Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
Grrr, even as a Republican I get annoyed with the whole creation/evolution argument. They aren’t even the same argument. Creationism deals with intent (Were we created intentionally, or were we a random accident). Evolution deals with process (how we got from A to B to C). They aren’t even mutually exclusive propositions. The BIg Bang sounds an awful lot like “Let there be light!”
I like Bill’s take on it above – let Creationism be discussed in schools with Evolution. Teach children how they are different. Let them see the difference between a scientific theory which gives our best estimate of process, and contrasting beliefs of whether we were put here for a reason by a higher power, or just a place where chaos theory happened to get something done.
Micha: That’s a whole other hornet nest that hasn’t been touched in your country, mostly because its less relevant.
Actually, what I was referring to isn’t much of a hornet’s nest in our country. I’ve been told by teachers that it is allowable to talk about the Bible in a historical context. I don’t know if this is something that varies state to state, but at least in the places I’ve talked about it there doesn’t seem to be much controversy. This isn’t to say that they teach the passages as literal fact, but they can talk about historical events and how they related to the Bible.
A bit off topic, but since this is really the only active thread going on…
Great interview on Newsarama’s The Stack, PAD.
Mark L, the big problem I have with that idea is that it wouldn’t end there. I think the Intelligent Design people just want a toehold. Once it starts being discussed in class, they’ll ask for more and more time.
You only need two minutes to discuss an unscientific theory. I can’t imagine any Creationists who wants it talked about in school being satisfied by that.
Give her a couple of weeks. Seriously, she is new to the national scene, and I’m sure she is spending a lot of time with briefing books so she doesn’t get hit with the “What do you think about what the President of Zimbabwe said last week?” question that she would be guaranteed to bomb on right now.
I think way too much is made of a VP candidate’s lack of experience going in. McCain isn’t going to keel over the day after taking the oath. Palin appears to be capable, though, and I think with some time under her belt in Washington, she should be able to take over in the event of something unfortunate. McCain’s no dummy, either – as a rising star in the party, she’ll get her feet wet on policy very quickly.
I’m not prepared to call her Quayle 2, yet.
(On a side note regarding Quayle, I’m still amazed how much the potato story still get thrown out there. He was given an alternate spelling that the kids were using in class, so he held them to it. To this day, though, I still see reports about his lack of spelling ability. Perception can last a long time.)
Mark L. I think way too much is made of a VP candidate’s lack of experience going in. McCain isn’t going to keel over the day after taking the oath.
Three words:
William. Henry. Harrison.
If she isn’t ready to take over on day one, then she doesn’t deserve the job. There’s no way to over analyse this. The fact that she needs a few weeks to cram before she can talk to anyone is a bad thing.
Grrr, even as a Republican I get annoyed with the whole creation/evolution argument. They aren’t even the same argument. Creationism deals with intent (Were we created intentionally, or were we a random accident). Evolution deals with process (how we got from A to B to C). They aren’t even mutually exclusive propositions. The BIg Bang sounds an awful lot like “Let there be light!”
No, you’re describing theistic evolution. God makes man through evolution, that sort of thing. That would be the Catholic position, I think.
Most creationists are actually determined to show that Darwinian evolution is impossible. In fact, they really hate the theistic evolutionists as much as they hate the strict Darwinians.
Bill, I was making two separate comments. She is creationist and she is a Born Again Christian. Both of these things are how she has described herself in interviews, so you’ll have to ask her what precise definition of the terms she’s going by
I guess I must have missed where she has called herself a creationist. Are there sources? Obviously, I’m interested in the topic so I’d like to know for sure.
I think that what a lot of the people who support Palin are liking is that she has weathered a pretty ugly series of attacks. People can try to backtrack now but you can still go to the Vanity Faire site and read a “funny” timeline speculating on who Trig’s real mom is. You can go to the Huffington Post where they have photo pages of each of her kids and read some of the most vile comments ever. There has hardly been an anti-woman cliche taht hasn’t been used on her yet- bad mother, šlûŧ, ditsy beauty queen, vengeful harpy, puppet, bìŧçh…if they could figure out a way to make a mother of 5 a frigid lesbian ball breaker they would. And it hasn’t worked.
Hey! Did you hear the latest? Her husband’s ex-business partner (who, enemies tell the Enquirer, had an affair with Sarah Palin) just tried to get his divorce papers sealed!!! It’s all over the blogs.
(But if they went to the Smoking Gun they’d be able to read the actual divorce papers and see…there’s nothing there. they guy didn’t want people showing up at his cabin so he wanted the information on the papers left out. Another dead end…but the smear still got out there.)
And you can go on the Obama webpage and read at least one stupid Community Blog that gives a list of the books that Palin tried to ban in 1996. It includes books not published until years later, which shows you just how dangerous this woman can be!
There was a time when, as Bill Myers mentioned, this kind of constant thinmg would result in the death of a million cuts but the internet is now just as good at debunking as it is at…um, bunking.
Everyone should be pìššëd at this–Republicans for the smears, Democrats for the way it’s helping the Republicans and the rest of us for just the general sliminess of the whole thing.
Bill, I don’t think they like her because she’s weathered ugly attacks. The positive reaction to her happened the moment she was introduced, before they heard a word about the attacks. The RNC raised $7 million dollars in the day after she was announced as VP nominee. It was love at first site.
If they loved people for weathering vicious attacks, they’d love Obama.
Bill, I can’t find anything right now showing directly that Sarah Palin is a creationist. I thought I’d read that, but I may have spoken to soon about that being a verifiable fact. However, she is a deeply religious woman (that is proven), who has many views that go directly with this (her views on abortion are as pro-life as they come, which I can provide a quote from her backing up), and she has made religion a political point in the past, as she did when she ran for Mayor of Wasilla. So it is very probable that she believes in the thing that she says she wants taught in classrooms.
What I can provide evidence of is that when she said “debate,” she didn’t just mean a debate.
Sarah Palin: Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information…. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher.
Source: Boston Globe, “A valentine to evangelical base”, p. A12 Aug 30, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm
She wants it taught in schools alongside actual science. Not a comparison of a good theory to a bad one, but as a competing theory.
So I retract what I said about her being Creationist. You were right about me jumping the gun on that. The main point, the real point, is what she says as a politician. She wants something that isn’t science taught in a science class, I think that’s a strike against her.
Well, you know, I was going to mention that and forgot–I think one of the reason a lot of us DO like Obama is that he HAS weathered attacks and done so with class and dignity.
It’s a funny year. I actually like all 4 of the candidates, for different reasons.
I think that what a lot of the people who support Palin are liking is that she has weathered a pretty ugly series of attacks.
Really. Has she been blamed for the actions of a paroled convict? Been subjected to relentless attacks on her war record? Had right wing pundits claim her daughter was ugly? (The same right wing pundits who now defend her daughters, mind you.) Had her words distorted, mischaracterized, and transformed into something she never said, and have that attacked instead? Been accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
I just find it interesting that Democratic candidates are subjected to a relentless barrage of crap, and that’s somehow justified because…well, because it wins elections. But look sideways at a wholly unqualified woman and conservatives cry foul, even though–were she the Democratic VP candidate–she would be ripped to shreds by the very same GOP pundits who now feel any criticism of her is out of line.
PAD
“Give her a couple of weeks.”
Nope. I wouldn’t give her the time of day.
Her 15 minutes are definitely all used up.
Mark L.: Give her a couple of weeks.
You know what I find really funny about this? The two weeks that she needs are going to be spent being tutored by Bush advisers. She’s not going to be spending time debating bills, talking to world leaders, and learning this stuff on her own. She’s going to form her opinions by cramming information fed to her by Bush people.
How is that an improvement? If she can’t do interviews now, telling me that she will be able to do them after she learns what the Bush advisers tell her isn’t reassuring.
me- I think that what a lot of the people who support Palin are liking is that she has weathered a pretty ugly series of attacks.
Really. Has she been blamed for the actions of a paroled convict? Been subjected to relentless attacks on her war record? Had right wing pundits claim her daughter was ugly? (The same right wing pundits who now defend her daughters, mind you.) Had her words distorted, mischaracterized, and transformed into something she never said, and have that attacked instead? Been accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
Noooooo…I think you are arguing with someone else here. Where have I said Democrats have never been attacked?
If you are saying that the attacks on Palin have not been ugly, I respectfully disagree. Not all the attacks have been as grotesque as the far left wing nuts who did the whole debate on whether she gave birth to her own kid (which is just the tip of the creepiness that one could find–dig a little deeper into the sewer and it gets worse, with her son and husband being either gay, having an incestuous relationship with her daughter, or both.)
I have not said and do not believe that such attacks are typical of the left or Democrats. Nevertheless they are out there, people hear about them and I think it has given Plain a boost. Now you even have some in the media, like Sally Quinn, apologizing for their initial remarks about her.
It could all turn around tomorrow, maybe it’ll turn out that she had a love child with john Edwards, maybe the republican base will suddenly decide to be as narrowminded about her as some people expect and want them to be. Or maybe the Obama campaign will wake up and get back to the real fight which is not Obama vs Palin.
I just find it interesting that Democratic candidates are subjected to a relentless barrage of crap, and that’s somehow justified because…well, because it wins elections. But look sideways at a wholly unqualified woman and conservatives cry foul, even though–were she the Democratic VP candidate–she would be ripped to shreds by the very same GOP pundits who now feel any criticism of her is out of line.
If I’m wrong that Palin’s response to the negative reports about her are what is largely behind her success so far, what do you attribute it to?
Obviously, I meant to have all of PADs words italicized in the above post.
“And you can go on the Obama webpage and read at least one stupid Community Blog that gives a list of the books that Palin tried to ban in 1996. It includes books not published until years later, which shows you just how dangerous this woman can be!”
People who truly knew Palin from her Wasilla have reported her attempted book banning. Some over-enthusiastic goofball then simply got a list of the more complained-about books and said it was Palin’s hit list.
That there are goofballs in all sides of the political spectrum don’t make Palin’s censorship tendencies any less worrying.
“And you can go on the Obama webpage and read at least one stupid Community Blog that gives a list of the books that Palin tried to ban in 1996. It includes books not published until years later, which shows you just how dangerous this woman can be!”
People who truly knew Palin from her Wasilla days have reported her attempted book banning. Some over-enthusiastic goofball then simply got a list of the more complained-about books and said it was Palin’s hit list.
That there are goofballs in all sides of the political spectrum don’t make Palin’s censorship tendencies any less worrying.
Bill Mulligan: If I’m wrong that Palin’s response to the negative reports about her are what is largely behind her success so far, what do you attribute it to?
I don’t even understand why you believe that in the first place. The Republicans loved her before the rumors even started spreading. They *instantly* latched onto her the first time she said “hockey mom.” There’s no chance that her response to the negative reports was responsible for her success because the response came after the success.
They love her because she’s pro-choice, a subject that was actually made *more* extreme in the official party platform this year. They love her because she presents herself as the anti-Obama: a young, charismatic politician who can give a rousing speech and talks about reform, but on their side. They love her because she’s pro-drilling, which has been framed as the answer to both the energy crisis and the economy problems. Mostly, they love her because she’s such a wild card that she actually gives them a chance at winning the election.
Posted by Peter David at September 6, 2008 01:14 PM
Really. Has she been blamed for the actions of a paroled convict? Been subjected to relentless attacks on her war record? Had right wing pundits claim her daughter was ugly? (The same right wing pundits who now defend her daughters, mind you.) Had her words distorted, mischaracterized, and transformed into something she never said, and have that attacked instead? Been accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
Give it time, It’s only been a week
I totally get why the Republicans loved her at the convention, which is why I found the stories that there was any consideration tot taking her off the ticket so implausible. What I’m wondering now is why she seems to be the most popular of all 4 candidates, if one believes the recent polls (a huge caveat). I know why Republicans like her. That doesn’t get you to a 58% approval. (McCain and Obama were tied at 57% and poor Joe Biden gets no love at all at 48%.
All subject to change, of course, but indicative of more than just love from the base.
You could chalk up a lot of it to just her being new, which would be an interesting thing in and of itself; it might be that with the internet and saturation advertising, with campaign warchests that are now in the hundreds of millions of dollars, we are just getting fatigued by the candidates long before the election. So a new face, any new face, seems refreshing.
The recent polls that I’ve seen show that the response to Palin is split almost completely across party lines. They show party affiliation being a much bigger factor than anything else, including gender.
So she’s popular with Republicans, but that’s about it. They see her as their savior (in this race).
I dunno, maybe I just don’t spend enough time paddling around in the sewer, but the only times I ever hear the ugly rumors about Palin (that is, the ones that aren’t verifiable, like the one about the parentage of her youngest daughter, not the verifiable tales of her behavior in office as mayor of Wasilla or governor of Alaska), it’s when they’re being denied by her supporters. That is to say, I never hear the purported original attacks – only the denials.
It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether the attacks were made in the first place, or are part of a clever campaign to swamp legitimate concerns in a flood of invented effluvia…
Beautiful young woman, who is a tough gal, and also ultra-conservative? You kidding? It’s a no-brainer why she is so popular. Republicans gotta love her, and also not a small number of women who aren’t that Conservative, but are thrilled by her other qualities.
So she’s popular with Republicans, but that’s about it. They see her as their savior (in this race).
If the Republican make up 58% of those polled the Democrats are in trouble. Yes, she is of course more popular with Republicans than she is with Democrats.
I dunno, maybe I just don’t spend enough time paddling around in the sewer, but the only times I ever hear the ugly rumors about Palin (that is, the ones that aren’t verifiable, like the one about the parentage of her youngest daughter, not the verifiable tales of her behavior in office as mayor of Wasilla or governor of Alaska), it’s when they’re being denied by her supporters. That is to say, I never hear the purported original attacks – only the denials.
It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether the attacks were made in the first place, or are part of a clever campaign to swamp legitimate concerns in a flood of invented effluvia…
I think you’ve been fortunate or smart enough to avoid the sewer but if you have any doubts of its stink I can give you a few pointers.
Mild but stupid–//blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-campaign.html–an Obama campaign official goes after Palin on her parenting skills. Note that Obama’s offical spokesman disavowed these statements and the guy later apologized for him.
(Incidentally, any of those arguing that a mother of young children should not seek higher office will be gladdened to know that Dr Laura wholeheartedly agrees. You are welcome to have her.)
If this was a plot by Republicans to fake a scandal they sure did sucker Newsweek, which wrote an article about how it spread- //www.newsweek.com/id/156602
You can wade into the muck at daily Kos and read the real sleaze here: //www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267
The diary that started it all got deleted but you can see the google cache at //74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:aO25yHqqcKkJ:arcxix.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223+
vanity fair has a timeline of the official story vs the one where Bristol Palin is the kids actual mom. Lots of laffs. //www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/the-authoritative-trig-palin-conspiracy-time-line.html#entry-more
bill Maher actually argued with a guest on his show on his show that Palin might not be the mom. //newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/06/maher-buys-claim-sarah-palins-son-really-her-grandson
That should get you started. Then go take a shower, you’ll probably feel like you need one.
So she’s popular with Republicans, but that’s about it. They see her as their savior (in this race).
If the Republican make up 58% of those polled the Democrats are in trouble. Yes, she is of course more popular with Republicans than she is with Democrats.
I dunno, maybe I just don’t spend enough time paddling around in the sewer, but the only times I ever hear the ugly rumors about Palin (that is, the ones that aren’t verifiable, like the one about the parentage of her youngest daughter, not the verifiable tales of her behavior in office as mayor of Wasilla or governor of Alaska), it’s when they’re being denied by her supporters. That is to say, I never hear the purported original attacks – only the denials.
It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether the attacks were made in the first place, or are part of a clever campaign to swamp legitimate concerns in a flood of invented effluvia…
I think you’ve been fortunate or smart enough to avoid the sewer but if you have any doubts of its stink I can give you a few pointers.
Mild but stupid–//blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-campaign.html–an Obama campaign official goes after Palin on her parenting skills. Note that Obama’s offical spokesman disavowed these statements and the guy later apologized for him.
(Incidentally, any of those arguing that a mother of young children should not seek higher office will be gladdened to know that Dr Laura wholeheartedly agrees. You are welcome to have her.)
If this was a plot by Republicans to fake a scandal they sure did sucker Newsweek, which wrote an article about how it spread- //**w.newsweek.com/id/156602
You can wade into the muck at daily Kos and read the real sleaze here: //w**.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267
The diary that started it all got deleted but you can see the google cache at //74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:aO25yHqqcKkJ:arcxix.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223+
vanity fair has a timeline of the official story vs the one where Bristol Palin is the kids actual mom. Lots of laffs. //**w.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/the-authoritative-trig-palin-conspiracy-time-line.html#entry-more
bill Maher actually argued with a guest on his show on his show that Palin might not be the mom. //newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/06/maher-buys-claim-sarah-palins-son-really-her-grandson
That should get you started. Then go take a shower, you’ll probably feel like you need one.
So she’s popular with Republicans, but that’s about it. They see her as their savior (in this race).
If the Republican make up 58% of those polled the Democrats are in trouble. Yes, she is of course more popular with Republicans than she is with Democrats.
I dunno, maybe I just don’t spend enough time paddling around in the sewer, but the only times I ever hear the ugly rumors about Palin (that is, the ones that aren’t verifiable, like the one about the parentage of her youngest daughter, not the verifiable tales of her behavior in office as mayor of Wasilla or governor of Alaska), it’s when they’re being denied by her supporters. That is to say, I never hear the purported original attacks – only the denials.
It’s almost enough to make one wonder whether the attacks were made in the first place, or are part of a clever campaign to swamp legitimate concerns in a flood of invented effluvia…
I think you’ve been fortunate or smart enough to avoid the sewer but if you have any doubts of its stink I can give you a few pointers.
(UPDATE- can’t get the filter to accept this post, probably thinks all the links are spam. If you want to see them give me an email at kaiju@aol.com and I’ll send you the full links)
Mild but stupid–at abcnews politicalpunch –an Obama campaign official goes after Palin on her parenting skills. Note that Obama’s offical spokesman disavowed these statements and the guy later apologized for him.
(Incidentally, any of those arguing that a mother of young children should not seek higher office will be gladdened to know that Dr Laura wholeheartedly agrees. You are welcome to have her.)
If this was a plot by Republicans to fake a scandal they sure did sucker Newsweek, which wrote an article about how it spread- (article id 156602)
You can wade into the muck at daily Kos and read the real sleaze here: it’s story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267
The diary that started it all got deleted but you can see the google cache- lokk for someone named arcxix
vanity fair has a timeline of the official story vs the one where Bristol Palin is the kids actual mom. Lots of laffs. It’s called the-authoritative-trig-palin-conspiracy-time-line.
bill Maher actually argued with a guest on his show on his show that Palin might not be the mom.
That should get you started. Then go take a shower, you’ll probably feel like you need one.
Well, she’s one of those new-styled spend and spend Republicans, so it’s not surprising…
(Leaving her town $20 million+ in debt and wasting money by not bothering to secure land ownership is something, I think, that’s relevant to look into).
Bill Mulligan: If the Republican make up 58% of those polled the Democrats are in trouble. Yes, she is of course more popular with Republicans than she is with Democrats.
That’s one poll. Another poll has her at 50% and another at 45%. All three polls have her at vastly higher disapproval ratings than Biden, Edwards in 2004, Leberman in 2000, or even Cheney in 2000.
Plus those numbers are for favorability, which is not the same as electability. Here scores on whether or not people think she’s qualified to take over if the President dies are much lower than Biden’s on all three of those polls. So there are a fair number of people who like her, but that doesn’t mean they’re voting for her.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/palin-biden-less-popular-than-cheney.html
GOP Convention Spin & GOP Convention Spin, Part II
http://www.factcheck.org/
Oh, and it’s starting to look like Palin flat out lied about selling that private jet on EBay for a profit. Some news reports are now saying that she put it up on EBay three times without getting it sold and finally sold it through a broker and at a loss. And now she and McCain are repeating that line in their traveling stump speeches.
Wonderful…
GOP Convention Spin & GOP Convention Spin, Part II
http://www.factcheck.org
Oh, and it’s starting to look like Palin flat out lied about selling that private jet on EBay for a profit. Some news reports are now saying that she put it up on EBay three times without getting it sold and finally sold it through a broker and at a loss. And now she and McCain are repeating that line in their traveling stump speeches.
Wonderful…
So there are a fair number of people who like her, but that doesn’t mean they’re voting for her.
That’s certainly true.
In her convention speech, she only said she put it on eBay, not that she sold it on eBay or made a profit from it. The news reports I’ve read or heard saying she sold the jet through a broker only said she claimed she put it on eBay.
“In her convention speech, she only said she put it on eBay, not that she sold it on eBay or made a profit from it. The news reports I’ve read or heard saying she sold the jet through a broker only said she claimed she put it on eBay.”
The day after the convention she and McCain were stumping together and claimed that it was sold on EBay for a profit. CNN, MSNBC and Fox had the video.
The video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRHBivWoHWw
The video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRHBivWoHWw
Jason M. Bryant: Maxism is different because it was something that people actually believed. Nobody actually thinks Creationism is science, some people just pretend they do because they’ve decided that science threatens their religion.
Luigi Novi: If by “pretend” you mean that they know on some level of consciousness that their position is false, well, yeah, that’s not a bad point, but then, that’s true of lots of false ideas that people know on some level are wrong. Regardless of speculation on how conscious they are of their falsity, when they present their creationist position explicitly, they present it with the assertion that it’s science. Haven’t you ever heard of “Creation Science”? Have you never heard people argue that there is no scientific evidence for natural selection, that that which is presented for is filled with wholes, and that there is supposedly loads of evidence for creation? Have you not heard of the Creationist Tours that are held at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (though not by the Museum itself)? Are you not familiar with the True.Origin site? Or the books of Michael Behe?
Creationism is indeed believed to be science by its advocates, Jason.
Peter David: Luigi–I was joking. It was a joke.
Luigi Novi: Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize. Since the reliability of WP is a current topic of discussion these days (even WP founder Jimmy Wales says it shouldn’t be used as one’s sole source of reference, but as a starting point), your comment seemed literal to me, since it reflects feelings that many do have about the site. But hey, sorry if I erred. 🙂
Peter David:You gotta lighten up, man. Seriously.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, you’re probably right on that point in any event. 🙂
Btw, anyone got a link to that interview on Newsarama’s The Stack?
And, no, they’ve not, to the best of my knowledge, corrected or retracted the statement that McCain made there.
Who would’ve thought they could do worse than McCain saying farmwork was mostly done by immigrants because Americans were refusing to do it for $50 an hour?
Btw, anyone got a link to that interview on Newsarama’s The Stack?
Best I can offer is the link of the flash player:
http://www.newsarama.com/php/video/na_video.php
It’s split over two videos.
Luigi: Creationism is indeed believed to be science by its advocates, Jason
Well, they certainly say they believe it.
But they say it with a nod and a wink. They present their evidence, which has so many holes that it’s more hole than cloth, and they cry loudly that it is absolute proof. They take what little arguments they come up with on absolute faith, repeating them endlessly. They’ll talk about how the eye couldn’t possible form in evolutionary steps, but they’ll never read up on eyes and find that there are many know lesser evolved forms of eyes.
Meanwhile, every scientist knowledgeable about evolution freely admits that there are parts of the theory of evolution that don’t fit. They debate all those details endlessly, to the point that much of the details that Darwin believed have been cast aside. There are strong opinions, but no dogma. They form theories, they look at fossil records and DNA to test those theories, then they break those theories apart and build better ones. They can never absolutely prove evolution because they can’t actually watch something evolve over millions of years, but they do produce evidence.
Luigi, I haven’t studied everything you mentioned. However, I’ve studied enough of it to know that one of the major I.D. groups set up a timeline for themselves a few years ago. They were going to devote a certain number of years to research and gathering evidence, then at a certain date they were going to take the evidence they’d gathered and start writing books. By the time that certain date rolled around, they had no evidence.
So they wrote the books anyway.
That’s not science. They know it. They set up goals for research that would have been scientifically noteworthy, then they skipped to phase 2 even though phase 1 wasn’t actually complete.
They’re not trying to prove science. They’re trying to bend science to prove religion. They say they believe it is real science, but don’t be fooled, they know what their motivation is. And if there are a few who’ve convinced themselves otherwise, go ahead and tell them they’re wrong, it’s not ethical to feed someone’s delusions.
Craig J. Ries said:
“I ask that you please view the link I posted last night, the clip of the Daily Show which compares various clips from talking heads on Fox News, including Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. Then try and tell me with a straight face that the accusations of bias are false.”
–Okay, sure… and I am typing this with a “straight face:” I think one can always find some sort of instance of bias for almost anything, but overall the accusations of bias against FNC are very overblown. And come on, people know what they are getting when a person like Karl Rove is making political analysis comments. Duh… it’s going to have a conservative take/spin on it, just like when any given Democratic talking head guest analyzer gives their spin on things.
PS – Just in case, I’m finishing typing this with a “straight face.”
“I just find it interesting that Democratic candidates are subjected to a relentless barrage of crap, and that’s somehow justified because…well, because it wins elections.”
B.S. Absolute B.S. And not in all in touch with reality. At the very least, Republican candidates have to put up with at least AS MUCH crap as Democrats. I feel the media gives the Democrats a huge advantage, in that respect, but let’s assume that the “barrage of crap” is even.
Consider:
1.) LBJ’s “daffodil” ad, which basically said if you voted for Goldwater, we’re all going to die in a nuclear war. Classy that. What do you think the reaction would be if McCain ran a similar ad against Obama.
Ironically, it was the sainted Hillary Clinton that evoked slight memories of that ad with her “3AM phone call” one against Obama. But even she didn’t go as far as LBJ did.
BTW, isn’t it interesting that LBJ, the man who signed the Civil Rights Act and whose Great Society (initiatives) was the biggest expansion of the Welfare State since the New Deal wasn’t mentioned at the Democratic Convention? The man who arguably passed the most significant, voluminous and long-lasting liberal legislation in the past half-century was not mentioned at all. Why?
2.) The emphasis on Bob Dole’s anger during a debate against his opponent, asking “Why do you lie about my record?” Why is it the media found it more newsworthy that Dole show some anger over perceived lies about him than his policies or even over whether he actually was being lied about?
2B.) By comparison, Bill Clinton getting angry during a DEMOCRATIC debate in which that rabid conservative Jerry Brown brought up some points about Hillary’s dealings and maneuverings, was seen as a sign that he was “passionate” about “defending” his wife. This would, of course, continue.
3.) Does no one remember when Bush the Elder was looking over a supermarket scanner and the media narrative was that he was “amazed” and this event was a symbol of how “out-of-touch” he was with “ordinary Americans”? Yet now, a VP candidate who is more than familiar with those things – and cooks and cleans – and is truly “in touch” with the average American Democrats purportedly care about, well, she’s a scary, unqualified redneck.
Why doesn’t the media sing her praises for being in touch? Can’t be because she’s a conservative woman who – gasp – is pro-life, can it?
4.) What about Bush’s question early in the 2000 campaign about which world leaders he knew – and turned out not to know? When has Obama been ambushed in such a manner? For that matter, why is it that Obama has admitted cocaine use, yet that is never brought up? Yet the media had a field day with Bush the Younger’s alleged use of
cocaine?
“But look sideways at a wholly unqualified woman and conservatives cry foul”
And what makes Obama, the head of the Democratic ticket, more qualified than Palin, who is #2 – or qualified at all? And do you have that little regard for a woman who beat/challenged the two most powerful families in the state of Alaska and won?
And although Obama himself has been classy, his campaign has not. The constant reference to her as the mayor of a city of 9,000 people instead of the governor of Alaska is what prompted her “community leader” crack.
The media has scoffed that not that long ago she was head of the PTA, but she has also been in charge of a real city, been in charge of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and been in charge of Alaska itself.
What has Obama ever run? What has he done that makes HIM qualified to be President in january by virtue of being elected and not in case his running mate dies? Why is he considered ready by so many for the most powerful position in the world by those who feel Palin is not ready to be Vice-President?
Amazing.
Me:
“You really think Obama is going to stael McCain’s thunder by appearing on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’?”
KET,
“We’ll just have to wait and see now, won’t we? Considering that McCain can barely keep people awake through some of his speeches, I kinda figure that fewer folks are probably going to turn into his predictable coronation ceremony anyway.”
Well, more people watched McCain’s speech than Obama’s or Palin’s and definitely Biden’s. Guess McCain had plenty thunder in his possession (though I admit his speech was not as exciting as I would have liked. It was definitely authentic and touching, though, in my opinion.
KET,
“Palin’s merely yet another DISTRACTION from reality”
The reality is that palin has become a “star” and speaks to people the Democrats supposedly want to and connects with them on an authentic level. As such, barring a major catastrophe, she will continue to be a huge asset to McCain.
For that matter, why is it that Obama has admitted cocaine use, yet that is never brought up? Yet the media had a field day with Bush the Younger’s alleged use of cocaine?
This one’s easy, Jerome. It’s precisely BECAUSE Obama was up-front about it: he said that he experimented with it in his younger days and has not done so in eons. No cover-up, no story.
Bush, on the other hand, has basically said that most of his life prior to him being born again is a closed book not to be discussed — thus, reporters naturally smell blood in the water.
Geez, man, you work IN journalism. This is basic.
As for some of your other examples, I find it interesting that you’re reaching back years and in some cases decades for examples.
And on a different note, Jerome — as long as you’ve come back, I’ll raise the same question I raised last time.
You keep talking about “victory” in Iraq, as does your preferred candidate. Define your term. What, by you, constitutes victory? What measurable factors will qualify as such?
You ducked the question before. I’d ask you not to do so this time.
TWL
Cuts both ways. Remember the NAACP ad about Bush and James Byrd? Texas put 3 of the 4 on death row, and the 4th on life without parole, yet the NAACP put the ad up that drew a link between that crime and Bush’s refusal to sign hate crime legislation. Not to mention the numerous fallacies in Michael Moore’s movies, but that would take a few paragraphs. Lastly, I’ll point out that it was not Bush-41 who first injected the parole program into the election in 1988, but Al Gore.
Unfortunately, both sides resort to this crap. It doesn’t help us. I railed against the attacks on Clinton’s war record and college drug use in 1992. It was dumb then, and it was dumb when it was brought up against Bush years later. Most people are still prone to do selfish and/or stupid things in their early 20s. They don’t necessarily indicate what a person in like in their 40s and 50s. By the same token just because someone got the grades in college (Bush, Kerry), doesn’t mean they are necessarily intellectual giants later in life. I think it’s idiotic to call Obama a Muslim terrorist. And a Terrorist Fist Bump? What the hëll is that?
There’s plenty of real issues to debate: war, economy, diplomacy, experience, judgement. Palin’s got some baggage – like every politician. Once you have a record, you’ve got a counter-ad. The attacks on her about how she’s not taking care of her kids (like the ones about how she risked her pregnancy giving a speech – or that she should have been at home more for her daughter) are just a complete joke. Troopergate is a potential issue, though. Funny how a few weeks ago the Democrat in charge of the investigation were not think subpoenas were necessary because of the amount of cooperation they were being given, are now saying they will be issuing them – and that they think there’s “more to the story”. She moved up into the big leagues, and the entire opposition infrastructure put the hammer down.
It literally boggles my mind (literally. My mind is actually boggled) that the republican convention is now the most watched in history. Huh? McCain’s best friends don’t think he’s an exciting speaker; Obama’s worst enemies admit he is. Was it all Palin? Did the lead in help? Are people giving McCain a second look?
I’m still predicting an Obama victory but I thought it would be a blowout. Not so sure now.
One other thing I don’t think anyone’s brought up. Nobody around here (pretty much split 50/50 had much to say about Obama’s speech, other than it was good. No lines stood out. But everyone was talking about one line in McCain’s–the admission that he had been “broken” by torture. Don’t know if that will help or hurt but it sure resonated somehow.
I didn’t think Obama’s or McCain’s speeches were standouts. To me, the ones that stood out were: Bill Clinton for the Democrats and Palin for the Republicans. Clinton was on his usual great game: “The world is more impressed by the power of our example, than by the example of our power.” Palin – like most Veep candidates – got to throw the red meat to the partisan dogs. She did it well. There’s been a line recently that here teleprompter partially went down as well. If so, it was difficult to tell.
The speech that almost put me to sleep was Lieberman. I’m sure Democrats are outraged now, but I found his speech to be pretty dry stuff.
(Side note: I need to watch my noun-verb agreements before hitting Post – my prior comment had a sloppy sentence towards the end.)
Bill Mulligan: “It literally boggles my mind (literally. My mind is actually boggled) that the republican convention is now the most watched in history. Huh? McCain’s best friends don’t think he’s an exciting speaker; Obama’s worst enemies admit he is. Was it all Palin? Did the lead in help? Are people giving McCain a second look?”
I skipped watching (but heard most of the audio on XM) Obama because I figured it would be the same old canned, hollow speech. I watched McCain because I was curious as to 1) what he would pull out of the desperation hat along with the Palin nomination and 2) to see the train wreck if he went off script.
Jerome Maida,
Your stretching some of your points to the level of desperation.
I have to agree with Mark that Clinton’s “power of our example” was one of the really great lines of the Democratic week. He was very on his game.
Palin certainy delivered a good speech, but I understand exactly why the Obama campaign got record donations in the 24 hours following. It’s going to get some money from me as soon as I have time to send it — I found her speech a mix of insulting and scary.
I also agree that Lieberman was way off his game. “Good,” saith I.
TWL