One silly bit of made-up information I've been confronted with is the frequent assertion by lefties that Levi Johnston is, and I quote, an "eighth grader." I'd seen that claim made two or three times on different web-sites... including this one, via one of our Moby Trolls.
When someone asked me about this (she had just read it herself), I tried to make sense of it, and tried to imagine why the hell a 17 year old girl would be dating an "eighth grader," and how it was possible they could be married with him at that age, and what kind of absolutely horrible marriage that would turn out to be.
And what about statutory rape? That's quite an age difference. Four or five years means a lot at that age.
Continued on Page 49
Note to all: anything having to do with the election goes to Home Front: Politix, not to Lurid Crime Tales, though it can be hard to distinguish the difference.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/03/2008 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ROFL, Steve!
Ain't the the truth.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
Election '08: The Obama camp tries to suppress a campaign ad and university archives linking the candidate to a '60s terrorist who hosted his first campaign fundraiser. Is he being "swiftboated," or is this a cover-up?
When Obama's association with William Ayers was raised at a Democratic debate this year, Obama replied: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. ... He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."
Tuesday's release of papers from a Chicago school reform project known as the Annenberg Challenge shows once again Barack Obama has a problem with the truth.
The long-sought records that were kept under wraps at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC), show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference as the education project got under way. The records also show the two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program.
Clearly the relationship between Ayers and Obama is much deeper and longer than Obama admits. They in fact were partners in various entities and regularly exchanged ideas, including on how to turn Chicago schools into re-education camps to create a generation of social revolutionaries.
Tuesday's release of the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge were sought by the National Review's Stanley Kurtz, who had met a stone wall erected by Obama's UIC friends. UIC temporarily closed the supposedly public archives after Kurtz inquired. Ayers, who has long taught there, may have had a hand in suppressing the documents showing Obama to be a liar.
The UIC records show that in the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, securing a $50 million grant to reform the Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, who died in 2002.
Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office. He ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients. They met and talked often.
When Obama first ran for office, articles in the Chicago Defender and the local Hyde Park Herald mentioned his Annenberg chairmanship among his qualifications.
During Obama's tenure as Annenberg chairman, Ayers' own education projects received substantial funding. As we've noted in our series, "The Audacity of Socialism," Ayers, now a tenured distinguished professor of education at UIC, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.
One of Ayer's descriptions for a course called "Improving Learning Environments" says prospective K-12 teachers need to "be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and ... be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation."
The Annenberg papers are quite extensive -- 132 boxes containing 947 file folders with 70 linear feet of material. They undoubtedly contain more surprises regarding Obama's relationship with Ayers, one of many relationships Obama has sought to hide.
Obama is actively trying to suppress a campaign ad by an independent group that notes Obama's long and intimate relationship with Ayers. The ad is put out by the conservative American Issues Project (AIP) and financed by Texas billionaire Harold Simmons.
Simmons was one of the main funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Democrats cry Obama is being "swift boated" and blame that examination of John Kerry for his loss, not his less than swift campaign.
The ad factually states: "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barrack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"
We say not nearly enough. As columnist and political analyst Michael Barone points out, Obama has left no papers from his Illinois Senate days. Nor has he listed his law firm clients or provided more than one page of his medical records.
Obama has tried to distance himself from Ayers, his former campaign contributor and foundation colleague. When asked in the Pennsylvania debate if he could "explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Obama's lame response was that "the notion that somehow, as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense to me."
It makes sense to us. Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization that bombed the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon four decades ago, wasn't just a passing acquaintance to Obama.
When Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers and terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn had Obama to his house for a 1995 campaign event. Ayers also served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years and made a donation to the Friends of Barack Obama in 2001
The AIP ad has run about 150 times in markets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan.
Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."
Bauer has also written twice to the Justice Department demanding "prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" Simmons and AIP for violation of campaign laws and individual contribution limits. The problem is that, as the Annenberg papers show, the ad is breathtakingly true and accurate.
The only thing needing investigating is why Obama is trying so hard to hide his past. Full disclosure is change we can believe in.
Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain's veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.
Here is a sampler of media comment on Governor Palin this week:
- Eleanor Clift, the McLaughlin Group: "If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in many places across newsrooms."
- Sally Quinn, Newsweek: "It is a political gimmick . . . I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country."
- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Palin is, if anything, less qualified for the vice presidency (and the presidency) than [Harriet] Miers was for the court. But there is one big difference: Palin passes all the right-wing litmus tests."
- Maureen Dowd, New York Times: "They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West."
- Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "But as a parent in the media, I also know that the Palins assumed this risk. Anyone who watched coverage of the Bush twins' barroom exploits knew that the avert-your-eyes stance toward candidates' children has its limits."
- Charlie Cook, Beltway pundit, on PBS's "Charlie Rose": "I had a friend that had a young person tell them that they had three interviews to get a job as a server at Ruby Tuesday! So this is like putting a whole -- for someone that hasn't played on a national -- Geraldine Ferraro had more -- Dan Quayle had undergone more scrutiny, had played on a bigger stage than this. This is putting an enormous risk on someone he didn't know. And he has to just pray that it works!"
This is the same media whose chant for weeks -- no, months -- has been "let McCain be McCain." If we know anything about John McCain, it is that he is by instinct a reformer, sometimes to a fault. Yet when he acts like McCain and picks a maverick reformer in his own mold, his former media cheering squad turns on him for not conforming to Beltway mores and picking someone they've all met 10 times in the CNN green room.
They want a VP to be a kind of parliamentary choice, someone they have already vetted, someone who's made them laugh with insider jokes at the Gridiron dinner. The Beltway class whines constantly about how it wants fresh voices in politics, but we guess this means a first-term Democratic Senator rather than a first-term Republican Governor from some godforsaken U.S. state few of them have ever been to.
We are instructed that Mrs. Palin isn't qualified, because she lacks Washington experience. But until recently that was said to be a virtue in Mr. Obama, who is at the top of his ticket. Meanwhile, there's hardly a peep of media notice that the Obama campaign is preposterously trying to remake Joe Biden into a poor scrapper from Scranton when he's been in the Senate for 36 years. They all know Joe. But when Mr. McCain picks an authentic middle-class mother who is also a Governor, we are told she's not up to the job.
The spin du jour is that her choice reflects poorly on Candidate McCain because she wasn't properly vetted. Yet this seems to be false. Campaign vetter A.B. Culvahouse, White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, says Mrs. Palin told the campaign about her pregnant daughter and her husband's DUI at the age of 22. On Monday, Time magazine's Nathan Thornburgh wrote from Wasilla, Alaska, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy had been known by virtually everyone there, with little made of it. But what do these private family matters have to do with Mrs. Palin's credentials to be Vice President in any case?
The press in 2000 ignored marijuana use by Al Gore's son, as it should have. But now we are told a teenage pregnancy is going to raise second thoughts among evangelicals and "family values voters" about Mrs. Palin's ability to be both a mother and a public official. This is also false.
Leaving aside the embarrassing reality that the Beltway press corps barely knows any evangelicals, religious leaders this week greeted the pregnancy news with support for the Palins. Offering support for unwed pregnant women and their families is a primary activity of these churches from one end of America to the other. That might even make a good story for someone this weekend.
What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.
There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent.
If Sarah Palin succeeds as a national candidate, she could help John McCain proceed to a reform Presidency. Even if he loses while she does well, she could emerge as a major figure in GOP politics for years to come. This is why the media and political classes are so eager to discredit her. They can't let it happen.
We hope Mr. McCain and the GOP are prepared to fight back. On the evidence this week, it looks like an army of volunteers is forming up to help them.
If Sarah Palin succeeds as a national candidate, she could help John McCain proceed to a reform Presidency. Even if he loses while she does well, she could emerge as a major figure in GOP politics for years to come. This is why the media and political classes are so eager to discredit her. They can't let it happen.
If Palin really was a bad choice for the GOP wouldn't a good Democrat keep his mouth shut and grin?
You know, like most of us did when Obama chose Biden. {8^)
#3
"They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West."
Oh, you mean like Dick Cheney? Or, how about Dick Nixon? George Bush, Sr.?
What in the hell is she talking about? The only GOP VP nominee that was ever called lightweight was Quayle but he was from Indiana which is east of the Mississippi the last time I looked. But I guess if you're Maureen Dowd and you never get out of Manhattan even Indiana is "the West".
#10
Why do I have this scene playing through my mind?
JB: "You're not in Alaska anymore. Here, in DC, we do things differently."
SP: "Yea, but can you fly?"
Just another female Obama supporter, acting a lot like the battered women I used to see way back when...
Sen. Barack Obama is dealing with several key obstacles in his race for the presidency. He's black. He's young. And did I mention he's a dude? Why is the senator from Chicago facing so much heat for being a man? (Smacks self on head.) So that's why he's running around wearing three piece suits! An' I thought it was all just some early Halloween costume!
After all, men have ruled the American presidency since 1789. And while the senator isn't another middle-aged rich white guy, he is a guy. But instead of being able to use this to his advantage (i.e. help persuade conservative voters that he's not bringing so much change in the gender aspect after all), Sen. Obama is ransacked for being a man. For not being a woman. For not being Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton lost the primaries. The end. I wish it was as simple as that. But unfortunately, Sen. Clinton's loss is slowly becoming Sen. Obama's loss. Again and again, I hear Sen. Clinton's supporters barraging the news saying, "We will not vote for Sen. Obama, and if we vote at all, we will do so for good ol' McCain." I must say, the last is one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard. (And as a columnist, believe me when I say I've written heard a lot of ridiculous statements.)
If Sen. Hillary Clinton can support the guy, surely her supporters can too. Well, if you stick a knife right up against someone's spine, you can get them to agree to a lot of things, Sugar. Trust me on this one.
During last week's Democratic convention, Sen. Clinton made it clear in unequivocal terms that she is behind Sen. Barack Obama, as is her husband. Former President Bill Clinton is "convinced Barack Obama is the man for this job." This is exactly why it is so disheartening to hear that according to a recent joint poll between NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, only half of Sen. Clinton's supporters are willing to support Sen. Obama. Someone get this girl the Waaaaah-mbulance!
Granted, the Clintons have taken a long and winding road to get to the endorsement dais they're standing on today, but there's nothing to be accomplished by rehashing the past. The only thing we can do now is make a better future.
Sen. Obama should not lose this race just because he's a man. This is exactly the kind of underlying assumption that Senator Clinton has questioned and challenged in her historic campaign: the idea that one should be deprived of the presidency simply because of gender. Of course, one could make that argument for Governor Palin's run for VP, but I don't want to cause this sweet young thing too much difficulty with her thought processes.
Continuously demonizing Sen. Obama because he is a man only employs a kind of reverse sexism. If anyone would know about sexism during the 2008 campaign, it would be a Democrat, no?
And that's not something for which we, or Hillary Clinton, would chant "Yes, we will!" Sen. Obama is accomplishing in our country what until recently had remained a nightmare dream. And just because this dream is different from Hillary Clinton's, doesn't make it any less worthy.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/03/2008 09:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sen. Obama should not lose this race just because he's a man.
No, it's because he's an empty suit who just talks the talk. We want someone who walks the walk.
Republicans are bending over backward to talk up Sarah Palin in the face of mounting questions about her record, her family, her experience as revelations continue to trickle out and speculation builds as to whether she was sufficiently vetted by the McCain campaign before being tapped to run for VP. Rep. Pete King called her a "renaissance women" this morning. Rudy Giuliani touted her as an independent battler of corruption while speaking to the Missouri delegation this afternoon. But so far former Ambassador John Bolton is the only one I've heard to be so proud of Palin and her skills as an outdoorswoman as to propose a hunting contest between the Alaska governor and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose tiger-shooting exploits recently made international news.
There is solid evidence that Sarah Palin may have been fully naked (aka nude) at certain times during her term as Governor, may have worn scandalous lingerie at other points, and may have even engaged in wild sex acts in private that would be positively scandalous in public. Although the full details are still unavailable, it’s come to light that Sarah Palin repeatedly exploited a blue-collar Eskimo worker for her own private amusement in the bedroom, and that she had sex with him on at least four separate occasions. It’s also well-known in Alaska that Sarah Palin got pregnant by a young snowmobile racer (see photo at right). (The snowmobiler openly admits he is the father of Palin’s child. Palin claims her husband “Todd” is the father.)
The allegations don’t stop there. In the course of our investigations, we have uncovered that there are very credible allegations of topless dancing, moose-tipping, mooning, miscegenation, murder, Mormonism, racketeering, racism, favoritism, flatulence, “Fairbanks hot plates,” goobery, global warming, oral sex, orgies, onanism, Catholicism, conspiracy, carbon emissions, corruption, cronyism, cover-ups, climate change, cohabitation, cornhole, usury, short-sheeting, smuggling, satan worship, Santaria (aka “voodoo”), infidelity, whistle-blowing, animal sex (including bestiality), astigmatism, abortion, prostitution, polyamory, peeing in the snow, papism, pornographic (aka “porn” or “sex”) videos, embezzlement, bribery, battery, barratry, bigotry, buggery, backroom dealing, nepotism, nihilism, nudity, dildos, and various gay / lesbian activity (i.e., sodomy) taking place in Alaska, the very state Sarah Palin promised to clean up.
There are credible claims that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie and Pat Buchanan have each visited Sarah Palin’s state on at least one occasion—and engaged in who knows what sort of illicit and/or racist behavior while they were there. The Pat Buchanan allegations are particularly disturbing, owing to the fact that the Alaska governor had full knowledge of Buchanan’s travel plans and allowed Buchanan safe passage into and out of Alaska without even detaining or questioning him. Some claim that Buchanan was even granted “protection” by Alaska state police and local law enforcement. If any state or local law enforcement officials made any formal requests for authorization to capture or kill Pat Buchanan, such requests fell on deaf ears, and were very likely suppressed at the very highest levels of government. Was this the real reason Michael Wooten and Walter Monegan fell out of favor with the Ice Queen? Were they threatening to blow the whistle? I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sarah Palin, Governor of a lot of land, animals and less than 1 million people testified before the Fish and Wildlife division of the Department of the Interior that despite numerous reports from highly qualified wildlife researchers, she believes that there is no real danger to the Alaskan polar bear.
Said Palin: "I have lived in Alaska since I was an infant. I grew up with seals, caribou and polar bears and believe me, the great northern white bear is your biggest winge bag north of the equator.' The fish are too small, the ice flow isn't roomy enough,blubber ain't what it used to be!!' If you took half of the complaints of the Artic bear seriously you would think the polar ice cap was melting.
" I used to tell them when I wounded one of them on my many hunting trips that they should just suck it up and get a life or NOT!"
The editorial cartoon in today's Akron Leakin' Urinal Beacon Journal is the same gag. Great minds . . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/03/2008 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
BTW, when in Alaska, how much to you tip a moose? Any suggestion Anymoose?
15% is standard, but I'd go 20% to avoid the mauling.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/03/2008 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
And we mustn't forget the tinted windows on her car.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/03/2008 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
My daughter and I have a pool going, on how soon some major media house comes forward saying that they have paid out a lot of money to get the story from some woman claiming that she had an affair with Todd Palin.
Of course, we are also betting that it will be a claim easily debunked - and a clear case of checkbook journalism and a story sounding just too good to pass up... but any day now.
#11
That's a good prediction Sgt. Mom. I've seen a couple of seemingly offhand lefty blog comments to the effect that Todd Palin is a womanizer that felt like trial ballons. Look for that to be the new meme after the "McCain made a reckless unvetted pick" meme dissipates.
#14
I'm sure if they dig deep enough, they can find someone in her extended family - possibly even Governor Palin herself - who is or was a practicing thespian.
And she probably has masticated in public at some time or another.
Not that there is anything wrong with either one, of course.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
09/03/2008 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
But Rambler, what if they find someone in the family (or even Gov. Palin herself) who practices philately? In front of children?
Oh, the horror! That'll doom her for sure.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#16
If there's philately, there's probably numismatism nearby. Heavy metals, baby!
...The distributed Obama campaign — including the Obama organization, leftist bloggers and MSM — quickly figured out the dynamics of the situation and are responding effectively. The campaign or bloggers introduce daily talking-points that are repeated and amplified by a media cascade and can generate enough network (online and TV) discussion to crowd out most other topics. That’s what happened today and yesterday. Today’s main talking point was, McCain didn’t adequately vet Palin. This is clearly not true, given that McCain’s people were checking out Palin months ago. Yet given the story about the daughter, the talking point is just plausible enough to give media people cover in keeping it alive for a day as a major story. Conservative and Republican bloggers and MSM people unwittingly help their opponents by focusing even more attention on Palin in order to defend her and correct the record. While all of this is going on, Obama is almost invisible, and he appears to have picked up a few points in the polls. (Notice that the bounce didn’t begin until waves of Palin stories rescued him from the media spotlight.) The concurrent weather story, which isn’t really a story but is being hyped for all it’s worth by the pro-Obama media, further distracts scrutiny from Obama.
Conservative MSM people haven’t quite caught on to the full extent of what is happening. Their supposedly non-partisan colleagues are gleefully helping Obama by repeating endlessly “questions” about Palin that displace both McCain’s message and serious scrutiny of Obama. Who wants to talk about Obama’s relationship with Ayers, or about offshore drilling or tax cuts, when there’s juicy gossip (or merely reckless speculation) to be spread about Palin’s family. On Brit Hume’s show tonight, the conservative commentators were almost sputtering with rage at the Democrats’ dishonest attacks on Palin. Yet these same conservative commentators spent most of their time attempting to rebut the attacks, which means they didn’t talk much about anything else. Larry Kudlow devoted much of his show to defending Palin. Conservative media people watch impotently as their leftist colleagues do Obama’s work. The big-media conservatives aren’t temperamentally or tactically equipped to respond effectively. Perhaps the pro-McCain bloggers will do better.
Obviously Obama would like to keep Palin at the center of media focus. Obviously McCain would like to keep his own policies, and ObamaÂ’s failings, at the center of focus. McCainÂ’s electoral prospects depend on how quickly he and Palin can maneuver to shift the focus back to Obama. McCain may yet come out OK if public disgust with scummy media partisanship generates a backlash, or if voters lose interest in the MSMÂ’s dishonest Palin-as-soap-opera meme. Whatever happens, itÂ’s clear that Governor Palin and her family are in for a nasty ride. The leftist political-media complex will go all-out to destroy her as long as attacking her deflects attention from the radical leftist at the head of the Democratic ticket...
#1
it's clear that Governor Palin and her family are in for a nasty ride. The leftist political-media complex will go all-out to destroy her as long as attacking her deflects attention from the radical leftist at the head of the Democratic ticket...
We're all in for a nasty ride, not just the Palins.
#2
Obviously Obama would like to keep Palin at the center of media focus.
Which only will create a "Obama who?" situation by November. Wait till they start getting the message that the public perception is that its a Obama-Palin race which clearly means the one person with experience and calm is McCain. The O'team identified the threat to their candidacy but they've responded disproportionately in resources and focus. In a difference parlance, it's known as a soak off attack, drawing the opposition's needed resources from the main effort. You go O. Keep slinging, keep throwing your fanatics and sycophants into the fight. Show us what the real O'world will look like. [This is not going to make those bible thumping end timers any more comfortable. Heh]
#3
"McCain may yet come out OK if public disgust with scummy media partisanship generates a backlash"
That backlash is already forming in mom-n-pop, small-town and middle class America.
The urban hipster doofus elites who are spreading this alsong with their allies in the MSM also include their typical sneeering looking downon middle class peopel and middle class values.
The backlash is coming, and the more the press does this elitists partisan crap, the more the press will be the target, and if they keep this up, there will be violence.
Right now there are people that are so furious they are talking about "when the day comes they will hang the press elites from the ceilings of their offices or shoot them down in the streets"
The partisanship of the mainstream press is shredding the very foundation of democracy in this country, with its deliberate mis-informaing of the population, and its support and pushing of radical fringe agenda.
Me, I just want Soros dead. His money has been the seed behind much of this corruption. Hurry up and die you evil bastard (and if things do fall apart, some people are likely to speed up the day of his demise with bullets or bombs).
#5
This is the best explanation I've seen yet for the events of the last few days. "The distributed Obama campaign - including the Obama organization, leftist bloggers and MSM" deserves to become the next big meme of this political season.
The media's assault on Palin reminds me of WW2-era Soviet Army tactics (appropriate considering most MSMers' politics): line up the artillery hub to hub and start firing without much regard to accuracy. Even if individual rounds don't hit important targets, the smoke, noise and whizzing shrapnel will keep the adversary's head down.
Now the next question...what's going to be the Distributed Obama Campaign's equivalent of a Guards Tank Army exploiting the breakthrough?
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/03/2008 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Moderator note:
We don't wish other Americans dead, not even Soros. I'm not redacting the comment because I think the expression was a rhetorical one, but let's not do it again.
AoS
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/03/2008 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Soros dead would just mean that all his money would go toward his favourite Progressive groups instead of just some of it. You've heard of the Wills & Trusts section of the law school curriculum, Percy Crainter4524 dear? Right now he needs most of his funds to go swanning around the world impressing the international Progressive elites, as they all like to think of themselves... not to mention a reserve to take down the currency of the next nation that catches his rapacious eye.
I'd rather dear Mr. Soros live long enough to see all his efforts and his money spent in vain, as those he hates take over. After all, how frustrated must he be, after three elections where his causes lost instead of gained? Y'all remember the millions marching against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, versus the few hundreds and paltry thousands that marched recently? As I recall, Cindy Sheehan couldn't even collect enough signatures to get on the electoral ballot -- she wanted to replace Representative Nancy Pelosi, poor thing.
The risk John McCain took last Friday is comparable to the 72-year-old ex-fighter pilot knocking back two shots and flying his F-16 under the Golden Gate Bridge.
McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his co-pilot was the biggest gamble in presidential history. As of now, it is paying off, big-time.
The sensational selection in Dayton, Ohio, stepped all over the big story from Denver – Barack Obama's powerful address to 85,000 cheering folks in Mile High Stadium, and 35 million nationally, a speech that vaulted him from a 2-point deficit early in the week to an 8-point margin. Barack had never before reached 49 percent against McCain.
As the Democrats were being rudely stepped on, however, Palin ignited an explosion of enthusiasm among conservatives, evangelicals, traditional Catholics, gun owners and right to lifers not seen in decades.
By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008.
Liberals howl that Palin has no experience, no qualifications to be president of the United States. But the lady has more executive experience than McCain, Joe Biden and Obama put together.
None of them has ever started or run a business as Palin did. None of them has run a giant state like Alaska, which is larger than California and Texas put together. And though Alaska is not populous, Gov. Palin has as many constituents as Nancy Pelosi or Biden.
She has no foreign policy experience, we are told. And though Alaska's neighbors are Canada and Russia, the point is valid. But from the day she takes office, Palin will get daily briefings and sit on the National Security Council with the president and secretaries of state, treasury and defense.
She will be up to speed in her first year.
And her experience as governor of Alaska, dealing with the oil industry and pipeline agreements with Canada, certainly compares favorably with that of Barack Obama, a community organizer who dealt in the mommy issues of food stamps and rent subsidies.
Where Obama has poodled along with the Daley Machine, Palin routed the Republican establishment, challenging and ousting a sitting GOP governor before defeating a former Democratic governor to become the first female and youngest governor in state history.
For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.
In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among lifers, evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives – wholly independent of President McCain.
A traditional conservative on social issues, Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has. Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.
Indeed, if McCain defeats Barack, 2012 could see women on both national tickets, and given McCain's age and the possibility he intends to serve a single term, women at the top of both – Sarah vs. Hillary.
The arrival of Palin on the national scene, with her youth, charisma and vitality, probably also portends a changing of the guard in Washington.
With Republicans having zero chance of capturing either House, and but a slim chance of avoiding losses in both, a Vice President Palin, with her reputation as a rebel and reformer, would surely inspire similar revolts in the Republican caucuses.
As Thomas Jefferson said, from time to time, a little rebellion in the political world is as necessary as storms in the physical.
The Palin nomination could backfire, but it is hard to see how. She has passed her first test, her introduction to the nation, with wit and grace. And the Obama-Biden ticket, having already alienated millions of women with the disrespecting of Hillary, is unlikely to start attacking another woman whose sole offense is that she had just been given the chance to break the glass ceiling at the national level.
Her nomination, which will bring the Republican right home, also frees up McCain to appeal to moderates and liberals, which has long been his stock in trade.
With his selection of Sarah Palin, John McCain has not only shaken up this election, he may have helped shape the future of the United States – and much for the better.
#1
I dunno...when Sarah was announced as J-Mac's running mate I echoed the thoughts of many Rantburgers that it was a great strategic move that would knock the Obamessiah back on his heels - the saying of choice being that McCain had gotten inside Obama's OODA loop. But in the days since, the counterbattery fire from Obama's media sockpuppets has gotten intense enough to start causing some damage.
The most recent polls show Obama finally leading beyond the usual margins of error...and as the media works up other lines of attack against the ticket, it's likely to get worse.
Noooo...I'm *not* saying that McCain should drop Sarah from the ticket - that would be the worst thing he could do, simultaneously cementing a media image as a flip-flopper AND motivating the conservative base to roll over and hit the Snooze button on election day. But he needs to start counterpunching, and counterpunching hard.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/03/2008 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Tomorrow Palin goes for the whole enchilada. If she's as good as I think she will it will be just fine. Post convention bounce for the Donks is within normnal.
Saw Susan Estridge tonight and she is livid at the sexist treatment Palin is getting from her fellow Donks.
#5
The most recent polls show Obama finally leading beyond the usual margins of error...and as the media works up other lines of attack against the ticket, it's likely to get worse
Let's remember that the pollsters consistently and continuously bias polls in selecting Donk over other categories of voters in their surveys. That's why they've been in error for over two presidential elections. However, it get the media the ability to create news rather than really gather it. So, they keep paying to hear what they want to hear. The polls by their own construction have avoided one of the key plays here. Moving unmotivated and fence sitting conservatives from unlikely/maybe to certain voters come November. Not by a 'margin' but in mass. These were people never available to Obama and therefore not in the computation. When McCain and Obama were statistically tied these guys weren't there. Now they are in play, but they will not show up in the reported 'polls'. Tells you a lot about the methodology of the polls.
#6
On the one hand, Obama's poll lead is encouraging Democrats that their present course is working and they don't need to change anything.
And yet, I smell Democrat panic. Palin's strong appeal to both evangelicals and feminists(!) is clearly not showing up in current polling data. But is IS there.
#7
The LEFT has absolutely no problem with supporting the murder of the unborn or partially born. Attacking and ruining the life of the 17 year old daughter of an accomplished conservative will not stop them.
#4
Un Fuc&ing believable!!! I thought this was scrappleface, WRONG!!! This is vile and another example of the left's yellow journalistic attempts to smear someone. This will backfire on them. But, I have to admit, I was really excited to hear what Linsey Lohan has to say about it! Snark! Oh, and the comment, "Where is Edwards in the photo?"
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/03/2008 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
To the metrosexual men who run the leftist media, a typical American woman is either a corporate harpy who lists abortions on her resume, or a hairy-legged l**bian clinging bitterly to her cats.
The left and their media allies have never really understood real women. McCain has exposed the misogynist left for what it is, and they are going to pay a price.
#6
Sorry for the asterisks. The software here apparently rejects comments containing the word "l*sbian." My guess is that this is an anti-spam measure.
#12
I know that Lindsey Lohan isn't exactly the brightest bulb, but in her defense, this is what she had to say about the situation:
"I've been watching the news all morning, like everyone else — and (I) keep hearing about the issues related to `teen pregnancy.' ... Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views, and what she can do to make our country a less destructive place," Lohan wrote.
It's pretty sad when a 22-year old druggie gets it right and the media punditry can't. (Ok, I don't agree with the "destructive" part, but hey....at least she's not dedicating half of her statement to "OMG! Shouldn't this woman be home with her kids!" crap that has *never* been aimed at men running for VP)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/03/2008 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The filthy rag is taking the BEATING they deserve. Unfortunately, I suspect they are reveling in it.
#15
Surprise, surprise! A trashy celebrity magazine stoops to trashy celebrity behavior to gain trashy celebrity attention! Save your stamp -- a letter will accomplish nothing.
#19
Scientific American - I ditched that rag after the proposed turning the rocky mountain states and half the central states into a "GAME PRESERVE FOR LARGE AFRICAN Mammals". Specific were elephants,rhinos, wildebeests zebras, lions, cheetahs, hyenas ...
Scientific American and it English Lord owner can FOAD!
#20
3dc, I did the same many years ago when I detected liberal US politics being injected into pure Science pieces.
It's all secondary science at best anyway, as opposed to primary data and information.
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
09/03/2008 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Sort of off topic, but Scientific America sold their soul long ago. They allow advertising from crazy stuff that none of their readers would ever buy, why? Because those advertisers can turn around and advertise in other areas "as seen in Scientific America". The editors must know this gambit of using their name to create false credibility for transcendental products and they simply do not care.
#22
Was a subscriber to sciam when that magazine came out, a bat-boy type article out of supposedly educated magazine. When the goebel swarming edition especial came out the whole magazine was an op-ed piece. Cancelled my subscription and instead send that amount to Rantburg.
#24
Any magazine named "US" has got to be elitist, self-centered pap. I'm surprised they don't publish magazines with the titles: 1. The Egoist, 2. Self-Involved, 3. Me. and 4. Narcissist.
#26
US Magazine - Owned by Jann Wenner( as part of the vast Wenner media conglomerate). Oh, I forgot to mention that he is a major contributor of the Obama Campaign.
Bush Derangement Syndrome has become a malignancy. Once upon a time they only hated Bush, then they hated Bush and Cheney, Then they hated Bush Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and so on down the line. Now they hate all of us.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
09/03/2008 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#27
No, They always have. We just weren't so threatening.
#28
SciAm went way downhill when Martin Gardner left.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
09/03/2008 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#29
They didn't used to hate us, only despise us. But they weren't actually much less rude, just less noisy and prone to spraying bleach in old ladies' eyes.
So every four years we elect a king. Since people like consistency, we tend to elect the same king as many times as we can get away with. (See previous paragraph.) And the king, especially in any sort of emergency, has a lot of power. They donÂ’t always, or even most of the time, have enough to fix things right away. But theyÂ’ve got a lot of power.
Including the power to totally screw things up.
Everybody in the room that had the power to change the PresidentÂ’s idea of a fucking plan also worked for the bitch. Legally, they were required to follow her orders. They could argue, they could recommend but that was like talking to the Great Wall of China. She knew what was Right and what was Good and the people arguing against her had Dicks and they were Wrong.
For the kids reading this, this is a very important point. When you choose your king, forget most of the reasons you think you should vote for the king. Mostly, the king canÂ’t do much about the economy but ruin it. They canÂ’t make you richer or smarter (although they can manage the reverse). If you want one suggestion, think about all the contingencies under which that king (or queen in this case) may hold your lives in his or her hands. And choose wisely. About half the U.S. population chose unwisely. (48.2%. It was one of those elections.)
Quite a few of them died. Every person who voted for Warrick deserved it....
And
You hit that motherfucker with a full fucking court press.
You donÂ’t open up the borders, any of them, until youÂ’ve killed the son of a bitch.
Fuck the economy. Fuck anything. Shut the fuck down until your population is safe. They canÂ’t buy trinkets or gas or groceries if theyÂ’re mostly dead.
Nothing. Else. Matters.
These are a couple of quotes I pulled from John Ringo’s new book, The Last Centurion. In very graphic terms, he lays out a justification for voting for John McCain, although he doesn’t name that name. The “President Warwick” in this book is an extremely thinly disguised Hillary Clinton, of course.
I have often publicly worried about the threat of some sort of biowar attack against the United States, and also worried about things like airborn Avian Flu. I still worry about such things, and I consider them to be major, even potentially existential threats to the survival of the United States.
Now, from a political point of view, I think a John McCain presidency will be disastrous for the GOP in the long term, and certainly disastrous for conservative principles within the GOP. In fact, I think an Obama presidency, in which things generally proceed from bad to worse, would be better for conservatism in the long run.
And voting for shit sandwiches only gets you shittier sandwiches in the long (and not so long) term.
But.
“Nothing. Else. Matters.”
And that is true. John McCain is probably not going to do much for anything political I care about - I consider him a moderately left centrist - but he is something else, as well. He is capable of making a decision and sticking to it in the face of public opposition. He is a former navy pilot and commander who made life or death decisions on the fly, and then carried them out. So here is what it comes down to: For the sake of my own safety and survival, who do I want in the White House if Bird Flu starts killing people in San Francisco?
Do I want Barack Obama, who would dither, factor politcal issues into his reaction, make the same sort of vastly deadly mistakes that “President Warrick” made in Ringo’s book, and probably end up killing me, or would I rather take my chances - for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with politics - with a President McCain who might - just might - make enough better decisions faster and give me a better chance of actually surviving such a disaster?
It’s got to be McCain, folks. I can’t help conservatives to regain power and influence if we are all dead and the country is in ruins. In the normal course of events, I don’t think that would happen. But we are in an era where “normal” is going to become increasingly abnormal. And, once again, politics has nothing to do with it. If Barack Obama were the vetted fighter pilot, commander, and stubborn, fearless decision maker, and the same leftist he is today, and McCain was the waffling, inexperienced neophyte who was moderately the more conservative of the two, I’d have to vote for Obama. Because you can’t do anything if you’re dead.
So IÂ’m going to vote for McCain. I canÂ’t stand the guy or his politics, but at least with him I believe IÂ’ll have a better chance of living long enough to do something about them.
And, McCain backers? Spare me your “I told you so’s.” None of you did. A novelist named John Ringo made the situation clear to me. But that situation is not one any of you presented. So save it, okay?
#2
This is what we call a gut check. I hope everyone does it before they vote.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/03/2008 0:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There have been several "name" flips from Obama's camp to McCain's in the last few days. None in the other direction though. The One's poll numbers appear good, but given the recent defections, how real are those poll numbers?
#5
There have been defections, Aris. Mostly silent, some bloggers that I've read. We won't know for certain until the election, though, which is how it should be. Certainly the trailing daughters are quite angry at Progressive attacks on Miss Bristol and her fiance', and as I checked out their friends' Facebook pages, it seems they aren't the only ones. Trailing daughter #1 has just got confirmation that she is registered to vote in her first election. I grant that my small sample is not conclusive, but these are typically bright middle to upper-middle class kids all heading to university, the ones who should be falling for Obama's call for change.
#6
Quick's statement "But that situation is not one any of you presented." does not ring true. "Situations" like that have been in the back of many voter's minds ever since 9/11. POTUS has a great deal of power for good or ill, most of us know that without presenting it. Quick takes excessive pride in his stubbornness & resistance to outside influence.
#7
Sarah Palin, the mom you wanted to have, will get many rank and file "feminists" who care about the role of women in daily life. On the other hand: Strident leftists, who in the past have taken it upon themselves to speak on "behalf" of all women, will of of continue to parrot the party line. But they will no long speak for the masses.
Sarah Palin exists. That voting block is GONE. THAT is why the leftists HATE her.
Was Slats Glans2659
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/03/2008 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
PIMF
Should be "will of course continue to parrot..."
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/03/2008 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
John McCain is not a normal conservative. He has instincts, but few abstract convictions about the proper size of government. HeÂ’s a traditionalist, but is not energized by the social conservative agenda. As Rush Limbaugh understands, but the Democrats apparently do not, a McCain administration would not be like a Bush administration.
The main axis in McCain’s worldview is not left-right. It’s public service versus narrow self-interest. Throughout his career, he has been drawn to those crusades that enabled him to launch frontal attacks on the concentrated powers of selfishness — whether it was the big money donors who exploited the loose campaign finance system, the earmark specialists in Congress like Alaska’s Don Young and Ted Stevens, the corrupt Pentagon contractors or Jack Abramoff.
When McCain met Sarah Palin last February, he was meeting the rarest of creatures, an American politician who sees the world as he does. Like McCain, Palin does not seem to have an explicit governing philosophy. Her background is socially conservative, but she has not pushed that as governor of Alaska. She seems to find it easier to work with liberal Democrats than the mandarins in her own party.
Instead, she seems to get up in the morning to root out corruption. McCain was meeting a woman who risked her career taking on the corrupt Republican establishment in her own state, who twice defeated the oil companies, who made mortal enemies of the two people McCain has always held up as the carriers of the pork-barrel disease: Young and Stevens.
Many people are conditioned by their life experiences to see this choice of a running mate through the prism of identity politics, but thatÂ’s the wrong frame. Sarah Barracuda was picked because she lit up every pattern in McCainÂ’s brain, because she seems so much like himself.
The Palin pick allows McCain to run the way he wants to — not as the old goat running against the fresh upstart, but as the crusader for virtue against the forces of selfishness. It allows him to make cleaning out the Augean stables of Washington the major issue of his campaign.
So my worries about Palin are not (primarily) about her lack of experience. She seems like a marvelous person. She is a dazzling political performer. And she has experienced more of typical American life than either McCain or his opponent. On Monday, an ugly feeding frenzy surrounded her daughterÂ’s pregnancy. But most Americans will understand that this is what happens in real life, that parents and congregations nurture young parents through this sort of thing every day.
My worry about Palin is that she shares McCain’s primary weakness — that she has a tendency to substitute a moral philosophy for a political philosophy.
There are some issues where the most important job is to rally the armies of decency against the armies of corruption: Confronting Putin, tackling earmarks and reforming the process of government.
But most issues are not confrontations between virtue and vice. Most problems — the ones Barack Obama is sure to focus on like health care reform and economic anxiety — are the product of complex conditions. They require trade-offs and policy expertise. They are not solvable through the mere assertion of sterling character.
McCain is certainly capable of practicing the politics of compromise and coalition-building. He engineered a complex immigration bill with Ted Kennedy and global warming legislation with Joe Lieberman. But if you are going to lead a vast administration as president, it really helps to have a clearly defined governing philosophy, a conscious sense of what government should and shouldnÂ’t do, a set of communicable priorities.
If McCain is elected, he will face conditions tailor-made to foster disorder. He will be leading a divided and philosophically exhausted party. There simply arenÂ’t enough Republican experts left to staff an administration, so he will have to throw together a hodgepodge with independents and Democrats. He will confront Democratic majorities that will be enraged and recriminatory.
On top of these conditions, he will have his own freewheeling qualities: a restless, thrill-seeking personality, a tendency to personalize issues, a tendency to lead life as a string of virtuous crusades.
He really needs someone to impose a policy structure on his moral intuitions. He needs a very senior person who can organize a vast administration and insist that he tame his lone-pilot tendencies and work through the established corridors — the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council. He needs a near-equal who can turn his instincts, which are great, into a doctrine that everybody else can predict and understand.
Rob Portman or Bob Gates wouldnÂ’t have been politically exciting, but they are capable of performing those tasks. Palin, for all her gifts, is not. She underlines McCainÂ’s strength without compensating for his weaknesses. The real second fiddle job is still unfilled.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They sure as hell didn't like it when Cheney played just that role to GWB in 2000. Remember all the snide cartoons - Cheney teaching Bush how to drive, Bush on a bike with a helment and training wheels? Where the hell are the equivalents showing Biden v.v. Obambi?
By putting the relatively unknown governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, on his presidential ticket, John McCain has demonstrated that rarest of all political qualities: willingness to take a real risk on a serious new venture with great potential. It's a sign of confidence, not desperation.
If the response from the conservative base is any indication, McCain has hit a home run with the Palin selection. A sullen GOP, set to vote reluctantly, if at all, for the "maverick" (some say unprincipled) senator from Arizona, has suddenly become electrified. In the first 36 hours after McCain announced his pick, $7 million in new contributions poured in online. This isn't because Palin is making history as the first woman on a GOP ticket. It's because of the type of woman and politician that she is. She's a normal person, a mother and wife, who entered politics in 1992 by running for city council in Wasilla, Alaska to oppose tax hikes. She became mayor and swept a bunch of cronies out of the bureaucracy. She ran for, and lost, a race for lieutenant governor. She served on the state's Oil and Gas Commission, where she went after the corrupt state GOP chairman, who had taken money from oil companies. In 2006, she ran for governor and won, after first beating the Republican incumbent for the nomination.
Throughout, she hewed to a few clear principles. She championed fiscal responsibility, cutting pork in the form of capital projects as well as larger symbols of waste, such as the infamous "bridge to nowhere" sponsored by Republican senator Ted Stevens. In a state that has been awash in oil money and political corruption, she also demanded real ethical standards and sent people who didn't meet them to jail, never hesitating to challenge Republicans who were corrupt or ineffective. And she was pro-development, supporting drilling in ANWR; for that matter, she has dealt extensively with the tricky energy issues that have become central to this year's election, and she understands them better than anyone else on either ticket.
In summary, Palin worked her way up the political ladder, rising on talent (she's likable and a good speaker) and incremental achievement. She didn't marry into power, and no one handed her anything. This is what conservatives say they want in female and minority candidates for high office. Further, she's a reformer and a Washington outsider in a year when, as Republicans know, their own party is part of the problem. She represents real "change," to adopt a word of the moment, and for Reaganites who have been waiting for the first post-Reagan conservative generation to rise to power, Palin represents "hope" as well.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
HereÂ’s an interesting conundrum involving nuclear decay rates.
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.
Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with EarthÂ’s distance from the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 over a period of many years.)
In other words, there appears to be an annual variation in the decay rates of these elements.
Jenkins and co put forward two theories to explain why this might be happening.
First, they say a theory developed by John Barrow at the University of Cambridge in the UK and Douglas Shaw at the University of London, suggests that the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies during each orbit. Such an effect would certainly cause the kind of an annual variation in decay rates that Jenkins and co highlight.
Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sunÂ’s interior, which could be tested by carrying out the measurements close to a nuclear reactor (which would generate its own powerful neutrino flux).
It turns out, that the notion of that nuclear decay rates are constant has been under attack for some time. In 2006, Jenkins says the decay rate of manganese-54 in their lab decreased dramtically during a solar flare on 13 December.
And numerous groups disagree over the decay rate for elements such as titanium-44, silicon-32 and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data at different times of the year.
#2
Hmmm - I always thought that decay rates were random for individual atoms, but statistically constant for large numbers of atoms over long time periods. I'd love to see the data.
#3
What would be the effect on the nuclear power plants on deep space explorers? If the small variations in distance from the sun generate measureable variations in decay rate, will the Uranium (or whatever) in the generators either go dead or explode violently beyond the solar system?
#4
Geordi will just reverse the polarity. Things will be fine. He does that all the time.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/03/2008 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Wow. Solar activity influence decay rates? Sun spots affect it?
Yet solar activity does not do anything to the global climate compared to human greenhouse gas emissions. According to the "climate change" high priests.
All that aside, this is quite odd, and may have impacts on other things, like carbon dating, which assumes a constant half-life decay rate.
#7
OldSpook: This can have strong implications throughout science. Not just carbon dating, but nuclear clocks and timers, nuclear medicine, quantum and particle physics, and the list goes on and on.
Science is very reliant on constants, of which there are not that many in the universe. If one turns out to be a variable, it can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery.
#8
This will have very interesting impacts on the field of geology, DEPENDING on the variation. If the variation is relative tiny over the course of geologic time, ie 1-2 millions years difference over billions, as geologists, we're gonna mostly say, "Meh. Who cares." But if it's alot of variance, that's going to have some serious implications. Will have to bring this to the attention of the professors.
Gut: The Sarah Palin choice is really going to work, or really not going to work. It's not going to be a little successful or a little not; it's not going to be a wash. She is either going to be magic or one of history's accidents. She is either going to be brilliant and groundbreaking, or will soon be the target of unattributed quotes by bitter staffers shifting blame in all the Making of the President 2008 books. Of which there should be plenty, as we've never had a year like this, with the fabulous freak of a campaign.
More immediately and seriously on Palin:
Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
She could become a transformative political presence.
So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.
And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.
There are only two questions.
1. Can she take it?
Will she be rattled? Can she sail through high seas? Can she roll with most punches and deliver some jabs herself?
2. And while she's taking it, rolling with it and sailing through, can she put herself forward convincingly as serious enough, grounded enough, weighty enough that the American people can imagine her as vice president of the United States?
I suppose every candidate for vice president faces these questions to some degree, but because Palin is new, unknown, and a woman, it's all much more so.
***
I don't think the most powerful attack line will be, in the end, inexperience. Our nation appears to be in a cycle in which inexperience seems something of a lure. "He's fresh, he's new, he hasn't appalled me yet!" I don't think it's age. While Palin seems to me young, so does Obama. I freely concede this is a drawback of getting older: you keep upping your idea of what "old enough" is. But only because when you're 50 you know you're wiser and more seasoned than you were at 40, or should be.
America, even as it ages, loves youth and admires its strength.
In all this, and in its involvement in this week's ritual humiliation of a 17-year-old girl, the mainstream press may seriously overplay its hand, and court a backlash that impacts the election. More on that in a moment.
***
I'll tell you how powerful Mrs. Palin already is: she reignited the culture wars just by showing up. She scrambled the battle lines, too. The crustiest old Republican men are shouting "Sexism!" when she's slammed. Pro-woman Democrats are saying she must be a bad mother to be all ambitious with kids in the house. Great respect goes to Barack Obama not only for saying criticism of candidates' children is out of bounds in political campaigns, but for making it personal, and therefore believable. "My mother had me when she was eighteenÂ…" That was the lovely sound of class in American politics.
***
Let me say of myself and almost everyone I know in the press, all the chattering classes and political strategists and inside dopesters of the Amtrak Acela Line: We live in a bubble and have around us bubble people. We are Bubbleheads. We know this and try to compensate for it by taking road trips through the continent -- we're on one now, in Minneapolis -- where we talk to normal people. But we soon forget the pithy, knowing thing the garage mechanic said in the diner, and anyway we weren't there long enough in the continent to KNOW, to absorb. We view through a prism of hyper-sophistication, and judge by the rules of Chevy Chase and Greenwich, of Cleveland Park and McLean, of Bronxville and Manhattan.
And again we know this, we know this is our limit, our lack.
But we also forget it.
And when you forget you're a Bubblehead you get in trouble, you misjudge things. For one thing, you assume evangelical Christians will be appalled and left agitated by the circumstances of Mrs. Palin's daughter. But modern American evangelicals are among the last people who'd judge her harshly. It is the left that is about to go crazy with Puritan judgments; it is the right that is about to show what mellow looks like. Religious conservatives know something's wrong with us, that man's a mess. They are not left dazed by the latest applications of this fact. "This just in – there's a lot of sinning going on out there" is not a headline they'd understand to be news.
So the media's going to wait for the Christian right to rise up and condemn Mrs. Palin, and they're not going to do it because it's not their way, and in any case her problems are their problems. Christians lived through the second half of the 20th century, and the first years of the 21st. They weren't immune from the culture, they just eventually broke from it, or came to hold themselves in some ways apart from it. I think the media will explain the lack of condemnation as "Republican loyalty" and "talking points." But that's not what it will be.
Another Bubblehead blind spot. I'm bumping into a lot of critics who do not buy the legitimacy of small town mayorship (Palin had two terms in Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000 or so) and executive as opposed to legislative experience. But executives, even of small towns, run something. There are 262 cities in this country with a population of 100,000 or more. But there are close to a hundred thousand small towns with ten thousand people or less. "You do the math," the conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway told me. "We are a nation of Wasillas, not Chicagos."
***
The mainstream media, which has been holding endless symposia here on the future of media in the 21st century, is in danger of missing a central fact of that future: If they appear, once again, as they have in the past, to be people not reporting the battle but engaged in the battle, if they allow themselves to be tagged by that old tag, which so tarnished them in the past, they will do more to imperil their own future than the Internet has.
This is true: fact is king. Information is king. Great reporting is what every honest person wants now, it's the one ironic thing we have less of in journalism than we need. But reporting that carries an agenda, that carries Bubblehead assumptions and puts them forth as obvious truths? Well, some people want that. But if I were doing a business model for broadsheets and broadcast networks I'd say: Fact and data are our product, we're putting everything into reporting, that's what we're selling, interpretation is the reader's job, and think pieces are for the edit page where we put the hardy, blabby hacks.
That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don't play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/03/2008 14:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Joe Badin is not her antagonist, even though they are competing for the same office. Metro Male Obama is her cultural foe. My money's on her. She has more balls than Chicago effeminate and I'm pretty sure she knows how to use them.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/03/2008 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Doesn't look like Palin will get the PETA vote does it?
#3
JohnQC, so that's what - ten, twenty thousand at most? Who probably wouldn't have voted Republican anyway.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
09/03/2008 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's pretty clear that the left has pulled out all the stops and gone into 'anything goes just kill her' mode. They will do or say anything. They are desperate.
#5
Regret to report Peggy is helping the MSM to kill Palin. politico.com is reporting that Peggy was caught off air but on a hot mike calling Palin's nomination political bullsh*t. The dems are eating it up.
Boy howdy. I'm guessing that somewhere, Jesse Jackson will be smiling tonight.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/03/2008 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#10
AllahHateMe, Peggy Noonan was President George H.W. Bush's speechwriter. Now she writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Joournal Op-Ed page, and apparently is a political commentator for MSNBC. She has never forgiven George W. for not being a clone of his father, and has grown increasingly strident and unamusing about it over the years.
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!
#2
There's always the "Hollyweird Star Celebrity" emigration option [The "I'm a blowhard in real life, not a political savvy student of the Constitution, but it's all image to me" program].
Posted by: Big Unavise2667 ||
09/03/2008 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war"
Hardly need to "look for it." It's already phueching HERE! Thanks to federally mandated Affirmative Action, democrat give-away and wealth redistro, gummit mandeated free hospital care, sky rocketing minority crime, illeagal immigration, gummit & Fannie Mae...everyone deserves to be a $ 500k home owner, we've been LIVING it for decades now.
A warning to Ms Ali and others like her: remember which side is composed of street thugs, and which side has always been "God Guts and Guns" and lots of former military.
#7
I'm sure it's "above her pay grade" to figure out why 10 million illegals choose the US to hang out in rather than Haiti [given all the oppression and poverty and hopelessness here].
#8
As a representative of only 13% of the country, she should rethink that race war option. In other words, she's saying vote for the black guy or we'll commit violent acts. Like Big Unavise2667 said, Bring it bitch. I bust heads, like my father before me.
#9
This is the kind of shit they pulled in LA after Rodney King verdict, until they went into Koreatown and found out what a few brave folks who could shoot straight could do. Didn't need cops, National Guard, or Rev Jesse(what ? he wasn't there?), just a little lead rain to bring a some clarity to these thugs skulls.
#13
I've been concerned that what she threatens will very likely come to pass in some areas. That is why I have been upgrading my tactical weapons.
Today I paid for and ordered a Beretta Cx4 Storm in .40 S&W. And two weeks from now I'll get the Px4 Storm in the same caliber. The two weapons use the same magazine. Sweet.
I'd rather be prepared and not have to use them, than need them and not have them.
#14
He opposes John McCain because, he says, America can't afford another four years of failed GOP policies that have extended $200 billion in tax cuts to big corporations but not to the nation's 100 million families.
I began to notice about five years ago that my taxes were going down, but my salary was not. I guess that makes me a 'big corporation'?
With Mrs. Bobby as the CEO, of course.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/03/2008 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#15
When the civil war the demonrats starts comes, it'll be Vlad the Impaler time. I have no sympathy, compassion, understanding or pity for anyone on the left anymore.
They have totally destroyed those parts of me. It's a sad thing, but the blame falls squarely on them.
#16
Did Ms. Ali write anything regarding Michael Steele losing the Senate run in Maryland, or Ken Blackwell losing the Governors contest in Ohio? Nope. She's a Liberal Hack.
#17
So blacks are gonna rush out of their urban strongholds and attack the blue-states liberal whiteys nearby? Or are they gonna go on a road trip to the well armed red state areas?
I'm not sure Fatima Ali has really thought this through.
#18
She writes like somebody in a high school journalism class...except that most high school journalism teachers would have made sure that particular sentence never made it into the high school newspaper. Kinda makes you wonder what her editor was thinking. Actually, it kinda borders on incitement.
#19
Meanwhile, our economy continues to crumble, while crime, homelessness and poverty continue to soar.
I had no idea. Where are you getting your stats?
The whole world is in a downturn right now. Besides, capitalism is cyclical in nature. Expect this, no matter who is Prez. The only way to fool people into thinking the economy is better than it really is would be to stop spending on the military and pour that money into other things like social programs, and just let the next Prez from the other party deal with it. But nobody's that stoopid.
#21
I'm sorry we don't have a chew toy for you today. They're in retraining. I hope Fatima will do.
Posted by: Your supervisor ||
09/03/2008 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Apology accepted, supervisor.
We know you don't have much to work with, and you're doing the best you can under the circumstances, but could you please send us a better class of trolls in the future?
We at Rantburg don't like engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed opponents you've been sending - it isn't sporting and it's just too boring.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
#23
"I'm sorry we don't have a chew toy for you today. They're in retraining. I hope Fatima will do."
Now hold on...I'm still here lurking.
For those of you wishing, hoping, dreaming, for a civil war, consider that your opponents will get help from every conceivable corner of the planet...Russia, China, Mid-East, Antarctica and whomever else you manage to piss off in the mean time. Osama will have been successful beyond his wildest imaginations. Is this what you really want? Is it not worth it meeting your opponents (liberals) somewhere in the middle to work things out? Things can't be that far gone.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/03/2008 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Has the left considered that at some point those farther to the right will finally lose patience?
I'm pretty much a moderate on most issues, defense aside. But *I* am close to that point myself. The left has grown quite used to eroding civility and order, to demanding that no limits be placed on its actions and no accountability be demanded of it. A similar critique might be made of the countries you list.
Do you really want to see people in the US promote insurgency in other countries covertly or openly? Because this could spiral downward in ALL of the developed world, not just here.
Yesterday bleach was sprayed in the eyes of an 80 year old delegate on the way to the convention. I have yet to hear a single liberal leader speak out about that. Who exactly is responsible for a coming clash, if one does come?
#27
But it's YOU who was running the joint up until recently. I can see why the LEFT would lose patience, but YOU??? You've turned your country into something that closely resembles a police state. I think the liberals have a much bigger complaint here.
As far as the bleach...how's that Obama's fault? Those were anarchist wack jobs. Presumably the guy was arrested and will be dealt with in accordance with the law.
#28
Ladies (Who all terrify me, naturally) and Gentleman, it appears we have a chew toy! Go get him!
I fail to see how WE have been running things, as congress hasn't been enacting policies that -I- support.
And it's the lefties calling for silencing of dissent by any means necessary, so no, I see no reason why WE shouldn't be getting pissed off and tired of liberal anti-human crap.
#30
It won't be a civil war, Lonzo. It will be a crushing of the obscene, America-hating left. They'll be rounded up and put in preventive detention. Those that resist will die. Want a perfect example of how it will be done? Check out the way the British subdued Congress during the "Quit India" movement in 1942. You'll be smashed in exactly the same way.
You lefties have been allowed to game the system for too long. When it comes to real fighting, it won't take much killing to make you fold like a cheap suit. Witness Kent State.
You bastards deeply underestimate the power of American nationalism. Those of us on the right who have seen how badly you lefties hate our country are slowly but surely coming to the realization that you've got to be stopped before you destroy it. Make no mistake about it, we can and will stop you. The difference is that now the Right is beginning to think stopping you "by any means necessary" is acceptable.
That's your death warrant, Lonzo. I'd start thinking about moving elsewhere if I were you.
#31
"For those of you wishing, hoping, dreaming, for a civil war, consider that your opponents will get help from every conceivable corner of the planet"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, troll, that's the best laugh I've had all day.
"You've turned your country into something that closely resembles a police state."
Can't do anything but spout DNC talking points, eh? If that statement lie were true, half the DemoncRat party and most of Hollyweird (and ALL of the denizens of DU and Kos) would be behind bars or dead.
Say, ....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Mussolini, I'm not a US citizen, and I'm neither left nor right, I'm what anyone else would call a normal person.
I noticed you intently ignored my assertion that your opposition would get international help in case of civil conflict.
I see that Barbara noticed it, but she's laughing. What's so funny about it? There's people having wet dreams about that very scenario.
There's a saying for your type of thinking..."I'm gonna teach that whore a lesson by cutting off my dick!"
#33
Lonzo, there is not a nation in the world that has the logistics to do jack in the United States without US assistance. Most Nato members require US logistics to field a small number of troops in Afghanistan. That is why people are laughing.
Oh no...will they pass a dreaded UN resolution?! How can we ever stand it!!! Bah, anyone trying to help them will ensure that the only 'aid' they receive comes in the form of us laughing at them.
Of course, if they go for the super deluxe aid package, they can receive extended and prolonged cruise missile and air attacks.
#36
Here's the answer to your stupid assumption, Lonzo. The Congress had the entire Japanese military on the other side of Assam. If they did provide any help to Congress, something which undoubtedly would have been in their interest, it certainly didn't make any difference.
The British quickly crushed Congress and kept them in detention for two years. They could have done so indefinitely. One of the more interesting things about that era is the bitterness in Indian intellectual circles about how easy it was for the British to suppress Congress and how quiet India was after it was done.
If the Jap military at war couldn't help a domestic insurgency, I don't suspect your "every conceivable corner" delusion will prove to be much of a problem either.
It will be the same thing here. I'm glad you're not a U.S. citizen, BTW. Keep your lefty idiocy wherever you are.
#37
Or are you threatening something like the IRA here, Lonzo? Because if you are, there are a great many people who would not only find that highly unamusing, but have the skills and the tools to make their lack of amusement palpable and permanent. To both those acting here and those supporting them elsewhere.
So, is that what you are saying, Lonzo? Do clarify yourself, please.
#38
"I noticed you intently ignored my assertion that your opposition would get international help in case of civil conflict. ... There's people having wet dreams about that very scenario."
Foreign and/or domestic lefty clowns dreaming about other countries sending military aid to American lefties when they try to start a riot civil war?
You're probably not aware of this, Lonzo, but wet dreams aren't actual sex.*
There's no "foreign military help" coming for the leftards either.
*Though it's probably the only sex you get in mama's basement....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#39
dissed sexually by Fems, bitch Lonzo, it doesn't get more testicle-shrinking than that. Night-night, and no need to check, they're not there anymor ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/03/2008 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
#40
The other consideration about international intervention in a US civil war is the time frame. Any such war would be over very rapidly.
There'll be chaos and fear all right, lotp, if the lefties start something.
Their own.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/03/2008 22:08 Comments ||
Top||
#43
The only two countries that share a land boundary with the US are Canada and Mexico. The last time Mexico screwed up and attacked the US, we took California, New Mexico, Arizona, and admitted Texas into the Union. We did have effective control of Mexico all the way down to Mexico City but gave everything south of the Rio Grande back to the Mexicans. We won't be as nice if there is a next time.
Canada will stay out of any civil war simply because they cannot defeat the National Guard units of either Texas or California, and would not want the undue attention of the rest of the US.
Also, Tomahawk cruise missiles would make short order of the infrastructure of any country found to be supplying the leftists in any new American civil war -- not counting what B-52 ARCLIGHT strikes would do to the offending countries. Civil wars tend to be ugly and all restraints get tossed aside, including concerns about civilian deaths among those instigating the war from the outside.
Addressing just Fatima - does she realize 3 facts that argue against her threat? 1) most of her "side" resides in major urban areas; 2) there is at best 1 week of food in said urban areas; 3) power and water for said urban areas come from outside their boundaries and are easily disrupted.
Anyone want to be in Philly when the power, water, and sewers have been off for a week? Cities are relatively easy to kill with modern infantry tactics and weapons.
#46
So, is that what you are saying, Lonzo? Do clarify yourself, please.
A prolonged civil conflict, left vs. right, will attract international attention from people you don't like. People who have a vested interest in seeing the US go down in flames, if only for economic reasons alone.
I have no idea what else you're insinuating with your question. I'm not threatening anyone. I'm stating something that seems obvious to me, and should be obvious to you as well: a civil war in your country is not in your best interests because the outcome is not all that certain. You don't live in a bubble.
Granted, there are a lot of "what ifs", but I doubt such a conflict would be a simple matter like you seem to believe. For instance, where would your military stand? Which side?
Why do I get the feeling that only lotp understood the dangers involved. The rest of you are off on tangents that have nothing to do with my assertion. IRA, NATO, Mexico, Arclight...who cares. If you throw tomahawks at Russia, China....might as well pack your bags to Mars 'cause this planet will be toast.
#49
For instance, where would your military stand? Which side?
There's where you show you're a complete tool, 'Zo. If there was ANY doubt about how our military feels, why would the Dems be so anxious to make sure their absentee ballots weren't counted in the 2000 election?
The U.S. military, as an institution, stands for performance, accountability, thoroughly responsible behavior, and fairness. Their motivation truly is duty, honor, country. They DON'T like the garbage that the left has been slinging at this country for fifty years now.
They particularly dislike the fact that the lefties were willing to go so far as sedition and actual treason in order to insure their defeat in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
The U.S. military, as well as the vast majority of American police, will be with the Right in the event of any civil war. The lefties threaten such behavior at their quite probably fatal peril.
You lefties think that conservatives will always be held in check by their own beliefs in restraint and the law. Those gloves CAN come off and when they do, there's going to be hell to pay for the left.
#51
There won't be open civil war, Lonzo. The Left is mostly talk, and almost all of them are afraid of guns. The Center and the Right are not afraid of guns. Inner City gangbangers are not going to do much when their food and water are cut off.
Terrorists? That's been and is being tried since 9/11, and they have not been successful since then. Yes, there are a lot of scenarios that are quite worrisome, but you'll note that nothing has actually been brought to fruition since 9/11. A lot of very smart men and women have been working very hard to make sure that continues to be so. Do you honestly think it will not be noticed, and traced, if some idiotic country decides to foster terror training or supply of, say, the ELF or ALF groups to expand beyond burning down ski lodges to, say, spreading disease or poisoning the water?
#52
Again, use Russia as an example. Russia does not have the logistic capability to conquer Grenada at this point if the US doesn't allow them to. Logistics require a massive amount of transport planes and ships. They could not directly influence anything going on in the US militarially short of a nuke strike.
And there is no race war in the US despite what you might want to believe. Most crime in the US is black on black. That's not a race war, that's criminals fighting for turf.
#53
As for race and class wars, that is a figment the Marxist intelligencia and that possibly 10% or African-Americans who actually believe Black Liberation Theology. Most poor people in this country will not be so within a decade, many who are 4th or 5th generation from that poverty find themselves back there again.
#56
"But you do understand, I hope, that that cuts both ways ...."
I understand completely. That's why I hope that cooler heads prevail.
"The lefties threaten such behavior at their quite probably fatal peril."
I got the impression that it was YOU who is being threatening towards the left.
"You lefties..."
My support for McCain dates back to around the time of the Esquire article about him in 2006, when everyone else basically counted him out. I watched Palin speak today and was pleasantly surprised. She was confident and level-headed. I MUST be a leftist.
#57
Then you must have found this discussion actually quite comforting, Lonzo. Please, if it comes up in conversations around you, encourage the idea that attempting to support either side in a theoretical American civil war would be highly unwise. Thank you! :-)
#58
The reaction here against Lefties has more to do with the threats of a race war that are coming from a lefty. I've never heard anyone on the right threaten a race war without being mocked and shouted down as a nut. On the left such comments are not shouted down, leaving the impression that some believe them. That is a huge difference.
#59
When I spoke of "both ways" I was alluding, as I suspect Lonzo knows, to the fact that after Iraq we will not again commit massive numbers of troops, treasure and energy on a country that covertly aids insurrection and attacks on our homeland.
Instead, such countries will simply find that what they encourage here will erupt there, without warning and without mercy.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain's veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.
