Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[AdmiralKird]

And I don't know how in the world she has gotten away with saying, "I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere." First of all, she still has that money and is just going to allocate it to other projects in Alaska. And secondly, she campaigned for governor in support of the bridge!

There's actually a secret alien UFO crash site located underneath that small island. The bridge was intended to support an excavation. Unfortunately, Senators, like McCain, aren't in the loop for this kind of information. Govenor Palin, of course, was and understood its importance.

[tenniseleven]

"Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing."

political marketing, lol!!!

I mean, I've known that the repubs have always cared more about the end than the means, but its just funny sad....

[tenniseleven]

what this article pretty much says is that the real political issues don't matter to your average joe smoe...

the only things they care about are the issues that the government really shouldn't even be governing...

The Republicans can’t win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

I love that line...

the republicans know the inner workings of the sheep mind, therefore they know what sheep want to hear...so they win...
I've known this reality for a while, it's just a bummer...

The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won—running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity — not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

another great one....

In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

so much for my 1st amendment rights to not be governed by a christian federal government...

Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin — the response based on realities alone — indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years

so true...when will the left finally figure out that politics aren't real, they are a game to be won, and the game has no rules...the repubs have known this for years, how else could you explain the fact that they have no policies other than moral, fascist policies...

except for that 'the market is always right' thing...until a major corporation needs a bailout, or until a friends company needs a no-bid contract...then the market isn't right...

Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.


this guy is so spot on that it really just makes you want to give up and let the right become the fascist state that they want to become, and just hope that Iran+Russia+China+Korea can take them down in the future...it's really sad, makes a person in this country feel nearly hopeless to the Evangelical powers that play life like a game, and not like real life...


and yet no republican out there has the brain to understand Abstract Art...

[tenniseleven]

our country kind of reinforces my thoughts that organized religions are set up in part (not in whole, b/c they do have merit) to control the way a large number of people think...people who are too busy with other important parts of life like making a car and house payment to really take the time to think things through thoroughly...


and please don't be offended by that statement, as it's just one person's opinion...it's not an indictment of religion, but of the way that some people abuse the power of religion...

[Richie Allen]

The New York Times has an article here detailing the Palin vetting process. it jives with pop's earlier post.

I know that no one could possibly care, and I've never pointed it out before but a 125+ page thread seems like the perfect place to (and it's obvious that no one's still up as tenniseleven seems to be arguing with himself), but the word that people should use when their meaning is "to agree with," is jibe.

My High School golf coach used to tell us to make sure our scorecards jibed and we always laughed at him.

Alright, back to the abortions.

[greenback44]

The New York Times has an article here detailing the Palin vetting process. it jives with pop's earlier post.

The AP's article on the vetting has the following:

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state's largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn't request paper archives for Palin's hometown newspaper. "I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy," Culvahouse said.

I don't quite understand the primacy of secrecy there. They're nominating a vice presidential candidate, not building a nuclear bomb. Everyone was going to know about the choice a week later anyway. I guess it's just the typical Washington dumb bunker mentality.

[haltz]

The fact that a senator and a team of political operatives can't get some newspaper archives from Wasilla, AK without setting off alarms can't be good news for the conspiracy theorist nuts.

[jim]

Only Christians are able to get their creation story introduced into public schools under the guise of "Creationism". I can't even call it a psuedo-science, because it's not. It's simply the Christian interpretation of creation, yet it gets a sentence or two (and even chapters) in most HS textbooks.

This is hilarious. When's the last time you've opened a HS textbook?

30 minutes ago actually. And you?

biology books that talk about evolution will almost always have an some sort of apologetic comment about "Some people believe there are other theories ... creationism" etc... Sometimes it's only one sentence, but the fact that it's in there at all shows the pull of the Christian right in our school boards.

I've only been going to high school for the last four years. havent heard a single thing about creationism. ever.

That's great. Look in you Biology book and make sure there isn't that one sentence disclaimer about Creationism. Dime to a dollar says it's there.

I would take your bet if i was taking Biology right now, but i'm not. And as a student with a 4.0 GPA and 5 AP classes under his belt, i can guarantee you that theres not a single thing about creationism in any science book. It's barely (if at all) even mentioned in the AP world history textbook. Trust me on this. Like someone else said, i'm sure it varies state to state, but i bet those textbooks that do contain it are at least a decade old.

Edit: i've been to two different high schools, in New Jersey and New Mexico, and I also went to middle school in southwestern Illinois, and everything i've said still holds true.

Although textbooks certainly don't contain anything, the teachers sometimes make the VAGUEST reference to creationism, but they certainly don't say the word "creation" or "religion." which they shouldn't, in a science class.

Sorry to the rest of the board for going off on a tangent.

And you would lose. Here is an abstract from a study on HS Biology textbooks using 15 books.

Previous research shows that from 1920 to 1960, the majority of biology textbooks (and those most popular ones) inadequately covered evolution and Darwin or excluded this material. The analysis of the 15 books revealed four patterns of publisher response to the treatment of evolution (from 6 books presenting extensive and uncompromising treatments of evolution to 2 books avoiding the subject). Thus, educators do have a choice when selecting textbooks with respect to evolution.

I've been to school board meetings hearing arguments of why this subject needs a mention in science classes. I also happen to make my living in the sciences, so I'm not just shooting from the hip. It's a constant battle, even in my fairly liberal town in the upper midwest. In the bible belt it's a much more difficult fight.

Texts have no business covering it, and teachers have no business making the most vague references to it. It simply doesn't belong in a Biology class. There maybe classes where it could be discussed depending on the format, but not in any science class.

But congrats on your grades, that's really great.

[BW23]

It's usually the students who bring up creationism.

[jim]

It's usually the students who bring up creationism.

I'm not talking about students bringing it up in class. I'm talking about giving in one iota to the creationist. There should be absolutely no wording at all in a Science textbook about it. Not a peep - it simply has no business.

BTW - somewhat on topic. When I was working in France this summer I had a wonderful dinner with friends/colleagues of mine. Terrific couple, the husband (who I work with) was a Sarkozy supporter and his wife an opponent. Hearing the little jabs going back and forth was quite entertaining and educational...

But anyway, back on topic. My hosts brought up creationism, and were quite surprised with this movement in the U.S. I think they pretty much figured it was Galileo all over again. They were practicing Catholics as well.

And back off topic, Galileo's tomb is in Santa Croce in Florence where he wanted to be buried. The translation was weird but I'm not sure if his body is in the tomb - the guy got jacked around with pretty badly after his death and was buried a couple of times. The church now recognizes him and I think has actually formally apologized.