OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Could Hardly be Worse

Entry 860, on 2008-09-28 at 19:27:21 (Rating 4, Politics)

I have this sort of love-hate relationship with America. I mean I admire the US greatly because of its great technological and scientific achievements and its world leadership (yes I know that leadership could be a lot better, but just compare it with previous empires who ruthlessly controlled their outposts) and the fact that most Americans I deal with are nice people. But I also despair at the political and social choices a lot of Americans make.

I can't think of many other countries who would elect some of the leaders the US has in recent years. I know that many political leaders suffer great criticism for their actions but, I mean what were they thinking re-electing Bush and what was the deal with Reagan?

You might by now know where this is leading... yes, to the subject of Sarah Palin. I know she is only running for vice president (and even she doesn't know what the vice president does) but why has she become so popular with a significant proportion of the US population?

As far as people who have the skills which are likely to provide good leadership she could hardly be worse. She's a fundamentalist Christian for a start. OK, I know that to be successful in US politics you need to be a Christian (why?) but it would be preferable if she wasn't a crazy Christian at least. And she seems to support creationism to some extent although I don't know if I would actually call her a creationist.

And she's apparently a global warming denier, at least she doesn't think human activity is a major cause of climate change. So she's prepared to ignore the overwhelming majority of expert evidence in order to believe in something which is unlikely to be true but better suits her political objectives.

And she likes killing things and is a member of the NRA and thinks you need guns to create a less violent society. I know that you can support both sides of this debate by selecting the evidence you use, but I would have thought that promoting greater ownership of guns in society without thoroughly investigating the issue was unwise.

And I have heard a couple of interviews where she was asked awkward questions on subjects like foreign policy and all I can say is that it was painful to listen to. She has no clues at all and she doesn't seem to speak well unless she has had a speech written for her (so how genuine is that?) and she sounds well, stupid, thick, ignorant, unintelligent.

Yes, I can see why so many Americans like her, because (with apologies to the many intelligent Americans) I can see that she has the sort of common appeal that many would find appealing.

Comment 1 (1677) by SBFL on 2008-10-01 at 13:45:16: (view recent only)

Okay first off I will tell you I am no fan of Sarah Palin, but true to form I have some questions on your post.

1) I don't know the answer so you might be right, but do you have a link or something that says she is a "fundamentalist" Christian? I know she is a Protestant, but I was under the impression it was of the more moderate kind.

2) You said "OK, I know that to be successful in US politics you need to be a Christian" - Now don't let your bias creep in here just because no non-Christian has what it takes to become POFUSA. Makes you look disgruntled and jealous. I think there are quite a few "secularists" and Jews in Congress and the Senate...that still pretty successful isn't it?

3) "And she likes killing things..." - Moose I think, to be a bit more specific. But not people. As I am sure you have learned in your research, she holds anti-abortion views, which means she is against the killing of unborn children. But don't let this important fact get in the way of a one sided opinion piece ;-)

4) "And I have heard a couple of interviews where she was asked awkward questions on subjects like foreign policy and all I can say is that it was painful to listen to.". - Echoes of Bush in 2000?

5) "she doesn't seem to speak well unless she has had a speech written for her (so how genuine is that?)". - I didn't know speaking well was a prerequisite for being an effective VP? And why pick on her for having speeches written by someone else? Don't most politicians (left and right) have this done for them on most big occasions?

Comment 2 (1681) by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 10:22:37:

I guess the word "fundamentalist" means different things to different people. To me its someone who takes the Bible literally and thinks the stories represent reality and are not metaphors.

I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christians who would make a good president - certainly a lot better than most of the ones they have had recently. But Americans have such a strong bias against non-Christians (especially atheists) that they could never be president no matter how well qualified they were.

Well the abortion thing isn't much to do with whether she personally likes killing things. She's not likely to want to set up and operate an abortion clinic herself. I have indicated in the past that my opinion on abortion is uncertain so I might almost agree with her on that one!

Well yes, if anything she's even worse than Bush, and look where his foreign policy decisions have got us!

I think good communications is an important skill for a politician. Also, the fact that she communicates poorly indicates that she doesn't have the knowledge or ideas as much as the fact that her communications skills are lacking. I think most politicians would do a lot better than she did with these interviews.

I'm not criticising her because she's conservative or a Republican (well actually, I am criticising her partly because she's a conservative). I'm criticising her because she is unskilled and naive and her attitudes really worry me. If the Democrats had a similar candidate I would criticise him/her just as much.

Comment 3 (1691) by SBFL on 2008-10-02 at 13:27:15:

1) Yes, but any evidence, link etc? Like I said you might actually be right in your interpretation of her religious views, but it would be good to see some sort of verification or explanation in how you arrived at your interpretation.

2) You haven't really answered my question but no matter. In most societies the people like to choose their leaders who they can identify with. I am sure you are the same. Therefore I don't think it surprises, or bothers most people that the POTUSA is a Christian. Obviously, I think it's a good thing, even if my views aren't the same.

3) Yes I know, but you have missed my point - sometimes I think you take me too literally, or rush your responses. Not sure.

4) Actually I watched a few clips on cnn.com last night. Poor girl, she is completely out of her depth. I sort of feel sorry for her.

5) I agree, but not speaking well to a large audience doesn't necessarily mean she isn't a good communicator (what is it that they say about fear of public speaking vs fear of death?!). I heard that when she is 'on the ground', when she is able to be herself, she resonates very well with people. But yes, speaking well in public is a considerable advantage, and Clinton, Obama are examples of this.

"If the Democrats had a similar candidate I would criticise him/her just as much." Be careful here, I might hold you to this!! Actually up until now Obama has been the one criticised for being unskilled and naive and now McCain has just obliterated this advantage by appointing Palin as his VP. Especially since he is pretty old himself - her position is often perceived as somewhere closer to pres than VP - making it easier to use this point against her (and thereby taking the heat off Obama)

Comment 4 (1695) by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 15:06:08:

1. Naturally they are playing down her private life but have a look at that section at Wikipedia.

2. I know Jews do well in government based on their proportions, but from memory I think reading there was only one atheist. That is not representative of the general population.

3. Not sure what your point was then. If its important please restate it.

4. Yes, I found it sad too. Not sure what the reason for her being chosen is but it certainly isn't on her potential merit as a serious political leader.

5. Politicians represent large numbers of people so public speaking should be something they do well. I know that there are politicians who just get on with the work behind the scenes but those at the top are more figureheads. Also, I thought the fact that she had no answers to the questions genuinely indicated lack of knowledge, not lack of communications skills.

I'm not a great fan of Obama but in politics you've got to look at the least bad option. I don't think he demonstrates anything close to the same naivety and ignorance as Palin.

Comment 5 (1697) by SBFL on 2008-10-02 at 15:25:45:

1. I did.

2. Hmmm, one Muslim I know. One declared atheist maybe. But how many others that don't see themselves as such under a tag, but hold similar views. I used the term 'secularists' originally. I mean, you yourself don't call yourself an athiest if I recall rightly from a previous post (or something along those lines).

3. Thought it was obvious to an intelligent person like yourself that I wouldn't need to repeat it. As above "But don't let this important fact get in the way of a one sided opinion piece ;-)" i.e. you only point out the negative issues.

You are quite the cynic aren't you? Is there anything that makes you happy? No wonder you're a fan of John Ralston Saul !! I have one of his books - The Doubters Companion.

Comment 6 (1700) by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 19:17:51:

OK, so you agree that non Christians are under-represented in the government of the US. That's unfortunate because it limits progress on important social and scientific issues.

I am a bit cynical but only about certain subjects, especially politics. Surely you would agree that its hard not to be cynical about politics!

Comment 7 (1706) by SBFL on 2008-10-07 at 23:50:35:

No, I don't think I implied that though that is not to say it isn't true. Here is an article on the religious affiliation of the current Congress that you might find interesting. Not too many 'unaffiliated' though, I have to agree, but plenty of non-Christians.

My belief is that it would advance important social issues, and make little difference on scientific ones. And if there is a conflict, I would imagine the social issue would take precedence.

Yes, indeed most of us are cynical about politics, maybe not to all the same extent though.

Comment 8 (1719) by OJB on 2008-10-08 at 19:16:45:

According to what I heard there is only one atheist in congress (God knows how he got there - if you'll excuse the irony of that expression) but atheists represent about 10% of the population. Also there is no chance of one becoming president because people vote based on religion - but I suppose that is fair enough because they connect morality and religion. I guess if I believed morality required religion I would vote based on religious beliefs too.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.