what they need to do.
#11: The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and didn't even exist during the founding of our country. So arguing that "under God" was added in the 50's is irrelevant. Palin made a big boo boo here. It's obvious that she knows nothing about the history of the pledge that she defends.
Posted by: spwoso | September 1, 2008 12:01 PM
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me..."
This immediately brought to mind the (probably apocryphal) line from "Ma" Ferguson:
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren."
Posted by: Mold | September 1, 2008 12:02 PM
She's VPick to satiate the salivating two-digit IQ base. She's literally one of them.
Her alleged youngest is more likely the bastard child of the eldest daughter. Yes, I am old enough to recall "mono" as a euphemism for oopsie. Treatment and symptoms (none of which is a swollen abdomen) are found at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000591.htm. Seems that Palin is an inveterate liar.
Troopergate and now BabymamaGate. Reminds me of the KKKristian boss I once had. Always lied...even when the truth was just as good or besser.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | September 1, 2008 12:04 PM
Apparently the Right to Ones Own Facts is also good enough for the Founding Fathers according to Ms Palin.
When did that ever hold back a republican candidate?
Posted by: Steve | September 1, 2008 12:04 PM
Unfortunately, Palin's stupidity will be irrelevant to the voters. McCain should have been sunk by this totally irresponsible pick, but no. Not in America.
Hey, look she's a mom! She's a hunter! She has a Down's Syndrom baby! Who cares if her positions puts on the extreme right? She's one of us! She makes me feel good!
This is how we got George W, and this is how we're going to get McCain. I'm soooo depressed.
Posted by: illusory tenant | September 1, 2008 12:04 PM
I'm sure her answer to question 10 is in reference to the Alaska constitution, which has a marriage amendment.
Posted by: DrFrank | September 1, 2008 12:05 PM
I am takin' a wild guess and suggest some of the people posting in here are card carrying Libertarians?
I think you'd find that libertarians would be strongly in favour of letting each individual decide whether they wanted to carry a card or not.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 12:05 PM
Palin is a rapture , creationist, and a Dominionist. Right there is enough to make anyone sane run like hell the other way.
McCain is 72 and would be 80 if he made it through 2 terms without dropping dead. The probability that Palin would end up president is unusually high in this case.
This VP candidate shows either desperation or an astounding lack of judgement on his part.
Posted by: Electric Monk | September 1, 2008 12:06 PM
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."
That, plus her pro-gun stance, makes me think she's in favor of armed revolution against a government that's not working well. This quote makes almost me like her.
Posted by: Joel | September 1, 2008 12:08 PM
Her alleged youngest is more likely the bastard child of the eldest daughter.
Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just talking out of your ass.
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 12:09 PM
"I think you'd find that libertarians would be strongly in favour of letting each individual decide whether they wanted to carry a card or not."
From this, I have no idea if you got the joke or not,,,
Posted by: just john | September 1, 2008 12:11 PM
If she's a Young Earth creationist (and I haven't heard confirmation of the YE part yet,) then, given the importance of oil to her state, I'd like to hear her answer to: What is petroleum, and how do the big oil companies know where to look for it?
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 12:11 PM
"Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just talking out of your ass."
I am going to need to agree here. Before one makes such a suggestion, you really oughta have a crap load of evidence...
Posted by: JStein | September 1, 2008 12:15 PM
Wow, the accusations in these comments are really bizarre. The idea that her youngest child is the product of her youngest daughter is a little far fetched, especially given that having a child with down syndrome makes sense given Gov. Palin's age.
That said, what's important shouldn't be the absurd accusations, just the objective assessment that this woman is a complete moron.
Posted by: just john | September 1, 2008 12:16 PM
Counter-evidence to the child-5-isn't-hers claim:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/us/international-usa-politics-palin.html
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | September 1, 2008 12:17 PM
Lago said:
And after that, a reason why it is any of our business. Given her strong anti-choice stance I could see why an alleged abortion in the family would be our business as an example of unbridled hypocrisy on her part, but illegitimacy? None of our business.
Posted by: anthropicOne | September 1, 2008 12:19 PM
"The creation/evolution debate must be wrangled out in the marketplace of ideas."
Um...no, it doesn't. Creationism is NOT science. It's religion. End of story.
Next case. Next case. Next case (in my best George Carlin impression).
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 1, 2008 12:19 PM
What I don't understand is how someone can oppose progress. Take a look around! Progress made this world what it is. Without progress we would have no advanced societies, no technology at all, no ideals about equality, no understanding of the world beyond what is described in the Book of Genesis.
And there are still people who want progress to stop. They want to turn back time. Do they honestly think that the world in which they live today could have been possible without progress?
Obviously schools should have sex education. It feels very weird to say anything like that, since we already have good sex ed in my country, and it's obvious why we have it. If parents think it's better for their kids to be ignorant, then that really is child abuse.
Posted by: Maria | September 1, 2008 12:19 PM
From the Huffington post:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2008 12:19 PM
They're discussing the daughter/granddaughter business over at Ed Brayton's place; I think the suggestion was first floated at Daily Kos.
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 1, 2008 12:22 PM
Abortions are legal, free and confidential, even for teenagers. Oh wait, I was thinking about my own country...
Posted by: Rudi | September 1, 2008 12:23 PM
"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me"
That just seems like a sick joke. Actually, it IS a sick joke.
How can ANYONE vote for these ignorocretins?
Posted by: Holbach | September 1, 2008 12:24 PM
"Alaska under god, with no liberty and injustice for all." How's that Palin; does that cover it?
Posted by: BobC | September 1, 2008 12:25 PM
She doesn't know anything about science and she doesn't know anything about history. Our founding fathers would never have agreed to stick Mr. God in a pledge of allegiance.
Yesterday I read that theocrats love Palin and many of them who were going to skip the election are now going to vote for McCain.
Palin probably wants to let fundie students skip biology.
PZ's governor is a lot like Palin. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty:
Pawlenty came the closest to touching on the potentially uncomfortable subject of Palin's belief that creationism should be taught alongside evolution and possibly intelligent design in public schools. "Allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both," Pawlenty said on Meet the Press. "They are competing theories. ... Intelligent design in my view is plausible and credible and something that should be taught."
Posted by: co | September 1, 2008 12:25 PM
You're telling me!
Posted by: J'Carlin | September 1, 2008 12:26 PM
I am all for Christian™ parents opting out of anything that might cause their children to be able to compete in the modern world.
It is true that this is child abuse, but good parenting is an evolutionary necessity, and evolution does not make value judgments on child abuse. Abusive parenting is quickly removed from the gene pool. Liberals need not fight the battle of Religious Child abuse. Evolution will do it for us.
Posted by: Skwee | September 1, 2008 12:27 PM
Ouuuuuuch.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 1, 2008 12:27 PM
Listen, McCain knew exactly what he was getting with this woman. It was a shrewd choice, because it shored up the fundamentalist base that was threatening not to vote this year. Now, they have a True Indication that McCain is willing to pander to get votes.
If he's elected she will not see the outside of the VP's office... She will be ensconced in Blair House and as relevant to policy as Hubert Humphrey was during Johnson's administration, and Johnson was in Kennedy's administration.
McCain doesn't trust nor like women to think. He only needs them to be purty. And Palin, if McCain wins this election, will disappear until and if McCain dies in office.
Posted by: Colugo | September 1, 2008 12:27 PM
I seriously considered it myself when I first caught wind of it, but the 'bogus pregnancy' theory is wrong. It had been debunked by early yesterday. Photos, the timeline, eyewitnesses together disprove it. (For example, one of the 'pregnant teen' photos is from 2006. Sarah Palin looks plenty pregnant in some photos from this year. And on and on. It's overdetermined.) Sarah Palin is the child's mother.
Yet today I am still seeing speculation about the rumor. I thought the blogosphere moved faster than that.
Posted by: Oz | September 1, 2008 12:30 PM
@ #21:
"Is she just stupid, ignorant, a lier, or just does care?"
Don't you love it when the illiterate call people stupid?
Onward...
As far as parents opting out of classes that offend them, try reversing the circumstances. I bet you'd be squealing for exemption if a public school went creationist. You'd probably be demanding the same Constitutional adherence that you just derided as the hobgoblin of small minds. As to those who insist that going to a different school is a sufficient answer, that option still leaves you paying for an education that at best you aren't using and at worst you oppose. Would you be okay with paying for creation science classes even if your child wasn't taking them?
Of course, the pledge stuff is just ignorant, but it's a fairly commonly held myth that the pledge is as old as the country.
(Disclosure: I'm not voting for either major party for president. I may leave the ballot blank.)
Posted by: Kryth | September 1, 2008 12:31 PM
This immediately brought to mind the (probably apocryphal) line from "Ma" Ferguson:
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren."(/i>
Too funny. Glorious proud ignorance.
Posted by: Irene Delse | September 1, 2008 12:34 PM
From the article just john #41 posted:
"Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain."
Interesting. So, basically, this means that Palin's ideas on "abstinence only" sex education didn't even work in her own family... She still manages to not aknowledge it, but she can't hide the fact.
Posted by: Ryan Jensen | September 1, 2008 12:37 PM
I think she's talking about Alaska's constitution. I have a hard time believing that Alaska's constitution allowed slavery or restricted voting to men only.
I also don't believe the US Constitution mentions marriage at all, does it?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2008 12:37 PM
So, run-of-the-mill ignorance is acceptable in people aiming for the highest offices of the land. . . because it's common?
Posted by: Steve | September 1, 2008 12:40 PM
"Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught." - Sarah Palin.
...including, I assume, about birth control.
Palin's seventeen-year old daughter is pregant. - CNN
This won't change a thing, but the irony of it, the justice of it, oh, it's so sweet. I may have to re-think my position on the existence of God thing.
Posted by: SC | September 1, 2008 12:45 PM
Her daughter has great timing.
Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2008 12:48 PM
Good for Sarah not asking her daughter to kill her baby by having an abortion.
Posted by: abb3w | September 1, 2008 12:49 PM
I suspect your metaphor may have the ends of the horse mixed up.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | September 1, 2008 12:50 PM
Look, I know plenty of people here have their problems with Mitt Romney, and I do too. But at least I can say he's been a full-term governor of a decent-sized state, and a successful businessman who IS NOT an evolution-denier. I would argue he's a smart dude who panders to religion more than being a real hardcore guy himself, despite his reputation as scary-Mormon-guy.
Even if you disagree with almost everything he wants to do, at least you can argue he could hit the ground running as President if McCain keeled over. This woman makes Romney look like a freaking statesman. Sadly, it's the right-wing religious nuts that probably kept Romney off the ticket, as McCain was worried about those people staying home. Those Baptists don't like Mormons anyway, So McCain felt like he had to pick someone like her instead. Sad, really.
Posted by: craig | September 1, 2008 12:51 PM
Stop with the stupid "it's her daughter's kid" bullshit.
That whole idea is based solely on the observation that in a photo from an unknown time, her daughter isn't anorexic looking, and that she herself recovered from her pregnancy pretty fast.
She's a disaster based on reality, no need to start fantasizing.
Posted by: BobC | September 1, 2008 12:51 PM
Isn't that a good thing? If people don't reproduce the human race could go extinct.
Posted by: LongRider | September 1, 2008 12:53 PM
Several years ago I worked for an internet used book seller (where I really learned the meaning of freedom of speech and expression.) And hoo boy, did I see some weird and glorius stuff! Incuding an old KKK tract for one of it's youth groups.
Why does the Pledge of Alegience matter at all, with or without the godbothering? Any moron can spout off the "Pledge" to prove their so called patriotisim. This was brought home to me one time when the bookseller had a late '40s early '50s tract from the KKK for one of thier youth groups before the godbothering was added to the pledge. In the tract there was lots of weird religious crap and the pledge, which was without the "under God" in it. The tract was not dated but this gave an idea of it's age.
I found it to be a very interesting arifact--important in it's way to give me an idea of the history and scope of such organizations and their dedication to funie religion and perverted sense of nationality. Very creepy.
I agree that the pledge should not have the "under God" in it, but is that really an appropriate question for a prez cannidate? No, but her answer was insightful.
As for parents being in control of what their children learn---I can't agree with her answer. I don't have kids, but was a kid once who both experienced Catholic and public schools. Hell, if my parents had tried to tell either of the schools what they did or didn't want their kids to be taught, we would of not learned very much from either school.
Oh, and being from a family of 11 children, I firmly believe in comprehensive, science based sex ed for all kids and easily available contrceptives (with medical supervison when needed) for any man or women who wants them.
Palin makes me sick!!!! :(
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 1, 2008 12:53 PM
Bristol is pregnant again?
Wow, that was fast!
Posted by: Lynn | September 1, 2008 12:55 PM
Follow the links!
Stone of Tear (linked above) has a link to that (2006 Gubernatorial Candidate) questionnaire.
For her responses, click Sarah Palin palinforgovernor.com and you are redirected to http://www.johnmccain.com/gustav.htm
"For our fellow citizens, let's put our country first..."
Hit the back key to return to the questionnaire and you're here: http://www.johnmccain.com/
Posted by: me | September 1, 2008 12:55 PM
NBC is taking a poll on ' In God We Trust ' to
stay on our American currency.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
Posted by: Julian | September 1, 2008 12:57 PM
The Constitution doesn't say anything about Marriage. That is an issue the founding fathers explicitly left up to the states. It infuriates me that reporters allow such idiocy to pass unchallenged.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 1, 2008 12:59 PM
I really detest that rumor about Palin's baby actually being her granddaughter -- it's the kind of bizarre and unbelievable and personally damaging story that ought to be researched into certainty before there is all the degrading public speculation. The evidence so far is all incredibly circumstantial.
Posted by: craig | September 1, 2008 1:00 PM
"The Constitution doesn't say anything about Marriage. That is an issue the founding fathers explicitly left up to the states. It infuriates me that reporters allow such idiocy to pass unchallenged."
In order for the press to challenge people's mistakes, they'd have to know that they were mistakes.
Posted by: Robin | September 1, 2008 1:01 PM
I've already seen some comments on wacko sites along the lines of "But now if McCain dies, there'll be a *woman* in charge of America!" so if he did just pick a woman as a stunt, there's some hope it'll backfire.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | September 1, 2008 1:04 PM
How do people even come up with these stupid questions?
Does the interviewer actually expect a "christian" politician in the US to affirm that the pledge is divisive or what? And whats with framing it as "taking offense"? Is that how the complaints against the changed pledge are being portrayed in churches or something?!
If we combine this all with her irrational fear towards the intentions of the founding fathers, I think we might go as far as officially declaring her in "not even wrong" territory.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 1, 2008 1:05 PM
SC @62
Not if she was trying to use the rhythm method for contraception.Posted by: Ktesibios | September 1, 2008 1:07 PM
Oh, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs on a flaming popsicle stick!
I'm an iggerant uneddicated prole and even I knew that the pledge was written in the late 19th century (by a Socialist, no less) and that the "under God" was shoehorned in during one of our periodic national fits of paranoia.
There's been so much written about it in the past few years that if you have an Internet connection and a brain capable of retaining information longer than 24 hours, it's essentially impossible to escape knowing those facts.
That poor woman appears to be a tragic case of Terminal Incuriosity.
Posted by: Maria | September 1, 2008 1:10 PM
This analogy is completely off-base. Children are taught science. If they are taught *wrong* science, then that's cause to complain. If they are taught science that I don't like, then that really isn't. There is room for the curriculum to be discussed, but not to say we want them to know math, but would rather they say that 1 + 1 can be 2 or 3, depending on religious considerations.
Creation science is not science.
Posted by: daveb | September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
I really detest that rumor about Palin's baby actually being her granddaughter -- it's the kind of bizarre and unbelievable and personally damaging story that ought to be researched into certainty before there is all the degrading public speculation. The evidence so far is all incredibly circumstantial.
I think "so far" is probably leaving the door open a bit much, considering Bristol actually turned out to be pregnant with her own child.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Yes, of course.
Also good for Sarah for not telling her 17 year old daughter where babies come from. These surprise pregnancies are always so fun and work out well.
Good for Sarah for explaining that 17 year old children don't need to have a life, get some education, and have some fun before settling down into an 18 year career as caregiver/parent.
Good for Sarah for explaining that teen age pregnancies and shotgun weddings always lead to the most stable marriages. Guys who knock up their girl friends always make great husbands.
Good for Sarah for explaining that there is a huge shortage of people in the world and we need more oil consumers to use up the tremendous surplus of petroleum, produce carbon dioxide to keep the planet warm, and eat up all the food before poor people overseas get it.
Palin reminds me of some of the fundies out in the backwoods. Incredibly religious while surrounding themselves with drugs, alcohol, teen age pregnancy, other social problems, ignorance, and white trash poverty.
Posted by: Julian | September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Shane: The alternative is what we have now, where parents can tell their children whatever they want, but if those children do not put the correct answers on their homework they get poor grades. Parents do not have control over their child's education beyond their right to be involved in school-district politics and her statement that the situation needs to be changed to give parents more authority really begs the question of what exactly she's saying. Knowing her politics, Dr. Myers is pointing out the obvious conclusion to be drawn from her comments; that she thinks state and federal governments should reach into a school teacher's lesson plans and mandate equal rewards for religiously-motivated answers, or that students who's parent's "opt out" of a certain lesson sequence should be given passing grades without having to do any of the work required.
What she's proposing is a significant change from every pedagogical model currently in operation publicly in the U.S.A.
As to the Pledge, it isn't mandatory. It came to prominence popularly, that is through the will of the people, and for specific historical reasons. If you care to find them out, you can check out wikipedia which has a decent article on the matter. The big deal is that loyalty to one's state is a secular idea and one should not be asked to pledge believe in a higher being to care for one's nation, or more importantly, the universal ideals it is built upon.
Posted by: Julian | September 1, 2008 1:16 PM
Dammit. That should be "belief".
Posted by: C R S | September 1, 2008 1:21 PM
PZ, I don't think it was the horse's mouth that spewed forth that crap.
Posted by: Julian | September 1, 2008 1:26 PM
craig: Shush you! I'm already depressed enough as it is *knocks back a bottle of Wellburtrin*
This isn't helping any :(....
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 1, 2008 1:28 PM
BobC @ 67
'Could' go extinct? 'Would' seems a better choice in that sentence.Fun with words aside, the biggest problem this planet has is over-population. If humans were as rational as we like to think we are and not driven by our emotions and instincts, we would not be at 6 going on 7 billion.
Religious incentives for higher reproduction rates are evil. Think of the world your child's child will be living in, before you have another one.
I wonder what the ratio of humans born versus species driven to extinction is. One million to one?
Posted by: bullfighter | September 1, 2008 1:29 PM
Bristol's pregnancy is a legitimate issue because of the policies Palin has supported and campaigned on. If she is not able to inspire her own children to adhere to her (purported) principles, how can she expect to lead a nation? Yes, it also provides anecdotal evidence that abstinence-only education doesn't work, but this one example isn't going to convert anyone on that issue (nor should it). However, the leadership issue is relevant no matter which side one supports policy-wise.
As a bonus, earlier this year, Palin warmly addressed a secessionist party that considers American soldiers in Alaska "occupation troops". In turn, the party's vice chairman said Palin was a member before she became mayor. See it for yourself; you couldn't come up with a more damning stuff if you tried to make it up.
Posted by: mayhempix | September 1, 2008 1:32 PM
Apparently Bristol's parents were responsible for her contraception education.
I wonder how the boy felt after seeing Sara shooting an automatic rifle on TV? I can just see him thinking, "If Cheney got away with it..." No more hunting trips with the Palin family for him.