tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4146327825866895993..comments2024-03-28T18:36:46.949-05:00Comments on Althouse: What Sarah Palin had written on her hand: "Energy", "Tax," and "Lift American Spirits."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88335301639120581042010-02-08T22:59:06.181-06:002010-02-08T22:59:06.181-06:00"doctors resort to primitive means of writing..."doctors resort to primitive means of writing some quick notes on our hand"<br /> - You Sir need to get your act together. You do that while you're in front of a patient and look at your hand for little "reminders" you'll look incompitent and lose your credibility. There are times when it's more appropriate to jot things done for reference but this wasn't one of them, no matter how trivial the notes were. It seems as though excuse after excuse is made in Palin's defense everytime she puts her shovel in the ground for some more dirt. Everyone who's comparing her to their spouses or whatever else need a reality check! She's not your spouse and more is expected from her with her position in politics. She is not doing an everyday activity like grocery shopping. I would be dissapointed if one of my professors had notes on their hand, I don't care what political affiliation he/she is. They stand there and have to answer off the wall questions day to day and never know what to expect - with NO notes on their hands or anywhere else to refer to. And as far as the notes during lectures, a lecture is far more intricate than Q and A from your supporters at a rally.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11379816249646049091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38597133818214562652010-02-08T13:34:40.311-06:002010-02-08T13:34:40.311-06:00Payton Manning had written on his hand yesterday:
...Payton Manning had written on his hand yesterday:<br /><br />"Deep pass down field Left"<br /><br />TY<br /><br />I'm surprised that this didn't get a comment from you on the Robert Mitchum character's hands in Night of The Hunter.From Inwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33255454292737941012010-02-08T10:31:52.422-06:002010-02-08T10:31:52.422-06:00Michael, it is true that AQ got into Iraq but that...Michael, it is true that AQ got into Iraq but that was due to our invading, you've got a "self-fulfilling prophecy" problem. Note also, our being there allowed recruiting for AQ and intermingling of Sunni/Shia struggles with their game. I grant, we may have well had to do something big about Iraq eventually, but we should have finished up better in Afghanistan first. In that sense it was a mistake, then not to wait until maybe 2004 to make a squeeze.<br /><br />About government in general, and which follows up about Iraq: it is also ironic to say "government makes things worse" and yet to trust it can competently pull of nation building, pull off general law enforcement but curiously (and so conveniently for some people) not to be able to do financial "law enforcement." Now I agree, the maneuvering of interest groups can make such regulation just rearrange advantages etc. which is worse. But that doesn't prove it's always wrong to do, isn't worth trying etc. One could make excuses then for not doing any other functions either. I think this is all standard centrism.<br /><br />As for the thread topic: I don't think it's all that big deal about Sarah's hand notes, Obama's TOTUS and mispronunciation, Quayle's misspellings etc. This is just silly stuff that people use to make fun of the other side.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80702341363798449342010-02-08T10:29:12.127-06:002010-02-08T10:29:12.127-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40506148767117758242010-02-08T10:07:23.876-06:002010-02-08T10:07:23.876-06:00… note the objective fact (not just claimed motive...<i>… note the objective fact (not just claimed motives) that Bush diverting to Iraq mostly ruined our ability to rout Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.</i><br /><br />It may be true that concentrating on Iraq for a few years harmed the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (but I wouldn't agree that it has “mostly ruined” it; we still have the ability and opportunity to recover from earlier setbacks, just as we did in Iraq). It may be though that Al Qaeda and the Taliban would still have managed to regroup in their sanctuaries in Pakistan and come back as they have in Afghanistan in any case.<br /><br />Meanwhile, however, Al Qaeda made a determined effort to win in Iraq, declaring it the “central front” in their jihad against the West, and fielding large numbers of fighters and suicide bombers in the attempt — where they got smashed and thousands and thousands of their warriors slaughtered there for their efforts — greatly damaging their “strong horse” reputation worldwide, as large numbers of potential jihadist recruits certainly noticed.<br /><br />Now you say that was obviously a mistake? I certainly disagree, not only as a result of the smashing defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but because Iraq is now liberated from its Baathist tyrannical yoke; as a result of the Iraqi people's sour experience with Al Qaeda, somewhat innoculated against the Islamists; and now possessed of the opportunity to make of their country what they will, free of megalomaniac rulers.Michael McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08007336342718478839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53039498043748713562010-02-08T09:09:15.679-06:002010-02-08T09:09:15.679-06:00Which leads right into: if you think government te...Which leads right into: if you think government tends to mess up and not serve public interest (?), then expanding right of corporate fake-persons to spend on politics would make that even worse. You could argue that it was a matter of principle (even thought that's not a great principle when applied to something chartered for other purposes), but then accept responsibility for the lousy practical outcome as a result of ideological purity.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34205371532540393432010-02-08T09:08:58.858-06:002010-02-08T09:08:58.858-06:00synova
You win the substantive posting award on t...synova<br /><br />You win the substantive posting award on this thread!<br /><br />You turned the corps of robotic Obama defenders into corpses!<br /><br />Go, baby, go!From Inwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44747182833140269072010-02-08T08:56:45.403-06:002010-02-08T08:56:45.403-06:00Synova, anyone who thinks the big money problems w...Synova, anyone who thinks the big money problems would just take care of themselves if G got out of the way is either naive, or a tool. Yes, government can make things worse but that's no excuse to let the problem just sit, it will not improve on its own and never has.<br />BTW I wish you'd address the issue I raised at your blog about the SCOTUS ruling, where you ignored the major consideration about *who* the speech rules were applied to: corporations, not real people. If the individuals in that company want to make contributions they always could on their own. Read my comment.<br /><br />Jim: the HCR Bill did take some R ideas into itself, ironically in many ways it is like "Romney Care"! The reason people complain about the Repubs is they keep voting against everything, and hold up appointments just for spite or to get favors etc. As for Obama's policies "failing" it is not even a rational label when it's whether people want the Bill to pass or not now - it isn't instituted yet, it is not therefore a "policy" than can be judged in retrospect to have failed. And finally, do you really think this mess we have already in health care is OK? It is absolutely not the best in the world, and why did *every other* industrial nation go for national health care?<br /><br />traditionalguy: how can you believe Palin is really that for real and honest about the public interest and against money corruption? Check around. She wouldn't be for cap gains rate being lower than work-earned income if she was a real populist: her position is typical of a big money tool. (BTW real help for investment would only cover start-up capital, not the useless trading afterwards.)Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46854076637893069832010-02-08T00:09:49.353-06:002010-02-08T00:09:49.353-06:00I have to respond to this repeated talking point t...I have to respond to this repeated talking point that Obama somehow "destroyed" the Republicans at their retreat, or that his performance somehow showed that he's some sort of rhetorical genius.<br /><br />1) He didn't say almost anything new at all. All he did was repeat, over and over and over, again the very same talking points that he's been repeating for almost 2 years. If he hasn't gotten that stuff memorized flat - or at least the overall outlines - by now, then there would be reason to check out if he had ANY intelligence, let alone some sort of superior variety of same.<br /><br />2) To the extent that he DID say anything new, it was to make himself a liar. For the last two years, all that he and Pelosi and Reid have been telling people is that Republicans have no ideas, that they haven't put any solutions on the table, and that people should simply follow him blindly because his was the only possible solution that had been proposed.<br /><br />Well, he called himself a liar over and over again during the course of the afternoon when he was forced to admit over and over again that not only had the Republicans put forth solutions, but that - even as he was telling the general public that Republicans were the "Party of NO" - he had been briefed on the specifics of many of those proposals as well.<br /><br />Is calling yourself a liar and being exposed as a fraud really some sort of coded WIN for Obama? If so, it's the weirdest sort of win possible because in any other reality it's called LOSING.<br /><br />3) Ask yourself one question: if Obama really "destroyed" the House Republicans at their retreat, then why is the White House so unwilling to do it again even though the House Republicans have said they'd welcome an opportunity to do it again. Generally speaking, "winners" don't run away with their tails between their legs. So why is the White House behaving like a whipped dog while the House Republicans are left saying "Bring it on!"?<br /><br />4) Obama has shown himself to be either unable, or unwilling, to change course even in the face of obvious evidence that his policies are failing - not only in practice, but in the minds of the voting public. He has played a central role in 3 major races of incredible signifance: 2 governorships which will play a vital role in Congressional reapportionment, and the Massachussetts Senate seat which put the kibosh on his signature policy. An inability to adapt to changing circumstances isn't the signature of an agile and fertile mind, it's the sign of fossilized thinking. And out of this we are supposed to believe that Obama is some sort of deep thinker who somehow transcends the ordinary thought processes of mere mortals?<br /><br /><br />When you're repeating DNC talking points, you really should ask yourself if they make any sort of real-world sense before you take ownership of obviously ridiculous statements by repeating them uncritically.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5877965849340363112010-02-07T23:38:28.821-06:002010-02-07T23:38:28.821-06:00"And many of the TEA people also realize that..."<i>And many of the TEA people also realize that big finance etc., the Fed and that are not the friends of the public - leftish or rightish public - and so I see a basis for common ground which we need. Even if a conservative I suppose you realize the danger of big money interests which care only for themselves and not the Nation or the Constitution.</i>"<br /><br />I think that the point at which people tend to part ways is when "big money, corporations, etc, are not our friends" forks off to "and government is the solution" on one side, and "government invariably makes the problem worse" on the other side.<br /><br />Which is something that seems illiberal, the government solution... very illiberal to think that government can manage individuals and manage business and do so well, and efficiently, and morally.<br /><br />Perhaps it does go back to that area of distrust of big money, the common ground... and that is that some people distrust the *money* while other people distrust the *big*. <br /><br />I hear enough people suggest that simply taking away a profit motive will result in efficiency and fairness, that I think I'm not far off on that.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1006463604266486972010-02-07T23:26:41.343-06:002010-02-07T23:26:41.343-06:00"FWIW, her comments about bipartisanship last..."<i>FWIW, her comments about bipartisanship last night also were interesting because she would not have accomplished what little she did as governor without tremendous help from the Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature--especially with the gas line act she loves taking credit for.</i>"<br /><br />Her comments about bipartisanship last night were absolutely in line with her history of bipartisanship in Alaska.<br /><br />In case you weren't actually listening.<br /><br />She didn't say people shouldn't work together, she said they shouldn't lie about intending to work in a bipartisan way on issues where there wasn't common ground.<br /><br />She repeatedly suggested that Democrats or others might have some of the same ideas and everyone should be open to that and open to supporting any candidate or politician (if you listened to the whole thing.) She rejected an automatic partisanship.<br /><br />But she was right that making a bipartisan pledge on an issue where both parties differed so widely that it was not possible, leads people to distrust everything else.<br /><br />Putting together the pipeline deal in Alaska was something that *everyone* wanted. It was a bipartisan project in concept and from the start. Getting everyone to work together is still a great deal of work and takes some skill with people, but everyone is in basic agreement before it starts.<br /><br />The health care reform bill is not even remotely something that everyone wants, not in the Hillary Care version and not in some expanded government control of private industry version. Promising a bipartisan effort is a lie.<br /><br />It's like, say, an actress says she won't do nude scenes. And then the director says, sure, that's fine, so how do you want to do this nude scene? And she says she's not doing a nude scene. And the director comes back and says he did *his* part to work with her, why is she obstructionist, he even offered to give her input into how the scene was filmed, what is wrong with her anyway.<br /><br />That's what "bipartisanship" is in relation to the health care bill.<br /><br />And Palin was 100% right to point that out. She has that history of working with Democrats to get things done in Alaska. She knows that only works when it's something that *is* a bipartisan issue.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84926366018540055312010-02-07T23:12:35.756-06:002010-02-07T23:12:35.756-06:00You know... I can't help but think that the on...You know... I can't help but think that the only way questioning Obama's intelligence is a "dirty insinuation" is if someone truly is *invested* in Obama's intelligence. <br /><br />And that's weird.<br /><br />But hey, I get it. When it's Palin we can ignore the "dirty insinuations" and say something vague about there being a variety of intelligences, blah, blah,.. and it's *different*. Because no one is invested in Palin's brilliance.<br /><br />But with Obama it *matters* because his super smartness was supposed to automagically result in smarter policies and smarter government and all of the *right* decisions.<br /><br />But the fact of the matter is... even if the guy has a high IQ, he's an idiot. Honest to gawd, doesn't have a clue, idiot. He takes months upon months to make up his mind about Afghanistan and then doesn't understand why the military can't implement his decision over-night. He just goes and *says* to Joe the Plummer that he's going to redistribute wealth, like that's an ordinary thing to say. He disses our long time allies and can't imagine why he shouldn't. He's got a tin ear. <br /><br />You know what else isn't very smart? Making promises he can't keep. Making promises about things he doesn't know enough about to make a promise about. We can start listing them... DADT, closing Gitmo, pulling us out of Iraq, etc., and then add the ordinary things like putting all legislation on the web for five days before he signs it, openness, transparency, making promises concerning the behavior of independent insurance companies and doctors that he has no control over and can't make promises about that he can keep.<br /><br />This isn't *smart*... it's *dumb*.<br /><br />No matter what his IQ. The man simply isn't smart in ways that matter. I'm sorry if this upsets your apple-cart.<br /><br />But in the end, it's not his lack of intelligence that causes problems. It's his failure to understand leadership principles. Calling him an idiot and questioning his intelligence and making fun of the teleprompter aren't heavy duty criticisms. They aren't "dirty insinuations."Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22438553235307357482010-02-07T22:26:08.375-06:002010-02-07T22:26:08.375-06:00I'm sorry if I'm interrupting a conversati...I'm sorry if I'm interrupting a conversation, but I feel compelled to point out that Palin's jab at Obama for using a teleprompter is a cheap shot for a couple of reasons. One is that it's lazy shorthand, a verbal wink to everyone who thinks calling him TOTUS says anything meaningful or substantial about his policies or his abilities. She's aiming for the lowest common denominator.<br /><br />And she's being an obvious hypocrite about it, too (aside from relying on her notes, and not very skillfully.) For example, Palin used a teleprompter when she delivered her nearly incoherent "I quit but I'm not really quitting" speech up here. It was clearly visible in the video posted on the Anchorage Daily News that day. (Their footage showed a different angle than the one broadcast nationally.) <br /><br />At that time, her use of it seemed notable mostly because it confirmed that she actually wrote out that train wreck of a speech beforehand. Her fans, of course, thought it was simply amazing that she gave such a heartfelt speech off the top of her head (which, to them, was also the reason for the tangled syntax and unclear reasoning).<br /><br />FWIW, her comments about bipartisanship last night also were interesting because she would not have accomplished what little she did as governor without tremendous help from the Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature--especially with the gas line act she loves taking credit for. Not until McCain plucked her out of our little backwater did she develop her sneer, her overtly folksy persona, and her partisan street cred. Whether she suddenly awoke to her true nature or simply recognized what played best to her audience--well, you can be the judge of that.Bluedog Alaskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10836873071791261199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79934668096283062592010-02-07T21:25:12.610-06:002010-02-07T21:25:12.610-06:00Hi Synova
Yes, I would be happy to go "there&...Hi Synova<br />Yes, I would be happy to go "there".<br /><br />My point was not about Palin's intelligence, but about her dirty insinuation that Obama is not intelligent. I think that the idea that Obama needs to read someone else's words off a teleprompter to seem smart is basically demonstratably untrue at this point, at least to anyone who cares to watch the man speak.<br /><br />So that is spreading false rumors, and I would call it a sin (false wintess-y) if I thought in exactly those terms, which I do not anymore. I think what she is doing is morally wrong.<br /><br />the question of whether Palin is intelligent, or if she is unfairly dismissed as being not smart, is different. I'd say on that that there are many kinds of intelligence, really, and she clearly has a lot of talent. (evil genius I'd call it, but talent is true and more neutral. She clearly has some kind of smarts.<br /><br />But I think I've read or heard most of what she's said publically, and when she is unscripted she seems to mostly say an incoherent jumble of talking points. I do not think she is smart in the classical sense, i.e. understands and creates ideas. I think she is filled with talking points and ideas, but she never says much on her own that seems thoughtful. it could be that she is just not articulate in the moment, you cn be plenty smart and not have the gift of gab. But she des not seem plenty smart, and she seems insecure, addicted to lies and deceit to cover her failings, and all around a mean person.<br /><br />So that is my thoughts on "there"<br />thanks for the response<br /><br />Synova said... <br />"But really when she makes a point of spreading false rumors about obama's intelligence with the teleprompter thing,..."<br /><br /><br />Um...<br /><br />You know... the sin of spreading false rumors about someone's intelligence? <br /><br />You really want to go there?<br /><br />Or is this one of those things where, Palin is supposed to take it because everyone *knows* she's an idiot, so it's not like a *false* rumor or anything...<br /><br />But suggesting that Obama might not be quite as blindingly brilliant as all that is a vile insult?bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14295437604020963669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58053806805983288562010-02-07T20:41:18.755-06:002010-02-07T20:41:18.755-06:00@ Neil B...Sorry for a late reply, I was watching ...@ Neil B...Sorry for a late reply, I was watching the game. The "militants" you mention also need a quick a reply. The setting of the agenda is how every debate is won or lost. Skilled agenda setting instincts against the Neo Social Darwinists is one place that Palin has a excellent posture that cannot be easily replaced in our world of the wealth corrupted politicos. She has never backed down from a fight against them to make a few quick hundred millions or for herself, like all of today's Democrat leadership still in office and many RINOs. She is like Elliott Ness against the Capone gang redux. Other than that one sine qua non talent, it is true that Sarah will likely never earn her Phd from the Ivy League.traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46177850996742795122010-02-07T20:27:45.034-06:002010-02-07T20:27:45.034-06:00Because ... you're incapable of being persuade...Because ... you're incapable of being persuaded? And it's always the other ones who "lecture". But at least I got somebody here to agree there's something creepy about the financiers.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47435976028196645752010-02-07T19:43:23.790-06:002010-02-07T19:43:23.790-06:00Neil - maybe instead of lecturing us, try it on yo...Neil - maybe instead of lecturing us, try it on your HuffPo buddies.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67244734945679804362010-02-07T19:39:48.890-06:002010-02-07T19:39:48.890-06:00"But really when she makes a point of spreadi..."<i>But really when she makes a point of spreading false rumors about obama's intelligence with the teleprompter thing,...</i>"<br /><br /><br />Um...<br /><br />You know... the sin of spreading false rumors about someone's intelligence? <br /><br />You really want to go there?<br /><br />Or is this one of those things where, Palin is supposed to take it because everyone *knows* she's an idiot, so it's not like a *false* rumor or anything...<br /><br />But suggesting that Obama might not be quite as blindingly brilliant as all that is a vile insult?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13306083697263792242010-02-07T19:33:18.390-06:002010-02-07T19:33:18.390-06:00OK ... Some people overreact but oil extraction et...OK ... Some people overreact but oil extraction etc. is not right for every single place it can be done, and so on. Just for balance. And although only oddball extremists are for getting rid of people, populations growth does make it proportionately harder to share resources - even if militants exaggerate what would go wrong. Best advice: don't bend over backwards to answer something you think is extreme. That is classic liberal advice. Too bad R party made it into a bad word.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17620583091444623702010-02-07T19:25:46.921-06:002010-02-07T19:25:46.921-06:00Neil B ...I like liberal commenting because it ex...Neil B ...I like liberal commenting because it expands my understanding. For example NPR programs alternately anger me and please me because they run some of both points of view. You are on target that I view the manipulation of world capital flows by NYC and London and Shanghai market insiders as no friend of an American that wants a job. How can we keep the low prices from world trade and also keep Americans at work without a War is THE question. Does Obama's promise of begging mercy from the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians really seem like a winner to you? The need for an American product that can be produced by American workers at a competitive market price is crucial. In the meantime, while the system slowly adjusts, why has the extraction of America's oil, gas and coal been kept illegal at the decision of Congress? There is no answer in the Progressive world view where they go around pretending that CO2 is a poison and that a growing population of free and industrious humans are also a poison to Mother Earth and suggest the killing off two thirds of humanity as a real solution. My God man, that stuff is 1920's Social Darwinism gone wild. Please let us call you a liberal.traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29700275629614260622010-02-07T18:38:29.334-06:002010-02-07T18:38:29.334-06:00Trad', I'm glad you have some regard for l...Trad', I'm glad you have some regard for liberals - I hope I deserve to fit into that educated bunch who are good to share ideas with. But there is only a tiny fringe of way out "progressives" - most others adopted that name because "liberal" became a put-down and seemed too, yes elitist the way conservatives put it. Remember the "progressive" party of Teddy's time etc? That was anti-corporation, anti-trust and all that. That's what most of them are about.<br /><br />And many of the TEA people also realize that big finance etc., the Fed and that are not the friends of the public - leftish or rightish public - and so I see a basis for common ground which we need. Even if a conservative I suppose you realize the danger of big money interests which care only for themselves and not the Nation or the Constitution.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6206948065089885862010-02-07T18:24:55.730-06:002010-02-07T18:24:55.730-06:00Neil B...I have never been a tea party guy. But I ...Neil B...I have never been a tea party guy. But I can spot talent in Palin. So far she is willing to use it for the same values that I hold. Liberals are our old educated friends that know a lot about knowledge in many interesting subjects. They are the best people to share ideas with. But the Progressives are Saul Alinskyites that dream of the end of life as lived in America since 1828. Why that is a necessity for them still intrigues me. My suspicions are that progressives are a mind control political cult that uses and abuses the weak minded, unlike traditional Christianity that believes 100% in educated strong, free people limited only by observing a truth standard that rules out Marxists, Socialists and Warmists.traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4961674588189973952010-02-07T18:11:03.010-06:002010-02-07T18:11:03.010-06:00I will agree that excessive "leveling" a...I will agree that excessive "leveling" and failure to see distinctions is dangerous, and we have to realize we have true enemies out there etc. But it looks like, despite his image Obama does too with all those Predator strikes. He's not really a person of excess or extremes, despite appearance of some of his policies. Most "progressives" are just economic populists suspicious of big business like the tea party people are supposed to be (or are they corporate shills?), so that cultural indulgence of equivalency is not a big thing for them.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38688580484422564332010-02-07T17:40:43.832-06:002010-02-07T17:40:43.832-06:00Writing something on here hand was not a big deal....Writing something on here hand was not a big deal. Looking at it while answering a question (maybe one she knew in advance) about three things most important to her was bad (she named only two, by the way)<br /><br />But really when she makes a point of spreading false rumors about obama's intelligence with the teleprompter thing, using written notes to avoid using a teleprompter, and then she gets caught looking at her hand to say what is important to her, that really is a little bad.<br /><br />The fact that many on this board are still hawking the teleprompter theme for Obama, after his performance with the republicans, unscripted, is astonishing, and mean spirited. Maybe a little crazy.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14295437604020963669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82219518421704764892010-02-07T17:16:48.470-06:002010-02-07T17:16:48.470-06:00Yes, that god-stuff is frightening.
The cosmopoli...Yes, that god-stuff is frightening.<br /><br />The cosmopolitan sentiments of (some?) progressives, though... that's a real thing and matters and is part of what I meant when I talked about having a faith-based ideology that isn't understood as a religion and how that is more dangerous in many ways than a person who believes that there is a God who might have ideas about what they should do.<br /><br />"Success of our enemies" is what comes out the other end of an ideology that values the failure or refusal to determine an "us" or a "them." <br /><br />I just realized that Palin touched on a similar process, domestically when she said that those in Washington should not lie and pledge to operate in a bipartisan manner when ideologies make bipartisanship on a particular issue impossible. She's right that this erodes trust.<br /><br />What I just realized is that this fake call to bipartisanship assumes that ideas are irrelevant, even that different ideas don't exist, only sides that can chose to work together or not.<br /><br />But this isn't true. This insistence that there is no "us" or "them" that the differences in ideology and goals and outlook about life do not exist. They just *aren't*. *Poof!* And when it comes to something like health care reform, it leaves no *substance* to disagree upon, only people choosing to be horrible, probably because of racism.<br /><br />The fact is that different cultures and ideologies can't simply be ignored as if they are unimportant or are equal to each other or aren't often in essential and unresolvable conflict. And a whole lot of "progressive" ideology seems cosmopolitan in essence, which focuses membership and loyalty on humanity as a whole and values ignoring as unimportant all those pesky ideological difficulties.<br /><br />So, yes, it ends up *valuing* wanting our enemies to win.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.com