NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading

Join us 2 Convey your thoughts on Palin?

Florida2's picture


Here is an email making its rounds amongst women. Feel free to email to womensaynopalin@gmail.com per the advice below.


 


Subject: Women Against Sarah Palin

Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters, We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce-on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate-that has a real possibility of becoming fact. Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet. We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably benefited from. First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.


 


 Therefore, we invite you to reply here < womensaynopalin=< mailto:womensaynopalin@gmail.com > with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our nation. Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of residence. We will post your responses on a blog called 'Women Against Sarah Palin,' which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your reply at your earliest convenience-the greater the volume of responses we receive, the stronger our message will be. Thank you for your time and action. VIVA! Sincerely, Ellen Rosten womensaynopalin@gmail.com **PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour, you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously. Stranger things have happened.

Isabelle Rapin, M.D.
Professor, Neurology and Pediatrics (Neurology)
K 807, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx NY 10461 USA


Edited 9/11/2008 5:36 pm ET by Florida2

Gary's picture

(post #50848, reply #160 of 161)

Jim, I think you are spot on and I agree with you. There is a great similarity between God was pointing his finger a a single speck of matter, interpreted by the authors of the bible as Adam, the text of Genesis (The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.), the big bang model, and even the Australian Aboriginal view (Dreamtime; http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/syllabus/indigenous_res010_0802.pdf).

"Now how in the world can we prove or disprove it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The big bang model came to be because of actual observations, which then generated hypotheses, experiments, and more observations. Any explanation of the events of creation must take into account real observations.

Never-the-less, even if big bang is correct, how did the "stuff" that caused the big bang get there in the first place? That is probably the place to evoke a supreme being.

The people who gave us golf and called it a game are the same people who gave us bag pipes and called it music and haggis and called it food.

Gary's picture

(post #50848, reply #157 of 161)

Your statement was ""evolution doesn't even pretend to explain how life began". The paper I linked indicated one way in which evolution began occurring even before there were cells. If you are interested in the origins of the cell, I refer you to this succinct overview.
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/falk/OriginOfLife/Origin.htm

To say that scientists have no explanation whatever for how life began has been wrong since Stanley Miller's experiments in the early 1950s.

The people who gave us golf and called it a game are the same people who gave us bag pipes and called it music and haggis and called it food.

AJ12754's picture

(post #50848, reply #161 of 161)

I didn't say that scientists have not attempted to explain how life began...I said the theory of evolution does not attempt such an explanation.  Your first post was about a paper presenting what amounts to a mathematical model...not a scientific theory as it is commonly understood (by which I refer to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific revolutions).


Nonetheless, thank you for the link in this post -- some caveats:


http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html


"These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced."


I would argue -- but reasonable people can disagree...that the Miller experiments were trying to do something that Darwin's theory was not attempting -- an extension of the theory into an explanation of origins.   And that -- as yet -- those experiments have not been incorporated into the theory specifically because there is a lack of scientific consensus on them.


Miller himself in a 1996 interview said in response to the question "What was the original reaction to your work in the science community?"


"Nobody questioned the chemistry of the original experiment, although many have questioned what the conditions were on pre-biotic Earth. The chemistry was very solid."


Anyway evolutionary biology as it is taught at the high school level -- which is where all the political controversy seemed to be centered) doesn't claim toi be an explanation of orgins.


The trouble today is that almost everyone is famous and almost no-one is interesting. (paraphrased Tina Brown)

Cave obdurationem cordis

Gretchen's picture

(post #50848, reply #90 of 161)

Ummm. Hilary and Michelle are not being elected to a high office. Apples and oranges.


Palin is not qualified to be in this office, in my opinion, and her hair style or mothering abilities do not matter.  Her knowledge DOES.


Gretchen
Gretchen
sally ryan's picture

(post #50848, reply #91 of 161)

I was the first one to comment on the hairstyle and it was more a reflection on how hard it is to get past first impressions than anything else.   After looking at Hilary's pantsuits and "power-do" for so long it is kinda different, isn't it?


BTW up here in Canada there's an email picture circulating of Ms. Palin wearing a stars and stripe bikini and carrying a rifle at a pool party.  Just more of the same, I can't take her seriously but then again she's not running for election in Canada anyway.


Lighten up, we're not on Larry King, just here for some fun and diversion from our real problems.

msm-s's picture

(post #50848, reply #92 of 161)

Thank you; yes, it's just conversation.

thecooktoo's picture

(post #50848, reply #99 of 161)

BTW, the picture was photoshopped, the original picture that Palins face was superimposed over appeared on another web site with another conservative womans face on it a year or more ago.  The current one was posted on the Daily Kos...as to be expected.


Jim

Canuck's picture

(post #50848, reply #100 of 161)

Have you seen the Gina Gershon video clip that goes with it on Funny or Die. She's really in the bikini. :)

Risottogirl's picture

(post #50848, reply #64 of 161)

umm, the post...and this thread is in the IPKE folder, which is the correct location for all subjects other than cooking.

Water is a great ingredient to cook with, it has such a neutral flavor - Bobby Flay

Water is a great ingredient to cook with, it has such a neutral flavor - Bobby Flay

MadMom's picture

(post #50848, reply #65 of 161)

Sorry, but you just hit my ignore button.  If you are a regular poster, you should know Ipke is for anything non-cooking, and if you're not, you just jumped in with both feet and made an a$$ out of yourself.  Either way, so long.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Ruebeau's picture

(post #50848, reply #67 of 161)

Oh no PLEASE don't!