About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The corruption of John McCain

Readers of this blog know that my political positions run to the left of Jon Stewart, so it is no surprise that I simply cannot conceive of a Republican in the White House being a good thing for America or the world at large. Nonetheless, the ongoing presidential campaign has revealed just how deeply corrupting the GOP’s hunger for power can be, even on previously relatively (for a politician) upright people like John McCain.

As Michael Cohen has recently commented, politicians across the spectrum have an annoying habit of stretching the truth, Obama and many other Democrats included. But Cohen has written many political speeches and knows a lot about that peculiar trade (he is the author of “Live From the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Presidential Campaign Speeches of the 20th Century and How They Shaped Modern America”). His considered opinion is that politicians’ worst nightmare is to be caught red-handed lying to the public, because in the past at least the penalty for even minor infractions on that front have been great, often quickly unraveling one’s campaign or career.

That is why Cohen is so stunned (and we should all be so worried) about the increasingly brazen lies coming out of the McCain campaign, which are well known and reported by mainstream media, and that yet do not seem to faze either McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin. Just as a reminder of how incredibly bad the situation is, here is a short list of the most egregious examples, following Cohen’s editorial:

* Obama allegedly supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergarden children, while in fact he called for age-appropriate education, which at most would mean for young children to learn about sexual predators. (Pause: imagine a Republican-style attack ad run by the Obama campaign, featuring a shot of McCain kissing young children with a voiceover that says: “John McCain. He is in favor of child sexual predators.”)


* Obama’s use of the common phrase “lipstick on a pig” interpreted as a vilification of Palin, while McCain himself has used the phrase referring to Hillary Clinton, and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch is on record calling the McCain charge “ridiculous.”


* Palin is a bold reformer who never accepted earmarks, while in fact she asked the Federal Government for a whopping $450 million as soon as she became Governor of Alaska (the State for which the Feds spend the most per capita tax dollars that the rest of us contribute).


* Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class, despite that independent experts agree that his plan would actually lower taxes for 80% of Americans (though it would raise them for the rich people whose wealth is, not surprisingly, McCain’s chief concern).


* Obama’s health care plan would force people into a government-run system. Besides the fact that that would actually be a good idea (witness the success of that sort of plan recently enacted in Massachusetts), this is again false, and needs to be contrasted with the fact -- established by a recent report published by an independent panel -- that the McCain “plan” would dramatically increase the number of uninsured over time.


*Palin refused to back the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, when in fact she supported the plan until it was dead in the water, and then turned around, took the Federal money and used it on other projects anyway.


* Palin visited Ireland (that crucial outpost of American foreign policy) and Iraq, when in fact the Governor’s plane simply refueled in Ireland and didn’t even cross the Iraqi boarder. This is, of course, the same Palin who got a passport only last year, and whose international experience (“experience” being a major theme of the McCain campaign) is limited to Canada and Mexico. Oh, and to gazing toward Russia from her home state.


* Finally, Cohen points out that the McCain campaign even inflated estimates of the size of crowds attending its Virginia stops.

Wow. With a record like this, you would think even Fox News would have misgivings about the Republican ticket (no, scratch that, I don’t want to get into science fiction). But seriously, is this country so ideologically entrenched that half of its population simply doesn’t want to hear that their fearless leader is fabricating lies on a daily basis, repeats them in countless ads and campaign stops despite having being called on it many times, and has the gall of actually running for integrity and change in Washington?

This election should be a no brainer for Americans. The Republican so-called “free market” approach (really, a series of flagrant handouts to the rich) is collapsing in front of our very eyes, with consequences that resonate throughout the world. We are engaged in two wars, one of which we have not being paying much attention to, and the other that was a colossal strategic, financial, and human mistake from the beginning. Health care is getting more and more difficult to acquire or maintain for millions of Americans, and our dependence on oil is both wrecking the environment and making richer and richer those very countries whose religious zealots keep engineering violent attacks against the US. And all we hear from the Republicans is inane mantras (“drill, baby, drill”), lies, and complaints about pigs and lipstick. People, wake up before November 4th, throw the bastards out of Washington and let’s see if we can put this country back on a reasonable track to prosperity and international respect.

39 comments:

  1. "But seriously, is this country so ideologically entrenched that half of its population simply doesn’t want to hear that their fearless leader is fabricating lies on a daily basis, repeats them in countless ads and campaign stops despite having being called on it many times, and has the gall of actually running for integrity and change in Washington?"

    Yes.

    I hope that my well-thought-out, deep, insightful response has helped enlighten you on this issue.

    Cheers,
    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  2. The stock market crash of the previous day is largely the result of the whole lib basket of goods, and can hardly even be thought to have something to do conservative policy.

    In the late 80s, Bill and Hilliary fought for an equal opportunity (type) housing act, that clearly had qualified far too many people for homes that they could not necessarily afford than was good for our economy. And while the market of the last 8-12 years seemed strong, the criteria s for good money leading practices were even MORE SO thrown out the window.

    Bad policies certainly can encourage greed.

    While the individual lender and the person getting the loan is the most responsible for the (individual series) of failures, the liberal notion that EVERYONE has the right to what everyone else has, added to that, the broadened standards for home loans, all this has without a doubt contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today.

    This stock market crash does not originate in some mistake in conservative policy. That is not the conservative way. WE actually expect that people ought to manage their money properly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cal, do you have to make stuff in up in Massimo's blog? Can't you do this somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I turned to Rush Limbaugh a while ago - randomly, as I frequently do to see if I can catch him lying within 30 seconds, which has seldom ever failed to occur - and heard him saying the mortgage and housing crisis were the fault of the Clintons.

    All roads lead to the Clintons in AM radio world...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I assume that, as usual, he was speaking out of his ass, with no evidence or articulate argument to blame the Clintons, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You forgot as mayor she had a lobbyist in Washington.

    I heard the Rush thing also - mostly made up, but he did mention some Clinton appointees. I was amazed - Bush in office 8 years and he blames Clinton.

    If people can believe the earth is 6,000 years old why do you think that a picture of Palin wearing a sweater in support of the bridge to nowhere and quotes from her saying try to get the money while we still have influence will have more weight than her lying through her teeth saying "I said thanks, but no thanks."

    It took a lot for this 60 year old ex-Republican to see the light, but Bush and McCain made a convert out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And if this article is right, correcting the lies can be even worse... Not that this is exactly surprising: I mean, for example, the more we point it out to Cal that she is saying stupid things, the more convinced she is of her righteousness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. j, that's a discouraging article. It suggests that, by trying to communicate rationally with conservatives, we actually cause them to dig their heals in even deeper. So why even bother?

    I suppose an answer is that, when we offer refutations of misinformation (even when they seem to favor conservative causes), we speak more to liberals like ourselves, who tend to lack the "backfire effect" observed among conservatives. After all, ideals that are out-of-touch with reality tend to fail, so we want to ensure that we have a firm grasp on the facts, whatever they may be.

    Another answer, I suppose, is that not everyone identifies strongly as "liberal" or "conservative." Some folks really do seem to sit on the fence, at least on particular issues in which they are not highly emotionally invested. If there's any chance that these folks can be persuaded by a refutation, then liberals would be foolish not to avail themselves of it.

    A potential problem with the second answer, however, is that forums like seem not to attract fence-sitters, which leads me to favor the first answer (if only as a consolation that we aren't completely wasting our time when we respond to the likes of caliana).

    ReplyDelete
  9. For all the conservative free market wackaloons out there. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created for two reasons. One, during and after the 1930's depression home ownership was mostly impossible for middle class people. In fact, there wasn't much of a middle class to speak of. Unemployment was around 25%. Second, by packaging mortgages into larger securities, the banks were able to make more loans, which made them more money. The socialism of government backing helped both consumer and investor.

    Conservatives criticize individuals for defaulting on their mortgages, but it is the lenders who pushed hard for less regulation so they could sell more loans.

    If conservatives don't like socialism, then maybe they should refuse the FDIC insurance on their bank accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

    -1984

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cal wrote: "That is not the conservative way. WE actually expect that people ought to manage their money properly."

    For once I think Cal got something right. I have long considered myself to be "conservative", although those of you who have seen my posts here know that I have tried moving to libertarianism. The main reason for that move is that Republicans are no longer what I would term conservative. At the risk of getting into the "no true Scotsman" position I would say that the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strike is not a conservative position. The presidential by-pass of Congress... the spying on Americans... these are not conservative values but they seem to be Republican policies. I think that even Cal would have to admit that the falsehoods coming out of the McCain campaign are unseemly. One might like Sarah Palin despite her actions with regard to earmarks but should one feel the same with regard to her lying about it? I am surprised that conservatives are still supporting Mc-Palin. The lies, the trashing of the Constitution, the attempt to combine Church & State rather than separate them... ran me out of the Republican Party. So I'll say it, a true conservative would not support McCain or Palin. They wouldn't support Obama either but that's a different issue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is because the conservative-progressive axis does not capture things well enough. Most people here probably already know this, but a better instrument is the two-axes political compass:

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/

    Just so you know, my score is -6.38 on the Economic axis and -6.67 on the Social axis, which puts me squarely in the Libertarian/Left quadrant. Surprising, for some people who may have read this blog. I would guess Caliana would score within the Authoritarian/Right quadrant, but that's an empirically testable hypothesis...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that even Cal would have to admit that the falsehoods coming out of the McCain campaign are unseemly.

    Dream on, DA, dream on...

    I'm actually starting to worry about Cal, she might need professional help or something. Just see Muir's (perfect) citation above, sort of captures the feeling of reading her posts, specially lately with the fanatical personality cult of Palin and all that.

    And talking about craziness, YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content. These people are real freaks, I'm genuinely afraid of them. Personally I'm sure almost all of them can be the sweetest things, but looking at this, I just don't know what to say... Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Max, I took the political test with the following results:
    Economic Left/Right: -7.00
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

    Of course, there are some problems because the questions are vague and general rather than specific, but I think it's a fair assessment of my views.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting video, but I'm just wondering who put it together and where did they get their chronologies of people and activities from? I can tell by looking at it that there are some segments that are legit, but some are definitely labeled incorrectly.

    I have niece who is in Masters Commission. She and her new hub just met three years ago while they both were involved in it. My sis's church also invites the Masters Commission to her church (inner city near Downtown FT W) and I have ABSOLUTELY NEVER seen anything like some of the wild clips of screaming, tearing at clothes and hair, shaking, or any of it.

    Kids praying loudly or enthusiastically, yes. Working hard all over the inner city to help people out and give them hope, yes. All the rest, never.

    And this man named Rick Joyner might espouse all kinds of odd spiritual stuff, but he is not a senior pastor anywhere near AK. (as one clip seemed to imply) His churches are somewhere in the deep south. NC to FL I think.

    To me, it seems like these clips are taken from all kinds of events, and may or may not have something to do with Wasilla. But since I have never seen, as I said before, any of the Masters Commission youth (which are a traveling group, btw) act like some of the really wild clips, I am seriously skeptical of where it does actually come from and if it really has very much to do with what AG Wasilla really believes and functions like on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  16. J,
    And I am not all out against holy rollers either.

    My father came from a Lutheran background where the church that his family came from (The Finnish Apostolic Lutheran) seriously tolerated and embraced that kind of thing. And that is odd because one does not tend think of stoic Lutherans jumping up and shouting praises during church service.

    In my opinion, some peoples attitude of enthusiasm is real and not contrived at all. And then, there may be some who get kind of caught up in what all the rest are doing. God knows each persons heart. I don't claim to understand it, but I rest in the fact that God knows us all better than we do.


    And as I am writing this, my husband is walking by laughing at me for trying explain this phenom to people who don't care to much about God or what he thinks in the first place. He said I was casting my "swine before pearls".

    Crazy man. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I think that even Cal would have to admit that the falsehoods coming out of the McCain campaign are unseemly. One might like Sarah Palin despite her actions with regard to earmarks but should one feel the same with regard to her lying about it?"

    Die Anyway,
    I wouldn't be so sure about Cal's distaste for lies and untruths.

    I suspect Cal lies regularly in her comments here. She seems to always have some too convenient personal antecdote to help her make her point. And I think they are often outright lies.

    Of course, in the context of this blog, these allegations are hard to demonstrate. But I have pressed her to back up some claims that could be verified, and she weaseled.

    If you have been or will be around here long enough you might get the jest of what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Regarding this political quiz, there are some flaws. For example, how should one answer the following question?

    "People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality."

    For me this depends on an is/ought distinction. Unfortunately people are divided more on the basis of nationality, both subjectively, and objectively because of systemic factors.

    However, in my view people ought to see their interests in terms of class rather than nationality.

    ReplyDelete
  19. S: "I suspect Cal lies regularly in her comments here. She seems to always have some too convenient personal antecdote to help her make her point. And I think they are often outright lies."

    You suspect or know for sure? That's important now. It would be a whole lot better for you if the usual tactics for discouragement and demoralization worked on me.
    So what's next?

    5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."


    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.' ... When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments and carry out your attack.... One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angles are on one side and all the devils on the other." pp.127-134

    Alinsky

    ReplyDelete
  20. "You suspect or know for sure? That's important now. "

    Cal,
    Thats precisely why I said "suspect". Unlike you, I attempt to make a clear distinction between what I think I know with a reasonable amount of certainty, and what I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  21. For what it's worth, my scores in the political compass thing:

    Economic Left/Right: -7.62
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

    Nothing that I didn't know, i.e. that I'm a fan of anarcho-socialism, but interesting nonetheless. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cal said, God knows each persons heart. I don't claim to understand it, but I rest in the fact that God knows us all better than we do.
    Got any evidence for that assertion, Cal? How about evidence that any gods exist? Hello? Cal...?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cal

    You should change your moniker from Caliana to Calinsky.

    Seeing that you have studied his tactics so deeply...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul,

    On Alinsky. Actually I have not. Just study people who study him.

    More so I am interested in how this election scene got to be so personal and ugly so quick. Like before Palin was brought in, nothing was particularly exciting about the election. Then all of a sudden there's this Palin chick PLUS every possible variation of a rumor spun about her conceivable. A I MEAN, by media reports, is there anyone that she, her husband or her children have NOT SLEPT with yet?

    Obviously, the matter of credibility in Journalism is no longer a factor to being a good journalist.


    EVEN FOX this morning is making much ado about Bill Clinton's apparent (or is it even sincere) admiration for Palin. If it was sincere, of course anyone would appreciate that.

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/bill-palin-appeal/

    This link does not show any longer what I saw this morn. And that was Clinton with an intrigued and aggravating little smile on his face, looking in the direction of Palin.

    As if...

    I have never been a huge fan of FOX anyway just based on the fact that they 'mix their messages' in the guise of open journalism or something like that. They also wedge a lot of stupid sensational stuff in there like this obfuscatory tactic of Bill Clintons.

    Further, people hardly trust each other within their own partys anymore. And so, anarchism wins?

    Last night I heard, " I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats," said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. "I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore." His group tried to invite Palin to another rally on Sunday."

    Keep spouting clearly untrue and unfair rhetoric long enough, and believe me there will people who will reject the whole ball of wax.

    And that is why Bill probably said what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  25. >"...get the jest of what I mean."

    Sheldon, did you mean "gist" or were you really refering to some humor in the situation? :-)
    In any case, I have been reading Rationally Speaking for several years and am quite familiar with Cal's writings. I really would have thougt she would be appalled at the untruths coming from a campaign she seems to support. After all, isn't there something about bearing false witness?

    Well, anyway, just to demonstrate my own shallowness... I have to admit I'm impressed with one thing about John McCain. He knows how to surround himself with pretty women almost as well as Hugh Hefner. Now if they were just topless... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I did not mean the last comment to sound like Bill might be thinking of leaving the party. NO WAY. He's far too clever for that. He may be saying such things to sound as if not all Dems are quite so polarized, leaving room for the unpolarized to stay, of course. That is what I meant to say. Bill is way more clever and calculating than most people truly give him credit for. I'd love to think that he could have sincere appreciation for a principled woman, but the odds of that are not particularly good.

    "He knows how to surround himself with pretty women almost as well as Hugh Hefner. Now if they were just topless... ;-)"

    :::yawn:::

    And that's likely why some beautiful women on the right are ON THE RIGHT. They obviously appreciate the value of a man who is gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "They obviously appreciate the value of a man who is gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women." - - cal

    So you didn't appreciate my jest. Yawn...
    But I must say, most of the knuckle-draggers that I know are dyed-in-the-wool, Rush Limbaugh loving, Republicans. If beautiful women are flocking to the Republican Party in order to associate with refined, deferential men, I think they may need to look around a bit harder.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "They obviously appreciate the value of a man who is gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women." - - cal

    Interesting also that you seem to think that being treated as a sex symbol is "gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women"... Are all conservatives like that or is it just you, Cal?

    I mean, why was Palin chosen to be the VP for McCain? Here are my guesses:

    - has two X chromosomes;
    - is pretty, and young(ish);
    - can read scripts well, with that sarcastic, smug aggressiveness that can be so effective in making the "bases" feel good;

    Well, it certainly wasn't for her knowledge/skills when answering questions on her own. Next debate promises to be fun, it will take a LOT of training to get her to do well there, but I don't know... Too bad Biden is kind of a soporific character himself, it seems to me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Interesting also that you seem to think that being treated as a sex symbol is "gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women"... "

    Not even a good job of twisting something that was said. As if... Go back to your propaganda 100 class. Time to learn a less obvious "bitter male" person approach. I, otoh, I like men. And I especially them at a distance. ;) lol!



    Now Palin just happens to have a certain appeal, but I don't think I would exactly consider it "sexy". It's just kind of a general appeal. She not only decent looking but she is also smart and has good follow through. NO one gets to trick their way though politics JUST because MEN are standing with their with their mouths agap every time a gal walks by. If things don't get done, you simply don't last in that world.
    I know because,
    my mother-in-law is also in politics and she gets things done. I.E. She does what she says she going to. Law enforcement for the entire state pretty much thinks that she will kill any one of them if they don't do the "right thing".

    Now is that so bad, really?

    But think about it for a minute before you say something foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I like men at a distance, J, because I have been stalked more times then I care to share. Have you ever been stalked before? And in this regard, do you have any concept of what it is like to be a woman?

    have had a home Depot employee be angry with me for me not letting him take my stuff out to the car(I like to do things for MYSELF) insulting me all the way out into the parking lot BECAUSE I SAID "NO". I don't let men like that do things for me, (and I encourage my girls the same way) because it's going to cost something.

    Women really ought be able to do things by themselves and not fear a fella insisting on whatever. Contrary to the usual male attitudes about things, we do have brains. But that is why I appreciate so much women, like Palin, who will totally stand up for themselves. They have brains, and they use em.

    What's wrong with THAT?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not even a good job of twisting something that was said.

    Twisting? Not at all, just pointing out the absurdity of what you said (which is kind of a tiring endeavor if anyone takes it too seriously).

    See, you said, to repeat your drivel:
    And that's likely why some beautiful women on the right are ON THE RIGHT. They obviously appreciate the value of a man who is gallant, noble and not predatory or disrespectful towards women.

    So, what can one understand from that? That, on the right, men are "gallant, noble, yada, yada" -- and by opposition, the men "on the left" must be all the antonyms of those (I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's what you believe). That's obvious and anyone with more than 2nd grade reading skills would get it, I suspect.

    Then comes J (me) and points out the absurdity of that idea, given what "men on the right" are doing to women by choosing Palin as VP candidate, not to mention what they are doing to her directly. It's embarrassing, or why would they be hiding her from interviews or any other public appearance? You can't hear her unless she is reading from a script (or talking to a Fox News person, which is the same). Can't she stand for herself? Seriously, they didn't have any woman better than that on the right, since they HAD to have a woman as the VP nominee, just to create news? Impossible, I'd say, that there are no intelligent, better prepared women "on the right" to take this job. I might not agree with them, but that does not make them weak as Palin is. So, she was chosen because she is a woman. That is sexism, by definition. Like the idiots who supported Hillary and now support Palin -- they didn't support Hillary, they support(ed) "any female".

    Oh, OK, I guess I understand the choice, come to think about it... She is also a fundamentalist nut, and that was sure something of value to the campaign, given many of the crazy evangelical base of Dubya are not very happy with McCain (at least not with the McCain of old, the one who used to sound moderate before campaign started). So there we have it: the Reps did not choose an intelligent, well prepared, evangelical fundamentalist for VP candidate because that is an impossible combination of characteristics in a person of any gender. I should have thought of that before.

    Contrary to the usual male attitudes about things, we do have brains.

    Your deep sexism is quite appalling, really, Cal. There is no hope for you, of that I am sure already.

    No, "you" do not have brains, because there is no "you". I know you don't get it.

    Many women have brains, and many don't.
    Many men have brains, and many don't.

    Nothing to do with how your reproductive parts happen to look like, in case that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

    But think about it for a minute before you say something foolish.

    Do you grasp the concept of irony, eh? I didn't think so...

    By the way, did you ask the Home Depot guy who he voted for? I could bet some money he'd say "George Dubya Bush"...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interestingly, there is more than a few apologies being directed back towards Palin as of late. People can't seem to keep themselves from saying the most amazing, stupid and untrue things about her. As Massimo's logic about attacks on his own writings would go, she "must be doing something right".

    Fla Congressman: “I regret the comments I made last Tuesday that were not smart and certainly not relevant to hunters or sportsmen," Hastings said in his statement released to the media.

    “I regret that I was not clearer and apologize to Governor Palin, my host where I was speaking, and those who my comments may have offended. I had a lot of other things to say that were important but which were not reported. The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews.”

    And a Canadian broadcasting Co:

    The column by Heather Mallick, a left-wing journalist who has said the United States will one day invade Canada for its resources, was “viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan,” CBC News Publisher John Cruickshank said.

    "That line was crossed by the Mallick piece, according to Cruickshank, with passages like this:

    “Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression,” Mallick wrote. “Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I'm a f----n’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?”

    ReplyDelete
  33. J

    Home depot man?

    A lot of our state leans to the left, so the odds are that a lot of people you meet will be leftist. Otherwise, of course I can't prove what he was other than a crack pot.

    Incidentally tho, my husband use to be far more lib, leftist and also an evolutionist...but probably more so by default. And not only did my husband quit being an evolutionist, he helped to change his dad's pov on evolution a few years ago.

    So proud of them all. No more neanderthal man excuses for doing "whatever". :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. J "Many women have brains, and many don't.
    Many men have brains, and many don't."

    True.

    But DARWIN specifically pointed out that "women have lesser powers of reasoning and imagination" and so on. And the comments were placed in the context of 'women are like "lower animals".'

    It was not commented on in 'On the Origin' it was in "The descent of man", I think.

    Evolutionary theories, at their core, do not believe in equality between men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This add Bill Clinton is doing with/for McCain is nothing short of amazing. It basically confirms everything that I said in my second comment on this thread. He is more general in his method of taking responsibility for the current crisis, but nonetheless, he is saying pretty much what I said.

    why he's doing it, that's another matter.


    "Bill Clinton Has Leading Role in McCain Ad"

    Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:30 PM




    Bill Clinton is playing a starring role in a John McCain commercial. And here's the ad's kicker: "You're right Mr. President."

    Fancy that. The Republican presidential nominee with a tip of the hat to the last Democratic president.

    A new minute-long McCain commercial features the former president asserting that congressional Democrats could have done more to regulate the nation's major mortgage financiers.

    Editor's Note: See Bill Clinton in the McCain ad -- Click Here

    In a clip taken from a Sept. 25 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Clinton says: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
    cont.

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/meltdown_ads_clinton/2008/09/30/136051.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. But DARWIN specifically pointed out that "women have lesser powers of reasoning and imagination" and so on. And the comments were placed in the context of 'women are like "lower animals".'

    hahahahahahahaha!
    I guess that's all I need to "say". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  37. J: "hahahahahahahaha!
    I guess that's all I need to "say". :-)"

    So you're thinking Darwin did not say something like this, or you know "I" HAVE such GREAT POWERS of reasoning and imagination that Darwin's statements could not possibly be true?

    Of course it must be the later. :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. OK, I was planning on ignoring any follow up on your part, Cal, since countless people have explained this to you on this blog before.

    But since I'm in a good and mellow mood, here we go again. Even if it's grossly off topic. :-)

    So you're thinking Darwin did not say something like this, or you know "I" HAVE such GREAT POWERS of reasoning and imagination that Darwin's statements could not possibly be true?

    Nonsense, as usual.

    I was laughing because you STILL haven't understood (or you purposefully mischaracterize things, which is a more likely scenario) how this intellectual/ science thing works.

    You know, we have neither prophets nor sacred books. So, if Darwin said that, SO WHAT? He's been shown to be wrong on that (and I suspect it weren't the "conservatives" who did it) and the world moved on -- well, except among most religions, which still think women are inferior (although they few of them will say it out loud nowadays).

    There is no need for every single thing Darwin ever said to be right in order for many of them to be right. For example, there are lots of errors in "The origin of species" (OTOS). But that does not invalidate other parts, or the main conclusions. Even if, say, 90% of the book were wrong, the remaining 10% would still be right. You are mistaken in judging all books the way you judge the Bible -- everything there must be right to you, and if anything is shown to be wrong (as it has been over and over), then you're terrified that everything else is wrong too.

    And again, nobody nowadays reads OTOS or other >100 year old books to learn evolutionary biology. I read it as historical curiosity. To learn the current theories, you gotta read the current books.

    That's how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Love you too, J. :)

    Bottom line is that few women invest nearly as much time and energy into evo studies like men do. And that tells me everything that I need to know. More or less like a poor ol turkey supporting thanksgiving day celebrations, (she can support it with her whole life and all her dignity, or not at all) a truly self respecting woman simply won't do it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.