Sarah Palin - is she really this bad?

[Jack of Kent]

I think "time out" on this thread - Godwin's Law proved yet again.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

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

[Pebble]

I think "time out" on this thread - Godwin's Law proved yet again.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

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

If I understand this 'law' correctly it simply states that hitler will be brought up eventually, not that it is necessarily inappropriate.

My point was simply illustrative as can be readily seen. My worry (conspiracy theorist that I obviously must be if I do not agree with the right) is I think nicely illustrated here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ne...ior_Twins.html

[Matt]

It has been said that HItler's agression against the jews was not practiced until after the Nasties had the power to do so. In fact prior to Hitlers rise to power in 1933 brownshirted thugs were engaged in a campaign of violence and intimidation which, with hindsight and perhaps even without, was clearly indicative of things to come.

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

In Munich in late 1920, Hitler created the Ordnertruppen, a body of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers in order to protect gatherings of the Nazi party from disruptions from Social Democrats and Communists. On November 4, 1921 the Nazi party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus. After Hitler had spoken for some time the meeting erupted into a melee in which a small company of Ordnertruppen distinguished itself by thrashing the opposition. The Nazis called this event "Saalschlacht" (meeting hall battle). After this the organization came to be called the SA. Under their popular leader Ernst Röhm, the SA grew in importance within the Nazi power structure, initially growing in size to thousands of members. In 1922, the Nazi Party created a youth section, the Jugendbund, for young men between the ages of 14 and 18 years. Its successor, the Hitler Youth, remained under SA command until May 1932.
From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was known as the Frontbann to avoid the temporary ban on the Nazi party. The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called Zusammenstöße ('collisions'). As the Nazis went from an extremist political party in the turbulent times of 1920's Germany to the unquestioned government of the nation, the SA was no longer needed for its original purpose. An organization that could inflict more subtle terror and obedience was needed and the thuggish SA who had been born out of street violence was simply not capable of doing so. The younger SS was more suited to this task and began to take over the previously held roles of the SA

As Governer of Alaska Sarah Palin has more power now that Htiler did in 1920 Have there in fact been any abuses of power with which to compare with Hitlers pre 1933 orchestrated street brawls?

[Pebble]

It has been said that HItler's agression against the jews was not practiced until after the Nasties had the power to do so. In fact prior to Hitlers rise to power in 1933 brownshirted thugs were engaged in a campaign of violence and intimidation which, with hindsight and perhaps even without, was clearly indicative of things to come.


As Governer of Alaska Sarah Palin has more power now that Htiler did in 1920 Have there in fact been any abuses of power with which to compare with Hitlers pre 1933 orchestrated street brawls?

None that I know of, and agreed even if one counts the anti-abortion demos, they don't get in to this league.

What essentially is exercising me is how far Bush and Blair have gradually whittled away the rights and freedoms of their respective nations under the 'war on terror' banner, follow this with another believer in the central role of middle eastern conflict with the return of jesus, and I worry that further inappropriate decisions leading to increased conflict in the ME, followed by further restrictions of freedom and increasing power of the western fundamentalists is a likely path.

[Tony Williams]

The problem with creationist views is that those who hold them implicitly reject an evidence-based approach to reaching conclusions. I don't find that very reassuring in someone aiming for high office.

She also seems to have something of a split personality. In my experience, hunters tended to be concerned about preserving the natural environment as far as possible (if only to ensure the availability of lots of animals to kill) but she clearly couldn't care less. Hunters also usually pride themselves on their stalking skills, but she's happy for animals to be gunned down from helicopters. Very odd.

[Floppit]

I think using terms like scares, fear, alarm, and concern can be quite difficult in written form and without knowing each other.

Views like those of Sarah Palin's church (which to some extent I am presuming she shares) DO scare me IF she was to have a position of power. Bush's views scare me too! It's not an apocalyptic fear, the world has endured wars and survived for 1000's of years, and I believe will survive many more wars. My fear is that people who struggle with reasoning on issues such as evolution are less likely to make wise decisions when it comes to issues such as war, and that people with 'One true god' beliefs (as opposed to hindu or buddhist) have histories within their own religious texts (which THEY believe are sound) of extreme forms of violence.

So - while there are few if any means for me to evidence or prove that Bush (for example) was more prone to fight a war in Iraq because he thinks god talks to him and they are Muslim, I believe it is still likely that it did in turn make that war more likely. It's my belief that the likelyhood of negative influence is strong enough when coupled with the hundreds of thousands dead in that war is enough reason for a repeatition to scare me.

I'm new to the forum and what seems like a movement that accompanies it - I do pay attention to and weigh up what I can't always prove, however I do my best to stay open to persausion. In this case I feel no persausion that even if there is a lack of proven liink between extreme religious belief and human suffering that I should discard my non apocalyptic scaredness!

I'm not suggesting she should be hung - just not voted for.

[Tim the Mage]

implicitly reject an evidence-based approach to reaching conclusions.

Speaking as one of them isn't this normal for politicians?

[Tony Williams]

It's not an apocalyptic fear, the world has endured wars and survived for 1000's of years, and I believe will survive many more wars.

Worry not - the world has survived far worse than humanity could possibly throw at it. Our present civilisation might well not survive, but that's a different issue. At the extreme, the worst we could do would be to wipe ourselves out, but the world wouldn't care, life (in some form) would go on.

[Tony Williams]

Speaking as one of them isn't this normal for politicians?

Don't tempt me...

The vast majority of politicians are relatively harmless because they have little or no authority. The President of the USA, however, is a different matter. One would hope (although probably in vain, if recent experience is anything to go by) that the incumbent would be someone who could be trusted not to make any irrational decisions.

[Tim the Mage]

Being serious about this for a moment (and straying a tad from the theme title) there was a welcome move during the 1990s in policy-making to what is described as an ‘evidence-based’ approach. Leaving aside the suggestion that prior to 1997 Government policy was not based on any evidence, the central assertion in ‘evidence-based policy making’ lies in Tony Blair’s “what matters is what works” argument. Policy is best determined by examining the ‘evidence’ and responding rather than beginning from an ideological/doctrinal position and using evidence to support that position.

There is a good bit here on the subject: http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/evaluating_policy/how_res_eval_evid.asp

My concern is that sometimes the ‘evidence’ is not evidence but informed opinion:

Evidence is also often required about why a policy works (or fails to work), how it works, for whom, and under what conditions it works or fails to work. This involves eliciting evidence of the opinions, attitudes and perceptions of different stakeholders in the policy process. National School of Government (from link above)

In social science areas this approach tends to dominate especially given the preference in sociology for qualitative research (the applied research methods course on my masters degree contained no teaching on numerical or quantitative methods). This leads us to this criticism:

Abstract
This article considers the approach to evidence based policy making (EBPM) advanced
in the Labour government's modernisation agenda. The article contends that EBPM
must be understood as a project focused on enhancing the techniques of managing and
controlling the policy making process as opposed to either improving the capacities of
the social sciences to influence the 'practices of democracy' as envisaged by Lasswell, or
facilitating the kind of systems thinking advocated by Schön and by more recent students
of 'complexity' .Parsons, W. http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2002/parsons.pdf

Finally much published material in sociology and social policy starts from a set of assumptions (e.g. the fact of public goods requiring government to allocate) that, it could be argued, constitute an academic doctrine preferring government action to laissez faire.

In the case of Bush, his decision-making has been contradictory, reactive and often wrong but I’m not sure any of it was irrational. He certainly ignored evidence to the contrary (e.g. in his bail out of the steel industry) and used selective evidence and opinion (e.g. on stem cell research) but the main driver was – and this is always the case – the considerations of political calculation.

It's good to know that like Earth I'm mostly harmless!!

[Tony Williams]

Being serious about this for a moment (and straying a tad from the theme title) there was a welcome move during the 1990s in policy-making to what is described as an ‘evidence-based’ approach. Leaving aside the suggestion that prior to 1997 Government policy was not based on any evidence, the central assertion in ‘evidence-based policy making’ lies in Tony Blair’s “what matters is what works” argument. Policy is best determined by examining the ‘evidence’ and responding rather than beginning from an ideological/doctrinal position and using evidence to support that position.

Of course, evidence-based policy-making is only as good as the evidence....which Blair showed himself very willing to massage, manipulate and misrepresent, otherwise we would never have joined the USA in invading Iraq. So it's all just words, really.

In the case of Bush, his decision-making has been contradictory, reactive and often wrong but I’m not sure any of it was irrational. He certainly ignored evidence to the contrary (e.g. in his bail out of the steel industry) and used selective evidence and opinion (e.g. on stem cell research) but the main driver was – and this is always the case – the considerations of political calculation.

The problem is that political calculation involves making voters happy, often by pandering to their frequently irrational ignorance. As with environmental issues in the USA.

[Floppit]

.which Blair showed himself very willing to massage, manipulate and misrepresent, otherwise we would never have joined the USA in invading Iraq.

I'm not sure about this, I think that the USA holds more power over our army/defence than most of us realise. If I'm not mistaken we're no longer a nuclear power at all without the American Trident missiles which must surely remain largely under their control? I remember watching the whole run up to war thinking that there was more to it, it was so unpopular it seemed like political suicide to go. My apologies for random hunches - but at least they're not dressed up as anything more!

Tony, re the worlds survival - you pedant you!!

[Tim the Mage]

For those who like related topics this Dizzy Thinks blog is v good (which doesn't mean to say I agree with him):

http://dizzythinks.net/

[brodski]

Speaking as one of them isn't this normal for politicians?

Nope, it's just that the evidence which they tend to have at hand is usualy (by necessity) far less than perfect .

[Tony Williams]

I'm not sure about this, I think that the USA holds more power over our army/defence than most of us realise. If I'm not mistaken we're no longer a nuclear power at all without the American Trident missiles which must surely remain largely under their control? I remember watching the whole run up to war thinking that there was more to it, it was so unpopular it seemed like political suicide to go. My apologies for random hunches - but at least they're not dressed up as anything more!

Blair made a political decision to stay close to the USA so was determined to be alongside them in the invasion, regardless of evidence or unpopularity.

In contrast, the government of the day firmly resisted US attempts to get us involved in the Vietnam War, even though we were just as dependent on the US military then.

Tony, re the worlds survival - you pedant you!!

I couldn't resist...8)