Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the wait,-alaska-has-electricity? dept.

Government 1115

Revolution Radio writes "BetaNews has a short description of what we might expect from Governor Palin regarding technology issues. She demonstrated her familiarity with the internet by initiating an online education program for state workers, using the web for government transparency, and a supporting the general concept of 'long-distance distribution of services' (similar to net neutrality?)." We've previously discussed Senator Joe Biden's tech voting record and compared the technology platforms of Obama and McCain. In addition to the above story about Palin, Betanews also has analyses of Obama, McCain, and Biden regarding tech policy.

cancel ×

1115 comments

To be honest... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901745)

... I don't care what her views on tech issues are. I just know she's a MILF [flickr.com] !

Re:To be honest... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901841)

The pregnant daughter [chattahbox.com] is pretty hawt too.

Re:To be honest... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902193)

Hence the pregnancy...

Re:To be honest... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902247)

Hawt before she was pregnant.

There is nothing hot about a preggo.

Re:To be honest... (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902075)

Is that you, David Jaffe?

singapore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901749)

first!

Internet in Alaska (5, Funny)

Davemania (580154) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901757)

They sure can do alot with tubes in Alaska

Governor for 2 years. Before: Mayor of a town. (0, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902137)

... for very low values of "they". Alaska's population [census.gov] is like that of a small city, 683,478, with basically one kind of business, oil.

Sara Palin [wikipedia.org] has been Alaska's governor for two years.

Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a city of less than 10,000 [wikipedia.org] people (not counting moose and caribou).

Hello... Evolution? (5, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901763)

Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] enough for a Slashdot reader? You can call me a troll/off topic, but I think if we have a FAIL in basic science, technology issues are unimportant.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (3, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901811)

Oh, and you will notice that I linked to a mild article with an actual title of "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor". If you read even that mild article you will still easily realize she just hasn't pushed the issue in the past, yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone) and she would obviously like to see creationism taught. Go ahead, give her the power :)

Re:Hello... Evolution? (5, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902245)

yet she does not believe in evolution

I think she may be confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Most people do.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902261)

yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone) and she would obviously like to see creationism taught. Go ahead, give her the power :)

Wow, someone has beliefs. She stated that she wouldn't push creationism over evolution in schools. And honestly, teaching creationism, evolution or that we all ended up here from the decedents of an alien race, doesn't affect the country much.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (5, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901851)

Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism [google.com] enough for a Slashdot reader? You can call me a troll/off topic, but I think if we have a FAIL in basic science, technology issues are unimportant.

Did you read the article you referenced?

"Palin has not pushed creation science as governor"
"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools."
"When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""
"In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members."
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them."
"Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans."

Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine. Also she seems to have a grasp on that "separation of church and state" thing.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901933)

No offense, but if Creationism is going to be taught in school, I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings. And why stick to Christian beliefs? There are plenty of other creation theories out there.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902043)

No offense, but if Creationism is going to be taught in school, I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings. And why stick to Christian beliefs? There are plenty of other creation theories out there.

I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it. Don't forbid any of it.

Also, many Christian schools do teach evolution as well. Some call it a theory, and some teach it as the tool God used for creation.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902265)

She said to teach it all and debate it.

What is there to teach? What is there to debate? Evolution is the foundation of biology.

You observe that one organism has similarities to some other organism. You wonder why. The scientific answer is evolution (common ancestry/similar environment).

Don't forbid any of it.

OK, so if some student asks about creationism, the instructor has a good laugh asks the student whether he also believes that Michael Jackson gave birth to alien butt-babies in a cheap hotel in Tijuana last week. The student says, no, there's no evidence for that. The instructor say, well, yeah, same deal with creationism and gets on with teaching science.

On the other hand, if a biology instructor actually implies that there is any scientific validity to creationism whatsoever then the instructor should be fired immediately - just like if the instructor implied there was scientific validity to Michael Jackson's alien butt-babies.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Interesting)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902145)

I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings.

It is in at my university. I attend Wheaton College (IL) and most, if not all of the science faculty (not sure about the rest) "believe in" macroevolution and are also hold to old earth theories (as do I).

The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money. Some affluent parents have chosen to send their children to religious schools where they may or may not teach 6-day creationism, and that is fine and dandy for them. Unfortunately, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents who are not as affluent, so their children are stuck in whatever government school they are zoned for. Thus, "teach both" really isn't a lasting solution because someone is always going to complain about one side or the other, let alone the church/state issues about which people will complain. The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children. People will still complain but they may choose to send there children to a different school.

Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not. A large reason private schools exist is to escape and rise above the government monopoly and bureaucracy.

Hope this helps. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or even be unfriendly.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Funny)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902007)

Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine. Also she seems to have a grasp on that "separation of church and state" thing.

Err... no.

Let me put this in a way you might understand, since you too apparently have a difficulty with grasping this "basic science and theory":

"Palin has not pushed Flat Earth Theory science as governor"
"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools."
"When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about Earth being spherical and Flat Earth Theory, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""
"In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the shape of the Earth should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add Flatness-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for Flat Earth Society members when she appointed board members."
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have Flat Earth Theory taught in them."
"Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." ... right, pull my other one!

There, I hope this gets through better.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

cryptodan (1098165) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902159)

Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine. Also she seems to have a grasp on that "separation of church and state" thing.

Err... no.

Let me put this in a way you might understand, since you too apparently have a difficulty with grasping this "basic science and theory": "Palin has not pushed Flat Earth Theory science as governor" "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools." "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about Earth being spherical and Flat Earth Theory, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."" "In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the shape of the Earth should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said." "Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add Flatness-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for Flat Earth Society members when she appointed board members." "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have Flat Earth Theory taught in them." "Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." ... right, pull my other one!

There, I hope this gets through better.

If I had more mod points id mod that as funny.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (-1, Flamebait)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902241)

Because everything was made from nothing that was created by nothing that one day exploded due to the nothing and created everything... ... Is like not being a member of a fictional comedic society.

Right?

Because creationism is so flawed. And thinking that something or someone must have sparked the dawn of life! How barbaric! We all know we spawned out of nothing! Fuck your "laws" I listen to no one! We all know you're a bunch of cavemen who all think that the earth is 6000 years old and was created perfect as is! All of you types believe humans frolicked with dinosaurs! Your beliefs are so stupid compared to our true ones! They are facts and totally incompatible!

Reminds me of people who scream stupid things like Ockham's Razor. Well, think about it, a wizard did it, or it all appeared out of nothing one day? What's simpler then?

There should be a -1, Religious mod. Because seriously, fuck off. Nobody invited religion to this topic. We're discussing Ms. Palin's technology platform, not what she holds true.

NO (5, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902101)

A vote for a creationist or someone who thinks both is okay is a vote for the U.S. as a backwater religious theocracy. The fact that you seem to think that teaching both in the classroom is "okay" means YOU don't understand the difference between the separation between church and state, or that you don't understand that creationism or intelligent design is NOT science, it it religious dogma masquerading as science. It has no testable hypotheses, it does not teach critical thinking, and it has no place in the science classroom! It does not deserve to be taught both as Palin states and the fact that you think she is "being reasonable" means you fell for the religious propaganda.

Re:NO (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902191)

A vote for a creationist or someone who thinks both is okay is a vote for the U.S. as a backwater religious theocracy. The fact that you seem to think that teaching both in the classroom is "okay" means YOU don't understand the difference between the separation between church and state, or that you don't understand that creationism or intelligent design is NOT science, it it religious dogma masquerading as science. It has no testable hypotheses, it does not teach critical thinking, and it has no place in the science classroom! It does not deserve to be taught both as Palin states and the fact that you think she is "being reasonable" means you fell for the religious propaganda.

And if you allow discussion in the classroom, you can teach all those things you mentioned. We learn as much from mistakes as correct actions. (More in some cases) Do you know how few people can tell the difference between a theory and faith? Seriously, you can teach the difference without saying "Your wrong and have no business being here."

Re:Hello... Evolution? (5, Insightful)

zoogies (879569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902171)

Palin sounds so very reasonable when she says those things. Fact is, she believes creationism is an alternative theory on equal grounding with evolution. Psh. "Healthy debate is so important." Hah.

There's no debate here: evolution is biology, creationism is not.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (2, Informative)

Tangent128 (1112197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902243)

Evolution is archeology. Natural selection is biology.

One's history, one's science.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902217)

"Teach both"???? "Healthy debate"?????

There IS no debate. Creationism is NOT science and has no more place in schools than astrology or phrenology.

The woman is a fascist and fascists always talk a good story before they get into power.

The whole world is watching and you'd better get it right (or, rather, not wrong) this time.

its more about the reality of modern politics (4, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902227)

The simple fact is, if she came out and said creationism was bullshit, she'd lose tens of thousands of votes. Actually, likely a lot more if she said it during the presidential election.

You *can't* be all out against it and get anywhere in the extreme conservatism of modern US politics.

It doesn't matter that pushing a version of how life arose which was discredited two centuries ago is insane for the US as a country.

Its all about the fact that if you say such things as 'Evolution is a proven fact, creationism is a philosophy with no basis in fact', you won't get anywhere in politics, at least not to a high level.

In reality this is all about pandering to the right wing christian voters.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902251)

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."

Hmm... like sex ed?

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901853)

Yes, because we all know that the vice-president controls the curriculum for every public school...

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Insightful)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901953)

Is that supposed to be insightful? By the same token it's pointless to discuss her stances on technology-related matters because she doesn't single-handedly write and enforce every single law.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902093)

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, I was mainly trying to say something along the lines of "voting on a single issue that isn't really relevant to the job at hand is stupid". The parent was saying because of this one issue (which she would be unlikely to effect anything regarding it in the office of VP, unless there was a tie in the senate) that no one should even consider her.

Commerce clause (1)

bobbuck (675253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902153)

There is a commerce clause in the US constitution that's broad enough to include technology but education is a state issue. (Well it would be if people would read follow the constitution.)

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902167)

According to the Constitution (10th Amendment) the Federal Government doesn't have any role in public education. I guess you could just be upset about her history and vote against her out of spite...

Re:Hello... Evolution? (5, Informative)

ral8158 (947954) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901859)

um, Palin's current stance is that doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in school in addition to evolution, but that it should not be a prohibited topic. If you're going to diss a candidate, at least don't act like a raving fool and use actual arguments and assessments.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (2, Informative)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902079)

"She would like to see it taught, but won't push the issue" would be a more accurate description.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (3, Interesting)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901891)

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

The key here is healthy debate. While I think creationism is not even worth being called science, what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it. The US education system needs to teach critical thinking and you can not teach critical thinking by ignoring or banning things you disagree with.

Another action that is a very big plus for the next Vice President of the U.S. is directly from the article you linked.

But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

This is perhaps the best part of the article. She made a pledge and has kept. Unlike so many other politicians who make campaign pledges such as Obama's choice to not accept Federal matching funds and the limits that come with them or McCain's pledge to not fly on corporate jets.

So she has been honest with her opinion and at the same time kept her word.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902065)

While I think creationism is not even worth being called science, what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it.

Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching chemistry without atoms. "Why does this one chemical react with this other chemical? Because God wants them to react."

The US education system needs to teach critical thinking and you can not teach critical thinking by ignoring or banning things you disagree with.

So I can't teach biology without teaching that Elvis was abducted by aliens? 'Cause I disagree with that, too.

Let me add one more thing. Palin seems to claim that there should be "healthy debate" about whether evolution or creationism is correct. In the scientific community there is no debate. There are a few fringe crackpots that have made a career out of throwing some pseudo-scientific bones to certain fringe religions - but that is all.

Evolution is the foundation of biology. If evolution is wrong then biology is wrong.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902077)

They should teach it, but it should be in a "world religions" class and not taught as science as it's just a bunch of stories made by the ancients to explain things they didn't understand. So teach it in a class about make believe things people in the olden days believed.

The Bible, like it or not, has had a huge impact on the world and shouldn't be ignored. Really if you're not at least passingly familiar with the bible you're uneducated. So schools shouldn't just skip it altogether, they should teach it as a piece of literature, along with the Koran, the writings of Marx and Lenin, and other shit that has had a huge impact (good or bad) on history.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902175)

Teaching non-science in a science class is not healthy debate.

The debate belongs in a philosophy class.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902179)

...what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it.

Because it's -not- science. Can it be disproved???

Also, what is there to teach? 6-days of work and 1-day of rest? The self satisfaction as things just happened? I mean really, what -is- there to teach? The order in which things were magically created (and documented in the Bible)? How planets wouldn't be orbiting the sun (err, wasn't that also debated before?) without the great plan of the omnipotent master creator?

Re:Hello... Evolution? (4, Informative)

zoogies (879569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902189)

How is this a knee jerk reaction? Creationism as you say, is not worth being called a science. You don't teach evolution and creationism side-by-side. Agree with other comments here: teach about it, fine, in a *world religions* class. Not present it as an alternative to the evolution model, which it is not.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902215)

The key here is healthy debate. While I think creationism is not even worth being called science, what is worse is the knee jerk reaction to not teach it. The US education system needs to teach critical thinking and you can not teach critical thinking by ignoring or banning things you disagree with.

"Creationism is the idea that a higher intelligence created all things. Using critical thinking one recognizes that Creationism offers precisely zero utility within the discipline of Science nor in application of the Scientific Method."

There, I taught it. With one paragraph. It's not about ignoring it, or banning it, really, it's about the fact that it's not relevant to Science in any way. It belongs in a Science class about as much as Hannah Montana.

Re:Hello... Evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902237)

I'm all for teaching about "creation science" in science class - because you can't teach it without acknowledging the complete lack of scientific evidence for it. If we're educating kids on critical thinking and then giving creationism equal value as evolution in science class, we're sending mixed signals, so you've got to show kids how creationism doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.

Seriously though, we can teach creationism if you want, but leave it outside of science class. Personally, I was taught and tested on the fundamentals of Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism during (I think) high school, so why not throw in creationism? It falls into the same category of "here are things people believe that you might find relevant in life."

Hello - Libertarian? (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901895)

Isn't the fact that if it was up to her our schools would be teaching creationism enough for a Slashdot reader?

Nope. Because even though I disagree with her on that issue, her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach. And THAT should be enough to convince the typical Slashdot reader to vote for her.

I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian, hoping that Palin will be at the top of the ticket in four years.

Anyone who says they will not vote for a candidate because of a single issue is simply not looking at the big picture.

Re:Hello - Libertarian? (1)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902149)

her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach.

While IANAL, it is great to see a group holding local government accountable! How many people on Slashdot (who are more knowledgeable than the average citizen) can name their state senators?

Or, Judge Picks will Increase Federal Power (4, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902199)

her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach.

Her other views -- and more importantly, McCain's other views -- make it highly likely that they'll be appointing more judges to the bench whose readings of the law allow *increasing* amount of power vesting in the federal executive and congress.

Do you really think they're going to pick people who are going to go with state's rights on abortion?

If you think habeas corpus and other procedural rights and civil liberties are important, do you remember how close Hamdan vs Rumsfeld actually was?

This is before we even touch the problems with Palin's qualifications as a candidate to even be in the whitehouse.

I think moving power more locally is a great idea, but I don't think handing the Presidency to Palin is really going to do the job.

Re:Hello - Libertarian? (3, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902219)

She is not libertarian. If your definition of libertarian is "good for business, and lower government spending", then you are woefully ignorent about true libertarianism.

Republicans talk up the Economic issues (which are not the only ones libertarianism hold to) and totally ignore the most important governance portion.

It ain't libertarian if you support the Republican governance platform. It is mild fascism.

Re:Hello - Libertarian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902223)

Nope. Because even though I disagree with her on that issue, her strong libertarian views means she would leave it up to states and local regions to decide what they teach. And THAT should be enough to convince the typical Slashdot reader to vote for her.

I vote for McCain this fall as a libertarian, hoping that Palin will be at the top of the ticket in four years.

Anyone who says they will not vote for a candidate because of a single issue is simply not looking at the big picture.

And anyone who WILL vote for a candidate because of a single issue is simply not looking at the big picture.

(That means you, by the way)

Re:Hello... Books? (4, Interesting)

wytcld (179112) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901915)

Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive [libraryjournal.com] . Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?

Perhaps to her small credit, Palin backed down from firing the librarian. She went ahead, however, with firing the police chief. There had been a bunch of serious drunken driving bashups. The bars in Wasilla are open until 5 a.m. The chief proposed the closing time be moved to 2 a.m. The bar owners where friends and backers of Palin.

The chief sued for unlawful termination. It went to the Alaska Supreme Court. They threw it out on the basis that in Alaska a mayor can fire a police chief at pleasure, without any requirement for justification.

At first, this may seem unconnected to tech policy - unlike Palin's desire for censorship. But consider how much of the Net is devoted to selling drugs. The Wasilla area is the meth capital of Alaska [juneauempire.com] . Now, if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs. How else do you expect them to stay up drinking until 5 a.m., before they go off to crash their trucks? Palin's in good with these country folks.

So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.

Re:Hello... Books? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902061)

Pretty twisted series of leaps and assumptions all leading to a totally unsupportable conclusion.

Re:Hello... Books? (1)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902071)

Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?

because Internet == tax-funded library?

Re:Hello... Books? (2, Insightful)

exley (221867) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902181)

Now, if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs.

Citation needed. Sure, that sounds good, and might even be true, but if you're gonna generalize like that you've gotta back it up.

So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.

What? More drugs? Are you serious, or am I having a "whoosh" moment?

Where does the article say that? (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902195)

The article basically has no proof, only speculation, and a record that ZERO books were actually banned. Obviously we do not know the whole story and just as obviously people are desperately trying to dig up anything negative on Palin they can find. So we should be very skeptical of stories like this until real concrete proof can be found of anything.

re: Hello... Evolution? (1)

Alt_Cognito (462081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902019)

So we are now accepting posts from readers confused about the concept of net neutrality? Don't post how Palin is pro-internet if you don't understand the concept.

The parent is dead on, you can have all the government transparency you want on the internet, so long as you weren't hoping to find copies of our emails [washingtonpost.com] !

Palin will be nothing different. [newsweek.com]

Re:Hello... Evolution? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902169)

Politicians represent a wide variety of interests, and successful politicians are generally quite inconsistent. They change positions, make compromises, etc.

So she at one time, and maybe currently, is promoting the teaching of some religious philosophy in science class. That's wrong.

But aren't there more important issues? Teaching is mostly left up to the states anyway (or should be), so this really has very little effect. She has been governor of Alaska for a while now, are they teaching creationism up there?

I'm getting a little tired of this "gotcha" style of political debate, where supposedly one instance of unmitigated "wrong" will disqualify a a candidate. Hillary lied about getting off the airplane under sniper fire. Wrong? Yes. Would it affect my vote? Probably not.

When debating policy, we aim for perfection and consistency. When debating candidates, that just doesn't work.

Re:Creationism == dumb God (5, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902221)

Actually Creationism is an affront to God as it teaches us that God, who is supposedly all powerful and all knowing, was not smart enough to develop a dynamic system but had to settle for a static one.

Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901769)

I remember responses on Slashdot to Biden's poor tech record being rebutted with "well, he's just vice president." Couldn't you argue the same thing for Palin as well?

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901805)

What's poor about Biden's tech record? That he's pro-copyright you mean, so that you download free music? Awww.

He's still better than Caribou Barbie.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901857)

McCain is 72 and has had cancerous growths. Obama is 47 with a good health record.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901873)

I remember responses on Slashdot to Biden's poor tech record being rebutted with "well, he's just vice president." Couldn't you argue the same thing for Palin as well?

No because she is republican. That is also why she has to stay home and raise her kids.

Everyone is biased on all sides. Just turn off your brain when you talk politics so you can fit in. Which enplanes the people we keep electing...

Re:Does it matter? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902095)

Which enplanes the people we keep electing...

enplanes? Good God! How did spell check stick that in there?

Re:Does it matter? (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901935)

Two wrong don't make a right. Besides, Palin would be more likely to be president than Biden (due to McCain's advanced age), so I do think she needs to be scrutinized more than Biden.

Also, some presidents will allow their VPs more power (e.g. GW Bush) than others (e.g. Clinton). In this case, I really doubt Biden will see any real executive power.

No. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902013)

I have noticed there is a great level of intellectual dishonesty both in slashdot crowd and the world at large.

For example - many have said that Palin isn't *qualified* to be President. The truth is she is ABSOLUTELY qualified. What are the qualifications?

Thirty Five years of age and Natural Born American, lived in the US for 14 years and not previously held the office of President.

She is qualified.

If you want to argue experience and abilities; that is a whole other matter.

Those who are intellectually honest must argue that she is qualified.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902183)

I remember responses on Slashdot to Biden's poor tech record being rebutted with "well, he's just vice president." Couldn't you argue the same thing for Palin as well?

Most certainly. Trouble is, McCain's record is actually worse (or at least more substantiated. That article had to make some stretches to be at all comprehensive given Palin's lack of experience)

Sarah Palin is a creationist (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901777)

That's all I need to know. Everything else from her becomes "bark bark bark" from a different animal.

Re:Sarah Palin is a creationist (3, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901981)

So you vote based on one issue.

So you understand the anti-abortion crowd not considering Obama (or even listening to what he has to say) solely based on that issue?

and? (0, Flamebait)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902023)

And? To me, a vote for someone who professes a belief in creationism is a vote for the U.S. as a backwater religious theocracy. Sometimes a single issue is important.

Having books removed from libraries... (2, Insightful)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901781)

McCain/Palin 08
For a future without books.

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (1, Troll)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901799)

That allegation is simply a *fabrication*. It started on Daily Kos - and it's utter nonsense.

        Brett

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (3, Informative)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901865)

That allegation is simply a *fabrication*. It started on Daily Kos - and it's utter nonsense.

How so? They quoted both the former Mayor and the Time magazine, who interviewed other people.

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901917)

Riiight - and the list of books supposedly banned includes books that *hadn't been published* at the time of the alleged incident (1996).

         

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (2, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902091)

Riiight - and the list of books supposedly banned includes books that *hadn't been published* at the time of the alleged incident (1996).

A) If that is so, why didn't you go on Kos to point it out, specifically which ones? They are not like a typical right-wing site, they do not insta-ban people just for voicing dissent. If you are not obnoxious or insulting, you have nothing to fear.

B) They were quoting the Mayor and the Time Magazine. These are the original sources of the information, not Kos.

C) It is quite possible, very common in fact, that unprinted yet books can be on order for a library and that their contents can be widely anticipated a priori.

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901925)

I'm sorry if we would believe such a story! I mean, she's against abortion in cases of rape and incest, but we should have checked her status about banning books more closely!

After the Troopergate scandal, the fact that she didn't declare that she owned part of a carwash (that she couldn't manage - it didn't pay the state dues, and went belly up), the fact that she insults community organizers, and has been in government 20 MONTHS and claims to have more experience than the Obama/Biden pair, the fact that she cut funding for programs for teenage mothers (like...say...HER DAUGHTER), the fact that she lied about being 'against earmarks'...

I'm sorry, ONE of those things was a fabrication? And it had to do with banning books, not, say, her psychotic stance on anything else? Oh, she still tried to have the head librarian FIRED, but now it is the librarian's word vs. hers? Hum...

OH yeah, what was it, 5 colleges in 6 years or something? Just look up Barack's education. Hah.

I think she's a liar, a snake, or a best, a rabid raccoon (perhaps just a moron)?

We restate it then - it is the librarian's word vs. that liar Palin. I trust the librarian more.

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (5, Informative)

fremsley471 (792813) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901943)

That allegation is simply a *fabrication*. It started on Daily Kos - and it's utter nonsense.

Sorry to disappoint:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Source http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html [time.com]

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (1, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902107)

Ha! Time magazine is pretty much the same as the Daily KOS.

"At Times" (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902229)

"St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn't have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town. And even if faith did play an unusually large role in her decision-making as mayor, it may have only reflected the continued rise of Evangelicalism in the valley, a growth that continues to this day"

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (1)

freakdiablo (1358693) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901863)

Shouldn't that be "McCain/Palin 08, against the future?"

Obama/Biden 08 - live on hope, government cheese (1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901973)

For a future without books.

What gives you that impression, when both candidates are obviously quite intelligent?

I'm voting for the candidate(s) who most closely embody the Libertarian ideals I have - and this year, that's not Barr.

I always expected the Republicans would get taken over by libertarians, and this is the key year for that to actually occur. McCain might not be the most libertarian but Palin is more obviously libertarian than we have seen for some time - and she could well be the Presidential candidate four years hence.

You want to make Libertarianism as a philosophy matter? Take over one of the major parties and make it your own. The Democrats go further every year down the side of Big Government, and the last eight have unhappily seen a similar trend from the Republicans with government expansion as well - we MUST reverse this trend and inject libertarianism back into the system, or we will all truly become cogs in the large system of government.

Re:Obama/Biden 08 - live on hope, government chees (3, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902143)

wow are you deluded.

Palin is a creationist and you need to read other posts in this thread about her sneaking about trying to ban books.

libertarian indeed.

Re:Having books removed from libraries... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902021)

That was untrue. Which list do you see anyway, because the one I saw included a number of books that were written AFTER THE 1996 DATE THAT WAS GIVEN AS WHEN SHE HAD THEM REMOVED.

In other words: If that was true, this bitch can travel through time, which just makes her more awesome.

Is it going to matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901791)

Who cares what their policy is? They are all the same on the most important issue to techies. Namely, job-creation.

They are all extremely oriented towards increasing and streamlining the H1-B process. They can improve tech all they want, but they are VERY clear that they want it done by foreign workers.

This is just the same trickle-down economics that has been going on for decades. And it's telling that they aren't addressing the real issues, when the jobless rate is over 6%, and it looks like it is climbing.

Let me know when we have a candidate that supports both technology and U.S. tech workers.

Avoiding the media (2, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901829)

She has declined access to all media, and I doubt if we'll even see her speak with anything but the rabid right pundits who'll fawn over her. I'm guessing that they only tough questions she'll face on any subject will be the vp debate.

Being tech savy does not a VP make.... (1)

Dyne09 (1305257) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901837)

Well, she is at about the age where many people understand the growing world of technology. So what? That does not some how help her record on other things.

Oh Great. (3, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901903)

Now we know who taught Ted Stevens about the internets.

300 million people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901909)

and the best they can do is a 72yo millionaire pensioner and a "hockey mom" who doesnt even know what the VP does
perhaps its Darwin in action for an entire continent

*We* didn't pick Palin. (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901969)

John McCain did. You can blame us for nominating John McCain though.

What does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24901919)

Chances of starting WWIII:

John McCain is 100%
Barack Obama is less than 100%
Bob Barr is 0%

I think Palin understands the Internet very well (3, Funny)

PFritz21 (766949) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901939)

Palin is very attractive. Pictures of her are all over the Internet. And last time I checked, that's what the Internt is used for.

Porn.

Cybernanny (1, Troll)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 5 years ago | (#24901997)

*Cheers*

Here's to the thought of having Cybernanny installed on the backbone of the internet.

Want to learn about birth control?
*Blocked!*

Want to learn about the Crusades from a non-christian perspective?(
*Blocked!*

Want to learn about Heliocentricism?
*Blocked!*

Condoms and Birth Control Pills are Technology (1, Insightful)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902015)

Pity she doesn't support *those*, favoring abstinence instead. That really worked out well for her daughter...

Re:Condoms and Birth Control Pills are Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902173)

Meh, troll.. I'll bite.

Politics really shouldn't involve the personal issues of the candidates. Obama's certainly got that right. Yes, her daughter is pregnant. It happens. Even if it does say a lot about her integrity, beliefs, etc., it shouldn't be considered within the scope of the election.

And really, this doesn't have anything to do with Palin's technology stances.

Bah humbug, from a McCain voter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24902027)

Disclaimer: I voted for McCain in the primary, so I may be a bit biased. So far, I've seen nothing in her that convinces me that she's on board with McCain.

Sarah Palin took advantage of the Internet to create a online training program for workforce development. Called Work Ready/College Ready (since shortened to Alaska Career Ready), users can take a set of surveys to find out what skills they have or may need for a variety of desired jobs.

Where I come from, we call this "trade school", and it's offered by private enterprise, not by taxpayer dollars.

Tele-medicine has often been lauded as a solution for providing individuals living in rural or hard-to-reach areas (and Alaska has plenty of those) with care and good judgment from a qualified doctor who would normally be easy to reach in town.

Again, private health care providers can do a better job. Taxpayer dollars spent to cover all citizens? Clearly this is not the Republican party I've been voting for.

Transfer the natural gas pipeline affair to the net neutrality debate, and it seems like Palin would not object to companies agreeing on their own about how to handle traffic of competitors.

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Making the assumption that her strategy on long-haul natural gas infrastructure is related to, say, Cable TV to the home is nothing short of a random guess.

Broadband speeds lag in Alaska...along with candidate Palin

She can't be blamed for Alaska's low bandwidth. If the demand is there, providers will come.

Gov. Palin has indeed taken that a step further by actually taking action in Alaska government. Currently, any check written by the state government over $1,000 is posted to the Division of Finance Web site.

Sadly, the same web site isn't able to describe what the check is for. Itemized invoices and contracts are what will keep things on the up-and-up. A list of people writing and receiving checks doesn't improve government - it just lets vendors mine the data for more financial "opportunities". Hell, CitiBank could be selling all of my transaction information to the highest bidder.

Technology? (3, Informative)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902029)

Her scandalous record on the environment [independent.co.uk] alone should perpetually disqualify her from government.

Ignorance is not bliss (1)

Anik315 (585913) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902031)

Some people are are her making fun of her tech record, but this undermines the seriousness of the issue. Her lack of knowledge on technology issues is cause for a major concern because we don't want someone who thinks like Ted Stevens ruling over the U.S. Senate.

While we may not agree with all of the legislation Joe Biden has been a part of, at least he is well informed and knows what he is doing. Less regulation is not necessarily always a good thing. Look at what deregulation did to the banking sector. The last thing we want is Republicans to do to the technology sector what they did to the banking sector.

Looking at the comments, I have to ask (0, Offtopic)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902049)

Has anyone RTFA?

The elephant in the room, again. (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902109)

Again this so called tech source ignores the DMCA completely.

This is the equivalent of talking about global warming and failing to mention the US addiction to the open road.

Doesn't say much. . . (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902133)

This doesn't say much. Maybe they should repost it later when they have more information.

Bleh (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902147)

Sarah Palin knows probably as much about the Internet as any other politician of her age does who did not work in tech. Which is to say, its unlikely that she'll be able to always avoid looking like an idiot to people who know tech, but she probably has a much better grounding than McCain or Biden and people of about that age.

In the end, the censorship aspects don't really bother me, because it tends to be a very local issue. You don't censor anything without some sort of agitation behind it, and she's much more likely to find a high percentage of similarly minded people in East Nowhere, AK than in national office.

And yes, I have to say that while her stance on certain things is not where I'd like it to be, the fact is that all indications are that she'll keep her nose out of the worst of it.

Ultimately, though, I don't know many people who will for for or against her based on her tech stance. Its going to be the Economy, the War, and then the various wedge issues like abortion, in some order.

Linux? (2, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902187)

If what this guy said [slashdot.org] is true, they/she are not against the use of Linux at the state level.

Only thing I want to know... (0, Offtopic)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902203)

Is her hovercraft full of eels?

Checks and balances (4, Interesting)

sskagent (1170913) | more than 5 years ago | (#24902209)

From TFA

Sen. Barack Obama has made government transparency part of his platform. Gov. Palin has indeed taken that a step further by actually taking action in Alaska government. Currently, any check written by the state government over $1,000 is posted to the Division of Finance Web site.

I am intrigued to see if this act spreads any. Having government spending records more freely available to the public is always good in my opinion.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...