I Guess This Election Really Is About Change

By Sean Carroll | September 18, 2008 6:00 pm

Occasionally we arrogant fundamentalist atheists are accused of picking on a simplistic, straw-man picture of God — some old man in the sky, Who meddles clumsily in our earthly affairs — rather than a more philosophically sophisticated view of the divine. Just to remind everyone, the unsophisticated version is alive and well, and has big plans for our upcoming elections. Here is an email being passed around among evangelicals. (Via.)

Dear friends:

Barack Hussein Obama has taken the nation by storm. From obscurity, with zero executive experience, or much of any kind, he has vaulted into the position of Presidential frontrunner. It is stunning. On the surface, it appears attributable only to his eloquent oratory and his race. But an invisible factor may be a strong spiritual force behind him, causing some people to actually swoon in his presence.

I have been very concerned that he has publicly said that he does not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. This makes both the Bible and Jesus a liar, and it means that Christ has died in vain. A person cannot be a true Christian who believes that there are other ways of forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life with God. Only Jesus has paid the price for that.

Therefore, there is, indeed, another spirit involved. And this spirit has come into our national life like a flood. Last week at Obama’s acceptance speech, that spirit exalted itself in front of a Greek temple-like stage, and to a huge audience like in a Roman arena. Omama was portrayed as god-like. His voice thundered as a god’s voice.

At the end, Democratic sympathizer Pastor Joel Hunter gave the benediction and shockingly invited everyone to close the prayer to their own (false) gods. This was surely an abomination, but it was compatible with Obama’s expressed theology, and Hunter’s leftist leanings.

God was not pleased.

And God says, “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him” (Isaiah 59:19).

Enter Governor Sarah Palin. With incredible timing, the very next day, Sarah Palin also appeared out of nowhere. Her shocking selection as John McCain’s running mate stunned the world and suddenly took all the wind out of Obama’s sails.

We quickly learned that Sarah is a born-again, Spirit-filled Christian, attends church, and has been a ministry worker.

Sarah is that standard God has raised up to stop the flood. She has the anointing. You can tell by how the dogs are already viciously attacking her. But they will not be successful. She knows the One she serves and will not be intimidated.

Back in the 1980s, I sensed that Israel’s little-known Benjamin Netanyahu was chosen by God for an important end-time role. I still believe that. I now have that same sense about Sarah Palin.

Today I did some checking and discovered that both her first and last names are biblical words, one in Hebrew the other in Greek:

Sarah. Wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac. In Hebrew, Sarah means “noble woman” (Strong’s 8283).

Palin. In Greek, the word means “renewal.” (Strong’s 3825).

A friend said he believes that Sarah Palin is a Deborah. Of Deborah, Smith’s Bible Dictionary says, “A prophetess who judged Israel…. She was not so much a judge as one gifted with prophetic command…. and by virtue of her inspiration ‘a mother in Israel.'”

Only God knows the future and how she may be used by Him, but may this noble woman serve to bring renewal in the land, and inspiration.


The author, Jim Bramlett, was formerly an associate of Pat Robertson, and more recently has been kept busy recording angels singing.

(The BSD Daemon didn’t appear in the original email; that was my addition.)

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Politics, Religion
  • BeerTender

    uh, does anyone else think that pointing out evangelicals as an example of christianity is idiocy? that would be like using charles manson as an example of darwinism, or George Bush as an example of a perfect politician.

  • tacitus

    If there any justice, Palin would be put on the spot about what her beliefs were regarding the age of the Earth and the Universe. This is more that just a question about her religious beliefs (she is free to hold any such beliefs she wants), it goes to the very core of what someone who could easily be holding the highest office in the land believes about science.

    If she is a young-Earth creationist. and all the evidence tends to confirm that she is — she is a “Bible-believing Christian” and wants schools to “teach the controversy”, statements which put her right in line with religious right orthodoxy — then she is essentially denying just about everything that science has taught us about the world we live in. She would believe that the fundamentals of geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology are all dead wrong.

    Imagine a President formulating government policy on Global Warming when they would deny any scientific findings based on data from more than 4,000 years ago (from before “The Flood”). Or how can you rationally assess which NASA programs deserve funding when you don’t even believe anything that NASA publishes about the Moon or Mars’s history or anything about stellar or solar system evolution.

    Bush played the part of a true believer, but I suspect most of that was a cynical election strategy promoted by Rove. Palin looks to be the real thing, and that is simply downright scary for anyone who wants anything close to a reality-based administration.

  • yo

    i wish those people would all ascend and leave us alone.

  • John Merryman

    Give them enough rope.

    Of course, that could apply to lots of assumptions, including some held by physicists.

    Reality bites.

  • http://www.dorianallworthy.com daisyrose

    Back to the dark ages – how do you believe in the absurd ? Faith in Jesus I tell you. Have faith above integrity – kindness to all – curiosity – love of beauty, nature, learning and honesty.

  • http://diracseashore.wordpress.com/ Moshe

    I don’t know…this “end-time role” business is probably the best explanation I’ve heard how a person with Netanyahu’s meager skill set came to be a prime minister. Maybe “prime minister Netanyahu” was just a preview to “president Palin”, I’m sure the end-time business will prosper.

  • Daniel de França MTd2

    “Back to the dark ages – how do you believe in the absurd ?”

    We are not going back to the dark ages. It is just that USA is forfeiting its technological and scientific leadership to other countries, specially China.

  • chuko

    “uh, does anyone else think that pointing out evangelicals as an example of christianity is idiocy?”

    Huh? Evangelicals make up 37% of Christians in the US and 47% of American Protestants. That makes them a pretty significant group, much closer to the average than, say, liberal philosophically sophisticated Christians.


  • Ijon Tichy

    These people are insane. And yet they make up between 1/4 and 1/3 of the American population depending on which study you choose. That is scary considering the military power the USA wields. It’s going to be an interesting century.

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B. ?

    Maybe we should remind Jews that in the fundamentalist view, they are not saved and thus are condemned by God: a visiting minister said terror attacks happen in Israel because God will not defend unsaved Jews or etc. (Why Israel-loving neocons can hob-nob with fundies is weird, I guess politics trumps all …)

    In any case, “palin” does mean “again” or “renewal” or “likewise” not “backward” as many suppose: for the etymology of “palindrome” – a phrase reading the same backward and forward such as “Madam, I’m Adam” – this is a matter of seeing the same letters “again” when you read it in reverse.

    Here is a weird take, from a Ron Paulista site (remember him?):

  • Kurt

    Can someone please tell me what the heck an evangelical is??
    Did they break off from the catholic church or something? When? I don’t get them. These people are insane in the membrane!!

    Which is why it is very troubling that Obama is pandering to these people. In front of a crowd of evangelicals he announced his plan to EXPAND Bush faith based initiatives. I don’t have to tell anyone how much has been written about how wasteful and corrupt Bush’s faith based initiative is!

    Also I found an email going around (also to evangelicals) criticizing Obama for saying “This guy was God before I was” during an event with Morgan Freeman. (Before that he said “This guy was president before I was president”)

    Obama is and never will be president and he definitely is no god except to some of his more insane supporters.

  • Brian

    Such a cute little devil in the “photograph”.

  • tacitus

    I would wager that for every person who believes Obama is on a divine mission (and I don’t doubt there are some), there is a dozen who believe that Palin was chosen by God to be in the White House come January.

    In any case, while I agree that Obama keeping Bush’s faith based initiative would be a mistake he doesn’t have to make, there is only one party who has to keep the fundamentalist masses fat, dumb and happy, and it’s not the Democrats.

  • http://vacua.blogspot.com Jim Harrison

    Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity aren’t quite the same thing. Evangelicals practice a rather emotional religion based on a personal relationship to Jesus. Some of them are also Fundamentalists, but lots of them aren’t. In fact, many evangelicals are politically liberal and formed part of Jimmy Carter’s base back in the day. Progressive evangelicals are still around, many of them strongly committed to social causes, and more recently to their own version of environmentalism. The radicalism of some bible readers shouldn’t surprise anybody. Taking the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles literally lands you far to the left of most American politicians.

  • Jason Dick


    No True Scottsman much? This mode of thought represents a significant portion of the Christian population in the US.

  • z

    to #14:
    Liberal or conservative, evangelical Christianity is still nutty. The liberal form may be compatible with many of the social causes of progressive favor, but it’s still based on an irrational set of beliefs.

    Shame on Obama for pandering to these people. I would much prefer our leaders made decisions on a rational, evidence-based set of criteria molded around a particular goal rather than an ancient work of fiction.

  • tacitus

    It has always amused how religious conservatives make such a massive deal of the Ten Commandments yet I have never heard them take such a passionate stance on the Beatitudes (the opening verses of the Sermon on the Mount and probably the most substantial speech in the Bible attributed to Jesus.

    Of course, “blessed are the meek…”, “blessed are the poor…”, and “blessed are the peacemakers…” don’t exactly jibe with the sort of macho, muscular Christianity they believe in, so it shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone.

  • Haelfix

    Its pretty interesting how evangelicals have managed to live through industrialization in the US. Obviously there used to be a lot more of them, but unlike most other countries they still managed to keep a relatively high percentage (what is it, like 15% of the population or somesuch) despite all the advances in science/education/healthcare and all the huge social shifts.

    They’re influence is unbelievably resilient

  • tacitus

    Haelfix, I suspect that if you look into the history of why America is still a far more conservative nation than Western Europe (even, until recently, strongly Catholic countries like Ireland and Spain) you will find your answer.

    I am increasingly convinced that for the vast majority of people, political identity comes first, followed by the type of religious beliefs you espouse. (No doubt that’s oversimplifying things, but I believe it to be broadly true.)

    I don’t know why America is much more conservative than Europe, but no doubt it has been shaped by the nature of its founding and the differences in its path through history. There is certainly a much greater mistrust of government power which helps fuel the conservative fire as do the notions of self-reliance and achieving the “American Dream” through hard work. There is a widespread belief that if you’re poor or in prison that it’s nobody’s fault but you’re own, no matter how disadvantaged a position you started from.

    Thus other side of the equation is that these people are not deserving of government handouts, social safety nets, or free (at-source) health care and such things make people weak and will eventually ruin America.

    The irony is that this is patently untrue. I grew up in a country (the UK) which has an extensive government run social safety net and where nobody has to worry about paying the bills before seeking medical treatment. I also grew up in a left-wing (by American standards) household but I there was no lack of encouragement from my parents or teachers to aspire to great things and to work hard to get there. We were not told to “settle” and just let the government bail us out if we couldn’t be bothered to get our asses in gear.

    I’m in danger of wandering off topic a little here, but to link it back to the fundamentalist tendencies of religious conservative Americans, I think that conservatism and religion used together has been a very powerful force in maintaining both institutions as powerhouses in America. The hardcore social conservative message is preached from pulpits every week in virtually every town in America and anything liberal is, quite literally, demonized.

    Until we can counter that broadest of stereotypes the religious right has been selling the nation, it will be a tough road for any ideas with even a hint of liberalism to gain traction. And it’s purely through the utter incompetence and disastrous failures of the current Republican establishment that Obama even has a chance this election time.

    In the end, though, I do have hope. More and more people are identifying themselves as Democrats (filling the huge void in the middle left by the rightward march of the Republican party) and if you look at the demographics of religious belief in the younger generations, they have been moving solidly toward secularism for a long time now (by as much as 5 times — 4% to 20% — in just three generations). It will take a lot longer still, but I suspect that the religious right is more powerful today than it will ever be again, and they will soon (even if, heaven forbid, Palin enters the White House) begin the slow decline into irrelevance.

  • http://vacua.blogspot.com Jim Harrison

    To z:

    I’m not a believer of any kind, but I am interested in the sociology and history of religion and call things as I see ’em. I’m also a Democrat, and I’m not interested in reading anybody out of my party whose heart is in the right place. Political coalitions are based on shared interests, not identical world views.

    Anyhow, religions may be all false, but they certainly aren’t all evil. In American history, for example, many evangelical Christians of the so-called Second Great Awakening of the 19th Century supported emancipation, women’s rights, and universal education. Indeed, the churches and their members were notable promoters of science , which most of them did not see as a threat at all. The anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalism was actually a later phenomenon and perhaps, ironically, testifies to a certain falling off of faith.

  • http://www.vegasbangbang.com Kmuzu

    I don’t find these people funny or comical. Frankly they scare the living crap out of me. When 40% of our nation doesn’t believe in Evolution that causes me great alarm. If a person believes the Earth is 12,000 years old, they’ll believe anything.

    Now I’m an agnostic, which means I think there is a higher meaning but don’t know who or what or even if there is a God. But these people know exactly who their God is and He is a terrifying, vengeful, angry god. His servants are His hands to mold the world into His design.

    Atheists and agnostics base their beliefs on a process of rational thought. Which means we analyze, consider and discuss before taking action. Not so with the other side. They are not burden with such elements of the cognitive domain. They can act and react almost instantly.

    I wish you all peace in this time of insanity. May reason prevail over emotion.

  • maninalift

    I like the way he has used Obama’s middle name to emphasise his scary foreign demonic arabishness. No actually I don’t, it’s really nasty. Didn’t he ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan? Who is your neighbor?

    “Surprising” things happen in politics all the time, and it is really not that surprising that at a time when the public are crying out for change, a charismatic young (in presidential terms) man with few associations to political past is leading in the polls. And it’s not his fault that the US political system has a way of venerating its potential leaders, or that it seems to go in for classical architecture in order to portray grandure, it certainly doesn’t mean that he is performing some kind of vast pagan rite.

    Well well, lets just hope this kind of thinking doesn’t spread too much.

  • http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com Arun

    To steal from a comment on Brad DeLong’s blog:

    Half the country is populated by people who claim to believe that the FDA should be abolished because “the market” will ensure that only healthy food and drugs are sold. After all, “in theory”, companies would not want to tarnish their brands by, for example, adding melamine to milk powder. Certainly a company, hypothetically named Sanlu, that is the brand leader in its country would never, “in theory”, do such a thing.
    If half the country is quite clearly certifiable morons…

    There are many other lines of evidence that half the nation is clearly certifiable morons including the fact that they **reelected** Dubya. If you keep quoting them, it is without end. Why not focus on intelligence for a change?

  • UKblaza

    Scary scary scary. McCain/Palin=The Armageddon Ticket. To think that people who believe in this biblical rubbish are potentially going to be the next load of jokers in the White House over there in the USA is a living nightmare. It doesn’t really get more terrifying than this. That Palin woman is a stones throw away from becoming the most dangerous person on the planet. How on earth did she manage to get as far as she has? Surely not all Alaskans are retards? The authorities should step in now and stop her from running for VP. Otherwise she will bring hell to Earth. She doesn’t know god any more than the poor soul who wrote this letter. They are so misguided, they need help to understand the real concept of evil and how their prejudices align so readily with it.

  • RationalZen

    …..Sarah is that standard God has raised up to stop the flood. She has the anointing. You can tell by how the dogs are already viciously attacking her…..

    I love to see stuff like this. Sarah is divine as evidenced by people attacking her credentials. Barack is the anti-Christ as evidenced by divine individuals attacking him.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • Matt

    To me, the funniest part of the whole thing is that the unease of evangelicals (who claim to evaluate everything in the light of scripture) concerning Obama’s mass appeal stems not from scripture, but from the Left Behind book series. I’ve read the whole Bible (grew up evangelical, actually), and there’s nothing, not even in the transcribed-drug-trip book of Revelation that talks about some menacing end times figure with masses of adoring followers. That picture of the “anti-christ” (in Revelation, it’s always plural, “anti-christs”) is purely from popular fiction.

    It’s rather telling that they can’t even tell their holy book apart from trash pulp.

  • Roman

    How on earth did she manage to get as far as she has? Surely not all Alaskans are retards?

    Well, looks like they are, doesn’t it? And you seam to be ready to help them to understand. I lived in a communist country for a while and I really don’t want anybody, be it evangelicals o people like you, “helping” me to understand.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    This makes both the Bible and Jesus a liar

    That was already a fait accompli when Jesus preached to the crowd, “I’m going out for a quart of milk but I’ll be right back.” 2000 years and some people are still holding the screen door open for him.

  • http://www.disorderedcosmos.com Chanda

    There was a thoughtful article in a publication recently (I wish I could remember which one!) about evangelicals in this election. It’s worth noting that contrary to popular liberal assumption, many evangelicals were undecided. The head of a popular young evangelicals magazine said that he wasn’t sure who he would vote for, that he had been courted by both sides and that he had spoken at the DNC in August at their invitation.

    Elsewhere, I’ve seen publications quote statistics about hard core Democrats who are not voting for Barack Obama because they are convinced he is a Muslim, and they somehow think that it’s okay not to vote for someone because they are Muslim.

    Idiocy (and racism) knows no party or ideological boundaries.

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~pwm22/ Peter Morgan

    No contest on some of this stuff being crazy, but when Scientists jump into a strong reaction to religion by labeling it all evangelism/fundamentalism and not reading the literature and meeting the people, it’s just as crazy.

    1) Observation and experiment must be reproducible to be accepted as Science=>single events are not accepted. Nothing is exactly reproducible=>nothing is Science. Not logic, just arguing is all.
    2) A model must be quantitative to be accepted as Science. Bean-counting is the most important part of our relationship to Nature.

    If you’ve never been in a situation that has distressed you enough for you to wonder whether it was a near-death or near-something experience, and wondered whether your rationalization of the moment is the truth of the matter or just a rationalization, you haven’t been through the experiment yet. What you can be sure of is that the complexity of such moments is such that you will never revisit that moment. It won’t happen again. There may be another moment that feels a little the same, but by trying you will not revisit. [You will be pleased to know that you will go through the real-death experience experiment, but not reproducibly, therefore it does not exist for Science. Therefore you will not die?]

    I’m a bean-counter. I’m right there. Are there any academics who aren’t just a little Obsessive? Being obsessive and not near-sighted is difficult. … That two events are not identical doesn’t stop me from categorizing them as the same for the purposes of an observation or an experiment, but I accept that my choice of categories is my choice, and even if a particular choice looks natural, I accept that a totally different choice might be a lot better, and I may not be smart enough to pick as well as other Physicists. I’m good with Science, but some people are not bean-counting obsessives, their heads work differently and they think other things are important. The people on both sides who insist on absolutes are all living in a different world than I think I’m in. Jim Harrison’s response is part-way right, but he doesn’t go far enough.

    I’m confused as hell about this because I feel as if I see both sides, through a glass darkly, as they say. I think there are plenty of Scientists who do see both sides a little, can’t see a way to construct observations and/or controlled experiments that could settle the matter, but either aren’t afraid to live with the dichotomy or are afraid to visit it. I guess not many such Scientists respond to this kind of blog entry. I’m more confused than that.

    In response to #14, I hope Obama is more guided by the Gospels than by the Acts of the Apostles. The appearance to me is that he is, but it’s difficult to tell. Taking Paul to be more important than Christ when it comes to morality and to organizing a Church makes Christianity messy.

    It looks to me as if Obama is the type of person who is willing to live with confusion, living the moment in a flexible way, living by moral guidelines instead of laying down absolute rules. He’s cool. This scares me a little, because Bush/Cheney has been willing to interpret even absolute rules as anything they do is OK, and Palin looks the same way. McCain is hard to read. Obama definitely looks different. He’s a smart operator, but it’s not clear whether he’s #1 or defines himself by working for others (though I think there is more evidence for the latter). It would be foolish not to be afraid of discovering that he can’t cope with the complexities of the POTUS job in the next four years, or that he interprets his moral guidelines a little too flexibly, but the other side looks worse.

    Ouch. Fell out of the tree again. How stupid is that. Repeat. Hey, it’s reproducible! Science is great.

  • Tara

    There may be a high percentage of Evangelicals among American Christianity, but Fundamentalists and Evangelicals aren’t the same thing. Fundamentalists don’t make up the majority of American Christianity; they’re just the loudest and most politically involved. Many Evangelical Christians (including myself) don’t fall in with the “Religious Right,” and are disgusted by faith used as political leverage or as a means to controlling people.

    Whether Barack Obama is an instrument of evil or not is something I don’t pretend to know–I just don’t like his policies. BUT, there are a lot of Republican policies I don’t agree with either. I don’t think the parties actually fit most thinking people exactly–there’s always going to be something that you disagree with.

  • Chris W.

    I hope readers of this post will find some cause for reassurance in this piece:

    A Conservative for Obama
    My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.

  • http://chetsnicker.com chet snicker


    might i offer that this is simply a marginal minority? according to the estimable pew research forum religious landscape survey the majority of those who follow in the path of jesus christ do not adhere or avow such positions.

    yours truly,
    c.v. snicker

  • http://www.savory.de/blog.htm Ole Phat Stu

    if you anagram ‘Sarah Palin’ you get ‘Piranha Sal’ 😉

  • Michael

    “Idiocy (and racism) knows no party or ideological boundaries.”

    This is true as far as it goes. However, short and tall knows no gender, there is certainly an overlap, but no one would argue that there are more tall women than tall men or short men than tall women.

  • Michael

    Of course, I meant short women than short men at the end . . . . . :(

  • Chris W.

    I really should quote the final paragraph of Wick Allison’s piece (linked above):

    “Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B. ?

    Thanks Ole Phat Stu, and it’s also been told that another anagram for her name is “A sharp nail” … FWIW.

    BTW I think it’s odd, for all the “scrutiny” of Sarah Palin, that almost everyone has forgotten about the Alaskan Independence Party – even if she wasn’t a member, her husband (very active in her governance we have learned) was, and she addressed them approvingly at one or more conventions.

  • John Knight

    You’ll forgive me if I am amused by some of the stereotypes & assumptions I find on this blog. As an undergraduate, I attended a church where the entire elder board was composed of M.D.’s (instructors at a major teaching hospital) and Ph.D.’s in mathematics, science, & engineering. Oh, we did have one architecture professor.

    This church was (and still is) theologically a very conservative Evangelical church. Politically, well, the leadership avoided politics in the pulpit. (A partial exception was made on the abortion issue.) And the congregation contained a significant minority of tree-huggers & bleeding hearts.

    I loved it. Here was church that taught the Bible with more care & rigor than most professors brought to their classes.

    The point, I guess, is that Evangelicalism is not by nature anti-intellectual. (The host of universities founded by Evangelicals provide an illustration of this point.) This point is unlikely to be obvious to a certain demographic.

  • Marbelcal

    About 2/3 of the people I work with (nurses at a metropolitan hospital in the bible belt–mostly female) are planning to vote Republican because of Palin. This scares the everlovin’ crap out of me. She’s nothing but a smoke screen and they don’t get it!

  • Tony

    Couldn’t resist fact-checking the ‘palin’/’renewal’ suggestion…

    Turns out, no bull, “palin” in greek means “more of the same”. How ironic is that?! LOL


  • mickeyd

    i just came up with a great nickname for

    the drilla from wasilla

  • Arun M

    I usually go through your blog during meals and posts like this one makes me choke on my food :) sometimes. I think you should have a system/label for identifying posts about ludicrous things to prevent any accidents 😉

  • harkin

    Funny that at such a ‘scientific’ website, the lack of truth and fact-checking abounds so unscientifically.

    Do people even realize that by smearing Palin they actually are driving more voters in her direction?

    Charlie Gibson has done a lot damage with his stupid questions and heavily-edited-for-broadcast interview.


    As a thinking voter, I will look at the facts and make my decision, not be led down the path of hate by small-minded condescension.

    Remember science fans, in 2000 and 2004, the electorate has been just about evenly split between dem and repub. This year it looks to be about the same. But if Obama loses, it will be solely due to racism.

  • Shelly Weiss

    I just don’t understand people’s view of Pastor Hunter… To me, he was being just like Jesus. If you remember, Jesus even went to the Pharisee’s house, knowing they were trying to find a reason to trap Him. Jesus loves EVERYONE, and for a man of God to refuse to pray somewhere because they don’t share the same beliefs, that isn’t reflecting the love of Jesus. Pastor Joel not only respected the audience’s values, he modeled Christ’s behavior.

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B. ?

    Harkin, where here is “smearing” of Palin? First, remember that a “smear” is by definition false. Second, the subject of this thread was a Palin supporter, a real one, showing some of the mentality that actually goes into such support. I don’t know why some people are so defensive of these people they support, considering all the incredible flack and put-downs of Obama, Hillary, etc. that were put out or still out there.

  • Flaming Pope

    perhaps I’m missing the point, but I found this funny (the top half of letter)

    political references toward religion parallels, good cheap laugh / made my day


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.

About Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. His most recent book is The Particle at the End of the Universe, about the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs boson. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] cosmicvariance.com .


See More

Collapse bottom bar