Got your popcorn and jujubes? Ready for the clown show? The debate begins shortly, and this is the place to leave your comments.
Half an hour in, and I’m seeing Biden being good and specific with facts at his fingertips, and doing a good job of answering questions with substance. Palin is an airhead who’s spouting more fluff and ignoring the questions — she keeps going back to energy and pretending she’s an expert. It’s very annoying, but she’s not descending into fumbling babble-babble, so I’m sure the audience is going right along with it. Come on, Biden, slam her back on the futility of thinking Alaska’s relatively tiny oil reserves can save the country.
Jebus, now she’s pretending to be an environmentalist.
I’m really disappointed that Biden wants to deny homosexual marriage, just like Palin.
Oh, no. SHe just praised Henry Kissinger and claimed that those foreigners hate our freedoms. She’s another Bush.
I’m happy with Biden so far — he’s good at bringing everything back to McCain’s record. Palin just fudges McCain’s record at every step.
Man, Palin is revolting: she just said that all those Washington insiders are the same (including McCain?) and that Joe Biden has been approving of McCain’s war plans all along. Ugh.
And if she claims she’s a maverick one more time … she’s a Republican tool, get real.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL PALIN THAT ALASKAN OIL RESERVES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?
Shining city on a hill, beacon perfect, force for good…empty, dishonest platitudes. We’re not going to become a better country with a gladhander who thinks we’re already perfect in charge.
Oh, good! Biden charges up and denounces this “maverick” nonsense. Best part of the debate so far.
Palin just said she likes being able to answer these tough questions — she hasn’t answered a single one the whole hour and a half, but has been ducking and skipping and dodging.
All over. Biden clearly won — he sounded presidential, human, intelligent, and actually addressed the questions without being too harsh on Palin. Palin was a flag-waving cheerleader, with a voice that really grated on me, and she was evasive in answering questions. She didn’t pull any major gaffes, though, so since everyone had exceedingly low expectations for her, they’ll probably think she did fine.
No big knockout, then. No huge embarrassing boo-boos from either side to keep the media entertained. I’m still mostly reassured that Biden will be good in the job.
I was on my way home and walking past a place of business when a well dressed employee came outside for a cigarette break. He was gloating on his cell phone, “Palin’s beating Biden’s ass! Yeah, we’re watching it now and Palin’s beating his ass!”
What is this crap I thought. Then I noticed his profession. He was a used car salesperson, so busy pitching it all day long, a sty must smell like Heaven.
Whenever I see someone with a name of the the form “[Common name] from [Place]” I know their comments are gonna be full of shit.
PZ these comments are so thoroughly entertaining, cant imagine why the handful of whingers are knocking it…keep it up folks its better and more informative than anything else about the debate that I can find.
Now that I’m finally out of my worthless “We swear to god this isn’t remedial” chemistry class, can someone kindly tell me how to watch the motherfucking debate without having it chopped up into a billion pieces that don’t add up to the full length and may or may not be relevant?
I was disappointed that Palin demonstrated relative coherence tonight after the inanity of her Couric interview. Still, I think Biden gave more specifics about policy, where Palin was vague. Palin stuck to “this is what we need to do” rather than “this is how we need to do it.” On top of that, her “what we need to do” was in direct opposition to Republican positions most of the time. Does she really support equal right for homosexuals? Does she really support REAL alternative energy?
On top of that, she kept twisting the topics to match her rehearsed talking points, rather than answering the freaking questions.
I don’t know how many people picked up on these things. Maybe the fact that she didn’t break down and run off stage makes her a winner in some peoples’ eyes. In the end though, it seems like little more than a draw. Same with the first Obama/McCain debate. I don’t think the Democrats are going to rock the boat much as long as they’re in the lead.
Brian from Maine; #472
I too share a distain for the “political shenanigans” both parties have pulled over the years…but to visit a science blog expecting some kind of deep, intelligent, political discourse is simply not a valid or well-reasoned expectation for this site.
And given the fact you visited a science blog to talk politics is of acute concern…have you ever thought about professional help for this variation of behavior? In summary, you seem to be in the wrong place to placate your wishes.
Azkyroth #505
Now why the hell would you want to subject yourself to that? It was a non-event. Just read the thread of a hundred drunken mavens and let that be your entertainment. (You’ll be a big hit with your colleagues because of your skewered point of view!)
You’ll be considered a spin-meister by all.
I don’t know how anyone can expect a blog with a description saying “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal” would be fair and balanced. Of course it’s going to be opinionated and one-sided, no-one should expect any less. Just because it’s one-sided though, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid…
I found this debate much more interesting than the presidential debate. Regarding Biden and him denying gay marriage: Biden is Catholic and his beliefs from that conclude that marriage should be from a man and a woman. But Biden is smart and tolerant so he realizes that that is his personal opinion and he does not have the right to deny the individual his or her rights. Biden doesn’t have to like gay marriage but he won’t deny the right to anybody. Palin did not fall flat on her face, she spoke of McCain as the maverick as if he some sort of pop icon. That was annoying and pointless to say because there is no substance behind it. And personally I think the democrats would have this election if Biden were running for president and Obama for VP.
That’s fucking poll gold!
In any measurement of truth, facts, justice, intelligence and humanity, Biden was the clear winner. Although I wasn’t too pleased to hear what they agreed on.
-No gay marriage
– Support Israel no matter the circumstance (Haven’t they read Bin Laden’s speeches? He says repeatedly that America’s historical support for Israel is a major reason for terror attacks)
– Saber rattling from both sides. Obama talks tough about Pakistan, Biden wants more money and troops to Afghanistan. McCain/Palin want more troops and money into Iraq and I have little doubt McCain has his eye on Iran as another possible target.
But to reiterate: on energy, education, infrastructure, not killing puppies etc, etc…There can be no rational choice beyond Obama/Biden as Biden continually showed tonight.
Palin won because when she talks, regardless on whether her ideas or good or not, people in Boganville Utah say “wow! she understands the issues that I worry about! She knows what it’s like to be a PTA member/churchgoer in Boganville! She is going to look out for MY interests” She has a folksy way of speaking that strikes right into the heart of just about every small town between Philadelphia
and San Francisco. She is the MESSIAH in their worldview.
Her speeches also make a point of stroking the egos of middle america, telling them that they deserve to be proud of themselves, that there is something inherently great in being “country.”
I’ll leave you to take that thought to its conclusion.
Was there a winner? Who knows. It’s up to the individual to decide. Palin didn’t drop any “bombs” of stupidity, at least not that I heard (I have to admit that my girlfriend and I talked about comments that left us missing some of the debate).
Palin didn’t lose. But Biden didn’t win. Not my personal opinion (I give Biden the trophy). But based on what I know of my family and coworkers view points, which I can rarely agree with personally, make me think that the debate will go down as a tie.
I can only hope that what Biden said about “marriage” was only to avoid losing those on the fence. Relating it to religion shares my point of view. Churches define “marriage”. The US Govenrnment has no authority to say one way or the other.
3. If you’re there, then you might as well keep looking.
LOL
Okay, just to put some nuance on my first point, I suppose that Biden is more intellectually? spiritually? open to the idea of gay marriage but is opposed to it for personal reasons. (Intellectually? Spiritually? (I’m tired) ) So I guess its decent of him to let it be a state by state thing and not the law of the land, no matter his personal prejudices. I’m not so sure I can say the same of Sarah Palin. Although I do like the gambit of “One of my best friends is gay”. Reminds me of Colbert trying to find a black best friend.
Palin is an automaton who needs to be fed data that she relays back in that sing-song 10th grade voice – in the rote way kids do when reciting. You almost listen for the recess bell to go off.
She’s a monster in tights and was obviously coached within an inch of her life. She kept steering the debate back to her talking points like a robot.
By contrast Joe was relaxed, genial, sharp as a tack and HUMAN. He completely upended her rehearsed defences of McCain and left her with nothing to say … why … because she was afraid to stray off her notes unless it involved cliches and folksy BS that she churns out like there’s no tomorrow.
She’s a pretty face on a broken and discredited ideology that they’re trying to rev up with “reform” and “maverick” BS. Joe took the ground out from under her time and again on that fiction.
C’mon, this is the US Presidential election we’re talking about, it’s between moderate conservatives and more extreme conservatives. There is no left here, just shades of right. The “lefties” in the American system (like Kucinich, say) are barely left of centre when seen from outside the US.
I really liked the comment I’ve seen a couple of times now, and on different blogs:
“Biden was arguing with a tape recorder”
seems to sum it up pretty well.
Being human and presidential eh? How exactly does that trump being a flag-waving cheerleader? In America. Have you not been paying attention these last 8 years? McCain and Palin are going to win. Why? Because the average IQ in the USA is apparently 92, and people aren’t going to vote for someone smarter than themselves. You don’t want a smart government, you want a dumb one. One you think you can cheat. And for that McCain/Palin fit the bill perfectly.
Well she’s obviously lying. There aren’t any gay (or smart) people in Alaska. Too cold, moist and dark. Ideal living conditions for Funghi perhaps, but not proper, decent people. You don’t move to Alaska, unless you’re really out of options. Like say Wanted by the FBI. I’ll bet anything Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Alaska, last place on Earth they’d think to look for a person, much less an Arab.
The data shows that 80% of the US population lives in what the US census calls “metropolitan” areas. The folks in Boogerville or Lower Boondock might love Palin. So she has the ignorant white trash and christofascist vote sewed up tight. So what, the majority of the US aren’t in that demographic.
And things aren’t going well even in Lower Boondocks. Their kids go off to war and come back mangled if they come back alive. College which was cheap and affordable 30 years ago is now sticker shock expensive. Inflation roars along and unemployment is going up while they see hordes of people being foreclosed on. And now they are told the government has to bail out people on WS that quite truly make more in a month than they will make in their lifetime.
This stuff exceeds vaudeville.
Like the pres debate, I heard all on the radio (try it sometime – it forces you to concentrate on what is SAID, not on how they say it or what they look like saying it).
Joe? You are a masterful and passionate speaker. Just make damned sure you follow through on what you said. We’ll hold you to it.
Sarah? Dear? You’re flunked. I DO NOT WANT a “hockey mom” or female “Joe-Sixpack” who brainlessly recited that it was a mess on “Main Street” that caused the problem on “Wall Street”. You obviously have no convictions other than that which serves your own personal interest. Go home.
Liberal atheists? Isn’t it at least possible that the Dem ticket gives us enough credit for the brains not to be perturbed by their expressions of godness, as they apply it (unlike the other side, whose vote they still need to win)?
Or are we as politically stupid as McCain/palin think we are?
Both candidates appeared well prepared and neither committed any serious gaffes.
Palin played the ‘folksy’ card well although, to an outsider, it grated because it sounded patronising. Her camp will be hoping that ‘middle America’ likes having its ego stroked in that way and maybe they’re right.
Biden played a good tactical game. He sounded more experienced and authoritative and concentrated his fire on McCain rather than his opponent. He avoided appearing to bully her but, at the same time, managed to imply she was small potatoes without actually saying it.
Overall, I’d say Biden edged it but basically that’s because I find him less annoying than she is. There are clearly plenty of people who fall for her ‘fauxy’ style, however and, since these debates are judged more on style than substance, maybe she did better for them.
It’ll be interesting to see what effect, if anything, this has on the numbers in the serious polls.
Palin showed her coaching. But the down home cute, hey Joe, and winking bullshit about made me barf. She said she wasn’t going to answer the questions – and hey, she didn’t.
Joe screwed up big time with the Strom Thurman remark.
She played the cute card. It only works with men and idiot women. I’d have smacked her tits together and punched her in the nose.
Shit, the whole world is doomed!
Um, really people. Does this debate even matter, in the long run? Sarah Palin is a creationist. She believes that human beings lived with Dinosaurs, and not in the catchy Was Not Was “Walk The Dinosaur” way. Based on this fact, and ONLY this fact, alone, it’s clear that she’s insane, as all creationists are, and should not be Vice President, Governor, Mayor, or in the grand scheme of things, breathing my fucking air.
Sarah Palin’s definition of “maverick”:
“Ah, you know, somebody who doesn’t just tock the tock but wocks the wock.”
Sarah Palin is a creationist.
did that even come up in the debate?
hmmm.
I think in politics it’s always a choice between the worst of two “evils”. From the transcripts, blogs, Huffpo etc it would seem to me that Biden not only won convincingly on points, but despite the god bothering stuff is much the lesser evil in his Obamarama ticket.
(As for this “maverick” pap, wouldn’t it be better if she joined a real “maverick” [from the Bushovic point of view], to wit one Vladmir Putin, on his ticket as Veep candidate next time around? She could irresistably promise Russians to reverse the old deal and buy back Alaska from the US!)
I can see the headlines:
Biden gave some good responses to the meme that McCain & Palin were mavericks. But he missed the best one: How can you be a maverick when your campaign staff is chock full of lobbyists?
Palin? With the way she talks and her lack of serious attention to the issues and folksy talk, she is like the Guy in the American Express commercial who whips out his cartoon credit card during the important international business luncheon. She will play about that well on the international stage. Palin? Sound serious?? do ya’ think???
Patricia,
Can I have ur baby?
Just ‘cuz.
Probably not really Black Bellamy lamented:
You know PZ, I first came to Pharyngula because I share your concerns about evolution vs creationism and atheism
[snip]
I won’t be coming back. I don’t need to be aggravated by your personal attacks and to wade through the same shrill partisan claptrap that pollutes so much of the blogosphere nowadays.
As a conservative Republican ….Blah Blah Blah.
for a conservative, he isn’t very educated on the current usage of the word Liberal, clearly printed at the top of the page.
“Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”
I guess he went off to play at the conservative atheist blog. Not a lot of traffic, but at least everybody agrees.
Biden was like a fine wine and Palin was like a weak champagne: pleasingly robust versus “bubbly”.
Joe brought substance and Sarah brought talking points.
Only one thing:
NUCLEAR! NU-CLE-AR! Where do they even GET “nookyular”? I remember (vaguely) being seven years old, and having to have it explained to me that those were meant to be the same word. What is WRONG with these people!?
Followed a link to this poll. Where the f*$# are these people’s brains?
http://www.drudgereport.com/
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?…
BIDEN 29% 62,664
PALIN 70% 151,725
NEITHER 2% 3,717
Total Votes: 218,106
Brownian, OM wrote
Beer -nose-sting
It is, I have always though, a derivative of thinking of nuclear bombs as “nukes”. Nuke=>Nuke-ular.
Biden, though repetitive at times, definitely came out on top. The lower-than-expected amount of Palin blunders was a bit of a buzzkill (and believe you me, I had a buzz); but her next interview (whenever that will be) should have her back to her normal clueless self.
The debate is currently replaying on Faux & MSNBC, FWIW.
Jim Lippard –
You may want to read this article from the Freakonomics blog on how the Intrade presidential election markets may be being manipulated.
Well, I listened to the debate (thanks for the link Scooter), and I must say it was an experience for me.
Firstly: I have to say the moderator of the debate needed to do a better job. If the participant asks if they can go off topic shouldn’t the answer be “No, please answer the question as asked”?
Secondly: Well, if I never knew that Palin was the governor of Alaska, and that it had oil supplies, I sure as hell would after the debate. It was actually somewhat impressive that she worked it into so many answers.
In my opinion – Biden won. You could tell he was getting annoyed (I am sure I heard more than one hefty sigh from him), and his emotional moment showed that he too is a “normal person” who has had to deal with more than political issues. I also think he timed his more aggresive “attacks” well – he left them until later in the game so that they would stand out more and had more impact overall. To me he is the better choice of the two for the role.
I am not sure if all electoral debates are like this though – this is my first time observing one of these and it is nothing like the debates I have seen on TV for our elections (ok, I admit it – I am a damned Aussie). Ah well, will be interesting to see who ends up winning the election.
I think she said “maverick” about the same amount times the word “fvck” was used in Scarface.
It may be too late to be seen by most of the regulars, but I wanted to refer you to Jon Talton’s blog “Rogue Columnist” at http://www.roguecolumnist.typepad.com. He is a professional journalist from Arizona who knows McCain’s ‘record’ very well. He is starting a meme “Republicans: the party that wrecked America”. Repeat it often.
Just started watching the debate, and Palin sounds so much like Tootsie with all the “darn right” folksy shit, that I’m expecting her to pull off a wig to reveal Dustin Hoffman.
I was disappointed in Biden’s response to the gay marriage question. How does he think these folks are going to get hospital visitation rights, life insurance benefits, and the like without a legally recognized marriage? I don’t get it.
I probably should have been disappointed in Palin’s response as well, but she said exactly what I expected her to say.
Regarding the Drudge report poll, that doesn’t surprise me at all. He’s a conservative / Populist and a majority of the people who visit his site are similarly (m)aligned.
On a closing note, I saw another one of those ignorant “Liberalism is a mental disorder” bumper stickers on the way home from the pharmacy today. I don’t think ANY of these people have bothered to look up liberalism in a dictionary. Such is the cost of ignorance.
@ merkin [#541],
I checked CNN’s transcript, and it appears that she said “maverick” only 6 times — which was surprising, as I thought I heard at least 15. Biden beat her on that, though, when he slammed McCain with 9 “not a maverick”s.
However, since the campaign began, yes, Pacino had nothing on McCain/Palin’s overuse of the word.
Did anyone really think this would turn out differently?
haha i was about to post a link to the druge poll, but searched the comments beforehand. palin’s gone down 2% (from 70% to 68%) but still… i’m not sure i was watching the same debate as those people.
Yes it is… one of the most frightening, alarm-triggering and dangerous words ever coined.
And I’m sure her base ate it up.
But, ultimately, I’m glad she said it- prior to that I was voting against the McCain/Palin ticket because I suspected that the Palin pick indicated that McCain had rejected any credibility he might have in order to whore himself, and his country, out to a marginal group of American’s who’s only claim to self-confidence is to revel in their jingoistic, knee-jerk bigotry and xenophobia.
Now I know that’s exactly what he did.
Going into watching the debates, I knew almost nothing about either candidate. Of course, I’d heard about Palin’s blunders, but I was pretty sure she’d get coached out of the worst of it and I was right.
I agree that I was very disappointed that the only thing they really seemed to agree on was that two people with the same genitalia can’t get married. Nope, not in America.
Here’s what I don’t understand: who is Sarah Palin appealing to? Who’s buying her insincere down-home shtick? What is so terribly wrong with a vice presidential candidate (or a presidential candidate for that matter) looking and acting presidential? You know, not saying “heck” and “doggonnit” like a PTA mom afraid to cuss in front of the little angels … on national television. Not winking at the camera. Politicians running for the highest office in the land are NOT just like the average American and I don’t see why that’s such a bad thing.
“Here’s what I don’t understand: who is Sarah Palin appealing to?”
Idiots.
It was incredibly obvious when Palin was trying to answer something that she had sort of been briefed on but hadn’t cared much about before. She’d start rambling like none other, jumping from talking point to talking point; I told my roommate it was like reading an in-class essay exam written by someone who skipped all the lectures, downloaded the skeleton outline notes, and memorized all the bullet points, but didn’t really know anything about the context or meaning of each term and was now writing everything down in a desperate attempt to get some credit. Also, she seemed to be getting a bit nervous about 20-30 minutes in – though that might just be my wishful imagination.
On gay marriage: I got the impression that Biden opposed forcing churches to give marriage rites to gay couples, but not denying gay couples the legal rights of a heterosexual couple. While I think that this sort of wholesale discrimination by most religious institutions is rubbish, there’s no way Obama/Biden could say that they’d consider making churches let two people of the same sex marry and still be elected. I don’t really see what’s so magic about the word “marriage,” other than the legal benefits associated with it, and full civil rights are a hell of a step up in most states. I could be wrong about Obama/Biden’s position, of course, but I thought he spoke fairly strongly about it right before the gay-marriage soundbite.
Ugh, I meant that he opposed denying gay couple legal rights…
(not my ditty btw):
There is a would be VP from Alaska.
Who thinks teaching evolution a disaster.
So she’s hiked up her skirt.
and started to flirt.
Because she doesn’t want Rapture to go past her.
Roger
Every time she winked I got extremely angry – a totally visceral reaction; instinctual; reflexive. Why is that?
Every time she said “maverick” I spluttered and rolled my eyes.
Yeah yeah – I drank at the wink and the “maverick” ‘n stuff. I also shouted things like “Jesus Fuck.” I didn’t actually splutter my IPA all over the Berber carpeting, thank goodness. It looked to me like the Xanax started wearing off around half an hour into things.
But I also got angry at Biden’s waffling on gay marriage and perseveration about
safe smokingclean coal.If you don’t believe Palin understands what it can be like to support a position and then later oppose it, she’s got a bridge to sell you, and a big basket of earmarks.
Because she’s annoying with her Buffyism
Azkyroth @ 505
If you really must the the whole debate – in one chunk – is on the BBC News website.
I would recommend knitting a sock instead.
Does McCain seem like he’s selling out to anyone else. If he wanted to be a real “Maverick” he would have chosen someone with real intelligence, not steal the change theme, not vote for regulation, etc…. PS – Speaking as an “American Outsider”, an Obama win would instantly help America’s foreign image. I think America is a great country full of generous, kind, intelligent people and I hope real change for you is coming.
Check out the Obama iPhone App. Obama and his staff are running an amazing campaign. Meanwhile McCain hasn’t yet figured out how the intertubes work. Also, his staff come off as incompetent boobs most of the time (remember the tire gauges, picking Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina and golden parachutes, a campaign suspension that wasn’t).
Can we even call these events debates? They are more like dueling press conferences.
As an Ohioan I see race playing a big role come election time. There are people I know that are democrats but when they get into the voting booth, the fear of the black man will, at the last second, cause them to push the McCain touchpad icon. I hope I am wrong. Also, watch out for “irregularities” with electronic voting machines, which are made by companies (i.e. Diebold) that contribute to republican candidates.
Are you prepared for the widespread riots when McCain wins?
Oh, the Joe vs. Bible Spice “debate” was difficult to sit through but in the end, the answer to the question “who is not ready to be Vice President of the US?” is obvious to anyone but fact-challenged, Fox “News”-watching, wingnut sheeple.
McCain*Palin: Thanks, but no thanks.
PZ: You did get that Biden was for separating civil and religious marriage, din’cha?
He explicitly said that he wanted all legal rights to be identical between gay and straight “committed” couples, leaving the word “marriage” to the churches. In short, the elimination of “marriage” as a legal concept, replaced by civil unions as the state-recognized concept.
Then he cornered Palin into agreeing — yes, the last was too clever for much of the electorate, but I found it quite enjoyable.
Not just a meme; it’s a documented fact! I haven’t read Franks’ book yet, but I feel confident recommending it based on having heard several in-depth
radiopodcast interviews with him. Here’s the key quote:Michael (@544):
We need to think strategically about this issue. As you point out, a separate-but-equal policy is ridiculous. As lawyers (and as a constitutional scholar, in Obama’s case), Biden and Obama (who, unlike Palin, could almost certainly name Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education) surely know that separate-but-equal can’t possibly be anything other than a transitional form.
I’m not accusing them of dissembling: Biden is from working-class Catholic roots and Obama is a churchgoer as well; they probably come by their traditionalist notions of marriage honestly. But I’m confident they both care more about equity and civil rights than about tradition: Speaking out for civil unions as a matter of civil rights, as Biden did last night, paves the road for the inevitable establishment of full marriage equality.
Actually, I think full marriage equality is inevitable in any case: If my observation of my daughter’s friends is any guide, once the kids who are teens today are running the world, full marriage rights for gays won’t even be a question. But we’ll get to that moment quicker (and with less tsuris) if we elect Democrats who, regardless of their personal beliefs, won’t waste any effort opposing gay marriage than if we elect Republicans who think it’s An Abomination Before God™.
Timing matters in this stuff. For instance, I think Bill Clinton inadvertently set back the cause of gays in the military by campaigning on that point in 1992: Immediately after he was inaugurated, gay activists began to beg him (and anti-gay activists began to dare him) to fulfill his campaign promise right now. The time wasn’t ripe, though, and the best he could do at that moment in history was the execrable don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy… which has (IMHO) set the cause back for a decade and a half now, to the objective detriment of not only gays but the nation’s security. It’s impossible to prove, of course, but I think a more measured, deliberate approach to change would’ve led to a better policy sooner, no matter how frustrating it would’ve been for those 1992 activists.
Am I the only one who inter-relates the earlier post about the 12-year-old who parrots badly remembered answers to goofy questions back to her mother as if the teacher actually said exactly what she “remembered” with Sarah Palin’s memorization of a set of statements?
Does Palin actually understand much of anything or does she memorize talking points? And if you held an unscheduled “debate” or interview with her tomorrow would she still remember them? How many of us retained what we crammed overnight for longer than a few days or weeks?
Maybe it’s just me?
Betty Boop for President
kryptonic:
I agree wholeheartedly, and this is what kills the whole “no experience” argument against Obama: For both Obama and McCain, the only realy executive experience they’ve had is running these campaigns (i.e., McCain has never been a governor or CEO, and he was passed over for command of a ship in the Navy). Obama’s campaign has been incredibly professional and forward-looking; McCain’s campaign has been a frickin’ train wreck (they had to virtually shut down during the primaries at one point) and antiquated. Of course, I don’t think any experience truly prepares anyone for the bizarre, singular job of POTUS… but if you’re looking for evidence of these two men’s top management skills and approaches, look no further than their respective campaigns.
frog:
I didn’t hear Biden’s comments as calling for the elimination of civil marriage… or at least, he wasn’t saying that in clear, explicit terms, even if he was trying to hint at it. That’s actually what I favor — the “radical” step of getting the state out of the who-has-sex-with-whom business altogether — but I fear it’s a “bridge too far” at this political moment. I don’t think the American public is there yet. If your reading of Biden’s position is correct, I’ll be very happy… but I also think he should be very circumspect about saying it out loud.
At the “Joe Six-Pack/Hockey Mom” comment, I turned to my lovely wife of 28 1/2 years and remarked,
I guess that means that the Republicans want me to become an alcoholic, and you to become a bitch.”
PZ, when will you be in Kearney, Nebraska? Run your schedule again.
BD: If your reading of Biden’s position is correct, I’ll be very happy… but I also think he should be very circumspect about saying it out loud.
That’s what was so winning about it — he avoided setting off the bigots, while making a very radical suggestion and forcing Palin to agree!
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.
Laughter followed on the cornering of Palin.
In short, churches can call civil unions whatever they want — marriage or not — but from a legal standpoint they’d all be exactly the same.
frog:
You’re giving Biden credit for a bit more political ju jitsu than I can quite muster up, but I dearly hope you’re right and I’m wrong, because this…
…is precisely the position I advocate.
I just have to say, I’ve read a lot of reaction to the V.P. debate (disclosure: rabid political junkie), and this thread here at Pharyngula is probably the best discussion I’ve seen yet. Y’all rock, and beat the pants off of the “political” sites (especially the non-American reactions from across the pond and down under).
Couple of points:
Joe Biden also teaches constitutional law. See here.
Exactly: this is the beauty of the Obama/Biden position. They’re trying to take the hot-button issue of “marriage” off the table. As Sen. Biden said last night, there’ll be “absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint.” Totally moots the loaded word “marriage” by making civil unions indistinguishable (from a legal standpoint, which is the only thing the government can have influence over under the Constitution).
Palin’s answers, unsurprisingly, simply made no sense. In fact, the only answer she gave that was not complete gibberish (from a ConLaw perspective) was the “quasi-Legislative” V.P. Senate position question, wherein she doubled down on Cheney’s laughable (literally: constitutional scholars literally scoff at Cheney’s jurisprudential “theories”) idea of making the V.P. supra-constitutional and unaccountable. Terrifying. She’s trying to be CheneyPlusExtra.
Good to know. I only made the distinction because I didn’t know that about Biden’s background; I didn’t mean to be diminishing him.
“Terrifying” was my response, too, even without being a constitutional scholar. Olbermann and Maddow both commented on this horrifying vision of “CheneyPlusExtra,” but I’ve been surprised at how little other discussion I’ve heard of this point. To me, that should have been the single biggest headline coming out of the debate: If you thought the chance of Palin succeeding a President McCain was scary, she’s just hit the Fast Forward button on that fear.
Didn’t think you were. :)
When Obama picked Biden to be V.P. my first reaction (after making the obligatory “clean and articulate” joke) was “Of course! Biden also teaches ConLaw! Perfect choice.” That Obama. He impresses me (almost) every time.
Straight up. Also: When asked what the worst thing about the Cheney Vice Presidency was (in the infamous Katie Couric interview), she said, and I quote:
“. . . woulda been the duck hunting accident, where, you know, that was, that was an accident. And that was made into a caricature of him, and that was kind of unfortunate.”
Firstly; they were quail hunting. Secondly, that is the “worst” thing?! [obvious joke: She thought it was ‘unfortunate’ because Dick Cheney failed to murder his friend when he shot him in the face. Sarah Palin would have successfully killed him, because she knows how to shoot moose.]
Sarah Palin and John McCain scare the dickens out of anyone that cares about the U.S. Constitution.
Clearly some people seem to like listening to her, but for my part I can’t imagine why. The smarmy, condescending tone she uses to address questions grates
By “address”, I mean the way someone “addresses” a ball in dodgeball.
I had to turn it off halfway through because her tone was making me angry, and it was clear Biden was holding his own just fine.
Azykroth:
Read the transcript. It’s like watching it, but it leaves out irrelevant crap like Palin winking, like Kerry’s hairdo, and so forth. Plus, you can paste bits of it into google for fun.
Biden’s hairdo I assume…
“Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction.”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen quoted as intelligent commentary in quite awhile. The neocons with the help of the Democrats GREW the government something like 60% in the last eight years, and completely trod upon freemarket principles. This whole notion that we are in the tank because of “failed” freemarket ideas is frightfully in the realm of cartoon stupidity.
Let’s see… regulated interest rates and money supply (by unelected officials of a secretive branch of “government”…
Government making up close to 20% of the entire economy…
A culture of lobbyism and favoritism in Washington, with “subsidies” and “tax breaks” used, as well as the tax code in general, to manipulate markets and create lots of malinvestment…
Etc…
Just WHO are these people making these really dumb assertions, and what kind of an idiot falls for this crap?
The mind boggles…
“When Obama picked Biden to be V.P. my first reaction (after making the obligatory “clean and articulate” joke) was “Of course! Biden also teaches ConLaw! Perfect choice.” That Obama. He impresses me (almost) every time.”
A pair of Constitutional lawyers who rarely even mention the Constition in their debates, nor stick to its principles in their votes in the Senate.
Great. All we need…
Someone upstream asked if we can even call these events “debates”. The answer is: no, we can’t.
Does anyone here remember debating back in high school? The debate would be centered on a proposition, e.g., “Resolved: that Republicans should be made to wear their underpants on their heads with the skidmark in front”, and the two teams would present arguments in favor of and against the proposition. Now that’s how a formal debate actually works.
These things we insist on inflicting on ourselves every election are really no more than overpriced photo ops.
Working late last night i caught only a tiny bit of it on the satellite TV that infests every room in the building, and my reaction to Palin was “Oh quartz. It looks like the Dutch Wife Fairy made another bad pick” (I hope that there are enough dirty-minded Webcomics readers here that I won’t need to explain the reference.)
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Apparently you missed the response Biden gave when he outlined (quite correctly) the exact duties and responsibilities given the Vice President by our Constitution.
Finally killfiled Scott. Bye, Scott!
Since I haven’t seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet. (Actually, I think he’s killfiled me, and I’m crushed, but I link to it for a third time in case anyone interested missed it the first two.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html
No, as you can see by putting the cursor on a state: the date of the latest poll comes up.
WTF. Was he drunk?
(Hmmm. Was that actually a rhetorical question, actually?)
Who fared better in the vice presidential debate?
Sen. Joe Biden 67% 276050
Gov. Sarah Palin 28% 115954
Neither 5% 21048
Total Votes: 413052
Who won the VP debate? * 832144 responses
Joe Biden 50%
Sarah Palin 40%
Tie 4.6%
Not sure 5.4%
Scroll to the top of this comment, click on the link, and gaze in wonderment.
Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska who owns ES&S, has had enough of Captain Unelected and is for Obama…
The only little nit-pick I have with regard to Biden is that the duties and responsibilities of the VEEP are defined in the Article Two of the Constitution and not Article One as he said in the debate.
Although in his defence he might have been talking about Cheney’s claim of being in the Legislative branch (defined in Article One) as well as the Executive and trying to disprove that claim.
Otherwise he nailed it and McMILF went down hard.
BTW before anyone posts to call me sexist, just take a look at the CSPAN recording of McMILF accepting the running mate position. The whole time that she was speaking, McCain (standing behind her and off to the left) could not keep his eyes off her ass.
KristinMH, Yes, Harper could turn the image of what should be a respectable clown into a killer clown but I refuse to allow that in my own mind, because I rather like the movie, something that I can’t say of Harper.
0C is cold? If the winter stayed a couple of degrees below 0C, I would be outside dancing naked in the snow.
“Apparently you missed the response Biden gave when he outlined (quite correctly) the exact duties and responsibilities given the Vice President by our Constitution.”
Nope.
But I also didn’t miss his vote on the “bailout” that originated in the senate. The Constitution says it has to originate in the House…
“Since I haven’t seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet…”
I saw that. I also took note of Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, N. Korea and all other Central State countries.
Ummm, no thank you.
Hmpf. First of all: Mentioning the Constitution in these “debates” we’re privy to here in th’ States is considered to be a bad political move, because the audience think’s it’s booooring (see, also, regulatory frameworks, science, and all other substantative issues. Sigh.). Don’t hate th’ player; hate th’ game.
Secondly, no politician is perfect. But the obvious rejoinder is that Obama and Biden have voted in line with their ideas of constitutional jurisprudence with much greater consistency and vigor than almost any other previous candidate (and especially compared to John McCain).
Thirdly, see here for Biden’s recent answer about to Katie Couric’s question about Supreme Court cases he disagrees with. See here for Gov. Palin’s answer. Compare and contrast.
Hmpf. First of all: Mentioning the Constitution in these “debates” we’re privy to here in th’ States is considered to be a bad political move, because the audience think’s it’s booooring (see, also, regulatory frameworks, science, and all other substantative issues. Sigh.). Don’t hate th’ player; hate th’ game.
Secondly, no politician is perfect. But the obvious rejoinder is that Obama and Biden have voted in line with their ideas of constitutional jurisprudence with much greater consistency and vigor than almost any other previous candidate (and especially compared to John McCain).
Thirdly, see here for Biden’s recent answer about to Katie Couric’s question about Supreme Court cases he disagrees with. See here for Gov. Palin’s answer. Compare and contrast.
I’ve read many comments expressing dismay over Biden not supporting gay “marriage,” but I think these objections miss the point of what he was saying. He said that such couples should be afforded every civil and legal benefit that straight couples enjoy, but that marriage is determined by the tenets of the individuals faiths. If a faith recognizes that gay couples can marry, then they can get married. If they do not, then they cannot. He said nothng about depriving gay couples of their right to live together in our society with all of the benefits of straight couples, but rather he said that an institution as inherently religious a marriage should be left up to the religions. I see nothing wrong with this. If organized religion does not want to catch up with the progress of modern society (one of their more less-endearing traits), then that is their problem, but he definitely did espouse the opinion that gay couples should not be discriminated against – in our civil society – for their dispositions to live their lifestyle as they desire to. That, to me, perfectly embodies the progressive viewpoint that the Democratic should be championing in our society. I am not gay myself, but I would think (correct me if I’m wrong) that most gay couples could give a shit about what the organized religions of the world think about their decisions in living their life.
I think Biden’s response faithfully represents both the progressive viewpoint and the disdain for the tenets of religion held by most of our LBGT brothers and sisters of the world. I would think that the last thing they want is the “blessing” of religious organizations that have for so long attempted – and succeeded – in oppressing their agenda.
Gah! Double post!
I fail.
(runs away and hides head in shame)
Sure. Government-sanctioned civil unions and concomitant legal rights for everyone; “marriage” in optional addition for those to whom the term has meaning. That’s how I interpreted Biden’s remarks (possibly because it’s my own view).
At the risk of being called out for feeding the troll…
Yeah, ironic, isn’t it? The very people who rail against government are the ones who expand its powers the most. But expansion (and concommitant incompetence) of the government under W’s administration is perfectly consistent with Frank’s thesis[1]: Because of their philosophical commitment to the notion that government is evil, conservatives want government to fail. And, whether deliberately or merely unconsciously, they manage government in ways that ensure its failure.
Al Franken has a great line: Republicans campaign on the idea that government is incompetent; then they get elected and prove it. That seems glib (Franken did spend most of his life as a professional smartass, after all, before becoming a candidate for Senate), but it has an underlying point that seems, based on my observation of Reagan-era Republican politics, to be true, and that matches well with what Frank’s book argues.
I’m not quite paranoid enough to think every Republican pol or initiative is part of a Machiavellian plot to undermine public institutions… but I’m sure some of them are. In particular, the conservative/Republican approach to education — charter schools, vouchers, homeschooling, NCLB (which punishes public schools but doesn’t effectively regulate or assist them) — strikes me as clearly calculated to bring about the collaps of the public schools, paving the way for total privatization of education.
And, of course, the devil is in the details: Even if the government has grown in terms of dollars and numbers of employees, and even if the power of the government to spy and torture has been expanded, the regulatory functions of government have been systematically descoped or neglected. And that’s how you reconcile the growth of government under conservative rule with Frank’s assertion that conservatives want to destroy government.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:07 PM
You miss the point – also outlined in the Consititution – that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed. For somoeone objecting to something on the grounds of constitutional mandate, you are seemingly lacking in the basic knowledge of how that document works.
Not to mention that this most recent argument has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of your original objection to this issue.
A nitpick (sorry!): It goes “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it,” and it’s P.J. O’Rourke’s line. Hope Al wasn’t trying to take credit for it ;0
So…Palin is a double threat; not only as a successor for McCain, but also as a successor to Cheney. Aieeeee!
“”” [obligatory spreading of blame to Democrats excised] “””
Just go look at the “obligatory votes of the democrats” and you will see that you are nothing but an enabler of a political party that is just as responsible as the Republicans for both growing and screwing up Washington.
The Patriot Act, Fisa, Fannie and Freddie… Voting to give war powers to Bush. Failing to hold Bush accountable for lying in his rush to war… Budgets that increase the debt. Now the bail out package…
And so on and so forth.
Bush and the republican party are easy targets because they really suck, but that does not excuse the party that also sucks, nor its members from sucking…
You can’t defend the record, and the record is clear.
S.G.E.W.:
Nah: I’d rather read your stuff twice than Scott’s even once.
All:
I see I left off the footnote to my previous comment (@589). Here ’tis:
[1] Again, I haven’t read Frank’s book. My characterizations of his thesis are based on interviews and reviews; any errors are my own and not reflective of Frank.
You miss the point – also outlined in the Consititution – that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed.
I think SofO was thinking of this:
but isn’t the bailout about spending revenue, not raising it?
“”You miss the point – also outlined in the Consititution – that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed. For somoeone objecting to something on the grounds of constitutional mandate, you are seemingly lacking in the basic knowledge of how that document works. “”
Spending Bills must originate in the House…
And unless I am mistaken, an 850 Billion dollar bill is a spending bill…
Of which, the US does not possess the money.
So…
“Since I haven’t seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet…”
I saw that. I also took note of Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, N. Korea and all other Central State countries.
– Scott from Oregon
Scott, do you understand the term “false dichotomy”?
Do you understand that there are countries which are neither run according to “free market” nostrums, nor “Central State countries”?
Do you, in fact, understand anything?
My favorite part was the couple of times when Palin actually tried to address points Biden had made. She wound up repeating his own talking points, and when she couldn’t come up with a good argument against them, she just kind of sputtered and shook her head in disbelief. Then she pointed out that McCain is a maverick who’ll fix all the corruption in Washington, don’tcha know. Priceless.
She actually made a huge gaffe calling the commander in Afghanistan McClellan(who fought in the civil war) not McKiernan
S.G.E.W.:
I’ll leave it to scientists and such-like to argue over priority of discovery (and it’s a sufficiently self-evident point that I don’t rule out multiple independent discoveries), but I heard Franken use that line many times over the course of his Air America radio show (which, FWIW, went on the air in early 2004), and I gather he still uses it on the campaign trail. As is usually true with a stock line, the precise formulation varied over time, so any repetition is necessarily a paraphrase.
“but isn’t the bailout about spending revenue, not raising it?”
Good point and I admit to being not entirely accurate. Spending and raising capital are clearly concomitant and intertwined, so the bill should still be originated in the House.
Again, Obama and Biden have the same disregard for the Constitution as Bush, and it shows.
Ok. Say I concede your point, arguendo. I agree that we should hold both party’s feet to the fire (and I probably concur with many of your opinions on F.I.S.A., holding Bush/Cheney accountable*, etc.), but . . . so what?
For instance, I agree with Sen. McCain’s long standing opposition to federal farm subsidies and the ethanol lobby. I am disappointed in Obama’s transparently cynical support of domestic oil drilling and “clean coal.” I am worried that Barack Obama appears to be more religious than John McCain. I wish that we could have a presidential candidate that would be everything I ever wanted. It’s too bad such a candidate: a) has never actually existed, b) could probably never win a primary, and c) would never win a national election. Oh well.
The point that many here (and elsewhere) are making, and you seem to refuse to acknowledge, is that McCain must not assume the office of the President because he (and his coterie of advisors) are a literal threat to the continuance of the Republic. Capice?
You cannot be serious.
You cannot find purity in a politician. Full stop. Compromise with reality. And if you’re one of those people who still thinks that Gore wasn’t any different than Bush . . . well, I cannot reach you. [I’m sure that Bush, if he hadn’t become president, would have won a Nobel peace prize because of his support of scientific awareness. Yup yup.]
Also, Bill Dauphin:
I knw, no fear. I just wanted to make sure that O’Rourke got his props. :)
*But you should see here to be encouraged on this score.
“”Do you understand that there are countries which are neither run according to “free market” nostrums…””
Absolutely. Which is why the argument that the free market was responsible for the current economic crises is so laughable. You can’t blame something that doesn’t actually exist here in America for the systemic problems extant.
But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS, and see the differences in ingenuity, productivity, quality of life etc…
Central Planning loses in the spectrum game.
Spending Bills must originate in the House
This isn’t in the full text online versionhttp://www.usconstitution.net/const.html , although this does say that Revenue Bills must do so. However, we must remember (see earlier threads concerning amendment 16) that SfO has appointed himself a kind of super-Supreme Court, whose word on what the US constitution says and how it is to be interpreted is final.
Scott, if I were you I’d get onto one of the bailout’s HoR opponents pronto, and point out that all they need do is complain that the procedure being followed is unconstitutional.
Scott from Oregon:
The bailout bill did originate in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1424 was passed by the House in March of this year. The Senate vote the other day was on this bill, with amendments. The procedure was entirely consistent with the rules of the Senate and the House, rules that have been accepted as consistent with the Constituion for decades.
SteveM:
Good point! IANACS, but it seems to me that SfO’s understanding of this would mandate that every bill originate in the House, since every bill has some associated cost. I think (and hopefully someone like S.G.E.W. will confirm) that your version is right: It’s tax bills, tarrifs, etc., that must originate in the House, not everything that obligates the government to spend money.
Scott:
Right. So the fact that some members of the minority party (for virtually all of what you referenced, and effectively so even after Jan 2007) voted with the party that holds the executive and a legislative majority, that makes the minority party equally responsible for the majority’s disastrous policies??? I can only imagine the hearty horselaugh it would bring if liberals tried to claim credit for conservative accomplishments based on the same “logic.”
But wait! That would require that there were any conservative accomplishments that liberals would want to take credit for. [litella]Never mind![/litella]
Kiiiiiiill-fiiiiiiile. It’s fun! (Used in moderation, of course).
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Nick, excellent point. I guess Scott from Oregon would rather have the bill loiter in procedural limbo rather than having the other house of our Congress take the initiative in trying to do something about it. Such argumentation lays bare the truth that he – not I – is the one hopelessly slaved to the motivations of party he espouses. (Not forgetting the fact that the reason the House didn’t fulfill its duties was because his party’s caucus was the one that walked out on the bipartisan effort as a result of a speech given by a fellow representative – even considering the fact that their nominee for President suspended his campaign to come back and make sure his colleagues were on board with such a necessary piece of legislation.)
There is something to be said for Palin setting expectations so low that just getting down the track without tripping over the lines marking the places for the hurdles is considered a brilliant performance.
“You cannot find purity in a politician. Full stop. Compromise with reality. And if you’re one of those people who still thinks that Gore wasn’t any different than Bush . . . well, I cannot reach you. [I’m sure that Bush, if he hadn’t become president, would have won a Nobel peace prize because of his support of scientific awareness. Yup yup.]””
Actually, you and I probably hold similar ideals. I come from progressive San Francisco Bay Area political stock. I agree with Gore FAR MORE than I agree with someone like Bush and the right-wing Republican party as it currently stands.
My point is that our system has been gradually taking government out of the hands of “the people” and placing it in a city with impenetrable walls made of money. The system has failed us by its self-destructive abuses from both parties and it shows.
From a liberal and progressive viewpoint, the best solution I can see is to strip this huge and disfunctional structure of all the power it has collected, replace its functions with smaller, more local functioning bodies (state and local governments) and return the federal government to its original purposes. Trade. Army. Protector of Constitutionally granted rights…
Enabling the system by chooosing a side is like picking a side in the Palestinian/Jew problem. It doesn’t solve the problems, it just grants both parties validity for their actions.
You can’t blame something that doesn’t actually exist here in America for the systemic problems extant.
I get it: since no “pure” free market has ever existed, it cannot ever be the case that lack of regulation should be blamed for anything. If any problem ever arises anywhere, it’s because the market is not free enough. That’s what’s called an “armoured dogmatism” Scott.
But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS – SfO
Yes! A glimpse of reality! And you can see that the current financial crisis has originated in one of those with the least regulation of finance, and after a long period of financial deregulation – just as the 1929 crash did. As to quality of life, well I’d much rather live in most west European countries, or Canada, or Australia, than the USA. I note also that the very point of SC’s link was that in order to turn Chile into a “free market” economy, Hayek and Friedman were quite prepared to have large numbers of people tortured and murdered. I guess you’d go along with that, since you had nothing whatever to say to the contrary when you had the opportunity.
“So the fact that some members of the minority party”
SOME?
Oh my.
“Nick, excellent point. I guess Scott from Oregon would rather have the bill loiter in procedural limbo rather than having the other house of our Congress take the initiative in trying to do something about it.”
Do SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT? Do you KNOW what this bill does? In spite of the outcries against it from economist around the nation?
The mind truly boggles…
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
On the surface, I share this worry with you. But once you dig deeper, you can see that while McCain seems to base his policies upon his faith (whether it be pandering to his base or not), Obama has publicly recognized that his faith is personal, just as every Americans’ should be, and he believes that the government should be free of religious influence – down to his belief that federal funding to religious organizations should be closely monitored to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being used for explicitly or implicitly religious activities.
[sigh]
Scott:
But that’s NOT the argument made by the Frank quote you were originally responding to. His argument is not about the free market per se, but about the Republicans’ ideological commitment to their idealized notion of the free market, and how that ideology affects the way they govern.
This debate has never been about Resolved: That the Free Market is Good; it’s always been subtler and more nuanced than that. I’ll try to refrain from any potentially insulting speculation on your capacity for subtlety or nuance.
This is funny and sadly true (my apologies if everyone has already seen it). It’s the “Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart”:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2909496470_d751e8a3dc.jpg
Technically, IIRC, all revenue bills must originate in the house (bicameral separation of powers; the House represents the “Commons,” the Senate the “Lords”; keep the purse-strings held by the more direct representatives, etc.), but this has taken all sorts of shading over the years. The Senate can more or less introduce spending by inserting amendments into existing bills (that had their original provenance in the House), and a plethora of other Congressional inside baseball tricks (which is not my area of expertise – it’s extraordinarily complicated and, frankly, quite boring).
But it’s really, really besides the point. It’s one thing to quibble over proper Congressional procedural techniques (hey, let’s bring it up to th’ SCOTUS, it’ll be a blast – lots of people will write notes and articles about it and Justice Thomas will probably say something really stupid), and another thing to worry about the blatant disregard for the founding principles that Bush, Cheney, McCain, et. al. display.
When we have a functioning, constitutionally fit government, then we should make hay over whether amendments to existing post-committee spending bills on the floor of the Senate should be subject to a procedural motion by the House minority, or whether that can be overruled by a preemptive filibuster. What fun. Until then, it’s all, frankly, a side show IMHO.
Gary: I was weeping out of envy. Though winters here in Toronto are nowhere near as rough as in, say, Edmonton.
SfO: What Nick Gotts said. There is a middle way.
“”I get it: since no “pure” free market has ever existed, it cannot ever be the case that lack of regulation should be blamed for anything.””
No, apparently, you don’t get it. In the case of the US, fraud laws on the books are more than necessary to handle this situation. The failure was in the enforcement of those laws.
The core problem was the Federal Reserve Bank trying to manipulate the markets, not the markets.
Oooh. Looking over my last comment I realize that I use the word “frankly” like Joe Biden uses “literally.”
Sven:
Nah, I’m too nosy to use killfile: I always want to know what everybody’s saying. Besides, there must be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance involved in seeing all the angry, snarky replies without having seen what they’re replying to.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Your reading comprehension needs work. Never did I say I agreed with the tenets of this bill. But all those economists you referenced do agree on the fact that if something is not done to stem the bleeding, our market will suffer, and as a result the global economy will do so as well. Changing the subject is a tactic quite familiar to your side. You can pretend to be an independent all you want, but when all your arguments tend to blast the Democratic stance while also defending the actions of the Republicans, it is painfully obvious that you have, in fact, chosen a side.
From a news article:
“For you Constitutional scholars, by the way, Senator Reid was able to grab ahold of the bill, a ‘revenue raiser’ usually required to leave the starting gate on the House and not the Senate side of the Hill, by a procedural provision that allows the Senate to take an old House bill that never passed, scratch out the text and drop in new language–in this case the bailout bill.”
SfO,
Be more specific. What fraud laws have been broken by whom, and what failures of enforcement have there been? How do you know that if there had been none, the problem would not still have arisen? In what way was the FRB trying to manipulate the markets, and how did this cause the problem?
A large part of the problem seems to be that the banks do not know whether other banks are solvent (hence won’t lend to each other), or even whether they are themselves, because of the complexity of the “financial instruments” they were using, such as mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps. These were not illegal, nor did the FRB force banks to use them.
“. . . a procedural provision that allows the Senate to take an old House bill that never passed, scratch out the text and drop in new language”
It’s a neat trick, if rather underhanded (but nothing compared to the shenanigans the Republicans have pulled over the last 12 years). Could result in some interesting litigation, for people who are interested in that kind of thing.
S.G.E.W.:
I bow to your constitutional expertise, but as a clarification, I’ll note that the definition of “revenue” relates entirely to income, not expenditures… which is the distinction I think SteveM was trying to make.
I agree, though, that it’s a trivial quibble in the context of the argument about the bailout bill… or in the larger conversation about whether conservative commitment to anti-government ideology affects the way Republicans govern.
“You can pretend to be an independent all you want, but when all your arguments tend to blast the Democratic stance while also defending the actions of the Republicans, it is painfully obvious that you have, in fact, chosen a side.”
I indeed have. It is the third leg of the political stool that never gets mentioned anymore. That of personal responsibility, sound money, small Federal Government, more local government and control of local assets and revenue…
The whole idea that we have a government “too big too succeed” fits in nicely with my ideology.
And of course I rail against the Dems. They brought us a war in Iraq, FISA, The Patriot Act, 11 trillion in debt, 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a military spread across the globe, wasting huge amounts of oil and polluting the earth…
Of course, they did have help in this by the Republicans…
SfO,
“””Be more specific. What fraud laws have been broken by whom, and what failures of enforcement have there been? How do you know that if there had been none, the problem would not still have arisen? In what way was the FRB trying to manipulate the markets, and how did this cause the problem?””
This guy is not a great orator like Obama, but he is spot on with his analysis…
There are four additional minutes of his speech on another vid here–
News just in – House backs bailout 263-171.
You can give the credit (or blame) to my dog. I told her before I left this morning that if she got it through, I’d give her a biscuit. She insisted on having the biscuit in advance, but she’s obviously kept her side of the deal.
Nick:
What does your dog think about withdrawal from Iraq, same-sex marriage, and single-payer healthcare. I’m a cat person myself, but we’ll take all the help we can get! ;^)
Bill,
She’s completely mercenary – she’d go with whichever side is offereing more biscuits. Kind of like a member of Congress…
Bill Dauphin:
“I’ll note that the definition of “revenue” relates entirely to income, not expenditures… which is the distinction I think SteveM was trying to make.”
Ah. I think I git it now. As I said, it’s not really my area of knowledge (and you shouldn’t bow to my “expertise” at all . . . I’m jest a po’ ol’ student learnin’ this stuff after all. And there are a lot of really good law blogs out there that should be heeded before any random commenter anyway.).
Scott from Oregon:
“And of course I rail against the Dems. They brought us a war in Iraq, FISA, The Patriot Act, 11 trillion in debt, 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a military spread across the globe, wasting huge amounts of oil and polluting the earth…”
I have to say “Right On” to your sentiment there, Scott. But (for me) the important distinction is that all of these were Republican policies and the Democratic party’s culpability is that they did not stop them. (yes, yes: they caved, they have no spine, they “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,” they’re accessories to the crime, etc. etc.).
Now, with this new election cycle, the vote is about increasing the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and grabbing the Executive so that Republican policies are no longer at the top of the agenda. Dig?
The whole thing about choosing between the “lesser of two evils” (never mind the semantic debate over the use of the word “evil”) is that, if you choose correctly, you wind up with less evil.
Isn’t that a good thing?
(apologies for so much italics. I am emphatic)
Did anyone else notice that if you follow their own lines of reasoning, that both Palin and Biden are unqualified for the office of VP?
Palin says that we need to ‘allow the flexibility’ for the VP to be part of the Legislative branch. Yet the Govenor has no Legislative experience.
Biden says the VP is firmly in the Executive branch. Yet, as a Senator, he does not have that (buzzword) “Executive Experience”.
In this respect, the only thing to recommend Biden over Palin is that Biden is inexperienced but applying for a (comparably!) “entry level” job with minimal powers. Palin is unqualified for a much more powerful job- if we really believe she’ll continue Cheney’s interpertation, they should really call it a Palin/McCain ticket.
“The whole thing about choosing between the “lesser of two evils” (never mind the semantic debate over the use of the word “evil”) is that, if you choose correctly, you wind up with less evil.
Isn’t that a good thing?”
When both ideologies keep growing the government and the amount of money we owe as a nation and refuse to acknowledge dire problems within the system, then you will get what you see shortly.
Look for this “bailout” to be followed by another one, as Spring will bring the next wave of huge foreclosures in housing morgages which will spill over into mass credit card defaults. The derivitives that are being propped up along with all of the other bad paper will go ballistic again. What’s next? Another bailout? Handing over the market to the Federal Reserve? What?
China is going to stop lending us money, the Federal Reserve will keep printing it, and inflation will go hyper.
Go Dems! Weee…..
Becca:
Just needed to point this out: Sarah Palin’s contention that “we need to ‘allow the flexibility’ for the VP to be part of the Legislative branch” is simply incorrect, constitutionally speaking. It’s a preposterous and dangerous position to take (see, e.g., Cheney, Dick). Biden’s response was the consensus position. As far as the “experience” canard goes, well, I’ll leave that one alone.
Scott from Oregon:
I wish to enter no dog into this hunt. The financial market meltdown, in my opinion, is a different matter than questions of constitutional merit (Rep. Paul, et. al., aside – I have absolutely no desire to get into that thicket). I leave with this sentiment: A pox on both houses is a counter-productive prophylactic measure.
She said “nuclear weapons would be the be all and end all for a lot of people in a lot of parts of the world”…
(clearly pronounced new-queue-ler in this case)
“Be all and end all” – supreme aim?
Maybe she misspoke…
Exactly, thanks, Bill. The rationale for that clause would seem to be that since “raising revenue” is essentially a euphemism for “raise taxes”, that it has to come from the branch that most closely and directly represents the people who will be taxed; ie the HoR. Once the government has the funds, how it is to be spent can be proposed by either house.
But, yes this is a trivial tangent off of the main arguments about whatever the hell this thread is discussing.
“Once the government has the funds, how it is to be spent can be proposed by either house.”
So when Biden and Obama, both Constitutional scholars (cough cough) vote to spend 850 billion dollars WE DON’T HAVE, one wonders where their authority comes from?
They are voting to inflate, which TAXES every individual who works for or saves US dollars.
SfO: But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS, and see the differences in ingenuity, productivity, quality of life etc…
Well, pony-up then boy. Give us your list, and compare results. Then we can argue empirically rather than just spouting ideology. Which states do you call “more free-market” and which “less”. And please exclude the command-economies – we all know that Lenninism failed miserably beyond building a basic industrial base.
Becca:
IMHO, he’s perfectly correct about that, all contrary opinions of Darth Cheney notwithstanding.
The idea that “executive experience” is a prerequisite to be president (and fitness to be president is the primary criterion for fitness to be vice president) is one that I emphatically dispute. We’ve had great (Lincoln), arguably great (JFK), and highly-capable-even-if-you-hated-his-policies (LBJ) presidents whose prior experience had been exclusively legislative, and arguably the worst president in our history (certainly the worst in my lifetime) was both a governor and a corporate CEO. What matters, IMHO, is capability to do the job rather than having done the job, and I have no doubt that Obama has greater personal capability to perform the duties of the POTUS than McCain or Palin. That’s based on 2 years (or 4, if you go all the way back to his 2004 convention speech) of observing him, listening to him speak in both formal and informal settings, reading his books and policy positions. He gives every evidence of being thoughtful and humane, and of being an intelligent, logical, evidence-based decision maker.
Of course, I can’t prove any of that… but then, nobody can prove anything similar about McCain or Palin, either. The proof, when it comes, will be after the fact. But I feel very confident placing my bet on Obama.
I have to dissent with everyone on the “nuke-yuler” issue. From my brief study of linguistics, I have come to critically examine my own preconceptions and ideologies about language, and I have realized that the imposition of a “standard” dialect with a “standard” pronunciation is arbitrary, and inherently favors those who just happened to grow up speaking a dialect similar to the arbitrary standard. One dialect is no more “correct” than any other. This sense of correct pronunciation is simply an artificial standard that we make up. This nuclear-nucular issue is probably just a normal example of language shift, just like “aks” changed into “ask” a few hundred years ago. The “aks” speakers were probably making just as much fun of the “ask” speakers as all of you are making fun of “nucular.”
My note on the VP debate:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/vp-debate.html
A lot of Republican spin doctors out there were calling the debate a win for Palin. But I think Matt Taibbi has their number.
To this…
…I meant to add that Poppy Bush had one of the most glittering political resumes possible when he ran as Reagan’s running mate: Congressman, UN Ambassador, national party chairman, envoy (ambassador-level) to China, Director of CIA, and various positions in business and (briefly) academia. Yet (and despite how much better he looks than his own son) history will remember him as a mediocre president at best, and possibly as an outright failure. “Experience” really isn’t a very good predictor of presidential success.
Arthur: This nuclear-nucular issue is probably just a normal example of language shift, just like “aks” changed into “ask” a few hundred years ago.
And what would we say if a presidential contender continually said “aks” for “ask”? These aren’t purely dialectical issues — they are also register issues. The language for presidential contenders is high-register, so someone who continually speaks in the wrong register is either incompetent, or intentionally using a low-register.
The latter case implies condescencion to the audience — a fake folksiness intended to imply a common position against the very elite you belong to. It’s tricksy and lying.
I wouldn’t trust her to run a department store.
I don’t know about that debate thing, but SNLs latest cold open was awfully long and dull. It looked like Tiny Fey couldn’t remember her lines, but Jim Belushi did a really good Jimmy Stewart.
(Way back upthread, sorry) Dark Matter said at #551
I’m sure everybody would oppose forcing churches to give marriage rites to anybody that they don’t want to, but how is this idea of “force” relevant to the government legislating that the state recognises marriages between same-sex couples?
The local rector of the Anglican parish for many years refused to marry any couple unless the bride vowed to obey her husband (which is why there were only three weddings in that church in the last twelve years). Nobody was able to force him to marry anyone against his own conscience just because the state recognises marriages where women don’t vow to obey. Why would it be any different if the state recognised same-sex marriages?
tigtog @#646:
You’re perfectly right, of course. But whether or not the government can force pastors to marry people against their will isn’t really the relevant issue.
The relevant issue is that the pastors _are_ able to force the government to _not_ allow people to “marry” in any sense of the word.
What Biden’s approach would do, _if_ it worked (I give it no better than 50% odds, though), would be to marginalise the pastors, as people come to accept that maybe you don’t need a church wedding.
Scott from Oregon@627,
First, thanks for the links, which I’ve now watched. Bunning does indeed point to unenforced regulations. Howver, this does not make a case that there was no failure of the market: it shows that the government failed to intervene to prevent such a failure. The claim that the CRA was an important factor has already been discussed here, and shown to be false: the banks were not coerced into lending, and most of the bad debt is not to poor people. On the manipulation of interest rates, I think Bunning is probably right; this, like the failure to enforce regulation, stemmed from trying to fight two expensive wars while cutting taxes for the rich, and at least not raising tax rates in general. However, booms and slumps, bubbles and crashes, have existed as long as capitalism has, with or without central banks with the power to set interest rates. Detailed explanations vary between economists, but it seems to be a natural feature of a system in which many interacting agents make investments decisions with a view to maximising profit, and there are built-in time-delays. The “hog cycle” is often used as a simple, small-scale example. If the price of pork is high, farmers will increase the number of pigs they keep, but since many will do so at the same time, the result is that in a year or two there is over-supply, the price falls, and many of the same farmers stop raising pigs, or reduce the number they keep, leading in time to a price fall, and a new cycle. The same thing tends to happen on longer timescales with housing starts and industrial investment.
As Bunning himself said, an economy “will have its ups and downs”. What the proponents of non-intervention miss is that these are likely to be just as large or larger in an unregulated as in a regulated economy. The Austrian school claim that manipulation of the money supply is responsible for such cycles, rather than merely affecting their timing, but this simply ignores the fundamental mechanism involving multiple agents and time delays.
“most of the bad debt is not to poor people”@648
“to” should of course be “owed by”
“The claim that the CRA was an important factor has already been discussed here, and shown to be false: the banks were not coerced into lending, and most of the bad debt is not to poor people.”
Not shown to be false at all. What the CRA did was create a culture within lending. You start fudging the books… nothing bad happens… you start fudging them more… Eventually, others start doing the same. “Everybody is doing it” becomes the thought behind the action, which is fraud. To say it was a part of this is in no way racist, as has been claimed here and there. The point was that fannie and freddie, both government creations, were asked to be fraudulent to make social remedies. It spilled over into the entire loan business.
My brother and I actually commited fraud on our last loan application, and the mortgage lender pushed us into it. Meaning she commited fraud twice, by asking us to lie, and then lying to the lender she had lined up. That was at the bottom of all this, and my clue to sell and buy silver…
No. The majority of the money is probably in the higher middle class loans where houses were used as cash cows. People bought 400,000 dollar homes they could afford, and then went on a borrowing spree off their houses. Everytime their house value went up 50 grand, they pulled out 30 and spent it. I used to wonder where all the new SUV’s were coming from all of a sudden, and then I realized what was happening. California, Nevada and Florida I suspect have substantial losses, as immigration to these markets adding new buyers to the mixes spurred the rising prices even more.
“What the proponents of non-intervention miss is that these are likely to be just as large or larger in an unregulated as in a regulated economy. The Austrian school claim that manipulation of the money supply is responsible for such cycles,”
From what I gather, the “corrections” of the market that are artificially postponed by manipulation would be smaller and shorter, as in your pig example. What if government stepped in and gave farmers subsidies to farm pigs?
Interesting times we live in…
So I guess that’s a “Yes, please!” to Pinochet-Friedman-Hayek. Quite a model of free-market democracy there. Can’t imagine why all of those millions of people in Latin America would be rejecting it.
SfO’s comments get more sickening by the day.
Scott has quite a good imagination, when he puts his, ummmmmm, mind to it.
Look for this “bailout” to be followed by another one, as Spring will bring the next wave of huge foreclosures in housing morgages which will spill over into mass credit card defaults. The derivitives that are being propped up along with all of the other bad paper will go ballistic again. What’s next? Another bailout? Handing over the market to the Federal Reserve? What?
I think you should follow up on your panic, Scott.
Sell everything you own, including the dog, and move to an isolated tropical island somewhere. I hear there are thousands of them in the French Polynesian chain.
It’s the only way you’ll be safe!
there’s no time left to lose.
go man, go!
“Sell everything you own, including the dog, and move to an isolated tropical island somewhere. I hear there are thousands of them in the French Polynesian chain.”
Nahh. No need. We own this place outright and have socked away some change. Part of the benefit of seeing what was happening, and taking advantage of it.
Although I do enjoy a nice quiet tropical island every now and then.
“So I guess that’s a “Yes, please!” to Pinochet-Friedman-Hayek. Quite a model of free-market democracy there. Can’t imagine why all of those millions of people in Latin America would be rejecting it.”
One way to appear stupid and a bit crazy is to make assumptions and then argue with the assumption. I can’t imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything. Economic models are always accompanied by cultural intrusions, and while I really like the cultural aspects of female Brazilian mud wrestlers…
What the CRA did was create a culture within lending. – SfO
That’s pure assertion. Do you have any evidence the CRA was responsible?
From what I gather, the “corrections” of the market that are artificially postponed by manipulation would be smaller and shorter, as in your pig example. What if government stepped in and gave farmers subsidies to farm pigs? – SfO
What you gather from where? Do you just mean “Someone has told me”? There were large booms and slumps in the early nineteenth century, when there was much less government intervention than now. As to the subsidies, it would depend on what subsidies were given. Guaranteed prices made EU farming pretty stable for many years, reducing tendencies for farmers all to switch out of particular products at once when their market price fell. There are other reasons to oppose such subsidies, but instability is certainly not one.
One way to appear stupid and a bit crazy is to make assumptions and then argue with the assumption. I can’t imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything. – SfO
It was in relation to South America (specifically Chile) that you said “no” to Cuba, North Korea etc. Implicitly, you were indeed saying “yes” to Chile, as the “free-market” heroes Friedman and Hayek did. If you weren’t, you should have made that clear.
We own this place outright – SfO
Well, if the government collapses, there just might be some native Americans who’d have something to say about how the land you “own outright” was stolen from their ancestors, and they’d like it back. In Oregon, that wouldn’t even be that long ago, would it? Second half of the nineteenth century?
What Nick Gotts said. Yours was an evasive rhetorical move that deceived no one. You have not responded to the content of the article, which was about the involvement of Friedman and Hayek with Pinochet’s policies and how they viewed his dictatorship in terms of the relationship between “free markets” and human freedom and democracy. Again, I encourage everyone to read it and to draw your own conclusions.
I should have known! In Sfo’s view the problem was that those damned Latinos can’t do anything right! Forget that the article dealt primarily with the policies developed and championed by Friedman and Hayek and their unstinting support for Pinochet (apparently this mutual understanding overcame cultural boundaries). It takes a special kind of racist and intellectually-dishonest ideological zealot to attempt this sort of subterfuge.
It takes a special kind of racist and intellectually-dishonest ideological zealot to attempt this sort of subterfuge.
…or just a moron trying to play at being an intellectual because he’s lonely.
“…or just a moron trying to play at being an intellectual because he’s lonely.”
The irony here is nearly deafening.
“In Sfo’s view the problem was that those damned Latinos can’t do anything right! Forget that the article dealt primarily with the policies developed and championed by Friedman and Hayek and their unstinting support for Pinochet ”
Whatever their support for Pinochet has nothing to do with the viability of the model. Cultural influences (like killing for political reasons) has a lot to do with what happened in Chile as well as many other S American countries. The same “kill to make a point” is nothing new and is what keeps the ME full of bloodbaths. I’m not interested in having a Chile Pinochet argument with anybody.
“Well, if the government collapses, there just might be some native Americans who’d have something to say about how the land you “own outright” was stolen from their ancestors, and they’d like it back.”
I’m an eighth Choctaw. Ya think they’ll give me free stuff? Go have your “stole the land” argument with Europeans who came to the Americas. We Americans aren’t much interested in rehashing two hundred year old wars with ourselves.
“I should have known! In Sfo’s view the problem was that those damned Latinos can’t do anything right!”
Once again, arguing with yourself is a sign of mental deficiency.
I can’t imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything.
Oh, really? Apparently, SfO has only seen the article in question, not read it. Some highlights:
I’ll add this to the list of ignorant sociocultural pronouncements made by SfO. I’m often amazed at how closely the market fundamentalists resemble Communists in their self-delusion, excuses, evasions, and rationalizations.
Color me unsurprised.
I’m an eighth Choctaw. SfO
Since the Choctaws live in Mississippi and Oklahoma, I’m not sure that’s particularly relevant to land theft in Oregon. And the other 7/8? None of them descendants of “Europeans who came to the Americas” and stole the land? You do know that native Americans still have the lowest average income and life expectancy of any group in the US?
The irony here is nearly deafening.
apparently you meant projection, and you were speaking of your common employment of same.
happy to put up my education against yours any day, though that would be childish, right?
can’t figure out why you stick around here, frankly.
“You do know that native Americans still have the lowest average income and life expectancy of any group in the US?”
And? Some group has to be last. Which group is first? Do you even know?
“I’m often amazed at how closely the market fundamentalists resemble Communists in their self-delusion, excuses, evasions, and rationalizations.”
Awesome argument. “He won’t argue with me about the evil Pinochet making me a far superior being”…
Wow.
before I continue to ignore Scott’s inane ramblings again, I just want to at least thank him for his severely reduced usage of “ummmmmmmmm”
It was like fingernails on a blackboard.
OTOH, it was indicative of his level of discourse.
*plonk*
“can’t figure out why you stick around here, frankly.”
Like I said, being a big fella I don’t usually get to be abused verbally. I find it amusing.
Besides, like I said, there are those who may peruse by whose minds aren’t scrambled by group think. I’m interested in changing the way Americans see their own governance. The fact that you’re from Oz and Nick is from the UK and SC just likes to make up shit and argue with it, is just a bizarre and amusing aside.
SfO was already riding a rusty old tricycle on a rocky path running not exactly parallel to reason’s highway, but now he’s veered off into a gully beside that…and broken his leg.
I remember SfO mentioning this before. I found it very interesting. I think the translation is: I’m physically intimidating and thus people haven’t challenged me on my ignorance and the flaws in my thinking. I therefore have never had to learn to construct my arguments logically or convincingly or to support them with evidence.
You, however, ceased to be a source of amusement long ago.
Scott from Oregon @ 658:
Maybe your 1/8 Choctaw isn’t interested, but I went to college in Tahlequah, OK. As of the late ’70-early’80s, there were a lot of Cherokees who were intensely interested in rehashing, and reclaiming. I also met a few Choctaws there who also took a dim view of history as-it-played-out, and would have loved the chance to play catch-up. I suspect there are some among the younger generation who would agree with them.
OT!
With god as my witness (Loki – my cat), I wish I’d come across this site a LONG time ago. I stumbled across http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/03/astrology-in-retrograde/ and found a link to this site. I’m still rebuilding because my DFI motherboard died (have a new MSA board, overclocked a new AMD 5600 AM2 Dual) and I don’t have time to check out what’s going on here now. I’ll be back after all’s installed and screaming. I’d really like to go with Linux now. My Win 2K Pro won’t completely support a dual (or quad) processor. I can get XP Pro here that should, but drivers can be a problem. Vista is totally absolute bloatware crap that has been forced down people’s throats by a monopoly in order to force everyone to buy the newest, fastest hardware. Even then, it’s pure junk.
Talk to ya soon.
“Maybe your 1/8 Choctaw isn’t interested, but I went to college in Tahlequah, OK. As of the late ’70-early’80s, there were a lot of Cherokees who were intensely interested in rehashing, and reclaiming…”
I’m sure there are many who want to live in the past. A good friend of mine was involved with the jump up and down on Alcatraz in 69. He’s now the owner of a succesful woodstove store.
Does he want to go back and live like his ancestors? What? And take away his football on plasma TV?
Sorry to parachute back into the thread, but I just wanted to note that today I purchased the Thomas Frank book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, from which I quoted way up-thread. So far I’ve only read the introduction and part of Chapter 1, but already I feel confident in doubling down on my earlier recommendation. Of course, conservatives are probably going to consider him just another liberal hack, but the book is well documented (~75 pp of notes, plus an extensive index), and what I’ve read so far is lucid and well argued. Plus, it’s a very entertaining read. I never read Frank’s celebrated What’s the Matter With Kansas, but maybe now I’ll go back and pick it up.
Scott from Oregon @ 669:
I’m sure going back to the “good old days” of no modern medicine, plumbing or refrigeration, to say nothing of the plasma TV, would not be ‘his’ first choice; but we were talking about “if the government collapses”. If that happens, ‘he’ would probably lose interest in whether his suddenly unpowered TV could pick up the no longer relevant and probably un-played football game.