Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.
Robert Wilensky
I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists
A complex regulatory network in a diploblast
Why are flounder funny-looking?
« I get email | Main | This is how we will lose »
Category: Open Thread • Politics
Posted on: September 3, 2008 10:55 PM, by PZ Myers
OK, I see people are talking about it anyway in other threads, so here you go: say what you think of Palin's speech at the RNC. I caught a few minutes of it, and found it unbearable…so I won't be contributing. When I heard her declare that Obama doesn't want to find new energy sources and wanted to surrender in Iraq when we were on the verge of winning, I gave up.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Comments
Posted by: LB | September 3, 2008 11:04 PM
Lies about Obama's tax plan.
Lies about Obama's energy plan.
Lies about the Bridge to Nowhere.
What are they cheering so much at? It's a completely robotic speech that was clearly not written by her. She is merely reading Rove's talking points.
Posted by: TSC | September 3, 2008 11:04 PM
Oh, she is soooo fucking insane I'm going to puke. And we thought Bush was bad...
Posted by: Anon | September 3, 2008 11:05 PM
Cheney in a dress.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:05 PM
She (of all people) just mentioned that the Presidency shouldn't be a learning experience. Ummm, pot meet kettle...
Overall, I find her speech rather childish.
Posted by: Derik N | September 3, 2008 11:05 PM
No, I think she makes Chaney look charming and personable
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:07 PM
Hey, Palin should be shown some respect for her accomplishments.
That being said, I'd totally do her doggie in toilet stall.
What are they cheering so much at? It's a completely robotic speech that was clearly not written by her.
Um, because the audience is robots, too?
Posted by: Rev.Enki | September 3, 2008 11:08 PM
Ugly. Mocking. The speech was written before she was picked, and they said they had to rewrite it to make it less "masculine". These are nasty people, and they've prepared a speech for her which she has delivered in a way that is competent, if barely.
Anyway, Pick Flick!
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:08 PM
"Robotic" is _exactly_ what I was thinking when she started her blather.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:10 PM
Cheney in a dress.
Oh, thanks for that image. :-P
Wait... Palin and Cheney are both hunters... Have they ever been seen at a party together?
Oh no!!!! :-o
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:10 PM
I'd totally bone Cindy McCain.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:12 PM
I'm old enough to ride that ride.
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 11:12 PM
The term "throwing a hot dog down a hallway" comes to mind.Posted by: Darth Wader | September 3, 2008 11:12 PM
I had to turn it off, I felt that my eyes and ears were going to start hemorrhaging.
The use of Palin talking in battle should be a war crime.
Posted by: Joel | September 3, 2008 11:15 PM
Ya have to love an intelligent discussion.
Posted by: Ancient Brit | September 3, 2008 11:15 PM
I'm not listening to her per se, but I can hear her voice from the living room TV, where my better half is watching her deliver (as it were). It almost sounds as though she's giving a speech at a beauty contest - something about the intonation. If I hear the phrase "...and world peace!" that will clinch it.
I have this pet theory that the GOP are trying to lose this election.
It may be that their collective fingers have been burned too much as they are forced to continue holding on to GW. As they stand, I can't see anyone on the GOP side really wanting to inherit the current problems facing the US.
Much better to let the Dems have at it, watch them get burned, and then step forward in four years and claim the high ground using that old standby, the 20/20 vision that hindsight confers.
What better way to lose than have the current ticket?
I did wonder if Palin might possibly step down, citing her daughter's suicidal state of mind caused by unfair targeting by the media in general (and bloggers in particular). But I suspect she wants to make more history than she already has...
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:16 PM
I'd totally bone Cindy McCain.
Now, now. We must be civil.
I wouldn't just take Palin in the stall. I'd tie her hands to the toilet seat, and wrap TP around her eyes as a blindfold.
And I'd whisper, "Ok, my little pet, tonight's safe word is 'Down's Syndrome'."
And Cindy McCain would be there with the cat o' nine tails.
Yeah... yeah... I'd be down with that little convention.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:17 PM
It's just ended here.
Typical Republican pseudo-reality. No talk about the issues that really trouble many people here, extreme pro-life, abstinence-only sex education, creationism. Lots of shots of the family, including the several of the Downs Syndrome child.
One effect of our current abortion policies is that Downs Syndrome has gotten way down because those fetuses are aborted. They'll play that up eventually.
I agree with LB, it was not entirely written by her.
Posted by: Will | September 3, 2008 11:20 PM
1. We all know how false her speech really is, and how much she lied.
2. Americans are stupid
3.???
4. McCain Wins
Posted by: Jason | September 3, 2008 11:20 PM
Just to be fair, Obama's speeches are mostly written by speechwriters as well - given the thousands of criticisms to choose from, let's try to focus on the ones that are actually on target!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:20 PM
Ya have to love an intelligent discussion.
Nonsense. Discussions evolve naturally.
(RIMSHOT)
Thank you!
Besides, what the hell is there to discuss intelligently with Palin. The whole thing is a train wreck.
Anyway, the fantasy sequence ended. Larry Craig blundered in and spoiled the whole mood.
(RIMSHOT)
Hey-yo!
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 3, 2008 11:20 PM
I barely made it through the introductory applause. That was just... embarrassing. I mean, I expect the delegates to give a rapturous welcome and everything, but after a while it just came across as if they were just desperately trying to compensate for something.
By the way, are they allowing Palin out of her cage for a press conference or press questions in any other venue yet?
Posted by: NickG | September 3, 2008 11:22 PM
OMG. They are playing a song now about 'Raising McCain'. Country music is bad enough, but.... aiiigh.... my eyes are bleeding and both my tympanic membranes have ruptured.
The entire thing was almost completely devoid of substance. Its going to take at least three showers to wash that off of me.
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 3, 2008 11:22 PM
I don't want to a-er-youthanist (though I am in favor of euthanasia especially anyone at the RNC) but is there anyone there under 90? When most of the delegate say "I support that young fella McCain" your really not looking like an exciting energetic party, your looking like my grandma's tea party.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 3, 2008 11:24 PM
People, the misogyny and inappropriate sexual fantasies are pissing me off, and are telling me that maybe I should just close this thread. Talk about her lies. Talk about her incompetence. But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:24 PM
Palin doesn't strike me as a stall slut, but I can totally see McSindy in tight, black leather w/ flail in tow.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:25 PM
The commentators on the cable channel have declared it a triumph? How? In what reality? It was the same as all the others?
Posted by: Jyotsana | September 3, 2008 11:27 PM
I could only stomach about ten minutes of it before I had to turn it off. I tried to make it more palatable by providing my own MST3K-style running commentary, but in the end my disgust was too overwhelming.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:28 PM
But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
All right, I'm sorry. I'm in a nasty mood over all this. November is going to be a cluster-frak no matteer who wins.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:29 PM
Forgive me PZ; 'twas just too easy, as her speech was so vapid. I'll quell my lust.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 3, 2008 11:29 PM
I haven't seen the speech yet. I have to psyche myself up to endure the stupid, and if PZ, who debates creationists, had to tune out, I'm nowhere near psyched enough.
I do want to take this opportunity to wave something under everyone's nose, Palin-wise. This is an open letter that one of Palin's old small-town adversaries wrote to be forwarded around by email. It's gotten out onto the web at large (sorry, Anne, but once it's out, it's out), and is worth a read.
A note to all by Anne Kilkenny
Let's coin a new one: Executive Experience My Ass.
Posted by: Isherwood | September 3, 2008 11:29 PM
Ancient Brit mentioned beauty contest speeches. I told my wife she sounded like she was addressing a class of schoolchildren. It occurred to me that the cumulative intellect of the religious right isn't much of a departure from that.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 3, 2008 11:29 PM
Way to stay classy, folks.
She did a good job. Obviously most people here won't like it, but Pharyngulites aren't the target audience.
Posted by: Luke | September 3, 2008 11:30 PM
"Here are all my beautiful kids. But they're OFF LIMITS."
Posted by: snoozebar | September 3, 2008 11:30 PM
WTF is up with the rape comments. Seriously.
She did a nice job, actually. Better than expected. She's very personable onstage, but it was very little policy and mostly attacks. Which I think worked for her well.
I'm curious to see how she does in a press conference, though. She said some things (like Barack and tax increases and the Bridge to Nowhere) that sounded nice but'll be hard to defend.
McCain looks really, really old next to her.
Posted by: ihateaphids | September 3, 2008 11:31 PM
i love how she's kept saying that the decision to keep her daughter's illegitimate larvae was "Bristol's decision" yet she is anti-choice??? If she had her way there would be NO decision, as the government would be the decider.
I'm all for pro-abortion. Mandatory. Control the surplus population and such.
Posted by: Jenny | September 3, 2008 11:31 PM
I clicked expecting to be sickened by Palin's performance. Now I'm sickened by people whose first? only? response is to degrade her, and women in general, by objectifying her as a sex object. I can't even think how to respond properly to this. What is wrong with you? Why is the visceral response to a woman you don't like to rape her, even just in fantasy? I'm going now.
I just reloaded. Thank you, PZ. Still going now, though, to read something that strikes home less before bedtime.
Posted by: darek | September 3, 2008 11:33 PM
It indeed was unbearable to watch - but my relief for the night after watching the end of Giuliani speak and Palin's ridiculous 'speech', was to watch the last half segment of the Daily Show. For those of you who missed, I strongly recommend to watch to at least get rid of the anger accumulated by the RNC.
Posted by: ChrisC | September 3, 2008 11:33 PM
Had I sat down a week ago, and tried to write that speech using standard republican talking points and Rush Limbaugh esq rhetoric, entirely without touching on policy or anything meaningful, I'm positive it would have been, word for word, 80% identical...and 100% identical in spirit. Man she's a tool...
What has McCain become? And to think that eight years ago I considered him a credible politian. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: Doug | September 3, 2008 11:33 PM
All of the Republican talking points from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh condensed into one speech.
Did anyone notice the lack of an American flag lapel pin on McCain? I guess that means McCain hates America.
Posted by: Christopher | September 3, 2008 11:33 PM
Hi! I read you guys all the time, but this is the first time I've chimed in. From the speech:
So, basically, we're all gonna get tortured for the next four years, but every once in a while John McCain will give us a thumbs up and say, "It'll all be over soon!"
Posted by: catskill | September 3, 2008 11:34 PM
I support Obama but I have to admit Palin gave a strong speech. The whole McCain campaign hinged on this going well, and it seems the battle will go on. Of course we all knew that even if the speech was terrible pundits would still say it was great. I was impressed by the delivery, although it was obvious she was playing loose with the facts. I can only hope that Biden wipes the floor with her during the debates.
p.s. - How can you be against the bridge to nowhere yet keep all the money? And how can you spend millions building a road that dead ends on the bridge site and claim to be against it?
Posted by: Richbank | September 3, 2008 11:34 PM
Quiet_Desperation, that's disgusting.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
Luke wrote:
Once you put those kids out there the media is going to get curious -- and that shot of the real young girl licking her hand and then stroking the hair of the Downs baby, that's going to register on America's psyche.
Posted by: Jaded Skeptic | September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
It is hard to listen to her. She actually bragged about the bridge to nowhere. The bridge she campaigned to have built, then later turned on when it became inconvenient (though she kept as much of the money as she could). And then bragging about vetoing, including slashing out funding to support pregnant teens. Yeah she got rid of a lot of "waste" from the budget. I am surprised that she didn't go into her many tense tete-a-tete with Putin on the Bering Strait.
Posted by: scooter | September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
NEWSFLASH: All of the oil from the North Slope of Alaska would only satisfy 6 months of consumption by the US at current rates.
She threatened to fire the town librarian for not removing books from the collection, the town revolted, she backed down.
She mentioned the word 'God' once and Jesus not at all in the entire rambling non-sequitor speech, a little bit cheesy, but nicely displayed.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
Why is the visceral response to a woman you don't like to rape her, even just in fantasy?
What rape? WTF are you talking about? Do you not know what a "safe word" is? It was BDSM fantasy. Consensual, you savvy? Sheesh. I give up. This election has created an unthink field that has blanketed the entire country until the election.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:36 PM
It was funny to hear them say Ron Paul got 5 votes earlier, and I think it was Alaska (correct me if I'm wrong).
BTW, in our defense, we never once mentioned rape of those somewhat attractive GOP women (nor do I condone it).
Posted by: SoMG | September 3, 2008 11:37 PM
I agree with PZ about the misogyny and inappropriate sexual fantasies. They don't do us any good.
Having said that, I must confess that I always wanted to bone Dan Quayle.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
Luke wrote:
Once you put those kids out there the media is going to get curious -- and that shot of the real young girl licking her hand and then stroking the hair of the Downs baby, that's going to register on America's psyche.
Posted by: BobC | September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
Palin is a creationist and I don't think she would mind if biology teachers taught her magical creation myth. She said nothing about scientific progress in her speech, and I doubt she would be a pro-science president.
I watched her entire speech. I have to admit it was the first political speech I heard in a long time that didn't bore me to death. I was surprised that she invoked Mr. God only once. At the end of her speech she said god-bless-america. Can't much blame her for that because it's practically required to say that in god-soaked America. It's fair to say Palin is not qualified to be vice-president or president, and it's fair to say creationists like her are nuts. However, after watching her speech, I now think she and McCain have an excellent chance of defeating Obama. If they win it will be because of Palin. The average American is going to fall in love with her. I'm voting for Obama of course, but now I think it's going to be a very close race that Obama will lose. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
Quiet_Desperation, that's disgusting.
Thanks! :-) My many years in the California BDSM scene have served me well.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
I heard Dave Letterman last night drawing a very scary picture. Basically how McCain would be the oldest president ever and that much more likely to just not wake up one morning and we are left with President Palin. Yikes!
I hope the voters wake up and avert that tragedy.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
New Scientist's environment blog has a good article about her;
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Beyond%20the%20Palin
Interesting to note that she tried to sue the Department of the Interior for listing polar bears as endangered...
I agree that the sexist comments are disgusting and inappropriate. I guess there are morons everywhere.
Posted by: ihateaphids | September 3, 2008 11:39 PM
p.s. I agree that the sexual references are gross. I kind of want to hit her in the nose. Wanting to punch her in the face is ok. But it's the same level of punchiness I have for Joe Lieberman. or Newt or Bush(es). Please leave gender out of it. There is so much to rag on about this woman and her incompetence that is utterly hilarious that it is totally unnecessary to drop to sexual humor.
Posted by: Diana G | September 3, 2008 11:39 PM
What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I've seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up. Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 3, 2008 11:39 PM
Five days after learning that Sarah Palin exists, I'm officially sick of her.
I don't want to hear her name. I don't want to see her picture. I don't give a crap about her family life. And I already know that her values are the polar opposite of mine.
I just want to see a news headline that does not contain the name "Sarah Palin." I just want to hear people talk about something -- anything -- else. Is that really so much to ask?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 3, 2008 11:40 PM
Speech contents: C-
Delivery: B+
She's considerably more charismatic than Biden or McCain, not as good as Obama.
-jcr
Posted by: SoMG | September 3, 2008 11:40 PM
Regarding the argument that they've thrust Palin's kids into the media and are also trying to say they're off limits, isn't Obama doing the same thing?
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 3, 2008 11:41 PM
In a feat of classical conditioning, the GOP has trained Palin to say something stupid every time they ring a bell. Unfortunately, someone at the RNC got a little trigger happy with the bell.
Palin's forgotten children; lightblub, couch, and tractor.
Posted by: scooter | September 3, 2008 11:41 PM
Honestly, with that horrible accent, she isn't go to play that well in the south. She sounds like a Prairie Home Companion skit, it's just an awful whiney terrible sound.
Posted by: Faith Minus | September 3, 2008 11:41 PM
I thought the speech was pretty awful. I actually had to walk out of the room when she was introducing her family, it was pathetic.
I'm curious about her comments regarding Obama's tax increases. Is any of that even true? I know he plans to reverse some of the many tax cuts Bush made in the last 8 years, but I thought that 95% of the population was safe from this.
Posted by: Jared | September 3, 2008 11:41 PM
All I heard was "blah blah blah god blah blah blah good man blah blah blah god." I couldn't really listen to much of it.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:42 PM
I agree that the sexist comments are disgusting and inappropriate. I guess there are morons everywhere.
No, just folks like me, with dark, non-vanilla senses of humor, who have simply stopped giving a damn anymore. It's all just a vast pile of nonsense.
Posted by: Luke | September 3, 2008 11:42 PM
SoMG: Absolutely, Obama is as guilty as Palin on that.
Posted by: rich (richmanwisco) | September 3, 2008 11:43 PM
joe biden will eat her for lunch (metaphorically speaking, of course) at the first vice presidential debate. but she's such a mental midget, i could probably talk her under the table (again, metaphorically speaking).
that is, if the republicans dare to take the risk.
Posted by: Colugo | September 3, 2008 11:43 PM
Get a load of this comment over at Crooks and Liars:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/03/republican-national-convention-open-thread-for-wednesday-part-2/#comment-874051
"Palin is one angry biotch! That's becoming clear. I'd be afraid of her PMS days - talk about a national security problem."
Along with the S&M / dirty toilet stall fantasies you dopes are playing right into their hands! Think for a moment about how this dynamic plays out for various demographic groups. Go right ahead, call her white trash, a beauty queen, a bad mom, refer to her by her measurements and all of the other things I have seen in the left of center blogosphere in the last few days. Think, stupid. Talk about mobilizing the base.
Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | September 3, 2008 11:44 PM
It was a well-crafted speech. She read it well. I'll eat my hat if she wrote it.
The speech misrepresented the Democratic party platform on taxes, energy, national defense, and several other issues--but that was to be expected. These events aren't about facts and reason; they are about fund raising and motivating people to get off their couch to campaign and vote.
As stated tonight by several commentators, you don't get to this level without knowing how to read a speech. And after the applauds fade she still known nothing of foreign policy, is delusional about domestic energy production potential, and hasn't shown anything in the way of fiscal acumen (unless obtaining large earmarks for your town counts), international trade, banking and finance management, technology (unless you count eBaying the airplane), or public health.
She gives a good speech. OK. What else does she bring to the table? What skills can she provide?
The Republicans have been trying to label Obama with "nada". I think they should go ahead and reserve it for Palin. She's bringing nada to the ticket, or the office if by some disaster they are elected.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | September 3, 2008 11:44 PM
To me it is not so important what is happening but that it is
happening at all. How could anyone in good conscience support a republican administration after the last 7+ years? How could anyone with a modicum of reason even countenance the prospect of another 4 years of insane and counterfactual policies given the results we now live with?
There are three issues in this campaign and all of them are global in scope. The world economy, the world economy and the world economy. Fighting wars unless compelled by necessity to do so is ill-advised and always a net loss. Petroleum and other carbon based fuels are a) finite and b) have a net impact on the global environment that is difficult if not impossible to predict, what are the odds that it will be a beneficial impact given the geologic history of the sequestration of carbon? And finally, the source of almost all conflict is and always has been the competition for resources. There is only one solution that makes any sense to me and that is that population must shrink to a size that can be supported by an economy that is based on 95% recycling of commodities and 5% exploitation of new commodities. If we can achieve that, we might, as a species, have enough time to work out how to deal with the last 5%.
Excuse me for not having a citation that speaks to the issue but it is my understanding that not just oil, but across the board, we are depleting resources on a global scale at 30% or more per year than the replacement rate of new discoveries. If so, by 2012 the complexion of global problems will have become considerably more ugly.
Does anyone here think that we should let Palin's sky daddy
make the critical choices for us and whisper them in her ear?
Posted by: SoMG | September 3, 2008 11:45 PM
The real message of Brisol's pregnancy is that even parents who feel dead sure their kids aren't at risk for unplanned pregnancy are often wrong.
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 11:45 PM
It's like any conspiracy narrative. Fully based in anecdotal evidence, a 1 sided prose, it's that kind of presentation that suckers people into believing it; regardless of any truth in the claim.The only way really to satisfy the claim is to show it's true, that's the problems with allegations of cover-ups. Any evidence to the contrary is itself validation. The republican party and Sarah Palin have nothing to answer for, and they shouldn't have to answer every rumour like that. We give credulity to nonsense by seeing every half-baked concept spread and glorified on the internet.
Posted by: ekzept | September 3, 2008 11:46 PM
Personally, I'm going to wait for the Comedy Central assessment of it tomorrow night before I make up MY mind about her .... Hah!
I'm trying to imagine, without hurting myself, what it must be like to think like a person who supports McCain-Palin .... Now, it's not like I find Obama impeccable. I don't like some of the sloppiness he and his team have shown on important issues and matters of science and technology. (At least, however, he ANSWERED the damn Science Debate questions.) But, McCain-Palin are in true, high church fairyland ....
The sad thing is that I have this nauseous feeling they still have a respectable chance of winning.
Posted by: SoMG | September 3, 2008 11:46 PM
Thought for the day: If Bristol changes her plan and marries William Kristol, then her name will become Bristol Kristol.
Posted by: richbank | September 3, 2008 11:46 PM
Just to be clear Quiet_desperation, I have no problem with BDSM, I just find that particular fantasy, especially with that safe word, to be despicable.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 3, 2008 11:47 PM
Go right ahead, call her white trash,
That's probably the biggest problem the democrats have had since the Reagan administration. Radiating contempt for the people isn't a winning strategy. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton understood this, Al Gore and John Kerry didn't.
-jcr
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:47 PM
Oddly, the DNC con seemed to have far more invocations of god bless this and god bless that, which made me throw up a little in my mouth; but tonight's Anthem/Pledge combo did come close to producing the same effect (the stressed "under gawd", part that is).
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:47 PM
Along with the S&M / dirty toilet stall fantasies you dopes are playing right into their hands!
I can't help it. My head creates bad chemicals sometimes. :-(
Posted by: BobC | September 3, 2008 11:47 PM
In her speech she said nothing that was pro-environment. She said nothing about protecting endangered species. I'm not surprised she doesn't care about the possible extinction of polar bears. I never met a creationist who was interesting in protecting our planet and the life on this planet.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:48 PM
Colugo wrote:
I think they are their hands. Has anyone here ever seen a Quiet_Desperation or «bønez_brigade» here before? Where did they come from?
Posted by: JasonTD | September 3, 2008 11:48 PM
From Quiet Desperation #6,
"That being said, I'd totally do her doggie in toilet stall."
From «bønez_brigade» #10,
"I'd totally bone Cindy McCain."
Is this the type of discussion people who consider themselves to be rationalists have about politics in this day and age?
I discovered this blog through my interest in the creation vs. evolution debate. I am a public school science teacher in Florida. My M.S. is in physics, and I have taught Earth/Space and chemistry as well. I have long appreciated PZ Myers's timely news and commentary on the efforts of creationists and other religious fundamentalists to inject their beliefs into my domain.
That is why it frustrates me to see rationalism tossed so completely out the window by so many here when discussing other ideological topics like politics. So many here display an intolerance of political ideologies that differ from their own that they would condemn in the religious. No doubt that the 13 comments that were posted when I began writing this are going to be just a taste of the venom directed against those evil Republicans that hardly seem human.
Posted by: Luke | September 3, 2008 11:49 PM
How about Bristol's boyfriend, all dressed up in a suit on stage meeting John McCain? HOW uncomfortable did he look? Poor kid...
Posted by: dylan | September 3, 2008 11:49 PM
whether u like it or not she did a good job delivering her sppech. just means obama needs to step it up some. nothing like a bit of heated competition to bring out the best in politricks
Posted by: snoozebar | September 3, 2008 11:49 PM
Slate's twitter feed: "I think the Republicans might like Palin better than McCain..."
I dunno how much she'll play to moderates. The earmarks, polar bear hating, creationism, anti-abortionism, and the ethics violations will get played a lot.
Posted by: pcarini | September 3, 2008 11:49 PM
Did anybody else find McCain's "surprise" appearance rather awkward? He got up there and said something like "we made a good choice, huh?" and then doddered around while the crowd obviously wanted to hear something else. Then everybody on stage kind of just wandered off.
Also, what's up w/ the HI governor talking about Palin's family and how they'll band together and pull through the tough times? I find it incredibly tacky that they had to foist the duty of talking about the teen pregnancy issue onto some other person.
As for Palin's talk: meh.
Posted by: BobC | September 3, 2008 11:50 PM
whoops, I meant "interested", not "interesting" in #77.
Posted by: SoMG | September 3, 2008 11:50 PM
(Michael) Palin for President!
Posted by: Glasmann | September 3, 2008 11:50 PM
Ms. Palin - very thin resume. She sounded like a school girl in the speech - formulaic, predictable, and disrespectful of others with clearly more CV than her. She SHOULD get what she deserves, but it does appear however that they (R's) assume that she is an 'intouchable'. The media and pundits will be shamed into not attacking her.
She is a woman, a mother of five - one with challenges, dealing with an unwed daughter's pregnacy. Did you see Juno? Sarah Palin = Allison Janney. Yet on the other hand she is the gun-toting, bible thumping, abstinence only personage for the R-base, and a proxy for Hillary.
Who knows - it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have 'drunk the kool-aid' so quickly about her. We (America) deserve to get what we allow to happen.
Posted by: Luke | September 3, 2008 11:52 PM
pcarini: Yeah, doddering was the exact word that entered my mind too LOL.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:52 PM
Just to be clear Quiet_desperation, I have no problem with BDSM, I just find that particular fantasy, especially with that safe word, to be despicable.
I know. I'm sorry. I probably have one of the blackest senses of humor of anyone outside of a mental institution, and it does sometimes exhibit a life of it's own.
Please forgive me, folks. I think I need to get away from the election for a bit. It's not doing my misanthropic feelings any good, either. :-(
Posted by: Colugo | September 3, 2008 11:52 PM
If it makes some of you feel better to assume that Palin is a dimwitted robot who can do nothing more than read a teleprompter, good for you. Or you can watch the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate. And I suggest that you watch more than just her answer on abortion.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/32849/54187
I've already linked to this:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/02/the-case-against-the-case-against-palin.aspx
"What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then--and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now--is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. ...
Sooner or later, the Obama camp will realize that the beauty pageant queen is an enormously talented populist in a year that is ripe for populism. For their own sake, it had better be sooner."
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 3, 2008 11:55 PM
I didn't watch.
Did Palin mention how she wants women to die instead of receiving life-saving medical care?
Posted by: pcarini | September 3, 2008 11:55 PM
«bønez_brigade» @ 72 says it all... I was actively and irrationally cursing the motherfuckers at the DNC convention through my car radio while driving one afternoon. It was whoever gave the speech about mustard seeds and mountains and got the crowd chanting something about faith moving them. I guess if the dems are going to very vocally pander then the reps don't have to this year.
Luke @ #80
He definitely did look uncomfortable. His choice, of course, not to wear a rubber. Either that or he was never told what one is.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 11:56 PM
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
No.
Who are you and why did you come here. I've never seen your name on PZ's blog before now.
Posted by: Sal | September 3, 2008 11:57 PM
@19 Jason
Obama wrote his own acceptance speech.
Posted by: JasonTD | September 3, 2008 11:57 PM
Thank you to everyone (else), especially PZ, for proving me wrong. It is bedtime for me now, (high school starts very early). Or I would stay for some good discussion.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 3, 2008 11:57 PM
Has anyone here ever seen a Quiet_Desperation
I've been hanging out a few months, I guess. The name, BTW, comes from a poem by Henry Thoreau which contains the line " Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." I felt it summed me up pretty well. :-)
Posted by: Scotty | September 3, 2008 11:57 PM
I am soooo looking forward to the VP debates!
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 3, 2008 11:58 PM
Jeez, move on past the offense at a few comments about attractive women. It's over now.
Norman Doering, I've been reading this blog for quite a while now, and, yes, I have actually posted here before. Are you the Gate Keeper or something?
Posted by: scooter | September 3, 2008 11:58 PM
whether u like it or not she did a good job delivering her sppech.
palinDrone is an ex-television sportscaster and knows how to deliver lines and work the camera. I listened to her on radio, and she didn't sound that good.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
Jason @ #19:
Actually Obama's a bit of an atypical pol in that respect, as he does largely write his own speeches, then has his staff tweak them. Most do it the other way around, just tweaking afterward what the staff wrote.
That said, I agree that "doesn't write her own stuff" isn't even visible on my lengthy list of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
Most likely he was told that condoms actually increase the rate of STD transmission. I'm not kidding. This is what anti-choicers tell their children. This is what they will tell your children, in your schools, with your tax dollars, if McCain wins.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
Heh. Oh. 'Nother of those speeches, huh?
Hey. Didja hear? We're turning the corner in Iraq. Any minute now. Victory is imminent. Dig?
Yep, turning that corner... Yessir. Turning. Decisive, see? Turning point. Think... watershed. Think... pivotal moment. Think... I dunno... Normandy or sumpin'...
Turning...
Turning...
Umm... Okay. Did we mention? Long corner. Hang in there...
Yep. Turning, I say, look, almost 'round now...
Turning...
Turning...
Erm... okay. Did we mention long? Loooooong corner... Rilly big. But we're almost 'round... Now now, don't get all traitorous 'n anti-Murkan on us about it. We told you to go to the bathroom before we started the quag... err... war...
Turning that corner... Turning... turning... To every thing turn turn turn... Say, did we mention we're turning the corner? Any moment now. Yes, we know we first told you this... erm... (counts on fingers) oh, y'know... a while ago. But y'know. Long corner.
Turnin' turnin' turnin' (Rawhide!)... Turnin' turnin'...
Say... whose tank tracks are these? They look familiar...
Posted by: archgoon | September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
Well JasonTD, you can view for yourself that you're not the only one who is annoyed at certain comments. In any case, I once again wish for both voting moderation and threads for this forum.
Posted by: Alex | September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
My thoughts:
Has there ever been a presidential election where the Republicans weren't screaming that this was a dangerous time, that Amerika was threatened everywhere, and that it needed a true patriot to defend her? If the Democrats could fear-monger half as well as the Republicans, there'd never be another Republican president.
How is it that the Republicans wrap themselves in their jingoistic patriotism so consistently and unjustifiably?
And wasn't it terribly disingenuous for a Republican candidate to talk about not kowtowing to the oil companies, etc.?
Oh well, at least the audience there was remarkably homogenous.
Posted by: ndt | September 4, 2008 12:00 AM
Yes, so they're fair game too. As far as I know, neither of them have exhibited behavior that exemplifies the failure of a policy that Obama supports, so unless the feds tap his kids' phones without a warrant, they probably won't become targets.
I wish politicians wouldn't involve their families at all, but they only do it because it works. What I really wish is that voters paid attention to the issues instead of cute kids and smiling spouses.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:00 AM
No.
*shrug*
Who are you and why did you come here. I've never seen your name on PZ's blog before now
Nothing I can do about that. I've been here, though.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 12:01 AM
«bønez_brigade» asked:
No. I just find you suspicious.
Posted by: pcarini | September 4, 2008 12:01 AM
Whether or not she sounded good, she was much more confident looking up there than McCain. She might be the kiss of death for his campaign simply due to the contrast she provides.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:02 AM
It's nice to hear when a state "respectfully passes" during the roll call that's going on now.
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 12:02 AM
I thought hanging on in Quiet Deperation was the English way.
Posted by: ah | September 4, 2008 12:03 AM
Has anyone seen this interview with Carly Fiorina(via BBC)? About halfway through, the interviewer asks some brilliant questions about Palin's views on creationism. Worth a chuckle. :)
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:04 AM
I thought hanging on in Quiet Deperation was the English way.
Yeah, Pink Floyd used it, but it originated with Henry Thoreau - AMERICAN. ;-)
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:06 AM
Norman Doering arrogantly stated:
"No. I just find you suspicious."
Likewise.
Funny thing is, I've not seen your name in the comments here until recently, so, yeah, I can play that childish game too.
Get over it Norman. Move along.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 4, 2008 12:06 AM
Kel, Quiet Desperation, perhaps you should start signing those sorts of childish comments with your real names so the Rethug noise machine will have someone to quote when they excise them from context and try to pass them off as typical left wing sentiments?
That said, I'd hit that.
...and back up over it once or twice just to be sure it'd stopped twitching.
(I've always wanted to use that line. ^.^)
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 12:07 AM
Ah
dead link
Posted by: Geral | September 4, 2008 12:09 AM
Please. No more sex comments. I thought it was a republican thing to attack Hillary, but apparently its widespread.
No more, we're better than that. Remember?
Posted by: ck | September 4, 2008 12:09 AM
Isn't the real question whether her delivery and likeability (hockey moms, etc.) will play into Middle America?
Will the focus be on her and not McCain? Or will this backfire?
That's what I'm interested in. Not the disgusting misogyny from folks on the left OR right. (Sexual fantasies are rarely appropriate to share, FWIW, and less so when it comes to a public figure in a public forum. Brother.)
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:10 AM
Yikes, 101 NY votes for McCain. WTF, that's not his territory.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:11 AM
Isn't the real question whether her delivery and likeability (hockey moms, etc.) will play into Middle America?
What happened to "soccer" moms? Did I miss a memo?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 12:11 AM
«bønez_brigade» wrote:
Can you now?
I can link other threads where my name appears, can you?
Here's one:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/the_fundamentalist_formula_for.php#comment-1085354
Posted by: DingoDave | September 4, 2008 12:12 AM
Glasmann wrote @86
-"Who knows - it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have 'drunk the kool-aid' so quickly about her. We (America) deserve to get what we allow to happen."
Yes, but the rest of the world doesn't!
Posted by: Rick R | September 4, 2008 12:13 AM
I agree with the comment that when she and McCain were onstage together, she made him look oooooooooold. REALLY old.
His running mate, or his nurse?
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:13 AM
Yikes, 101 NY votes for McCain. WTF, that's not his territory.
I still can't figure out how McCain went from seeming to dismantle off his campaign staff to winning the nomination. Has any reporter anywhere ever done some investigative reporting on that?
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 4, 2008 12:14 AM
"OK, I see people are talking about it anyway in other threads, so here you go: say what you think of Palin's speech at the RNC."
They achieved new heights of cheap shot nastiness. They do excel at being exceedingly nasty. I'll give them that.
It wasn't her speech. Someone named Karl Rove (and it was his night, after all, wasn't it?) penned it well before she was chosen and then stirred in some of her family trivia over the last few days.
Overall, eminently forgettable. The Party of One Liners achieved nothing tonight except the alienation of a lot of decent folks who want to see real change in this country.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:14 AM
The sex fantasies actually stopped _long_ ago when PZ dropped the hammer. I respect PZ and stopped. The only time "sex fantasies" are being mentioned now is by those that can't move along and stop being offended. Drop it. It's over.
Posted by: ndt | September 4, 2008 12:16 AM
Just so we're all clear:
Her daughter's uterus us none of our business.
Every other woman's uterus is the government's business.
Posted by: TC | September 4, 2008 12:16 AM
Before the speech tonight, I felt she was a laughable choice. Now, I'm not so sure.
Palin came off very personable and likable on stage. She can definitely read a speech. And as useless as the introduction of her whole damn family was, some people will eat that shit up with a spoon.
This isn't going to be the slam dunk some folks thought it was. If Palin can hold her own against Biden - not "win", just hold her own - then she might just be able to mobilize the GOP base in a way McCain couldn't have. That sort of mobilization could actually tip the scales in McCain's favor. Basically, Palin just has to avoid making an ass out of herself for a few months.
Here's hoping that she's gaffe-prone.
Posted by: michael edwards | September 4, 2008 12:17 AM
Seemed rather "factually impaired," but delivered a good speech. Not someone to take lightly, I think. She reminded me of Reagan in style, her looseness with facts, the condescending and folksy sarcasm that so baffled and infuriated the Democrats.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:17 AM
Her daughter's uterus us none of our business.
Every other woman's uterus is the government's business.
Oh! Bumper sticker that! You have a winner!
Posted by: ck | September 4, 2008 12:17 AM
@ Quiet_Desperation - Palin is a hockey mom and made a (seemingly) off the cuff joke about them.
@ «bønez_brigade» - maybe "long ago" in Internet time, but by the time one creates a comment, proof reads it and hits "submit", several other comments have been added. So relax, buddy!
Posted by: BobC | September 4, 2008 12:18 AM
ah #110:
ah's link didn't work. Here it is: McCain VP pick 'victim of sexism'
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:19 AM
She reminded me of Reagan
This train wreck is making me *miss* Reagan, and that that can't possibly be healthy.
Posted by: pcarini | September 4, 2008 12:19 AM
Well Huckabee was a joke everywhere outside of the very deep South, Romney belongs to some heretic non-evangelical sect, Ron Paul was running for the wrong party, and somehow Giuliani turned into a poison troll. That last bit was surprising and immensely gratifying simultaneously.
Posted by: Big Rig | September 4, 2008 12:20 AM
Did anyone catch this little tidbit. Two talking heads caught saying what they really think about the McCain/Palin ticket after the camera is off...but the mic on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 4, 2008 12:20 AM
Who knows - it might work. I do find it is scary that so many people have 'drunk the kool-aid' so quickly about her.
My first reaction to seeing her actually speak after the announcement was: holy cow, what the hell was McCain thinking? She comes across as a total lightweight. Is he trying to lose?
And then I remembered: the last time I found myself thinking: 'holy cow, what a total lightweight, who in their right mind would put this deeply, profoundly, dangerously, terrifyingly, callously unthoughtful ethical vacuum anywhere near real power?' it was in 2000, and he was from Texas.
So my radar probably isn't much good here. And the prognosis may be worse.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 4, 2008 12:21 AM
There's nothing historic about Palin's selection. A woman has already run as a VP candidate. On the other side, yes, but SO FUCKING WHAT? It's been done!
The Republicans I've eavesdropped on at restaurants, work, and such are not jumping for joy over Palin. They're very cautious, waiting to see what she does. Some of them are a little uneasy. When they finally get down to it, a lot of them see Palin's selection as a cheap ploy to counter Obama's race--and to draw in disenchanted HRC supporters. I've heard some wicked jokes that if McCain really wanted to top the Dems in the minority competition, he shoulda picked an open lesbian. Now THAT would have been historic!
We'll see how this woman does on the campaign trail and with the media (whom I suspect will go very easy on her--unlike what they did to Ferraro or HRC). I would hope that people would catch on pretty quickly that Palin's a wretched excuse for a human being, but I lost faith in average Americans, long ago. They could well let themselves be swayed into voting for McCain simply because he has this cute (if one could call that cute) little lunatic female loping along beside him. "See how modern I am? I'm votin' for a chick!' Joe Sixpack will brag. What's sad is that kind of thinking will actually be taking place in way too many voting booths.
Obama better get his shit together, and Biden better trounce her in the debates. No mercy. Let's hope there's one moment during that debate when Americans will collectively think, Finish her!
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:22 AM
Oh noes Norman! Where will I ever find a post from me? Oh, yeah, I guess I could actually search for one.
Here's one for starters:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/when_will_they_learn_another_i.php#comment-883315
I don't have the time to keep up with the enormous amount of comments here, so I'm just a random poster -- and I definitely don't claim that my posts are ever of any great substance -- but I read every goddamn blog post by PZ.
-------
BTW, the dude from Tennessee just called him George S. McCain!?!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 4, 2008 12:22 AM
"She reminded me of Reagan."
Yes.
A dose of "aw shucks" mixed with a dollop of fucking bastard.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:24 AM
@pcarini: I still wonder if there's an Pulitzer Prize awaiting anyone who really looks into McCain phoenix from the flames act, but, yeah, in the end is was the lesser of evils. Again. :-(
Feh. I gotta get out of here. It's depressing. Turn on the XBox or something.
Have fun, all, and sorry again. PZ, I'll be good from now on.
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 12:25 AM
I didn't watch it. I knew I couldn't take it with out puking or blowing a gasket.
So I spent my time drinking sangria, tatting an Octopi, and listening to Leon Redbone. My blood pressure is fine. Polly Wally Doodle!
Posted by: mayhempix | September 4, 2008 12:25 AM
Palin believes we are in Iraq because it is God's will...
for that reason a lone she is unfit to be in office
and I can promise you she will not be asked about that in the debates.
The sex comments are juvenile and counter-productive.
Posted by: Davidlpf | September 4, 2008 12:25 AM
posted by quiet desperation
All right, I'm sorry. I'm in a nasty mood over all this. November is going to be a cluster-frak no matteer who wins.
isn't that how all this started in the first place.
(found some of comments funny myself)
Posted by: Scott | September 4, 2008 12:25 AM
God damn, I despise Sarah Palin. I've only known who she was for a few days, and I can't fucking stand her. My parents are in love with her though. "AH SHE'S PRO LIFE AND A HOCKEY MOM AND BLABLABLABLA"
I'm missing the Colbert Report because my dad is replaying her speech on Faux News. It's times like these that I wish that I lived in a country called "Liberalia" where the right wing religious nutjobs don't exist. Although, they'd probably get nuked by "The Conservative States of Jesus" if the country existed.
Posted by: Allytude | September 4, 2008 12:26 AM
Well it was made to appeal to very mediocre masses- people who like the "cousin Sarah," idea,if I may quote Sam Harris, not people who have a smidgeon of intelligence, or understand or appreciate why having a well-educated, science oriented president is important. Lots of sarcasm- which was clever, I felt. And a lot of OIL OIL OIL lets drill everywhere, more war and finally in case you forget, McCain is a POW.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 4, 2008 12:27 AM
Isn't being the pet of a hideous hybrid of Phyllis Schlafly and Britney Spears bad enough for her dog without being molested by random blog commenters? Leave the poor creature alone. ;(
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:27 AM
(QD buys bønez and Norman both beers before he leaves. Chill, dudes.)
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:28 AM
@ck, I _am_ relaxed! It's the people who keep bringing it up that need the fucking chill pill.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 4, 2008 12:28 AM
Dude, Bush made me miss Reagan. And Reagan made me miss Nixon. How sick is that?
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 12:28 AM
If she's a YEC, and someone can document she's a YEC, she'll get creamed, eventually. Even mainstream Xians draw the line at YECs.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 12:29 AM
. If Palin can hold her own against Biden
Frankly, I was never impressed with Biden's debating skills when he ran for the democratic nomination. He's a whole lot older than Palin, and he's done a lot of log-rolling in the Senate, but I see no reason to presume that he can beat her face to face.
-jcr
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | September 4, 2008 12:30 AM
Quite a nice vapid bookend to the Democratic nightmare the other night.
(Kneels...)
"Oh lordy, please let there be sane and rational people in America who have had enough of this two party nonsense..."
(Stands...)
(Bows to the ignorant masses...)
(looks for alcohol under couch...)
Posted by: dave | September 4, 2008 12:30 AM
Republicans sure throw more mindless punches than democrats. They're warmongers, and they like fights. The sad thing is that america seems to love to fighting more than thinking. Sparta, not Athens.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:30 AM
QD, I'll take a Newcastle please.
Posted by: Holbach | September 4, 2008 12:30 AM
If she loses will she blame her god or the godless?
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:34 AM
Ooooh, Ron Paul: 5
Posted by: J Myers (no relation) | September 4, 2008 12:35 AM
She lies, and she's incompetent.
Now that we've covered that base, I'm curious as to what constitutes an "inappropriate" sexual fantasy, and more importantly, how we might legislate against them.
Screechy Monkey... exactly what I thought when she started talking. I don't know what was more unpleasant about that speech: its content, or the voice that delivered it. How can anyone honestly think that that vapid, irritating, nonsensical shit-spew was a success of any sort? There were several times at which I felt like I was watching a sketch-comedy parody of a garden-variety Republican speech.
Posted by: llewelly | September 4, 2008 12:37 AM
Colugo:
Exactly. This is the real danger of Palin, and why she stands to hurt Obama's candidacy. The simple fact that she's a woman brings out all the misogynist assholes that lurk everywhere in our culture. This neatly divides the Democrats, because a few Democrats are sexist and a few Democrats attack the sexists. The former are the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to make Democrats look sexist. Quiet_Desperation, however you try to defend your remarks, you are playing into McCain's hands. Sadly, you're nowhere near the worst offender, or the only. Sexist remarks will also anger and de-energize the many women working hard to promote Obama's candidacy.
Posted by: Stanton | September 4, 2008 12:37 AM
Then are you the Key Master?Posted by: Geral | September 4, 2008 12:39 AM
"Did anyone catch this little tidbit. Two talking heads caught saying what they really think about the McCain/Palin ticket after the camera is off...but the mic on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg"
LOL win.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 12:40 AM
I apologize, «bønez_brigade». For awhile there I thought you were some sort of political plant designed to make the blog look bad.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:40 AM
Quiet_Desperation, however you try to defend your remarks, you are playing into McCain's hands.
I didn't defend them, I apologized for them, and admitted I have a nasty, black, vitriolic and brutal sense of humor that I sometimes let get out of hand. Is there NO forgiveness on the Intertoobs? Geez...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 4, 2008 12:44 AM
I don't think Norman was the only one here who found your comments (and those of Quiet_Desperation) disturbing. It wasn't an unreasonable question; I don't remember seeing either of you here before now either, and your comments were way out of line.
Posted by: Fergy | September 4, 2008 12:44 AM
All I keep thinking when I see Palin is that she really looks like the type of girl who would enter the Miss Buffalo Chip contest at the Sturgis biker's rally. Maybe President McCain will offer up Cindy and Sarah as a twofer at next year's event!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
You act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like an asshole.
At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to? Hmm. Still sounds like an asshole.
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
Wait, what did I do?And real name? Kel IS my real name.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
But her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
PZ Myers
I know you didn't mean it this way, but "off limits" implies we should all avoid a subject that we secretly find enticing. It also implies we need rigid rules to act intelligently and ethically. There aren't sacred cow subjects that we divine by voodoo and dare not speak about, and the intelligent among us aren't sexist jackasses chomping at the bit to make an inane comment.
We're not like the religious. Nothing is sacred. We act ethically by thinking rationally, not memorizing a list of things we can and can't do.
Talking about her appearance and gender shouldn't be off limits. Talking about her appearance in the uninteresting, immature, sexist, and fucking stupid way that people did in the comments that followed your post should be "off limits." Anyone who clutters our mind with that kind of trash should be shunned and/or ridiculed. Telling a sexist joke to a crowd like this is like trying to impress the guys at CERN with the wheel. These jackasses are just decades behind our species' ethical evolution. Tell them to grow up or move on.
Besides, if you set down a hard rule against mentioning her gender, count on morons like this to start whining if you point out something like McCain's choice of a female candidate being a cynical, short-sighed political decision that undermines long term feminist progress. "But you said her gender was off limits..."
Posted by: foxfire | September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
PZ, you are just *so* kind.
See post #194 on your "Palinanity" blog entry. New abbreviation: SVGNwT (Smart Valley Girl North with Teeth)
To be contentious - Obama folk need to be very, very careful in positioning (aka "framing"). I still like this woman (note to readers: like does not equal vote for). I had Fox News on and the males in that family had some very interesting (unenthusiastic) body language.
I predict the drama will continue to unfold (no statistics or QM required) and I would also guess that if she withdraws herself for "family" reasons the Righteous Right will be pushing Bobby Jindal down McCain's throat.
Evolutionary Psychologists might be ecstatic at the video produced in the last week or so (not to mention the future). Given that all scientific research is not shut down so it doesn't disrupt the praying (and economic raping - but then again, The Earth...she just tempted and *asked* for it)
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
Apology accepted. FWIW, I've actually read your blog before on a few random occasions, and I liked what I read.
Posted by: llewelly | September 4, 2008 12:46 AM
Quiet_Desperation, #88:
Note - I didn't see this request for forgiveness when I wrote #156. My apologies.
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 12:46 AM
Late to the game, but I agree with PZ - the sex crap about Palin is a bit much. I don't see anyone doing the same about Obama or McCain.
My remark to the old Grouch was about Mrs. McCains dress - who the hell wears mustard! That was the most hideous color anyone could choose. Then there's the bottle blonde hair.
Oh, help me sweet baby jebus - I've turned into my grandmother... ;)
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 12:48 AM
Despite all the hoo haa over palinDrone, the arena in Minnesota was less than half full.
Posted by: Justin Schenk | September 4, 2008 12:49 AM
man, it's amazing how vicious politics tend to get when women are involved. The Right did it to Hillary, will the Left do it to Palin?
Reading the comments section here, so far the answer seems to be "yes".
How disappointing.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 12:51 AM
@ Brain Hertz,
"I don't remember seeing either of you here before now"
That's now been cleared up. Research it.
"and your comments were way out of line."
From my experience at reading comments on this blog, my comments were nothing of the sort.
----------
----------
@ Grammar RWA,
"You act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like an asshole."
Care to provide an example of my asshole-ness?
"At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to? Hmm. Still sounds like an asshole."
Umm, no. Sounds to me like you're just building up a straw man. Chill out and move on, chief. The fire is out.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 12:52 AM
Everything you said needed to be said. For some other reader, even if Quiet Desperation already got the memo.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 4, 2008 12:52 AM
Joined in with the "hotdog down a hallway" line, though reading up I can see I had the rest of bonez' comments confused with yours. Sorry.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:52 AM
Oh, help me sweet baby jebus - I've turned into my grandmother... ;)
I think I have started to turn into my grandmother as well, which is a bit concerning since I'm male. :-\
Posted by: pcarini | September 4, 2008 12:52 AM
The best bit with talking heads I've seen all week is MN Rep. Michelle Bachmann taking offense for all American women when James Carville says that Palin is unqualified. It helps that all of two minutes earlier he was contrasting Palin to Olympia Snow, as someone who would be far more qualified.
Funny how gender should have nothing to do with it, yet they're officially willing to take any attack on any other subject and try to spin it as sexist.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 4, 2008 12:53 AM
In good(ish) news, here's a poll with Obama at 50% support, McCain 42. I'll be intrigued to see if McCain gets much post-convention bounce. Somehow, from that speech, I doubt it. It was competent, but they needed more than competent in the wake of the pre-convention revelations and general unease over this woman. I can't really see it roping in the constituencies they were hoping it might, either.
I'm jaded (as said above) but it's entirely possible Palin will prove a really bad gamble for the McCain campaign. The (apparent) enthusiasm at the GOP convention isn't much of a barometer; of course the hard right loves her, but so what? The Palin pick can easily make McCain look impulsive if not actually unstable amongst those who were already a bit edgy about that very possibility. And while it might buy him 'maverick' points, it may well disappoint independents; Palin's got a lot they may decide they dislike. And sure, Palin's got that aw shucks thing going that's got so many incredibly nasty pieces of work elected in the past few cycles, but it doesn't work for everyone. Aw shucks in her current context may not play so well, when people are reasonably also looking for reassurance she would actually be up to the office, a factor which may well catch her between anvil and hammer. And she's also facing a very different opponent that the GOP machine is used to; Obama really does inspire. When all you can do standing next to that is deliver the same old same old... Well...
Well, point is: sure, no one should get too cocky about this. She's a practised demagogue, she's got a good schtick and some real moves, and she may well fool enough of the people long enough to be a threat, no question. But it's also entirely possible the pundits raking through the ashes of McCain's campaign will shortly be calling this more uniformly what it so obviously was: an act of desperation. One last shot at changing the momentum that just wasn't going his way. And a shot that missed wildly.
Posted by: mac | September 4, 2008 12:54 AM
Dreadful speech.
She had the cadence of a 10th grade student reciting a rehearsed presentation. Odd pauses and a pitch that at times sounded oddly strained. It lacked emotional conviction.
Toward the end of her uneven rambling she was unable to generate momentum, it sort of fizzled ... ran out of gas ... as she gazed through her specs and tried for the appearance of gravitas. Embarrassingly sub-par and full of the right wing claptrap that is guaranteed to drive America further toward unilateralism and greater isolation.
Compared to any speech you care to name at the Democratic convention, this was strictly amateur night.
The idea of this ingenue sitting in the VP's office is really a bad joke. Americans deserve better.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:56 AM
I'm jaded (as said above) but it's entirely possible Palin will prove a really bad gamble for the McCain campaign.
It's a train wreck, and it will only get worse. The latest story is that Palin wanted books banned from a library, and she fired the librarian who refused her.
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 12:57 AM
Quiet Desperation - I acknowledge your having to eat crow on this blog. Thanks for stopping the sexist shit.
I've had to eat crow twice for being stooopid.
It hurts, but the wound heals fast. *grin*
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 12:57 AM
Americans deserve better.
Do we really? I'm not so sure sometimes. :-(
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 12:58 AM
Hey Patricia check out the awesome turquoise and polyester fashion statement over here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8
ooops gotta go catch the Stewart/Colbert rerun, see yall later
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 12:59 AM
Not once have you acknowledged that your rhetoric was sexist and inappropriate. All you did was cower when the big man told you what's what. Chances are good that you'll revert to demeaning women again when you're out of earshot, on someone else's blog.
Instead, you just keep whining for everyone to stop criticizing you. Cry more.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 4, 2008 1:01 AM
Judging from the reactions here and elsewhere, it sounds like McCain has played this just about right. He blindsided the opposition by appointing Sarah Palin and got them really rattled. She's attracted huge media coverage. All of a sudden, Obama's no longer the newest, coolest kid on the political block and Biden's a wasted opportunity.
That's how it looks now, anyway. What it'll be like a couple of months down the road once the honeymoon period's worn off is another matter.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 4, 2008 1:02 AM
I've had to eat crow twice for being stooopid.
It hurts, but the wound heals fast. *grin*
Oh, I'm OK. I'm really a decent guy underneath, but I do have a very dangerous funny bone that sometimes gets me into trouble. And I really despair for the country some days. It makes me nasty. I also really did spend 10 years in the BDSM scene, so that stuff is pretty unremarkable to me, and I forget sometimes.
Posted by: RobinSV | September 4, 2008 1:06 AM
In a word, vacuous.
After reading the transcript of her speech I could only find two bits that, if your being very generous, you could say touched on policy:
1) that Obama will raise taxes, but no mention, nothing at all, on what McCain plans are for the economy.
and 2) Victory in Iraq (but not Afghanistan?). But again, absolute zip on how...
Christ, a skirt and a more humble background is about all the distinguishes her form Bush.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 4, 2008 1:06 AM
Impeccably reasoned as ever.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 4, 2008 1:06 AM
I listened to the speech via TYT. I guarantee there will be a bump for them out of this. As Cenk mentioned, the bar was set so low for her because of all the scandals that the only place for them to go is up. The Democrats still have the experience argument on their side, and the real difference between the speeches at the two conventions was the number of times you heard boos. Obviously, that's a win for the Dems, since they didn't have a lot of boos, and tonight's rethug lineup did what it could to get as many boos as possible. They of course see that as a good thing. Will the American populace be persuaded by a convention full of basically nothing but POW porn and name calling? That remains to be seen, and on that I remain undeterred in pushing Obama/Biden to those I know.
The Dems cannot afford to let this go unanswered for long. They need to stay on message and on the task of keeping radicals out of elected office.
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 4, 2008 1:06 AM
Obama has declared that he wants to find more renewable energy sources. Why does Palin lie about that? She goes to hell if she does, so one must wonder; why does she hate heaven so much?
Posted by: llewelly | September 4, 2008 1:07 AM
J Myers (no relation), #155:
Calling out a sexual fantasy as inappropriate or misogynistic is not at all the same as a desire 'legislate against them' .
In general, the simple fact that something is undesirable is not necessarily cause to legislate against it; there are often better ways, such as education, or social pressure, to reduce its frequency of occurrence, or the severity of its side effects. In this specific case - sexual fantasies about Palin have no bearing on whether she is qualified for the VP. Thus they are inappropriate to this thread, regardless of their content. That does not mean such fantasies should be legislated against, and to imply that it does is a strawman.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:08 AM
@ Grammar RWA,
"Not once have you acknowledged that your rhetoric was sexist and inappropriate. All you did was cower when the big man told you what's what."
It was sexist and inappropriate! [yet funny] Are you fucking satisfied now?!? Move along.
I cower for nobody, but I respect PZ and defend him every chance I get (in RL or online).
"Chances are good that you'll revert to demeaning women again when you're out of earshot, on someone else's blog."
Chances are, you are wrong!
"Instead, you just keep whining for everyone to stop criticizing you. Cry more."
Yay!, I'm now whining... When people keep droning on and on about something that has been cleared up and is over, and I find that I must repeatedly note that for them... well, that is hardly whining, my friend.
Posted by: Dahan | September 4, 2008 1:08 AM
Jason @ 19,
"Just to be fair, Obama's speeches are mostly written by speechwriters as well - given the thousands of criticisms to choose from, let's try to focus on the ones that are actually on target!"
Point taken I guess, but as has probably been said before here, many of Obama's speeches are indeed written by himself, and not by speech-writers. This includes both his speech on race after the dust up about his pastor and his acceptance speech at the convention. Give him his credit where due.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 1:11 AM
...I gave up.
Calamari-eating surrender monkey!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 4, 2008 1:13 AM
Everybody, they lie about Obama/Biden because they've been allowed to get away with it. They are used to a media that never challenges what they say, and never calls them to elaborate. They lie because they can, plain and simple. The only way they'll stop is if Obama/Biden hand McWar/Pain-lin their ass on a silver platter in November.
And if that doesn't happen, well, it's been nice knowing America.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 4, 2008 1:16 AM
IMO, it was a perfect performance of the kind of political theater that gets votes. How else could a do-no-good, draft-dodging dolt have gotten 'elected' in 2000 - what with a string of failures on his resume, no foreign policy and little other experience, other than a largely ceremonial governorship?
This bunch of commenters is not representative of the electorate, and Palin couldn't give a rat's whoot about what we think of her. It'll take an awful lot more than self-gratifying cheap shots to avoid four more disastrous years.
Obama appeared to understand this when he quipped (something like): "The Republicans don't know how to govern, but they sure know how to campaign". Looks like we've got work to do.
Posted by: Tired and Frustrated | September 4, 2008 1:16 AM
#186 RobinSV
They always accuse liberals of raising taxes while spending more. The reality however is that the conservatives spend more than liberals, usually on the wrong things, while lowering taxes. My guess is that this fine tradition will continue, and the sheep will believe it's the other way around.
How do they define victory? Their military was quickly defeated, Saddam Hussein was found and brought to some sort of trial (the American presidents who sold him weapons did nothing wrong, however), so now it's the insurgents and rebells and terrorists (who came there after Iraq was defeated, not before) who are standing in the way of... what? America taking complete control over the country? What's the goal? A government approved by the USA and USA alone?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 1:17 AM
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
I believe you, but I would suggest that you try to think of internet forums as more of a dinner party with kids and grandma hanging around, not a locker room.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 1:19 AM
...her appearance and her gender should be off limits.
That's going to be rather difficult until these sorts of pictures stop turning up...
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:20 AM
Another thing Grammar RWA,
"Chances are good that you'll revert to demeaning women again when you're out of earshot, on someone else's blog."
That statement by you was about as asinine as when some jackass Catholic says "you'd never do that to a koran or a jewish symbol!"
I started not to even post this, but I really think you deserve it for being such a straw-man-building asshole to me.
With that, I'd say we're even. So move along.
Posted by: bastion | September 4, 2008 1:21 AM
I thought Palin did better than I expected.
She's a better speech-giver than McCain is. Or Bush. Or Giuliani, or Thompson, or Lieberman. [snore] Geesh.
These guys not only need better speech-writers, they need speech coaches.No. No. I made a mistake there. Sorry.
What I meant to write was: These guys are most excellent speech-givers, and they should give more great speeches written by their present extra-talented writers and continue to give their speeches with their current tremendous flair, as that will surely sway the electorate and deliver the election to McCain/Palin.
OTOH, Palin's delivery reminded me of the over-rehearsed speeches that I've heard graduating seniors give at our local high school. The result is a speech that doesn't really seem to genuinely come from the heart. (Cindy McCain is even worse in that regard.)
While I appreciate the fact that the US sorely needs a new energy policy, I was disappointed that Palin's speech focused so much on energy, and she didn't say much about other important issues like the environment, economy, education, social justice, health care, foreign policy.
And I caught her misrepresentations of Obama's tax and energy policies.
Once, at a point that now seems long ago, I opined that I was torn between Hillary and Obama, but that I could live with McCain since he'd be a big improvement over our present administration. But after McCain selected Palin, I've changed my mind. "No way. No how. No McCain."
I really enjoyed The Daily Show tonight, especially the clips of Palin, Rove, and O'Reilly hoisted by their own words. And for someone who supposedly was pressing for Palin's nomination weeks ago, Newt didn't seem very enthusiastic. Maybe he was just tired.
BTW: Did anyone else notice how nicely dressed almost all the Republican delegates were? Did they have a dress code for this evening?
Posted by: J Myers | September 4, 2008 1:22 AM
It was competent, but they needed more than competent in the wake of the pre-convention revelations and general unease over this woman.
Do they, though? It's precisely that sort of unease that can be allayed by display of not-complete idiocy*. "Oh look, she isn't obviously nuts... all that stuff we heard must have been lies from the liberal media!" Low bars make for high completion percentages.
Calling out a sexual fantasy as inappropriate or misogynistic is not at all the same as a desire 'legislate against them' .
llewelly, meet Sarcasm. Sarcasm, llewelly.
That does not mean such fantasies should be legislated against, and to imply that it does is a strawman.
llewelly, meet irony.
Posted by: pcarini | September 4, 2008 1:23 AM
Up until Palin was announced I was comfortable thinking that the world wasn't going to end regardless of who was elected. She's got me very suddenly worried about McCain's ticket.
I can somewhat understand obvious pandering to the freakagelicals from a Rep. candidate, and changing religions seemed a bit much but I figured he really wasn't that devout and it was just for votes. Picking someone who's Joel's Army style whackaloon as veep suddenly feels like much more of a threat. It seems too obviously like a move of desperation, alienating pretty much everybody else for the hard-core fundie vote. Most of them still don't like McCain and are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being commander-in-chief, so I think McCain paid an awful lot for a small gain.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 4, 2008 1:24 AM
Pierce R. Butler wrote:
Hmmm... Not exactly the kind of image that comes to mind when I think of an advocate of abstinence only education.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 4, 2008 1:27 AM
Both of them would destroy any hope of balance in the Supreme Court for an entire generation.
Scary prospect.
Let's hope that the affair rumors are true.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:30 AM
Anyway, back to Palin's speech (finally). I really tired quickly of her trying to put on the "I'm one of you hard-working-class people" and the state-name-dropping (to continue in a similar vein).
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 1:31 AM
Hey Scooter - No shit! She has the shark tooth, bone and turquoise fashion scene covered. Wasn't that Sturgis 1993?
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:33 AM
BTW, bang head on desk again right now on MSNBC or in 48m on Fox or in 1h 20m on CNN.
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 1:38 AM
I missed her speech (I had to work): anyone got the link?
Did she say anything unexpected, at all? anything?
As for all the coverage on her family: I don't care. I honestly do not care about her kids. I didn't care about Chelsea Clinton, nor did I care about Bill's indiscretions. I do not, and never have, cared about the damned Bush girls. I won't care about Obama's kids (although they're quite cute). The children and personal lives of Presidents only concern me when they affect the president's decision making, and therefore I am much more concerned with the fact that both VP candidates have kids going overseas.
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 1:41 AM
What? The internet is very much a locker room mentality, it's hard to think of it as anything but.Sure being civil has it's place, don't get me wrong. Just trying to expect such a high level of behaviour on the internet is like expecting a coherent scientific argument out of a creationist.
Posted by: Tyro Rex | September 4, 2008 1:43 AM
Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973 but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. ... And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat and I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place. BWAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 1:46 AM
Somebody upthread asked about the facts on Palin's claims re Obama's tax proposals. Obama's plan would lower taxes on 95% of wage earners, and would benefit the middle class by significantly more than McSame's... so Palin was just flat lying.
Here's a fact-check from AP of Palin's speech and other RNC claims (h/t to HuffPo). When even the ostensibly-liberal-but-actually-right-leaning MSM is smacking them down on the facts, you know the Repubs are doing some high-grade prevaricating.
BTW, I agree that the sexual joking is out of bounds (as much because it's bound to backfire as because it's tasteless), but Palin's attractiveness is a real issue, in electoral terms: Some people will think again about the R ticket because she pretties it up; those of us who dread another 4 or 8 years of theocratic neocon rule would do well to be mindful of every advantage they have, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it ought to be.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:48 AM
@ valor #208, refer to post #207. CNN and Faux will be showing again shortly.
----------
@ Kel, #209,
The atmosphere seems more sensitive here lately, I guess since arounf the time of the whole cracker thing. I remember comments much harsher than mine & QD's being the norm a while back. Not that that justifies said comments; just that they weren't looked down upon so much before.
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 1:48 AM
Quiet Desperation - Being naughty comes in different ways to different folk. I've been monogamous for over 30 years, and some of that still seems naughty. So what the heck! Naughty is as naughty does. *smirk*
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 1:49 AM
*arounf* = *around*
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 1:52 AM
It's time for this ol' Ilkster to buzz off to bed.
Goodnight Sweethearts!
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 1:57 AM
thanks, #212. east coast feed... sigh.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 2:00 AM
Agreed 100%. The issue is primarily how a small (but not nearly small enough) sexist subgroup of voters think it's acceptable to attack spouses or female candidates on grounds of gender. Think of Hillary in '92. Thatcher. Meir? Probably. Ferraro. For the lulz.
You insist it was funny. I'd hit it: the height of wit. That's about junior high? I'm just not convinced of your judgment or reliability, I guess.
Maybe if you'd apologized you'd feel able to let it go, then, like you keep telling everyone else to do. Some people read it and want to say something, maybe just to let others know they weren't alone in their revulsion. There's little you can do about this phenomenon.
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 2:01 AM
Pierce R. Butler
That's going to be rather difficult until these sorts of pictures stop turning up...
Shit that's Brad Blog, I know that guy, I worked with him in Crawford.
Are those photoshopped?
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 2:03 AM
That cracker time was fun. So many catholics coming in to try and take the moral highground, so easy to shoot down. Maybe this is post-desecration-depression?Or maybe it's the way the US election cycle is going. Palin was a pick out of nowhere, people don't know how to react to it. So any negativity that doesn't focus on her policies would be damaging and people won't stand for it. And in a way they are right: she's a pro-life, anti-evolution, climate change denialist, has it in for polar bears, wants to plunder our finite resources, and has no experience whatsoever. Why do we need to make reference of anything personal when there's already so much to attack...
...unless it's a recognition of the cult of personality that comes with the modern political process. But even then, still totally not cool
Posted by: hje | September 4, 2008 2:05 AM
She is very proud of her particular form of faith. Until yesterday, it was on display on the web--now it's gone. How convenient. The RNC web scrubbers are awful naive about how the web works.
On Democrats: going to hell.
On critics of Bush: going to hell.
On critics on minister who made these comments: going to hell.
On Jews in Israel: going to hell--much more quickly--because they haven't converted yet.
Given all the attention focused on Jeremiah Wright, her "faith" needs to be explored more. Do you even think she will disavow any of her repugnant views, even out of political expediency? I doubt it. She'll twist it into an attack that says the same thing, but with even more venom.
I get the feeling that her speech will have the same effect that Buchanan's did in 1992--alienate the independents and undecideds.
After just one week, we've learned a lot about her that is less than flattering--even apart from the tabloid journalism (though John Edwards probably has a different opinion of the Nation Enquirer now). The question is: where there's smoke, is there more fire?
You do have to give McCain credit, she has energized his campaign--at least with religious conservatives. What will be interesting is what will be the result if Obama ends up getting a Palin bump in the polls.
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 2:05 AM
Now I'm waiting for Palin's speech to come on, and frankly, Huckabee's speech is pissing me off. Obama brought back "Dangerous European ideas"? Dangerous ideas? grr.. it bugs on me.
Posted by: Futility | September 4, 2008 2:07 AM
Sure, she lied, distorted, etc, but that is beside the point. The speech was not made to convince liberals. I couldn't stand listening to all of it but I thought, that it was a pretty effective speech. It pandered perfectly to the prejudices and preconceptions of die-hard rethuglicans, their hollow patriotism, their militarism, their exaggerated conviction that the world will go down the drain without the U.S. of A., their religious belief that taxes are evil, that Democrats will cave in to the 'evil' in this world, etc. It sure convinced a lot of them. However, if it will also convince undecided voters is hard to tell. But let's not underestimate her, others seem to have made this mistake in the past already. She seems to be ruthless and with a pretty good sense of what the people want to hear (see Digby's post here)
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 2:10 AM
It's a fake according to Urban Legends
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 2:11 AM
ostensibly-liberal-but-actually-right-leaning MSM
Oh, get serious.
-jcr
Posted by: hje | September 4, 2008 2:11 AM
Oh, as to families being off-limit. Didn't McCain make the joke that Janet Reno was Chelsea Clinton's father? Good work, John McCain, I'm appalled that I ever thought out supporting you in 2000.
I suppose it could be worse: Huckabee/Palin 2008. Theocracy now!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 2:13 AM
Now, see: If we hadn't just spend so much time scolding each other about taste, there'd probably be a joke in there somewhere! ;^)
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 2:13 AM
"You insist it was funny."
And I still hold that view. Inappropriate? Yes, as well.
"I'd hit it: the height of wit. That's about junior high?"
Amongst about a bazillion other things, yes.
"I'm just not convinced of your judgment or reliability, I guess."
Reliability for what?
"Maybe if you'd apologized you'd feel able to let it go, then, like you keep telling everyone else to do."
Ahem... I did apologize. Apologies don't always come in the form of "I'm sorry," BTW.
"Some people read it and want to say something, maybe just to let others know they weren't alone in their revulsion."
Then they should read the entire comment thread. I did. It puts the comment history in context.
"There's little you can do about this phenomenon."
Agreed.
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 2:16 AM
Probably just mirrors and a magicianPosted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 2:17 AM
I am serious. (At least you didn't call me Shirley!)
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 2:25 AM
Craig Ferguson beats EVERYBODY to the sexist Palin jokes by 15 months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-lW2opLyQ&feature=related
Also pulls a Nostradamus with the 'Librarian' crack.
Coincidence?????
/twilightZoneMusic
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 2:26 AM
@ valor,
She's like a robotic Stepford wife right out of the starting blocks; she even has a HUD. Robot attack in 30 minutes!
----------
@ Kel,
I just couldn't keep up with the comments for the cracker posts, and I've read every goddamn comment for several other 1000+ threads here (e.g., Stan Palmer); so I just commented about it on other sites.
I can't wait for the debates to see their mudslinging put on the spot. Oh wait, the debates are just canned speech. shit...
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 2:29 AM
PS to my last (@229): If you doubt that there's a center-right bias in the MSM, ask yourself why Clinton v. Obama party dissension was the MSM storyline throughout the DNC last week, even though folks on the floor were saying they actually heard almost none of that from delegates... and OTOH, the MSM has barely even mentioned the fact that there's a full-fledged protest counter-convention going on across from the RNC this week.
I'm generally skeptical of press-bias claims, and I don't suggest it's a matter of deliberate malice... but I know it when I see it, and I've definitely been seeing it in this race. Even on the MSNBC coverage, which is hosted by that whipping boy of the right wing, Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: AnthroBabe | September 4, 2008 2:33 AM
Let's CUT OUT the goddamn sexism! We can discuss Palin's policies, but criticisms of her "beauty pageant voice" or having sex with her (um, some against her will?!) is horrible.
I don't agree at all with Palin, but sexism has to stop. That's how feminism works.
Posted by: Joshu | September 4, 2008 2:35 AM
I just finished watching the entire speech (it was the replay) on MSNBC, and I have to say that I am just blown away... particularly by the amount of outright lying that went on during this event. It's one thing to say Obama won't do such-and-so, but for them to also come out and say he hasn't ever done anything during his time as Senator is just an outright fabrication and blatant denial of the facts.
This would have been terrible enough, seeing the standing ovation Palin received when she merely mentioned "religion"... but having seen the video featuring Palin at a church meeting that PZ put up earlier, I can honestly say that I'm worried about what will happen if the Republicans win the election this year. :(
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 2:36 AM
gach. Now I have to sit through Guilliani? The things I do to be informed. "you're hiring someone to do a job"? gach.
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 2:36 AM
Bill wrote
a full-fledged protest counter-convention going on across from the RNC this week
Yeah !! Our reporter and two of her producers ended up in JAIL.
Amy Goodman gets busted
http://democracynow.org
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/9/2
Posted by: bric | September 4, 2008 2:42 AM
I said it before: Cruella de Ville. Hide your dogs people!
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 2:47 AM
did Guilliani essentially just reference the devil you know? and these "specifics" are the vaguest specifics I've ever heard. "he will reduce government"- In what way? There's a lot of government... glech. Politicians.
Are these guys actually chanting "drill, baby, drill"? This is going to make my head explode.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | September 4, 2008 2:49 AM
All she has to do now is shoot an old man in the face.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 2:51 AM
If you honestly think you apologized, you are spectacularly unaware of yourself. You actually did it again in the very same breath: "Forgive me PZ; 'twas just too easy, as her speech was so vapid. I'll quell my lust." And I like how PZ is the only one who's allowed to be bothered by your comments.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 2:53 AM
That, too, Scooter!
I was actually referring to the Ron Paul Rally for the Republic event (or was that where Goodman was busted?). Of course, anyone who's watching or reading the MSM coverage of the RNC could be forgiven for never having heard of Paul's shindig.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 2:56 AM
This was my point from the beginning, thank you. "It's over because I say it's over" is your stand. At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to. No one is allowed to have any opinion on your comments because you declare that a time window of criticism has closed.
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 3:01 AM
now I'm relieved it's finally her. Maybe that's why her speech is testing highly, it followed fricking Guilliani. A goat would poll high in comparison.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:04 AM
Grammar RWA, it's funny how you just typed out my apology and completely ignored what it said, while trying to turn it into what _you_ wanted it to say...
Go play your persecution card elsewhere.
Jesus fucking christ, this is getting old.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»v | September 4, 2008 3:07 AM
"At your demand, everyone should stop criticizing you, and react to you only the way you tell them to. No one is allowed to have any opinion on your comments because you declare that a time window of criticism has closed."
Grammar RWA, take your fucking straw man and fuck off.
I was about to let it go and be nice to you but you're just being an asshole now.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:09 AM
Damn, I forgot to include this line in your bullshit straw man quote:
'"It's over because I say it's over" is your stand.'
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:12 AM
Grammar RWA, it's over b/c it is in fact over. Re-read the comments. You're the one trying to keep this old news alive. Your inability to notice that isn't my problem. Fuck it.
Posted by: melior | September 4, 2008 3:12 AM
#19:
You're kidding, right?
Here's a hint: One of these two people stumbled notably while using a teleprompter at the convention. The other was magna cum laude at Harvard Law School and taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.
You're not being "fair", you're being asinine.
(Yes, Obama writes his all own speeches.)
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 3:14 AM
did she just say eskimo? seriously? for pete's sake. Inuit. Or better yet, actually say his tribe. or "Native Alaskan" at the very least. I also like how she described him as a fisherman before an oil worker, even though he's an oil worker most of the time.
this is horrible. I stayed up for this?
Posted by: MJMD | September 4, 2008 3:15 AM
Diana G. Regarding your question about who's child it is....
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_brutal_sliming_of_palins_daughter/
It includes pictures of mum preganant.
Don't forget the kid was born a month early so it is not a surprise that she didn't show much. Expecially if undersized.
Gees the US political noise is insane! Everyone hates one and loves the other.
I love the theory of Obama but he's too much like our current Aussie PM. All words and no action.
But this whole religious crud from Palin annoys me.
And McCain.... Who's he???
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:19 AM
@ valor,
Oh, it gets worse. I'm punishing myself again by watching it a second time.
Posted by: beebs | September 4, 2008 3:19 AM
I'm a conservative. Here's what bothers me: Palin and McCain, if elected, will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices. The real battles of creationism vs evolution always end up there. Chief Justice Roberts is sane, so perhaps the Court will uphold science.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 3:20 AM
"Jeez, move on past the offense at a few comments about attractive women. It's over now."
"Get over it Norman. Move along."
"The only time "sex fantasies" are being mentioned now is by those that can't move along and stop being offended. Drop it. It's over."
"I _am_ relaxed! It's the people who keep bringing it up that need the fucking chill pill."
And on and on. You simply brook no criticism. Talk about a persecution complex.
Posted by: Triphesas | September 4, 2008 3:21 AM
Well, over in Hawaii, I've been hearing from some Republicans that she's redeemed the ticket, so it seems that she has a fair amount of draw.
That said, I don't think I can take listening to her.
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 3:23 AM
she's really proud of using vetoes for appropriation. That's... not really what they're for. She should have worked with the legislature. Did she just say that she broke the big oil monopoly on resources? By law, the State of Alaska retains the rights to all natural resources. glech. Does she not understand the basic economy of her own state?
Posted by: TA | September 4, 2008 3:27 AM
So, Obama is ready to surrender in Iraq when we're on the verge of winning? Really? Tell me, what does winning look like?
Is it turning Iraq into a sheet of radioactive glass? Oh, maybe it is when the whole population drops their copies of the Qur'an, picks up the Bible and shouts praises to Cheezus? Or could it be when Shiites and the Sunnis throw down their guns, link arms and sing Kumbaya?
So, which is it? If we are to "win" this war, please tell us what it will look like so that we can know when it happens. (As noted earlier in my nascent blog.)
Posted by: uriel | September 4, 2008 3:28 AM
Not sure if its been mentioned before, but here's at least one reason why the bush faithfull might feel 'energized' about Palin:
(from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_troopergate)
So at the very least, we have someone who completely agrees that 'executive privilege' essentially translates to "do as you will," and that it should be protected through the simple mechanism of invoking whatever absurd legal argument you can pull out of your ass- just so long as it gets you a buy. Because legal oversight should really be viewed as nothing more than a game of attrition.
I'm sure that they are looking forward to an administration which will fight tooth and nail to preserve the absurdities put forth by Gonzales and Mukasey, defending the 'rights' of the Bush administration to circumvent any semblance of oversight through nothing more than legal nit picking. No doubt the very idea elicits an orgasmic sigh up and down Pennsylvania Ave., and the possiblity that they have a new champion in the epic battle: "congressional supenea vs. absurdly obvious nonsensical partisan mumbo-jumbo," probably makes the like of Rush et. al. shudder with delight.
Its fairly clear now that a McCain win means four more years of 'no progress what-so-ever' in addressing the institutional abuses of the Bush admin. That's the message of this nomination.
So much for that maverick thing.... Kinda sad.
Posted by: TA | September 4, 2008 3:28 AM
PS, I'd do her too.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 4, 2008 3:29 AM
Posted over at 'Mudflats' blog regarding Sarah Palin's real attitude towards 'special needs' education.
"Do we now have special education gate? Or better yet a huge slash in the special ed budget? From firstread:
Sarah Palin Slashed Special Needs Education by 62%
For those of you who seem so enamored with Gov. Sarah Palin, it might be worth noting that she oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska.
These funds provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions and the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. The resident school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program. Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases.
The following programs are included within this component:
Special Education Service Agency (SESA)
The Annual budget for 2007, which preceded Gov. Palin was $8,265,300.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 5,109,300 , or 62%. So, as the Alaska State Budget description states, "Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases."
Did 62% of all of the special needs children in Alaska stop having needs once Gov. Palin took office?
Before we get so excited about Gov. Palin bring her "Reformer" agenda to Washington, perhaps we should get to know a little more about what exactly that means to our children, and the opportunities that she would "Reform".
If you ask me, a 62% cut in these funds, which we all know are so desperately scarce, and for which we all have to fight tooth and nail for our children, is a disgrace."
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/destination-alaska-theyre-heee-eere/#comments
These republican phonies couldn't even lie straight in bed.
Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2008 3:29 AM
Don't feel too bad Quiet_Desperation, there are others here with a sense of humour calibrated at the darker end of the spectrum. I'm hoping someone out there is working on some politically relevant dead-baby jokes right now.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 3:30 AM
What I found particularly distasteful was the way she used her children, especially Trig with Down Syndrome, for electoral purposes, to portray her as super-mother and to gain votes from parents with a dissabled child.
But on another hand, the republicans and the right wing noise machine keep saying "Children are off limits".
Never seen this in France. Our candidates to the presidency never bring their children or mention them in any speech whatsoever. And they are truely "off limits".
But in America, it seems this absolutely obvious cognitive dissonance and incredible hypocrisy doesn't seem to be a problem.
I found it tremendously chocking.
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 3:31 AM
Ok, first of all, she's blatantly lying. I mean, seriously, actually lying. She has several times. (I like how the only time the crowd booed about taxes was when she said business taxes). Second, she just dissed Obama for wanting to maintain Constitutionality?! I don't like this woman, I really don't.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:32 AM
Yep, and you're the only one left that can't wise up and see that it's old news. Fuck it -- keep it up if you want. I'm almost starting to enjoy watching you babble.
BTW, I've "brooked" your pointless criticism for a few hours now. And no, I'm not being persecuted.
So, babble on if it makes you happy...
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 4, 2008 3:34 AM
I'm sure I've seen that before (I liked him as Bing Hitler better though), but this time I get "this video is not available in your country" --- you're not serious? They really don't want us (rest of world^TM) laughing at you?Please America, don't fuck it up again. Please rein in your religious right wing lunatics.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:38 AM
@ valor,
I had to throw in the towel and turn off the TV. I can't stand Palin's lying smugness anymore. I failed. I thought I was tougher than this...
Posted by: valor | September 4, 2008 3:42 AM
that was incredibly long. that was awful. I don't think it was even delivered particularly well, as some have said. It was a mediocre speech delivered in a mediocre manner. It contained more than one blatant lie, and several fallacious assertions. It was, frankly, pathetic. It was certainly not worth staying up for, and now I am going to bed and I sincerely hope that it doesn't give me nightmares.
Posted by: Timid Atheist | September 4, 2008 3:45 AM
Ok, for those who might have been offended by my recent remark intimating a desire for sex with Palin I most humbly apologize. It was a sophomoric and and unfunny comment made partially in anger at the bullshit she is spreading. Mea Culpa
Posted by: melior | September 4, 2008 3:46 AM
"Palin said she and her staff would cooperate fully with the investigation."
Now that's the speech she I'd like to hear her make right there.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 4, 2008 3:46 AM
I can't for the life of me understand how any intelligent male could possibly find this woman sexually attractive.
The first time that she opened her mouth and spoke, I think I would immediately lose interest.
Well, maybe if you had been stuck on an offshore oil rig for several months with absolutely no other female contact you could be forgiven, but apart from that, yuck.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 3:53 AM
Timid Atheist, prepare to be chastised relentlessly. Yes, even long after you've apologized. I'd say I'd be right here for you, but goddamn, I'm fucking tired...
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 4, 2008 3:58 AM
Okay, I watched it. It lived down to my every expectation, although I didn't expect her to drag her whole goddamn family onstage (I should have, but I didn't). It was like successful fast food: made of cheap, durable ingredients, assembled with little effort, full of empty calories but smothered in the popular flavor of the month. If McCain is the greaseburger, she's the potato-onion-cheddar poppers with honey maple ranch dipping sauce.
@ Scooter, 230: Thanks for throwing that video up. Watch it, people, and look for the sign of the cross.
@ everybody talking about how hot she is: I really don't get it. I find willful ignorance, especially of the YEC variety, a total turn-off.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 4:01 AM
Hint: Maybe if snoozebar, Jenny, Richbank, Jeremy, ihateaphids, Norman Doering, JasonTD, Azkyroth, Geral, ck, llewelly, Brain Hertz, Ryan Cunningham, Patricia, Justin Schenk, and AnthroBabe all would like to talk about sexism and politicians, and bonez brigade just keeps saying no, no, that discussion is over, no one wants to talk about it... just maybe, bonez brigade is mistaken.
Repeatedly trying to dictate what others should be discussing, instead of what they want to discuss. Can you imagine how that might be an assholish move?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 4:02 AM
Bill,
I read Bernie Goldberg's book, and I also watched Dan Rather get a "distinguished service award" at the NAB show in Las Vegas in '06, the year after demolished his pretense at objectivity with a tac nuke. Did his peers in the broadcast industry take him to task for sloppy work, or for destroying the reputation of CBS News and 60 Minutes? No, they gave him a prize!
Deny it all you want, but most of the press in this country is definitely left-leaning. About 45 degrees off the vertical.
This habit of insisting that the press is (or should be, or even can be) neutral is basically a mid- to late-20th century American conceit. I rather prefer the European model, where you know what angle any given outlet is coming from, and they don't try to fake it.
-jcr
Posted by: Fred | September 4, 2008 4:06 AM
Remember guys, who gets elected this fall is viewed as important by the rest of the world because of how world shaping the US President's role is. If Palin gets anywhere near the White House we (the world, including animals) are screwed. She clearly puts lies ahead of reason, common sense and common decency.
We watch with interest from New Zealand.
Posted by: Michael | September 4, 2008 4:09 AM
Great speech better than previously thought it would be. I didn't catch it live, but watched the whole video of it on the net. She had Reagan's style in her delivery. I liked the part where she described her background in government.
The Obama camp put out a negative tv ad about Palin concerning abortion, like she was going to overturn Roe vs Wade...lol...That's so absurd. Then after the speech, one of the key figures in Obama's camp was claiming there should be focus on the economy. I wanted to ask the supporter then "why is Obama putting out attack ads on Palin instead of focusing on the economy?"
I agree there could have been more of a focus on the economy in her speech, but I suspect that will be McCain's job to lay that out to the American people in his acceptance speech...
"I might add that in small towns we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't," Sarah Palin reference to Obama's springtime observation about some frustrated working-class Americans.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 4:11 AM
_Dictate_ what others should be discussing? Grammar RWA, are you fucking serious or just a fucking idiot? Whatever it is, refer to what I said earlier about your straw men and fucking off.
Also, it's so nice how you ignore how _long_ago_ those others let it go, no doubt by actually reading what was written past the original 2-3 entries. I really don't care anymore, as you only look like a jackass at this point.
Posted by: clinteas | September 4, 2008 4:12 AM
It was a good speech,telepromptered or not.
She made herself look like your average hockey mom,not one of those in Washington,with strong family values,she gave it to the journalists,she joked,she paraded her family and the Down kid,face it people,she made herself seem electable to large parts of the american public with that speech,they will like her.
And look at the press shes getting,its overwhelmingly positive.
Its scary.She is a very talented demagogue.
The speeches by Romney,Huckabee and Giuliani were intolerably pathetic,but Palin pulled it off.
The mind boggles,but lots of Americans will like her,and vote for her.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 4:14 AM
Dang it, the link didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 4:15 AM
The speech was the sort of red meat that every Republican asshole loves. But the Republicans need to attract swing voters ... oops.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 4, 2008 4:16 AM
Ben Stein doesn't like Sarah Palin.
http://wonkette.com/402523/ben-stein-repulsed-by-sarah-palin-thinks-henry-kissinger-should-babysit-her
Even a stopped clock...
P.S. Lots more snarky Palin talk over at that site. And no one there will get offended at inappropriate sex talk (unless they suspect there is sincerely held sexism beneath it).
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 4:16 AM
how world shaping the US President's role is.
Some of us are doing all we can to reduce the power of the presidency. Someday, we hope to roll it all the way back to the limited powers granted in the constitution.
-jcr
Posted by: uriel | September 4, 2008 4:17 AM
Respectfully, I have to disagree here. I think the problem is that you let the whole 'opening her mouth' thing intrude on the issue.
Absent that, I do have to admit that Jon Stewart had something with the "mild-mannered yet troubled librarian from every Cinemax movie" thing. Sure, she's a horrible person- but on a purely physical side, well-
I mean she was Miss Alaska. Well, almost. Plus, there's that whole 'corrupting the scold' thing she's got going for her.
Just saying, I can see it- even if it makes me feel ashamed and dirty. Or maybe _because_ it makes me feel ashamed and dirty. Not sure which....
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 4, 2008 4:18 AM
...I think you have to add "...in comparison to Dick Cheney" at the end of any and all of those comments. But I refuse to be drawn into that whole "opened her mouth" thing...FWIW, I think she's quite quite vile, as are all of those right wing dominionist slimeballs. I'm really worried your country will be dumb enough to allow these people another 4 years in power.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 4:18 AM
The Obama camp put out a negative tv ad about Palin concerning abortion, like she was going to overturn Roe vs Wade...lol...That's so absurd.
Low information voter, are you?
Then after the speech, one of the key figures in Obama's camp was claiming there should be focus on the economy. I wanted to ask the supporter then "why is Obama putting out attack ads on Palin instead of focusing on the economy?"
There's no "instead", moron, Obama has put out plenty of ads focusing on the economy.
Posted by: TA | September 4, 2008 4:19 AM
«bønez_brigade» - You're right, let the chastisement begin, no less than I deserve.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 4:21 AM
I read Bernie Goldberg's book
That's like talking to yourself, asswipe.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 4, 2008 4:23 AM
@ Fred, 274: Yesterday I blogged about a 17-year-old girl from Australia who posted this comment on YouTube:
Sweetly naive, but pointed. And isn't it funny that Jethro Republimentalist thinks the UN is out to enslave the planet, but the USA putting boots on the ground wherever is God's Plan for spreading freedom? Right, multilateral world government is so much more oppressive than unilateral world "liberation."
So, I feel you, brother. American sentiment about Bush, at least in the Pacific Northwest where I live, is about equal parts embarrassment, shocked disbelief, and deep moral outrage. Not only are we flabbergasted that this schmuck slimed his way into a second term, many of us are simply stunned that it's taken so long for even the first baby steps to be made toward impeaching his ass.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 4:32 AM
Telling people to stop talking about something you don't want them to talk about anymore? Yes. "Drop it, drop it, drop it." You are issuing commands. Whether or not anyone listens is up to them, but you've certainly tried to deter people from taking the conversation in that direction.
Did you not notice that the last six people I listed have all brought it up since you started telling me to drop it? And the last nine brought it up after you started telling everyone else to drop it?
Seriously, did you not notice that? I'm aware that people are going to get see me as feeding a troll, and some of them won't like it. I'm at least cognizant of this fact. But do you really not understand that you're being a troll?
Posted by: alphgeek | September 4, 2008 4:33 AM
Here is a poll asking whether Palin's religious affiliation is a problem:
http://www.acepolls.com/vote/Is-the-fact-that-Sarah-Palin-is-an-Evangelical-Christian-a-problem-for-you/728731/
It doesn't look like it has been tilted yet (only 1000-odd votes) and interestingly 62.9% have voted that her religion IS a problem.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 4, 2008 4:34 AM
Will you BOTH please knock it off? Just let the other guy have the last word! It's not that hard!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 4:36 AM
DingoDave? uriel? You know what PZ was talking about when he said "her appearance and her gender should be off limits"? You're doing it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 4:38 AM
I'm still trying to find ONE plus point for S.Palin vs G.W.Bush.
But I can't.
If Americans make this mistake to elect McCain/Palin, 3rd mistake in a row, I give up on America.
As a European I will also give up on Pharyngula - what's the point ?
It means it'll just get worse, so what's the point of blogging about what's going on in the USA if nothing ever changes.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 4:40 AM
Stephen Couchman: guess how much I give a shit what you think.
Posted by: uriel | September 4, 2008 4:42 AM
Gotta agree, here- I mean really, her nomination was announced a couple of days ago. And it was, by all but the most overly involved political junkies, completely out of the blue.And even for those, it was at best unexpected.
Do you really expect us to accept you've seen more than _one_ 'attack ad' aimed her way at this point, if that? Do you really want us to believe that Obama completely ignored the obvious issue of the economy to focus on developing and producing an ad campaign focused on one of the least likely potential candidates for VP? A campaign no one else but you have seen?
Really, if you're going to bitch, bitch about things that _actually happened_. If all you're going to do is make up imaginary things to be offended by, well- have fun, but don't expect any one else to care.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 4:43 AM
jcr:
One
bookhatchet job and one very complex and ultimately ambiguous case is all ya' got?There's actually been a fair amount of study on this (e.g., the book I pointed you to earlier), and study after study suggests that, while individual journalists may, on average, be slightly liberal in their personal beliefs (and why not? after all, "reality has a well-known liberal bias"), the institutional bias of the media is clearly conservative.
This is not hard to understand, nor does it require anything machiavellian: It's simply the case that media companies are, for the most part, large corporations, and [a] large corporations are inherently small-c conservative and [b] conservative/Republican politics are generally pro-corporate.
Whatever the reasons, it's simply the fact that (for instance) on MSNBC, allegedly the most liberal of the cable news networks (according to critics on the right), the "liberal" point of view is often represented by Harold Ford, the least liberal Democrat you could hope to find (even including Joe LIEberman, on any issue other than the war)... while the conservative point of view is voiced by Pat Buchanan. Does Buchanan on the right and Ford on the "left" really sound balanced (nevermind left-leaning) to you?
Regardless of what you think about other times and previous elections, in this campaign, the media has been very tough on Obama and the Dems, and has generally given McSame a free pass on a lot of pretty outrageous stuff. Maybe it's just because Johnny's barbecue is just so damn good, eh?
Or back to my original example: How do you explain all the hype about (nonexistent, as it turned out) Democratic "division" versus no substantive coverage at all of the Republicans' (very real) Ron Paul schism?
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 4:45 AM
@ Grammar RWA,
"Telling people to stop talking about something you don't want them to talk about anymore? Yes. "Drop it, drop it, drop it." You are issuing commands. Whether or not anyone listens is up to them, but you've certainly tried to deter people from taking the conversation in that direction."
No, you idiot. You miss the trees for the forest. It's not that I didn't want to talk about it. It's that it was over and done, and to continue to bring it up is just fucking senseless. I got the point from PZ the first time. I don't need some asstroll like you to keep beating a dead horse. Hello...
"Did you not notice that the last six people I listed have all brought it up since you started telling me to drop it? And the last nine brought it up after you started telling everyone else to drop it?"
Again, how long ago was that? Me repeatedly telling you to just drop it [b/c it became absolutely pointless] was advice lost on you.
"Seriously, did you not notice that? I'm aware that people are going to get see me as feeding a troll, and some of them won't like it. I'm at least cognizant of this fact. But do you really not understand that you're being a troll?"
Heh. Now that's funny. Grammar RWA, here's a little more than a hint: _you_ are the troll. It is _I_ that should've stopped feeding you long ago.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | September 4, 2008 4:48 AM
Stephen Couchman: guess how much I give a shit what you think.
Oh, probably more than I should. I apologize for being short with you. I'm out. There'll be plenty more sexist comments in this thread in the morning.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 4, 2008 4:48 AM
Dude, +/- ten percent of the posts in this thread are your nerd fight. This is almost as bad as having to scroll past pages of block-pasted scripture. Now, I'm going to practice what I preach. Flame me all you like, ass.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 4:49 AM
@ Grammar RWA,
You said to Stephen: "guess how much I give a shit what you think."
Ummm, yeah... kinda what I've been trying to get across to _you_ for too long now....
Posted by: Donovan | September 4, 2008 4:50 AM
I wasn't really paying attention. I saw it on TV and thought it was another teen movie about some dumb chick becoming class president. When I looked up and saw it was Palin talking, I turned off the TV and began packing and forging citizenship papers for Lichtenstein. Oi weh! Dumber Americanerin! Was eine Arselicherin!
(I know my German needs work. I'll pretend to be mute, deaf, and blind for a few years until I get it down.)
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 4, 2008 4:52 AM
*sigh*
Dammit, you had to go and say something reasonable. Fine, "ass" retracted; that was unnecessary. Goodnight.
Posted by: uriel | September 4, 2008 4:53 AM
Hee....
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 4:54 AM
The American mainstream news media has a liberal bias in the same way as Fox News is fair and balanced...
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 4, 2008 4:55 AM
jcr:
Now that your link is working, did you actually read the wiki you point to? Despite all the stupid mistakes CBS made (mostly not Rather himself, BTW), there was, at the end of the day, no finding of any liberal bias in the case, nor any conclusive showing that the underlying facts of the story weren't true, regardless of the documents' authenticity.
And even if we stipulate that that one story was a total hose job, one data point does not an industry-wide trend make.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 4:57 AM
@ Grammar RWA,
"I'm out. There'll be plenty more sexist comments in this thread in the morning."
Hey, make sure you get up bright and early so you can get a full day's worth of complaining in.
And with that well-deserved cheap shot, I think I'm out as well...
Posted by: العاب شمس الدين | September 4, 2008 5:04 AM
thanks, that's a very good post , thanks a lot
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 4, 2008 5:09 AM
BTW, CSPAN is currently showing the whole thing again. Romney is at bat, and Palin is still in the queue.
I have a feeling that all of their private jet comments are going to come back to bite them in the asses.
Anyway, tune in for more misery. I've had enough of it...
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:11 AM
«bønez_brigade» and Grammar RWA: what a pair.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:19 AM
Bill, your efforts are wasted; jcr's mind is an immovable object.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 4, 2008 5:22 AM
#273
1) Dan Rather made a mistake. It happens. It doesn't negate a 40+ career in journalism that was pretty good. Perhaps not the greatest, but not the worst, either. It's like denying Pete Rose the Hall of Fame. After a while, the deniers just seem petty for harping on one thing, when other contributions/accomplishments over a career were definitely worthy of commendation. But unlike Pete Rose, Dan Rather didn't even commit a crime. Why begrudge him a journalism award from one little group that very few people even know about? Are you saying that the NAB represents the views/opinions of all journalists? Every single one of them? Surely you don't really believe this.
2) Bernie Goldberg definitely had an axe to grind, and was not honest in any of his books, about anyone, particularly in Bias. He used the tired old right-wing canard of relying on anecdotes for evidence, when he didn't outright fabricate claims. Even on the occasion when he used "factual" claims that could be verified, he misrepresented those facts. Badly. Don't even bring him up as any kind of authority on integrity in journalism. Any he might have had vanished long before he left CBS in a WATB snit. For more on this issue, please check Bob Somersby (among others), who thoroughly debunked at least a few of Goldberg's claims. In 2002.
3) If you're a journalist, you're probably aware of this, but most aren't, so let's give the full story for your remarks about "the press" being left-leaning: While many reporters are left-leaning, that hardly matters. Media owners establish a "vision" for their papers in conjunction with a desire to keep advertisers happy. Media owners are not liberal, by and large. Advertisers who fund a huge portion of media enterprise aren't, either. Media owners hire editors and producers to carry out that vision and fulfill that desire about advertisers. They're usually not going to give that kind of authority to someone who will diverge too far from their own viewpoint, so it's not a surprise that a substantial number of editors/producers are conservative. Editors/producers decide what stories get written how, and where to put them on the air/in print, if at all. Not the journalists. Journalists will write what they're approved to write. That story can still be edited to condense...or to manipulate information within it. It can be blown up across a front page or lead a broadcast. Or it can be hidden in a dark corner of A48, next to the ad for discount caskets, or tucked into the end of a broadcast in a 10 second soundbite. Choices about those matters say a lot about a media outlet. So do op-ed pages/opinion shows, which are overwhelmingly conservative.
Our media is unusually right leaning. Don't believe it? Then address one reporter's assertions:
I do think your final remark is valid. Media outlets aren't objective. It's time to stop pretending that they are. It raises unrealistic expectations in the public of our media. Of course we don't want them to be extremists, or blindly loyal, refusing to see any flaws of their particular ideological leaning. But to pretend a perfect objectivity, when it's simply not possible, save for a sociopath? That's just stupid.
Posted by: katura | September 4, 2008 5:25 AM
I hate Palin's politics with a passion, but this thread is really pissing me off. Can a group of men have a discussion about a powerful woman without resorting to demeaning comments about her appearance or fucking her? You don't see that shit when male politicians are being criticized. I was hoping that on a forum like this, I'd find a level of enlightenment just a smidgen above what I'd expect from a drunken bachelor party, but I guess that was really stupid of me.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:26 AM
Mentioned on CNN: Republican delegates were wearing "Hottest VP from the coolest state" while Guiliani was lobbing accusations of sexism at "them" (as if the Obama campaign were the source of sexist comments about Palin). Republicans are hypocritical scum.
Posted by: Ragutis | September 4, 2008 5:27 AM
OK, the vomiting seems to have ended for now. I think it's safe to post. You'll forgive me if I have to run to the bathroom, I trust.
Holy shit! Are Republicans really that stupid? All I heard was sloganeering, platitudes, and outright lies, all delivered in tones alternating between smarmy and slimy. And all night the floor just ate it up. The beer must've been free. And spiked. After Bush the Lesser, do they really think that they'll be able to sell this shit to 51% of voters? Is "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!", "Terrorists!" and "Drill now!" all it's going to take to dupe more than half the nation into voting against their interests, again? And what did Romney say about liberals not having a clue about business or the economy? Does he mean liberals like Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates? WTF? I spent the last two nights thinking "Glad he didn't get the nomination. Glad he didn't get the nomination. Really glad he didn't get the nomination." Except now we're left with the one that did, and he doesn't look any better, or significantly different. *sigh*
Tonight's Daily Show's take on the convention and the overwhelming hypocrisy of Rove, O'Reilly, etc. was simply fantastic. Best line was in response to all the hyping of McCain's time as P.O.W. as some kind of qualification for office: "Oh, I see! Guantanamo's not a prison, it's a Leadership Academy!" Can't wait to see Jon and Co's take on Palin's speech tomorrow.
As for liberal journalists, I figure if smart, knowledgeable people who make careers out of understanding the issues and covering the personalities that affect America tend to be progressive, I'd say that's a hint Joe Public should pick up on. Kinda like how it's a good idea to follow physicists' example of not walking off of cliffs.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:30 AM
Can a group of men have a discussion about a powerful woman without resorting to demeaning comments about her appearance or fucking her?
You're very late to the party. And two assholes don't define an entire group, you sexist ass.
I guess that was really stupid of me.
Something was really stupid of you; read the whole thread and you may figure out what.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:32 AM
Are Republicans really that stupid?
Yes. If they weren't, they couldn't be Republicans.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 5:37 AM
That's like talking to yourself, asswipe.
Say there, "truth machine", do you imagine that your statement above does anything at all to support your position?
Like I said, I read the book. Did you?
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:41 AM
Like I said, I read the book.
Fuck but you're stupid ... as I said (in effect), you could have written the book, so who the fuck cares whether you read it? It's like a skinhead saying "I read Mein Kampf, did you?", you stupid fucking cretin idiot.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:45 AM
And, you stupid fucking asshole, Aquaria already laid out why having read the book doesn't further your argument:
"I read the book" -- fuck, that's like a fundie saying "I read the bible. Did you?"
Stupid fucking cretin piece of shit.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 5:46 AM
BTW, I notice that nobody's commented on Huckabee's speech. He delivered a rather silly homily in which he basically asserted that our military is fighting for school furniture.
I can't help but think that desks for schoolchildren can be obtained at a far lower cost than the trillions we spend keeping US troops in 130 countries around the world.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 5:48 AM
Stupid fucking cretin piece of shit.
TM,
Grow up.
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:50 AM
Grow up.
A childish comment again demonstrating that you're a cretin. "I read the book" -- the stupidest fucking argument anyone has ever made, that I just demolished. Deal with it, you stupid fucking coward.
Posted by: Capital Dan | September 4, 2008 5:52 AM
Someday a Republican is going to learn how to speak in something other than sound-bytes and bumper-sticker slogans. Of course, I don't think any of today's so-called Conservatives supporting these goons will be able to decipher anything above a Fifth Grade level.
So, yeah. I guess they do have to speak in itty-bitty words and snippets.
Sorry... I'm just rambling at this point. It happens when one doesn't sleep for two days.
Rock on, Cleveland!
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 5:53 AM
A childish comment again demonstrating that you're a cretin
Let's see.. You're the one tossing off the string of obscenities, and you assert that I'm the one being childish?
What an interesting world-view you have. Tell me, has it brought you success and happiness in your life?
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:54 AM
And let's go back to
Of course that response was anything but serious, or mature .. it was moronic, coming from a moron. But hey, you read "Bias", one of the most biased and dishonest books ever written. What a stupid fucking asshole you are.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 5:55 AM
Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Anne Coulter could have written all the speeches, it wouldn't have made a iota of difference.
There is not one single difference between this RNC and the two previous ones. Same themes, same speeches, same metaphores, same gimmicks, just change a bit the face of the speakers, and you have it.
There's nothing surprising here, for the 35% hardcore republicans in this country, who are represented at this convention, Bush still has an almost 70% approval rating. So he did a good job, let's continue the same. That's all one needs to know.
But for the 65% rest, this RNC, the choice McCain made with Palin, is the clear and evident demonstration that voting for this ticket means being blindfolded to the reality that this country really needs to go on a completely different path, on its economic policy, on its environmental and energy policy, and on its foreign policy.
So sure, Palin will increase slightly the participation of the 35% republicans in McCain's favour. But make no mistake, this will also increase the partcipation of the 65% rest in favour of Obama.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:56 AM
Let's see.. You're the one tossing off the string of obscenities, and you assert that I'm the one being childish?
As I said, you're a cretin. There's nothing "childish" about obscenities -- which, as my wont, accompany my refutations -- but there is something extremely childish about your sorts of empty responses, you fucking moron piece of shit.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 5:57 AM
What a stupid fucking asshole you are.
I'm wondering where you developed your masterful command of playground invective.
one of the most biased and dishonest books ever written
Apparently this is an article of faith for you, which you feel no need to investigate by (say) reading the book yourself. It's interesting how closely your behavior follows that of Bill Donohue, who is noted for protesting movies and books he refuses to watch or read himself.
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 5:58 AM
What an interesting world-view you have. Tell me, has it brought you success and happiness in your life?
Using obscenities isn't a "world-view", moron. But my smackdowns of idiots like you did bring me an Order of Molly.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:01 AM
As I said, you're a cretin
Yes, so you keep saying. Really, it's quite amusing. Almost as amusing as PZ's "I get email" postings.
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 6:03 AM
Apparently this is an article of faith for you
No, moron, it's not, it's a well established fact.
which you feel no need to investigate by (say) reading the book yourself.
Reading a book is not enough to investigate it, you stupid fucking cretin. Again, Aquaria already addressed this.
who is noted for protesting movies and books he refuses to watch or read himself.
Wrong example, dumbfuck ... I already noted the bible and Mein Kampf. Your argument is like those who claim that Dawkins is wrong about God because he hasn't studied theological esoterica.
Enough ... you're too stupid for me to waste any more time on.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 6:06 AM
But make no mistake, this will also increase the partcipation of the 65% rest in favour of Obama.
People all over are stating that they donating more, or for the first time, or will do phone banking, etc. for Obama. See, e.g., http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/great-speech-for-both-bases.html#comments
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:06 AM
There's nothing "childish" about obscenities
Oh, do go on! I'll make a batch of popcorn and watch you foam at the mouth.
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 6:09 AM
Oh, do go on! I'll make a batch of popcorn and watch you foam at the mouth.
Another very immature comment.
Good night.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:09 AM
Enough ... you're too stupid for me to waste any more time on.
Oh please, TM! Don't go away in a sulk! I was having so much fun.
-jcr
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 6:10 AM
Oh please, TM! Don't go away in a sulk! I was having so much fun.
And another. And you next will be another ...
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:11 AM
Another very immature comment.
Coming from you, that's about like having Rush Limbaugh call me a fat-ass.
-jcr
Posted by: clinteas | September 4, 2008 6:20 AM
Good to have ya back,truth machine !
Ive said a few things about Palin's speech upthread already,so thought I'd comment on the speakers before her,since some ppl mentioned them.
Huckabee,Romney,Giuliani : Well,what can I say,essentially: Guys,your country is fucked ! Such intellectual dishonesty,lying,fearmongering,character assasinating,false pathos and blatant dumb nationalism,the like I have never seen in any political speech anywhere else in the world ever before,it was sickening.
Par for the course in the US,it would seem.Makes me sick.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:22 AM
All I heard was sloganeering, platitudes, and outright lies, all delivered in tones alternating between smarmy and slimy. And all night the floor just ate it up.
Umm.. That's exactly how all major party conventions have been for as long as I can remember. Were you expecting something different?
My predictions for the next N Republican and Democratic conventions:
1) A keynote speaker will issue a call for "change"
2) said speaker will neglect to specify what they wish to change
3) a speaker will tell a story about someone who achieved great success from humble beginnings
4) a speaker will take cheap shots at the opposing candidates
5) the candidate will issue a call for unity
IMHO, it would be a far better thing if the nominations weren't sewn up months before the conventions. I'd like to see some some serious, full-contact democracy. The Libertarians are the only ones doing that these days.
-jcr
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 6:33 AM
Katura,
I agree with your first point. With regards to the second, and as a homosexual, I admit that it's been a long time since I've seen someone on a presidential ticket, male or female, who is as sexy as her. We had a similar situation in France with the last presidential election, Ségolène Royal was also an attractive woman.
I don't think it should play any role, attractiveness shouldn't be a criteria for or against a candidate. Look at Margaret Thatcher.
But in her case, it does seem that she wants the benefits of a charismatic sexy-babe image or of a super-mother, but the more she exposes these aspects in order to take advantage of them, the more there will be criticism.
That's why if I compare with Ségolène Royal, who had the intelligence to downplay these aspects as much as possible, I think Sarah Palin is doing the opposite.
This is what a woman who knows her well writes :
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.htmlSo she uses her "sexy-babe" advantage. That's not exactly my idea of a feminist.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 6:34 AM
Guys,your country is fucked !
It's not just our country. It's also every other country that either has a currency pegged to the dollar, or holds significant amounts of dollar-denominated securities.
What I really dread is what happens when Chinese banks quit buying T-bills and mortgage securities. We could see thousands of bank failures worldwide, and millions of people facing financial ruin.
-jcr
Posted by: clinteas | September 4, 2008 6:40 AM
JCR,
there was a quantum leap in sleaziness,false pathos and in your face nationalism between those 2 conventions,while the Dem's was pretty much your usual pathetic american superbowl-like occasion,I have never seen anything like the Rep's convention,the abyss of anti-intellectual insanity there is just breathtaking.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 6:56 AM
Seen from a European point of view, the amount of time, energy, and money, wasted on these two mega conventions is absolutely breathtaking.
What do people expect ? An impartial analysis of each party's positions ?
What is strange is that these conventions are completely useless and ridiculous, but noone in the press seems to be criticzing them. Oh, how good of Sarah Palin of having cancelled the Alaska governor's jet, that's the kind of details people react to. But the waste of resources spent at these conventions, for a country in economic crisis, oh! it's traditional. And because it's not money from the federal budget, it doesn't count. But whose money is it ?
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 4, 2008 6:56 AM
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye @ 68,
Well at least there is one person here who gets it. Note: he says *WORLD* economy...
The human race is currently in population overshoot and the myth of continued growth is going to soon hit the fan of reality. The only reason we enjoy our current level of civilization is because we have learned to exploit fossil fuels. Unfortunately we haven't addressed the fact that we have no idea how to live in a sustainable manner with any other combination of energy sources. We are living in very interesting times indeed, (in the Chinese sense)
Posted by: CS | September 4, 2008 7:02 AM
It would be nice to see another one of these:
"It's 3 am, and a phone is ringing in the White House. Something is happening in the world.
The President is not available. Which Vice President do you want answering the phone?"
Posted by: DingoDave | September 4, 2008 7:03 AM
And now on a more serious note, 'Political Science'. Just follow the link
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EeiWTeu-UIo&feature=related
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 4, 2008 7:14 AM
the amount of time, energy, and money, wasted on these two mega conventions is absolutely breathtaking.
Sad to say, but when it comes to wasting tax money, they're a drop in the bucket. We're talking about a few tens of millions between them, versus billions a day spent occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the rest of the world.
-jcr
Posted by: Lynnai | September 4, 2008 7:20 AM
wow, check out this photo that was on the front of CNN's web page.
how much did they squeal for glee when this framed itself?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.day/t1wide.palin.thur.cnn.jpg
It's been ages since I've seen so much bias in a photograph of a speach.
Posted by: cyan | September 4, 2008 7:39 AM
"POLL: Are you more inclined to vote for the Republican ticket after seeing Palin speak at the RNC?"
http://www.polldaddy.com/poll.aspx?p=901790
Currently "yes" leads by 57%.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 7:48 AM
But, but, but, the whole idea of the republicans is that it is a myth, there is no problem with availability of resources, AGW, and that we should continue, as has been done since WWII to stimulate consumption growth by increasing debt, lowering corporate and capital gains taxes and making people work harder, whilst saving the least possible for welfare !
And of course, what about the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, they are more than 6 times more populated than the OECD, so if they continue to grow their economy at 5%+ per annum, so what do we care, let's give them the good example of good ol'fashionned American capitalism and the consumer society ?
It's easy, once you deny Science and evidence, you go straight to the wall, and they won't be alive when it happens. But they can still pray !
Posted by: clinteas | September 4, 2008 7:56 AM
Neg,
I plan on still being around when India and China fulfil their demand for cheap unskilled labor from the USA,from 300 million uneducated unskilled religiously indoctrinated people.
And President Palin will sell it as great success against poverty and unemployment.Praise the lord !
Posted by: Derek Colanduno | September 4, 2008 8:24 AM
We now have no where to run!
Posted by: Michelle | September 4, 2008 8:35 AM
As a canadian I didn't watch her speech. I don't care much about political speeches. But I did read on the news and on blogs and such.
...I'm gonna say something very sexist by my own standards. I can't believe that someone with a vagina would say something so hateful to her gender. She is the type of woman that backs down society, and all the work other women fought for.
Terrible woman.
Posted by: dave | September 4, 2008 8:36 AM
Democrats are just not nasty enough. We're now in the same situation we were in 2004 and stand a very real chance of losing. You can't play patty cakes with these right-wing trolls. How much empirical evidence do we need that negative attacks work? Why aren't Obama/Biden out there kicking ass? That's what americans like, for better or for worse.
Posted by: varlo | September 4, 2008 8:36 AM
Librarian, librarian, the fundy wants your job,
You spurned her conflagration wants and made her truly sob.
She believes in holy abstinence, except perhaps at home,
And thoughts of homosexuals produce an oral foam.
Oh where, oh where could Vlad have gone,
This country's near to failing,
With lunatics like this at large that need a fast imPaling.
Posted by: Ian | September 4, 2008 8:38 AM
You guys are talking like rationality and cool evaluation pervade elections.
Wrong!
Yes, that's what should pervade elections, but the reality is that it's nearly all emotion and that's it. It's wrong, but that's what it is. Even here in a science blog, emotion is evidently the overriding factor.
Whoever gets the emotions (negative or positive, it doesn't matter) properly stirred will win, period. And the Repubs seem to have a better handle on that than do the Dems.
That's the real issue in this election.
Posted by: Matt7895 | September 4, 2008 8:38 AM
If anything could possibly be worse than Palin's bigotries, lies and hypocrisy, it's the first lot of comments here in this thread. PZ is right to be pissed off. I'd also be ashamed and disappointed if I were him for having these comments tarnish his blog.
It's like having the guest bloggers back, dragging Pharyngula down into the mud.
Posted by: woody, tokin librul | September 4, 2008 8:41 AM
Democrats?
Fuuuuck...
Stick your own fork in your asses.
You're done.
Oh, I'm gonna 'vote' for the Mocha Hope...because I wuold rather chop off a hand than use it to cast a ballot for ANY GOPhascist.
But the game's over...
Which is a shame for a party that should be ahead 20 points...
Posted by: deep | September 4, 2008 8:42 AM
I just wish she would stop breeding. I mean there is one hell of a population crisis but does that stop the Palins from breeding in a highly irresponsible and exponential manner? God knows her poor daughter will be having like a kid every other year after this first one...
Posted by: Phopas | September 4, 2008 8:50 AM
I was certain that the Ms. Palin would be an easy mark for the Democrats until I watched her speech.
I thought she was a bible belt simpleton from the north.
That assumption would be just as constructive for the Dems as it was when they did so for Ronald Reagan and he took 49 out of 50 states.
Rather than just go into seizures over her policy stands, if you are on the left, it probably pays to face some facts about her obvious strengths.
She is no slouch at the microphone. She exudes confidence, strength even humor without that hard edge that Hillary always had. I think she will outmatch Biden in a debate, that dude has always put me to sleep.
Disagree with her policy, she does achieve a credibility that is difficult to attack because of her personal attachment with those issues.
For example ,she has a son in the war now, and another on the way. She is from on oil producing, and Polar Bear producing state. Her husband is a union member driller, she took on big oil and she has an 80 per cent approval rating from the people. She does not believe in abortion and takes her Downs Syndrome child to term.
What was obvious to me after her speech, which was not before, was that the was a good choice by McCain. Perhaps his best shot. McCain was never a right winger on social issues and this energized that part of the Republicans. While social issues ignite a base of whackos (on both sides) the election will be won on the issues of the war, taxes, energy costs and others.
Underestimating Ms. Palin by name calling, is a hole that the Dems have dug for themselves in the past.
Posted by: your neighbours daughter | September 4, 2008 8:53 AM
I don't like this thread.
Posted by: stevogvsu | September 4, 2008 9:31 AM
I haven't got a chance to listen to the entire speech yet, and to be honest I don't know if I ever will.Aside from the rabid stupidity am I the only one who finds the woman's voice to be utterly atrocious? I mean, it's like a more nasal version of the principal from School of Rock. Just..listening to the few sound bites on N.P.R. was enough for me..
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 9:42 AM
Sure, and that's in Alaska, a state with 600,000 inh. with one of the highest GDP/capita and the lowest individual tax burden per capita in the union, where 80% of the economy depends on oil, and which has always voted republican in the presidential elections since 1964.
And where she's been governor for 1 year 1/2 and has made clear that she's pro-drilling.
Rudy Giuliani made the comment (unwilingly) in his speech :
"I don't think you can ever get this kind of approval rating in the city of New York"
So please, before one continues parroting this "She has an 80% approval rating", let's put it into context. It would really be exceptional if it were a large diverse state and after 3 or 4 years.
For now, it means nothing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 10:10 AM
Phopas,
Can you explain :
- how does having 1 or 2 son in the military make her more capable of being the VP or even the POTUS ?
- how did she "take on big oil", when she is pro drilling in ANWR, lowering corporate taxes, and increasing petroleum revenues ?
- what about Polar Bears ? She has pushed the State's
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
She also BTW has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to).
Whilst mayor of this small town of Wasilla, she :
- Turned the city into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
- Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system.
- Built streets to early 20th century standards.
- Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
- Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
And just because her husband works for a union doesn't make her pro-labour.
So apart from repeating the right-wing noise machine's talking points which everyone can hear by switching to Fox News, what else can you tell us ?
Posted by: Kryth | September 4, 2008 10:11 AM
One last barb.
"Sarah, you ignorant slut." ("SNL")
Posted by: Jeeves | September 4, 2008 10:16 AM
I'm ashamed to admit I only made it a couple of minutes into the speech. She was screaming "John S. McCain" and I passed out. But did anyone else hear Rudy 9/11's speech before? I caught the last three or four minutes and he used up all my possible goodwill for that night. I just remember that "McCain/Palin are the party of change and are going to clean up Washington" and (this is a beaut) "Republicans have always been the party of freedom".
(Sigh)
(Throwing up)
(Weeping in a corner)
Posted by: Zach | September 4, 2008 10:37 AM
The change they are promising is nonexistent in some places.
Posted by: Pablo | September 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Goddamnit! I don't want an "average hockey mom" to lead the friggin country!!!! And I don't want "someone you can have a beer with."
I want someone way above average, someone who is smarter than the people I hang out with (and that's no offense to my friends, who are in fact smarter than your average bear)
We should aspire for more.
This anti-intellectual crap drives me nuts.
Posted by: davem | September 4, 2008 10:51 AM
I've heard about SP and that business against the librarian in Wasilla re the banning of books. Does anyone here know which books SP was wanting to be banned?
Posted by: Miss Elaine | September 4, 2008 10:54 AM
For those of you who are interested in seeing what Sarah really wants for us, check this link*:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3068,n,n
She really just wants to spread God's word. She gives quite an amazing sermon. Note her use, or disuse, of the English language.
*Not recommended for those with a history of recent surgery, heart trouble/high blood pressure, suicidal or homicidal tendencies or who are pregnant.
Posted by: DavidONE | September 4, 2008 10:55 AM
How did one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet get filled with sooooo many dumb people? It's fascinating in a truly horrifying way. Republicans are like a different species... in fact, give this dude a haircut, put him in a suit with a flag pin: http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/timemachinemorlock1.jpg - McCain?
If America votes these ass hats in then maybe humanity really does deserve the coming Venus-like conditions as we tip climate over a point of no return.
Jesus, I'm getting drunk this weekend....
Posted by: Zach | September 4, 2008 10:58 AM
Mrs. Palin followed the correct procedure for stabbing someone in the back. She first said he was a great person. Then she attacked him vigorously...
Then she talked about "Clean Coal". Apparently she doesn't know that it is an oxymoron (A phrse that contradicts itself. Coal is not clean by definition.). We can't have this stupidity one heartbeat away from the oval office.
If that is not enough, she beliefs in ID. She wants it to be taught in school. She is a really BIG danger to the U.S.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 4, 2008 11:00 AM
Might "Quiet_Desperation" and "«bønez_brigade»" be agents provocateurs?
Posted by: Lee Harrison | September 4, 2008 11:04 AM
Mac @178:
Really? Why? From what I can see (from over here in Australia) it's hard to claim that Americans deserve much when the great majority can't be persuaded to get off their asses and vote at all, let alone try to ensure that their vote is an informed and responsible one.
Even people who do vote deserve what they vote for. If McCain/Palin are voted in, the American People will indeed deserve them.
Posted by: shonny | September 4, 2008 11:24 AM
Am a bit curious: Isn't it now proven that any moron can be US president??
He has been for nearly 8 years.
So whatever comes next can be as bad, but not even worse (hopefully not famous last words!!).
Maybe Palin is a Maggie Thatcher wannabe? Both are serious hard-faced bitches.
And Lee, Australia also had what they (we, kinda) deserved with the Howard mob. After all Aussies are working at becoming kinda second-rate yanks after two centuries+ as second-rate poms.
Ah, fuck it all, I wanna get off!
Posted by: Nancy | September 4, 2008 11:26 AM
I "appreciated" the comments from bonez and quiet desp. There's room here for light hearted commentary on all matters. I lauged out loud when I read them (which brought my husband into the room to read them over my shoulder - he laughed louder than I did).
Of course this is a serious matter. Anyone who reads pharnygula on a regular basis is saturated w/ the REALITY of these issues. And, of course we are concerned that Palin/McCain will continue to mislead Americans, which could lead them right to Washington.
But, lets be honest. Human nature being what it is....we are sexual animals....I'm willing to bet that MANY of the people responding here had somewhat similar thoughts (along a sexual line) when watching her speak.
Okay.......so they didn't go as far a chaining her to the toilet seat. LOL (I just can't get that picture out of my head.)
Now, I'll really be honest..........I'd "do" Pharyngula in a heartbeat. Ooopss, I'm bad. Gotta get serious now.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 11:30 AM
Which reporter will be the first to ask what Laura Bush thinks about the candidate who wanted to fire the town librarian?
[Crickets, do yo' thang!]
Posted by: Zach | September 4, 2008 11:34 AM
I DON"T WANNA BE TAUGHT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(loud crying)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 11:35 AM
Oh, and I shoulda mentioned earlier -
Scooter @ # 223 - thanks for digging up that debunking!
Posted by: Qwerty | September 4, 2008 12:10 PM
I heard she had the same speech writer as George Bush; so, it was more of the same Repugnant talking points.
I listened to a minute of it on the radio and could bear to listen any more.
Posted by: Marvol | September 4, 2008 12:17 PM
Pablo #367 is onto the same thing that has me wondering.
Why is it that so many Americans think that her qualities are great for a VP? Bringing up five children, hunting moose, and selling a plane on ebay are not things that VPs need to be good at. These average Joe Republicans are all going "she's so much an average person like we are"... well if anything that should be a _dis_qualifier, right? Or would you really want an average person running your country?
Her bringing up a baby with Down syndrome or looking moderately good (well at least compared to the other Republicans) is not going to earn her any extra respect when negotiating a deal with Iran or Russia. Oh wait, she's a Republican, they don't negotiate, they just send in the army.
Posted by: acj | September 4, 2008 12:26 PM
I haven't yet watched the whole speech, but what I've seen is enough.
Now let's assume McCain and Palin win the election - lessee... I could get rid of that ugly armchair I never use anyway... and a smaller kitchen table...
Alright, I could make room for four more persons. So if by the end of November, you should feel the need to get the hell out of the US and start anew in Old Europe, it would be my pleasure to give four poor refugees shelter for a while. You'll like the city I live in; it's a bit like Paris, only instead of annoying French people we have even more annoying Saxons. But you're all rather bright, so I guess you'll adapt after a coupla days.
Seriously, folks: Even if you think Obama is an idiot, please go vote for him. The alternative is much worse, and that's putting it mildly.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Because many brain-dead average Americans have this desire to see other average brain-dead Americans gain positions of great authority.
It's still in the same line as the rest of the usual anti-intellectualism of so many Americans. Nothing new.
Of course, they will never admit it, they'll rationalize with "she's smart". Of course, for them, "she's smart".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 1:04 PM
negentropyeater @ # 339: ... Ségolène Royal, who had the intelligence to downplay these aspects as much as possible, I think Sarah Palin is doing the opposite. ... So she uses her "sexy-babe" advantage.
Could you provide an example or two, please? Seems to me (not that I follow tv, which is where all such actions occur) that she's pushing the "hockey-mom" shtick for all it's worth.
Marvol @ # 380: ... would you really want an average person running your country?
After the last eight years, that would be an improvement by at least two orders of magnitude, thank you very much.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | September 4, 2008 1:40 PM
I'm ashamed of everyone who thinks Palin is hot. Being a moral conservative has to be the biggest turnoff ever.
Posted by: Marvol | September 4, 2008 1:42 PM
:) @ Pierce
I just had this cynical thought, about the earmark/pork "scandals" surrounding Palin. I actually think that to most of her voters this is a plus, not a minus. It shows that she sticks up for "her people", the ordinary people. And many will feel that, hey, once she's in the White House, she's going to stick up for all of them the same way and make everything right.
Of course, there will be no rich uncle to get money from, but the lack of a basic sense of economics has never prevented any Republican from making policies.
Posted by: Pablo | September 4, 2008 1:58 PM
Exactly.
People smarter than you are "elitest."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 4, 2008 2:16 PM
If one stopped to think about it for a bit, the reason journalists tend to be liberal is obvious.
The opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, it is authoritarianism. Journalist want access to information, something which those of an authoritarian bent are loathed to provide.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | September 4, 2008 2:27 PM
McCain and Palin are America's Taliban...no different. All meme filled stooges. To think these willfully ignorant cognitive misfits could get their hands on nuclear switches is a fricken nightmare. WTF is up with the level of intellectual acumen at this convention?
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 2:28 PM
She's a movement Christian. Deuteronomy 22: 20-21
If the tokens of virginity be not found upon the damsel. she is to be taken outside the city gate and stoned.
Let 'em live by their own beloved rules.
Posted by: Neil B | September 4, 2008 2:29 PM
To those bringing up Obama's own lack of experience: That's an OK issue to bring up. Yes we already knew he was relatively inexperienced. The whole point about him (and any other inexperienced person) is, what *else* do they offer to make up for that inexperience? Maybe Obama has that extra something, maybe not, but just throwing a merry-go-round of "you too"s won't tell us what she has - we've already heard about Obama's case for months, agree or like it or not. Now it's her turn, and most cogent thinkers have already seen lots not to like.
BTW here's something from a thoughtful conservative who really does care about his country and isn't going to flack for the Republican party's candidate-whoever-it-is:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/will_palin_fuse_the_gop.html
He's concerned about her lack of experience, and whether she has more to offer, in like vein to my previous post. Would any conservatives out there consider taking George Will seriously?
Posted by: Dale Husband | September 4, 2008 2:48 PM
"What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I've seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up. Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?"
Down's Syndrome babies are usually born to older women, not teenage mothers. Sarah Palin is in her forties and could have indeed bore Trig, the baby in question. It is very rare, though not unknown, for a unwed teenager to have more than one baby. So as a matter of credibility, the idea that Trig is Bristol's son rather than her brother is virtually zero.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 4, 2008 2:57 PM
No. Most Down syndrome babies are born to younger mothers, because younger mothers have the most babies. The likelihood that an individual will bear a Down syndrome child goes up with age, but at the same time the likelihood that the individual will have a child at all goes down even more rapidly with age.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 4, 2008 3:02 PM
Dale Husband, bold print does not turn assertion into evidence. Down-syndrome kids are born to women under 20 years of age at a rate of about 1 in 1500; at age 45, 1 in 19. However, these statistics prove absolutely nothing about the parentage of any individual baby.
The problem with this whole story, as I just commented over at Brayton's, is that it's all assertion and no evidence. At present, I know of no compelling, evidence-backed reason to accept as unqualified truth any of the following statements:
Sarah is Trig's mother.
Bristol is Trig's mother.
The Palins adopted Trig and neither is the mother.
Bristol is currently pregnant.
Each of these statements could be reliably documented or falsified by evidence. Yet we have been offered none; zero; nada. We also know these facts:
-Sarah Palin kept the original pregnancy, whether hers or her daughter's, a secret from everyone including friends, co-workers, and staff, for 7 months while she was Governor.
-The announcement of Bristol's current alleged pregnancy came only one day after the notorious Kos diary post that made the original allegations.
It still smells, to me, and I must insist that nobody but the Palins have enough information to be certain of the truth.
Why not?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 3:53 PM
We also know these facts:
There's a huge fallacy here: the facts that "we" know are more than the facts that you know. For instance, there are photographs of a clearly pregnant Sarah Palin when Trig was about 7 months old. That makes any theory other than that she is Trig's mother wildly improbable.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 3:59 PM
What I want to know is: Why is the media not looking further into the whole daughter-was-already-pregnant-and-actually-gave-birth-to-the-DS-baby-Palin-calls-her-son thing? From what I've seen and read (very little), it seems pretty obvious that it was a cover up.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Or was what I read/saw just slander and lies?
Are you slandering and lying? There's obviously another alternative.
Posted by: Dale Husband | September 4, 2008 4:01 PM
Well then, P Z Myers and Sven DiMilo, I stand corrected.
Dale Husband, bold print does not turn assertion into evidence.
I know that! If you had read my statement carefully, you would have seen that I wasn't DENYING that Bristol was Trig's mother, I was just saying that the claim was not credible.
My bold print was to distinguish my words from the words of the one I was responding to.
I have no sympathy for loons like Sarah Palin. To prove that, I submit this:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-living-a-lie/
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 4, 2008 4:09 PM
You're dating the kid's age from fertilization? In any case, I've seen the photographs. Photographs prove nothing. They are open to interpretaion ("clearly" is in the eyes of the beholder, as some blog-surfing will quickly reveal in this case), easily faked, often misdated. I'm skeptical enough to doubt it all. If Bristol Palin actually gives birth in December, I'll be convinced. I could be convinced before then by sufficient documentation. Assertions and even putatively "clear" photographs won't do it.Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | September 4, 2008 4:10 PM
@24 and 25:
There a lot of smart and thoughtful people commenting on this blog. Most atheists must be intellectual giants :P
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2008 4:11 PM
truth machine @ # 394: ...there are photographs of a clearly pregnant Sarah Palin when Trig was about 7 months old.
Unless you're using the hyperchristian approach of calculating age from conception, those photographs would have be dated circa November 18, 2008. Do the captions reveal anything about what happened two weeks previously?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 4, 2008 4:12 PM
p.s. (jeez, this is making me feel like a JFK-conspiracy nut, but what the hell):
If she was "clearly pregnant" at 7 months, why was everybody who saw her every day surprised by her announcement at about that same time?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Sigh. Don't you folks have anything better to do than indulge in such a stupid quibble? I was referring to the fetus known as "Trig".
I guess I have to do everything for you; here's the DailyKos diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/234157/516/1017/581734
Feel free to "doubt it all"; I only said the alternatives are wildly improbable, not impossible.
Posted by: Natalie | September 4, 2008 4:38 PM
Colugo @ 66
Sorry, but the left is not some vast cult that can be convinced to all march in lockstep. You're not going to get every single person to stop leaving sexist comments on leftist blogs. The only thing that can be done is to have a much louder chorus of people saying "No, that's fucked up. You don't speak for me." And that's what I've seen - every blog thread I've read so far that has contained a sexist attack on Palin has contained many more repudiations of that sexism.
I have not, however, seen a lot of that on the other side. If you can find me several examples of conservatives criticizing each other for making sexist comments about Hillary or racist and xenophobic comments about Barack, please do so.
JasonTD @79
Perhaps a few people, but I guess you skipped over the dozen or so people who have already criticized those comments, including the writer of this blog, and the fact that the people who made those comments have apologized for them.