Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_cinepro]

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

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."

.

What would be an acceptable answer? Yes? No? I don't know? I hope so? I will be in 8 weeks? And how is the US Presidency analogous to brain surgery? That makes no sense.

And what makes someone "ready" to be President? Until someone convinces me that there is a way to prepare for such a job, and that serving as a Senator fulfills that requirement, I'm not willing to belittle Palin's limited but exclusive executive experience. There is no consistent, reassuring "preparation" for being the President of the United States of America. Everyone who attains that post takes their own journey, and I haven't seen any evidence that there is some life experience that indicates whether or not a person would make a "good" President.

At the very least, I have some respect for McCain because he seems to acknowledge the grave responsibilities of the office, and he seems to have some idea of the weight awaits. He seems to understand that the "buck" stops at the President's desk. I don't know what Obama thinks, but comments like "above my pay grade" are very worrisome.

I do think one of the critical faults of the Bush presidency has been his ineptitude in choosing advisers and making appointments. The fact that McCain hangs out with Phil Gramm and other people of dubious distinction worries me in that regard.

I'm not a huge fan of Palin, but some of these complaints seem a little off-base. Heck, she isn't even running for President. At this moment, we're one helicopter crash away from President Nancy Pelosi, but I've never heard a single person ask whether Pelosi is qualified.

[_The Dude]

Antishock8: Regarding genuflections, please don't read too much into what I've said. The bottom line, for me, is that Obama seems more likely to bring about good change in this country and less likely to stay the course of self-destruction. For me, that makes him the safe bet (as you put it). I'm not exactly reverencing the man.

At the very least, I have some respect for McCain because he seems to acknowledge the grave responsibilities of the office, and he seems to have some idea of the weight awaits. He seems to understand that the "buck" stops at the President's desk. I don't know what Obama thinks, but comments like "above my pay grade" are very worrisome.

And what would be an acceptable answer? Human life begins at conception? Human life begins with the first breath? I don't know? I don't care? And why does qualification for the US Presidency rest on a person's opinion, or rather, the degree of self-confidence in stating an opinion about something that is absolutely unknowable, like when human life begins? That makes no sense.

I do think one of the critical faults of the Bush presidency has been his ineptitude in choosing advisers and making appointments. The fact that McCain hangs out with Phil Gramm and other people of dubious distinction worries me in that regard.

The fact that he chose Palin doesn't worry you in this regard?

I'm not a huge fan of Palin, but some of these complaints seem a little off-base.

The part I quoted may have been a cheap shot, I admit. I posted it because it made me laugh.

[_Black Moclips]

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

The problem, is that Obama's answer, to all of these problems is to give more power and authority to the federal government to deal with them, which ENSURES that the program will be mismanaged, inefficient, and cost 100 times what it should. I'm suprised many people don't see that. I haven't ever voted Democrat, and I haven't voted Republican for the last 4 elections, but I know it isn't going to be Obama. I laugh at the "change" mantra, because he is lockstep with the standard social liberal program - corporations and capitalism are bad, wealth re-distribution is a good thing, and the government needs more taxpayer money so they can run more of your life.

[_The Dude]

The problem, is that Obama's answer, to all of these problems is to give more power and authority to the federal government to deal with them, which ENSURES that the program will be mismanaged, inefficient, and cost 100 times what it should.

This point is moot because the the government is in the process of buying out our financial system. Capitalism has died under the Republican watch.

I'm suprised many people don't see that.

I think it would be great to have socialized medicine. The current free market for medical care is as least as dysfunctional as our financial system.

I laugh at the "change" mantra, because he is lockstep with the standard social liberal program - corporations and capitalism are bad, wealth re-distribution is a good thing, and the government needs more taxpayer money so they can run more of your life.

This complain is lockstep with the standard conservative hypocrisy.

[_Thama]

The problem, is that Obama's answer, to all of these problems is to give more power and authority to the federal government to deal with them, which ENSURES that the program will be mismanaged, inefficient, and cost 100 times what it should.

Were the current state of conservative politics that of the 1960s and 1970s, then you might be making sense right now. Barry Goldwater conservatism died in 1980.

The only balanced budgets in the last 30 years occurred under Democratic administration. The only national surplus in the last 30 years occurred under Democratic administration.

There is much good to be found in genuine small-government policy, and there is much good to be found in well-run liberal programs. There is nothing good to be said for the current Republican approach to spending just as much (if not more) than the liberals would, but putting incompetents in administrative positions so that government is assured of being ineffective.

[_cinepro]

The fact that he chose Palin doesn't worry you in this regard?

I see his selection of Palin as a purely political move. It was only calculated to somehow, someway, help him get elected. If he gets elected, it will be because of Palin, and it will have been a brilliant move to that end. Sure, there are 100 "better" choices he could have made (and admittedly few worse ones) from a purely practical standpoint, but none of those choices would have done what Palin has done.

Even if McCain is elected, she will be relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things, as all former VP's have been. I certainly think the hubbub being made over her is far out of proportion to her importance to the future of the country. Sure, McCain might die, but people are acting as if it inevitable that McCain will drop dead two weeks after his election, so it is really, really important that his VP be ready to step in and take the reigns. If that is truly the case, then the Republicans picked the wrong guy as their nominee, and it is a moot point all around. Frankly, I'm more worried about Phil Gramm and the former lobbyists McCain has surrounded himself with.

If McCain looses, then his gamble with Palin didn't payoff, and it doesn't matter.

[Guest]

The fact that he chose Palin doesn't worry you in this regard?

I see his selection of Palin as a purely political move. It was only calculated to somehow, someway, help him get elected. If he gets elected, it will be because of Palin, and it will have been a brilliant move to that end. Sure, there are 100 "better" choices he could have made (and admittedly few worse ones) from a purely practical standpoint, but none of those choices would have done what Palin has done.

Even if McCain is elected, she will be relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things, as all former VP's have been. I certainly think the hubbub being made over her is far out of proportion to her importance to the future of the country. Sure, McCain might die, but people are acting as if it's inevitable that McCain will drop dead two weeks after his election, so it is really, really important that his VP be ready to step in and take the reigns. If that is truly the case, then the Republicans picked the wrong guy as their nominee, and it is a moot point all around, because you shouldn't vote for someone who you think is on their deathbed. Frankly, I'm more worried about Phil Gramm and the former lobbyists McCain has surrounded himself with.

If McCain looses, then his gamble with Palin didn't payoff, and it doesn't matter.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You mean McCain?

No, he means the Chosen One, the Messiah, Lord Obama, most merciful.

He means the black nationalist, Marxist intellectual poseur presently running for the office of the Presidency for the People's Democratic Party Popular Salvation Front.

He's the guy you're going to vote for, apparently.

You know, he's the one everyone who wants to lose the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on terror generally is going to vote for. He's the guy you vote for if you agree with legal infanticide. He's the guy you vote for if you believe in the nationalization of virually the entire American economy. He's the guy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
wants you to vote for.

That guy.

Droopy:

George W. Bush. Great president, or greatest president?

[_Black Moclips]

The problem, is that Obama's answer, to all of these problems is to give more power and authority to the federal government to deal with them, which ENSURES that the program will be mismanaged, inefficient, and cost 100 times what it should.

Were the current state of conservative politics that of the 1960s and 1970s, then you might be making sense right now. Barry Goldwater conservatism died in 1980.

The only balanced budgets in the last 30 years occurred under Democratic administration. The only national surplus in the last 30 years occurred under Democratic administration.

There is much good to be found in genuine small-government policy, and there is much good to be found in well-run liberal programs. There is nothing good to be said for the current Republican approach to spending just as much (if not more) than the liberals would, but putting incompetents in administrative positions so that government is assured of being ineffective.

I don't think good principles ever die. I have ideas all over the board, some conservative and some liberal. But I've lost all confidence in the Federal goverment and its ability to do anything effectively and efficiently. It is all run by career politicians who care more for their own pocket books than what is right for the country. Do a google search on government waste. You could spend the rest of your life counting the wasted dollars. I don't agree with any government waste, regardless of the president or administration. I DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH, and I think the spending has been ridiculous. But I think its funny that because Bush has been so bad that people want to pretend there is no such thing as a tax and spend liberal. They have all done it. Both parties. And the current problems are a sum total of the failures of the past 30 years.

[_Black Moclips]

I laugh at the "change" mantra, because he is lockstep with the standard social liberal program - corporations and capitalism are bad, wealth re-distribution is a good thing, and the government needs more taxpayer money so they can run more of your life.

This complain is lockstep with the standard conservative hypocrisy.

Obama's policies and positions are straight out of the social liberal playbook. It is the same playbook that has been around for years. He doesn't have any new or novel ideas about how to fix any of our current problems.

So, can you explain to me my hypocrisy? I'm not getting it.