How *dare* this woman have previous jobs!

Doesn't she know the *only* shame-free credentials to run for office as a woman is to have been MARRIED to a politician??

Back to the kitchen with ye!

She did a pretty solid job.

What's the deal with sports on a local newscast in Alaska anyway? It looked like a lot of generic national sports news, other than that dog mushing nonsense.

lol 80's.

BOOM goes the dynamite!

Lots of dogs.

Hey, the Whalers won.

Beaver Roundup!! snicker snicker

^{A heartbeat away...think about it...}

She's awesome without those glasses in a "Why Miss Jones" sorta way.

gummyworm: Hey, the Whalers won.

Que Brass Bonanza

This just makes me like her more; she went from this (big hair and all) to becoming a very successful politician to having a chance at becoming the first female VP of the United States.

I don't like the creationist rumors, but other than that, good for her.

Got the crazy eyes...

Crazy eyes and 80's hair is win.

DarthBrooks: How *dare* this woman have previous jobs!

Doesn't she know the *only* shame-free credentials to run for office as a woman is to have been MARRIED to a politician??

Back to the kitchen with ye!

Yes, that's just what everyone was implying. That she should not have had a job before.

And just so you know, Senator Clinton has had plenty of jobs before becoming a "political wife", and all of them were more prestigious (and more difficult) than Governor Palin's previous work.

Tabatha Static: Lots of dogs.

crypticsatellite: I don't like the creationist rumors

rumors? they aren't rumors.

Geeze, was Tommy Lasorda ever young?

crypticsatellite: This just makes me like her more; she went from this (big hair and all) to becoming a very successful politician to having a chance at becoming the first female VP of the United States.

I don't like the creationist rumors, but other than that, good for her.

Just that: a rumor, debunked three years ago by Palin.

Alaska Daily News, Oct. 27 2006:

"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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Did I imagine it, or is there a lazy eye and a Canadian (not midwestern) accent?

DarthBrooks: crypticsatellite: This just makes me like her more; she went from this (big hair and all) to becoming a very successful politician to having a chance at becoming the first female VP of the United States.

I don't like the creationist rumors, but other than that, good for her.

Just that: a rumor, debunked three years ago by Palin.

Alaska Daily News, Oct. 27 2006:

"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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

At the end of the article you just linked:

PALIN: "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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

crypticsatellite: This just makes me like her more; she went from this (big hair and all) to becoming a very successful politician to having a chance at becoming the first female VP of the United States.

I don't like the creationist rumors, but other than that, good for her.

Iss not a rooma!

DarthBrooks: crypticsatellite: This just makes me like her more; she went from this (big hair and all) to becoming a very successful politician to having a chance at becoming the first female VP of the United States.

I don't like the creationist rumors, but other than that, good for her.

Just that: a rumor, debunked three years ago by Palin.

Alaska Daily News, Oct. 27 2006:

"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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

WRONG. Stop quoting her pathetic backtracking AFTER saying she supported it being TAUGHT in school as anything but pathetic backtracking.

That said, Geraldine Quayle with 80s Jersey mallrat hair is hilarious.

robsul82: WRONG. Stop quoting her pathetic backtracking AFTER saying she supported it being TAUGHT in school as anything but pathetic backtracking.

She said teach both and DEBATE. She never said anything about it being mandatory. And she clarified what she said without altering her speech from the previous day. No backtracking - but keep praying that people only read the headline and not the text.

Doesn't matter -- she'll be your next VP. Hooray!

DarthBrooks: She said teach both and DEBATE.

If I have sex with both men and women, I'm still gay.

Is that a Minnesotan accent?

DarthBrooks: robsul82: WRONG. Stop quoting her pathetic backtracking AFTER saying she supported it being TAUGHT in school as anything but pathetic backtracking.

She said teach both and DEBATE. She never said anything about it being mandatory. And she clarified what she said without altering her speech from the previous day. No backtracking - but keep praying that people only read the headline and not the text.

Doesn't matter -- she'll be your next VP. Hooray!

Teach means something whether or not you want to touch yourself and imagine it doesn't. Sorry, people without a horse in the race will find it just the same way.

And you bet your ass she altered it - she COMPLETELY LEFT OUT saying she wanted teachers to TEACH non-science in science class. "Just let the kids debate it if it comes up" is not, in any way, the same thing as, in your own words, "teach both and debate." Sorry, play again?

robsul82: And you bet your ass she altered it - she COMPLETELY LEFT OUT saying she wanted teachers to TEACH non-science in science class. "Just let the kids debate it if it comes up" is not, in any way, the same thing as, in your own words, "teach both and debate." Sorry, play again?

Must make for an interesting problem with teachers trying to explain the history of evolutionary theory without discussing creationism. Would Ptolemy's crystal spheres, or the idea of a firmament before Copernicus be also off-limits?

DarthBrooks: robsul82: WRONG. Stop quoting her pathetic backtracking AFTER saying she supported it being TAUGHT in school as anything but pathetic backtracking.

She said teach both and DEBATE. She never said anything about it being mandatory. And she clarified what she said without altering her speech from the previous day. No backtracking - but keep praying that people only read the headline and not the text.

Doesn't matter -- she'll be your next VP. Hooray!

Just in case you actually don't know this: "Teach the controversy" is the mantra used by the intelligent-design crowd, as a way of falsely suggesting that there is a controversy. It allows them the pretense of appearing "open-minded" while pushing religion and junk science.

Well shiat. And here I was thinking she was less-than-qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

They should let more people know about this. It's reassuring, in a "p-o-t-a-t-o-e" kind of way.

DarthBrooks: Must make for an interesting problem with teachers trying to explain the history of evolutionary theory without discussing creationism.

How so?

"Before Darwin, most people thought the flora and fauna of the world just instantaneously appeared, as is."

They'll miss her in Alaska. NSFW (and not real of course)

DarthBrooks: robsul82: And you bet your ass she altered it - she COMPLETELY LEFT OUT saying she wanted teachers to TEACH non-science in science class. "Just let the kids debate it if it comes up" is not, in any way, the same thing as, in your own words, "teach both and debate." Sorry, play again?

Must make for an interesting problem with teachers trying to explain the history of evolutionary theory without discussing creationism. Would Ptolemy's crystal spheres, or the idea of a firmament before Copernicus be also off-limits?

Uh, no, you don't HAVE to mention the junk non-science that is creationism. My friend Mark the HS science teacher manages to do it just fine, hahahaha.

/yes, he ROTFLMAO'd when I IMed him asking if that was tough just now

robsul82: Uh, no, you don't HAVE to mention the junk non-science that is creationism. My friend Mark the HS science teacher manages to do it just fine, hahahaha.

Could you ask him how many previous Vice-Presidential orders have forced him to change his teachings in class?

DarthBrooks: Could you ask him how many previous Vice-Presidential orders have forced him to change his teachings in class?

Why is the Vice-President called the Vice-President?

DarthBrooks: She said teach both

Exactly.

Do I think Sarah Palin has what it takes to be a heartbeat way from the Presidency? Let me put it this way... I don't think Sarah Palin has what it takes to be a heartbeat away from announcing Monday Night Football.

DarkJohnson: They'll miss her in Alaska. NSFW (and not real of course)

Wow. I actually know the original photoshoot that came from. I am flabbergasted that I know it (Foobies really gives one a good grounding, I guess). It also featured a(n) hilarious photo of a dog in the background of one of the shots.

Back on target. I've not read through this entire post, but it seems a good source of information:

http://nykrindc.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-picks-gov-sarah-palin-as-his.html

As far as the creationist thing goes, I think that the best place for the debate *is* in the classroom. Allowing debate gives those kids who can think for themselves something to really think about and an alternative to what may be proclaimed at home. Give kids the facts and the tools to think for themselves and see what happens.

And I'm speaking as a practicing scientist who fully believes in evolution.

Gecko Gingrich: If I have sex with both men and women, I'm still gay.

You'd be an evil sinner in her eyes, and you wouldn't qualify for state health care if you had a same sex partner. If the constitution didn't get in her way that is.

crypticsatellite: kids who can think for themselves

And what of they that cannot?

crypticsatellite: As far as the creationist thing goes, I think that the best place for the debate *is* in the classroom. Allowing debate gives those kids who can think for themselves something to really think about and an alternative to what may be proclaimed at home. Give kids the facts and the tools to think for themselves and see what happens.

Should creation be taught in science class, or a separate religious based class?

queezyweezel: Should creation be taught in science class, or a separate religious based class?

Moreover, which version should they teach?

crypticsatellite: Wow. I actually know the original photoshoot that came from. I am flabbergasted that I know it (Foobies really gives one a good grounding, I guess). It also featured a(n) hilarious photo of a dog in the background of one of the shots.

Don't have the one with the dog in my 'collection' - that would have been amusing.

queezyweezel: Should creation be taught in science class, or a separate religious based class?

It should be taught in a separate class, but at least be addressed in science class to some extent. To not address it in a science class would appear to be trying to cover it up.

I'm torn; I see it as a lame sham, but not all do, so what is important is to teach the kids the tools to think for themselves. Don't necessarily address it head on, but rather teach them to look for evidence to support their beliefs.

crypticsatellite: It should be taught in a separate class, but at least be addressed in science class to some extent. To not address it in a science class would appear to be trying to cover it up.

I'm torn; I see it as a lame sham, but not all do, so what is important is to teach the kids the tools to think for themselves. Don't necessarily address it head on, but rather teach them to look for evidence to support their beliefs.

I'd have no problem with that.

Gecko Gingrich: And what of they that cannot?

Then they should be given the tools and the training to think to their level.

Neither science nor creationism should be pushed upon anyone unwillingly.

If they are not able to to conceive of evolution and only want to or are able to believe in a creationist universe, then so be it. As long as they have not had information and data hidden from them, then they can believe what they wish.

Don't get me wrong--I scream to the sky when I see such ignorance, but I have faith in the knowledge that science can stand on its own given the available data and that given dire circumstances, those who understand the workings of science have the edge in terms of survival in the long run.

Hottest VP candidate.....EVAR.....

crypticsatellite: Neither science nor creationism should be pushed upon anyone unwillingly.

What about geometry and spelling?

I understand and appreciate from where you are coming, and in an ideal world I would agree with you; however, these creationist types have a demonstrated past of being given and inch but taking a mile.

I refuse to allow them that inch.

I'm not a "public schools should be completely atheist" type, but giving creationism equal footing with established scientific theory would set a bad precedent. Teach from The Bible in literature classes? Certainly, as many classic works reference The Bible and having a full background on the book helps to better appreciate it. I have zero issue with a Comparative/World Religions class being taught. I'd even have no issue with it being mandatory; better understanding of other people in the world leads to less hate. I will not abide creationism being taught as a viable alternative to science though.

From a more pragmatic position -- I wasn't joking when I brought this up a few posts back -- what creation story should be taught?

dewars-rocks: Hottest VP candidate.....EVAR.....

Not even close.

Gecko Gingrich: crypticsatellite: Neither science nor creationism should be pushed upon anyone unwillingly.

What about geometry and spelling?

I understand and appreciate from where you are coming, and in an ideal world I would agree with you; however, these creationist types have a demonstrated past of being given and inch but taking a mile.

I refuse to allow them that inch.

I'm not a "public schools should be completely atheist" type, but giving creationism equal footing with established scientific theory would set a bad precedent. Teach from The Bible in literature classes? Certainly, as many classic works reference The Bible and having a full background on the book helps to better appreciate it. I have zero issue with a Comparative/World Religions class being taught. I'd even have no issue with it being mandatory; better understanding of other people in the world leads to less hate. I will not abide creationism being taught as a viable alternative to science though.

From a more pragmatic position -- I wasn't joking when I brought this up a few posts back -- what creation story should be taught?

Geometry and spelling should be REQUIRED. Aren't they already required?

I agree with you that putting creationism on par with science is a bad thing...but what do you do if a student innocently asks about it? You don't want to ridicule them; you want to turn the question back on them: Well, given what you've learned in class that explains everything that you see around you, what does it say about your question? It may simply push the question in the student's mind into the philosophical realm, which would be good. Science is a tool; a way of thinking about the world around us. It does not purport to answer questions about a God or the afterlife, though it can certainly inform such discussions; it describes what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Getting that across, that science is not a competitor to religion, is important in a society where some revere religion above all else.

From a more pragmatic position -- I wasn't joking when I brought this up a few posts back -- what creation story should be taught?

Why not teach them all? It might bring a bit of perspective to the issue. ;) All these different creation stories...but what do they all have in common? Science! In each case, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s². In each case trigonometry holds true! We can use knowledge of the movement of the stars to to track back in time to determine and confirm when certain books of the Bible were written...et cetera...

Why the hell are they showing Mets-Dodgers spring training games in Alaska.