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

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.