<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sam Harris Responds to Criticism on his Sarah Palin Piece</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:24:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: micketymoc</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226422</link>
		<dc:creator>micketymoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226422</guid>
		<description>I just realized... I said &quot;hysterically&quot;, which is another historically sexist term! Using spgreenlaw&#039;s logic, references to &quot;hysteria&quot; are sexist because hysteria was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;historically ascribed&lt;/a&gt; to women with disturbed uteruses!

Damn it, being politically correct is &lt;i&gt;so&lt;/i&gt; much more &lt;i&gt;difficult&lt;/i&gt; than I thought!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just realized&#8230; I said &#8220;hysterically&#8221;, which is another historically sexist term! Using spgreenlaw&#8217;s logic, references to &#8220;hysteria&#8221; are sexist because hysteria was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria" rel="nofollow">historically ascribed</a> to women with disturbed uteruses!</p>
<p>Damn it, being politically correct is <i>so</i> much more <i>difficult</i> than I thought!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micketymoc</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226420</link>
		<dc:creator>micketymoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226420</guid>
		<description>&quot;Next on &lt;i&gt;Everybody Loves President Grandpa&lt;/i&gt;... just as the Vice President and her husband&#039;s former business partner enjoy some &#039;executive privilege&#039; in a West Wing closet, the President conducts a peace treaty signing with Georgia... in the same room! How&#039;s the Veep gonna get out of this sticky wicket?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Next on <i>Everybody Loves President Grandpa</i>&#8230; just as the Vice President and her husband&#8217;s former business partner enjoy some &#8216;executive privilege&#8217; in a West Wing closet, the President conducts a peace treaty signing with Georgia&#8230; in the same room! How&#8217;s the Veep gonna get out of this sticky wicket?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226408</link>
		<dc:creator>lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226408</guid>
		<description>Wow....micketymoc. That was absolutely hilarious!

Course I might be more inclined to laugh seeing as that was one of my first thoughts when I saw who McCain had picked. &quot;What, is he planning a sitcom?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow&#8230;.micketymoc. That was absolutely hilarious!</p>
<p>Course I might be more inclined to laugh seeing as that was one of my first thoughts when I saw who McCain had picked. &#8220;What, is he planning a sitcom?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micketymoc</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226272</link>
		<dc:creator>micketymoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226272</guid>
		<description>O new politically correct overlords... I&#039;m still allowed to think that &lt;a href=&quot;http://hijinksensue.com/2008/09/01/vpilf/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this cartoon&lt;/a&gt; is hysterically funny, right? No? OK then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>O new politically correct overlords&#8230; I&#8217;m still allowed to think that <a href="http://hijinksensue.com/2008/09/01/vpilf/" rel="nofollow">this cartoon</a> is hysterically funny, right? No? OK then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226219</link>
		<dc:creator>lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226219</guid>
		<description>Oh, and the Daily Show has been absolutely awesome for both conventions. I can&#039;t wait to see tonight&#039;s show.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and the Daily Show has been absolutely awesome for both conventions. I can&#8217;t wait to see tonight&#8217;s show.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-226218</link>
		<dc:creator>lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-226218</guid>
		<description>For the love of little green apples, people!

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT.

If somebody talked about &quot;the boy next door&quot; and said a man was &quot;a gentleman&quot; we would not be having this discussion. (Yes, &quot;boy&quot; has a different history than &quot;girl&quot;, and as I pointed out earlier, meanings of words change.)

Sarah Palin is a woman and she herself has harped on her gender, calling herself a &quot;hockey mom&quot; and very obviously speaking from a mom&#039;s point of view. She does this deliberately, it is very obvious if you listened to even half her speech (I had to stop when she laughed at Obama daring to care about getting the wrong guy for terrorism) that this is what she&#039;s there for. She made it blatantly obvious when McCain introduced her as his VP pick and she gave lip service to Hilary Clinton who, let me see if I remember this right, &quot;put [some huge number of] cracks in the glass ceiling, but we&#039;re going to &lt;em&gt;shatter&lt;/em&gt; that glass ceiling once! and for! all!&quot; This is the role she&#039;s embraced, quite strongly, because she knows how important it is to the McCain campaign to get women&#039;s votes (and to get back the votes of social conservatives, which is the other major reason she was chosen).

People talk all over about Obama&#039;s race. This is because he is -- wait for it -- the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; even half-&lt;em&gt;black person to win a presidential nomination&lt;/em&gt;. Of course people are going to talk about her gender. IT&#039;S IMPORTANT! And of course people are going to use gender-specific references and figures of speech when they talk about her, positively or negatively. They do it with men all the damn time, but nobody notices because we&#039;re used to it.

And she and all the other Republicans can harp on her gender all they want and it&#039;s not sexist, but the moment somebody includes gender-specific references in their criticism of her, suddenly people are screaming about sexism? Why am I the only goddamn (sorry, habit) person who actually has a problem with the fact that she was chosen primarily because she&#039;s a woman? That&#039;s sexism!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the love of little green apples, people!</p>
<p>MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT.</p>
<p>If somebody talked about &#8220;the boy next door&#8221; and said a man was &#8220;a gentleman&#8221; we would not be having this discussion. (Yes, &#8220;boy&#8221; has a different history than &#8220;girl&#8221;, and as I pointed out earlier, meanings of words change.)</p>
<p>Sarah Palin is a woman and she herself has harped on her gender, calling herself a &#8220;hockey mom&#8221; and very obviously speaking from a mom&#8217;s point of view. She does this deliberately, it is very obvious if you listened to even half her speech (I had to stop when she laughed at Obama daring to care about getting the wrong guy for terrorism) that this is what she&#8217;s there for. She made it blatantly obvious when McCain introduced her as his VP pick and she gave lip service to Hilary Clinton who, let me see if I remember this right, &#8220;put [some huge number of] cracks in the glass ceiling, but we&#8217;re going to <em>shatter</em> that glass ceiling once! and for! all!&#8221; This is the role she&#8217;s embraced, quite strongly, because she knows how important it is to the McCain campaign to get women&#8217;s votes (and to get back the votes of social conservatives, which is the other major reason she was chosen).</p>
<p>People talk all over about Obama&#8217;s race. This is because he is &#8212; wait for it &#8212; the <em>first</em> even half-<em>black person to win a presidential nomination</em>. Of course people are going to talk about her gender. IT&#8217;S IMPORTANT! And of course people are going to use gender-specific references and figures of speech when they talk about her, positively or negatively. They do it with men all the damn time, but nobody notices because we&#8217;re used to it.</p>
<p>And she and all the other Republicans can harp on her gender all they want and it&#8217;s not sexist, but the moment somebody includes gender-specific references in their criticism of her, suddenly people are screaming about sexism? Why am I the only goddamn (sorry, habit) person who actually has a problem with the fact that she was chosen primarily because she&#8217;s a woman? That&#8217;s sexism!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sherilyn</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-225987</link>
		<dc:creator>Sherilyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:32:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-225987</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;You have this backwards.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I don&#039;t think I do.

There are umpteen posts here about whether or not someone somewhere was sexist in regards to Palin. An argument that really has no bearing on anything that has to do with her nomination and eventual possible election to high office. The liberals can&#039;t even agree with each other long enough to condemn her because they are so concerned about condemning the possibility that someone somewhere said something sexist. The rest of his points have been largely ignored..the sexism brought out the beast.

Harris isn&#039;t the problem. Palin is. McCain definitely is. Harris who?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>You have this backwards.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t think I do.</p>
<p>There are umpteen posts here about whether or not someone somewhere was sexist in regards to Palin. An argument that really has no bearing on anything that has to do with her nomination and eventual possible election to high office. The liberals can&#8217;t even agree with each other long enough to condemn her because they are so concerned about condemning the possibility that someone somewhere said something sexist. The rest of his points have been largely ignored..the sexism brought out the beast.</p>
<p>Harris isn&#8217;t the problem. Palin is. McCain definitely is. Harris who?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roland B</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-225926</link>
		<dc:creator>Roland B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:11:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-225926</guid>
		<description>Uhh... why is it sexist?
&lt;blockquote&gt;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...&lt;/blockquote&gt;
The part he expresses concern about voting by chromosome I think applies to man as well. The problem right now as I see it, is that people are finding it a need to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I think its because Hillary promoted herself more as a woman than Obama as a black male and this left a sour aftertaste to those who  wanted to vote for her because she was a woman. 
Don&#039;t vote for Obama because he is black, nor for McKinney (Green Party) because she is a woman, nor for McCain for his age... vote for whoever you want to because they make sense to you.
From as far as I see it, it seems that Obama seems to be an atheist in the closet.

Cheers to the rational,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uhh&#8230; why is it sexist?</p>
<blockquote><p>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&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>The part he expresses concern about voting by chromosome I think applies to man as well. The problem right now as I see it, is that people are finding it a need to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I think its because Hillary promoted herself more as a woman than Obama as a black male and this left a sour aftertaste to those who  wanted to vote for her because she was a woman.<br />
Don&#8217;t vote for Obama because he is black, nor for McKinney (Green Party) because she is a woman, nor for McCain for his age&#8230; vote for whoever you want to because they make sense to you.<br />
From as far as I see it, it seems that Obama seems to be an atheist in the closet.</p>
<p>Cheers to the rational,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: llewelly</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-225900</link>
		<dc:creator>llewelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:52:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-225900</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
Can anyone comment on Harris’ statement that Palin believes the earth is 6000 years old?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Palin supports &lt;a href=&quot;http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&#039;teaching both&#039;&lt;/a&gt; . That doesn&#039;t really answer your question. Perhaps she should be bombarded with letters asking her the age of the Earth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
Can anyone comment on Harris’ statement that Palin believes the earth is 6000 years old?
</p></blockquote>
<p>Palin supports <a href="http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html" rel="nofollow">&#8216;teaching both&#8217;</a> . That doesn&#8217;t really answer your question. Perhaps she should be bombarded with letters asking her the age of the Earth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gullwatcher</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/09/03/sam-harris-responds-to-criticism-on-his-sarah-palin-piece/#comment-225889</link>
		<dc:creator>Gullwatcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=4364#comment-225889</guid>
		<description>Was this a little sexist?  Yes. Is it okay anyway?  Yes, in my book. The difference is that there is sexist to make a point and sexist from the heart - and this was the former, not the latter. 

Likewise, the difference between Obama&#039;s pandering and McCain&#039;s pandering is that Obama&#039;s won&#039;t put a scary idiot next in line to the presidency. Again, it&#039;s a matter of degree, and those do exist, it&#039;s not always black and white.

For a great take on the Republicans, sexism, hypocrisy, and Sarah Palin, don&#039;t miss &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; from the Daily Show.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was this a little sexist?  Yes. Is it okay anyway?  Yes, in my book. The difference is that there is sexist to make a point and sexist from the heart &#8211; and this was the former, not the latter. </p>
<p>Likewise, the difference between Obama&#8217;s pandering and McCain&#8217;s pandering is that Obama&#8217;s won&#8217;t put a scary idiot next in line to the presidency. Again, it&#8217;s a matter of degree, and those do exist, it&#8217;s not always black and white.</p>
<p>For a great take on the Republicans, sexism, hypocrisy, and Sarah Palin, don&#8217;t miss <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086" rel="nofollow">this</a> from the Daily Show.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/4 queries in 0.028 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 301/309 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-02-14 12:35:37 -->
