Palin Likes Polar Bears, But She Likes Oil, Too

Katherine Mangu-Ward | August 29, 2008

More on the Palin/wildlife theme:

Palin sued the federal government over the addition of polar bears to the Endangered Species list. She points out that the number of polar bears in on the rise in recent decades, and explains why adding the bear to the list is a backdoor attempt to make global warming policy in a New York Times opinion piece:

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

She did a softball interview with Glenn Beck on the topic in June (in which, incidentally, she suggests that she might say no if tapped for VP). They discuss the fact that Alaska bargained its way into the union by promising to be pretty much self-sufficient. Interesting.

Comments

|8.29.08 @ 12:35PM|#

Extremely savvy political pick for McCain - issues don't matter that much in a VP, image does.

The GOP is full of doddering old fools attached to platitudes - she will help him buck that image.

|8.29.08 @ 12:36PM|#

She was tapped because "Drill Now" is a huge issue.

that was not a soft ball interview. That was an infomercial.

|8.29.08 @ 1:02PM|#

Except Alaska is NOT self-sufficient!

Jeezits, just because the woman hunts and fishes for realz, she is still George Bush in drag. A bear skin in the living room does not make one a libertarian. If she had turned off the federal spigot, then yeah.

You all really need to get past that fantasy. Those of you that have it anyway.


Creationism in science classes..check!
AntiANY abortion...check!
Stem cellsm bad evil things!...check.

So science, once again is a bad thing.

Elemenope|8.29.08 @ 1:04PM|#

Capelza, I, too, await the Empirical Presidency.

And I couldn't give a damn what party it hails from. McCain, whatever else he is, is *not* it.

|8.29.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Creationism in science classes..check!
AntiANY abortion...check!
Stem cellsm bad evil things!...check.

Good points. Which would cause me NOT to vote for her, no matter how hot she might be.

Naga Sadow|8.29.08 @ 1:16PM|#

Maybe if Palin eventually becomes president I can finally have myself a polar bear rib. HMMMMMM!

|8.29.08 @ 1:20PM|#

"issues don't matter that much in a VP, image does"

Then for the love of God, LOSE THE GLASSES!!!
For chrissake's, you're on international TV!!

This woman needs visual polish. She has "boondocks" practically written on her forehead.

Vermont Gun Owner|8.29.08 @ 1:24PM|#

AntiANY abortion...check!

And that has what to do with being a (small l) libertarian?

Oh right. You are pro-choice, so obviously one must be pro-choice to be libertarian. After all, it isn't like libertarians can be for laws against murder.

|8.29.08 @ 1:27PM|#

A bear skin in the living room does not make one a libertarian.

But... but... but... Dondero says she's a libertarian! So she must be! Dondero would know because he singlehandedly invented libertarians!

|8.29.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Oh right. You are pro-choice, so obviously one must be pro-choice to be libertarian. After all, it isn't like libertarians can be for laws against murder.

Its not murder, murder has a specific legal meaning and we are a nation of laws.

The fundies need to get over their aborto-centrism.

|8.29.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Vermont Gun Owner...

small "l" libertarian does not include anyone who governs the smallest state population wise which still gets the biggest federal pork dole can not in good conscience call themselves "libertarian".

Like I said, shooting critters and catching them in nets is not the same thing. I do that, too (in Bristol Bay! I wonder if I ever met her there?)..but when I lived in Alaska I never saw any of them wanting to get off the federal teat. It isn't just about how man guns you have.

I don't care what she calls herself as, but I want someone who isn't afraid of science to be that one old dodgy heartbeat away from the running the country. A novel idea, I realise, but hey, what can i say?

|8.29.08 @ 1:34PM|#

Sorry about the typos...*red faced*.

|8.29.08 @ 1:35PM|#

She was tapped because "Drill Now" is a huge issue.

Funny. That is a joke, right? Is she ready for some polling? This November, I plan to check her box.

|8.29.08 @ 1:37PM|#

She was tapped because "Drill Now" is a huge issue.

How can no one have made a "I'd like to drill her" joke? You guys are slacking off.

|8.29.08 @ 1:38PM|#

epi,
what we's doin with her pics rhymes wit slackin off...

|8.29.08 @ 1:41PM|#

Jeezits, just because the woman hunts and fishes for realz, she is still George Bush in drag. A bear skin in the living room does not make one a libertarian. If she had turned off the federal spigot, then yeah.

She killed the bridge to nowhere. Obviously she has a vision for Alaska and it is one that is more in line with what Alaska was intended to be rather then what it is today.

|8.29.08 @ 1:55PM|#

Creationism in science classes..check!
AntiANY abortion...check!
Stem cellsm bad evil things!...check.

Why is government telling ppl what to teach their children?

Who gave the moral authority to pro-choice of when a human is legally human? hell who gave the supreme court that authority? What is human and what is not human needs to be vetted through a democratic process.

Stem cell research is best researched in the private sector.

Elemenope|8.29.08 @ 1:56PM|#

She killed the bridge to nowhere.

Yah. She took the money and spent it elsewhere. While I somewhat applaud her willingness to not steal money for *extremely stupid things*, is taking the same money and spending it on marginally smarter things any better from a Libertarian point-of-view?

|8.29.08 @ 1:57PM|#

Oh god. I can't keep her out of my mind. Going through another erection cycle right now. I'm pulling my lever, but it isn't helping.

(I'm hoping to regain sanity by tomorrow)

|8.29.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Gosh, Joshua...as long as there are publically funded schools, I'd like to think that science classes would be for, you know, science?

Is it that hard?

ed|8.29.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Interestingly, Palin's utterly unexpected emergence on the national scene has rendered Hillary Clinton irrelevant. In just a few short days Clinton has gone from the #2 woman in this election to a bitter, 60-year-old afterthought. Who will want to look at HRC when we have the young, dynamic figures of Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin? Hillary is history. The witch is dead. Huzzah!

|8.29.08 @ 2:04PM|#

She needs to use her authority as Guv to declare a special bow-hunting season on Theodore Fulton Stevens. Maybe this guy will make the lucky shot.

|8.29.08 @ 2:04PM|#

Gosh, Joshua...as long as there are publically funded schools

You do know this is a libertarian blog right?

and is it really a good idea for government to tell us what is science and what is not science?

That sort of crap leads to Jews in ovens and sterilizing native Canadians.

|8.29.08 @ 2:09PM|#

Yah. She took the money and spent it elsewhere. While I somewhat applaud her willingness to not steal money for *extremely stupid things*, is taking the same money and spending it on marginally smarter things any better from a Libertarian point-of-view?

She spent Alaska's share or the feds share?

Are you accusing her of stealing money from the US congress and spending it else where?

For your narrative to work you have to have her breaking several laws. You will have to elaborate with links to info or i am simply going to write it off as bullshit.

|8.29.08 @ 2:11PM|#

I would like to think that it wouldn't take the frackin' government to tell us what is and isn't science...

The old bearded dude in the sky...I'm still waiting for the science on that.

Yes, I know it's a libertarian site...which is why I am surprised that hokum is even accepted as a valid theory.

Like as I said, as long as...as long as my tax dollars got oschools, I want the religion out of the science classroom. Go to church or take a religion class, but DO NOT pretend that creationism is "just another theory"...

DannyK|8.29.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Palin does not just oppose publically funded stem cell research, she opposes all stem cell research involving embroyos. This is the Republican Party platform, also.

|8.29.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Yes, I know it's a libertarian site...which is why I am surprised that hokum is even accepted as a valid theory.

Go away, you are an idiot.

Anyway aside from unsubstantiated republicans-are-evil rants does anyone here know how libertarian and how not libertarian Palin is?

We got the veto on the bridge to nowhere and NRA membership...anything else or is that it?

Bubba|8.29.08 @ 3:04PM|#

Who cares? She's good-looking and white.

|8.29.08 @ 3:06PM|#

Palin does not just oppose publically funded stem cell research, she opposes all stem cell research involving embroyos. This is the Republican Party platform, also.

They said the same thing about Bush. He only cut funding and the left exploded with indignation and false accusations.

|8.29.08 @ 3:09PM|#

Like as I said, as long as...as long as my tax dollars got oschools

Translation: So long as government acts unjustly I want it to act unjustly to promote my particular views.

|8.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#

joshua, you have no problem with mythology being taught in science classes?

Is science a view? As has been said ad nauseum, creationist have no theory except "God did it".

|8.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#

NRA membership

What does promoting gun ownership have to do with being libertarian? I thought gun control is a libertarian issue, not gun ownership.

|8.29.08 @ 4:02PM|#

LOL, I got a feeling she is up to her eyeballs in oil profits.

Whistler
http://www.datools.echoz.com/

|8.29.08 @ 4:10PM|#

Capetza-

PREDICTION:

Teaching creationism in public schools will not be a big, giant, jumbo, super-sized issue for the balance of the campaign-for most of us.

|8.29.08 @ 4:14PM|#

Anon-3:55

Thank you. Second sentence is the essence, if not the quintessence, of pithy. I have always instinctively felt that wasy, though I have never verbalized what you so eloquently typed.

GG|8.29.08 @ 4:36PM|#

Evidently, she also like Ron Paul:

In this interview, Palin calls controversial Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul "cool." "He's a good guy," she added. "He's so independent. He's independent of the party machine. I'm like, 'Right on, so am I.' "

|8.29.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Go away, you are an idiot.

The guy arguing that creationism should be taught in science class is calling someone else an idiot? Too fucking funny.

Mythology/voodoo/magic has no business in the SCIENCE classroom. That isn't merely "a point a view" and anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be worth talking to.

You wanna teach your kid that some omnipotent deity created the world in 7 days -- do that shit at home and stop pretending like that is valid subject matter for science classes (unless of course it's as an example of how ignorant people used to be that they believed the earth was flat and that it is only about 6000 years old)

Nick|8.29.08 @ 5:10PM|#

So what, she's a social conservative. So is McCain. But to me, it seems like social issues are below both economic issues and foreign policy on both their lists.

This was an incredibly savvy and brilliant decision on McCain's part. She may have little experience, but she's downticket (the reverse of the Democratic scenario.) She's not just going to help with the women vote, she's going to get lots of men who'd rather look at her than old helmet head for four years (and potentially much longer). She'll likely win with both conservatives and independents and should please libertarians compared to any of his realistic alternatives (like "Cato institute F rating" Huckabee and "mandate health insurance" Romney.)

Let's see if she stands up to the harsh public spotlight. But in my preliminary opinion, McCain essentially just castrated the Democratic Party.

|8.29.08 @ 5:11PM|#

joshua, you have no problem with mythology being taught in science classes? - capelza


Why not, its already taught in history class. "In the beginning there was nothing. Then came FDR, and JFK..." That's about how an entire year of my indoctrination, I mean history education in a publik high school went. If we pile it on deep enough, it will serve to teach the kids to be a little skeptical.

|9.9.08 @ 9:39PM|#

It amazes me that supposedly "smart" people still think science and religion cannot mix. do yourself a favor so you don't look so stupid study the lives of the early scientist's most were ,,,Gasp religous.
Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."[4] He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."[5]
[edit]Newton's prophecy
Main article: Isaac Newton's occult studies
Newton was a strong believer in prophetic interpretation of the Bible and considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1]
Unlike a prophet in the classical sense of the word, Newton relied upon existing Scripture to prophesy for him, believing his interpretations would set the record straight in the face of what he considered to be, "so little understood".[6]
Though he would never write a cohesive body of work on Prophecy, Newton's beliefs would lead him to write several treatises on the subject, including an unpublished guide for prophetic interpretation entitled, Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture. In this manuscript he details the necessary requirements for what he considered to be the proper interpretation of the Bible.
[edit]2060 A.D.

|9.9.08 @ 9:43PM|#

Some Famous Scientists who were Christians

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light Catholic
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna Calvinist (denomination?)
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
James Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the prist who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory



Some of the Most Influential, Most Famous Scientist who were Christians

Scientists listed in both Scientists of Faith (Christians) and also in one of the general boo

|9.9.08 @ 9:47PM|#

James Sherley, associate professor of biological engineering at MIT, notes: "Adult stem cell research is predicted to beat the pants off human therapeutic cloning [and embryonic stem cell] research when it comes to yielding significant advances in cell medicine. And adult stem cells provide better approaches. These cells that naturally function in the regeneration and repair of adult tissues pose no ethical concerns."[1]
As Sherley notes, there are no ethical problems with the use of adult stem cells because such cells can be isolated without the necessity of destroying an embryonic--or any other--human being first. Past doubts about adult stem cells are daily proving to be mistaken. Recent studies show that many types of adult stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can develop into different tissue types, and appear to equal the "plasticity" (or, in layman's terms, versatility) of embryonic stem cells.[2]
In 2005, researchers at Tufts University successfully isolated a single cell type from bone marrow that can grow into heart muscle, blood vessels, and nerve-like cells. According to Dr. Douglas W. Losordo, one of the main researchers, "embryonic stem cells are going to fade in the rearview mirror of adult stem cells. [Bone marrow] is like a repair kit. Nature provided us with these tools to repair organ damage."[3]
Further, adult stem cells do not form tumors as embryonic stem cells sometimes do. Because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated, or not developed into a specific cell type, they may multiply out of control. Research has also shown that, after growing for extensive amounts of time, embryonic stem cells develop genetic abnormalities. This is the case with all cells, but does not happen with adult stem cells used in therapies because they are not kept in the lab for long periods of time before being used in patients. [4]
Perhaps most significant from the clinical perspective is the fact that embryonic stem cell research has not yet yielded a single successful human treatment. (Nor, it should be noted, has there been major success in any animal model to date.) Embryonic stem cells from mice were first successfully grown in the lab in 1981. In 1998, James Thomson was the first to grow a human embryonic stem cell line.[5] Since then, many studies have been performed using mouse and human embryonic stem cells in animals, to study diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes, without any conclusive success.[6]
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have been improving lives and treating living, breathing human beings suffering from over seventy different diseases. (See citations at the end for a complete list as of August 2006.)
It is odd--and regrettable--that these scientific advances using adult stem cell treatments rarely receive the media attention and celebrity hype lavished upon embryonic stem cell research. The major media seems to have accepted uncritically the claims of various scientific entrepreneurs about embryonic stem cell research. Within the scientific community, the situation may be even worse. As Prof. Sherley says, "Many scientists who do not support human embryo research are afraid to speak out because of possible reprisals from powerful scientists who can affect grant success, publication acceptances, tenure, promotion, and employment."[7]
Alzheimer's disease currently afflicts 4.5 million Americans.[8] Countless celebrity and media advocates have included Alzheimer's disease in the list of diseases and conditions that they claim would be cured were federal funding of embryonic stem cell research increased. However, according to many expert scientists in the field of Alzheimer's research, if a cure is obtained for Alzheimer's disease, it is unlikely to come from embryonic stem cells.
"I think the chances of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small," said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at Columbia University Medical Center in New York: "I personally think that we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."[9] Since Alzheimer's affects the entire brain, the best hope is through chemical treatments, not stem cells.
Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained the hype about embryonic stem cells: "People need a fairy tale Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."[10]
The sad thing is that people do not need to be fooled; the 'story-line' about stem cell research is simple and easy to understand. That story is this--adult stem cell research offers the best--and only proven--treatments for a whole host of human ailments and frailties. A society truly compassionate for the human beings who are--today--alive and suffering would support adult stem cell research and abandon the will'o'th'wisp of embryonic stem cell research. Research funds do not fall from the skies; they come from taxpayers, and the responsible use of taxpayer funds is to spend them on proven avenues of research.
Adult stem cell treatments are no fairy tale. They are real, and they are helping people even as you read this article. There are currently over 1100 FDA approved clinical trails going on in the United States using adult stem cells. There are none for embryonic stem cells.[11] The following are a few of the success stories of people who have been helped by adult stem cell therapies. We invite you to read these stories and judge for yourself whether adult stem cell research is not only the ethical, but also the smart and compassionate, path forward.

|9.9.08 @ 9:57PM|#

8. Evolutionary theory, along with its bed-partner secular humanism, is really a religion, so it is not appropriate to teach it in public schools.

To call the science of evolutionary biology a religion is to so broaden the definition of religion as to make it totally meaningless. Science is a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. Religion - whatever it is - is certainly not "testable," nor is it "open to rejection or confirmation." Similarly, the "secular" of secular humanism expressly means "not religious," and therefore cannot be considered a religion. In their methodologies science and religion are 180 degrees out of phase with each other.

9. Many leading evolutionists are skeptical of the theory and find it problematic. E.g., Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have proven that Darwin was wrong through their theory of punctuated equilibrium. If the world's leading evolutionists cannot agree on the theory, the whole thing must be a wash.

It is particularly ironic that the creationists would quote the leading spokesman against creationism - Gould - in their attempts to marshal the forces of science on their side. Creationists have misunderstood, either naively or intentionally, the healthy scientific debate amongst evolutionists about the causal agents or organic change. They apparently perceive this normal exchange of ideas and self-correcting nature of science as evidence that the field is coming apart at the seams. Of the many things evolutionists argue and debate about within the field, one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that evolution has occurred. Exactly how it happened, and what the relative strengths of the various causal mechanisms are, continues to be discussed. Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of and improvement upon Darwin's larger theory of evolution. It no more proves Darwin wrong than Einsteinian relativity proves Newton wrong.

10. The whole history of evolutionary theory in particular, and science in general, is the history of mistaken theories and overthrown ideas. Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Calaveras Man and Hesperopithecus are just a few of the blunders scientists have made. Clearly science cannot be trusted and modern theories are no better than past ones.

Again, this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which is constantly building upon the ideas of the past. Science does not just change, it builds on the past and goes beyond to the future. It does make mistakes aplenty, but the self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most beautiful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man and Calaveras Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man and Hesperopithecus, are, in time, exposed. Science picks itself up, shakes itself off, and moves on. As Einstein said, science may be "primitive and childlike," but "it is the most precious thing we have." (It is especially paradoxical for creation "scientists" to cloak themselves in the rhetoric of science, and simultaneously attack the very virtues it claims to possess.)

|9.9.08 @ 10:05PM|#

No you can't prove creation or evolution, just something for those of you who do not know it all. Just think about it. don't rant curse swear,just think you might not know everything yet. Like Richard Dawkins said in ben steins movie, aliens could have come from another planet and planted or left life on Earth. Who made the aliens where did they come from?