McCain VP choice

[Pangloss]

Sex education should be about merit? Intriguing!

[ParanoiA]

And she should prove such merit at the beginning of class...

[iNow]

Indeed. As studies show, science based sex education is the best present option available to us.

 

Here is a link to a bunch of well articulated posts on the topic during last years "blogging for sex education day:"

 

http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2007/06/blogging-for-sex-education-day.html

 

 

 

 

 

Back on the topic of McCain's VP choice, Obama showed some serious class today.

 

"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.

 

"And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."

 

 

However, I can't help but agree with PZ on WHY this is being made a big deal of:

 

 

The issues here should not be "OMG her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock", but "What are the candidates proposed policies for dealing with the issue of teen pregnancy?" That Palin's daughter is pregnant should not be of any concern to either campaign; that Palin's

policies

of an active maintenance of reproductive ignorance are manifest failures

is.

[Pangloss]

Indeed. As studies show, science based sex education is the best present option available to us.

 

What does that have to do with merit?

[iNow]

What does that have to do with merit?

 

I'm honestly not sure whether or not you're joking, so I'll answer it as if you are serious. Science discards ideas which don't work, and works to ever increase our understanding of those which do, hence continually driving up the merit of those ideas, as well as the collective knowledge base of the populace.

[CDarwin]

What does that have to do with merit?

 

I don't know if iNow meant this, but it seems that you could make the argument that education shouldn't be a democracy (based on the popularity of ideas) but a meritocracy (based on their quality). Again, I don't know if that's what he meant, but it's just what came to my mind as I was thinking about his post.

 

EDIT: Aha, it seems what came to my mind was basically what was in his.

 

Not that that totally avoids the central issue of who gets to decide if ideas have merit: the society as manifested in state education, or the individual parent. It's the same issue that PZ Myers can't avoid when he talks about "reality." Who decides reality? The liberal-rational norms of public society, or the personal beliefs of parents? Personally I tend toward societal sovereignty, because ultimately isn't it our society that's decided that parents have power over their children anyway? In many cultural traditions, extended families will raise children and have authority over them as great or greater than one or both of the parents. If our public society has decided that a nuclear family is relatively inviolate, shouldn't it be able to decide when it can be violated? But, I see Paranoia's argument of how that fails to allow for principled parents to teach their kids unpopular but 'right' (to our modern reckoning) positions like abolition.

 

 

On an unrelated note, I just learned something today that I hadn't realized earlier that I think underlines Palin's relative inexperience compared even to Obama. It's beating a dead horse, but, oh well. Alaska has a population of 683,478 people (smaller than the city of Charlotte, for example). And more relevantly, Barack Obama's district in the Illinois State Senate covers 781,037. So Barack Obama has actually been responsible for more constituents (albeit in a non-executive capacity) in his much maligned state senate experience than Sarah Palin has in her entire career.

[bascule]

Bristol Palin: living proof of the effectiveness of abstinence education

 

(Sorry, Obama, I played the family card!)

[Pangloss]

I'm honestly not sure whether or not you're joking, so I'll answer it as if you are serious. Science discards ideas which don't work, and works to ever increase our understanding of those which do, hence continually driving up the merit of those ideas, as well as the collective knowledge base of the populace.

 

We're not talking about science, we're talking about education. You said that education should be based on merit, which does make sense in some circumstances, I'm just confused how it relates in the case of sex education. Shouldn't that be the same for everyone? I assume you didn't mean to suggest that only better students get the full information, and less-meritorious students get inferior information, so I guess I'm just not clear on what you meant.

 

And if sex education should not be based on merit, then what should it be based on? Clearly it cannot be dismissed with a simple "always give it to them at age x", where x is the politically correct age of the day. Would you agree?

 

And if it's not going to be based on age, then what should it be based on? Currently it is based on parental consent, i.e. the age at which the parents think it necessary, up to a certain point which varies by state (usually middle or high school), at which point the state informs the child of certain approved facts and control methods in a mandatory fashion.

 

Which in my view is not a problem and doesn't require changing. But I don't know, for some reason religious zealots on both sides feel the need to sling epithets related to the issue at one another. I'm just not sure exactly why.

[john5746]

Man, it just seems like we are watching a bad B movie about a losing candidate picking a running mate to create divisive drama discussions in the hopes that emotion and sympathy will rule the election. I just can't believe they couldn't find someone better.

[Sisyphus]

I think merit is an appropriate term, here. You use the methods that are the most effective, obviously. If your goal is to keep kids out of trouble, then you find out which method works better, and you follow it. In this case, sex education definitely works better than abstinence education. If your goal is to impart accurate information (imagine that), sex ed wins again.

 

Now, the arguments arise when different goals are put forth. I admit I have a hard time understanding what abstinence education is trying to accomplish aside from humoring parents' denial and squeamishness, so I'm pretty one-sided on this particular issue. They'll say they "don't want to send mixed messages" or simply that they don't want their kids learning "that stuff," no elaboration.

[iNow]

I'm just confused how it relates in the case of sex education. Shouldn't that be the same for everyone? I assume you didn't mean to suggest that only better students get the full information, and less-meritorious students get inferior information, so I guess I'm just not clear on what you meant.

 

Yeah. That is definitely the case. Sorry about that.

 

When I said "meritocracy," I probably was a bit sloppy with my word choice, but liked the rhetorical ring of using it as the opposing idea within the sentence where I used "democracy."

 

What I meant was that the information being shared should be based on merit. I did not intend to suggest that the teacher or the students should be judged on merit (although, the teacher side of this may benefit from such a process). My key point was that the data shared with the students should be that which is proven accurate and that which has demonstrated that it achieves the stated goal (namely, fewer teen pregnancies, unprepared parents, and thoughts/discussions of abortions). The information should be based on merit, not the collective wishes of those too unqualified to know any better.

 

The problem with the approach of Palin and others who advocate narrow and/or No-Sex education is how badly it fails to help the children who need it most. It's not only lame when people approach the issue like, "I want to impose my personal and subjective religious values on others through the law and dumb down our education system and pretend that abstinence works because my pastor tells me that premarital sex will make us burn in hell," but it's also dangerous and ineffective.

 

 

 

 

 

I think merit is an appropriate term, here. You use the methods that are the most effective, obviously. If your goal is to keep kids out of trouble, then you find out which method works better, and you follow it. In this case, sex education definitely works better than abstinence education. If your goal is to impart accurate information (imagine that), sex ed wins again.

 

Now, the arguments arise when different goals are put forth. I admit I have a hard time understanding what abstinence education is trying to accomplish aside from humoring parents' denial and squeamishness, so I'm pretty one-sided on this particular issue. They'll say they "don't want to send mixed messages" or simply that they don't want their kids learning "that stuff," no elaboration.

 

Thank you for expressing this so much more clearly than me.

Edited September 2, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Man, it just seems like we are watching a bad B movie about a losing candidate picking a running mate to create divisive drama discussions in the hopes that emotion and sympathy will rule the election. I just can't believe they couldn't find someone better.

 

They both picked stereotypes so obvious I could hear every screenwriter in Hollywood groaning from all the way here in South Florida.

 

I think merit is an appropriate term, here. You use the methods that are the most effective, obviously. If your goal is to keep kids out of trouble, then you find out which method works better, and you follow it. In this case, sex education definitely works better than abstinence education. If your goal is to impart accurate information (imagine that), sex ed wins again.

 

Doh, I get it now, you're talking about the merits of the information and teaching methods, not the merits of the students. I guess that was a little dense of me, sorry about that.

 

What I meant was that the information being shared should be based on merit.

 

I should've picked up on it, especially after CDarwin's post. My bad.

 

Yes I agree with those points.

[ecoli]

Someone may have picked up on this already but, this election has been more like a hollywood celebs tabloid drama than a presidential election. Anyone think that McCain picked controversial and exciting to steal the headlines away from Obama?

 

Maybe he saw how many people vote for American Idol.

[bascule]

Someone may have picked up on this already but, this election has been more like a hollywood celebs tabloid drama than a presidential election.

 

Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Ken-ne-dy for me!

 

Yeah, wouldn't be the first time...

[iNow]

They both picked stereotypes so obvious I could hear every screenwriter in Hollywood groaning from all the way here in South Florida.

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that Biden and Palin should be seen on equal footing since they both fit some sort of stereotype?

[ParanoiA]

Someone may have picked up on this already but, this election has been more like a hollywood celebs tabloid drama than a presidential election. Anyone think that McCain picked controversial and exciting to steal the headlines away from Obama?

 

Maybe he saw how many people vote for American Idol.

 

Well if he's being honest about his previous knowledge of her daughter's pregnancy before picking her, then I'm pretty much convinced that's her role.

 

The whole pregnancy thing is ridiculous anyway, the girl is 17, not 12. She's one year from 18 and she's pretty enough to reasonably infer a fairly intense front of male seduction. I think her story is typical enough to be dismissed even if it was our business in the first place. Of course, I'm biased since my wife was 17 when I got her pregnant and I've got a great family out of the deal - 19 years later and we're still happy.

[Pangloss]

Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that Biden and Palin should be seen on equal footing since they both fit some sort of stereotype?

 

No, Biden's a good man and has a lot of useful foreign policy experience. Palin has her strengths as well; I'm not putting them down. My point is that it's all about the show; they diversify their tickets racially and genderally (if I can invent a word).

 

The two campaigns are focused on minutiae, which is understandable given the fact that they've turned this country and its elections into partisan grudge-matches. But they might as well be debating hair styles for all the substance this amounts to.

 

I agree with what ecoli said above. And I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a candidate who is wasting my time, just because his other supporters think it's THAT important to knock the other guys out and bury them for all eternity.

[iNow]

Here is a link to the Republican talking points for delegates to use about the Palin family:

 

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/gops_internal_talking_points_f.php

 

 

And here, CNN spanks a republican who can't seem to answer a question without pivoting to said talking points:

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

I found this to be an insightful post from Josh over at Thoughts From Kansas. I am also grateful to him for presenting a saved copy of the Alaskan Eagle Forum blog posting where Palin provided answers to the 2006 Gubernatorial Canditate Questionnaire, which has recently been purged from their site.

 

 

From his post:

The beauty of the "Christian nation" myth is that believers do not have to think revolution is necessary. It is simply a matter of restoring what never was, by voting if possible, and by force if necessary.

 

You ought to read the rest of it: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/09/palingenesis_paradise_lost.php

Edited September 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Force? What force?

[ParanoiA]

I don't know, a quick review of that page and that guy sounds like a religio nut case himself. I kept waiting for the 9/11 truther fodder to make an appearance. Palin's Rebirth? Fascist mythology? Move over Alex Jones...

 

Interesting in that the only two to answer the questionnaire were a couple of republicans and none of the democrats apparently had the balls to answer, or were ignored by the agenda of those tracking their answers. I had to laugh each time this dude trashes her over her answers while my eyes scan over the continuous line next to each democrat: No Response.

 

I guess her best answer should have the same. Just like the other republicans, democrats and independents.

 

And I liked about half of Palin's answers. I'm offended by eminent domain and her support of it, as well as the notion that gambling and so forth should be restricted or regulated by the state in any way. Those are part of the liberties she says she wants to prevent the infringement of. "Under God" in the pledge is also stupid and not worth the attention of state government. And I'd like her to explain how the founding fathers relate to the pledge.

 

I also don't care for her interference with unions. Yes, they are answerable to us, as they are a service we pay for. I pay dues to be a member of the union and if I have issues with them, I'll take it up with them. I don't see how government earns a "say" with the quality of service I receive from my union.

 

I like her stand on defending individual liberty with respect to state sponsored education - screw what the state wants, I say parents have the final say on what their minor child is exposed to. Parents raise the kids, not the government.

 

I also like her answer on hate-crime. If hate naturally figures in to a crime, then factor it in with the pre-negotiated punishment. But to "expand" hate-crime law sounds very, very suspicious. Sounds like we're trying to add prejudice into the legal code.

 

This is all stuff I pretty much knew she stood for, and while I disagree with her position on abortion, she certainly walks the walk.

 

I don't think she has the experience to be president. I like her, personally, and I am impressed with the level of her achievements and the nature of her principles - taking down other corrupt republicans and proving her pro-life position is good enough for herself. She's on her way, and another few years would make her more viable in my mind, but I can't ignore her lack of experience. I think she can easily handle the big business side, the fiscal responsibilities, the social issues - but I'm not sure about international politics.

 

Again, though, I personally like her. She's the only one in the race I actually like, not that it matters though. I wish the best for her, but I can't vote for her.

[iNow]

Well, her "taking down corruption" talking point probably isn't very accurate anyway, and frankly, I'm getting quite tired of people taking down websites which contain information about her they don't think we should have. Thank Thor for Google Cache.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/palin_directed_527_group_for_s.php

Stevens is currently under indictment on seven felony corruption charges for taking favors from oil companies doing business in Alaska. And their relationship doesn't stop there:

 

Palin, an anti-corruption crusader in Alaska, had called on Stevens to be open about the issues behind the investigation. But she also held a joint news conference with him in July, before he was indicted, to make clear she had not abandoned him politically.

Stevens had been helpful to Palin during her run for governor, swooping in with a last moment endorsement. And the two filmed a campaign commercial together to highlight Stevens' endorsement of Palin during the 2006 race.

 

Shortly after Palin was announced as McCain's vice presidential pick, the ad was removed from her gubernatorial campaign web site. It remains available on YouTube.

 

It seems a lot of things suddenly got scrubbed from websites when she was named VP candidate, including from the official website of the Alaskan state government. Several documents that might be politically troublesome for her were recovered through Google caches after being removed from the state website.

 

 

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html

Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings.

 

Palin's relationship with Alaska's senior senator may be one of the more complicated aspects of her new position as Sen. John McCain's running mate; Stevens was indicted in July 2008 on seven counts of corruption.

 

<...>

 

At the time Stevens revealed the existence of the 527 group -- a type of independent political corporation named for its the section of the tax code -- ethics experts questioned whether it was appropriate.

 

The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that several experts called the group an example of the fine legal line between a legal effort to conduct political activity and then-new prohibitions against raising unlimited soft-money.

 

Board members of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service were legally allowed to raise as much money as they wanted from corporations or unions or unlimited donations from individuals -- all of which would have been illegal for Stevens to do himself.

 

 

 

 

I'm also worrying more and more about Palin's own pastor problems. This is getting downright nutty, and I'm pretty pissed off that our nation seems to be moving more and more in the direction of theocracy:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.

 

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

 

<...>

 

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

 

<...>

 

And if the political storm over Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.

(there's also a super cute speech she gives available at the link. isn't it just marvelous!)

 

 

Oh, but so I don't get punished for attacking her personally, she's also not qualified. How's that? Fair and balanced enough?

 

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/palin-average-isnt-good-enough/

Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that’s precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television:

Don’t look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!

<...>

Palin’s nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

 

Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal ...

[Mr Skeptic]

One thing about it that's interesting is that the selection of Palin renders McCain's attacks based on experience somewhat more difficult to wield. Not only is the argument seemingly hypocritical given the selection of Palin, but it drags the debate down to a level of detail that most people won't be interested in. Sometimes when that happens to an argument it loses traction. McCain may have undermined one of his best weapons.

 

maybe the McCain campaign is thinking Obama would be a hypocrite if he attacks Palin for lack of experience.

 

I guess Obama can just call McCain a hypocrite instead of criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. Criticism of McCain would be far more valuable anyhow.

 

He might also want to allude to the fact that McCain's choice was clearly a political ploy to attract the folks who liked Hillary.

 

This sudden move into the national spotlight must be rough on their 17-year-old daughter, who is reportedly five months pregnant. I'm sure that'll get a lot of play in the blogosphere, especially since the daughter is beautiful and her picture is out there. Talk about circumstances compounding a mistake!

 

It's also in the Bible that a (church) leader should be able to manage his own family before trying to lead a church. It's also good common sense that someone who can't handle their own family might not make such a great leader. It's also kind of ironic that she opposes sex education (other than abstinance), and her daughter is pregnant. Again, though, the criticism should focus on McCain making a bad choice, not on Palin.

 

Someone may have picked up on this already but, this election has been more like a hollywood celebs tabloid drama than a presidential election. Anyone think that McCain picked controversial and exciting to steal the headlines away from Obama?

 

Maybe he saw how many people vote for American Idol.

 

It's no surprise, really. The election system is based on who is the most popular candidate, and political parties are allowed. The result is that there are only two candidates, and they need to convince a bunch of average joes to vote for them instead of for that other guy.

 

This is basically the result you can expect due to how our voting system works. If you were to change the voting system, candidates would use different strategies. For example:

If you replace the part where you pick a single person to vote for with a check box of all candidates who you would find an acceptable president, you would end up with more than two candidates. Whereas with a single vote for a single candidate any vote not for the top two candidates was wasted, this system would allow you to vote for third (or fourth, or firth) party candidates without wasting your vote on someone who was very unlikely to win. Candidates would then focus less on criticizing their opposition and more on building up their own position.

 

Or, if you changed it so only people with a PhD in Physics could vote, the candidates would stop pandering to average joes who like hollywood clebs and tabloid dramas, and instead pander to physicists about what collider projects they'd fund and how they love maths. (example is intentionally rediculous as I think restricting who can vote would be very dangerous).

 

Anyhow, I am completely unsurprised, if disappointed, by how politics is done, because they are simply doing what the system requires of them to win.

[ParanoiA]

It's also in the Bible that a (church) leader should be able to manage his own family before trying to lead a church. It's also good common sense that someone who can't handle their own family might not make such a great leader. It's also kind of ironic that she opposes sex education (other than abstinance), and her daughter is pregnant. Again, though, the criticism should focus on McCain making a bad choice, not on Palin.

 

But that's ridiculous. This isn't her bank account this is her children. Yes, parents can teach terrifically, but they have to be heard. All it takes is one teenager that ignores the condom given out in class and you'd just as quickly turn on Senator Joe Blow challenge his judgement of explicit sex-ed classes with distributed contraceptives if his daughter gets pregnant?

 

I sure hope you don't, because that's anecdotal junk of the kind I shouldn't have to point out on a science site.

 

One example of a teenager not listening to their parents isn't indicative of a single freaking thing....well, except that they are homo sapiens.

 

And what's this "can't handle their own family". Just what is she supposed to "handle" here?

 

Look...Newflash: We parents don't actually follow our teenagers around at arm's length. No, really, we don't. There's such a thing as "freewill". And as responsible parents, we have a duty to teach and raise our children and then we have to balance their freedom and restrictions as they grow up and let them out into the world. When we do that, we know they are going to screw up.

 

Let that soak in a minute. I repeat, we know they are going to screw up.

 

It's very important that you realize that to expect a teenager not to screw up, is to expect for world peace as prescribed by the proverbial naive miss america. If you expect a teenager to mirror their parents, then I must get your bank account number so we can do business.

 

Yes, Palin's daughter is a human child. This human child is not controlled and overprotected by her mother, but rather is directed and advised and then...hold on to your hats...left on her own. WTF?

 

Yes, really. They let her out on her own. I know, it's crazy isn't it? Letting a teenager out on their own, to make mistakes on their own? Really trippy shit going on here. This might be the first you have heard of it, but I'm actually quite privvy to this technique.

 

It's actually quite common, weird as it may sound to those of you raised in perfect families that weren't given the same respect and freedom that Palin gave her daughter.

[iNow]

Yes, the fact that Bristol is preggers means nothing. Fortunately, the opposing side has said this explicitly and openly and repeatedly.

 

What it does do, however, is provide a way to open a dialog regarind Palin's policies, the failures of those policies, and what she is likely to do if in office.

 

I don't know about you, but if find that all VERY relevant to the discussion, and we should not sweep it under the rug because a few dipshits are focussed on her daughters uterus and ranting mistakenly about THAT particular distraction instead of the real issues we have yet to discuss.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, the fact that Bristol is preggers means nothing. Fortunately, the opposing side has said this explicitly and openly and repeatedly.

 

What it does do, however, is provide a way to open a dialog regarind Palin's policies, the failures of those policies, and what she is likely to do if in office.

 

I don't know about you, but if find that all VERY relevant to the discussion, and we should not sweep it under the rug because a few dipshits are focussed on her daughters uterus and ranting mistakenly about THAT particular distraction instead of the real issues we have yet to discuss.

 

No it doesn't. Her daughter is not relevant to her mother's policies. If I taught my kid not to hate black people and then he grows up hating black people then was it wrong for me to teach him not to hate black people?

 

Her daughter isn't relevant in the least. It doesn't provide "a way" without being unscientifically, illogically directed. If you want to open up the dialoge to talk about her policies, then pull your facts and figures and do it. You managed some really great stuff up there on her religio angle and it's definitely got me on my guard, shaking my head at her. So, do it the same way. Really, it's the only genuine way.

 

This Bristol thing is just a cheap shot. It's so tempting that I can't hardly blame anyone for going there, seriously. The contrast between Palin's policies and her own daughter's behavior is just juicy. It's "the preacher's dirty daughter" syndrome. I get it.

 

And every parent has a duty to speak out here. I take this personally because to disparage Palin over this is to disparage all parents over this. We all go through it. And we all freaking hate it when some childless dweeb starts judging our parenting skills based on the actions of our teenagers. So why are we letting these twits get away with doing it to Palin?

 

Nevermind that teenager's behavior before they entered the phase of "brain damage" we call puberty. Nevermind the rest of their children's exemplory behavior, before and after the same phase of brain damage. Nevermind what subsequent actions that teenager has taken as a result of their parent's advise.

 

In the case of Palin's daughter, Bristol could have done drugs, had an orgy with the football team, racy photos in a strip bar...etc - but she got...pregnant. And she's having it and marrying the father. Wow...what a real...uh..bad? thing...

 

Yeah...