Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, September 21, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document When Atheists Attack

by Sam Harris | NEWSWEEK

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1

When Atheists Attack
A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security ... the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." His Web site is samharris.org.

Comments 1 - 50 of 1477 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #250971 by huzonfurst on September 21, 2008 at 12:27 am

Sam Harris for President!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

2. Comment #250972 by gcdavis on September 21, 2008 at 12:29 am

 avatar
Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events.


Reminds me of another illiterate who could repeat the words dictated to him without understanding them, he remembered every one of them and repeated them later to those who were able to write then down, his name was Mohamed. There's a wonderful absurdity imagining that Sarah Palin is receiving the words of god through her autocue.

Brilliant article by the way.

Other Comments by gcdavis

3. Comment #250976 by Verylee on September 21, 2008 at 12:43 am

 avatar
an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy


It has crossed my mind more than once, that now these extremist fundies may possibly have one of their own in the White House one day. What would it take for a lone nutter or a group deciding that McCain is too much of a soft touch and take him out, paving the way for their gal?

Other Comments by Verylee

4. Comment #250983 by Wosret on September 21, 2008 at 1:04 am

 avatarI absolutely love to read Sam's writing. I wish he would write another book already, so I could read it.

I share his fears, though I'm Canadian, and have my own election to worry a-boot. I fear we're both screwed. "The end of days", a self fulfilling prophecy...I hope not.

Other Comments by Wosret

5. Comment #250984 by jaytee_555 on September 21, 2008 at 1:04 am

This is a superb article.

What a tragedy that such clear thinking and incisive writing is beyond the capacity of the religious right to appreciate.

You can hardly expect someone of Sarah Palin's poverty of grasp to realise she is utterly out of her depth - but the choice of VP was not hers; the blame rests squarely upon McCaine's shoulders for this iresponsible, selfish and cynical exploitation of the cream of American stupidity.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

6. Comment #250988 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:29 am

 avatarWell...shit, I was going to do a whole thing on my blog about "eletism", and "a president I could have a beer with".

Then Sam comes along, and blows me to bits.

Thanks a lot! B-(

Lol, nah, more people will read this than my shit, and they need to.
:P

Still...*sighs*.

Other Comments by Diacanu

7. Comment #250989 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 1:31 am

 avatarI hope that Sam keeps speaking out against her. I'm sure the "conservative" atheists are giving him shit. Hitchens didn't bother with a criticim of her fanaticism in his article.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

8. Comment #250991 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 1:37 am

 avatarI hope I'm not speaking out of turn by urging posters to read Anna Banana's superb blog entry:

http://annaelizabeth82.blogspot.com/2008/09/please-consider-following.html

A real insight into the Palin phenomenon.

P.S. PM for you, Diacanu

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #250992 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:38 am

 avatarLaurie-

Answered, but you won't like it. :P

Other Comments by Diacanu

10. Comment #250993 by Steve Zara on September 21, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #250988 by Diacanu

This issued was covered well in the West Wing, with Jed Bartlett urged to stop acting like "Uncle Fluffy".

Matt Damon (not just a pretty face, but politically active) has attacked Palin very effectively as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

Other Comments by Steve Zara

11. Comment #250994 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 1:40 am

 avatarOh well, back to the drawing board!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

12. Comment #250997 by atp on September 21, 2008 at 1:44 am

I hate coming to richarddawkins.net and reading political propraganda crap like this.

This is not about religion, it is not about politicas, it is not about facts, it is only about attacking a person and using rhetorics and twisting and bending every fact, half fact and lie to make a person look as bad as possible.

And it's speaking to the masses, who goes "amen" at every negative word and every strike.

Yes, she's religious, and yes that sucks. But for me that doesn't warrant every kind of political propaganda. And I think it has nothing to do on a site like this.

Other Comments by atp

13. Comment #250998 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 1:45 am

 avatarWow, Steve - I now know why I like Matt Damon.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

14. Comment #250999 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:45 am

 avataratp-

Kiss my ass.

Other Comments by Diacanu

15. Comment #251000 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 1:47 am

 avataratp - this is a "clear-thinking oasis". If rational people can't discuss the abysmal state of U.S. politics here, and discuss, moreover, the connection between reactionary politics and fundamentalist christianity, then ....?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

16. Comment #251001 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:48 am

 avatarSteve-

Saw that clip.
I dig it.
:)

Other Comments by Diacanu

17. Comment #251002 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:50 am

 avatarLaurie, 'nother PM for you.

Other Comments by Diacanu

18. Comment #251003 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 1:51 am

 avataratp, I thought it was atheists who were seen as the most unelectable group of people in the USA? One of America's most prominent atheists speaks out against a fundamentalist rapture-ready nutter having access to our nuclear weapons and you have a problem with that? Damned if you do, Damned it you don't.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

19. Comment #251004 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:54 am

 avataratp-

*Mulls it over some more*

Y'know, when I hear you whining and mewling about "political attacks", when the topic is religion infesting the politics of Europe, or Turkey, or wherever, then you won't be a little hypocritical bitch.

But, you are, so again, kiss my ass.

Kiss my ass under Filene's bay window.

Other Comments by Diacanu

20. Comment #251005 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 1:54 am

 avatarThanks, Diacanu - I'm on it.

I'm amazed that most Americans didn't just have a look at Palin, discover what a fucktard she is, realise that the Republicans only picked her because she's female and stereotypically attractive, and just say to McCain "Fuck off."

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

21. Comment #251006 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 1:58 am

 avatarLaurie-


I'm amazed that most Americans didn't just have a look at Palin, discover what a fucktard she is, realise that the Republicans only picked her because she's female and stereotypically attractive, and just say to McCain "Fuck off."


(As conservative douche)
Well, golly gee willikers, I can't reject a purty little MILF, the bigger boys on the playground will call me queer!

Other Comments by Diacanu

22. Comment #251007 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 1:59 am

 avatarMy favourite part of Sam's article is how he points out that the conservative crowd would have a problem with a black pregnant teenager and a black boyfriend who might marry her.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

23. Comment #251008 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 2:00 am

 avatarHaha - BTW, I know I'm probably being ridiculously out of touch here, but I've seen that acronym (MILF) several times on this site. What does it stand for?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

24. Comment #251009 by Diacanu on September 21, 2008 at 2:01 am

 avatarMom I'd Like to Fuck

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #251010 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 2:03 am

 avatarEeeeeyuuuch! Sorry, mate, but as we say over here - I wouldn't fuck her with YOUR dick!



*exit, stage left*

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

26. Comment #251011 by Tumara Baap on September 21, 2008 at 2:04 am

Sarah Palin is a Philip Cooney, Monica Goodling, George Deutsch, Julie MacDonald, and David Hager rolled into one.

Most Americans may not be familiar with all of these names. But ask them whether McCain has chosen yet another Brownie, and they'll know exactly what you're talking about. It's high time the public familiarizes itself with the nation's litany of Brownies, and how much McCain is doing to further this peculiar Bush legacy.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

27. Comment #251012 by Steve Zara on September 21, 2008 at 2:08 am

atp-

Palin supports teaching of creationism. She rejects the views of biologists.

Palin rejects anthropogenic global warming. She rejects the views of virtually all experts in climate science.

Someone with such contempt for any expert views that conflict with her warm fuzzy hockey-mom view of the world should not be allowed anywhere near the nuclear button.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #251013 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 2:10 am

 avatarTumara, your so right. Brownie did a "heckuva job" (bushism) with dead bodies tied to stops signs so they wouldn't float away.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

29. Comment #251015 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 2:13 am

 avatarComment #251012 by Steve Zara

You forgot to mention culling those pesky, population-exploding, polar bears, Steve.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

30. Comment #251016 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 2:15 am

 avataratp, When Sarah Palin was campaigning for the Governor of Alaska, she said "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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Other Comments by BrandySpears

31. Comment #251017 by atp on September 21, 2008 at 2:17 am

Laurie Fraser:
"this is a "clear-thinking oasis""

I don't think the article shows much clear thinking. That is one of the problems. It's an article trying to make a person look bad. It hardly touches on anything that has to do with actual politics at all.

This is just about sympathies and antipathies. People cheering because the attack is directed towards the one they dislike.

And since this is a "clear-thinking oasis", I'm free to critize articles and their place here. Like you of course are free to critize me for critizing the article and so forth...

BrandySpears:
>One of America's most prominent atheists speaks out against a fundamentalist rapture-ready nutter having access to our nuclear weapons and you have a problem with that?

It's not speaking out I dislike, it is:
- Political propaganda on THIS site
- It's twisting facts around
- It is making politics to be only about persons, and sympathies/antipathies, and not about politics

And when did "most prominent atheists" start being relevant? It's not like he's a priest of the church og atheism or something. It is what Sam Harris writes that is of importance, not that Sam Harris wrote it.

To me it's just worse when someone I respect and like write something I think is crap, that when someone I don't respect do the same. That's why I dislike reading things like that on this website.

Diacanu:
"Y'know, when I hear you whining and mewling..."

:)

Other Comments by atp

32. Comment #251018 by Corylus on September 21, 2008 at 2:17 am

 avatarLaurie
I know I'm probably being ridiculously out of touch here...
I know the feeling. You need the Urban Dictionary on your favourites list. It has saved me from confusion many a time.

Warning: it also causes me frequently to say "You're winding me up, who in their right mind would do that?!

Other Comments by Corylus

33. Comment #251019 by Steve Zara on September 21, 2008 at 2:18 am

Comment #251015 by Laurie Fraser

Well, those bears won't have much ice left to live on anyway...

I recently heard that the melting polar ice is opening up great opportunities - more land to drill for oil on.

I really want to weep.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #251021 by RainDear on September 21, 2008 at 2:22 am

Thus sayeth the Lord about women as presidents:

1 Timothy chapter 2:
"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

And the same Lord sayeth even thus abouth their campaigning in Wasilla before an audience of the righteous:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

So tell me, oh my wise American friends, how is such a blasphemy as the political career of Sarah Palin so widely accepted by your biblical literalists?

Other Comments by RainDear

35. Comment #251022 by Laurie Fraser on September 21, 2008 at 2:22 am

 avatarSo true, Steve - the most alarming effect of the melting polar cap is the accelerative feedback loop it will engender - already, scientists have discovered that the amount of greenhouse gases locked up in the tundra, which is under threat of warming from this feedback, is more than double as was believed formerly. Not just polar bears, but thousands of species are at risk from this one phenomenon.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

36. Comment #251023 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 2:23 am

 avataratp, Prominent is defined as a: readily noticeable : conspicuous b: widely and popularly known : leading. Sam is definitely one of America's most prominent atheists. What exactly were Sam's fact "twistings"? I suppose that Sam should also not speak out against Islamic states, afterall, it's politics.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

37. Comment #251025 by bujin on September 21, 2008 at 2:26 am

Ah, so Sam is still around then? Haven't heard anything from him for a while! :oD

Other Comments by bujin

38. Comment #251027 by rod-the-farmer on September 21, 2008 at 2:31 am

 avatar
she's never met a foreign head of state
.
I bet she has never even seen a foreign head of state. I worked for an organisation who would periodically nominate someone as world-wide project leader, when I truly suspected they had never been outside the county in which they were born. We used to imagine asking them "Do you even know the NAME of another language, let alone speak one ?"

Kellie Pickler for President. She sounds about as knowledgeable as Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI


I had a thought.....suppose she does become President.....while she may have nominal control of the nuclear launch codes, how likely is it that she would have sole access to them ? In other words, would she ever find herself in a position to do the deed, with no one around to advise her that maybe this was not a good idea ? And then the chain of command goes to the actual triad of SSBN's, airborne and ground-based missiles. Would any of them decide "Hey, that fruitcake woman is the one who issued the order. On my own initiative, I am NOT going to push the button, because I don't sense there is anyone in that room but her." Or am I too naive ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

39. Comment #251028 by Steve Zara on September 21, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #251022 by Laurie Fraser

There could be even more feedback. If the warmth encourages release of subterranean and aquatic methane, we are in deep trouble. Suggestions of such as a 20% cutback in CO2 by 2020 are just so missing the depth of the problem.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #251029 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 2:33 am

 avataratp, When Mohmoud Ahmadinejad builds a highway for the arrival of the Twelfth Imam, denies the holocaust, and wants nuclear energy is up to political debate, why isn't Sarah Palin's nuttiness debatable also?

Other Comments by BrandySpears

41. Comment #251030 by Wosret on September 21, 2008 at 2:34 am

 avatarATP is a Palin fan. Looks like Sam is writing his own prophecies "Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride" -Article.

Wow is he good.

Other Comments by Wosret

42. Comment #251031 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 2:38 am

 avatarRod, Yes, you are very naive. The last Assemblies of God appointee we had in the US Government was Attorney General John Ashcroft, the enforcer of the patriot act, also had nude statuary covered with blue curtains so reporters couldn't take pictures of himself close to the statuary for fear they would make fun of his church's position on pornography. He was an embarrassing joke! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loCXE4Cf2Pk

Other Comments by BrandySpears

43. Comment #251034 by Wosret on September 21, 2008 at 2:44 am

 avatar38. Comment #251027 by rod-the-farmer

I didn't know that Budapest was the capitol of Hungary either. I'm really bad at remembering names and places. When I started learning the names of the countries in Japanese, it was especially hard, because they show you the flag, and you are suppose to say their names in Japanese, but I didn't know what countries half of the flags belonged to.

On your question, I don't know if you are naive or not, but I'd rather not take the risk.

Other Comments by Wosret

44. Comment #251036 by RainDear on September 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Atp -

Sarah Palin's religion is a death cult. Attacking the religious beliefs of a person who might soon be holding the keys to the largest nuclear arsenal this planet has ever seen is relevant.

It is extremely clear thinking.

No other civilized country on this planet has prominent and respectable right wing politicians as far to the right as an average American Republican seems to be. It's because in all other civilized countries we have seen how such right wing anarchy doesn't work. Sure, we pretty much all believe in an efficient market economy, but that's another story.

So, only in the US. And why? American religiosity. Of course, there are many Republican secularists too. But the Republican party would be reduced to a minor club of the wealthiest 1%, if it wasn't for religion.

Just as in Italy in the 70's, where the pope condemned anyone voting for the left destined to hell, religion is distorting American society today. In the delusional fear of hell, millions of Americans are voting against their better judgement, against the interests of their families and their grandchildren.

So, Sam's article is not about politics. It's not about your political views, or your probably interesting, perhaps even well-founded views on how to construct an efficient economic system.

It's about saving my daughter's future from crazy, delusional, Armageddon-yearning right-wing American wackos.

Other Comments by RainDear

45. Comment #251037 by dochmbi on September 21, 2008 at 2:50 am

 avatarI've often wondered, how come you need an education for every other job in the world except for politician.

Other Comments by dochmbi

46. Comment #251039 by Wosret on September 21, 2008 at 2:55 am

 avatar45. Comment #251037 by dochmbi

Hey, there is a requirement. You have to be super-rich.

Other Comments by Wosret

47. Comment #251042 by steve8282 on September 21, 2008 at 2:57 am

Yeah it's a good thing the army isn't full of religious fucktards, cause ifin' it were we could see the end times.

I'm from Canada and I wonder how long it would be before we would face invasion, not for our oil reserves of course but to save all those unborn babies from their educated mothers godlessness.

Other Comments by steve8282

48. Comment #251044 by dochmbi on September 21, 2008 at 2:58 am

 avatarAh now I see why it's good to have stupid gullible people elected to important political positions: So they can be controlled like puppets.
That way the people never get to choose who has power, because they can't even see the puppet masters.

Other Comments by dochmbi

49. Comment #251047 by Donald on September 21, 2008 at 3:01 am

Great article by Sam. Laser focus and right on target. As usual.

Palin's speech to the Republican convention was of course not written by her, but by a speech writer, Matthew Scully. Perhaps Sam missed a trick by not pointing that out.

But if we widen the focus a little, I think the problem is our western political system itself.

We elect an INDIVIDUAL to be in ultimate charge. This is totally unsuitable for modern society. Our modern democracy requires this individual to be well known (otherwise they won't get votes) and this requires a career of speech-making, appearing in news media, interviews, etc. This guarantees that we get attractive people skilled at presenting (and acting, and perhaps people management), but does nothing to ensure we get people who understand science, economics, and other vital areas of knowledge and experience for anyone to be placed in ultimate charge.

There is nothing to guarantee that the team behind an elected individual has the interests of society as a whole as their primary mission, rather than being a loose coalition of minority interests with money available from furthering their own financial interests.

Political systems have always been unsatisfactory to varying degrees - when they get too unsatisfactory there is a revolution, or collapse of that society. Can we reform western democracy before we get to that point?

Other Comments by Donald

50. Comment #251048 by BrandySpears on September 21, 2008 at 3:01 am

 avatarSteve, the US military is full of religious fucktards, big time! http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/

Other Comments by BrandySpears
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: