Palin resigns Alaska governorship

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has formally resigned as Alaska governor, 18 months before the end of her term in office.

She announced her resignation abruptly on 3 July, leading to speculation of a bid for the presidency in 2012.

She handed over to Alaska's Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell at a picnic ceremony in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Mrs Palin, who is dogged by ethics probes and legal bills, gave few clues about her political future.

'Grizzly bear'

But she reiterated her commitment to "keep championing Alaska".

"When I took the oath to serve you, I promised... to steadfastly and doggedly guard the interests of this great state like that grizzly guards her cubs. As a mother naturally guards her own," she said.

"And I will keep that vow wherever the road may lead."

"I cannot express enough there is no plan after July 26  Meghan Stapleton Palin spokeswoman In pictures: Palin's highs and lows

Mrs Palin also took aim at the media, who she has accused of treating her and her family unfairly.

"How about, in honour of the American soldier, you quit making things up?" she said to the gathering of television camera crews and reporters at the event.

She added that her replacement, Mr Parnell, "has a very nice family too, so leave his kids alone!"

Mr Parnell, 46, has promised to pursue many of Mrs Palin's initiatives, including a controversial natural gas pipeline.

"We share the same core values," he told the crowd, saying the main focus for his administration would be the economy.

The BBC's Jane O'Brien in Washington says Mr Parnell is far more experienced and low-key than Mrs Palin.

This will come as a relief to Alaskan officials, as they can focus on the issues without the distraction of having a superstar running the show, she adds.

'No plan'

Although Mrs Palin's next steps remain unclear, reports say she is working on an autobiography and could host a television chat show.

But a spokeswoman for the Palin family earlier dismissed the claims.

"I cannot express enough there is no plan after July 26. There is absolutely no plan," Meghan Stapleton told the Associated Press news agency.

"[On Monday] we'll sit down and say, 'OK, here are your options. How do you now want to effect that positive change for Alaska from outside the role as governor?'," Ms Stapleton added.

Mrs Palin, 45, shot to fame as John McCain's Republican running mate in the election of November 2008, becoming a lightning rod for praise and criticism alike.

She said a major factor in her decision to quit as Alaska's governor was the mounting legal cost she and the state faced in fighting nearly 20 ethics charges.

But she has insisted her opponents would not "find any dirt".

However, an independent state investigator says her legal-defence fund - formed to help pay more than $500,000 (£304,000) in lawyers' fees - is itself an ethics violation because it uses her government job for personal financial benefit.

Her popularity rating has fallen to 40% in the wake of her resignation, a Washington Post-ABC poll showed.

But her supporters defend her as an outstanding leader with a strong Christian faith and unwavering support for her family.

Palin as Pastor-in-Chief

Atheist Revolution says:

Just when you thought McSame VP choice Sarah Palin couldn't be any worse America's reality-based community, the Associated Press is reporting that

Palin considers Bush's unjust invasion of Iraq a task from her god.

I suppose it make sense that anything McSame could do to rally his base would make him even more aversive to those opposed to Christian theocracy. With Palin's statement on Iraq, we cannot help being reminded that President Bush also sees his war as having the blessing of his god.

According to the AP, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had the following to say during an address last year to ministry students at her former church:

Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan.

Perhaps even worse,

Palin clearly sees herself as doing the will of her god in nearly every political task she undertakes. This is an extremely dangerous type of delusion because it leads to absolute certainty without consideration of alternative possibilities.

We saw the consequences with Bush, and we're likely to see more with McSame/Palin.

Palin also sounds increasingly dangerous to American atheists. Consider the following quote and then see how it sounds if you replace "Alaska" with "America." Chilling.

I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God.

I agree with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We do not need politicians who act like national pastors; we need leaders who unite diverse individuals around policy goals.

Sam Harris: Sexist Pig and Liberal Shill

I've received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I'd like to briefly respond:

My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece ("get sassy," "girl-next-door," etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a "frat-boy" or a "lumberjack." I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,"Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird."

My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko).

For what it's worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more "sexist."

My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly:

My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old.

Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House.

And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction.

Hence my latest opinion piece.

Best,
Sam
.
email: author@samharris.org
web: http://www.samharris.org/

Palin: average isn't good enough

She's not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.

By Sam Harris
September 3, 2008

» Discuss Article

So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?

The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.

As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that's precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don't look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars.

McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.

And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal ... .



Sam Harris is a founder of the Reason Project and the author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."

Barack Obamas' mother was a Humanist

"Growing up in Hawaii with my mother and her grandparents Islam largely escaped my mind. My mother installed in me the values of humanism and I did not grow-up in a home were religion was taught."
Barack Obama - From a letter from Barack Obama on his Muslim http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/01/letter_from_bar.php

Here's another quote this one from his book 'The Audacity of Hope - Thoughts on reclaiimng the American dream'

"I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and globsal warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect , and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybodys religious beliefs - including my own - on non believers."

Cheers
Josh K

Science Debate 2008 - A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

reposted from: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

The debate
As you watched the scores of U.S. Presidential debates, did you ever wonder why there has been no debate devoted to policy surrounding what may be the most important social issue of our time: Science and Technology? We did and we want to make sure it happens.

Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens.

The signatories to our "Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology" include Nobel laureates and other leading scientists, presidents of universities, congresspersons of both major political parties, business leaders, religious leaders, former presidential science advisors, the editors of America's major science journals, writers, and the current and several past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many others.

We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security as science and technology continue to transform our lives. No matter one's political stripe, these issues pose important pragmatic policy challenges. We believe these scientific and technological policy challenges can bring out the best in the entrepreneurial American spirit. America can be a leader in finding cures for our worst diseases, inventing the best alternative energy sources, and graduating the most scientifically literate children in the world - or we can concede these economic and humanitarian benefits to other countries. We believe a debate on these issues would be the ideal opportunity for America and the candidates to explore our national priorities on the issues, and it is hard to imagine any candidate not wishing to be involved in such an occasion. Please join us and make Science Debate 2008 a reality.

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT SCIENCE DEBATE 2008

This Is Not a Test by Christopher Hitchens, Slate

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/

This Is Not a Test
It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views.
By Christopher Hitchens

Just before this gets completely out of hand and becomes a mantralike repetition, let us please recall what the careful phrases of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution actually and very carefully and deliberately say:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

As so often, the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words. A candidate for election, or an applicant for a post in the bureaucracy, could not be disqualified on the grounds of his personal faith in any god (or his disbelief in any god, for that matter). This stipulation was designed to put an end to the hideous practice of European monarchies—and the pre-existing practice of various American colonies—whereby if a man did not affirm the trinity, or deny the pope, or abjure Judaism (depending on the jurisdiction), he could be forbidden to hold office or even to run for it. Along with the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the predecessor-language of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, it forms part of the chief glory of the first-ever constitution that guaranteed religious liberty, religious pluralism, and the freedom to be left alone by priests and rabbis and mullahs and other characters.

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion.

So, can we please have less of this deliberate misunderstanding of Article VI, which, if it goes much further, will actually seem to prevent or even to criminalize any criticism of theocratic candidates for high office. I ask you now, does it seem likely that any article of the U.S. Constitution was specially written so that you could not publicly and freely and fearlessly say that you would most decidedly not vote for:

* A candidate who followed the "Rev." Jim Jones to a Kool-Aid resort in Guyana (don't forget that this did actually happen)

* A candidate who said that the pope could excommunicate other American candidates with whom he disagreed

* A candidate who said that the above-mentioned pope was the Antichrist

* A candidate who said that L. Ron Hubbard was a visionary

* A candidate who said that Joseph Smith was a visionary

* A candidate who said that any holy book was scripturally inerrant

* A candidate who was a member of Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood or the Nation of Islam

* A candidate who was a supporter or member of the Orange Order or the Ulster Unionist Party

* A candidate who was a supporter or member of Opus Dei or the Phalange Party

* A candidate who was a supporter or member of Lehi or the Jewish Defense League

* A candidate who was a member of the Aryan Nations, the KKK, or any other white Protestant "Christian Identity" faction

* A candidate who said that the Quran was dictated by the archangel Gabriel

The above list is not exhaustive. But, in merely saying that an adherent of any such belief would certainly influence my vote and also be sure to sway it negatively, I myself apply no "religious test." To do that, I would have to be a legislator or policeman who was urging or upholding an alteration in the law of the land. And, as previously noticed, I would have to demand, and get, an amendment to the Constitution in order to bring this about. To put this simply enough, if I turn to a JDL fanatic and tell him that I will not cast my vote for him, and he responds by saying that I am deciding my vote on the unfair basis that he is a Jew, he is welcome to the meager consolation that this may afford him, but he is legally entitled—as am I—to fight another day.

Isn't it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It's not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of "faith" at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It's not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything "faith-based." It's that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

In a breathtaking profile of Huckabee published in the Dec. 16 New York Times Magazine, we read under the byline of Zev Chafets the following euphemistic drivel:

Nowadays, Huckabee has more policy positions, but his campaign is really all about his Christian character. His slogan is "Faith, Family, Freedom," which Huckabee, who was once public-relations man for the Texas televangelist James Robison, wrote himself. Huckabee is no theocrat. He simply believes in the power of the Christian message, and in his ability to embody and deliver it. "It's not that we want to impose our religion on somebody," he wrote in Character Makes a Difference, a book first published in 1997 (as Character Is the Issue) and reissued earlier this year. "It's that we want to shape the culture and laws by using a worldview we believe has value.

Nice work, no? Can it really be true that "no theocrat" Huckabee wrote that whole slogan all by himself? While you ponder this massively impressive claim, I suggest that you look up the life and times of "the Texas televangelist James Robison" and ask yourself if, in voting against him or his smarmy underling, you would be acting or thinking unconstitutionally.

Awarding his subject a prize for performing the same cheap media trick that he has just performed himself, Chafets (who might also be described as a former public-relations man, but this time for Jerry Falwell's old friend and patron Menachem Begin) concludes by asserting that "Huckabee has become a master at disarming secular audiences." This big fat lie becomes a slender and wispy half-truth only if enough fools can be brought to believe it. One of the ways the propaganda trick is pulled is to insinuate, and to keep on insinuating, that it is the enemies of religious intolerance who are themselves the intolerant ones. That's the way to undermine, and eventually to demolish, the wall of separation.