WE CONTINUE to explore Sarah Palin’s record on the “evolution vs. creationism” issue, and also the library censorship, book-banning issue which recently surfaced.
So far, these matters have revealed less about Governor Palin than they have about the media. We’ve learned that the media will grab onto any allegation, even if it’s swiftly debunked, and repeat it forever. Is this malice, laziness, or a happy coincidence of the two? You decide, gentle reader.
Meanwhile, this morning’s Anchorage Daily News gives us this nifty item: Social conservative. The article is sub-titled: “Americans should understand what Palin is offering.”
In his second paragraph, the un-named reporter lists the social issues on which Sarah has allegedly taken extreme positions (bold added for emphasis):
She opposes abortion rights. She favors the teaching of creationism. She preaches abstinence-only sex education. She is open to the possibility of banning books from public libraries. She opposes gay marriage. She personally opposes benefits for gay partners of public employees.
There’s something odd here — we count six items listed in that paragraph, and four of them are about sex. Maybe we’re out of step, but the only issues we’ve been watching are the other two — teaching creationism and book banning, and it appears to us that the reporter got those wrong. Visit FactCheck.org and see for yourself: Sliming Palin — False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.
Therefore we’re not confident about the rest of this reporter’s list, but we haven’t looked into those issues. It’s interesting, however, that the reporter doesn’t worry about taxes, guns or the environment (pipelines, drilling, etc.) where Palin has a record. Perhaps he only listed the “social issues” that affect him personally? Who knows? Anyway, we find his list of concerns to be strangely selective.
Moving on with the article:
The big question is what she would do about these personal beliefs if she is elected vice president.
Yes, that is the issue. Let’s skip over the reporter’s intense focus on the life-style stuff and get to what he says about creationism and book-banning:
The question of teaching creation science in schools arose during a debate on public TV station KAKM in 2006. Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution.
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
In a later interview, Palin said she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to evolution to required curriculum. But, she said, “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate.”
We’re surprised. The reporter told both sides of the story. Well, he left out Sarah’s total lack of interference with science education. There’s also the embarrassing fact that — contrary to what the reporter claimed at the start of his article — Sarah doesn’t “favor the teaching of creationism.” But we can’t expect such an incredibly complicated matter to be accurately reported, can we? Okay, let’s move on to book-banning:
Evidence of Palin’s views is not conclusive. But as Wasilla mayor in 1996, Palin asked the city librarian troubling questions. Her hometown paper, the Frontiersman, reported that year that Palin had asked the librarian three times whether she would agree to censor library books if the need arose.
No specific books were mentioned. Palin at the time said her questions were rhetorical, and about a department head “understanding and following administration agendas.”
A few months later, Palin sent the librarian a letter telling her she was going to be fired. But after public support made it clear residents supported the librarian, Palin changed her mind.
We’ve previously reported, and FactCheck.org (link above) confirms that there’s even less substance to the book-banning charges, but maybe the news travels slowly in Anchorage. Or perhaps the reporter’s mind is so occupied with the social issues that he accidentally allowed the book-banning innuendo linger.
This is the article’s final line:
Sarah Palin’s social views fall to the right of the American mainstream.
Presumably, Sarah can’t count on much support from the Anchorage Daily News. Somehow she became governor despite their opposition, so we assume she’ll soldier on.
[Our related articles are here: Sarah Palin & Creationism.]
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Let’s see:
She favors the teaching of creationism. (false)
She preaches abstinence-only sex education. (false)
She is open to the possibility of banning books from public libraries. (false)
She opposes gay marriage. (So does Obama)
She personally opposes benefits for gay partners of public employees. (true, but she signed into law a bill that gave such benefits anyway.)
I think the journalist needs to do some fact-checking.
No need for that. It’s his feelings that really matter.
Aw, piss on him.
(Excuse me, I have a bladder problem. I’ll be right back)
Tundra boy, you’re so insensitive!
It’s not clear to me that the situation is as clear-cut as either FactCheck or you would make it seem. Does she want to force teaching Creationism? Not now. Is she a Creationist. Heck yes. Does this disqualify her to be VP? Of course not. But is this a serious concern, given the destruction of American scientific infrastructure that has occurred under Bush? Yes. Being a Creationist and not understanding the need for research into the fact and theory of evolution is exactly the sort of thing that makes Palin (and McCain, for that matter) much less desirable than their alternatives.
McCain isn’t a creationist. That said, I’m sure the democrats as a group are more solid on evolution. But they have their own share of goofiness. Not so much in science, perhaps — although they’re crazed when it comes to nuclear power — but certainly in other areas beyond the scope of my humble blog.
This is a difficult situation. I know it’s not important for a president to understand biology, but of course he can’t be hostile to reason. I don’t yet know how deeply Sarah’s nuttiness goes. If it’s just that she never studied biology, then okay. I won’t be a single-issue voter — certainly not on that issue. I’m still trying to sort it all out.
No, McCain is not a Creationist. He’s just a hypocrite who needs the religious right to survive.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/
Yes, yes, gripe about thinkprogress if you want. Just read McCain’s own words, which I don’t think are taken out of context.
Curmugeon, it is somewhat amusing to see you and other conservatives (of whatever stripe) wiggle on this one. We all know the Republicans are in the grip of the religious right, and are somewhat nutty on the subject of Creationism (you had a nice piece yourself on this). And yet you continue to try to make excuses for them; so does Charles over at LGF. Why? There is no excuse necessary. Just as we’d flunk a student who asserted a Creationist answer in class, why can’t we flunk a Presidential candidate who is so stupid as to think this is a viable subject for debate … which McCain clearly does?
Here’s why: It’s because this election isn’t about biology. I want the nation to be safe and free, and I want us to prosper. More taxes and more bureaucracy just ain’t gonna get us there. I’d guess that at least half the economic growth in China would have been here if our government hadn’t been insane for the last generation or two.
(I’m answering your question, but I don’t want to provoke a political debate; that’s not what this blog is about. It’s fair, however, that you understand my difficulties about Sarah.)
It’s distressing that Sarah may be a ding-a-ling on the main topic of my blog, but I’m not going to vote for someone just because he seems to know something about science — not when I suspect that he’ll surrender to the terrorists and launch even more socialism at home,. It just doesn’t work that way. (Besides, does anyone know if Obama really knows anything about science?)
If I had to choose between a party of socialists and a party of creationists, it would be a nightmare choice. We might survive the creationists. I doubt that we’d survive the other. This whole thing is really rough.
I was going to wait for you to reply, but I have to dither off (emphasis on dither). That said, I would suggest that you examine the following:
“I don’t yet know how deeply Sarah’s nuttiness goes. If it’s just that she never studied biology, then okay.”
Are you serious? The person who writes this amazing Blog is actually giving a bye to an adult … because she didn’t study biology? What has she been in the last forty years, a hole? A cave? While she apparently didn’t interfere with the curricula of her children, are you also saying she didn’t discuss this hot button issue with them that she nonetheless elevated to the rank of state politics? That she completely ignored any and all of the information that must have at least passed her way at Idaho and the two other schools she attended?
I’m sorry, Curmudgeon, but that was weak. Really, really weak. It confirms what I said before: you’re projecting your desire for the Republicans to actually be the party of reason, when they’re clearly not. I don’t think you can fool yourself a whole lot longer on this one.
And the notion, again, that someone who can see the true problems with ID, DI, Creationism, and the rest of it will also somehow give a ‘bye’ because it’s politically expedient is more than a bit hypocritical. Come on! It’s not one issue politics! If one of the major candidates was to profess a deep belief in elven magic, would this not deter you from voting for them? Well, you know this is precisely the same thing.
You know I’m right.
You may be — about Sarah’s creationism, not necessarily about the other side as being the superior choice. As I said, this isn’t about biology.
You haven’t yet read my earlier response, in which I thought I was rather honest about my difficulties here. I’m waiting for her to be confronted about this directly during the campaign. It will happen.
And if it’s clear — even to me — she’s flat out nuts, then what shall I do? Go for the community organizer? This is a hellish situation. At least for me.
Yes, I’m sorry our replies crossed in mid-stream. I understand your conundrum. As long as you are allowing this discussion to take place on what is, after all, your Blog, let me continue briefly. Obviously if this becomes onerous you can stop it.
The reason that the discussion about Creationism versus evolution is far more important than most folks realize is not just that it highlights whether or not one can think rationally, about politics as well as science. It’s about the attitude towards science. And in my opinion this is one of the defining issues of this election. Yes, China is gearing up to beat the holy snot out of us economically. But this is only partially about cheap labor and idiotic economic policies on both sides of the aisle. It is also about the fact that science and technology, which used to be the engines that drove much of what we’ve achieved, have fallen into disrepair. And it is the current occupant of the White House that is largely to blame for this. While we faltered, the Pacific Rim surged, and is surging.
So, from my vantage, no matter what you think about a bunch of religious zealots who are only barely capable of terrorizing their own populace, much less ours, the bigger threat is that we’ll go out with a whimper, beholden to discoveries made elsewhere. And when I look at the Republican ticket, I see a waffle at the top who lampoons quite decent wildlife studies for political advantage, and a Creationist who thinks that saving $170 B in earmarks somehow = $3.3 T in tax cuts. On the other side I see someone who will at least fund science, if only because he won’t strangle government (including science) in the bathtub, like Grover has always wanted them to do.
Your position is not untenable nor irrational, and you may be right about the larger issues. But for me, there is no larger issue. Creationism is just a piece of it.
You posted that comment after I put up my “Open Letter,” probably without seeing it, so I think my response is already made. Now we wait …