I’m Not One To Weigh In On US Politics But…
I’m not one to weigh in on US politics: it’s not my country; I don’t have a vote there. So in a sense, it’s none of my business. But look… John McCain just picked this person Sarah Palin as his running mate. She thinks it’s important to teach creationism to children in schools, alongside evolution, so that children can see both sides of the “debate”. How stupid must Sarah Palin be? There is no debate to be had! What part of “evolution is a FACT” does she not understand?!
If John McCain wins the election to become President of the US, then Sarah Palin is statistically quite likely to become President herself because of McCain’s age; and she’s clearly an ignorant fool (she’s the daughter of a science teacher, btw, and if she doesn’t understand that evolution is a fact with a background like that, she’s surely beyond all help in terms of ever developing any kind sense of good judgement in the future) . That would not be good news for America; and it would not be good news for the rest of the world.
On this basis alone, it seems to me there’s only one person it makes sense to elect as the next president of the United States: Barack Obama.
Alfredo Tinio wrote:
Like you I am an outsider to the U.S. Politics, but pls don’t underestimate/prejudge the capabilities/intellectual prowess of Gov. Palin when it comes to assuming her office as the U.S. Vice President if elected and if the circumstances so warrants along the way the U.S. President. All you’ve got to have is a genuine love for your country and its people’s welfare that’s all it matters most and I firmly believe the lady Governor has it.
Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 2:09 am ¶
simon wrote:
Alfredo - I am not pre-judging Palin’s intellectual prowess; I am judging it, based on compelling evidence. She is clearly monumentally stupid and incredibly gullible. These are dangerous qualities for a world-leader to possess; she would be an unmitigated disaster in office. No-one should be in any doubt about this.
In the forthcoming debates, I hope that Joe Biden is able to expose her for the fool she is. On the surface, this shouldn’t be too difficult a task. However, the Democrats will need to find avenues other than creationism by which to expose her inadequacies because 44% of US citizens don’t “believe” evolution either.
Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 8:45 am ¶
Neil Bartlett wrote:
Careful what you say Simon, it’s a dangerous thing for a foreigner to tell an American how to vote. Especially when that foreigner is British… there’s a bit of history there.
Back in 2004 I recall that a UK newspaper (I think it was the Independent, not sure) encouraged a letter-writing campaign amongst its readership. Readers were requested to send letters to friends, colleagues etc in America listing some of the reasons why they should vote for Senator Kerry. The reaction to this campaign was so negative that some of the recipients actually replied that they decided to switch their vote to Bush!
Perhaps a bit of reverse psychology would do the trick?
Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
simon wrote:
Good point, Neil. I did say, at the start of the blog that all this is really none of my business… I’m not trying to influence anyone’s vote.
I’m just calling it how I see it as an outside observer. As I said in the comments above, this particular avenue of attack won’t be productive for the Democrats. They will need to be smart in how they try to win over would-be Palin supporters. It’s just a sad reflection of the world we live in that, in 2008, nearly 50% of US citizens believe in fairy tales like the creation story.
Posted 31 Aug 2008 at 2:47 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Are you trying to trip the Neo-Con blog patrol wire?
There is no point trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, have been reading a lot of Dawkins lately, and find his whole approach of taking the argument to the level of lowest common denominator very flawed, it’s like an argument between the stupid, and the even more stupid. It all just a matter of words. Evolution is real and measurable, but science cannot disprove the existence of a God either, at best it can take an Agnostic position. We have to come up with a mutli-verse theory to explain the existence of the uniqueness of the cosmological constant that seems to be fine tuned to 1 part in 10^120, something that cannot happen by chance, so has to be explained by a mutli-verse theory with an equal number of universes each with slightly different constants for the laws of physics. This multi-verse theory then gives more weight to the simulation-argument theory with an obvious question of who or what is the simulator.
How deep is the rabbit hole?
What if we say God = Alien?
But sure, these creationists are a different breed that are trying to mix science and religion and that’s a fatal error, they must be kept separate. Evolution is real, but it can say nothing about a God since that at the end of the day is a matter of faith, which to many billions of people around the world, makes stuff like living, and dying easier.
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 6:57 pm ¶
simon wrote:
LOL! Not really trying to trigger any wires
Just commenting on the fact that Palin is clearly an
idiot.
Thiere’s a big problem with Richard Dawkins. He insists on conflating
discussions about evolution and about the *existence* of God; when, as you say, the two are unrelated.
A proven explanation for the apparent value of the cosmological constant
is, as I understand it, an unsolved problem. The view seems to be that
multi-verses aren’t the only answer (although they are clearly one
answer).
Evolution says nothing about the *existence* of God, despite what
Dawkins, and Darwin, think/thought. It does though, have something to
say about the beliefs held by large numbers of people that follow
organised religions. For example, evolution proves beyond doubt that
what the Bible has to say about how the Earth was created is total
nonsense. So, from that perspective, it does make sense to discuss
religious beliefs in the context of what science has to say.
Science has other things to say about some related beliefs too - for
example that the earth was formed less than ten thousand years ago.
It’s not healthy that in 2008, so many people believe the planet Earth
was created in seven days, less than ten thousand years ago… and it’s
*really* not healthy that Sarah Palin believes this, given that she
could very easily become the most powerful person in the world. The
point is - if people believe things that obviously untrue; then they can
be persuaded to believe *anything*… you know, like Saddam was
responsible for 911 etc. etc. etc.
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 7:00 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Yes there is an alternative to the multi-verse theory, it’s the simulation argument:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
And this is a highly recommended documentary with Lord Martin Rees and Nick Bostrom,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429643479737704838&ei=pbS9SIj6BIPWigKR9MT9CA&q=martin+rees
Now, being a simulation is exactly how it’s described with some religions and what needs to be understood is that most peoples interpretation of their own religions is flawed and it is in fact this that needs to be addressed, but whilst religion continues to be a useful political tool, it will continue to be manipulated and put at odds with science. Most serious theologians would agree that their are patterns within all religions that can be traced from the Rig Veda, to Kabbalistic codes, to ‘the’ Bible and finally the Quran. But to explain it in this way needs the preachers to admit they’ve been lying about certain things, and admittance leads to a new world order beyond the aspirations of the Neo-Cons.
This is all about to change in 2009 with two key developments:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Coranicum
Check out the linked articles from above wiki which explains how the three Abrahamic faith interpretation is interdependent.
So, on the one side you’ve got scientists who have at best a very basic level of understanding of religion, and on the other hand a public with very limited understanding of science, dumb and dumber, it’s basically an education problem. But why change it when it’s useful for manipulating people, they’ve been manipulated for years.
Again highly recommended audiobook have finished from MIT Prof. Noam Chomsky, Propoganda and Control of Public Mind,
http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Control-Public-Mind-Chomsky/dp/1873176686
So, is it so silly for Sarah Palin to use religious arguments? Not really, Politics is a dirty game, why they’re politicians and we’re scientists.
And before any Neo-Cons come after me, hey I’m a Cosmist that wants to seed other planets in massive bio engineering projects on habitable planets, and if there aren’t aliens now, give it a few billion years and we’ll create em.
*ducks* from the Neo-Luddites and the next wave of stupidity…
That reminds me, need to research up recent progress in understanding of epigenetics and Neo-Lamarckian theories and see how that effects the original selfish gene proposition of Dawkins.
There is no cure for dA sTuPid I’m afraid, so 1984 and brave new world it will be…..
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 10:21 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Politics by it’s very nature is a dirty game, and to think that politicians don’t lie through their teeth is a bit naive anyway. The public mind has been manipulated for millennia, why would you expect that to change?
Highly recommend audiobook of MIT Prof Noam Choamsky, Propoganda and Control of the Public Mind,
http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Control-Public-Mind-Chomsky/dp/1873176686
The simulation-argument is an alternative to the multi-verse theory. Again highly recommended documentary with Lord Martin Rees and Nick Bostrom,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429643479737704838&ei=pbS9SIj6BIPWigKR9MT9CA&q=martin+rees
See the thing is, most theologians will secretly admit to the deep patterns and relationships between religions where direct links can be found, for example the relationship of the Rig Veda with Kabbalistic codes to ‘the’ Bible and finally the Quran. To educate the public about this means the orthodox establishment political movements will have to admit they lied, and also they’ll loose their power, and you expect that’s going to happen?
2009 should prove interesting because of two current projects:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Coranicum
Check linked articles from above wiki, explains inter-relationship put in historical context.
Of course, all this is solvable by public education, but it’s results are a new world order, and you’re being naive to think those with power will give it up without a dirty fight, which you’re seeing in the US elections.
And, it is our business even here in the UK by the simple fact that our security services are so dependent on US lead information, change in the US means change here as well…
Change 08….
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 10:52 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Uggg, sorry that was all one post, but blog server caught as spam so had to think/type it again…
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Clearly, there are many issues in all this. However, aside from the seriousness of what’s at stake, I think it’s important not to forget to have a good laugh at Sarah Palin for believing that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old…
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 5:29 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
If she believes Earth is less then ten thousand years old then she can be classified as one of the ‘end of time’ type nutters, or she’s pure lying and a player of the politics of fear, so something to be expected with a Neo-Con. It’s the US that’s in danger of being left behind because it chooses to keep it’s public so stupefied.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:24 am ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Ah yeah, there’s the South Park version of it, Series 11 episode 5
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1105/
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:31 am ¶
simon wrote:
It’s going to be interesting to see if the Democrats are up to exposing her. Palin delivered her speech really rather well yesterday. For the most part, she displayed a nice lightness of touch; at times, she was very charming… although she failed to disguise a small-minded, mean-spirited nature which shone through clearly, here and there.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 9:11 am ¶
Neil wrote:
Hmm, well I work with loads of US citizens and they have certainly drunk the Obama kool aid (he reminds me a bit of Tony Blair!). TBH, guns and god is a bigger thing in the US rather than over here; imagine a serious discussion on banning abortion in France /UK/Germany - wouldn’t really fly. As for the Sarah Palin creationism thing - yes that is worrying to us, the biggest worry is a break down in the separation of church and state. However as I mentioned earlier, the US is more god and guns than us so I’m not surprised - it is saddening rather than maddening.
To me the thing that is good about this US election is that it is reinvigorating politics again - something which IMHO is sorely missing in the UK.
Oh BTW, the paper with the letters was the guardian and if you read the article - it was _really_ funny. OK, the actual gimmick was a bit poor but it was funny!!
Here is one of the responses from a gentleman who received a letter:
Hey England, Scotland and Wales,
Mind your own business. We don’t need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn’t for America, you’d all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you’d all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!
United States
Being someone who lives in Germany, I would rather appreciate greatly fluency in German so he could do me a favour :). - I also appreciate that he seems to let Ireland and Northern Ireland off the hook!
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
Stuart wrote:
If I laugh, am I being insensitive to people’s beliefs?
From observation it seems that evolution is seen as a real problem to people with certain religious beliefs, either consciously or subconsciously, and no amount of evidence will persuade these individuals that evolution is a valid scientific theory . For example, a recent paper in PNAS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18524956) describing the apparent evolution of a population of citrate using E. coli was decried by a number of critics with obvious religious leanings. Among the complaints were that the authors did not provide genomic sequence for the original population, the cit+ population and for every population between the two, that the authors should provide the critics with said populations to enable them to carry out their own analysis and that the authors were plain lying.
Is it a problem that Palin does not believe that evolution is a valid theory? In itself, no. Is it a problem that she is in a position where she can makes decision based on her beliefs that affect a large number people (and even larger number if she becomes VP of the US) - yes especially if it affects scientific research and freedom of choice.
In my opinion. But, as with you Simon, I am not a voter in the US so my opinion does not count.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Hey, read all about it, Chat bots taking Turing test are more coherent in conversations then Sarah Palin,
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4934858.ece
Posted 14 Oct 2008 at 2:23 am ¶