but Christianity is rational. We don't believe in giant hierarchies of gods who are always fighting each other with mythical beasts and ridiculous myths...

As you've probably guessed, he is wrong. Believing in one sky fairy is no different to believing in many sky fairies who maintain a Sex and the City-like scenario up amongst the clouds. And as for the missing 'ridiculous myths'? The bible is full of them. Here's a short list of them:

• The Earth being created in seven days by a cloud fairy
• A life-sustaining tree and a tree which makes people shameful of their bodies in a garden guarded by an fairy with a knife somehow made of fire
• The world being flooded and then un-flooding miraculously, murdering thousands of people indiscriminately
• A bush, on fire, talking
• A stick turning into a snake and back
• 'Magic' performed by an Egyptian pharaoh's minions
• Water turning into blood
• A plague of boils
• Complete darkness (apart from Jewish houses)
• The mass-murder of all the Egyptian first-born sons
• A virgin birth
• Water turning into wine
• A person being resurrected from the dead from a tomb
• A person being resurrected from apparent death on a bed
• A person being resurrected from the dead, with a regenerated body
• A person disappearing spontaneously into the clouds
• Wind, and fire, talking

All the things I've listed above are either just as crazy as belief in a water-god with a trident, or very unremarkable. But what about mythical beasts? The bible has plenty of them.

• Satan (occupying a snake and later humanoid form)
• The Beast (Revelation)
• The Leviathan
• The Behemoth
• The giant fish which swallowed Jonah (no fish in the world is large enough to swallow a human being, even at ancient sizes, and you'd think god would know a whale is a mammal)

'And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.'  ~ Matthew 13:57

Careful!  He's coming to destroy the Republic!

• Oooh--a box! It says 'Pandora.'  I wonder what's inside?...

I admit that I have been vociferous in my opposition to support for Sarah Palin's candidacy. However, she has many views for which she should be applauded, not the least among them, that she is a Bible-believing Christian who understands the truth about God's role in Creation (which is, to say, He did it all!) Christians, I am afraid, don't really understand the nature of the Creation/ Evolution battle. It has morphed from an intellectual discussion to an outright witch hunt. Make no mistake about it, the godless are out to make us appear ignorant at best and criminally insane at worst. We need to pay attention and start fighting back. To wit: Ronald Reagan, Jr. had this to say recently about Mrs. Palin's belief in the Genesis account:

 

"It's such a profoundly anti-intellectual, anti-science stance," he asserted. "I don't see how you can hold high office and believe something like that."

They preach tolerance and acceptance but, make no mistake about it, they are coming for us and we need to be prepared and willing to take the fight to them.

'I am William Wallace, and I stand here, in front of a whole army of my countrymen, in the defiance of tyranny. You came here as free men, and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?'

'Against that? No, we will run, and we will live.'

'Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live, at least for awhile. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing, to take all the days from this day till then, to come back here and tell our enemies, they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!'  ~ Braveheart 

• 'Violence by Hindus against Christians in India, especially in Orissa state, has been rocking the stability of the region, and now the Indian Supreme Court has ordered four more police battalions to protect the believers in the worst region, the Kandhamal district, according to a report.'

• ‘Which is the more significant defining fact about Sarah Palin’s priorities: The fact that she carried to term and gave birth to a lovely child with Down’s Syndrome; or the fact that she apparently encouraged her oldest son to enlist in the military to fight, and perhaps die, in an immoral war?’

• 'Death by fire ants may seem difficult to believe, but the tiny insects killed the man in Chuluota, Florida as he walked his dog outside his home located just off Old Christmas Road. Apparently the man was swarmed when he stepped in an ant pile.'

• I found it peculiar that John McCain continually praised Barack Obama during his nomination speech, yet Republican Congressman—REPUBLICAN—was ignored and not even allowed on the convention floor unescorted. But that was nothing new for the Republo-facsists.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties. ~ George Wallace

To-day's 1080's Moment is brought to you by: Wang Chung

I'm not going to argue for my personal beliefs here, since they are too complicated to be squished into a blog post, and because I don't want to convert anyone to my way of thinking right now. I just want to point out how the above phrase highlights many false assumptions that people bring to the debate, and by doing so, make it even messier.

The first thing is definitional. The author of the phrase appears to assume that all creationists are scientists. This is problematic because 'creationist' can refer to a broad spectrum of people: those who believe in intelligent design (including many scientists), those who believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools beside evolution as something of equal academic validity, and those who seek to prove the theory of creationism through scientific or pseudo-scientific means. It is more accurate to say that some creationists are credible scientists (i.e. those who are any kind of scientist and also believe in divine creation), and an even smaller set try to use science credibly to prove intelligent design (or disprove evolution).

The trickier part is qualifying what constitutes the credible use of the scientific method to prove creationism. Already, the whole idea of using science to 'prove' anything brings into question its credibility. The scientific method in a nutshell is proposing the hypothesis, then testing it. It is so respected because the testing is supposed to be as objective as possible. Personal bias is not supposed to invade the scientific method for the very reason that whether the hypothesis is in the end disproved or remains uncontradicted is not the point. The point is to test it and from the results, come closer to deducing the truth.

From what I have seen, the 'credible science' creationists don't actually apply the scientific method. Rather than testing their hypothesis, they pick out arbitrary natural truths and go "oh ho! Look! This must mean we were created by an all-powerful divine being!". Some point out how perfectly the conditions on earth were lined up to receive life, or how organs like the human eye are too complex to have evolved piece by piece, and some like attacking inconsistencies with the fossil record. While I can rebutt any of these statements, what I really want to draw attention to is that none of these supposedly scientific arguments for intelligent design are scientific at all. An evolutionist could very well turn the argument on its head and say "Human beings are poorly designed. We have useless leftover parts like the appendix (which can rupture and kill us) and fingernails (which are inconvenient to trim every week and serve no good purpose). Reproduction is dangerous because of the risk of infection, and the female pelvis is not the best built structure to allow a child to pass through, not to mention the excruciating pain when one does. Therefore, the creator can't have been very intelligent"

The evolutionist argument above exposes both sides as guilty of abusing the cloak of the scientifc method to support either creationism or evolution. However, I'd also like to point out that it is acceptable in the scientific method to use singular, inconsistent facts to disprove a hypothesis. This is because any theory, whether concerning the laws of gravity, electromagnetism or creationism must have consistent consequences in order to be considered natural law, or the truth. If there is even one inconsistency, then we cannot call it a scientific theory or natural law. On the other hand, we cannot pick out a few pretty looking facts, lump them together and call them God.

If I had to summarise everything I've just written, it's this: I find it far easier to get along with creationists don't pretend that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. It's far more truthful of them if they tell you they are relying on faith.

This is a fairly easy claim to refute. The article and accompanying video states, "Every major branch of science ... was established upon the work of creationists." That, in and of itself, does NOT mean that science is based upon creationism. It simply means that the people who founded those fields happened to believe in the concept that God created everything.

The article goes on to state that, "The creationist understands that science was established by God, and thus seeks to follow the clues in God's creation that help him to better understand the natural world." This, again, does not go "against" the modern concept of science. You can believe that God created the natural laws, started the Big Bang, and that this deity wants us to use the clues that were left to figure out how those things were accomplished.

That is how the astronomers/physicists that are mentioned in the article (Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei) proceeded if they were guided by this underlying concept: They wanted to use the natural clues in the world they observed in order to better understand it. It does not matter whether they approached this from a materialistic (everything has natural causes) or from a religious world view so long as they sought out natural explanations for their observations. To them, that was one step closer to understanding the mind of God., to understand how the universe worked.

The problem is that modern "Creation Scientists" do not seek out natural explanations for what they observe. They treat the Bible as an unfallible tome that is correct and literal. Starting from that basis, they then try to explain everything in that context. In other words, evidence-based explanations are not present, rather evidence is adapted to fit with their explanation. This is the reverse of how "real" scientists operate today (gather evidence to form, support, or refute a hypothesis) and of how these famous scientists operated centuries ago.

Professor and biologist, Richard Dawkins takes a closer look at Darwin's theory and how it had revolutionized scientific thought for the decades to come, and how evolutionists have become one the of the most ardent critics of religion and creationist theory, and its more modern counterpart: Intelligent Design.

See more here.

"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."

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be."

—Sarah Palin, Alaska Gubinatorial Debate, October 25, 2006

MR. VANDEHEI: Senator McCain, this comes from a Politico.com reader and was among the top vote-getters in our early rounds. They want a yes or no. Do you believe in evolution?

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.

First Republicans’ Presidential Candidates Debate, May 2, 2007

Global Warming

"I will clean up the planet. I will make global warming a priority."
—John McCain, Boston Globe, January 7, 2008

"The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth."

—Republican Platform, August 26, 2008

“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”
—Sarah Palin, Newsmax, August 29, 2008

ANWR

“There are billions of barrels of oil underneath the ground up there on the North Slope including ANWR. In Alaska alone we can supply seven years of complete crude-oil independence, and eight years' supply of natural gas for Americans with ANWR (and) other areas of Alaska that we want to allow for development. That's proof that Alaska can be a significant player in the world market.”

“ANWR would take five years to begin providing crude oil to our pipeline. But you have to consider that if we'd started this five years ago, then we wouldn't be in this position right now. And who knows where we're going to be in another five years.”

—Sarah Palin, Investor's Business Daily, Friday, July 11, 2008

I also believe that the ANWR is a pristine place and if they found oil in the Grand Canyon, I don’t think I’d drill in the Grand Canyon.’’

—John McCain,June 2008

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

—Department of Energy report “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," May 2008

Off-shore Drilling

"[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.

—John McCain, May 2008

“[Offshore oil drilling would] be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.”

—John McCain, June 2008

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

—2007 Department of Energy report “Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf.”

Note the detail at the end about the timing of the investigation into the affair: it is scheduled to be released four days before the U.S. election. The Republicans are currently devoting much sleazy energy to delaying its release.

Palin also appears to be losing the support of conservative intellectuals such as Charles Krauthammer (whose column, like the ABC report, I came across at Andrew Sullivan's blog). 

Speaking personally, the most disappointing thing about Palin is her belief in creationism. During her 2006 race for governor of Alaska, Palin said of evolution and creationism, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.” Some right-wing sites are now downplaying the significance of this remark.  They note that a few days later, Palin said that she would not push schools to actually teach creationism in science class. All she meant to say was that if creationism did come up in biology lessons, students should be allowed to discuss it. "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.”

I don't find this line of defence very reassuring. For one thing, she is simply wrong that creationism deserves any sort of presence in biology class. It is the worst form of pseudo-science, and has no place in a serious scientific discussion. Moreover, the issue is not confined to what Palin herself personally believes, although her personal views are bad enough. If elected Palin will inspire and energize people who do want to mandate creationism in schools. Indeed, this seems to be the official view of the party she represented when she made her original creationism comment. As the Anchorage Daily News noted in 2006, "The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: 'We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.'" 

If we must have fundamentalists on the Republican ticket, it would at least be nice to have some variety for a change. They've been going after evolution for decades now. Don't they ever get tired of fighting the same old battles? Just once, couldn't they come out against gravity or photosynthesis to liven things up?

Addressing comments by this wordpress blogger, polymath who said:

You see, Republicans are the ultimate salesmen. They can’t do very much properly, but when it comes to winning elections they are masterful. And, frankly, they have launched a brilliant public relations and marketing campaign. I don’t think it is ethical, or even truthful. But they are pandering to an intellectually lacking American public, and their goal is to win an election. So, they will use everything in their arsenal to win:

[1] Mocking community organizing

[2] Denying involvement in the Republican party (even though they are the Republican party); It’s brilliant really

[3] Deny agreeing with or helping the incumbents (even though McCain voted with the Bush 90+ percent of the time)

Yes, Republicans are manipulative, sociopathic, liars.

I replyed:

1) No one is mocking "community organizer" except as it's being offered as a qualification for president. It's sure one very thin qualification.
2) Don't know what convention you watched.  I saw the GOP delegates being very proud to be Republicans.
3)Backing away from incumbents? Senator McCain thanked George Bush (who is the incumbent, by the way) for having "kept America safe" during his watch.  I don't interpret that as "backing away."

As to "pandering to an intellectually lacking American public" I don't see it that way at all.  The GOP has not "pandered" to Democrats.  I have no idea what you're talking about. 

Anyway, if you don't like American "education," the blame falls upon your own party.  Dems own the schools.  So don't go crying to Republicans about American intellect.  Tell it to your darling teachers' unions.

I was looking for reactions to Palin and of course Polymath's is more general, but it's illuminating anyway as what passes for persuasion in the Lib camp.  If Polymath (or anyone else) thinks that Americans lack intellect, they might begin by offering information rather than hysteria.  But it's also revealing to note that some Democrats seem to take a dim view of voters' intelligence.  And I'm not just picking on Polymath, I've seen other Dem supporters say similar things today.  Could it be among the "talking points" making the rounds of blogs now?

I don't know.  All I know is that Republicans have rather a lot of respect for voters, enough to wish to  earn their respect as well as their votes.  Listening to McCain's convention speech last night, I didn't notice any pandering.  I heard him outline his political philosophy in fairly unmistakable terms. It wasn't sugar coated.

Meanwhile, for whoever wants real information about Sarah Palin and her views, here's one site to use to begin your research On the Issues.  I found some quotes about Palin's views on education here.  I found anti-Palin bloggers saying that she favors teaching creationism in schools, a claim that sounded wrong.  And indeed, it is a crude parsing of some comments she made: "Teach both. [Creationism and evolution] 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."  When pressed, however, she elaborated on this comment thusly: "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."   It might be more accurate to say she defends freedom of speech or free inquiry in the classroom than to describe her as a proponent of creationism in school.

These nuances seem to be lost on her critics.  Meanwhile I'm not sure if her own views about evolution and biological science are even on record -- not that they would matter since Palin isn't a scientist.

UPDATE:  Just found this essay on Palin at Pajamas Media: "Why the Palin Pick was Brilliant," by Michael Weiss.  He takes Palin to task for having any sympathy with creationist views, saying, "The Book of Genesis is not “information” on par with the theory of evolution, as the daughter of any science teacher should know and as a conservative, Bush-appointed judge in Dover, Pennsylvania had the good sense to point out in 2005. "  And he is somewhat uncomfortable with Palin's defense of free speech: "The New York Times reports that when she was mayor of Wasilla, she recommended the banning of certain books from the public library — a recommendation that she thankfully never made good on but that nonetheless raises questions about her commitment to free speech. Perhaps after young Bristol enters her final trimester, someone will ask her mother what books she had in mind, and why she found them so unreadable."

As a mom with some qualms about what schools require kids to read, I'd like some clarification about whether that was a public library or a school library -- or a juvenile section of the library or the adult section.

Dark energy is one of two concepts (the other is dark matter) that Big Bang cosmologists and astrophysicists have invented to explain the most serious differences to date between astronomical observations of an expanding universe and their own expectations. It is "the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate";^[1] Astronomers and cosmologists have been speculating on the nature of this dark energy for ten years.

Made up? This is complete nonsense. Dark energy (along with 'dark matter') is a placeholder term that's used by particle physicists. Why? Well... we don't know what they are. We may find out when the Large Hadron Collider gets switched on next week. However, the two concepts are far from invented - we can and HAVE inferred their presence. They almost certainly exist. And either way, in my opinion, it's a more believable scenario than everything being held together by a giant sky fairy.

It gets better (or worse, depending on whether you find this comic or simply disturbing). What does Conservapedia's article on the Big Bang say? Well, nothing. It redirects to "Big Bang theory". Yes, apparently, it's still a theory.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.

Even discounting the fact that this is completely solid, K-12 level science, with more evidence than you can shake a stick at, look at who contests it. Young earth creationist scientists. Scientists? This is purile. Science is something that can be tested and repeated (which will be happening at CERN next week, albeit thousands of times smaller and much safer), not belief, based on a book written by bronze-age halfwits, which claims that some shiny beardy man living on a cloud farted out the earth in seven days - which cannot be tested, anyway.

According to Gloria Steinem's opinion piece in the September 4th edition of the Los Angeles Times:

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."...

[John McCain] may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act...

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., [Palin] doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child...

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

Go HERE to read Steinem's entire piece.  ]]> http://northbritain.wordpress.com/?p=696 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:01:52 +0000 northbritain http://northbritain.wordpress.com/?p=696 A row has broken out over which books Sarah Palin actually wants to ban.

This is due to a story resurfacing that on becoming Mayor of Wassilla in Alaska, Sarah asked the librarian if she could ban some books in the local library:

In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

"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.'"

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, refused the ban and a few months later Sarah Palin tried to fire her for lack of support.

After a public outcry in Alaska, Palin was instead forced to keep Mary Ellen in her post.

Mary Ellen decided to resign in 1999. “[Palin] essentially forced Mary Ellen out,” says June Pinnell-Stephens, chair of the Alaska Library Association Intellectual Freedom Committee and a friend of Mary Ellen Baker’s [Emmons]. “She all but fired her.”

Well it obviously wasn't for the want of trying!

Some bloggers have a list of banned books but in all the blogs I have read the list actually comes from a site naming banned books - at one time or another - in America.

No-one as yet has come up with a definitive list of books Sarah Palin would like banned.

We know Sarah Palin is a creationist. So it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to deduce that Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution would be one of the books. Or anything by Richard Dawkins.

We know that America is no stranger to book burning either. Even the Harry Potter books have gone up in flames.

Its incredible in this day and age that people will want to burn books just because they disagree with their premise or theories. Its almost as if the Enlightenment never happened.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." - Heinrich Heine. The Nazis burned his books among others in 1933.

Of course if these religious fundamentalists like Sarah Palin actually burned some of the books that were left in Travelodge hotels then we'd probably complain less about it!

Top ten books left in Travelodge hotels:-

1. Prezza: Pulling No Punches by John Prescott
2. My Booky Wook by Russell Brand
3. Speaking For Myself by Cherie Blair
4. Don't You Know Who I Am by Piers Morgan?
5. Angel Uncovered and Crystal by Katie Price
6. You and Your Money by Alvin Hall
7. Lessons in Heartbreak by Cathy Kelly
8. Blind Faith by Ben Elton
9. On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan
10. The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

I mean if it was just the thrill of burning books then there wouldn't be too many complaints if John Prescott and Russell Brands' books were in the pile, surely? I mean apart from environmental concerns anyway! Not that the environment bothers Sarah Palin in any case.

But no. Its always The Catcher in the Rye and Catch 22 and the rest, isn't it?

Once the argument for one book to be burned is made, its easier for religious fundamentalists to carry on burning others. That's why even John Prescott's Prezza: Pulling No Punches deserves to be spared.

At least until the first bad winter anyway!

Basically he outlined the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ie. not much, according to the Wedge Document), then outlined the theory put forward by evolutionists. He then took arguments used by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents in turn and demolished them as he knows how to do so well, incorporating the circular logic of the Bible, information theory, the bacterial flagellum, the Climbing Mount Improbable analogy, the scrabble analogy, and pretty much everything important that needed to be included, although I'm sure he could have continued for much longer afterwards if he'd had the time. He placed evolution side-by-side with both creationism and Intelligent Design to see which one stood up to scrutiny, and lo and behold evolution came out on top.

What interested me was the Q&A section towards the end. Several people who appeared to be from a religious background said that Stuart was simply bashing religion and its theories in the same way as ID proponents bash evolution. This is completely untrue! If ID theorists stood their own theories up to half as much scrutiny as Stuart did to evolution, I would be a happy man. In reality it is a blinkered, religiously motivated view which holds them back from seeing the truth and leads them to take others into their false beliefs. And if nothing is done, they will still be doing it when we're celebrating Darwin 300.

Another man who confessed to being a Christian and a former RE teacher said to me afterwards that really both his position and that of Stuart were against fundamentalism. Whilst Stuart repeatedly said he had no qualm with religious people who kept their beliefs out of science (I happen to know otherwise :P ), my major problem with the so-called "religious moderates" is that they rarely, if ever, speak out against fundamentalists within their ranks. How often do we see the British Muslim Council speak out against lies told in the name of Islam? How often do Christians turn on creationists and say "hold on a sec, you're talking rubbish, I'm not letting you represent me"? We only ever see religious people speaking out against fundamentalism after a serious terrorist attack, when they're effecively forced to. Instead the debate is between different faiths, or between faith and science, and too seldom do religious people scrutinize themselves. I suspect there's a reason for that; if they did, there wouldn't be too many religious people left.

In any case, I fully support the Darwin 200 events, and urge anyone who's remotely interested to get along to one of the many events happening nationwide. You won't regret it. I think we'll be getting Stuart to do the same talk again in the Humanist Society's first semester programme, too.

In other words, she frequents churches that promote YOUNG earth creationism.

She has also said emphatically that she believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools.

It is, therefore, a reasonable question to ask Palin:

Are you a YOUNG earth creationist?

The “young” in the designation is crucial. It is the tipping point over which a person who replies "yes" to the question moves from the realm of the rational into the realm of flim-flam on a par with astrology.

It is one thing to say, in the 21st century,

“I believe in God, and also accept that the earth is quite old, and that God made mechanisms for life forms to change over time—as they evidently have.”

It is a completely other thing to say,

“I reject that science has learned the true age of the earth and how fossils came to be in the earth. I believe that geologists have gotten the earth's age wildly wrong, and that paleontologists have completely misinterpreted and misunderstood what the fossil record is telling us."

What we are dealing with in the latter case is a person who is simply delusional.

And it is absurd to have presidents and vice-presidents living in the realm of the delusional or irrational.

The world is too dangerous for that.

So ask the question.

And see what she says.

Based on the above, I'd like to make a prediction: eventually, certain groups of Creationists will accept that evolution has occurred, both on the micro and macro scale, with the sole exception of humanity. I don't think this is too much of a stretch; the history of Creationism is the story of anti-science activists slowly ceding ground as they attempt to reach out to those who are not religious fundamentalists. However, it is abundantly obvious that many (if not most) non- Biblical literalist Creationists mainly object to evolution on the grounds that it 'calls humans animals'. All other life may carry the taint of having evolved from more 'humble' beginnings, but humans, they argue, are special, which explains why so much of the Creationist literature is pre-occupied with lying about hominid fossils and misrepresenting how much we know about our lineage. From a scientific point of view there is no reason to put more emphasis on human evolution than that of any other form of life other than understandable curiosity with our own origins, and this certainly isn't the area where most people would look for fatal weaknesses in the theory.

However, Creationists once again undermine themselves by accepting 'microevolution', particularly when it is defined as 'change within Biblical "kinds"'. Although nobody can seem to give a coherent description of what a 'kind' actually is, one oft-cited example is dogs; although there are hundreds of different breeds of dog, they are all still within the same 'dog kind'. This is a huge mistake on the part of Creationists, because it means that they should also accept humans and our evolutionary cousins as being within the same 'kind' as well.

Before I continue, I'd like to point out that even within modern humans there is an incredible amount of variation. I am physiologically very different from a Chinese or north African person, who in turn are very different from Inuit or south Americans. Variation is even abundant on much smaller geographic scales, as evidenced by the fact that the tallest and shortest groups of people on Earth reside in Africa (or are directly descended from there). The situation can be likened to that of different breeds of dog, an analogy that most people seem curiously hesitant to make - and not on scientific grounds, either.The point I'm trying to make here is that there is no universal template for what humans should like look, which means the the argument from incredulity - 'They're too different from us' - is no barrier to accepting our recent ancestors as being related to us.

The situation is worse still for those Creationists who take 'kind' to mean 'family', as humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutangs are all members of the family hominidae (or 'great ape'). To deny this would be to not only deny evolution, but also the entire branch of science that seeks to classify life. Even a casual examination of our proposed recent ancestors and the current hominidae reveals the folly of accepting the family definiton of 'kind' while rejecting any relation between modern humans and, say, Homo habilis, with whom we most likely shared a common ancestor. 

By defining 'kind' as 'family', then, Creationists unwittingly make two seperate concessions to science and evolution:

1. They accept that humans, chimpanzees, orangutangs and gorillas are of the same 'kind'. If not, they must either change the definition of 'kind' or attempt to show that humans  should not belong to the family hominidae. 

2. They also accept that some of our recent proposed ancestors would also fall within the same 'kind' as us, and therefore should have no problem with 'ape' to human evolution.

McCain And Palin on Evolution

Despite having a lack of sleep the night before, I caught up on my sleep deprivation this morning. My late awakening left me with little time to make my protein-packed special oatmeal creation and enjoy it, so I opted for the quicker toast w/sunflower butter and scrambled eggs. Plus, I'd have time to stop at Starbucks for a coffee and hopefully catch a smile from Super Cutie {the cute barrister I recently discovered!} But I digress, I kissed my cat, Nala, goodbye and drove off to Starbucks. Super Cutie was in charge of the drive-thru so I didn't pay too much attention to him, but I did have a quaint conversation with the girl who poured my coffee and after I mixed and stirred my grande dark roast coffee to perfection I headed to the office. The ride to my new office is less than 2 miles from my home and is usually a breeze. However, as I'm driving down Peachtree Road enjoying the warm Atlanta air, sipping my coffee while listening to Lois Reitzes' soothing voice between the classics I notice the traffic ahead and I'm ony half way to work. I was so lucky to have my cup of ambition with me because child, I had to wait for 1 traffic signal to change 9 times before I could take my turn and the whole morning could have easily been a complete disaster. But instead of letting the traffic insanity consume me I decided to act like the "non-yankee yankee" I am and was obnoxiously courteous to everyone who needed to be let in or out of a parking lot, lane or intersection along my way to work. I felt the urge to politely remind the others that they weren't the only ones on the road. Believe me, the drivers behind me were not happy! Lois' voice returned just in time to crank up the volume to drown out the beeping retardemo behind me {retardemo (ri-tahr-dim-oh)  [n.] 1.) a complete, fucking idiot. 2.) a dumbass. 3.) an inconsiderate fool}.

When I arrived at the office I was perkier than a 1980's cone-shaped bra and I knew I was going to have a fabulous day! Before I started my tasks for the day I set up an appointment for an overdue haircut after work. I called Oasis to make sure they'd accept my complimentary haircut coupon and scheduled a cut for 5:30 pm. Before I knew it I had multi-tasked my way to 5pm and headed off to get my hair'did. Once I arrived I was greeted promptly and was offered a beverage. I noticed the salon was a bit froo-froo but had a fun vibe. My stylist, Kristen, took care of me and we collaborated on how to make use of my stubborn cowlick. After a good 40 minutes and some razor texturing I felt ten pounds lighter with a renewed vigor I only get when I leave a salon. I tipped Kristen $10 and hauled ass. As I awaited patiently for valet to return my car I was thinking of three things: I need food, I need to go for a run and then get ready for John McCain to accept his party's nomination.

I've fallen in love with politics during the past several years and was almost as excited to watch the Republican Convention as I was for the Democrats'. Anyway, I got home and made my dinner and turned on the RNC channel which was about to start live feed from the convention. Nala and I were meowing back and forth about how most of the speeches during the previous nights were aimed at trying to convince us that the Repubicans would really cut taxes this time, preserve our liberties, and protect us from evil. We both laughed and meowed until I finished my dinner. I did fit in an interval cardio run around the neighborhood and made it back just in time to hear Cindy McCain introduce her husband. This was the first time I've heard her speak and the previous nights Cindy had been portrayed as a loving mother, a humanitarian, a successful business woman and a First Lady we could be proud of--yet when she took the stage and opened her mouth it seemed like she had never used a teleprompter before. Her delivery started off horrible and didn't improve much. I mean, when is she going to learn how to speak in front of audiences? I thought that was a prerequisite for the position?! Anyway, poor Cindy's speech should have been pre-recorded and edited so it could have come off more sincere. Isn't that the message the Republicans are trying to emulate? That they care and are sincerely going to change Washington? Oh wait, they had the last 8 years to do that and they blew their chance. Again, I digress. 

As I was awaiting the Maverick to speak I opened up my laptop and started to open my email to help pass the time ... and then there he was!  John McCain walked center stage, the lights were off except for a spotlight on McCain with a white glow around him; 'twas a very dramatic entrance. The lights came on again as he walked to the podium.  After less thank you's than Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton convention speeches combined, McCain's speech started out and continued to be lackluster but still covered the standard Republican talking points.  All of a sudden I began to listen again as I heard McCain attempting to emulate Obama.  McCain was urging his listeners to be more involved with their communities, to serve, to give, to "help feed a hungry child and help an illiterate adult to learn how to read." I was so inspired I continued reading an email I got from MoveOn.org asking me to write a letter to a local publication to shed light on the truth about Sarah Palin and the distorted facts included in her speech. I was so inspired I wrote and sent my letter to all 13 suggested newspapers to express my viewpoints.  I want to share with you my letter...

Again, I was feeling quite fabulous from a great, productive day, a spectacular haircut and a recent high from running: 

**

The Truth About Palin: Americans Know Better

Governor Sarah Palin's political attack speech last night fabulously distorted the facts and was full of evil-spirited zingers that seemed straight out of Karl Rove's handbook. Please don't be fooled by the perfectly crafted and carefully selected choice of words created for her by George W. Bush's speech writer. Palin is just another politician, chosen to be the V.P. nominee only because she is a polished female politician.  Ouch, I know ... it sounds so bad when you say it outloud!  But let's face it, the McCain Campaign and the Republican Party knows that without a woman on their ticket they don't stand a chance.  I am not a fool, and I believe neither are most Americans.
I know the facts about Palin and would like to share a few.  Palin asserts she doesn't support the Bridge to Nowhere, well, not anymore, but she did in 2006. Her social views are even scarier. Palin's thinking is in align with the Bush Administrations' approach to education; teach creationism in school and support an abstinence-only approach to sex-ed.  It's like she's living in the 1950's.
I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, just an ordinary American that desperately wants other Americans to know the truth about the candidates so we all can make the right choice for the Presidency this time.  We don't need more politicians in Washington with close ties to Big Oil, like Palin! I urge anyone who is thinking of supporting the McCain/Palin ticket to please research these candidates' true positions and consider the real consequences of what could possibly be a third Bush term.
I hate to quote Hillary Clinton, but believe her words "No Way, No How, No McCain."

***

What a great way to end the day! Now, Nala and I will cozy up and go to bed. Good nite;)

Sarah Palin may prove to be, not just someone who believes in God, or someone who believes that God plays a role in evolution.

She may, rather, be someone who reads Genesis literally---that is, someone who is a young earth creationist.

She may, in other words, think that the earth is 10,000 years old and that fossils are in the earth because they were deposited there by the Great Flood of Noah.

And she may believe this because she has never taken the time, or had the inclination, to explore the matter in any depth.

She has been busy developing the other aspects of her life, and attending to her family. 

And a lot of Americans are young earth creationists---so cut her some slack here!

It's hardly, afterall, un-American to be a young earth creationist---and maybe even the majority of Americans are young earth creationists.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal is this: A lot of Americans also believe in astrology---but that doesn't mean that we should feel comfy with a vice-presidential candidate who believes in astrology, or even takes it as a reasonable possibility.

Young earth creationism and astrology are intellectually equivelent. They are both forms of flim-flam that no serious, thinking adult should assign more than a vanishing probability of being true.

For example, there is no anxiety within the scientific community whatsoever that there will ever be a NY Times banner headline that says, "Scientists Discover Correlation of People's Fate with the Position of the Stars." 

Likewise, one can sleep sound in knowing that one will never wake up to find such a NY Times front page headline as this: "Scientists Discover Earth to Be 10,000 Years Old and All the World's Fossils Deposited by a Catastophic Flood."

Why?

Because science has established, as well as science humanly can, that the earth is OLD and the plants and animals on the earth have CHANGED over time.

The fact that the earth is old and that plants and animals have undergone change from era to era throughout the earth's history is something that scientists know. These two things are facts.

God may have had a hand in these two facts, but they are nevertheless facts. They are as certainly established scientifically as that the earth revolves around the sun.

And anyone who would aspire to the complex task of governing a 21st century world power, and having to seek out, and understand, scientific council and advice all along the way, cannot be confused on these two points.

It simply displays too far a distance between yourself and reality to be in a position of high responsibility.

In other words, a candidate, however busy his or her life has been, who professes belief in fundamentally irrational propositions---such as astrology or young earth creationism---tells us something important about his or her habits of critical thinking---and even his or her capacity for critical thinking.

In short, a person who professes belief in astrology or young earth creationism, if he or she is sincere in that belief, does so for only one of two reasons:

• relatively low intelligence or
• intellectual inattention

By intellectual inattention I mean that he or she is either:

• insufficiently curious to know the actual facts of the matter,
• or is in the habit of avoiding facts or information that do not accord with his or her prejudices

Put bluntly, if the person is not stupid, then he or she is incurious or insular---or worse, both incurious and insular (as I think our current president is).

Sarah Palin, if she professes belief in young earth creationism (or astrology for that matter) suggests that, should we get her as president someday, that we are in for an administration characterized by incuriosity and insularity---that is, something akin to the current Bush administration.

And in her public life, Palin has already shown unmistakable proclivities to incuriousity and insularity---as in the fact that it was only in the last year that she applied for a passport---and when she was mayor of Wisalia, she tried to censor books in the local library.

But the indications that she is a young earth creationist are, perhaps, most disturbing, because they suggest that she is not just censorious, incurious and insular---but that she is not quite in contact with reality, and is content, and maybe even pugnaciously proud, not to be so.

"Lots of ideas from Europe [Obama]'d like to see imported here."
--Mike Huckabee at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, September 3, 2008

I read this in a New York Times article and it frankly bugged me. Mike Huckabee is so parochial and narrow-minded. I think the U.S. has a lot to learn from Europe, which has been far more successful in integrating sovereign countries' economies and interlinking the European Union than has the states in America, which cannot even cooperate and agree on in the most basic of things. But I digress.

I hope that Barack Obama will win the presidency. McCain's not so bad, with his reasonable stances on abortion, gay rights and immigration. But the nuthouse Bible-eating Alaska governor he's picked as his vice-presidential nominee has got to be the worst political move in recent years. She's governed a state that's smaller in population than the Los Angeles Unified School District, for less than two years. (The way some people put it, as "Palin governing the largest state in the Union" is like saying "Canadians govern the largest country in North America," essentially bullshit.) And her state's an exception to the problems the rest of the country faces. For her state government, it's about deciding what to spend the annual surpluses on. For other states like California, it's about trimming and budgeting, firing employees and slashing programs. Her experience is not suited for the vice-presidency, when the state she's from is an exception and not the rule. And Palin would know little about the American economy. Alaska's economy is basically 1/3 oil and 1/3 federal money, while America's as a whole is far more diversified and complex.

She was once mayor of a town that is 7 times smaller than my hometown, a small suburb of L.A., and she got her first U.S. passport in the new millennium. I know 9-yr-old cousins who are more well-traveled than she. And what's even more amazing is that she doesn't support abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Even the most hardcore of pro-life advocates are unlikely to be this radical. And most Americans support abortion anyway. It's these religious right-wing nuts that even McCain called "agents of intolerance" that he now has to pander to. I find it sad that McCain cannot explain his core beliefs the way he would like to, but has to sway the Republican establishment with ideas he uncomfortably calls his own. Palin believes creationism should be taught in school, even though all she has is a Bachelors degree in journalism, not biology. She supports teaching abstinence-only curriculum in place of sex ed, while her high school daughter, still under her wings, is now impregnated, obviously unplanned (no 17-yr-old in her right mind would think "Geez, let's see. I'm still living with my parents, have no secure job, not even a high school diploma, and I'm the governor's daughter. Perfect time to bring new life into this world!"). Republicans love talking about how gays are normalizing their lifestyle. What about the likes of the Palins, who are normalizing teenage pregnancy and presenting it as perfectly acceptable? Unbelievable. At least getting pregnant is a choice. If my sister, who's in high school, got pregnant, you can be sure my parents would have disowned her. If I got a girl pregnant, even at age 19, I would be disowned. I think it's appropriate for the media to follow the Palin family. When policies and issues you support don't mirror what happens in your own family, it ought to be pointed out. It's hypocrisy. And to think we should not judge Sarah Palin's stances on important issues.

And it's so easy for the Palins to use their daughter as a walking and breathing billboard for the "pro-life" cause (because she didn't abort). Of course. Her daughter will receieve 100% financial and family support when she has a child. She's covered by health insurance, can give birth in a nice hospital, has a comfortable life, and a boyfriend who will marry her. Most teenagers who get pregnant are not so lucky. They are disowned, put further burdens on single working parents, have to rely on their ailing grandmas for support, or even seek abortion, realizing that there's no way they can raise a child with so many obstacles in their lives. If my sister, god forbid, were to get pregnant, as soon as my parents found out, they would cut her off. She would be disowned, abandoned. There would no longer be contact with any family members, except maybe a compassionate aunt or cousin. She would receive no support from the family. To my family, it's that "you break, you pay" policy. That if you make a mistake in your life, you have to accept the consequences as your own. I can understand why so many women seek abortions in this country. It's not a simple picture as "pro-lifers" paint it. Some states force doctors giving abortions to tell their patients they're destroying life that has "human rights." I don't know, but with that mentality, we ought to make miscarriage (a form of unintended abortion) a crime called manslaughter as well.

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.
--Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Sarah Palin's acceptance speech yesterday angered me. It showed her depth as a person. All she did was rally her own kind, the gun-toting hillbillies and the corporate executives who fear taxes. She briefly skimmed the energy crisis but made no mention of the issue that hits home the hardest for most Americans, the economy. Maybe it's because I'm Asian, so I care about the economy a lot more than I do social issues (Asians tend to care more about the economy and finance sector in politics). It only takes traveling outside the U.S. to see how poorly the U.S. economy is doing now. The Canadian dollar is higher than the American dollar now. Fewer are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border now because of U.S.'s stagnating economy. Even the Burmese kyat is rising against the U.S. dollar. Yet she did not even touch base on the subject. What she did know how to do was throw daggers at Barack Obama and show off her so-called "executive experience." I'll admit, both Obama and Biden do not have executive experience, but they are far more qualified than she or McCain. Both Obama and Biden have doctorate degrees in law. What do McCain and Palin have? Paltry Bachelors degrees and McCain graduated at the bottom of his class. C'mon now, McCain could have done better. Someone with a more wholesome resumé (I would've liked to see Mitt Romney on the ticket, someone who's both experienced and has a thorough education). I thought McCain would have chosen a more suitable candidate to add education and experience to his ticket. I have no idea why he decided to reach out to Republicans, when this election calls for reaching out to independents and conservative Dems. Maybe he listened to Karl Rove, the same man who started a rumor campaign in the 2000 South Carolina primary about McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter (that she was the illegitimate daughter from McCain's relations with a black woman) to allow Bush to win.

Finally, more Americans now agree that churches should not be breeding grounds for political indoctrination. Let the people decide. From Economist.com.

The worst part about her is support for creationism in public schools. It's okay for you to have your own views on how this world came to be, as long as it doesn't impinge on others' views. Not everybody believes what the Bible describes. If we were to start teaching creationism, we might as well start teaching the Native American "creation myths" and the views of Islam and other religions in public schools as well, since those views are legitimate to respective groups as well. My life science textbook puts it better than I do:

The power of science derives from the uncompromising objectivity and absolute dependence on evidence that comes from reproducible and quantifiable observations (sic). A religious or spiritual explanation of a natural phenomenon may be coherent and satisfying for a person or group holding that view, but is not testable, and therefore it is not science. To invoke a supernatural explanation (such as an "intelligent designer" with no known bounds) is to depart from the world of science.

Science describes the facts about how the world works, not how it "ought to be."

Bottom line is, if you don't want your kids to learn about evolution, send them to a private school that doesn't teach it. It shouldn't be up to public schools to teach students something the preacher from the pulpit should do. My parents never delved on the issue of how this world came to be, because it's less important than what we can do to improve the society we live in.

I hope Americans will make the right choice come Election Day, and not be swayed by the superficial.

Even though this episode of ICR radio was produced before my previous post on comets and creationism, I've opted to write about it second because the claims in it are more subtly incorrect.

The first comment on this episode is really more of a nit-pick (@ 4 min): The scientist on the program claims, "The famous Shoemaker-Levy [9] comet, which broke up into 9 pieces and crashed into the surface of Jupiter ..."

Now this claim really isn't used to try to prove creationism, but another purpose of this blog is to help propagate good astronomy when there is bad astronomy being stated. There are two problems with the above statement. The first is that the comet in question did not break into 9 pieces, but rather it broke into 21 main fragments, labeled A through W. Also, Jupiter really doesn't have a "surface" in the traditional sense. It may have a rocky core, but we don't know that for certain. What we do know is that its atmosphere is huge, extending at least 5 times Earth's radius, and the comet fragments that crashed through the jovian atmosphere would have been crushed by the pressure well before they reached any "surface."

About 6 min 30 sec into the broadcast, we get the first bit of real pseudo-astronomy: One of their scientists is talking about how comets tend to fragment, they lose some of their material during their orbit, and they're somewhat fragile if they come really close to a large, massive object (like a planet or star). But he then states, "This has been a problem for evolutionists for a long time because comets just don't last, and they certainly don't last over the supposed age of the solar system."

Again there's that "evolutionist" label ... somehow because I'm an astronomer who uses "real" science I'm now an evolutionist, too. Regardless of this snub, this is the same argument that I talked about in my previous post on comets: Comet nuclei were not all "launched" into close-Sun-passing orbits at the beginning of the solar system. They effectively "lie in wait" in the frigid outer regions until they collide amongst themselves or a passing massive body causes their orbits to change, bringing a few into the inner solar system. This effectively sets their internal "clocks" at a zero-age in terms of losing material, and so it really has nothing to do with "proving" the solar system was created a matter of a few thousand years ago. This is NOT "good evidence that the Universe isn't billions of years old," as the narrator states.

The next argument is closely related (about 7 min 45 sec in): Dr. Ross Humphreys is a physicist for the ICR and says, "There's (sic) some comets called 'short-period comets' that come around so frequently that they could not have been in our solar system longer than 10,000 years. ... Halley's comet is acknowledged by scientists to not have been in the solar system longer than 90,000 years." (emphasis mine)

So this is the same argument as above which I've already addressed. However, there's a new wrinkle. This person claims that these comets aren't even in the solar system until recently. This simply doesn't make sense. People who do modeling have shown that it's nearly impossible to have objects line up just right such that two bodies that were not gravitationally bound to begin with (a comet being "in" our solar system, in other words) can be captured. I believe their physicist meant to say "in the inner solar system," which could be more correct. But this is a pretty obvious mistake to make, and if you're going to make an argument from authority (the guy being a physicist) you would hope their authority knows that comets didn't magically appear from beyond the solar system.

There are a few more misstatements and fallacious arguments in the next few minutes episode, but they are pretty much the same as those I have addressed below and in my other comet post (not believing in the Oort Cloud simply because they can't see it). Oh, and apparently I'm now a "Big Bang Theorist" because I know about comets and agree with the evidence supporting the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. Maybe I could write a grant to NASA to study comets because I'm a Big Bang Theorist.

The last argument they make that I want to address is the claim the Kuiper Belt "can't" be a source of short-period comets (about 10 min into the program). The evidence they point to is that the objects in the Kuiper Belt are generally redder in color than comets. They claim this means they're two entirely different classes of objects, and that evolutionists (honestly, how the heck do they equate studying comets with being an evolutionist?) have tried all sorts of ways to get Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) to "lose" their red.

This is actually a fairly easy problem. Without getting into chemistry, spectroscopy, and physics, the basic idea is weathering. Even though there's no air, water, etc. in space, there are particles that are constantly interacting with KBOs, and those particles mainly come from the solar wind. They have the ability to chemically alter the material they come into contact with, but only the very upper surface. When the objects are weathered, they become redder. Once a KBO is nudged into a sun-grazing orbit, however, the crust sublimates (turns from a solid directly into a gas). What is sublimating? The upper surface of the KBO ... the surface that was weathered. So after a first-close-pass with the Sun, the object can easily lose that red color and look like an ordinary comet.

A final comment goes to the nature of science. On this program, as on the comet one I discussed below, the fall-back is something to the effect of, "Creationism has a much simpler answer than all this Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt, and other stuff. It's that the Solar System was created by God recently."

That is faith. Plain and simple. It is NOT science. Science makes testable, potentially falsifiable hypotheses about the way things work. If you pass everything off to God as your explanation, that is perfectly legitimate faith, but it has nothing to do with science because it is not testable nor falsifiable. The explanations I have given may seem "materialistic," but that is the nature of science; by definition, it does not accept faith-based explanations.

And I must add that, so far, the materialist explanation has worked perfectly fine for explaining the apparently unexplainable features of comets.

A quote from William Jennings Bryan:

The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later.

A quote from Sarah Palin:

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

She was being misleading, by the way, about the Bridge to Nowhere federal project. See here: http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/she-felt-their-pain-then-stopped-feeling-it-the-anchorage-daily-news-details-vp-pick-sarah-palins-support-for-then-opposition-to-the-bridge-to-nowhere-federal-project/