NOW's Position on Sarah Palin--an Appropriate Response?
August 29th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesThe National Organization for Women has issued a statement criticizing Republican presidential candidate John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
NOW slams Palin, particularly for her pro-life position, and counterposes Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden as "the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world."
While I often disagree with NOW's politics, and I disagree with some of the politics in their statement on Palin, I do think they deserve credit for consistency. NOW has a liberal feminist agenda and has stuck with the male VP candidate who supports it against the female VP candidate who doesn't.
NOW PAC chair Mai Shiozaki, who issued the statement, said, "I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.'"
Shiozaki is correct--it would've been inappropriate for them to support Palin simply because she's a woman.
NOW's statement is below.
Not Every Woman Supports Women's Rights
The National Organization for Women
August 29, 2008
Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick
Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.
Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.
The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.
In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.
Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant.
What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.
Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.
Finally, as the chair of NOW's Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.
"));
19 queries. 1.177 seconds.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
She is an interesting woman. She claims to be a feminist, but she is pro-life. She eloped with her husband (no big wedding for her) and she had five children. Despite all of this she maintained her figure and it looks like she is loyal to her husband. She did not opt for the single mother / child support gravy train.
Mark my words – the feminists will be pissed at her selection. The claws will come out.
Here is my video concerning the subject. (She is also pretty cute).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBje_2mtwOI
August 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
...I'll bet Palin's are more in line with most women than NOW's. NOW represents only a small fringe group of women, certainly not the majority...
August 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Why is it that when Sarah Palin is asked about her children on 2/24/08 her reply is 4 children with no mention of her 5th, is this the action of a prolifer?
or do I have my math really confused?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Wow! Did McLame just blow his election?
Really who are his advisors who convinced him in one of his many senior moments to pick an extreme right-wing female .... to capture the Hillary disenfranchised clan?
Like the feminists are going to become pro-lifers just because you put a female on the ticket? That is braindead thinking!
Can you really imagine a guy, who cannot run his own campaign, being President?
I love my dad. He is 83 years old.
I would not trust him to remember who he is tomorrow.
But his long-term memory is excellent! This is typical of seniors with dementia or early Alzheimers disease.
McCain deserves all respect for his sacrifices in 'Nam.
But that does not make a solution to get America out of its own prison cage today.
McCain fought his war, and in a strange way, he actually won it.
Now, John, let America let go of it.
Step aside.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
re: extreme right-wing female
...What makes her "extreme right wing" and the Democrats "progressive" instead of "extreme left wing?". How is the pro-abortion position not extreme left-wing but the pro-life position is "extreme right wing?"
August 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
NOW projects a very unrealistic image of who the women in our society are.
Many women have strong views and ideals that are diametrically opposed to those of the National Organization for Women.
I dare say that the majority of those who effictively and articulately support men in the injustices they face in this day and age are women.
We need to recognize that pro-life women, and women who oppose feminist extremism and injustice are mainstream, and they're often leading the way.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
reL Why is it that when Sarah Palin is asked about her children on 2/24/08 her reply is 4 children with no mention of her 5th, is this the action of a prolifer?
or do I have my math really confused?
..wasnt the 5th one only born 4 months ago? It's no secret she has 5 kids and the last one has Down's Syndrome.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
re" We need to recognize that pro-life women, and women who oppose feminist extremism and injustice are mainstream, and they're often leading the way.
...Democrats like to marginalize anyone who dares to disagree with them. You're either a progresisve liberal or an extreme right-winger. Insulting...
August 29th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Well, I believe any woman who wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade (abortion rights) qualifies as extremely right wing.
And the Feminists for Life web site is like a trip to the Twilight Zone. Where do you locate these women? Can I have three?
Cindy McCain, the Disney animatroinc wind-up wife, is really looking much more attractive now. Just a couple more cosmetic surgeries and she won't look so much like a siamese cat.
This whole election is like a John Water's flick.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
roy,
Many, if not most of the high profile women that support our causes are pro-life feminists.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
"Why is it that when Sarah Palin is asked about her children on 2/24/08 her reply is 4 children with no mention of her 5th, is this the action of a prolifer?
or do I have my math really confused?"
She only had four kids on 2/24. In April she gave birth to her fifth child.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
NOW is the reason this blog exists. NOW's feminist views are opposed to us seeing our kids without feminist permission. NOW supports VAWA and its unconstitutional repression of men's rights. NOW and its candidate are the enemy of equal rights for men..
August 29th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
...the Democrats seem to define freedom as - freedom to have an abortion. They'll tell us where we can use our cell phones, what type of food we're allowed to eat, what we can listen to on the radio, how we can and cannot discipline our children, what kind of bags we can use, etc. But as long as abortion is legal, we're as free as the birds in the sky.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
RS --" Many, if not most of the high profile women that support our causes are pro-life feminists."
Now that is truly scary.
How could a woman agree to give up her control over her body as a way of supporting men's rights?
That is crazy!
That is NOT equality!
This is really some mess we are all in together.
If a couple girls would support me, it would be nice.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
convienient! didn't NOW freak out at teddy kennedy for supporting Obama because it was "not supporting a "woman". I guess the NOw is sexist for not supporting this woman. All this sad fanatical group is trying to do is stop people from (again) using their own brains and voting for republicans...
August 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I'm a pro-choice atheist who believes in equal rights for the sexes. I think men should have the right to paper-abort, as well. Part of the problem with society is that people who aren't ready for kids not only have them, but are encouraged to.
It's amazing how we all get squeezed into just two belief system pipelines for the all of life.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Steve K -- " It's amazing how we all get squeezed into just two belief system pipelines for all of life."
I think two belief systems are just about one more than the average American can stand.
Really, we as a people are pretty much a footnote in history.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Abortion should be a State decision. Our federal government is too involved in our lives as it is. The best part of the individual states handling the issue would be that if someone really wanted an abortion, they could go to that state.
The fact is that liberals hate what conservatives say and vice-versa. My problem with what NOW has to say is that this is a monumental thing for women and they should be supportive of that. I am so happy that my daughter can see this. The other great thing is that this election has made history on both issues of race and gender. I think this is a great thing for our country no matter who wins.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I don't know anything about Sarah Palin, but I'm underwhelmed by their argument against her: she is anti-abortion (so are loads of people) and she didn't just unquestioningly take the word of someone accusing her appointee of sexual harassment. If they want to build a real argument against her, they should try harder...
August 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
"Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest."
MCA says, it seems over the last 40 years alot of women have voted myopically for their own self interests. Men seem to vote for the interests of themselves and others.
Is there such a thing as barbaric, myopic, self interest???At the expense of all others??
August 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Abortion is an odd subject. If we lived in an age when an irresponsible man could impregnate and abandon a woman, leaving her with a baby to bring up alone, I could see how women could regard abortion as a touchstone of sexual equality. Whether or not we ever did,* we don't live in that world now. Abortion is now symbolic of women's "right" never to have to face unwanted consequences to their own actions.
*There were always powerful social forces making sure irresponsible young men who got women pregnant did right by them, even against the wishes of their own families. I've traced my family tree in some detail back to the mid-19th century on my mother's side and the late 17th on my father's. Weddings noticeably less than nine months before the birth of the couple's first child are extremely common in every generation. I had a relative who, in the early part of the 20th century, married his pregnant girlfriend despite the fierce opposition of his family - and I have good evidence that she had seduced him with the intention of getting pregnant and trapping him into marriage. I know of only one case of a relative who got pregnant and was abandoned by the father, a generation earlier than that, and it seems the father did not abandon her voluntarily - he was packed off to Canada by his family to avoid scandal, but returned looking for her several years later, only to find she had married someone else (I have also, contrary to received wisdom, not found a single example of a woman dying in childbirth).
August 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
NOW is a special interest group. Nothing more and nothing less. They exist to promote the interests of women, albeit from a particularly point of view, and nothing more. They don't give a hoot about men except that they can periodically be used to promote their own narrow interests.
The funny thing is that many of men's goals and NOW's are not be mutually exclusive. I am very pro-choice and I do not begrudge women fighting for that right. The kicker is that the women's movement has so alienated the rest of society that they have a hard time getting allies to support them. I would rather watch NOW spend all of their political capital and resources fighting over abortion than using those resources to promote legislation such as Biden's domestic violence legislation which is biased towards men. If all they want to do is appoint judges that favor women I would rather they did not succeed. After all, I don't need an abortion right now anyway.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
PJK,
“How is the pro-abortion position not extreme left-wing but the pro-life position is ‘extreme right wing?’”
First of all, pro-abortion means you think pregnancies should end in abortion. PRO-CHOICE means you think the female should be able to choose the outcome of her pregnancy. Pro-life & anti-choice mean you do not think the female should have a choice in the outcome of her pregnancy. Pro-abortion is actually extreme RIGHT wing, very China-like.
Most people, fyi, are pro-choice. I think a majority of Repubs are too. Not that you'd know it by how they vote.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
RS:
“We need to recognize that pro-life women, and women who oppose feminist extremism and injustice are mainstream, and they're often leading the way.”
Wow. I thought it was the pro-choice feminists who had a chokehold on society and who were leading the way. Which is it?
“Many, if not most of the high profile women that support our causes are pro-life feminists.”
Are you sure about this? They may support your hatred of pro-choice women (since I highly doubt you can actually call yourself a pro-life feminist and truly be a feminist), but I really don’t think that any of them would in any way support your views on “paper abortions” or limiting or abolishing child support.
But maybe they do. After all, if they also hate women and sex, they probably want to punish females by forcing them into pregnancies against their will, even if the pregnancies kill them. (Remember: forcing more females into pregnancies means more child support obligations for men, not fewer. You get this, don’t you?)
August 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I agree that NOW is being consistant with it's selection criteria. It's never really been about gender so much as whether a candidate was democrat or republican, they simply follow the democratic ticket no matter where it leads. Gender only really comes into play if both options are democratic party options.
That being said, I do note that in their statement about Gov. Palin, she remained fairly free of harsh criticism... in fact a good chunk of the article either casts McCain in a negative light (i.e. saying that his choice is a "cynical effort" and declaring that McCain doesn't "understand" women) or sought to cast Sen. Biden in a positive light.
All they really said about Palin was that they don't think she is the right woman for the job, which is an entirely fair position for them to take. When talking about her they stuck to the issues and used facts without resorting to negatively stereotyping her.
In other words, because Palin is a woman, they really have no choice but to fight fair when it comes to her, they can't just mud sling at her like they might a male candidate who held the exact same political views.
I personally think that was the motivating political strategy behind her selection as opposed to trying to trick women into voting "against their own self-interest"... she acts as someone who can say certain things that McCain can't say without being crucified.
It is an interesting strategy and should lead to interesting debates... but still, none of the candidates appeal to me at all.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
It seems to me, alot of children also pursue "myopic self interest", at the expense of all others.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Bill C
“I am so happy that my daughter can see this.”
I think she may turn out to be a very good example for my daughters as well. What better role model for girls then the V.P. of the US? It sure beats the Hiltons, Spears and Simpson’s.
Finally we are getting women on the national stage who make it clear that it’s not a women’s right to:
1)Take an innocent and defenseless human life.
2)Demand every privilege under the sun (free health care, day care, equal pay without equal work) while also demanding to been seen as an independent adult. There by playing both side of the equlility/helpless game.
3)Destroy their family on a wimp and be rewarded for it.
4)Play both sides of the equality/helpless game.
5)Once having destroyed their family, ask the government to take their neighbors money in order to support themselves.
This women’s rights shell game could only continue if there were no comparisons. Now the nation has two high profile women to compare. Who would most choose to have their daughters emulate?
My guess is that the Republicans will have a landslide in about two months (what they will do with it, I’m not sure).
All the best
August 29th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Patrick Brown,
“I have also, contrary to received wisdom, not found a single example of a woman dying in childbirth”
According to Wikipedia: “Mortality rates reached horrible proportions in maternity institutions in the 1800s, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of birthgiving women. At the beginning of the 1900s, maternal death rates were around 1 in 100 for live births. The number today in the United States is 13 in 100,000, a decline by orders of magnitude”
(As compared to the highest rates in the world: Sierra Leone 2,000:100,000 and Afghanistan at 1900:100,000 live births.)
Look a little harder, Patrick.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
A play on words,
If asked, most Americans would say that they are PRO-CHOICE. We Americans want each other to have CHOICE, that’s part of being an American and the freedoms it entails.
However, when you through the killing of a helpless babies into the mix things change. It makes no deference if you call it a zygote, embryo or fetus. That’s just another shell game to make us feel comfortable about taking a human life. It’s similar to when people who looked like me where called 3/5s of a man. I am sure the three fifths of a man title comforted the perpetrators but I sure it didn’t help the noose feel any better.
All the best
August 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Betsy Barton,
Here are a few more facts about Sarah Palin.
• She won “Miss Wasilla” but lost “Miss Alaska”
• She fired the Wasilla police chief (who sued but lost because she had the right, the court said, to fire the guy for political reasons)
• Wants to open up Anwar to drill for oil really bad
•.Initially supported the “Bridge to Nowhere” until it became a laughingstock and then changed her mind (but kept the $350 million instead of giving it back)
•.She’s fighting efforts to declare the polar bear an endangered species because it might hurt the oil industry
• Doesn’t believe in global warming
•.Wants creationism taught in schools
•.Is anti-gay (‘but she has gay friends’—whatever)
•.Would even force her raped daughter to have a rape-baby
I’m sure more info re: her will come out. Oh, and one more fun fact that is near and dear to you MRA’s hearts: She’s currently under investigation for using her position to fire her ex-brother-in-law (a state trooper) allegedly because he was going thru a divorce & custody battle with Palin’s sister (which is still going on). The guy had issues, but should she have intervened? (http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510080.html)
I’m most upset about the polar bears.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Jeana, if anything is going to give you received wisdom, it's Wikipedia, and we've all been here long enough to know that statistics on gender issues, no matter how well-established, and particularly if they demonstrate female disadvantage, have a tendency to be astonishingly unreliable. My family history research does not tally with the received wisdom. There are plenty of people, men, women and (mostly) children, dying young - of cancer, pneumonia, tuberculosis, typhoid, industrial accidents - but so far, as I said, I have not found a single example in my family tree of a woman dying in childbirth.
Having said all that, would you like to address my main points?
August 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Wow! It's amazing that NOW and jeana would have such venom for a woman because she refuses to support the killing of unborn children. Don't hold it against this woman because she actually has a maternal instinct.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
THE GOOD
She will be the first politician from Alaska to be nominated for Vice-President.
sports reporter
was elected mayor of Wasilla population 5,470 in 2000 [but a little small to count as experience]
She was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006 [nice but has not been there even 2 years, again short to call experience]
avid outdoors enthusiast
She played the championship game [high school basketball] despite a stress fracture in her ankle
would lead the team in prayer before games
Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council from 1992 to 1996 [but a little small to count as experience]
Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail. Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.
Palin kept her campaign promises by reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes by 60%
Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.
Palin said in 2006 that education, public safety, and transportation would be three cornerstones of her administration
born in Idaho and raised in Alaska [well you know]
In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope. [finally ssome one did it]
Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending. "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."
In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s. A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.
She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination. While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.
Budget
In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.1 million.
On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome. She returned to the office three days after giving birth. Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin said. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" [BEAUTIFUL!]
THE BAD
she was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant Big deal
The New York Times noted that this choice may undercut his [McCain] campaign message that Obama is too inexperienced to lead. [yep!]
a sports reporter Big deal
a degree in journalism Big deal
she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality Big deal
she also minored in politics. [minored!?]
Palin was also the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood [Well I guess some one had to be eventually]
When the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business, Palin objected, citing concern for the impact on dairy farmers and the fact that the dairy had just received $600,000 in state money. When Palin learned that only the Board of Agriculture and Conservation could appoint Creamery Board members, she simply replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation. The new board, led by businesswoman Kristan Cole, reversed the decision to close the dairy. The new board approved milk price increases offered by the dairy in an attempt to control fiscal losses, even though milk from Washington was already offered in Alaskan stores at lower prices. In the end, the dairy was forced to close, and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts but received no bids. [OK everyone is entitled to a mistake so this is bad not ugly]
THE UGLY
receiving a scholarship that allowed her to attend the University of Idaho because of the runner up Miss Alaska pageant [female privliage and female only scholarship]
and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002 [I wonder why]
She gained attention for publicizing ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders. [although noble she backstabed her party members]
nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense basketball play [
I smell feminist coming]
Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisors, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. [misguided easily and our particulat green house gasses actually help to curb global warming by diminishing the suns brightness by as much as 25%]
On January 5, 2008, Palin announced that a Canadian company, TransCanada Corp., was the sole AGIA-compliant applicant. [America needs the business and jobs]
Palin is strongly pro-life, a supporter of capital punishment [ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!!!!!!!]
belongs to Feminists for Life . [Gee no suprize here!]
She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it. [Yea, Right after trying it 100 times just to be sure! She did not inhale either.]
Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann. Wooten and the police union alleged that the governor had improperly released his employment files in his divorce case. [hmmmmm can we say conflict of interest, and there goes her ethics out the window]
owns a float plane [its hard to be green with an RV]
b
August 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
First speech after the announcement?
Mentions the infamous "Glass Ceiling."
Just had to play that victim card right out of the chute, did you?
Same old, same old...
DanH
August 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Once again the National Organization for Women has chosen the money of VAWA over the advancement of women.
I don't know if McKain will win but he is a winner for once again exposing that the organization started for women by women has become the organization for few on the backs of so many.
As some of you may know, on August 17, 2008 I became the victim of violence. I was violently thrown up against a wall by a 6'5" man. He was a stranger to me but he was my daughter's landlord. The police said because he was a stranger and not an intimate partner they could not nor would they arrest the man. The Ulster County ( NY) DA refuses to prosecute the man even after he admitted to using his private key to enter my daughter's apartment without invite or reason and "shoved" me around. Even after a 7 inch by 4 inch black and blue mark appeared on my lower back where I hit the corner of the door jam I was thrown against, even after the Sheriff's department contacted him weeks prior and told him if he enters the apartment again he'd be arrested. No one will touch him because he was not an intimate partner of mine: he walked out a free man.
When I called the Women's Bar Association I was turned down. When I called the Women's legal groups, I was turned down THEY ALL SAID THEIR GRANTS DON'T SUPPORT THEM HELPING ME. (Governmental ran not for profits)
The Violence Against Women has no more to do with protecting women than NOW does and Obama is no more supporting special interest groups than NOW not being one.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I don't think any Democrats want to cite Sarah Palin's inexperience or accomplishments. She beats Obama in both categories.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Deborah: sorry to hear about your experience.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I've spent a lot of time in the past few months watching a couple of history channel shows, Tougher in Alaska, and Ice Road Truckers. Coming from a hard, cold climate, I can appreciate a tough, yet feminine woman who doesn't play the victim card at every opportunity.
Maybe dumb @$$ Democrat women will learn something from her, instead of pushing frauds like: VAWA, the gender wage gap myth, sexual harassment and rape witch hunting, etc.
Oh, by the way, those ice road truckers were trucking the infrastructure necessary to tap into the gas hydrates under the ice of the far north ocean. Having a person from a pro-energy state like Alaska is a real plus, IMO. I hope she sinks the first new off shore oil well in San Francisco bay and the 2nd one in Santa Monica bay.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Regarding Palin's push to get 'the cop' fired:
Walt Monegan was fired.
"The cop", Mike Wooten, was her former brother in law, and was accused of child abuse and pulling a TASER on his stepson. He remained in the job for a year after the complaints.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/499248.html
If it's right that cops should lose their weapons when accused of domestic violence, shouldn't he have lost his?
August 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Honestly, I shudder to think of what's going to happen when she goes up against Biden in a debate. I suspect it won't be pretty for her.
Back to the topic, NOW is certainly consistent.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
[Feminists for Life] has a long track record ( http://feministsforlife.org/news/accomplishments.htm) of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, ...
August 29th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
"Oh, and one more fun fact that is near and dear to you MRA’s hearts:"
Jeana:
Have you learned nothing here? We "got" no hearts. :-)
August 29th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
"Back to the topic, NOW is certainly consistent."
No they're not and I think Glenn knows that, but has probably just forgotten. Karen DeCrow President of NOW has pointed out that NOW was for more Father involvement in children's lives, then when Fathers got more involved, they changed their position 180. Was it because equal custody cut into the fat child custody checks those single Moms were getting? Ummm, it's a possibility.
http://tinyurl.com/5s9luh
"Karen DeCrow, president of NOW from 1974 to 1977, says “it was clear from the feminist writings and ideas of the '60s and '70s that joint custody was what we supported after a divorce.” "
http://www.glennsacks.com/now_at_40.htm
August 29th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Extremism (the good ol' Democrat slur)
Ah yes, I knew it had to come out eventually: The good ol' leftist "extremist" slur. You see, "extremism" is bad because, supposedly, they're all nuts and crazies unlike nice moderate, reasonable Democrats who believe the sky is falling (and we need to outlaw gasoline), raise taxes on the middle class (to "help" them, see?), nationalize healthcare and put people's lives in the same hands as those who run the DC public school system (also known as gang-bang alley), and become Don Qixotes and convert America into a nation of windmills in 10 years. Yeah, got it.
Roy claims: Well, I believe any woman who wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade (abortion rights) qualifies as extremely right wing.
PK responds: Roy, check out a document known as The Constitution sometime. See anything about abortion in it? Or any "bodily privacy right" or right to do whatever you please in your home including build nukes? Gee, I didn't seem to catch that. Also, prostitution and drug use continues to be illegal according to those same justices. Oh well, I guess I didn't read Das Kapital so what do I know?
FYI, Jeana, I don't know if you are aware of this, but China isn't "right wing". They have national healthcare there if you like and all kinds of socialist programs. Just consider female infanticide an "affirmative action."
August 29th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Now isn't pro-woman, duh
Glenn, no surprises here. NOW didn't support Paula Jones when she won her sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton and the NAACP didn't support Clarence Thomas. They're just racist and sexist special interest spoils groups that will throw their own under the bus to serve their leaders' interests.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Well to me this shows how one issue NOW is.
If she's pro-life she can't be a feminist according to NOW. Apparently being sucessful career woman and mother, and self proclaimed feminist means nothing to them, only the abortion issue.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I think there's quite a few more benefits to having Palin as VP then anyone is giving her credit for. Every one has got it in their head that McCain picked her simply to grab on to Hillary's army of voters. While that may have been a fringe benefit McCains people where hoping for, I doubt that's the main idea. I think Hillary's people are very wishy washy about anyone besides Hillary. They almost seem to be cult like. McCain's people knew that.
To be honest all the candidits have scared me up until now. Looking at Palin's short biography, I think I really like her. Moose hunting with her father at 3 a.m. Card carrying member of the NRA. Fights corruption. Pro life. Devoted to her family. Has a son in Iraq and also I'm getting sick of hearing the word "experience" and her lack of it but actually she's the only one with any experience runing anything. A governer is a lot like a president so she is in fact the only one in the race with any excutive experience. I think she may even take notice of mens issues more then any one else because of her relationship with her father and love for her husband and sons. We certainly already know Omama and Bidens position on men. I think it would be worth while for someone from the MRA to try to interview her on her feelings for the state of men and fatherhood. No one else is even worth it.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
"Most people, fyi, are pro-choice."
Actually, Jeana, the majority opinion appears to be to ban abortion except in the "hard cases" of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life. When some people conveniently say that most people favor abortion in "most cases," those "most cases" still constitute about 5% of all abortions.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
deborah
i too am sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience. if your story is true and you did nothing to provoke his actions he should be called to account for it
August 29th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Let's see now, we have this wonderful woman, mother, careerist, governor, athlete and NOW just isn't satisfied. What is their problem?
Oh, right. She didn't kill enough babies for their taste.
NOW does such a great job of making its members looks like the embodiment of female mental illness in America.
And yes, this woman seems the absolute antithesis of "NOW".
She is surely a more appealing role model to 90% of American women than is the best current or prior "leader" which NOW could ever serve up from its own membership.
Face it NOW. You are a tiny minority of fringe whackos, and NONE of you have ever accomplished in your angry blame-obsessed lives what this lady has already accomplished by age 44.
SHE has it all, while all of you at NOW are still complaining about how men must be to blame for why YOU don't and why YOU couldn't do what SHE has already done.
What a hoot.
NOW is a joke and should be prohibited from using the false title under which it falsely implies that it is some authoritative representative of women.
Sarah Palin is clearly a much better leader and role model for American women than your nut-case organization will ever be.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
DanH Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
First speech after the announcement?
Mentions the infamous "Glass Ceiling."
Just had to play that victim card right out of the chute, did you?
Same old, same old...
DanH
==========
Dan,
OMG! I did not catch that speach! Did I not say I see a feminist!
b
August 30th, 2008 at 12:02 am
David M Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I don't think any Democrats want to cite Sarah Palin's inexperience or accomplishments. She beats Obama in both categories.
=========
Not by much.
b
August 30th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Ray Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I've spent a lot of time in the past few months watching a couple of history channel shows, Tougher in Alaska, and Ice Road Truckers. Coming from a hard, cold climate, I can appreciate a tough, yet feminine woman who doesn't play the victim card at every opportunity
=============
Ray,
Yes but she as I stated is a feminist, and DanH stated her first speech was about the glass ceiling.
b
August 30th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Father Time Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I think it would be worth while for someone from the MRA to try to interview her on her feelings for the state of men and fatherhood. No one else is even worth it.
=======
What about feminist does this not explain?
b
August 30th, 2008 at 12:27 am
They are after the female vote so if she invokes the false "glass ceiling" so what? Every one else is doing it, Truth be known she was probably handed a speech when she got the news that she was the VP choice. At least she didn't bring up how they needed to do more to combat child support arrearage and male domestic violence like the democrats are. Until there's a draft, I'm voting republican.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Father Time Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I think it would be worth while for someone from the MRA to try to interview her on her feelings for the state of men and fatherhood. No one else is even worth it.
=======
What about feminist does this not explain?
b
BS, feminist doesn't have to mean anti-male. Are you as a MRA anti-female? Perhaps she is out for the interests of her own gender but so are we and I think she's more along the lines of " right is right" She may be misinformed but I don't think she's extreamist. Hell N.O.W. even denouced her. How could we not like her?
August 30th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Planned Parenthood stole over $300 million from taxpayers last year 2007.
They also received over $600 million in donations and payment.
They're also obligated to report profit, and reported...$55 million profit for 2007.
If you are pro-life, it doesn't matter, you paid for abortions at Planned Parenthood. You also paid for the medical supplies, the machinery, the buildings, the utilities, the staff's paycheck, the toilet paper, everything.
You also paid the "administrators" MILLIONS in profit. They are the liberal feminist women, and Natn'l Org. for Women, Glorie Steinem crowd.....the "administration".
They sell abortion, and profit greatly.
Ask yourself how Planned Parenhood rakes $300 million out of YOUR wallet and mine, and then makes......$55 million dollar profit.
Obama/Biden/Clinton all support continued funding to Planned Parenthood, and yes INCREASED funding as the greedy gender-feminists find more "needs" and pull in more grants.
Patients who went to Planned Parenthood 'counseling' often claim that they were "strongly encouraged to abort."
When P.P. gets another to abort, they add that number to their statistics. They then have high numbers to present and say "See? all these poor needy women".....give us more money.
McCain and Palin oppose abortion, and Planned Parenthood....and oppose funding them with taxpayer's money....YOUR money.
Sarah Palin may not match everything you like, but she IS for stopping administration that both supports taxpayer funding to abortion clinices...and admin. that supports Choosing Single Motherhood and living off the taxpayer and further build up a nanny state.
Our political choices are important and men's rights, father's rights, husban's rights, boy's rights...are all effected by who runs the show.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Bernie Misiura
"Yes but she as I stated is a feminist, and DanH stated her first speech was about the glass ceiling.”
I would call myself a feminist if it meant that women were fairly treated and not ran over. I want my daughters to be the best they can be. However, if they ever included false witness, free loading or the taking of an innocent life things would change in a big way.
This woman is marketing and walking a tightrope, her life tells the true story. Groups like NOW are very good at looking at someone’s life and seeing where their coming from, why aren’t we?
All the best
August 30th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Father Time Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
BS, feminist doesn't have to mean anti-male. Are you as a MRA anti-female? Perhaps she is out for the interests of her own gender but so are we and I think she's more along the lines of " right is right" She may be misinformed but I don't think she's extreamist. Hell N.O.W. even denouced her. How could we not like her?
=======
Nonsense,
I am not anti-female but if it means that I should take an unnecessary risk right now with the state of current affairs I will not do it.
Since she states she is a feminist, I have a legitimate concern.
b
August 30th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Kevin C Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Bernie Misiura
"Yes but she as I stated is a feminist, and DanH stated her first speech was about the glass ceiling.”
I would call myself a feminist if it meant that women were fairly treated and not ran over. I want my daughters to be the best they can be. However, if they ever included false witness, free loading or the taking of an innocent life things would change in a big way.
===========
Well duh, and I agree but I would not call myself a feminist because I want to give women a fair shake. It is more like I am a devout equalist, for the good and bad that come with the territory.
b
August 30th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Let us also not forget her bouts with schizophrenia "pro-life but pro capital punishment, worried about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions but has a plane."
b
August 30th, 2008 at 1:25 am
It's funny how on the one hand the feminists constantly argue that because most legislators are men, that this means they are more likely to support measures that favor men and hurt women.
Yet when it suits them, they are happy to acknowledge (re Joe Biden) that sometimes men in positions of power actually promote measures favourable to women.
Or at other times they argue that more women must be promoted. And then when they are promoted, they say "no, she is not the right woman. So no cigar!".
August 30th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Feminism is always anti-male, no exceptions-- just feminists in sheep's clothing when it suits them.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:44 am
SteveM
“You also paid the "administrators" MILLIONS in profit. They are the liberal feminist women, and Natn'l Org. for Women, Glorie Steinem crowd.....the "administration".”
I loved your post, so I will share a secret with you. Are you ready? NOW and the other groups you have mentioned are fully aware of what’s going on and why.
They know:
1) While, technically speaking, no U.S. taxpayer dollars are specifically allocated for abortions, Planned Parenthood performed some 1.4 million of them in that same time period. The tax payer money is used to free up their other money to take unborn life. In fact from 2003-2004 it has been given government grants of nearly $1.5 billion (all for refer pursing the office you see).
2) They also know that child support and alimony are both an incentive for divorce therefore they are both promoted widely. Single parent kids are the ones most likely to get pregnant early and have an abortion.
3) They know that the only way to keep people quite about funding things like abortion and VAWA is to have only males on the stage, that way they can say ‘look that all boys club is being sexist’. The last thing they wanted was to have a practical women join the boys club and she will.
If I say that this is not about women it would sound silly right? Well its not. Many women have been profiting, but it has been men making most of the money from all of this nonsense. For example, when the IRS recently came out with the new rules to give non-custodial parents a tax break on health savings accounts guess who made up the opposition? Right my friend, it was men. Men who are either making money from the problem or building their self-esteem by saving women who under normal circumstances would not ever pay any attention to them.
All the best
August 30th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Nick S,
That is a very insightful point. I am left to wonder why some people understand that not all women politicians are out to further so-called universal goals of women (as if such a universal adgenda existed)... but these same women immediately assume that any man with political power is out to promote the universal goals of men (as if men had some sort of universal adgenda).
One thing I will note about Gov. Palin that I discovered tonight is that apparently during an interview she admitted that she has no clue what the VP of the united states does and was wondering if the job will keep her active or not... I'm not sure if she was joking or not, but it did make me a bit nervous that a candidate wouldn't know what they were signing up for.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Bernie Misiura
“Well duh, and I agree but I would not call myself a feminist because I want to give women a fair shake. It is more like I am a devout equalist, for the good and bad that come with the territory.”
Did you just say ‘well duh’? I didn’t think men talked like that. Just kidding, I do understand your not wanted to be blind sided by someone calling themselves a feminist instead of just saying they were for fairness.
All the best
August 30th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Since I mentioned it, I figured I'd provide a link to the interview so others could digest the same video footage I was looking at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ
August 30th, 2008 at 3:01 am
PK responds: "Roy, check out a document known as The Constitution sometime."
I think the US Constitution is very underappreciated. Especially by our elected representatives.
Most Americans have never actually read the Constitution, nor Das Kapital.
If they had, they might appreciate that people seek freedom in different forms in different ways in different times in history.
The Bolsheviks looked like conservative redeemers to the Russian people living under the Czar.
Fidel was a nice guy with guns and an idealistic attitude and had the advantage of the irrepressible Cuban spirit.
Mao brought a sense of order and nationalism to a China that had almost been colonized by the West. (Recall the Opium Wars?)
America has been so bloody fortunate so far. We have not required actual tyranny and actual tyrants to keep the illusion going.
But times are changing, and it is getting interesting.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:12 am
As soon as I saw he had chosen a woman I thought “I bet the feminists complain that she’s the wrong kind of woman”, and sure enough here they are being as predictable as ever.
Choosing Palin is a brilliant move by McCain and his people. By choosing a woman he will get more of the female vote, and by choosing a conservative he should be able to keep the support of conservative males. The left forgets that not every woman who would have voted for Clinton was a feminist as such- many were moderate women who simply wanted to see a woman up there because they have bought the feminist lies about women not mattering. This choice should show such women that a patriarchy will give a woman a shot at the big brass ring providing she’s the right person at the right time.
As for her supposed feminism all I can say is that she has to make a few such noises in today’s climate, and if a few choruses of “I Am Woman” will keep Obama and Joey VAWA out of the White House I’m willing to join in, though I’m not sure how easy it is to sing when you’re laughing at the lyrics.
As for her supposedly being against abortion even in cases of rape, this does seem extreme at first, but consider that if an unproven rape is accepted as reason for an abortion many women will claim they were raped in order to get said abortion, and they may accuse innocent men in order to bolster their story. And incidentally, why should the baby pay for the fact that its father is a scumbag? He/she didn’t commit the rape, why should he/she suffer for it? Don’t want a daily reminder of the rape? There’s this thing they used to do in the old days-its called adoption.
“Well, I believe any woman who wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade (abortion rights) qualifies as extremely right wing.”
Left wing claptrap. I believe in gays being able to get married; I think its about time you Yanks woke up and got Nationalized Health Care; I think non violent criminals should get house arrest instead of the Rape and Beatings Hotel, but because i believe in repealing Roe v Wade I guess that makes me an extreme right winger.
“This whole election is like a John Water's flick.”
Actually, the Clinton presidency was much more like a John Waters flick, with the main difference being that instead of Divine it was the men of America who got to eat the dog-crap.
From the male viewpoint, McCain may not be perfect but hes better than Obama. Palin may not be perfect but she’s better than Biden. Its that simple.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:12 am
I just watched Jason's posted youtube.com link. (Good stuff ... thanks!)
That woman is like the first high school cheerleader I slept with.
A total ditz. But enthusiastic.
She thinks being Vice President is like being elected to Student Council!
And McCain thinks she is ready to be President when he has his next stroke?
This is not government.
This is insanity.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Michael A.Claymore ... good and fair critiques!
I really liked the comment that Clinton's presidency was the real John Water's movie.
So now we can look forward to .... Tarantino?
August 30th, 2008 at 3:27 am
For all the poltically inclined insomniacs, consider ---
sleep is never a good thing.
I really appreciate the ones who stay up late, or early, whatever.
Lotta good writers in Glenn's salon.
Now if my computer would just provide coffee on demand....
August 30th, 2008 at 4:18 am
I am pro-abortion rights and pro-choice, but I respect Sarah Palin's pro-life position. It is easy for a woman to be pro-choice, but it takes a lot of courage and guts for a woman in our society today to say that she is not pro-choice.
The abortion issue is a very complex issue for our culture, and both sides of the debate have valid points. Only an arrogant person would believe that their view of the abortion issue is the only reasonable view. Personally, I don't think that we should attempt to make abortion illegal at this time. Our society and culture simply does not have enough respect for human life. We need to mature as a society before we try to place any restrictions on abortions.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:00 am
I believe that before we outlaw abortions, we should maybe try to create a real pro-family economy.
I am really tired of being lied to by politicians. Of any gender.
What are the ENDS that we as a society seek through our MEANS?
Do you like getting up afraid every day?
August 30th, 2008 at 5:40 am
The more videos I see of this girl, the more I cannot believe McCain has the intelligence to be Prezodent.
Can't his wife Cindy afford to hire some smart people?
August 30th, 2008 at 7:24 am
So we get to choose between a father bashing candidate and his VAW attack dog running mate, and a crazy warmongering old man and his cheerleader running mate.
What democracy we have.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
The selection criteria for a vice president, by both parties' definition, is the ability to immediately and effectively assume the responsibilities of the presidency. That's a critically important criteria given McCain's age and health. Can you imagine this self-described soccer mom negotiating with Putin or whomever is in power in Iran or China or North Korea? Working with NATO? Serving as commander-in-chief in a time of war? Has she ever met with any of our allies? Has she ever visited a foreign country? Does she have any understanding of economics? Has she even walked down Wall Street? How does being a mayor of a town of 8,000 or so and then serving a 2-year-stint as head of the country's smallest-populated state qualify her for these tasks?
August 30th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Vote Republican and an inexperienced person may end up in the oval office.
Vote Democrat and an inexperienced person will end up in the oval office.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
As mentioned in the last paragraph of the statement, NOW does not support a candidate just because she is a female, so I am not going to support Obama/Biden just because they are males. That is fair enough.
My favorite qoute so far, "Nobama, and you can keep the change." LOL
BC
August 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
i look at palin and compare her to the vawa boy. i give her the nod, as a man, not even close.
i look at mccain and compare him to the white racist bamma. no contest.
as usual, roy over thinks in order to impress himself.
roy is dead nuts wrong.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am
To 1st comment RamzPaul:
Holy crap that was funny!!!!!! I just might consider voting McCain now.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Jenna says:
"“We need to recognize that pro-life women, and women who oppose feminist extremism and injustice are mainstream, and they're often leading the way.”
Injustice toward whom? If these so called mainstream women really are "leading the way" to end "injustice" why do we still have a VAWA that protects women at the expense of men and violates the 14th amendment's equal protection under the law guarantee?
If pro-life women are "leading the way" to end injustice why don't we hear any outcry to protect fathers who have no choice over wheather they want to become a father or not? You know very well Jenna, mainstream women mean, on no uncertain terms, to leave the man out of the decision making process altogether in the name of women's rights.
Oh by the way, how are feminists "leading the way" to end the tyranny of our draconian family court system that unconditionally and ruthlessly negates and denigrates the father.
The so called progressive mainstream woman doesn't really give a damn except to pay occasional lip service and I am sick of women constantly making hypocritical statements such as the one you make when they obviously and blatantly aren't true. D
August 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
"Ray,
Yes but she as I stated is a feminist, and DanH stated her first speech was about the glass ceiling.
b"
Bernie:
Have you learned nothing from NOW??? :-) Not every woman supports their radical (Stalinist), gender feminist agenda. I'll do your homework this time.
I suspect Palin is an equity feminist, or about to become one. Christina Hoff-Sommers is the woman who coined that word to the best of my recollection in the book "Who Stole Feminism." Christina is a very close affiliate of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF).
http://www.iwf.org/events/show/37.html
Nancy Pfotenhauer, former President of IWF is an economic advisor on The John McCain Campaign. Regarding the wage gap myth, IWF was making the vast majority of the arguments Warren Farrell makes in his book "Why Men Earn More," long before Farrell's book was ever on the shelf.
Here is IWF's article praising Farrell's book. By all means type "wage gap myth" in IWF's search engine and see what comes up on their web site.
http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html
Wendy McElroy is also a feminist, an ifeminist. Bring up equity feminist and Ifeminist in any discussion with a woman's studies major and they will go ballistic, very similar to the way NOW just did when Palin was nominated for V.P.
Oh, and by the way, Cheif Justice John Roberts wife is a pro-life feminist. She's affiliated with "Feminists for Life."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1461.html
It may seem confusing with all the different adjectives placed in front of feminism by different groups, but it behoves every MRA, FRA, and even feminists, to understand those differences or come off sounding like an ignoramus, IMO
August 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:02 am
David M Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I don't think any Democrats want to cite Sarah Palin's inexperience or accomplishments. She beats Obama in both categories.
=========
Not by much.
b
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b- Name an accomplishment of Obama's once he got into the office he was vying for???
August 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Esther Vilar states in her book "The manipulated man" that putting morality and societal well being into the hands of the women, is definatelly lowering the bar, for women are more selfish and narcicistic.
Whether she has a case or not is for her readers to decide, but one thing is for certain, the American Bar Association is definattelly feeding heavy off the matriarchal chaos they have fomented.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
bmmg39:
People are against abortion until they need one. Time and time again. Only the most extreme people want to ban abortion.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites.
You support Sarah Palin simply because NOW does not. You ignore everything negative about her but concentrate on her anti-choice views (which are extremist) and pretend to support her. You think that women will switch from Obama to her—why? Does the fact that she’s under investigation mean anything to you? Very, very simple minded people.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
"Does the fact that she’s under investigation mean anything to you? Very, very simple minded people."
Now, now Jeana, try to remain objective regarding the facts, and please lay off the ad hominen attacks on posters to this site. You're not posting at some incendiary. loony leftist blog, or rabid, right wing blog. The following may help clear up some of your obfuscation, regarding the facts in question:
http://tinyurl.com/6erzpk
"Investigation dogs Alaska governor
By STEVE QUINN – Aug 14, 2008
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin, a rising young GOP star mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, could see her clean-hands reputation damaged by a growing furor over whether she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.
Palin's problems started a month ago when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, saying she wanted the department to go in a new direction.
Monegan has said he does not know why he was fired. But he said pressure to get rid of Wooten had come from those around Palin, including her husband, Todd; her former chief of staff; and other top officials.
In 2005, before Palin ran for office, the Palin family accused Wooten of drinking a beer while in his patrol car, illegal hunting and firing a Taser at his 11-year-old stepson. The Palins also claimed Wooten threatened to kill Sarah Palin's father.
Wooten was suspended over the allegations for five days in 2006 but is still on the job. Monegan refused to comment on Wooten's situation, saying he could not discuss personnel matters.
More recently, Todd Palin said, he took his concerns over the governor's safety directly to Monegan. But he said he never told anyone to fire Wooten.
Wooten has refused to comment.
Attorney General Talis Colberg's conducted an investigation and found that 14 members of the Palin administration — including Colberg himself — made calls to Department of Public Safety officials about Wooten.
In one of those calls, Frank Bailey, director boards and commissions, was tape-recorded as saying: "Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, why on earth hasn't, why is this guy still representing the department?"
On Wednesday, Palin said none of the two dozen or so calls were made at her direction.
Bailey, similarly, said he acted on his own. He said the only time he heard the governor discuss Wooten was during a security briefing shortly after she was elected.
"From that point on I've had a concern this person could fly off the handle and do something terrible to the governor, to her family or to the public," Bailey said."
AND:
"Palin said she welcomes the investigation: "Hold me accountable.'"
I guess my only question is, "Will Joe Biden try to "beat her up" with this during any future V.P. debates? There's no excuse for that kind of treatment of a woman by a man, even if it's Mr. VAWA :-)
August 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I cannot fathom the obama family and those 2 precocious kids in the white house ... and all the cute taxeshe'll impose (for only the rich? uh, yeah...sure).
The only positive thing abut obama is his V.P. pick -- who is also too far to the left.
McCain, I'm confortable with except for his age ...... But, if elected, it's terrifying to know there's a possibility that Palin could land in the white house.
I'll go with McCain ... at least the family has some class (cindy and the boys)
Also think Cindy has plenty of attributes
August 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Jeana said:
"Only the most extreme people want to ban abortion."
My reply:
40, 000, 000 human beings killed over a period of four decades. Yea, no extremism there. :-(
August 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
like a million abortions per year?
August 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
BREAK THE GLASS CEILING !!!
WOW ... What a great pick!!! America should elect
McCain & Palin for the Whitehouse in November,
for a return to wholesome American values.
An experienced Governor for V.P. vs. a
community organizer for President ... I pick Palin.
No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Ayers, no Rezko,
no mean Michelle, NOBAMA
August 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Break the glass ceiling for what? If she becomes president she'll be a disaster. We're talking about putting the former mayor of a town of 9000, accustomed to running cookie bake sales and PTA meetings, in charge of the most powerful economy and military in the history of the world.
If McCain dies, America will definitely think twice before putting another woman in the White House.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Nobody supports the right of a man to impregnate against a woman's will; it takes two to tango, unless it's rape. As long as we have a situation in which abortion is legal, a man should be entitled to the same right to terminate his responsibilities. And I'm sure that there are some posters here who are not pro-life. MRAs aren't all cast in the same mold.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
roy, i mean in addition to resembling a siamese cat ... *snort*
August 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
(jeana way back up this thread) -- "First of all, pro-abortion means you think pregnancies should end in abortion. PRO-CHOICE means you think the female should be able to choose the outcome of her pregnancy. Pro-life & anti-choice mean you do not think the female should have a choice in the outcome of her pregnancy. Pro-abortion is actually extreme RIGHT wing, very China-like."
I tried hard to understand this logic, but sadly I failed.
Pro-abortion rights does not mean you believe pregnancies SHOULD end in abortion. It simply means a woman has that legal right/choice within limits.
And you can't really justify the idea that "pro-life" means women get more choices, because these people want to overturn Roe v. Wade and BAN legal abortions.
How does that translate into "choice?"
You know what would be an interesting social experiment? Develop a reliable male birth control pill. I think the abortion rate would plummet immediately.
Women do not just "have" abortions. Abortions require two people to create. Maybe along with some poor choices about who you sleep with and your deficient ideas about contraception.
In a culture that is seriously anti-family in almost every respect, abortions are just a part of the economy... another business enterprise. Millions and millions of dollars are made.
How is it any different than the war racket where we slaughter not just our "enemies," but our own men and women for profit?
One of my favorite college professors liked to say -- "When the last capitalist is hanged, the next to the last will sell the rope." Harsh but true.
I truly think Americans are up against some very hard realizations about what we have been led to believe about "our" country and its values.
Maybe there really will be a Second American Revolution?
Naw. Let's believe our President and go shopping instead....
August 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
My grandfather, long dead, introduced me to the Don Quixote and Sancho Panza story.
Tilting against windmills etc. An idealistic fool and his pragmatic assistant in foolishness.
That is how I see Obama and McCain.
I just can't figure out -- which one is Don, and which one is Sancho?
August 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
jeana Says: There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites.
My response: There is no way in HELL that any of you feminists can simultaneously be for a woman’s right to an abortion and against the President's decision to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I fully support abortion rights and I fully support our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that make me a left wing extremist or a right wing extremist? Both war and abortion are barbaric but so is our culture and society so what's the big deal? I may be barbaric but at least I am not a hypocrite.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Georgia Girl .... I like siamese cats!
But why do they seldom let Cindy speak?
She could at least meow.
Look. She inherited her wealth from her father. Maybe she is just dumb as a brick? But her resume suggests otherwise. I just do not get why Michelle Obama has become quite an asset in the campaign, and Cindy is like wallpaper.
Give the woman a chance to speak and define herself! (Some guy is writing that speech as we type...)
But, even after I hear her define herself ... she still scares me.
I think she reminds me of a girlfriend that did something very bad a long time ago.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Ray,
I stand by my assessment. For all the crying I hear about how lame women are, you people are running to the support of this inexperienced woman and comparing her to a clearly more presidential leader.
FYI, Obama’s experience includes 8 years in the Illinois state Senate & 4 in the US Senate. Palin is a soccer mom who was a mayor of a tiny town & 2 years as Gov. in a state with less than a million people.
And you people criticize NOW for being—what—consistent with their ideology? If they weren’t and instead threw their support behind Palin, you’d all have something to say about that too.
I do think that’s pathetic and simple minded. And we’ll see where the investigation goes.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jeana: "There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites."
I doubt you'll find anyone commenting on this blog who believes in both those things. Abortion - the ability to legally terminate one's responsibilities to a foetus - represents a choice women have that men do not. The "choice for men" slogan highlights this by arguing that a man should also be able to terminate his responsibility to a foetus by walking away. That would be equality. Others advocate removing women's choice, thus making the choices equal for both sexes.
If you can find one commenter advocating giving men the choice to terminate their responsibility while at the same time removing a women's choice to do the same thing, I'll be very impressed. We believe in the equality of the sexes.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
"why do they seldom let cindy speak?"
cuz they're saving their biggest asset for last
I used to view her as a very insipid person whose job was to strut around in designer clothes, but lordy be .... she actually CAN talk, roy! Sounds pretty good too. I saw her co-host the tv show, the "View".
Granted, she comes from old money, but she's doubled busch sales since taking over. It's still family operated ..... Johnny used to work for her dad as a PR guy. She also had sense enough to get a pre-nupt. Does a lot of other stuff too mainly for kids' organizations.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
jeana, thanks for spelling "consistent" with an "e" ...*wink*
August 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
(donnie w. ) -- "as usual, roy over thinks in order to impress himself."
Man, you just inflated my ego!
Do people call you Don?
August 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Roy,
This might help you make your determination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfr_N3PtHOg
Patrick,
The game being played here is simple. Locate one guy who is against abortion... locate a completely different guy who supports paper abortions for men... and then declare the lot of us hypocrites because of the discrepancy.
This doesn't work though because it is entirely possible for people here to disagree with one another... and on these issues I am sure that those on either side of this issue are in fact in disagreement.
It's the same way we are being told that we are all supporting this woman as a candidate when I know that I've read many criticisms of her here already.
The whole strategy is to find one person who believes one thing, and then attribute their perspective to the group... essentially each one of us talks for all of us.
August 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
You know what is potentially interesting about all this Internet "life on the screen" stuff?(Thank you Sherry Turkle, google her. She anticipated this entire disaster years ago.)
You can start with any topic. It can be serious or casual.
And the whole place very quickly becomes an eruption of personal voices.
I have some education in ethnography -- a silly academic word for "trying to figure stuff out."
Mostly looking at narratives (stories) and how they are constructed.
What Glenn's site has become is almost like a novel.
Lots of voices and characters and stories and anecdotes.
I think Glenn has almost by accident become the next Mark Twain.
Really it is a chronicle of everything foolish and ironic about America.
At least the gender wars part.
There has to be a way to make Glenn rich. We need to focus.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
OK, but Georgia....
If you can imagine a debate between Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain?
Is that even fair?
Is it even possible?
August 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I'm not American and don't get to vote in the presidential election, so my interest in it is academic. But I think Jeana is right about one thing - those commenters on the political right are trying very hard to find things they like about Palin.
It's only natural. If someone presents themselves as on our side, we want to believe them, and politicians pretend accordingly. The left promises to use the power of the state to make things better for the poor and vulnerable, the right promises to reduce the power of the state and not interfere with individuals' lives, but in practice, both left and right use the power of the state to feather-bed themselves, their friends and their funders.
I can't see much to like about any of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates. McCain is belligerent and has chosen a VP with no real track record to judge her on, apparently because he thinks a woman running mate might persuade a few of Hillary Clinton's supporters to vote for him. Obama is a smooth-talker who tries to be all things to all men, and has picked as his VP the man responsible for VAWA. What a choice.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
by the way, i think i figured out where your daughter works ..... if i'm right, then she has got to be super talented .... they demand the best and won't settle for less.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Patrick,
"I can't see much to like about any of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates."
I've been saying the same thing for months... every choice presented has been terrible in my opinion.
In addition I believe that our country (Or maybe since you aren't American I should be saying my country) has a nonsensical obsession with abortion and gay marriage issues that serves to distract from the far more pressing issues of energy policy, the environment, foreign policy, and the economy.
It is sort of like living in a neighborhood where your kids are constantly getting into fist fights with the neighbors children, the house is in a state of disrepair with a serious termite problem, it seems like you're about to lose your job because the company is down sizing... but you've convinced yourself that the REALLY pressing problem that requires immediate attention is the fact that your front lawn has a slight dead patch that could use some new grass seed.
I understand that the two aforementioned issues are really important to many people... I just wish that more people believed that they are minor in comparison to several other challenges that our nation needs to confront within the next few years.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
didn't mean to jump off topic
A debate between cindy and michelle? but why not, roy
Cindy is a southen cal grad .... and has been around the block (the world, actually)
Michelle's got princeton and harvard.
Do you think of a debate as a "no contest" (in whose favor)?
August 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Does the fact that she’s under investigation mean anything to you? Very, very simple minded people.
____________________________________________________________________
Jeana, Thanks for proving that you are of the same mind as the extreme feminists.
Because you disaprove of Sarah Palin she is automatically guilty without any evidence or trial. Therefore anyone who might like her is "Very, very simple minded people."
Thanks for being so transparent jeana it really makes it easy to understand you.
Please enlighten me on the following:
1. Obama's 20 year connection to Reverend Wright, an obvious racist.
2. Obama's business with Tony Rezko a convicted Felon.
3. Obama's admitted friendliness toward Ayers an admitted terrorist.
I need an explanation after you harsh words for Sarah Palin. Realistically I don't expect one. I suspect as most women you will feel you are entitled to throw daggers with no responsibility for your words.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Cindy's problem is her habit of stealing drugs from the charities she's working for; Michelle's is that she despises America.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
SOW is consistent all right -- consistently evil.
No they don't just support a woman because she is a woman -- she has to hate men too.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
NOW hates this woman for many reasons. First and foremost, she did not kill her baby once she found out it had down syndrome. (by the way, it is not surprising that it did because of her age. the risk goes up exponentially with age.)
My uber liberal sister defied liberal orthodoxy and likewise chose life for her son with downs.
Second, she looks like she stepped of the studio from the Van Halen video shoot of "Hot For Teacher."
Third, she does not ooze hatred of America with every breath as the O's do.
Four, Mrs. Palin can speak well of America without sounding phony.
And don't forget, The VAWA that so many liberals support, has gotten many innocent men arrested regardless of voter registration and does nothing to protect male victims of violence. But then, any law with discrimination written into it is BAD LAW.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
jeana Says: Palin is a soccer mom...
My question to jeana: So are you saying that she was ONLY a housewife and mother for a large number of years and that fact proves that she is not smart and/or industrious enough to be the VP of our country? Are you saying that the experience she gained as a housewife and a mother would be of no significant value to her or our country if she were the VP? Are you saying that housewives are not qualified to be VP?
August 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Yes, bobo, she had to come out with the drugs issue, else the media would have crucified her.
"michelle despises america"
nah, but mccain supporters love it when the dems screw up (politics as usual huh)
August 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
andrew, i'm not jeana, but i'd say "yes" to all 3 of your questions since i'm a sexist :)
jeana, i can't leave until you give me a knowingly wink back at my 3:42 ~ !
August 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
"I stand by my assessment. For all the crying I hear about how lame women are, you people are running to the support of this inexperienced woman and comparing her to a clearly more presidential leader."
Obama and Biden aren't qualified to lead anything, given their big promotion of gender feminist politics. I wouldn't vote for either if they were only running for dog-catcher, let alone any higher office.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
G. Girl -- "by the way, i think i figured out where your daughter works ..... if i'm right, then she has got to be super talented .... they demand the best and won't settle for less."
I could sneak you into her book in January 2009.
She is an artist in the science of making women feel good about themselves.
I once thought that was a superficial career, but then how do you explain the money?
And every woman she treats leaves happy, at a minimum $100 dollars poorer.
It is beyond my comprehension.
But then when you think about it, a happy woman who feels good about herself is a joy to live with. So, my daughter is actually performing a very efficient social service for men.
I never intended to create this profit machine. She wanted to join the CIA when she was a kid.
Wanted to be a spy. I think maybe she is. Spying on feminism in the spa.
My younger daughter is at university, studying to become a communist.
Not much profit in that line of work, but what can you say to a 20 year old who looks like Madonna's love child?
Being a father of daughters is a very strange experience, yes?
August 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
it's a billion dollar industry (making women feel and look good)
we should all have superficial careers, yes?
other daughter, a communist lol
bet she's at northwestern and likes obama
August 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Jeana: "People are against abortion until they need one. Time and time again. "
And what do you mean by "need one?" About 80-90% of Down Syndrome children end up aborted. Many people, including doctors, seem to believe that a mother "needs one" when her unborn child is diagnosed with DS. Governor Palin demonstrated otherwise.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
It would be fun to post my daughter's photos. But the only time I did that on a respectible men's web site I was banned and accused of being cruel.
I was frankly stunned by the response that somehow I was "taunting" men.
They (the girls) were elegantly dressed up for a concert in Chicago, nothing even remotely improper.
It puzzles me still how MRA's on that particular site thought that was provocative.
I guess I should have made less attractive female children?
Every father of a daughter is going to face this challenge. (Glenn, you have no idea how beautiful she will eventually be. It is frighteneing you to see how it happens.....)
As a dad, I have had to learn that female beauty is a mixed blessing.
I mean, what would it be like to have to be stared at every time you walk down a street?
It gets old and most women understand what I am saying.
I'm still not sure it is sexist. Could be, they just are pretty to look at, right?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Paper Abortions
Jeana says: "There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites."
PK responds: For the record, Jeana, I never liked the concept of the paper abortion because I think that men's and women's situations are different and therefore both genders should have different advantages and liabilities. The current police state, though, is about women doing as they please right up to legally abandoning children and men have virtually zero "rights" at all with custody and visitation being largely arbitrary.
Even if abortion is illegal, if women enjoy sole default custody and abandonment rights then men shouldn't be obligation to support them outside of marriage and that's largely been the case for most societies long before medical abortion was available.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I would like to hear why NOW is not defending her for getting her brother-in-law fired. The guy was an abusive jerk according to most sources. He tased his step-son, and word is he was drunk a lot. If that is who NOW or the Dems want to have as their "victim" then I am sure he will be a great poster boy for them. If she indeed did get him fired, good for her. From the sounds of things he abused his power as a policeman. Maybe she was just doing her job.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Bobolobo,
“Michelle's [problem] is that she despises America.”
Don’t all we liberals despise America? Isn’t that what everyone on the right says, over and over again? And actually, I’m looking forward to the day when I can stop being ashamed to be an American. Eight years of tyranny is enough.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Over da top
"Eight years of tyranny is enough."
Has GW been kicking down your door, Jeana? On the contrary, GW and his father were both political moderates, like McCain, who spent most of their time getting along with the left than advancing a conservative or even "right wing" agenda.
The real election is going on with the Joe and Jane Six-Pack undecideds and if the left wants to argue that McCain or even GW Bush are fascists then they may find that argument falling flat. I love to go over the top myself, but I also realize that there is a true upper limit you can reach before you become an enemy of your own credibility even with an open minded listener.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Silver Lining
Jeana writes: I’m sure more info re: her will come out. Oh, and one more fun fact that is near and dear to you MRA’s hearts: She’s currently under investigation for using her position to fire her ex-brother-in-law (a state trooper) allegedly because he was going thru a divorce & custody battle with Palin’s sister (which is still going on). The guy had issues, but should she have intervened? (http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510080.html)
PK responds: Indeed. Jeana, if this is the case then the left may wind up throwing mud around and having it fall on them if they say that men shouldn't be trashed by a women-friendly court system.
A similar thing is happening as they attack her for her lack of experience (Hmmm, there's another guy with a lack of experience running for another office... :-) Or feminists bashing Schwartzenneggar for sexual harassment allegations. Hypocrisy is a pretty dangerous game to play and it requires brains. I always gave the left credit for being smart, in their own way, for knowing how to play it masterfully. It appears that they're believing their own press releases though.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
PK,
See my post at 6:16. You made some good points.
BC
August 30th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
PK,
The things you note are why I actually think she was selected... because to attack her, the democratic party will have to constantly hedge and explain why it is alright for them to do so.
She's just a political trap... either they leave her alone and focus just on attacking McCain... allowing her to say all sorts of politically incorrect things with impunity. Or they go after her and end up compromising their own arguments to a large degree.
It is a strange but clever strategy, pick a running mate with flaws similar to your opponent such that if they are brought up by your opponent it damages them as well... too bad it doesn't actually address any truly important issues. I know that NOW and many feminists are inclined to believe that her selection was intended to make a grab for the women vote... but I'm guessing that is only a small part of the picture. She is essentially a political human shield.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
No Jason,
Instead of trying to make excuses about out why they made such a stupid choice, why don't you ask why didn't the GOP pick someone who was very popular--like Huckabee? Or Romney? She's no political trap for us. She's everything we dislike about conservatives. Anti-choice (even in cases of rape & incest), anti-birth control, anti-comprehensive sex education & only for abstinence-only "education", anti-environment, and very little experience. There is no similarity between her and either Obama or Biden.
Very dishonest of you guys. And I'd like to see where the fake pregnancy rumors go. Wouldn't that be funny if it were true and her 5th kid was really her 16-year old daughter's?
Face it, the McCain campaign doesn't know what they're doing. Pick a strong candidate or a weak one? Hey, let's pick the weak one! Then the Republican-controlled media will do our bidding and spin it in a positive light. Can't lose!
August 30th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
"a political human shield"
Deep, deep, deep revelation.
....... an opinion that has been tossed around in every major newspaper ... if you read the political commentary section of your newspaper?
August 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Jeana,
Neither campaign knows what they are doing... they both suck and are full of a cluster of people who don't have what it takes to fix a broken toy let alone a broken country.
Also... watch your tone a bit and stop it with the us vs them mentality.
You keep functioning under this impression that everyone here except you is a conservative.
Guess what... when you say "us"... I'm one of you (so long as we are talking about overall liberal versus conservative leanings).
Go ahead and make the democratic party exlusive to only those who agree with you on everything... see how far that gets you.
Also... you don't talk for all of "us" liberals... so please stop doing so.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
GG,
Everyone get's it already... you're obsessed with me and are going to follow me around through Glenn's blog whereever I go reading every word I say only to declare how boring I was, or to locate some unimportant typo (such as my missing the c in exclusive just above).
I let you have the last word before, what more do you want?
Either contribute something to the debate or get back under your bridge.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
in otherwords, J, the perspective of "the human shield" (palin) has been in the news ever since the announcement of johnny's V.P. It is not a new perspective.
hey, Jeana, even tho i could never vote for obama cuz my dad would climb out of his grave, I love to see your arguments !!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
"Eight years of tyranny is enough."
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
"Very dishonest of you guys. And I'd like to see where the fake pregnancy rumors go. Wouldn't that be funny if it were true and her 5th kid was really her 16-year old daughter's?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeana your radical feminism is showing. Tyranny implies you have been a victim. Very feminist sounding. How have you been a victim?
Then "very dishonest of you guys and then sling mud at this woman by saying wouldn't it be funny if it were true her 5th kid was really her 16-year old daughter's?"
Very nice thing to say jeana, and again right along with what a radical feminist would say.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
i do contribute but I don't "copy" .... i prefer to offer something "original" if I have it . If I don't have it, I listen (usually the case) ... I especially listen to jeana. Please stop telling her to "watch her tone". She can use any tone she wants ...
August 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
GG,
Are you actually suggesting that everything that is discussed here has to be an idea that no one else on the face of the earth has thought of or mentioned before?
In the same breath that you claim that my perspective is not new... you praise Jeana's "arguments" which have been plastered over every newspaper for months.
You are so transparent you might as well be made of cellophane.
Also, would you mind showing me where she's been refered to as a political human shield before, because I haven't seen it... if it is really everywhere this should be an easy task.
Do us both a favor... if you have a point then make it, otherwise you're better off saying nothing.
Believe me, everyone here has heard everything you've said before... so if the standard for me to express my thoughs is that they have to be completely new and novel, then I'll assume you need to be held to the same standard.
"i do contribute but I don't "copy" .... i prefer to offer something "original" if I have it ."
I've never seen you do this... but I have seen you copy the works of other people and post them to Glenn's blog directly. When you say you offer something "original" does this include your remarkable revelation that the beauty industry is a billion dollar industry?... because trust me, we all already knew that.
As a matter of fact, I've never seen you contribute anything "original" here ever.
Is this really the topic though?... how original my posts are?... or are you just trying to start your crap again?
Is this really going you're going to be handling things here from now on?... that any time I say anything you are going to try and start a fight... by telling me how boring or unoriginal you think I am and count my typos?
If so might I suggest getting a life?
My interest is to hold actual conversations with people here and to discuss the issues... if that isn't your interest then kindly act as if I don't exist. There are other people who want to talk here too and you are making a concerted effort to ruin it for everyone.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
btw, the 3:52 to patrick is such an obvious put-down ... totally unnecessary
August 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
comparing a KNOWN fact (billion dollar industry)
to a
supposedly new concept of your "human shield" comment, which you try to peddle as your own original "idea" ..... oh puh-leeeze, that doesn't get it
it just gets tiresome .... nobody else here DOES that~!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
georgia,
Nice detective work.
But my daughter, yes at NU, just wants another revolution.
Well I made her in the Grenada Revolution and I think she thinks that can happen again.
You have to be really careful about where and when you inseminate a woman.
The politics count.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Fishydude,
“First and foremost, she did not kill her baby once she found out it had down syndrome.’
This is disgusting and just plain stupid. And she better not have aborted since she would force every one of us to have every single pregnancy regardless of any circumstances. Since when does NOW say to abort a Down syndrome fetus? No one says that. I believe being pro-choice means leaving that choice up to the female. Leave NOW out of it.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
David M.
Can you explain exactly why you think I’m a radical feminist because I believe we’ve been thru 8 years of Republican tyranny? That makes me a radical liberal if anything. And I don’t have to embrace Palin at all. But it would be funny if her teen daughter was pregnant since she is anti-birth control and anti-sex education. Funny and tragic. And show just how wrong conservatives are on that issue.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Andrew,
Do YOU think that being a soccer mom qualifies you to be VP? She said on record that she wasn’t quite sure what the duties of a VP were. Hello!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
actually, i find most people here to be genuine
as i said on another thread, J, if you use passive aggression, I will call your attention to it ..... i.e., your 3:52
August 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
roy, i can't talk, i'm busy wielding my sword .... that means you better duck!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
georgia girl says
i especially listen to jeanna,please stop telling her to watch her tone.she can use any tone she wants.
didnt i read one of your posts where you told roy he needs to shut the hell up.what hypocrisy.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Jason,
I never said I spoke for all liberals. I never said I spoke for all feminists or all women. I speak only for myself. My “tone” is really one of disgust for the hypocrisy I see here. Supporting someone who is anti-birth control, being anti-condom, being anti-abortion, wanting to have no financial or other responsibilities for pregnancies, wanting to abolish medical and social programs that help the poor keep their babies, etc. is what I mean. And sorry if you think I lump all of you into one collective MRA. That is how you appear to me. If more of you actually debated each other on what you believe, then I’d think otherwise. But you usually don’t. So you are one patchwork man in my eyes. Until I see otherwise. So far in this thread, only Roy (and I can’t believe I agree with him!), seems to understand you can’t have it both ways.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
David M.
Can you explain exactly why you think I’m a radical feminist because I believe we’ve been thru 8 years of Republican tyranny?
______________________________________________________________________
I will try again. What tyranny have you been through? How have you been a victim?
Why do you need to say nasty things about Sarah Palin?. These two things are what radical
feminists do. 1. Claim victimhood. 2. Say nasty things rather than make points with facts and logic! This parallels radical feminism.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
G. Girl -- "hey, Jeana, even tho i could never vote for obama cuz my dad would climb out of his grave, I love to see your arguments !!"
That is very, very classy.
I really like to watch girls with superior logic fight.
It is even better when they decide to have a dialogue.
You two women are about to understand something.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Dave the Slave, no, you never read that post .... cuz i didn't post it ....
but while i've got you here, can you shed some light on a statement you made to deborah earlier? Deborah was violently attacked by her daughter's landlord and sustained a serious injury when thrown against a door or whatever.
You said:
"i too am sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience. if your story is true and you did nothing to provoke his actions he should be called to account for it".
Let's suppose her story is indeed true. Let's take it a step further and suppose that she DID provoke the landlord into physically abusing her.
If she DID provoke him, are you condoning the landlord's violence against her?
August 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
David M,
I am very liberal. She is very conservative. And, in my opinion, not worthy of a VP nomination. I’m against everything she’s for. It has nothing to do with her being female. I don’t have to love the other side.
And I can’t go into all the reasons I don’t like this administration. It’s not victimhood. Not for me. I was aware since day one. For the country.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
And really, unless she pulled a weapon on the guy or started attacking him physically, there is no other way she could "provoke" him into being violent.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
roy, you always keep me on my tippy-toes ..... but, really, have you ever seen a cat fight here? what a tacky thought.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Roy,
I actually hate talking about politics with people who think opposite. It is tiring. And my father and I get into screaming matches. I scream and he taunts, like you males do here. I can’t take it. I should leave this thread now.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
David M,
I am very liberal. She is very conservative. And, in my opinion, not worthy of a VP nomination. I’m against everything she’s for. It has nothing to do with her being female. I don’t have to love the other side.
And I can’t go into all the reasons I don’t like this administration. It’s not victimhood. Not for me. I was aware since day one. For the country.
_____________________________________________________________________
Again jeana you have paralleled radical feminism. When asked a direct set of questions you refuse to answer. And I didn't say it had anything to be with her being female.
I will try for a third time. Here are my points again. What tyranny have you suffered through?
Why is it neccessary to say nasty things rather than state some logic and some facts.
Hint: The more you refuse or can't answer these questions the more you parallel radical feminists.
Your turn.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I believe I already stated facts about why I don't like Palin above.
Tyranny: a government that thinks it can spy on its citizens, that tortures people, that invades sovereign nations, that gives tax breaks to the rich and hurts everyone else, ETC. Radical feminism means “I hate men”. Not “I am a liberal.”
August 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
jeana, i'm sure i would like your dad :) --- staunch republican!
and NO, you cannot leave .... if you leave, the room will empty and become defunct..
and i would have no entertainment .....
August 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
so you need to wait til 7:30 (pacific time).
August 30th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Now jeana and G. Girl --
Can you please just accept my respect for BOTH of your voices?
Get over what keeps you from expressing your true identities.
You have such amazing voices!
And it is completely OK to disagree.
Why am I such a supporter of each of you?
Tell me.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
roy,
You don't support either one of us. Be real. You swing back and forth. I like when you swing into the light.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
GG,
I need to go now. Forced by controlling husband. Bye!
August 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
roy, you have an amazing voice yourself ................. and thank you very much for the compliment. But i'm scratching my head over that last question ..... please tell, ok?
and the more sugar you use, the better :) (women love that)
August 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
goodnight, jeana, you little fireball .... and a good sunday!
August 30th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Just a hint -
I created two daughters and they are like complete opposites! I made them with the same gorgeous wife.
It continues to drive me crazy to see two females that I co-created and they are like aliens.
Aside from the the jeana and Georgia riff (which is still worth pursuing) -- can you girls give a dad any real advice about surviving daughters?
I know, it is pitiful to ask anonymous females for advice.
But these women are rare.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
And I know you are not sleeping.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
jeana Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I believe I already stated facts about why I don't like Palin above.
Tyranny: a government that thinks it can spy on its citizens, that tortures people, that invades sovereign nations, that gives tax breaks to the rich and hurts everyone else, ETC. Radical feminism means “I hate men”. Not “I am a liberal.”
_________________________________________________________________
Okay your going to refuse to say why you need to say nasty things about Sarah Palin I get it. Since you don't know her you shouldn't dislike her, you should dislike beliefs. Still why the nasty things??? Is it like a junior highschool girl thing?
Tyranny: a government that thinks it can spy on its citizens. Okay under the threat of terrorism yes the Bush admin is trying to protect U.S. citizens and we have not had a terrorist attack since Sept. 11th. My guess is if we had another one you would be accusing Bush of being an incompetent for not protecting U.S. citizens enough. You can't have it both ways.
If one of your family members lives could be save d by waterboarding you would tell them to do it in a second. No one waterboarded suffered any permanent injury and information received has most certainly saved lives according to the FBI. The soverein nation of Iraq defied the United Nations 17 times and refused to let inspectors check for nukes etc. As for tyranny the word you are fond of using- Iraq lived under the Tyranny of Saddam Hussein and family for decades. Murdering, raping, torturing.
"That gives tax breakes to the rich and hurts everone else." Not sure what hurting everyone else is so I can't speak to that.
I don't have this info in front of me but am going to go by memory- The top 5% of the rich pay something like 45% of the income tax in this country. Also anyone that knows anthing about economics knows that if you take too much from the rich it will not be invested in jobs and there will be an increase in unemployment. This also prevents them and people that would possibly work for them from purchasing goods produced by others. A trickle down effect.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Proving, women are cruel.
I asked for help.
What I received was silence.
It would be nice to be wrong just once in a while.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
You are revealing a lot of "good stuff" about yourself merely by acknowledging you didn't make them (your daughters) by "yourself" .... you actually gave half the credit to a gorgeous ex-wife. Roy, that's gutsy.
You don't need any advice from jeana or me on how to raise your daughters ..... seems you did just fine ..... one's makin' boo-koo's of money and the other one's in college.
Have one of my puff-pastries wif crab.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
The real fear for NOW from Sarah Palin, is that she may turn out to be a good woman leader, become a role model, inspire women to participate in politics thinking more of issues than me-me-me. Then they will occupy a significant portion of congress and NOW will loose the claim of "patriarchy" based on ratios of genders in Congress.
Victimhood, Oh Dear Victimhood, how can I let go of thee?
August 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
georgia girl
my unreserved apologies it was actually LorMarie who posted that comment.However i read many stories even on here about men who are subjected to violence by women i have NEVER been violent to ANY woman and i would never condone such a thing unless the woman offered violence first. As i said unless he was provoked in such a manner the landlord SHOULD be called to account for his behaviour. Once again apologies for getting yourself and LorMarie mixed up. Must be im suffering from dementia in my old age.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
dave the slave, tis perfectly okay .....
nice of you to apologize, but hey .... no big deal :)
have a nice evening....
August 30th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
jeana Says: I believe being pro-choice means leaving that choice up to the female
My response: What about the male? Does he have any choice? So are you saying that the female has the choice and the male has the obligation to pay child support?
I have no children and got a vasectomy eleven years ago - and yet many people still wonder why.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
georgia girl
nice of you to be MAN lol enough to accept my apology i know many men who wouldnt be as accommodating.Always nice to read your posts even if i dont always agree with them.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Jeana Says:
"I never said I spoke for all liberals. I never said I spoke for all feminists or all women."
Really?... then what was all of this business about when you said this:
"She's no political trap for us. She's everything we dislike about conservatives."
Who is the "us" here?... who is the "we" here?
I was assuming that you weren't talking about some mass of Jeana personalities and that you were instead referring to some group... you know, like liberals, or feminists, or women. I actually thought you were talking about the group of liberals, in which case then I am saying that as a liberal I'd like to be able to voice my own opinion and not be lumped into your communal "us" and "we". If you meant some other "us" and "we" then I will stand corrected.
"My “tone” is really one of disgust for the hypocrisy I see here."
Believe me, no one despises hypocrisy more than I do... it is my pet peeve. I don't like it amongst men and I don't like it amongst women.
That being said, I don't think any individual is being hypocritical so far as I can tell on that score.
Some individuals are against abortion... and others are against being forced to have financial responsibilities when they have no choice in whether or not the baby is born.
These are two separate groups of people... in order to suggest that they are being hypocritical those beliefs need to be put forth by the exact same person.
Even then, PK seems to be putting both propositions forth... he offers an alternative explanation that mitigates his hypocrisy by stating that if women are going to be given default custody and abandonment rights and men aren't, that men ought to have the right to not be financially responsible even if abortion is illegal.
So the one person who I see who holds both beliefs explains why he believes them in a manner that at least offers some justification. Now if you want to dissagree with him that is one thing... but his main point seems to be that men and women should just get different rights with relation to children... not that one should get more than the other.
"And sorry if you think I lump all of you into one collective MRA. That is how you appear to me."
Um... this is the same thing racists say. Please try and treat us as individuals.
"If more of you actually debated each other on what you believe, then I’d think otherwise."
No you wouldn't because in case you didn't notice, I put up a youtube video of an interview of Palin which I thought demonstrated that she wasn't a good candidate... yet you still bent over backwards to yell at me about how I was somehow making "excuses" for why she was selected and trying to justify her place on the ticket.
If you had been paying any attention you would have realized that on this isolated issue I actually agree with you that she probably isn't a good choice.
It's quite amazing to me that you're so blinded by this "you all appear the same to me" mentality that even if someone here happens to by chance agree with you on an isolated point... you still act like they are disagreeing with you.
That being said, my main reason for not thinking she is a good candidate is because I would like for my VP candidate to have an idea of what the job entails before they accept the nomination... your main reason for not thinking she is a good candidate is because of her views on abortion.
As I said before, I think all the candidates are lack luster... so acting like I am looking to support any of them is not accurate.
My honest opinion is that none of the people here are too impressed with Palin... but there are some issues she supports that they support therefore they are willing to give her the benefit of the doubt compared to the other options available.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
jeana Says: Do YOU think that being a soccer mom qualifies you to be VP? She said on record that she wasn’t quite sure what the duties of a VP were. Hello
My response: Hello! According to the US constitution, she is qualified. I suspect that you meant to ask whether her experience as a housewife and a mother would make her a good VP.
For many years, women have been telling us that housewives have such a hard life - housewives cook, clean, raise children, balance the family budget, etc, etc. We have been told that a housewife contributes sooooo much to her family and our society. Anyone who dares to say otherwise is branded a marital heretic. Community property laws were written based on the belief that a housewife contributes just as much to a marriage and family as a husband who earns the money to support the family. How many times have we heard that housewives are underappreciated and undervalued?
Now the feminists are telling us that Sarah Palin is a woeful choice for VP because she was ONLY a housewife for a large number of years. I smell hypocrisy.
By the way and for the record, I am not quite sure what all the duties of a VP are. I do believe that he/she serves as the President of the US Senate. I guess I'll go over to wikipedia and find out what the VP's duties are.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites.”
Madam, a paper abortion is not the equivalent of a physical abortion. One preserves the life of the human-to-be, the other destroys it. That is why one can condemn the first and support the second without being hypocritical.
“Very, very simple minded people.”
Oh please, that’s like Jeremiah Wright calling Don Imus a racist.
.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Andrew,
You are absolutely correct, the VP does preside over the senate in a similar manner to how the speaker of the house presides over the house.
These however are not everyday duties because the senate is not constantly in session.
Palin's confusion was over what the VP does on a day to day basis.
I'll freely admit I have no idea... I'll also freely admit that I don't know exactly what the president does on a day to day basis either. I'm assuming it is filled with meetings and briefs and reports... but that is sort of vague. The jobs might in actuallity be poorly defined in terms of the specifics.
That being said, I do think it is reasonable to expect any potential presidential or vice presidential candidate to have a fairly decent idea of what the job entails before running... which makes it somewhat bothersome to me that she would accept the nomination for a job when she doesn't have a great idea of what she might be getting herself into.
Frankly this would bother me no matter who the candidate was.
That being said, it is possible that none of the candidates have any clue what these jobs are line and have just kept their mouth shut about it. I'd hate to think negatively of her simply because she's the only one honest enough to share that with the rest of us.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Georgia, completely off topic, but how did your meeting with the women of NOW go? As i said last week, if you were serious about the allegations on your blog you'd go to them. Incidentally, i havent heard back from the frat boys. Might they still be passed out around that empty keg, or do they have something to hide? I know not.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
jason, keep sucking up to both sides of the fence
no need to make any "real" convictions ...
that way you can't lose
and everyone will love you?
August 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
GG,
Is this more of your "original" content you were talking about?
Like I said... you are obsessed with me... I am quite certain that you will follow me around like a devoted puppy nipping at my heels for as long as I post here.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
michael hello!
i'm not surprise you didn't hear anything from the alumni assc. Believe me, they do not want to open a can of worms...
I'm going to email you back ..... okay!
glad I ran into you tonight ...
Did I contact NOW? ..... uh, noooo ...... but i guess i should ..... but, really, i doubt even they would be able to help in a non-case so old.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:06 am
Jason,
Me: “"And sorry if you think I lump all of you into one collective MRA. That is how you appear to me."
You: “Um... this is the same thing racists say. Please try and treat us as individuals.”
As soon as I see some differentiation, I will.
“I actually thought you were talking about the group of liberals, in which case then I am saying that as a liberal I'd like to be able to voice my own opinion and not be lumped into your communal "us" and "we".”
Jason, I think it’s pretty safe to say that liberals are, by and large, pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-drilling in Anwar, pro-comprehensive sex education, and anti-Bush. I didn’t think I was going too far out on a limb speaking in general terms like that. Same for feminists in regard to an extremely right-wing anti-choice female candidate. You’re nitpicking.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:07 am
David M,
The Bush admin had nothing to do with no other “9/11” type attack. They only needed one such attack to push thru their agenda and they made sure they got it. You know the Patriot Act was written before 9/11, right? You know PNAC wanted a 9/11 type of attack badly, right? And they got it. Then they could start a war or 2 and begin to steal.
People suffer permanent damage—I think physical but for sure psychological—from waterboarding. And yes, people have died. It’s been banned since I think the Inquisition. But W thinks is fun to have. And anyone who thinks that they get good info from torture doesn’t know anything about interrogation. John McCain renounced this country lots of times as a POW. Why do you think he did that? Ponder it.
I don’t believe in trickle down. Nice theory, but it doesn’t work. And whatever percent the rich pay is not enough. What percent do the pay on average apiece? That is more important. They’re filthy rich, thanks to Republicans. They owe it to this country to pay taxes because they’ve used this country’s infrastructure to gain their riches. And by pulling it out and shoving it in offshore accounts, it doesn’t help any American. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but income has gone down for everyone but the extremely wealthy for the past few years.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:11 am
Michael Claymore,
So you think you can have your fun, refuse to use protection, impregnate someone, prevent her from having an abortion, and also refuse to help her out financially (which might make the difference between her being forced to have an abortion and not). You want all the power and none of the responsibility. That’s not hypocritical?
August 31st, 2008 at 12:15 am
Jeana,
"As soon as I see some differentiation, I will."
I pointed out differentiation. The majority of people who post here are a heterogeneous group that really only share one common theme amongst their beliefs. That men and fathers have recieved a poor deal.
The rest of the beliefs are completely up for grabs. Some are pro-choice, some are pro-life, some believe we need to attend to global warming immediately, some believe it isn't a pressing issue, some believe we need to switch over to renewable forms of energy, some believe we need to tap local oil reserves to help us meet future energy demands... etc.
If you actually listened to what people here were saying you would see that many people here see things differently on all the issues I just listed.
But sure... it's easier just to act like we are all the same and that all our beliefs are somehow diametrically opposed with your own.
"I think it’s pretty safe to say that liberals are, by and large, pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-drilling in Anwar, pro-comprehensive sex education, and anti-Bush."
It isn't really safe to say this though because it assumes that every liberal is "pure" liberal... that they all hold to every aspect of the party line.
This isn't true though, most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others... they then define themselves as liberal or conservative based upon which way they tend to lean more.
"Same for feminists in regard to an extremely right-wing anti-choice female candidate."
Except that Palin is a self described feminist who belongs to a group of feminists who are against abortion.
Who are you to tell her she is wrong?
August 31st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Chris Rock actually does a great job summarizing my feelings when it comes to people declaring themselves to be a liberal or conservative who acts like it is all or nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2c7ZZNcWsA
August 31st, 2008 at 12:23 am
Jason,
Palin can believe anything her heart desires. But to be anti-birth control, anti-sex, anti-abortion, anti-sex education and call yourself a feminist to me doesn’t work. It really doesn’t empower women at all. We’re more than a depository for semen and a baby making oven. I believe in choice; she doesn’t. And the fact that she’s anti-choice isn’t the main reason I don’t like her. It’s just one of many.
I can call myself an MRA. Does that make me one?
Also, you can be a conservative Democrat, but not a conservative liberal. That makes no sense.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:25 am
Jeana,
Please watch the video... as Chris says... most "normal" people are liberal on some issues and conservative on some issues. It isn't the all or nothing game you are trying to make it out to be.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:29 am
Also, how is Palin anti-sex?
The woman has 5 children... something tells me she's not against intercourse.
If I am wrong though I'd love to see some evidence.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:32 am
Jason,
I’ll watch it. I can’t now because I’m doing something. Please note that I’m not saying that PEOPLE must either be liberal or conservative; most have aspects of both (although I think they’re more liberal than they admit). I’m saying that if you call yourself a liberal, there are certain things you most likely ascribe to. Not necessarily every one, but many or most.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:34 am
Anti-sex-before-marriage. Which I can never understand.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:55 am
This doesn't appear to be a fair characterization of Palin's views on women:
"We’re more than a depository for semen and a baby making oven."
The lady is a governor and is going to be running to be the VP of the country... I very much doubt that she believes that women are supposed to be sperm receptacles meant to spit out babies.
Just because she is pro-life doesn't mean she is anti-woman. That is the argument it looks like you are trying to make by saying this.
You don't have to like her, but you could at least acknowledge that she probably doesn't see women this way.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:15 am
Jason,
Someone who thinks that a child raped by her father should have no choice but to continue a pregnancy, go thru labor, and care for a kid with probably lots of problems does not sound, to me, that she thinks very highly of females. Or that she has no soul. If you personally want to be a martyr and show the world how you’re willing to take whatever is given to you, fine. But don’t stop those of us who think a little more of ourselves and force your religious views on us.
She doesn’t think teens should get information on safe sex. That is criminal. Has she heard of AIDS?
“I very much doubt that she believes that women are supposed to be sperm receptacles meant to spit out babies.”
What about being anti-contraception don’t you understand? If you have sex, then you risk pregnancy. With no birth control options, you are essentially saying that women are for baby-making. And she’s not “pro-life” because she’s also pro-death penalty. She’s anti-choice. There’s a difference.
Why do you keep sticking up for her? John McCain is worse. Plus he loves war. She probably does too, but I don’t know for sure.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:35 am
Sarah Palin is better than a feminist. She's a woman approaching the apex of power with stunning honor.
She's everything feminists should have been striving for, and she ignites in us a truly human and complete acceptance of womanhood.
We must aspire. Feminism has failed to do so. Palin makes our spirits soar... because we are becoming what we should be.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:37 am
"Or that she has no soul."
Um... okay...
I'm not saying you have to agree with her (I don't agree with her either)... but don't you think this is a little over the top?
Her reasons for being against abortion are probably the product of her own personal beliefs about the sanctity of life (now if you've got evidence that she is a huge supporter of capital punishment, then that would confuse things a bit).
Here is the issue... when you see a pregnancy that occurs that a woman wants to get out of, you sympathize with the woman... when she sees a pregnancy that occurs that a woman wants out of, she sympathizes with the unborn child.
Neither of these are objectionable positions in and of themselves no matter how much you might like to make one of them seem horrible.
This is the game both sides play though isn't it?... Those who are pro-life assert that those who are pro-choice are baby killers... and those who are pro-choice assert that those who are pro-life are woman haters (or in this case demons... that is what a person would be without a soul, right?).
I know you want to think that there is a definite right and wrong when it comes to this issue... but if it was really that cut and dry it wouldn't be the contentious issue that it is.
Do you really think she feels this way because she thinks poorly of women?... isn't it more likely that she feels this way because she has a strong believe in the preservation of human life?
"She doesn’t think teens should get information on safe sex. That is criminal. Has she heard of AIDS?"
Teens do get information about safe sex... AIDS as well as the incidence of other STD's is on the rise.
Information doesn't seem to be helping much.
"With no birth control options, you are essentially saying that women are for baby-making."
Wouldn't it also mean she is saying that men are for inseminating?
Why isn't that a negative that crosses your radar?
I am saying that the same way she probably doesn't believe that men exist only to inseminate women... she probably also doesn't believe that women only exist to get inseminated.
"And she’s not “pro-life” because she’s also pro-death penalty."
If this is true then she is a hypocrite.
"Why do you keep sticking up for her?"
Because you insist upon saying things like this lady has "no soul".
These are very extreme statements. You can disagree with her political platform without acting like she is a supernatural monster sent from hell to destroy us.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:41 am
Well, with that, Richard, I'm calling it a night. I've said everything I could possibly say. I'll be waiting, Jason, to see any rebuttals to Richard's assessment of the True Woman, Sarah Palin. . But I have a feeling there won't be any.
Oh why oh why couldn't I be her? She really is everything I think women should be. I'll be emptying out my savings account and sending her every last dime.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:59 am
Jeana,
I didn't see you rebutting GG's claim that she'll be voting for McCain... so why do I have to go around rebutting Richard?
You seem much more accepting of her conservative views than any of the men's conservative views which seems strange to me.
Richard seems to like her, I don't and I've already explained why (my reasons aren't nearly as extreme as yours... you dislike her as a person, I just dislike her as a candidate)... but he didn't list any facts to rebut anyway... he just listed his warm fuzzy feelings about her, and he is fully entitled to those warm fuzzy feelings. I don't tell people how to feel about political candidates, but if they list strange facts about them (such as saying they hate women or that they believe women are only good for making babies) I will ask how they came to such extreme conclusions.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:02 am
Relax Jason,
Some people have to make themselves feel better about their political views, without the effort of rational thought or inquiry. You cannot convince them otherwise.
It seems that there apparently is war between women and babies. If you are pro-woman - you have to be anti-baby, and if you are pro-baby - you have to be anti-woman. Yes, I know this is not true, but it gives a very simple form of reasoning for the so-called "complex" thinkers in everyday people. Less pain, less thought = more time for watching "Survivor" or "Lost" - isn't that a win-win for us all?
August 31st, 2008 at 2:11 am
I mentioned honor.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:22 am
Pankaj,
"It seems that there apparently is war between women and babies. If you are pro-woman - you have to be anti-baby, and if you are pro-baby - you have to be anti-woman."
This is a really funny way of putting it... I think I missed that war.
It's all a game of semantics, posturing and redefining terms so each group can try to claim the moral high ground... ultimately all of that makes it impossible for each side to understand one another and potentially reach some sort of resolution.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:37 am
Richard,
You did mention honor... but I've got nothing against her personal character, she might very well be honorable. As I said, I just dislike her as a candidate, I have no reason to believe anything bad about her as a human being... which is kind of why I don't like her being cast as a monster when I see no evidence to suggest that she is.
I may not like her as a candidate, but it isn't because of anything personal against her... I don't like any of the other candidates either, also not because of anything personal. I just don't think any of them have what it takes given the circumstances... hopefully I'll be wrong.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:47 am
To all the Republicans going on about Obama's "inexperience". How can you give 2 cents about experience when you put "W" in office for 2 terms. At least Obama isn't a complete loser, a former drunk and cokehead, wasn't AWOL for 2 years, has been outside the country and speaks proper English! LOL!!
August 31st, 2008 at 6:53 am
@ Chris H
Hey , that's our Tony's bezzie mate you're talking about there ....
August 31st, 2008 at 6:55 am
Madam, you’re blithering again…
“So you think you can have your fun, refuse to use protection, impregnate someone, prevent her from having an abortion, and also refuse to help her out financially (which might make the difference between her being forced to have an abortion and not). You want all the power and none of the responsibility. That’s not hypocritical?”
I said no such thing, and I don’t believe anyone else did either. A real abortion kills, a paper abortion does not.
“Someone who thinks that a child raped by her father should have no choice but to continue a pregnancy, go thru labor, and care for a kid with probably lots of problems…”
Did she ever say the kid couldn’t be put up for adoption? Where is the source for this? Indeed, where are the sources for all these assertions?
“….does not sound, to me, that she thinks very highly of females.’
You don’t have to have a low opinion of women to think they shouldn’t have the right to destroy lives-to-be for no reason other than convenience.
“Or that she has no soul.”
This falls under “Evidence that she is a feminist”.
“As soon as I see some differentiation, I will.”
You’ve never noticed the difference between Harq and Bernie?
August 31st, 2008 at 7:25 am
The Chris Rock video puts it really well- compares it to a gang mentality.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:56 am
jeana Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 12:07 am
David M,
The Bush admin had nothing to do with no other “9/11” type attack. They only needed one such attack to push thru their agenda and they made sure they got it. You know the Patriot Act was written before 9/11, right? You know PNAC wanted a 9/11 type of attack badly, right? And they got it. Then they could start a war or 2 and begin to steal.
People suffer permanent damage—I think physical but for sure psychological—from waterboarding. And yes, people have died. It’s been banned since I think the Inquisition. But W thinks is fun to have. And anyone who thinks that they get good info from torture doesn’t know anything about interrogation. John McCain renounced this country lots of times as a POW. Why do you think he did that? Ponder it.
I don’t believe in trickle down. Nice theory, but it doesn’t work. And whatever percent the rich pay is not enough. What percent do the pay on average apiece? That is more important. They’re filthy rich, thanks to Republicans. They owe it to this country to pay taxes because they’ve used this country’s infrastructure to gain their riches. And by pulling it out and shoving it in offshore accounts, it doesn’t help any American. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but income has gone down for everyone but the extremely wealthy for the past few years.
____________________________________________________________________
Jeana I see that your hate for Bush clouds your judgement and there is no reasoning with you." PNAC wanted a 9/11 attack badly." "So they could start a war or 2 and begin to steal."
Wow! Tell me you aren't one of these conspiracy nuts. And what exactly did they steal?
I watched an interview from a guy that was present during the waterboarding and he said they got valuable information that saved lives. I know-you will say he works for Bush what else is he supposed to say. Inflation due to oil prices has taken up more of peoples income. Mostly due to democrats refusal to drill and some republicans.
Income hasn't gone down the cost of living has gone up.
I think your seething anger toward Bush and the republicans would cause you to put a negative spin on anything. As far as wanting 9/11 your only a whisper from the Rosie O'Donnell school of thought where Bush planned 9/11.
August 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Richard says "Sarah Palin is better than a feminist. She's a woman approaching the apex of power with stunning honor.
She's everything feminists should have been striving for, and she ignites in us a truly human and complete acceptance of womanhood."
Sheesh. You make her sound so larger-than-life. What cool-aid have you been drinking?
In her speech, she talked about how Hillary had almost shattered the glass ceiling, and that she would now help to achieve this.
Now, an honorable woman would not a) invoke the anti-male myth of the "glass ceiling"
b) opportunistically try to feed off the carcass of Hillary's deeply flawed campaign
This is not to say that she is a particularly objectionable person. But she is just another politician. She is certainly not the great inspiration you talk of.
The only female political leader who I have much admiration for is Margaret Thatcher. And Governor, you are no Margaret Thatcher!
August 31st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Chris H says "To all the Republicans going on about Obama's "inexperience". How can you give 2 cents about experience when you put "W" in office for 2 terms."
Actually Chris, the Dems would have won the 2000 and 2004 elections had they put forward slightly more credible candidates than Al Gore and John Kerry.
So really, the question is how can the Democrats put W in the White House for two terms!!!
As for George W, I can't wait to see the end of him.
August 31st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Jason,
Your assessment of Palin is right. People like Richard are laboring under the illusion that anyone who is politically conservative must be favorable towards men's rights. It's a complete fiction.
Some people are more concerned with scoring political points than actually advancing the condition of men.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
On a lighter note, there is a really funny video of Sarah Palin on msnbc.com from back in the day when she was a television news bunny. (It's currently on the front splash page.)
She can barely read her teleprompter and her hair is like a disco movie outtake.
But to be fair, I think it was recorded in the mid-80's.
I still just do not grasp McCain's choice. It's like picking Shemp over Curly.
From the cheap seats where I'll be sitting, the most interesting spectacle is going to be to watch how women of various feminist degrees react to Sarah.
The "feminists for life" affiliation is going to get a lot of media exposure and it will be linked to a GOP ticket firmly committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. When push comes to shove, I do not believe many women will vote to lose their right to a legal abortion.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
G. Girl -- "You are revealing a lot of "good stuff" about yourself merely by acknowledging you didn't make them (your daughters) by "yourself" .... you actually gave half the credit to a gorgeous ex-wife. Roy, that's gutsy."
It's really not at all gutsy. Just giving credit where it is owed.
Since lately I'm into this theory that Glenn's site is like a novel, with a lot of weird personalities, I'll share a little more trivial biography.
My first daughter (the rich artistic designer) decided one week before her due date for birth to flip over into "breech" position. She has always been a difficult individual with her own mind apparently.
So, we had what was at that time a very experimental C-section, with an all female team of surgeons. Because I had done a lot of veterinary surgery, these incredible girls let me scrub up with them and be in the operating room.
I actually got to reach into my wife's belly and pull my daughter out! What freaked me out what that the infant's eyes were wide open and she looked very surprised to be where she was at that moment.
Now, because these progressive female doctors did their jobs so skillfully well, our second daughter six years later was what they call VBAC -- vaginal birth after a C-section.
My wife and I went with the then radical Bradley method -- Lamaze was all the rage then.
With Bradley, you meditate, relax, and focus instead of panting like a dog.
She did not have even have an aspirin during a fourteen hour labor.
The result was the second smart girl at university today. (Oh, and three years of breast-feeding. I'm not making that up.)
So, basically my entire life has been about being persecuted by strong women that I admire. And teaching them to respect themselves without disrespecting men.
Does that make me a mangina?
August 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
roy Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
From the cheap seats where I'll be sitting, the most interesting spectacle is going to be to watch how women of various feminist degrees react to Sarah.
______________________________________________________________________
I think this will cause a divide among women. Feminist preach women, women, women.
All of a sudden they have one and supposedly it's not the right one. I'm not sure women will like being told exactly what to do. I think they buy the arguement about having women in power, but I'm not sure thay will like someone telling them which woman it has to be. That may be a little too much of telling someone what to do and women typically don't appreciate that by anyone. It also strikes to the feminists arguement of men trying to tell women what to do. Now it's women trying to tell women what to do.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Palin has my support because she's against policy that allows liberal feminists to create programs and "administrative positions" and profit from them.
Example Planned Parenthood, where the gender-feminists and N.O.W. and gloria steinem crowd make millions.
Planned Parenthood = Abortion advocates = $300+ million from taxpayers = $55 million profit.
They all support the taxpayers funding Planned Parenthood and all profit from the retail product otherwise known as Feminism.
Abortion sells, it sells like sex sells. You wave abortion in front of the anti-male sexist population....instant money maker.
If you're a liberal and in the men's movement, I'm sure it's not an easy choice with the conflict and disagreement in politics.
You can vote for your democrat leaders who will gladly rob you of your tax money to fund pro-abortion services...which are run by the very feminists you despise.
And no, not "pro-choice", pro-abortion.
Or you can vote for leaders who oppose sexist-feminist policy in government that forces you to pay for services and "administrators" who are in fact....feminists.
If you vote democrat/liberal, you absolutely are voting for administration that supports anti-male sexism, supports anti-father policy in family courts, supports perpetuating the idea that fathers are deadbeats, and supports ADDITIONAL policy that rapes fathers/men/boys of their rights.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I believe Sarah Palin is going to be like a Rorschash test for feminists!
Imagine! A conservative woman as Vice President, and potentially as President!
It is their worst nightmare, and I cannot stop laughing.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I mean (sorry to post-on-post) --- but Sarah is the female version of Ronald Reagan.
It is almost diabolical if McCain thought this though.
I guess he was thinking all those years in that bamboo cage in 'Nam.
Gotta either give the man some props, or just call it another senior moment, like not knowing how many houses you own.
This election makes me want to move to a free country.
Anybody know where that would be?
August 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jeana, I'm about to shock you.
Politically, I'm independent and will not get into the stew of the discussion about Palin. Both conservatives and liberals can be nutcases.
That said, I agree with some of your assessment. *Awe and wonder*
However, I do not believe you're in any position to accuse anyone here of hypocrisy. Factoring out politics, when it comes to gender discussions, you're one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever come across.
I still enjoy having you around though.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Davina --
That is like asking a girl like jeana out for the Prom, and then kind of withdrawing your invitation, unless she agrees to sleep with you.
jeana has her secret.
Give it up girl!
August 31st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The fact that NOW opposes her is enough for me to seriously consider the McCain/Palin ticket. Under normal circumstances I would never, ever even consider supporting a female or male feminist candidate for office, but in this case NOW's opposition piques my interest. I think I'll give the ticket a second look.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I watched on TV the sound bites of Palin commenting on the "glass ceiling" for women and the outright appeal for the sisterhood to vote Republican. Her appointment as the Vice Presidential running mate to John McCain was pure politics as far as the (one) gender issues campaign goes.
Does any person who writes in Glenn's blog spaces believe that the American public is going to witness an all out discussion on the alleged wage-gender gap that allegedly plagues women kind? Not likely. Sure, there may be brief appearances by Warren Farrel to make the issue look balanced but who is one man with a seemingly more accurate version of the facts versus the millions who assert otherwise? Probably not much as we'll soon see.
There likely will not be any balanced discussions on other feminst claims now made mainstream . We are going to observe the select feminist assertions of certain selected issues under the guise of selected equality.
Mainstream equality between the sexes discussions are flawed because only women's issues are considered. There will be no equality between men and women until the historical and current conditions and quality of life of the common man is first realized. Women now have what the common man never did. Current politics is not going to reflect any of this publicly. We are going to witness, as factual, the same endlessly repeated and never proven feminist assertions.
If the aware men of this culture want more of the same, simply do nothing.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Mike B. -- good post and analysis!
Sarah is going to be used (feminists would say "exploited") to try to skim off some marginal percentage of the female vote.
And it will be very marginal. The "I don't want to control my choices" tribe. You know, evanglicals on the border of voting Democratic. All three of them.
No one with any sense wants an ex-TV news bimbo as Commander-in-Chief.
And the videos of her stellar career are going to just keep on coming.
This woman's first aspirations in her life were BEAUTY CONTESTS!
I really think McCain already knows he can't win, but he just wants some comedy.
Why not just pick Amy Winehouse and have a really hard core ticket?
Amy would tear up Biden in any debate.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The selection of Palin is yet another indicator of how the Right has slowly shifted more and more toward the left over the decades. There aren't too many of the old conservative-type people around; though many fancy themselves as such.
Leftist ideology rules America (no matter's who's in office).
August 31st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Norman, with respect....
I have never seen anything even remotely "left" in American politics in my lifetime.
I had to leave the U.S. to experience anything like "left" --- Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba.
And I thought all three countries were pretty democratic by reasonable standards.
I did not witness anything like American Family Courts. No fathers being dragged to prison for trying to support their kids.
The women in each country seemed much more intelligent and feminine than anything I met stateside in my home country.
Did you know that only about 5% of Americans have ever left this country? And about 90% of Americans end up living within 300 miles of where they were born?
I really have no problem with that, unless you want to pretend you know anything about the actual world.
The parts we are not bombing, that is.
August 31st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
And to the girls....
Keep writing and keep fighting!
Do not ever doubt the credibility of your voices.
Well, that is what I taught my daughters.
I'm not quite sure whether it is their ability to ignore men, or their willingness to slay them emotionally, that gives me, as a father, the most satisfaction.
I kind of like to see them win.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
Our pet troll is right on one point…
“PNAC wanted a 9/11 attack badly."
They probably did, at the least they were hoping for it. The following is from page 51 of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.”
“Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.”
This document is located at PNACS own website…
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
"So they could start a war or 2 and begin to steal."
That’s rather less supported but one has to wonder why being attacked by a bunch of Saudi Arabians is a good excuse for invading Iraq. If Peter punches you in the face you should punch Peter, not Paul
Incidentally, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were signatories to PNACs Statement of Principles.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
September 1st, 2008 at 2:26 am
Norman L.
“The selection of Palin is yet another indicator of how the Right has slowly shifted more and more toward the left over the decades.”
I understand what your saying but do not totally agree. I actually see the country moving more toward being conservative very quickly. Remember not long ago the real tax rate could be over sixty percent, women always were awarded custody of the kids, quotas were rampant and most workers were in a union or worked for the government (or both).
I don’t see women as a problem to the growth of society; I see the type of women paraded on the national stage as a major problem for both men and women. These are people who will stand boldly on stage and demand all manner of goods and services be taken from someone else and given to them by using children as cover for the most part. Many of these people could not care less about men or children unless caring met their needs. However, these are not the majority of women.
My fear is that we are entering into the same environment as Aristotle once did. Remember Aristotle was taught by Plato but they had very different views. Plato had political theories concerning a utopian society where everyone was equal and all was right. Aristotle took a look around and decided that utopia was in the eye of the beholder and that everyone was not equal.
They both believed that a good person made good choices because of their character and did not try to avoid the consequences of their actions. Aristotle unfortunately (or fortunately) was able to witness how the women of Sparta handled their new found rights. Once given these rights they became interested only in materialism. When the Spartan men would return from battle they would be cowed by the government and the women.
Athens on the other hand was no Sparta. In Athens they required (for the most part) that people take responsibility for their actions and be noble (as noble as slave owners can be). We can not blame women (or men and children for that matter) for taking advantage of unequal rights that they never should have had in the first place.
I have great hope for the future, what saddens me is the recent past. Many people close to me when given the choice decided to destroy their families, murder their young and have parties to celebrate afterwards.
All the best
September 1st, 2008 at 6:11 am
Kevin C. -- Very excellent history lesson.
Now, which Greek philosopher was forced to take poison?
September 1st, 2008 at 7:53 am
That’s rather less supported but one has to wonder why being attacked by a bunch of Saudi Arabians is a good excuse for invading Iraq. If Peter punches you in the face you should punch Peter, not Paul
____________________________________________________________________
I don't believe they ever said they attacked Iraq do to terrorism. There were 17 ultimatems handed down by The U.N. of which Saddam Hussein blew the U.N. and the rest of the world off. So why even have a U.N. ?The problem came when someone mentioned Saddam having ties to terrorists and it seems that statement has been tied to the invasion ever since.
This is a guy that had used chemical weapoins on his own people in the past and he had signed a treaty authorizing U.N. inspections and was now saying No Thanks I'm not going to do what I said I was and I don't think you have the balls to do anything about it.
Saddam miscalculated. The U.N. has no balls but the U.S does at least for a short time in the conceivable future.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
David M,
There are 500+ UN resolutions against Israel for violation of human rights... when is the US going to invade them?
September 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Pankaj Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
David M,
There are 500+ UN resolutions against Israel for violation of human rights... when is the US going to invade them?
Panjak- I am talking about a dictator who signed a treaty authorizing WEAPONS INSPECTIONS and you tried to change the arguement to human rights violations by Israel.
Not sure why you would pick Israel and not Palestine or Darfur for that matter. Apples and Oranges.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David
Lest we forget, who gave Saddam the weapons he used on his own people? The United States was one of the countries who willingly supplied Saddam with those tools. Who also propped him up? The United States. For further evidence, see the widely public photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam in the 80's.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That's the excuse political pundents preaching support for the war used in light of this fact. To absolve the United States of any responsiblity for their past actions leading to the consequences (ie, Saddam's tyranny) of today.
I'd rather not turn this into another spiral of "Saddam is this...", "United States is that...", but it annoys me when people who talk about this man as a monster ignore who who made him in the first place.
About this Palin person. I'm pretty sad that some people here are now considering to vote McCain just because she pisses off the "feminists", particularly NOW'S gallery of rogues. That's pretty petty, if you ask me. Like those who wanted to vote for John Kerry because he's "Not Bush" or "I'd rather have him than Bush for next term." This is what voter reasoning is reduced to: "They piss off others"? That's your reasoning?
Neither party is interested that much in Men's Rights. Democrat, Republican, or whatever. Everyone is putting women first before men regardless of their party affilitation. This is the climate we are in now. No current running mate for president or major party is going to change that.
Politicians pander. It's what gets them the votes.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Because there are not 500+ resolutions against any other state in the UN other than Israel. The only country that allows any one to immigrate on basis of religion. A religion that denies men genital integrity without their consent. In fact, it demands torture of infant males at behest his father. Not so father friendly or pro-male - when it comes to our favorite groups - are we?
September 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Lincoln killed way more than Saddam did - Does this mean that the British be allowed to tell the Americans how to live?
September 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Eagle30 Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I'd rather not turn this into another spiral of "Saddam is this...", "United States is that...", but it annoys me when people who talk about this man as a monster ignore who who made him in the first place.
___________________________________________________________________
Yes. The U.S. Did supply the weapons. In the World we live in we are forced to make allies of some we wish we would not have to. If we did not give him weapons we risk The Soviet Union or China giving them to him. With the Soviet Union or Chinese as his ally. We made a play that we felt was in our long term best interest. We figured that if we worked with Saddam he would work with us. We didn't figure he would give us the finger. When he gave us the finger and invaded Kuwait, we like any good father, slapped down the bully son for gross insubordination. A consequence of this was a peace treaty whereby he agreed to weapons inspections, which he failed to do. Not learning from his prior experience, (most sociopaths don't) he kept testing us. He lost and we lost. But now there is a chance of making a democratic ally in this region. Which in the long run could go along way toward world peace. Saddam was not just going to invade Kuwait if he got away with it, he was going to take more and more until someone stopped him.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Why McCain chose Palin
Jeana asks: Instead of trying to make excuses about out why they made such a stupid choice, why don't you ask why didn't the GOP pick someone who was very popular--like Huckabee?
PK responds: Because the very reason why McCain is on the ticket in the first, place, Jeana, is his appeal to "moderate" voters and "crossing the aisle." McCain was known to conservatives as the poster boy of "RINO"s and many democrats even spoiled the open Republican primaries by voting for him in leau of their actual candidate. You do know this, don't you?
Even now, his support among disenfranchised Hillary voters is stronger than the conservative base hence the Palin nomination: To reach out to the conservative base.
On the other hand, the Joe Biden nomination by Obama was political suicide since Biden has all of Obama's flaws (strong to the left) but also the weaknesses of his opponent (old white guy). Unlike McCain's choice, Biden will not bring in any more moderate voters or even his base. He might as well have picked a potato sack.
Granted, there is a risk that Palin's nomination may turn off the very Hillary voters that had been swinging his way but the key is that she's a VICE president. Hence, attacks on her "experience" raise the question of whether it's appropriate to make such a choice for a PRESIDENTIAL candidate. The political shield that Jason refers to.
And the left is falling for the trap hook, line, and sinker. Even as the Democrat convention ended, nobody was talking about The One, (er, I mean Obama), but rather Palin. So he doesn't even have his shallow celebrity status working for him anymore. Good going.
Jeana asks: Or Romney?
PK responds: I liked Romney and voted for him in the primaries and would have considered him an equally good choice. The problem with a Romney choice is the same as with Hillary: The nominees hurt these candidates to get the nomination in the first place and now they're "tainted." All the Dems have to do is just repackage the McCain attack ads and use them come November.
Jeana says: She's no political trap for us. She's everything we dislike about conservatives. Anti-choice (even in cases of rape & incest),
PK responds: Jeana, didn't you get the memo? It's time for a change, remember? Seriously, young women today are obsessed with having families moreso than going to the abortion clinic. Palin's husband represents a strong, supportive father figure and this is going to REALLY resonate with the young women voters. On the other hand, Obama can help protect women at the Arugula aisle at Whole Foods...
Jeana claims: anti-birth control,
PK responds: I think the Catholic position on this is excessive but I don't think she's out to outlaw ALL forms of birth control. She is probably against it be distributed at schools. The worst thing the Dems could do is fall for this bait and make this claim and then McCain could come up with an ad claiming that she's only against making kindergarten students learn how to use condoms.
Jeana writes: anti-comprehensive sex education & only for abstinence-only "education", anti-environment, and very little experience. There is no similarity between her and either Obama or Biden.
PK responds: You fell for the trap. The One has very little experience, yes?
Jeana writes: Very dishonest of you guys. And I'd like to see where the fake pregnancy rumors go. Wouldn't that be funny if it were true and her 5th kid was really her 16-year old daughter's?
PK responds: Er, you realize that the more you obsess over a woman's CHOICE the more you make yourself look like the hypocrite, yes?
Jeana whistles past the graveyard: Face it, the McCain campaign doesn't know what they're doing. Pick a strong candidate or a weak one? Hey, let's pick the weak one! Then the Republican-controlled media will do our bidding and spin it in a positive light. Can't lose!
PK responds: The Republican controlled media? Talk radio, agreed, but CBS/ABC/and NBC are not in a position to cry about Foxnews (which is far more balanced than those former 3.) That's the problem, Jeana, the public isn't a captive audience of old fashioned nightly news shows anymore. Look forward to getting your AARP card because that's where your ideology is going. Oh, and don't forget to tell the young women they can go childless and work 60 hours a week to pay taxes for your marxist fantasy utopia.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Job Description
Jason writes: "That being said, my main reason for not thinking she is a good candidate is because I would like for my VP candidate to have an idea of what the job entails before they accept the nomination... your main reason for not thinking she is a good candidate is because of her views on abortion."
PK responds: Jason, if you could be so kind, could you write the job description for VP and what experience is really required?
Quite frankly, I don't think experience is that big a deal in the Presidential nomination and is even viewed by many in the working class as a liability. Do we really want a pork barrel politician like Ted Kennedy or Bob Dole running? To Obama's credit, I don't think his foreign policy blunders and gaffes are due to his lack of experience so much as his leftist agenda and beliefs. In congress, reality is defined by how much pork you can trade and grease each other's special interest groups. On the world stage, you can't toss around pork with the same effectiveness and these rules don't work with military objectives.
A president isn't a savior and the limitations of the office were apparent when Bill Clinton went in and proclaimed he was going to redesign the whole country. He and Hillary forget that it's now a lot like pre-Cesarian Rome with a lot of special interests and bureaucrats, put there by the Clinton's themselves, who will gum up the works. I'm not terribly scared of an Obama presidency really. He's already almost lost because of his "$10 a gallon gas for EVERYONE!" position and if he became president, this environmentalist wacko agenda would sink his party.
"Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon
Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?" -- Pocahontas
It's my understanding that all a VP does is greet foreign dignitaries (which she is VERY qualified for) and put up a tough presence (which she is ALSO very well qualified for), cast a tie breaker vote (she can use her index finger, yes?) and take over for McCain if he passes on (and that's something for women voters to think about: The next potential president.)
September 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
roy
“Kevin C. -- Very excellent history lesson.
Now, which Greek philosopher was forced to take poison?”
Thanks, not sure about the Greek. However, if you said American it would have been me for too many years.
All the best
September 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
PK's (alleged) hypocrisy
Jason writes: "Even then, PK seems to be putting both propositions forth... he offers an alternative explanation that mitigates his hypocrisy by stating that if women are going to be given default custody and abandonment rights and men aren't, that men ought to have the right to not be financially responsible even if abortion is illegal."
PK responds: It's hardly hypocrisy since not all MRA's (or even most, I would guess) are anti-abortion rights. I'm largely neutral on the matter but don't think the constitution should be warped to make them possible. Put it up for a vote and let women take a bus ride to NYC or other liberal places if they want one. What's the problem?
A little hypocrisy is always necessary in that we can't make absolute generalizations and statements most of the time. This is the Devil's playground. But at a certain point the hypocrisy because so blatant that it becomes paradoxical and even nonsensical. How can women be equal to men when their equality is based upon total handholding as helpless maidens? How can the interests of children be an absolute factor when women get default custody and then have ZERO responsibilities right up to abandonment?
The feminist movement had allowed women to twist sentimentalist notions of chivalry of women as innocent, helpless, pure maidens to act like materialistic, vipers. The role of motherhood has degenerated from the strong, feminine role model of women such as Palin, caring unconditionally for their disabled babies, down to helpless victims (babymaking machines) even to the point of abuser (infant abandonment/criminal progeny.)
And that's Palin's contribution (among many) to the ticket: To show a different role for women than Sex and the City bimbo or Hillary Clinton Harpie.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Eagle 30 -- "Lest we forget, who gave Saddam the weapons he used on his own people? The United States was one of the countries who willingly supplied Saddam with those tools. Who also propped him up? The United States."
Oh, a very dangerous historian has just appeared! Someone who has not been shopping today!
And, just for laughs.
Who created and funded Bin Laudin?
He was once called a "freedom fighter."
Maybe he still likes that label that America declared him to be! I'm sure he still has a few million dollars that Rummy gave him. (His family thinks he is the black sheep and has pretty much disowned him.)
Whoever is in authority of whatever silly system we have today, please do not try to fool me.
I do not believe you.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Kevin C. -- "However, if you said American it would have been me for too many years."
That was the very best answer!
I probably won't live long enough to witness men actually waking up and defeating a stupid ideology called feminism.
I would be willing to live that long, but the fact that there is no Men's Health Department and no national health insurance means I better prepare for the inevitable. As a "free"man.
The fact that men are defined as socially disposable is not the part of feminism that pisses me off.
I just don't get why women do not value themselves.
That hurts.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
And isn't it interesting that Sarah Palin's nomination led to a 240-plus thread where she was seldom mentioned?
Well, how do you discuss a fiction?
The photo of her on this site is the only credibility she currently has.
Cute 44 year old woman. And, to be fair, if she had five babies and is still 125 pounds, that is amazing.
Maybe even more amazing than surviving years in a bamboo cage in 'Nam.
I guess I need to give her a chance.
But after her five babies, she wants to deny every woman the right not to control their reproductive choices.
I think Sarah's biggest problem with the feminists is going to just be the obvious fact that she is very fertile, and willing to demonstrate it.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
PolishKnight
“Quite frankly, I don't think experience is that big a deal in the Presidential nomination and is even viewed by many in the working class as a liability”
That’s because as of July 2006 there were 36,408 full-time employees in the executive branch. These employees are specialized in what they do (for better or worse). Saying the President must be experienced in every detail of government is like saying the ships captain must know every nautical knot.
I think the executive branch requires strength of character, loads of patience and knowing which expert to call when you need them. That’s why we shouldn’t tolerate the lack of character regardless of what party the person is in. That’s why we need to look at these people and ask ourselves if what they have do (or are doing) is just a slipup or a way of life.
I was told once to look at a person and imagine that same person in a life raft with a choice of saving you from drowning or a bag of money from sinking. Just ask the drowning man if character counts.
All the best
September 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
PK Says:
"Jason, if you could be so kind, could you write the job description for VP and what experience is really required?"
Please keep in mind how I phrased things, I said the following:
"I would like for my VP candidate to have an idea of what the job entails before they accept the nomination."
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect someone who is willing to accept the nomination for one of the highest ranking positions on the planet to know what they are getting themselves into before they decide to take a leap off the cliff.
It's the difference between that person diving into a pool with their eyes closed with no knowledge of whether or not the pool has any water in it... and a person diving into a pool after they've looked to make sure that the water seems like it is deep enough.
My concern is about the judgment this shows, and if someone just accepts the nomination without knowing anything about what they are being nominated to do, that shows poor judgment in my opinion.
You mention many of the responsibilities that she will have as VP... but underlying each of those responsibilities is going to be her ability to use good judgement and make wise decisions. It isn't wise to jump into a political race when you haven't the slightest idea what you are running for.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Roy,
"Now, which Greek philosopher was forced to take poison?"
You are thinking of Socrates... but technically he wasn't "forced" to take the poison. So far as Plato tells the story he was ready and willing to die.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Jason says: "My concern is about the judgment this shows, and if someone just accepts the nomination without knowing anything about what they are being nominated to do, that shows poor judgment in my opinion."
PK responds: Hello Jason, once again I would say that such an "experience" or knowledge actually is counter productive. When a politician fully knows all the dirty tricks and backroom deals it's going to take to achieve and retain power, then they're probably not someone we'd want to hold that kind of power to begin with.
All challenging, new jobs have held hidden challenges that you can't fully be aware of until you've dived in. What's Palin supposed to do? Run for PM of the UK?
We'll get the answer soon enough as Palin has to handle all the new attention she's being given.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The Titanic Test
KevinC says: "I was told once to look at a person and imagine that same person in a life raft with a choice of saving you from drowning or a bag of money from sinking. Just ask the drowning man if character counts."
PK responds: There's a saying that there are no atheists in foxholes and another that there were no feminists aboard the Titanic. It turns out that wealthy women literally did bring their BAGGAGE on lifeboats with them without even raising their voice to offer the space to their husbands or fellow male passengers.
Does anyone here STILL think that equality between the sexes is possible?
September 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Control
Roy says: "But after her five babies, she wants to deny every woman the right not to control their reproductive choices."
PK responds: Hello Roy. That sounds like something Jeana would say. It's a gross generalization to say the least. Even ultra-exaggerated figures from feminists show that most women are not raped, therefore, most women needn't have children if they don't want to.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
PK,
I don't expect any candidate to truly have a completely full idea of what the job entails simply because I suspect the job changes dramatically based upon the current circumstances as well as how they choose to run things. So I agree with you that there are going to be unknown challenges and a certain learning curve that would be associated with any position... no one really knows what it takes to do a job until they've done it.
That being said, it is still very important to do their background research. Any professional job I've ever applied for I've looked into the company, read through the job description, and made sure that I felt like I was a good fit before I applied. To me that just seems like the prudent way to handle things.
To me it just strikes me like she was offered the opportunity to apply for a job that she never bothered to read the job description for... and only has bothered to ask what she will be expected to do when she shows up for the interview.
Would you really be comfortable hiring someone like that?
That is how I am trying to look at this election... I've got 4 people sitting in front of me trying to convince me they are the right person for the job. One of them showed up to the interview and asked "so what exactly is this job about anyway?"... that isn't a confidence builder for me.
Maybe she'll win me over, but she's starting out with a serious strike against her so far as I am concerned because she didn't bother to do her research first.
As I've said before though, the other candidates don't impress me either... especially not Biden since he apparently loves to urinate over the constitution.
September 1st, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Job experience from Buddha.
(Disclaimer: I am Baptist and really don’t agree with all listed but it seemed to fit the conversation.)
Ten Duties of a King
1. Liberality, generosity, charity. the ruler should not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare of the people.
2. High moral character. He should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks.
3. Sacrificing everything for the good of the people, he must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, name and fame, and even his life, in the interest of the people.
4. Honesty and integrity. Free from fear or favor in the discharge of his duties, he must be sincere in his intentions, and must not deceive the public
5. Kindness and gentleness. He must possess a genial temperament.
6. Austerity of habits. He must lead a simple life and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have self-control.
7. freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity. He should not bear a grudge against anybody.
8. non-violence, which means not only that he should harm nobody, but also that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
9. patience, forebearance, tolerance, understanding. He must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing his temper.
10. non-opposition, non-obstruction, that is to say that he should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In other words, he should rule in harmony with his people.
All the best
September 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
He says in regard to Palin:
"That being said, it is still very important to do their background research. Any professional job I've ever applied for I've looked into the company, read through the job description, and made sure that I felt like I was a good fit before I applied. To me that just seems like the prudent way to handle things."
Perhaps this poster should run on the repub ticket ..... I mean because he's so "prudent" and all that.
ROY, i take issue with your 4:05. When I was her age, I looked twice as good and played a lethal game of teenis, and didn't wear my hair in a 3-gallon bee-hive. I, too, had 5 chillins ... and even today, i weigh in at 117. I'm still a siren .... juss ask my husband.
September 1st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
tennis too
Just to prove it, i'm gonna upload a pic on my blog *snort*
September 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Kevin c. -- "Job experience from Buddha."
That is so cool! Maybe the first reference to Buddhism on this site.
I have had three zen masters --- Suzuki Roshi, Phillip Kalpeau, and Dainin Katagiri.
Japanese, American, and Korean respectively.
None of them was worth a crap.
Of course, eventually you need someone to teach you how get rid of the crap.
The cognitive reality check.
Each man was really funny and they could just look you in the eyes and make you shudder or laugh. Sometimes it was even your choice which....
I think America's next Preisdent should be a zen priest.
It might be our best way out of here.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Or, if not a zen priest, at least a person who has the sense to use a spellchecker before clicking "submit comment."
It is possible to think well if you cannot spell?
Or type?
I guess grunting would be the last recourse....
September 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
G. Girl -- "ROY, i take issue with your 4:05. When I was her age, I looked twice as good and played a lethal game of teenis, and didn't wear my hair in a 3-gallon bee-hive. I, too, had 5 chillins ... and even today, i weigh in at 117. I'm still a siren .... juss ask my husband."
But Georgia, the only thing I care about is your passion, your obvioius IQ, and just a little peek into what you refuse....
Your husband can just walk away if and when we ever meet. Because he would surely beat me up!
I could have my Rastafarian bodyguards watch him for a while.
Riff girl! It's like weaving.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
And this girl cannot decide whether to play lead, bass, rhythym guitar,or drums.
Every freaking band that I have ever been in with women has been a disaster.
Girl. You need a riff and you need to stick with it.
Maybe just listen to "40 Licks" and post back.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
well, even with my superior IQ, you always throw me off guard ...
When you say "Riff girl, it's like weaving", what does that mean?
btw, i just LOVED one of your answers way up there in this thread.... not gonna say which one.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
You know this interests me and probably not too many others posters/
The girls like to use silence. (no repsonse to threads....)
As a kind of power.
I really find that interesting!
Watch how they do it.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
and today is "labor day"
did you grill burgers and hot dogs ?
if not, it'll further confirm my suspicions that you're a communist *lol
September 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Georgia,
You and I are weaving a narrative. A dialogue. A story.
I do not intend to throw off any guard you require or wish to imagine.
So just because you can still flirt, which answer did you like?
We could have fun with this if you wish.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
i'm mum ... can't tell ya
.... but do i still get to flirt?
September 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Yes, I am the closest thing to a communist you will ever experience.
I can lock and load an AK-47 blindfolded.
But, can't I still love women?
September 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
GG - You are seldom "mum."
Yes please flirt. You like it and so do I.
I like your voice and flirtng is part of your discovering your voice.
What part of your identity would you like to express here?
And girl --- I am always political. So don't count on anything personal.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
i always keep an AK-47 in my purse ...
i'll tell you about that later...
g'nite chi-town roy :)
September 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I have a really fatal attraction for southern girls.
And I know it will be why I die young.
These women are just killing me slowly.
When you make love to them, they seldom speak English.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Georgia --
You are still awake and stop with this goofy ruse that you are packing actual hardware.
I think we all know what you are packing.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
You cannot fit an AK-47 in a purse.
Except in you mind, girl.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Some day Georgia ....
it would be fun to meet.
But we would need a pre-meet-nup.
I believe you are lethal.
And, I really respect that!
September 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
it's a tote bag .... lol
September 1st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
you'd be surprised how much stuff fits in my tote bag ....
once i had a miniature cannon
September 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
and hand-cuffs
and whips and chains....
but i was younger then
September 1st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
o nevermind *:)
see you later, m'friend
September 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Georgia,
Aside from all the hardware you apparently own, do you know how to make love?
September 1st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
i'll google that and get back to you
September 1st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I had a girlfriend like Georgia with all her sexual appliances.
It was briefly fun.
But then, boring.
She had three vibratrors and no books.
I'm done, thanks for the amusement!
September 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Georgia,
I can't wait!
Google your intellectual cli*t and see what happens!
Your sexuality is what you are as a woman.
You know that.
Now, please reveal to men something we do not know.
I am being hard on you because you are worth it.
And, you are a sweety.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 am
Roy and GG.
Get a room.
Seriously.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
I was at first puzzled by the choce of Palin as VP.
I am now convinced that iit is nothing less than brilliant due only to the Linda Blair-ish head spinning reaction from Jeana.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
Welcome to the roy and georgia show- again. Its like they are competing to see who can make the most pointless comments in any given thread.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 am
David M wrote...
“I don't believe they ever said they attacked Iraq do to terrorism.”
I quote one George W. from the transcript of a radio address at the white house site…
“And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”
Find me an American (or Australian) who went over there for the 3rd reason and I’ll find you a hundred that went for the first and/or second reasons.
“So why even have a U.N. ?”
Someone has to take the VAWA international, I suppose. And what would Angelina Jolie do in between making movies and not eating?
“This is a guy that had used chemical weapons on his own people in the past”
Yes, yes, we all know he was scum, but what relevance is that to the war? He gassed the Kurds in 1988, and we invaded in 2003. We let him get away with it for 15 years and only then did we think “Gee, gassin all them folks just aint right!”. The only relevance I see in the gassing is that it could be used to imply that someone who would do that to his own people would have no qualms about giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists, which of course brings as back to terrorism as the main reason for the invasion.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 am
The site is refusing to upload links again.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Michael,
I don't think we can entirely ignore the fact that the country also houses a vitally important strategic resource for all industrialized nations. America hasn't generally been known to invade nations that commit human rights violations unless they also have HUGE oil reserves within their boarders.
In addition, there are other nations which we suspect have been funneling money to terrorist groups and we haven't done much there either beyond freezing accounts(primarily because they have nuclear capability which tends to dissuade us from running in guns blazing... and secondarily because our military has been spread far too thin already).
In a very real way, I don't see our foreign policy working itself out until we have established a sustainable energy policy... but the department of energy's budget was slashed earlier this year so far as research was concerned because of political rivalries.
Bringing this back to Palin, her plan to extract oil from Alaska in order to alleviate our need for fuel is like planning to feed the homeless by collecting up the bread crumbs left over by ducks.
The only sustainable strategies we really have available are nuclear power (which most Americans hate... not to mention we as a nation haven't constructed a nuclear power plant in about 20 years and have none planned for the immediate future) and solar power (which isn't ready for prime time yet and needs more research to get off the ground).
I strongly believe that if the US could get on a road toward energy independence, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems abroad because we wouldn't be filtering money into nations when we fundamentally disagree with their policies. Any economic sanctions we have used thus far have been about as effective as a junkie declaring to their dealer that they don't like their behavior so they will refuse to purchase drugs from them anymore... not exactly a strong threat.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:47 am
I promise to refrain from flirting with Georgia and will attempt to elevate my dialogue to a more proper intellectual level.
I think I made a fundamental mistake by projecting too many of my southern ex-girlfriend's personalities into Georgia.
Really not wise or even fair.
So from now on, I'll just be a doctrinaire non-flirtacious socialist with unfulfilled sexual needs.
Basically, my best impression of an ordinary capitalist with a wife and a mistress....
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Jeana - Time and time again, you deliberately miss this point, and misquote us on it
I support a woman's right to chose so long as she respects mine. Since women who are pro-choice are also stating- "if men don't want the responsibilities of babies and child support, then they should keep it in their pants or use a condom".
I'm a libertarian - what you do in your bedroom SHOULD be your business. Same with your doctor. HOWEVER, since women chose not to keep it as "their" business (and responsibility), and they compel the state to sieze money, property and time on their behalf, I think we should assume that women CANNOT be responsible, and therefor, act "in the interest of the child", since that seems to be the feminist catchphrase when it suits them.
So, I'm for women having the same choice to opt out of being a parent as men have. We can have choice, or we can have abstinance. Since men only have abstinance and surgical sterilization, with a condom being a risky alternative, and NO chance to opt out of being a parent and stepping away from such obligation AS WOMEN CURRENTLY HAVE, I'm all for reducing the inequity in either direction - more choice for us, or less choice for women.
I think that denying women the options of abortion, drop off and walk-away adoption will result in fewer pregnancies, not more, because it removes a number of incentives.
I think this should be coupled with not allowing women to collect welfare and child support.
A presumption of shared parenting, with each person responsible for their own expenses will likely cut down on:
Paternity Fraud
Bad-faith pregnancies (Ooops, I forgot my pill! Tee Hee!)
False claims of child abuse, domestic violence
Single parent families
"Deadbead Dads"
I'll repeat this, since you seem to have trouble grasping it - I'm generally a pro-choice position, but not in such a way that gives one gender all the choices, and the other all the responsibilities for the other person's choices.
I think if we stop paying women to be single moms, and stop paying them to destroy families for fun and profit, we'll stop having a problem. We should be working on ways to reduce these harmful incentives.
Her body, her choice, his responsibility is not an equitable solution.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Well, if the thread evetually has to die....
I may have to break my promise.
I mean for cryin' out loud, it started with Sarah Palin and went into a bizarre world of (mostly) male philosophy and debate .... in a frightening hurry!
I have only one piece of advice.
I do not wish Sarah to be picking up that red phone in the White House at 3 AM.
No way. No how. Nope.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
To Males who deny there are MRAs who are against abortion rights for females but FOR “paper abortions” for males:
Did you not see the responses from people such as PK and Michael Claymore and others who defend the right to have sex at will without feeling responsible enough to slap on a condom, while also being 100% (I assume) against abortion? And look at what Offended Dad posted above. Not only is he (and, I suspect, many of you) ok with abortion being illegal, but he doesn’t want women to have child support or any kind of financial help AT ALL.
I do get that you feel the current system is unfair for males. But how can any of you rationally expect for me to believe that the majority of you who are anti-abortion aren’t simultaneously against child support? You certainly are. And I find that to be hypocritical.
If I’m wrong, let me know that. I expect to hear silence.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
And conservatives,
If you want to be the party of "family values", you might try having some yourself. What if Obama had a pregnant teen daughter?
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
(jeana) -- "Did you not see the responses from people such as PK and Michael Claymore and others who defend the right to have sex at will without feeling responsible enough to slap on a condom..."
Would you be in favor of more attention to developing a reliable male birth control pill?
Of course, you could say, just go get a vasectomy. But that is not true choice is it?
I really have a hard time understanding why women have over a dozen form of reliable birth control and men have one.
Do not put it in.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
And jeana, thank you for bringing up Sarah Palin's presumed Veep nomination.
I will make a radical prediction. She will withdraw by the end of the week.
It is already killing McCain to have to explain his choice.
I really don't care that Sarah's daughter is pregnant. I wouldn't even care if Sarah was pregnant again with child number SIX!
That woman is a baby-making machine!
She's like an ancient fertility goddess only with health insurance.
But really... a former news bunny as potentially America's President?
At least she has dropped the Amy Winehouse beehive hairdo!
Just wait until the real on the ground journalist dig into her.
And McCain had ONE brief chat with her before her picked her!
It is like a soap opera.
No way can McCain be President.
He seems like a nice, if severely deranged man.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Roy, I'm not in the McCain fan club myself. I view him as either a naive, or foolish sellout who was manipulated by the left as a "moderate" and have no foresaken him now that their One has appeared.
That said, ALL of the soap opera has highlighted OBAMA'S flaws including but not limited to: His father abandoning him and his strained family background, his lack of experience, his lack of commitment to "evangelical ideals" (he can forget about that crowd being fooled into voting for him), and well, the women's vote (even if NOW clearly HATES Palin, it doesn't look good for him to be attacking ANOTHER woman!)
I'm honestly enjoying the show. Pass the popcorn.
Unless Palin is found to be guilty of the ethics charges being leveled against her (and these attacks are now so common in presidential politics that they are now meaningless. What president or VP HASN'T been subjected to ethical hearings in the past? Iran-Contra, Lewinski, Whitewater, etc.) If he caves in just because the left doesn't like her, he'll be a seen as a waffler, and weak, and lose. He's got his "maverick" label to go on and he can't weaken that brand at ANY cost.
And really, Amy Winhouse Roy? This flirts with breaking Glenn's rules about derogatory comments on looks but also illustrates the left looking shallow for picking on an attractive woman. Yeah, that really makes them look good: How DARE a woman appear wholesome AND heterosexual? And having children! We all know that's not popular with suicidal cool-aid drinking global warming childless blue staters.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Paying the Piper
Jeana says: "Did you not see the responses from people such as PK and Michael Claymore and others who defend the right to have sex at will without feeling responsible enough to slap on a condom, while also being 100% (I assume) against abortion? And look at what Offended Dad posted above. Not only is he (and, I suspect, many of you) ok with abortion being illegal, but he doesn’t want women to have child support or any kind of financial help AT ALL. "
PK responds: Assume makes an ass of you and me, Jeana. I never said that I was "100%" against abortion and, in addition, even stressed I'm neutral. You're barking up the wrong tree. Woof woof!
Jeana, in regards to my general position of men should not give child-support or financial help AT ALL to single mothers, that's based upon a notion of a FREE market. Remember you sneering that if men didn't like asking out women and paying for dinner, to just man up and deal with it? Of if a man can't find women who arn't golddiggers, then tough noogies? Well, if women want someone to support her and her children, then shouldn't they also "woman up" and do it upfront rather than use a child to extort backdoor support?
And we don't even need abortion rights to justify "paper abortions" since women have legal abandonment. Remember? Women today are so irresponsible that men would have to really act badly to even get that low!
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
PK -- " And really, Amy Winhouse Roy? This flirts with breaking Glenn's rules about derogatory comments on looks but also illustrates the left looking shallow for picking on an attractive woman."
I love Amy Winehouse! I like her looks, her voice, her in-your-face I could not give a crap if you like my concert performance or not.
Now Sarah (our future Preisident) -- the girl needs to step up and face the crowd, right?
Show us your moves and they better be good!
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I never flirt with Glenn's rules, because I respect him completely.
Now, a little teasing is another thing.
I want him to continually do what he already does so well --- question everything.
I mean really -- he is probably the most important investigative journalist in the media.
Because if he was not, he would be on TV every night, or have a well-financed radio program or a cable franchise.
When you decide to seek truth over profit, there is a price to pay.
Not such a bad offer to preserve your integrity.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Roy says: "Now Sarah (our future Preisident) -- the girl needs to step up and face the crowd, right?"
PK responds: Didja ever hear of the line from The Art of War: "Choose your battles?" A reactionary, knee jerk response, even a sensible one (perhaps ESPECIALLY a sensible one) would only play into her detractors's hands. Unless she goes over the top, of course, and converts it into an advantage just as McCain took Obama's popularity and made him look like a Paris Hilton wannabe.
Perhaps the smartest response would be a NON-RESPONSE and, with her pregnant daughter and newborn infant in the background, pound Obama on gas prices, drilling and taxes. It would be using chivalry in the most delicious way.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Well P.K., I think I only have six translations of the Art of War.
"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War"
The Art of War is about realizing when to not act, as you have so correctly pointed out.
Because if you act too soon, or inappropriately, you give advantage to your enemy.
A 6,000 year old book!
But then, samurai code was unforgiving.
Or maybe it was just efficient.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Some Art for Roy
I wouldn't blow a wad on even one translation (there are so many posted online. Copyright expiration after 6K, you know :-). It's not just about when to act either (that's just one chapter in the book, Waging War)
I counter, Sir, with:
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
(sometimes even Sun Tzu can't help but contradict himself)
Here's some cute ones I think you'll like and find appropriate to this situation:
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
Use of Spies
11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's
spies and using them for our own purposes.
Energy
19. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy
on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to
which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something,
that the enemy may snatch at it.
20. By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march;
then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.
Laying Plans
24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
we have no inquisitions in nevada
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
PK,
Doesn’t NOW support Obama? And NOW does not support Sarah Palin. Isn’t that the subject of Glenn’s post?????
How can you hold it against him that his father abandoned him? That’s kind of harsh.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
PK,
“Well, if women want someone to support her and her children, then shouldn't they also "woman up" and do it upfront rather than use a child to extort backdoor support?”
Well, if men want sex, shouldn’t they “man up” and use a condom rather than risk disease and unwanted pregnancy if they cared an ounce about their partner?
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Women never have sex with a man they don't care about?
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
And now, just to make matters worse, all the media are swarming over Sarah's pregnant unmarried daughter, her lawsuit for maybe illgeally firing her ex-brother-in-law, and her husband's past history of DUI's!
This McCain campaign team should be fired!
You can't set up your prospective President with this kind of crap.
If I were John McCain, I would call every one of my buddies from back in the day at Hanoi Hilton, and try a hail mary play.
Because, it is looking over --- and done.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Did you hear about that nutty Alaskan independence party that she used to belong to? Great pick, Mac.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
P.K. - See how that insidious female just tried to subvert our dialogue about Sun Tzu?
And this quote is from The Denma Translation of THE ART OF WAR, 2001.
"If it accords with advantage, then act."
If it does not accord with advantage, then stop."
Read the primary texts. Never depend upon Wikipedia for other than cheap thrills.
Not a lecture; merely a suggestion.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 am
jeana,
There is a female version of a condom. I believe it is called a "dental" dam.
It is not much fun to insert properly. Think about applying a big bubble gum wrapper over your coochie.
Fun, yes?
Do some research and post back please.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
It sounds like it would be good for people who have skin diseases. Does it protect against herpes? I actually looked for it in a store but they didn't have it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
Once again, I will go way out on a limb (oh that would be first for me!) and predict that Sarah will be gone by the end of the week.
She will kill McCain's already slim chance of being credible.
Can anybody adjust his meds so he could get through just a single week looking semi-Presidential?
And please, send Cindy to an island very far away.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
I guess I'll have to start reading about the lesser of two evils sometime before the election. Any advice? I'm pro-choice and pro-life. (I don't think it's illogical. But, it does take some soul-searching.) And I'm a bank account Dad. So, who should I vote for?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Pankaj -- "There are 500+ UN resolutions against Israel for violation of human rights... when is the US going to invade them?"
Excellent point. You have bodyguards?
Or are cleverly anonymous?
The site is becoming a dangerous neighborhood.
I really like that!
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 am
Penumbrook:
You can be pro-life and pro-choice if you mean you wouldn’t force a female into an abortion but you don’t think you’d ever choose one yourself. But that actually is the same thing as being pro-choice. Many, many pro-choice people say they themselves would never have an abortion (although the truth is that no one really knows what they’d do till they are in the situation).
I would suggest that you not choose a candidate based solely on abortion views. But if you do, keep in mind that those who are anti-abortion also, oddly, are anti-birth control. People who are pro-choice by and large do NOT want abortion as birth control. That is something both sides can agree on. Making abortion illegal won’t stop abortion; it just makes it dangerous for the female. More and better contraception, information to teens beyond “don’t have sex till marriage”, and a more education population = fewer unwanted pregnancies which = fewer abortions.
As far as being a checkbook dad, one thing that I keep hearing from Democrats about Barack is that once he gets elected, then the real work begins. People like me want him to be more progressive. And people intend on letting their views known and pushing him in that direction. Your issues should be no different. I actually think that some kind of “choice” for men is the progressive way instead of the conservative way. Also, everyone here is so against VAWA, well, instead of voting against Joe Biden, I think the best way is to get legislators to think of including men when talking about domestic violence. Men should be part of the dialogue and the solution along with women; not just the perpetrators. I know some have tried this, but you have to keep on trying.
So I would say vote Democrat (but I am one so I am biased).
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
Bar fight logic
PK says: "“Well, if women want someone to support her and her children, then shouldn't they also "woman up" and do it upfront rather than use a child to extort backdoor support?”
Jeana says: "Well, if men want sex, shouldn’t they “man up” and use a condom rather than risk disease and unwanted pregnancy if they cared an ounce about their partner?"
PK responds: Jeana, I know a number of women in various age ranges and they have confided to ME that THEY didn't like using condoms because they found them uncomfortable. You think only MEN don't like condoms? Hmmm, you must not have gotten out much.
Seriously, this is your game of moral equivalency again. Someone steps on your foot by accident in a bar and you belt them in the nose. Hey, it's the same thing, right? There's a huge difference between someone not using a condom (even recklessly), or even using a condom and it failing, versus someone using a _child_ as a power tool. Worlds apart.
Jeana, using a _child_ as a power tool is the lowest of the low things to do. It puts them on the same level as child molesters but at least most men regard such men as the filth of society. On the other hand, women exploiting children are actually getting lauded as victims. What an interesting world we live in. Don't forget to set the car alarm! Chirp chirp!
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
"I know a number of women in various age ranges and they have confided to ME that THEY didn't like using condoms because they found them uncomfortable."
Hmmmm, I would have to say that if they cannot produce enough natural lubrication, they need to go to the store and buy some.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 am
I know too well that the real-world issues of terminating a pregnancy are more complex than the simple approach of Palin-style 'pro-life'. My wife's (now-ex) life was at stake due to delivery complications. Her doctor, in a medical opinion between doctor and patient, said that terminating the pregnancy was in the best interest of my wife's life. Palin-style pro-life policy would simply prohibit such a termination. This shows 'pro-life' for the savage oxymoron it is. The value judgement of my wife's life versus the baby's life is usurped by the state which says the baby's life takes precedence.
As for Palin, she believes in capital punishment. The oxymoron redux.
The sanctity of life arguments, as they relate to politics, are and have always been a sham.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 am
jeana -- with respect -- you need to lubricate your mind.
It is, after all, if you chose to use it, your most erotic organ.
Wow you have a kind of night-owl like stamina.
Are you southern?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 am
Sometimes the girls really cut to the chase.
Logically.
And it is terrifying when they do.
When my daughters do that to me, which is always, I tell them -- pick up the check.... for your life!
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 am
And why would anyone care that Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant?
I could care less.
I want to understand how Sarah herself THINKS!
Jeez, Sarah made five children. Is it a surprise that her daughter was inspired to make a baby?
Just wait until the media gets video of the prospective baby daddy.
That will kill McCain's credibility -- whatever is left.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 am
The penis only produces its own natural lubrication after it has fulfilled its purpose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never had one.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
"Did you not see the responses from people such as PK and Michael Claymore and others who defend the right to have sex at will without feeling responsible enough to slap on a condom, while also being 100% (I assume) against abortion?"
I never said that.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Bareback riding
Jeana says: "Hmmmm, I would have to say that if they cannot produce enough natural lubrication, they need to go to the store and buy some."
PK responds: I have to agree with Roy, Jeana. You don't sound very sexually experienced (which I suppose is a compliment.) Do you really think the only factor in the difference of experience, for women, between a latex condom and skin is lubricant?
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Bobolobo says "The penis only produces its own natural lubrication after it has fulfilled its purpose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never had one."
I don't know what you are talking about Bobolobo, but the penis actually produces a natural lubrication fluid when the man is aroused but well before he has reached ejaculation.
Incidentally, this is why withdrawing before ejaculation is not a foolproof method of contraception. The lubrication fluid can contain traces of semen.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Jeana says "Also, everyone here is so against VAWA, well, instead of voting against Joe Biden, I think the best way is to get legislators to think of including men when talking about domestic violence. Men should be part of the dialogue and the solution along with women; not just the perpetrators. I know some have tried this, but you have to keep on trying."
So in order to end legal discrimination against men, we should vote for a guy who is proud of passing laws that are so blatantly discriminatory against men and in favor of women?
It is a bit like telling blacks to vote for a white supremacist, and then just hope that they will come around to a better way of thinking once they are in office.
I like the way you pepper your sentences with empty cliches like "be part of the dialogue".
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Patrick Brown Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Mr Brown, you don't believe women can die in child birth here in America? I can say that I needed an emergency abortion to save my life. I have a condition that causes my blood pressure and heart rate to crash during pregnancy and is similar to a severe anaphylatic shock allergic reaction. At this point there it no known treatment other than to not get pregnant.
I cannot support Sarah Palin for VP of anything, except for maybe Hitler Youth League. She is a fraud. She says one thing and does another, then lies about what she did to fit some made up GOP story.
I could have some respect for her if she would just stop lying and come clean, that she is for getting all the earmarks and Federal money she can get her money grubbing hands on, that she is just an average mother with wilder than average children, that she supports taxing only on those making less than 100,000 per year and supports no taxation for businesses or those making more than 100,000 per year, that she supports no bid contracts, she is against any fair and equal employment laws, and that she supports government controlling every aspect of our lives. She claims to be anit-corruption, yet her administations starting with city council were all corrupt as well along with her firing everyone who dared to hold an opposing viewpoint.
I am all for her right to chose what she thinks is best for her life, but she does not represent this woman and she is not someone I want sitting one heart beat away from the Presidency.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Nick S,
My major problem with Biden is that he has a repeated history of authoring and pushing through congress blatantly unconstitutional legislation. This isn't just my opinion on the matter either, he's had his legislation brought before the courts before and they have declared portions of it to be unconstitutional (and on more than one occasion).
I'm not too keen on electing anyone into high public office who deliberately ignores the supreme law of the land in order to push forward some agenda. He's not the only politician who pulls stuff like this either, and I'm not too fond of any of them.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sierra,
"She says one thing and does another"
If not doing this is your criteria for selecting a political candidate then I am afraid you don't really have any choices. Every politician I've seen says one thing and does another (except for maybe jimmy carter... he was an ethical fellow, just not very effective).
So far as some pregnancies being extremely dangerous, I agree with you. A former coworker of mine had to deal with pregnancy induced diabetes... it was a real mess, her body just couldn't handle being pregnant. She basically had to spend all nine months in bed and on a special diet or she would miscarry or die, it was really a difficult situation, but she was a trooper and made it through with the help of her husband.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Jason, Jimmy Carter was as big a hypocrite as the rest. He was just such a fool that it was difficult to believe he had the intelligence to lie.
www.nerepublican.com/index.php/2006/02/12/jimmy-carter-hypocrite/
“Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people,” Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign."
Who approved spying on the American people? Guess who:
"Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil."
Look out for killer rabbits!
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Barry Goldwater is laughing
Sierra rants: " she supports government controlling every aspect of our lives. "
PK responds: And feminists don't? Of course feminists want the state to control out lives to make them great for women. Boo hoo, why can't feminists get a corrupt police state they can trust? :-)
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Someone Said: "Why is it that when Sarah Palin is asked about her children on 2/24/08 her reply is 4 children with no mention of her 5th, is this the action of a prolifer?
or do I have my math really confused?"
Paul Replied: She only had four kids on 2/24. In April she gave birth to her fifth child.
There is a problem with Palin's response to the question. She promotes her self as a Feminist (ugh) for Life and with that comes the belief that a fetus is a *person* from the time of conception. I know when I was pregnant people often asked me when the BABY was due. No one ever asked me when the FETUS was due. To me, while I was carrying my child, she was my baby--my child for all 9 months of my pregnancy and not just at the moment of birth and onward.
So back to Palin's reply to the question in February when she was (I guess) 7 months pregnant. Wouldn't a pro-lifer answer "I have 4 children and another one on the way or due in a couple of months"??? No wonder there were so many questions about that baby in the media.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Where's the seat?
perspicacious, that sounds like a leftist red-herring and it doesn't have enough meat to feed my cat. To illustrate in an amusing fashion, consider this anecdote (which as far as I know is true.)
A pregnant woman was given a traffic ticket for driving in the carpool lane alone. She appealed to the judge that her baby was a person. The judge cleverly responded that it only counted if the child took up another seat. Case closed.
When people are asked how many children they have, it's a public question and people view it in the same terms as filling out your tax documentation. Did the fetus/baby have an SS number in the womb?
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Jeana: "There is no way in HELL that any of you can simultaneously be against a woman’s right to an abortion and for a man’s right to impregnate and walk away. What a bunch of hypocrites."
How do men today play and walk away? The government hunts them down, forces them to pay outrageous amounts of child support (which the mother can spend on anything she wants to including herself and her new boyfriends, there is no demand for accounting),takes away their driver's licenses and even jails them both done without due process. Some men who are DNA verified NOT to be the father are forced to pay child support and face these other drastic measures. So who are these men who "play and don't pay" in TODAY's world?
I see it the other way around. Men who support abortion are likely to see it as an opportunity to play and not pay. A baby who is never born won't generate CS or jail time, etc.
I see it as women being the ones TODAY who like to play and not pay by having babies even by men who never wanted fatherhood (honey, oops I forgot to take my pill for a few months). These women play and then get the full benefits of government programs (sometimes including welfare), drastic government protections, and an ability to get revenge on a man if they so wish to do so. Whelp a baby win a prize. That likely accounts for the record number of unwed mothers out there TODAY who DIDN'T find abortion to be a need in their lives.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Firestation Presents
perspicacious, you forgot the biggest "f*ck and walk" benefit of all: Women have default custody of children and the right, as such, to legally abandon infants altogether!
The little feminist ploy of the past (I've been debating this a LONGGGG time!) was to argue that even if such women milked their baby like a prize halsteen cow, they still "cared" for it physically and didn't "abandon" it like men did (even if such men weren't allowed legally to visit the baby at her request.)
Yet, even THAT little requirement, that a woman actually has to feed the child once in a while with the welfare or child-support check was too much. They asked for, and got, the legal right to abandon such a child!
The next red herring is to justify the measure saying that it was meant for young, teenage girls (even as ALL mothers have this right), and that it saves lives (nevermind that it's the women who put their own children in jeapardy in the first place) and that it only applied to "neonates" (infants younger than 3 months) although such clinics are now finding full toddlers older than that.
It's official: Mothers have ZERO legal responsibilities. Zip. None. They may get prosecuted for killing their own children through neglect but if they turn on the water works they may get probation. Other than that, the skies the limit. That's what motherhood has become in the U.S. of A.
Really, perspicacious, isn't this an amazing time to live in? It makes the Spartans that abandoned "unfit" babies to die of exposure on Mt. Olympus seem like prudes by comparison...
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
"By the way and for the record, I am not quite sure what all the duties of a VP are. I do believe that he/she serves as the President of the US Senate. I guess I'll go over to wikipedia and find out what the VP's duties are."
It seems to be similar to being the First Runner Up in beauty pageants. Should the winner be unable to perform their duties and complete their term for any reason, the VP takes over their role. Unfortunately leading the US is not the same thing as smiling and selling cosmetics but I have to wonder how many people are missing that distinction.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
"Unfortunately leading the US is not the same thing as smiling and selling cosmetics but I have to wonder how many people are missing that distinction."
PK observes: Perspicacious, isn't that a good description of Obama? Have I mentioned that you can hope for change and change for hope? Don't forget to inflate your tires properly. That will free us from foreign oil!
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
PolishKnight Says: Unless Palin is found to be guilty of the ethics charges being leveled against her (and these attacks are now so common in presidential politics that they are now meaningless. What president or VP HASN'T been subjected to ethical hearings in the past? Iran-Contra, Lewinski, Whitewater, etc.)"
Except...except that Palin's ethics charges and investigation are not part of presidential politics. All of them were in place well before McCain named her. They are not the result of his choosing her but had legs of their own for quite awhile before he did so. To claim this is just like the others is not exactly a valid claim.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Jeana Says: Well, if men want sex, shouldn’t they “man up” and use a condom rather than risk disease and unwanted pregnancy if they cared an ounce about their partner?
I believe it still generally takes two people to create a baby via sexual intercourse.
If a woman willingly engages in sex with a man shouldn't SHE "adult up" and use her own birth control or insist upon a condom and if all that fails, just say no thanks IF she cares about her partner (to say nothing about caring about herself)?
Why is it always up to the guys with feminists? Can't women handle responsibility...especially involving their own bodies? That appears to be the very argument you are putting forth here.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
PolishKnight Says: When people are asked how many children they have, it's a public question and people view it in the same terms as filling out your tax documentation. Did the fetus/baby have an SS number in the womb?
Talk about red herrings. You failed to address my comments relative to Palin herself making an issue of her pro-life stance. If she wants to run on that and be credible then she needs to walk the walk and talk the talk AT LEAST when she's in the public eye. She didn't do that plain and simple.
FWIW I don't believe anyone mentioned in this thread or on the campaign trail whether or not Holocaust victims claimed their fetuses were children or whether or not anyone counted such fetuses as victims. Your analogies often go way off the track veering out somewhere into The Twilight Zone. This is an excellent example.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Perspicacious: "Except...except that Palin's ethics charges and investigation are not part of presidential politics. All of them were in place well before McCain named her. They are not the result of his choosing her but had legs of their own for quite awhile before he did so. To claim this is just like the others is not exactly a valid claim."
PK responds: I find this quibble amusing: It's "ok" then for a politican in office to commit an ethical violation but not someone running for office? Oh, that makes me feel better then! The shouldn't have a problem if "Bush lied, people died" since bad ethics in office don't count!
Seriously, the left has tried to use this standard to excuse their politicians caught red handed in office with ethics violations including, but not limited to, Barney Franks molesting underage staffers and committing sexual harassment (the left really has a problem with that), "Abscam" Murtha, Bill Clinton ('nuff said), etc.
Shouldn't the voters maybe consider these charges sometime when putting them back into office for the 10th time? Speaking of that, Robert Byrd's KKK membership card is up for renewal...
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Perspicacious claims: Talk about red herrings. You failed to address my comments relative to Palin herself making an issue of her pro-life stance. If she wants to run on that and be credible then she needs to walk the walk and talk the talk AT LEAST when she's in the public eye. She didn't do that plain and simple.
PK responds: Er, that's the point: It's my understanding that your quibble is over her "talking the talk" of counting her unborn child as one of her actual children and semantics.
Perspicacious says: FWIW I don't believe anyone mentioned in this thread or on the campaign trail whether or not Holocaust victims claimed their fetuses were children or whether or not anyone counted such fetuses as victims. Your analogies often go way off the track veering out somewhere into The Twilight Zone. This is an excellent example.
PK asks: ?!?! I don't recall saying anything about the holocaust. I compared the lack of legal and personal responsibility of modern mothers to the ancient Greeks who commonly practiced infanticide. And it's a pretty darn close comparison if I do say so myself.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Perspicacious:
The government does not hunt down any man for child support unless the female is receiving state or federal assistance, in which case they want to recoup some of their payments, or if the female pursues him for child support. For all the women who don’t fall into either of those categories, he is a free man.
And sometimes the “outrageous amounts” they pay are around $25-$50 a month.
And why exactly do you think that the man should have no responsibilities? I really don’t get it. If you don’t want to create a baby, then use protection. Period. Stop blaming feminists and everyone else. Responsibility isn’t always easy, but nothing is.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
roy:
“And why would anyone care that Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant?”
Because she doesn’t believe in abortion even for rape and incest victims—totally anti-choice, yet she said how happy she was that her daughter “chose” to keep the pregnancy. If it were up to Sarah Palin, no one else would get a choice, so why should her daughter be any different? And she only allowed “abstinence till marriage” propaganda to be taught in Alaskan schools. But Creationism SHOULD be taught in schools, according to her. And she did a line item veto taking money away from a home for unwed pregnant homeless teens. Nice Christian woman that she is.
She’s a hypocrite. What kind of family values is she promoting, anyway? And did you see the winner her daughter hooked up with? And the fact that he describes himself as a “f***’in redneck”? Nice. Very nice. What a slap in the face to all the other QUALIFIED conservative women. Pathetic.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Jeana, you're wrong. CS collection agencies now operate for ALL cases including non-welfare caseloads (they use this to qualify for Federal funds under welfare reform) Yes, in theory that shouldn't be the case but that's the fact.
And the reason why the averages are so low is due to so-called deadbeats being on the books who are literally dead. (But then again, the 70 cents on a dollar wage statistic is due to comparing women including housewives and part time workers to men working full time 60 hours a week.)
And as you know, women have the option to not only use other forms of B/C (and pay for it, what a concept for adults, eh?) but also legal abandonment and welfare. Perhaps if women had SOME standards of responsibility for their children you'd be in a position to lecture us.
Your argument against Sarah Palin is a total absurd non-sequitur. Palin cannot be a hypocrite for celebrating her daughter carrying a baby to term if that's what she thinks is right to begin with. Are Catholics hypocrites for bragging that their children attend church?
Your sneer about her daughter's fiance proves something I was thnking about: Your outrage is due to your belief that women should all be party girls and have sex without consequences (unlike men who accept becoming fathers the moment they stick it in) and sleep with bad boys, but not marry them, until they hit their 30's and marry professional men or ask the taxpayer to foot the bills for fertility treatments.
Her daughter is marrying the father of the child. If a man married a homely woman he slept with after a one night stand, nobody would notice or get upset. News flash: Life for women isn't always about having a good consequence-free time!
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
PK responds: I find this quibble amusing: It's "ok" then for a politican in office to commit an ethical violation but not someone running for office?
The problem with your argument is that I never said that I (or anyone else for that matter) found it "ok" for a politician whether already in office OR still running for office to commit an ethical violation.
Your comments which I was replying to suggested you were making an argument that all politicians are involved in investigations and this was just business as usual. You used some past investigations as examples.
I was only pointing out a difference between this investigation and some of those you named as examples. I merely pointed out that this current investigation of Palin relative to Wooten (her ex-brother-in-law and current state trooper)and Walter Monegan, (the staffer she fired allegedly because he refused to fire Wooten), was in the press all over Alaska several months before the official investigation was ordered in July of 2008.
IOW all of these innuendos, rumors, and even the two investigations of Palin were in progress long before McCain catapulted her onto the national scene on August 29 and she began running for office with him. They are not things generated by the press to take her down. They sort of just fell into the press's lap so to speak, almost like a gift from heaven. Of course, the entire issue is grist for the mill now--but that outcome IS just politics as usual. McCain really should have vetted her before he named her rather than after but he isn't known for his patience.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
jeana Says:
"And why exactly do you think that the man should have no responsibilities?"
Why exactly do you think that the man should have no choice as to whether or not to be a parent? Do you believe that men should not have the same rights that women do?
jeana Says:
"If you don’t want to create a baby, then use protection. Period."
Uh... if you are going to tell this to a man who doesn't want to be a father, shouldn't you also tell this to a woman who wants an abortion (except in cases of rape or health issues) and shouldn't you also tell this to the women who are free to abondon their babies at virtually any hospital without any consequences?
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
PK responded: Er, that's the point: It's my understanding that your quibble is over her "talking the talk" of counting her unborn child as one of her actual children and semantics.
Wrong. Flat wrong. It is not just semantics. Palin ran for Governor on a pro-life platform and is doing the same now when running for VP. Pro-Lifers believe a child IS a child at the time of conception. For her to fail to count the baby she was carrying when 7 months pregnant as ONE OF HER CHILDREN is a political mistake on her part because SHE is the one who set the standards for herself and what she claims to believe.
As a Pro-Life politician she either had FIVE children in February of 2008 or she had four children with another child on the way. BUT she never said anything of the sort when asked. I am holding her feet to the fire here and saying, IF you say a baby is a PERSON at conception then how can you NOT count the baby you are carrying as one of your children?
Honestly it shouldn't be so difficult to understand this unless of course you don't consider unborn fetuses as children but that doesn't matter here. The issue is what Palin SAID she believes and how she responded when asked on the topic. The two do not match.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
PolishKnight Said: I don't recall saying anything about the holocaust.
My mistake I suppose. I didn't realize you were talking about Social Security Numbers when you used the term "SS numbers." I did read it wrong but that comment was just as outlandish as if you had been referring to internment camp tattoos. Your analogies remain bizarre IMO.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Walking the walk by... talking the talk?
perspicacious, this is getting silly. You're saying that she's not walking the walk by not talking the talk and using a strict absolute standard of counting a "child" as existing at the moment it's known to be in the womb.
You clearly understand that a philosophical belief that a child has rights is not the same as ordering it christmas presents the moment the pregnancy test shows up positive. If anything, a responsible person waits until birth before naming it and planning the shower for luck. That doesn't change the person viewing it as a child AND YOU KNOW IT.
This is a silly red herring and it's not going to fly. But do keep it up because it makes you look silly. Go ahead. Don't let me stop you!
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
FYI, I used the SS number example because I actually have heard this argument before about 20 years ago in that case. Leftists said that if babies exist at conception then they should get social security numbers. It's not outlandish on my part. It's an actual argument they used.
Birth dates are used as a metric for certain age based benefits and this is different than that of human rights. A person can not have ID with their birth date, for example, and still be given care at a hospital.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Jeana says: The government does not hunt down any man for child support unless the female is receiving state or federal assistance,
That would be funny if it weren't so widely believed by so many willfully uninformed citizens. Do your homework. Have you never heard of Social Security IV-D? If not look it up on the web. All the info is there in easy to understand language. Mr. Clinton signed that one into office in his last term. ANY woman can go to the government (the CSA) and request FREE legal representation and FREE help in tracking down any man who is as much as a dime short in CS payments. All you have to be is a mother with a child under age 19. That's the requirements...there is no needs test at all.
Professional women can get this assistance FREE. Women owning expensive properties, large bank accounts and other monetary investments can get this FREE assistance. And you and I get to pay for it all for these women.
You really need to put down the feminist talking points and do some research on the web. The gals at NOW don't often tell you the whole story much less the truth.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
perspicacious says: "IOW all of these innuendos, rumors, and even the two investigations of Palin were in progress long before McCain catapulted her onto the national scene on August 29 and she began running for office with him. They are not things generated by the press to take her down. They sort of just fell into the press's lap so to speak, almost like a gift from heaven. Of course, the entire issue is grist for the mill now--but that outcome IS just politics as usual. McCain really should have vetted her before he named her rather than after but he isn't known for his patience."
PK responds: I THINK I get your point in that it's best to get candidates who are as "clean" as possible. I stand by what I said though in that politics is so dirty and such attacks are so common now (not necessarily for "all" politicians) that it's not as big a deal as you might think.
For example, Obama has lots to answer for his wife's connections to lobbyists and money for his house (he knows how many houses he has, he had to service lobbyists to get them :-) so a politically biased or baseless ethics allegation, especially months old, maybe better than the October surprises waiting The One.
It's ironic that Palin's major flaws seem to be that she's so similar to Obama. Not a good thing for Obama!
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
PK,
“CS collection agencies now operate for ALL cases including non-welfare caseloads (they use this to qualify for Federal funds under welfare reform)”
How would they know if I give birth and receive no child support unless I tell a court or apply for some kind of state aid? You are under the assumption that every single guy is hounded for child support. They are not.
“Palin cannot be a hypocrite for celebrating her daughter carrying a baby to term if that's what she thinks is right to begin with.”
Palin is a hypocrite for
1) saying HER daughter had a “choice” but believing that NO OTHER FEMALE DOES
2) she’s way into the family values propaganda for everyone else but her own kids
3) vetoed funding for a home for unwed teen mothers.
Did you even read my post? But you must have because you responded to it. If you are “pro-life” and totally anti-abortion, then you should be SUPPORTING programs that PREVENT pregnancy and SUPPORTING homes for pregnant girls and SUPPORTING contraception. And not pretending that your child gets a choice but no other girl does, even ONES RAPED BY THEIR FATHERS, UNCLES OR BROTHERS.
(Items in all caps because for emphasis and to MAKE SURE YOU READ THEM.)
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
perspicacious,
Again, lots of females do not ask for and so do not receive any child support. We are talking about two entirely different things. I know females who receive nothing and who ask for nothing. I think they’re fools since they barely make it. Guys do not have to give anything unless they are forced to. How sad that they have to be forced to. Maybe you are reading too much of the MRA talking points.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
PolishKnight says: But do keep it up because it makes you look silly. Go ahead. Don't let me stop you!
Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Right now I think you are the silliest on this point and several others. Does that make it so? No. Ditto for your personal pronouncements about me. I'll let you thrill to having the last word on this. Give it your best shot.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
PolishKnight Says: It's ironic that Palin's major flaws seem to be that she's so similar to Obama. Not a good thing for Obama!
True enough but unfortunately for your argument, this coin has a flip side. That Palin's major flaws seem so similar to Obama are also not a good thing for McCain/Palin. I say it's a draw and there is no good candidate on either ticket. Looks like I'll be doing a write in.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
"Give it your best shot."
Pffft!
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Jeana Says: How would they know if I give birth and receive no child support unless I tell a court or apply for some kind of state aid? You are under the assumption that every single guy is hounded for child support. They are not.
I think you sort of hit on something there, but I don't think you did it deliberately and you probably have no idea what you hit on. It is true, a fact that currently child support agencies do not aggressively go after all fathers owing CS. Welfare cases are at the top of this list followed by fathers who are uneducated and sporadically employed in very low paying jobs. There is a reason for this if you follow the money...
The states via the CSA's all get federal kickbacks (big $$$ they can spend any way the like) for every CS payment the CSA collects. There is a catch here in terminology because ALL money the CS "collects" is called collections even when the men paying are not and have never been in arrears so much as a penny. Still the feds give the CSA kickbacks for those payments.
Therefore, the CSA's tend to see going after men who have some available income (and the more available income the better) and they aggressively pursue these men particularly when the CSA does routine things like making bookkeeping errors that create false arrears. I've never met a man who was able to clear those arrears with the CSA OR in the court system no matter how blatant the bookkeeping error or how much it defies acceptable accounting principles.
On the flip side those Welfare cases and low paying barely educated fathers are NEVER likely to bring in much money to the CSA and therefore working those cases aggressively would be in the CSA's and the states' minds a huge waste of time since they'd get no federal kickbacks out of it. So...this system allegedly designed to get rid of Welfare and to help the poorest of the poor actually neglects them most of the time and instead hounds decent men who are dutifully paying outrageously over-inflated CS awards in a timely manner.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Only problem with the Obama/Palin, er, umbilical cord connection (sorry for that graphic :-) is that Palin is running for VICE PRESIDENT.
I'll agree that Obama would be best to run for VICE PRESIDENT. That's what he is qualified for. That's the logic they're slowing creating in a vacuum...
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Tautalis
Jeana, do you know what a tautology is? You're using one here:
"Guys do not have to give anything unless they are forced to."
Well... duh! People generally don't "have to" do something until they are forced to.
You're flailing at this point. Ditto for the claim that Palin is a hypocrite for thinking women don't have an abortion choice. That's the point: She's for eliminate them. She can't be against something if she doesn't think it exists. Duh again!
Eeek! She's the one making me silly! It's not my fault, perspicacious!!!
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Jeana says: Again, lots of females do not ask for and so do not receive any child support.
Lots? How many is lots? Do you have some web sites you can lead me to where I can read documented studies, surveys, and reports on this claim? I'll read them if you provide them.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
The difference between supporting something and using taxpayer money (again)
jeana says: Did you even read my post? But you must have because you responded to it. If you are “pro-life” and totally anti-abortion, then you should be SUPPORTING programs that PREVENT pregnancy and SUPPORTING homes for pregnant girls and SUPPORTING contraception. And not pretending that your child gets a choice but no other girl does, even ONES RAPED BY THEIR FATHERS, UNCLES OR BROTHERS.
PK responds: Jeana, people can be "for" something but not for taxpayer subsidies or a particular program. For example, are you for taking all the money in VAWA and giving it to Religious based charities instead? Get the point now? Hmmm?
In addition, arguing that she has to run programs to prevent pregnancy lest the woman get abortions sounds like appeasement. How about this: Do you favor giving FATHERS, UNCLES, OR BROTHERS free taxpayer paid prostitutes to prevent rape? Oh, you don't? Then you must be ok with rape then. Nevermind.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The Silly Party!
(Yes, one actually exists in England. I wish WE had one!)
perspicacious, I didn't mean to call you silly or insult you, BTW. I just happen to think people playing these semantics games is silly. For example, people calling their spouses "partner" instead of wife or husband. I think that's "silly". Or the press calling someone's boyfriend or girlfriend their "singificant other." Once again, more silliness.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
PolishKnight Says: In addition, arguing that she has to run programs to prevent pregnancy lest the woman get abortions sounds like appeasement. How about this: Do you favor giving FATHERS, UNCLES, OR BROTHERS free taxpayer paid prostitutes to prevent rape? Oh, you don't? Then you must be ok with rape then. Nevermind.
Hey I think you finally made an analogy that makes sense and also one I can agree with although I'm willing to bet Jeana won't see it that way.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
PolishKnight, semantics are silly. However, I believe politicians who take big public stances have to always watch every word they say. That's life in the political world.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Hypocrites
Jeana claims: "Palin is a hypocrite for:"
Jeana: 1) saying HER daughter had a “choice” but believing that NO OTHER FEMALE DOES
PK responds: I don't think she believes no other women have "choices" I think she disagrees with the legality of those choices. How can she seek to outlaw something she doesn't "believe" in?
Jeana: 2) she’s way into the family values propaganda for everyone else but her own kids
PK responds: People can be into "family values" and have problems in their family. This is a leftist paradigm that unless a conservative/traditional family is perfect, they're "hypocrites" and a failure. Palin addressed her daughter's pregnancy by having her marry the father. Isn't marriage part of family value somewhere?
Jeana: 3) vetoed funding for a home for unwed teen mothers.
PK responds: As explained above, she may think that the state funding is inappropriate or that the bill itself was a slush fund for feminist groups. You're probably against unlimited free prostitutes for men too to prevent rape but that doesn't make you pro-rape.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jeana asks: "How would they know if I give birth and receive no child support unless I tell a court or apply for some kind of state aid? You are under the assumption that every single guy is hounded for child support. They are not. "
PK responds: This sounds like a weasely argument. That unless a woman lifts her finger to dial the authorities, then the man won't be hounded so what's the big deal? You're sweeping the issue under the carpet that most women can easily sic the state to hound men to pay for children, including unwanted children or ones they don't have equal access to.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Free Prostitutes
perspicacious, it's well known that in scandanavian countries and other places with legal, inexpensive prostitution that rape rates are incredibly low. Same with porno. I laughed at jeana's histrionics over upskirting. I see stuff on the web that totally kills ANY interest at looking at the naughty parts of women on the street. If anything, it's argued that porn might kill sexual desire.
I have argued that there's a "rape culture" perpetuated by women who seek to make it out to be the worst crime in the world to garnish sympathy and score victim points and at the same time milk men's sexual insecurities to get goodies. It's like teasing tigers at the zoo AND emptying the moat. I'm amazed things aren't worse than they are...
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
More silliness
PolishKnight, semantics are silly. However, I believe politicians who take big public stances have to always watch every word they say. That's life in the political world.
PK responds: I don't think that pro-lifers believe that one has to list unborn children as their "children" when naming off how many children they have. They still count their "born" children. Yes, it seems "hypocritical" to you, but birth still has a meaning to such women. It's not a beginning of life, perhaps, but a stage similar to graduating from school or getting married. Does that make any sense?
Note, I'm not in argument mode right now. I'm just explaining how she probably thinks and the pro-life community will be fine with it. I think the left may decide to harp on it, but what are they proving really? That she "LIED" about not having a child by not viewing it as a full child in the womb?
Ultimately, even if YOU think it's not "silly", she can b*tch slap the media if they pester her with questions and say that it's a newborn baby and to stop picking on it already. That's chivalrous as hell, but also a valid point. This is a baby NOW after all, and has a lot to go through.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Jeana,
I think it would be fair to say that when it comes to Palin you are really just looking for any reason not to like her that you can come up with. Keep in mind I don't think she was a good choice either... but my reasons don't involve things like this:
"And did you see the winner her daughter hooked up with?"
Is this really the important issue when it comes to her?
You don't think the guy her daughter had sex with was good looking enough and therefore that is a negative against Palin?
Would you have felt better if the guy was absolutely gorgeous and worth millions?
Frankly this comes off as a bit snobby... you don't even know this guy and you're implying that he is worthless.
Have you made sure to check out the significant others of all the other candidates children as well?... maybe they are all ugly too... then who will you vote for?
"Palin is a hypocrite for
1) saying HER daughter had a “choice” but believing that NO OTHER FEMALE DOES"
This doesn't make her a hypocrite because when has she ever stopped any other woman from having an abortion?
She just believes abortion is wrong... but apparently she recognizes that women do have a choice and that she is powerless to decide for anyone else... even her own daughter.
What should she have said? "She knew she had to have the baby... we didn't give her any choice?"
That would have been illegal... she can't do that.
You are basically calling her a hypocrite for acknowledging what the law is... and the law is that her daughter does have a choice, regardless of what her mother wants.
You don't have to like Palin... but these reasons are really like scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
jeana, did he mean "scraping"?
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
"Palin's plan to extract oil from Alaska in order to alleviate our need for fuel is like planning to feed the homeless by collecting up the bread crumbs left over by ducks.
an extremely naive assertion .... Alaska is rich in oil ... So is Canada
With new drilling technologies, we can eventually tap into it (not in this decade), but to declare it's like left over crumbs from ducks is absurd. sheesh
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Yikes, Georgia Girl putting in common sense! I say, let's go for inflating our tires. That will solve it. Oh, and big windmills, everywhere!
Naw, let's just pay $10 a gallon over to the Saudis and have them export Islamic values to Europe and make Paris, France into a Taliban city... "Hope... Change... Hope... Change..."
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Georgia Girl,
"an extremely naive assertion .... Alaska is rich in oil ... So is Canada
With new drilling technologies, we can eventually tap into it (not in this decade), but to declare it's like left over crumbs from ducks is absurd. sheesh"
The quantity of oil locked up within Alaska even at current usage is minuscule.
I'm not sure who gave you the impression that Alaska was "rich in oil" but they are incorrect.
According to the Energy Information Administration, even at peak production (which is estimated to occur in 2025), the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market.
So basically when you call my assertion "naive" and declare Alaska to be "rich" what you are basically saying is that going from 70% imported oil to 66% imported oil in 15 years would somehow be a huge impact?
That is a minuscule change... I don't know what is doing over in Canada... but Alaska isn't the answer to our energy problems you are making it out to be, not by a long shot.
Furthermore, those estimates are notoriously poor at estimating future oil usage and tend to always underestimate the need, which means that we are likely to be worse off than that projection indicates.
The only answers to our energy problem are nuclear or solar... anything else is just a bandaid on a gushing wound.
But hey... if my assertion is niave, you should have no problem finding articles and data which support your contention that Alaska has more than enough oil to meet our needs for decades.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
PK,
"Oh, and big windmills, everywhere!"
This you are absolutely correct about... windmills cannot provide nearly enough energy.
Even if we tapped every wind resource in the United States we would only cover about 20% of our current energy usage.
Anyone who tells you that wind is the answer doesn't know what they are talking about.
We've only got two outs for a sustainable energy future... solar or nuclear (or fusion if that ever get's online... but that is perpetually 50 years off), everything else is just a side show.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
alaska IS rich in oil -- of COURSE it's not the "answer" , duh
and I suppose we don't rely on canada at ALL
pk, palin was brilliant
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
GG,
Maybe your definition of "rich" and mine are very different.
Lowering out dependance on foreign oil from 70% to 66% in 15 years is not my definition of being "rich" in oil.
If you want to declare that Alaska is "rich" in oil you've got to tell me what you mean by "rich"... so far it just sounds like your own subjective opinion... give me something objective to work with.
My opinion is that a location is "rich" in oil if it can supply the US energy needs on it's own for a decade or more... Alaska doesn't even come close.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:14 am
PK,
As usual, you are wrong about everything. If you are so against birth control for everyone, esp. teens, comprehensive sex ed (only “don’t have sex till marriage or Jesus will hate you even though I was knocked up before I got pregnant” education), and abortion in virtually all circumstances, and claim to be “family values” oriented, then you better the hell be for something like a home for pregnant teen moms with nowhere else to go. But the hypocritical right wing shows time and time again how they are the furthest thing from anything close to family values or any kind of “pro-life” mentality.
How you could even say that her vetoing that funding was anything remotely similar to giving men prostitutes to keep them from raping their daughters is probably the most lame brain thing I’ve heard from you yet. It would be so very nice if people who claim to be against abortion would at least support the females who decide to give birth. But no, strip away funding for everything that could help females who don’t choose abortion. And it is especially important to do nothing to prevent the pregnancies in the first place, right? It’s so sickening to me.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Jason,
I was talking about what her future shotgun-wedded son-in-law SAID. Don’t try to change the subject to what he looks like.
“On his MySpace page, Johnston [the baby daddy of Bristol Palin] boasts, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess. Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added. He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."”
If that’s not a winner, I don’t know what is. A “f***’n redneck”??? Sounds like trash to me. No offense to trash. I’d be ashamed of him and would want to keep my daughter far from him.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/levi-johnston-bristol-pal_n_123089.html
“This doesn't make her a hypocrite because when has she ever stopped any other woman from having an abortion? She just believes abortion is wrong... but apparently she recognizes that women do have a choice and that she is powerless to decide for anyone else... even her own daughter.”
Here is what the Anchorage Daily News said when she was running for governor:
“The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant. Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."”
She is totally anti-abortion. That is fine if she is talking about her personally, but when you are in a position of power, you can deny females (and she has) contraception, information, funding, and access to abortions. And if you do this, you SHOULD NOT also say that your own underage daughter has choices about her pregnancy. That is hypocritical. What about this don’t any of you understand?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Jason says "My major problem with Biden is that he has a repeated history of authoring and pushing through congress blatantly unconstitutional legislation. This isn't just my opinion on the matter either, he's had his legislation brought before the courts before and they have declared portions of it to be unconstitutional (and on more than one occasion)."
True. Although there are probably many others who are just as guilty.
A lot of legislators seem to assume that activist judges will look the other way when unconstitutional laws are passed, so long as it is part of a noble agenda like "ending violence against women".
And then they are shocked when the judges sometimes actually choose to uphold the constitution over promoting some PC agenda. How inconsiderate of them!
September 4th, 2008 at 12:55 am
we rely heavily on canadian oil exports
jeana, did you see her speech?
September 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am
where did that miss fireball run off to? :(
i'll catch up tomorrow
September 4th, 2008 at 1:04 am
GeorgiaGirl,
I saw most of it. Remember, Barack is my man, so I can’t stand seeing him dissed! I put my son to bed instead. I didn’t hate her as much as I thought I would. Republicans at the convention seemed to love her.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Nick S,
"True. Although there are probably many others who are just as guilty."
You are absolutely correct, and just in case I wasn't clear, I don't like any legislator who decides to push through laws that are unconstitutional.
To me it is the responsibility of congress to make an earnest effort not to promote legislation that violates the supreme law of the land in the hopes that the judiciary will look the other way.
In my opinion, the judiciary should only have to declare something unconstitutional because the legislator added something by mistake... not because they were hoping to circumvent the constitution and that the judiciary would let it slide.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Jeana,
This is the type of things you say that I don't really like:
"I was talking about what her future shotgun-wedded son-in-law SAID. Don’t try to change the subject to what he looks like."
Your exact words were:
"And did you see the winner her daughter hooked up with?"
You asked if people saw the "winner"... as in have they caught a visual glimpse of him. You didn't ask if people "heard about" the "winner"... or ask if people "heard" what the "winner said".
You made it about what he looks like by phrasing it that way and I don't think that is fair.
"If that’s not a winner, I don’t know what is. A “f***’n redneck”??? Sounds like trash to me. No offense to trash. I’d be ashamed of him and would want to keep my daughter far from him."
You've based your entire opinion on a teenage kid upon their myspace page?
If that is the case then around 90% of the youth in america is trash.
Don't you think that maybe you're looking for any excuse you can to impugn anyone who is associated with Palin?
You don't even know this kid and are calling him trash because of a myspace page... I defy you to locate a wholesome myspace page owned by a 16 year old of either gender that wouldn't make them look like trash.
"She is totally anti-abortion. That is fine if she is talking about her personally, but when you are in a position of power, you can deny females (and she has) contraception, information, funding, and access to abortions."
She can deny funding... but she can't deny information or contraception or access.
Denial means to make these things unavailable... but she can't do that, how is she going to deny information?... everything is on the internet or in libraries for anyone to look up if they are interested.
She can't deny contraception because these things are still available for sale in stores and can't be denied.
And she can't deny access to abortion as it is illegal to do so.
In order for her to deny any of these things she would need to pass new legislation and even a new amendment to the constitution... the congress is mostly democratic at the moment, she can't do any of that.
What you are worried about is schools no longer being able to hand out condoms, and schools being limited in what they can teach and funding being cut toward organizations that subsidize abortions.
None of these things constitute denial because these kids can still purchase condoms... can still look up the information... and can still get abortions, just at a steeper price.
Denial of these things would be for her to make it illegal to post sex ed information anywhere (the equivilant of book burning)... outlawing the sale of contraceptives (never going to happen)... outlawing abortions (also never going to happen).
You are grossly exaggerating what she is actually capable of achieving.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Blinded me with science!
Let's start with what GG said: "an extremely naive assertion .... Alaska is rich in oil ... So is Canada With new drilling technologies, we can eventually tap into it (not in this decade), but to declare it's like left over crumbs from ducks is absurd. sheesh"
Jason claims later: That is a minuscule change... I don't know what is doing over in Canada... but Alaska isn't the answer to our energy problems you are making it out to be, not by a long shot.
PK responds: That's not what she said. As Sarah Palin put it, even if drilling in Alaska isn't the "answer" to our energy problems, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make a significant contribution to the problem.
Jason says: "According to the Energy Information Administration..."
PK responds: Im-ho-tep! Im-ho-tep! (walking with arms extended forward) Jason, your argument was largely reliance upon an authority figure. A high priest, as it were. Let's try a non-dogmatic approach:
Here's some raw numbers so people can use their reason and come to their own conclusions (what a concept, eh?) Wiki and even liberal google sources show the USA consumes about 20 million barrels a day. ANWAR is expected to have about 30 BILLION barrels. Hmm, GG, would you agree that 30 BILLION barrels of oil is a lot of oil? The math says that's about 1500 days worth of oil at today's usage (note, that's just oil, not our use of natural gas, etc.) About 4 _years_ of our total oil use. Now you can stretch that out over 30 years and it's a small percentage, granted, but they add up like... windmills (the favored energy source of the Global Warming Religion.)
Jason sneers: I'm not sure who gave you the impression that Alaska was "rich in oil" but they are incorrect.
PK responds: Sarah Palin is writing checks for 1200 bucks to each Alaskan with CURRENT oil production royalty checks. Do you care to send me that much 'miniscule' money?
Jason puts some words in someone's mouth: So basically when you call my assertion "naive" and declare Alaska to be "rich" what you are basically saying is that going from 70% imported oil to 66% imported oil in 15 years would somehow be a huge impact?
PK responds: Wow! Speaking in tongues! The power of Christ compels you, GG, the power of Christ compels you!
Jason's undermines himself: Furthermore, those estimates are notoriously poor at estimating future oil usage and tend to always underestimate the need, which means that we are likely to be worse off than that projection indicates.
PK responds: Er, if your authorititative source can be WRONG isn't that an indication that maybe it isn't perfect after all? Just a thought. You know, like when a religion predicts something and it doesn't come true, the followers just ignore it. The Truth doesn't need those pesky facts that don't fit the model...
Jason goes into faith healing: The only answers to our energy problem are nuclear or solar... anything else is just a bandaid on a gushing wound.
PK responds: Yeah, medical science is so imperfect. But the healing power of Goh-od! Throw away those bandages! You don't need them anymore!
Jason, if these technologies were ready then people would use them instead of oil, duh. I guess we'll have to go on faith and solar and windmills will solve our problems.. And hope. And change. Im-ho-tep.. Im-ho-tep....
Jason throws out a double standard: But hey... if my assertion is niave, you should have no problem finding articles and data which support your contention that Alaska has more than enough oil to meet our needs for decades.
PK responds: Er, Jason, you are aware that oil works NOW, aren't you? It's solar and other tree hugging gaia worship technologies that aren't up to the challenge yet.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Burning windmills
Jason says: "We've only got two outs for a sustainable energy future... solar or nuclear (or fusion if that ever get's online... but that is perpetually 50 years off), everything else is just a side show."
PK responds: Sounds like we have to deal with heretics Jason. All non solar and nuclear technologies are EVIL. BURN THEM! They are NOT the SOLUTION! Im-ho-tep... Im-ho-tep...
September 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Jeana, flattery will get you anywhere you like...
Jeana makes me blush: "As usual, you are wrong about everything."
PK responds: Jeana, when you tell me I'm right about everything, THAT'S when I get my head examined.
[Jeana claims I'm "against" X-Y-Z]
PK answers: I'm not against most of those things, Jeana, I'm just against you demanding the taxpayers pay for it. You claim to not need men to pay for stuff. Well, "man up" and prove it!
Jeana writes: How you could even say that her vetoing that funding was anything remotely similar to giving men prostitutes to keep them from raping their daughters is probably the most lame brain thing I’ve heard from you yet.
PK responds: Jeana, [blushing], you're going to give me a big head! Stop it! [blush] Seriously, if you argue that society should treat women like lost teenage girls in the forest and throw money in front of them to keep them from walking off a cliff, why NOT give men free hookers? Hell, it can't cost any less than what it takes to handhold women for their fake equality!
Jeana writes: It would be so very nice if people who claim to be against abortion would at least support the females who decide to give birth.
PK responds: Er, didja notice that Sarah Palin IS supporting her daughter? I don't see her out on the street. It's the LEFT that pushes people out and tells them "let the government help you. I'm got shopping to do!" Sarah Palin has been together with her husband for 20 years. Oh, wait, he's not rich. That makes him sub-human. Like the Downs baby.
Jeana writes: But no, strip away funding for everything that could help females who don’t choose abortion.
PK responds: Jeana, weren't we told that women's equality would make women more independent? Sheesh! Why should we throw more money your way when you'll still wind up finding some way to screw up. At least Palin's daughter didn't surprise us. On the other hand, there is no end to the welfare state. It just grows and grows...
Jeana writes: And it is especially important to do nothing to prevent the pregnancies in the first place, right? It’s so sickening to me.
PK responds: Er, that's the point: What BUSINESS is it of yours whether Palin's daughter is pregnant and getting married? What about HER choice?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
PolishKnight Says: Yikes, Georgia Girl putting in common sense! I say, let's go for inflating our tires. That will solve it. Oh, and big windmills, everywhere!
__________________________________
But NO transmission lines to send the electricity generated from the windmills to homes and businesses. LOL! How do these liberals think they get their electricity form the power plants now? Oh, yeah...they don't think. Nevermind.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Where is Don Quixote when you need him?
Have you seen the History Channel show: "The World After People?" It's an interesting show because it demonstrates how much work it takes to keep our civilization going.
If all the people vanished suddenly (took a bus to Mars or something), engineers say the windmill's rotors would lock up months. It's a _fast moving_ piece of equipment, set up high in the air, exposed to the harshest elements. A windmill isn't simply built and then left alone to produce infinite quanties of energy. Even solar panels don't work that way. They have an operational lifetime and ultimately need to be replaced. And the environmentalist wackos don't want them made in the USA either. OFFSHORE those jobs to China!
perspicacious, I'm reminded of a childhood experience that I still remember vividly today: In the 5th grade, I made a poster for energy conservation day suggesting some outlandish scheme to use bicycles to generate power or something like that. I gave it to a teacher and later I found he had thrown it in the trash. I was hurt, of course, but also took the criticism to heart realizing that it was silly and wouldn't work anyway.
It's funny that the same thinking that went into those 5th grade posters are now, gasp, in our energy policy! _I_ grew up! Hell, I was more grown up then compared to most people now. It's so hard to be an elitist. The loneliness...
September 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
PolishKnight -- loved your last post. No I haven't seen that History Channel program but I will look out for it. Sounds fascinating. Of course, there are major problems with windmills and solar panels that have never been publicly addressed. They've been promoted as some sort of "magic potion" that will solve everything without a hitch.
I worked for 15 years for an electric utility. What an education I got! Before then I never gave a thought as to where that light came from when I flipped the wall switch. I was satisfied to know it was just there when I wanted it.
I worked in two coal fired power plants, in the nuclear power department, and the systems operations department (generation and transmission) at the utility and I learned hands on how that power gets generated from the coal pits to my wall switch.
I also learned the history of the company and electric generation--that is how *men* invented procedures, equipment, etc.; then developed it and improved it year after year. I learned about the *men* who worked the dangerous coal mine jobs and about the *men* who transported the coal on trains and ships to the plants and about the *men* who tend the coal piles (coal dust is extremely volatile and can cause huge explosions -- who knew?).
I learned about the *men* who worked weekly rotating shifts (day/afternoon/night) to keep that coal plant running and about the men who worked the yearly turbine outages (often dangerous and always dirty) to be certain that the plant kept running on schedule and reliably. Then there were the *men* who erected the towers and the distribution lines (very dangerous work) not to mention the every day line *men* who climbed tall poles even in rain or in snowy and icy winters to work on LIVE wires so that some little lady wouldn't miss her soap operas that day.
Also there were the substation *men* who built the substations and maintained them. Two *men* died during the time I worked for the utility doing repair work in substations. They were literally fried to death. Then there were the mostly *men* engineers who designed the power plants, transmission links, etc. Not to mention the mostly *men* drafters who kept the blueprints up to date and in working order to minimize problems and dangers.
What did I do at the electric utility? I was a typist and later an "administrative assistant" a fancy name for secretary. I earned good money better than any other place would pay a clerical worker. The office was always lit, heated or air conditioned. I did not get dirty or have to work in the rain or cold and the only danger I faced was occasionally that of a broken fingernail while filing. I was grateful for the job and the benefits I just mentioned. And also for the education I got in power generation and all of the things *men* had done and did to assure my comfort.
Liberals don't understand any of this, especially feminist liberals. That's a problem but the bigger problem is they don't want to be educated on these fine points. But if they don't have the most basic understanding of how their power is generated now then they can't possibly speak reasonably about solutions for the future. Sorry for being so long "winded."
September 4th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
PK,
You've gotten on this big kick about why people believe something... and that basically if anyone trusts anyone else on anything... it is dogma. One problem... why do you believe anything?
"Im-ho-tep! Im-ho-tep! (walking with arms extended forward) Jason, your argument was largely reliance upon an authority figure."
Yes, my argument about the oil in alaska relies upon the information provided by people who have researched the subject and collected the data necessary to make an assessment.
What is your's or GG's argument based upon?... the fact that Palin said it would be a good idea?
The game you are trying to play here is trying to eliminate that little thing called facts and evidence from the discussion such that believing a research organization is no different than believing a politician.
Unfortunately they are increadibly different.
Remember, you said this:
"That's not what she said. As Sarah Palin put it, even if drilling in Alaska isn't the "answer" to our energy problems, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make a significant contribution to the problem."
But this is categorically wrong... a "significant" contribution would be something that would last for a while. The qualtity of oil that we are talking about would last about 1 year at current US usage rates... those rates are increasing, so by the time we extract it, it would last less than 1 year (this number is derived by working with the assumption that we extract roughly 3% of our oil needs each year over the course of about 25 years).
That is insignificant in my opinion... it doesn't make a dent in the problem we are facing. What it does do however is ensures a 25 year extended lifetime to the Alaskan oil pipe line... and that IS financially significant for those who live in Alaska.
She is argueing for it because it is politically expedient... not because it actually will do anything meaningful.
"ANWAR is expected to have about 30 BILLION barrels."
I have absolutely no idea where you got this number from... but it is increadibly inflated from every number I've ever seen. Read this please:
"In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area."
See the part about the "mean estimate" of 10.4 billion barrels?
That is about what we can expect which is 1/3 of what you are basing your numbers on which brings the numbers down to about 1 year at current usage rates as I said before... and since usage is increasing, it becomes less and less meaningful. There simply isn't enough to have a significant impact on oil prices or on achieving energy independance.
I'm guessing that your 30 billion number ignores the "technically recoverable" criteria... but if we can't get it out of the ground, it doesn't count.
But sure... keep buying into the dogma :P
September 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
PK,
"Sounds like we have to deal with heretics Jason. All non solar and nuclear technologies are EVIL. BURN THEM! They are NOT the SOLUTION!"
Other technologies are great... I'm all for hydroelectric power, wind power, solar thermal etc...
One problem though... absolutely none of those technologies have a hope of meeting the future energy demands of our growing population.
In the US we've dammed everything worth damming already so hydro electric is tapped.
The wind resources are not enough to cover everything... but there is nothing wrong with tapping that resource, it just won't meet the demand even if we covered every square meter of the midwest in wind farms.
Extracting energy from tides is another possibility, but again, not enough energy to meet our needs.
Of all the renewable forms of energy available, only two are capable of meeting the energy demands of our growing population... those are nuclear and solar.
The others can certainly be part of our energy portfolio... not without those other two, it is impossible to meet the energy demands once fossil fuels run out.
Unless of course our population takes a nose dive... then any of them could do the trick.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Long Post Follows. Drink Coffee before starting
Jason, I ordinarily hate cut-paste-replies but sometimes they're necessary. My aplogies if I bore the reader and you. Here goes:
Jason says: You've gotten on this big kick about why people believe something... and that basically if anyone trusts anyone else on anything... it is dogma. One problem... why do you believe anything?
PK responds: I think you're oversimplifying my opinion of dogma but that's not terribly important. The essential question to your question, Jason, is when did I say I believed anything? The very notion of "belief" is dogma. Remember science being about a theory never really being proven? People like to "believe" in stuff and science runs counter to that, hence, it being filled with dogma even if not intended.
Jason, I think this is more of a human problem than science's shortcoming. It's not the tool's problem, it's the user. Does that help a little? I don't think science is perfect but look at the designer!
Jason writes: Yes, my argument about the oil in alaska relies upon the information provided by people who have researched the subject and collected the data necessary to make an assessment.
PK disputes: But you didn't even do that. You spewed out the CONCLUSION of an authority figure, one that is intertwined in government (and therefore politics). It's like Galileo trusting the scientific authority of the Vatican.
Jason says: What is your's or GG's argument based upon?... the fact that Palin said it would be a good idea?
PK responds: Cheap shot Jason. Really. You know me better than that. I've done my reading and basic math and even showed it to you above. More on that in a bit:
Jason writes: The game you are trying to play here is trying to eliminate that little thing called facts and evidence from the discussion such that believing a research organization is no different than believing a politician.
PK responds: Mua? Me?!?! Pot, meet kettle. You're defending authoritative scientific dogma, not evidence and reason, and then claiming I'm the one out to eliminate facts and evidence. Ok... If you want to go with that, "believe" what you like.
Jason reminds me I said this: "That's not what she said. As Sarah Palin put it, even if drilling in Alaska isn't the "answer" to our energy problems, that doesn't mean it wouldn't make a significant contribution to the problem."
Jason claims: But this is categorically wrong... a "significant" contribution would be something that would last for a while. The qualtity of oil that we are talking about would last about 1 year at current US usage rates... those rates are increasing, so by the time we extract it, it would last less than 1 year (this number is derived by working with the assumption that we extract roughly 3% of our oil needs each year over the course of about 25 years).
PK responds:Even a years worth of full energy is a pretty big dent. Even small stuff like pipelines closing in the gulf cause a huge hit in prices.
Jason writes: That is insignificant in my opinion...
PK responds: Global warming is insignificant in my opinion too. Lessee: 1 degree energy rise in a hundred years or so? Emotive conclusions, Jason. Hmmm, sounds a lot like... religion.
Jason writes: it doesn't make a dent in the problem we are facing. What it does do however is ensures a 25 year extended lifetime to the Alaskan oil pipe line... and that IS financially significant for those who live in Alaska.
PK responds:Building a windmill or planting a tree doesn't make a dent either, Jason. So why do people do it? That isn't even bad science, it's bad logic. That's what happens with a faith loses an argument: just throw out something, anything, rather than concede.
Jason writes: She is argueing for it because it is politically expedient... not because it actually will do anything meaningful.
PK responds: And Global Warming Marxists have no personal stake or interest in a government tax grab. Yeah, a one sided personal attack. Only "religious" people do that!
Jason says: "In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area." See the part about the "mean estimate" of 10.4 billion barrels?
PK responds: Doh! I read the graph wrong! (This happens!) But I admit my error. I was looking at the PRICE of oil but since it had gone up by barrel, I took 30 to mean billions of barrels rather than dollar cost.
Jason writes: That is about what we can expect which is 1/3 of what you are basing your numbers on which brings the numbers down to about 1 year at current usage rates as I said before... and since usage is increasing, it becomes less and less meaningful. There simply isn't enough to have a significant impact on oil prices or on achieving energy independance.
PK responds: If that was the argument anyone was making, you'd have a point. I admitted my error above, but you still insist upon using the strawman that proponents of drilling in ANWR are claiming it alone will achieve energy independence.
Jason says: I'm guessing that your 30 billion number ignores the "technically recoverable" criteria... but if we can't get it out of the ground, it doesn't count.
PK responds Agreed. Note, this isn't the only oil that the tree huggers don't want to recover though. A few billion barrels here, a few there, and pretty soon we're talking about a lot of oil (apologies and credit to RR).
Or we can hug trees, fear the sky falling, and slap ourselves on the back for being reasonable, logical scientists. (Sheesh, this is worse than the episode of Star Trek where Spock cries.)
Jason says: But sure... keep buying into the dogma :P
PK responds: I'm not buying into it if I know what it is. If you don't know what it is, then you're buying into it.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Jason says: "Of all the renewable forms of energy available, only two are capable of meeting the energy demands of our growing population... those are nuclear and solar."
PK responds: This is something we can agree upon. Ironically, the leftist luddies and religious scientists are frightened of nuke power too (as you know). It's EVIL! That leaves solar (which is a pie in the sky at this point) and putting up windmills (imagine what hospital emergency rooms will look like with people trying to service those things.)
In addition, Jason, our universities goals aren't to solve problems (like going to the moon) but rather diversity. Kind of like focusing on the ritual of sacrificing cows rather than actually doing real science.
We've got a cultural collision coming that's for sure.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The Magic of Electricity
perspicacious says: Liberals don't understand any of this, especially feminist liberals. That's a problem but the bigger problem is they don't want to be educated on these fine points. But if they don't have the most basic understanding of how their power is generated now then they can't possibly speak reasonably about solutions for the future. Sorry for being so long "winded."
PK responds: My wife lived in Ukraine where Putin is playing power games and is well aware of rolling power outages firsthand. Americans are REALLY spoiled and it was hilarious to watch wacky Californians get an education as to the consequences of not building electrical power plants with NIMBY syndrome and then turning around and buying big screen TV's and high speed computers and central air. Is that friggin' insane or what?
When I grew up, I never had an outage. Today, I see them more commonly. I have power backup on all my big screen TV and computer and it's worth every dime. I like the discussion about faith because it's taking a lot of body blows and wacks to the head to wake these imbiciles up. They like to believe that power and energy is magical and they can just make up rules and still enjoy it.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
"Jason, I think this is more of a human problem than science's shortcoming. It's not the tool's problem, it's the user. Does that help a little? I don't think science is perfect but look at the designer!"
This I agree with. I don't mind the assertion that people will often latch onto ideas without the proper support... and that they will continue to fight for those ideas even when evidence exists that suggests otherwise.
A great example of this is the scientist (I can't recall his name) who was a proponent of the steady state theory of the universe. This guy was steadfast in his conviction even after the cosmic microwave background was discovered.
So yes, individual scientists can be stubborn and dogmatic... but the institution as a whole actively seeks to eliminate this problem by using many people. Basically the idea is that even if one person is too stubborn to adjust course, the odds are that the majority will. Are there ego's and pet theories involved?... sure... but ultimately if it isn't good enough to persuade other people due to the accuracy of its predictions any idea is tossed aside.
"You know me better than that. I've done my reading and basic math and even showed it to you above."
I didn't mean it as a cheap shot, I was asking specifically because I have no idea where you got your information from. Like you said, I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't just base your belief on nothing... so I was trying to find out where you got the info from.
As for me defending scientific dogma, that is precisely not what I am doing. I've looked at the numbers, I've listened to various people (experts... but I know you wouldn't like that term, so I'll just leave them as people) explain the situation by describing the facts and the evidence. Based upon that, it is clear to me that anwr simply doesn't have enough oil to do anything meaningful for us in the short or the long term.
"Even a years worth of full energy is a pretty big dent. Even small stuff like pipelines closing in the gulf cause a huge hit in prices."
The money invested in drilling for that oil could be put to better use in terms of solving our energy problems. If we had unlimited resources I'd say let's do everything... drill, explore for more oil, build wind farms, fund solar research, etc...
Since we can't do everything we need to pick and choose, I think there are better uses for that money. Of course anyone living in Alaska would disagree with me, but they have a vested interest.
"Global warming is insignificant in my opinion too. Lessee: 1 degree energy rise in a hundred years or so?"
I know that may seem insignificant, however small changes in global temperatures actually have a profound effect on global climate.
The analogy I like is to compare it to the human body. At 98.6 you feel perfectly fine and are functioning without any problems. Bump up your temperature 1 degree to 99.6 and suddenly you feel like crap and just want to lay down.
Sure, someone could say that 99.6 isn't going to kill you... but what if the temperature is still rising?... at some point you need to put a stop to it, right?
The major issues with global warming isn't exactly the temperature increase itself, it is what that temperature increase ends up doing. For example, part of the reason why England is temperate is because of ocean circulation that brings warm water from the equator toward the poles. This circulation ends up being extremely sensitive to the salinity of the ocean. As polar ice melts due to this 1 degree global change, the pure water of the ice decreases the salinity of the ocean and this can have unknown effects on that current which brings warm water toward the poles. If that current is disturbed, England would be sent into a deep freeze. So sure, that 1 degree may not be cataclysmic, but it can have significant and unknown effects.
The point isn't that disaster is bound to happen... the point is that we don't know for sure what will happen, so why gamble if we don't have to?
I agree with you that doomsday speak is ridiculous, we simply aren't sure what the consequences are going to be. What we do know is that temperatures are rising and that it is possible that this can trigger other effects that can negatively affect millions of people. This is something we should avoid if we can.
It is better to avoid a problem before it occurs than to try to deal with it after.
"Building a windmill or planting a tree doesn't make a dent either, Jason. So why do people do it? That isn't even bad science, it's bad logic. That's what happens with a faith loses an argument: just throw out something, anything, rather than concede."
You are comparing 1 windmill and 1 tree to anwr?... My point is that if anwr were just the equivalent of 1 windmill... and we could eventually tap into 1000 anwrs, then this would be a great plan.
But there aren't 1000 anwrs... there is just one, it will provide about 1 years worth of energy and then be tapped out.
If we constructed windmills that put out 3% of our yearly energy supply by contrast now you've started building infrastructure that will reap larger benefits because they don't run out. It is just a better investment.
My perspective on this is actually kind of economic... I am a long term investor, proponents of anwr are short term investors. It isn't related to scientific dogma at all, it is a realization that anwr doesn't have enough oil to be a good investment compared to other things we can invest in with that same money.
"Doh! I read the graph wrong! (This happens!) But I admit my error. I was looking at the PRICE of oil but since it had gone up by barrel, I took 30 to mean billions of barrels rather than dollar cost."
No problem... like I said, your number just looked funny to me and I wasn't sure where it came from. I'm not trying to make up facts or anything when I say I don't think there is enough oil in anwr to make it a good investment... I have been looking at these facts for a while and it just doesn't make financial sense to me (or environmental sense to me... we just don't get enough out of it).
"you still insist upon using the strawman that proponents of drilling in ANWR are claiming it alone will achieve energy independence."
Then you misunderstand what I am trying to say. What I am saying is that IF anwr could lead to some degree of energy independence it would be worth it. Since it won't there are better places to invest our money in terms of domestic supplies of energy.
If we could extract 25% of our domestic oil needs from anwr over the course of 15 years... I'd be all for it, it would put us in a great position to tell other nations to "go screw" if we didn't like their policies. But at roughly 3% per year over about 25 years, that isn't enough for us to tell anyone anything... we're still locked in to their demands, it doesn't free us from our shackles.
Therefore I believe we need a different strategy.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
PK,
"This is something we can agree upon. Ironically, the leftist luddies and religious scientists are frightened of nuke power too (as you know). It's EVIL! That leaves solar (which is a pie in the sky at this point) and putting up windmills (imagine what hospital emergency rooms will look like with people trying to service those things.)"
You are right that many people are scared of nuclear power. Personally I'd prefer if we could just go solar as there are less risks involved... but as you said, right now it isn't feasible. Therefore my perspective is that the money we would invest in drilling in anwr should instead be invested in constructing new nuclear power plants and funding solar power research.
I know many people hate nuclear power, but I just see it as the better investment as compared to 1 years worth of oil... I think we'd get a much better bang for our buck.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Jason,
Live in reality. When you control funding, you sure can prevent access to services. That is one of the major things pro-choice organizations are always fighting. And put up more and more restrictions, and you make it much harder, if not impossible, depending upon where you live, to access services. If you’re in a rural town and the only pharmacy is Wal-Mart, which allows its pharmacists to deny birth control or morning after pills if they choose, how exactly is a teen going to get her prescription filled? Teaching teens abstinence only & contraception doesn’t work—do you actually think teens are going to go out of their way to the library and research options and effectiveness and make the right choices? You know what happens in reality? Teens have sex and use no protection at all, because that’s what they were told in school.
85% of counties have no abortion provider. It is virtually impossible to have an abortion in Mississippi. I think there’s one clinic for the whole state. Wouldn’t that count as denying abortion? Roe v. Wade didn’t mandate that there’s accessible clinics, did it? So yes, you sure can deny access by putting up insurmountable obstacles to access information, prescriptions, and services.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
PK,
It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. “I’m against abortion and also services to help you not abort.” It’s like saying you don’t want to use birth control but don’t want to deal with any of the consequences of an unintended pregnancy or STDs. It doesn’t make sense. Unless you’re a conservative, I guess.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Perspicacious:
What exactly do we liberals, and esp. feminist liberals, not get? That you worked in a company of mostly male blue collar workers “so that some little lady wouldn't miss her soap operas that day”? You are incredibly demeaning to women as you spout your nonsense. I’d like to know exactly what your point is. That women either just sit on their butt all day or are secretaries? Or that men are so awesome and women just suck? Or both?
I bet most MEN don’t know the intricacies of electrical power plants. So yes, I’d be willing to bet that most feminist, non-feminist, liberal, and non-liberals don’t either. We’re not all experts like you.
Did anyone ever say that absolutely nothing BUT wind or solar could be used? That no oil might be necessary ever? Remember that Jimmy Carter wanted to be energy independent by 2010, I believe. He had solar panels on the White House. Reagan took them down and began a love affair with the oil companies that continues to this day. We don’t have a wide scale program now because that is how the conservatives want it. Europe uses windmills and solar electricity. The technology is there.
And you know that there is not an endless supply of oil, don’t you? Do you non-feminist non-liberals think that there is a bottomless well for your continued use?
September 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jeana says: That you worked in a company of mostly male blue collar workers “so that some little lady wouldn't miss her soap operas that day”? You are incredibly demeaning to women as you spout your nonsense. I’d like to know exactly what your point is.
_______________________________
I'm fairly certain you and your fellow liberals don't have a vague idea how electric (or gas or nuclear for that matter) energy is generated from start to the time you flick your blow dryer on. Like most Americans, you take it for granted and only care when it isn't there. I thought I made that much clear in my first comments. PK seemed to get it just fine.
What's more I firmly believe that you and your fellow feminists don't get that every single word I typed is provably true including the bit about the soap operas. Yes, electricity is used by both men and women but an electric utility is a business even if it is a regulated business. They, like any other business, like to keep the customer satisfied and the biggest consumers of almost any product in America is women. They are also the biggest complainers (I also worked in the claims office at the electric utility). All of what I've added here is also provably true and I believe the fact that it is true is what has you so up in arms. You'll probably be back to spinning what I say (or trying to) as soon as the truth stops stinging you again.
You accused me of demeaning women (as if I could do a better job of it than they do by themselves!). Keep in mind that I am a woman so I have a natural born "right" to say these things much the way blacks have a "right" to use the "N" word while whites can never do so. Don't you like how those liberal "rules" work both ways -- that is for and against you at the same time? LOL.
Question: Since when is it demeaning to tell the truth?
Answer: Since liberals invented PC talk and demanded everyone else not only use it but believe in it.
I'm not one of the liberal's true believers. I tell the truth even when its brutal. There's nothing wrong with honesty.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Killing all the Bufallo and then wondering where's the Beef?
Jeana tells Jason: "Live in reality. When you control funding, you sure can prevent access to services"
PK responds: It's amazing, Jeana, that you understand the difficulties women face and view them as insurmountable if funding is cut to them.
But, on the other hand, you don't notice the left and Obama seeking to discriminate against men in the workplace and education and in addition throwing them into jail or losing their jobs at the slightest offense AND at the same time demanding that men foot the bill for taxes and become breadwinners for women such as you to marry up.
Aside from hypocrisy I wonder if this is due to your own sexism that men can just "man up" and take it. An admission from your part that women's "equality" is based upon men being superheroes to hold their hand to continue the illusion.
Jeana, men throughout time have not needed total handouts to achieve their objectives. That was the most incredible thing about Palin's brand of feminism: She got things done. She didn't need to be an elitist.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
What people hate
Jason writes: "I know many people hate nuclear power, but I just see it as the better investment as compared to 1 years worth of oil... I think we'd get a much better bang for our buck."
PK responds: Jason, I chuckled a bit here. These people hate ALL power that currently exists. They don't get solar panels for their house because it's expensive. They don't want coal because it's dirty. Nuclear, risky. Wind, ineffective (and kills birds). It's like my friggin' 14 year old cat sometimes. I have to get out 3 cans of cat food before finding the one he likes. Stupid cat doesn't get the message that it's HIS responsibility to eat! (grumble grumble.)
So ultimately, Joe and Jane Commie wind up gassing up with oil anyway and paying off the Saudis and trying to pretend like that's better than going to ANWR (yeah, so much better to cause instability in the Middle East.)
Here's the thing: Life ain't perfect. The world doesn't owe us a living. It's not oppression to pay for one's own B/C. Sarah Palin's newborn baby has a better grasp of reality than the average Democrat.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Gang of Science, Leather Jackets maybe?
Jason says: "So yes, individual scientists can be stubborn and dogmatic... but the institution as a whole actively seeks to eliminate this problem by using many people. Basically the idea is that even if one person is too stubborn to adjust course, the odds are that the majority will. Are there ego's and pet theories involved?... sure... but ultimately if it isn't good enough to persuade other people due to the accuracy of its predictions any idea is tossed aside."
PK responds: Er, are you saying a mob of scientists is necessarily going to be rational? I know where you're going, but do you realize how counter intuitive that is?
Part of the problem is that the institutions where scientists train, universities, are controlled by devout followers of the Marxist religion which also warps science into a soft of religion with it's own dogma that I mentioned (women's equality, for example.) A heretic, Sommers, recently said that women and men weren't equal and an MIT scientist fainted.
When you have hundreds of contaminated test tubes, are you going to get less tainted results than with just 10? Well, to a certain degree "diversity" works here to help find someone to stand up to the status quo but at the other time the larger status quo has it's own intertia.
Fortunately, the silly global warming thinking is being challenged hence the orthodoxy's need to rename it "climate change" (look, it's warmer during the day than at night! Climate change exists!) Not since the time of Galileo and Capernicus has such universal silliness in science and politics existed. Ironically, the churches are now more rational by comparison. This is not a very proud time to be a scientist in those fields.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
PK responds: It's amazing, Jeana, that you understand the difficulties women face and view them as insurmountable if funding is cut to them.
_______________________________________
Along the same lines Jeana does not seem to understand the underlying theme of my post about how electric energy came to be (thanks to men) much less who generates the energy now. Clearly it is men who are the ones that make it possible for her to type on her computer, watch her TV shows, blow dry her hair, microwave her meals, etc., etc., and so on....
Without men she would be sitting in the dark and shivering in the cold (or possibly roasting in the heat) right now. And still she can't see it when I draw her a point by point picture and connect the dots for her. Men do all of this dirty and dangerous work and some of them die doing it and all she can do is call them "blue collar" men in a derogatory fashion. Probably they are the very type of men she'd be willing to take a free meal from but wouldn't consider marrying.
These same men are the people who pay the bulk of the taxes in this country that fund all of those women's programs for "liberated" gals who can't take care of themselves and would supposedly die from hunger in the gutter if the government (taxpayers) didn't support them. This whole line of thinking would be comical if it weren't so sad and ironic.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The White House Solar Panels
Jeana writes: "Carter wanted to be energy independent by 2010, I believe. He had solar panels on the White House. Reagan took them down and began a love affair with the oil companies that continues to this day. "
PK responds: Jeana, did you read the whole story on this? It's fascinating. Yes, Carter had solar power at the white house to power the water heater for the kitchen, but it wasn't "energy independence" or freedom from oil. The love affair was there all along, let's just say Carter cheated a little. :-)
This part is quite telling:
www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/jimmy_carters_solar_panels_hel_1.html
"In 1990, the panels were retrieved from government storage and brought to the environmentally-minded Unity College about an hour southeast of Bangor, Maine. There, with help from Academy Award winning actress Glenn Close, the panels were refurbished and used to heat water in the cafeteria until 2005. They are still there, although they don't work anymore."
This gives these VERY EXPENSIVE panels an average lifetime of 22 years and, of course, didn't work after dark. A common usage for the term "conservative" is grounded in reality and a practical expectation. That applies perfectly to Ronald Reagan.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Perspicacious, wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.
A life observation: I've noticed that blue collar men ARE earning more money. Check out those HGTV programs where tile installers get $5Gs to redo a bathroom. Now we have (sadly) Republicans and Liberals alike looking to "insource" this work to illegals to save a few bucks. Disgusting, isn't it?
I've gone to a few of these homes and the craftsmanship is often shoddy and 2nd best. The local craftsmen put pride in their work and know how to grout so that it will resist the elements over years of use. My wife told me she wanted a NEW home and snooted at a 40 year old place and I remarked that's when they made them to take an atomic blast. Today, the stuff is plywood with a faux brick exterior, tile laid and grounded without foundations, kitchens installed without decent access panels to the plumbing. You get what you pay for!
Some of the best looking housing in the neighborhood are owned by landscapers, plumbers, and electricians. Your lights are out? It costs $100 bucks to get one in the door then it's time and materials!
September 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Temptation, temptation...
Jeana says to me: "It’s called putting your money where your mouth is."
PK responds: Oh... I so want to go there! I really do! But... I have to give the dead horse a rest at least for today. This fruit hangs way too low anyway...
September 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
PK, although I'm beaming at your crusty ol' common sense, you overlooked a tiny point.
When a poster says:
" I don't know what is doing over in Canada... but Alaska isn't the answer to our energy problems you are making it out to be, not by a long shot."
Well, as you said, I never suggested that Alaska was the "answer" to our energy problems (he skewed the post as usual).
But, beyond that, PK, don't you wonder how this poster is so knowledgeable on the oil reserves in Alaska without the slightest knowledge of our country's dependency on Canada? ...... i.e., "I don't know what is doing over in Canada... "
Do you wonder if he knows where Alaska is located in relation to Canada?
September 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I just hate it when my email tell me I have zero messages.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Hey, maybe this is a funny but illuminating story about energy efficiency.
In 1984 I bought a house in Coeur d'Alene (way north) Idaho that was an experiment, under the state's "Energy Wise" program. The house cost $64,000 and last year was sold for $179,000. Thanks to the southern Californification of Idaho.
Now, this house was designed to be super energy efficient. Insulated, solar panels, banked up on the north facing side, very tight windows, a greenhouse facing south to collect solar warmth, water tanks in the greenhouse to collect warmth before the water needed heating, in-line water heaters, wood stove, tiny furnace. 2,000 square feet not including the greenhouse.
In the worst cold Idaho winter season my highest electric bill was $38.00.
I had to send in a detailed report to the state every month about my energy costs.
So, we have already known how to build energy efficient homes since 1984!
September 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Georgia,
If you are going to insist upon an e-mail address with the word "rape" in it, why would you ponder that so few messages come in?
I would only respond to you privately at an anonymous location where you had no way to dial 911!
I would of course have you fully body searched and vetted.
Sarah Plain scares me a lot.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Errr... Palin.
Actually, that woman is going to do something important.
Exposing the hypocrisy of feminism.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
'tells'
September 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Ahah! .... so THAT's why~!
i'm going to change my email address to:
georgiatech1962@yahoo.com
then will you email me?
please know that my heart is going pitter-patter
Roy, on that energy efficient house you had ..... were you TAXED on the "upgrade"?
September 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
now.... go watch roddick win the next 3 sets!!!
September 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Georgia,
This will amuse you.
I have two university degrees in media/cultural studies.
And I have not watched television in the last five years.
No, I won't e-mail you. Ever.
Mainly because it would lead to a really obsessive place where I do not wish to go.
The Idaho house tax bill was only about $400 a year.
And it was just one of those lucky experiences where you could find a place that might have been called "home."
I am somewhat concerned about your heart condition.
Pitter-patter is usually a sign that you are going to pass out soon.
Can we sign a pre-pitter-patter-nup?
You know we are going to get dissed for this, right?
September 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
And I just sent you a "private" e-mal to your just established virtual address.
I really think any conversations we might want to have could be best had in public.
You really don't seem like a woman who wants much in the way of private attention.
What interests me most is just how far you can use a public politically inclined web site as a place to flirt.
But then, even all the dialogue is really just people "flirting," right? Trying to connect in some way?
It is the social "life on the screen" that I am exploring.
But then, if you are cute and want to buy me a plane ticket, I could change my politics pretty fast.
I hope everyone knows this is just riffing on the gender wars....
Silly provocation.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am
GG,
"PK, although I'm beaming at your crusty ol' common sense, you overlooked a tiny point.
When a poster says:
" I don't know what is doing over in Canada... but Alaska isn't the answer to our energy problems you are making it out to be, not by a long shot."
Well, as you said, I never suggested that Alaska was the "answer" to our energy problems (he skewed the post as usual)."
No, what you suggested was that Alaska was "rich" in oil.
If Alaska was actually rich in oil it would be the answer to our energy needs... or at least a significant part of the answer.
Not 3% of the answer for 25 years... that isn't even a minor part of solving anything.
Maybe your perception of rich and mine are just very different... you see a dollar on the ground and get all excited (i.e. anwr)... I see a dollar on the ground and decide that it's nice, but I'm not going to start saying how lucky I was to locate it.
"But, beyond that, PK, don't you wonder how this poster is so knowledgeable on the oil reserves in Alaska without the slightest knowledge of our country's dependency on Canada? ...... i.e., "I don't know what is doing over in Canada... ""
You know it's funny... when I do know something you constantly say that I never admit when I don't know something.
Then when I say I am not familiar with something you critisize me for not knowing everything.
The energy problem is extremely complicated and multifacated... I do suspect this much, what little I do know regarding canadian oil probably exceeds what you do. I think I've demonstrated enough specific knowledge of the Alaskan situation in terms of being familiar with the current estimates of the extractable reserves, how long they will last, and what sort of a dent they will make to make people comfortable that I'm not blowing smoke.
What specific information have you provided?... absolutely none.
If you want to demonstrate that Canada can and will play a significant role in the future of our energy resources... then show me the numbers, do the analysis and prove it.
You don't just get to say "Canada is rich in oil" and have that be the definative word on the subject.
I showed my work for why Alaska is problematic... time for you to show your work... and that means showing numbers and data.
In other words... prove your point. If you can't then you are just all smoke and no fire.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Oh, one more thing... GG, I am well aware of the typos in my last post... there are 3. I fully expect you to focus on those and totally ignore anything relevant such as backing up your contention with facts.
Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Actually I'll save you the trouble. I looked into it myself.
The total recoverable reserves are on the order of 170 billion barrels of crude bitumen in the Athabasca oil sands.
This actually is a significant amount of oil as it would constitute approximately 17 years worth of US oil consumption at the current rate (less when we factor in the constant increase in usage over the time it is extracted)... IF Canada shipped all of that oil directly to us... and IF all of that crude bitumen was actually crude oil (more on that later).
Unfortunately, the rate of production is slated to be at around 1 billion barrels per year by 2015... of which only around 15% would be conventional crude oil with the majority of the rest being crude bitumen.
Crude bitumen for those who are unaware is unsuitable to act as fuel for automobiles... it is however useful for the production of asphalt.
In other words... only 150 million barrels of that 1 billion barrels will be suitable for use in cars.
Let's now look back at that 17 year figure I just mentioned before... technically only 15% of that counts so far as automobile fuel is concerned. That means the figures don't look quite as promising and actually only account for around 2.5 years of US crude oil needs.
In addition, the cost of recovering crude oil from the Athabasca oil sands is significantly more than the cost to recover conventional crude oil deposits which means that even if we rely on this resource, prices at the pump are STILL going to be inflated as the cost of production is inherently higher.
I'm sorry... I don't see this as the solution either. 2.5 years worth of premium priced crude oil isn't exatcly going to help us very much.
If your goal is to make loads of asphalt though... then here is the solution.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
perspicacious:
“What's more I firmly believe that you and your fellow feminists don't get that every single word I typed is provably true including the bit about the soap operas.”
Yes, perspicacious, we women sit on our butts all day long watching soaps, unable to do anything for ourselves, completely reliant on men. Are you living in the 50s?
I don’t doubt that most people who work for electricity companies are male. So? What does that have to do with anything? Most teachers are female. Most nurses are female. Most secretaries (like yourself) are female. And? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Some men do some dangerous work? I agree. And?
And sure, demean women all you like. Other females here do the same. Your self-loathing is not my issue. It’s sad, but I don’t really care.
And I said, “What exactly do we liberals, and esp. feminist liberals, not get? That you worked in a company of mostly male blue collar workers “so that some little lady wouldn't miss her soap operas that day”?” How absolutely typical of you conservatives to turn around what I said and pretend that I was insulting workers. My brother is an electrician. And works in construction. Why would I insult that? I know it’s difficult for people like you to listen and understand, but I was actually insulting the lame and sexist comment YOU made. Not blue collar workers.
What’s comical is your notion that women are completely stupid, helpless, dependent women. Speak for yourself. I guess if all I could do is type a memo I’d have low self esteem too. All those programs to support liberated gals are an MRA myth. “Liberated gals” can take care of themselves. And that fact kills you, doesn’t it?
I just don’t know how I’ll get over the “stinging truth” in your post. I’m still struggling to find out what your point was besides stating your obvious misogyny.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
jeana Says:
"All those programs to support liberated gals are an MRA myth. 'Liberated gals' can take care of themselves."
Unfortunately, our society must have a bunch of women who aren't truly liberated then. Why else would we have a massive federal/state beauracracy that is designed to transfer wealth from men to women based upon a unilateral "choice" that women make, i.e. child support? If the decision to get pregnant and carry the pregnancy to term is a choice that a woman, and a woman alone, should make, then why should she need a man to finance that choice for her?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Damsel in Distress teases the Dragon for being threatened by her independence
Jeana writes: "What’s comical is your notion that women are completely stupid, helpless, dependent women. Speak for yourself. I guess if all I could do is type a memo I’d have low self esteem too. All those programs to support liberated gals are an MRA myth. “Liberated gals” can take care of themselves. And that fact kills you, doesn’t it? "
PK responds: Jeana, you've written in other threads that you are strongly against Palin for cancelling programs to pay for women's B/C, healthcare, and unwed mother housing and equate that to eliminating those rights. Your sneering that men and some women here are "killed" by independent women would be more convincing if you were capable of paying your own way more than once or twice and constantly demanding government bailouts for women.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Jeana says: Yes, perspicacious, we women sit on our butts all day long watching soaps, unable to do anything for ourselves, completely reliant on men. Are you living in the 50s?
PK responds: This may amaze you, Jeana, but there were women nurses and secretaries in the 1950's. NOTHING has changed fundamentally except that even MORE women are sitting on their butts as welfare mothers or using "child" support as a form of alimony.
If anything, you want to get even more women to sit on their butts and work less and dump their childcare, daycare, B/C costs, etc. on the taxpayer. Good luck with asking senior citizens to eat dog food to make that possible.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jeana,
You;ve said two things that are mutually exclusive.
1 - "Live in reality. When you control funding, you sure can prevent access to services. That is one of the major things pro-choice organizations are always fighting. And put up more and more restrictions, and you make it much harder, if not impossible, depending upon where you live, to access services."
and
2 - "All those programs to support liberated gals are an MRA myth. “Liberated gals” can take care of themselves."
So which is it?
Are women liberated and independant and able to take care of themselves?... or are they living in a reality where if the government doesn't fund things for them they are incapable of taking care of themselves?
You can't have it both ways.
We aren't talking about the government making something illegal... we are talking about them potentially cutting money. If women are as independent as you say they are, this shouldn't stop them from doing whatever it is they please.
The only way this is a problem is if all of these liberated and independent women you talk about are actually dependant upon the government for support and subsidy.
I've got news for you, if I live in a reality where I NEED the government to pay for something for me then I'm not independent, nor am I capable of taking care of myself.
Yet this is the argument you are trying to put forth. You are acting like a homeless person begging for food and then insisting that you are capable of putting food into your own stomach... if you were really capable of that, you wouldn't need hand outs.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
lol pk and jeana ... i guess i'll open a can of Alpo tonight
September 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
jason, did anything PK say to you sink in? do you know where alaska is located in relation to canada? ... btw, thanks for another "unbiased" opinion of the oil reserves there.
your assignment for tonight is to research the bakken ..... uh, that's in ND
and, jason, the idea behind a spellcheck is to do it BEFORE the post
that'll be 50 bucks please
September 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
roy, darling, if you are "really" seding me "love notes" at georgiatech62, either they'll get bounced back, or
whoever has that email address is going to think you're a nut.
and do you "really" think i want you to email me? sheesh ... MEN~!
September 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Jason,
“You;ve said two things that are mutually exclusive.
1 - "Live in reality. When you control funding, you sure can prevent access to services. That is one of the major things pro-choice organizations are always fighting. And put up more and more restrictions, and you make it much harder, if not impossible, depending upon where you live, to access services."
and
2 - "All those programs to support liberated gals are an MRA myth. “Liberated gals” can take care of themselves."
So which is it?”
Do you understand that #1 was about using power to take birth control away from the poor and the young and using political power to legislate things like 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent, who is allowed to dispense pills, who doesn’t have to even if they’re the only ones around, etc.? And #2 has nothing to do with birth control, but rather the assumption that there are thousands of programs out there that make it possible for women to survive since we can’t do it on our own.
Not the same thing. Both are true.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
PK,
“PK responds: Jeana, you've written in other threads that you are strongly against Palin for cancelling programs to pay for women's B/C, healthcare, and unwed mother housing and equate that to eliminating those rights. Your sneering that men and some women here are "killed" by independent women would be more convincing if you were capable of paying your own way more than once or twice and constantly demanding government bailouts for women.”
I am against hypocrites who call themselves pro-life but who are actually anti-choice, anti-abortion woman haters. Strike funding for a home for poor, unwed, homeless teen pregnant girls AND pretend you are against abortion? Wrong. Then do something to help those girls. The government exists to help people who need it. Do pregnant teen homeless girls need help? Or, in your eyes (and others like you), should they be thrown in the gutter like the trash they are? Is that what you are implying?
Is this what you consider a “government bailout”? If we are supposed to be such a pro-family, pro-child society, then we need to spend money to make that happen. This has nothing at all to do with the lie about women needing government programs to survive since we can’t do anything on our own. And I am always accused of being the liar.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Liberated, helpless women
Jeana, I fail to see how someone whose "pro-life" is a "hypocrite" for being anti-abortion. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't make them a hypocrite. You use that label like I use ketchup: Way too often and on the wrong things!
On the other hand, it is hypocritical for you to claim that women can do as they please and don't need the state to tell them what to do and then argue that they are entitled to the government handholding them because they "need it." In answer to your question as to whether pregnant, homeless teens need help, well, shouldn't their MOTHERS be providing it? Hmmm? And yes, Palin probably DOES help such women WITH HER OWN MONEY both as a mother and via her church. NOTHING is stopping YOU, Jeana, from taking some of your shopping money to help them out. Now whose the hypocrite, really?
Yeah, women constantly in need of government handouts and protection has nothing to do with women being helpless and unequal to men. Ok, go with that if you like. Oh, and the answer is yes, it is a government bailout.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
GG,
I ran the numbers, did the research and presented my findings in this thread.
If you don't have the intellectual capacity to present your own research findings that contradict the numbers and analysis I have presented, then kindly refrain from suggesting that I need a geography lesson.
You have a nasty habit of trying to contradict facts and evidence with just your opinion backed by absolutely nothing.
Unless you've got something concrete to contribute then nothing you offer here is compelling or convincing.
If you notice, when PK and I discuss this issue, we use facts, data, logic, and analysis... try doing the same.
Also... so far as spell check goes, that is funny talk from someone who spells dealt with an h at the end and who spells the word comfortable as "confortable".
Ever hear the phrase "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?... if you haven't I suggest you look it up. It's not like your posts are typo free, and you type far less than I do, so what is your excuse?
If you have no facts to offer with regard to energy policy, then understand that we already know what your opinion is... so repeating it isn't anything new.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Jeana,
"Do you understand that #1 was about using power to take birth control away from the poor and the young and using political power to legislate things like 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent, who is allowed to dispense pills, who doesn’t have to even if they’re the only ones around, etc.? "
Actually no it wasn't... it was talking about funding. All the things you mention now have to do with legislation. The vice president has very little to do with legislation... they don't even have the power to veto anything. Nor do they vote on legislation unless there is a tie in the senate.
She would literally have just about zero direct political influence over new laws (barring a tie in the senate)... the best she can hope to do is convince senators and congressmen/congresswomen to vote according to her philosophy. One problem there... congress is primarily composed of democrats at the moment.
The scenario you paint is ridiculous. You act like she can somehow get antiabortion legislation through a democratic congress when she doesn't even get to vote or veto anything.
All she could potentially do is influence funding... and even there her influence would be minuscule.
Also, a large portion of the legislation you are talking about is handled on the state level, not the federal level (i.e. parental consent and waiting periods)... so again, the scenario you paint has nothing to do with her as a potential VP.
You are just looking for any excuse you can to portray her in a negative light... even when she can't possibly do the things you suggest she would.
You are acting like if she is elected she will somehow manage to create a new amendment to the constitution that is antiabortion, push it through a democratic congress, get it ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
If she is really that poweful, then this election is over already.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Jason says: "If you don't have the intellectual capacity to present your own research findings that contradict the numbers and analysis I have presented, then kindly refrain from suggesting that I need a geography lesson."
PK responds: I understand where you're coming from, Jason, but one of the things I can't stand about leftists and religious scientists (note, not talking about you so don't take it personally) is replacing "smart" and "intelligent" with holiness. As if being smart, and yes, knowing facts and statistics is a replacement for logic.
I rarely, if ever, stoop to calling someone stupid. I like to dig the pit and cover it with branches and allow them to do that for me.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
your holiness .... if you are referring to more than "one" analysis, you should use the plural form of the word .... analyses.
now go research the bakken like i told you.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
PK,
You know exactly what I’m talking about (pro-life vs. anti-abortion). Don’t pretend you are clueless. I’m not explaining again.
Your hateful conservative heart could care less about homeless people. Instead of changing the subject, why don’t you deal with the obvious hypocrisy of NOT helping desperately needy girls? For the same reason you hate Safe Havens. You’re certainly not “pro-life”; you are totally anti-abortion.
It is so extremely hateful that anyone would think that the government should not help homeless pregnant girls. You should be ashamed of yourself. You and everyone like you.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Jeana, you gave me a bit of a snicker there. I would love to help out desperately needy girls, but I'm married. Hehehe. :-) Seriously though, there are plenty of non-state funded resources available for such women and not just religious outreach.
On the contrary, Jeana, it's Obama and Biden who don't hear the cries of millions of homeless MEN even as they slushed BILLIONS of dollars to feminist groups to build "homeless shelters" for "abused women" that are often just hotels or free apartments for women who don't want to pay their rent.
And I'll say this again: I'm not "totally anti-abortion" anymore than I'm anti-wrigleys gum. I can see benefits to abortion options and I can also appreciate the moral issues involved that pro-lifers raise. I don't think it's a constitutional right but I have no problems with states such as New York or California allowing it under states' rights. How is that "totally" anti-abortion? Stop using your "Jump to Conclusions" Mat! (That's a joke from Office Space)
Here's what government means in the dictionary:
"the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society."
It's not a handholding agency for needy women. You claim to not want government to butt into your life but at the same time you to empower "your man" to rescue you.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Break it up! Break it up!
GG says to Jason: "now go research the bakken like i told you."
PK responds: GG, Jason, can you both either break it up or take it to the next level? Maybe a boxing match? Or how about a nice game of chess?
September 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
PK,
What has McCain done for homeless men? What has he done for vets besides cut funding? Would it be ok if only California and New York offered Viagra and it was illegal everywhere else? I guess you need to say “yes” because you would be ok with only CA and NY only being the ones to offer birth control pills to females.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:29 am
PK,
"I understand where you're coming from, Jason, but one of the things I can't stand about leftists and religious scientists (note, not talking about you so don't take it personally) is replacing "smart" and "intelligent" with holiness. As if being smart, and yes, knowing facts and statistics is a replacement for logic."
If you know where I am coming from then don't make an issue out of it.
The individual I am talking to has in this conversation called me naive, has constantly informed me that I am incapable of spelling, and has most recently declared that I do not understand geography.
This is all in a debate about energy deposits where she has not once listed a single fact about anything.
My point is this... if I am going to list a collection of facts and analysis about a particular issue, my opponent has a responsibility to deal with those facts and to deal with that analysis.
Her method of handling any debate is this... when presented with facts and logic and an argument based upon that information she says "you've got a spelling error... now look something up for me"... as if that contradicts anything that has been stated.
I am not acting as if being intelligent is a replacement for logic... I'd just actually like to see a logical argument... and i've never seen one from her... ever.
Just to point out what I am talking about, when you mentioned that anwr had 30 billion barrels of oil, that figure sounded odd to me... but I never suggested you were stupid, or that you need to get your head out of your butt, or anything even remotely derogatory about you.
I merely asked you where you got the number from and stated that I'd never seen that figure before. You then looked it up and acknowledged the error and the conversation continued without issue.
That is how a reasonable conversation takes place... GG on the other hand responds to legitimate debate points with this:
"if you are referring to more than "one" analysis, you should use the plural form of the word .... analyses."
She doesn't respond to any of the substantive issues... apparently she believes that performing some sort of grammatical examination constitutes a counter argument.
You and I both know it doesn't... and this is all she ever does.
She hasn't demonstrated knowledge about anything related to this topic, none whatsoever... if she's got an argument to make she should make it, otherwise she's just all smoke and no fire.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:40 am
PK,
"Or how about a nice game of chess?"
There is actually a funny joke about this kind of thing. I actually enjoy chess... but I wouldn't play a game of chess versus a pigeon.
Here is how the joke goes (modified from the original version to fit this situation):
Debating GG on any topic is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
It is incredibly difficult to try to reasonably debate someone who doesn't follow the "rules" of civil discourse... just as it is difficult to play a game of chess versus anyone who thinks knocking over the pieces and soiling the board constitutes a winning strategy.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
How Politics Works
Jeana asks: What has McCain done for homeless men?
PK responds: I'm not a big fan of McCain, FYI. That said, billion dollars shelters for a small group of women (teenage, homeless mothers) doesn't help these MILLIONS of men either.
Jeana asks: What has he done for vets besides cut funding?
PK responds: Actually, he didn't cut funding. He's against earmarks which members of both parties attached to the bill. How about this: If an anti-abortion rider was attached to a healthcare bill to help disabled children, would you support a politician voting against it?
Jeana asks: Would it be ok if only California and New York offered Viagra and it was illegal everywhere else?
PK responds: That's a fun question! It's a red herring though since a drug prohibition has a different impact that traveling for a few hours to get an infrequent operation. If anything, that's becoming more common as people engage in medical tourism to save money. Here's the fun: The FDA _does_ currently prohibit many drugs and it has the RIGHT to do so to Viagra. At the stroke of a pen, Viagra could be illegal and there's nothing the S.C. thinks is "unconstitutional" about it. On the other hand, states' rights would open up many drugs to be available, even if only a state by state basis, that are now illegal such as medical cannibus (which is already happening somewhat) but also other life saving, but non FDA approved drugs.
Jeana asks: I guess you need to say “yes” because you would be ok with only CA and NY only being the ones to offer birth control pills to females.
PK responds: That isn't even sufficient since you think that the state not paying for them is the same as a prohibition. Most men are willing to pay for their viagra though.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
but .... you have NEVER presented an argument with an ounce of logic ...... That's what makes you so special. Facts, figures, and analyses should be used to deduce one's own opinion (note-- i said "opinion" and not conclusion). But YOU piously declare that your views are always "right" based solely on research ........ Now, what would happen if CEO's of major corporations across the country used your mentality to meet sales projections and solve production problems? They would all belly up if they didn't step out of the box and use "logic". IDEAS make the world go 'round ---- not "book sense".
Checkmate!
says the pigeon
September 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
GG Says:
"Facts, figures, and analyses should be used to deduce one's own opinion (note-- i said "opinion" and not conclusion)."
Actually they should be, which is the problem with trying to debate you.
You formulate your conclusion first... then disregard any facts, figures, and analyses that seem to run contrary to what you decided on in the first place.
Unfortunately that is bass ackwards reasoning.
One should ALWAYS draw their conclusions and base their opinions upon the evidence. The evidence consists of facts, figures, and careful inspection of that data.
"But YOU piously declare that your views are always "right" based solely on research"
So long as the data I am looking at is correct, then the conclusions I've drawn are also correct.
That is why when I say that Anwr has approximately 1 years worth of oil at current united states usage rates... and that the oil sands in Canada has about 2.5 years of premium priced crude oil at current united states usage rates, I am right.
The only way I am wrong is if the data and figures I am using to deduce this are incorrect. If they are incorrect you should have no problem showing me why they are incorrect. Since you have failed to do that, you have not presented a compelling counter argument.
The only thing that I have stated that is an opinion is that this quantity of oil is not significant enough to get all excited about. That is subjective in the sense that if you feel it is something to jump for joy over I can't "prove" that you shouldn't.
The fact remains however that 1 year and 2.5 years of crude oil from each deposit are all we can expect... and not even right away, it would take about 7-10 years to build up the infrastructure.
"Now, what would happen if CEO's of major corporations across the country used your mentality to meet sales projections and solve production problems?"
If they used my mentality of examining the figures and the data before drawing their conclusions they would meet their sales projections and solve production problems.
If they used your mentality of ignoring facts and evidence and figures and just going with what they want to believe... then their company will go out of business.
At least now I understand how you think a little better... you're one of those "who needs facts and data... I've already got my conclusion" type of people.
If you can contradict the facts I've brought to the table please feel free to do so... but you can't declare them to be wrong just because you want to believe otherwise. Reality doesn't care what your opinion is.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
One additional note... the conclusions I've drawn could also be incorrect if I performed the analysis incorrectly. This however is something else you should be able to provide a counter point to.
This is why when PK did a similar analysis with the wrong numbers, I simply questioned his numbers after providing my own. He then checked and saw that he had read a graph incorrectly... and as he said, it could happen to anyone.
He is right, people do make mistakes... however, if you want to disprove someone's claims, it falls upon you to show them where their mistakes are.
I am waiting for you to show me where the error is in my conclusions about Anwr or the oil sands. If I really am wrong... and you are so correct... you should have a very easy time picking it apart for errors.
One would think that with your propensity for searching for typo's in my posts you'd leap at the chance to find something wrong with my mathematical skills or my ability to read a graph. Since you've mentioned no such error, I suspect it is because you haven't found one.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
o lordy, he claims:
"...as the data I am looking at is correct, then the conclusions I've drawn are also correct".
That, precious one, is the POINT ..... "if the data is correct".
How in the world can you make overnight conclusions about the oil reserves in Canada when not knowing a squat about the oil there the night before?
As I said, Alaska and Canada are both rich in oil.
Don't sit there and tell me that we cannot improve drilling technologies to tap these resources. Rather than tell me it cannot be done, step outside of your little box, and tell me HOW it can be done.
And you've ignored the bakken formation which is a jillion times larger than the north slope .....
go research it and give me your usual conclusions.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
GG,
"That, precious one, is the POINT ..... "if the data is correct".
How in the world can you make overnight conclusions about the oil reserves in Canada when not knowing a squat about the oil there the night before?"
No GG, the point is that if my data is not correct, you have the responsibility of providing an indication of which part is incorrect.
There is a good reason I wasn't aware of the "oil" reserves in Canada... because no one who is in the field talks about it with the seriousness that you do. It isn't even mentioned because the "oil" is mostly bitumen.
It is great for making asphalt... not for fueling our cars.
Can it be refined?... sure... but when you consider the following two facts:
1 - Oil sands are more expensive to collect oil from (because the oil is locked up in bits of tar-like rock, it isn't in liquid form)
2 - The vast majority isn't crude oil (about 85% is crude bitumen) and to refine crude bitumen into a useful fuel is an additional expense.
That means that any oil you get from Canada is significantly more expensive than oil you'd get from anywhere else... it can't bring the cost of oil down... all it can do is stabilize us at somewhere around $12 a gallon.
At that point alternative fuels are already more than competitive... it would actually be far cheaper to make the auto fleet electric and run the power grid off of coal to charge them.
It's funny how knowledge works... it is entirely possible not to be completely aware of the details about something one night, then to look up the details and learn enough about it to speak about it the next.
You clearly haven't looked up anything on the subject, if you had you would either be able to tell me where the data was in error (which you haven't)... you're claim to expertise is based upon no factual knowledge whatsoever.
"As I said, Alaska and Canada are both rich in oil."
And as I said... the quantity of oil available in Alaska and Canada that would be useful to us amounts to crumbs.
If you want to believe that 1 years worth of oil and 2.5 years worth of premium oil are enough to call the regions "rich", be my guest.
I'm not going to use subjective terms anymore though... I could declare my cars gas tank to be "rich" in oil too... go ahead, prove me wrong.
The point is that the quantity of oil in Alaska and Canada are not enough to sustain our oil consumption for even half a decade... and that is assuming out use of oil doesn't increase (which makes these estimates a best-case scenario)... and that all of the oil goes to us (I think it is safe to assume that Canada and other nations will want some of that oil, don't you think?)
"Don't sit there and tell me that we cannot improve drilling technologies to tap these resources. Rather than tell me it cannot be done, step outside of your little box, and tell me HOW it can be done."
The burden of proof is on you GG. You don't just get to say "improvements in the drilling technologies will fix everything".
What is that assertion based upon?... Do you have experience in the oil drilling industry?
Have you read something that indicated that break through technologies were on the horizon?
Here is my point. New technology of any kind costs money to research and develop. When deciding how to invest R&D money, it is important to select avenues that have the most potential upside. Given the limited quantity of actual crude oil and the difficulty in extracting it and the difficulty in refining it... it makes more sense to invest research into other areas for energy.
These other areas include the following:
1 - Improvements to coal power plants to make them more environmentally friendly (we have over 1000 years worth of coal to power our nation at current estimates... and the US is "rich" in coal... see how I used the word "rich there?... when we have enough of the resource to last a millennium)
2 - Improvements to solar energy which will increase efficiency and reduce cost (this is for a long term strategy that is both environmentally friendly and not reliant on a resource that will ever be depleted within a relevant time span... yes, the sun will burn out in about 5 billion years... but by then we probably won't be around anymore)
3 - Advancements in nuclear power plants that will run them through breeder cycles that ultimately leave waste material with a short half-life (this way we minimize toxic waste)
4 - Advancements in fusion power which can eventually replace nuclear plants
That is where our R&D money should be going... not into drilling technologies that will help us for a combined 3.5 years.
That is a wasteful use of our limited financial resources, there are better places to invest which I have listed above.
You can keep demanding to know how we can get at that oil, but my point is that we shouldn't be distracted by difficult to extract oil deposits that have minimal reserves of crude oil... we should be focusing our research efforts into the other 4 areas (there are other options as well, but the four I listed are the ones I believe are the best)
"And you've ignored the bakken formation which is a jillion times larger than the north slope .....
go research it and give me your usual conclusions."
Sorry GG, the burden of proof is on you.
You have to prove your case... it isn't my responsibility to disprove it before it is off the table.
If you can prove your case then I'll look into it further and see if I agree.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
No, YOU are the one who piously slams the door on advanced technology. Where do you think the world would be right now if .... say 20 years ago ...... geologists, engineers, entrepreneurs, drilling companies, etc. declared:
"oh, no, based on our research, it cannot be done"?
what if heads of corporations like sperry, sun oil, .....god, just to name TWO .... sat in your little cubicle with the lights off?
The burden of proof is NOT on me, jason ..... because i don't wiki the research and pretend to be an expert.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:05 am
GG,
"The burden of proof is NOT on me, jason ..... because i don't wiki the research and pretend to be an expert."
I don't wiki the research... I look up the information via official sources.
And yes, when you try to put forth an argument, any argument, the burden of proof is upon you to prove it.
It doesn't land on everyone else to disprove you before you've listed any evidence.
Furthermore, when it comes to energy policy and energy generation technologies in general, while it isn't the concentration of my expertise... it certainly falls under the umbrella of what one would say I am an expert in.
Similar to how someone with how a cardiologist might not be as knowledgeable about the brain as a neurologist, but they sure as hell know a great deal more about it than the average joe. That is why I need to look things up in terms of the specifics, but I'm certainly not out of my element or stretching into a field where I have no expert knowledge to apply.
You happen to be patently wrong on this, and here is the reason why.
The argument you are trying to put forth is that while all of the deposits you mention have substantial reserves of oil... that only a tiny fraction of that oil is considered to be extractable from the ground with current technology... BUT, you assert without any proof or expertise in the field that all of this can be handled with advances in technology.
You don't mention what advances those might be, you don't cite references which talk about projections for how long those break through technologies will take to develop... you just assert that they will fix everything, but you don't back up that assertion with anything.
Then you say this:
"No, YOU are the one who piously slams the door on advanced technology."
Wrong.
What I am saying is this. If we are going to base the future of our energy resources upon technological advancements, we should focus our research onto the areas that are likely to give us the biggest bang for our R&D dollar.
Every argument you have made with reference to advances in technology helping us extract oil from currently inaccessible deposits can be made for focusing on advances in solar technologies... however, the solar technological advancement argument comes with several additional advantages.
The first is that the energy extracted from the sun is perpetual, it will never run out unlike those oil deposits you are talking about. The second is that the energy extracted from the sun doesn't release any gases into he atmosphere, therefore it's environmental footprint is smaller.
Essentially you are saying we should bet on oil with a 20 year R&D time span for the requisite technologies being brought to market as opposed to betting on solar with a similar R&D time span for commercially viable products, even though the first will run out and the second is effectively inexhaustible.
There is no benefit to what you propose with regard to oil... it is simply the inferior option given the data that is available.
What you have failed to do is demonstrate why these deposits are the best choice among all of our available options.
That is why you are wrong. It isn't because I am saying it can't eventually be done... it is because I am saying that there are more cost effective alternatives that lead us to a better result within the same time frame.
For the short term, coal and nuclear is really our best bet... during that time solar research should be taking place such that within 15-20 years we can begin to phase out fossil fuels altogether.
That is a winning long term strategy... the strategy you are proposing is to continue to search for oil and develop new extraction technologies in the meantime, gaining nothing in the short term... then in the medium term extract the oil we found until we run out... and then we are stuck right back where we are now.
I'm looking to break us out of that cycle and thereby free us from energy dependence... you are looking to keep us locked within it for the next 50+ years, all the while our government being dependent upon foreign sources of oil.
I don't think you've really examined the details of the situation. Instead what I think is you look at the projections for how much total oil might be present in those deposits... and then ignore how much we can actually get at with current technology by brushing that detail under the rug merely by saying that new technology will solve all of that.
One big problem... you have no idea what the technological challenges are that need to be surmounted, you have no idea how easy or difficult it will be to meet those challenges, and you haven't looked into the time table for developing the break through technologies that might enhance our ability to get at those deposits. To you that part isn't important because you just assume it will be solved... you take it as axiomatic without actually digging into the details.
I've got news for you, just because scientists want to solve a problem doesn't mean it just happens... these are technical problems, and to have a good idea of how difficult it is to solve these things it might be useful for you to have a technical background... but even if you don't, you still have to look into the specifics before declaring with confidence that all of this is a given.
Scientists have been wanting to develop fusion power since the 1970's... it's now about 40 years later and they still aren't close to a viable commercial generator. I could give other examples as well, but it really isn't necessary to illustrate my point that it isn't so simple to just declare that new technology will fix everything when you've got no idea how long it will take to develop.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Take a look at your original statement:
"Palin's plan to extract oil from Alaska in order to alleviate our need for fuel is like planning to feed the homeless by collecting up the bread crumbs left over by ducks"
I responded that this was a naive assertion. Palin never claimed that Alaskan oil reserves would alleviate our need for fuel.
The goal is to lessen our dependency on foreign oil consumption by not only exploring reserves in Alaska, but in Canada as well. Do you deny that improved technology has given the Bakken huge potential? How about the Arctic? How about offshore? As PK explained to you in so many words, the negligibles add up. Nobody has disputed your statement that solar energy should be explored. We all know the sun is clean, constant, and safe. Meanwhile, we still depend on fossil fuel and that includes OIL; therefore, drilling corporations will continually seek advanced drilling procedures.
No, i do not have a technical background. I don‘t need one. I tend to listen to the movers and shakers who make things happen. First comes the idea, jason, and then the technology. That’s how big business works.
jason chides:
“You don't mention what advances those might be, you don't cite references which talk about projections for how long those break through technologies will take to develop... you just assert that they will fix everything, but you don't back up that assertion with anything“.
Now isn’t that rather a silly trick tactic? Your attempt to corner people is so obvious. If I had specifics, I’d be rich.
And jason, i have never asserted that tapping new oil resources would “fix everything”.
Once again, you have skewed a post
I could have condensed this post into 2 or 3 lines.
god, you’re getting to be contagious!
September 8th, 2008 at 3:30 am
GG,
"I responded that this was a naive assertion."
Yes you did... and you were wrong.
My suggestion that using the oil available in anwr to alleviate our need for fuel was equivalent to collecting up bread crumbs to feed the homeless was based entirely upon the fact that anwr only has 1 years worth of oil at current US usage rates.
Hence it wasn't naive at all, my statement was based upon this information... information might I add that you have not disputed (because it is correct).
"The goal is to lessen our dependency on foreign oil consumption by not only exploring reserves in Alaska, but in Canada as well."
Ah... I see now... we'll lessen our dependence upon FOREIGN oil by exploring deposits in Canada... wait...
"Nobody has disputed your statement that solar energy should be explored. We all know the sun is clean, constant, and safe. Meanwhile, we still depend on fossil fuel and that includes OIL; therefore, drilling corporations will continually seek advanced drilling procedures."
They can seek it if they want... but they are betting on the wrong horse. There is a reason companies like BP are focusing an ever increasing portion of their budget upon renewable alternatives, it is because as time goes by it makes more and more economic sense.
"No, i do not have a technical background. I don‘t need one. I tend to listen to the movers and shakers who make things happen. First comes the idea, jason, and then the technology. That’s how big business works."
You don't need one, but having one certainly helps in understanding the technically challenges that are involved.
I'm not sure how long you've been watching all of these things and "listening to the movers and shakers who make things happen"... but I've been watching all of this unfold for over a decade and keeping abreast of the developments since I was in high school.
In particular what I remember is circa 1996-2000 there was a huge amount of hype about the technological promise of fuel cell cars... new companies were popping up including ballard power systems... older companies such as GM and Chrysler were saying how this was the answer and they were hard at work on the problem. All of these companies put out press releases which suggested that new cars would be ready to run on fuel cells by 2002-2004. In fact here is a good article from that time period:
The Great Green Hope; Are Fuel Cells the Key to Cleaner Energy? - New York Times
Here is a quote:
"Ferdinand Panik, senior vice president at Daimler-Benz, said in a telephone interview from Germany that he had a chance to drive the fuel-cell-powered car in Frankfurt. ''Frankly, it was terrible,'' he said. The cell fit in the floor cavity, but the methanol reformer, which liberates hydrogen gas from the methanol, took up the whole back seat. But at the pace Mercedes is moving, with full production planned for 2004, such problems should be cleared up soon."
This was written in 1997... it is now 2008... 4 years after they declared that Mercedes would have full production of fuel cell powered cars. So tell me, where are they?
If one listened to the "movers and the shakers who make things happen" such as a senior vice president at Diamler-Benz, one would have assumed that they would be here by now.
I've got news for you, fuel cell powered cars still aren't here and they are still years off... the movers and the shakers got it wrong, and not just by a small amount.
There are literally hundreds of articles just like this one where a mover and a shaker made a promise that they just couldn't deliver on because they didn't have a clear understanding of how serious the technical challenges really were... their promises on these issues weren't worth anything.
So sure... first comes the idea... but then you need someone with a technical background to even attempt to give you an idea of how long it will take, technological advancement doesn't just occur because someone wants it, it occurs after years of hard work and dedication by scientists and engineers, the research and development cycle doesn't work how you think it does.
If it did mercedes would have been producing fuel cell vehicles almost 5 years ago.
"Now isn’t that rather a silly trick tactic? Your attempt to corner people is so obvious. If I had specifics, I’d be rich."
No GG, I am talking about understanding the specific technical challenges which remain to be resolved. Not understanding how to solve them.
My question to you is "What are the problems that still need to be resolved?"... but you haven't the foggiest idea what they are yet you presume that they will all be magically be solved.
That is arrogant and presumptuous. Before you can say that a problem can or will be solved within a particular time frame, you should understand what that problem actually is and what avenues are being explored to meet the challenges.
Believe me, many companies have made promises relating to energy in recent decades that they have failed to meet, and it is precisely because of attitudes like the one you have where the non-technical staff (i.e. business people) just assume that it will all work itself out.
People who make those assumptions are the ones who are being naive... not the ones who look at the realities and examine exactly what needs to be done in order to determine which strategy makes the most sense given all of that information. Those people are making informed decisions... not the people who just think it will all work itself out somehow and don't bother to dig into the details.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Just to drive my point home a little more clearly.
Back in 1997 the "movers and the shakers" were declaring that fuel cell automobiles would be ready to go and in full production by 2004.
Then in 2007 the "movers and the shakers" suddenly declare that fuel cell cars will ultimately lose to electric pluggables.
http://media.cleantech.com/654/hydrogen-cars-non-starters
This is why when I talk about drilling for more oil, I talk about it in context with the other available R&D options.
Apparently back in 1997 the "movers and the shakers" backed the wrong pony and bet on fuel cells only to discover that the challenges were too difficult to meet and now they are trying to shift toward battery based technologies.
They essentially wasted 10 years worth of R&D that could have gone into better battery development.
The same applies here... focusing R&D budgets on new drilling technologies is a waste compared to meeting the challenges of solar... that is simply the better bet given all of the facts available.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
"sigh*
"People who make those assumptions are the ones who are being naive... not the ones who look at the realities and examine exactly what needs to be done in order to determine which strategy makes the most sense given all of that information. Those people are making informed decisions... not the people who just think it will all work itself out somehow and don't bother to dig into the details".
I sat here patiently and read both your posts, and since you brought up GM, i have a story to tell you about my friend's grandfather. This mover/shaker had an incredibly wierd ambition to have a building constructed in the shape of a pencil. Of course, there were many who laughed, telling him that his project was impossible because the thing would fall over before completion. Finally, a team of architects and engineers figured a way to DO it. So jason, the moral of the story is..............................
As for your comment:
"I'm not sure how long you've been watching all of these things and listening to the movers and shakers who make things happen..."
I didn't watch it, jason, I lived it. My dad was a major player.
btw, how come you keep ignoring the potential of the rocks up there below saskatshewan?
September 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
oh, incidentally, that little pencil project is located in NYC
September 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Scientific Faith, Religious Science
Jason says: "My suggestion that using the oil available in anwr to alleviate our need for fuel was equivalent to collecting up bread crumbs to feed the homeless was based entirely upon the fact that anwr only has 1 years worth of oil at current US usage rates.
Hence it wasn't naive at all, my statement was based upon this information... information might I add that you have not disputed (because it is correct)."
PK responds: Jason, GG already addressed the strawman of the claim that ANWR alone was going to alleviate our need for fuel. You're continuing to harp on this non-point makes you look like a fanatic defending a faith.
And I disagree with your "scentific" opinion that 1 years worth of oil for the single largest economic power in the world is a "breadcrumb".
Keep this paradoxical saying in mind: Once you deny a belief is a faith, it becomes one.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
PK,
"Jason, GG already addressed the strawman of the claim that ANWR alone was going to alleviate our need for fuel. You're continuing to harp on this non-point makes you look like a fanatic defending a faith."
Actually that is exactly what you both are saying, hence it isn't a strawman. In fact what you are both doing now is setting up a straw man of your own where you are manipulating the meaning of the word alleviate.
You are both suggesting that anwr will alleviate our need for fuel.
Alleviate means to make something easier, to lessen the struggle... to offer some benefit.
If neither of you are suggesting that anwr will do any of those things, then you both are in agreement with me that it is not a fuel source that is worth tapping into. There is no point to tap into a new source of oil that isn't going to alleviate anything.
In order for it to be worth the effort, it needs to alleviate our need for fuel. That doesn't mean it needs to handle it completely.
Alleviate doesn't mean that is solves the problem... which is the distorted meaning that you both are trying to twist my point to mean (i.e. the straw man).
My point has never been that anwr needs to provide us with complete energy independance. However, for it to be worth it, it needs to provide significantly more than 1 years worth of oil before drying up.
"And I disagree with your "scentific" opinion that 1 years worth of oil for the single largest economic power in the world is a "breadcrumb"."
That is fine... dissagree all you want, but my description is neither naive nor is it incorrect.
There is only 1 years worth of oil there at current usage rates, by the time we get access to it, it will be even less.
"Keep this paradoxical saying in mind: Once you deny a belief is a faith, it becomes one."
I realize that you have a vested interest in trying to assert that your beliefs based solely upon what you want to believe are just as good as beliefs based upon facts and evidence.
It is the only way that you get to put your claims on the same table as the contentions made by people who have spent years looking into the data and examining all the details.
Unfortunately, what one believes about the natural world can be tested for it's truth value... your philosophy only works for the supernatural world.
It is fine for you to believe in whatever god that you like merely by preference... the same isn't true about believing how much oil is present in a particular deposit and how long it will last.
You don't have to call it breadcrumbs if you don't want to... but I will continue to because that is all it is.
Whatever you call it, it is still just 1 years worth of oil.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
PK,
One thing further... my statement can't possibly have been a strawman because I made the contention first.
I wasn't setting up the argument for my opponent... I set up my own argument and was then called naive.
What both of you are doing is trying to act like you both made some contention that I then twisted.
That isn't what went down here... I made the contention... was then called naive... I then defended my own contention... and was then told that I was setting up a strawman for showing why my contention was not naive.
Sorry... but that isn't what a strawman is... for me to set up a straw man you both would first have to make an argument... neither of you have really done that.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
PK
Since it seems there is some confusion over what the argument here actually is... I've taken the time to locate my original argument:
"Bringing this back to Palin, her plan to extract oil from Alaska in order to alleviate our need for fuel is like planning to feed the homeless by collecting up the bread crumbs left over by ducks.
The only sustainable strategies we really have available are nuclear power (which most Americans hate... not to mention we as a nation haven't constructed a nuclear power plant in about 20 years and have none planned for the immediate future) and solar power (which isn't ready for prime time yet and needs more research to get off the ground).
I strongly believe that if the US could get on a road toward energy independence, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems abroad because we wouldn't be filtering money into nations when we fundamentally disagree with their policies. Any economic sanctions we have used thus far have been about as effective as a junkie declaring to their dealer that they don't like their behavior so they will refuse to purchase drugs from them anymore... not exactly a strong threat."
This is MY argument... not your argument... and not GG's argument.
I am clearly stating that anwr will not alleviate our need for fuel... it says it explicitely in my very first sentence. I state it because of my statements in the next two paragraphs... namely that it is not a sustainable strategy (because it's only got 1 years worth of oil)... and because it is not part of the path toward energy independance (because it's only got 1 years worth of oil).
For making this statement GG called me naive because "alaska was rich in oil"... in other words, she was contending that the oil available in alaska did not amount to breadcrumbs and could alleviate our need for fuel... she was contenting that it was sustainable and that it was part of the path toward energy independance.
This HAS to have been her argument because she was dissagreeing with me, and not just with a small portion of my argument, she was dissagreeing with the whole thing as she called my entire stance naive... if she was agreeing with me, there would have been no point to call my contention naive at all... furthermore, the part she called naive was the part I backed up and explained in the next two paragraphs, meaning that by calling the first part naive, the two latter paragraphs were being called naive as well.
You both don't get to twist everything now like you guys made an argument that I then set up a stawman for... I'm the one who made the argument... you guys argued against it... I'm just defending my original position.
The only "argument" that was put forth was that my contention was naive and that alaska was "rich" in oil. I've since debunked both of those notions by showing exactly why my contention was not naive and why the subjective term of "rich" when it comes to alaska's oil deposits really doesn't seem appropriate given how much oil is actually there in untapped deposits.
Defending ones original position can never constitute a straw man... so stop tossing out statements which imply that I am using logical fallacies when in fact that is what the two of you have been doing.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Faith Arguments
I really want to get off this discussion because it's rather silly and off topic so, tell you what, I"ll even let you have The Last Word (tm) and read it. If you want further discussion, send me an email at marek1@cox.net and also to GG. Fair enough?
I want to clear the air on one PERSONAL thing:
Jason argues: I realize that you have a vested interest in trying to assert that your beliefs based solely upon what you want to believe are just as good as beliefs based upon facts and evidence.
PK responds: That's taking things to a personal level and since it's off topic to boot, I'm not going there (at least on Glenn's dime.) All I can say is that I'm a skeptic and don't have a "belief" as such. That's all.
Cheers and bye. You have my email address.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
PK,
So far as taking things to a personal level, maybe you should have thought of that when you kept playing the " Im-ho-tep... Im-ho-tep..." mantra like the only reason I was asserying my arguments was because I was some zombie following my mummy master. You were essentially asserting over and over that I don't think for myself.
You don't get to really take offense when I tell you that you are trying to equate personal prefernence with rigorous investigation after you've implied that my perspective is equivilant to being a lemming following the crowd over a cliff.
That wasn't on topic either, now was it?... My perspective on all issues such as this is that someone shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it.
Don't cry foul now after you spent multiple posts insinuating that I just believe what I'm told. My statement is completely equivilant to that in that I am saying that you just believe what you feel is most conventient.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Jason, just letting you know that I did read your response. If you want further discussion, you have my email (I have a funny science story to tell you if you're interested.)
September 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
There's a story behind that photo.
I found it and 'corrected' it in my first post on Sarah Palin (March 15th, 2008). The original photo featured gray, listless skies, so I used the 'Darla's Blue Skies and Clouds' filter in my GIMP editor to add the nice blue skies you see there.
Now, I don't really mind you stealing my bandwidth to display that photo. I've posted it on three different blogs..my own, and two where I co-blog (Protein Wisdom's Pub, and TennesseeFree.) Since you seem like a nice conservative sort, I won't change the photo to embarrass you (if it were a liberal, a leftist, you better believe I would; and I have). Plus, I pay for unlimited bandwidth and storage, so no harm done.
Would've been nice, though, for you to give proper credit.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am
[...] Glenn Sacks (a monster of a site!) [...]
September 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
The feministas are first and foremost Ideologues, the National Organization of Liberal Women only support female candidates if those candidates are liberal.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Natural Appetite Suppressant...
This is a good source of information. Normally I found the same ole stuff but found some different stuff here. Good job and keep it up....