« The Theory of the Big Fundraising Model | Main | That's What You Get When You Misuse What I Invent, Your Empire Falls and You Lose Every Cent »

October 20, 2008

Comments

Just a slightly-off-topic comment:

What are S Palin's values? I was discussing this with my overeducated girlfriend today. We believe in education, and in fostering both our careers. We believe in being responsible before something unplanned happened.

Why couldn't Sarah Palin teach her daughter to be responsible if she ever was "overwhelmed" by the need to have sex? Why do the Palins think Levi Johnston dropping out of high school to get married and go work up on the Slope is a good thing? Shouldn't they be thinking about college, about doing better than their parents, about the American Dream?

My parents would be horrified if the same happened to me, and they'd lock me in my room as I ground my way through college. This strikes me as an absurdly low value placed on education and self-development/-improvement.

Maybe I don't share the same small-town values. My town had about 16,000 (about twice the size of Wasilla) and we couldn't wait to get away and go to college.

Yes, I know these questions are mainly rhetorical. I think it's a tragedy for both Bristol and Levi that they were raised by such negligent parents, and I feel sorry for them.

Yep. I just tossed in $25 to Elwyn Tinklenberg, the Mighty Minnesotan, for similar reasons. Dunno if it'll help, but it's cheaper than therapy.

Funkhauser,

A decent slope job pay very well, certainly much more than say a starting teacher makes. You have to imagine with his, erm, connections, he won't be hurting at all. To the extent education is it's own reward, obviously he's missing out on that. But that just isn't all that important to some.

Speaking of community organizers, check out this link with the video of Todd Palin with a crowdmember holding up a sign saying 'Charles Manson was a community organizer'

Pooh, those connections you speak of are double-edged to put it mildly. Given how both Sarah and Todd Palin have acted towards her sister's ex-husband, heaven help Levi Johnston if he ever divorces their daughter (assuming they actually get married). A move Outside (i.e., out of Alaska) would seem advisable.

i might agree with some of the sentiment in the first comment. but blindly accepting the proposition that more education is the best career path for everyone enriches only the financial companies and the schools that otherwise shouldn't be in business.

if you don't believe me ask any bitter graduate who can't pay off her loans.

What are S Palin's values?

Funkhauser, I hear what you're saying, but IMO the world will just be a much, much better place if we leave the families out of it.

No matter what you try to teach them, kids act out in irresponsible ways. The teenage wedding thing probably doesn't look like a good idea to anyone here, including me, but it ain't our hash to settle. Different strokes, y'all.

Just my two cents.

Regarding the "community organizing" thing, IMO Sarah Palin's nomination for VPOTUS is the beginning of the end of the culture wars strategy as a serious electoral play in this country.

She's red meat for the folks that are looking for that, but net/net she's a liability for the Republican ticket.

By "liability" I mean "albatross around the neck".

Some folks talk about running her at the top of the ticket in 2012. I hope that happens, because the vote spread will be twice or more whatever it is this year.

She is, as some wags have said, Bush in a skirt. Her problem is that folks aren't buying the Bush brand anymore.

Thanks -

There's a really funny satire of Sarah Palin's values called "What Would Sarah Do." It's a quiz asking what she would do her first days in office. It's at www.homelanddecency.com and is from the people who wrote The Decency Rules and Regulations Manual, a satire of Bush and the Moral Majority.

I entirely agree with the first commenter on both points. First, on the question of 'teaching her daughter to be responsible when having sex,' this, above all, is the fatal weakness of not just abstinence-only but of the whole conservative Christian attitude towards sex. This types of attitude prevents telling daughters -- and maybe more importantly, sons -- 'look, we think it is better if you wait until marriage, but if you don't, here are some basic rules about the attitudes you should have towards having sex...'

(I'd argue that these rules can be summed up, briefly, as 'respect,' 'honesty,' and 'responsibility,' but I'd argue those are the basic rules towards any interaction between people -- and that the 'locus of morality' is placed at those interactions, and not the interactions between a person and some diety.)

But because, to a consrvative Christian, the stakes -- their child's 'immortal soul' -- are too high, and because all sex is equally badbadbad -- incredibly, even masturbation in some cases -- they can't teach -- or allow the schools to teach -- their children either ethical attitudes towards having sex, alternative sexual practises that can't produce pregnancy, or even the basics of contraception.

It isn't just the number of unplanned pregnancies that is the problem, though that is always higher in the 'bible belt' region. It is the ignorance -- towards a women's sexuality ("Orgasms are something guys have"), towards sex as an interaction between two people (Sex is a game, and guys 'score' by convincing women to 'give sex to them' -- rather than, as a character in a long-abandoned book of mine said "teaching sexual ethics is simple -- start with the idea that there is a person on either end of your prick, and all else follows"), and of course of the basics of contraception or alternate types of sex -- can you imagine the furor that would occur if a teacher simply tried to pass on the simple common sense of telling her students "masturbate before you date, so you will be less likely to be overwhelmed and can decide 'how far to go' on other factors than simple biological urges"?

This went on long enough -- it is a subject i have thought about for a long time, so the question of 'leaving school' will wait until another post.

The idea of Levi 'dropping out' (of high school, not of college) and getting a job to support Bristol bothers me even more -- and strikes me as a very good 'arguing point' to those of you who have conservative relatives planning on voting for McCain-Palin.

I understand, when an 'unplanned pregnancy' happens between two poor families, this is sometimes a 'regrettable necessity' if the couple wants to (or is forced to) marry. But the Palins aren't poor, at all -- I know nothing about Levi's parents. Okay, no one is suggesting that they should support the couple through post-graduate study -- even if either of them were so inclined -- but not saying "Come live with us in our large house, finish high school, and then we'll see where we go from there," is pretty scary. And I ask any of you who have older relatives to bring it up and report on their responses.

On the other hand, it reminded me of one thing that has been forgotten in the flood of Palin stories, but which was one of the first 'red flags' for me, the responses she gave to the Eagle Forum questionaire.

Remember that? I was fascinated because two of the questions dealt with the question of the school-leaving age, and Palin was very non-commital and weasle-worded about this. Shortly after this, the level of her connection to the AIP came out. And, lost, again, in the Vogler quotes, and ties to the USConstitution Party and the rest was one fact -- that the AIP opposes compulsory schooling.

This should be a matter for parents to decide, and shouldn't be a question for 'state intervention,' they argue.

Connect the dots.

I've never been so glad to be wrong about anything in my life as I am to be wrong about the Palin pick. There were some commenters on this site who thought the independent voters would see through her and I pessimistically did not think that would happen in time. I thought she would get the same pass from the media that GWB did in 2000 and that the initial boost she provided to McCain would continue. Thank God for the Couric interviews exposing Palin's incompetence, and if we did have to have a worldwide economic disaster at least it happened before election day.

We really don't know what Sarah Palin taught her kids, whether Levi was given the option to stay in school and be supported, etc. As russell said, kids act out, and they do things that their parents wish they didn't. Sometimes, they even do those things for that reason.

That being the case, even if I didn't think we should leave kids out of it, I'd think this was a loser of a talking point. I just look back on my own adolescence and ask myself: would it be even remotely fair to assume that my parents approved of everything I did? No. Am I unusual in this respect? No.

Well, just call me Joe the Troll. I'm reading your post, trying to infiltrate my life with balance, understand all sides to an issue, or just plain understand. I.don't.get.it! It seems that in this election process has caused generally sane, well intended, good hearted people to absolutely abandon any semblance of their core beliefs to justify an ends. And you know, I'm not that concerned about the 'ends' because ends can be navigated around, worked through, corrected and learned from. But this 'means' thing is really revealing. The scars, the scars - the horror. This too shall pass.

I'm reading your post, trying to infiltrate my life with balance, understand all sides to an issue, or just plain understand.

blogbudsman -

Good on ya. Keep up the good work.

Thanks -

Yeah, thanks Russell, I know you're sincere. By the way, what is the Bush Brand, and Bush in a skirt? The means, the means. Speaking to the choir, or the proletariat?

liberal japonicus: Let's leave the untruths to the Republicans.

In the photo to which you linked, the "Manson communitye organizer" sign in question is being held up by between the First Dude and the camera by some McCain/Palin supporter below the field of view. It may look like Todd Palin is holding the sign, but he is not. The caption on the site to which you linked gets it right.

BBM, I'm trying to understand too. What core beliefs are you talking about, and who's abandoning them?

"What Would Sarah Do?"

Check HERE for a possible scenario.

Joel, LJ's comment could have been written a little more clearly, but I don't see any reason to assume the ambiguity was intentional or accuse him of writing untruths.

As blogbudsman awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic concern troll...

KCinDC, of course, certainly not you, this is a 'mob' mentality thing - where people who truly believe in certain concepts and ideals completely abandon them through a group rationalizing 'think'. It may be harder to wash the smell off later this time. Now that's the benefit of the doubt argument - with others it's out and out hypocrisy.

I seem to have problems with reading comprehension this morning, or just with reading. I'd have sworn that lj's post sais that Todd Palin was holding the sign; it says no such things.

lj, I hope you will accept my abject apologies for popping off.

Oh, about the sign, apologies for the unclarity. What I meant was:
"check out [this link with the video of Todd Palin] [with a crowdmember holding up a sign saying 'Charles Manson was a community organizer']'

rather than
[Todd Palin [with a crowdmember] [holding up a sign saying 'Charles Manson was a community organizer]]

lj - you got some on you. You are probably a world class researcher. And you have whiskers here. I know you see it, I know you smell it. Sticks and stones asides, I hope you can help the in the recovery process afterwards. Hell, you could explain it to KC with links.

By the way, what is the Bush Brand, and Bush in a skirt? The means, the means.

I'm using "brand" in "Bush brand" in a marketing sense -- the policies and persona he has presented to get folks to vote for him, and to support him while in office.

"Bush in a skirt" is not my coinage, and it's not always used in a derogatory way. It just means that Palin is running on policies and a persona that is similar to those that Bush ran on.

My point is that the value of Bush's "brand" has been undermined by this actual performance in office, and that to the degree that Palin is running on a similar brand, it will be to her detriment.

I'm making no value judgement in using a word like "brand". It's just a way of thinking about what's going on.

If the use of marketing language bugs you, however, I'll state my point more simply:

Folks are sick of Bush. If you run on a platform of "I'm like Bush", you'll fail.

And as a personal comment, I'd add that in my view that would be a good thing.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "means" comment.

Thanks -

Sorry if the reference was a bit obscure there, that was the first line of Kafka's The Metamorphosis.

Funkhauser, I hear what you're saying, but IMO the world will just be a much, much better place if we leave the families out of it.

Russell is absolutely right about this, of course. But then again I think a lot of us would be a lot less inclined to make judgments about Sarah Palin's most private family issues if she and her party would stop making judgments about ours.

Put another way: I thought it was the hypocrisy, stupid!

Sorry if the reference was a bit obscure there, that was the first line of Kafka's The Metamorphosis.

i got it. and chuckled, knowingly.

So Russell, is this 'brand' an actual reflection of reality, or like most brands a manipulation of snapshots and phrases - and to whose benefit. Is what you are saying a truth, or a crafted perception, that you've either bought into or are helping perpetuate. If so, would this political race be as close as it is given your arguement and the performance of the lap dog tabloid reporting that passes for journalism these days. Means and ends, sow and reap.

And jp, I shoulda known. Google first, reply second. You're trying to teach.

And cleek, we're so proud - but is the reference accurate, or parry to the thrust.

So Russell, is this 'brand' an actual reflection of reality

Yes.

Means and ends, sow and reap.

Well my friend, welcome to the business end of "sow and reap".

Good luck.

Thanks-

Blogbudsman: If so, would this political race be as close as it is given your arguement and the performance of the lap dog tabloid reporting that passes for journalism these days.

Goodness no. If not for the lap dog tabloid reporting that gives McCain such an easy ride and pretends that reporting Republican lies and Democratic response to the lies is "fair and balanced", the gap would be even larger.

Michele Bbachman now has a Republican opponent as well as a Democratic one. Her primary opponenet has now entered the race, offended by her McCarthy-like statements. His goal is to give the Republicans of the district a non-wingnut Republican to vote for.

That is the dilemna faced by Republcansthis election: keep pretnding that their party isn't a criminal conspiracy led by Rove clones and supported by fauxpopulists, regional snobs, and anti-intellectual religious nuts, or face the facts. Facing the facts leads to further choices:vote Democratic , or throw away their vote this year and start the work of rebuilding their party without the Rovite leadership and the Base pandering.

"Why do the Palins think Levi Johnston dropping out of high school to get married and go work up on the Slope is a good thing? Shouldn't they be thinking about college, about doing better than their parents, about the American Dream?

My parents would be horrified if the same happened to me, and they'd lock me in my room as I ground my way through college. This strikes me as an absurdly low value placed on education and self-development/-improvement."

This rubs me the wrong way. The idea behind being prochoice is that the government or any other group doesn't have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant. Period. I don't want to see this basic principle extended into some sort of pro-abortion ethic, where a pregnant teenager is morally obligated to abort because that's what good liberals think should happen.

As a marketing professional, Tom Asacker is the best person and his website - acleareye.com - is the best place I know of to begin to understand the concept of branding as it is currently used.

I don't want to see this basic principle extended into some sort of pro-abortion ethic, where a pregnant teenager is morally obligated to abort because that's what good liberals think should happen.

Nor do I, but I think there's a difference between "You're pregnant and still in high school, so you've got to drop out of high school to have the baby/get an abortion so you can continue in high school and go on to college"

and

"You're pregnant and still in high school: here are the health risks of your having the baby, what can we do to support you to ensure you continue in high school and go on to college if you decide to have the baby/if you decide to have an abortion?"

"Leave the family out of it"???

Wasn't it Palin who used her family (as, I'm sorry to say, "props" -- even the infant) in her first, and almost every appearance she's made?

Isn't it Palin who has self-described herself as a 'hockey mom' -- maybe the only honest statement in her resume?

Didn't both Republican candidates point to her PTA time as part of her 'experience' and didn't she claim she joined out of a concern for education?

Wasn't it Palin who announced her daughter's pregnancy and has brought her fiance around to campaign events?

Why shouldn't we explore the issue she has raised? Why shouldn't we ask about her 'momness' or look at her real ideas on education -- as shown by her willingness to let her son-in-law become a 'high-school dropout?"

Jes, you are so right. Clear as the nose on my face. Why didn't I see it. Thank you, thank you. Like Russell says, it's time to take my punishment - it's like paying your own way to prison.

And to pick up on another part of today's thread. I've participated in a number of school to work programs over the years. There's no denying that part of the American Dream is to get little Johnnie through college - unless you're spreading the wealth - except a very high percentage of college freshman don't graduate, and ultimately end up back in the workforce, the proles. Although the huffiness of a couple grads here cast dispersion on Governor Palin's comments, her expressed instincts have some legitimacy in real life. No it's not a crime to leave school and go to work.

Which is kinda my point. If the The One would have made this same point, which he very well could have, and may still, you'all would have embraced it, and crushed all dissenting opinion to the contrary. I know the unions wouldn't turn down a dues paying member. Would you be more comfortable if Levi were an illegal alien? No, lj, no morphing for me.

Prup: Wasn't it Palin who used her family (as, I'm sorry to say, "props" -- even the infant) in her first, and almost every appearance she's made?

Yes, but let's rise above her level. If we can't be NABA as Palin, where on earth are we?

bbm,
if you aren't concern trolling and this is a genuine "I.don't.get.it!" moment, it is a bit incumbent to explain what you do get. You seem to suggest that there is a mob mentality here and liberals want to break out the tar and feathers. Perhaps, but do you think that the Republicans have done nothing to deserve this? Or that 'mistakes were made', but none of them rise to the level of people getting upset about? Instead of getting us to rant about the Republicans, how about telling us what you think is wrong and right about them.

Thanks

I don't think that palin's family should be an issue because I don't think that our side should use thatsort of tactic. Leave it to the Republicans.

Also in national elections the issues raised by internal family affairs don't seem to me to the the sort of issues that should determine the out come of an election. So my preference is that we talk about the highest priority issues.

Remember all that bogus non-issue sloganeering about family values? I don't want Democrats to engage in that sort of nonsense.

Well, just call me Joe the Troll. I'm reading your post, trying to infiltrate my life with balance, understand all sides to an issue, or just plain understand. I.don't.get.it! It seems that in this election process has caused generally sane, well intended, good hearted people to absolutely abandon any semblance of their core beliefs to justify an ends

???? Do you have anything specific on your mind you'd like to discuss, or are you just venting? Yes, Obama and his supporters have engaged in the underhanded, dastardly acts of raising more money and registering more supporters to vote than their opponent, in service of their ends of getting Obama elected. I'm not really sure what the problem with that is, there.

blogbudsman: Which is kinda my point. If the [Obama] would have made this same point, which he very well could have, and may still, you'all would have embraced it, and crushed all dissenting opinion to the contrary.

Huh? I can't quite figure out what you're talking about here, to tell you the truth. What is "this same point"? Who was trying to make it?

It's not a good idea for a teenager to drop out of high school. Not good for their long-term career prospects, not good for their self-respect.

If a person has a good plan for where they're going in life after high school that doesn't involve college, fine. Or if they want to work for a couple of years and then go to college, fine. No one should argue that having a baby means a girl doesn't need any more education, and the same goes for a boy. If one set of grandparents is wealthy and has a big enough house to take the young couple and their baby in while they finish their high school education, why the hell not?

And if Palin's "family values", "small town values" don't support that kind of thinking, then to hell with her values. That's where they belong.

the huffiness of a couple grads here cast dispersion on Governor Palin's comments

Gov. Palin's comments were some huffy, obnoxious, patronizing mockery on "community organizers" and places she didn't regard as "the pro-American" parts of the country.

To Funkhauser, what you're trying to express in an awkward kind of way is that the Obamas both have a middle-class bourgeois value system that the Palins don't. I'm not saying it's good or bad (though, culturally speaking, my family has more in common with how Michelle and Barack grew up and their families' cultural values than the Palins), but somewhere along the way, the Palins didn't get the memo that part of the goal for their children would be so that they don't have to depend on the largesse of the Alaskan resource-extraction economy to support themselves. Neither the Obama campaign nor his supporters have made much of this-- we can just imagine the public outcry on the other side if one of Obama's daughters got pregnant out of wedlock. This is all for the best: it's up to Americans to evaluate the candidates by themselves without the "help" of the campaigns telling them what to think about their opponents' value systems.

Hey Prup -

Yes, to all of your points.

IMO, we'll all be better off if, instead of responding in kind, we just moved on to something other than calling each other liberal elites and cracker knotheads.

I have no problem with discussing the public health consequences and general goodness of solid, factual sex education in schools.

I just don't think any constructive end is served by criticizing Palin, as a political candidate, on the basis of whether her kid is pregnant and heading for a teenage wedding.

It just encourages the kind of behavior you (and I) find objectionable in Palin's candidacy.

The flip side of "Don't put your kids on stage" is not "Your kids are screwed up", but "leave the kids out of it".

The flip side of "don't tell us all how to live our lives" is not "because yours is a train wreck", but "we won't tell you how to live yours".

Believe me when I say that I have no use for Palin's family values grandstanding. Responding by talking about whatever train wrecks her kids are involved in is, IMO, just playing the same game.

Let's play a different game. Just move on. There's more than enough to discuss in the public sphere.

Thanks -

The idea behind being prochoice is that the government or any other group doesn't have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant. Period. I don't want to see this basic principle extended into some sort of pro-abortion ethic, where a pregnant teenager is morally obligated to abort because that's what good liberals think should happen.

Like Obama, I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". I think there are some people who have varying levels of indifference to it or concern about it, and some who look at it purely as a medical procedure that can be either medically appropriate or not. What follows is that if you remove the moral (pro-life vs. baby-killers) dimension from abortion, what remains are the practical considerations, and it's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion about whether or not the decisions someone else makes are responsible ones, when weighed as a practical matter.

Moreover, I think that one can hold a moral opinion of another's conduct without gainsaying their right to make that choice. I do not dispute the right of the fundamentalists to disapprove of someone who has an abortion. I do not believe that grants them the right to intimidate or harass someone else because of their choice. Similarly, because I do not view abortion through the lens of moral stigma, I reserve the right to think that choosing to drop out of school in order to have and keep a child before you are emotionally or financially able to support it is a grossly selfish and irresponsible choice on practical, pragmatic grounds. If asked for my opinion or counsel, I will say as much, and if pressed I will say that yes, I believe it is an immoral choice for that reason. But it is ultimately her choice to make.

That is the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

Well lj, if you're telling me you truly believe whatever it is we're trying to change is entirely a Republican 'thang' then apparantly the autumn of my life is going to be a most enjoyable experience. And if y'all truly believe that the Democratic campaign is strictly on the straight and narrow, and that the Democratic majority is innocent of all involvement in whatever it is that needs fixing, then my morph is complete. I'll join the Eloi and follow that siren of the Morlocks. One cannot choose but wonder. You see, we have all the time in the world.

And lj, mark my words; it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.

(I'll beg for forgiveness later)


The flip side of "Don't put your kids on stage" is not "Your kids are screwed up", but "leave the kids out of it".

The flip side of "don't tell us all how to live our lives" is not "because yours is a train wreck", but "we won't tell you how to live yours".

Very well said russell.

blogbudsman: (I'll beg for forgiveness later)

I still can't figure out what you're trying to say...

BBM, is there any chance that at some point you'll actually spell out what exactly you're talking about instead of making all these vague concerned allusions?

Long time reader, first time writer. Trying to wrap my head around why conservatives think "community organizer" is such a farce. Don't they believe that MORE politics should be happening at the community level, not LESS? Isn't that the basis of federalism? Or do they really believe "we the people" should be agentless receivers to be acted upon by a powerful military state and big business? Can anyone help with that?

Trying to wrap my head around why conservatives think "community organizer" is such a farce. Don't they believe that MORE politics should be happening at the community level, not LESS?

oh, sure they do.

but Obama is black.

and his community organizing will lead to the destruction of our communities.

plus, BLACK POWER MUSLIM COMMIE DEMOCRAT ISLAM TERROR TERROR AYERS TAXTAXTAX!

bbm @ 1:47 - If you're going to copy a lengthy Joe Biden quote that's making the rounds today, use quote marks.

And I join the throngs who don't understand what your point it, assuming you have one.

Wasn't it Palin who used her family (as, I'm sorry to say, "props" -- even the infant) in her first, and almost every appearance she's made?

Beat me to it, but that's what always disgusts me about these nominally "pro-family" -- as if there are any anti-family lobbies out there! -- types: they turn their families into campaign props, and often campaign weapons, in ways that their family are invariably incapable of supporting.

BTW, does anyone have any idea wtf blogbudsman is saying? I don't feel like taking the time or energy to deconstruct freshman blither...

I got the distinct impression that BBM is deep in his cups today.

Apologies if I'm wrong.

Whoa, did we just lose all the comments?

And I mean literally "just"--whatever happened occurred in the minute or so in between when I clicked into this thread, and when I submitted that short comment about BBM.

Argh, never mind, it's that goddamn next/previous thing.

Well lj, if you're telling me you truly believe whatever it is we're trying to change is entirely a Republican 'thang' then apparantly the autumn of my life is going to be a most enjoyable experience.

I'm not trying to tell you anything, I'm just trying to figure out precisely what you believe so we can discuss where we disagree. You seem to want to present what you think I believe rather than say what you believe. Though we can adduce a bit of it when you say:

And lj, mark my words; it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.

You seem to think that it is the rest of the world's goal to bring the US down and make sure that it never wields power again. This is a rather quaint view, that is like a remake of Red Dawn and in the absence of you explaining your position rather than trying to sketch out mine, I tend to think that you are following this script. It's not really a serious position, which is why you are getting piled on.

BTW, does anyone have any idea wtf blogbudsman is saying?

I *think* the gist of his message is that we are all hypocrites, all too eager to sell our alleged "principles" for a shot at power, that we may have our way in November, but that then we should expect to reap the whirlwind.

Do I have it right, bloguds?

Thanks -

Speaking of Palin, she's apparently living in her own fantasy world in which "faith and God in general has been mocked through this campaign."

Speaking of Palin, she's apparently living in her own fantasy world

That says it, right there. "I said 'Thanks, but no thanks'." "The report says I didn't do anything unethical." "He's been palling around with terrorists." "I can see Russia from my window."

It's pretty obvious she's got some world-class delusions.

BBM- this is a minor point, but just because someone "drops out of college" doesn't mean they didn't benefit from college. I teach part time at a California community college, and believe you me, 1-2 years of college can make a HUGE difference for a person's employment prospects and ability to support a family. (Not to mention the value of learning for its own sake, which I'm old-fashioned enough to totally believe in.)

Actually Anne E, I am a proud product of Junior College, although I went on to a Big Ten university, and I am a strong proponent of many little Johnny's attending JC. It was a rewarding experience for me. And of course just about any life experience benefits most. See, we're not so far apart.

And russell, you have it right.

And KRK, I'll apologize now.

And hilzoy, I'm jumping posts now, the 95% tax 'thang', WOW, did you staff that out to a Biden munchkin?


And lj, I chuckle.

Russell: I *think* the gist of his message is that we are all hypocrites, all too eager to sell our alleged "principles" for a shot at power, that we may have our way in November, but that then we should expect to reap the whirlwind.

Ah, that's what I thought he was saying (and I see Blogbuds confirms it). It just made no sense at all, so I hoped I'd got it wrong.

And russell, you have it right.

Thanks for the reply.

I'll be straight with you. There are lots of positions Obama has taken, and lots of things he's done, that I'm not a fan of. Probably not the same ones as you, but they are there, nonetheless.

Even if he were the saint that some seem to think he is, or that some seem to think he thinks he is, what he'll be able to achieve is limited. He'll be inheriting a world of crap.

I'm also sure that, should he manage to win in November, there will be a hard core of conservatives whose single-minded goal in life will be to f*$k him up, regardless of the cost to the nation or anyone else.

And that's not even getting into the meth-head white supremacist freak show just itching to bust like a circus from hell.

So, you know, believe me when I say I'm kind of in reap-the-whirlwind mode already.

All of that said, after the last eight years, I'll take whatever Obama's bringing, along with whatever your side will be bringing in return, and smile.

Nice talking with you.

Thanks -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad