So, finally getting around to writing my thoughts about McCain’s VP selection. Obviously, given a week plus to reflect my thoughts are not quite what they were, but that’s probably for the better.
My first reaction when I fired up Firefox and saw the headline was a kind of quizzical, head-tilting, confusion. My immediate thought was that it seemed like a desperate and transparent ploy to pull in disgruntled Hillary supporters. Apart from that though, I knew absolutely nothing about her so I was kind of at a loss. Fortunately, I’m people who knows people, and I was able to call out to Tim, the John’s Unnecessary Blog Offical Alaskan Correspondent (bet you didn’t know I had one of those?) for some local perspective. Here are some excerpts:
“Sarah seems cut out for being a mayor, but above that, she seems out of her league to me. Her campaigh for governor in 2006 was poorly managed, flew by the seat of its pants, and she frequently double-booked certain times of the day with appointments. I invited her to a telephone debate with other candidates for a rural Alaska audience, and her people cancelled the morning of the event.
People like her in Alaska because she is so different from the series of old white men who have governed this state since its birth 50 years ago. She was inaugurated in a stadium in Fairbanks, instead of the state capital in Juneau. Just to be different, and allow more of the common folk to attend. Her emphasis on ethics in government has been very well received, and 4 state lawmakers have been sent to prison since she took office, with more on the way. She gets the credit for that. She is scorned by the Alaska Republican Party for being a maverick and totally unwilling to suck up to the good ol’ boys club involving lawmakers, business leaders and the oil industry. That's how she got to be on the McCain radar screen a year or so ago.
She loves constitutions. Her answer to almost any political questions involves constitutionality. At times she does not seem to have an opinion of her own, just an ability to invoke the Alaska constitution.
But she's still embroiled in this scandal surrounding her firing of the Commission of Public Safety, evidently because he refused to fire a state trooper that is a bad man and was, by the way, once married to Sarah's sister Molly. I assume that situation has reached the rest of American now that Palin is in the national spotlight. A state legislature committee is trying to find evidence that could indict her, but Palin has lawyers saying that the investigators have no right to do so. Now some Big Republican lawyers will likely help her get out of this mess.
After she fired the guy who wouldn't fire her sister's ex husband (stick with me here), she hired a guy who sexually harassed an employee several years ago and was disciplined by his police department. Palin nor her people knew about that before they offered him the Commissioner job. That guy resigned two weeks after taking the job. Oops.
Biden should make her look silly in the VP debate. Or rather, SOUND silly. She will manage to look good, even when she is getting crushed in a debate.”
Thanks Tim, for the local perspective! I am quite confident that some of my readers will appreciate your point of view more than others.
My immediate sense was that this selection was a game-changer, though whether it was a 99-yard TD pass or an interception returned for a TD I wasn’t sure. And really I’m still not, though I think it has probably a slightly better chance of blowing up in McCain’s face then it does of working out.
From an election standpoint it’s completely irrelevant what someone who was already in the McCain camp on August 28th thinks about her (they’re generally ecstatic FWIW), just as it was completely irrelevant what an already-declared Obama supporter thought about Biden after that pick was made. The whole end game of the next 60 or so days is how each of these picks fares in picking up the undecided voters. And on that level I think she’s in for a very bumpy ride.
So, I will ask the question that everyone has been asking for the last 10 days, who the hell is this person and what does she stand for? Since her website automatically reroutes to John McCain’s and all that currently has is a transcript of her convention speech, I had to pull quotes from here. I know they will be out of context, but she’s not giving me a whole lot to go on at this point.
“I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves.” – Convention speech
“I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman.” – from her now re-routed http://www.palinforgovernor.com/ website
On a hypothetical if Roe v. Wade was overturned: “Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.” – Anchorage Daily News 2006 gubernatorial profile
“I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet [for personal use by the governor] was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef--although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending--by request if possible and by veto if necessary.” – Convention speech
“I am a conservative Republican, a firm believer in free market capitalism. A free market system allows all parties to compete, which ensures the best and most competitive project emerges, and ensures a fair, democratic process.” – Palin/Parnell campaign mailer, 2006
On whether or not she supported the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? “No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.” - Anchorage Daily News 2006 gubernatorial profile
“As Mayor and CEO of the booming city of Wasilla, my team invited investment and encouraged business growth by eliminating small business inventory taxes, eliminated personal property taxes, reduced real property tax mill levies every year I was in office, reduced fees, and built the infrastructure our businesses needed to grow and prosper.” -Palin/Parnell campaign mailer, 2006
On teaching creationism vs. evolution in school: “Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher." Boston Globe, Aug 30 2008
On global warming: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” - Q&A with newsmax.com Aug 29, 2008
Well, I’m not going to go point by point on these, as I think it’s probably pretty apparent to all readers of this space where I stand on most of these. However . . .
I absolutely do have to take her to task on the “Bridge to Nowhere” comments. It’s just a flat out lie. Now, we can go round and round (and probably will) about the when and the why she was for it and then against it. But the kicker that’s undisputed is: she kept the money. There is a great Simpsons episode where Ron Howard feels sorry for Homer and gives him some money. Homer shouts back “I don’t need your charity!” And then he folds the money and puts it in his pocket. That’s what Palin is doing here.
Anyway, setting that aside if we summarize her she can aptly be characterized as conservative, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, against wasteful spending, for low taxes and free markets, against gay marriage, and isn’t convinced that climate change is man-made.
Now, again, setting aside whether or not you agree with those views personally or not, I just don’t see how a candidate with those positions helps you win over independents, as at least half of those are at odds with most independents think (abortion, climate change, and evolution in particular). The only way I can see it really working is if this now allows McCain to move a lot more towards the center since he believes that his base is now energized and loyal because of her. If that’s indeed what he’s doing, then that’s a gamble, but of course he likes gambling and prides himself in earning the “maverick” claim.
I’m not going to say a whole let else about all the “noise” being thrown around by both camps over the Palin storm. It’s certainly true that a lot of staunch left-wingers have spread some nasty unfounded rumors and there’s too much focus on her personal life, but at the same time the Republicans are trying to lump all queries about her, both legitimate and illegitimate, as “attacks”. Questioning whether or not her 5th child is really hers or not is out of bounds and irrelevant to an election. Campbell Brown grilling Tucker Bounds on Palin’s foreign policy experience is completely legitimate and should not have prompted McCain to cancel a CNN appearance. I will say this, however (and this is more of a commentary on American culture than anything else); if it was Barrack Obama instead that had a pregnant 17-year old daughter, this election would be over.
So, to somewhat wrap this up, while overall I don’t think it will turn out to be a great pick for McCain I do agree that Democrats underestimate her at their peril. Just as it was stupid for John Kerry to spout that “John McCain is a weak candidate” for the last 6 months, the instantaneous ridiculing of Palin by some on the left is completely counter-productive. Criticizing her by saying that her experience as mayor of a tiny town is worthless does not play well in small towns elsewhere in the U.S. (but then again criticizing community organizers doesn’t exactly play well in big cities). And Democrats should not get drawn into the debate about Obama’s overall experience versus hers. Even if they win that debate, the Republican response is “you’re right, she doesn’t have all that much experience. That’s why she’s at the bottom of our ticket and not the top.”
Oh, and because I just happened to read about it 10 minutes ago I want to add that the feigned outrage at Obama’s use of the term “lipstick on a pig” is just stupid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
"National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion."
On page 1 of the article you posted... I'm sure you didn't intend to exclude it, but it does speak to the "she kept the money" argument.
If the state was awarded the money even though it was given to the state AFTER passing on the bridge, does this constitute some kind of wrongdoing?
If your argument goes to the state having the highest "per capita" earmarks, I would tend to agree with you. But to accuse the state of Alaska, and Palin in particular, of some wrongdoing because the money was spent "at its own discretion", I'm not quite buying it.
And, in the spirit of "just stupid"... if you don't see some kind of link between Palin remarking on her use of lipstick, and Obama referring to lipstick wearing pigs, well... he pretty much called her a pig there.
"The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose."
"Budget watchdog groups celebrated the reversal. "Instead of forcing taxpayers to buy a pair of boneheaded bridges, money would be freed up for much more important Alaskan transportation priorities," said Jill Lancelot, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense."
Both quotes from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"Fact 1: At some level Governor Palin showed support for the bridge project while she was running in the race for Governor of Alaska.
Fact 2: Congress made the money for the Gravina Island Bridge available to Alaska, although it didn't have to be used for that bridge.
Fact 3: The State of Alaska already had the federal funds in hand when Gov. Palin took office.
Fact 4: Governor Palin put a stop to the bridge project and appropriated the funds for more reasonable uses. "
Clipped from:
http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_The-Real-Story-Of-The-Bridge-To-Nowhere/blog/98788/41158.html
With all respect, it took you over a week to come up with that post, and it took me 20 minutes to dispute your assertions that there was some wrongdoing? There's enough sources out there that you should be able to find more data on this than the talking points memo website.
She was in favor of the bridge before she was not in favor of it. That's not included in her speeches. But she clearly didn't campaign for the bridge (money was already earmarked), and she cancelled the project when she became privy to information that, any logical person could say, changed the scope of the project.
Did I accuse her of wrongdoing? I just said you can't say "thanks, but no thanks" when you kept the money. That's "thanks, but thanks" or at least "thanks, but I'm gonna use that for something else."
And wow; just wow! So the word lipstick is now completely 100% owned by Sarah Palin, huh (like Madonna)? The expression "lipstick on a pig" has been used by politicians for, um, I don't know, probably about 150 years. And he used it aptly to make the same point he's been making about McCain (that his policies don't differ from Bush's) and never even mentioned Palin. So yeah, clearly Obama, who has railed against personal attacks for years, who didn't do any against Clinton, and who instantly told the press to keep the families out of it when Palin was announced as VP . . .yeah, he's gonna take this opportunity to slam Palin on her appearance. I have no idea how any reasonable person can believe that.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some Sarah Palin on my collar I have to wipe off . . .
Lipstick on a pig. A folksey little phrase by a folksey downhome kind of guy.
Not buying it. Anyway, moving on to other matters, your inference that independent voters are pro-choice athiests that watched An Inconvenient Truth may be a little off base. I think it's wishful thinking to say most independents are ANYTHING when it comes to the issues.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/tom_brokaw_meet_the_press_conf.html
And WOW WOW WOW (Jaw drops) John, you've got to lay off the surprise angle. Unless you're trying to say my opinions are so over the top that only the stupid half of the population that disagrees with you could possibly agree with me.
If that's the case, then let 'er rip!
www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09
/tom_brokaw_meet_the_press_
conf.html
couldn't get it to post right... take out the blank spaces when you paste it.
I am not saying that you are stupid. Rather, I am saying that you appear to be drinking (beer-bonging in fact) the extreme right-wing Kool-Aid propaganda to a degree that is thoroughly astonishing to me. But you are not stupid; merely wrong. At some point in this election season McCain or Palin will utter the word black in some proximity to some other word with negative connotations and the left-wingers will jump all over that. That will be ridiculous too.
Pro-evolution does not equal atheist and it is not only viewers of An Inconvenient Truth that believe in manmade climate change. But thanks for belittling my argument and setting it up as a straw man. Appreciate it.
And although I was surprised by the poll on creationism (that's what they named the museum so that's what I'm calling it) I'm not quite ready to concede that point. That's the only poll I can find, it's over 2 years old, and although Zogby has been right about a lot of things he's also been extremely inaccurate about a lot too (he predicted a comfortable electoral win for John Kerry, for example).
And just for clarification, it did not take me a week to write this. It took a week for me to have the 2-3 hours free to write this.
From BBC
"Republicans may well try to keep the controversy going, although one difficulty for them is that John McCain has himself used the offending phrase."
Re: The Lipstick
The phrase may have been used by many, for a long time, but after the convention when Gov. Palin used the line in the pit bull comparison, it became her's. I'll bet McCain hasn't used it since then. It was poor judgment by Obama to say it after her speech at the convention.
This, in my opinion, ends the debate.
I think the most noteworthy part of it is that he has used the exact same expression before in this campaign.
I also particularly like former Gov. Swift's line of logic.
Sorry John. Although I completely intended to belittle your argument, It probably wasn't the nicest way to go. I guess I was just a little sensitive to a perceived slight when I thought you were calling me stoopid.
It is ironic, however, that of the parties involved in what I am now referring to as "Lipstickgate" (McCain, Palin, Obama, and the pig), only Obama has said anything about it. It really WOULD be nice to focus on the real issues.
What were those again?
"...feigned outrage at Obama’s use of the term 'lipstick on a pig' is just stupid."
I feel that John is correct (I am personally refraining from the word "Right" to mean correct until 11/4/08) in stating that Palin was selected to allow McCain to move toward center. I personally think that her selection has less to do with the fact that she is a woman than the fact that she slings the party line and has stood up to the good old boys.
I am all for the standing up to the good old boys but I think congress will make the " Mavericks" about as ineffectual as the big JC. (Jimmy Carter) If they get the chance.
What really ticks me off is that Palin the supposed maverick of the North, is still in doubt that climate change may be man made. Wouldn't the maverick from an oil rich state be willing to tell the truth? Come on. Even
GB2 admitted that.
I don't think I can handle another administration that will take 8 years to realize that burning fossil fuels is not the solution to energy stability.
I personally expected more from McCain. Kucinich would have been a nice way to both solidify McCain's defiance of the system and Separate himself from GB2.
Personally Mike, I am shocked that back a few months ago you didn't pick Denny as your respected alter ego. For the record, I was going to choose GB1. Mostly because he was smart enough to not wage all out war in Iraq. (little tangent there, but I don't write much so I need to catch up)
So, back to the question at hand. Would Palin make a good president if needed?
Maybe.
Does she share any of my beliefs?
Yes, that there are a lot of corrupt politicians.
Am I an atheist who watches inconvenient truth?
Possibly.
Do I think that Palin will put her foot on the accelerator of the republican bus to hell, while her “abstinence only” educated daughter learns that prayer is not an effective form on contraception in the back seat?
Probably.
"...feigned outrage at Obama’s use of the term 'lipstick on a pig' is just stupid."
My intention with this statement was that it was my belief (which has obviously been shown to be wrong now) that no reasonable person could actually think that he was calling her a pig, and thus the attempt to politicize and spin it into something sexist seemed very stupid to me. Given that for whatever reason there are some people out there with genuine outrage, then I would have been better served to use the term "misguided" instead of stupid.
And yes Obama is the only actual candidate to talk about it, though let's be clear that it was McCain's camp (Gov. Swift and the "Palin Truth Squad") that brought it up first.
Obama has been very consistent in his approach to any attack against him in both the primary and general campaign. He always responds very quickly so that the story and the response occur in the same news cycle to minimize the chances of people seeing only one and not the other.
And you say we need to get back to the issues, but his statement was about the issues ! He said that McCain's policies are the same as Bush's (something he has been repeating ad nauseum for the past 3 months). That's the charge McCain should have been outraged about and responded accordingly. Instead, spokesmen for his campaign have tried to morph it into a personal attack on Palin and Obama responded to that. That's completely appropriate.
Has anybody considered the pig farmers' votes in this and the effect comparing Palin to a pig and accusing pigs of being vain enough to wear lipstick might have on this election?
I want to talk a second about Palin's family and whether or not we can rightfully talk about Palin's family.
There is a difference between gossip and critiquing personal choices. I admit, I had some fun the first weekend gossiping. But, when that was over, I still think it is legitimate to talk about these things from a decision making standpoint.
Ok, so the kid really was hers, we can put that one to bed.
But I think it is appropriate to talk about the fact that she successfully hid her pregnancy from her constituents for 7 months. That says something about HER.
Then there was the shenanigans surrounding the 24 hours prior to her giving birth to her 5th child. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict that time line, so I think it is fair game to point to that to question her judgment and/or decision making skills.
SHE was pregnant before she was married.
HER DAUGHTER was pregnant before she was married.
I haven't seen her position on it, but it has been assumed that she is for abstinence-only education. It is fair to ask about her personal life based on her political views.
Otherwise you end up with a "do as I say, not as I do" VP.
Moving on...
Mike, she took part of the money for the bridge and used it to build...a road to the bridge that wasn't being built. That is shady. It has since been dubbed "the road to nowhere."
I agree with you on the questionable nature of Alaska's per capita earmarks, and even more so on Wasilla's earmarks. For a town that small she hired a lobbyist and picked up $27M.
(I just noticed the title of this blog entry. Clever.)
I also forgot to add that it makes me want to hit my head against the wall repeatedly when ANYONE suggests teaching creationism in public schools.
It makes me want to take an electric drill to my temple (Pi style) when someone suggests that schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science class.
Evolution is science.
Creationism is faith.
For one to be right doesn't make the other wrong.
If you want your children to learn faith, send them to church. I went to 'Sunday School' until I was 16, I think. It is not like this country is lacking in churches.
Palin answers her critics.
Slightly NSFW. Little language.
This "debate" has apparently backed me into an unlikely position of defending creationism. I cannot do that, as I don't believe in creationism as a realistic, scientific, or even somewhat likely position for our existence.
I can say, however, that Darwin's theory of natural selection, or evolution, is not without its flaws. And from what I gather, through actual research on the matter, rather than witty snippets from The Daily Show and Gina Gershon (a truly learned and trustworthy source), Sara Palin is not advocating tossing out science textbooks and replacing them with Genesis (the book, not the band).
Science is the search for truth using critical thinking and methods for testing theories. It is the pursuit of knowledge as much as it is knowledge its self. And thus, standing theories must constantaly be challenged, or (as you all have rightly pointed out before) our GPS devices would look vastly different than they do today.
To accept Darwin's theory of evolution without question is just as naive and backward as accepting the Bible as the final arbitor of the subject. Teaching evolution, while also teaching where it falls short, will allow the next leap in knowledge that will ultimately lead us closer to the truth of our existence.
Also, do you all realize that we are in the minority when it comes to the creationism vs evolution polls?
Depending on the poll, it looks like a sizeable majority of Americans believe that a higher power either created, or had a hand in the creation of, life.
I know it doesn't make them right, but it is noteable when it comes to an election where some of the debate focuses on religious issues. Hey, isn't Obama a Christian too?
For the record, I am 100% in favor of replacing science books with the band Genesis.
Seriously though, I am completely in favor of pointing out all the holes and unanswered questions in Darwin's theory. That is the essence of science. But it needs to be understood that we're working in the margins of the theory now. When Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun, it was another couple hundred years before we had a good grasp on all the specifics and the hows and whys. Then, as now, a lot of religious leaders poked holes in the theory or just outright denounced it as blasphemy and said it was against the Bible. But once it could no longer be denied, they found a way to incorporate it.
Which brings me to the other point. Saying that you believe that a higher power was involved in the creation of man doesn't mean that you don't believe in evolution. Why can't evolution have been God's method of making man? When a seed is watered and eventually a flower blooms, did anyone have a hand in that happening? Well, if the seed was outside in the wild, then probably not. But if it was indoors and I'm the one that watered it, then yes I did, although anyone looking at just the flower would have no way of knowing that. That's what I don't get with a lot of these people that deny evolution. That is just extreme arrogance to say "I know how God did this, and he didn't do it this way."
And even the Pope(s) have said since 1950 that there is no conflict between creationism and evolution. I particularly like this from the current Pope (said before he was poped):
"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities."
I think you missed my point. I don't care what people believe in. I don't care what percentage of Americans believe in whatever.
The problem is that creationism is being taught next to evolution in SCIENCE class.
You are correct in stating that there are holes in evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin himself had problems with it even after Origin of Species came out. But, like you said, it is a theory that can be measured, tested, and explained. You can use the scientific method. Will evolution become 100% correct? Well, given the billions of years of life, and the 150 years since Darwin postulated evolution, I doubt it.
But I digress.
Science class is not the place to teach faith. When you break it down, faith is belief in something WITHOUT evidence. This is the exact opposite of what science class should be about. Science is out the window when you can answer any question with "God did it."
And of course you run into some sticky constitutional arguments when you combine religion with public school.
And Weir, I want to respond to your point about talking about Palin's family. I understand what you're saying but I still don't agree with it. Elected officials, when faced with choices, are supposed to weigh the evidence and make objective decisions. That is not the case with your family, where emotions are unavoidable. I may decide to spend $10,000 on surgery for my 19-year old dog just to prolong his life for another 6 months. That might not be a good decision, but it would be extremely misleading to say "see, that shows that he is willing to spend extravagant sums to protect something for a small amount of time. That means he's going to give large subsidies to dying industries because he doesn't know ho to let go." If I loan money to a family member who I don't think I'll ever get it back from, it doesn't mean that I'm for welfare. Similarly, I'm not going to turn down someone for a management position because he's been divorced 3 times and thus shown "poor decision making skills on one of the most important personal decisions you can make." I think it is faulty logic to start taking personal family decisions and extrapolating them into public policy.
One of the core Republican beliefs that I still highly value (though it has been somewhat usurped by the libertarians lately) is the belief that government should stay of people's personal lives as much as possible. I believe it should work the other way as well.
Hey John... Can I borrow some money?
I think there are two different amounts of religiosity (?) here. Adam and Eve and the rib, that's creationism. Creationists believe humans were created outright and did not evolve. People who accept the idea of evolution but believe that it was motivated by God subscribe to the theory of intelligent design. Some of them accept the Bible story of Adam and Eve as metaphorically true but not literally true.
But so, either way, the people who ask for creationism/intelligent design to be taught in school, they tend to be Christians, and tend to assume it would be the Christian genesis story that would be taught. But really, doing that would be promoting one religion over another, something which is prohibited by the constitution.
For the Christian origin story to be taught in schools, every origin story from all major religions and cultures of the world would have to be taught. (And then you would still be neglecting the atheists, which I think as time moves on we will more and more have to consider, for legal purposes, as its own religion which should be protected as any other.)
In the end the only practical way to address their demands would be for the teacher, at some point in a unit on evolution (which, no one teaches a unit on evolution, do they? It just comes up, like in a unit on prairie life or something, explaining how seeds have adaptive features to let them stick to animals' fur, etc.)... Anyway, the only reasonable solution would be for her at some point to make a very vague and even-handed statement and say, "Over many years, scientists have found scores of evidence to support the idea that humans are the product of evolution. Some parts of evolution still don't make sense, however, and not everything can be explained by evolution. As to why evolution occured in the first place, some people believe a higher power had a hand in motivating life to grow and evolve. Some people believe differently, that it all happened because of chemistry and biology and the fight for survival. These are personal beliefs, and outside of what can be proven through science. It is something each person must decide for themself." And then move on. Which, I am betting many teachers already do anyway, because students ask questions and teachers have to find *some* answer to give them when they do.
By the way, did you know not too long ago Ben Stein (yes, that Ben Stein) produced a documentary about intelligent design. He accused the scientific establishment of oppressing the believers of intelligent design, and went on to compare the "pushers" of evolution to Nazis in the Holocaust. Over at Scientific American they had a big brouhaha about it.
1
So, I don't know if any of you have read "Finding Darwin's God". http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/
It is written by an evolutionary biologist who is or was catholic. He does a good job, although a bit lengthy, of explaining the holes in most creationist theories and then he condems the scientific community for its need to assault religion. As most "new" creationist theories are just a slight twist on an old theory. The disection and evidence in contrary to most creationist logic gets a bit repetative. If you agree with his point skip to the last two chapters and see what he says about how with can live with each other. However, the Hadron collider may throw a wrench in one of his theories. But don't have take to my word on it... cue reading rainbow music.
Butterfly in the sky...
Becks, problem with the Adam & Eve story is that not even everyone agrees on that. As I said earlier (or in a different post) there are actually 3 different creation stories in Genesis. Depending on your copy of the bible, the first two actually occur on the same page.
And John, we'll just have to disagree with how a candidates personal life fits into a campaign. I still think that a person's life experiences are part of the person/candidates character. Just because the negative stuff is sexier gossipy type stuff doesn't make it any less important than the positive parts of a candidates background (say military service.)
And we have the first official Palin flip-flop
At least she is flipping to the correct side of the issue, though.
Conventional Logic vs. Religious Logic
I still don't understand how it's so unbelievable that an intellegent person might have doubts about the level of human involvement on global warming (climate change, whatever). Especially when the 'evidence' is so politically and financially influenced.
I believe that she was taking the opportunity to clarify her position (isn't that what dems call it?) and not an official flip-flop.
:-)
Completely off topic, but still cool...
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
OK, I won't say that Palin flip-flopped on climate change if you don't say that Obama flip-flopped on drilling.
Obama's flip-flop on NAFTA and Palin's flip-flop on the Bridge to Nowhere are still on the table, however.
Yeah, we can trade.
BTW, I've got a T206 Honus Wagner... what do you have to trade?
:-)
Now this is truly bipartisan cooperation!
Screw this bipartisan stuff.
Shame on you, republican surrogate.
Linking 9/11 to Iraq is something Bush doesn't even do anymore.
and finally a link showing mccain saying that short term mayors and governors aren't prepared
Guess this argument works to attack your opponents in the primaries, but not in the general to attack your VP choice.
(There was a lot of crazy shit out there today that I didn't post. Trying to keep it reputable with at least a decent source.)
Wow. Just wow.
{Stunned amazement}
(Isn't that the protocol?)
And which one is a reputable source?
Please, oh please, note the sarcasm here.
While the sources may not meet your criteria of 'reputable' the one is a vid clip from msnbc, another is a vid clip from a debate from fauxnews, and the other is the washington post.
primary source, primary source, direct quotes.
exactly what kind of sources would you like to see? cant get much better than straight from someones mouth.
Please, oh please, note the sarcasm here.
*
***
*****
*******
*********
***********
***
***
***
***
***
See, I didn't think you'd get it, so I even pointed it out for you.
To be honest, I still don't understand what you were trying to say in your post 3 up. And your response to my post responding to your post confused me even more.
Stupid internets messing with sarcasm.
how about the non-partisan factcheck.org?
Seriously though, we should all get together (and by 'all' i mean the four or five of us) over drinks. I think it would be fun.
And depending on how many drinks we have, it would be fun to time how long it takes before we come to blows.
As someone who reads this blog, and never comments because I don't want to be called-stupid, illogical, a liar, wrong, or any other insults you guys throw around; I think it would be a horrible idea for you to get together in person. I already read nervously waiting for a huge fight to break out, could you have a little compassion for the wife/sister/friend of all of you who has to nail bite through this whole election?
:)
ps (since I'm a girl I can use ps)
Wier "note sarcasm" means he's being sacastic "this" time about your sources. Last time he wasn't though ;)
I think we should do a weekly round table on YouTube or video PodCast, meet the press style.
We can bolt the chairs to the floor for Christy's sake.
As far as the sarcasm, the post Weir is referring to was intended to be a little bit self deprecating, in that you finally quoted a source (their own mouths) that I couldn't really dispute.
I was also poking a little bit at John with the sarcasm stick... But I'm sure he got that, and that it was all meant in fun.
You see, I can't make fun of myself without bringing some crap down on a not so innocent bystander as well (and I know he's tough enough to take a little ribbing).
steel chair match!
Don't know who caught SNL last night, but this was pretty damn funny (about the only thing that was funny last night.
Palin and Hillary
Ok John, I need a little Econ lesson here.
Gas prices topped out this summer somewhere between $4.30-$4.45. This was when oil was ~$147/barrel.
Gas prices are back up to $4.30 even though oil is down to ~$97/barrel.
This is the lowest crude price in 5 months, the dollar is slightly stronger against rising gold prices and a weakening Yen, and yet a 34% reduction in crude prices has not made a dent in consumer gas pricing.
What gives? I know refineries have been shut down for a few days, and that there are shortages across the Gulf region, but reports have also stated that the weaker than expected hurricane did little to no damage to energy infrastructure.
It would seem to me that if your materials cost drops by a third, at least some of that could be passed on to consumers.
(Then again, with the shit hitting the fan again yesterday and today, we're pretty much fraked anyway.)
Well, there's a bunch of different ways you can look at it.
The first thing to understand is that market price is not always driven by component costs. You charge whatever you think you can get for your product irrespective of how much it costs you to make it. In the pure capitalist model if you are charging way over your component costs someone else will enter the industry and beat your price and basically the price will get bought down to the level where everyone is forced to be as efficient as possible. But in the oil refining industry the scale and start-up costs are so mammoth that the barriers to entry are huge and it doesn't function like an "open" market. It's basically a cartel.
From a market standpoint, you can argue that the price for gas was artificially low for a long time and now it is reflecting its true market value. In that respect, I think the oil companies have been wanting to raise the price of gas for a long time but didn't feel they could survive the political fallout from price gouging consumers. The soaring oil price earlier this year gave them the perfect opportunity to do it. The bet now is that not enough people are following the price of crude and will continue to just think that gas is high because oil is high.
The other possibility, of course, would be collusion.
Probably the simplest explanation is just that consumers are willing to pay the higher prices. When prices soared, people cut down on their non-necessary, discretionary trips. It will take a big drop in gas prices before people start adding those back in again (if you put off a road trip to NY because of $4.30 gas, you're probably still not going to do it at $3.80 gas). So in that respect the aim is to keep gas prices as high as possible, since people can't really cut back anymore without significantly altering their lifestyle. So they're pretty much stuck, which is not a position of power for the consumer.
This can basically go one of two ways. The angst of the consumer either develops into a cry for government or the free market to either 1) artificially reduce gas prices or 2) redouble efforts to bring more efficient technology and/or alternative energy to the market.
I hope we have finally reached the point where we're going to opt for 2(which is the only long-term solution) instead of 1, but I fear we still may not be there.
John,
Why not mention an increased supply as a method of impacting price?
Shouldn't an increase in the amount of oil in tankers heading our way, as well as newly discovered oil reserves on our own property, decrease the price of crude?
I like how you used the term 'cartel' instead of oligopoly.
When you say that the price has been kept artificially low, who was keeping it low? Was it Exxon and BP, or was it OPEC?
I know some have speculated that OPEC kept an artificially low price, specifically in the US, to kept the US economy addicted to oil and to help stall advancements in alternative energy tech.
I don't know...
I don't think this will slide by without people noticing. The windfall profits tax is too big of an issue in Obama's platform.
Of course, but as Weir demonstrated the price of gas is not rising and falling in sync with the price of crude. When oil prices rise, oil companies are passing that on to consumers, but when the price comes down they are not nearly as responsive. I'm sure they will give the explanation that they are using average price per barrel and not the spot rate on any given day to set the price of gas, and I'm sure there is something to that. But that doesn't explain why they are a lot quicker responding to oil price increases than they are to decreases.
So, again, since the oil companies now know that people are willing and able to spend $4.30/gallon they have very little incentive to lower their price and any increase in supply that lowers the price of crude will just serve to increase their profit margin. Unless, of course, there's a consumer uproar to force the government to control the price of gas (and we're back at option 1).
Weir - the question of who was keeping the prices low is a topic that could fill a book (and has). Maybe OPEC, maybe Exxon/BP, maybe the US Government (and probably all 3 had a hand in it). Also, we basically used to be "Wal-Mart" to the Saudis (meaning that we bought such a high percentage of their oil that we had a lot of leverage in negotiating a favorable rate) but with China/India et al on the scene that's no longer true.
But you can see that it's "artificial" by the fact that there has been such a great disparity between gas prices in Europe and the U.S. for so long (and the difference is only partially attributable to the increased taxes those govts impose).
About a week ago I paid $3.92 for gas. At the same station today it was $4.39.
This is almost the highest I've ever seen it.
really john, you watched Mr. Woodcock? what is wrong with you?
1) It was on HBO and even though I expected it to be awful I figured Billy Bob Thorton can make almost anything at least watchable.
2) I've had that up there for over a month. How are you just noticing that now?
I noticed this a few days ago...
Who's George Orville?
http://tinyurl.com/6hrvb5
This is infuriating. First, why haven't I seen this on the mainstream media? Why is there not more outrage over it? Why aren't people finally seeing that he really is "politics as usual", and not the great agent of change and reform he claims to be?
I'm disgusted. No sarcasm here.
Yes, who would have guessed that an op-ed piece from the Rupert Murdoch-owned Post citing exactly one original source would be anti-Obama?
Obama's response
Again, it just comes down to if you trust him or not. You don't. I do.
To be fair, this IS an editorial and the slant here is impossible to miss.
To be UNfair and funny, at least this guy knows what the Bush Doctrine is.
Seriously though, this whole article is kind of a joke to me. And maybe I'm reading it with Dem-colored glasses, but isn't Obama's position just common sense at this point?
I mean, these are MAJOR foreign policy decisions that are being made 3 months before a major shift in power. It is Obama saying "Don't make any rash decisions about our troops because I could be in power in 3 months with a radically different agenda than the current administration."
This just makes sense to me. I'm not going to deny that from an election standpoint it would also benefit Obama, but it also just makes sense to me.
Bush is pretty close to being a lame duck president (if you don't already consider him one) and it is possible to govern under those conditions without MAJOR policy shifts that would take a new administration months, if not years, to reverse.
And to go SAT on you:
NY Post is to NY Times as Fox News is to MSNBC. (If you want to continue the 'your source is suspect' conversation.)
I'm not denying the slant of the NY Post, but it is a piece that's being completely ignored by the rest of the media. I'd just like to hear more of an investigation into such a serious allegation. When it's ignored, while allegations about Palin are so heavily scrutinized, it smacks of serious "mainstream" media bias.
Also, Wier, despite your assertion that the idea Obama can negotiate foreign policy is within his duties, or even his rights, as a presidential candidate, there is a law that's been on the books for over 200 years (The Logan Act from 1799) which makes doing so illegal. So, of course he is going to deny doing it, whether he did or didn't.
Plus, even his explanation of what he says he did say is suspect. Specifically, his statement that he wants congress to negotiate the "status of forces agreement" with Iraq. The constitution puts this responsibility on the President, as Commander In Chief.
And I don't understand how an Anti-War candidate can wish even one more day of combat on our troops. If he were so worried about the troops, rather than his campaign, wouldn't his hopes and aspirations be better served to work WITH the current administration to expedite a timely withdrawal, rather than working against it?
Of course, this is assuming that the Post is right. But this seems like reason enough to investigate, especially since Obama is apparently calling the Iraqi Foreign Minister a liar.
I guess that kind of foreign diplomacy skill only comes after six long months of actual Senate experience.
From the article John referred to:
"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said."
Backing up my point about 3 different things in my previous post.
I guess I missed the point of what you were trying to say. I thought you were bagging on him giving contradictory statements about troop drawdown (which you were a little,) and not the candidate negotiating foreign policy.
The Logan Act
I'm too lazy to do any research outside of wikipedia, but a law on the books for 200 years that is so vague is has garnered a total of ZERO convictions and ONE indictment EVER seems unimportant to me. I mean, whenever I read about people adhering to a strict reading of the constitution it makes me roll my eyes. This law doesn't particularly mean anything.
We can argue what "without authority of the United States" means for days just as much as we can argue what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means.
Does "without authority of the United States" mean federally elected official? Does it mean appointed by congress? Does it mean appointed by the President?
I just think Obama was saying to the Iraqi's "Don't do anything stupid that the next guy will have to fix in 6 months." I don't know about the legality or not.
*sigh. really?
""There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it.""
NO reason to complete the investigation until after the election? How about that the VP candidate is being investigated for ABUSE OF POWERS! I'd want to know the results before the election if it was Biden being investigated (I probably wouldn't be as adamant about it, but still...)
These lawsuits all but guarantee that this wont be resolved until after Nov. 4th. THESE lawsuits wont be over, let alone the actual investigation.
So, here's your surprise and shock moment of the week, courtesy of ME!
I agree Wier.
I think this needs to be put to bed before we go much further. I, for one, believe she did NOTHING wrong. And it was completely within her powers, as well as within her area of responsibility, to put a 10 year old tasering abusive drunk driving in a police car cop out of work, as well as firing anyone who got in the way of doing so, or who, tasked with doing so, refused.
Anyway, I say bring on the investigation. Have the hearings. Let's put them on court TV so we can see the truth clearly and completely.
Post a Comment