In a rare public discussion of her husband's infidelity, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that she probably could not have gotten through her marital troubles without relying on her faith in God.
"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
14 comments:
Now, replace "faith in God" with "unrequited political ambition", and it sounds a lot more reasonable.
For once I'd like to see a politician not whorishly commit to faith in a supreme being. Even better, I'd like to see a politician honestly deny such faith. He/she wouldn't get elected, but it would make me feel better.
I'm not aware of a single thing any of the 2008 candidates from either party has had to say about science and technology. Singularity or no, there's no denying that every single issue facing us today is at some level a scientific issue - yes, even Iraq.
This SHOULD be an election about America's policy and leadership role in the sciences. Instead, it's just more jostling for the pulpit.
Way to play the "Thank-God-I'm-not-W" angle (note rich, thick sauce of sarcasm).
We don't care what she believes, or professes to believe, but playing into the hands of the current revival movement (faith is neutral in and of itself) is a really bad idea.
Spectacularly so for a woman, especially a specific woman that large swathes of that movement have had a raging hate-on for since about 1996.
Good move.
I'm not aware of a single thing any of the 2008 candidates from either party has had to say about science and technology.
Me neither.
Singularity or no, there's no denying that every single issue facing us today is at some level a scientific issue - yes, even Iraq.
Absolutely. Instead it's more of the same, with zero respect for intelligence.
Trust me, you'll not have a hard time remembering NOT to vote for her. She's AWFUL.
Well, they all are. But she is parTICularly awful.
Hillary rubs me the wrong way. Then again, so do all politicians. ;-)
Oh, come on, Mac. Loosen up. Cuit Hillary some slack. This is just standard American political fluff. Declarations of faith are required of virtually every candidate for public office. There are no atheists in foxholes -- and none in elective office either, at least not any publicly declared ones. I'm much more concerned about her stances on Iraq and, especially, national security. (For example, she declared in the recent Dem debate on TV that the U.S. is safer now than before 9/11. C'mon, Hil, gimme a break! Rely on "faith" all you want but at least be real!)
I don't blame Hillary, per se; she's just the latest example of a political process that I fear is getting us nowhere.
I actually don't know where I stand on the 2008 candidates, but I'm afraid in the end it's going to be the usual lesser of two evils. (Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US has actually learned something from the W debacle.)
I think you are quite wrong in saying that Hillary's response was strategic and condescending. Her religious practice has always been pretty central to her life, going back to her teens. She's speaking in a religious context to an audience interested in religious matters.
She's speaking in a religious context to an audience interested in religious matters.
She also wants to be president. Sorry if I'm cynical, but I think this was PR all the way.
I think you're missing the point Mac. She's playing the "dumb American" card because bottom line is that this is the only card one can play in a modern election. With more than half the country not believing in Darwin, politicians (even smart ones) are left with little choice but to "act stupid".
They're willing to inject faith and general topics of superstition into the debate to give them some kind of fighting chance. I have little doubt that whichever democrat makes it into office, will take steps to change the public paradigm and excise this religious garbage back to the stone age where it belongs.
At this point they are willing to do anything, say anything to take back control of an utterly corrupt system. I for one don't blame them for the effort.
I think you're missing the point Mac. She's playing the "dumb American" card because bottom line is that this is the only card one can play in a modern election.
I'm afraid you're right.
thats why i miss obama already.
Post a Comment