False WitnessParableman: "Palin Derangement Syndrome"

From Jeremy Pierce:

I think the only way to describe what's going on with Sarah Palin is that Bush Derangement Syndrome has now been transferred to Palin. There's no other way to explain how such blatant misrepresentation and distortion could so consistently and comprehensively turn so many of her views and actions into something completely different (even leaving aside the deeply insulting personal remarks, rumor mongering, and sexist double-standards).

I do not think this has quite reached the soul-twisting hatred directed at the Bush Administration -- only Nixon Derangement Syndrome came close to that; but the shotgun attack from her political opponents (trying to find something that sticks) is about as bad as I have ever seen -- ever.

Now, it may be that the plethora of lies, half-truths, and distortions will actually help the Democratic ticket win in November. Or, it may be that some of the largely transparent nonsense will actually backfire -- especially (PC Alert) since folks are "picking on a girl". Certainly, it is working that way with me. As I hear "stuff" that I know sounds "too bad to be true" -- and research it for myself -- I am finding out that I like Sarah Palin more and more. This is most true when I here about her religious beliefs - and I know they do not match the churches she attends.

Jeremy is happy though:

I'm glad someone has put together a numbered list of these myths, because so many of them have been perpetuated by major news organizations that I find myself repeating myself over and over. Directing someone to this site and a number in the list will be much easier.

I agree, that will be useful. Jeremy picked a few highlights (1,23,37,38,50,66) but he is right:

you've got to read it yourself to see some of the crazy rumors, especially 8 and 10. I'm not sure what 22 is doing on the list, but I had a similar response to 21.

Jeremy has also done the work every Christian voter should do when faced by something that seems extreme. Remember, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have been "vetted" by voters in a number of elections prior to this one - they are probably not loony "snake handlers". If something makes you go "Why would anyone vote for someone who [believed, did, voted for] something like that?", then most likely you need to check out both sides of the story -- they probably didn't [believe, do, vote for] something like that. You are most likely being fed a hbe the best bridesmaid you can bealf-truth or outright lie.

So, what did Jeremy do when he read a story on the AP --"Palin church promotes converting gays" -- that started with this paragraph:

Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

He did what any self-respecting informed voter does -- he went to the website of the conference organizer, Focus on the Family, and looked up the conference. This is what the website says about Love Won Out:

Are you here to "cure" gays? Absolutely not. The only time you'll ever hear the word "cure" used in relation to our event is by those who oppose Love Won Out. They also like to claim we want to "fix" or "convert" gays and lesbians and that we believe people can "pray away the gay." Such glib characterizations ignore the complex series of factors that can lead to same-sex attractions; they also mischaracterize our mission. We exist to help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome. It is not easy, but it is possible, as evidenced by the thousands of men and women who have walked this difficult road successfully.

But your goal is still to make gays straight, right? That is a gross and narrow oversimplification. We aren't here to "make" anybody do or become anything; we are here to offer a biblical and experiential perspective on the issue of homosexuality that is, sadly, underreported in the mainstream media. Our goals include aiding parents who want to learn how to better love their sons or daughters without compromising their faith; helping people who want to better understand the many factors that can lead to someone adopting a homosexual identity; and assisting those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions and want to discover how they might also start upon the path ― a difficult path, as noted above ― to overcoming those desires.

to find an affordable bridesmaid dressDo you believe homosexuality is a choice? We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions. We concur with the American Psychological Association's position that homosexuality is likely developmental in nature and caused by a "complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors" (www.apa.org). We would also agree with the American Psychiatric Association when it states "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops ahow to find the proper bridesmaid dresses for your weddingcross a person's lifetime." If you ever hear us use the word "choice," it is in relation to men and women who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions choosing to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions.

As Jeremy points out (but not about me), that is exactly what I sought when I was confronted with a scriptural, and spiritual, direction to be celibate. He is also right that Rachel D'Oro's failure to even do a little bit of research on her story makes it largely a partisan hit-piece - and not journalism on any level.

Now, many (if not most) gays will find plenty to argue with in the quote above - and at least then they will be arguing against a real, and not a straw, man. If someone really wanted to argue against the real Palin, instead of a straw woman, they would factor into their concepts of how she views the separation of church and state (and it's relation to gay rights) the following largely ignored fact:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

In the first veto of her new administration, Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a written statement Thursday night. -- Gay.com

This is not to say that she supports same-sex benefits -- she says she doesn't. What it says is that on a volatile issue she followed the dictates of the Alaska constitution and rejected a bill passed by her own party in the Alaska legislature; and

While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28]

That is a very positive statement about her views of executive branch responsibilities in it's relationship with both the legislative and judicial branches.

Jeremy has also confronted the "Palin is a creationist" lie as well in his "Palin and Evolution" post . It is well-researched and presented.

EPA2010 - Myths and Realities: Part 1

As January 2010 draws near, fleet managers and owner/operators will have to decide between two competing technologies to meet EPA2010 emissions standards. By now, most will know that Navistar is going to ramp up exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) levels in order to become EPA2010-compliant, while all other manufacturers are employing the exhaust aftertreatment system known as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR).

Each solution has its advantages and each also presents some concerns. Both camps are ramping up their PR campaigns and will undoubtedly be disseminating some information in the coming months that will be challenged and debated. The PR war is already underway, and will only intensify in the weeks and months ahead. There’s a lot at stake here for all truck and enginedressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dresses manufacturers.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll post a seriedifferent dress patterns different personalitiess of blogs that will address some concerns and/or myths about EPA2010 emissions standards and both of the solutions that will be presented to the market. These blogs will be comprised of information obtained through many interviews I’ve conducted on the subject and plenty of additional research.

If you’re a stakeholder in this debate, and wish to comment on any of the points below, feel free to post a comment.

Today, I’ll start by addressing the concern that with only 344 days to go, there’s still no urea (DEF) infrastructure network in place.

EPA2010 MYTH: There’s not enough time to develop the urea distribution network required for SCR

Ever since SCR was first discussed as a potential solution for EPA2010 emissions standards, concerns were expressed about the ability to develop a comprehensive North America-wide distribution network for urea. Urea (now referred to as Diesel Exhaust Fluid – DEF) is the required additive for SCR systems. Housed in a separate tank, the fluid is injected in small doses into the exhaust stream. It then causes a chemical reaction in the SCR catalyst where NOx is broken down into harmless water and nitrogen.

SCR’s detractors initially voiced doubts that DEF would be widely available by 2010, citing the need for massive infrastructure investments. Those concerns may have been valid, if you were envisioning the need for a DEF pump at every truck stop and cardlock across North America. That’s not going to be the case by January 2010, but fortunately for SCR backers, that level of availability will not be required.

DEF will be consumed at the relatively slow rate of 2-3% compared to diesel, engine manufacturers claim. DEF tank sizes will range from about 13-20 gallons, so a truck will likely only require a DEF top-up every 4,000-6,000 miles.

To put it in perspective, a highway truck with a 13-gallon DEF tank averaging 6.5 mpg will be able to travel from New York to Los Angeles and then back to Denver before requiring a DEF top-up, according to Mack Trucks’ David McKenna.

So while you may not find a DEF pump at every filling station by January 2010, it’s hardly a cause for concern. There will be plenty of places along a 4,000-6,000 mile run to find DEF, including all truck and engine dealers that offer SCR engines, many truck stops and other DEF distributors.

The DEF distribution network has begun to take form, and most notably Pilot Travel Centers has committed to offering the fluid ‘at-the-pump’ and in a variety of other sizes. Undoubtedly, as the opportunity to profit from the sale of DEF draws closer, more truck stops will announce their intentions to carry the fluid. Many suppliers have already announced their intention to produce and disave money policy for the bridesmaid dressstribute DEF. Drivers will be able to carry a spare tote jug of DEF along with them, to ensure they don’t run out of the fluid en-route.

As Michael Delaney, senior vice-president of marketing with Daimler Trucks North America points out, “One would have to work pretty hard to run out of DEF.”

Even the harshest critics of SCR seem to have backed off claims that DEF won’t be widely available by 2010 and have turned their attention to other factors, such as its price. But that’s the subject for another blog entry in this series.

The Problem of Evil: III. Why Can't Evil be Stopped?

Part II looked at Where Evil Came From - with the conclusion that we, as moral creatures, are the cause of evil through the actions taken by our free will. We are therefore responsible - as moral creatures - for our actions and thedressing your bridesmaids in perfect dress 2 good, and bad, results of those actions.

The next question Geisler and Brooks approach in Chapter 4 of When Skeptics Ask is


Why Can't Evil be Stopped?

I conclude that the existence of evil was the byproduct of some other condition that God desired to bring about in creation. The work of theology then would be to attempt to develop an understanding of what that desired condition was, and how it was that the existence of evil was a necessary byproduct thereof. -- Starwoman

I quoted that in Part I - and Geisler now presents his idea of what that greater good is:

The classic form of the question has been rattling around the halls of college campuses for hundreds of years

1. If God is all-good, he wdressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dress 3ould destroy evil
2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil
3. But evil is not destroyed
4. Hence, there is no such God

Why hasn't God done something about evil? If he could and would do something, why do we still have evil? Why is it so persistent? And it doesn't even seem to be slowing down!

There are two answers for this question. First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As we said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures [Matt. 22:36], but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself --because it would deprive free creatures of their greatest good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. If evil is to be overcome, we need to talk about it being defeated, not destroyed.

I think that is absolutely right - our ability to love is the greatest good and offsets our use of our freedom to do evil. However, is God done?

The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn't done anything as of today, then it won't ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God.

1. If God is all-good, then he will defeat evil
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil
3. Evil is not yet defeated
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil

Now, for the vast majority of Christians the major battle in God's struggle to defeat evil was the Cross. Geisler continues:

. . . There is no question here dressing your bridesmaids in perfect bridesmaid dressesthat if it has not yet happened and God is as we suppose Him to be, that we simply haven't waited long enough. God isn't finished yet . . . Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills than to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait.

What are the social/political implications here? We too, as imago dei are just as incapable of destroying evil without destroying freedom - we too have to work to defeat it. We also have to struggle with rebellious wills (our own and other's); and will have to wait for a resolution that may be a long time coming.

However, it is pretty clear from scripture that all things (even evil) work together for the good under God's direction. So, . . .

Next Question: What is the purpose of Evil?
Series Link