OK, I see people are talking about it anyway in other threads, so here you go: say what you think of Palin’s speech at the RNC. I caught a few minutes of it, and found it unbearable…so I won’t be contributing. When I heard her declare that Obama doesn’t want to find new energy sources and wanted to surrender in Iraq when we were on the verge of winning, I gave up.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Lies about Obama’s tax plan.
Lies about Obama’s energy plan.
Lies about the Bridge to Nowhere.
What are they cheering so much at? It’s a completely robotic speech that was clearly not written by her. She is merely reading Rove’s talking points.
Oh, she is soooo fucking insane I’m going to puke. And we thought Bush was bad…
Cheney in a dress.
She (of all people) just mentioned that the Presidency shouldn’t be a learning experience. Ummm, pot meet kettle…
Overall, I find her speech rather childish.
No, I think she makes Chaney look charming and personable
Hey, Palin should be shown some respect for her accomplishments.
That being said, I’d totally do her doggie in toilet stall.
What are they cheering so much at? It’s a completely robotic speech that was clearly not written by her.
Um, because the audience is robots, too?
Ugly. Mocking. The speech was written before she was picked, and they said they had to rewrite it to make it less “masculine”. These are nasty people, and they’ve prepared a speech for her which she has delivered in a way that is competent, if barely.
Anyway, Pick Flick!
“Robotic” is _exactly_ what I was thinking when she started her blather.
Cheney in a dress.
Oh, thanks for that image. :-P
Wait… Palin and Cheney are both hunters… Have they ever been seen at a party together?
Oh no!!!! :-o
I’d totally bone Cindy McCain.
I’m old enough to ride that ride.
The term “throwing a hot dog down a hallway” comes to mind.
I had to turn it off, I felt that my eyes and ears were going to start hemorrhaging.
The use of Palin talking in battle should be a war crime.
Ya have to love an intelligent discussion.
I’m not listening to her per se, but I can hear her voice from the living room TV, where my better half is watching her deliver (as it were). It almost sounds as though she’s giving a speech at a beauty contest – something about the intonation. If I hear the phrase “…and world peace!” that will clinch it.
I have this pet theory that the GOP are trying to lose this election.
It may be that their collective fingers have been burned too much as they are forced to continue holding on to GW. As they stand, I can’t see anyone on the GOP side really wanting to inherit the current problems facing the US.
Much better to let the Dems have at it, watch them get burned, and then step forward in four years and claim the high ground using that old standby, the 20/20 vision that hindsight confers.
What better way to lose than have the current ticket?
I did wonder if Palin might possibly step down, citing her daughter’s suicidal state of mind caused by unfair targeting by the media in general (and bloggers in particular). But I suspect she wants to make more history than she already has…
I’d totally bone Cindy McCain.
Now, now. We must be civil.
I wouldn’t just take Palin in the stall. I’d tie her hands to the toilet seat, and wrap TP around her eyes as a blindfold.
And I’d whisper, “Ok, my little pet, tonight’s safe word is ‘Down’s Syndrome’.”
And Cindy McCain would be there with the cat o’ nine tails.
Yeah… yeah… I’d be down with that little convention.
It’s just ended here.
Typical Republican pseudo-reality. No talk about the issues that really trouble many people here, extreme pro-life, abstinence-only sex education, creationism. Lots of shots of the family, including the several of the Downs Syndrome child.
One effect of our current abortion policies is that Downs Syndrome has gotten way down because those fetuses are aborted. They’ll play that up eventually.
I agree with LB, it was not entirely written by her.
1. We all know how false her speech really is, and how much she lied.
2. Americans are stupid
3.???
4. McCain Wins
Just to be fair, Obama’s speeches are mostly written by speechwriters as well – given the thousands of criticisms to choose from, let’s try to focus on the ones that are actually on target!
I barely made it through the introductory applause. That was just… embarrassing. I mean, I expect the delegates to give a rapturous welcome and everything, but after a while it just came across as if they were just desperately trying to compensate for something.
By the way, are they allowing Palin out of her cage for a press conference or press questions in any other venue yet?
Ya have to love an intelligent discussion.
Nonsense. Discussions evolve naturally.
(RIMSHOT)
Thank you!
Besides, what the hell is there to discuss intelligently with Palin. The whole thing is a train wreck.
Anyway, the fantasy sequence ended. Larry Craig blundered in and spoiled the whole mood.
(RIMSHOT)
Hey-yo!
OMG. They are playing a song now about ‘Raising McCain’. Country music is bad enough, but…. aiiigh…. my eyes are bleeding and both my tympanic membranes have ruptured.
The entire thing was almost completely devoid of substance. Its going to take at least three showers to wash that off of me.
I don’t want to a-er-youthanist (though I am in favor of euthanasia especially anyone at the RNC) but is there anyone there under 90? When most of the delegate say “I support that young fella McCain” your really not looking like an exciting energetic party, your looking like my grandma’s tea party.
People, the misogyny and inappropriate sexual fantasies are pissing me off, and are telling me that maybe I should just close this thread. Talk about her lies. Talk about her incompetence. But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
Palin doesn’t strike me as a stall slut, but I can totally see McSindy in tight, black leather w/ flail in tow.
The commentators on the cable channel have declared it a triumph? How? In what reality? It was the same as all the others?
I could only stomach about ten minutes of it before I had to turn it off. I tried to make it more palatable by providing my own MST3K-style running commentary, but in the end my disgust was too overwhelming.
But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
All right, I’m sorry. I’m in a nasty mood over all this. November is going to be a cluster-frak no matteer who wins.
Forgive me PZ; ’twas just too easy, as her speech was so vapid. I’ll quell my lust.
I haven’t seen the speech yet. I have to psyche myself up to endure the stupid, and if PZ, who debates creationists, had to tune out, I’m nowhere near psyched enough.
I do want to take this opportunity to wave something under everyone’s nose, Palin-wise. This is an open letter that one of Palin’s old small-town adversaries wrote to be forwarded around by email. It’s gotten out onto the web at large (sorry, Anne, but once it’s out, it’s out), and is worth a read.
A note to all by Anne Kilkenny
Let’s coin a new one: Executive Experience My Ass.
Ancient Brit mentioned beauty contest speeches. I told my wife she sounded like she was addressing a class of schoolchildren. It occurred to me that the cumulative intellect of the religious right isn’t much of a departure from that.
Way to stay classy, folks.
She did a good job. Obviously most people here won’t like it, but Pharyngulites aren’t the target audience.
“Here are all my beautiful kids. But they’re OFF LIMITS.”
WTF is up with the rape comments. Seriously.
She did a nice job, actually. Better than expected. She’s very personable onstage, but it was very little policy and mostly attacks. Which I think worked for her well.
I’m curious to see how she does in a press conference, though. She said some things (like Barack and tax increases and the Bridge to Nowhere) that sounded nice but’ll be hard to defend.
McCain looks really, really old next to her.
i love how she’s kept saying that the decision to keep her daughter’s illegitimate larvae was “Bristol’s decision” yet she is anti-choice??? If she had her way there would be NO decision, as the government would be the decider.
I’m all for pro-abortion. Mandatory. Control the surplus population and such.
I clicked expecting to be sickened by Palin’s performance. Now I’m sickened by people whose first? only? response is to degrade her, and women in general, by objectifying her as a sex object. I can’t even think how to respond properly to this. What is wrong with you? Why is the visceral response to a woman you don’t like to rape her, even just in fantasy? I’m going now.
I just reloaded. Thank you, PZ. Still going now, though, to read something that strikes home less before bedtime.
It indeed was unbearable to watch – but my relief for the night after watching the end of Giuliani speak and Palin’s ridiculous ‘speech’, was to watch the last half segment of the Daily Show. For those of you who missed, I strongly recommend to watch to at least get rid of the anger accumulated by the RNC.
Had I sat down a week ago, and tried to write that speech using standard republican talking points and Rush Limbaugh esq rhetoric, entirely without touching on policy or anything meaningful, I’m positive it would have been, word for word, 80% identical…and 100% identical in spirit. Man she’s a tool…
What has McCain become? And to think that eight years ago I considered him a credible politian. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
All of the Republican talking points from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh condensed into one speech.
Did anyone notice the lack of an American flag lapel pin on McCain? I guess that means McCain hates America.
Hi! I read you guys all the time, but this is the first time I’ve chimed in. From the speech:
So, basically, we’re all gonna get tortured for the next four years, but every once in a while John McCain will give us a thumbs up and say, “It’ll all be over soon!”
I support Obama but I have to admit Palin gave a strong speech. The whole McCain campaign hinged on this going well, and it seems the battle will go on. Of course we all knew that even if the speech was terrible pundits would still say it was great. I was impressed by the delivery, although it was obvious she was playing loose with the facts. I can only hope that Biden wipes the floor with her during the debates.
p.s. – How can you be against the bridge to nowhere yet keep all the money? And how can you spend millions building a road that dead ends on the bridge site and claim to be against it?
Quiet_Desperation, that’s disgusting.
Luke wrote:
Once you put those kids out there the media is going to get curious — and that shot of the real young girl licking her hand and then stroking the hair of the Downs baby, that’s going to register on America’s psyche.
It is hard to listen to her. She actually bragged about the bridge to nowhere. The bridge she campaigned to have built, then later turned on when it became inconvenient (though she kept as much of the money as she could). And then bragging about vetoing, including slashing out funding to support pregnant teens. Yeah she got rid of a lot of “waste” from the budget. I am surprised that she didn’t go into her many tense tete-a-tete with Putin on the Bering Strait.
NEWSFLASH: All of the oil from the North Slope of Alaska would only satisfy 6 months of consumption by the US at current rates.
She threatened to fire the town librarian for not removing books from the collection, the town revolted, she backed down.
She mentioned the word ‘God’ once and Jesus not at all in the entire rambling non-sequitor speech, a little bit cheesy, but nicely displayed.
Why is the visceral response to a woman you don’t like to rape her, even just in fantasy?
What rape? WTF are you talking about? Do you not know what a “safe word” is? It was BDSM fantasy. Consensual, you savvy? Sheesh. I give up. This election has created an unthink field that has blanketed the entire country until the election.
It was funny to hear them say Ron Paul got 5 votes earlier, and I think it was Alaska (correct me if I’m wrong).
BTW, in our defense, we never once mentioned rape of those somewhat attractive GOP women (nor do I condone it).
I agree with PZ about the misogyny and inappropriate sexual fantasies. They don’t do us any good.
Having said that, I must confess that I always wanted to bone Dan Quayle.
Luke wrote:
Once you put those kids out there the media is going to get curious — and that shot of the real young girl licking her hand and then stroking the hair of the Downs baby, that’s going to register on America’s psyche.
Palin is a creationist and I don’t think she would mind if biology teachers taught her magical creation myth. She said nothing about scientific progress in her speech, and I doubt she would be a pro-science president.
I watched her entire speech. I have to admit it was the first political speech I heard in a long time that didn’t bore me to death. I was surprised that she invoked Mr. God only once. At the end of her speech she said god-bless-america. Can’t much blame her for that because it’s practically required to say that in god-soaked America. It’s fair to say Palin is not qualified to be vice-president or president, and it’s fair to say creationists like her are nuts. However, after watching her speech, I now think she and McCain have an excellent chance of defeating Obama. If they win it will be because of Palin. The average American is going to fall in love with her. I’m voting for Obama of course, but now I think it’s going to be a very close race that Obama will lose. I hope I’m wrong.
Quiet_Desperation, that’s disgusting.
Thanks! :-) My many years in the California BDSM scene have served me well.
I heard Dave Letterman last night drawing a very scary picture. Basically how McCain would be the oldest president ever and that much more likely to just not wake up one morning and we are left with President Palin. Yikes!
I hope the voters wake up and avert that tragedy.
New Scientist’s environment blog has a good article about her;
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Beyond%20the%20Palin
Interesting to note that she tried to sue the Department of the Interior for listing polar bears as endangered…
I agree that the sexist comments are disgusting and inappropriate. I guess there are morons everywhere.
p.s. I agree that the sexual references are gross. I kind of want to hit her in the nose. Wanting to punch her in the face is ok. But it’s the same level of punchiness I have for Joe Lieberman. or Newt or Bush(es). Please leave gender out of it. There is so much to rag on about this woman and her incompetence that is utterly hilarious that it is totally unnecessary to drop to sexual humor.
What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I’ve seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up. Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?
Five days after learning that Sarah Palin exists, I’m officially sick of her.
I don’t want to hear her name. I don’t want to see her picture. I don’t give a crap about her family life. And I already know that her values are the polar opposite of mine.
I just want to see a news headline that does not contain the name “Sarah Palin.” I just want to hear people talk about something — anything — else. Is that really so much to ask?
Speech contents: C-
Delivery: B+
She’s considerably more charismatic than Biden or McCain, not as good as Obama.
-jcr
Regarding the argument that they’ve thrust Palin’s kids into the media and are also trying to say they’re off limits, isn’t Obama doing the same thing?
In a feat of classical conditioning, the GOP has trained Palin to say something stupid every time they ring a bell. Unfortunately, someone at the RNC got a little trigger happy with the bell.
Palin’s forgotten children; lightblub, couch, and tractor.
Honestly, with that horrible accent, she isn’t go to play that well in the south. She sounds like a Prairie Home Companion skit, it’s just an awful whiney terrible sound.
I thought the speech was pretty awful. I actually had to walk out of the room when she was introducing her family, it was pathetic.
I’m curious about her comments regarding Obama’s tax increases. Is any of that even true? I know he plans to reverse some of the many tax cuts Bush made in the last 8 years, but I thought that 95% of the population was safe from this.
All I heard was “blah blah blah god blah blah blah good man blah blah blah god.” I couldn’t really listen to much of it.
I agree that the sexist comments are disgusting and inappropriate. I guess there are morons everywhere.
No, just folks like me, with dark, non-vanilla senses of humor, who have simply stopped giving a damn anymore. It’s all just a vast pile of nonsense.
SoMG: Absolutely, Obama is as guilty as Palin on that.
joe biden will eat her for lunch (metaphorically speaking, of course) at the first vice presidential debate. but she’s such a mental midget, i could probably talk her under the table (again, metaphorically speaking).
that is, if the republicans dare to take the risk.
Get a load of this comment over at Crooks and Liars:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/03/republican-national-convention-open-thread-for-wednesday-part-2/#comment-874051
“Palin is one angry biotch! That’s becoming clear. I’d be afraid of her PMS days – talk about a national security problem.”
Along with the S&M / dirty toilet stall fantasies you dopes are playing right into their hands! Think for a moment about how this dynamic plays out for various demographic groups. Go right ahead, call her white trash, a beauty queen, a bad mom, refer to her by her measurements and all of the other things I have seen in the left of center blogosphere in the last few days. Think, stupid. Talk about mobilizing the base.
It was a well-crafted speech. She read it well. I’ll eat my hat if she wrote it.
The speech misrepresented the Democratic party platform on taxes, energy, national defense, and several other issues–but that was to be expected. These events aren’t about facts and reason; they are about fund raising and motivating people to get off their couch to campaign and vote.
As stated tonight by several commentators, you don’t get to this level without knowing how to read a speech. And after the applauds fade she still known nothing of foreign policy, is delusional about domestic energy production potential, and hasn’t shown anything in the way of fiscal acumen (unless obtaining large earmarks for your town counts), international trade, banking and finance management, technology (unless you count eBaying the airplane), or public health.
She gives a good speech. OK. What else does she bring to the table? What skills can she provide?
The Republicans have been trying to label Obama with “nada”. I think they should go ahead and reserve it for Palin. She’s bringing nada to the ticket, or the office if by some disaster they are elected.
To me it is not so important what is happening but that it is
happening at all. How could anyone in good conscience support a republican administration after the last 7+ years? How could anyone with a modicum of reason even countenance the prospect of another 4 years of insane and counterfactual policies given the results we now live with?
There are three issues in this campaign and all of them are global in scope. The world economy, the world economy and the world economy. Fighting wars unless compelled by necessity to do so is ill-advised and always a net loss. Petroleum and other carbon based fuels are a) finite and b) have a net impact on the global environment that is difficult if not impossible to predict, what are the odds that it will be a beneficial impact given the geologic history of the sequestration of carbon? And finally, the source of almost all conflict is and always has been the competition for resources. There is only one solution that makes any sense to me and that is that population must shrink to a size that can be supported by an economy that is based on 95% recycling of commodities and 5% exploitation of new commodities. If we can achieve that, we might, as a species, have enough time to work out how to deal with the last 5%.
Excuse me for not having a citation that speaks to the issue but it is my understanding that not just oil, but across the board, we are depleting resources on a global scale at 30% or more per year than the replacement rate of new discoveries. If so, by 2012 the complexion of global problems will have become considerably more ugly.
Does anyone here think that we should let Palin’s sky daddy
make the critical choices for us and whisper them in her ear?
The real message of Brisol’s pregnancy is that even parents who feel dead sure their kids aren’t at risk for unplanned pregnancy are often wrong.
It’s like any conspiracy narrative. Fully based in anecdotal evidence, a 1 sided prose, it’s that kind of presentation that suckers people into believing it; regardless of any truth in the claim.
The only way really to satisfy the claim is to show it’s true, that’s the problems with allegations of cover-ups. Any evidence to the contrary is itself validation. The republican party and Sarah Palin have nothing to answer for, and they shouldn’t have to answer every rumour like that. We give credulity to nonsense by seeing every half-baked concept spread and glorified on the internet.
Personally, I’m going to wait for the Comedy Central assessment of it tomorrow night before I make up MY mind about her …. Hah!
I’m trying to imagine, without hurting myself, what it must be like to think like a person who supports McCain-Palin …. Now, it’s not like I find Obama impeccable. I don’t like some of the sloppiness he and his team have shown on important issues and matters of science and technology. (At least, however, he ANSWERED the damn Science Debate questions.) But, McCain-Palin are in true, high church fairyland ….
The sad thing is that I have this nauseous feeling they still have a respectable chance of winning.
Thought for the day: If Bristol changes her plan and marries William Kristol, then her name will become Bristol Kristol.
Just to be clear Quiet_desperation, I have no problem with BDSM, I just find that particular fantasy, especially with that safe word, to be despicable.
Go right ahead, call her white trash,
That’s probably the biggest problem the democrats have had since the Reagan administration. Radiating contempt for the people isn’t a winning strategy. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton understood this, Al Gore and John Kerry didn’t.
-jcr
Oddly, the DNC con seemed to have far more invocations of god bless this and god bless that, which made me throw up a little in my mouth; but tonight’s Anthem/Pledge combo did come close to producing the same effect (the stressed “under gawd”, part that is).
Along with the S&M / dirty toilet stall fantasies you dopes are playing right into their hands!
I can’t help it. My head creates bad chemicals sometimes. :-(
In her speech she said nothing that was pro-environment. She said nothing about protecting endangered species. I’m not surprised she doesn’t care about the possible extinction of polar bears. I never met a creationist who was interesting in protecting our planet and the life on this planet.
Colugo wrote:
I think they are their hands. Has anyone here ever seen a Quiet_Desperation or «bønez_brigade» here before? Where did they come from?
From Quiet Desperation #6,
“That being said, I’d totally do her doggie in toilet stall.”
From «bønez_brigade» #10,
“I’d totally bone Cindy McCain.”
Is this the type of discussion people who consider themselves to be rationalists have about politics in this day and age?
I discovered this blog through my interest in the creation vs. evolution debate. I am a public school science teacher in Florida. My M.S. is in physics, and I have taught Earth/Space and chemistry as well. I have long appreciated PZ Myers’s timely news and commentary on the efforts of creationists and other religious fundamentalists to inject their beliefs into my domain.
That is why it frustrates me to see rationalism tossed so completely out the window by so many here when discussing other ideological topics like politics. So many here display an intolerance of political ideologies that differ from their own that they would condemn in the religious. No doubt that the 13 comments that were posted when I began writing this are going to be just a taste of the venom directed against those evil Republicans that hardly seem human.
How about Bristol’s boyfriend, all dressed up in a suit on stage meeting John McCain? HOW uncomfortable did he look? Poor kid…
whether u like it or not she did a good job delivering her sppech. just means obama needs to step it up some. nothing like a bit of heated competition to bring out the best in politricks
Slate’s twitter feed: “I think the Republicans might like Palin better than McCain…”
I dunno how much she’ll play to moderates. The earmarks, polar bear hating, creationism, anti-abortionism, and the ethics violations will get played a lot.
Did anybody else find McCain’s “surprise” appearance rather awkward? He got up there and said something like “we made a good choice, huh?” and then doddered around while the crowd obviously wanted to hear something else. Then everybody on stage kind of just wandered off.
Also, what’s up w/ the HI governor talking about Palin’s family and how they’ll band together and pull through the tough times? I find it incredibly tacky that they had to foist the duty of talking about the teen pregnancy issue onto some other person.
As for Palin’s talk: meh.
whoops, I meant “interested”, not “interesting” in #77.
(Michael) Palin for President!
Ms. Palin – very thin resume. She sounded like a school girl in the speech – formulaic, predictable, and disrespectful of others with clearly more CV than her. She SHOULD get what she deserves, but it does appear however that they (R’s) assume that she is an ‘intouchable’. The media and pundits will be shamed into not attacking her.
She is a woman, a mother of five – one with challenges, dealing with an unwed daughter’s pregnacy. Did you see Juno? Sarah Palin = Allison Janney. Yet on the other hand she is the gun-toting, bible thumping, abstinence only personage for the R-base, and a proxy for Hillary.
Who knows – it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have ‘drunk the kool-aid’ so quickly about her. We (America) deserve to get what we allow to happen.
pcarini: Yeah, doddering was the exact word that entered my mind too LOL.
Just to be clear Quiet_desperation, I have no problem with BDSM, I just find that particular fantasy, especially with that safe word, to be despicable.
I know. I’m sorry. I probably have one of the blackest senses of humor of anyone outside of a mental institution, and it does sometimes exhibit a life of it’s own.
Please forgive me, folks. I think I need to get away from the election for a bit. It’s not doing my misanthropic feelings any good, either. :-(
If it makes some of you feel better to assume that Palin is a dimwitted robot who can do nothing more than read a teleprompter, good for you. Or you can watch the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate. And I suggest that you watch more than just her answer on abortion.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/32849/54187
I’ve already linked to this:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/02/the-case-against-the-case-against-palin.aspx
“What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then–and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now–is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. …
Sooner or later, the Obama camp will realize that the beauty pageant queen is an enormously talented populist in a year that is ripe for populism. For their own sake, it had better be sooner.”
I didn’t watch.
Did Palin mention how she wants women to die instead of receiving life-saving medical care?
«bønez_brigade» @ 72 says it all… I was actively and irrationally cursing the motherfuckers at the DNC convention through my car radio while driving one afternoon. It was whoever gave the speech about mustard seeds and mountains and got the crowd chanting something about faith moving them. I guess if the dems are going to very vocally pander then the reps don’t have to this year.
Luke @ #80
He definitely did look uncomfortable. His choice, of course, not to wear a rubber. Either that or he was never told what one is.
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
No.
Who are you and why did you come here. I’ve never seen your name on PZ’s blog before now.
@19 Jason
Obama wrote his own acceptance speech.
Thank you to everyone (else), especially PZ, for proving me wrong. It is bedtime for me now, (high school starts very early). Or I would stay for some good discussion.
Has anyone here ever seen a Quiet_Desperation
I’ve been hanging out a few months, I guess. The name, BTW, comes from a poem by Henry Thoreau which contains the line ” Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” I felt it summed me up pretty well. :-)
I am soooo looking forward to the VP debates!
Jeez, move on past the offense at a few comments about attractive women. It’s over now.
Norman Doering, I’ve been reading this blog for quite a while now, and, yes, I have actually posted here before. Are you the Gate Keeper or something?
whether u like it or not she did a good job delivering her sppech.
palinDrone is an ex-television sportscaster and knows how to deliver lines and work the camera. I listened to her on radio, and she didn’t sound that good.
Jason @ #19:
Actually Obama’s a bit of an atypical pol in that respect, as he does largely write his own speeches, then has his staff tweak them. Most do it the other way around, just tweaking afterward what the staff wrote.
That said, I agree that “doesn’t write her own stuff” isn’t even visible on my lengthy list of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin.
Most likely he was told that condoms actually increase the rate of STD transmission. I’m not kidding. This is what anti-choicers tell their children. This is what they will tell your children, in your schools, with your tax dollars, if McCain wins.
Heh. Oh. ‘Nother of those speeches, huh?
Hey. Didja hear? We’re turning the corner in Iraq. Any minute now. Victory is imminent. Dig?
Yep, turning that corner… Yessir. Turning. Decisive, see? Turning point. Think… watershed. Think… pivotal moment. Think… I dunno… Normandy or sumpin’…
Turning…
Turning…
Umm… Okay. Did we mention? Long corner. Hang in there…
Yep. Turning, I say, look, almost ’round now…
Turning…
Turning…
Erm… okay. Did we mention long? Loooooong corner… Rilly big. But we’re almost ’round… Now now, don’t get all traitorous ‘n anti-Murkan on us about it. We told you to go to the bathroom before we started the quag… err… war…
Turning that corner… Turning… turning… To every thing turn turn turn… Say, did we mention we’re turning the corner? Any moment now. Yes, we know we first told you this… erm… (counts on fingers) oh, y’know… a while ago. But y’know. Long corner.
Turnin’ turnin’ turnin’ (Rawhide!)… Turnin’ turnin’…
Say… whose tank tracks are these? They look familiar…
Well JasonTD, you can view for yourself that you’re not the only one who is annoyed at certain comments. In any case, I once again wish for both voting moderation and threads for this forum.
My thoughts:
Has there ever been a presidential election where the Republicans weren’t screaming that this was a dangerous time, that Amerika was threatened everywhere, and that it needed a true patriot to defend her? If the Democrats could fear-monger half as well as the Republicans, there’d never be another Republican president.
How is it that the Republicans wrap themselves in their jingoistic patriotism so consistently and unjustifiably?
And wasn’t it terribly disingenuous for a Republican candidate to talk about not kowtowing to the oil companies, etc.?
Oh well, at least the audience there was remarkably homogenous.
Yes, so they’re fair game too. As far as I know, neither of them have exhibited behavior that exemplifies the failure of a policy that Obama supports, so unless the feds tap his kids’ phones without a warrant, they probably won’t become targets.
I wish politicians wouldn’t involve their families at all, but they only do it because it works. What I really wish is that voters paid attention to the issues instead of cute kids and smiling spouses.
No.
*shrug*
Who are you and why did you come here. I’ve never seen your name on PZ’s blog before now
Nothing I can do about that. I’ve been here, though.
«bønez_brigade» asked:
No. I just find you suspicious.
Whether or not she sounded good, she was much more confident looking up there than McCain. She might be the kiss of death for his campaign simply due to the contrast she provides.
It’s nice to hear when a state “respectfully passes” during the roll call that’s going on now.
I thought hanging on in Quiet Deperation was the English way.
Has anyone seen this interview with Carly Fiorina(via BBC)? About halfway through, the interviewer asks some brilliant questions about Palin’s views on creationism. Worth a chuckle. :)
I thought hanging on in Quiet Deperation was the English way.
Yeah, Pink Floyd used it, but it originated with Henry Thoreau – AMERICAN. ;-)
Norman Doering arrogantly stated:
“No. I just find you suspicious.”
Likewise.
Funny thing is, I’ve not seen your name in the comments here until recently, so, yeah, I can play that childish game too.
Get over it Norman. Move along.
Kel, Quiet Desperation, perhaps you should start signing those sorts of childish comments with your real names so the Rethug noise machine will have someone to quote when they excise them from context and try to pass them off as typical left wing sentiments?
That said, I’d hit that.
…and back up over it once or twice just to be sure it’d stopped twitching.
(I’ve always wanted to use that line. ^.^)
Ah
dead link
Please. No more sex comments. I thought it was a republican thing to attack Hillary, but apparently its widespread.
No more, we’re better than that. Remember?
Isn’t the real question whether her delivery and likeability (hockey moms, etc.) will play into Middle America?
Will the focus be on her and not McCain? Or will this backfire?
That’s what I’m interested in. Not the disgusting misogyny from folks on the left OR right. (Sexual fantasies are rarely appropriate to share, FWIW, and less so when it comes to a public figure in a public forum. Brother.)
Yikes, 101 NY votes for McCain. WTF, that’s not his territory.
Isn’t the real question whether her delivery and likeability (hockey moms, etc.) will play into Middle America?
What happened to “soccer” moms? Did I miss a memo?
«bønez_brigade» wrote:
Can you now?
I can link other threads where my name appears, can you?
Here’s one:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/the_fundamentalist_formula_for.php#comment-1085354
Glasmann wrote @86
-“Who knows – it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have ‘drunk the kool-aid’ so quickly about her. We (America) deserve to get what we allow to happen.”
Yes, but the rest of the world doesn’t!
I agree with the comment that when she and McCain were onstage together, she made him look oooooooooold. REALLY old.
His running mate, or his nurse?
Yikes, 101 NY votes for McCain. WTF, that’s not his territory.
I still can’t figure out how McCain went from seeming to dismantle off his campaign staff to winning the nomination. Has any reporter anywhere ever done some investigative reporting on that?
“OK, I see people are talking about it anyway in other threads, so here you go: say what you think of Palin’s speech at the RNC.”
They achieved new heights of cheap shot nastiness. They do excel at being exceedingly nasty. I’ll give them that.
It wasn’t her speech. Someone named Karl Rove (and it was his night, after all, wasn’t it?) penned it well before she was chosen and then stirred in some of her family trivia over the last few days.
Overall, eminently forgettable. The Party of One Liners achieved nothing tonight except the alienation of a lot of decent folks who want to see real change in this country.
The sex fantasies actually stopped _long_ ago when PZ dropped the hammer. I respect PZ and stopped. The only time “sex fantasies” are being mentioned now is by those that can’t move along and stop being offended. Drop it. It’s over.
Just so we’re all clear:
Her daughter’s uterus us none of our business.
Every other woman’s uterus is the government’s business.
Before the speech tonight, I felt she was a laughable choice. Now, I’m not so sure.
Palin came off very personable and likable on stage. She can definitely read a speech. And as useless as the introduction of her whole damn family was, some people will eat that shit up with a spoon.
This isn’t going to be the slam dunk some folks thought it was. If Palin can hold her own against Biden – not “win”, just hold her own – then she might just be able to mobilize the GOP base in a way McCain couldn’t have. That sort of mobilization could actually tip the scales in McCain’s favor. Basically, Palin just has to avoid making an ass out of herself for a few months.
Here’s hoping that she’s gaffe-prone.
Seemed rather “factually impaired,” but delivered a good speech. Not someone to take lightly, I think. She reminded me of Reagan in style, her looseness with facts, the condescending and folksy sarcasm that so baffled and infuriated the Democrats.
Her daughter’s uterus us none of our business.
Every other woman’s uterus is the government’s business.
Oh! Bumper sticker that! You have a winner!
@ Quiet_Desperation – Palin is a hockey mom and made a (seemingly) off the cuff joke about them.
@ «bønez_brigade» – maybe “long ago” in Internet time, but by the time one creates a comment, proof reads it and hits “submit”, several other comments have been added. So relax, buddy!
ah #110:
ah’s link didn’t work. Here it is: McCain VP pick ‘victim of sexism’
She reminded me of Reagan
This train wreck is making me *miss* Reagan, and that that can’t possibly be healthy.
Well Huckabee was a joke everywhere outside of the very deep South, Romney belongs to some heretic non-evangelical sect, Ron Paul was running for the wrong party, and somehow Giuliani turned into a poison troll. That last bit was surprising and immensely gratifying simultaneously.
Did anyone catch this little tidbit. Two talking heads caught saying what they really think about the McCain/Palin ticket after the camera is off…but the mic on!
Who knows – it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have ‘drunk the kool-aid’ so quickly about her.
My first reaction to seeing her actually speak after the announcement was: holy cow, what the hell was McCain thinking? She comes across as a total lightweight. Is he trying to lose?
And then I remembered: the last time I found myself thinking: ‘holy cow, what a total lightweight, who in their right mind would put this deeply, profoundly, dangerously, terrifyingly, callously unthoughtful ethical vacuum anywhere near real power?’ it was in 2000, and he was from Texas.
So my radar probably isn’t much good here. And the prognosis may be worse.
There’s nothing historic about Palin’s selection. A woman has already run as a VP candidate. On the other side, yes, but SO FUCKING WHAT? It’s been done!
The Republicans I’ve eavesdropped on at restaurants, work, and such are not jumping for joy over Palin. They’re very cautious, waiting to see what she does. Some of them are a little uneasy. When they finally get down to it, a lot of them see Palin’s selection as a cheap ploy to counter Obama’s race–and to draw in disenchanted HRC supporters. I’ve heard some wicked jokes that if McCain really wanted to top the Dems in the minority competition, he shoulda picked an open lesbian. Now THAT would have been historic!
We’ll see how this woman does on the campaign trail and with the media (whom I suspect will go very easy on her–unlike what they did to Ferraro or HRC). I would hope that people would catch on pretty quickly that Palin’s a wretched excuse for a human being, but I lost faith in average Americans, long ago. They could well let themselves be swayed into voting for McCain simply because he has this cute (if one could call that cute) little lunatic female loping along beside him. “See how modern I am? I’m votin’ for a chick!’ Joe Sixpack will brag. What’s sad is that kind of thinking will actually be taking place in way too many voting booths.
Obama better get his shit together, and Biden better trounce her in the debates. No mercy. Let’s hope there’s one moment during that debate when Americans will collectively think, Finish her!
Oh noes Norman! Where will I ever find a post from me? Oh, yeah, I guess I could actually search for one.
Here’s one for starters:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/when_will_they_learn_another_i.php#comment-883315
I don’t have the time to keep up with the enormous amount of comments here, so I’m just a random poster — and I definitely don’t claim that my posts are ever of any great substance — but I read every goddamn blog post by PZ.
——-
BTW, the dude from Tennessee just called him George S. McCain!?!
“She reminded me of Reagan.”
Yes.
A dose of “aw shucks” mixed with a dollop of fucking bastard.
@pcarini: I still wonder if there’s an Pulitzer Prize awaiting anyone who really looks into McCain phoenix from the flames act, but, yeah, in the end is was the lesser of evils. Again. :-(
Feh. I gotta get out of here. It’s depressing. Turn on the XBox or something.
Have fun, all, and sorry again. PZ, I’ll be good from now on.
I didn’t watch it. I knew I couldn’t take it with out puking or blowing a gasket.
So I spent my time drinking sangria, tatting an Octopi, and listening to Leon Redbone. My blood pressure is fine. Polly Wally Doodle!
Palin believes we are in Iraq because it is God’s will…
for that reason a lone she is unfit to be in office
and I can promise you she will not be asked about that in the debates.
The sex comments are juvenile and counter-productive.
posted by quiet desperation
All right, I’m sorry. I’m in a nasty mood over all this. November is going to be a cluster-frak no matteer who wins.
isn’t that how all this started in the first place.
(found some of comments funny myself)
God damn, I despise Sarah Palin. I’ve only known who she was for a few days, and I can’t fucking stand her. My parents are in love with her though. “AH SHE’S PRO LIFE AND A HOCKEY MOM AND BLABLABLABLA”
I’m missing the Colbert Report because my dad is replaying her speech on Faux News. It’s times like these that I wish that I lived in a country called “Liberalia” where the right wing religious nutjobs don’t exist. Although, they’d probably get nuked by “The Conservative States of Jesus” if the country existed.
Well it was made to appeal to very mediocre masses- people who like the “cousin Sarah,” idea,if I may quote Sam Harris, not people who have a smidgeon of intelligence, or understand or appreciate why having a well-educated, science oriented president is important. Lots of sarcasm- which was clever, I felt. And a lot of OIL OIL OIL lets drill everywhere, more war and finally in case you forget, McCain is a POW.
Isn’t being the pet of a hideous hybrid of Phyllis Schlafly and Britney Spears bad enough for her dog without being molested by random blog commenters? Leave the poor creature alone. ;(
(QD buys bønez and Norman both beers before he leaves. Chill, dudes.)
@ck, I _am_ relaxed! It’s the people who keep bringing it up that need the fucking chill pill.
Dude, Bush made me miss Reagan. And Reagan made me miss Nixon. How sick is that?
If she’s a YEC, and someone can document she’s a YEC, she’ll get creamed, eventually. Even mainstream Xians draw the line at YECs.
. If Palin can hold her own against Biden
Frankly, I was never impressed with Biden’s debating skills when he ran for the democratic nomination. He’s a whole lot older than Palin, and he’s done a lot of log-rolling in the Senate, but I see no reason to presume that he can beat her face to face.
-jcr
Quite a nice vapid bookend to the Democratic nightmare the other night.
(Kneels…)
“Oh lordy, please let there be sane and rational people in America who have had enough of this two party nonsense…”
(Stands…)
(Bows to the ignorant masses…)
(looks for alcohol under couch…)
Republicans sure throw more mindless punches than democrats. They’re warmongers, and they like fights. The sad thing is that america seems to love to fighting more than thinking. Sparta, not Athens.
QD, I’ll take a Newcastle please.
If she loses will she blame her god or the godless?
Ooooh, Ron Paul: 5
She lies, and she’s incompetent.
Now that we’ve covered that base, I’m curious as to what constitutes an “inappropriate” sexual fantasy, and more importantly, how we might legislate against them.
Screechy Monkey… exactly what I thought when she started talking. I don’t know what was more unpleasant about that speech: its content, or the voice that delivered it. How can anyone honestly think that that vapid, irritating, nonsensical shit-spew was a success of any sort? There were several times at which I felt like I was watching a sketch-comedy parody of a garden-variety Republican speech.
Colugo:
Exactly. This is the real danger of Palin, and why she stands to hurt Obama’s candidacy. The simple fact that she’s a woman brings out all the misogynist assholes that lurk everywhere in our culture. This neatly divides the Democrats, because a few Democrats are sexist and a few Democrats attack the sexists. The former are the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to make Democrats look sexist. Quiet_Desperation, however you try to defend your remarks, you are playing into McCain’s hands. Sadly, you’re nowhere near the worst offender, or the only. Sexist remarks will also anger and de-energize the many women working hard to promote Obama’s candidacy.
Then are you the Key Master?
“Did anyone catch this little tidbit. Two talking heads caught saying what they really think about the McCain/Palin ticket after the camera is off…but the mic on!
LOL win.
I apologize, «bønez_brigade». For awhile there I thought you were some sort of political plant designed to make the blog look bad.
Quiet_Desperation, however you try to defend your remarks, you are playing into McCain’s hands.
I didn’t defend them, I apologized for them, and admitted I have a nasty, black, vitriolic and brutal sense of humor that I sometimes let get out of hand. Is there NO forgiveness on the Intertoobs? Geez…
I don’t think Norman was the only one here who found your comments (and those of Quiet_Desperation) disturbing. It wasn’t an unreasonable question; I don’t remember seeing either of you here before now either, and your comments were way out of line.
All I keep thinking when I see Palin is that she really looks like the type of girl who would enter the Miss Buffalo Chip contest at the Sturgis biker’s rally. Maybe President McCain will offer up Cindy and Sarah as a twofer at next year’s event!
You act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like an asshole.
At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to? Hmm. Still sounds like an asshole.
Wait, what did I do?
And real name? Kel IS my real name.
But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
PZ Myers
I know you didn’t mean it this way, but “off limits” implies we should all avoid a subject that we secretly find enticing. It also implies we need rigid rules to act intelligently and ethically. There aren’t sacred cow subjects that we divine by voodoo and dare not speak about, and the intelligent among us aren’t sexist jackasses chomping at the bit to make an inane comment.
We’re not like the religious. Nothing is sacred. We act ethically by thinking rationally, not memorizing a list of things we can and can’t do.
Talking about her appearance and gender shouldn’t be off limits. Talking about her appearance in the uninteresting, immature, sexist, and fucking stupid way that people did in the comments that followed your post should be “off limits.” Anyone who clutters our mind with that kind of trash should be shunned and/or ridiculed. Telling a sexist joke to a crowd like this is like trying to impress the guys at CERN with the wheel. These jackasses are just decades behind our species’ ethical evolution. Tell them to grow up or move on.
Besides, if you set down a hard rule against mentioning her gender, count on morons like this to start whining if you point out something like McCain’s choice of a female candidate being a cynical, short-sighed political decision that undermines long term feminist progress. “But you said her gender was off limits…”
PZ, you are just *so* kind.
See post #194 on your “Palinanity” blog entry. New abbreviation: SVGNwT (Smart Valley Girl North with Teeth)
To be contentious – Obama folk need to be very, very careful in positioning (aka “framing”). I still like this woman (note to readers: like does not equal vote for). I had Fox News on and the males in that family had some very interesting (unenthusiastic) body language.
I predict the drama will continue to unfold (no statistics or QM required) and I would also guess that if she withdraws herself for “family” reasons the Righteous Right will be pushing Bobby Jindal down McCain’s throat.
Evolutionary Psychologists might be ecstatic at the video produced in the last week or so (not to mention the future). Given that all scientific research is not shut down so it doesn’t disrupt the praying (and economic raping – but then again, The Earth…she just tempted and *asked* for it)
Apology accepted. FWIW, I’ve actually read your blog before on a few random occasions, and I liked what I read.
Quiet_Desperation, #88:
Note – I didn’t see this request for forgiveness when I wrote #156. My apologies.
Late to the game, but I agree with PZ – the sex crap about Palin is a bit much. I don’t see anyone doing the same about Obama or McCain.
My remark to the old Grouch was about Mrs. McCains dress – who the hell wears mustard! That was the most hideous color anyone could choose. Then there’s the bottle blonde hair.
Oh, help me sweet baby jebus – I’ve turned into my grandmother… ;)
Despite all the hoo haa over palinDrone, the arena in Minnesota was less than half full.
man, it’s amazing how vicious politics tend to get when women are involved. The Right did it to Hillary, will the Left do it to Palin?
Reading the comments section here, so far the answer seems to be “yes”.
How disappointing.
@ Brain Hertz,
“I don’t remember seeing either of you here before now”
That’s now been cleared up. Research it.
“and your comments were way out of line.”
From my experience at reading comments on this blog, my comments were nothing of the sort.
———-
———-
@ Grammar RWA,
“You act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like an asshole.”
Care to provide an example of my asshole-ness?
“At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to? Hmm. Still sounds like an asshole.”
Umm, no. Sounds to me like you’re just building up a straw man. Chill out and move on, chief. The fire is out.
Everything you said needed to be said. For some other reader, even if Quiet Desperation already got the memo.
Joined in with the “hotdog down a hallway” line, though reading up I can see I had the rest of bonez’ comments confused with yours. Sorry.
Oh, help me sweet baby jebus – I’ve turned into my grandmother… ;)
I think I have started to turn into my grandmother as well, which is a bit concerning since I’m male. :-
The best bit with talking heads I’ve seen all week is MN Rep. Michelle Bachmann taking offense for all American women when James Carville says that Palin is unqualified. It helps that all of two minutes earlier he was contrasting Palin to Olympia Snow, as someone who would be far more qualified.
Funny how gender should have nothing to do with it, yet they’re officially willing to take any attack on any other subject and try to spin it as sexist.
In good(ish) news, here’s a poll with Obama at 50% support, McCain 42. I’ll be intrigued to see if McCain gets much post-convention bounce. Somehow, from that speech, I doubt it. It was competent, but they needed more than competent in the wake of the pre-convention revelations and general unease over this woman. I can’t really see it roping in the constituencies they were hoping it might, either.
I’m jaded (as said above) but it’s entirely possible Palin will prove a really bad gamble for the McCain campaign. The (apparent) enthusiasm at the GOP convention isn’t much of a barometer; of course the hard right loves her, but so what? The Palin pick can easily make McCain look impulsive if not actually unstable amongst those who were already a bit edgy about that very possibility. And while it might buy him ‘maverick’ points, it may well disappoint independents; Palin’s got a lot they may decide they dislike. And sure, Palin’s got that aw shucks thing going that’s got so many incredibly nasty pieces of work elected in the past few cycles, but it doesn’t work for everyone. Aw shucks in her current context may not play so well, when people are reasonably also looking for reassurance she would actually be up to the office, a factor which may well catch her between anvil and hammer. And she’s also facing a very different opponent that the GOP machine is used to; Obama really does inspire. When all you can do standing next to that is deliver the same old same old… Well…
Well, point is: sure, no one should get too cocky about this. She’s a practised demagogue, she’s got a good schtick and some real moves, and she may well fool enough of the people long enough to be a threat, no question. But it’s also entirely possible the pundits raking through the ashes of McCain’s campaign will shortly be calling this more uniformly what it so obviously was: an act of desperation. One last shot at changing the momentum that just wasn’t going his way. And a shot that missed wildly.
Dreadful speech.
She had the cadence of a 10th grade student reciting a rehearsed presentation. Odd pauses and a pitch that at times sounded oddly strained. It lacked emotional conviction.
Toward the end of her uneven rambling she was unable to generate momentum, it sort of fizzled … ran out of gas … as she gazed through her specs and tried for the appearance of gravitas. Embarrassingly sub-par and full of the right wing claptrap that is guaranteed to drive America further toward unilateralism and greater isolation.
Compared to any speech you care to name at the Democratic convention, this was strictly amateur night.
The idea of this ingenue sitting in the VP’s office is really a bad joke. Americans deserve better.
I’m jaded (as said above) but it’s entirely possible Palin will prove a really bad gamble for the McCain campaign.
It’s a train wreck, and it will only get worse. The latest story is that Palin wanted books banned from a library, and she fired the librarian who refused her.
Quiet Desperation – I acknowledge your having to eat crow on this blog. Thanks for stopping the sexist shit.
I’ve had to eat crow twice for being stooopid.
It hurts, but the wound heals fast. *grin*
Americans deserve better.
Do we really? I’m not so sure sometimes. :-(
Hey Patricia check out the awesome turquoise and polyester fashion statement over here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8
ooops gotta go catch the Stewart/Colbert rerun, see yall later
Not once have you acknowledged that your rhetoric was sexist and inappropriate. All you did was cower when the big man told you what’s what. Chances are good that you’ll revert to demeaning women again when you’re out of earshot, on someone else’s blog.
Instead, you just keep whining for everyone to stop criticizing you. Cry more.
Judging from the reactions here and elsewhere, it sounds like McCain has played this just about right. He blindsided the opposition by appointing Sarah Palin and got them really rattled. She’s attracted huge media coverage. All of a sudden, Obama’s no longer the newest, coolest kid on the political block and Biden’s a wasted opportunity.
That’s how it looks now, anyway. What it’ll be like a couple of months down the road once the honeymoon period’s worn off is another matter.
I’ve had to eat crow twice for being stooopid.
It hurts, but the wound heals fast. *grin*
Oh, I’m OK. I’m really a decent guy underneath, but I do have a very dangerous funny bone that sometimes gets me into trouble. And I really despair for the country some days. It makes me nasty. I also really did spend 10 years in the BDSM scene, so that stuff is pretty unremarkable to me, and I forget sometimes.
In a word, vacuous.
After reading the transcript of her speech I could only find two bits that, if your being very generous, you could say touched on policy:
1) that Obama will raise taxes, but no mention, nothing at all, on what McCain plans are for the economy.
and 2) Victory in Iraq (but not Afghanistan?). But again, absolute zip on how…
Christ, a skirt and a more humble background is about all the distinguishes her form Bush.
Impeccably reasoned as ever.
I listened to the speech via TYT. I guarantee there will be a bump for them out of this. As Cenk mentioned, the bar was set so low for her because of all the scandals that the only place for them to go is up. The Democrats still have the experience argument on their side, and the real difference between the speeches at the two conventions was the number of times you heard boos. Obviously, that’s a win for the Dems, since they didn’t have a lot of boos, and tonight’s rethug lineup did what it could to get as many boos as possible. They of course see that as a good thing. Will the American populace be persuaded by a convention full of basically nothing but POW porn and name calling? That remains to be seen, and on that I remain undeterred in pushing Obama/Biden to those I know.
The Dems cannot afford to let this go unanswered for long. They need to stay on message and on the task of keeping radicals out of elected office.
Obama has declared that he wants to find more renewable energy sources. Why does Palin lie about that? She goes to hell if she does, so one must wonder; why does she hate heaven so much?
J Myers (no relation), #155:
Calling out a sexual fantasy as inappropriate or misogynistic is not at all the same as a desire ‘legislate against them’ .
In general, the simple fact that something is undesirable is not necessarily cause to legislate against it; there are often better ways, such as education, or social pressure, to reduce its frequency of occurrence, or the severity of its side effects. In this specific case – sexual fantasies about Palin have no bearing on whether she is qualified for the VP. Thus they are inappropriate to this thread, regardless of their content. That does not mean such fantasies should be legislated against, and to imply that it does is a strawman.
@ Grammar RWA,
“Not once have you acknowledged that your rhetoric was sexist and inappropriate. All you did was cower when the big man told you what’s what.”
It was sexist and inappropriate! [yet funny] Are you fucking satisfied now?!? Move along.
I cower for nobody, but I respect PZ and defend him every chance I get (in RL or online).
“Chances are good that you’ll revert to demeaning women again when you’re out of earshot, on someone else’s blog.”
Chances are, you are wrong!
“Instead, you just keep whining for everyone to stop criticizing you. Cry more.”
Yay!, I’m now whining… When people keep droning on and on about something that has been cleared up and is over, and I find that I must repeatedly note that for them… well, that is hardly whining, my friend.
Jason @ 19,
“Just to be fair, Obama’s speeches are mostly written by speechwriters as well – given the thousands of criticisms to choose from, let’s try to focus on the ones that are actually on target!”
Point taken I guess, but as has probably been said before here, many of Obama’s speeches are indeed written by himself, and not by speech-writers. This includes both his speech on race after the dust up about his pastor and his acceptance speech at the convention. Give him his credit where due.
…I gave up.
Calamari-eating surrender monkey!
Everybody, they lie about Obama/Biden because they’ve been allowed to get away with it. They are used to a media that never challenges what they say, and never calls them to elaborate. They lie because they can, plain and simple. The only way they’ll stop is if Obama/Biden hand McWar/Pain-lin their ass on a silver platter in November.
And if that doesn’t happen, well, it’s been nice knowing America.
IMO, it was a perfect performance of the kind of political theater that gets votes. How else could a do-no-good, draft-dodging dolt have gotten ‘elected’ in 2000 – what with a string of failures on his resume, no foreign policy and little other experience, other than a largely ceremonial governorship?
This bunch of commenters is not representative of the electorate, and Palin couldn’t give a rat’s whoot about what we think of her. It’ll take an awful lot more than self-gratifying cheap shots to avoid four more disastrous years.
Obama appeared to understand this when he quipped (something like): “The Republicans don’t know how to govern, but they sure know how to campaign”. Looks like we’ve got work to do.
#186 RobinSV
They always accuse liberals of raising taxes while spending more. The reality however is that the conservatives spend more than liberals, usually on the wrong things, while lowering taxes. My guess is that this fine tradition will continue, and the sheep will believe it’s the other way around.
How do they define victory? Their military was quickly defeated, Saddam Hussein was found and brought to some sort of trial (the American presidents who sold him weapons did nothing wrong, however), so now it’s the insurgents and rebells and terrorists (who came there after Iraq was defeated, not before) who are standing in the way of… what? America taking complete control over the country? What’s the goal? A government approved by the USA and USA alone?
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
I believe you, but I would suggest that you try to think of internet forums as more of a dinner party with kids and grandma hanging around, not a locker room.
…her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
That’s going to be rather difficult until these sorts of pictures stop turning up…
Another thing Grammar RWA,
“Chances are good that you’ll revert to demeaning women again when you’re out of earshot, on someone else’s blog.”
That statement by you was about as asinine as when some jackass Catholic says “you’d never do that to a koran or a jewish symbol!”
I started not to even post this, but I really think you deserve it for being such a straw-man-building asshole to me.
With that, I’d say we’re even. So move along.
I thought Palin did better than I expected.
She’s a better speech-giver than McCain is. Or Bush. Or Giuliani, or Thompson, or Lieberman. [snore] Geesh.
These guys not only need better speech-writers, they need speech coaches.No. No. I made a mistake there. Sorry.
What I meant to write was: These guys are most excellent speech-givers, and they should give more great speeches written by their present extra-talented writers and continue to give their speeches with their current tremendous flair, as that will surely sway the electorate and deliver the election to McCain/Palin.
OTOH, Palin’s delivery reminded me of the over-rehearsed speeches that I’ve heard graduating seniors give at our local high school. The result is a speech that doesn’t really seem to genuinely come from the heart. (Cindy McCain is even worse in that regard.)
While I appreciate the fact that the US sorely needs a new energy policy, I was disappointed that Palin’s speech focused so much on energy, and she didn’t say much about other important issues like the environment, economy, education, social justice, health care, foreign policy.
And I caught her misrepresentations of Obama’s tax and energy policies.
Once, at a point that now seems long ago, I opined that I was torn between Hillary and Obama, but that I could live with McCain since he’d be a big improvement over our present administration. But after McCain selected Palin, I’ve changed my mind. “No way. No how. No McCain.”
I really enjoyed The Daily Show tonight, especially the clips of Palin, Rove, and O’Reilly hoisted by their own words. And for someone who supposedly was pressing for Palin’s nomination weeks ago, Newt didn’t seem very enthusiastic. Maybe he was just tired.
BTW: Did anyone else notice how nicely dressed almost all the Republican delegates were? Did they have a dress code for this evening?
It was competent, but they needed more than competent in the wake of the pre-convention revelations and general unease over this woman.
Do they, though? It’s precisely that sort of unease that can be allayed by display of not-complete idiocy*. “Oh look, she isn’t obviously nuts… all that stuff we heard must have been lies from the liberal media!” Low bars make for high completion percentages.
Calling out a sexual fantasy as inappropriate or misogynistic is not at all the same as a desire ‘legislate against them’ .
llewelly, meet Sarcasm. Sarcasm, llewelly.
That does not mean such fantasies should be legislated against, and to imply that it does is a strawman.
llewelly, meet irony.
Up until Palin was announced I was comfortable thinking that the world wasn’t going to end regardless of who was elected. She’s got me very suddenly worried about McCain’s ticket.
I can somewhat understand obvious pandering to the freakagelicals from a Rep. candidate, and changing religions seemed a bit much but I figured he really wasn’t that devout and it was just for votes. Picking someone who’s Joel’s Army style whackaloon as veep suddenly feels like much more of a threat. It seems too obviously like a move of desperation, alienating pretty much everybody else for the hard-core fundie vote. Most of them still don’t like McCain and are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being commander-in-chief, so I think McCain paid an awful lot for a small gain.
Pierce R. Butler wrote:
Hmmm… Not exactly the kind of image that comes to mind when I think of an advocate of abstinence only education.
Both of them would destroy any hope of balance in the Supreme Court for an entire generation.
Scary prospect.
Let’s hope that the affair rumors are true.
Anyway, back to Palin’s speech (finally). I really tired quickly of her trying to put on the “I’m one of you hard-working-class people” and the state-name-dropping (to continue in a similar vein).
Hey Scooter – No shit! She has the shark tooth, bone and turquoise fashion scene covered. Wasn’t that Sturgis 1993?
BTW, bang head on desk again right now on MSNBC or in 48m on Fox or in 1h 20m on CNN.
I missed her speech (I had to work): anyone got the link?
Did she say anything unexpected, at all? anything?
As for all the coverage on her family: I don’t care. I honestly do not care about her kids. I didn’t care about Chelsea Clinton, nor did I care about Bill’s indiscretions. I do not, and never have, cared about the damned Bush girls. I won’t care about Obama’s kids (although they’re quite cute). The children and personal lives of Presidents only concern me when they affect the president’s decision making, and therefore I am much more concerned with the fact that both VP candidates have kids going overseas.
What? The internet is very much a locker room mentality, it’s hard to think of it as anything but.
Sure being civil has it’s place, don’t get me wrong. Just trying to expect such a high level of behaviour on the internet is like expecting a coherent scientific argument out of a creationist.
Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973 but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. … And once I’m swept into office, I’ll sell our children’s organs to zoos for meat and I’ll go into people’s houses at night and wreck up the place. BWAHAHAHA!!!
Somebody upthread asked about the facts on Palin’s claims re Obama’s tax proposals. Obama’s plan would lower taxes on 95% of wage earners, and would benefit the middle class by significantly more than McSame’s… so Palin was just flat lying.
Here’s a fact-check from AP of Palin’s speech and other RNC claims (h/t to HuffPo). When even the ostensibly-liberal-but-actually-right-leaning MSM is smacking them down on the facts, you know the Repubs are doing some high-grade prevaricating.
BTW, I agree that the sexual joking is out of bounds (as much because it’s bound to backfire as because it’s tasteless), but Palin’s attractiveness is a real issue, in electoral terms: Some people will think again about the R ticket because she pretties it up; those of us who dread another 4 or 8 years of theocratic neocon rule would do well to be mindful of every advantage they have, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it ought to be.
@ valor #208, refer to post #207. CNN and Faux will be showing again shortly.
———-
@ Kel, #209,
The atmosphere seems more sensitive here lately, I guess since arounf the time of the whole cracker thing. I remember comments much harsher than mine & QD’s being the norm a while back. Not that that justifies said comments; just that they weren’t looked down upon so much before.
Quiet Desperation – Being naughty comes in different ways to different folk. I’ve been monogamous for over 30 years, and some of that still seems naughty. So what the heck! Naughty is as naughty does. *smirk*
*arounf* = *around*
It’s time for this ol’ Ilkster to buzz off to bed.
Goodnight Sweethearts!
thanks, #212. east coast feed… sigh.
Agreed 100%. The issue is primarily how a small (but not nearly small enough) sexist subgroup of voters think it’s acceptable to attack spouses or female candidates on grounds of gender. Think of Hillary in ’92. Thatcher. Meir? Probably. Ferraro. For the lulz.
You insist it was funny. I’d hit it: the height of wit. That’s about junior high? I’m just not convinced of your judgment or reliability, I guess.
Maybe if you’d apologized you’d feel able to let it go, then, like you keep telling everyone else to do. Some people read it and want to say something, maybe just to let others know they weren’t alone in their revulsion. There’s little you can do about this phenomenon.
Pierce R. Butler
That’s going to be rather difficult until these sorts of pictures stop turning up…
Shit that’s Brad Blog, I know that guy, I worked with him in Crawford.
Are those photoshopped?
That cracker time was fun. So many catholics coming in to try and take the moral highground, so easy to shoot down. Maybe this is post-desecration-depression?
Or maybe it’s the way the US election cycle is going. Palin was a pick out of nowhere, people don’t know how to react to it. So any negativity that doesn’t focus on her policies would be damaging and people won’t stand for it. And in a way they are right: she’s a pro-life, anti-evolution, climate change denialist, has it in for polar bears, wants to plunder our finite resources, and has no experience whatsoever. Why do we need to make reference of anything personal when there’s already so much to attack…
…unless it’s a recognition of the cult of personality that comes with the modern political process. But even then, still totally not cool
She is very proud of her particular form of faith. Until yesterday, it was on display on the web–now it’s gone. How convenient. The RNC web scrubbers are awful naive about how the web works.
On Democrats: going to hell.
On critics of Bush: going to hell.
On critics on minister who made these comments: going to hell.
On Jews in Israel: going to hell–much more quickly–because they haven’t converted yet.
Given all the attention focused on Jeremiah Wright, her “faith” needs to be explored more. Do you even think she will disavow any of her repugnant views, even out of political expediency? I doubt it. She’ll twist it into an attack that says the same thing, but with even more venom.
I get the feeling that her speech will have the same effect that Buchanan’s did in 1992–alienate the independents and undecideds.
After just one week, we’ve learned a lot about her that is less than flattering–even apart from the tabloid journalism (though John Edwards probably has a different opinion of the Nation Enquirer now). The question is: where there’s smoke, is there more fire?
You do have to give McCain credit, she has energized his campaign–at least with religious conservatives. What will be interesting is what will be the result if Obama ends up getting a Palin bump in the polls.
Now I’m waiting for Palin’s speech to come on, and frankly, Huckabee’s speech is pissing me off. Obama brought back “Dangerous European ideas”? Dangerous ideas? grr.. it bugs on me.
Sure, she lied, distorted, etc, but that is beside the point. The speech was not made to convince liberals. I couldn’t stand listening to all of it but I thought, that it was a pretty effective speech. It pandered perfectly to the prejudices and preconceptions of die-hard rethuglicans, their hollow patriotism, their militarism, their exaggerated conviction that the world will go down the drain without the U.S. of A., their religious belief that taxes are evil, that Democrats will cave in to the ‘evil’ in this world, etc. It sure convinced a lot of them. However, if it will also convince undecided voters is hard to tell. But let’s not underestimate her, others seem to have made this mistake in the past already. She seems to be ruthless and with a pretty good sense of what the people want to hear (see Digby’s post here)
It’s a fake according to Urban Legends
ostensibly-liberal-but-actually-right-leaning MSM
Oh, get serious.
-jcr
Oh, as to families being off-limit. Didn’t McCain make the joke that Janet Reno was Chelsea Clinton’s father? Good work, John McCain, I’m appalled that I ever thought out supporting you in 2000.
I suppose it could be worse: Huckabee/Palin 2008. Theocracy now!
Now, see: If we hadn’t just spend so much time scolding each other about taste, there’d probably be a joke in there somewhere! ;^)
“You insist it was funny.”
And I still hold that view. Inappropriate? Yes, as well.
“I’d hit it: the height of wit. That’s about junior high?”
Amongst about a bazillion other things, yes.
“I’m just not convinced of your judgment or reliability, I guess.”
Reliability for what?
“Maybe if you’d apologized you’d feel able to let it go, then, like you keep telling everyone else to do.”
Ahem… I did apologize. Apologies don’t always come in the form of “I’m sorry,” BTW.
“Some people read it and want to say something, maybe just to let others know they weren’t alone in their revulsion.”
Then they should read the entire comment thread. I did. It puts the comment history in context.
“There’s little you can do about this phenomenon.”
Agreed.
Probably just mirrors and a magician
I am serious. (At least you didn’t call me Shirley!)
Craig Ferguson beats EVERYBODY to the sexist Palin jokes by 15 months:
Also pulls a Nostradamus with the ‘Librarian’ crack.
Coincidence?????
/twilightZoneMusic
@ valor,
She’s like a robotic Stepford wife right out of the starting blocks; she even has a HUD. Robot attack in 30 minutes!
———-
@ Kel,
I just couldn’t keep up with the comments for the cracker posts, and I’ve read every goddamn comment for several other 1000+ threads here (e.g., Stan Palmer); so I just commented about it on other sites.
I can’t wait for the debates to see their mudslinging put on the spot. Oh wait, the debates are just canned speech. shit…
PS to my last (@229): If you doubt that there’s a center-right bias in the MSM, ask yourself why Clinton v. Obama party dissension was the MSM storyline throughout the DNC last week, even though folks on the floor were saying they actually heard almost none of that from delegates… and OTOH, the MSM has barely even mentioned the fact that there’s a full-fledged protest counter-convention going on across from the RNC this week.
I’m generally skeptical of press-bias claims, and I don’t suggest it’s a matter of deliberate malice… but I know it when I see it, and I’ve definitely been seeing it in this race. Even on the MSNBC coverage, which is hosted by that whipping boy of the right wing, Keith Olbermann.
Let’s CUT OUT the goddamn sexism! We can discuss Palin’s policies, but criticisms of her “beauty pageant voice” or having sex with her (um, some against her will?!) is horrible.
I don’t agree at all with Palin, but sexism has to stop. That’s how feminism works.
I just finished watching the entire speech (it was the replay) on MSNBC, and I have to say that I am just blown away… particularly by the amount of outright lying that went on during this event. It’s one thing to say Obama won’t do such-and-so, but for them to also come out and say he hasn’t ever done anything during his time as Senator is just an outright fabrication and blatant denial of the facts.
This would have been terrible enough, seeing the standing ovation Palin received when she merely mentioned “religion”… but having seen the video featuring Palin at a church meeting that PZ put up earlier, I can honestly say that I’m worried about what will happen if the Republicans win the election this year. :(
gach. Now I have to sit through Guilliani? The things I do to be informed. “you’re hiring someone to do a job”? gach.
Bill wrote
a full-fledged protest counter-convention going on across from the RNC this week
Yeah !! Our reporter and two of her producers ended up in JAIL.
Amy Goodman gets busted
http://democracynow.org
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/9/2
I said it before: Cruella de Ville. Hide your dogs people!
did Guilliani essentially just reference the devil you know? and these “specifics” are the vaguest specifics I’ve ever heard. “he will reduce government”- In what way? There’s a lot of government… glech. Politicians.
Are these guys actually chanting “drill, baby, drill”? This is going to make my head explode.
All she has to do now is shoot an old man in the face.
If you honestly think you apologized, you are spectacularly unaware of yourself. You actually did it again in the very same breath: “Forgive me PZ; ’twas just too easy, as her speech was so vapid. I’ll quell my lust.” And I like how PZ is the only one who’s allowed to be bothered by your comments.
That, too, Scooter!
I was actually referring to the Ron Paul Rally for the Republic event (or was that where Goodman was busted?). Of course, anyone who’s watching or reading the MSM coverage of the RNC could be forgiven for never having heard of Paul’s shindig.
This was my point from the beginning, thank you. “It’s over because I say it’s over” is your stand. At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to. No one is allowed to have any opinion on your comments because you declare that a time window of criticism has closed.
now I’m relieved it’s finally her. Maybe that’s why her speech is testing highly, it followed fricking Guilliani. A goat would poll high in comparison.
Grammar RWA, it’s funny how you just typed out my apology and completely ignored what it said, while trying to turn it into what _you_ wanted it to say…
Go play your persecution card elsewhere.
Jesus fucking christ, this is getting old.
“At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to. No one is allowed to have any opinion on your comments because you declare that a time window of criticism has closed.”
Grammar RWA, take your fucking straw man and fuck off.
I was about to let it go and be nice to you but you’re just being an asshole now.
Damn, I forgot to include this line in your bullshit straw man quote:
‘”It’s over because I say it’s over” is your stand.’
Grammar RWA, it’s over b/c it is in fact over. Re-read the comments. You’re the one trying to keep this old news alive. Your inability to notice that isn’t my problem. Fuck it.
#19:
You’re kidding, right?
Here’s a hint: One of these two people stumbled notably while using a teleprompter at the convention. The other was magna cum laude at Harvard Law School and taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.
You’re not being “fair”, you’re being asinine.
(Yes, Obama writes his all own speeches.)
did she just say eskimo? seriously? for pete’s sake. Inuit. Or better yet, actually say his tribe. or “Native Alaskan” at the very least. I also like how she described him as a fisherman before an oil worker, even though he’s an oil worker most of the time.
this is horrible. I stayed up for this?
Diana G. Regarding your question about who’s child it is….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_brutal_sliming_of_palins_daughter/
It includes pictures of mum preganant.
Don’t forget the kid was born a month early so it is not a surprise that she didn’t show much. Expecially if undersized.
Gees the US political noise is insane! Everyone hates one and loves the other.
I love the theory of Obama but he’s too much like our current Aussie PM. All words and no action.
But this whole religious crud from Palin annoys me.
And McCain…. Who’s he???
@ valor,
Oh, it gets worse. I’m punishing myself again by watching it a second time.
I’m a conservative. Here’s what bothers me: Palin and McCain, if elected, will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices. The real battles of creationism vs evolution always end up there. Chief Justice Roberts is sane, so perhaps the Court will uphold science.
“Jeez, move on past the offense at a few comments about attractive women. It’s over now.”
“Get over it Norman. Move along.”
“The only time “sex fantasies” are being mentioned now is by those that can’t move along and stop being offended. Drop it. It’s over.”
“I _am_ relaxed! It’s the people who keep bringing it up that need the fucking chill pill.”
And on and on. You simply brook no criticism. Talk about a persecution complex.
Well, over in Hawaii, I’ve been hearing from some Republicans that she’s redeemed the ticket, so it seems that she has a fair amount of draw.
That said, I don’t think I can take listening to her.
she’s really proud of using vetoes for appropriation. That’s… not really what they’re for. She should have worked with the legislature. Did she just say that she broke the big oil monopoly on resources? By law, the State of Alaska retains the rights to all natural resources. glech. Does she not understand the basic economy of her own state?
So, Obama is ready to surrender in Iraq when we’re on the verge of winning? Really? Tell me, what does winning look like?
Is it turning Iraq into a sheet of radioactive glass? Oh, maybe it is when the whole population drops their copies of the Qur’an, picks up the Bible and shouts praises to Cheezus? Or could it be when Shiites and the Sunnis throw down their guns, link arms and sing Kumbaya?
So, which is it? If we are to “win” this war, please tell us what it will look like so that we can know when it happens. (As noted earlier in my nascent blog.)
Not sure if its been mentioned before, but here’s at least one reason why the bush faithfull might feel ‘energized’ about Palin:
(from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_troopergate)
So at the very least, we have someone who completely agrees that ‘executive privilege’ essentially translates to “do as you will,” and that it should be protected through the simple mechanism of invoking whatever absurd legal argument you can pull out of your ass- just so long as it gets you a buy. Because legal oversight should really be viewed as nothing more than a game of attrition.
I’m sure that they are looking forward to an administration which will fight tooth and nail to preserve the absurdities put forth by Gonzales and Mukasey, defending the ‘rights’ of the Bush administration to circumvent any semblance of oversight through nothing more than legal nit picking. No doubt the very idea elicits an orgasmic sigh up and down Pennsylvania Ave., and the possiblity that they have a new champion in the epic battle: “congressional supenea vs. absurdly obvious nonsensical partisan mumbo-jumbo,” probably makes the like of Rush et. al. shudder with delight.
Its fairly clear now that a McCain win means four more years of ‘no progress what-so-ever’ in addressing the institutional abuses of the Bush admin. That’s the message of this nomination.
So much for that maverick thing…. Kinda sad.
PS, I’d do her too.
Posted over at ‘Mudflats’ blog regarding Sarah Palin’s real attitude towards ‘special needs’ education.
“Do we now have special education gate? Or better yet a huge slash in the special ed budget? From firstread:
Sarah Palin Slashed Special Needs Education by 62%
For those of you who seem so enamored with Gov. Sarah Palin, it might be worth noting that she oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska.
These funds provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions and the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. The resident school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program. Without the supplementary services the child’s needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases.
The following programs are included within this component:
Special Education Service Agency (SESA)
The Annual budget for 2007, which preceded Gov. Palin was $8,265,300.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 5,109,300 , or 62%. So, as the Alaska State Budget description states, “Without the supplementary services the child’s needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases.”
Did 62% of all of the special needs children in Alaska stop having needs once Gov. Palin took office?
Before we get so excited about Gov. Palin bring her “Reformer” agenda to Washington, perhaps we should get to know a little more about what exactly that means to our children, and the opportunities that she would “Reform”.
If you ask me, a 62% cut in these funds, which we all know are so desperately scarce, and for which we all have to fight tooth and nail for our children, is a disgrace.”
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/destination-alaska-theyre-heee-eere/#comments
These republican phonies couldn’t even lie straight in bed.
Don’t feel too bad Quiet_Desperation, there are others here with a sense of humour calibrated at the darker end of the spectrum. I’m hoping someone out there is working on some politically relevant dead-baby jokes right now.
What I found particularly distasteful was the way she used her children, especially Trig with Down Syndrome, for electoral purposes, to portray her as super-mother and to gain votes from parents with a dissabled child.
But on another hand, the republicans and the right wing noise machine keep saying “Children are off limits”.
Never seen this in France. Our candidates to the presidency never bring their children or mention them in any speech whatsoever. And they are truely “off limits”.
But in America, it seems this absolutely obvious cognitive dissonance and incredible hypocrisy doesn’t seem to be a problem.
I found it tremendously chocking.
Ok, first of all, she’s blatantly lying. I mean, seriously, actually lying. She has several times. (I like how the only time the crowd booed about taxes was when she said business taxes). Second, she just dissed Obama for wanting to maintain Constitutionality?! I don’t like this woman, I really don’t.
Yep, and you’re the only one left that can’t wise up and see that it’s old news. Fuck it — keep it up if you want. I’m almost starting to enjoy watching you babble.
BTW, I’ve “brooked” your pointless criticism for a few hours now. And no, I’m not being persecuted.
So, babble on if it makes you happy…
I’m sure I’ve seen that before (I liked him as Bing Hitler better though), but this time I get “this video is not available in your country” — you’re not serious? They really don’t want us (rest of world^TM) laughing at you?
Please America, don’t fuck it up again. Please rein in your religious right wing lunatics.
@ valor,
I had to throw in the towel and turn off the TV. I can’t stand Palin’s lying smugness anymore. I failed. I thought I was tougher than this…
that was incredibly long. that was awful. I don’t think it was even delivered particularly well, as some have said. It was a mediocre speech delivered in a mediocre manner. It contained more than one blatant lie, and several fallacious assertions. It was, frankly, pathetic. It was certainly not worth staying up for, and now I am going to bed and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t give me nightmares.
Ok, for those who might have been offended by my recent remark intimating a desire for sex with Palin I most humbly apologize. It was a sophomoric and and unfunny comment made partially in anger at the bullshit she is spreading. Mea Culpa
“Palin said she and her staff would cooperate fully with the investigation.”
Now that’s the speech she I’d like to hear her make right there.
I can’t for the life of me understand how any intelligent male could possibly find this woman sexually attractive.
The first time that she opened her mouth and spoke, I think I would immediately lose interest.
Well, maybe if you had been stuck on an offshore oil rig for several months with absolutely no other female contact you could be forgiven, but apart from that, yuck.
Timid Atheist, prepare to be chastised relentlessly. Yes, even long after you’ve apologized. I’d say I’d be right here for you, but goddamn, I’m fucking tired…
Okay, I watched it. It lived down to my every expectation, although I didn’t expect her to drag her whole goddamn family onstage (I should have, but I didn’t). It was like successful fast food: made of cheap, durable ingredients, assembled with little effort, full of empty calories but smothered in the popular flavor of the month. If McCain is the greaseburger, she’s the potato-onion-cheddar poppers with honey maple ranch dipping sauce.
@ Scooter, 230: Thanks for throwing that video up. Watch it, people, and look for the sign of the cross.
@ everybody talking about how hot she is: I really don’t get it. I find willful ignorance, especially of the YEC variety, a total turn-off.
Hint: Maybe if snoozebar, Jenny, Richbank, Jeremy, ihateaphids, Norman Doering, JasonTD, Azkyroth, Geral, ck, llewelly, Brain Hertz, Ryan Cunningham, Patricia, Justin Schenk, and AnthroBabe all would like to talk about sexism and politicians, and bonez brigade just keeps saying no, no, that discussion is over, no one wants to talk about it… just maybe, bonez brigade is mistaken.
Repeatedly trying to dictate what others should be discussing, instead of what they want to discuss. Can you imagine how that might be an assholish move?
Bill,
I read Bernie Goldberg’s book, and I also watched Dan Rather get a “distinguished service award” at the NAB show in Las Vegas in ’06, the year after demolished his pretense at objectivity with a tac nuke. Did his peers in the broadcast industry take him to task for sloppy work, or for destroying the reputation of CBS News and 60 Minutes? No, they gave him a prize!
Deny it all you want, but most of the press in this country is definitely left-leaning. About 45 degrees off the vertical.
This habit of insisting that the press is (or should be, or even can be) neutral is basically a mid- to late-20th century American conceit. I rather prefer the European model, where you know what angle any given outlet is coming from, and they don’t try to fake it.
-jcr
Remember guys, who gets elected this fall is viewed as important by the rest of the world because of how world shaping the US President’s role is. If Palin gets anywhere near the White House we (the world, including animals) are screwed. She clearly puts lies ahead of reason, common sense and common decency.
We watch with interest from New Zealand.
Great speech better than previously thought it would be. I didn’t catch it live, but watched the whole video of it on the net. She had Reagan’s style in her delivery. I liked the part where she described her background in government.
The Obama camp put out a negative tv ad about Palin concerning abortion, like she was going to overturn Roe vs Wade…lol…That’s so absurd. Then after the speech, one of the key figures in Obama’s camp was claiming there should be focus on the economy. I wanted to ask the supporter then “why is Obama putting out attack ads on Palin instead of focusing on the economy?”
I agree there could have been more of a focus on the economy in her speech, but I suspect that will be McCain’s job to lay that out to the American people in his acceptance speech…
“I might add that in small towns we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t,” Sarah Palin reference to Obama’s springtime observation about some frustrated working-class Americans.
_Dictate_ what others should be discussing? Grammar RWA, are you fucking serious or just a fucking idiot? Whatever it is, refer to what I said earlier about your straw men and fucking off.
Also, it’s so nice how you ignore how _long_ago_ those others let it go, no doubt by actually reading what was written past the original 2-3 entries. I really don’t care anymore, as you only look like a jackass at this point.
It was a good speech,telepromptered or not.
She made herself look like your average hockey mom,not one of those in Washington,with strong family values,she gave it to the journalists,she joked,she paraded her family and the Down kid,face it people,she made herself seem electable to large parts of the american public with that speech,they will like her.
And look at the press shes getting,its overwhelmingly positive.
Its scary.She is a very talented demagogue.
The speeches by Romney,Huckabee and Giuliani were intolerably pathetic,but Palin pulled it off.
The mind boggles,but lots of Americans will like her,and vote for her.
Dang it, the link didn’t work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents
-jcr
The speech was the sort of red meat that every Republican asshole loves. But the Republicans need to attract swing voters … oops.
Ben Stein doesn’t like Sarah Palin.
http://wonkette.com/402523/ben-stein-repulsed-by-sarah-palin-thinks-henry-kissinger-should-babysit-her
Even a stopped clock…
P.S. Lots more snarky Palin talk over at that site. And no one there will get offended at inappropriate sex talk (unless they suspect there is sincerely held sexism beneath it).
how world shaping the US President’s role is.
Some of us are doing all we can to reduce the power of the presidency. Someday, we hope to roll it all the way back to the limited powers granted in the constitution.
-jcr
Respectfully, I have to disagree here. I think the problem is that you let the whole ‘opening her mouth’ thing intrude on the issue.
Absent that, I do have to admit that Jon Stewart had something with the “mild-mannered yet troubled librarian from every Cinemax movie” thing. Sure, she’s a horrible person- but on a purely physical side, well-
I mean she was Miss Alaska. Well, almost. Plus, there’s that whole ‘corrupting the scold’ thing she’s got going for her.
Just saying, I can see it- even if it makes me feel ashamed and dirty. Or maybe _because_ it makes me feel ashamed and dirty. Not sure which….
…I think you have to add “…in comparison to Dick Cheney” at the end of any and all of those comments.
But I refuse to be drawn into that whole “opened her mouth” thing…
FWIW, I think she’s quite quite vile, as are all of those right wing dominionist slimeballs. I’m really worried your country will be dumb enough to allow these people another 4 years in power.
The Obama camp put out a negative tv ad about Palin concerning abortion, like she was going to overturn Roe vs Wade…lol…That’s so absurd.
Low information voter, are you?
Then after the speech, one of the key figures in Obama’s camp was claiming there should be focus on the economy. I wanted to ask the supporter then “why is Obama putting out attack ads on Palin instead of focusing on the economy?”
There’s no “instead”, moron, Obama has put out plenty of ads focusing on the economy.
«bønez_brigade» – You’re right, let the chastisement begin, no less than I deserve.
I read Bernie Goldberg’s book
That’s like talking to yourself, asswipe.
@ Fred, 274: Yesterday I blogged about a 17-year-old girl from Australia who posted this comment on YouTube:
Sweetly naive, but pointed. And isn’t it funny that Jethro Republimentalist thinks the UN is out to enslave the planet, but the USA putting boots on the ground wherever is God’s Plan for spreading freedom? Right, multilateral world government is so much more oppressive than unilateral world “liberation.”
So, I feel you, brother. American sentiment about Bush, at least in the Pacific Northwest where I live, is about equal parts embarrassment, shocked disbelief, and deep moral outrage. Not only are we flabbergasted that this schmuck slimed his way into a second term, many of us are simply stunned that it’s taken so long for even the first baby steps to be made toward impeaching his ass.
Telling people to stop talking about something you don’t want them to talk about anymore? Yes. “Drop it, drop it, drop it.” You are issuing commands. Whether or not anyone listens is up to them, but you’ve certainly tried to deter people from taking the conversation in that direction.
Did you not notice that the last six people I listed have all brought it up since you started telling me to drop it? And the last nine brought it up after you started telling everyone else to drop it?
Seriously, did you not notice that? I’m aware that people are going to get see me as feeding a troll, and some of them won’t like it. I’m at least cognizant of this fact. But do you really not understand that you’re being a troll?
Here is a poll asking whether Palin’s religious affiliation is a problem:
http://www.acepolls.com/vote/Is-the-fact-that-Sarah-Palin-is-an-Evangelical-Christian-a-problem-for-you/728731/
It doesn’t look like it has been tilted yet (only 1000-odd votes) and interestingly 62.9% have voted that her religion IS a problem.
Will you BOTH please knock it off? Just let the other guy have the last word! It’s not that hard!
DingoDave? uriel? You know what PZ was talking about when he said “her appearance and her gender should be off limits”? You’re doing it.
I’m still trying to find ONE plus point for S.Palin vs G.W.Bush.
But I can’t.
If Americans make this mistake to elect McCain/Palin, 3rd mistake in a row, I give up on America.
As a European I will also give up on Pharyngula – what’s the point ?
It means it’ll just get worse, so what’s the point of blogging about what’s going on in the USA if nothing ever changes.
Stephen Couchman: guess how much I give a shit what you think.
Gotta agree, here- I mean really, her nomination was announced a couple of days ago. And it was, by all but the most overly involved political junkies, completely out of the blue.And even for those, it was at best unexpected.
Do you really expect us to accept you’ve seen more than _one_ ‘attack ad’ aimed her way at this point, if that? Do you really want us to believe that Obama completely ignored the obvious issue of the economy to focus on developing and producing an ad campaign focused on one of the least likely potential candidates for VP? A campaign no one else but you have seen?
Really, if you’re going to bitch, bitch about things that _actually happened_. If all you’re going to do is make up imaginary things to be offended by, well- have fun, but don’t expect any one else to care.
jcr:
One
bookhatchet job and one very complex and ultimately ambiguous case is all ya’ got?There’s actually been a fair amount of study on this (e.g., the book I pointed you to earlier), and study after study suggests that, while individual journalists may, on average, be slightly liberal in their personal beliefs (and why not? after all, “reality has a well-known liberal bias”), the institutional bias of the media is clearly conservative.
This is not hard to understand, nor does it require anything machiavellian: It’s simply the case that media companies are, for the most part, large corporations, and [a] large corporations are inherently small-c conservative and [b] conservative/Republican politics are generally pro-corporate.
Whatever the reasons, it’s simply the fact that (for instance) on MSNBC, allegedly the most liberal of the cable news networks (according to critics on the right), the “liberal” point of view is often represented by Harold Ford, the least liberal Democrat you could hope to find (even including Joe LIEberman, on any issue other than the war)… while the conservative point of view is voiced by Pat Buchanan. Does Buchanan on the right and Ford on the “left” really sound balanced (nevermind left-leaning) to you?
Regardless of what you think about other times and previous elections, in this campaign, the media has been very tough on Obama and the Dems, and has generally given McSame a free pass on a lot of pretty outrageous stuff. Maybe it’s just because Johnny’s barbecue is just so damn good, eh?
Or back to my original example: How do you explain all the hype about (nonexistent, as it turned out) Democratic “division” versus no substantive coverage at all of the Republicans’ (very real) Ron Paul schism?
@ Grammar RWA,
“Telling people to stop talking about something you don’t want them to talk about anymore? Yes. “Drop it, drop it, drop it.” You are issuing commands. Whether or not anyone listens is up to them, but you’ve certainly tried to deter people from taking the conversation in that direction.”
No, you idiot. You miss the trees for the forest. It’s not that I didn’t want to talk about it. It’s that it was over and done, and to continue to bring it up is just fucking senseless. I got the point from PZ the first time. I don’t need some asstroll like you to keep beating a dead horse. Hello…
“Did you not notice that the last six people I listed have all brought it up since you started telling me to drop it? And the last nine brought it up after you started telling everyone else to drop it?”
Again, how long ago was that? Me repeatedly telling you to just drop it [b/c it became absolutely pointless] was advice lost on you.
“Seriously, did you not notice that? I’m aware that people are going to get see me as feeding a troll, and some of them won’t like it. I’m at least cognizant of this fact. But do you really not understand that you’re being a troll?”
Heh. Now that’s funny. Grammar RWA, here’s a little more than a hint: _you_ are the troll. It is _I_ that should’ve stopped feeding you long ago.
Stephen Couchman: guess how much I give a shit what you think.
Oh, probably more than I should. I apologize for being short with you. I’m out. There’ll be plenty more sexist comments in this thread in the morning.
Dude, +/- ten percent of the posts in this thread are your nerd fight. This is almost as bad as having to scroll past pages of block-pasted scripture. Now, I’m going to practice what I preach. Flame me all you like, ass.
@ Grammar RWA,
You said to Stephen: “guess how much I give a shit what you think.”
Ummm, yeah… kinda what I’ve been trying to get across to _you_ for too long now….
I wasn’t really paying attention. I saw it on TV and thought it was another teen movie about some dumb chick becoming class president. When I looked up and saw it was Palin talking, I turned off the TV and began packing and forging citizenship papers for Lichtenstein. Oi weh! Dumber Americanerin! Was eine Arselicherin!
(I know my German needs work. I’ll pretend to be mute, deaf, and blind for a few years until I get it down.)
*sigh*
Dammit, you had to go and say something reasonable. Fine, “ass” retracted; that was unnecessary. Goodnight.
Hee….
The American mainstream news media has a liberal bias in the same way as Fox News is fair and balanced…
jcr:
Now that your link is working, did you actually read the wiki you point to? Despite all the stupid mistakes CBS made (mostly not Rather himself, BTW), there was, at the end of the day, no finding of any liberal bias in the case, nor any conclusive showing that the underlying facts of the story weren’t true, regardless of the documents’ authenticity.
And even if we stipulate that that one story was a total hose job, one data point does not an industry-wide trend make.
@ Grammar RWA,
“I’m out. There’ll be plenty more sexist comments in this thread in the morning.”
Hey, make sure you get up bright and early so you can get a full day’s worth of complaining in.
And with that well-deserved cheap shot, I think I’m out as well…
thanks, that’s a very good post , thanks a lot
BTW, CSPAN is currently showing the whole thing again. Romney is at bat, and Palin is still in the queue.
I have a feeling that all of their private jet comments are going to come back to bite them in the asses.
Anyway, tune in for more misery. I’ve had enough of it…
«bønez_brigade» and Grammar RWA: what a pair.
Bill, your efforts are wasted; jcr’s mind is an immovable object.
#273
1) Dan Rather made a mistake. It happens. It doesn’t negate a 40+ career in journalism that was pretty good. Perhaps not the greatest, but not the worst, either. It’s like denying Pete Rose the Hall of Fame. After a while, the deniers just seem petty for harping on one thing, when other contributions/accomplishments over a career were definitely worthy of commendation. But unlike Pete Rose, Dan Rather didn’t even commit a crime. Why begrudge him a journalism award from one little group that very few people even know about? Are you saying that the NAB represents the views/opinions of all journalists? Every single one of them? Surely you don’t really believe this.
2) Bernie Goldberg definitely had an axe to grind, and was not honest in any of his books, about anyone, particularly in Bias. He used the tired old right-wing canard of relying on anecdotes for evidence, when he didn’t outright fabricate claims. Even on the occasion when he used “factual” claims that could be verified, he misrepresented those facts. Badly. Don’t even bring him up as any kind of authority on integrity in journalism. Any he might have had vanished long before he left CBS in a WATB snit. For more on this issue, please check Bob Somersby (among others), who thoroughly debunked at least a few of Goldberg’s claims. In 2002.
3) If you’re a journalist, you’re probably aware of this, but most aren’t, so let’s give the full story for your remarks about “the press” being left-leaning: While many reporters are left-leaning, that hardly matters. Media owners establish a “vision” for their papers in conjunction with a desire to keep advertisers happy. Media owners are not liberal, by and large. Advertisers who fund a huge portion of media enterprise aren’t, either. Media owners hire editors and producers to carry out that vision and fulfill that desire about advertisers. They’re usually not going to give that kind of authority to someone who will diverge too far from their own viewpoint, so it’s not a surprise that a substantial number of editors/producers are conservative. Editors/producers decide what stories get written how, and where to put them on the air/in print, if at all. Not the journalists. Journalists will write what they’re approved to write. That story can still be edited to condense…or to manipulate information within it. It can be blown up across a front page or lead a broadcast. Or it can be hidden in a dark corner of A48, next to the ad for discount caskets, or tucked into the end of a broadcast in a 10 second soundbite. Choices about those matters say a lot about a media outlet. So do op-ed pages/opinion shows, which are overwhelmingly conservative.
Our media is unusually right leaning. Don’t believe it? Then address one reporter’s assertions:
I do think your final remark is valid. Media outlets aren’t objective. It’s time to stop pretending that they are. It raises unrealistic expectations in the public of our media. Of course we don’t want them to be extremists, or blindly loyal, refusing to see any flaws of their particular ideological leaning. But to pretend a perfect objectivity, when it’s simply not possible, save for a sociopath? That’s just stupid.
I hate Palin’s politics with a passion, but this thread is really pissing me off. Can a group of men have a discussion about a powerful woman without resorting to demeaning comments about her appearance or fucking her? You don’t see that shit when male politicians are being criticized. I was hoping that on a forum like this, I’d find a level of enlightenment just a smidgen above what I’d expect from a drunken bachelor party, but I guess that was really stupid of me.
Mentioned on CNN: Republican delegates were wearing “Hottest VP from the coolest state” while Guiliani was lobbing accusations of sexism at “them” (as if the Obama campaign were the source of sexist comments about Palin). Republicans are hypocritical scum.
OK, the vomiting seems to have ended for now. I think it’s safe to post. You’ll forgive me if I have to run to the bathroom, I trust.
Holy shit! Are Republicans really that stupid? All I heard was sloganeering, platitudes, and outright lies, all delivered in tones alternating between smarmy and slimy. And all night the floor just ate it up. The beer must’ve been free. And spiked. After Bush the Lesser, do they really think that they’ll be able to sell this shit to 51% of voters? Is “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”, “Terrorists!” and “Drill now!” all it’s going to take to dupe more than half the nation into voting against their interests, again? And what did Romney say about liberals not having a clue about business or the economy? Does he mean liberals like Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates? WTF? I spent the last two nights thinking “Glad he didn’t get the nomination. Glad he didn’t get the nomination. Really glad he didn’t get the nomination.” Except now we’re left with the one that did, and he doesn’t look any better, or significantly different. *sigh*
Tonight’s Daily Show’s take on the convention and the overwhelming hypocrisy of Rove, O’Reilly, etc. was simply fantastic. Best line was in response to all the hyping of McCain’s time as P.O.W. as some kind of qualification for office: “Oh, I see! Guantanamo’s not a prison, it’s a Leadership Academy!” Can’t wait to see Jon and Co’s take on Palin’s speech tomorrow.
As for liberal journalists, I figure if smart, knowledgeable people who make careers out of understanding the issues and covering the personalities that affect America tend to be progressive, I’d say that’s a hint Joe Public should pick up on. Kinda like how it’s a good idea to follow physicists’ example of not walking off of cliffs.
Can a group of men have a discussion about a powerful woman without resorting to demeaning comments about her appearance or fucking her?
You’re very late to the party. And two assholes don’t define an entire group, you sexist ass.
I guess that was really stupid of me.
Something was really stupid of you; read the whole thread and you may figure out what.
Are Republicans really that stupid?
Yes. If they weren’t, they couldn’t be Republicans.
That’s like talking to yourself, asswipe.
Say there, “truth machine”, do you imagine that your statement above does anything at all to support your position?
Like I said, I read the book. Did you?
-jcr
Like I said, I read the book.
Fuck but you’re stupid … as I said (in effect), you could have written the book, so who the fuck cares whether you read it? It’s like a skinhead saying “I read Mein Kampf, did you?”, you stupid fucking cretin idiot.
And, you stupid fucking asshole, Aquaria already laid out why having read the book doesn’t further your argument:
“I read the book” — fuck, that’s like a fundie saying “I read the bible. Did you?”
Stupid fucking cretin piece of shit.
BTW, I notice that nobody’s commented on Huckabee’s speech. He delivered a rather silly homily in which he basically asserted that our military is fighting for school furniture.
I can’t help but think that desks for schoolchildren can be obtained at a far lower cost than the trillions we spend keeping US troops in 130 countries around the world.
-jcr
Stupid fucking cretin piece of shit.
TM,
Grow up.
-jcr
Grow up.
A childish comment again demonstrating that you’re a cretin. “I read the book” — the stupidest fucking argument anyone has ever made, that I just demolished. Deal with it, you stupid fucking coward.
Someday a Republican is going to learn how to speak in something other than sound-bytes and bumper-sticker slogans. Of course, I don’t think any of today’s so-called Conservatives supporting these goons will be able to decipher anything above a Fifth Grade level.
So, yeah. I guess they do have to speak in itty-bitty words and snippets.
Sorry… I’m just rambling at this point. It happens when one doesn’t sleep for two days.
Rock on, Cleveland!
A childish comment again demonstrating that you’re a cretin
Let’s see.. You’re the one tossing off the string of obscenities, and you assert that I’m the one being childish?
What an interesting world-view you have. Tell me, has it brought you success and happiness in your life?
-jcr
And let’s go back to
Of course that response was anything but serious, or mature .. it was moronic, coming from a moron. But hey, you read “Bias”, one of the most biased and dishonest books ever written. What a stupid fucking asshole you are.
Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Anne Coulter could have written all the speeches, it wouldn’t have made a iota of difference.
There is not one single difference between this RNC and the two previous ones. Same themes, same speeches, same metaphores, same gimmicks, just change a bit the face of the speakers, and you have it.
There’s nothing surprising here, for the 35% hardcore republicans in this country, who are represented at this convention, Bush still has an almost 70% approval rating. So he did a good job, let’s continue the same. That’s all one needs to know.
But for the 65% rest, this RNC, the choice McCain made with Palin, is the clear and evident demonstration that voting for this ticket means being blindfolded to the reality that this country really needs to go on a completely different path, on its economic policy, on its environmental and energy policy, and on its foreign policy.
So sure, Palin will increase slightly the participation of the 35% republicans in McCain’s favour. But make no mistake, this will also increase the partcipation of the 65% rest in favour of Obama.
Let’s see.. You’re the one tossing off the string of obscenities, and you assert that I’m the one being childish?
As I said, you’re a cretin. There’s nothing “childish” about obscenities — which, as my wont, accompany my refutations — but there is something extremely childish about your sorts of empty responses, you fucking moron piece of shit.
What a stupid fucking asshole you are.
I’m wondering where you developed your masterful command of playground invective.
one of the most biased and dishonest books ever written
Apparently this is an article of faith for you, which you feel no need to investigate by (say) reading the book yourself. It’s interesting how closely your behavior follows that of Bill Donohue, who is noted for protesting movies and books he refuses to watch or read himself.
-jcr
What an interesting world-view you have. Tell me, has it brought you success and happiness in your life?
Using obscenities isn’t a “world-view”, moron. But my smackdowns of idiots like you did bring me an Order of Molly.
As I said, you’re a cretin
Yes, so you keep saying. Really, it’s quite amusing. Almost as amusing as PZ’s “I get email” postings.
-jcr
Apparently this is an article of faith for you
No, moron, it’s not, it’s a well established fact.
which you feel no need to investigate by (say) reading the book yourself.
Reading a book is not enough to investigate it, you stupid fucking cretin. Again, Aquaria already addressed this.
who is noted for protesting movies and books he refuses to watch or read himself.
Wrong example, dumbfuck … I already noted the bible and Mein Kampf. Your argument is like those who claim that Dawkins is wrong about God because he hasn’t studied theological esoterica.
Enough … you’re too stupid for me to waste any more time on.
But make no mistake, this will also increase the partcipation of the 65% rest in favour of Obama.
People all over are stating that they donating more, or for the first time, or will do phone banking, etc. for Obama. See, e.g., http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/great-speech-for-both-bases.html#comments
There’s nothing “childish” about obscenities
Oh, do go on! I’ll make a batch of popcorn and watch you foam at the mouth.
-jcr
Oh, do go on! I’ll make a batch of popcorn and watch you foam at the mouth.
Another very immature comment.
Good night.
Enough … you’re too stupid for me to waste any more time on.
Oh please, TM! Don’t go away in a sulk! I was having so much fun.
-jcr
Oh please, TM! Don’t go away in a sulk! I was having so much fun.
And another. And you next will be another …
Another very immature comment.
Coming from you, that’s about like having Rush Limbaugh call me a fat-ass.
-jcr
Good to have ya back,truth machine !
Ive said a few things about Palin’s speech upthread already,so thought I’d comment on the speakers before her,since some ppl mentioned them.
Huckabee,Romney,Giuliani : Well,what can I say,essentially: Guys,your country is fucked ! Such intellectual dishonesty,lying,fearmongering,character assasinating,false pathos and blatant dumb nationalism,the like I have never seen in any political speech anywhere else in the world ever before,it was sickening.
Par for the course in the US,it would seem.Makes me sick.
All I heard was sloganeering, platitudes, and outright lies, all delivered in tones alternating between smarmy and slimy. And all night the floor just ate it up.
Umm.. That’s exactly how all major party conventions have been for as long as I can remember. Were you expecting something different?
My predictions for the next N Republican and Democratic conventions:
1) A keynote speaker will issue a call for “change”
2) said speaker will neglect to specify what they wish to change
3) a speaker will tell a story about someone who achieved great success from humble beginnings
4) a speaker will take cheap shots at the opposing candidates
5) the candidate will issue a call for unity
IMHO, it would be a far better thing if the nominations weren’t sewn up months before the conventions. I’d like to see some some serious, full-contact democracy. The Libertarians are the only ones doing that these days.
-jcr
Katura,
I agree with your first point. With regards to the second, and as a homosexual, I admit that it’s been a long time since I’ve seen someone on a presidential ticket, male or female, who is as sexy as her. We had a similar situation in France with the last presidential election, Ségolène Royal was also an attractive woman.
I don’t think it should play any role, attractiveness shouldn’t be a criteria for or against a candidate. Look at Margaret Thatcher.
But in her case, it does seem that she wants the benefits of a charismatic sexy-babe image or of a super-mother, but the more she exposes these aspects in order to take advantage of them, the more there will be criticism.
That’s why if I compare with Ségolène Royal, who had the intelligence to downplay these aspects as much as possible, I think Sarah Palin is doing the opposite.
This is what a woman who knows her well writes :
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html
So she uses her “sexy-babe” advantage. That’s not exactly my idea of a feminist.
Guys,your country is fucked !
It’s not just our country. It’s also every other country that either has a currency pegged to the dollar, or holds significant amounts of dollar-denominated securities.
What I really dread is what happens when Chinese banks quit buying T-bills and mortgage securities. We could see thousands of bank failures worldwide, and millions of people facing financial ruin.
-jcr
JCR,
there was a quantum leap in sleaziness,false pathos and in your face nationalism between those 2 conventions,while the Dem’s was pretty much your usual pathetic american superbowl-like occasion,I have never seen anything like the Rep’s convention,the abyss of anti-intellectual insanity there is just breathtaking.
Seen from a European point of view, the amount of time, energy, and money, wasted on these two mega conventions is absolutely breathtaking.
What do people expect ? An impartial analysis of each party’s positions ?
What is strange is that these conventions are completely useless and ridiculous, but noone in the press seems to be criticzing them. Oh, how good of Sarah Palin of having cancelled the Alaska governor’s jet, that’s the kind of details people react to. But the waste of resources spent at these conventions, for a country in economic crisis, oh! it’s traditional. And because it’s not money from the federal budget, it doesn’t count. But whose money is it ?
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye @ 68,
Well at least there is one person here who gets it. Note: he says *WORLD* economy…
The human race is currently in population overshoot and the myth of continued growth is going to soon hit the fan of reality. The only reason we enjoy our current level of civilization is because we have learned to exploit fossil fuels. Unfortunately we haven’t addressed the fact that we have no idea how to live in a sustainable manner with any other combination of energy sources. We are living in very interesting times indeed, (in the Chinese sense)
It would be nice to see another one of these:
“It’s 3 am, and a phone is ringing in the White House. Something is happening in the world.
The President is not available. Which Vice President do you want answering the phone?”
And now on a more serious note, ‘Political Science’. Just follow the link
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EeiWTeu-UIo&feature=related
the amount of time, energy, and money, wasted on these two mega conventions is absolutely breathtaking.
Sad to say, but when it comes to wasting tax money, they’re a drop in the bucket. We’re talking about a few tens of millions between them, versus billions a day spent occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the rest of the world.
-jcr
wow, check out this photo that was on the front of CNN’s web page.
how much did they squeal for glee when this framed itself?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.day/t1wide.palin.thur.cnn.jpg
It’s been ages since I’ve seen so much bias in a photograph of a speach.
“POLL: Are you more inclined to vote for the Republican ticket after seeing Palin speak at the RNC?”
http://www.polldaddy.com/poll.aspx?p=901790
Currently “yes” leads by 57%.
But, but, but, the whole idea of the republicans is that it is a myth, there is no problem with availability of resources, AGW, and that we should continue, as has been done since WWII to stimulate consumption growth by increasing debt, lowering corporate and capital gains taxes and making people work harder, whilst saving the least possible for welfare !
And of course, what about the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, they are more than 6 times more populated than the OECD, so if they continue to grow their economy at 5%+ per annum, so what do we care, let’s give them the good example of good ol’fashionned American capitalism and the consumer society ?
It’s easy, once you deny Science and evidence, you go straight to the wall, and they won’t be alive when it happens. But they can still pray !
Neg,
I plan on still being around when India and China fulfil their demand for cheap unskilled labor from the USA,from 300 million uneducated unskilled religiously indoctrinated people.
And President Palin will sell it as great success against poverty and unemployment.Praise the lord !
We now have no where to run!
As a canadian I didn’t watch her speech. I don’t care much about political speeches. But I did read on the news and on blogs and such.
…I’m gonna say something very sexist by my own standards. I can’t believe that someone with a vagina would say something so hateful to her gender. She is the type of woman that backs down society, and all the work other women fought for.
Terrible woman.
Democrats are just not nasty enough. We’re now in the same situation we were in 2004 and stand a very real chance of losing. You can’t play patty cakes with these right-wing trolls. How much empirical evidence do we need that negative attacks work? Why aren’t Obama/Biden out there kicking ass? That’s what americans like, for better or for worse.
Librarian, librarian, the fundy wants your job,
You spurned her conflagration wants and made her truly sob.
She believes in holy abstinence, except perhaps at home,
And thoughts of homosexuals produce an oral foam.
Oh where, oh where could Vlad have gone,
This country’s near to failing,
With lunatics like this at large that need a fast imPaling.
You guys are talking like rationality and cool evaluation pervade elections.
Wrong!
Yes, that’s what should pervade elections, but the reality is that it’s nearly all emotion and that’s it. It’s wrong, but that’s what it is. Even here in a science blog, emotion is evidently the overriding factor.
Whoever gets the emotions (negative or positive, it doesn’t matter) properly stirred will win, period. And the Repubs seem to have a better handle on that than do the Dems.
That’s the real issue in this election.
If anything could possibly be worse than Palin’s bigotries, lies and hypocrisy, it’s the first lot of comments here in this thread. PZ is right to be pissed off. I’d also be ashamed and disappointed if I were him for having these comments tarnish his blog.
It’s like having the guest bloggers back, dragging Pharyngula down into the mud.
Democrats?
Fuuuuck…
Stick your own fork in your asses.
You’re done.
Oh, I’m gonna ‘vote’ for the Mocha Hope…because I wuold rather chop off a hand than use it to cast a ballot for ANY GOPhascist.
But the game’s over…
Which is a shame for a party that should be ahead 20 points…
I just wish she would stop breeding. I mean there is one hell of a population crisis but does that stop the Palins from breeding in a highly irresponsible and exponential manner? God knows her poor daughter will be having like a kid every other year after this first one…
I was certain that the Ms. Palin would be an easy mark for the Democrats until I watched her speech.
I thought she was a bible belt simpleton from the north.
That assumption would be just as constructive for the Dems as it was when they did so for Ronald Reagan and he took 49 out of 50 states.
Rather than just go into seizures over her policy stands, if you are on the left, it probably pays to face some facts about her obvious strengths.
She is no slouch at the microphone. She exudes confidence, strength even humor without that hard edge that Hillary always had. I think she will outmatch Biden in a debate, that dude has always put me to sleep.
Disagree with her policy, she does achieve a credibility that is difficult to attack because of her personal attachment with those issues.
For example ,she has a son in the war now, and another on the way. She is from on oil producing, and Polar Bear producing state. Her husband is a union member driller, she took on big oil and she has an 80 per cent approval rating from the people. She does not believe in abortion and takes her Downs Syndrome child to term.
What was obvious to me after her speech, which was not before, was that the was a good choice by McCain. Perhaps his best shot. McCain was never a right winger on social issues and this energized that part of the Republicans. While social issues ignite a base of whackos (on both sides) the election will be won on the issues of the war, taxes, energy costs and others.
Underestimating Ms. Palin by name calling, is a hole that the Dems have dug for themselves in the past.
I don’t like this thread.
I haven’t got a chance to listen to the entire speech yet, and to be honest I don’t know if I ever will.Aside from the rabid stupidity am I the only one who finds the woman’s voice to be utterly atrocious? I mean, it’s like a more nasal version of the principal from School of Rock. Just..listening to the few sound bites on N.P.R. was enough for me..
Sure, and that’s in Alaska, a state with 600,000 inh. with one of the highest GDP/capita and the lowest individual tax burden per capita in the union, where 80% of the economy depends on oil, and which has always voted republican in the presidential elections since 1964.
And where she’s been governor for 1 year 1/2 and has made clear that she’s pro-drilling.
Rudy Giuliani made the comment (unwilingly) in his speech :
“I don’t think you can ever get this kind of approval rating in the city of New York”
So please, before one continues parroting this “She has an 80% approval rating”, let’s put it into context. It would really be exceptional if it were a large diverse state and after 3 or 4 years.
For now, it means nothing.
Phopas,
Can you explain :
– how does having 1 or 2 son in the military make her more capable of being the VP or even the POTUS ?
– how did she “take on big oil”, when she is pro drilling in ANWR, lowering corporate taxes, and increasing petroleum revenues ?
– what about Polar Bears ? She has pushed the State’s
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
She also BTW has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to).
Whilst mayor of this small town of Wasilla, she :
– Turned the city into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
– Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system.
– Built streets to early 20th century standards.
– Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
– Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
And just because her husband works for a union doesn’t make her pro-labour.
So apart from repeating the right-wing noise machine’s talking points which everyone can hear by switching to Fox News, what else can you tell us ?
One last barb.
“Sarah, you ignorant slut.” (“SNL”)
I’m ashamed to admit I only made it a couple of minutes into the speech. She was screaming “John S. McCain” and I passed out. But did anyone else hear Rudy 9/11’s speech before? I caught the last three or four minutes and he used up all my possible goodwill for that night. I just remember that “McCain/Palin are the party of change and are going to clean up Washington” and (this is a beaut) “Republicans have always been the party of freedom”.
(Sigh)
(Throwing up)
(Weeping in a corner)
The change they are promising is nonexistent in some places.
Goddamnit! I don’t want an “average hockey mom” to lead the friggin country!!!! And I don’t want “someone you can have a beer with.”
I want someone way above average, someone who is smarter than the people I hang out with (and that’s no offense to my friends, who are in fact smarter than your average bear)
We should aspire for more.
This anti-intellectual crap drives me nuts.
I’ve heard about SP and that business against the librarian in Wasilla re the banning of books. Does anyone here know which books SP was wanting to be banned?
For those of you who are interested in seeing what Sarah really wants for us, check this link*:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3068,n,n
She really just wants to spread God’s word. She gives quite an amazing sermon. Note her use, or disuse, of the English language.
*Not recommended for those with a history of recent surgery, heart trouble/high blood pressure, suicidal or homicidal tendencies or who are pregnant.
How did one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet get filled with sooooo many dumb people? It’s fascinating in a truly horrifying way. Republicans are like a different species… in fact, give this dude a haircut, put him in a suit with a flag pin: http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/timemachinemorlock1.jpg – McCain?
If America votes these ass hats in then maybe humanity really does deserve the coming Venus-like conditions as we tip climate over a point of no return.
Jesus, I’m getting drunk this weekend….
Mrs. Palin followed the correct procedure for stabbing someone in the back. She first said he was a great person. Then she attacked him vigorously…
Then she talked about “Clean Coal”. Apparently she doesn’t know that it is an oxymoron (A phrse that contradicts itself. Coal is not clean by definition.). We can’t have this stupidity one heartbeat away from the oval office.
If that is not enough, she beliefs in ID. She wants it to be taught in school. She is a really BIG danger to the U.S.
Might “Quiet_Desperation” and “«bønez_brigade»” be agents provocateurs?
Mac @178:
Really? Why? From what I can see (from over here in Australia) it’s hard to claim that Americans deserve much when the great majority can’t be persuaded to get off their asses and vote at all, let alone try to ensure that their vote is an informed and responsible one.
Even people who do vote deserve what they vote for. If McCain/Palin are voted in, the American People will indeed deserve them.
Am a bit curious: Isn’t it now proven that any moron can be US president??
He has been for nearly 8 years.
So whatever comes next can be as bad, but not even worse (hopefully not famous last words!!).
Maybe Palin is a Maggie Thatcher wannabe? Both are serious hard-faced bitches.
And Lee, Australia also had what they (we, kinda) deserved with the Howard mob. After all Aussies are working at becoming kinda second-rate yanks after two centuries+ as second-rate poms.
Ah, fuck it all, I wanna get off!
I “appreciated” the comments from bonez and quiet desp. There’s room here for light hearted commentary on all matters. I lauged out loud when I read them (which brought my husband into the room to read them over my shoulder – he laughed louder than I did).
Of course this is a serious matter. Anyone who reads pharnygula on a regular basis is saturated w/ the REALITY of these issues. And, of course we are concerned that Palin/McCain will continue to mislead Americans, which could lead them right to Washington.
But, lets be honest. Human nature being what it is….we are sexual animals….I’m willing to bet that MANY of the people responding here had somewhat similar thoughts (along a sexual line) when watching her speak.
Okay…….so they didn’t go as far a chaining her to the toilet seat. LOL (I just can’t get that picture out of my head.)
Now, I’ll really be honest……….I’d “do” Pharyngula in a heartbeat. Ooopss, I’m bad. Gotta get serious now.
Which reporter will be the first to ask what Laura Bush thinks about the candidate who wanted to fire the town librarian?
[Crickets, do yo’ thang!]
I DON”T WANNA BE TAUGHT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(loud crying)
Oh, and I shoulda mentioned earlier –
Scooter @ # 223 – thanks for digging up that debunking!
I heard she had the same speech writer as George Bush; so, it was more of the same Repugnant talking points.
I listened to a minute of it on the radio and could bear to listen any more.
Pablo #367 is onto the same thing that has me wondering.
Why is it that so many Americans think that her qualities are great for a VP? Bringing up five children, hunting moose, and selling a plane on ebay are not things that VPs need to be good at. These average Joe Republicans are all going “she’s so much an average person like we are”… well if anything that should be a _dis_qualifier, right? Or would you really want an average person running your country?
Her bringing up a baby with Down syndrome or looking moderately good (well at least compared to the other Republicans) is not going to earn her any extra respect when negotiating a deal with Iran or Russia. Oh wait, she’s a Republican, they don’t negotiate, they just send in the army.
I haven’t yet watched the whole speech, but what I’ve seen is enough.
Now let’s assume McCain and Palin win the election – lessee… I could get rid of that ugly armchair I never use anyway… and a smaller kitchen table…
Alright, I could make room for four more persons. So if by the end of November, you should feel the need to get the hell out of the US and start anew in Old Europe, it would be my pleasure to give four poor refugees shelter for a while. You’ll like the city I live in; it’s a bit like Paris, only instead of annoying French people we have even more annoying Saxons. But you’re all rather bright, so I guess you’ll adapt after a coupla days.
Seriously, folks: Even if you think Obama is an idiot, please go vote for him. The alternative is much worse, and that’s putting it mildly.
Because many brain-dead average Americans have this desire to see other average brain-dead Americans gain positions of great authority.
It’s still in the same line as the rest of the usual anti-intellectualism of so many Americans. Nothing new.
Of course, they will never admit it, they’ll rationalize with “she’s smart”. Of course, for them, “she’s smart”.
negentropyeater @ # 339: … Ségolène Royal, who had the intelligence to downplay these aspects as much as possible, I think Sarah Palin is doing the opposite. … So she uses her “sexy-babe” advantage.
Could you provide an example or two, please? Seems to me (not that I follow tv, which is where all such actions occur) that she’s pushing the “hockey-mom” shtick for all it’s worth.
Marvol @ # 380: … would you really want an average person running your country?
After the last eight years, that would be an improvement by at least two orders of magnitude, thank you very much.
I’m ashamed of everyone who thinks Palin is hot. Being a moral conservative has to be the biggest turnoff ever.
:) @ Pierce
I just had this cynical thought, about the earmark/pork “scandals” surrounding Palin. I actually think that to most of her voters this is a plus, not a minus. It shows that she sticks up for “her people”, the ordinary people. And many will feel that, hey, once she’s in the White House, she’s going to stick up for all of them the same way and make everything right.
Of course, there will be no rich uncle to get money from, but the lack of a basic sense of economics has never prevented any Republican from making policies.
Exactly.
People smarter than you are “elitest.”
If one stopped to think about it for a bit, the reason journalists tend to be liberal is obvious.
The opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, it is authoritarianism. Journalist want access to information, something which those of an authoritarian bent are loathed to provide.
McCain and Palin are America’s Taliban…no different. All meme filled stooges. To think these willfully ignorant cognitive misfits could get their hands on nuclear switches is a fricken nightmare. WTF is up with the level of intellectual acumen at this convention?
She’s a movement Christian. Deuteronomy 22: 20-21
If the tokens of virginity be not found upon the damsel. she is to be taken outside the city gate and stoned.
Let ’em live by their own beloved rules.
To those bringing up Obama’s own lack of experience: That’s an OK issue to bring up. Yes we already knew he was relatively inexperienced. The whole point about him (and any other inexperienced person) is, what *else* do they offer to make up for that inexperience? Maybe Obama has that extra something, maybe not, but just throwing a merry-go-round of “you too”s won’t tell us what she has – we’ve already heard about Obama’s case for months, agree or like it or not. Now it’s her turn, and most cogent thinkers have already seen lots not to like.
BTW here’s something from a thoughtful conservative who really does care about his country and isn’t going to flack for the Republican party’s candidate-whoever-it-is:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/will_palin_fuse_the_gop.html
He’s concerned about her lack of experience, and whether she has more to offer, in like vein to my previous post. Would any conservatives out there consider taking George Will seriously?
“What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I’ve seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up. Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?”
Down’s Syndrome babies are usually born to older women, not teenage mothers. Sarah Palin is in her forties and could have indeed bore Trig, the baby in question. It is very rare, though not unknown, for a unwed teenager to have more than one baby. So as a matter of credibility, the idea that Trig is Bristol’s son rather than her brother is virtually zero.
No. Most Down syndrome babies are born to younger mothers, because younger mothers have the most babies. The likelihood that an individual will bear a Down syndrome child goes up with age, but at the same time the likelihood that the individual will have a child at all goes down even more rapidly with age.
Dale Husband, bold print does not turn assertion into evidence. Down-syndrome kids are born to women under 20 years of age at a rate of about 1 in 1500; at age 45, 1 in 19. However, these statistics prove absolutely nothing about the parentage of any individual baby.
The problem with this whole story, as I just commented over at Brayton’s, is that it’s all assertion and no evidence. At present, I know of no compelling, evidence-backed reason to accept as unqualified truth any of the following statements:
Sarah is Trig’s mother.
Bristol is Trig’s mother.
The Palins adopted Trig and neither is the mother.
Bristol is currently pregnant.
Each of these statements could be reliably documented or falsified by evidence. Yet we have been offered none; zero; nada. We also know these facts:
-Sarah Palin kept the original pregnancy, whether hers or her daughter’s, a secret from everyone including friends, co-workers, and staff, for 7 months while she was Governor.
-The announcement of Bristol’s current alleged pregnancy came only one day after the notorious Kos diary post that made the original allegations.
It still smells, to me, and I must insist that nobody but the Palins have enough information to be certain of the truth.
Why not?
We also know these facts:
There’s a huge fallacy here: the facts that “we” know are more than the facts that you know. For instance, there are photographs of a clearly pregnant Sarah Palin when Trig was about 7 months old. That makes any theory other than that she is Trig’s mother wildly improbable.
What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I’ve seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?
Are you slandering and lying? There’s obviously another alternative.
Well then, P Z Myers and Sven DiMilo, I stand corrected.
Dale Husband, bold print does not turn assertion into evidence.
I know that! If you had read my statement carefully, you would have seen that I wasn’t DENYING that Bristol was Trig’s mother, I was just saying that the claim was not credible.
My bold print was to distinguish my words from the words of the one I was responding to.
I have no sympathy for loons like Sarah Palin. To prove that, I submit this:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-living-a-lie/
You’re dating the kid’s age from fertilization?
In any case, I’ve seen the photographs. Photographs prove nothing. They are open to interpretaion (“clearly” is in the eyes of the beholder, as some blog-surfing will quickly reveal in this case), easily faked, often misdated.
I’m skeptical enough to doubt it all. If Bristol Palin actually gives birth in December, I’ll be convinced. I could be convinced before then by sufficient documentation. Assertions and even putatively “clear” photographs won’t do it.
@24 and 25:
There a lot of smart and thoughtful people commenting on this blog. Most atheists must be intellectual giants :P
truth machine @ # 394: …there are photographs of a clearly pregnant Sarah Palin when Trig was about 7 months old.
Unless you’re using the hyperchristian approach of calculating age from conception, those photographs would have be dated circa November 18, 2008. Do the captions reveal anything about what happened two weeks previously?
p.s. (jeez, this is making me feel like a JFK-conspiracy nut, but what the hell):
If she was “clearly pregnant” at 7 months, why was everybody who saw her every day surprised by her announcement at about that same time?
Sigh. Don’t you folks have anything better to do than indulge in such a stupid quibble? I was referring to the fetus known as “Trig”.
I guess I have to do everything for you; here’s the DailyKos diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/234157/516/1017/581734
Feel free to “doubt it all”; I only said the alternatives are wildly improbable, not impossible.
Colugo @ 66
Sorry, but the left is not some vast cult that can be convinced to all march in lockstep. You’re not going to get every single person to stop leaving sexist comments on leftist blogs. The only thing that can be done is to have a much louder chorus of people saying “No, that’s fucked up. You don’t speak for me.” And that’s what I’ve seen – every blog thread I’ve read so far that has contained a sexist attack on Palin has contained many more repudiations of that sexism.
I have not, however, seen a lot of that on the other side. If you can find me several examples of conservatives criticizing each other for making sexist comments about Hillary or racist and xenophobic comments about Barack, please do so.
JasonTD @79
Perhaps a few people, but I guess you skipped over the dozen or so people who have already criticized those comments, including the writer of this blog, and the fact that the people who made those comments have apologized for them.
Well said, Natalie. I find the cherry picking far more disturbing from a rationalist perspective than the inevitable comments from dopes.
Indeed; please wipe my ass.
I agree that she looks pregnant in that photograph (which I had previously seen only in a much smaller and darker version). It was taken (allegedly) on April 13, 5 days before the alleged induced birth at 8 months, and over a month after her surprise announcement. So what? If she was lying in March, she was still lying in April (she’d have to, after the by-all-accounts shocking public announcement). Or not. The photo proves nothing, to my satisfaction.
Thanks, machine, don’t mind if I do!
This thread is a good example of how low the far left can go, and how scared they are of what Palin is going to do for the McCain ticket. It’s no better than some of the ranting on the far right, like at Free Republic. The *Sarah Palin didn’t have the Downe’s Syndrome Baby* meme is the type of crap you expect from people wearing a lot of tinfoil and talking about black helicopters. It’s on par with *Darwin recanted on his death bed* and *Darwin’s brother fathered his children with Emma* that one sees in certain creationist circles. That PZ has not only not stopped this kind of idiotic twaddle but instead has actually encouraged it (post #392) says a lot about the man and his character.
Luckily there are science minded people who reject the crap from the Religious Right and also reject the crap from the socialist Left. Threads like this make the choice between the two parties a lot clearer for libertarian/conservative secular-minded people.
http://www.DarwinCentral.org
At #259 Dingo Dave wrote:
For those of you who seem so enamored with Gov. Sarah Palin, it might be worth noting that she oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska.
Thanks for posting that Dingo Dave. I’d been wondering about Palin’s record WRT special needs.
I was stunned when the RNC attendees roared their approval after Palin said that if she were elected, parents of children with special needs would have a “friend in the White House.”
I thought, “WTF?!”
Where was all this Republican support for children with special needs previously?
Where was this Republican support for children with special needs when money for programs and resources for kids with special needs was slashed or eliminated?
Where was this Republican support when the US Supreme Court interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in such a way that schools now try to argue that kids with a whole range of physical and emotional disabilities aren’t disabled under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, another disability-related civil rights law?
Where was this Republican support when Congress last amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) so that children and parents have less rights than they had previously?
Bite me, guitarman.
You think it’s unreasonable to suspect that national-level Republicans might be lying every time they move their teeth? Your assertions mean as little as any other naked assertions: zero. If you actually knew what “science-minded” meant, you’d want to see some evidence for the assertions made bvy either side. Nobody has offered any: my only point.
Please feel free to cast your libertarian/conservative secular-minded vote for any lying greedheaded asshole you want. And that’s how I’ll judge your character.
Someone wrote way in the beginning of this thread that they can’t believe they considered McCain a credible politician 8 years ago. Even as a Canadian I have to agree. How that mighty have fallen. All he seems to be now is a talking head spewing party rhetoric. He doesn’t talk about religion as much as Palin so I think they’ve cleverly snuck in the Christian agenda so as to make it visible to its target audience yet not at the forefront of the campaign.
@375 [Nancy]
“I “appreciated” the comments from bonez and quiet desp. There’s room here for light hearted commentary on all matters. I lauged out loud when I read them (which brought my husband into the room to read them over my shoulder – he laughed louder than I did).”
Thanks! That is _exactly_ how the comments were intended in the first place. Several people ignored the fact that I was actually commenting on the speech, as well — and the fact that I even started out that way.
———-
@402 [Natalie]
“Perhaps a few people, but I guess you skipped over the dozen or so people who have already criticized those comments, including the writer of this blog, and the fact that the people who made those comments have apologized for them.”
Exactly. Thanks × 2!
re:Sven DiMilo
You make my case. Thanks!
“Your assertions mean as little as any other naked assertions: zero. ”
Oh, the irony!
“If you actually knew what “science-minded” meant, you’d want to see some evidence for the assertions made bvy either side. Nobody has offered any: my only point.”
Science minded means not falling for every half-ass conspiracy theory just because it fits your political persuasions. For your conspiracy theory to be true, the hospital in Alaska where Palin gave birth would have to be in on it too. Maybe they flew in some fake doctors with the black helicopters to just pretend to deliver her baby.
This thread is no different than the crap the creationists throw around. Same dementia, different Woo.
“And that’s how I’ll judge your character.”
Don’t worry, you aren’t up to the task of judging anybody’s character.
:)
OK, I’m really late to this debate here, but to me, what this whole Palin nonsense comes down to is that she, as many of the Republicans, is fully hypocritical and mindless in her dogged pursuit for stupid voters to fuel our future. We’ve had 8 years of stupid voters deciding who is president, and I blame all of this on one person, Joseph Lieberman. If Al Gore had a chosen a more suitable running mate in the 2000 elections, the future would be a far different place. His idiotic decision to go with what he thought would bring New England voters to the table was completely inept. Yet, the decision to place Palin on the ticket has to come down as one of the most idiotic moves in election history. This isn’t about her gender, but her lack of qualifications, and zealous pandering to like-minded ignorant fucks. If she and Bobby Jendal are the future of the Republican party, then it’s a dead party (the bad news is that they’ll ruin us in their ultimate death throws). Still, I will not let the Dems off the hook on this one either. They’re sitting on the sidelines and waiting for public opinion when instead, they should for once grow a fucking backbone and speak the truth about these ignorant fucks. Where’s our secular freedoms? If you call yourselves Democrats, then stand up and defend the separation of Church and State as rightfully dictated by the Constitution.
a: not “my” conspiracy theory
b: not something I have “fallen for”
c: it’s not about my “political persuasions” except insofar as it’s not hard for me to suspect that a Republican is lying. That Republicans lie a lot is, I submit, empirical.
d: If you can direct me to any documents or even statements from the hospital in question I’d appreciate the information. As far as I know nobody representing the hospital has confirmed or denied either Palin giving birth there on April 18. Which is what I mean by “no evidence.”
That’s idiotic. Creationism is not supported by any empirical evidence, whereas the alternative is abundantly supported by such evidence. My only point (once again) is that in the Palin maternity question there Is. No. Evidence. On either side.
For you to be certain that Sarah Palin is Trig’s mother requires you to have blindly accepted unsupported assertions. Similarly, If I was (I’m not) claiming to be sure that Bristol is the real mother (which I am not claiming), you would be correct in calling me out for swallowing an undocumented story. Have I mentioned that I am not prepared to swallow either story? Want to know why? Because there is no real evidence available to me either way. Your analogy to Creationism is stupid and insulting.
I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean, but I gather from context that it, too, is supposed to be insulting. Guess I’ll just repeat my all-purpose rejoinder: Bite me.
“Creationism is not supported by any empirical evidence, whereas the alternative is abundantly supported by such evidence. My only point (once again) is that in the Palin maternity question there Is. No. Evidence. On either side. ”
Nonsense. The baby is evidence. Do you not think that nobody has checked up the records by now? What are the odds that a woman would be lying about her own pregnancy, fake it, fake the birth, and cover up the medical records? And get away with it. Try some Occam’s Razor, but be careful you don’t slit your own throat. All *possible* scenarios are not equally likely.
But you, and your other co-conspiracy nuts, think that throwing shit on a woman you disagree with politically and her innocent 17 year old daughter is more important than intellectual honesty. Is there a shred of evidence that Palin is lying? No? Teach the Controversy! How like an IDiot. :)
“I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean, but I gather from context that it, too, is supposed to be insulting. Guess I’ll just repeat my all-purpose rejoinder: Bite me.”
More irony! I love it!
http://www.DarwinCentral.org
What’s the evidence that Palin is a creationist? I’ve seen her statement that “both sides” should be taught, but then, as David Friedman noted on his blog, when clarifying that statement, “Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: ‘I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.'”
She doesn’t sound like some flaming Young-Earther to me. As Friedman notes, and to which I can attest because I am a public school teacher, the kids might learn the science better in a debate format rather than a “here’s what’s true; learn it” format. The issue becomes pedagogy, not content.
After all, it’s virtually undisputed among economists that minimum wages cause unemployment, but I still entertain the idea in my econ. class, because kicking around the various ideas helps the kids learn. The idea that free trade among countries is mutually beneficial is about as uncontroversial in economics as evolution is in biology. Yet I still debate tariffs, quotas and subsidies in my class because seeing the other side of arguments helps the kids learn the truth.
Before you spit me out of your mouth for being “neither hot nor cold,” understand that I’m as radical an atheist/anti-creationist as anyone on this board. I attend the conventions, I’ve read all the books, I know all the arguments, I write the letters to the editor, and I’ve even held a “reverse Bible study” (using Dennic McKinsey’s old newsletters) consistently since I was in the 7th grade. When it comes to atheism, I’ll put my bona fides up against anyone’s. I’m also organizing a huge Darwin Day celebration for my high school, despite the fact that the school is in the middle of one of the most hyper-religious, backwards communities I’ve ever seen.
If Palin is a creationist, to me she is unworthy of higher office (and hell will exist and subsequently freeze over before I’d vote for McCain anyway). But I just don’t see any strong evidence that Palin is, in fact, a creationist.
She clearly believes in “a creator.” But that fact alone doesn’t mean much; it certainly doesn’t distinguish her from Obama.
Greg N:
Anyone who promotes the “teach both sides” position is the practical equivalent of a creationist, regardless of personal belief: Asserting the (false) equivalence of science and mythology will surely destroy science education, no matter how much she tries to claim she’s just trying to be “balanced.”
Which is the tactic creationists are currently employing to get their beliefs taught alongside science. So while that’s not an explicit link to her being a creationist, it does paint a good picture.
But then again, there are people who are not anti-semites who deny the holocaust. Not many but they do exist.
The poll at #348 is being run by the major newspaper in Peoria, Illinois (the Peoria Journal Star: online as pjstar.com).
Several (many)times in the past different US journalists have based his/her article’s premise on the old-but-many-times-productive US meme of “Will it play in Peoria?”, referencing that Peoria was considered in the past (first by vaudeville and then by corporations) as a good test population of US opinions of a product or idea: as personifying the mindset of the “typical” American.
Any current journalist might use the results of this current Peoria poll on which to base an editorial, ie along the lines of something like “Does Palin Play in Peoria?” to try to influence other voters that base their decision on those of others, rather than what they deem Palin’s stances on issues are important to them.
If any Pharyngula reader is not likely to vote for Palin, and would like to perhaps influence in the least bit anyone voting knee-jerk instead of issues, please contribute your opinion to this poll. Or if you are likely to vote for her, do the same. (Guess which I will do).
The direct link is at #348.
The indirect link is currently at the left at the newspaper website here:
http://www.pjstar.com/
Personally, I would like it that the results of this poll could NOT be used to fuel the campaign for Palin. But its up to each Pharyngula reader if they might consider it worth their time to click to voice his/her opinion.
Currently: support of Palin is 54%
Sure, there are circumstantial shreds, enough to have raised the questions in the first place. Either you already know this and choose to believe your favorite set of assertions anyway, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The baby is evidence that there is a mother, period. The baby’s DNA fingerprint, for example, would be evidence for who the mother is. So would lots of other kinds of information, none of which has been forthcoming, to my knowledge. Just assertions. My point.
Nobody who has checked up has let the rest of us know about it. Again, if you know differently, please share. Otherwise, you’re bullshitting.
I don’t know how to calculate those odds. I am informed, however, that it happened on Desperate Housewives!
Occam’s Razor does not mean accepting the explanation that you subjectively think is most likely. It means accepting the simplest of competing explanations for a set of observations. The “conspiracy theory” explains more of the alleged observations than the alternative, in my view. Unless some of the alleged observations are not true, but, see, there’s insufficient evidence to know that. My point. Yet again.
*shrug* I’m no conspiracy nut, but whatever. I’m being intellectually dishonest how, exactly? By not reflexively buying the Republican assertions hook, line & sinker? By refusing to discount an admittedly surprising but internally consistent scenario out of hand? There is nothing intellectually dishonest about provisionally entertaining a possibility that is supported circumstantially (psssst…science), even if you claim to be dead certain about it. If the “conspiracy theory” is demonstrated, by evidence, to be baseless, I’ll be fine with that, really. I am not claiming it’s true. Really, I’m not. I’m merely claiming that it might be true, based on my understanding of the facts. Show me more facts and I’ll happily change my mind–I’ve been wrong before, and there’s no shame in it.
Finally, I suggest you look up the word “irony.” And (can’t…resist…the snark…) the word “innocent,” for that matter. Oh, now I’ve been bad.
@415
I appreciate your comment, but in light of Palin’s clarification (i.e., it shouldn’t (or, doesn’t have to) be in the curriculum, but it shouldn’t be shunned if it comes up in discussion), I don’t see it as part of the so-called “wedge strategy.” She isn’t advocating using creationist texts alongside real science books, and she’s not even advocating the teacher introducing creationism as an alternative. From what I gather, she’s only saying teachers should be open to discussing the idea.
If, during a lecture on minimum prices, a student of mine offers the suggestion that minimum wages have no effect on unemployment, I don’t just laugh at him and tell him to accept what I say because I say it. I entertain the idea, and we go through the logic together until it’s clear what economics has to say about it. I don’t see why – if it’s student driven – a well-qualified science teacher couldn’t compare and contrast the two theories, utterly exposing creationism for the impoverished, vacuous nonsense that it clearly is (imagine the practical effect: “Over here, mountains of overwhelming, mutually reinforcing evidence from a wide range of disciplines. Over here … [crickets]”).
All in all, I don’t see – or, I should say, I don’t see evidence for the idea – that Palin is a creationist, much less a creationist of the kind that is trying to sneak Jesus into science class.
Again, the only available evidence merely proves that she accepts the idea of a creator, but if that’s a deal-breaker, no one here should be voting for Obama, either (for the record, I don’t plan to vote for Obama, but if forced to choose between the so-called “major” candidates I’d have to vote Obama).
Shonny @ 374:
Oh I totally agree – I was even stupid enough to vote for that weasel the first time around so I definitely deserved what I (we) got. That’s the point – voters who don’t make sure that they are informed voters deserve every arsehole they vote for – regardless of the country they’re in.
I’m not too sure that Australia’s in the process of becoming second rate yanks – we seem to be becoming first rate yanks. A much more frightening prospect ;^)
I am no fan of sexism, but, I think more than a few people are overly sensitive. I guess I’m a neanderthal, but, I don’t think expressing physical desire “sexist”. I would consider “The only thing she is good for is doggie style” to be sexist, but, I didn’t get that from the comments. Maybe, I’m just sexist.
If expressing physical desire of a candidate is sexist, than Republican women can be considered guilty for saying Dan Quayle was good looking. However, I don’t consider that sexist.
I’m disappointed but not surprised at the nasty comments about Governor Palin. I plan to vote for Obama, but I may change my mind after browsing through this shameful trail of comments. Why are intelligent leftists such assholes? To hell with all of you. May you drown in your vitriol.
I may change my mind after browsing through this shameful trail of comments
Either you’re a lying troll who never planned on voting for Obama in the first place, or you’re a cretin. No even slightly intelligent person determines his vote for President of the U.S. from a few comments on a blog that have nothing to do with the candidate or his policies or their consequences.
Just to let you know, PZ, that I’ve I’m reporting post #16 to the US Secret Service. Violent rape fantasies about a vice presidential candidate? I think at least this should be checked out.
Wow Gerard Harbison
Just had a quick look at your blog. You’re just the King of Quote Mining now aren’t you?
If you have a disagreement with anything said here that’s fine. I do too occasionally. But for Christ’s sake don’t be so intellectually dishonest.
But BoSOM, one can’t be a right winger and not be intellectually dishonest.
Hey Helioprogenus!
In your post (#411) you say;
“If you call yourselves Democrats, then stand up and defend the separation of Church and State as rightfully dictated by the Constitution.”
Obama sat in a pew in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years. How exactly does he separate church from state when he says publicly he is going to strengthen the “faith based initiative” and when he writes in both his books of his profound faith and then participates in a debate with a super-church pastor from outer space?
I dunno. It seems to me that ALL the candidates are sucking religions’ tit. Obama is the worst of them although my wife says that Palin sounds EXACTLY like a speaker from Women of Faith. (Southern Baptist)
I don’t understand how any of us, who can reason, can get so excited about Obama. Maybe its because you all seem to like the idea of planned economies and big “problem solving” government, even though something like 2.5 billion people have proved they don’t work. We are all pretty scientific here until we get political and then all the science and reason seems to go out the freakin’ window!
Obama is not going to save us. McCain is not going to save us. All any of us can do is vote for who we think is the lesser of two evils.
Business as usual. But please don’t try to convince me that the democrats are any less dominated by religion than the republicans. Religion in America dominates us ALL. That is why we are declining and will continue to do so. Religion makes us stupid.
Yeah, I must have taken “I wouldn’t just take Palin in the stall. I’d tie her hands to the toilet seat, and wrap TP around her eyes as a blindfold” out of context. Please explain to me how this is really a message of liberation and enlightenment.
Much as I deplore the message too yes, you ARE taking it out of context and quotemining deliberately by NOT referring to the fact the poster included the use of a “safe word”. This is therefore a BDSM fantasy NOT a rape fantasy, which many posters have mentioned but you are deliberately lying about and contiually referring to a as a”rape fantasy”.
At any rate I was not reffing specifically to that, I was referring to the fact you have ignored the fact that many posters categorically stated their distaste with the post band have set about quotemining other posters to support your position. You have nastily used, again out of context, quotes from posters ( who probably have NO idea you have used them) to suggest that PZ somehow supports, amongst other things, stoning of the young girl when you know very well ( or if you don’t then you’re a complete moron) the poster in that case was being sarcastic.
To top things off, you suggest I said it was (in your words)a “message of liberation and enlightenment”. I never said such a thing and again, you show your true colours.
You are a liar and not a gentleman Mr Harbison and you are well aware of it.
The secret service. Oh my now we cannot even have any fun once in awhile. Never mind the GOP talk with Monica and Bill. This country in in deep trouble.
Harbison – What The Bride said. Plus, fuck off.
Frack! Goofed up my tagging (@432). That should be:
Gotta love the acronym, eh?
Bill
If you’re ferring to th BosOM thing- I never even realised it until Truth Machine told me I he loved Aussie Bosom. Now I think its kinda cool but, truthfully it is Patricia who has the more impresive ta tas. But she’s a slut ( go quote mine THAT Gerard).
Here’s a big clue. You take a woman, chain her to a toilet seat, and ‘take’ her, after giving her a ‘safe-word’, something culturally specific to the BDSM community, and you claim it ain’t rape, because she didn’t give the safeword, and they’re going to throw your ass in jail anyway, though probably not for nearly long enough. Particularly when the safeword is a degrading reference to her own family.
You want to post bondage fantasy on a BDSM site, go ahead. I’ll stand by your right to do it. Post it on a political thread, and it’s a threat.
Is that context enough for you?
I never even realised it until Truth Machine told me I he loved Aussie Bosom.
I seem to recall that I used it in a response to something you said about body parts flapping/waving/blowing in the wind, but perhaps that’s my overactive dirty mind.
Harbison – You are nothing but the lowest form of troll. Another envious cretin trying to make hay off PZ’s popularity and his rowdy Ilk. We’ve seen your kind before.
Go back to your own blog and snivel. The strumpets don’t even find you worth taunting. Quote that miserable cur.
You’re just not getting it are you Gerard.
I explicitly stated I found it offensive myself so you can quit trying to put words into my mouth.
What I am disputing is your lying about that and, more specifically your deliberate quote mining of OTHER posters to try and garner attention to your pathetic right wing soapbox. This main issue, which I stated clearly in my post, is the one you are still avoiding. You deliberately imply that someone here was suggesting stoning to death a girl.
Is that context enough for YOU??
Oh, look just scratch it all. I see the heady heights of comments traffic on your blog is on average about 3. Apparently no gives a shit enough about your blog to read your quote mining crap anyhow.
Bride of Shrek – Ahhh, yes I have mentioned the well filled blouse. Which can actually be seen now that it isn’t covered in scripture medals. *grin*
And *smirk* I do rather enjoy gaping at the well filled trouser now and then. But I imagine there is some interest in the slutty Aussie bosom by some folks, what with it being upside down and turning the wrong way in a good current of water…
Quote mine that too, dickhead!
I don’t give a good goddamn about either PZ’s blog traffic, or my own. And let’s not distract from the topic, shall we? We’re discussing a comment that suggested chaining Sarah Palin to a toilet and raping her. PZ evidently thinks the problem with that is an excess of ‘macho sexism’. I’m wondering why that post remained on this site, for a full day, with an occasional grunt of mild disapproval, most of which is mere posing. There’s not a heck of a lot of outrage here.
I noticed Patricia in particular reserves her expletives for me, and not the author of that post, which she thought was ‘a bit much’. Tut tut! That’s OK; it reinforces my suspicion that most of what I hear from the left about women’s rights- heck, human rights – is merely partisan positioning, and in no way sincere.
Gerard Harbison #424: I’m reporting post #16 to the US Secret Service.
Somebody tells a joke on the internet. The Secret Service would sure be interested in that.
It amazes me how hopelessly stupid some people are.
@ Gerard Harbison #424
From your website:
No problem with the first sentence, but the second smells like you’re begging for attention. That enough to reduce the cognitive dissonance produced by reading your posts above?
Yep, thank you, quite enough.
Damn straight I save my troll slicing for you. Quiet Desperation has been here awhile, and we know his sarcasm and style of humour.
Atheist women do not view human sexuality in biblical terms. If that bothers you – don’t read PZ’s blog.
You are here to quote mine and post to your blog. Liar. Further, your threats show you to be a sniveling little sissy. Run along home now, or should I make you up a sugar tit?
Gerard troll – Wake up! This is women’s, and men’s rights. If one of us is seriously stupid and makes a racial or sexist or even really icky post, it’s clobberin time.
Have you looked at PZ’s dungeon?
Go home. Your in over your head. Really, your PZenvy is making the sluts here snicker.
i stumbled here on accident but after reading a few idiotic and biased posts i have something to say to the majority of you: take your heads out of your bitter asses and find something more productive to do than sit around and bitch about things you DONT even understand. oh and maybe you could try being a little more grown up instead of disgustingly childish. is that too hard for the poor little persecuted pseudo- intellectual elite hmm?
@Everbleed,
Though you’re correct in your diatribe against both parties, don’t think they’re both equal in terms of religious support. Sure, there are religious fanatics in both parties, but at least the Democrats truly represent a spectrum of diversity factors greater then the Republicans. Therefore, yes, they are the lesser of two evils, but as you mentioned, why should we be forced to choose between two evils? Yet, I’m not convinced that the Big Government bogeyman is truly as scary as you make it out to be. For me it ultimately comes down to accountability. It’s easier to achieve accountability in a smaller government, but less likely to initiate wide spread changes as quickly. I believe that with greater accountability and transparency, a larger government can function optimally. Further, the Republican and Democrat labels have to be rejected because they’re closed minded systems meant to herd people into factions. A learned and educated populace doesn’t need this shit, but I don’t see how that’s going to happen with McCain. Yes, Obama’s seriously pandering to the religious idiots, but don’t assume someone like Ron Paul is the savior of politics either (speaking generally to RP supporters, not you specifically mind you). These people are all politicians so the rules are different from what we may consider ethical behavior. That is as much our fault (for trusting their rhetoric and promises) as much as theirs for delivering a steaming pile of horse manure. Yet, there are various different grades of horse manure, and if you can use it to fertilize the soil and grow something out of it, it’s better then other grades that are toxic to human life and the environment.
At #380 Marvol wrote:
These average Joe Republicans are all going “she’s so much an average person like we are”… well if anything that should be a _dis_qualifier, right? Or would you really want an average person running your country?
I usually disagree with what George Will writes, and I don’t agree with everything he wrote in his Newsweek column this week, “Heepism vs. Elitism”, but I can’t fault most of it. http://www.newsweek.com/id/156348
I especially enjoyed this from the article:
In 1947 a reporter asked Mrs. Taft, “Do you think of your husband as a common man?” Aghast, she replied:
“Oh, no, no! The senator is very uncommon. He was first in his class at Yale and first in his class at the Harvard Law School. We wouldn’t permit Ohio to be represented in the Senate by just a common man.”
As a regular commenter here, I consider that post #16 is WAY below the acceptable level.
I hadn’t read it, but now I think it’s simply not acceptable.
And I think any other regular commenter here who defends it, as an innocent “dirty joke”, does a great disservice to this blog.
There needs to be a limit to the level of certain dirty jokes, and that post #16 has gone way beyond that limit.
This is an open forum, not a completely private living room, many people come in and out, and it’s not reserved only for regular commenters. I hope people can still see the difference.
I don’t think it’s worth reporting to the secret-service, but I can understand the indignation of Gerard Harbison, and there’s really no way anyone should defend Quiet Desperation, unless they agree with that kind of post being on this blog. He can defend himself if he wishes to.
Negentropyeater
I will say again I was NOT defending that particular statment nor defending Quiet Desperation . In fact I have twice now explicitly stated I found the comment highly offensive myself. I aknowledge that he apologised for the post and acknowledge he tried to explain it but I, and I suspect a large portion of people on this blog are left with a bad taste in their mouth after reading it.
What I WAS arguing with Mr Harbison, and the point he kept avoiding, was NOT that comment. It was the fact that on his website, he has deliberately quote mined OTHER commenters, most that had nothing to say or do about comment #16. I realise that these commenters do not need my protection nor defending but I felt he was being dishonest in a) posting comments of people out of context without their knowledge (and I’m not sure if you have read his blog but one of your comments is included as well as a snide reference to your sexuality) and b) he was deliberately trying to portray ALL people who had posted in this thread as evil bastions who supported, amongst other things, the stoning to death of a young lady. Plainly most people on that thread were rational human beings who either denounced the comment or simply ignored it and made comment on the more cimportant facts at hand but that is exactly the opposite that Mr Harbison has attempted to portray.
I find that behaviour, as well as the behaviour of the person/s who made the ridiculous sexual comments, disgusting.
I cannot say this any more plainly, if you wish to believe I was “defending” QD then so be it but I was not, never was and never will.
Bride,
my comment wasn’t refering to you, but to those commenters who seem to consider it only as a joke.
Bride,
heck, he’s even quoted me. I don’t mind. I don’t mind if he doesn’t like some of the comments here that he has explicitely quoted, I see nothing wrong with them, so what, he thinks they are wrong because he is so ultra-conservative ?
But you see, that he uses comment #16 in order to try and strengthen his conservative position is a problem. We already know that these people aren’t going to be intellectually honest, that’s why we should try to avoid these utterly ridiculous and indefensible comments as much as possible, unless we want to give them munitions to attack us.
The sexist comments by the 2 wankers above was unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg in the last few days,and not only on this blog alone.This was unacceptable,and I dont care if someone is a hardened BDSM campaigner or whatever.
As to Steve Harmison or whatever his name is,attention-seeking quotemine troll,chill out people,you get those every now and then….He wouldnt call the Gestapo anyway,he’d be afraid what they might find under his bed,or on his computer…..
Negentropeater
Thanks for the clarification, I think we’re both in agreement. I too think to give these people fodder just helps their cause out. Its all about taking the higher moral ground and not stooping to a level beneath us. Christ knows, we step even a minute bit out of line and they’ll find a way to use it to their advantage, the last thing we need is overtly stupid comments such as was displayed earlier in this thread.
..and quite frankly, I agree with Clinteas, for all his claims of calling secret service etc etc I think its all just a bit of peacock posing.
Clinteas said:
I think it was Gerard Harbison but I take your point, in and of himself the guy is just another troll. I think the problem here is that he is symptomatic – Conservatives can and will quotemine the very worst of nasty comments in Liberal fora and use them to try and smear opponents of McCain/Palin and although Mr Harbison might have a readership in single figures, other conservative commentators who try the same tricks most certainly don’t – which I think was Negentropyeater’s point.
Bride of Shrek, OM said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics! What really annoyed me however is his description of PZ’s behaviour in all of this – PZ responded to the revolting posts in question within 8 minutes of their appearance according to the posting times on this thread, slapping down the perpetrators and threatening to close the thread if they didn’t stop. He then went on to do an entire post on how such attacks were as counter productive as they were disgustingly misogynist and yet he’s the bad guy?
@ Lilly de Lure,
you are clearly not into Cricket LOL…(Harmison reference)
I take you point,very true,it seems a habit esp.of right-wing commenters to shamelessly quotemine,maybe its their own lack of substance and arguments.
His critique of PZ is to be expected,since its his blog,while of course he was generously overlooking the fact that PZ dedicated a whole friggin thread to the fact he didnt like the sexist comments.
@ BoSOM :
Such a shame Im not a titties man…;)
Clinteas said:
Apologies for the missed reference – despite intial attempts to gain a taste for it I remain completely un-into cricket I’m afraid – I’m a Rugby girl myself (Cymri am Byth!).
#s 367, 380, 447: There are some senses in which it seems reasonable to want “people like yourself” in government, specially if it’s going to be an open, collegiate style of government. It’s good to have someone in the room that knows how things are for you and how you will feel the effects of a policy.
The thing that strikes me (as an outsider) weird about what many American conservatives say is that they seem to want a STRONG (which seem to often mean “authoritarian”) leader just like them.I struggle to understand this. I can imagine the mindset that yearns for a superhero-like autocrat; it’s a very bad thing but I can see why it is tempting to some. But “I want to submit my will to someone no better me” baffles me.
The thing is I understand where Quiet Desperation is comming from when he write his comment #16.
Sure, I can understand his frustration and the fact that many here feel depressed at the latest declarations of Sarah Palin or of McCain, or of his wife.
I feel the same. It’s like, it seems it’s getting worse.
But please, let’s control a tiny bit our emotions before we hit the POST button. Take a deep breath, and before you hit the button, ask yourself, “can my comment actually hurt our cause ?”.
That’s all.
Lilly de Lure,
May the Cricket gods forgive you….
And can I just say,to Quiet Desperation,if he’s still around,Ive done my share of BDSM stuff,but there is a time and place for everything,and that was not the time or place for that comment,and probably never is,outside a private session between consenting adults.
*shakeshead*
re: Sven DiMilo
“Sure, there are circumstantial shreds, enough to have raised the questions in the first place. ”
Nonsense. There are accusations from internet kooks. That’s it. Nothing else.
“Nobody who has checked up has let the rest of us know about it. Again, if you know differently, please share. Otherwise, you’re bullshitting.”
Oh, the irony, again! You keep alive some bed-wetter’s delusional web conspiracy, based on ZERO evidence, and I”M the one bullshitting?
BWAHAHAHA!!
“I don’t know how to calculate those odds (No shit-CG). I am informed, however, that it happened on Desperate Housewives!”
And your conspiracy theory is as realistic as that show.
” Occam’s Razor does not mean accepting the explanation that you subjectively think is most likely. It means accepting the simplest of competing explanations for a set of observations. The “conspiracy theory” explains more of the alleged observations than the alternative, in my view. ”
It’s not my subjective opinion that it is far more likely that Sarah Palin had the child herself than she lied about it and it’s really her daughter’s baby. Not only that, she would have to be lying now about her daughter’s pregnancy (which was an open secret in her community). They must all be on it. A woman in her forties is far more likely to have a child with Downe’s than a 17 year old girl (no matter how much PZ screwed up the statistics). Your conspiracy claim is not a *competing* theory. But keep using cretard debate tactics. The hypocrisy suits you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for your wacky conspiracy is non-existent.
“I’m no conspiracy nut, but whatever. I’m being intellectually dishonest how, exactly?”
By encouraging a smear campaign against a 17 year old girl and her mother based on your sick fantasies. If this were a Democrat candidate, you would have NEVER considered the wild accusations about the baby to be anything but the lowest venomous bile. You know better, but you just don’t give a shit.
“There is nothing intellectually dishonest about provisionally entertaining a possibility that is supported circumstantially (psssst…science), even if you claim to be dead certain about it. If the “conspiracy theory” is demonstrated, by evidence, to be baseless, I’ll be fine with that, really. I am not claiming it’s true.”
Teach the Controversy! The lack of evidence is why we must investigate further! How IDiotic. Philip Johnson couldn’t have done better.
” Finally, I suggest you look up the word “irony.” And (can’t…resist…the snark…) the word “innocent,” for that matter.”
Another ironic moment!
BTW, Palin’s daughter is definitely an innocent in this. She doesn’t deserve the shit that low-lifes like you and PZ (who approves of rape fantasies on his forum) feel happy to throw at her. Whatever you think of her mother’s politics, why should she be run through the mud to satisfy your adolescent desires?
http://www.DarwinCentral.org
@ carolinaguitarman,
thanks for posting once more,gives me the opportunity to debate you,which I wanted to after I read your discussion with SvenDiMilo.
//BTW, Palin’s daughter is definitely an innocent in this. She doesn’t deserve the shit that low-lifes like you and PZ (who approves of rape fantasies on his forum) feel happy to throw at her//
Yes she is,in the sense that she is a victim of her mother’s ludicrous views on sex education,and in that she was dragged into the spotlight by mums political aspirations.Thats ignoring the statuatory rape that led to her being pregnant in the first place,of course.
//The evidence for your wacky conspiracy is non-existent. //
That is not entirely accurate.
Ed Brayton covered this,and linked to the story ,with photos,on dailykos here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/the_palin_grandbaby.php
I saw those photos,and in them,from 2007,Bristol looks pregnant,not her mother.
Not proof,but makes you wonder.Or,could make you wonder,if you didnt have your mind made up already…
//A woman in her forties is far more likely to have a child with Downe’s than a 17 year old girl//
That is correct,and I believe neither PZ or Greg Laden had this bit right.However,17yo girls still can have children with Down’s,the incidence is in the realm of occurrences of inborn errors of metabolism or cardiac defects,so not out of this world.
//Whatever you think of her mother’s politics, why should she be run through the mud to satisfy your adolescent desires? //
Project much???
Grrr,PZ,my grand epic rebuttal of No 460 is held for moderation……
carolinaguitarman,
See, another who doesn’t want to read.
Hey, you, please read PZ’s comment #24 and his new thread “this is how we will lose”.
Or can’t you read english ?
“See, another who doesn’t want to read.
Hey, you, please read PZ’s comment #24 and his new thread “this is how we will lose”.
Or can’t you read english ?”
He still has the rape fantasy up on post 16. Apparently his *outrage* doesn’t extend far enough for him to hit the delete button on it.
http://www.DarwinCentral.org
Well, it’s different to say that “his outrage doesn’t extend far enough for him to hit the delete button”, and to claim that he “approves of rape fantasies on his forum”.
If you can’t understand the difference, than I think you have a problem with the use of the english language.
And I’m french, so just imagine ;-)
“Well, it’s different to say that “his outrage doesn’t extend far enough for him to hit the delete button”, and to claim that he “approves of rape fantasies on his forum”.”
It’s a distinction without a difference.
I think there’s much evidence (see his comment #24 and his thread “this is how we will lose”) that he DOES NOT approve this comment and that it actually “pisses him off”, but his comment policy is such that he leaves on the blog even comments that he does not approve of…
Rapists tend not to use safe words, I suspect. neg is right; you have reading comprehension issues.
“I think there’s much evidence (see his comment #24 and his thread “this is how we will lose”) that he DOES NOT approve this comment and that it actually “pisses him off”, but his comment policy is such that he leaves on the blog even comments that he does not approve of… ”
It’s one thing to leave up comments he allegedly doesn’t approve of, quite another to keep up a sick rape fantasy (where the poster also made fun of the fact the baby has Downe’s).
As I said, his alleged disapproval didn’t extend far enough for him to hit the delete button. Considering how he has also seemed fit to fan the flames of the IDiotic *babygate* conspiracy crap, it’s not difficult to see why he has no burning desire to do anything about the posts in question. He doth protests too much, methinks.
“Rapists tend not to use safe words, I suspect. neg is right; you have reading comprehension issues.”
He said he would force her into the stall, tie her up, and taunt her with the condition of her infant child. But hey, if you want to defend the indefensible, go ahead!
carolinaguitarman,
Can you please point me to some evidence where PZ has done this ?
Or is this another figment of your fertile imagination ?
MartinM,
carolinaguitarman is correct that comment 16 is indefensible. But I don’t understand why she/he is going after PZ…
It’s possible my (one) previous comment on this topic has landed me on your excremental ennumeration. Let me clarify that my intent in even commenting on the “jokes” in question (which I did identify as inappropriate) was only to draw a distinction between sexual comments and sexist ones: I’m not rushing to defend these particular comments, but I think there’s a difference between using graphic sexual imagery (verbal imagery, I mean) to evoke shock and (questionable) humor, on the one hand, and the systematic marginalization of people because of their gender, on the other. For example, the constant coverage during the primaries of Sen. Clinton’s clothing, in a way that male politicians’ wardrobes are never discussed, was, I think, much more insidiously sexist than these outrageous (but individual) outbursts.
More broadly, I think there’s a regrettable tendency to call all sexual jokes, comments, and discourse sexist. People like sex, and not every joke or outrageous comment about sex (even about kinky sex) is necessarily about oppression or marginalization.
In addition, I was calling for perspective regarding the import and gravity of things said in blog comment threads. Again, the intent was not to exonerate the comments in question, but to suggest that, even given their offensiveness and inappropriateness, the risk of lasting damage to the space-time continuum is minimal. Let’s not overestimate our importance in the grand scheme of things, shall we?
On that point, let me also add interpreting these comments as meaning PZ endorses rape fantasies is completely whack, and even joking about calling in law enforcement is chillingly bizarre. To those of you on that track, I can only urge: Lighten the f*ck up, people!!
Finally, as to the “tip of the iceberg,” aside from the CT political blog My Left Nutmeg, I don’t read other blogs much, but based on what I’ve seen here, anti-sexist push-back is winning out over the sexist comments (even including stuff subject to my distinction above) by huge margins. If this episode says anything about liberals, it’s that we almost universally reject sexism… so maybe a little less handwringing is in order.
Comments (not necessarily sexist or sexual) about Sarah Palin’s appearance are as common as they are because (IMHO) her candidacy is all about image! Governor Palin can’t seem to open her mouth without referring to herself as a “hockey mom,” and she’s constantly referencing her hunting and fishing, and her snowmobile-racing husband. She may be a theocratic right-wing attack dog, but one of the reasons they picked this theocratic right-wing attack dog is that she can project this outdoorsy, fresh-faced, young… and yes, sexy… image (thereby distracting us all from dried-up old John McCain). Her appearance is a political asset, and that (IMHO) makes it fair game for political discussion. YMMV.
I’m not defending it. I’m merely pointing out that it’s about bondage, not rape. But apparently he still hasn’t learned to read, so I doubt it’ll make much difference.
Because he’s a contentious jackass with an axe to grind? Just a thought.
Bill,
comment 16 can be completely misinterpreted, whether one is liberal or not.
I agree with you that they are using Palin’s appearance as a political asset. I wrote something very similar @339.
But it doesn’t give any excuse to defend comment #16 which was way beyond the acceptable level of a joke.
“He said he would force her into the stall…”
And a dead straw horse gets his daily beating… jeez…
Me still wonders where the word “force” is to be found in the original comment.
Negentropyeater said:
It’s certainly an eccentric interpretation of PZ’s view on the matter considering this comment he posted on the comment thread after “From the Horses Mouth” post he wrote on 1st September (comment #73):
I think however that carolinaguitarman is refering to the below comment on this thread (#392):
Where PZ merely corrects a statistical mistake made by a the poster immediately before him who said that most babies with Downs Syndrome are born to older mothers. PZ is saying that while the proportion of babies with Downs Syndrome born to older mothers is much higher than is the case of babies born to younger mothers, the fact that younger mothers have so many more babies in total than older mothers means that the Downs Syndrome babies born to younger mothers, though a much smaller proportion of the total, none the less represents more individual babies than those born to older mothers.
The post underlined a statistical fact nothing more – PZ said nothing at all specifically about Trig Palin’s maternity in that post and AFAIK he hasn’t since his initial comment about the matter – so it seems a little rich to quote him as having “given his support” to that rumour!
“Can you please point me to some evidence where PZ has done this ?
Or is this another figment of your fertile imagination ?”
post #392
Instead of calling the whole *babygate* nonsense what it is, crap, he argues that D syndrome babies are more likely to be born to younger women than old. He keeps fanning it instead of calling out the poster for his IDiocy.
I’m not making unverified assertions and sticking to them as inarguable Truth. I’m not smearing any innocent teenagers. I don’t even care about the photographs, which these days can prove nothing. I’m merely saying that there are open questions concerning Sarah Palin’s reported behavior leading up to the birth of wee Trig, and that the only attampt to answer any of those questions has been the announcemant that Bristol Palin couldn’t have been pregnant then ’cause hey , guess what, she’s pregnant now. An undocumented assertion.
If that makes me an adolescent tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-theorist nutjob to Mr. Guitarman and his ilk, so be it.*shrug*
Not true, but you don’t care. And if you think this stuff is “the lowest venomous bile” than you haven’t been on the internets much!
Another assertion offered without evidence. You just don’t get it, man. And your repeated analogy to creationism, which is directly contradicted by all kinds of verified, documented evidence, suggests the same thing.
And you really should look up the word “irony” there, Alanis.
“And a dead straw horse gets his daily beating… jeez…
Me still wonders where the word “force” is to be found in the original comment.”
He said:
“I wouldn’t just take Palin in the stall. I’d tie her hands to the toilet seat, and wrap TP around her eyes as a blindfold.
And I’d whisper, “Ok, my little pet, tonight’s safe word is ‘Down’s Syndrome’.””
Try that on the next woman you meet and see if she thinks no force was involved. Especially if she has a Down’s Syndrome baby and you set it up so that the only way she can be set free is if she gives in to your joking about the plight of her child.
Again, you leftists show just how much you *care* about women:
neg:
Again, I’m not defending Comment 16, nor the tiny handful of other remarks in a similar vein. It’s just that I’m catching a whiff of “O noes! We’re talking about her looks, and sex; therefore, we liberals are all sexist pigs and Obama’s gonna loooooooooose!” hysteria in some of the subsequent discussion. I’m just trying to provide a bit of a corrrective on that.
Doh! Sorry ’bout the tagging malfunction.
re #480:
I continued to be mystified by people who repeat (i.e. republish and refresh) the very things they claim to be most offended by. Are they concern trolls, or just frickin’ brain-dead???
carolinagutarman,
once again (it’s becoming a habit) you have a problem with reading comprehension and you are interpreting things the way you want them to be, and not the way they really are.
As Lilly pointed out, PZ has not seemed fit to fan the flames of the babygate, quite the contrary, and you have absolutely no evidence for this (bringing comment 392 is ridiculous).
But your mind is fixed, you’ve decided that PZ was guilty of sexism and of feedng to the babygate frenzy, and that’s all that matters for you.
Actually, PZ seems fit to do almost anything, albeit he has not seen fit to do this particular thing.
[Sorry; couldn’t resist.]
“I’m not smearing any innocent teenagers. ”
Sure you are. Bristol Palin doesn’t deserve the crap you and your conspiracy nut friends are throwing at her.
“I’m merely saying that there are open questions concerning Sarah Palin’s reported behavior leading up to the birth of wee Trig, and that the only attampt to answer any of those questions has been the announcemant that Bristol Palin couldn’t have been pregnant then ’cause hey , guess what, she’s pregnant now. An undocumented assertion.”
Basic biology is now an *undocumented assertion*. Teach the controversy! Let both sides of the story fight it out! Sarah Palin is only the theoretical mother! Let’s have both theories taught! It’s only a theory!
“Another assertion offered without evidence. ”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html
From the article:
“And the pregnancy? An open secret in the close-knit town of 9,780.”
I guess her town is in on the conspiracy. I wonder how many black helicopters they have?? Oh my!
“If that makes me an adolescent tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-theorist nutjob to Mr. Guitarman and his ilk, so be it.*shrug* ”
Most conspiracy nuts like yourself don’t care what the other 99% of the population thinks. Am I supposed to be impressed? :)
And this one is just too much :
Appart from your personal bias against liberals, if you can point me to one single measure that conservatives are in favour of which shows that they care more about women than liberals, that would be appreciated.
Liberals are in favour of respecting a woman’s choice with regards to her pregnancy (before a term which is defned in Roe v. Wade).
Not conservatives.
Let’s see what evidence you bring to the table, apart from your personal dislike of liberals.
It’s really quite unbelievable to be that biased and fixated on one’s opinion without any evidence or sensible arguments to share.
No, the ‘undocumented assertion’ in question is the assertion that Bristol Palin is currently pregnant. Whether or not you agree with that statement, anyone with the reading comprehension of a six-year-old ought to be able to understand it.
“No, the ‘undocumented assertion’ in question is the assertion that Bristol Palin is currently pregnant. Whether or not you agree with that statement, anyone with the reading comprehension of a six-year-old ought to be able to understand it.”
Not in her hometown it isn’t undocumented. As the article I linked to above points out, it had been an open secret.
But conspiracy nutters like you never seem to care about facts.
The pregnancy is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
“Let’s see what evidence you bring to the table, apart from your personal dislike of liberals.”
This thread, where a sick rape fantasy has received excuses or outright approval from people who claim to *support* women. A post the person who runs this forum doesn’t feel is over the line enough to delete, thereby tacitly approving of it.
The Left can walk the walk, but they don’t talk the talk. When the woman is not one of them, they toss her under the bus. Sure the Right has their nuts too, but this forum was supposed to be run and populated by *enlightened* people. In reality it’s no different than FR or DU.
Carolinaguitarman,
you really do have a problem with what constitutes evidence, do you ?
The comments, however you may seem fit to interpret them, of a few isolated individuals (we can count them on the fingers of one hand) do not constitute any evidence whatsoever that “leftists don’t care about women”.
This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion and you should be ashamed of making it
I’m a leftist, but I just don’t care about Sarah Palin’s private life.
I’m french, and here, we do not investigate our politicians private lives. Its’ a matter of principles and we hold very strictly to it.
But it also works both ways, we also don’t care if she’s mother of 5 or a lesbian. It has no relevance Ok? The mayor of Paris, Pierre Delanoé, and possible candidate to the presidency, is openly gay. Nobody cares, appart from some 10-20% ultra-conservative religious idiots who won’t have any impact on the election.
So if the GOP could stop mentionning to everybody who wants to hear it that she’s so worthy because she’s the mother of 5, that would help.
I haven’t said one damn thing about Palin or her pregnancy, you hypocritical fool.
carolinaGuitarman:
I couldn’t possibly give a rat’s @ss about so-called “babygate,” because even if true it would be no more than just one of hundreds of reasons not to let Sarah Palin get any closer than Juneau to the White House. But the illogic is starting to get dizzy in here:
You’re using small-town high-school gossip as evidence now? Let me clue you in: The existence of that gossip does not constitute “documentation” of Bristol’s pregnancy; it only means the “undocumented assertion” has at some point been made within earshot of Bristol’s classmates. In fact, if I were planning to float a fake pregnancy story (not that I’m claiming anyone has done so in this case), leaking it to the girl’s schoolmates is precisely where I’d start.
Evidence: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” Additional case in point:
Let’s review the bidding: A small handful of nasty postings (among almost 500 comments, in this thread alone) leads you to conclude that liberals don’t care about women. Pressed for evidence to support that conclusion, you can only go back to the observation that generated it in the first place.
Please stop walking in circles; you’ll make an ugly spot in the lawn.
Jebus, I hope you’re really a “guitar man” and not a (would-be) scientist… or worse yet, a science teacher.
Not for nothin’, BTW, but I don’t recall any comments that could reasonably be characterized as “outright approval” of Comment 16… including even the subsequent comments from that commenter!!
and btw carolinaguitarman, I will point you to my comment 448, before you entered this thread, and to all other commenters after me (clinteas, Bride of Shrek, Bill Dauphin, etc…) who have expressed their condemnation of comment 16.
You’re an oblivious idiot. The near-complete lack of any “facts” on either side has been my sole claim throughout.
Yes, you finally managed to back up one of your statements. Thank you. The only meaningful sentence from that article:
“The mother of one of Levi’s friends, who asked not to be named, told The News that locals knew about Bristol’s pregnancy for weeks.”
That’s something, but, objectively, not much. Colin Powell had 8×10 glossy photographs with arrows and lines and circles on ’em and he turned out to be completely full of shit. A paraphrased anonymous assertion in the Daily News is a kind of evidence, I guess, but pretty weak.
I will publicly state for the record that I was wrong and will apologize for doubting when I see something convincing, like an actual infant in late December or something documented before then. Yes, I am very skeptical, and I am doubly skeptical of Republicans. I make no apology for that!
I have no such friends, but what exactly is the “crap” she doesn’t deserve? That she got pregnant at 16? That she might be complicit in a family-face-saving lie? The first is, according to you, empirical, thus not crap. The second happens all the time in small-town America, and I’m going to leave that assertion undocumented. So sue me.
btw carolinaguitarman, we had a president (Mitterand) who had a child with someone else than his wife, whilst in function.
Nobody cared.
He could have been having blowjobs, whilst working at the Elysée, nobody would give a f**king shit about it.
Do you understand me ?
What our politicians do with their sexual or reproductive life, man or woman, is none of us citizens’ business.
But please don’t tell me that in America, liberals are worse on the matter than conservatives. I don’t remember that it were liberals who made such a scandal of the Monica Lewinski affair.
So please, stop it, it’s becoming ridculous.
McCain is spiking on intrade. It’s pretty much tied now. Bugger!
Oooh, pop-culture “Easter eggs”… I love it!
You can get
Anything you want
At Condoleeza’s Restaurant
(Excepting Condi)…
What? OK, I’ll shut up now, and sit over here on this bench, right next to the mother-rapers and father-stabbers.
8^)
it’s virtually undisputed among economists that minimum wages cause unemployment, but I still entertain the idea in my econ. class, because kicking around the various ideas helps the kids learn. The idea that free trade among countries is mutually beneficial is about as uncontroversial in economics as evolution is in biology. Greg N.
Yeah, but there’s a difference: biologists usually test their ideas against evidence, (neoclassical) economists systematically ignore it – because their function is to justify the ways of Mammon to man. Cases in point: recent introduction of minimum wage in UK DID NOT cause unemployment, despite the bleating chorus of rightists and employer organisations saying it would; few if any large countries have managed to industrialise without protecting their industries against foreign competition.
I love the Carolinas, but, I think their guitar men seem to have a head up an ass. It is typical of the deceptive to twist what was said to suit their agenda. From calling the unfortunate post at #16 a “rape fantasy” to calling PZ’s comments supportive of same, we get the same reactionary response as any anti-sex christian or feminist would give. I wonder if he is of the camp that considers all hetero sex to be rape. In particular, refering to PZ’s clarification of the rates of Down’s Syndrome births between younger and older mothers as “fanning the flames” of sexism is total garbage. If reality and science are now to be considered sexist then humanity is in serious trouble. Having been raised by a single feminist mother who enjoyed her sexuality, I have a hard time with that attitude. Although, I am sure she would consider the #16 comment distasteful, she would balk at the rape charge. I believe it was inappropriate, but, still implied consentual activity. Either way, PZ’s hesitence to censor the remarks should be commended. Free speech still reigns on Pharyngula, and I, for one, applaud his response.