IMHO, the choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate is just plain absurd. The fact that her primary PR weapon is her "Supermom" status shows it. It's quite some feat for her to be able to maintain a power career while raising 5 kids, but what does that have to do with her ability to be, potentially, the president of the United States, if the real one kicks the bucket?

I also think it's a really cheap shot for her to use her children as PR fodder... not just the pregnant eldest daughter, but the rest of them too. McCain has a son who's a US Marine who's been in Iraq, and you don't see McCain using him in pro-Iraqi-war arguments.

Jon Stewart said it best:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q2l45yu9vMA

+1

This is the best website I have seen for ages. The best story is 'Dog does a shit'. Fantastic!

nothing really it just looks like a ridiculosely desperate act to compete with the democrats "minority" candidate. I think it's the first time there's been such a sandstorm for a friggin candidate vice president, or even a vice president at all as far as i can remember, now even elections are part of showbusiness.
The frustrating thing is that, the result of this election will very likelyy have an impact on the rest of the world especially the uk, and having no say at all in it makes me feel uneasy.
I sincerely hope Obama will win these elections or else migrating to another planet or disappearing from it would seem like the best idea.

i don't think Obama will win, and here is my reasoning:

My grandparents on my dads side represent the largest voting group in the USA (retired seniors, with collage educated children), they are also registered as independents (though they lean to the Democrats). I was visiting them before heading out here, and we talked about polotics a bit. they gave me 4 reasons they will not be voting for obama, 2 are policy based, and 2 personal. Lets start with policy: he is seen as some one who will raise taxes (low taxes make americans happy), and he will not give as much support to troops in Iraq. The seccond is debateable, but we all know preceptions and not facts win elections. The personal reasons where they did not like his minester, who they saw as a black radical, along the lines of Malcom X, and the did not like his wife.

"Although this in itself doesn't sound particularly interesting, it does mean that in the (not unlikely) event of McCain's death - a right wing inexperienced fundamentalist Christian mother - who considers the war in Iraq to be a holy war, believes in creationism and that on death she is amongst those chosen by god and will ascend to heaven - would have her hand on the Nuclear button."



No, not at all, I think Gordon Brown is a fairly moderate Christian - he (unlike Palin) does not believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, nor does he reject evolutionary theory on the basis of a fundamentalist reading of the bible, nor does he believe woman should have no right to chose an abortion (even in the case of rape induced pregnancy or life threatening complications) - nor does he subscribe to numerous other right wing Christian fundamentalist ideas.

+1

Same here, I am not pro-life (anti-choice) but people take such extreme absolutes on this subject, it rapidly becomes a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, where the real debate is much more nuanced.

Picking selectively from your post:

Yes, the future of the planet is threatened by man's increasing willingness to descend into fantasy to deal with reality, religion to me is a greater and more imminent threat to our long term than even global warming.

"Figures state (and take these with a pinch of salt as I have heard figures from 4% to 11% so am averaging) that - simply due to his age (72) - John McCain has around a 7% chance of dying during his first term and a 26% of dying in his second term (he would be 80 as his 2nd term closes).

Although this in itself doesn't sound particularly interesting, it does mean that in the (not unlikely) event of McCain's death - a right wing inexperienced fundamentalist Christian mother - who considers the war in Iraq to be a holy war, believes in creationism and that on death she is amongst those chosen by god and will ascend to heaven - would have her hand on the Nuclear button."

Darwinism ? This is generally considered a pejorative, used almost exclusively by creationists in the US to attempt an attack on 'speculation through natural section' by giving it connotations of religion, similar to their use of 'Scientism'.

Anyhow nomenclature aside . .

What the problem is not is that creationists want to have creationism (sold under the guise of 'Intelligent Design') taught exclusively in schools (although I don't doubt some fringes may want this) - the problem is that they want to have creationism taught alongside evolutionary theory.

What I mean to say is that your response (if I have read it right) seems to say "Actually she is not that bad, she is in fact quite fair about all this as she wants evolution and creationism taught on a fair and level playing field." (rather than some full on fundementalist who wants only creationism to be taught).

This is problematic because creationism is religious mythology and should have no place being taught as fact in a science class.

We may as well have the dual teaching of Astrology and Astronomy or Alchemy and Chemistry - creation myths like the Chinese Cosmic Egg theory of the origin of the universe.

yay! let's ride bikes!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...008.sarahpalin
this was interesting...

Dude, I meant GW Bush. Yes, "we" was a bit unclear but he still has a lot of influence over my life even though he is not "my" president.

The press have now been banned from any contact with Ms Palin for two weeks.

so what exactly is a "Hockey Mom" ?

and why does it seem to have become the soundbyte of the last week in British news?

It's like a soccer mom. Just in Alaska or Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_mom

Why's it become a soundbite? Because journalists have to write too quickly to think too deeply about the words we're using, generally. If she says the words enough times, it sticks in our heads and we regurgitate it. Plus you can use it as a compound adjectival noun to eat up your word count. "Vice-presidential candidate and self-described hockey mom Sarah Palin" may not be concise but it's ten words closer to hitting 'send' and going down the pub.

so, a pointless, useless, incredibly selfish cunt then?

A very shrewd, manipulative and successful, if not entirely ethical, local politician who's completely unsuited to presidential office, I'd say. Christ, her pastor thinks that Alaska is a 'Refuge State' for the 'End Times' and that they need a big old oil pipeline out there in the wilderness so that can be strong enough for the Rapture. I mean, her worldview seems to be like Rush Limbaugh meets Vladimir Putin.

soon mogadon brown will be telling us to HTFU and eat our 'grits' and the socialist may day bank holiday will be replaced with 'thanksgiving'.

i have had enough of being bombarded with all this yank crap in the media, they can fuck right off.
(and take halloween back while you are at it, we have guy fawkes night instead thanks)

:)

Whoops ! Sorry my mistake I misread you !!!!

:)

One thing that stuck me when I saw the 'Refuge State' speech was less that this is a very dangerous divorce from reality and a descent into end times fantasy (the ultimate Christian turn on) - but that it washed over me as easily as a London mayoral candidate saying he or she was going to extend or curtail the congestion charge zone.

These kinds of fantastic claims to knowledge are becoming increasingly commonplace, to claim that the creator of the universe talked directly to your brain the night before and told you that you and your kind are the chosen ones (or some other fantastic claim) should, quite rightly, mean you are carted off to be assessed by someone whose profession is to help those who find it hard to separate fantasy from reality.

But instead we stand and applaud these mammals (© C.H), to even challenge what it is they have said with regard to their outrageous religious claims is seen as beyond the pale (this is all pervasive, I have even witnessed it here on this very forum, the idea that to question a supernatural world view is somehow inappropriate and challenging someone's unevidenced claims about reality should be silenced).

Oddly, even with my barely disguised hostility towards these kinds of people - I would still prefer a Republican victory rather than a Democratic one :(

Sad but true, I feel a little bit like a radical left wing student voting for Maggie in the early nineties :( :(

To be fair to him, Brown distanced himself from the Bush Admin pretty promptly after entering No. 10.

And the yanks will continue to matter so long as they continue to be the world's largest economic and military power. Even more so now that there are credible challenges to the former, and clear limits to the latter.

As of 2006/7 the European Union is the world's largest economy (just), not the US.

The EU's GDP hit $14.5 trillion and the U.S's production came in at $13.9 trillion. Most analysts agree that China will be the world's largest economy within 10-15 years, putting the U.S third (or possibly 2nd depending on the EU's performance).

Hmmm. I'm a pretty committed atheist myself, but the fact that some of my family are pastors (who believe in the Rapture, though what they understand by it is more metaphysical than what Palin's pastor appears to think) means I find it very hard to agree with knee-jerk anti-religiosity. But then, what my relatives do in their community is more like social work, and in a part of the US that has very little other social support mechanisms and a very major drugs problem. So I respect them for the work they do, and I respect that their faith gives them the strength to perform it. But if I didn't agree with the work they did, I'd probably feel different.

So for me, the problem is not so much that Palin is religious - it's that she's a wingnut. To understand why she's dangerous, you have to realise how the neocons have changed the American political landscape - the combination of a post-Trotskyist vanguardism with a borderline fascistic militarism and a well-honed cultural war machine have created a political culture in which it is seen as right and proper for the president to impose cultural norms from the top down, and to conduct the country's policy in line with their personal religious beliefs. Which is fundamentally antithetical to what the Founding Fathers intended. Christ, Palin thinks that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, when in fact it was written in the late 19thC and only became official in the 1940s. As I recall, the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to force anyone to say it was it was tantamount to brainwashing, though the actual words they used were more carefully measured than mine.

The EU isn't a country, but yes, the EU now has a slightly larger economy, primarily because it keeps absorbing bits of Eastern Europe. I daresay that if you compare NAFTA and the EU, NAFTA will be bigger (though I don't have numbers to hand).

As for China - well, I said there were credible challengers now. But Chinese growth has been so dependent on US and EU consumption that I think it will be significantly longer than 10-15 years before the Chinese can actually mount a meaningful challenge to US economic hegemony - they have a lot of work to do at home, first, and they're rather dependent on the rest of the world getting rich enough quickly enough to buy more of their goods.

I find it hard to adopt the label 'atheist', there is nothing else in my life that I think is non-existent that I feel the need to adopt as a label for myself, for instance I would not describe myself as an atheist any more than I would describe my self as a-unicornist or a non-fascist or non-racist - maybe I am just being technical, but it seems, to me at least, odd that I should, when talking to chemists, view myself somehow as an a-alchemist ?

I think calling myself anti-theist, maybe more honest.

What 'knee-jerk anti-religiosity' are talking about ?

I'm not anti-god, I just believe there isn't one. As I said, for some people the 'god' construct helps them get through the day. I don't have a problem with that. Hence my choice of words. But if you prefer to think of yourself as anti-god, then fair enough, if that gets you through your day.

Nobody's in particular. Generally I don't try to convince the religious that they are wrong in their beliefs, but some people do, and we have had interminable discussions on these boards about that. I thought you were referring to some of those discussions, so wrote in that context.

Getting off-topic now, though, aren't we? Can we go back to Palin being a wingnut?

To be clear, a 'theist' is someone who believes in god. An 'anti-theist' is someone who is against those who believe in god, So to describe myself as 'anti-theist' is to say I am against religion not 'anti-god' (as I do not think such things exist that would be a nonsense).

Also, being 'anti-theist' does not help get me through the day anymore that being against racism, infant execution or torture helps get me through the day.


The only thing I was drawing from those discussions was support for the idea that to question, quiz or challenge religious notions draws much hostility from a culture that (whilst not necessarily religious itself) sees the challenging of other peoples supernatural beliefs to be beyond the pale.

My question to you was about your use of the word 'knee-jerk' I was confused (and still am) as to what it refers?

Are you American ? What is a 'wingnut' ?

Are you another reincarnation of Tynan? Ignore the comment if you're not.

Okay, you're against people believing in god. I'm not, though I don't share their beliefs.

As for getting through the day - erm, very glib. But people's personal ideational framework is usually quite crucial to how they get through the day, given that all the data to which people are exposed each day gets parsed through that framework. Generally I find people who are comfortable with their particular belief system find it easier to get through the day. Maybe you don't. It's kinda besides the point (which was Palin).

'What is a wingnut' - it is indeed American slang for a politician, usually on the right, who is ideological to the point of ignoring facts (for fear that the facts might puncture their little bubble, being the insinuation).

And I'm half-American, yes.

You seem a lot more interested in picking a fight than in discussing Palin - I'm happy to do the latter, the former would be boring.

Edit to add - maybe you mean this in the spirit of 'challenging beliefs'. Fair enough - but nitpicking creates an argument, not a discussion.