The Notion

The Short Attention Span Society

posted by adam on 09/09/2008 @ 11:24am

I wake up this morning and The Today Show informs me that suddenly after a week of hearing about Obama's post-convention bounce, John McCain is now ahead and has all the momentum. Supposedly white women voters, who as recently as last week were supporting Obama nearly 10 percent more than McCain, were now supporting McCain 12 percent more than Obama. Naturally the on-air pundits attributed nearly all of this to the surprise addition of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket, but would that many white female voters simply switch sides like that? Are they that ideologically flexible?

I have this regular debate with my fellow progressive friends about whether voters are simply stupid. I always play devil's advocate and argue that the voters are not stupid, just misinformed. That a barrage of 24-hour cable news numbs them and makes them more susceptible than they should be to the ignorant and blatantly false arguments of the right. But lately I haven't been so sure.

It's not that the Obama campaign is flawless or has perfected its messaging--it hasn't. But by all accounts McCain's convention speech was a dud. He didn't address the number one issue in the country--the economy--in any remotely substantive way, he was heckled, stood in front a picture of a high school (that was meant to be Walter Reed Hospital), chewed up most of his air-time recounting his days as a POW--which literally every speaker before him had already done--and was thoroughly upstaged (and continues to be) by his own running mate. This should have been a recipe for disaster, right?

Wrong. Somehow, magically it's as if Obama's speech and the Democratic convention never happened. Seemingly overnight, the Republican party's "drill, baby, drill" chrous wiped all of that away. Again, not because they were so persuasive or compelling but just because it was memorable, I guess. Now everything is maverick this and maverick that and I find myself wondering, how did everything get so bad so quickly?

My favorite left wing blogs are in crisis mode, behaving as if it's all over and as if Obama can never do anything right. These are the same people who felt like we were sitting pretty a week ago. Sarah Palin who was practically drenched in scandals about twelve days ago is now the biggest political star in the country?! Did she give a major policy speech that wowed us? No. Did she conduct a single interview that fleshed out her positions and background? No. She gave a very effective attack speech that was riddled with outright lies and inaccuracies. Remember all the hooplah over Hillary's speech? What happened?

My theory is that we are a short attention span nation. Which is why we are so in love with polls. They provide a quick snapshot of undeniably dubious but instantly recognizable information. We like to know who's up and who's down, sometimes from day to day. And what's odd is the polls seem to really change from day to day. Who are these strange voters who are with Obama Monday through Friday, yet support McCain on the weekends?

Obama has been fond of saying "the American voters aren't stupid" lately. But I'm inclined to think the jury is still out, at least for the next few weeks. Will voters continue to ignore Palin's complete lack of knowledge about foreign affairs and the economy and McCain's complete endorsement of Bush's agenda and policies? Or will they remember how they were feeling a week ago and get back, as Bill Clinton described it, on "the right side of history."

Comments (212)

  1. Maybe Biden wasn't such a good choice after all.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 11:34am

  2. "Somehow, magically it's as if Obama's speech and the Democratic convention never happened. Seemingly overnight, the Republican party's "drill, baby, drill" chrous wiped all of that away."

    posted by Adam Howard on 09/09/2008 @ 11:24am

    If I said it once, I said it ten times.

    Whoever frames the gas issue and gets the upper hand will win.

    You may rest assured that "drill, baby, drill" is prophetic. It WILL come to pass, and sooner than you think.

    Thanks Pelosi, for your brilliant handling of the issue. "I'm trying to save the world." Frickin IDIOT!

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 11:42am

  3. No they're not stupid, they're just not drinking your flavor of Kool-Aid, Mr. Howard.

    Governor Palin has just painted Obama in a box that he can't get out of, in respect to the experience claim. If he wants to publicly challenge her claims, he's going to have to be more forthcoming on his accomplishments, which look pretty thin from his time in the senate. (Present)

    But she's a governor of a state with a small population....Fine...that only makes Biden look worse, as Delaware is no Gotham.

    Not only is this election historic in the sense of a possible female VP, but more that it's one of the few times in history where the VP choice actually swings voters.

    Obama knows this, which is why he is seemingly tacking to the right on tax issues, drilling, etc.

    Look for the O to be goose hunting in Ohio any day now.

    Posted by State17 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:44am

  4. Heh heh, Duh!

    Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 11:39am

    Well, you seem to have no problem following that point.

    Selective deduction faded away relative to last night, Frank?

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 11:45am

  5. Good point Mr Howard. The people of this country as a whole don't have the brain capacity to drool.

    McCain decides to call himself the man of change...only after Obama himself was using that slogan.

    What change does McCain stand for? Is he going to stop lining the pockets of the rich like the W/Cheney ticket? Nope Is he going to reduce defense spending so we can reduce or defecit? Nope Is he going to support complete public financing of federal elections to remove lobbyists from the equation....HELL NO. Will he help patients get better health insurance premiums and medical coverage? Nope Will he stop the jobs from leaving the U.S. only to be outsourced for cheaper labor in countries like China, India, Vietnam etc? Nope

    McCain, the guy who has been part of the establishment in D.C. for decades is part of the status quo. He won't change a damn thing, besides putting a complete fuit cake into the vice presidency. If that's his idea of change, we're probably better off with 4 more years of Bush and Cheney. I have a hard time picturing Cheney forcing creationism down peoples' throats, maybe satanism, but not creationism.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:47am

  6. "Both McCain & Gov. Palin's speechs, on the other hand, left me with immediately memorable parts...."

    i guess this proves the author's points. the speeches were only "immediately memorable"; days later, they were almost entirely forgotten.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 11:48am

  7. FrankNoGrits-You aren't a McCain supporter and are just having a tantrum where you get your revenge on us by pretending to support McCain because we would not go for Hillary so your fake support is irrelevant,but what you said yesterday about our troops who are in a war zone,but who don't have jobs where they are walking around with weapons,like JAG,cooks,clerks,etc. was very disrespectful to them and showed your ignorance about war zones.For some reason you believe that those troops are safe in a war zone and feel it's okay to disrespect them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:49am

  8. today palin and mccain are prancing around ohio claiming that the freddie mac/fannie mae debacle was caused by, you guessed it, lobbyists and their cozy relationships with politicians.

    well, rick davis, mccain's campaign manager, lobbied on behalf of BOTH.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 11:50am

  9. Boy, you libs have short memories.

    You guys actually entertained the thought of running McCain on the Kerry ticket just 4 years ago. Do you think most Americans have forgotten that?

    If anyone needed an endorsement of McCain as more moderate than Obama, THAT did it.

    Posted by State17 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:52am

  10. FrankNoGrits-The question is-Why did you disrespect troops who are in a combat zone,yesterday?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 11:53am

  11. So, what's the question?

    Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 11:51am

    There was no frickin question.

    There was a point.

    And you know exactly what it was, no matter how dumb you play.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 11:57am

  12. Well, between beavisgrits and 2BUTTHAPPY, I might come down on the idea that SOME of the voters are stupid!

    Actually, in FRANK's case, a tiny minority of the voters are CRAZY.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:04pm

  13. FrankNoGrits-there is no point in discussing your tantrum so let's discuss how you disrespect many our troops who are in a war zone.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:05pm

  14. "I have this regular debate with my fellow progressive friends about whether voters are simply stupid. I always play devil's advocate and argue that the voters are not stupid, just misinformed. That a barrage of 24-hour cable news numbs them and makes them more susceptible than they should be to the ignorant and blatantly false arguments of the right. But lately I haven't been so sure."

    The very definition of elitism... I'm embarrassed for you.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:07pm

  15. FrankNoGrits-You mean the McCain that you said is a fascist?How about how you were disrespecting our troops in a war zone yesterday?Got more of that for us?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:09pm

  16. "I have this regular debate with my fellow progressive friends about whether voters are simply stupid. I always play devil's advocate and argue that the voters are not stupid, just misinformed. That a barrage of 24-hour cable news numbs them and makes them more susceptible than they should be to the ignorant and blatantly false arguments of the right. But lately I haven't been so sure."

    Never look for wisdom from a tree squatter or a kid who just threw a brick through the front window of a Starbucks.

    Little punk should be in school. :)~

    Posted by State17 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:13pm

  17. FrankNoGrits-It was not at all predictable that you would come to that conclusion about Obama,but your tantrum is irrelevant.Let's discuss the way you spewed your dislike for many of our troops who are in a war zone rather than have you keep running away from that while claiming that you have grit.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:15pm

  18. You haven't been paying attention. McCain is THEE reformer, so much so in fact that his own party wasn't going to support him. But his record, service and experience changed their minds. That and his brilliant VP pick.

    Oh, and don't worry about the creationism thing. It's not that important to most people and will never get by the democratic Congress anyway. Neither will extreme Supreme Court judges.

    Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 12:00pm

    Frank, You've once again proven who little you think about what you say and also support. So, you don't like Palin's policies either, but just have to see McCain win, right? Even Hillary is supporting Obama, not Palin nor McCain. Why, because she knows that the McCain/Palin ticket is a friggin nightmare.

    Here's a question for you. Suppose, just suppose the people of this nation buy into the right wing crap that's been televised 24/7 and we end up with a republican president, house of representatives and senate. The house would be difficult for the rethugs to take but not the senate. I recall a couple of conservative activist judges being appointed to the supreme court under a similar GOP package and you want to put another couple of idiots in charge to appoint a few more to completely tilt the scales in favor of the witch burners?

    With an insane bunch like that, creationism may very well trump classical physics, math, chemistry, computer science and so on. After all, scientists are just stating their viewpoints and justifying their logic with THEIR data, not God's data.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:17pm

  19. >>>Obama has been fond of saying "the American voters aren't stupid" lately. But I'm inclined to think the jury is still out, at least for the next few weeks. <<<

    This is a "temporary" blip based on the false hope that Palin and McCain are agents of change.

    It will become apparent in the coming weeks that McCain/Palin as agents of change is a fraud, and any convention bounce they currently have will be lost forever.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 12:17pm

  20. "The very definition of elitism... I'm embarrassed for you."

    well, freiheit, perhaps you can explain how mccain and palin are prancing around claiming that she didn't support the 'bridge to nowhere'?

    how is it even possible to make brutally false claims and get away with it? i'll tell you why: short attention span. stupidity. whatever.

    let's just admit: america is, by far, the dumbest western country on earth.

    here's another: "obama will only raise your taxes". that is an outright LIE. 95% of americans will see tax relief under his plan. it is as clear as day.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 12:18pm

  21. FrankNoGrits-You seem quite defeated and are getting sadder and more predictable,but let's discuss why you believe that there are safe military jobs in war zone and why you showed your disrespect for those troops rather than keep posting about your tantrum.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:19pm

  22. Miscellaneous comments:

    Adam Howard: "I have this regular debate with my fellow progressive friends about whether voters are simply stupid. I always play devil's advocate and argue that the voters are not stupid, just misinformed"

    My Comment: We on the right have known all along that libs either believe those who aren't lib are stupid or misinformed - there could be no other explanation why somebody would not be lib, could there?

    Adam Howard: "Somehow, magically it's as if Obama's speech and the Democratic convention never happened"

    My Comment: That is wishful thinking, if only it were so.

    Adam Howard: "My favorite left wing blogs are in crisis mode, behaving as if it's all over and as if Obama can never do anything right"

    My Comment: That is because IT IS over - Sarah Palin is the next Vice President of the U.S., and John McCain is the next President. November 5th is the next important date on the calendar, when the libs will start declaring the election was stolen, as they always do when they lose.

    Adam Howard: "Remember all the hooplah over Hillary's speech? What happened? "

    My Comment: Why would there be any hooplah over a Hillary speech? The urge to vomit is the reaction I always have. (same as when I hear her husband speak, too)

    Adam Howard: "Obama has been fond of saying "the American voters aren't stupid" lately"

    My Comment: But he has gotten his licks in otherwise, when he mocked the people of Pennsylvania during the primaries.

    General Comment: This article is classic - some leftist journalists just can not comprehend or explain why all people do not by into the left agenda, so they feel they have to "explain" it, usually by declaring people ignorant or that they are led astray.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:20pm

  23. I noticed that none of our troop loving right jumped on FrankNoGrits when he disrespected our troops.Guess it's okay to do that if you pretend to support McCain.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:21pm

  24. Typo alert:

    I said "by into the left agenda" above, I meant "buy into the left agenda"..... I saw it and knew I had to correct it immediately before some lib comes back and lets me know how stupid and uneducated I am!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:22pm

  25. 'I have this regular debate with my fellow progressive friends about whether voters are simply stupid.' -- Adam Howard -- The Nation -- 9 September, 2001

    'Yes, but I need to win a majority' -- Adlai Stevenson -- 1956 (responding to a remark that 'thinking people' were for him)

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/09/2008 @ 12:27pm

  26. Darladoon,

    You said above "let's just admit: america is, by far, the dumbest western country on earth. "

    I can't believe this! This is a gift you have handed me - you left yourself wide open on this one!

    If what you say is true, don't forget, LIBS run the public education system in this country. Could that be the explanation? Gee, I guess it could be!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:27pm

  27. The author poses this question:

    "Are the voters simply stupid?"

    It's an indisputable fact that half the U.S. population has below average intelligence. Make your own conclusion.

    Posted by Top50Percent at 09/09/2008 @ 12:28pm

  28. Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 12:12pm

    How "presidential" did Palin look last night in that video on CNN of her in front of that right-wing lunatic church she was a part of for 30 years?

    She sounded spooky, likening our troop's mission in Iraq to some "plan of God".

    I wonder if she can tell us more of this "plan of God" so we know what to expect if she ever has to take over from 72-year-old McCain?

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 12:28pm

  29. sjchermak-Libs do not run the public school system nor do you have a shred of evidence that would show that.In conservative areas it's conservatives who run most everything .

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:31pm

  30. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:20pm

    I basically disagree with Mr Howard...

    after all, 70% of America does not support Bush and 70% of America thinks the Iraq War was a bad idea.

    The fact that some some percentage of that is still willing to give McCain a chance isn't necessarily stupidity.

    Despite the fact that McCain is offering mostly "four more years"....even guys like you would have to admit that if Bush were running for a 3rd term, he would lose by McGovern-Mondale like proportions.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:31pm

  31. It will become apparent in the coming weeks that McCain/Palin as agents of change is a fraud, and any convention bounce they currently have will be lost forever.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 12:17pm

    How will that become apparent Metteyya? The media will attack Sarah? done. no impact.

    Do you think it will happen after the debates? I can't wait for the debates. You?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

  32. Hi Darla, Well, you make a fine case that americans are the dumbest country in the west considering the popularity of Obama, but I have more faith in us.

    Oh, wait. You define dumb as 'doesn't agree with Darladoon', right?

    Well then. Yep we're really dumb!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:36pm

  33. If what you say is true, don't forget, LIBS run the public education system in this country. Could that be the explanation? Gee, I guess it could be!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:27pm

    Darla, I'll field that one. SJ, public schools do an adequate job of educating children given that they are funded properly and can hire qualified teachers. But the school system has a hard time undoing the damage done to children every Sunday by their moronic Sunday school teachers telling them the world is flat, and God Bless McCain and Bush. Churches for the most part are illegally funded political tax shelters and nothing more. Blame them for the stupidity of people, not real schools.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:41pm

  34. Wait a minute....this is interesting-

    "Hillary is supporting Barry for one reason. She knows if he isn't elected, het]r health care plan is dead, maybe forever."----Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 12:40pm

    "maybe forever"?!?!?!

    Somebody (not on Beavis' ignore) ask him (with the above quote)...

    "FRANK, 'forever'? I thought Hillary was going to come back in 2012 and win the Presidency and enact her agenda?"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:44pm

  35. FrankNoGrits-Hillary is really supporting Obama,now, because she wants to be the first female POTUS,badly.Let's discuss why you disrespect our troops and why no republican jumped on you for it.I know that most read it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 12:44pm

  36. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:41pm

    No, no, no, WOLF, you don't understand.

    SJCHER KNOWS that all the bad schools have bad, liberal teachers...and to explain the good schools, there are a few good conservative teachers and sometimes the kids from good, Christian, conservative homes can overcome their leftist education to succeed regardless.

    He can't prove that, but he "feels it in his gut!"

    "truthiness"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 12:47pm

  37. Hillary is supporting Barry for one reason. She knows if he isn't elected, het]r health care plan is dead, maybe forever.

    Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 12:40pm

    Frank, YOu think Hillary's or Obama's health care plans have a snow balls chance in hell of surviving? Even with the dems controlling both houses with a dem president, that will never happen.

    I'm more of a realist than you. I know that lobby money controls the very votes of the elected officials put into office. They may vote the way they say on minor issues that don't affect things one way or the other. But when you talk about turning a multibillion dollar industry on it's head, and really think some two bit politician has either the intestinal fortitude or the clout to pull it off, you've got to be mad.

    Our system protects the status quo. Once things are set in motion, they stay that way and if anything gain more power over time once they've taken root. We are stuck with the shitty health care system we've got for eternity. Maybe a minor tweak to the system will be made, but nothing more. Obama would have his hands full just trying to get out of Iraq and dealing with the right wing witch hunts similar to what happened to Bill Clinton.

    Like I've said before, you've chosen to march with the slimiest scumbags this nation has to offer while you back McCain.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:49pm

  38. "LIBS run the public education system in this country"

    how on earth is an entire public infrastructure run by liberals, when we've had 28 years of republican dominance in government, media and business?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 12:51pm

  39. Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

    It will happen in every media market of the 12 toss-up states that are going to decide this election.

    Simple comparison of both Palin and McCain's RECORD to the "maverick image" they are trying to project DEMONSTRATES THE FRAUD.

    PALIN: for pork barrel earmarks, more per capita than ANY state; for bridge to nowhere and only opposed after getting political heat; for increasing the debt, and left Wasilla 20 million in debt; continuation of abuse of power that we see with Bush and Cheney, and even used the same "executive privilege" excuse in trying to undercut a bi-partisan investigation into her using her Governor's office to pursue a family feud.

    McCain: Has Big Oil lobbyist running his campaign; supported Bush/Cheney on WMD in Iraq; wants to bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran; against nuclear test ban treaty; against union's right to organize; in favor of telecom immunity for illegal wiretaps; favors reducing student financial aid; against oversight of Iraq contract fraud; favors immunity from civil liability for gun manufacturers that make faulty guns; against energy assistance for low income Americans; and against Children's Health Insurance.

    If Obama just runs AGAINST PALIN/McCAIN's RECORD, he wins as the REAL AGENT of CHANGE!

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 12:52pm

  40. Wolfgang1 and Maskdelta,

    Wolfgang1, you said you would "field" my comment. What is your name, is it Bill Buckner? You bobbled the ball (see below).

    Maskdelta says I can not prove what I have said and asks for "truthiness"

    Read the linked article below:

    ========================

    John Stossel's 'Stupid in America' How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education By JOHN STOSSEL Jan. 13, 2006

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel /story?id=1500338

    =================

    Have you done the research into this that John Stossel has done? I doubt it - but I am sure you know more than him because - You are Lib!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:55pm

  41. "Our system protects the status quo. Once things are set in motion, they stay that way and if anything gain more power over time once they've taken root. We are stuck with the shitty health care system we've got for eternity. Maybe a minor tweak to the system will be made, but nothing more"

    this is accurate, and is also evidence that we are, in fact, the dumbest western country on earth. we live in a plutocracy, and those in power utilize every tool at their disposal (the media, primarily) to convince americans that we live in the best country on earth; that tax increases are socialistic Evil; that we need to expand our military because the Enemy is always prepared to strip us of our "freedoms"; that mccain is our Sole Protector; that obama is Chairman Mao; that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy; that the Media and Public schools are run by liberals; etc, etc.

    meanwhile, the upper 0.1% get richer because, as pontificus and others believe, tax increases on the wealthy will only backire because, as pontificus believes, the super rich will only pass on the costs to consumers.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 12:56pm

  42. "The Short Attention Span Society"

    nonsense.

    everybody knows that ou

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 12:58pm

  43. Hi Daraladoon,

    There is no Repbublican control of the media, in the 28 year period you cite Democrats have held Congress a large part of that time, and as far as business - one of the big problems is that schools are not run like businesses!

    Do you think that the teachers unions, who hold an iron-fisted control over a lot of education, are Republican? Or the National Education Association?

    Read the article link I provided to Wolfgang1 and Maskdelta. I am sure they will be posting in shortly to proclaim the article is invalid because of .......... (who knows what, we will just have to wait and find out!)

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:01pm

  44. FrankNoGrits-You don't support Jefferson Davis Palin aka Sarah,but you do say bad things about many of our troops in Iraq and the republicans,on here,let it slide since you are pretending to be on their side.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:01pm

  45. The voters are aware that McCain is a one term president..----Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/09/2008 @ 12:16pm

    Backing upto this, MAASCH...

    if McCain is going to be a one term president...and he has a REP for "maverickness"...i.e. going against his own Party and dealing with the other side...

    and if he will have NO care as to his Party's support in 2012....

    is it likely he'd pull a "Read my lips" moment on taxes....or Iraq....or drilling????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:01pm

  46. sjchermak-My republican dad became a teacher after he retired from the military and was in the union.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:03pm

  47. The very definition of elitism... I'm embarrassed for you.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:07pm

    o.k. smart guy.

    what's your take?

    history shows that the democratic administrations are better for the economy and that the republicans manipulate the fed rate to help themselves get re-elected.

    so why do people vote against themselves?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:04pm

  48. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:55pm

    Yes, very interesting "research" he did.....

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003

    BTW, you misquoted the title of the report..."oddly" enough.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:04pm

  49. FrankNoGrits-We can get anything by you because you run away from everyone.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:05pm

  50. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2840884933_d6193727bc_o.png

    this is real analysis.

    seriously.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:06pm

  51. FrankNoGrits-Speaking of lying, that isn't what the poll said.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:06pm

  52. i think the media pumps one side than the other because

    IT SELLS MORE SHAMPOO AND VIAGARA.

    what a farce.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:07pm

  53. FrankNoGrits-You can't set people straight.You don't know what you believe in and are just having a tantrum.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm

  54. well, rick davis, mccain's campaign manager, lobbied on behalf of BOTH.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 11:50am

    and the former head of obama's v p selection committee ran fannie from 91 - 98.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm

  55. Hi Darladoon,

    So we agree!

    You said "....tax increases are socialistic Evil......

    Amen!

    Of course, I took your remark out of context on purpose, because you clearly do not think they are evil

    Actually, taxes are theft. Read what Dr. Walter E. Williams has to say.

    =============

    Dr. Walter E. Williams, Duping the Public With Clever Words 06/12/2007

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21063

    ============

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:08pm

  56. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 12:41pm "But the school system has a hard time undoing the damage done to children every Sunday by their moronic Sunday school teachers telling them the world is flat"

    Did your sunday school teacher really tell you the world was flat? What church did you attend as a child?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:09pm

  57. sjchermak + john stossel = thud.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:09pm

  58. sjchermak, i don't think taxes are theft, at least not theoretically. you can take all of my money, i don't need it. i get all of my food, energy from the Sun.

    and republicans don't control the Media? do you believe in the myth of the so-called 'liberal media'?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 1:14pm

  59. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2008 @ 1:09pm

    Funniest thing about Stossel's piece is...

    he attacks the school administrators for "cherry-picking" the improved schools and students they note...

    and HE cherry-picks kids' answers to questions HE asked, and interspersed video totally unrelated to the school and subject he was discussing.

    He's become a fave of the right-wing as "the only voice of Truth on the networks"...because he goes out and does his own little Fox News pieces to curry their favor...but is shown time and time again to be more of an activist than a journalist.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:14pm

  60. This has nothing to do with anything, but it's pretty damn funny and I thought I'd share it with you folks.

    OLD people have problems that you haven't even considered yet! An 85-year-old man was requested by his doctor for a sperm count as part of his physical exam. The doctor gave the man a jar and said, 'Take this jar home and bring back a semen sample tomorrow.' The next day the 85-year-old man reappeared at the doctor's office and gave him the jar, which was as clean and empty as on the previous day The doctor asked what happened and the man explained, 'Well, doc, it's like this - first I tried with my right hand, but nothing. Then I tried with my left hand, but still nothing. Then I asked my wife for help. She tried with her right hand, then with her left, still nothing. She tried with her mouth, first with the teeth in, then with her teeth out, still nothing. We even called up Arleen, the lady next door and she tried too, first with both hands, then an armpit, and she even tried squeezin' it between her knees, but still nothing. The doctor was shocked! 'You asked your neighbor?' The old man replied, 'Yep, none of us could get the jar open.'

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:15pm

  61. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:01pm "FrankNoGrits-You don't support Jefferson Davis Palin aka Sarah,but you do say bad things about many of our troops in Iraq and the republicans,on here,let it slide since you are pretending to be on their side."

    Okay, nobody. I'll bite. Provide a link to what frank said about the troops. As a conservative, I'll read it for myself, and if he said what you say he said, then I'll give him my opinion.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:18pm

  62. Maskdelta,

    Gotcha!

    =============== From Maskdelta:

    Yes, very interesting "research" he did.....

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003

    BTW, you misquoted the title of the report..."oddly" enough.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008

    ================

    From Media Matters website:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003

    Titled "Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids,"

    ==================

    From ABC News Website (the actual site of the article)

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/ Stossel/story?id=1500338

    John Stossel's 'Stupid in America' How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education By JOHN STOSSEL Jan. 13, 2006

    ==================

    Maskdelta, I copied and pasted the title of the article from the webpage where the article appeared.

    How can one "misquote" something when one (me) copies and pastes it directly from the place where it resides?

    It is "Media Matters" and you who have "misquoted" the title, oddly enough!

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:19pm

  63. Hi Darladoon,

    You asked "do you believe in the myth of the so-called 'liberal media'?"

    Not a myth.

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:21pm

  64. Posted by frankgrits at 09/09/2008 @ 1:03pm

    Palin belonged to a Pentecostal Assembly of God church for over 30 years, and THAT is where she gets her theology.

    They believe in the rapture, and the Jesus will come back to Earth and convert JEWS to Christ, and whomever doesn't convert goes to Hell.

    This is and EXTREMELY INTOLERANT theology and essentially assigns all persons whose name does not appear in the Christian Bible to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

    I guess the Metteyya's of the world have no chance in Palin's theology unless they take Christian names and accept Jesus as their Lord and savior.

    From Wiki on Palin's lifelong church's theology:

    14. The Millennial Reign of Christ - The Second Coming of Christ includes the rapture of the saints, which is our blessed hope, followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on earth for one thousand years. (Zechariah 14:5, Matthew 24:27, Matthew 24:30, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 19:11-14, Revelation 20:1-6)

    * This millennial reign will bring the salvation of national Israel, (Ezekiel 37:21,22, Zephaniah 3:19,20, Romans 11:26,27) * and the establishment of universal peace. (Isaiah 11:6-9, Psalms 72:3-8, Micah 4:3,4)

    15. The Final Judgment - There will be a final judgment in which the wicked dead will be raised and judged according to their works. Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, together with the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, will be consigned to the everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43-48, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:11-15, Revelation 21:8)

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:22pm

  65. jayne-His comment about Biden's son, and other troops like him, was removed for being offensive,but you notice that he does not deny it nor will he discuss it.And you were on the board when I pointed it out.It was on the Cheney on Palin board.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:27pm

  66. Personally I think we were all enthralled by watching Andrea Mitchell drowned in balloons. Joking aside, I suspect that there is some polling shenanigans going on. It really depends on the demographics of the people being polled. I don't believe that there are that many evangelicals out there. modern polling has a basic problem that they only poll an assumed demographic and I think we are going through a generational shift this selection cycle. At least, I hope so. Plus a large segment of the Hillary voters were not going to vote for her in the general election. Most of the "ameners" were going to vote for "life begins at conception" McCain. These people don't give a damn what life is after birth. They know they are correct about their world view: the world is five thousand years old, they know were the garden of Eden is, Abel was black, the earth is flat and women was created from spit and a rib. They would also be the first to yell "crucify him".

    Posted by lachatte at 09/09/2008 @ 1:30pm

  67. Ben Smith 2 hours, 25 minutes ago

    Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who endorsed and worked for George W. Bush in 2004, is endorsing Obama today, NY1 first reported.

    I asked Koch just now what prompted the move.

    "The designation of Palin to be vice president," he said. "She's scary."

    He said he was alarmed by the report that she'd triggered a conflict with the local librarian in Wasilla, Alaska by inquiring about the possibility of banning books.

    "Any time someone goes to the library and says, 'I want to ban books,' and the librarian says 'no,' and she threatens to fire them -- that's scary," he said.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:30pm

  68. jayne-correction-You were not on the board after I pointed it out,but several other republicans were.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:32pm

  69. Present company excepted, most Americans are not politically savvy. They are to busy trying to juggle finances, deal with family and so forth. With the destruction of the middle class there is even less discretionary time for understanding who is slapping them around in this economic gang bang.

    We live in a fast food, instant gratification, hyper speed, hurry up and wait, dumbed down, blinders on, xanax in, purposeless nightmare society. So the voters blow in the wind like a sapling with a weak trunk. They get a video bite on the tube that shows some woman who looks like a neighbor or someone standing next to them in the supermarket checkout line and they think, "Oh she looks nice" and they vote on that.

    There is no in depth analysis or intellectual pondering of the issues by the vast majority of us. It's perfection for the wolves who will feast upon the flesh of the ignorant. The game is fixed, these plans are made in back rooms by the power mongers. It would be a miracle if anything changes. But miracles do happen occasionally.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 1:32pm

  70. Hello Metteyya,

    You criticize Vice President Elect Palin's religion, because you say that it is intolerant and you say that according to her theology people have have no chance unless they take Christian names and accept Jesus. (my summary of what you said)

    Since this is the United States of America, you have the right to say this in a free society.

    ---------HOWEVER---------

    If someone points out how the Religion of Peace (the one that says it is OK to fly aircraft into 1 and 2 World Trade and kill people) declares the same kinds of things, then WHAM! the penalty flags come out fast and furious.

    ISLAMAPHOBIA! the lib referees scream. You can't do that!

    Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn? Friday, June 13, 2008 | 6:54 PM ET By Neil Macdonald CBC News

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/ story/2008/06/13/ f-rfa-macdonald.html

    The penalty flags flew in Canada and from what I see here libs like to invoke the same in the United States as well.

    Why the double standard, eh?

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

  71. Did your sunday school teacher really tell you the world was flat? What church did you attend as a child?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:09pm

    No, I didn't attend a church that told me the world was flat, I was speaking figuratively. Here is a true example of Churches telling their followers that they were right and anyone opposing them was not only wrong, but could be put to death for disagreeing with them.

    There was a guy named Galileo Galilee who had the audacity to say that the sun didn't revolve around the earth as the church taught at the time. He had proof of his position, but was ordered to denounce his findings by the powers that be of his time. Sound familiar? Like I said, I was speaking figuratively about the earth being flat, but I'll bet if someone had come out and claimed he knew the world wasn't flat in a different time frame would possibly be burned at the stake for witchcraft.....similar to the religious fruitcakes now swearing this creationism crap.

    Men wrote the bible, not God, so why is everyone so quick to quote things written by folks who lived so damned long ago, nobody really knows who really wrote what, and for what purpose. Religious people get so riled up if you question their beliefs they'll kill you if you challenge their faith in some cases. Don't believe me, take a good close look at the Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.....and the U.S.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:35pm

  72. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:19pm

    You're right, your title was correct, I apologize...

    the report was still wrong.

    But, if you'd care to find evidence to dispute Media Matters analysis of it, happy to hear it.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

  73. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:21pm

    BTW, you can't use a right-wing source to prove a right-wing point.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:38pm

  74. sjchermak-If the GOP had a VP candidate that was a far right wing muslim then,my guess is,that libs would mention that and come down on the GOP for it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:38pm

  75. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:22pm

    "This is and EXTREMELY INTOLERANT theology and essentially assigns all persons whose name does not appear in the Christian Bible to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. I guess the Metteyya's of the world have no chance in Palin's theology unless they take Christian names"

    May I ask how you make the leap that it says if you don't have a "Christian" name, you won't go to heaven? It talks of converting people to Christianity but not about their names being in the Bible. Please clarify.

    "The Second Coming of Christ includes the rapture of the saints, which is our blessed hope, followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on earth for one thousand years...and the establishment of universal peace"

    That sounds pretty nice to me. Ah, peace on earth...

    "Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, ... will be consigned to the everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

    I pretty sure that all Christians believe that if you're not saved you're not going to heaven. It's a personal belief held by many in this country.

    BTW, I'm not sure what post you were responding to of frank's. The only post I could find on this page that's at 09/09/2008 @ 1:03pm is i'm nobody's post.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:39pm

  76. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

    I guess you haven't been following my posts over the last year or so.

    I am AGAINST ALL FUNDAMENTALISM - Jewish, Islamic, AND Christian fundamentalism because it breeds intolerance of other people and sets up this zero-sum game in which the only way to win is if the other theologies and people who believe in them are destroyed.

    Palin is trying to run away from her extreme Christian Fundamentalism for political reasons by changing churches, but her beliefs have not changed.

    I think it is fair to point out what her lifelong church's beliefs are and compare them to some of the things Palin says TODAY.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:40pm

  77. "You asked "do you believe in the myth of the so-called 'liberal media'?" Not a myth."

    this conversation is over. i am not having a conversation with *anyone* who believes in the myth of a liberal media. it's the most inane idea ever put forth into our ongoing political debate.

    a liberal media? i'll let greenwald answer that:

    "The single dumbest claim in our political culture is that the huge corporations which own our establishment media outlets promote a "liberal" ideology. Why would General Electric ever use NBC and its other media assets to promote political liberalism? They lavishly benefit from the whole panoply of right-wing policies -- from endlessly expanding defense spending to deregulation. Their multiple businesses depend upon maintaining good relations with the right-wing ideologues who run our Government. Even ignoring all of the above-documented empirical facts, the very idea that a corporation like GE -- or Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC) and Time Warner (CNN) -- would actively promote a left-wing agenda in its news divisions and undermine the very Government power centers on which they rely has been the most self-evidently moronic premise one can imagine."

    how has the media somehow worked against mccain's campaign to reach the white house, if indeed the media is so liberal? how is asking softball questions at republicans, like bush and cheney, evidence of a liberal media? how is having media stars fawning over our politicians evidence of a liberal media? how is it even possible that mccain and palin are prancing around claiming they are against EARMARKS and pork barrel spending then their campaign is being run by some of the most well-connected lobbyists in the country? how did the USA goto war in Iraq with a liberal media????

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 1:42pm

  78. jayne-As I told you.His comment about Biden's son,and others like him, was removed for being offensive and you were not on there after I pointed it out,but others were and,you notice,that Frank does not deny that he said it..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:42pm

  79. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:27pm

    I suppose I'll have to take your word on it then.

    If I had read the post, believe me, I would have commented. I have family in the military...and who have recently served in Iraq.

    I hope frank didn't respond because he has you on his ignore list...that would be unfortunate.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:43pm

  80. i hate to be so blunt, but anyone who believes that the media is liberal is simply stupid.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 1:43pm

  81. jayne-Frank does not have me on ignore and does respond to what I say,although without addressing me personally..You're new and don't know frank,but we are quite familiar with him and he responded to a post that said that Biden's son was going to Iraq by saying that Biden's son was in the JAG corp and would be safe as long as a pencil lead doesn't beak off and hit him in the eye.That is something that one does not say about someone who is going into a war zone.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:50pm

  82. Metteyya,

    I have not followed all of your posts. There simply are not enough hours in the day to see all postings here much less elsewhere.

    So, OK, I direct my comment away from you specifically.

    It is a problem, though, that many on the left DO place restrictions on comment on Islam, uniquely. Self-censorship does take place so as not to make Muslims angry. When the Danish cartoons were published that threw some of the Islamic world into a hissy fit, a lot of news media did not reproduce pictures of those cartoons in their news stories.

    They came up with a lot of B.S. for not doing so, so-called journalistic discretion, etc. They really were afraid of creating Islamic anger. They were exercising self censorship.

    And the reverse has happened too, in a different venue. The left has succeeded in scouring public school "clean" of any mention of religion - except the religion of peace.

    ===========================

    Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination? Cinnamon Stillwell Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/ g/a/2008/06/11/ cstillwell.DTL

    ==========================

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:50pm

  83. Just give it a few days till the polls stabilize. McCain should start losing his bounce soon. All this talk of McCain leading is funny. He is only up by about 4 points post convention. Give it time for the polls to stabilize and both bounces to go away. Give it time for people to start hearing more about Palin like her "Pray the Gay Away" meetings and the polls will swing the other way. Anyone who knows anything knew McCain would be up by about 4 - 5 points and that's what national polls are showing, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:52pm

  84. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Ooooh, you were speaking figuratively...ah, well, I didn't want to assume anything.

    I like to believe people have progressed since the time of Galileo. Do we still burn people at the stake (not speaking figuratively)?

    You were commenting on the fact that the education system has to "undo" all the wrong teachings of the church. I believe the church helps the education system by teaching children about morals and respect. Children who respect authority figures are not as disruptive in class. One of the main roadblocks to effective teaching in the classroom today is disruptive behavior.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:53pm

  85. Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 1:39pm

    I agree with Saint Ignatius who said the Book of Revelations should have never been canonized.

    Canonizing Revelations by including it in the Bible put the faith of Jesus, which is based on love, on a war-mongering collision course with the rest of the world.

    Palin, and people like her who believe in Christian Fundamentalism, don't understand this and could very easily start a New Crusade or Holy War and truly believe this is part of "God's Plan."

    That is why it is imperative to keep people like Palin away from the levers of military power in which they can act out their Christian Fundamentalist "end times scenario" on the rest of the world.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:56pm

  86. Hello darladoon,

    You commented:

    "this conversation is over. i am not having a conversation with *anyone* who believes in the myth of a liberal media. it's the most inane idea ever put forth into our ongoing political debate. "

    "i hate to be so blunt, but anyone who believes that the media is liberal is simply stupid."

    OK, OK.... point made... point proven.. you have proven your argument, you win.

    You have provided a lot of philosophy which "proves" that there is no lib bias.

    I guess so... except the link to the website I put forth

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/

    has concrete example after example of journalists approaching their broadcasts with a left leaning bias.

    And what about the book by Bernard Goldberg, "BIAS".. why is that invalid?

    There is nothing I can do. You declare people stupid if they believe in lib bias. Since there is example after example in the public domain of this, I don't see how you can make the claim. But you do, and you win the argument on The Nation website where by default all a lib has to do is declare something so, and it is so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:56pm

  87. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:30pm

    Poor Mayor Koch was duped.

    Newsweek already explained that.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

    Posted by State17 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:57pm

  88. Question: will you till vote for Obama when you realize that he holds the same belief about who is saved and goes to heaven and that those who do not receive Christ as Lord and Saviour will go to hell? Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:53pm

    Well Palin believes anyone who disagrees with Bush goes to hell. I don't think Obama does.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:59pm

  89. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 1:50pm "jayne-Frank does not have me on ignore and does respond to what I say,although without addressing me personally..You're new and don't know frank,but we are quite familiar with him and he responded to a post that said that Biden's son was going to Iraq by saying that Biden's son was in the JAG corp and would be safe as long as a pencil lead doesn't beak off and hit him in the eye.That is something that one does not say about someone who is going into a war zone."

    Alright. Glad I didn't read that then.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:00pm

  90. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:52pm

    Actually, I find the EXTREME over-confidence by the Right, in light of an obvioius "Convention bounce"....

    to be quite hopeful.

    I mean, we've got THE WORST PROGNOSTICATORS on this blog, predicting a definite McCain/Palin win....

    MAASCH/JOMAMMA said "Obama's going to lose...and lose big."

    SJCHERMAK said "Palin IS going to be the next VEEP, McCain the next President"

    and FRANKGRITS telling us we better" get onboard, the McCain train is pulling out"

    Frankly, you couldn't ask for three better "reverse barometers".

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm

  91. Hello Maskdelta:

    You say:

    "the report was still wrong. .......But, if you'd care to find evidence to dispute Media Matters analysis of it, happy to hear it............BTW, you can't use a right-wing source to prove a right-wing point."

    But you can use a left-wing source to point out a left-wing point.

    And you say the report was wrong... in your opinion.

    I have seen plenty of other comment on the subject of education. (Teachers not being able to be fired, money not having an impact on education, etc.)

    One source is the website of Dr. Walter E. Williams at George Mason University.

    I am not a walking encyclopedia to be able to call up all the articles on a dime at this moment to prove or illustrate my point. I have to break off of this blog shortly but maybe later I will pull up some articles.

    Unless I do, you will declare my posts and argument proven wrong, I know. And a left-leaning article from a left website is truth and fact, of course.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm

  92. jayne-frank is a Hillary cultist who is angry because she lost and wants McCain to win so that Hillary can run in 2012 and his anger at Obama,Biden,and anyone else connected to Obama is why he said what he did about Biden's son and his anger at Obama/Biden should not lead to his saying such things about a troop going into a war zone.I take that personally.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 2:04pm

  93. americans have short attention span, incompetent education, are xenophobic (means don't care about other countries or nationalities, anything basically outside your small realm), and are very easily manipulated...a few key phrases or spin is all it takes..the facts don't matter, they never have....

    Obama is the ONLY CHOICE..

    no matter to which side of the political aisle you currently reside or if you are straddling the fence, etc..

    HRC was on walmart board, she started PACs dedicated to foreign interests, the first of its' kind, while in Congress; the Friends of India Caucus...etc..

    john mccain while protesting lobbyists has his campaign staff replete with lobbyists...his own actions while senator such as promoting DBL outsourcing all its' jobs from Ohio, professing to know nothing about the economy, promoting building walls to keep immigrants out, which negatively affects middle class, does not bode well for middle class, should he somehow steal this election through pandering...

    whether you like other races or are xenophobic, the stark reality is immigrants perform functions, without which formerly middle class will be performing or our economy will contract....

    palin has NO EXPERIENCE in any of these things...recently, she asked "what does a VP actually do???" which is not reassuring...

    when cindy mccain was asked why palin was chosen, she responded,"because she is gov of alaska, which is next to russia, so that is her experience"

    once again, while bewildering, totally off-point, and purposely misleading, is definitely NOT reassuring...

    while the media and mccain and even hrc supporters pounced on rev wright...and skewered his hour long sermons, picking and choosing some sentence here or there....palin's preacher is warning of end times, a

    Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:04pm

  94. americans have short attention span, incompetent education, are xenophobic (means don't care about other countries or nationalities, anything basically outside your small realm), and are very easily manipulated...a few key phrases or spin is all it takes..the facts don't matter, they never have....

    Obama is the ONLY CHOICE..

    no matter to which side of the political aisle you currently reside or if you are straddling the fence, etc..

    HRC was on walmart board, she started PACs dedicated to foreign interests, the first of its' kind, while in Congress; the Friends of India Caucus...etc..

    john mccain while protesting lobbyists has his campaign staff replete with lobbyists...his own actions while senator such as promoting DBL outsourcing all its' jobs from Ohio, professing to know nothing about the economy, promoting building walls to keep immigrants out, which negatively affects middle class, does not bode well for middle class, should he somehow steal this election through pandering...

    whether you like other races or are xenophobic, the stark reality is immigrants perform functions, without which formerly middle class will be performing or our economy will contract....

    palin has NO EXPERIENCE in any of these things...recently, she asked "what does a VP actually do???" which is not reassuring...

    when cindy mccain was asked why palin was chosen, she responded,"because she is gov of alaska, which is next to russia, so that is her experience"

    once again, while bewildering, totally off-point, and purposely misleading, is definitely NOT reassuring...

    while the media and mccain and even hrc supporters pounced on rev wright...and skewered his hour long sermons, picking and choosing some sentence here or there....palin's preacher is warning of end times, a

    Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:04pm

  95. while the media and mccain and even hrc supporters pounced on rev wright...and skewered his hour long sermons, picking and choosing some sentence here or there....palin's preacher is warning of end times, and actively tries to convert gays.....

    america, choose whoever, it does not matter, it is too late....foreigners will win...they already have....we have already lost.....china wins '08

    Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:05pm

  96. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 1:56pm

    You only quoted the parts about "The Millennial Reign of Christ" and "The Final Judgment" both of which would be preceeded by the second coming of Christ. If Palin believes what you said she does, then you have nothing to worry about until the second coming of Christ. Correct?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:06pm

  97. Religion in all forms is anathema to all living things. It is the futile attempt of human beings to understand things which cannot be understood. It is truly and "Accursed Thing". Until we evolve beyond this curse of the human intellect we will all be damned to endure the repurcussions of this disease. It leaves us open to exploitation by evil people who know better.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 2:07pm

  98. One more thing, Maskdelta, on a separate subject:

    You say "MAASCH/JOMAMMA said "Obama's going to lose...and lose big." SJCHERMAK said "Palin IS going to be the next VEEP, McCain the next President" and FRANKGRITS telling us we better" get onboard, the McCain train is pulling out" Frankly, you couldn't ask for three better "reverse barometers".

    What you need to remember, though, is that even though I am not psychic my vibes tell me that McCain/Palin will win.

    This is not based on political belief or opinion on my part, in and of itself.

    It is based on the feeling of relief I got when I first went to the Internet last Friday morning and found out Sarah Palin had been selected as John McCain's running mate.

    Relief that we would have a President and Vice-President who would not surrender in Iraq with victory in our grasp, and who will not appease and capitualte to the next threat, which we may not even know about right now. And relief that Socialist Utopia would not be introduced here at home.

    My relief is on political grounds, but it is my vibes telling me the election will turn out well that allow me to have this relief.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 2:08pm

  99. >>>Care to provide a quote to prove that?

    BTW, you can't.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:01pm<<<

    Palin's former pastor said this.

    You have to make a real leap of faith that she sat there for 30 years and didn't believe any of it.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:08pm

  100. >>>You only quoted the parts about "The Millennial Reign of Christ" and "The Final Judgment" both of which would be preceeded by the second coming of Christ. If Palin believes what you said she does, then you have nothing to worry about until the second coming of Christ. Correct?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:06pm<<<

    Except that these nut cases see "Antichrists" in COUNTRIES and LEADERS OF COUNTRIES, not individual human beings.

    Jesus has become a FORCE, not a man, so his "second coming" could be a "military force" that is on some "mission from God".

    That is what many of the troops in Iraq believe, and Palin played into this in a recent speech before her old church.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:11pm

  101. >>>Question: will you till vote for Obama when you realize that he holds the same belief about who is saved and goes to heaven and that those who do not receive Christ as Lord and Saviour will go to hell?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 1:53pm<<<

    Obama is VERY tolerant of other people and their beliefs. The fact that he is pro-choice should give you a clue concerning his tolerance.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:14pm

  102. This has nothing to do with John McSame, Palin or Obama. This has everything to do with the American public"s obsession with mistaking the illusion of soap opera drama for real life.

    The American psyche has become so superficially titillated by fanciful distractions that we re on the verge of sending this country into the abyss of selling our souls for tantalizing thrills�.

    May God help us as we will not easily come out of another 4 more Bush like years...

    FACT: McSame has voted 90% the same as George Bush. There are no political commentator out there that can give ONE policy difference between Bush's policies for the past 8 years and the policies McSame are pushing... NOT ONE !

    Posted by nerakami at 09/09/2008 @ 2:15pm

  103. Who has much of an attention span left after working your ass off for low wages, mortgaging your firstborn to fill the tank at the gas pump, opening a vein to pay the doctor bills, and elbowing other working stiffs outta the way at the sale bin in the grocery store?

    Most of us don't have the luxury of reading articles on Truthout, etc., and researching the websites of the candidates to figure out what's reality and how to vote so our grandkids don't get stuck with our debt.

    Liberals have to learn to play the game as well as Conservatives (use whatever label/epithet you like here).

    Maybe we should call the Republicans on their 'situational ethics' while they flash the family values cards in our faces. Abstinence only, abortion, teen pregnancy, ok.

    But, how about the gov't. takeover of the banking system? Corporatization of American life? I keep feeling like I'm in a time machine hurtling back to the 1930's and the threshold of National Socialism and Fascism. Cafones Unite. Throw off the Jackboots!

    Posted by alaskadiva at 09/09/2008 @ 2:22pm

  104. America's voters elected George W Bush. Twice. GO figure

    Posted by mikecope at 09/09/2008 @ 2:25pm

  105. 1 hour, 43 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

    An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:28pm

  106. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm

    Was anything that Media Matters noted on Stossel's story refutable?

    As for "citing a right-wing source", you simply directed DARLA to Media Research which is an admittedly right-wing group, and gave no SPECIFIC example to cite. Typically, MRC cites examples of "liberal media bias" by taking THEIR opinion of an event and if the Media doesn't accept that, they say "See! They're biased in favor of liberalism!"...

    again, to quote Colbert, who mockingly seems to be you serious..."Reality has a left-wing bias!"

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 2:08pm

    Yes, SJ...as I've agreed on many occasions.

    Most of what you think IS "your vibes" and "what you feel"...again...

    "truthiness"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:32pm

  107. the problem is that the main core of the american people need hardcore entertainment to pay attention. because obama and biden are both intelligent, honest, modest, and fair people, they are therefore not interesting or entertaining to the majority of americans or to the press.

    however, mccain and palin have a stronger entertainment factor because they're so whacked and disingenuous. the american people CRAVE ENTERTAINMENT and palin and mccain are providing it by all their double-talk, switching sides on issues, their extreme conservative and in my view whacked-out ideas on science, religion and the economy, PLUS the fact that they're interesting targets for gossip news. all the news is about them all the time now, so obama and biden are practically forgotten and fading into the background.

    blame it on what TV has done to this country. blame it on our short attention spans. blame it on people not using their brains anymore, because anyone with a brain would vote for obama if they gave it a seconds-worth of thought.

    Posted by momo67 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:34pm

  108. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 2:04pm "jayne-frank is a Hillary cultist who is angry because she lost and wants McCain to win so that Hillary can run in 2012 and his anger at Obama,Biden,and anyone else connected to Obama is why he said what he did about Biden's son and his anger at Obama/Biden should not lead to his saying such things about a troop going into a war zone.I take that personally."

    Okay, okay. I think your opinion of frank is very clear. In my previous post I said "Alright" Can we talk about something OTHER than frank now?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:39pm

  109. My predictions for the coming weeks. It looks like McCain's bounce has stabilized. Today should be the end of it. Rasmussen has it tied 48-48 when you add leaners. Gallup has it 49-44 with the lead going to McCain. He didn't gain anymore points today which means we have probably seen the tail end of his bounce yesterday. Republican's will try to build this up as much more than it is. It is a bounce from the convention nothing more. The reason Obama didn't bounce higher is because The VP selections and conventions were so close together that the Republican happening muted the Demo convention bounce.

    Predictions in the next week, we will see McCain's bounce recede in the next week to week and a half. I only really trust state polls which Obama is still 40-50 points ahead in. I will say in the national polls he will recede to somewhere around 2-4 points behind Obama. Then we will head into the debates. If both candidates get a fair toss in the debates I think Obama will solidify his lead because the issues are on the side of Obama not McCain.

    Once the controversy of Palin subsides and we stop getting the scandal stories and start actually getting to know her I think that will be partially responsible for a pull back in the polls because we will start to see how far right she is. McCain still has the maverick thing working for him because he hasn't had to talk about any of the issues. Once in comes to the debates and policy discussions start happening we will see a different light cast on McCain. He will have to explain his absolutely zero excuse for abortion stance. Obama will be able to clarify many of the lies told by Republicans about his platform. He will be able to explain that he has 30% more tax breaks in his platform than McCain. These are my predictions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:40pm

  110. Care to provide a quote to prove that? BTW, you can't. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:01pm

    Isn't that the Republican tactic now. That anyone you associate with means you share their beliefs. Which means since Palin's priest says it, that means Palin agrees with it. It's your tactic not mine.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:41pm

  111. An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:28pm

    Wow! It must be nice to make $139.39 a day for traveling to the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom and outside to water the yard. Where can I sign up for that?

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 2:42pm

  112. "voters are simply stupid" - I would like to believe otherwise, but I live in Texas, where George Bush was elected (in my belief) over Ann Richards, simply because people recognized his name - amazingly similar to that of his father's!

    I hoped it wasn't true.

    But six years later, he was elected President, through a combination of manipulation of votes and - again - because his name was familiar.

    That is the only possible explanation I can come up with. Voters are either stupid or could care less about our country's legacy as long as they get to keep their money.

    Posted by Bubbette at 09/09/2008 @ 2:43pm

  113. Frankly, you couldn't ask for three better "reverse barometers". Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:02pm

    My favorite and most heartening being Franks. His predictions of what is going to happen have been notoriously wrong so far. Which leads me to believe that the more sensible people that want a McCain win here don't like hearing him predict it because they know his record.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:43pm

  114. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:40pm

    I'd say that's a lot more realistic than these folks who think McCain and Palin are going to coast all the way to November with a 7-10% lead over Obama!

    Seriously, the only serious conservative I've seen here who didn't go ape-s**t over McCain's bounce is maybe FREIHEIT.

    The rest got caught up in "Palinmania" (hey, worked for them...heheh) and seemed to think it was 1984 all over again! (the election, not the novel...heheh)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:45pm

  115. An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Geezzz....wonder if it would have been cheaper for the State of Alaska to keep the jet?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:48pm

  116. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 2:43pm

    Oh, definitely....remember this is a guy who predicted from 2006 upto nearly the Dem Convention that "Hillary will win it"....starting at a total "inevitable" stance, to a "Sure, he won Iowa, but so what?" stance, to a "Super Tuesday, she'll mop the floor with Obama" stance, to "There's still lots of primaries to go, and Obama is fading!"....to his final deseperate gasp at the Super-Delegates "wising up" and GIVING it to her. And then "He MUST pick Hillary as Veep or half the party will abandon him".

    Now, in full "McCain MUST win in '08, so that HRC can run in '12" mode...he's predicting THEIR "inevitable" victory based on a Convention bounce and the fact his "new friends" (from HAPPY to Rush to Fox News) are all giddy.

    If you believe in luck or karma at all...a FG prediction of a McCain victory is a sure sign that Michelle Obama can start picking out drapes in the Residency!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:49pm

  117. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 2:11pm "Jesus has become a FORCE, not a man, so his "second coming" could be a "military force" that is on some "mission from God". "

    Where did you get that from? I know many Christians, none of whom believe Christ to be a Force in the way you describe it.

    "That is what many of the troops in Iraq believe"

    How do you know this? Is it because they are Christians? Is it because they see the people they're helping everyday and are humbled by the thanks they receive from those people?

    Just to clarify: Praying that what you're doing is "God's Will" is actually asking God for guidance. As in, 'If this is what I should be doing, I'll be successful.'

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:51pm

  118. Wow! It must be nice to make $139.39 a day for traveling to the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom and outside to water the yard. Where can I sign up for that?

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Kind of wondering how she gets to spend all those Sundays in church in Wasilla. Maybe Sarah should have moved the capitol to Wasilla eh?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:52pm

  119. Just to clarify: Praying that what you're doing is "God's Will" is actually asking God for guidance. As in, 'If this is what I should be doing, I'll be successful.'

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I didn't get the impression it was asking for guidance....rather it was stating that this is God's Will because it happens to coincide with my political beliefs. Big Difference!

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:56pm

  120. look, if you really want to see journalists actually doing their jobs (which is not, and never has been, an inherently liberal task, unless, of course, you feel that criticism is inherently liberal), then go to england, france or germany, where their journalists actually do their job: which is to scrutinize politicans' statements, decisions and actions.

    here in america, if you criticize bush, you're a liberal. one need look no further than olbermann to realize this. olbermann is not a liberal, he is a bush critic. but conservatives feel that olbermann is the pre-eminent example of liberal bias in the media because he criticizes bush. what is there *not* to criticize in bush? virtually every major policy under his administration has been so radical, so very un-conservative, that even arlen specter and chuck hagel have become fierce critics. and that has nothing to say of the rise of ron paul, a true conservative.

    when lichtblau broke the wiretapping story, conservatives all over the country cried foul: "keller should be hung for treason." but wasn't lichtblau merely doing his *job*, which is to hold politicians (of all stripes) to account? why is lichtblau suddently liberal because he uncovered massive lawbreaking? why is hersch liberal because he uncovered abu ghraib?

    if any of these things happened under an obama administration, wouldn't conservatives wanna know about it?

    you see basically, conservatives are in massive denial about the role of the press in public life. they believe that politicians, especially republicans, are inherently good people, with good intentions, and don't deserve these pesky journalists asking them any questions, or uncovering any wrongdoing.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2008 @ 2:58pm

  121. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:56pm "I didn't get the impression it was asking for guidance....rather it was stating that this is God's Will because it happens to coincide with my political beliefs. Big Difference!"

    That is a big difference. But as you stated, it's only your impression. Words are a very powerful thing. Given different inflections of voice, the same ones can mean totally different things.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:59pm

  122. That is a big difference. But as you stated, it's only your impression. Words are a very powerful thing. Given different inflections of voice, the same ones can mean totally different things.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Very true. That is why it is rarely appropriate for a government official to mix the two....i.e., God's Will and the Pipeline. Aka...."Separation of Church and State."

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm

  123. jayne-I did not want to talk to you about frank,in the first place.You brought him up so I explained him to you.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm

  124. Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:51pm

    You obviously have not talked to a lot of Dooms Day Christians and their wild de-coding of the Book of Revelations.

    When I read the Book of Revelations, I had the same reaction as Saint Ignatius that it doesn't fit with the same spirit of love that was spoken by Jesus in the gospel. It appeared to be the rantings of an old nearly senile John who was confined to a dungeon all those years - it was way John could feel vindicated for being persecuted, some enormous "victory" led by his hero, Jesus.

    To read this book any other way than a personal hope and vindication of John requires one to ignore everything we know about Jesus Christ and buy into an angry God concept in which Jesus judges and punishes rather than loves.

    It really is quite a stretch, and Palin is squarely in the crowd that has made this stretch.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 3:15pm

  125. this is from wall st. journal a conservative magazine now owned by rupert murdoch...

    another top mccain staffer named Charlie Black has ties to a russian think tank which directly lobbied the US National Security Council and got paid $50,000 for the effort to influence the US.....

    bill clinton repealed his own legislation involving govt staff from lobbying for foreign govts and corporations on january 21,1992 and bush has taken advantage of it....ask mccain whether he will repeal it, since his whole platform is about no lobbyists or PACs...mccain is A LIAR

    GOP platform includes ZERO mention of climate change or peak oil.....while ANOTHER hurricane will hit us in three days.....but media....nothing.....they are asleep.....or AWOL

    people, wake up!!!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:15pm

  126. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:52pm

    Yeah, pretty sweet work if you can get it. Wonder if, as VP she'll charge us all for the privilege of her sitting her self-righteous ass in the Naval-Observatory residence.

    I read somewhere that they tried to move the capitol to Wasilla at one point in history. But perhaps more importantly it is the 2002 Duck tape capitol of the WORLD

    http://www.ducttapeguys.com/wasilla/index.html

    and the meth capitol of AK: I especially liked the part of the boy bragging his mom cooked the best meth in the valley!

    http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/030805/sta_20050308002.shtml

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/09/2008 @ 3:15pm

  127. Geezzz....wonder if it would have been cheaper for the State of Alaska to keep the jet?

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:48pm

    Yeah, why bother to have a jet when you can stay home for 312 days out of the year and collect $43,390 of taxpayer money and school your daughter on abstinence..

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 3:19pm

  128. The rest got caught up in "Palinmania" (hey, worked for them...heheh) and seemed to think it was 1984 all over again! (the election, not the novel...heheh) Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 2:45pm

    It's what happens after every bounce. I think it hurts McCain a lot too. Now that he is ahead if he falls behind again people are going to become disheartened quickly. Being in the lead is always detrimental. It means you get more focus put on you and McCain won't benefit from focus put on him. He is hoping Palin will diffuse it but she has enough skeletons to fill a yacht apparently. McCain's biggest hope is that he coasts to election day with a 4-5% gap behind Obama in the national polls. That way it keeps him slightly out of the lime light and keeps the focus on Obama. The more the focus is on McCain the more unappealing he looks because we realize he isn't the maverick he claims to be.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:23pm

  129. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm

    Well, and out of fairness, perhaps jayne needs to know that despite his ardent support for McCain/Palin NOW....if McCain wins, FRANK will turn on him, Palin, and the Right that he's so cozy with...

    to begin attacking them to set-up his push for Hillary in '12.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 3:23pm

  130. Also for the non-casual observer McCain's bounce actually wasn't that big. Let's say Gallup is right and McCain is at 49%. the lowest he reached pre-convention was 42%. I think post-Demo convention he was at 44%. So he has gotten about a 5 point bounce. What he has benefitted from is the tapering of Obama's bounce. Obama started pre-convention tied at about 44%. He got a 6 point bounce from the convention to 50% in Gallup. It has now tapered back to about 46% in Gallup with leaners. 48% according to Rasumussen. Obama has gained a stable 2 points that probably won't go away out of his 6 point bounce. McCain will probably gain about the same. So McCain should scale back to baout 44%-46% in the coming week or so with about a 2% final gain. so the race should become something like McCain, 44-46% - Obama 46-48%

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:29pm

  131. Oh and that prediction puts us back almost exactly where we were pre-convention only now we are heading into the policy debates which should barring any gaffes work in favor of Obama. Also the limelight is off of Obama which also works to his favor because we can stop the character assassination games. The Republicans have undermined a lot of their arguments against him and have put out very controversial (in a not good way when it comes to independents) pick for VP.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:31pm

  132. rocket ships to venus!!!!! a tropical paradise awaits!!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:36pm

  133. The Republicans have undermined a lot of their arguments against him and have put out very controversial (in a not good way when it comes to independents) pick for VP.----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:31pm

    Again, reference the "Sarah Palin Gender Card" video from The Daily Show. Blatent hypocrisy on "experience", "sexism", etc.

    And Obama has picked up on that...heard a rally on XM, where he pointed out that McCain was chanting "experience, experience, experience"...then picked Palin and suddenly he and she are for "change, change, change".

    But the point is obvious, that McCain just (last week) showed that his previous claims that "experience is what matters"...was phoney.

    And THAT can't help him in the polls to come, once the adrenaline and hype dies down.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 3:39pm

  134. rocket ships to venus!!!!! a tropical paradise awaits!!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    and jesus is there!!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:40pm

  135. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm "I did not want to talk to you about frank,in the first place.You brought him up so I explained him to you."

    Actually, you REPEATEDLY confronted frank about something he posted on another article on another day. When I got tired of reading it over and over, I asked you about it. I said "alright" and thought the conversation was over. But you keep beating me over the head with the fact that frank is a child throwing a tantrum. When I ask you to put the convo to rest, you bring him up again. That's on you, not me.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:42pm

  136. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm "Separation of Church and State."

    Actually, that only means that we will have no state mandated religion. Politicians are entitled to their beliefs and have the right to voice those as they see fit. People have defined the separtation of church and state to suit their own devices.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:45pm

  137. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 3:23pm "Well, and out of fairness, perhaps jayne needs to know that despite his ardent support for McCain/Palin NOW....if McCain wins, FRANK will turn on him, Palin, and the Right that he's so cozy with... to begin attacking them to set-up his push for Hillary in '12."

    I believe nobody has made that point again and again. I don't "need" to be told anything.

    And I don't recall allying myself with frank either. Perhaps you're incorrectly reading between the lines again.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:50pm

  138. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 3:15pm "When I read the Book of Revelations, I had the same reaction as Saint Ignatius that it doesn't fit with the same spirit of love that was spoken by Jesus in the gospel. It appeared to be the rantings of an old nearly senile John who was confined to a dungeon all those years - it was way John could feel vindicated for being persecuted, some enormous "victory" led by his hero, Jesus."

    Actually, I was taught that the book of Revelations is full of symbolism, not to be taken quite so literally as you think.

    "To read this book any other way than a personal hope and vindication of John requires one to ignore everything we know about Jesus Christ and buy into an angry God concept in which Jesus judges and punishes rather than loves."

    Not so. We love our children, but we sometimes have to punish them. God loves us, but to think that our actions have no consequences is ridiculous.

    "It really is quite a stretch, and Palin is squarely in the crowd that has made this stretch."

    And how do you know what Palin believes. Because the pastor of her church preached a sermon. Pastors of churhes come and go and may influence, but do not necessarily directly reflect our personal beliefs. In my rather short life so far our church has been through several different pastors, none of which interpreted the Bible in EXACTLY the same way.

    So me some hard proof that Palin is a threat that may bring on the End Times and I'll take it into account. But be careful that you don't begin to sound like those "fanatics" you're talking about.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:59pm

  139. Alrighty folks. Time for me to pick up the kids and spend some quality time. See y'all later :D

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 4:00pm

  140. Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:59pm

    Her pastor of 30 years went even further - he said, "Sarah is the real deal, she doesn't just talk about what we believe, she lives it".

    So according to Palin's pastor, she "lives out" the beliefs of her fundamentalist Assembly of God Pentecostal church.

    What other proof do I need?

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 4:07pm

  141. Posted by dexter666 at 09/09/2008 @ 3:36pm

    "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 4:07pm

  142. Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:50pm

    Jayne, I wasn't attacking you...I was offering you a friendly warning. I'll refrain from doing so in the future, if you like.

    BTW, on this-

    "And how do you know what Palin believes. Because the pastor of her church preached a sermon. Pastors of churhes come and go and may influence, but do not necessarily directly reflect our personal beliefs."----Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:59pm

    Where were you when the Right was bringing up Jeremiah Wright every fifth breath?!?!??!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 4:09pm

  143. You criticize Vice President Elect Palin's religion....

    Last I checked, she wasn't elected to anything. She's been selected by the rethugs, she has no VP elect title yet.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:14pm

  144. Wolfgang1, you said you would "field" my comment. What is your name, is it Bill Buckner? You bobbled the ball (see below).

    Actually, I'm a Redsox fan and have been for a long time. If I like Bill Buckner, you are like Charlie Friggin Brown. You really think the liberals control the school systems? Do you know how school systems run? In most states, they are run by the county. You trying to tell me that liberals run the schools here in Georgia?! That's a laugh and a half. Get a clue.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:17pm

  145. Just to clarify: Praying that what you're doing is "God's Will" is actually asking God for guidance. As in, 'If this is what I should be doing, I'll be successful.' Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 2:51pm --- "I didn't get the impression it was asking for guidance....rather it was stating that this is God's Will because it happens to coincide with my political beliefs. Big Difference!" Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 2:56pm --- "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." - Sarah Palin

    Posted by FLaim at 09/09/2008 @ 4:20pm

  146. >>>Not so. We love our children, but we sometimes have to punish them. God loves us, but to think that our actions have no consequences is ridiculous. <<<

    To suggest that God, the creator and sustainer of the "universe", would be so angry at men regardless of how they actually lived their lives that he would want to "punish them eternally" for choosing a different religion than the Christians or choosing no religion at all is simply preposterous.

    This is self-serving Christian Fundamentalism at its worst, in an attempt to elevate the Christian faith over all other faiths. It is precisely this sentiment that led to the Crusades, and if we don't watch out, will lead to the total destruction of the world.

    How would you feel if some other world power was led by people that had a similar view concerning accepting their religion or religious leader? You wouldn't feel like a target of this country and at risk for "punishment" at their hands, right?

    And how do you square that with treating your neighbor the way you would want to be treated, which was taught by Jesus? If you wouldn't want some world power to punish you because you have a different faith, why would you do it to others?

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 4:23pm

  147. " Not a myth.

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/"

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 1:21pm

    Cool. Abd I could work for them too, if I:

    "Possess a firm understanding of conservative principles based on limited government, individual liberty with responsibility, free enterprise, and a strong national defense

    …then an MRC internship may be right for you. Exciting opportunities are available in all of our divisions!"

    Nope, no bias there.

    More truthiness.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2008 @ 4:23pm

  148. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." - Sarah Palin

    Posted by FLaim at 09/09/2008 @ 4:20pm

    And to add to the Eagles Song

    God is an American. He presides over football games.....and big business deals...and pipelines....AMEN.

    OK pass the basket around and give at least 10% in tithes or you're a cheap bastard. No coffee or doughnuts after the service for you if you don't meet the 10% goal of all perish members donating.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:26pm

  149. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." Sarah Palin ----Posted by FLaim at 09/09/2008 @ 4:20pm

    Yeah, that's pretty blatent (and diagram friendly if you like) that Palin considers "unifying to get the gas line built" and "God's will" one and the same.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 4:30pm

  150. Pray the Gay Away!

    That's Palin's most recent gem.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:32pm

  151. LOOKEE LOOKEE!!

    FRANK IS GONEIFIED!

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 4:38pm

  152. >>>Pray the Gay Away!

    That's Palin's most recent gem.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:32pm<<<

    When you combine this with McCain's ACTUAL VOTE against laws that would protect homosexuals against employment discrimination, we would have one of the most homophobic administrations in recent times with McCain/Palin.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 4:41pm

  153. Uh Oh!

    Darn and Hap as well.

    Hey Webmistress!

    We need these guys to have a debate!

    Otherwise = Boring Blog = No Fun = No Posters.

    Keep Frank though.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 4:47pm

  154. OK, Darn is back.

    Where's HAP?

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 4:50pm

  155. Where's HAP? Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 4:50pm

    Yeah. I don't mind Frank being gone but I like Happy. He gave me stock help and stuff. BRING HAPPY BACK! BRING HAPPY BACK!

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 4:55pm

  156. I agree that we are a "Short Attention Span Society", given the constant barrage of (mis)information by the media, both from the mainstream and blogworld outlets. But, more than that, I am convinced that we are a Bi-Polar Society. Rapid Cycling. So it all depends on what we are feeling (or thinking, for some) on Nov. 4.

    Posted by mcasenl at 09/09/2008 @ 5:02pm

  157. Maskdelta and Malcontent,

    Truthiness?

    Here is Maskdelta's comment from above"

    " As for "citing a right-wing source", you simply directed DARLA to Media Research which is an admittedly right-wing group, and gave no SPECIFIC example to cite. Typically, MRC cites examples of "liberal media bias" by taking THEIR opinion of an event and if the Media doesn't accept that, they say "See! They're biased in favor of liberalism!"... "

    The entire MRC website is chock full of example after example of left bias. The examples are the actual words spoken during the event in the media.

    Anybody with an open mind can see the left wing bias in the discourse.

    How can I point to a specific example on the site when the entire site is full of example after example. Why single one out over another?

    And you haven't responded to the inclusion of the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg into the mix.

    You rule out MRC because it is conservative. (Of course, you cited "Media Matters" as a source - they are lib but of course that means it contains facts and truth. Because it is lib)

    But Bernard Goldberg was not and probably is not a conservative. He was just a journalist, he was not a political pundit or someone with political leanings.

    In fact, in his book he mentioned that at the beginning of his career in the privacy of the voting booth, he leaned Democrat.

    But he did not like what he saw happening in the CBS newsroom, so he documented on it and commented on it.

    But I am sure you will rule that book out also, I don't know why but I am sure you will tell me.

    And Darladoon rules it all out also. Darladoon, have you read the book BIAS?

    You have theories declaring there is no lib bias, but have you read the book?

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 5:08pm

  158. LOOKEE LOOKEE!!

    FRANK IS GONEIFIED!

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 4:38pm

    Why do you say that. Is it listed somewhere?

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2008 @ 5:11pm

  159. Why do you say that. Is it listed somewhere?

    Posted by Eric at 09/09/2008 @ 5:11pm

    All recent and archived posts are gone.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/09/2008 @ 5:19pm

  160. Yeah, why bother to have a jet when you can stay home for 312 days out of the year and collect $43,390 of taxpayer money and school your daughter on abstinence..

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/09/2008 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You know...I think this was her plan all along. Word about town is her style is hands offs - let the other people do the work - long as its the way I want it done - and I can easily keeps tabs from Wasilla rather than having to spend time in Juneau. Interesting....!

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 5:46pm

  161. and the meth capitol of AK: I especially liked the part of the boy bragging his mom cooked the best meth in the valley!

    http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/030805/sta_20050308002.shtml

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/09/2008 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now there is a claim to fame we aren't going to hear from Palin backers. Small town values indeed! Wasilla ain't too different from alot of small towns in the Pacific Northwest. Meth is a big problem in Washington and Oregon State. Can't remember who it was who stated it but they (a high ranking law enforcement officer) attributed about 50% of all property and related crime in Washington State to meth manufacture and abuse.

    Not a pretty picture.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 5:56pm

  162. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 3:06pm "Separation of Church and State."

    Actually, that only means that we will have no state mandated religion. Politicians are entitled to their beliefs and have the right to voice those as they see fit. People have defined the separtation of church and state to suit their own devices.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/09/2008 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Perhaps. And evangelicals are increasingly pushing the envelope on what separation of church and state means since evangelical sympathizer King George took office. You know, if I were a member of Assembly of God Church in Wasilla, I would strenuously object to Palin using the church pulpit to push her political agenda and tying that in with God's Will. Kind of presumptuous wouldn't you say? Ya really think the God should weigh in on this? Preposterous. Then again, evangelicals and political evangelicals are kind of presumptuous to begin with in that they are hellbent on getting us to believe and act out their dogma in society at large. Again....thats why (in part) the founding fathers believed in separation of church and state. In same breadth, separation of church and state protects religious and related belief, and this is something that evangelicals don't seem real keen on - like teaching creationism in schools, banning books from libraries, prevention of sex education being taught in schools, etc. Politicians are of course entitled to their religious belief, but they are not entitled to use their office to promote them.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 6:15pm

  163. What is up with the sudden bout of censorship at The Nation?

    Inspired by Palin?

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2008 @ 6:23pm

  164. I actually think what we are surmising as censorship is actually the absolute technical incompetence we've seen on display since the Nation's website's redesign months ago.

    too bad, because what was a terrific resource became a frustration. Posts into limbo. Redirect back to the index page upon logging a post. No posting timestamps for a long time, and no html capabilities as before. Long standing log in names rendered useless.

    Kind of like universal healthcare though. I shouldn't complain about the poor quality, because it is free....

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 7:18pm

  165. Oh, I forgot to mention the banner advertising that overlaps the page header too is poor execution. IE6, IE7, Safari, all have trouble with this site now.

    In defense of the Webmaster, there may be some budgetary issues to blame, along with security considerations about which I'm unaware. The Nation's legal department might also be indirectly responsible for some of the tech problems we're seeing.

    Still the best blogging opportunity in cyberspace, in my humble opinion.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/09/2008 @ 7:23pm

  166. The day after the election the news will be:

    "Polls inaccurate when race involved."

    If Obama isn't ahead 4 points on November 3rd his goose is cooked.

    But just think of the week long specials we'll have:

    "Why is America racist?"

    "What's wrong with America?"

    "Are we a klan nation?"

    "The GOP and the nazis"

    Maybe Bob Woodward will even do a book on race..

    It'll be a woot....

    Posted by bleedingheart at 09/09/2008 @ 7:53pm

  167. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 5:08pm

    1. Refute Media Matters analysis of Stossel's report.

    2. If Bernard Goldberg is not a conservative....why have all the books he's written been attacks on liberals?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 8:03pm

  168. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 8:03pm'

    1. Refute the items Bernard Goldberg has brought up in his book.

    2. Conduct your own informal poll, not on the computer, but with face to face people, and ask them whether the media leans left or not. And don't artificially skew the poll by only going places with known concentrations of libs, such as college towns.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 8:23pm

  169. Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 8:23pm

    1. YOU brought up Stossel as "proof" of your "the left controls education" theory....so I am countering your "proof" with refutation of it.

    Now, in standard debate form, you must counter my refutation....which I don't think you can.

    Start a new thread AFTER answering the Stossel/Media Matters question on Bernard Goldberg and I'll discuss it.

    And again, if he's no conservative as you claim....why have his books concentrated attacks almost exclusively on liberals?!??!?!

    2. How about I let somebody else do it for me?...like a polling company?

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

    Which proves that point that a majority consider the media biased, and to the left.

    Now...what the HELL does that have to do with your ORIGINAL point on education? And does a poll showing "the Media is liberal" mean that Bernard Goldberg is? or that Media Research is not actively seeking out "left-wing bias" because it's right-wing?

    Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your tangents are meaningful.

    You cite Stossel, Media Matters SHOWS where Stossel's report is flawed and uses methods he attacks (i.e. cherry-picking)....you CAN'T refute Media Matters on substance, so you attack them on politics.

    You could make your point quite well as to Media Matters bias...if you simply refuted them FACTUALLY...but you seemingly can't. And when you couldn't you try to change the subject to Bernard Goldberg.

    I noted that Media Research is right-wing and they are...admittedly so...and therefore they don't prove the Media is biased.

    ZOGBY might show that the public FEELS that way...but Media Research is not Zogby.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 9:47pm

  170. "2. Conduct your own informal poll, not on the computer, but with face to face people, and ask them whether the media leans left or not. And don't artificially skew the poll by only going places with known concentrations of libs, such as college towns."

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008

    There is a lot of truthiness in random, un-informed opinion.

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2008 @ 11:38pm

  171. College towns are bad and the opinions of their residents, less relevant than residents of other towns.

    What with all them there perfessers and smartie pants kids runnin' around. All those libarys and mooseeums warp their brains. damn libary...gots the dikshunary right where the bible otter go...

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2008 @ 11:43pm

  172. 1) Hillary would have been the most formidable opponent for the Repub ticket, whoever ended up on it;

    You can't prove this for one Happy. And for two obviously not because she LOST to a person who was "less formidable". You can't be right about something that isn't proven fact because you are just speaking in hypotheticals.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/09/2008 @ 11:58pm

  173. Maskdelta,

    The refutation of Stossel's article was not YOUR refutation, it was Media Matters, a left-wing organization.

    I saw the article after you cited it, I haven't read it and right now I may not even bother.

    You are arrogantly doing it again, trying to set conditions for debating.

    I am not personally familiar with all the details John Stossel or Media Matters discussed, as no one would be unless they are in that field or had done research into that field. I would need to find somebody who may have addressed the Media Matters article with some specific knowledge.

    And if no one had, that doesn't mean that the Media Matters position sits there as the uncontested truth. It just means Stossel and Media Matters disagree.

    You of course, think otherwise.

    You do mention cherry picking, and I do know that some of what Stossel mentions, such as how teachers can't be fired, I have heard in plenty of other ways over the years.

    As far as Bernard Goldberg, you declare he is a conservative. He said in his book he was a Democrat in the voting booth. He wrote against the bias he saw in the newsroom because he did not like it, did not think journalists should be biased.

    What more can I tell you. You declare he is a conservative, because you don't like his opinions. The bias is liberal in the newsroom. It is the bias that is there, and that is what he wrote about.

    Malcontent came back with a comment about my poll suggestion, remarking about random un-informed opinion.

    Once again, the lib elitism. Opinion from people who may not be lib is "uninformed opinion"..... libs just looking down upon people with condescension.

    From lib to lib, from Barack Obama on down, this is what libs do - think they are better and look down on those who they think are not.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 04:58am

  174. American voters, as probably anywhere else, vote pretty much on perceptions such as likeability and being able to identify with the candidate. We are seeing that phenomena now with McCain/Palin so that initial enthusiasm may have little to do with the convention speeches but rather the voter's perception of the candidates. That is perhaps akin to love at first sight. If that is so there is little that Obama/Biden can do to chance that perception.

    Those who think Palin's creationist beliefs are a negative in winning American's votes are out of touch with what Americans believe.

    Here is a Gallup Poll in 2008:

    1. God created man in present form 44%

    2. Man developed with God guiding 36%

    3. Man developed. God had no part in the process 14%

    ie. 44% are creationists. 36% are theistic evolutionists or de facto believers in intelligent design and 14% are Random evolutionists.

    So it looks like Palin has up to 80% of Americans right on side or sympathetic to her views about creationism and intelligent design.

    It's a bit hard then to see why her views on this topic are not basically American mainstream

    Even Dems poll 77% as believers in creationism or theistic evolution (aka intelligent design) and 17% Random or chance evolution. Repubs - 92% are believers in creationism or theistic evolution and 4% are for random evolution.

    http://tinyurl.com/yojcyu

    Thus it appears the possibly agnostic at heart McCain knows his polls better than the readers of The Nation, some of whom seem to belong to the American 1% atheist or 2% agnostic population percentages. Obama also knows his stuff and has already been seen sucking up to bible believing Christian leaders. His problem is that that is not his constituency. Sarah already has it in her pocket.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/10/2008 @ 06:14am

  175. I am not personally familiar with all the details John Stossel or Media Matters discussed, as no one would be unless they are in that field or had done research into that field.-----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 04:58am

    Yet he CITES Stossel's report to back up his claim?!?!?!?!?!

    "Maskdelta says I can not prove what I have said and asks for "truthiness"

    Read the linked article below:

    ========================

    John Stossel's 'Stupid in America' How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education By JOHN STOSSEL Jan. 13, 2006

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel /story?id=1500338

    =================

    Have you done the research into this that John Stossel has done? I doubt it - but I am sure you know more than him because - You are Lib!"-----Posted by sjchermak at 09/09/2008 @ 12:55pm

    So SJ attacks ME for having not done research into this, claims I'm saying I know more than him (when I actually cited another source)....and then less than 18 hours later admits...

    he is "not personally familiar with all the details John Stossel or Media Matters discussed"

    So what do you call it when somebody cites a source and attacks somebody for supposedly not knowing anything about that source...

    and then admits THEY don't know anything about that source EITHER!?!?!???

    I know Stephen Colbert MUST have a word for it.....LOL!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 09:04am

  176. Posted by lrjones4 at 09/10/2008 @ 06:14am

    Here's the dirty little secret, LR....

    most mainstream politicians (even the pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity) will "skirt" the creationism argument (Saying things like "I don't think anybody can look at the wonders of the Universe and not think there's something bigger than us behind it!")...

    but most of them won't TOUCH the idea of "creation science"...an actual "Garden of Eden"....Noah "forgetting to pack" the unicorns and Velociraptors...etc.

    To do so, opens them up to a ribbing quite similar to Fredric March by Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind".

    Oh, they'll do a wink and a nod at their Religious Right base...but they won't come straight out and DENY evolution.

    Now....why IS that if "the polls are with them"?!?!?!??!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 09:08am

  177. Maskdelta,

    OK, you wanted me to refute the Media Matters report that "refuted" the Stossel report, and I had indicated a reluctance to do so.

    But now I went ahead and read the Media Matters article, and I find it actually is quite easy to refute it.

    Three-quarters of the report cites research that "proves" Stossel wrong or not objective.

    Who is to say that those researchers are objective, or that their research was not skewed or if it included "cherry picking". There are not enough hours in the day to drill into all those sources, but that would be a question an objective person would ask. In other words, you can't automatically assume the "research" proves what it purports to prove.

    Also, as I said, much of what I see in Stossel's article I have seen commentary on elsewhere, such as comments on kids doing nothing in class, teachers not able to be fired, etc. The issues he raises are not new issues, others in plenty of different venues over the years have commented on the same things.

    I have seen this stuff as I go around the Internet, I did not file them away in my mind or on the computer to be prepared with a debate with you on the topic.

    As far as money and schools, I have seen elsewhere also comment on how money in and of itself has no impact. Some time ago a judge ordered the Kansas City, Missouri schools to spend millions to upgrade the infrastructure of the schools (why is a judge doing this?) with the result being LOWER test scores.

    Dr. Walter E. Williams of George Mason University has commented on that and some of these other issues as well.

    So are you happy now? I have complied with your demand to refute the Media Matters article, and I have done so.

    Now, you said you could then comment on Bernard Goldberg's book. What say you?

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 09:10am

  178. Hello Maskdelta,

    As I was posting above, you were busy too, commenting on my earlier post. Here it is:

    "So what do you call it when somebody cites a source and attacks somebody for supposedly not knowing anything about that source... and then admits THEY don't know anything about that source EITHER!?!?!???"

    I would say at least I admit it. You cite a Media Matters source, and unless you are a professional educator or spend 24 hours in a day on the Internet I can not imagine you know anything at all about what is behind the Media Matters report. You just slapped it up in response to my Stossel posting, probably found it quickly just by going to the Media Matters site and finding it there by searching within the site.

    So do you know anything about your source? Do you, building on my comment above, know anything at all as to whether the research is valid on the Media Matters article? Do you think that John Stossel is the only person that has commented on some of the issues he raised? You claim he was "cherry picking" but even if he was he was raising issues others have raised as well.

    Where is your specific refutation to each and every article that has appeared on the Internet regarding this subject, with point by point comments on each point the authors made? I know this will take you a while and require several posts as it will max out the word limit.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 09:17am

  179. If you can't say it in 20 seconds, then the average Amereican doesn't register it. The truth hurts. Obama is running a campaign that is too intellectual, appealling to people who think and therefore act accordingly. Recognize that the Trojan Moose (as Huffington calls Palin) is not full of anything but lies, inneuendo, and sound bites. Burn that moose on a fire of its own making: troopergate, ethics, poor management performance, values out of step with the majority, etc. It's time to get down and dirty. Again, remember the American's attention span. He who strikes best in a short period of time wins.

    Posted by raiffer at 09/10/2008 @ 09:23am

  180. Who is to say that those researchers are objective, or that their research was not skewed or if it included "cherry picking".----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 09:10am

    So basically if JOHN STOSSEL, a reporter, says something you believe it and claim HE is objective and his research not skewed or cherry-picked...because it supports your "vibe" that "Liberals are destroying education"....

    but if NUMEROUS researchers into education refute that reporter's claim, THEY should be held suspect immediately for being non-objective....because it DENIES your "gut feeling" that "Liberals are destroying education!"

    I see....

    truthiness

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 09:55am

  181. Hello Maskdelta,

    Fantastic, except you are doing the same thing!

    You overlook that.

    Your NUMEROUS researchers? Do they consist of all the researchers in the country on this topic? You probably think they do. You view your data as not suspect, but mine is "suspect" because of your political beliefs.

    And then you cite my "vibe" about education. I never cited a vibe about education. The vibe had to do with the outcome of this years Presidental election.

    You overlook that I mentioned above that many other people have commented on this subject over the years. It isn't John Stossel alone.

    Have you checked Dr. William's website, and looked into the archives there for comments about education? Where is your refutation about what I said about the Kansas City schools? That seems to be missing in your posting.

    You say "I see..."

    I had a teacher one time (I am old so a lot of this leftist bent in education hadn't kicked in yet) and her response when a student said "I see" (when she knew the student probably didn't see) was "I see said the blind man"

    truthiness

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 10:13am

  182. Regarding Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," I'm surprised no one yet has mentioned Nation columnist Eric Alterman's detailed refutation of Goldberg's arguments in his book "What Liberal Media?" Some of Alterman's book is available at http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/.

    Posted by richcarl at 09/10/2008 @ 10:49am

  183. So it looks like Palin has up to 80% of Americans right on side or sympathetic to her views about creationism and intelligent design.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/10/2008 @ 06:14am

    and muslim fundamentalists, too!

    <<<<>>>>

    Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science.

    Antipathy to Darwin for providing an alternative to the creation stories of the Bible and the Quran has also become a feature of Muslim fundamentalism.

    Saudi Arabia prohibits the study, even in universities, of evolution, Freud and Marx.

    Malaysia has banned a translation of "The Origin of the Species."

    Likewise, fundamentalists in Turkey have pressured the government to teach creationism in the public schools.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:14pm

  184. Hello richcarl,

    A quick trip to this site shows that this author (Eric Alterman) has written books such as:

    -- Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America

    -- The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)Leads America

    He has a column, Altercation, on the Media Matters site,

    Gee, is this guy unbiased? Hmmm.

    On the surface, your suggestion fails the Maskdelta test. (BTW, you can't use a right-wing source to prove a right-wing point. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 1:38pm)

    Although, I do realize that the rule set down was a right wing source can not be used to prove a right wing point. One would assume that maybe the opposite is true, too - although since left-wing sources are unbridled absolute truth and fact it probably is OK to use a left wing source to prove a left wing point.

    So I am sure Maskdelta (and Darladoon and Malcontent too) figure now you have solved the issue for all time and that there is no lib bias in the media. (according to you)

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 12:24pm

  185. Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 12:24pm

    did you say something?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 12:41pm

  186. All I know is that I did NOT want my party's Nominees to face Clinton at the top of the ticket....and given the way your Primaries went, I don't even want her on the lower half of the ticket! I got my wishes....a fact! Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/10/2008 @ 12:21am

    Everything you say is true. But you can't declare absolutely that your predictions were right. It's one thing to say "I think the best course of action was" it's a whole different thing to say "we have been proven right base on nothing".

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/10/2008 @ 12:53pm

  187. Hello Frosty Zoom,

    You asked "did you say something?"

    I guess I did not. I am not a lib, so my comments do not contain "truthiness".

    A lib comment you would understand, because they make sense and contain gobs and gobs of truth and fact and yes, truthiness also. All lib comments and opinion are completely 100% verifiable to be the absolute fact, and thus are self-proving when the comments are made. Each comment made contains all the evidence and proof wrapped up within the comment.

    As we know, due to the original theme of the thread, if one does not know this and believe it and live it, they are stupid or have been led astray by the chickenhawk neocons, corporate America, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Conservatives who totally control the media today, and probably by the religious zealots who program their minds when they go to church as well.

    I do not live in Pennsylvania, but if I did I would be one of the people the enlightened Barack Obama looks down upon, so you have to excuse me.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:16pm

  188. I always avoid prophesying beforehand, because it is a much better policy to prophesy after the event has already taken place.

    Winston Churchill

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 1:17pm

  189. Whoops!,

    I forgot in my comment above, that people like me have been led astray by Sarah Palin, too!

    I don't want to leave that out, because once she is Vice President and John McCain President, "Sarah Barracuda" will probably be blamed by the Left for things instead of Karl Rove.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:20pm

  190. Hello Frosty Zoom,

    You quoted Winston Churchill "I always avoid prophesying beforehand, because it is a much better policy to prophesy after the event has already taken place. "

    You left yourself wide open with that one, Frosty, handed me a golden opportunity for a comeback.

    Because, as you know, Winston Churchill had plenty to prophesize about after World War II, when we knew the Holocaust had taken place. As you know, Mr. Churchill tried to get the world to do something beforehand, and the world did nothing.

    Before World War II, he was warning, not prophesying, and look what happened when nobody paid attention.

    And, as you know, this is what would have happened in some kind of form if we had not taken out Saddam Hussien. As you know, your policy was that nothing needed to be done and those who did do something are declared wrong. (by you)

    So we did the opposite of what Mr. Churchill advocated prior to World War II, and thus if Mr. Churchill were alive today he would not have to prophesize about an event that took place, because events like the Holocaust were stopped.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm

  191. Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:16pm

    ah yes,

    the bliss of ignorance.

    carry on.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2008 @ 1:47pm

  192. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/09/2008 @ 4:09pm "Where were you when the Right was bringing up Jeremiah Wright every fifth breath?!?!??!?"

    I wasn't here yet. Just found this blog recently...

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:12pm

  193. Posted by Metteyya at 09/09/2008 @ 4:23pm "How would you feel if some other world power was led by people that had a similar view concerning accepting their religion or religious leader? You wouldn't feel like a target of this country and at risk for "punishment" at their hands, right?"

    Nope. We were talking about God's punishment of people, not people's punishment of others. I love sharing my religious beliefs with others, but if they choose another path, that's there choice. I'm not trying to force anyone to become a Christian.

    "And how do you square that with treating your neighbor the way you would want to be treated, which was taught by Jesus?"

    I try to do that. I don't rush to judgement of others. Often I'm accused of making excuses for people because I don't judge them.

    "If you wouldn't want some world power to punish you because you have a different faith, why would you do it to others?"

    Again, I wouldn't and don't.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:18pm

  194. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 6:15pm "You know, if I were a member of Assembly of God Church in Wasilla, I would strenuously object to Palin using the church pulpit to push her political agenda and tying that in with God's Will."

    You know, I probably would too. You step on enough toes talking about religion in the pulpit...shouldn't add politics too.

    How about teaching intelligent design in the classroom along with evolution? Would you be against that?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

  195. If the women of America,are stupid enough to vote for JM just because he put a 'female' on the ticket, then they have NOT come as far as they try to tell us they have.

    The man calls his wife a c**t, that should be enough to turn every true feminist in America against him.

    Guess they are not 'true' feminists.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 09/10/2008 @ 3:38pm

  196. Your NUMEROUS researchers? Do they consist of all the researchers in the country on this topic?----Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 10:13am

    So again, you cite John Stossel....ONE reporter....a NUMBER of researchers contradict Stossel...

    and you demand that ALL researchers prove that Stossel is wrong, before you'll accept it?

    I see.....new word

    Wikiality

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:41pm

  197. How about teaching intelligent design in the classroom along with evolution? Would you be against that?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

    "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."...The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." -Wikipedia

    Umm, yes.

    Posted by FLaim at 09/10/2008 @ 3:54pm

  198. How about teaching intelligent design in the classroom along with evolution? Would you be against that?-----Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

    And when the kids say "WHO or WHAT is the 'intelligence' behind the design, Teacher?"

    What does the teacher say?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:59pm

  199. SENATOR OBAMA,GIVE AMERICA A DOSE OF REALITY CONCERNING THIS US HORROR ?

    LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA'S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ?

    WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ?

    * WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED * THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?

    *THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.

    *WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY* The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

    Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain..

    lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

    Posted by DOUGLASFIELD at 09/10/2008 @ 4:18pm

  200. sjchermak,

    Actually, I think that right- or left-wing sources are perfectly acceptable to use to support arguments, so long as it's recognized that no single source is going to be the final word, and people are willing to respond to counterarguments. I think that Eric Alterman takes a balanced approach and supports his arguments well in his book. The more conservative posters here might be surprised to find that Alterman agrees with some of their specific criticisms (see especially Chapter 7), though he rejects the idea of any overall "liberal bias."

    Speaking of counterarguments, I visited the Media Research Center web site you recommended. The pieces I read (the latest CyberAlert and the two latest Special Reports) were not particularly persuasive. The CyberAlert items were curious, mostly either criticizing journalists for doing their jobs or criticizing pundits for shooting off their mouths (which is their job). I found it interesting that Chris Matthews and Tom Friedman, who are regularly criticized from the left (as from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)), were included as examples of the media's supposedly liberal bias.

    The Special Reports were better, but they told only a part of the story. For another interpretation of the media's pro-Obama bias, for example, see John K. Wilson's article in the latest edition of Extra! (FAIR's magazine). As for Rev. Wright, even if we accept the MRC interpretation of media bias, he nonetheless seems to have gotten as much or more press (and universal condemnation) for his inflammatory statements than have the equally fringy pastors/supporters/beliefs of the major Republican candidates. So again, MRC offers only part of the story.

    Posted by richcarl at 09/10/2008 @ 4:35pm

  201. Maskdelta,

    Accept what? I am supposed to accept the "refutation" of John Stossel?

    How am I supposed to do that, since what he said reflects what is taking place today in some schools? Because there have been many other people comment on the same things.

    How is Stossel refuted about the issue of money and the schools, when in Kansas City test scores went down after massive infrastructure investment?

    How is Stossel refuted when the schools in the District have one of the highest "per pupil" expenses anywhere but the schools are lousy?

    You embellish the number of people who have done "research" that supports the Media Matters view. You make it seem more in quantity or significance than it really is.

    And where is your comment about the thing I mentioned in Kansas City, or what Dr. Williams has had to say on the subject, or what anybody else on the Internet that have commented with similar opinions have said?

    What happened to those? Did your posting with those answers get dropped by the server?

    Must be, because surely you have combacks for all of that. You are a lib and know it all.

    These computer glitches do get to be a pain in the neck sometimes, but I guess you will have to re-submit your infomation in response to my requests once again.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:38pm

  202. richcarl,

    You said "So again, MRC offers only part of the story."

    Right. I have seen lib bias in my own local paper. It is a small town paper, that would not draw the attention of the MRC.

    Just in the last few days I saw one. The opinion section has both lib and conservative columnists.

    One day, there was a column by Amy Goodman. She was all contorted because she was arrested outside of the Repbulican convention.

    On the front page, above the masthead (the name of the newspaper, etc) was a graphic alerting readers to the Amy Goodman column inside.

    My memory is that it is not typical for the paper to alert the readers to a column on the opinion page.

    Normally, if there is a graphic or a couple of graphics above the masthead, they alert readers to items typically of local news, or features items, or maybe if a local sports team did well a story on the sports page.

    Unusal for an alert to an opinion piece.

    This is, of course, subtle liberal bias, alerting readers to a lib columnist carping about what she felt was unfair treatement by the police.

    I thought opinions were on the opinion page, and to be fair the paper does include syndicated and local conservative columnists as well as libs.

    But why the need to alert the readers to a lib columnist on the front page? The "need" is to subtly promote lib belief.

    By the way, slightly off of the subject, but not 100% off, from time to time libs will write letters to the editor complaining about a local or national conservative columnist, and demanding the paper discontinue those columinsts.

    They do not write in refuting or arguing what the columnist said, just demading the Conservative be removed.

    In America there is free speech, but you have to watch for lib attempts to restrict it.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:48pm

  203. Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 4:38pm

    Sorry, SJ, if I'm not letting you drag it off on a tangent.

    That works when Rush or Sean get a "liberal caller" and they say "Well, what about this...." and change the subject....but not here.

    YOU brought up John Stossel to bolster your point on education...a ludicrious point that somehow "education is collapsing due to liberal teachers" (given there are GOOD schools with liberal teachers and BAD schools with rock-ribbed Republican teachers!)

    When countered with MULTIPLE refutations of Stossel's point...you suddenly demanded "Who says ALL THOSE PEOPLE aren't wrong?"....Okay, who says your ONE network reporter (with a gimmick for appealing to the Right) isn't?

    Then you say "They aren't ALL researchers!!!"....demanding TOTAL perfection before you'd agree that your ONE and original source is proven in error.

    The point is ....you will NEVER accept any evidence contrary to your BELIEF-SYSTEM (no, it's not a politics...it's nearly a religion).

    If it's happened, I'd like to know about it....HAS there EVER been a point where your CONSERVATIVE ideology has come in conflict with reality and fact?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 4:52pm

  204. sjchermak,

    I don't claim to know why Goodman's picture was placed above the masthead in your local paper, though I can think of reasons other than liberal bias why the paper may have wanted to call attention to her opinion piece. (The main one is that the 1st Amendment is fundamental to the news business, and anyone who cares about freedom of the press should be concerned about the police action at the Republican convention.)

    But rather than trade individual anecdotes, which are largely meaningless out of context, let me know when you've had a chance to read Alterman's book, which sums up my view of media bias as well as anything I've read.

    Posted by richcarl at 09/10/2008 @ 5:17pm

  205. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 09:08am

    Mask and I notice FZ, who to be polite is all over the shop, misses what I thought was a not too subtle rebuff of the charge, from those who are trying to make out Palin is some out of touch weirdo.

    You may have noticed that I did not capitalise intelligent design, which (ID) may be closer to special creation. However if God or "mind" directs evolution then that is intelligent design and not classical evolution. I noticed these surprising figures some years ago and it just indicates that America, far from being secular is, culturally at least, an overwhelmingly religious society.

    On the basis of that reality I was drawing the attention of those who want to make a negative issue of Plain's beliefs on this matter to what Americans actually believe and hence how mainstream Palin is.

    For a bit of agro I could have said that such people are either ignorant or crazy if they think her beliefs, once known, will do anything but garnish more support for her. (we may in fact find that some of the other supposed negatives she is claimed to have will turn out to be electoral winners for her also.

    And Frosty, you old deviate, I thought you liked Muslims? Medium or rare? I mean I support Bush's war on the grounds that Iraqis, who are mostly Muslim, were liberated from a tyrant. What on earth has your diversion got to do with what up to 80% of American voters say they believe?

    Banning and burning books (or cartoons) is a serious matter for those who believe in freedom of speech but is irrelevant to Palin who in my understanding said students should be exposed to both evolution and ID . It seems you would like to ban ID books from schools? Is that freedom of inquiry or speech?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/10/2008 @ 7:06pm

  206. "I have seen commentary on elsewhere, such as comments on kids doing nothing in class,..."

    "....plenty of different venues over the years have commented on..."

    "I have seen this stuff as I go around the Internet"

    "I have seen elsewhere also comment on..."

    truthiness

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 10:13am

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2008 @ 7:28pm

  207. There I combined your posts to make your "truthiness" post into "truth".

    You obviously read so well, that you think truthiness is something to strive for. Something that others are requesting of you.

    "I guess I did not. I am not a lib, so my comments do not contain "truthiness"."

    In fact, what was meant was that all you have is "truthiness".

    Try searching for the truth.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2008 @ 7:31pm

  208. "And, as you know, this is what would have happened in some kind of form if we had not taken out Saddam Hussien."

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/10/2008 @ 1:27pm

    I do?!?

    Hell, I don't even think you "know" that. Although I would bet you could make that statement and pass a polygraph test.

    ---------------

    "One day, there was a column by Amy Goodman. She was all contorted because she was arrested outside of the Repbulican convention."

    Have you READ (watching rush and fauxnews doesn't count) anything about the unusual number of PRE-EMPTIVE arrests of reporters, illegal confiscations, houses raided with auto weapons drawn? How did they even know where to go? As we KNOW this administration would using domestic spying against the press or other innocent Americans. Right?

    Proof of admin complicity? I have none. But allow me to join you in sharing my gut feeling. (Only w/o stating it as fact). Pre-emptive is the neocon motto.

    "On the front page, above the masthead (the name of the newspaper, etc) was a graphic alerting readers to the Amy Goodman column inside."

    Are you submitting that, amidst the usual opinions on the op-ed page, that her actual reporting of an actual event being pointed out is a partisan act, either way?

    Are you subtly implying that the republicans are involved, with your "This is, of course, subtle liberal bias", lest they be exposed?

    Or are you just showing your bias (once again, apparently ungrounded in fact)?

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2008 @ 7:52pm

  209. Theorem: a large number of voters are stupid. Given that voters are looking for leaders who resemble themselves in opinion and intelligence, consider that Bush was elected in 2004. Q.E.D.

    Posted by takemyveepplease at 09/10/2008 @ 9:48pm

  210. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/10/2008 @ 3:59pm "And when the kids say "WHO or WHAT is the 'intelligence' behind the design, Teacher?" What does the teacher say?"

    The same thing he or she says about all the other questions science has yet to answer.

    On a related side note: I was watching a show on the History Channel yesterday while folding clothes (multitasking ;) and it was about some prehistoric sharks and "biting whales". The megalodon and the biting sperm whale are both thought to be extinct. However, scientists point out that as most of the ocean has yet to be explored, either one or both of them may still exist. Is there a megalodon swimming around in the ocean depths somewhere...one of the many questions scientists will probably never be able to answer.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/11/2008 @ 10:17am

  211. Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2008 @ 6:15pm "You know, if I were a member of Assembly of God Church in Wasilla, I would strenuously object to Palin using the church pulpit to push her political agenda and tying that in with God's Will."

    You know, I probably would too. You step on enough toes talking about religion in the pulpit...shouldn't add politics too.

    How about teaching intelligent design in the classroom along with evolution? Would you be against that?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/10/2008 @ 2:33pm | warn this person

    Can't deny that I have pondered that life is too miraculous and contrary to the universe's law of increasing chaos and disorder. Evolutionary theory doesn't explain lots of things and does appear contrary to physical laws of the universe. I haven't reviewed any curricula of intelligent design, but its lack of empirical evidence makes me believe strongly that this would be a discipline better left to the family or a person's religious institutions.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/11/2008 @ 7:48pm

  212. Mask my response was not whether ID was credible or not but rather that Palin's approach was almost certain to win her votes given the beliefs of a large percentage of Americans.

    Some of my friends have children at a private Anglican school (the government schools are generally thought to turn out a less well educated product) and primary school children there are taught about Aboriginal culture which includes animist tales and the most bizarre (to those of us who are heirs of the Enlightenment) creation tales.

    Theirs and my first reaction was to say why send kids to a school that is based on Christianity to be indoctrinated with this "nonsense". After some discussion we came to the view that given not only a Christian and other religions perspective was being taught and provided they were given the intellectual tools to think, this was a pretty sound sort of education that could only make kids more informed of about their faith.

    As far as ID goes it is not a scientific theory in the sense that evolution is, so there is not really that much to teach. I think from my limited reading of ID that it picks out the deficiencies in the alternate theory and in that sense is a good balance against replacing authoritarian religion with authoritarian science. Skeptics are the real friends of science.

    Evolution is the best that purely rational science has come up with to date but who knows what it will look like in 100 years. It certainly is nothing like Darwin's original theory today and maybe ID is not a bad catalyst to get scientists thinking about the problems evolutionary theory cannot yet answer.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/11/2008 @ 11:40pm

About the Authors

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

House Passes Health Reform, But Without Reproductive Rights | Pelosi secures necessary votes, but only after allowing anti-choice Dems to bar access to abortion in new programs.
John Nichols
189 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Obama, one year on. Plus: Jeremy Scahill takes your questions, and a new video series from The Nation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
38 Comments

» The Notion

Injustice in Illinois | Prosecutors in Illinois should be more concerned with an innocent man behind bars than journalism students' grades.
Ari Berman
31 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East | Clinton delivers the ultimate diss to Abbas.
Robert Dreyfuss
170 Comments

» Act Now!

Equality Across America | This week, young LBGT activists are staging a National Week of Initiative.
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Thursday | Dying laptops, recapping the election, the Dow, and the Yankees with the World Series.
Eric Alterman