“How can I be sure that you won’t take my words and twist them to suit some agenda that you already have?”

"We should be grateful to the Palin family. They are allowing us to ponder and to wonder at everything we all thought we always knew," writes the The Anchoress in a brilliant essay gently calling to task "all of you people howling at the Palins and at those of us in the same tribe, you who only know a caricature, you know a template that is extremely outdated; you cannot believe that a conservative woman can be a true feminist; a woman in full." McCain Blogette photo of the First Dude, Governor Palin and Nana McCain Thursday night during John McCain's acceptance speech. "I felt like my heart was going to explode with pride for her and for him," says McCain daughter Meghan of her father's announcement that Sarah Palin would be his running mate.

"When are the media elites going to read their own polls and discover the American people are antiabortion (with very few exceptions) and pro-creationism (in that they believe in a Creator)," asks Lucianne commenter DocH, responding to Times business columnist David Carr's unsourced reference in his otherwise excellent "Drawing a Bead on the Press" yesterday to Sarah Palin's "antiabortion, pro-creationism politics." Antiabortion she is, but her views regarding the teaching of creationism in schools are another question. If you define pro-creationism as DocH does as belief in a Creator, fine, but that is not what is meant by Carr or others like Charles Johnson and ourselves, who have been following the Intelligent Design movement's insidious campaign to incorporate religious teachings into public school science curricula. As Johnson explained the other day regarding disingenuous leftists' quoting out of context of Palin's statements regarding creationism:

So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.

But this is going to be a point of attack for the left.

We're still waiting for a reputable journalist to delve into original sources and write a definitive piece on where Sarah Palin stands on the issue. How about it, Mr. Carr?  Enquiring minds want to know, and you're off to a flying start in your Times article, a self-acknowledged stranger in a strange land trying to understand the tribal customs of the locals:

Her cultural resonance is familiar to anyone who’s ever read a fashion makeover article or clipped “Lose the Baby Fat in a Month!” But it is fundamentally different from what we’ve come to expect from women running for higher office …

But while Ms. Palin may be unfamiliar to the hosts of Sunday morning political shows and to readers of the letters page of The Washington Post, to readers of a whole other kind of media — particularly women’s magazines — she represents the ideal blend of femininity and toughness, mother and mayor, good girl and governor. As the saying goes, “She’s just like us.” Only better …

Like a lot of delegates at the Xcel — and the woman whom they nominated as John McCain’s running mate — Ms. O’Hara was fired up by all the sudden energy, but a bit suspicious of those who were there to cover it.

“Conservatives have a bad history with The New York Times,” she said, looking at my press ID, still smiling and still very friendly. “How can I be sure that you won’t take my words and twist them to suit some agenda that you already have?”

Her friends from Montana leaned in and enjoyed the spectacle as I stammered my way through a response. I’m working on an answer because I don’t think it is the last time that question is going to come up.

Don't stop now, Mr. Carr. You're on a roll.

Update: Anchoress-lanche!

Comments

[goomp]

David Carr does seem to realize he has met a real American woman, and hopefully he will learn to sing her praises.

[Gayle Miller]

The "elites" in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are all completely "tone deaf" when it comes to such matters. They are so busy building a religion with themselves as deities and abortion as their sacrament that it actually veers into the pathetic!

Judge not lest ye be judged is damned fine advice methinks!

[Roy Lofquist]

Dear Sisu,

A little background so that you don't misinterpret this as a rant. I was an atheist from the age of about nine for about 50 years. As I was becoming aware I avidly read and devoured Gamow's seminal work "One, Two, Three, Infinity" - the first popular explication of the "Big Bang" theory. I read popularizations of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I consumed the works of the Darwinists. As I grew I was immersed in science and technology. I mastered Maxwell's equations. I struggled through Minkowsi's geoometry which was the underlying fundament of The Theory of General Relativity. I finally found my home in information technology - computters (not a typo). Although I concentrated on the here and now - producing practical and workable systems - I had an abiding interest in information theory. I read every work of Dawkins and Gould.

As I approached retirement (and, frankly, adulthood) I paused to reflect on what I thought I knew. I began to notice the cracks in the conventional wisdom. The "Big Bang" theory has become a Rube Goldberg web of self contradiction - google Rube Goldberg for enlightenment.

I observed that the neo-Darwinists never had any numbers in their books except the page number at the bottom of the page. I talked to my son, who has a degree in microbiology, about the time involved in biological and chemical reactions. I got out my calculator to run some numbers. No good - couldn't handle the problems. So I went to the web and found some more capable tools. The Darwinists are full of ---. They talk a good game but their musings are beyond incredible.

What we are seeing now is a repeat of the supposed persecution of Galileo Galilei. In fact, the Catholic Church agreed with him but sought a solution to popular unrest that he was a heretic. His "house arrest" was actually a quite comfortable existence. He didn't have to wear an ankle bracelet.

Incidentally, the Church is renowned for producing scholars. Fr. Jaques LeMaitre is a giant in modern cosmology. The Church embraces the Theory of Evolution with the caveat that it does not adequately address the origin of life or the question of speciation. This is precisely the position of the proponents of Intelligent Design.

The Church reached this position by theology informed by science. The ID folks reached this position by a rigorous application of one of the commandments of science - test the theory.

The tables are turned. We now see a battle between orthodoxy and inquiry. The Darwinists are using the oldest trick in the book - demonize your opponents by equating their position with the always present nutcases. Their useful idiots are the young earth creationists. The YEC numbers are few, but a perfect bogeyman. This is illuminated by the arguments that they have used in adjudicated cases - link ID with the separation of church and state.

This is not a new phenomenon. The history of science, and indeed all of history, is replete with examples of those those who fear challenges to their exalted positions - not because they truth on their side but because they seek to preserve their positions of top dog with first smelling rights.

I am not a Christian, at least not yet. I guess it's a race between me figuring it out or meeting my maker and actually finding out. Both are equally appealing.

Regards,
Roy

[Gayle Miller]

Roy - you display uncommon intellectual curiosity, wisdom and a sense of adventure!

As to the various "feminist" critics of Mrs. Palin - truly nothing is ever new in this world. The brilliant Phyllis Schlafly endured much the same treatment years ago. I admire, respect and agree with her and decry her treatment as unjust and just plain moronic!

I cannot field dress a moose - but I am a more than respectable shot with both shotgun and handgun! I respect and admire Gov. Palin and, as I recall, the "women's movement" was about choice. How is it their right to criticize Sarah Palin's choices?

[Laura Lee Donoho]

Sissy, it's interesting the effect that Sarah Palin has had on our family. My daughter-in-law was really angry at President Bush for depriving her of her husband, my son when he was gone to Iraq for a year. (he was actually gone for over eighteen months all told)

But Joni held her own, and finished her education just after Drew returned home from Iraq and is now a first grade teacher and also expecting their second child. Drew and Joni watched Sarah Palin give her speech at the Republican National Convention and afterwards Joni asked Drew to take her to register to vote.

They don't know the sex of their child yet and are thinking about names. They like the name Palin for a boy. My youngest daughter, Charlotte who is in her last semester of law school is disgusted with the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and plans to vote for the McCain ticket.

My oldest daughter, the true liberal is also disgusted with the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and John McCain. She has always had a special love for people with disabilities and taught children with disabilities and/or challenging illnesses at a camp in Martinsburg, IN when she was in college.

When she heard that Joe Biden had stated that Sarah Palin could not be for disabled people or Down Syndrome children because she doesn't support using fetal stem cells for research that was it for Kate. She and my daughter, Charlotte have always been strongly pro-life. Kate has a seven months old baby boy and is a working mom who has a lot of help from her husband but she has a lot of admiration for Sarah Palin for being a working mom.

The only reservation she has against Palin is that she wishes that she would wear stockings with those incredible shoes. My kids and their spouses are young and of the age Obama would have hoped would be supporting him but he is, in the words of John McCain, "bilging out." It will not happen.

[Jerry Codner]

To Roy Lofquist,

I commend you for your candor.

Certainly, as Einstein said (roughly), science isn't perfect, but it's all we've got.

By, "all we've got" he did not mean to exclude religion. He meant that we need to deal with the world in as rational a manner as possible. The truly unknown is left to religion, e.g. what happens after death. The fact that science does not provide all the answers does not condemn it, nor are religious people condemned who do not claim to know all the answers.

Those who claim to know with utter certainty are fairly criticized.

Fortunately, science has mechanisms for weeding out the people whose ideas are wrong, since wrong ideas can be proven so. Philosophically and practically, ideas that are right can be supported by repeated experiment, but can never be proven.

Many of us would like our leaders to be educated enough to understand history, including science, and intelligent enough to absorb and analyze new information as it arises. New information may cause a change of mind with regard to policy.

A leader such as G.W. Bush who claims to be led by God, is frightening. I think even his God expects us to use our brains, not just our instincts.

Sarah Palin, though apparently above average in intelligence, seems not to have applied herself to the acquisition of knowledge. Like G.W. Bush, she seems to use gut feelings to make decisions, mostly in order to ascend in power. If she is a feminist, then she believes that women are equal to men in all rights.

Let us hope that all of our leaders, scientists, politicians, teachers, etc., strive to serve everyone by seeking knowledge instead of power.