…and this is a 
She has so much of it to spread around, too. Sarah Palin's memoir reveals her unsurprising opinion about evolution.
Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she "didn't believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees." In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: "My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."
Unfortunately, about half the American electorate will think what she wrote is just ducky. Those words won't dissuade very many voters at all, so don't make the mistake of thinking this revelation will somehow cripple her campaign to become president of the US.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 16, 2009 12:08 PM
At least George had the honesty to admit he didn't know.
Not that ignorance is a good quality in a president.
Posted by: TSFN | November 16, 2009 12:10 PM
You know, like a vampire.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | November 16, 2009 12:12 PM
So God was responsible for McCain / Palin's defeat?Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Usually, the neocon meatbag sitting in the boss' chair has access to a cadre of people who understand more of what's going on.
I have the feeling Palin would do her best to alienate any person with expertise.
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 12:14 PM
No, but when Fox News starts fact checking you, your campaign, at least as a republican, is crippled.
Posted by: Chuck Morrison | November 16, 2009 12:15 PM
The difference between Bush and Palin is that Bush used fundies for political purposes but Palin actually is a fundie. It's amazing to me that someone who believes that witches might try to disrupt her political career (for which the cure is a blessing of protection!) could get so far in mainstream politics.
I mean, it's like the witches aren't even trying.
Chuck
http://www.irreligiosophy.com
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 12:16 PM
Ah! So it was the dog that caused petrol-for-brains to resign.
Posted by: Comstock
|
November 16, 2009 12:18 PM
But she's right. Human beings did not originate from fish that sprouted legs.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 12:21 PM
I guess that thorough defeat on election day was God's day off. Or that pesky ol' devil.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 12:23 PM
She never, ever would have, if not for one extremely poorly thought out, gigantic miscalculation, plus the complete lack of real background investigation by the McCain team.
Do you honestly believe for an instant that if McCain knew then what he knows now, that he'd go anywhere within 100 mile of this loony? Nevermind pick her to be VP...
If not for that gaffe, Palin would be quietly bullying the Alaskan legislature for her own personal needs, largely unknown by 99% of Americans...
She didn't get herself where she is, she was levitated there by stupid people that took a poorly calculated risk.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Maybe I just have sex on the brain, but does anyone else get a BDSM vibe from comments like these? They seem to love going on at length about how comforting it is to give yourself up to God, let God take care of/decide everything, just love and serve him and obey him and everything will feel better... now I kind of want to write a staggeringly blasphemous smut story with Jesus making the disciples worship him, with some help from a bullwhip.
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 12:28 PM
Nah, The Big Doggie-Woggie In The Sky was delayed by Obama's crack suicide squad of Teh Gay Moolsin Libturd Athesit WALNUT supporters. Next time Big Doggie-Woggie will be unleased early!
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 12:30 PM
How does it matter that she doesn't believe in evolution? When is that knowledge ever relevant in politics?
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Very simply, people who tend to ignore reality don't make very good decisions.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 16, 2009 12:32 PM
"about half of the American electorate"?
What?
Try about 3/4 of the American electorate or more.
Posted by: Chuck | November 16, 2009 12:33 PM
"How does it matter that she doesn't believe in evolution? When is that knowledge ever relevant in politics?"
You're joking, right?
Posted by: SteveM | November 16, 2009 12:33 PM
Re 11:
I see how you interpret that in a very mild BDSM way, but what I see is someone that doesn't want to shed the childhood protection of an all powerful, all loving parent(s). Someone who is actually quite afraid of reality and wants to remain protected by her father.
Posted by: nicole. | November 16, 2009 12:34 PM
I believe the fact that she doesn't believe in evolution is relevant in politics because it shows how much she is able to pull the wool over her eyes in the face of truth.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 16, 2009 12:34 PM
Because then not thinking is a virtue, and there is no need to justify your prejudices.
The wonders of faith!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 12:39 PM
Very unusual intercourse/position/fetish there.
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 12:40 PM
@Chuck #16
I'm not joking, I'd really like to know why her religiousness disqualifies her from holding public office.
@tsg #14
Wouldn't it be better to look at their political positions instead since that matters more?
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 16, 2009 12:40 PM
It's not just a question of scientific ignorance.The Adam and Eve story is held tight, even as other unscientific statements in the Old Testament are rationalized. It is the underpinning of the traditional interpretation of the New Testament that Jesus dies to save from original sin introduced by Adam.
That she rejects evolution implies that she believes in eternal Hell for non-believers, and considers that divine justice.
Morally unfit to have authority over other human beings.
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 12:42 PM
You don't think her stated willful denial of facts is a pretty big statement about her political position?
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
November 16, 2009 12:43 PM
I swear there are 2 secret truisms about the republican party
1) they secretly desire a socialism
2) they secretly have had higher expectations for Obama than the most left leaning liberal
The first is evidenced by that quote above:
"My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."
The second is becuase I have been hearing, since march things like:
"Is it Obamas Economy yet?"
"We are still not out of Afganistan yet"
"Unemployment is still enormous"
and so forth. I certainly didnt expect a turnaround for at least 2 years. Why do they?
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 16, 2009 12:46 PM
This view of "giving control to a Higher Power" reminds me of Christopher Hitchen's statement that religion manages to combine the "maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism." The believer is encouraged to see themselves as a humble, meek little instrument of an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, non-negotiable Authority, and thus not worry that this view might make them arrogant. Arrogant? Why, it's the opposite of arrogant! It's like they're not even there anymore, and we're just listening to God!
jojame #13 wrote:
Politicians need to know how to consider issues; how to reason on their own, and how to defer to experts when their own understanding is insufficient to the task at hand. A deliberate intellectual blindness to science -- such as when an overwhelming consensus is rejected in favor of going with one's own "gut intuition" or faith-based certainties -- is not a quality we want in someone who is going to make important decisions.
I think I'd feel the same way about a politician who claimed to believe that the sun goes around the earth, or that drops of water could cure cancer. It's not just the ignorance: you've got to have a dangerous level of conspiracy thinking in there to draw those conclusions.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 12:49 PM
The Adam and Eve story is not a scientific statement. If Palin believes the Wizard of Oz to be a scientific statement, she's mistaken about that too.
Posted by: instant sales | November 16, 2009 12:52 PM
Very simply, people who tend to ignore reality don't make very good decisions.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 12:52 PM
Jojame, you can't be serious. I don't want someone completely ignorant of basic science in a position to affect my child's education, much less in a position to fuck up things like stem cell research.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 12:54 PM
Not trying to be flippant here, Martin... but I'm missing your point in regards to Abdul's post... what are you getting at?
Posted by: Dan Earle | November 16, 2009 12:54 PM
@jojame #21
Maybe its just me, but I would think the ONLY sensible way to come to a political position would be to look at ALL the evidence weigh up the costs/benefits of every possible option and then make your choice. Then you will be fully armed with everything you need to explain and convince the public about why its the best way.
How can you possibly even start to do that if you reject basic science?
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2009 12:55 PM
It shows that she is uneducated and not very bright. We already tried that with Bush and he nearly destroyed the country. Learn from (bad) experiences.
It also shows that she is a cult religious kook. They tried that in Iran, Afghanistan, and Somalia and it was and is a disaster. The life span in Afghanistan is 44 and falling.
Posted by: Dancaban | November 16, 2009 12:58 PM
Memoirs? She can remember???
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 16, 2009 12:59 PM
"invite Him in to take over"
I don't like that. I have a Christian friend who leaves everything up to God. Isn't it better to find the strength from within? Be self-reliant?
Her kind of thinking is what leads parents to do nothing while their children suffer from life-threatening illnesses. Leave their fate in "God's hands". Or, perhaps I'm over-thinking....
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 1:00 PM
@Techskeptic #24
What?
@tsg #23
Not if it's irrelevant.
Here are some statements of ignorance that are irrelevant:
-The Battle of Hastings took place in Germany
-The objects revolve around the sun in a circular orbit.
-Dolphins are fish
These are irrelevant because you can be the best president in the world but still believe these things. Now here are some statements of ignorance that are relevant:
-Cap and trade or the current healthcare bill will not tax those making less than 250,000 a year.
-Iraq was building up WMD's
This is directly relevant to my life and I vote based on information like this.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 1:02 PM
Because it confirms her dumbasstitude and puts it on garish display.
Posted by: Chuck | November 16, 2009 1:02 PM
"I'm not joking, I'd really like to know why her religiousness disqualifies her from holding public office."
It isn't her religiousness per se. It's her absolute ignorance of the facts of the world around her. I wouldn't vote for anyone who believed the world was flat despite clear contradictory evidence (for centuries), no matter what political views they had.
Not to mention there is a raging debate in the US where proponents of creationism try to sneak their creationism into science class. This sort of crap from Palin means that she would be far more sympathetic to teaching creationism in schools than, say, someone who is acquainted with reality.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 1:03 PM
Let's pretend jojame is right for once, and consider other things:
Complete ignorance of foreign policy coupled with unwillingness to learn about it
Undeniable desire to impose "Christian moral values" on the entire country
Extreme stupidity in general
Belief that abstinence-only sexual education works
Inability to be command throughout the international community, and therefore would be laughable to think any progress on international issues could be made
Inability to handle pressure resulting in early resignation from governor's office
Shall I continue?
Posted by: Personal Failure | November 16, 2009 1:05 PM
I always enjoy combining insane levels of ignorance with the ability to start wars. Look how well that's worked out for us!
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 1:05 PM
Actually, thinking that dolphins are fish shows the same refusal of reality as being a creationist. That is the denial of facts.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 16, 2009 1:06 PM
"Memoirs? She can remember???"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
Posted by: Ewan R | November 16, 2009 1:07 PM
Jojame - the 3 statements of ignorance that you claim are irrelevant are only really irrelevant if assessed completely in a vacuum.
To believe any of them, in this day and age, shows a lack of intelligence or learning which frankly should scare anyone when embodied in a person with any quantity of political power. Admittedly, none of the points has any direct bearing on political decisions, however they absolutely should have a bearing on whether people feel the candidate is suitable for a position of power.
If someone can't get basic facts like that straight in their head why on Earth would you assume that they can deal with issues as contentious and complex as healthcare, taxation, foreign policy etc etc?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 1:08 PM
jojame... stop being obtuse...
You are creating false equivalences... To be the equivalent of denying evolution you'd have to revise your comparisons thusly:
- The Battle of Hastings was an invention of those lying Normans... it never took place.
- All objects in the sky revolve around the earth.
- Dolphins are mermaids in disguise.
See the difference?
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 1:10 PM
It's her reasons for denying the facts she has chosen that make it relevant. She has demonstrated a propensity for choosing to believe what she wants to be true over what is demonstrably true. That's relevant. Given that the Big Book of Myths she has chosen to guide her life and her decisions supports positions that are very relevant to my and others lives makes it very relevant. It's not that it's evolution that she's chosen to deny that's the problem. It's why she's denying it.
And my guess is that if she was publicly coming out to deny gravity or germ theory instead of evolution that you wouldn't be so quick to defend her.
I will point out that these delusions are also due to a desire to choose what you want to be true over what actually is.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 16, 2009 1:16 PM
jojame #34 wrote:
You left out the significant factor: ignorance has to be combined with the arrogant assumption that "the experts say X, but I am a brave maverick bucking a conspiracy of evil and I refuse to accept X!"
This attitude does not bode well for decision-making. Instead, you've got the makings of a demagogue -- whatever the subject.
Posted by: Lynna | November 16, 2009 1:17 PM
@ 5, Thanks for the link. How bad do you have to be to get Fox News to break tradition and actually do some fact-checking? Sarah Palin managed to be that bad.
Posted by: BdN | November 16, 2009 1:23 PM
@jojame
And I think there's a huge difference when someone makes an ignorant claim during a casual conversation and someone who thinks it's a good idea to make this stupid idea public and say it is the truth and even write it in a book she had months to prepare and think about. If one of my friend "the Battle of Hastings... and dolphins..." and someone else corrects him, the normal and intelligent thing to do is to reserve judgment and try to check it out to know who is right by reading stuff written by more knowledgeable people. And if my dumb friend continues to argue he is right despite the evidence, well, then, I'm gonna call him on it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 16, 2009 1:24 PM
jojame @ #21:
Oh, you want to look at Bible Spice's political positions?
Her political position is that she has the foreign policy qualifications to be Vice-President of the Fucking United States of America because she can see Russia from her house.
Her political position is that WITCHES are engaged in some kind of pact with Satan to disrupt her campaign.
Her political position is that the laws of the United States of America should be perverted to force her cult's dogma on people.
Her political position is to support abstinence-only sex education, a method which has been known to be a dismal failure for years.
Her political position is that tax money should be used to teach creationist lies instead of valid science.
In short, her political positions are totally batshit fucking INSANE!
And the fact that she's a science-hating religious fanatic is intimately tied into her political positions.
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Arrogant, yes, but more worrisome, it's delusional.
Resigning for vacuous unclearly-said reasons is not brave.
Whingeing the press don't slavishly accept everything she claims is not a useful form of maverickness.
Posted by: thetimchannel.wordpress.com
|
November 16, 2009 1:32 PM
My take on Sarah and evolution denial:
http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/creationist-wmds/
Enjoy.
Posted by: RSA | November 16, 2009 1:37 PM
How about the crazy theory that thinking, loving beings originate from the merging of two creatures so tiny you can't even see them if you squint real hard, but you're told that one of them looks like a fried egg and the other like an excitable big-headed worm? Pah!
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Or the even nuttier theory that the union of those make one cell that becomes a baby in only nine months? Conspiracy I say!
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 1:47 PM
Wow, I don't know what I was smoking on that last post
Posted by: Siamang | November 16, 2009 1:49 PM
"Or the even nuttier theory that the union of those make one cell that becomes a baby in only nine months? "
Or instantly, according to religion.
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Too many comments to respond to. I'll try to sum up the arguments (tell me if it's wrong) and respond.
-The examples of irrelevant ignorance is not the same as disbelieving evolution. They are milder and don't have the same strength of conviction as being a creationist.
True, disbelieving evolution has the backing of religion while my examples don't. I still believe however that all three examples plus disbelieving evolution is irrelevant. The only example I can see knowledge of evolution playing a role in politics is in education where some want to give time to teach intelligent design. I disagree with teaching ID as much as you guys do but I doubt a president who wanted ID taught in schools would get his way due to opposition from Congress and especially the Supreme Court (yay checks and balances). Arguments to teach ID originate in states who control the education. If it were an election on the state level I would look more closely on their position of ID and I never got the impression that Sarah Palin would pursue ID too vigorously.
-Disbelieving evolution in the face of all evidence against it shows you to be a maverick. Although evolution may be irrelevant, she may take a wrong political position that she will not budge from. Ignorance in one area is just part of a larger problem of ignorance in general.
Isn't it possible that Palin simply doesn't know about evolution because it is so irrelevant. Many people here on this blog think it's morally right to read science and learn as much as possible. There are only 24 hours in a day and you have to pick and choose what you want to learn. She's a politician and has a full schedule. We are all ignorant about something. I don't know the history of Ghengis Khan. I'm sure historians would be aghast that I don't know about him since he played such an important role in history. I just never cared to know since I rather do other things. If he was important to my life then I would learn about him. There are subtleties to evolution that I would not have known if I hadn't gone out of my way to learn them.
Also, I don't buy it that if you're a maverick or ignorant in one thing then you'll be a maverick or ignorant in other things. People can afford to hold tightly onto some convictions but not others. Religious people are able to go about their day and not bump into walls. For the majority of people being religious is okay.
-The fact is that Sarah Palin is religious and her statements of creationism shows how deep it runs in her.
I could care less if someone were religious. When they start acting nutty and hurting others is when I do start to care. I don't believe that Palin is so religious that it would adversely affect how effective she is in a political position. Some of you equate Palin with evangelicals. I don't see it. In all I've heard of her, she just calls upon God to pray for the troops or other such innocent things. If you can tell me when her religion gets in the way of her work then I'll listen.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Whew... that's a relief... I wonder what she thinks about the actual Theory of Evolution?
Posted by: squareone | November 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Yay! The "cut and run" governor wants to be president!
Posted by: Cody | November 16, 2009 2:07 PM
I know this has been beat to death, but here are my two cents too: in one of the republican debates they asked the candidates about evolution and Huckabee said something along the lines of,No one seemed to raise the appropriate response,Actually, I think presidential candidates should pass a high school physics course first too, with a special section on facts about fission and fusion energy in weapons and power plants, and some other basics about the enormous powers they wield.Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
November 16, 2009 2:10 PM
After reading Palin's words, I need a long shower to get clean again.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 2:12 PM
jojame -
If that were true, then the correct response for an intelligent person would be "frankly, I'm afraid I just don't know enough about it to speak intelligently on the subject. But I'll take the time to learn what I can should it become a necessary part of my position as president".
The fact that she goes out of her way to take a position negates this as a line of argument... and the fact that it's so clearly a factually wrong position that she could easily educate herself on is further incriminating.
Fair enough... but let's not pretend that her stance on evolution alone is what makes her ignorant... you've been given plenty of other examples in this thread alone...
Ooohh... careful with that... it really depends on the political position. As governor of Alaska, she is quite limited in her ability to affect much with her religious viewpoints... as President, her umbrella of influence carries significantly more weight, and thus her propensity to let her religious viewpoints guide her political maneuvers is of far greater importance. Surely you understand the difference.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 2:13 PM
I'm not disputing his point, only clarifying it. He didn't say that the Adam and Eve story is a failed attempt at science, but some AIG debunkers treat it this way. Aesop's Fables are also unscientific, but no one bothers to make this point, because no one goes around treating the fables like science.
The Eden story is not a scientific account of anything, and the AIG crowd just doesn't get that, so they misconstrue their own sacred text. They put stupid words into the mouths of their own prophets. The Eden story seems clearly to be an allegory, by design, and it bears allegorical interpretations that don't seem stupid to me at all. Some reasonable interpretations are remarkable. We can debate how intentional they are, because that's the nature of allegory, but they're interesting at least.
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 2:13 PM
Is there any evidence that petrol-for-brains can think?
jojame, you appear to the only one who thinks she isn't an idiot (and/or that it's Ok to be an idiot and (Vice-)PotUS?): So, is there any evidence she can reason or think?
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 2:14 PM
You've been told why it isn't and you're conveniently ignoring it.
No. Checks and balances is not an excuse to elect someone who blatantly and publicly defies the Constitution she is supposed to uphold.
Not when she has publicly stated it's because of her religion.
Palin has publicly shown herself to be not one of these people.
If you haven't seen it because you aren't paying attention or just plain don't want to.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 2:15 PM
Methinks that jojames is almost as disconnected from reality as Palin. He cannot see her connections with evangelicals? Has jojames been living in a box for the last couple of years?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 16, 2009 2:21 PM
Martin Brock #60
OK... I'm not getting into the "Genesis was clearly an allegory and was intended to be taken as such" argument with you again... already rode that carousel.
But thanks for clarifying your point... makes sense to me now... I appreciate it.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 2:25 PM
The entire book of Genesis is not a single allegory. It's a lot of stuff strung together, but some of this stuff is clearly allegory. Not everyone is interested in allegorical literature.
Posted by: BdN | November 16, 2009 2:26 PM
jojame, if she " simply doesn't know about evolution because it is so irrelevant", why the hell does she think it is relevant to make a public statement about it ???
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 2:26 PM
In other words, "my interpretation of the Bible is the only right one." Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by: TheLoneIguana | November 16, 2009 2:28 PM
The idea that this nitwit could actually have a shot at being president terrifies me. Like icewater-through-your-veins terrified.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 2:29 PM
Now here are some statements of ignorance that are relevant:
-Cap and trade or the current healthcare bill will not tax those making less than 250,000 a year.
-Iraq was building up WMD's
This is directly relevant to my life and I vote based on information like this. - jojame
My guess is that jojame is trying to justify to him/herself voting for "libertarian" religious-right fruttcakes such as Ron Paul and Bob Barr.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 2:30 PM
The other words are yours, not mine. Putting your words into my mouth and pretending to "win" a point this way is sophomoric. The Eden story bears more than one interpretation, but it does not bear a literal interpretation.
Posted by: Islander | November 16, 2009 2:32 PM
Jojame, it's already been pointed out to you how her religion gets in the way of her work.
She is against stem cell funding, she is for abstinence-only sex education, her doubts about evolution would probably lead to legislation for creationism in science classes, she is anti-equality for homosexuals, and if you don't think her religion would have a negative effect on foregn policy, you weren't paying attention during the Bush years.
Posted by: Cody | November 16, 2009 2:35 PM
And another thing:
How about biological weapons, genetic engineering (therefore agriculture), stem cells/medicine/health care (and the slew of related topics--influenza & other infectious disease); but yes, education is extremely important too. (Actually it's the most important in my opinion.)Posted by: Lynna | November 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Here's the take on Palin from the Daily News Miner (Alaskan Newspaper):
And here's one of the comments below the Daily News Miner story:
source: http://newsminer.com/bookmark/4491751/Palin%20blasts%20AP%20account
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Obviously.
Oh, please. It was a critique of your statement.
According to you. Which was my point when I said, "In other words, 'my interpretation of the Bible is the only right one.'"
Posted by: NitricAcid | November 16, 2009 2:39 PM
Next time someone comments on the treatment of children in Africa who are accused of being witches, remind them of how Palin's church honoured a Kenyan witch-hunter, who personally blessed Palin.
If she supports people who burn African children alive, hack at them with machetes, and pour acid in their faces, why is anyone supporting her?
Posted by: Lynna | November 16, 2009 2:42 PM
Regarding my post @73, and the sample comment at the end of that post: Apparently, some anti-Obama folks did a sort of anti-fact check on Obama's book, inventing their own text for the book, or twisting text within the book, or willfully quote-mining the book in order to claim that Obama wrote things he didn't write. See
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 2:44 PM
Now here are some statements of ignorance that are relevant:
-Cap and trade or the current healthcare bill will not tax those making less than 250,000 a year.
-Iraq was building up WMD's
This is directly relevant to my life and I vote based on information like this. - jojame
My guess is that jojame is trying to justify to him/herself voting for "libertarian" religious-right fruttcakes such as Ron Paul and Bob Barr.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 2:45 PM
Putting your words into my mouth and pretending to "win" a point this way is sophomoric.
Funny, you were willing to use that method on me.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 2:46 PM
Is it a contradiction to be religious and pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-homosexual marriage, etc.? Is it a contradiction to be atheist and believe the opposite?
The point I was trying to make in my previous posts was that we should be looking at the issues important to us rather than sideline issues about their personal life.
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2009 2:46 PM
It has already got in the way of her work and her life.
Ask her single mom teen age daughter how well abstinence only sex ed worked.
Ask her son how well being brought up in an ingorant household worked. He was in trouble with the law, never went to college, and ended up joining the army.
She sacrificed her own kids on the altar of toxic religion.
What is the chance that she would sacrfice her own country on the same altar of toxic religion? About 100%.
And no you won't listen. Religious fanatics are incapable of that.
Posted by: marilove | November 16, 2009 2:48 PM
jojame?
How is it NOT important to take her lack of critical thinking skills into consideration? I mean come the fuck on. You seem to be the one ignoring the important issue of her being a fucking idiot.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 2:49 PM
The Eden story bears more than one interpretation, but it does not bear a literal interpretation.
Umm...not according to many I know.
Perhaps your commentary would retain some level of respect if you qualified your assertions as opinion, not authority.
Posted by: MJL | November 16, 2009 2:51 PM
Look, why beat around the bush?
Anyone who thinks what Palin claims to think is simply an idiot, and totally unfit for political office. The fact that half the electorate might agree with her doesn't change a thing.
This apologetic argument that it's an article of faith that does not necessarily impact other areas of decision-making is completely specious. If you honestly believe the kind of creationist nonsense that Palin spouts, you are delusional. I see absolutely no reason to give that kind of infantile, deranged nonsense any more respect than it deserves, and the amount of respect it deserves is precisely nil. If you believe it, your ability to reason is badly compromised, and you cannot be trusted. That's not harsh, that's not "being disrespectful to someone's deeply held beliefs," it's a simple acknowledgment that any adult who believes that people were built by sky fairies is either hopelessly ignorant or a complete loon.
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 16, 2009 2:53 PM
Yes, and a candidate's intelligence and ability to think critically is an issue that is important to me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 2:54 PM
It's not just the fact she doesn't accept evolution, its that she does so in the face of the mountains of evidence. It is also a peek into her mind and how easily she will dismiss something because she doesn't like it on no grounds other than her dislike of it.
People who do not accept evolution are IMHO also people more likely to believe other bullshit ideas, and that is dangerous.
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 2:55 PM
As I said before, for some people, no. Palin is not one of those people.
And the point that I and others are trying to make is that we have and come to the conclusion that these are not sideline issues but fundamental to her core decision making process. But continue to ignore that.
Posted by: raven | November 16, 2009 2:55 PM
Why??? The worst she could do is help jesus. The Apocalypse is 2,000 years overdue. But an all out nuclear war would fix that in a hurry.
The fundies must be getting tired of predicting the End Times and being wrong. With Palin as president, they could do a lot to bring it about. It would be exciting wondering every day if this was the day of Armageddon.
Posted by: jojame | November 16, 2009 2:59 PM
@marilove #81
I already went over that. She's not trying to be a scientist, she's trying to be a politician. If a politician met all my qualifications then whether they believe in evolution or not would not factor into my decision to vote for them. I don't think it speaks of their critical thinking skills. They just don't care about evolution.
@raven #80
Wow religion does all that? Maybe you should get out into the world and get to know some religious people. Did the teenage daughter have abstinence only sex-ed? Did the son not want to go to college because of religion or was it because he just didn't want to go to college?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 3:00 PM
Good times. Good times indeed.
Posted by: blf | November 16, 2009 3:04 PM
She's so incompetent that if she tried to do something like that, she'd probably just make an overcooked mudpie. Except for whichever child she forces to eat it, nobody else would notice. Which she'd then blame on them media meanies.
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 3:04 PM
This has been pointed out to you many times, but I will say it again: She doesn't just not care about evolution. She disagrees with it because it conflicts with her chosen creation myths, enough to state it publicly. At least make an attempt to understand the argument.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 3:04 PM
Oh that's right. Politicians don't need to think critically.
I'm not sure your comprehension of the arguments against your point is very thorough.
Posted by: Cody | November 16, 2009 3:04 PM
Actually, an intelligent leader capable of making well informed decisions with a broad knowledge of basic science (in biology, chemistry, physics, and a host of other general science topics), IS IDENTICALLY what I consider to be the issue important to me. I suspect other readers of scienceblogs would frequently agree.Less importantly, I'd prefer the person to be not religious at all (ideally an antitheist), but I would settle for simply not allowing religion to influence decisions that can be addressed more productively by an informed understanding of humanitarianism, evolution, social structure, science, and our vast collective intellect. If they want to pray on their own time, that's acceptable.
Posted by: Jim | November 16, 2009 3:06 PM
@ 34 (not that this is important at all) some dolphins are fish.
also called mahi mahi or dorado.
Posted by: Tulse | November 16, 2009 3:07 PM
Does the Resurrection story? Does the Virgin Birth story? Does Loaves and Fishes story? Does the Lazarus story? Which miracles are you going to say literally happened? Any of them? If not, why be a Christian?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
November 16, 2009 3:10 PM
Jim, that's not a dolphin, that's a fish whose nickname is dolphinfish.
Jojame, if she doesn't care about evolution, why does she have an opinion about it?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 16, 2009 3:11 PM
Again... you are confusing the issue. it's not the fact that she is religious. Obama is religious. It's using her religion proudly as a platform for being willfully ignorant that is the problem... and it's a major problem, as far as I'm concerned, for anyone wishing to be the president.
No... that is NOT the point you were making... what has happened is that you asked direct questions about why her stance on evolution as published in a book is such an issue, and got direct answers that you can now no longer argue against, so you are shifting the goalposts to turning this into a debate about us slamming her for her religion... which is disingenuous of you. It's not her religion that we have a problem with, as far as her ability to be president... it's how that religion is so clearly expressed in her viewpoints and positions. And I'm sorry... but that makes a difference.
Now, we've answered you questions regarding why her stance on evolution is such a problem, and now you are attempting to move the goalposts... and I'm losing patience with you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 3:15 PM
No, a fish is called dolphin (among other things).
Dolphins are not fish.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 3:16 PM
So let me get this straight - you hate her because of her religion?
/jojame
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 16, 2009 3:23 PM
I'd have to question why that wouldn't be one of your factors... that YOU don't care about it means nothing to me, and certainly doesn't grant you authority to claim it's irrelevant.
How can you not??
'Christ on a cracker... do you just enjoy being obtuse? Stop pretending that this point hasn't already been addressed... if it was just a simple matter of her not caring then she could simply state as much, or claim ignorance and promise to learn more... that would be more than acceptable to me... she clearly does care because she goes out of her way not only to dispute evolution, but willfully misrepresent it... which clearly shoes a glaring hole in her critical thinking skills.
And as a further warning, as Rev. BDC astutely pointed out, she holds her belief in large part because the facts offend her... how can you continue to argue that we should simply ignore this for a person who wants to run the country?
Posted by: JBlilie | November 16, 2009 3:24 PM
Ms. Palin wears her ignorance and superstition proudly and on her sleeve. Many voters in the US consider this to be virtue. Scary.
Posted by: gwangung | November 16, 2009 3:24 PM
No, you didn't. You just ignored the arguments.
Don't do that.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 16, 2009 3:25 PM
jojame,
I don't want to go ad hominem on you, but I recall your classic claim:
...a few weeks ago on the Frustrated in Maine?... thread.
I'm sincerely hoping your argumentative skills have increased since then. But it's not looking good.
Posted by: marilove | November 16, 2009 3:25 PM
And everyone keeps repeating themselves and you keep ignoring them: She is a politician that lacks critical thinking skills. That is a PROBLEM. Critical thinking skills are just as important for a politician as they are for a scientist.
At this point, you're just being dense. Much like Sarah Palin, you ignore the facts that are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 16, 2009 3:28 PM
if i remember correctly the woman didn't know that africa was a continent and thought it was a country. the absolute ignorance of that woman staggers the mind.
Posted by: marilove | November 16, 2009 3:28 PM
And everyone keeps repeating themselves and you keep ignoring them: She is a politician that lacks critical thinking skills. That is a PROBLEM. Critical thinking skills are just as important for a politician as they are for a scientist.
At this point, you're just being dense. Much like Sarah Palin, you continue to ignore the facts that are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
November 16, 2009 3:32 PM
Sarah Palin blathered:
This explains a lot about Caribou Barbie. By not taking responsibility for her life, she can play the perpetual victim, which appears to be her favorite role.
Posted by: marilove | November 16, 2009 3:36 PM
double posting for the looooose.
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 16, 2009 3:37 PM
Palin's popularity i think was summed up by HL Mencken quite succinctly.
As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
I used to think that applied to Bush, but apparently we haven't hit bottom yet.
Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse
|
November 16, 2009 3:45 PM
It is possible to be religious and still be a good president, if you keep the inherent irrationality of religion compartmented. John Kennedy as a Catholic may have believed a cracker could turn into the flesh of a guy that died 2000 years ago, but didn't let that affect his decisions in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mitt Romney may believe that someone found golden tablets with the BoM written on them, which were then miraculously transported to heaven. Romney may even wear underwear that he thinks is magical, but there is no evidence that those beliefs affected how he governed Massachusetts.
Palin's beliefs, on the other hand, stem from, and embrace, ignorance. In the real world, taking things on faith and rejecting facts lead to bad decisions. (See Bush's reliance on his gut instead of reason.)
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 16, 2009 3:46 PM
Hey jojame the stupid troll, it is not like believing in religious superstition has no bearing on the issues we care about. You think it doesn't matter that Sen McCain himself wanted to teach creationism in schools? Doesn't that matter to you? How about the fact that Ms Palin didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, either? That wouldn't affect his policies?
Look, here's a suggestion. You can spill whatever nonsense you want to on Fox News forum, and you won't be called a troll.
Buzz off!
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 3:46 PM
I thought it was important enough to post twice: increasing the chance that jojame might read one of them.
Posted by: kopd | November 16, 2009 3:49 PM
if i remember correctly the woman didn't know that africa was a continent and thought it was a country.
I remember that, too. Though the one time I got really annoyed at Jon Stewart was around that same time. He (and others) was making fun of her for not knowing all the countries in North America. As if he knows them all. He seemed to only know 3 or 4 of them.
Posted by: Ewan R | November 16, 2009 4:02 PM
Jojame -
knowledge of evolution, knowledge of the location of Hastings(at least if you're going to talk about it - lets assume we're talking about someone edumacated in the UK for sake of arguement), knowledge of whether a dolphin is a fish or a mammal - all these things are categorically not something which requires much of a level of study whatsoever - you really should not be able to attend university if you cant get the right answer on all 3, nevermind be second in command of the last remaining superpower. Circular orbits is at least ballpark correct and could I guess be somewhat forgivable in someone without a great interest in science.
You need to pick perhaps somewhat more 'difficult' facts which would be irrelevant to the suitability of a politician, perhaps like knowing the one and three letter coding for the amino acids (I dont expect a politician to have the remotest idea about this, and wouldnt judge them adversely if they perhaps got it a bit muddled should they have to speak about it), or maybe the Km value of various species Asparagine Transaminase - nobody other than a scientist devoting time to Asparagine Transaminase would have any reason to know this.
Although obviously the arguement made would then be somewhat flat, because being wrong about evolution makes you a moron (and thus unsuitable for public office), being wrong about amino acid codes and Km values of enzymes - not so much.
Posted by: JPS, FCD | November 16, 2009 4:04 PM
A phrase from Lynna's long Palin quote @ #73 (emphasis added):
"Amazingly, but not surprisingly, . . ."
Is this woman simply oblivious to her own words? Does she know what a dictionary is? If she lacks sufficient presence of mind even to listen to herself --
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
November 16, 2009 4:09 PM
This was stated a while ago, but:
Dude, she was governor of Alaska. Y'know, the same state in which the 2nd largest economy is fishing? I suspect knowing that dolphins are mammals is important political knowledge.
In any case, in a society that has politicized creationism, her beliefs about that are politically relevant.
Posted by: JBlilie | November 16, 2009 4:10 PM
"I already went over that. She's not trying to be a scientist, she's trying to be a politician."
Ms. Palin is a high school beauty queen who stumbled onto the national stage because McCain needed a sop for the religious right (and that worked) and he thought the fact that she was female and attractive would shift women's votes and youth votes (that didn't, thankfully.)
Anyone who thinks shes more than an imposter (or "Bible Spice" which is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time!) needs to watch her interviews last fall on YouTube. Just do it. If you can (after watching her interviews) see this person as being qualified in any way for the most powerful job in the world, you either have poor analytical skills or you have a powerful political bias. She is spectacularly ignorant and incompetent (for the job she aspires to (present tense)). She should have been laughed off the public stage long ago.
-Trooper gate
-Lying about the bridge to nowhere
-Being an object lesson in the failure of "abstenance only"
-Epic fail in her interviews and debates last fall
-Her foolish positions regarding scientific facts (such as evolution)
-And, my favorite: When the going gets tough, Sarah quits! -- just what we need in a chief exec! (And she whines about how people weren't nice to her, boo-hoo.)
What a joke she is.
If the Republicans think Sarah effing Palin is their future, I say to them, go with God! They would be driving towards permanent exclusion from the White House.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 16, 2009 4:19 PM
flyonthewall@109:
"I used to think that applied to Bush, but apparently we haven't hit bottom yet."
I sincerely hope that Son of Bush was the bottom.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 16, 2009 4:37 PM
JoJame
She's an unemployed beauty queen.
After her epic fail last fall, she might have wanted to learn something (but then she probably missed that fact that she is ignorant.)
Evolution is relevant to all of medicine, all of biology, all of agriculture, all of disease control, and one of the most basic and well-known scientific facts there is (right up there with the round earth, the solar system, yearly seasons, and gravity.) Morals have nothing, literally, to do with it. Want to try again?
Such as what? How to win a beauty contest? How to speak in tongues? The Bible? Things like these are relevant to the office of US President?!
Posted by: RickR
|
November 16, 2009 4:48 PM
" "Who calls a shot like that?" Palin demanded on Friday. "Who makes a decision like that?"
As Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted: President Bush, that's who."
Oh holy crap.
She really is the gift that won't stop giving.
And giving and giving and giving....
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
November 16, 2009 4:53 PM
Then she should be evolution-agnostic, not anti-evolution. It's not that she doesn't "care about evolution." It's that she actively fights to have "intelligent design" taught in school. This isn't about being ignorant of a subject; it's about being vocally incorrect on a subject, which indicates she believes she has knowledge, when in fact she is simply wrong. Your inability to grasp this simple distinction pretty much negates all of your argument.
She is not just ignorant, but unabashedly and willfully ignorant. She glories in her anti-knowledge. And if that doesn't scare you in a politician, if that doesn't factor into your decision, you too are an idiot.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 16, 2009 4:56 PM
There are only 24 hours in a day and you have to pick and choose what you want to learn.
Yes, and Sarah Palin has chosen "none of the above."
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 16, 2009 5:01 PM
Guess what would happen if I heard a politician say any of those things? I wouldn't vote for them!
It's NOT because these factoids themselves were relevant to any political issues, but because this is fucking GRADE SCHOOL level knowledge that any educated American citizen should know. We Americans should be demanding the intellectual best of the best become president, not some sub-compotent retard (e.g. Dubbya) who can win a popularity contest.
If you can't see how acceptance of scientific fact is tied to ones ability to think critically, then you're a hopeless case.
If this is a commonly held belief among Americans, then this country is truly fucked.
Well, keeping a superstitious, redneck cunt who denies science and let's a non-existent man who lives the sky to "control" her life (and, consequently, the nuclear launch codes) is an important issue to me.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 5:14 PM
But, but...but she's soooo pretty and she seems really nice! She's also a real snappy dresser.
Strident, shrill, atheists.
/godbot
Posted by: Azrael_Rose | November 16, 2009 5:19 PM
Clearly, you and I have concepts of feminine beauty that are wildly at odds. But then, I apparently consider gait and scent far more important that most people, so that's not necessarily surprising.Even so, even when she's standing still I find it difficult to credit that anyone would consider her attractive enough to sway their vote.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
November 16, 2009 5:28 PM
jojame wrote:
Exactly, and that's WHY she is unqualified to be president. Religion has made her unsuitable for the job, because she has allowed herself to believe the most ludicrous ideas of the religious fundamentalists. She is proudly, willfully ignorant, discounting established knowledge as less important than her "faith." We've already seen how well that works in the White House. I hope to never see that again in my lifetime.
I absolutely disagree. As Voltaire said so well, "Someone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Palin believes absurdities. If she were to become president, there's a significant chance she would in fact commit atrocities. Like Bush, Bible Spice (great name!) has allowed herself to fall sway to religion, and thus has shown herself open to manipulation by almost anyone she comes in contact with.
Posted by: NitricAcid | November 16, 2009 5:31 PM
#125- She may not be the most attractive woman on Earth, but she's far prettier than McCain, Dole, or a hundred other presidential candidates.
And for her age, she's not that bad- she's no Sylvia Browne.
Posted by: kermit | November 16, 2009 5:38 PM
Since y'all are dogpiling on jojame, I'll toss the weight of my opinion on...
The same sort of thinking that allows someone to embrace Creationism in light of all evidence to the contrary, allowed President Bush to think that Sadaam Hussein was a threat to the US, and Iraq should be invaded. Perhaps he was "simply" a liar, but his supporters believed these lies, because they pushed all the right buttons. When President Palin's buttons are pushed, will she push the Button?
I do not want a chief executive who will deny so much evidence from so many fields because the evidence fails to produce warm and fuzzies.
I am appalled that the US population voted for someone who so openly despised knowledge and accomplishment. I'm damn glad I'm an elitist; who wants a mediocre (or worse) auto mechanic or dentist or heart surgeon - or local sports team? Hardly anybody, but half of them will vote for a moronic loon who thought that the founding fathers recited the pledge of allegiance.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 16, 2009 5:39 PM
Relative good looks has nothing to do with what I want in a President. For me, any passing attractiveness is more than offset by the repulsion I feel when she opens her mouth to speak.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 5:50 PM
So, being vaguely familiar and wanting a refresh, I had to look up the incident.
Oh sweet jebus with a corn-cob up his ass. What a fucking moron.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 16, 2009 5:54 PM
But when asked in an interview about what facts she learns in a day, she replied "all of them" and when challenged to name a single fact, she went on Fox to complain about the "gotcha" media.Posted by: kopd | November 16, 2009 5:57 PM
Oh my Spam! Thanks for pointing that out, kermit And thanks for finding the link, lose_the_woo. That ranks right up there with the one about the King's English being good enough for Jesus (whoever said it, if anybody).
Posted by: Lola | November 16, 2009 5:59 PM
"I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."
Well, at least we now know the cause of trisomy21.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
November 16, 2009 6:04 PM
That's exactly right. If a bizarre time travelling pledge is good enough for Sarah, it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of whatever pledge is created a hundred years from now.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 16, 2009 6:17 PM
That ranks right up there with the one about the King's English being good enough for Jesus (whoever said it, if anybody).
An urban legend, it would seem. You'll see it variously attributed (to Miriam Ferguson, governor of Texas elected 1924, supposedly reacting to teaching Spanish in Texas schools, to an unnamed "Congressman," and to Senators Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond). No actual record exists of anybody saying it publicly, though it reeks of plausibility.
Posted by: Wistah | November 16, 2009 6:19 PM
Jojame has to be the dumbest ass posting here in ages. Just following the convoluted, loosely-threaded logic that posits that nothing of value is revealed in a presidential candidate who may find evolution too irrelevant to be bothered with is enough to make my head explode.
Jojame, here's a word of advice. Get yourself a copy of Palin's book, bring the jacket in to a Kinko's and get a poster enlargement laminated so that you can hang it on the wall where you can see it in the wolfy moonlight that makes it all silvery and all.
Posted by: TheLoneIguana | November 16, 2009 6:19 PM
I got quite enough of
panic attacksof that sort excitement during the Bush years.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 16, 2009 6:20 PM
Celtic_Evolution #10
McCain didn't have a choice. Folks like Pat Robertson and James Dobson were urging their followers not to vote because McCain was too liberal. So McCain had to do something drastic to get the Religious Right back on track. He picked Palin, or had her picked for him, because she was a fundagelical. Palin knows that's why she was picked.
She's still promoting herself as a fundagelical because that's all she has. She's hoping that Obama's election was a fluke and in 2012 the country will turn hard right. Then she'll be ready to try for the top position.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 6:21 PM
More doozies here.
There's natural evil (earthquakes, disease, etc.), then there's pure evil (requires thought and planning). Religion is the number 1 enabler of pure evil.
Posted by: Walton | November 16, 2009 6:24 PM
So... how exactly would you know what Sarah Palin smells like?
====
jojames, et al: I wouldn't necessarily expect a presidential candidate to be an expert on evolutionary biology. If Palin had just admitted that she didn't know, and pointed out that answering those types of questions is not part of her job (as, IIRC, Bush did when asked a similar question), then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the fact that, having no expertise, she actively and enthusiastically promotes a wrong point of view is much more of a problem. No one expects all politicians to be experts in everything, but we can expect them to refrain from the active promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience.
That said, I think Palin's position on this issue has been slightly distorted. If you watch this interview (skip to 2:13), she expressly said that evolution "should be taught as an accepted scientific principle". in schools, and that, although she personally sees "the hand of God" in nature, she doesn't think her personal beliefs belong in science class. So I don't think her view on this is as extreme as it's sometimes portrayed; she's no Don McLeroy.
(And no, I'm not a Palin supporter in the slightest. She's completely clueless about economics and foreign policy, for a start. But it's important to be careful not to misrepresent her actual views.)
Posted by: TheThomas | November 16, 2009 6:24 PM
Sarah Palin...more than 99% chimp.
Posted by: tsg | November 16, 2009 6:43 PM
I wouldn't go that far. There have been some real whackjobs here in the past. Jojame is just following the tried and true "blindly repeat the argument ignoring that it's been refuted a thousand times" method so popular among creationists and other reality deniers. A mediocre nut at best.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
November 16, 2009 6:44 PM
walton wrote:
Yes, but the quote in this article (from her own book) specifically indicates she doesn't believe in evolution, and that is the salient point.
She can say now she doesn't think creationism belongs in the classroom, but if she believes evolution is wrong (and creationism is right), how long do you think she could refrain from inserting her religious beliefs into public policy? How many people would lean on her to change public laws and policies in accordance with being a "Christian nation" (another dangerous falsehood she apparently believes). We saw how easily Bush was manipulated by the religious right, Palin would be just as susceptible, if not more so.
As you said, we can (and should) expect politicians to refrain from the active promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience. Everything I've seen from Palin tells me she doesn't refrain from this in the slightest. In fact, she does just the opposite; witness her latest kerfuffle over the "In God We Trust" slogan on our coins.
Posted by: F
|
November 16, 2009 6:55 PM
In fact, the Palins were commercial fishers.
Posted by: Wendy | November 16, 2009 8:04 PM
In my opinion, the most offensive thing about this quote is the condescending way in which Palin describes animals. She should have more respect!!!! >:(
Posted by: mythusmage
|
November 16, 2009 8:41 PM
Why are people confusing untaught with unteachable?
Posted by: echidna
|
November 16, 2009 9:06 PM
mythusmage,
Neither "untaught" or "unteachable" are words that come up in this blog (or else I fail at searching).
Could you be more specific about which people you mean, and where they are confused?
My opinion is that the distinction isn't simple anyway - untaught and unteachable are related.
Apart from someone exhibiting unwillingness or inability to learn, (unteachable) there is also the foundation of knowledge that concepts rest on. For example, calculus is unteachable if algebra is untaught.
The knowledge and understanding of the world that Sarah Palin currently exhibits is so far from the knowledge and understanding that a US President needs, that it's academic whether she is untaught, or unteachable. She can't make sound decisions on such a small base of knowledge, and the false notions she holds would render much of her reasoning invalid anyway. Together with the poor reasoning tools that she exhibits, she is unfit to lead the US (unless you are hoping for a US decline, or a puppet).
Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 9:09 PM
I can't decide my favorite words of wisdom from the cheerful not-a-governor Sarah "I have not a fucking clue what in sam hill's going on" Palin.
When she talked about us winning our war with Iran?
Or she referenced our neighboring country of Afghanistan?
When she said sit down and shut up was the quitter's way out, during her speech resigning her governorship?
When she claimed her son with down syndrome would face the death panels or be denied health care if we...got universal health care?
Alaska is right over the border from Russia?
Referencing a Department of Law that doesn't exist?
How she reads all or any newspapers and magazines?
No, it's "I don't know what the job is I'm trying to get" for the win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loUHRv3ipLE
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 16, 2009 9:15 PM
Mack, Alaska and Russia do share a border.
Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 9:27 PM
I know the countries share a border, but you don't really consider "going over the border" to Russia, as with countries that actually occupy the same land mass. But really, I meant to reference how she claimed Russia's proximity gave her foreign policy experience. I should have been more clear.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
November 16, 2009 9:43 PM
Echidna, #147
A word does not have to specifically appear in any forum to be applicable. It has been demonstrated on this blog that Sarah Palin is ignorant of the Theory of Evolution. It is when people assume her ignorance means she cannot learn, and demonstrate their assumptions in their comments, that I find myself asking how these people know they are right about the woman.
Writer Esther Friesner once observed that ignorance is not stupidity. Neither is ignorance denial, for ignorance simply means not knowing. You correct ignorance with teaching, not by casting the ignorant into the outer darkness as utterly irredeemible.
Another message I'm getting from some commenters here is that Palin isn't worth their time, providing nothing to support their conclusions and no sign they've even tried communicating with her. Thus we again see the appeal of statements from authority when it applies to matters we need to be what makes us feel good about ourselves.
I will not accept ipso facto anything anyone says. You make a claim you demonstrate the truth of that claim. And not by pointing me to people who will testify on your behalf.
Show me what you can verify Sarah Palin said, not what somebody is certain she said.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
November 16, 2009 9:54 PM
The article PZ linked to quoted directly from her memoir.
Sarah Palin is old enough to have learned what evolution is by now. I supposed it's possible she could be teachable, if she were willing to learn. Being willing to learn would qualify her to be a student, not president of the United States or even governor of one of its states.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 16, 2009 10:16 PM
"My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."
Ugh. Creepy as FUCK. Haven't there been horror films about that kind of thing?
"Isn't it possible that Palin simply doesn't know about evolution because it is so irrelevant."
If it was irrelevant, she wouldn't have mentioned it. But she did, and she did because it's a part of a package of odious political beliefs that are important to millions of religious right voters. Creationism, at least with political figures, always goes hand-in-hand with their fascistic "family values" platform. Being ignorant isn't in and of itself a sin, but being proudly ignorant and signalling that fact to voters is absolutely important.
"In my opinion, the most offensive thing about this quote is the condescending way in which Palin describes animals."
Contempt for animals pretty much goes with the territory with the "subdue the Earth" crowd. That and an irrational fear and hatred of monkeys.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
November 16, 2009 10:30 PM
@mythusmage,
Palin has demonstrated not only that she is ignorant, but that she is willfully ignorant.
To me, that is far worse than stupidity. Innate stupidity I can accept, as it is a natural limit of understanding, and in no way reflects on the character of the possessor.
Willful ignorance is a proud display not of stupidity, but idiocy. It is this joyous celebration of ignorance -- and worse, misinformation -- that brands Sarah Palin as not only unfit to be a Presidential candidate, but not even fit to serve as mayor of a small town of 9,000 people in the middle of nowhere.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 16, 2009 10:31 PM
The evidence for evolution is out there. It's very easily accessible and plentiful. She made a point of discussing evolution in her book. She is either too lazy , is choosing to be ignorant on the subject or is outright denying the science.
None of the above options speak well for her.
But knowing what people who like to discuss evolution and also who claim strong religious affiliation typically do in regards to the evolution subject, it's a strong bet on which of the above options she falls under.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 16, 2009 10:46 PM
She is either too lazy , is choosing to be ignorant on the subject or is outright denying the science.
There's another option...a cynical appeal to the "base." Now, in order for this to be the case, Palin herself would have to not be of the fundamentalist/evangelical right wing. She would have to be of the William Kristol class of folks. But, since she's actually a member of a church that sponsored a "witch hunter," someone who blessed Palin within her own church, the cynicism possibility becomes harder to accept (unlike Shrub and Cheney's cynical attacks on gay folks).
Posted by: RickR
|
November 16, 2009 11:00 PM
"Show me what you can verify Sarah Palin said, not what somebody is certain she said."
mythusmage- happy to oblige.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
This is a comprehensive list of lies, backed up with citations, told by Ms. Palin since she entered the national stage.
Not only is she willfully, purposefully, proudly ignorant, she seems to have a very tenuous grasp of (or regard for) honesty in particular, or the facts of reality in general.
Posted by: Dr. P | November 16, 2009 11:55 PM
Yes, but the stubborn clinging to ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary IS stupidity, or is at least within its domain. This was a hallmark of the Bush administration and I fear would be the proud badge of a Palin administration.Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 17, 2009 12:51 AM
jojame ...
tsg ...
Conversations like this always remind me of comments from these two ...
Senator Sylvia Allen
Rep. John Shimkus
I'd sleep better at night knowing the deluded aren't making policy decisions for us all but indeed they are. It's even more disturbing to know that there are people like jojames out there that will give defense or battle to install them into positions of power.
This thread is giving me a headache.
Posted by: Anti-theist | November 17, 2009 2:04 AM
Palin is a disgusting fuck.
Posted by: wiley | November 17, 2009 3:54 AM
Sarah Palin is a honey.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 4:37 AM
I see no need for a president of the USA if that president only echos what their god wants. That is a theocracy and that is what Palin represents.
Religion is anti-democratic. That is why Jojame, her religion is important to how she would run a country.
Posted by: scooter | November 17, 2009 5:17 AM
I think it was on Hardball,
or one of the terrible MSNBC word talking competitions,
and they were talking about Sarah Palin is a creatard,
which she clearly is,
according to her own five Chapter masterpiece
and the eternal Catholic Douche-nozzle that will not die,
Pat Buchannon,
said no no no she's not a creatard
she believes that evolution may exist but is guided by the hand of god, it is god's tool....
takes one to know one
he goes on to say that this is in line with present day Catholic Doctrine ever since Pope somebody or other...
then he says, but I do agree with Sarah's arguments about micro-evolution vs macro evolution. Which means they DON'T believe in evolution and they are creationists, which we already knew
Hahahahahahaha
Pat Buchannan is a moron and he's also a heretic, Catholically speaking.
Posted by: gorunnova
|
November 17, 2009 8:29 AM
Why am I not surprised Palin didn't even bother to find out what evolutionary theory actually said before writing about what it doesn't say as if it did say that?
Another book that will probably be misfiled in the autobiography section of bookstores when it should really be in humour.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 17, 2009 8:43 AM
not surprising you'd have a comment like this
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 17, 2009 8:53 AM
Yeah I'm sure that plays into it but I think that has to be combined with at least one of the other options.
She says some of the most amazingly stupid and insane things. Her obvious bent toward accepting a conspiracy theory over other explanations is another disturbing trend in her thinking.
The whole "In God We Trust" on the side of the coins thing she brought up at the dinner she spoke at (no press allowed mind you) was jaw-droppingly stupid in it's ignorance and conspiracy laden bullshit.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 17, 2009 10:28 AM
I know this was all the way back at #13 and a few posts after and people already answered, but I can't help but put in my two cents about this:
Aside from reading technical documents, understand and draw rational conclusions from evidence (this is a big one as she's obviously willing to ignore evidence), and have an understanding enough to be able to see just how important a role scientific research will play in the welfare of the USA in the uncoming years considering how rapidly it is advancing now?
Federal funding for science? I don't know if you heard about that before, but the government does fund scientific research, and at least a basic education in science is needed to make decisions on where the money should go and how much money should go into it.
It's also needed considering the tendancy for Republicans to ban some of the most important research concerning stem-cell research and other areas where evolution is the basis of understanding it.
It's a conflict of interest of church and state in her case. I don't mind a leader who is religious, but I don't want a religious leader. The difference is decisions need to be based on rational thought, but Palin would base her decisions on her religion, which as we saw with Bush and his "God told me to go into Iraq" ridiculousness, is a bad idea.
As a specific example, her stance for abstinance-only education. That is a purely religious based initiative that DOESN'T WORK and has been shown in scientific studies to not work. She will ignore the evidence and side with the the church's fear of sex and condoms and contraceptives, and her advocation of such policies would have detrimental effects everywhere that it is chosen over a proper sex-education class.
Yes, and political positions on certain issues require a scientific understanding passed that of a 3rd grader. I can't vote for someone who would be guessing at what to do on issues of science when science is the stepping stone to making America better: "green" technology, alternative energy, stem-cell research, etc. These are things Palin is likely to make bad decisions on, and these are, imo, some of the most critical to keep the USA as a scientific leader in the world.
I agree with something Ken Miller said on this subject(paraphrased): We are at a crossroads where, unless we focus on science and remove religion's affect on it in the US, we are going to lose our standing as a leader in science and another country is going to take up that mantle and never let it go.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | November 17, 2009 10:44 AM
A beautiful and relevant example was her sneering dismissal of fruitfly research in France during the campaign. She seemed to think this was some kind of boondoggle, when in fact it was a serious program to combat a serious agricultural pest in California. The French have extensive experience with this fly, so it makes perfect sense that some of tgeh research woiuld be done there. Did this matter to Palin? Of course not. Instead you could almost hear her muttering "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" under her breath to push the buttons of her fellow ignoramuses. To be fair, McCain had the same dumbass attitude towards basic research. Neither dumbass deserved being allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 17, 2009 12:09 PM
scooter @ # 163: Pat Buchannan is ...also a heretic, Catholically speaking.
How so?
Posted by: scooter | November 17, 2009 12:13 PM
Rev @ 165
Strictly for objectification purposes, I prefer the term ex-GILF
It's a funny riddle
hahaha
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 17, 2009 12:38 PM
Mara Liasson just called Michelle effing Bachman, "an up-and-coming Republican star," who is "comparable to Sarah Palin" on my local NPR affiliate. Ugh!
Posted by: Tom M | November 17, 2009 12:40 PM
Ms. Palin wears her ignorance and superstition proudly and on her sleeve. Many voters in the US consider this to be virtue. Scary.
Actually, no. When it comes to the Palin, most voters don't find her ignorance a virtue at all.
Polling shows voters think she's unqualified to be president.
Posted by: marilove | November 17, 2009 1:03 PM
These are the same people that voted for Bush Jr., Tom M. Twice.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 17, 2009 1:06 PM
"Alaska is right over the border from Russia?"
Alaska and Siberia do border eachother.
However, Juneau (the AK capitol) and Anchorage (Wasilla is a suburb of Anchorage) are far from Siberia (nearest point Big Diomede Island, which is about 40 miles from the mainland.
Wasilla to Big Diomede Island: approx. 750 miles (and across the bulk of the Alaska)
Juneau to Big Diomede Island: approx. 1100 miles (same caveat)
She can't exactly "see Russia from my back porch" or whatever nonsense she said last year. There are very, very few people in NW Alaska.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 17, 2009 1:11 PM
I'm not voting for Jojame for president.
too bloody ignorant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 17, 2009 1:13 PM
I'm not voting for Walton, either.
same reason.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 17, 2009 1:23 PM
TomM @172
I just heard (20 minutes ago) a Minnesota Republican on my local NPR affiliate station call in and say, and I quote, "Sarah Palin is the only hope for conservatives ... John McCain was way out to the left in his policies." [He was probably thinking of McCain's confession [sic] that he believed in evolution during the first debate. I shit thee not on those quotes.)
I don't like to pick nits; but I said many, not most. More than 40% of Americans self-identify as creationists:
* * * * *
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/third-americans-say-evidence-has-supported-darwins-evolution-theory.aspx
The poll question was: “Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?”
The available responses were:
(1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process
(2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process
(3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so [YEC]
Over 40% of Americans polled reponded with the third (YEC) response. These are simply the data.
Responses as follows, through time:
Nov 2004: Resp (1) 38%, Resp (2) 13%, Resp(3) 45%
Feb 2001: Resp (1) 37%, Resp (2) 12%, Resp(3) 45%
Aug 1999: Resp (1) 40%, Resp (2) 9%, Resp(3) 47%
Nov 1997: Resp (1) 39%, Resp (2) 10%, Resp(3) 44%
Jun 1993: Resp (1) 35%, Resp (2) 11%, Resp(3) 47%
1982: Resp (1) 38%, Resp (2) 9%, Resp(3) 44%
“Survey Methods: These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,016 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 7-10, 2004. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.”
* * * * *
Like Sam Brownback (I think it was) said to Bill Maher, "You don;t have to pass an intelligence test to get into the Senate."
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 17, 2009 1:26 PM
html tag fail. Should be:
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 17, 2009 1:35 PM
Like Sam Brownback (I think it was) said to Bill Maher, "You don;t have to pass an intelligence test to get into the Senate."
It was Sen. Pryor (D-AR)
Mara Liasson just called Michelle effing Bachman, "an up-and-coming Republican star," who is "comparable to Sarah Palin" on my local NPR affiliate. Ugh!
She is, though. Did you see her little festival of crazy at the Capitol last week? (Or was it two weeks ago?) She brings out the batshit-base. The DC "news" media love her because she gives good quote. Even the STrib has avoided noting that she really is, at core, a mendacious lunatic.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
November 17, 2009 2:10 PM
MAJeff,
Thanks for the correction on the Senator.
Yes, Bachmann is (Liasson is pretty sharp). Living just 100 yards from Bachmann's district, I get a full dose of her. I'm just nauseated by it. The media do love her, in all her proud ignorance. I don't think I can take her stupid fest. I can barely handle what the local TV "news" shows about her (the only TV I am subjected to.)
I liked Greg Laden's summary on the situation in Minnesota's 6th congressional district:
(I'll find the link later ...)
Posted by: scooter | November 17, 2009 3:23 PM
Pierce @ 169
Because if you accept micro evolution, but reject macro evolution you are definitely a wing-nut creationist.
The Catholics teach Darwinian evolution in their schools and their doctrine, which makes Buchannan a heretic.
I would definitely show up to see old Pat burn at the stake
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 18, 2009 1:04 PM
scooter @ # 181 - I dunno if acceptance of evolution is high enough on the Catholic ideological totem pole for denying it to be heretical by the standards of the Holy Mother Church.
And as for burning Pat at the stake, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
Burning is wasteful & contributes to global warming: the stake can be re-used an indefinite number of times if employed for impalement.
Posted by: VegeBrain | November 18, 2009 5:34 PM
If her life is in god's hands then all that means is god is fondling her.
Posted by: Eric Arthur Blair | November 18, 2009 6:35 PM
"I mean, it's like the witches aren't even trying."
(From way, way back up at #6)
No self-respeting Witch I know would waste any time on Palin.