Sam Harris Nails Palin

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The only truly dangerous religious movement left is Islam.

I think the only true danger is God .Those who valiantly eliminate/ try to eliminate him ,are hero in my book. And those who do not see any God to begin with,are super-hero for sure.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

Those who valiantly eliminate or try to eliminate him are heroes in my book.

No. That's just an alternate form of zealous ideology. Fundamentalist ideology and the belief that one's creed should be imposed upon others are dangerous regardless of whether the ideology is rooted in theism.

And those who do not see any God to begin with are super-heroes for sure.

They are no less the intellectual lightweights than those who presume His existence from day one and never consider the alternative.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Are you kidding me? He is talking specifically about the POTUS. The most powerful, most important job in the world.

Also, he is not saying that you find the smartest person in the world and make that person president, as your first paragraph implies. Rather, he is arguing that we should have extremely high standards for our candidates.

Sheesh. What an odd thing to have to argue.

I don't like his style of writing but I believe he misses the point. Yes POTUS is currently an important position but it should be devalued. The power of the office has grown and we would be better off if we eliminated some of its powers as well as the powers of Congress. I don't agree we should make the standards rigorous but rather encourage us to devalue the office, make it irrelevant. We don't need that much power situate in one person.

Barbara has already identified the problems with Sam's awful hyperbolic writing.

Am I stating others will follow my advice? No. But it's an awful assumption that there is only one option and that the power vested in that office is a good thing. We need to neuter that office IMHO.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't like his style of writing but I believe he misses the point. Yes POTUS is currently an important position but it should be devalued. The power of the office has grown and we would be better off if we eliminated some of its powers as well as the powers of Congress. I don't agree we should make the standards rigorous but rather encourage us to devalue the office, make it irrelevant. We don't need that much power situate in one person.

Barbara has already identified the problems with Sam's awful hyperbolic writing.

Am I stating others will follow my advice? No. But it's an awful assumption that there is only one option and that the power vested in that office is a good thing. We need to neuter that office IMHO.

You're being ridiculous and you know it. You're making two different arguments.

In response to your first: No, we don't need a rocket scientist as president. We do, however, want someone with a certain degree of experience and tendency toward reason and reflection -- not someone whose knowledge of and approach to foreign policy relys on a combination of geographic proximity, divine inspiration, and the axiom "he who hesitates is lost."

In response to your second: If our representatives should ideally serve as mere puppets then wouldn't we be better served just to switch to direct democracy?

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

No. That's just an alternate form of zealous ideology. Fundamentalist ideology and the belief that one's creed should be imposed upon others are dangerous regardless of whether the ideology is rooted in theism.

Yeah,that's probably true.Considering all the efforts which have been put through words and works to deride people's beliefs and imposing a self-creating religion on them, makes the irony quite rich.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

They are no less the intellectual lightweights than those who presume His existence from day one and never consider the alternative.

The alternative ?? an alternative God or an alternative to his being ?
Leaving aside those who drink religion through their mothers' milk ,everybody is looking for an alternative for God .Man, has to have God .If there is no God ,he would have to make up one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't like his style of writing but I believe he misses the point. Yes POTUS is currently an important position but it should be devalued. The power of the office has grown and we would be better off if we eliminated some of its powers as well as the powers of Congress. I don't agree we should make the standards rigorous but rather encourage us to devalue the office, make it irrelevant. We don't need that much power situate in one person.

Barbara has already identified the problems with Sam's awful hyperbolic writing.

Am I stating others will follow my advice? No. But it's an awful assumption that there is only one option and that the power vested in that office is a good thing. We need to neuter that office IMHO.

Let me see if I have this straight: you don't like his writing style because you find it too hyperbolic. But oh by the way, let's change the constitution to neuter the president and congress.

Gotcha.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I just read the wiki bio of Jesse Ventura:

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

Wow. UtahDan may want to rethink his hypothesis on governors.

No, I think I'll stick with it. Ventura is not a dumb guy. You just don't raise the money and get the people behind you that you need to if you are. Madonna is a good analogy. I don't want her to govern my state, and she has made political statements that I find silly, but this woman is a genius. She is a muti-national conglomerate, and it isn't because she is the best singer, dance or prettiest woman.

There are all kinds of smarts. Ventura, however much of a buffoon he may be, is not successful for no reason. He didn't Forrest Gump his way through life, none of these people do. Of course that doesn't mean I want to elect any of them.

I understand the point you made above that you think the author is suggesting that intellect is not the most important attribute to Republicans as opposed to saying that it is unimportant to them and/or they shun it. I think that is a mighty fine hair to split. Parties almost never put forward the smartest guy/gal they have. There are always other factors, such as charisma, good looks, name recognitions (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy), connections, experience that get factored in along with intellect. When you suggest that one party has intellect at the bottom of the list on a consistent basis and that right at the top of the list are "common" attributes...again I just don't think that is a perspective that is persuasive or deserving of much weight.