waitforufo

So if you dress up a bunch of book banners to look like egg heads and Poindexters and give them a title like "The National Library Board" then they are not book banners anymore? Libraries constantly cull their collections. My local library sells book annually. Who selects the books to be culled? Librarians. Do these librarians have their own political and religious biases? Can they set these biases aside? Lets all hope so.

Thank you for appreciating the intent of my post. None taken. I appreciate your point, but we are not having an election for janitor.

Backpeddled… Well it's not like she travelled half way around the world to visit the "holy land", while there worship her god at a magical stack of stones, and then try to exploit the magic by writing her wishes on a piece of paper that she inserted between the cracks of those stones. The only thing that would have made such a scenario worse would have been her asking to be made god's holy crusader on earth. Now that would have really been bad. I mean, who could vote for a religious nut job like that? "… and make me the instrument of your will" - Western Wall, Barack Obama

The LA time also took Charlie to task. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palin12-2008sep12,0,5803961.story I found the following particularly interesting.

Banning books is bad. The "desire" to do so is a bit more complex. The collection of an elementary school library for several reasons should perhaps not be as comprehensive as a general public library. The flip side of banning books is selecting books. In the recent Palin dust up I found this quote to be quite provocative. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/51821.html) "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Who sets this "national selection criteria?" At what point does rejection from a selection process become banning? If a library does not select "The Turner Diaries" or a high school library does not select "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has it been banned? I'm sure many "desire" that "The Turner Diaries" was never written. But should it be banned? Should it be selected? Are these questions the same?

Gosh, I wonder if anyone else interpreted her summer speech comments in the way she presented them last night? Also, talking to her own congregation, after being introduced by her own pastor seems a little off the conventional political circuit. In light of Obama's problems with Wright however, I guess it is fair game. - Western Wall, Barack Obama

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083279354208543.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Interesting article on the subject.

I like it :D:D

Not pertinent to this thread - "messianic" Obama? Perhaps you should move this to… http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35147

It was poignant and witty. It was also politically tone deaf. The Obama base obviously thinks that Palin is unqualified for vice president. I think this just makes the women in that base, and women in general more angry with Obama for not picking Hillary. By picking Palin, McCain puts Obama in a position of constantly justifying passing up Hillary. So Obama now has to deal with a bunch of angry women. Then he says something, intentional or not, that appears misogynistic. Not a smart thing to do when women are already angry with him. Since Palin's selection, she has been the central focus of the media. McCain is now shown all the time on the tube with big crowds. Well, now Obama is getting some of that attention back, but not in a way he wants. He should just move on. Also he should stop courting his base with such statements regardless of poignancy and wit. He needs to focus on swing voters.

Obama is Jesus... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmnbTBCktoM The link speaks for it self.

Actually it had to do with our claim below. "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?" (iNow #88) You justified this claim with a YouTube video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k) From that video you took the following quote. "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." (iNow #108) Now I promised to stop making this about you and me, so instead let's parse the above quote shall we. First we have "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God." The intention of the sentence above turns on the word "Pray." She is asking the congregation to pray for three things. 1) "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right." 2) Pray "also for this country." 3) Pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task from God." Any problem with the above so far? You seem to have a problem with 3) above. I think we can agree that the "them" she is referring to in 3) are the "men and women" of 1) above. Correct? In the context of the sentence, Palin seems to be asking the congregation to pray that our national leaders are sending our men and women out on a correct task. Item 3) above seems to be quite different from "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?" Perhaps my interpretation of "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God" is confused. Palin seems to understand that this sentence she just delivered was a bit awkward. So she provides a sentence of clarification. She then says "That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." Why would she think it important that the plan we are on is in fact "God's plan." As a religious person, would she see danger in a path that was different from "God's plan?" I think she would. Perhaps the interpretation of Palin's quote should not be left to someone who has an active distain for religion. When you give the quote in post 108 you bold text "on a task that is from God." These words mean little without context. I hope I have provided such context. I fail to understand the context of the information about Christianity and Deism. As a side note however I am surprised by your fascination with Deism. Deist's are the ultimate believers in Intelligent Design. Design so perfect it needs no intervention.

If your atheism was not an appropriate topic for the thread, why did you bring it up in post 104? By the way I didn't know the beginners atheist kit came with bell equiped bullshit detectors. Cool! Where do I sign up?

All right I'll let it go. And I will try in the future to make my comments less personal in nature. But iNow has never called himself an atheist?

iNow, It has been since 5pm on September 9th since you made your appeal for support. You have received none. Perhaps you are wondering why? I know it is often difficult to take constructive criticism from those you don't respect but here goes. You have carefully cultivated a reputation on Science Forums as a person who does not suffer fools. You seem too actually to revel in this self created persona. Your tact and demeanor while cultivating this reputation has perhaps even alienated those that support your positions. Most people don't want to be associated with bullies. You are easily angered by those that disagree with you. You become irrational when angered. Angering a debate opponent to gain advantage is the oldest debating trick in the book. You exaggerate the worth of evidence you provide. Doing this damages both your credibility and diminishes the value of your evidence. Tin has value but it is not gold. Examples of this tendency of yours are everywhere in Science Forums. Your militant support of atheism, clouds your reason. Plenty of brilliant people though out history and today believe in god or gods and the religions that support them. Your militant stance is abusive of these people and of their memory. Not a good way to win friends or supporters. Telling people you are an atheist and that you have no interest in their opinions about religion or god is fine. Telling people that religion and god have no place in science is fine. Telling people that the truths discovered by science can only destroy their religious belief system is just your opinion. It’s a fruitless and tiresome argument anyway, so why make it. Doing so is simply proselytizing your own belief system. I know you don't believe in god, and I have no interest in your atheist opinions. You constantly display an elitist attitude. Politics, religion, scientific opinions that differ from your own can only be held by those that are willfully ignorant at best, or by people that are born stupid. Perhaps you should take a Dale Carnegie seminar.

I stand corrected your did indeed follow my "She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers." So where was I wrong. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html Your correction however just makes your above statement more ridiculous.

I just thought I should check if the post in question was just another statement of your personal opinion or if it was acceptable to comment on. For example to my " For McCain she has been a good choice so far." You replied... In response I could simply provide this post. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html But just before your above quote you said So I'm not sure if this is one of those cases where I am just to revel in the brilliance of your genius or if you are looking for a response. I would just hate to make you upset again.

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the government owning that much private debt. I hope they divest it as soon as possible.

So should I comment on the above or are these again all just a bunch of your personal opinions not deserving or requesting comment? Okay, I can't help myself, do your really think your exaggerations improve your credibility?

oh ouch... I have commented on all of this. None of this will have a a negative impact on the election chances of John McCain. For McCain she has been a good choice so far. She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers. Covered above in my reply to Pangloss. The "further gone than previously thought" quote was based on your Brita filter comment with regard to improvements in the envirionment. Points well taken. Also, I think iNow and I are both enjoying this.

I have no problem if someone wants to ask her the question. The problem I have is with someone assuming that the question is sinister. Assume for a minute that her favorite book is Huckleberry Fin. There are probably more requests to libraries around the country to have this book banned than any other book. Wanting to insure good books like Huck Fin are not removed from the library shelf Palin asks the question "How would someone go about banning a book?" By the way she is the executive, she doesn't need to give her subordinate a reason for her question. Her subordinate then very publicly implies that under her very pleasant exterior lies a jack booted thug. This same implication is made by iNow. At this point as an executive, what is she supposed to do? Executives fail if they let subordinates push them around. So instead she pushes back. I have found that life is much more enjoyable if you first look for the positive reasons for the words and actions of others. iNow takes the opposite position. With regard to your Nixon reference, what law did Palin break? I think this comment is over played. J. Edger iNow is at least a little more creative then "waitforlogicalfalliciesandpoorarguments"

iNow, You really think that is where we are at today? Dredging Hudson River PCBs is equivalent to buying a Brita filter? You are further gone than I thought. Pangloss, Perhaps the question Palin asked is not nothing I doubt it is going to move many swing voters. Those voters will ask what books were banned? Answer, None. Also, when executives in government change, those placed by previous administrations don't like it. Most things like this are just sour grapes by those that lost. Palin asked a question, the librarian tried to embarrass Palin over it, and the librarian was reminded who signs her check. J. Edger iNow might want to make a big deal over these sour grapes but most people will say ho hum. Also iNow protests that he was merely stating his own litmus tests, but in fact all such statements from anyone are intended sway people. There is nothing wrong with challenging him on the validity of his judgments against Palin. If he doesn't want to be challenged he should not state his opinions. This is the "Politics" Thread of Science Forums is it not?

With regard to the book banning issue, she asked a question. No books were banned. You got nothing, so deal with it. How are my two statements, that you quote, inconsistent? First I said "in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way." You challenged this. In response to you I said " The water they drink, the air they breathe, the way their waste and trash are disposed of, the amount they recycle. No more crying indians on the side of the interstate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA) Those day-to-day measures of the environment." Then in a separate post after a challenge from ParanoiA I said "I don't see how recognizing the incredible success of the environmental movement in my lifetime is a display of ignorance." In my lifetime and in the lifetime of most people living today, day-to-day measures of the environement have gotten better. Cleaner water, cleaner air, better waste management... the list goes on and on. When I was in the 8th grade I was told that lake Erie would never recover. Recover it has. When was the last time the Cuyahoga river caught fire? (http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642) Lead in gasoline? Gone. Water ways that were once open sewers are now scenic water ways. Those are day-to-day measureable ways. What part of that don't you get?

I don't see how recognizing the incredible success of the environmental movement in my lifetime is a display of ignorance. iNow either doubts this success or thinks it is trivial. I on the other hand believe it is evidence that we will continue to have success in making improvements. I'm just not part of the mass hysteria crowd. Right now the economy is very important. Palin is on that side of the economy/environment political debate. I belive that position will draw more votes to McCain than the environment side will draw to Obama. By the way, I still think this election is Obama's to lose. Either way the country is strong enough to survive either candidate and their VP picks. http://news.scotsman.com/health/MP-bids-to-outlaw-abortions.4260541.jp http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article669451.ece Abortion is a common eugenics solution to club feet and cleft palates in the UK.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&format=&page=2&listingType=2008pres#articleFull Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article. Now you have a bit of circumstantial evidence. Your own reference above says no specific books were mentioned. What you are doing is a bit like calling someone a murderer without even a missing persons report let alone a body or a weapon.