DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly

Bruce wrote, on another thread,

What? No cardboard cutout of McCain? Perhaps that’s because his positions are complex and not just platitudes? 😉

More seriously, maybe his supporters are not as much into a cult of personality. Though next week may prove me wrong. But I am sure we won’t hear too many people weeping with emotion over him.

Bruce,

It’s not so much about a cult of personality, but rather a recognition that great oration is a necessary skill for great leadership.

For an example of how a lack of the same leads to failure: Kerry, anyone?

Speaking of him, Kerry actually gave a great convention speech… four years too late.

Bruce,
I’ll also go out on a limb and bet that there’ll be plenty of wet eyes during the RNC convention, as well. I guarantee that McCain’s P.O.W. years will be presented to great effect, and many tears will be shed. Of course, it will be during someone else’s speech. But does that make it any less of a ‘cult of personality’ thing? I would say not.

It would be a lot of work, but if it would help you to cast a vote for Barack Obama, I could force myself to sit through (well, skim, anyway) the entire RNC convention, and put together a tape of teary eyes for you.

Curt,
No, that was before my time. I’ll give it a listen this morning.

Patrick, my father and his brothers were active in the DFL, starting in the mid 40’s. They knew Humphrey and Mondale etc. When I was old enough to become politically aware, in the mid 60’s, it seemed odd to me that they thought of Humphrey as a sort of forward looking groundbreaker. At the time, Humphrey was LBJ’s loyal vice president. I remember reading about how he sat in the White House and could hear the chants of the protesters outside, “Hubert Humphrey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!”

Anyway the 1948 convention speech gives one an idea of Humphrey’s true role in this nation’s history.

And yes, Obama’s speech last night was great.

The speeches by Obama, Kerry and the Clintons were all great and full of drama. The governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, was highly entertaining. I really could have done without the Spielberg films and the Superbowl halftime production values. I’m a loyal Democrat, but I have a hard time squaring the repeated emphasis on middle class values and ordinary working Americans with the over-the-top Hollywood glitz of last night.

Griff, I have heard that there will be. Peace out.

Bright,
I look forward to your commentary on the McCain convention.

It was interesting to me that the protesters in Denver were kept a respectrul 500 yards away (5 football fields according to one NPR reporter, if I remember right). I’m also told that at the RNC they will be allowed within 100 feet of the center (don’t know if that is distance to a back wall or if the delegates will have to run an old-fashioned gauntlet.

I am already burned out on pep-rallies, so I may sit next week out.

And yes, Obama’s speech was well done (I did not have the luxury of a video feed so I had to judge based on the audio only, and I was working at the same time, so may not have enjoyed the full experience).

Bruce,

I guess my trepidation is that history is full of “True Believer” movements led by great orators. I wish group consciousness was raised by reason rather than being aroused by oratory. In the former path lies enlightenment, in the latter lies demagoguery

I agree wholeheartedly: I love reasoned discussion, and wish it was the bedrock of our democracy. Unfortunately, in national politics, reasoned discussion consistently gets killed by cleverly crafted oratory.

I’m just glad that for once, the guy with the brilliant oratory is also the one who comes closest to where reason has led me.

All references to Eric Hoffer aside,

ArtOrg will be participating at the UnConvention on Monday and Tuesday from 11am to 10pm at Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis.

Here’s the link to our UnConvention post. We almost taglined this event with “Prints of Rage” but thought better of it in the end. It is a nonpartisan event billed as “performances and participatory culture”!

Bruce, when you are right, you are right on!
Anne, thanks for the compliment, but I’m just an ordinary person who wants great men and women in great positions to do what they say they will, and if they cannot, then don’t keep making empty promises. That’s not too much to ask, is it? Furthermore, I don’t think I ever said McCain and Obama were the same.
I am pleased with the selection of Sarah Palin, at first glance. We need a woman in there, and she has the history to prove who she is. She has run a state for a couple of years, and come up pretty fast. I like her a lot and hope she does well, regardless.
For those of you who have not had contact with a Downe’s Syndrome child or adult, I have to say the experiences I have had were full of love and charm and happiness. Bless the Palin family for bringing that child forth.

To be brief, the one comment I have time to give my opinon about it the
one where the person said, McCain showed poor judgement in picking Palin, becuz she might be the next Prez. Well, everyone knows that the President does not rule alone. The same advisors McCain picks, and he already said he will take counsel with Pawlenty and Romney, one of the best business minds around, will be available as will many others from both parties.

Oh, and Anne, McCain had over 15,000 at the VP announcement and they looked pretty happy about being there. Still not saying he’s the best man out there for the job, but I feel a strength there, I don’t see in Obama, yet.

Does McCain think he’ll draw the now-undecided Hillary fans to his camp just because he chose a running mate who is a woman? Like, Hillary and Palin are totally interchangeable because they both have vaginas? Give me a break.

America’s voters are not that stupid. Hillary and Palin have nothing, NOTHING in common other than their gender.

The only rational explanation is that Palin’s conservatism will impress the Christian conservatives, who would otherwise be turned off by McCain’s more mainstream approach to issues important to the religious right.

This choice changes the tone of McCain’s platform emphasizing experience and knowledge of foreign affairs. He’s got to drop that now and turn in a new direction.

I think that Michael Feldman is right on with his assessment of this choice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082901777.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

(BTW, the Obama speech was very good, but his “A More Perfect Union” speech will always be my favorite because, in the words of Jon Stewart, “Barack Obama talked to us about race as if we were adults.”)

Britt,

Does McCain think he’ll draw the now-undecided Hillary fans to his camp just because he chose a running mate who is a woman? Like, Hillary and Palin are totally interchangeable because they both have vaginas?

If one believes the small number of die-hard pro-Hillary yahoos that kept getting recycled on CNN this week: Yes, having a vagina is more important than electing a president who supports equal pay for equal work, or supporting abortion rights for women who are the victims of rape or incest.

As someone posting on one of the national blog threads wrote (paraphrased), “Hillary will be certain to be out in force on the campaign trail this fall, rallying her supporters, and making sure that this inexperienced conservative beauty queen doesn’t break that glass ceiling before she does.” Similarly, this is the best thing to make sure that Bill Clinton also continues to be an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s campaign. All thought of the Clintons secretly hoping/working for an Obama loss has got to be dead after this choice.

Which reminds me of another great moment from the Democratic Convention: Hillary giving the best speech of her life. She’s really grown into a forceful speaker over the last 6 months.

Felicity wrote,

Second, anyone know how many houses Palin owns?

Three.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Palin_Three_houses.html?showall

So Hillary supporters are supposed to be dumb enough to see Palin as a substitute for Clinton? How insulting.
Look, I love it that she had her baby instead of an abortion, and I’m all for reducing the number of abortions. But overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t the answer.
Jailing women is not an effective method of birth control.
McCain really doesn’t get it.

II hit enter to soon but the list could go on. Palin was a brilliant choice. I am the ultimate independent – I have voted democrat, I have voted Republican and I have voted 3rd party (more often than not) – I will vote for McCain

Oh and the mentoring relationship makes Biden look like a babysitter on the democratic ticket. The setup is backwards.

BTW– the convention was good. Now for the after– the time where the news will stop showing stories, etc. And on to the RNC.

Heh heh, speaking of Hubert Humphrey– my father was on the school board in Burnsville, and someone targeted him with constant barrage– saying things like “You’re just like Hubert Humphrey, you SOB.” I was horrified– who was this Hubert Humphrey? Until I figured out that it wasn’t a bad thing… and that my father was proud. Good times. That’s politics for you. One person’s swear word can be the name of another person’s hero.

Holly,

I agree with David Henson about her being a good choice– especially if we forget the VP doesn’t really do anything…. Of course, McCain is a bit aged…

I think the phrase your looking for, issued in today’s Democratic talking points, is “A Heartbeat Away From the Presidency.” 🙂

good lord. people who have 3 houses do not “fit middle class america to a ‘tea'”
if you want to be for mccain, be for mccain, if you want to be for palin, be for her. but let’s not pretend they aren’t rich. There is a difference between becoming successful, as the Obamas have, after starting out poor or middle class, and marrying or inheriting millions of dollars. Personally, I’m not equating one with moral goodness and the other with evil, but let’s not pretend there’s no difference between being really incredibly rich and being middle class. Not only is there a difference, it isn’t a difference which is made by simply “not spending money on frivolous things.” Such statements are an insult to the true middle class, which is trying to find enough money for frivolous stuff like health insurance, college educations, and food, not for a second and third house.

I liked these comments from a Talking Points reader:

“A Babe on the Ticket”

By Graduate Student – August 29, 2008, 2:43PM

From the mouth of rush limbaugh. I think the McCain campaign is in for a rude awakening. Women, like my mom, did not vote for Hllary because she was a babe or wore fancy earrings or pantsuit. She represented a movement of women who have faced trials and overcome them. She represented someone who worked harder than the boys by being one of them. She was not a babe, nor was she a trophy wife. She is/was a voice for all the women who had been passed over for a job or a raise, the women struggling to get by, the women whose husbands are not always faithful-the everyday woman, who thought my life may be in dissary but I can still make it. My mom referred to her as the bitch men hate, and women love.

Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. For all of her meager accomplishments, she has one accomplishment that will make middle age hillary voters,like my mom, go crazy. She was first runner up to Miss Alaska. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but Sarah Palin represents a bitch men love, and women hate. She is the lady that skirts by through her looks, while Hillary studies, she parties, while Hillary pulls herself by her bootstraps, this lady rides in on a MAN’s coattail. I honestly don’t know what the McCain camp was thinking but this is beyond condescending. You are entrusting the entire nation into a woman whose only concern in her state is overgrowth of reindeers. You Senator McCain are willing to lose this country in order to win an election.

Sorry for the provacative language, but that’s how my mom rolls

Good points. A bit vituperative and reductive, but some solid points that uncover a good chunk of the psychological narrative dredged up by this VP pick.

Ouch, Bruce, you know just how to hurt a guy-dressed-as-a-woman, don’t you?

Well, I’ve got a nicer butt.

Not getting your point, Holly, and either you’re not getting mine or distorting it…

My point is that McCain chose Palin, very cynically, pretty much only because she’s a woman. That “Vote with your vaginas, ladies!” is McCain’s pandering thought process in this choice. It’s not what I’m saying, it’s my interpretation of McCain’s simplistic and patronizing rationale for this choice.

Does that make sense?

Maybe I need to use more air quotes…

David H.,

I disagree about your assessment of Hillary, and your comparison of Palin to Clinton. She beat a corrupt Republican governor for the party’s nomination, wouldn’t qualify that as kicking the whole establishment to the curb. And, somehow, eating mooseburgers and marrying an Eskimo in Alaska hardly strikes me as revolutionary.

She’s an ultra-conservative, anti-science, anti-environment beauty queen, and while it would be nice to have the beauty queen aspect, the rest would be a repeat of the current pres / vice-pres.

There were much better women in the Republican party that McCain could have picked.

I got your point, Brendon. It was just so crude and flippant that I thought we should talk about it. It wasn’t McCain’s words so I guess the air quotes won’t work.

I think voters vote for people they can relate to– Palin’ll might bring a certain amount of women who listen to her struggle and then vote for her. Not because of the woman thing, I hope, but just because of the relate thing.

One thing for sure, we shouldn’t listen to Palin’s political point of view on the issues like abortion, drilling for oil, and creationism. She should be building up McCain and his view on the issues, but instead she looks like a renegade that’ll clean up Washington. McCain stood by her and looked, well, meek, as they introduced her. How much power does the VP have? Who cares about her stance on the issues and her ability to kick the Alaskan Republican establishment to the curb ? What does that imply– she’ll do it in Washington? Give her a pair of cleats and she’ll wander the Whitehouse hall, kicking?

But yet, I keep reading about her balancing the ticket. She’s overbearing on the ticket, really, and it’s weird. What is the Republican party thinking…

Bright’s point is that McCain could live until he is O-L-D-E-R, but maybe they picked someone who will really be sitting in the Oval office because he’s not going to make it?

The Democratic Party doesn’t need to get past Biden’s comments. Obama is carrying himself on his own.

How is the Republican party going to get past Palin? He doesn’t seem to be carrying himself on his own.

Well, I got your point that McCain might have picked a woman because she’s a woman. But it’s demeaning to say “Vote with your vagina.” You could have simply said people shouldn’t vote for her simply because she’s a woman.

To that I say “Some will vote for her because she’s a woman” and that’s okay. But if they go vote for her because she’s a woman, that’s not voting with your vagina. That’s the demeaning part.

What we might look at instead is that other thing– did the Republicans decide that McCain was not electable on his own? Why such a conservative? Why did the daddy party pick a woman who is pro-life?

Yes, thanks for saying you liked my point (that he looked comparatively weak). And it is odd that its so unbalanced.

Well, I guess I missed Britt’s comments about vaginas. Not exactly the same point as Brendon, but if she were demeaning– it’s even worse to be demeaning of each other as women, Britt. Maybe Britt wasn’t being demeaning and simply pointing out gender differences.

Patrick, you don’t get it. We’re not supposed to vote for the VP. I’m not voting for Biden because he’s the electable one. In fact, I think Biden has already proven he’s not electable on his own. Here comes Palin with oddly right wing ideas, and she’s inexperienced. There are plenty of logical conclusions– what’s best to talk about as DFLers?

Oh, Bright, what’s going on with you, there. Let me look back– it seems people are telling you what party you might belong to. Hmm. That’s not good.

Yes, Sarah birthed five. But Hillary has good points, too. I wonder how much of what we know about Hillary is really the news point of view. Personally, In the latter parts of the campaign, I thought she sounded like she was yelling, as if no one could hear her, or see her for what she was. I was a Hillary person until I became an Obama person, and so I hope she gets better advice for her next time around.

Hmm, and that forgive Bill thing. Yes. Except, did she yell at him and then they worked it out… or did she just say “That’s okay, honey.”

Bright,
Hi again.
You wrote:

I just finally got word and you can believe me or not, Obama has not done well in even a small Chicago neighborhood. And this is from the people there in the trenches who’s names I may not devulge.

I feel like a broken record saying it, but I will consider the allegations of your unsupported rumor when someone produces some evidence to support it.

the American Presidency does not hold any real power any more and has not for the past twenty years.

I think George Bush and Dick Cheney have thoroughly disproven this statement. Its not just anyone who can start a war, or lock up people at their whim.

I don’t know any Americans who wouldn’t take a little short cut help from officials to help out a bad situation. Very few wouldn’t.
Not saying it’s right, just saying it’s so.

I would never do such a thing as she is alleged to have done. Also, you should meet my very large number of honest, decent, and upstanding friends and family members, who would never do such a thing. And some of them are even from Chicago.

If the allegations against Gov. Palin are true, then she has grossly abused her power in office. There is no excuse for that – except that she didn’t do it. (Which might be true. We’re still in the evidence-gathering phase on this.)

Plus Sarah birthed five children on top of it all.

My grandmother birthed seven. Is she therefore more qualified to be (vice) president?

please. the idea that bill clinton disgraced the white house is incredibly offensive yes, i would prefer that he had not lied, and he should be ashamed of having done so. give me a president who played around ANYTIME over one who enriched his rich friends, sent innocents off to war to murder other innocents, ignored the plight of Katrina victims, attacked science and ruined schools.

and how truly trite to bring up the cookie remark: i suppose it’s better that automaton cindy mccain plagiarized her cookie recipe? And by your math, bright, hillary alienated 100% of the women in the u.s. Huh?

Patrick said:

I think George Bush and Dick Cheney have thoroughly disproven this statement. Its not just anyone who can start a war, or lock up people at their whim.

Patrick, I am afraid you are wrong about this cuz just about anybody can start a war and lock people up. Think about it.

The kind of power I am talking about is the kind where if you come into the room, people stop and listen and then take your advice. I don’t know if that ever really happens on the world stage, but it does in my mind…and admittedly I have a very active imagination. With this kind of power, there is no war, only willing compliance out of respect and honor.

That’s great that your sister made investments, good for her and I’m glad it worked out. But many middle class people DON”T HAVE ANY MONEY TO INVEST, because they are busy spending it on their health care. Not because they weren’t bright enough to listen to Bush’s fabulous advice on oil and steel.

Bush is rich because he’s from one of the wealthiest families in the country, not from his business acumen. indeed, if he had to live as a result of his business acumen, he’d be in a rental apartment rather than the white house. and this vague obama-bashing, using some kind of vague chicago (he didn’t really help the people there” ) expertise, is unhelpful and vapid.

nick waterman, while i have never had the pleasure of your acquaintance,
i would be happy to be helpful if i knew what it is you thought would be helpful as long as it doesn’t involve me sitting down and shutting up like a good little girl and nodding my head and holding up signs in perfect agreement with everything i hear and see.

Holly,

You can chose to read my rhetoric as demeaning, so be it. I’m not known for soft-pedaling my written words. I chose words based on how they will emphasize a rhetorical argument or advance a story. Sometimes those words can be brutish, but it’s to solidify the point. If I held back certain words or phrases because I thought someone might be offended, I wouldn’t be able to write anything. There’s a difference between you being offended and me being offensive. It’s your judgment only. Nothing I can do about that.

To others here: As for Sarah Palin having five children: I’m failing to see the relevance to helping run the country. It’s an emotional factor in supporting her, yes, but it’s a very weak test for an office like Vice President of the US. Is there a childbirth-frequency / leadership-potential scale that I’ve never seen? A lot of seriously damaged women give birth to even more children. Republicans, historically, have demonized them.

David H., you make a good point in comment #60: there’s the strength of being seen as independent. That will be a plus for the ticket, but I still think the negatives (as they exist now and whatever may be uncovered in the next few months) outweigh that positive.

Bright, I haven’t the slightest idea how you conflate the Obama half-brother story and the allegations of Palin’s illegal firing of a state official based on a family grudge. Obama did what to his half-brother half a world away? If true – and Palin is already backpedaling from earlier assertions of non-involvement in the matter – then she seriously abused her power in service of a personal desire. Pretty much the definition of “corruption”. So much for the squeaky clean reformer. If true, she did this as an elected official using her authority and power as an elected official to fire someone who wouldn’t fire her former brother-in-law. So much for her respect for law and order, a supposed bedrock of conservative values.

nick, done well, means that he helped clear up the crime, or in some way made a difference in the life style that permeates the very concrete therein.

As I have said before on this forum, in several ways, shapes and forms, I grew up from birth in the neighborhood right next to the neighborhood where Obama was supposedly defending civil rights and organizing people. It is an area with one of the highest crime rates in the country and has been for generations.

I worked in City Hall, my sister worked in City Hall, and as an environmentalist with a high profile, I worked with the politicians, and as a person who used to be concerned with the plight of the black man, I do have some insider information about people such as Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition, Mohamed Ali, all of whom are also from my old neighborhood, or very nearby, and all have or had homes there for many years.

I live in a different type of neighborhood in the U of Chicago area, where Michelle Obama worked to create an outreach program. There are a lot of people who do social and legal work there, and it’s not all that.

The people I know are making some headway right now in their work and don’t wish to be pointed out. I am honoring their request. SO shoot me.

And btw, people who are ill and cannot affort health insurance may have been middle class at one time, but they are no longer, and therefore not
the people I refer to. I refer to people who have expendable income. If people would take that $4.00 per day that they buy pop and stuff with, by the end of one year, they would have almost $1500. They could buy some stock with that.

My sister is middle class, and they have dealt with illnesses, but not the long, long term expensive sort. My sister is almost retired and it took them a while to own three places…she is by all standards middle class.

Bright said: “And btw, people who are ill and cannot affort health insurance may have been middle class at one time, but they are no longer, and therefore not
the people I refer to. I refer to people who have expendable income. ”

so all middle class people can afford health insurance? and middle class by definition includes “expendable” income? This will be news to much of the middle class. You know, the ones with only one house, or none.

and I’m just going to quit now, because the interminable nonsense about the half-brother has sent me over the edge. pell grants are for citizens. And why the indignant moral outrage over and over about a half brother whose circumstances you know NOTHING about (except what you have read), but a complete lack of moral outrage over the income discrepancies and poverty (not to even mention deaths, lack of medical care, etc) created right here in your country by george bush, where despite the ever more generous description of what constitutes “poverty”, more people fall into it every day?

Yep, Obama does say these things about family, and I will concede the point that there may be a little personal hypocrisy in the situation with his half-brother. However, it’s not a function of his office as a Senator or his position as a presidential candidate. It’s a family matter, and I don’t know enough about the dynamics of his family to know why it persists, and I don’t think it’s indicative of his ability to lead since it is not a governance decision he’s making.

How much does he even know his half-brother? (They’re twenty years and one big ocean apart, are they not?) Is it more honorable for Obama to let his half-brother figure his own way in life or to just give him hand outs? From your arguments, I think you’d much rather see his half-brother do for himself, rather than have Barack do for him.

Palin’s actions are actually under investigation, by the Alaska legislature and by the Alaska Attorney General’s office. It is not the case that “the investigation has barely even begun to see if an investigation is warranted” as you stated. While it may be a family matter, they are actions alleged to have been carried out under her direction, using her power and authority as Alaska’s Governor – in other words, abuse of power and corruption of public office.

Your former brother-in-law being an ass to your sister – apart from his duties as a State Trooper – does not equate with an actionable cause for dismissal of his supervisor.

Again, regarding childbirth, somehow I’ve picked up that pain is involved. Does that mean anyone who suffers physical pain is made more ready to lead? The more pain, the better the leader? What about emotional pain? Does that count on the proficiency of leadership scale? What about a man who has five children? Is he more fit for executive office than a childless man, or a man with only one child?

As I said, it’s an emotional hook, to be sure, but that’s all it is. The whole “mom” angle will “play well in Peoria” perhaps, but let’s not confuse that with demonstrated ability.

It’s a grave disservice to women who have no children to consider that they are less fit for leadership based only on that criterion. This is not to say that being a mother doesn’t teach a woman many things about life, but as a marker for leadership potential at this level, it is meaningless and absurd at best, dubious and misleading at worst.

just to be clear, Bright, I entirely agree that you are entitled to your opinion. And that you should not be belittled for it. But belittling (for that is precisely what you are doing, trying to claim that Obama’s achievements are less than they are) Clinton or Obama or anyone else ought to be out of bounds for you, too. And it is one thing to state your opinion, and something entirely else to claim that you are in possession of facts somehow denied to the rest of us, but still unassailable.

No, Brendon, but I felt a bit put upon when nick w. was stamping my opinions with rather negative words, like trite, and you not seeing that fred – ginger thing made me think you went out for a walk, which is me speak for refusing to understand something you would normally understand.

I never said anything about child bearing as making anyone more qualified for anything, and I am not sure you said I said that, but just to be clear, I agree with you.

I hope to be challenged, but not with negative labels on my words, but with facts, or at least opinions from laudable sources, as far as they may be known, or well-thought out questions. I am a teacher by heart and former profession and hope to see all do well, even at the expense of my being publicly shown to be in error.

Bright, I’m not saying you’re “in error”. I didn’t agree with some of your assessments. I gave mine. We are stating opinions based on our interpretations of what we’ve read and filtered through our unique experiences and minds. Nothing more. I understood your gender differences argument, but never thought it relevant to the point I was making about Palin’s qualification for higher executive office by dint of multiple offspring.

Time might reveal your opinions as more prescient, or it might favor mine, but, even then, they will remain opinions.

Okay, Holly, how about this: You’re offended. Too bad.

I don’t know how much clearer I need to be about my opinions regarding McCain’s motivations for this VP pick.

I explicitly and LOUDLY agree with you that women do not vote for gender reasons alone.

I guess you just object to me using the word “vagina”; so I proudly report that I will never use the word “vagina” in this post about vagina voting again. For to use the word “vagina” to underscore pandering political motivations does no honor to vaginae worldwide.

Please keep misinterpreting my point and applying your “war” (??) motivations to my words. It’s humorous.

La la la la la… vagina…

Oops! Sorry, that one just slipped out.

I’m pretty sure I’ve broken Griff’s 5-vagina-limit-per-comment guideline.

Brendon– vagina vagina vagina. Okay to say. That’s a ’90’s issue.

“Think with your vagina” so you end up voting for a woman. Not okay to say. Present issue. Not McCain’s words, but yours. Wrong way to go about the issue, message is lost. People get angry and then vote for the vagina, simply because they can, and they decide you are crude. Action taken since you were crude.

I think: There’s a difference. With your plays, are you trying to get people to be open and more understanding? One thing you can do is speak with respect. LOUDLY. Or you can be crude, and make people nervous, and maybe they’ll go away and change the world. But, if you yell at your audience and make them so offended, you lost.

I bet, you’ll come back at me with “I don’t care if I offend you.” You get it that you were crude. I’m wondering what war you are fighting and it must be the “I can say anything I want” war and the “I don’t care about the effect” war. Right? OR, you’ve decided I don’t represent the average, and most people wouldn’t be offended by what you said to describe McCain’s point of view. I think you are wrong. If I’m pretty open minded about things and I am offended, well, then…

i’m from minneapolis by way of boston, and enjoying minnesota

Holly, I think that either you didn’t read all the way through the relative comments or you just aren’t getting it. Brendon was playing off the comments of Britt. It wasn’t offensive to me at all, in fact, I thought it was very clever. In any case, maybe we can get back to the discussion.
I think Palin is very bright, and the party would have done well to groom her for greatness by giving her some meaningful experience before putting her in this position. I don’t agree with her positions on issues stated so far, and the argument made by Cindy McCain that she understands foreign policy because her stat is clost to Alaska is truly frightening. She is not running as McCain’s administrative assistant, she’s running for vice president, meaning she needs to be as qualified as he to run the country. She just isn’t qualified. And while her views may energize the right, but I hope they also energize Obama backers. This is such a clear choice for the future, I’m amazed that anyone can be undecided at this point.
As for her five children being a sign of her ability, I grew up Catholic and everyone I knew was part of a family of 5 or 8 or even 12. Some of the parents showed organizational and leadership skills, others just showed a blind obedience to the church that left them and their kids devastated and overwhelmed. Parenthood doesn’t make you great.
Bright, your comments have me just baffled. I respect that many of your friends don’t like Obama, but to use that to say he’s not popular in Chicago is a big stretch. Mayor Daly and Sen. Durbin are hardly political idiots swayed by a celebrity.
I feel terrible for St. Paul that the convention may be shortened and definitely will be a money-loser for all involved. And while I don’t support Pawlenty and I don’t think he was ready for VP, I feel bad for him and all the others who worked hard for McCain and got snubbed so rudely.

Nick- In your post 74 you said this, “…but a complete lack of moral outrage over the income discrepancies and poverty (not to even mention deaths, lack of medical care, etc) created right here in your country by george bush,…” How are our economic inequities George Bush’s creation? Lyndon Johnson started the “war on poverty”, and to my knowledge, it was not won during any previous administration. It isn these types of statements that prompt mne to differentioate between a liberal and a Bush hater. The liberals have a plan on how to address this problem.

As far as income inequities, this problem has been around for a long time. The liberal plan is to address it with big government, thus imposing financial equality from the outside through forced redistribution of accumulated wealt. The conservative approach is to redistribute it through big business, through profits on goods and services paid out through wages to people who actually provide the goods and services. I personally do not think either philosophy will actually work because in individual greed. It is in dealing with this individual greed that I put my hope. I look at the economic problems we are facing as a disease of the individual spirit rather than any particular economic philosophy, but this is just my world view showing through.

Curt,

I agree. There are most definitely going to be some actual criminals mingled in with protesters. There usually are. My concern is more with the overreach we see nationally that equates legitimate protest with the bogeyman of terrorism.

P.S. I saw the “three 5-gallon buckets of urine” report in the news too, and I first wondered: What’s that for? Then I wondered: Whose urine? Then I wondered: How long would it take me to fill a 5-gallon bucket with my urine? Then I wondered: Are their toilets broken? Then I wondered: Uh-oh, if their toilets are broken, where are the other 5-gallon buckets? Then I decided to stop wondering about that.

Brendon, I think it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at an anarchists meeting. Unless they’ve transcended human nature, which is doubtful, sooner or later an ironic sort of hierarchy would have to develop to handle the inevitable disagreements that occur when more than one person has an opinion.

I’m glad we’ve got this whole democracy thing worked out here locally, where citizens, administrators, mayors and councilors act like civilized, mature people–cheerfully accepting that fact that they won’t always get to have their ways.

Curt – From #90 – I’m thinking these items may just be for an innocent pictogram of Peaceful (the bucket of urine PEA, the bow for C and the flammable liquids for EFUL). Maybe not.

If my house were raided they would find most of these items and others they could use as trophies to justify the raid (but not the buckets of urine ~ I promise). I am going to go start throwing out my paint.

I think the RNC will reject Palin and offer another VP choice. I think the whole thing is a set up.

David H. said:

If my house were raided they would find most of these items and others they could use as trophies to justify the raid (but not the buckets of urine ~ I promise). I am going to go start throwing out my paint.

I thought the same thing when I saw the list of items confiscated in one raid. Apparently, I’m also hellbent on civic disruption (sorry… “terrorism”) because I have PVC pipe and chicken wire and empty glass bottles and rags and fuel in my garage. Little did I know how evil I unintentionally have become.

Your pictogram description was very clever, good work!

Curt, while I’m generally liberal and I like me some good protestin’ from time to time to keep things from getting, I don’t know, stale… I do often wonder about anarchists, too. Do they honestly think a society of 300 million people spread over a country this size could run itself according to their principles? That every function of the country would need to be decided by consensus?

In my experience, the only people who truly believe anarchy could work in any complex social system are idealistic college kids (for a couple years) and delusional people with little to lose.

All this being said, I still think these raids are not being targeted only at anarchists bent on “doing some crimes”, but also seem geared toward squelching legitimate protest and peaceful civil disobedience. That’s not good for anyone.

Holly, Agreed. Certainly, I make a lot of mistakes and distract from the real issue sometimes with my words. It grates on people from time to time. I understand that. It’s very subjective and messy and emotional. That’s writing. Thank you for helping me get better at it.

Patrick, that youtube video… Their body language seemed a little odd – she sort of leans away from him, and he sort of pushes into her personal space. Like she’s trying to avoid a hug from her smelly old uncle, or something. He’s playing with his wedding ring… very funny.

Brendon – my home raid might be reported Swat found: red, white and blue cloth; lighter fluid; a book describing Mao, Molotov Cocktails & Mortars; a heavy Chinese metal tube stand and a bunch of disguises.

Bath towels, a Bic, M volume of encyclopedia, Christmas Tree Holder and Halloween storage.

What’s the bucket of urine thing. Did you describe that, Carol? I’m out of it on that one. What’s that used for?

Holly wrote,

What’s the bucket of urine thing. Did you describe that, Carol? I’m out of it on that one. What’s that used for?

I think it’s called a chamber pot. Saves the trouble of a chilly trip to the outhouse in January.

Hmmm, chamber pot warrant.

Hey, why were they in her house, anyway?

I can see the need for security, but I wonder about the house thing. Sounds really weird to me, and how to have a normal life after such insinuations?

HI, Holly!

While I agree with Carol in that we need to be ever watchful so that we do not loose personal freedoms, I don’t agree about the part where you get so angry as Carol says she is, cuz in most circles, the first one to get angry looses…not my rule, but that’s the rule, and as it should be, because anger looses it’s focus.

In these cases it is best to reserve judgement. When I was a young woman, I would involve myself in events around me to see and to learn what I could.
We never know what is going on unless we are there, and even then, we see through colored glasses of our own experience and understanding and lack of it. We all have blind spots.

In the case of the raided home, it may be;

1. as Carol claims, or it may be that

2. they themselves called the police, with ‘information’ that would trigger an over reaction to what was really there, for effect, to prove how right they are, even though they had to fabricate something to do it, or

3. someone else entirely may have called the police for any one of a hundred reasons, that we will prolly never know.

I have seen these kinds of things with my own eyes and ears in years past
and I am sure they continue today. Best to reserve judgment until the truth is known.

Bright – FYI, my anger focuses me, and directs my action, it fueled a pretty difficult and strenuous struggle through a BA behind the wheel of a truck and through law school — plus it’s healthy… to bring up the bucket analogy again, better to be pissed off than pissed on!
Holly and Patrick – I agree, Holly, that McCain “Getting to know you” piece you linked to IS creepy, there’s some intense body language seeping out. Yet another narcissistic politician, perhaps? Eeeeeeeuuuuw…

Carol- Just a question for you regarding the supression of certain demonstrators aimed at the RNC- are you saying that all groups poised to demonstrate their particular agenda are of equal validity? Just wondering. I guess I differentiate between a group of pro-choice/gay advocates with placards and banners and a group amasings knives, guns, etc. It would seem to me that those collecting weapons have a different agenda than those painting signs. Does your interpretation of the constitution allow for conplete civil upheaval as a valid form of protest? I know I am prejudging these groups, but IMHO, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then there is probable cause to say it is a duck. Terrorist come in all sizes and nationalities, and that is what I believe people are who amass weapons for the purpose of disrupting society.

Carol- I’m not going to convince you of my opinion any more than you are going to convince me of yours. Lawyers do not have to be neutral, but I think law inforcement does. What is better, to limit some people’s “rights” to preserve law and order, or to have to clean up the carnage after a violent protest erupts (re. Chicago, ’68)? There is no “devastating social upheaval” right now, and I would prefer to keep it that way. I think the Colorado authorities displayed good judgement in their limitations (500 yards distance), and I think the Minnesota authorities are trying to do the same. Sorry if you don’t like that, but it is just my opinion, anyway, and has no real bearing on what, if anything, is going to happen in St. Paul. It appears the RNC is probably going to be upstaged by a hurricane, anyway. It may go down in history as the great non-event.

As far as things being loud and boisterous to get someone’s attention, would the killings of abortion clinic doctors by rabid anti-abotionists and bombings of government buildings by white supremist groups fall under that definition? I would certainly hope not! It certainly got attention, but not the kind hoped for, fortunately. I think these types of things happen when emotion reigns rather than reason. This whole concept of line drawing seems to have gotten a little fuzzy over the last few decades. I just don’t believe in forcing my views off on anyone, but I would like the right to peacefully express them. In the case in St. Paul, there is documented threats by some of these groups. For law enforcement to set back and ignore them would seem irrisponsible, IMHO.

John – you’re using the example of killing when addressing “loud and boisterous protest” and that’s a flawed inflammatory analogy that’s not even close to what’s happening here, either literally in the metro or logically in this discussion. Or put another way, “objection, assumes facts not in evidence!” You also state “to limit some people’s “rights” to preserve law and order, or to have to clean up the carnage after a violent protest erupts (re. Chicago, ‘68)?” but it’s not a binary — whenever someone posits something in this binary mode, it’s a false premise where reality is somewhere in between. It really isn’t a matter of my liking it or not, it’s that, as we’ll see as this unfolds, St. Paul police made pre-emptive strikes that violated basic Constitutional tenents and charges, if any, will be tossed out and the costly lawsuits begin. Speech in this country is being limited more and more, as is freedom of association, and we’re seeing increasing unreasonable searches and detentions, and yes, this is all contrary to the Constitution that I’ve taken an oath to uphold. It happens in blatant ways as we’re seeing in the St. Paul and Mpls. raids, and it’s happening more subtly but with regularity in the administrative energy proceedings handled by Office of Administrative Hearings (http://nocapx2020.info/?p=324) and at the Public Utilities Commission, I believe acting on directive from their boss, the Governor. In these cases, it’s a pattern of limitation (contrary to statute and rules) of fundamental participatory rights landowners affected by proposed projects, citizerns groups, and local units of government directly affected, requiring challenging of the limitations which is a time-consuming diversion from the issues at hand. The people, organizations and local governments don’t have a budget to put on much of a case and by having to devote resources and time to fighting for their participatory rights, their presentation of their case suffers or they drop out in frustration, effectively limiting opposition to the project. There’s a great federal case here but I don’t have the resources to take it on. Illegitimate limitations are happening every day and with each one unchallenged, with each limitation that’s effective, our rights erode. once more with feeling, in constitutional rights, it’s “use it or lose it,” and we’re losing big time.

Bright – This goes way off topic here, but since you posit it… and I’m deleting a LOT.

First, it’s not that there are no organizations, there are a million organizations, but there are no funded organizations working against these utility infrastructure proposals. 501(c)(3)’s can’t get grants for legal advocacy in opposition to transmission lines (or legal advocacy about pert near anything else), and if they’re landowners in a particular fight, seeking funding would be regarded by IRS as impermissible self-interest. I started one to oppose the SW MN 345kV line but the IRS denied status based on lobbying activity — Intervention in a Certificate of Need proceeding is lobbying under Minnesota law. Over time, my clients have been landowners and communities directly affected by projects who have to pony up out of their own pocket, and what they ALL have said to me is “Why won’t any of the groups help us.” And the disturbing answer has been because the large funded organizations were in some way were part of a deal that lead to the mess that those folks were in. In Minnesota there is no Intervenor Compensation, and there is no “Public Advocate” and the Attorney General’s Office Residential Utilities Division is nowhere to be seen (only the agency Asst. AGs working for the agencies making the decision).

Bright – when you say “if there is no existing group, that should tell you something,” what conclusion are you drawing?

The conclusions I draw from my extensive experience over the last 13 years is that participation in utility regulatory issues as afforded by statute and rule is dependent on money, which for landowners near the project is hard to come by, that those directly affected pony up out of their own pockets to make the broader big-picture policy arguments, and that those trying to participate who have a direct interest in the outcome are subject to concerted attempts to limit their participation. Rights deriving from the constitution, statute and rule are routinely being denied by state agencies, and parties are having to fight tooth and nail, expending scarce time and resources, to stay in the process, and spend their time assuring ability to participate when they should instead be working on the substantive case (allocation of resources IS binary – when you’re working on one thing, you can’t be working on something else). People who want to participate and exercise their rights shouldn’t be thwarted at every turn and have to fight so hard to be part of the process.

Bright – “I was talking about something else” is why I asked what you meant when you said “If there is no existing group, that should tell you something.” What do you mean? What should that tell me and anyone else?

Wow, Bright. Daly is a lot of things, but dumb isn’t one of them. And I don’t know what Chicago you visit, but the one I know is amazing compared to 20 years ago. I don’t like his tactics, but it’s amazing.
Like I said earlier, no one will ever be good enough to meet your standards, which I still don’t understand.

Patrick – Palin negotiated the best energy deal for the citizens of Alaska in their history and has a 80-90% approval rating – what would you expect the woman’s answer to be some pedantic discourse document dates.

Understanding the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “under God” is relevent both to the relationship between the government and individual rights in the realm of religion, as well as reflecting an understanding of how we fought the great foreign policy struggle of the Cold War.

True dat, Patrick… though I’m willing to bet good money that W. doesn’t know the history of the Pledge either… not that this puts Palin in good company. In fact, I’d also be willing to bet that most Americans think that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Jefferson himself, or, at least, that “under God” was always part of it.

So, how many of you are waiting for the first religious-right Republican to stand up and say that Palin’s unwed, teenage daughter being pregnant is a private, family matter.

For the record, I think it is a private, family matter, but that doesn’t stop Palin from wanting to legislate what other women can do with their wombs. Should not other women’s decisions about their own pregnancies be private, family matters?

Isn’t Barack Obama’s half-brother also a private, family matter? How about the statements of his preacher? How about Bill Clinton’s infidelity?

I also wonder if Palin’s daughter wants to marry the father, or if she will do so out of political expediency. What a bad situation to be in.

Maybe the Governor should have been stricter with her daughter about contraception. Was that talked about in their house? I’m guessing they’re an abstinence-only sort of family.

Once you open the barn door, so to speak…

David,
My understanding is that she is opposed to education about birth control.
From the same 2006 questionnaire:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_opposed_sexed.html?showall

David H.,

Again, you make a solid point. I hadn’t considered that. I think, as I agreed with you before, that Palin does win some points on the “independent buzz” scale. Her rather far-right positions seem to fit her pretty squarely into that box, however. As more is learned about her, we’ll see how easily she can be boxed in, and, more importantly, how she responds to those efforts to paint her a certain way.

Patrick, I would say that the 2006 questionnaire seems a little slanted in the angle of its question regarding sex education vs. abstinence. I’m for sex education in schools, for example, but I’ve never thought distribution of contraceptives in schools and school-based clinics as the way to go. Plus they use the word “explicit” to describe sex ed; seems like it was looking for only one “correct” answer out of her. I’d take that with many grains of salt.

Brendon,
Hold on there. David’s point is not supported by Feminists For Life’s own FAQ, as I noted above.

Her political positions pretty much fall well to the right of the political mainstream. Some people may agree with those positions, and support her for that. That’s fine, but I think it is important to accurately understand what she stands for, first and foremost.

Here’s a new Strib article on the expectations of perhaps 50,000 protesters — most of them, mind you, not bringing guns, bows, arrows, slingshots, or containers of bodily fluids.

And here’s an update at Salon.com on the involvement of federal officials in the crackdowns and heavy-handed intimidation tactics by police.

The overall effect of the raids on the populace? Think twice about being involved in any peace protests, or you’ll get searched, raided, and if you’re in a bus on the way to a protest, your bus may be seized, and you may be left stranded on the roadside. Who would want to be a peace protester in such a society, with such disincentives? Better to watch “American Idol” and stay at home, or as Bush said after 9-11, go out and shop.

We may not have free speech, but if you’ve got the money–or the credit–you’re free to shop.

Brendon,
I love “nuance and shades of gray.” I think the problem is that neither works in sound bites.

p.s. What are Likert scales?

On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all” and 10 being “completely”, how much does Patrick realize that he already secretly knew what a Likert scale was?

Good ol’ Likert… and you’re right, of course, saying I’m “sort of, kind of for and against” something does not play well on the radio. The irony being that politicians who say such things get labeled as “wishy-washy”, when in reality it much more honestly reflects people’s beliefs and the human condition.

Likert or not, Palin is a flake.

It seems Amy Goodman of the “Democracy Now” show was arrested along with her news crew. About 100 demonstrators, peaceful it seems, arrested, but many more report having a good day marching, demonstrating, peaceful protest, walking with children and old-sters, signs, etc. Many surprised at riot-gear: The St. Paul and Mpls police might not be reacting as strongly, or participating in as many of the arrests, as some of the police who were called in from elsewhere?

Another YouTube video of some of the impending arrests:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCST-5IXzDA

I’m noticing that the HTML links I tried to include in #141 either never got there or were removed; did I break a rule?

David H.: (re: link in comment 148) Thanks for helping me start my work week off with a few belly laughs!

David, this isn’t about her being attacked for being a woman, it’s about her and McCain using her being “a woman candidate” without vetting her and then saying that any criticism is sexist.
The real problem is that it shows the total lack of judgment and the unstable temper of McCain. He wanted Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge and the anti-women’s rights folks had a giant fit. He tossed Romney and Pawlenty to the curb and chose Palin because he was forced and was angry. He didn’t choose her because she was the best qualified candidate, he caved to the right.
So how is he his own man? He dumped GIuliani as a speaker to have Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman. How are either of these guys about change? How is Lieberman acceptable to the party?
So in one fell swoop, McCain has taken the focus off himself, taken the focus off his message, taken the focus off Obama and turned possible supporters into enemies. Romney has said he’s done with McCain, and the only reason Pawlenty will keep working is to prove he will be a good candidate in 2012. Party leaders already are talking about what a loyal guy he is and that the party owes him for the way he was treated.
Instead of a reasoned strategy, McCain has chosen a PERSON who has accepted $24 million in earmarks and supported the bridge to nowhere and supported disgraced Sen. Ted Stevens — and calls herself a reformer. This person has outstanding ethics investigations going on. And this person who claims parenthood as proof of her ability to lead has a daughter who is living with her aunt. She has so little concern for her child and future son-in-law that she exposed both of them to the national spotlight.
It’s not about the child getting pregnant but about how this amazing parent is treating her job as a parent, a job she says shows she’s ready to be president.
Anyone who backed Clinton and thinks Palin is a suitable substitute was never a Democrat in the first place.

Carol- Your objection, “…“objection, assumes facts not in evidence!” in post #121 looks a little different to me today. What with a few thrown objects through a bank and department store windows, and one into a bus window, causing injury to the driver, I concede, none of this was being done before the protest. There was no evidence to support a “pre-emptive” strike by the police, you said? Perhaps there was no tangible evidence, aside from threats, which may or may not have been carried out, but it appears to me that the threats were carried out. Is this a case of “probable cause?” And, isn’t the making of terroristic threats a felony? Just wondering.

On the original thought in the thread, comparing the DNC and the RNC, in Colorado, protesters were held back 1500 ft, about 3 blocks. This same standard was attempted in St. Paul, but it was forced down by the protesters, something about not being able to be effective at a distance, if I remember right. Hmmmm. Whose rights were actually infringed upon in this case?

Also, the outbreak of violence served what purpose? Did it coerce any response from the RNC delegates? Whose property was actually damaged? Someone from another state? No. It was local properties. If this is considered allowable as “loud and boisterous” protest, then I know I do not agree with loud and boisterous protest. Fortunately, this was a small percentage of the small turnout of total protesters who obeyed the laws, respected other people’s property, and communicated their opposition in a way that was effective. When disagreement is done respectfully, then there is a path for communication. I don’t think anyone wants to set down and talk to someone who demonstrates disrespect of them.

Paul F.- I was not “abstractly philosophysing” about anything. I was just expressing my opinion of reported evidence. A person can respond however they want to the reports of what was found. This just seemed like a reasonable response to me. Throwing objects through windows of businesses and buses is not an expression of freedom of speech. It is malicious damage of private property and a threat to the personal well-being of those users. I think the actions of the police to “suppress” these types of actions align with my interpretation of their responsibility to enforce law and order. I think there are peaceful ways to demonstrate civil disobedience without jeapordizing the health and wellfair of private citizens and their property. Locking arms to block traffic is one of those ways, but there comes a time to move, once you have gotten your point across. If you chose to disobey an officer of the law, then you place yourself under the judgement of that law. That is quite evident in the outcome of the demonstrations.

John George wrote,

Throwing objects through windows of businesses and buses is not an expression of freedom of speech. It is malicious damage of private property and a threat to the personal well-being of those users. I think the actions of the police to “suppress” these types of actions align with my interpretation of their responsibility to enforce law and order. I think there are peaceful ways to demonstrate civil disobedience without jeapordizing the health and wellfair of private citizens and their property. Locking arms to block traffic is one of those ways, but there comes a time to move, once you have gotten your point across. If you chose to disobey an officer of the law, then you place yourself under the judgement of that law.

Yep. What John said. If you do something illegal, you can expect to be arrested. There was no need for violent protest, and those few instigators make it easy to characterize the rest of us – a large number of reasonable, responsible people opposed to the war policies and civil rights abuses of the Bush administration – in a very negative light.

I was saddened to see the way the police were goaded by the men who used was appeared to be their weapon shield camouflaged as a sign. It is hideous.
I know the police make honest mistakes and from time to time and they get carried away, but most of the people have no idea under what stresses they live every day, so that we can all take a lovely stroll down the streets of our towns without delays from criminal activity. Why take it out on these, the most honorable of souls?

Most won’t even know what I am talking about. Walk a mile in my shoes, or in the shined boots of a military pr paramilitary man.

I wrote, “There was no need for violent protest, and those few instigators make it easy to characterize the rest of us – a large number of reasonable, responsible people opposed to the war policies and civil rights abuses of the Bush administration – in a very negative light.”

And, I might add, this plays right into Republican strategy.

John, you wrote:

One thing about reporters (I’m asuming she was one?) trying to cover this type of event is that they get themselves into harm’s way.

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are somewhere in the realm of advocacy journalism.

You can find their work here:
http://www.democracynow.org/

I worked with the National Lawyers Guild yesterday on the streets outside the RNC. NLG President Marjorie Cohn wrote the following article which is more informative than my observations:

“Since Friday, local police and sheriffs, working with the FBI, conducted preemptive searches, seizures and arrests. Glenn Greenwald described the targeting of protestors by ‘teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets.’ Journalists were detained at gunpoint and lawyers representing detainees were handcuffed at the scene.

“‘I was personally present and saw officers with riot gear and assault rifles, pump action shotguns,’ said Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, who is representing several of the protestors. ‘The neighbor of one of the houses had a gun pointed in her face when she walked out on her back porch to see what was going on. There were children in all of these houses, and children were held at gunpoint.'”

Full article:

http://marjoriecohn.com/2008/09/preemptive-strikes-against-protest-at.html

William, you and I saw two different scenes. No one was arrested from the description I heard, and there was no shooting of any sort involved. This sort of jumping to conclusions, and then brow beating of anyone with another view is really pathetic.

Jerold – thank you for getting this out. Too scary for words, seeing charges like this, and to see the “Patriot Act” used in ways we’d apprehensively anticipated.

Possibly the best moment of the Republican convention:

After a segment with NBC’s Chuck Todd ended today, Republican consultant Mike Murphy and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan were caught on a live mic ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin.

“It’s over,” said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

“The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullsh** about narratives,” she said. “Every time Republicans do that … because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.”

Murphy chimed in:

“The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.”

Noonan’s blunt call contrasted with her conflicted column today saying Palin “could become a transformative political presence.”

See/hear it for yourselves: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Noonan_Murphy_trash_Palin_on_hot_mic_Its_over.html#commentsl

Patrick – Palin was a talent pick over career establishment choices so there will be some jealousy. From what I have seen the people who have actually interviewed Palin “in person” fawn over her. Obama feels so threatened he is comparing his campaign finances against her mayoral budget failing to mention Alaska’s budget and the significant revenue Palin added.

I’ll give my review of Palin’s speech now, in advance of her actually giving it: That was a good, well-crafted speech, and it was skillfully delivered.

Here’s a good (and liberal) blogger on the subject:

Republicans have lowered expectations for Palin, and a lot of Democrats have bought into it. That’s a mistake — Palin, I suspect, will be very good tonight.

Sarah Palin reminds me a great deal of George W. Bush — underwhelming qualifications, overwhelming confidence. It’s a combination that makes exceeding expectations pretty easy.

Look back to the event in Ohio last week, and notice how poised she was speaking to a national audience for the first time. Substantively, she lied blatantly about her opposition to the infamous “bridge to nowhere.” But stylistically, she was composed and charming. The same it true if you go back and look at the 2006 debates in Alaska. The substance is weak, but the rhetorical style is strong.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014543.php

I like the fact that Ms. Palin was for pork before she was against it. In fact, she was crowing about extracting pork for her hometown, while McCain was singling out her same pork item for criticism.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/4346/palin-on-earmarks-we-did-well

Holly,

Was she a secessionist, or was it just her husband who registered with that party?

It appears she has never registered with the party, but she has
– attended the AIP’s 1994 Convention
– attended the AIP’s 2000 Convention
– given a videotaped address to the AIP Convention in 2008

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/9424/97589

Hi Nick. How’s Minneapolis? Can you get around?

Ooh, more to think about. I’m watching and googling.

As of right now I am in the undecided category. I have issues with both candidates that I can not resolve yet. In full disclosure mode I tend to be a fiscal conservative first and I fall in the middle on social issues. I usually vote right of center but can and will cross party lines for someone I support.

Of course not surprisingly on this blog the vast majority of contributors are left of center. With that being the case let me ask a few questions.

There has been a lot of talk about how Gov. Palin is not experienced enough to be the VP. I find this to be a fairly disingenuous criticisms in light of Sen Obama’s level of experience. How is it a good thing for Obama to have limited political experience as the Presidential candidate yet it is not ok for Gov. Palin to be a newcomer to national politics and run as the VP?

Palin has been accused of flip flopping, yet Sen Biden said he did not think that Obama was ready to be President, it is amazing what being asked to be the VP does for ones prospective. The good Sen Biden also said he would be proud to serve on the same ticket as McCain. How is that not a flip flop?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N1umkUlf

When it comes down to my vote in November I will vote for the person that will show me they are serious about balancing the budget and getting a strong energy policy to remove us from foreign oil. So far neither candidate has won me over on those issues.

John – you state, “I still take my stand that violence and anarchy do not bring resolution to a situation, even if you wear a press badge.” Who among the press was bringing violence and anarchy? Or did you mean “police badge?” I’m confused…

Paul F.- I think you are not understanding my point, here. My whole argument has been against the use of violence to resist authority and demonstrate opposition to a cause. An anarchist, just by the pure definition of the word, is one who rejects any authority as being higher than the individual. These people who threaten to and carry out violent acts of disobedience are not resisting the police. They are resisting the law that is over the police. There is a reason that police officers are refered to as “law enforcement” agents. They have no authority aside from what is granted them by the various penal codes. This is the point I am trying to make.

That being said, we are dealing with a fallen world, so for individual police officers to react wrongly is probably as much to be expected as the anarchists doing their violent deeds. These individuals fall under the same judgement of the law, as I’m sure Carol O. will dutifully see carried out. I don’t think I advocated blind trust of the police so much as a respectful approach to them. Please forgive me if I did not express myself clearly. Some of the comments here, IMHO, hint more at a contempt for the officers and their superiors. My argument still stands that opposition to a cause does not, in and of itself, justify violent acts to express that opposition.

My world view has me look beyond the various events of the day to try to find the purposes of God in them. That is something, I readily confess, I do not always recognize immediately. Just because I don’t recognize or understand them does not mean there there are no purposes of God in what is going on in the world. My need of understanding presses me into greater communion with Him to find out what they are. That same access is granted to all who believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. I don’t mean to be preachy, here, but I am not ashamed to say where I am coming from if it helps anyone to understand me, no matter whether they agree with me or not.

Griff – I note there’s about a delay in my posts, this last one, about 12 hours. What’s up with that?

I had to remove my citations from that last post, because the LGN window refused to accept a post containing them. I’ll try again below:

John G: I understand and respect your quest for spiritual meaning in all this, and your respect for the law. But I question three things: 1) your unquestioning support for police power (and abuse of power), 2) your unquestioning assumption about anarchists acting alone, as compared to troublemakers as government (see COINTELPRO) or Republican-financed (see Karl Rove) agents provocateurs, and 3) your failure to be critical of the violence of the Bush administration based on lies and and illegal war, while being critical of the violence of revolutionary, Boston Tea Party types who are destructive of property and hide their identity.

Bruce W: You ask excellent questions in #183. But in the end, for me, it’s a forest-for-the-trees kind of thing. I asked similar questions about the rhetoric of the Kerry smears, when Kerry was criticized as a flip-flopper, while Bush was just as bad or worse (about nation-building, about global warming and carbon caps, and a long list of other things). In the end, it’s not just about little contradictions that can sometimes be blown out of proportion by the party with the most money for TV ads.

I think there are larger concerns about Palin’s and McCain’s loyalties and vision (this is the forest), and these concerns will lead some to vote for Obama. But in the end, as Karl Rove has shown us over and over again, sometimes it’s not about larger concerns: politics is about who wins an election, not about who is right, and sometimes attack ads, even based on lies and distractions from larger concerns, play a role in winning elections. Ethics and morality are about right and wrong. Politics is about what wins. In a nation that values ethics and morality, attack ads don’t have as much effect. But we are often a superficial nation, too hypnotized by images and too addicted to TV, so for now, this makes the politics easy.

Democrats also have to learn that politics is about winning and framing the issues and terms of the debate. If Democrats were better able to express their best ethical concerns while framing the terms–instead of simply playing defense in response to right-wing smear and attack–they’d have a better chance.

Paul, leave it to you to reveal the nefarious Karl Rove/Griff Wigley conspiracy.

What color is the sky in your world?

OOps, that was Kiffi … not Victor . That’s what I get for looking at LG on Victor’s site rather than mine.
kiffi

Excerpts:
George Lakoff on the symbolism of the Sarah Palin choice
I’ve added lots of elipses (…) to shorten this, especially when Lakoff gets too abstract for too long, but it’s an interesting analysis (positive in many ways) that Dems should read especially.

This is Lakoff doing his usual thing, but even if you’ve read “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” this is helpful to read as a new aplication of his theories.

URL at end. All the way down if you want to click to the original.

Quote starts below:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters’ minds….. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women’s lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn….
….
the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the “issues,” and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call “issues,” but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can’t win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse…..
The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

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

Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan’s morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.
….
At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats’ language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she’s from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them….

Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing….
The initial Democratic response to Palin – the response based on realities alone – indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

They have not learned the nature of conservative populism….. A great many working-class folks are…split between conservative and progressive modes of thought….
….
Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of “liberal elite” and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration….
The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values….

(George Lakoff)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/02

Paul, I think it is possible to be pro Obama and anti poop chucking and anti window breaking at the same time.

It is also possible to be pro Obama and not attribute everything negative in the world to a Rovian conspiracy.

Stephanie,
You beat me to it on that link – it gave me a good laugh over lunch. It’s amazing how easily hypocrisy can slide off the well-rehearsed tongue.

Here’s a link to free Obama buttons. No, he didn’t get arrested…the buttons are free.

https://political.moveon.org/obamabuttons/?rc=updateemail&id=
13663-3352476-EcyGq0x&t=1

Hey, thanks for those links way back in post 179, Patrick.

I’m reading Laikos, but I disagree with a few things. I loved The Political Brain (Weston) but I skipped over the first sections and got right to the Democrat Republican talk. Good stuff.

🙂

And Hi Paul, what’s happening over at your beautiful house? Nice siding!

Curt/203: Agreed on all points. Just the other day (blue sky, a few clouds), I was listening to someone talk about student plagiarism. Rove was nowhere in sight. But then again, he was kind of there in spirit….

John: If one accepts that ignoring the Constitution and treaties and Geneva Conventions and such is OK, and that preemptive, illegal wars are now acceptable, and if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed by th4e actions of a military under the command of George Bush, then no, Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld, to my knowledge, have never been known to throw rocks through windows. But when you place the two kinds of violence side-by-side, how many people were hurt by the rocks during & near the RNC in St. Paul, as compared to how many Iraqi civilians and our own soldiers died? Yes, we can disagree on violence. You take an extreme position that sounds like moral relativism with a big presidential blind spot. We won’t agree.

I’m not saying the Rovian conspiracy is more likely. I’m saying that history sometimes repeats, and there are many unexplained details in the story. The police might have clustered at the point where the peace march met the counter-protesters (Republicans) behind a fence, but they left that area open, almost as if they were hoping there would be an unmanaged confrontation and violence. The police and riot squads used pepper spray and gas against what turns out to have been a group that included a somewhat large number of journalists. We have no story, no report, that details the terrible civil unrest and criminality that was perhaps being recorded by these journalists by violent protesters nearby when, sadly, the police had to round up and arrest the whole lot. No such details. Just a few lines and excuses from the chief of police that don’t hold with the rest of the facts. Many witnesses say it was unwarranted.

So we need more answers:
1. Why did the police act the way they did, when many eyewitnesses clamied that there was no need for the extreme measures they used? It almost seems as if the use of pepper spray and gas was to create and/or heighten an artificial crisis for the purposes of discrediting the protesters.
2. Instead of hearing about the arrest of specific kids who were dressed in black and wearing bandanas, and a prime suspect who broke a window, we hear about all these journalists who were arrested, and whose cameras were confiscated. If the police have information about the violent troublemakers, why don’t we hear more about such police reports in the stories appearing in local and national news? Instead, journalists, independent journalists, an AP photographer, and citizen journalists.

Too many assume that
1) the troublemakers were acting on their own (we have no more proof of that than we do they were prompted or paid);
2) that the journalists must have been doing something wrong or they probably wouldn’t have been arrested;
3) that the police were simply doing their job in a hard situation, and if mistakes were made at all, they were honest mistakes made by people with the best of intentions from the start;
etc.

We have no more proof of these things than we do that we’ve witnessed a resurgence of COINTELPRO and something like the nastiest of Rovian campaign/PR tricks.

So might it be better to be wise and admit the limits of our knowledge, and let the mystery be, instead of taking the mystery and refashioning it into some kind of idol of our own making?

Holly: the house is relatively quiet for now, but thanks for the compliment.

Say, Holly, to shift the subject a bit from the protesters, police (and provocateurs?) outside to the VP candidate inside,
what did you think of George Lakoff on Sarah Palin in #201?

paul F.- You wrote,”…So might it be better to be wise and admit the limits of our knowledge, and let the mystery be, instead of taking the mystery and refashioning it into some kind of idol of our own making? …” My point exactly. I don’t have verifiable evidence to “prove” my point, and I haven’t heard of verifiable evidence to “prove” the opposite. I believe this will come out in the weeks and months ahead. I’m not assuming, nor have I suggested, that the journalists were doing anything wrong. My point all along is that if you are going to try to get close, firsthand information in that type of violent scenario, you are taking a calculated risk. Nor have I suggested that all police force was done with the best intentions. These guys are human, and being so, can have tempers that flare. I could recount things I have read about law enforcement officers’ opinions of being “hamstrung” (I think that was the term used) by the courts. If there are those feelings in a person, this would be a likely time they could get out of control. Trying to understand peoples’ actions does not necessarily indicate approval of those actions. This applies to the protesters as well. As far as there being no baricades where the protesters and the conventioners were in close proximity, it seems I read in the PP that this was suggested by the police, but it was vetoed by the demonstration organizers as too limiting to their freedom of expression. I have the feeling that there is no way the police could have come out on top on this whole thing.

John George (not that other John George in town, but this one up above, although I like both) said:

Nor have I suggested that all police force was done with the best intentions. These guys are human, and being so, can have tempers that flare.

Let’s think Kent state. I distincly remember being in high school (Burnsville High, 1984, Welckle’s American History debate class, although I am a graduate of NHS in ’86), and staring at that American History book picture of the dead kid– the kid was laid out, face down, and everyone was running, and one person pointing and yelling…. I remember thinking “What’s Kent State? What made Ohio so different?” It was one of the first times I didn’t have to think “How will I remember this for the test?” I knew there was high energy, an anger, a taste of rebellion, and the heat.

So, who feels the kids and Gen Xers of today are letting things slide when the baby boomers would not have? Iraq: I honked at the local protesters (Division and Woodley) but I didn’t participate. RNC– I was thinking it was better to stay home and not protest– better to use words to than to get arrested. But, that’s not now the Baby boomers would have done it. And those baby boomers that protested paid. And the cops, they paid, too. It’d have been hard to kill a Kent State kid, I think.

Amazed that no one has offered anything about the Star of the RNC .
Just for the record, I think McCain is an amazing man, and I totally take back what I said about his younger days as a poor husband, in light of the fact that he has more than made up for that, and in light of the fact that he is a strong, daring, and capable candidate and man who could and should be President of the United States Of America. He can call Obama if he needs any advice.
But with Sarah on his ticket, I think they have it covered for likability and star power. The RNC was a hit. And as long as Obama is gonna be just as much of a war power leader as McCain, if you saw the video above, I think I’ll let McCain, the man with the actual experience of leading our military
and understanding the whole martini of it, I’ll be on his side. At this point, I don’t think it matters what anyone did do in the past. For every point anyone brings up, there is an equal and adequate rebuff.

Now, they are both starting from an equal field. Polls showed them to be at 42% to 42%, neck in neck. Whooooooha. This was a good year to be interested in the dialogue of the race to the top.

I’m estimating by Oct 1 we will see Palin’s relationship with the RNC begin to fray. I saw footage of a rally in WI that grew out of hand in size and everyone was yelling “Sarah” while McCain looked on from the background. Palin has a keen sense of power and a zeal for reform. She will quickly realize without her the Republican ticket is sunk and the leadership won’t able to keep her on message or even on the reservation. I’m estimating Palin will begin pushing ideas and reforms that neither party finds appealing but rank and file Americans will be backing all the way.

Bright: You write, “I think I’ll let McCain, the man with the actual experience of leading our military…”

If you Google the words “Gen Wesley Clark McCain lacks command experience” you find a number of versions of a story where retired Gen. Clark disagrees.

But that’s ideas, not symbolism. He’s a war hero, a prisoner of war, as the whole US of A is symbolically right now. So even if he had an affair, even if he wasn’t good to his family, even if he doesn’t understand the economy, even if he flip-flopped on many issues since his change from maverick to candidate, people don’t pay as much attention to that kind of stuff as they do the symbolism. Gosh, when most of us are against the war, but we’re still in it, most of us are prisoners, JUST LIKE McCAIN.

“Luke, join me. Join the dark side, and we’ll rule the universe together.”

The injured arm. Father and son. Kind of like Madonna and child; family. McCain should have an ad in which he appears wearing a Darth mask, with Palin dressed like Queen Amadala. That would be symbolism.

Lakoff says symbols speak louder than ideas and words, so the Dems better get crackin’.

For instance, someone sent me this cute Jon Stewart Daily Show video where the conservative wing-nut talking heads get to be shown as rather two-faced in some of their fawning over Palin, and their criticism of Obama, etc. It’s clever, it’s fun, but it preaches to the choir. The committed right-wing isn’t going to hear this message. They’re already in the grove, the trance. Doesn’t help to show that the cheerleaders are two-faced when the cheering section is in the trance. But give it a look if you like:

Daily Show 9-3-08 – Throwing Their Own Words Back. (YouTube):

Paul F.

You are spot on regarding the importance of symbolism in this political campaign…and that the democrats need to ‘get crackin’.

But let’s not forget what got Obama the nomination. Organizing. And now that organizing needs to be focused on registration and turnout. The swing states will be decided by relatively few voters. Independents are important in these states, but so are those who have never been ‘likely voters’. The apathetic, disillusioned, and marginalized citizens who usually don’t vote. There are potential votes in this group for both parties (republicans recognized this with the Palin pick), but I think there are many more potential democratic votes…particularly Obama votes.

So somehow the symbolism employed in this effort has to appeal to both middle american independents and the disaffected. That seems like a tough proposition…let’s hope it can be pulled off.

How sweet it will be for the republicans to be defeated by the very thing they denigrated over and over at their convention…community organization.

Paul how much more symbolism can you ask from the dems than Obama himself ? I think the dems will lose this election but I will offer a little help 🙂

1) Obama should praise Palin to no end and say she is a great candidate, committed to change, and he’s glad she is not who he is running against at the top of the ticket.

2) Palin’s idea of the “net tax burden on society” is very powerful. If the dems can deliver their grocery list of services while spending less overall taxes then they should focus on that issue.

3) The dems need to purge themselves of the idea that some people are manipulated by “symbols” into doing things that are not good for them while others “know better.” Aside from this elitist concept being intellectually weak* – it also insults the very voters the dems hope to attract – and that clearly is not smart.

* all humans are, of course, symbolic creatures and everyone, formally educated or not, knows this

Patrick, referring to your post no. 218 above, I didn’t say ‘finally’, did I?
Well, things can change, iykwim.

Bright: Barry Goldwater had some interesting qualities that some conservatives now seem to lack, but I think he already folded. ( O ;
See John Dean’s book, “Conservatives without Conscience.”
(I got lost trying to follow the “Barry” comments)

DavidH: You may prove right in your hunch that McCain will win, and although you don’t care or Lakoff on symbolism, I’m glad he’s receptive to the possibility. With polls for Bush and Iraq so disapproving, it’s obvious why Obama’s themes are “Hope” and “Change,” but I don’t like the fact that many liberals assume it’s a done deal. The right seems to be doing a good job whipping up its base with smear books about Obama, and I’m sure that worse is yet to come. Regarding her ideas on net burden, I don’t care for what I’ve heard about her term as mayor, the town’s increased debt (up tens of millions), as well as removal of progressive income tax burden in favor of regressive sales tax (even food tax). I don’t think her history on tax burden is anything that would be in the interests of most Americans, as they say, but it would not be the first time that people get elected on promises and values (like Bush, of not nation-building), and then wake up to find we didn’t get what we voted for. I still think folks who vote for her will do so more for the symbolism than for having researched the consequences of her tax policies in past offices. And more drilling, with more taxes on oil companies, in itself, will not really solve addiction to oil. It would only make some giddy and go back to buying Hummers.

JohnG: Sorry if I implied that the legal strings/limitations were totally removed: the bite was removed only because of the insurance. One of the reasons that police and cities try to limit the use of police force is the fear of lawsuits and specifically economic consequences. Big money talks in ways that a slap on the hand and a small fine don’t. Take away the negative consequences of bid lawsuits by way of insurance, and suddenly the police can cause more bodily harm (physical harm to human beings) than the demonstrators did, and they don’t have to fear lawsuits to the city. Neither do individual police, if they don’t be identified becaue of gas masks and riot gear. We can assume they won’t testify against each other.

On symbolism: Pro-football player Pat Tillman served in Afghanistan, enlisted and gave up money and comfort, but was killed by friendly fire; this didn’t come out for a long time, but only after persistent questioning.

Why wasn’t McCain (Senator from Tillman’s state, the state of his football team) more involved in advocating full disclosure of information on Tillman’s death, and consequences for those involved in the cover-up? Is this issue a potentially powerful symbolic one to be used against McCain? It seems that we’ve had too much fraud and abuse, too many cover-ups, and McCain doesn’t seem too concerned. Do voters want to move away from the people who symbolize such corruption?

Paul – I think a whole lot of Americans see McCain and Obama as cut from the same cloth. Now the system will go to work on Sarah Palin, probably starting with a new book deal, and the question is will she be able to stay outside the system – maybe donating her book proceeds to special needs children. In Alaska, she took her job seriously as representing Alaskans as the owners of resources and netted an extra billion from energy companies. She listed the jet on Ebay as a symbol that she would not get sucked into the self important BS of our current system. If she stays true to her past then she is likely to be in conflict with the Republican party soon. In this video she lays out her dislike for both parties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9rW25bT5o . Did you notice when she got fervent in her acceptance speech about “workers” how light the clapping became ?

I think what Lakoff means by symbolism is that, if Palin is good looking, and a hunter, and if she has a downs syndrome child, and a husband who is a union member, and if she got oil companies to send some of their revenues to the state in Alaska, this symbolizes something to some folks, regardless of what the investigative journalists dig up about her faults, or the shifting of tax benefits to the rich, or regressive tax and sales tax and food tax.

Lakoff–and this may be what David says he finds elitist and offensive–claims that folks sometimes vote for what people symbolize more than what their position statements are, or their record is. Bush symbolizes the tough guy who won’t back down from a fight in Iraq, and who, even if he made mistakes, or people around him did, he’ll keep working the plan and trying to make it good, whether that requires a surge, or paying bribes to Iraqi insurgents to keep them less violent till after the election, or special PR, or cover-ups regarding fraud, etc. Bush has a pickup truck with a gun-rack, and cuts wood and brush on his farm, likes to fish and hunt. Bush is a “strong father” figure, and some are drawn to that as a symbol. The strong dad who won’t admit he’s wrong, but you respect him becaues he’ll beat the crap out of you if you lip off.

Kerry, on the other hand, was more of a soft father figure. Thinks too much. Too smart for most of us. Pays close attention to facts and analysis. Brainy nerd. If new analysis and study shows that you need to change your plan, he’d change his plan, so then folks can call him a wind-surfer and a waffler. And he’s rich, probably likes French food. Not french fries. Too french.

So who cares if Bush’s policies rob you blind and redistribute your wealth via the social security slush fund to the richest 2-5%? Cut everyone’s taxes, but then raise social security withholding, and eventually the rich will make off like bandits, but at least you don’t lie to your friends and say you voted for that elitist French guy.

David: Here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-kilkenny/about-sarah-palin_b_124528.html
A Northfielder (who sometimes comments here) sent me an email form of this, by an Alaskan (written either with or without help from the DNC) describing some of the tax effects of her years as mayor and governor.

I checked on snopes.com to see if it was an email hoax/smear (as some claims about Obama are), or if the Alaskan author really takes credit for the letter and it’s claims, etc. It was published at Huffingtonpost at the link above. Of course, all such claims/analysis can be up for debate. Did they really tax food? Is such a tax really regressive (!?), etc.

We don’t know much about her, so writers are having to trust sources of varying bias and trustworthiness regarding both the facts and the analysis. I’m sure we’ll see an information war unfold, with the mainstream media focusing, perhaps, on more of the senational things (if it bleeds, it leads), and the “elitist” and indy press focusing more on investigative journalism and hard (but still biased) analysis. None of that symbolic stuff, of course, but the stuff policy wonks like. We’ll see where all the pieces fall — or which selective pieces get more attention than others in which press.

Just remember: McCain is a war hero. Palin is a hunter, married to a union husband, and a mom who deals with the kind of family challenges that many of the best conservative families deal with. And the RNC likes her economics, which McCain says he wishes he understood more. Symbolically, if you’re conservative, what’s not to like?

I read that letter ak letter a couple of days ago, and while she may have some points, and I don’t know how much is true or right, even when SP has done something ak agrees with, she makes up a reason why if SP did it, it was wrong anyway, guessing and assuming what SP motives were. Sometimes things are not as they appear.

Anyway, No one cares. And, I must say how times have changed. Laura Bush KILLEd her ex boyfriend when she ran thru a stop sign in rural Texas and hit his car by accident when she was young. No one hardly even mentioned that.
What a world, what a world.

What they do care about is that AP comes off likable and that’s what you need when you sit down at the table with some of these world leaders and their cabinet members, et al.

One thing that’s kind of strange is this: It seems that the Republicans have a much better grasp of how lies and smear actually work in terms of influencing some people. Obama is the topic of all kinds of wierd email claims, and the large majority of them have debunked by fact-checking sites, etc.

Sarah Palin gets the VP slot, and all the Dems can come up with is this Irish Anne Kilkenney from Alaska who sounds like a policy wonk. Not juicy. Not sexed-up enough, as the Brits say.

Now if it were the Republicans responding to a Sarah Palin type who was a Democrat, there’s be stories about strange acts in the bedroom with Alaskan husky dogs on those long, cold nights when the sun doesn’t quite rise…. You know what I’m saying? You know this is simply the truth.

The Democrats are such amateurs at smear and lies. All that stuff about ideals, ethics, the high ground, etc. I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to have won many elections lately.

How many democratic ads have you seen on TV highlighting Bush-Cheney lies and unconstitutional acts, and also the homosexual hijinx of Republicans? If the tables were turned, that’s what the Repugs would do. Connect the sins of the lame duck President to the new candidat representing his party. Even if it’s a stretch for facts. Repeat a lie enough, even a big lie, and people will believe it. The Republicans knew that, and got MANY people to think that Iraq has something to with 9-11. The Nazi’s understood the power of the “big lie” repeated often enough. The Dems just don’t get it. They try to run on virtue and facts and stuff.

Maybe Dems should hire some “agents provocateurs” in business suits to commit illegal acts and make it seem that some Republicans on Wall Street, or Oil barrons, were absolutely evil…..

But with Dick Cheney (and his history), and with Rudy and crowd chanting “Drill, baby, Drill” at the RNC, maybe it’s a waste of money to hire people to discredit them? Maybe the Dems should use tape of Rudy’s chant, with a little twist, in an ad?

Ya gotta admit, Repugs have a corner on the smear market. And they make it work. And the customers who consume it keep coming back for more! Like old home night with the KKK! (My sister went to the Republican caucus by mistake this year, having been given bad directions from a neighbor who either wanted to keep her away from the Dems, or assumed she was Republican; she tends not to be political, but came back with the impression that she was at a KKK meeting – ! This came as a surprise to me, as I was trying to assume the best about the GOP….)

(How can some of you conservatives around here stand it? Are you guys John Dean/ Barry Goldwater “Conservatives with Conscience”? Or Ron Paul fans?)

So what’s a party (the Dems in particular) to do? Fight fire with fire (smear back?), or stay on the moral high ground and lose the election? Jesus asked if it was better to win the world but lose your soul — but he never ran for office….

If they don’t fight fire with fire, I think the Dems need to get MUCH more creative. Try lots of things and see what works. Like neighborhood marshmallow/smore gatherings. Or maybe a petting zoo: “Pet a llama for Obama”? Or signs at bus stops and waiting areas at airports: “Bidin’ our time for Obama and Biden”….

Nope, I’m not there yet, but I’ll keep tryin’.

I still like the bumpersticker that said, “Cheney-Satan ’08” (or “Cheney-Voldemort ’08”)…..

If you line up contributions and votes on related legislation, then it makes a better case than what is often called smear, which in this example might be simply the contributions, minus any attention to voting record. I’ve seen some interesting articles that line up both money and votes, and sure, I think that’s fair–while elected officials (like Cox, when he was MN State Rep) often defend such votes as being often for omnibus bills that contain many other provisions. Sometimes what elected officials do in committee is as important, or more important, to pay attention to.

Now as far as throwing the bums out goes, I suppose some would defend even the practice of accepting the money and voting favorably to the interests, claiming that the elected official did many worthwhile things unrelated to the money-translating-to-favorable-votes equation: They raised minimum wages, passed legislation that created jobs or helped many who needed it, etc.

But no, fact-based claims help, and in your example, they help most when it’s shown the money-voting-record-committe-record connections. This is wonkish stuff, not symbolic stuff unless you repeat it often enough, and in abreviated enough form, that it sinks in: So-and-so candidate is corrupted by money, votes are bought.

Yet the “facts aren’t smear” stuff cuts both ways. I heard about some “indepencence party” story related to Palin a few days back, but nowadays, if you blink, you sometimes miss a story, or the key point. I heard about the story again, and was surprised that Palin’s husband was a member of an Alaskan political party that is secessionist, or in other words wants to leave the union, as the south tried during the Civil War. Palin’s membership status in that party is uncertain, but she addressed their convention twice. The party’s founder has made statements about hating the US government and not wanting to be buried under the US flag. If one had this kind of record and were traveling to St. Paul to demonstrate outside the RNC, this would have been enough evidence to get a person’s hotel room searched, some of their belongings/cameras etc. confiscated, and have law enforcement consider pressing terrorist charges (as it seems they are planning to do with the self-described anarchists who were searched and detained).

Is it smear to highlight the association of Palin with the secessionist party in Alaska, and her husband’s membership, which is fact?

Is it smear to note the fact that the same party has encouraged its members to go out and infiltrate other parties in Alaska?

Is it smear to therefore ask if Palin is a stealth secessionist VP candidate?

Granted, McCain could get elected and have a heart attack, and Palin may have no future interest in cutting off Alaska from the union. But facts are facts — they may not be smear, but they often distract from more important issues/prioroties, or the bigger picture. In this case, secessionist movements may not be the important issue, but Palin’s fickle political allegiances might.

Patrick these were allowed expenses of $16,951 – this would have filled the jet she sold with fuel about once … please these silly attacks on an honest person only hurt the Dems chances – I think the pet a Llama of Obama is a much better idea.

And since when is $16,000 a ‘silly’ amount of money? If I billed my company $16,000 for travel expenses when I was at home, I’d be out of a job already, at the very least.

Bright wrote,

John McCain is not a blow hard and is not given to talking about himself in a big important way

You mean John “I don’t like to talk about being a P.O.W., but did I mention yet that I was as a P.O.W.?” McCain?
John “I’ll give you nothing but Straight Talk (TM)” McCain?
John “I’ll always put my Country First(TM), not like that other guy who’s all for himself” McCain?

He’s always talking about himself in a big important way. He just uses a different narrative.

To no surprise this site is completely to the left, no wonder that Kerry carried Rice county.

The Liberals are completely surprised, they simply don’t know what to do with Palin. She completely defies there view of a feminist.

She is smart, self sufficient and doesn’t need a prompter to give an answer. Maybe she doesn’t have enough political experience, but do we really need more of the same in DC?

Despite changing presidents, congress and senates we have a $ 9Trillion deficit, Social security is on the verge of collapse, we have a crumbling infrastructure, no immigration policy, ever higher taxes and a do nothing congress. So why would I want more guys like Biden, McCain, Pelosi or Obama and the rest?

It is time for new blood.

Anyone the breaks the law in a public protest has forfeited his rights. Of course like most criminals they will make every excuse imaginable.

Freedom is an absence of force. Force and violence are not part of a functioning democracy.

Actually, Peter, the American people as a whole, don’t want congress to do anything. They, and I mean all Congresses since the beginning of our country, have done enough. Just how much, we may never know, but I will see if I can find just how many laws are on the books right now.

Wanna bet it’s over a hundred thousand?

Holly, if you ever decide to learn your numbers, I’ll tutor you and a few friends for free. Math, baby, math!

Peter,
I have no idea what ‘common dreams’ is. My main sources on this have been the Washington Post and Politico. Neither is a liberal blog.

Finally, Peter, the article you cite does not address any of my criticisms.

Paul F.- In your post 239, you asked how we conservatives can srand around and put up with it. Take a look at this URL. I think it explains what we conservatives are putting up with.

You’d like it if our Mayor decided to fire our Administrator for not ‘fully supporting’ his reelection campaign?

That’s not change I can believe in.

David,
No, I just plan to attack McCain and Palin’s words and actions, when I believe – and can make a reasonably good case – that they have been wrong. Looks like that’s exactly what Obama is doing, as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html

What a classy guy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13315.html

Here from your favorite site…so who is playing dirty now.

Paul wrote,

so who is playing dirty now.

Good to see the Democrats fighting fire with fire. Didn’t see any suggestion in that article that the Democrats were lying, just ratcheting up the tone of their rhetoric a little closer to matching the Republican tone.

Patrick – from 263 – it’s not working. I’m an independent, I voted for Wellstone the first time when he ran around with no money in the green bus and then against him when he grabbed big money off the east coast. Independents are not interested in hearing Obama or Dems rip Palin – the Dems are losing votes fast – find a new strategy. Honestly, it’s weird to see the top of a ticket attack the bottom of a ticket.

Peter: Sarah Palin is not a femiinist. That is why feminists denounce her.

McCain’s judgement is in question. Palin’s judgement is in question. (So nice of her to parade her pregnant-unprotected-sex-daughter in front of the entire nation. Good job, Mom.)

Also, Peter, we stopped one war with civil disobedience. Being arrested does not mean that you have broken the law. (That is another little idea called “innocent until proven guilty.”) It is embarrassing that Americans cannot get organized enough to protest the illegal acts of the Bush administration. It is even more embarrassing that some Republicans advocate fascist tactics to prevent free speech.

Jane wrote:

So nice of her to parade her pregnant-unprotected-sex-daughter in front of the entire nation.

I wouldn’t use the term “parade”, I would say the daughter was included, and not hidden away, like they did in the 50s and earlier, only to be mercilessly dragged out by the opposing party later on.

And how do you know that she was having unprotected sex? Were you there?

Furthermore, feminism is a fad that has died out over the last 30 years.
They really didn’t have an idea of what makes a woman’s heart beat,imho.

Further on the feminism issue: I heard a talk this week by Sylvia Ann Hewlett (Author of Off-Ramps and On-Ramps). She has done research around the country with women in science, technology, and engineering careers. This research has helped her identify a fight-or-flight moment that typically occurs between ages 35 and 40, when women who have been successful up until that point in these challenging careers essentially hit a wall, and have to decide to fight or not.

52% of such women leave their careers at this age. Less than a quarter do so in order to raise a family (contrary to popular belief). The rest tend to switch careers entirely, or even go back to school. The wall that leads to this fight or flight moment is in trying to do what is required for promotion in what continues to be a male-dominated culture. Women are provided fewer opportunities, time off for parenting is typically not considered when women come up for promotion, and the vast majority of leadership in such fields is male. The result is this enormous percentage of highly educated, highly qualified women leaving their careers behind.

This does not happen to men on a national scale.

Felicity, I agree. Feminism is long from dead–unfortunately those anti-feminists claim to define it for the feminists–twisting it into something unatractive.

Peter, in your case you define feminism as being a human and standing on your own two feet. That, unfortunately, is too broad. Feminism means standing up for all your sisters–even those that don’t know what feminism is and don’t know how sexism will harm them.

Sarah Palin is against what feminism is for.

Bright, I may not have been there but I have a 90% chance of being right that the girl (Bristol) that is pregnant became that way during unprotected sex. Birth control does work. Unfortunately, this poor girl, if her mother lives what she preaches, was denied basic sex education and probably had no clue how to protect herself from pregnancy at this young age. How will we ever know if she really ever wanted to be married right now? Now, her life is a media event thanks to her mother.

Peter, I love how you think that I should judge Barack Obama by his mother’s decisions BEFORE HE WAS BORN but you think that Sarah Palin should not be subject to any criticism on how she has managed her family. (See, Barack Obama is the candidate, not his mother. Sarah Palin is the candidate-not her daughter.)

Sarah Palin has NO qualifications to run for national office, and a lot of baggage including very questionable judgements as mayor of a town that had a population closer to 5000 when she was there, and that she left in debt for a money-losing sports center, and where she tried to get the librarian fired for not banning books. And, as governor used her position to summarily fire or attempt to fire anyone that did not toe her line, (and for which she is under ethics investigation.)

Sarah Palin is a religious nut case. Her ideas of forcing religious laws on the general public and the nation are dangerous.

McCain is a war mongering Republican who will do anything to get party support, including turning his back on the US torture that he claims to oppose (since he was tortured as a POW.)

All that McCain and Palin can do is claim that Democrats will tax and spend–while continuing to advocate that we should spend spend spend 300 million dollars a day so their contractor buddies can continue to rake in money on the Iraq war, and drill drill drill so we can destroy the environment and continue our dependence on Islamist-fundamentalist controlled oil from their other Republican supporting buddies in Saudi Arabia, etc. (Where the terrorist of 9/11 were really from and where Osama Bin Laden gets his funding.)

The Iraq war has led to economic disaster in the USA that is getting worse–and McCain-Palin will give us more of the same. Unemployment is up again.

Now that the shock of Palin is wearing off, we will get all the dirt on her (if the media is doing its job for the public rather than just for their Republican-supporting owners.)

More information is coming out–Sarah Palin is a big liability, and reveals McCain’s bad judgement.

Peter, I think that in her own choices, Palin acts like a feminist. When she would deny the right of women to make different choices, when she would force others to learn her beliefs instead of science, when she would keep women and men from learning about birth control options, she is exercising the same kind of repression that created the feminist movement.

Anne,

The myth about her wanting creationism in the school has been already debunked by factcheck.org so it’s a non starter.

Sorry, but I don’t think it’s the schools or any other government entities job to teach my children about birth control or about sex.
I reserve the right as a parent to teach this myself. Who and why would somebody outside of my house want to make a decision about when the time is right to teach my children about sex? Where is my right to chose?

I am a conservative and I believe a women has the right to an abortion if she chooses to. But how about the rights of a unborn?

The part that makes me mad is that we don’t call it what it is “killing a baby”. The notion of life not beginning at conception and that the fetus is not a life, is merely designed to make us feel better about the choice we make. Call it what it is.

If Karl Rove could persuade McCain to take Palin for a running mate, all the more reason to vote for Obama. Surely makes him look good by comparison. If the country sees otherwise and votes for McCain, the country is truly lost.

I saw Palin in the 2006 governor debate run on CNN. Her answers were very extreme. Made the other two candidates look reasonable. And yet, she won. Guess I won’t be moving there anytime soon.

Peter, I agree with you about the pro life vs baby killing issue. True, a woman or a man has control over her or his own bodies, and that shouldn’t be a legislative issue. But when choices have been voluntarily made to do things which lead to having a baby, then you kill the baby cuz you made a mistake. Even in the case of rape, I would find a way to love that baby no matter what. There are grey cases that I cannot make statements about, true, cuz I have not walked in those shoes, but I would never ever ever kill a baby if I had any control over the situation and I would maintain that control, and if I needed help, I bet I could find someone to help me. I bet I could. And I bet anyone who had love in their heart could find help.

What is really dastardly is giving someone the choice to think that they are so precious that they can kill their own baby, and tell you them it’s alright, it’s the law, and if you don’t get to kill your baby, you are not living in a free country. These types of thoughts are confusing our youth and destroying families all over this country.

Jane

I am guessing that you never had a child. After seeing three of my kids sonogram I can assure you , that whatever you want to call it, is alive.

The whole discussion if it is life or not is purely academic designed by selfish people, who rather put their head in the sand then face responsibility.

Today there is absolutely no reason to get pregnant. If you do it’s your own doing.(with the exception of rape and incest).

I don’t think that abortion should be another means of birth control.

I find it very disturbing that the measuring stick for being accepted in to the feminist club has to include pro-choice and the believe in evolution.

Freedom of choice has to include the freedom to be against abortion. You accuse Sarah of intolerance I am sorry but your position isn’t very tolerant either.

In posting #278, Bright Spencer writes:

“I am of the old computer posting school that says keep it simple and short.”

Bravo to that. But, Bright, what would your next paragraph have been like if you’d opted to make it long and drawn out?

Alright, I’ll just say this. Each woman should decide for herself how she wants to be treated and how she will act in her world. Feminism doesn’t work for everyone and everyone doesn’t need it. If I am not going to let society dictate to me how much money I should make or how many doors I want opened, why would I listen to some person who is trying to make me feel bad about how I think or act now…this is the fall of feminism, imho. And I refer to my legal and moral actions when I speak of this topic in this reference.

Pretty short, huh?

Just watching ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ and the difference between Sarah Palin and Jimmy Stewart’s ordinary fellow Jefferson Smith makes a person want to move to Canada.
Of course there are a lot of great old movies on right now showing that the evils of politics are nothing new. ‘Advise and Consent’ for example, dealt with a married senator who committed suicide after being blackmailed over a homosexual liaison. The blackmail was designed so conservatives could block a secretary of state nominee considered too liberal.
The more things change, the more they stay the same…we’re going to hell in a handbasket…or maybe there’s hope for real change…We’ll know in a few weeks, I guess.

Jane- You said this in comparing Palin to the Taliban,”…This reveals that Palin does not understand basic scientific theory, and that she believes that her religious beliefs should be taught in publc schools to everyone. This is exactly what the Taliban believes. She believes that we should impose laws that align with her religious beliefs–that is exactly what the Taliban believes…” I don’t think you are quite correct in your assesment of the Taliban. If I understand them correctly, they would not allow the teaching of any other theory that does not align itself with their understanding of the Koran. Actually, this is the position of the intelligencia in this contry toward anyone who would question the holy grail of evolution and dare to bring the discussion of any other theory into the classroom. Methinks you have the analogy backwards.

You also said this, concerning her religious beliefs, “…(You gotta check out her religious beliefs –they are way beyond wacko.)…” Are you saying that anyone who does not believe as you do, or at least what you consider to be an acceptable expression of religious convictions, is “wacko”? What beliefs are you refering to here? All of her convictions? Or just some of them? This seems like a pretty severe accusation without giving some specifics. It is this same type of attitude that seemed to come out last year when three ladies were found to be praying in city hall. On the surface, your statement seems to be intolerant and condescending. I would hope that my assesment is incorrect.

Peter- Welcome to Northfield. It is always good to have another opinion expressed on the site, especially a conservative one. You might say that we have a liberal supply of liberals in this town. On abortion, take a look at my URL I listed in post #259. One thing about abortion- it is a pretty effective means of birth control. What we need is conception control.

The core of evolutionary theory is quite simple:

1. There are variations in traits in a population.
2. Populations tend to produce more offspring than their environment can support.
3. Some of those traits provide an advantage over others without that trait.
4. Individuals possessing those traits are more likely to survive, and more likely to produce offspring, than those without those successful traits.
5. Traits are passed from parent to child.

As a result, the next generation will contain more individuals with the successful trait.

Carry this out over enough generations, and the unsuccessful traits will disappear, and the successful traits will predominate. The population of living organisms will then be fundamentally different than at the previous point in time.

It’s pretty simple, really, and as I quoted before, “Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.”

In those 150 years, we have learned how genes determine traits and pass them on. We’ve also learned how variation arises through genetic mutation and reassortment (and even genetic exchange). The beauty of it is that Darwin figured it out with no understanding of any of that whatsoever.

So yes, the theory of evolution is science at its best and most powerful.

David,
Sorry, I was trying to keep it brief and simple. Natural selection is the process in 2-5. Evolution is the change that results from 2-5.

From Wikipedia (in this case, it provides a decent definition):

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism’s offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Mutation is pretty well understood, as well. Which part would you like to discuss?

Prayer has been found to be a very important part of the healing process. The scientific community denied that fact. Science doesn’t know everything, but is making a heroic effort to do so. However, you then have to think if you really want the solutions that science has to offer, you have to believe that that is the right path to pursue. For many, it is not.

Barry, so sorry you think my posts are too long. Skip over them. I won’t mind at all…and thanks for th set up.

Jane, I see you have mimicked my style. Good for you. I don’t know if you are right about the WMDs, but my take on it is like I posted a while back about how Saddam let the cat out of the bag about how he supposedly had WMDs at all times to keep himself looking powerful. It makes complete sense to me that he would do that and that he would send out people with that message far and wide. I would do that if I was him, I think it makes perfect sense. Everyone believed it and I saw Bush admit that it was a mistake and that he was fooled just like everyone else. That isn’t the issue anymore…so let’s move forward.

If you think Barack Hussein Obama has something, lets hear about that and not all these hearsay accusations and personal judgments against others personal business.

Again, please just cruise past my posts if you don’t want to read them. I don’t have a problem with that, people. It’s a free USA.

Patrick – Griff would have to set up a ‘monkey trials’ thread to debate evolution further but for the record the fact that Wiki says the word “mutation” does not further the debate. There are lots of cool new “”theories”” about retroviruses, parasitic and symbiotic relations where multiple species become one, ecology shaping by bacteria etc.

I don’t know what Obama and the Reverend Write believe or have proposed for legislation on evolution but I know that neither McCain or Palin have put forward legislation to teach creationism. I guess I don’t know enough about what any of them “believe” and I will have to rely more on the facts of their policy initiatives and careers.

Bright, I’m not following you at all. And defining feminists by the women you know is like defining the Catholic Church by its pedophile priests. They exist, but they’re certainly not whole picture of the feminist movement.
Men didn’t build ships and develop companies because women didn’t know how, but because women weren’t allowed. There were laws, regulations, policies that kept me from taking construction classes, even though my dad was in construction and my brothers took the classes. There were policies that kept women out of medical school and until recently, off most police and fire departments and out of combat roles in the military. In my lifetime there were laws that wouldn’t let a woman own property in her own name or have a credit card without her husband’s signature. Hell, we only got the vote 88 years ago.
My friend’s mother and her husband were teachers in the late 1940s, but when they had a child she was forced to resign because mothers weren’t allowed to work. She protested and made history in that Illinois town when she got them to change the rules — and taught another 30 years. Clearly the problem wasn’t that motherhood had diminished her teaching skills, but that the men in charge didn’t allow mothers to teach.
Yes, feminists got tired of hearing the word no, and some got pretty shrill and angry, just as the anger of generations poured out in some of the extremes of the civil rights movement and anti-war movement of the 1960s.
Yes, laws had to change. And once they changed, women did just fine.
Women didn’t ask for special treatment, just equal treatment.
And some laws still need to change. What does it say about the state of our society even now that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by the enemy?
I totally don’t get that whole piece about why would women want to design highways or build ships. They do it for the same reason some men like to stay home and take care of babies or work in elementary schools or be nurses instead of doctors. Men and women are just people, and while there are some interests that are more dominant in one gender than the other, there are no interests that I know of that are exclusive to one gender.
I’m cool with you teaching children and designing clothes and whatever. I like that too, but I also loved driving the big red trucks and fighting fires. My granddaughters like to hunt and do gymnastics and ballet.
Why should our lives be defined by the limits you put on yourself?

David wrote,

There are lots of cool new “”theories”” about retroviruses, parasitic and symbiotic relations where multiple species become one, ecology shaping by bacteria etc.

I agree – evolution is a very interesting process. We are learning more and more about the myriad ways in which it works every day. (Although observations about retroviruses, et al. are data – not an actual theory.)

My personal favorite discovery recently has been how retroviruses can inadvertently pick up pieces of DNA from one species or individual, and deposit it into the genome of another. All of this is great evidence which – along with our ever growing understanding of how mutations work – helps to fill in the details in the outline provided by Darwin’s initial Theory. In this cas, they reveal how the diversity of traits in a population (point 1 of my brief outline above) comes into existence.

The reason the Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported is that all of these new, surprising findings fit with the theory, and none of them have contradicted it.

Jerold,

Actually, there is a hypothesis that we (humans) did not breed dogs from wolves, but that dogs initially evolved due to natural selection. (Of course, we’ve done plenty of work on dogs since they’ve come into being.) The theory is that there was a subset of wolves who were slightly less afraid of humans, and were therefore able to get close enough to human settlements to feed off our garbage piles. Given this advantageous access to a new resource, these tamer wolf descendents were able to feed and prosper, with successive generations ever more favoring combinations of traits which favored success as scavengers at the periphery of human settlements.

The most interesting evidence supporting this hypothesis are from a Soviet scientist’s experimental breeding of foxes, in which he selected for docileness. It turns out that the genes associated with a lack of fear of humans are also closely linked to those supporting traits of floppy ears and even barking (bet you’ve never heard a fox bark before). It took only a very few generations of crossbreeding the foxes that were least afraid of humans to produce a remarkably dog-like fox. Therefore, it is possible that dogs became a distinct species from wolves all on their own.

If you’re interested in a light bit of amusement on the subject, it’s covered in a PBS Nature documentary, ‘Dogs That Changed The World.’
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/dogs-that-changed-the-world/introduction/1273/
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Dogs_That_Changed_the_World/70069461?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1355567308_0_0

Again, this is just a hypothesis, but it’s an interesting one. Perhaps it’ll be supported by additional evidence, perhaps not.

Patrick – Evolutionary theory is not like the truck of your car and every new biological discovery can be tossed in and called part of evolution. Many of these new ideas could be tossed into the creation design trunk just as easily. Darwin did not predict retroviruses – where does this code come from (gas bubbles ?) ? Another perplexing logical thought is that Nietzsche, a contemporary of Darwin, said something to the effect of, ‘the current utility of a thing says absolutely nothing about it’s origins.’

Leave for a while, and folks cover infanticide, evolution, feminism, dog breeding, the Taliban, creationism — you can’t blink around here.

While Locally Grown’s stated mission is to deal with things local, this thread (like many others that experience thread drift) is evidence that there’s a strong LOCAL desire to discuss things that transcend the local.

I knew of one discussion site that had threaded discussions, and contributors could label their tangents, which became sub-threads; the administrators sometimes took those tangent and moved the whole sub-thread to a new discussion with its own title, including a note that it started in a different place. The ability to do that might be handy around here.

But perhaps another local blog for discussion of non-local issues would be nice. It seems that Locally Grown favors the local issues, but occarionally includes larger issues, which then act (perhaps) like pressure valves (just because we live in a town with population under 30,000 doesn’t mean we don’t think about larger issues).

JohnG: Back in #259 you posted a link to a video (with very high production values — some significant money went into making that) which claims Obama favors infanticide. FactCheck.org did some research on those claims, and the results are ambiguous at best: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

There is also the question of proportion: There have been many more deaths of innocent civilians, including women and children, in Iraq in the last four years than there have been live-birth abortions. This is a wedge issue and distraction from larger issues, an attempt to make a mountain of a mole-hill.

I’m pro-life, but for Obama in spite of his stand on abortion because it seems to me there are far more important priorities that need to be addressed that might affect the survival of the whole human race, not just the unborn. I think we could use a better and more compassionate understanding of the difference between a woman’s body and the unborn that depends on and seems also part of that body; we might improve as a people in our values if we recognized more that this is not a black-and-white moral issue. But then we might also look more carefully at the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which Palin’s remarks at the RNC seem not to do.

Republicans want to treat people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as if we don’t have to respect their rights — “He want to read them their rights” Palin said of Obama. This assumes that they’re guilty and the guilty have no rights.

But a CIA agent who was asked to in spect at Guantanamo determined that many were innocent and not terrorists — but after their time there, if they weren’t before, they are now. Many are there because a bounty was placed on the heads of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, so impoverished people turned in neighbors they happened not to like.

Similar observations have been made of Abu Ghraib — that many imprisoned and tortured included doctors and food delivery people, a rounding up of many suspicious persons without clear evidence in many cases. This represented efforts by an understaffed military to intimidate the population and remind them who was in control. The torture also represented privatized companies charged with the task, who were paid by volume — the more prisoners you torture, the more you get paid. This doesn’t win hearts and minds.

This is not to say that none of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are guilty of crimes and conspiricies to harm people and property. Some are.

This is not a conservative-liberal issue. There are elements in our body politic who have become defenders, not of the rule of law and the preservation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but of the use of power without restraint, what John Dean, a self-described Barry Goldwater fan, describes as “conservatives without conscience.” It is this, more than the so-called “Islamo-Fascism,” that we should be most concerned about. These are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Many (in elected office and the military) take an oath to defend against such enemies, but in practice, let them have free reign.

Mock the idea of suspects being read their rights and not mistreated.

Mock the idea that many of our nation’s founders defended: That it’s better to have a fair trial that is uncertain regarding guilt, and possibly have a guilty person go free, than it is to have hasty, unfair justice where the innocent become victims of the system. This is the evil that many were cheering when Palin said of their opponents that they “want to read them their rights.” Let’s assume we know who is guilty. Skip the formalities. Let’s round up a gang with guns and a rope and have a hangin’.

This is a phenomenon that has morphed so far beyond what should deserve the name “conservative” that it’s a joke.

Peter: How manly of you to assume that since you were transported by the sonograms of your children I could not possible have born children and still believe that they were part of my body when they were in me, and that my choice to carry a pregnancy or not was mine to decide–not one that some supreme court justices or other, fatherly type men should make for me.

And, furthermore, Peter, (#289) you are so manly to say:

“Today there is absolutely no reason to get pregnant. If you do it’s your own doing.(with the exception of rape and incest)”

Again, Peter, I can only assume you are a man and have never been pregnant. The only way to never get pregnant is to be a man or to never have sex.

Keep your laws off my body.

And the whole evolution/creationism thread is important, because even if you “chose” not to believe in evolution, evolution is NOT a religious belief. Creationism is a religious belief–and has no place in the science curriculum of a school.

And Sarah Palin and the rest of the radical religious who believe it should be taught are extremists. To claim or misunderstand or state or believe that creationism is a “theory” LIKE evolution reveals an ignorance of scientific study–David H, do you really think that scientific theory is part “myth?” (Post 290)

So, IMHO, anyone, including Sarah Palin, who thinks that creationism should be taught in science curriculum in schools so that children can “choose” for themselves what to believe, are religious wackos that are dangerous for forcing their religious beliefs on the general public. They are dangerous to public education, the separation of church and state, and being American.

John George, the Taliban may have taken it one step further, but their belief is the same as Sarah Palin’s–that their religious beliefs should be taught in public schools-forced on everyone, even those that don’t share that religion. I am as intimidated by forced Christianity as I am by forced Islam.

Our country was founded by those fleeing religious persecution–and the documents of our country were drafted to keep us free from such forced religious training. Sarah Palin is un-American and un-patriotic.

I haven’t heard this, Stephanie, but he is like the Kennedy’s and he IS Kennedy’s and Daley’s man. The Kennedy’s are known to be targets, and for some curse or some such silly thing, I guess.

What scares me about Obama is that I have seen him drift off into a style of conversation that is more like him spouting off some very heady verbiage then, drifting off into a sort of malaise a few times now. This isn’t gonna fly with the US Congress, Senators, or Putin, for that matter.

Anne, I am not asking you or anyone to follow me. I am just stating my opinion. Some people can’t stand that. I am not asking or demanding that anyone follow me. Again, I am just stating my opinion on feminism as I see it.
I follow my own heart and hope people will do that themselves.

I am not a big strong woman. I am not full of desire to change the world.
I am a natural woman living in a very constructed society. I would change that if I could, but for now, I live as close as I can to the earth, to my heart, and to God. If that doesn’t work for you, I cannot say I am sorry. I am just me and don’t want anyone to tell me how to live outside of being respectful of the rule of law.

John George wrote,

I think that if a person is scientifically honest, he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists. You science wonks out there, is this a reasonable evaluation of the available evidence?

Yes – a whole lot of it. Unfortunately, doing it justice will have to wait (for me, at least). I’ve got to get to bed, and I’ve got a couple busy days ahead. Then, I’m off to a conference. But I’ll see if I can’t put together a quick response somewhere in there.

Maybe I am without intelligence, but I do not see why everyone has to keep arguing this or that, when it’s both. For instance, science uncovers truth about nature and what it is and what it does, but religion uncovers truth about what is possible and what inspires science, art and music. Where is the battle, but in your own minds. I am not right and you are not wrong, there is only partial views coming together…for progress and love amongst all humankind.

By way of and thanks to St. Olaf college;

http://www.singforjoy.org/streaming/2008-09-07pop-up.html

Why can’t Obama and McCain run together. You know what! They will because they are men of conscience and will learn from one another no matter what. They both know defeat and victory in their lives and they both know how to love.

Here’s a handy site with some good examples of the concrete evidence for ‘macro’-evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Depending on where you draw the line between macro and micro evolution (a distinction largely dreamed up by anti-evolutionists as a way to ‘move the ‘bar each time someone disapproves one of their arguments) folks often puts speciation (the evolution of a new species from an existing one) as in the macro category. Here are quite a few examples where creation of new species has been explicitly observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So in reponse to “..he would have to admit that there is no observable evidence that macro-evolution exists” I’d have to say exactly the opposite is true. All observable evidence points to the veracity of evolution, macro and otherwise.

Let’s approach this differently – Hitler was in fact a firm believer in evolution and Mother Theresa was not a firm believer in evolution. Which one would you vote for ? Should origin beliefs be a litmus test for elections ?

Debates about evolution and whether it can be a litmus test are all interesting, but then again, not within our city limits but less than an hour away in St. Paul, there were some disturbing events that some folks are still pondering. At the risk of coming off as a party pooper by posting something related to the original thread (I am the pot that calls the kettle black when it comes to thread drift, anyway), here is a new article by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, who was arrested while here:

The Party Police – by Amy Goodman
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080910_the_party_police/

And an old link I posted earlier to a Ray McGovern piece (McGovern, the retired CIA analyst):

Trickle-Down Preemption: Baghdad on the Mississippi – by Ray McGovern
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/09-5

On the one hand, as they’re critical of Bush, they’re easy to pigeon-hole as lefties, but on the other, they’re very conservative about the constitution and rights; they are not merely flower-children and anarchists, so to that extent, they have much in common with conservative Constitution-lovers and defenders like the John Birch society….

And finally, here’s a link to a song and video based on Bob Dylan’s “the Times they are a Changin’,” but the words have been changed to, “It’s time for some campaignin'”….
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

I don’t recommend voting at sites like this for fear of cookies and viruses, but it’s worth a chuckle.

John: My question was focused on how do we determine when a fact should count as evidence and when a fact should be discarded. If we don’t agree on some way to evaluate evidence, then we have no common currency to evaluate the unknown.

The same science used for paternity tests via DNA shows the relationship between hippos and whales, or earthworms and humans. (You might find it even more amazing that carrots and humans share about 40% DNA. DNA works like a toolbox. Most species need several of the same tools, like the Krebs cycle, which explains common genes among most living things.) I’m not specifically asking whether such tests *prove* (macro-)evolution, but can such DNA tests be considered evidence of evolution.

If we can take DNA from your cheek and tell you how closely you’re related to Genghis Khan, is that same technique evidence of evolution if the technique claims that hippos are related to whales, broccoli to cauliflower, or octopi to squids? How do you determine if this DNA test is credible? And if it’s credible, how do you determine if it’s relevant to evolution?

And don’t forget, what do you mean by “species”? For this discussion, I’m happy to adopt any of the 22 or so competing scientific definitions that you choose.

Jerold- I think this is a case where existing evidence could be used to support either creationism or evolution. The fact that there is a commonality in basic DNA amongst all life forms suggests a common beginning. What science is looking for is this beginning. So far, no one has come up with evidence of this beginning, but the observable facts infer that there must be a common beginning. This is where my faith steps in, in looking at the seemingly infinite variations of life, yet with a common DNA base suggests for me a common designer. The scientific community suggests that life developed out of chaos. It seems to me that there must be an element of faith involved in either philosophy since there has not been found yet this beginning point. I think either philosophy has merit for discussion, but when it comes down to it, one must choose to believe certain foundations. To say the creationists have no evidence to base this on is, IMHO, denying the possibility of this assumption in regards to the evidence at hand. I think neither side has a slam dunk on the interpretation.

Wasn’t it determined fifteen years ago or so that underlying the chaos is order but it appears as chaos because you have to stand way, way, way back to see the pattern?

John (and Sean):

Evidence of evolution isn’t necessarily evidence of life’s origin. Common genes do fit into a natural or theistic origin of life. Even Pope John Paul II expressed that belief in evolution does not contradict belief in creation.

Some theists strongly believe in evolution from the principle that Noah’s Ark could not fit two or seven members of every species. Therefore, after the flood, the animals evolved into the great diversity we have today.

So it appears to me that you agree, DNA tests are evidence of evolution but species may have evolved from a natural or theistic origin.

You state that there is no evidence of a natural origin of life. Again, I’m not sure what method you use to determine what is evidence. From my readings, there is evidence — but not proof — of the origins of life with several experiments intent to imitate the conditions of an early Earth. These experiments created amino acids from inorganic chemicals. While the science and faith communities have plenty of criticisms about these experiments, I take the experiments as evidence — not proof — of the origin of life.

In alignment with your post, I am OK with someone’s faith answering these questions. Relating to Palin, one’s faith does not belong in a state-sanctioned science class. If Palin or anyone else can provide a scientific explanation for Creationism, that would be exciting! As far as I know, its explanation has always been, “God wills it”. I would be seriously deficient in science if that was taught to me as science.

Even if modern science is wrong in some details, science class is more about teaching scientific method than scientific conclusions. How evolution works is an enriching subject for teaching scientific method. Creationism has no scientific method to it.

Most people outside of the Republican don’t undesrtand the current battle within the party.
Ever since Reagan we haven’t had a truly conservative party leader/president. Ever since Bush 1 the conservatives within the party have been told to vote for the “lesser of two evils”. This line of reasoning has been holding true all the way to todays contest.
Quiet frankly their are a lot of conservatives like me that don’t agree with Bush one and two. Neither of those two is a true conservative.

When McCain was put on top of the ticket by the rinos and Rockefeller “country club republicans” many conservatives like me wanted to sit out this election or vote libertarian.
McCain knows this, thus his selection of Palin. Has he satisfied enough conservatives? Not sure about this, because the last thing we conservatives need is for the Rinos to win. In short I am still on the fence.

My favorite line is: I am American first and Republican or Democrat second. We should vote for those that stand for the principals this country was founded on and promise to defend them.

Jerold- Those are good observations on your part, and I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. I appreciate a resonable, non-acusatory approach to this discussion. As far as origins of life, I see some distinction expressed here that I haven’t heard before. Darwin titled his book Origin of Species. This has been presented to me as the origin of life, since species represent life forms. When you differentiate between origin of “species” and the origin of “life”, evolution makes more sense in the whole scheme of things. I still have a little problem understanding how certain specific life forms “evolved” from something simpler, like the bombardier beetle and the eyes of vertibrates. Darwin even had a problem with the eye. He said in one of his writings that evolution does not have an explanation for this. I appreciate that type of honesty in an individual. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion I was able to have with you.

Barry,
Once Reagan was done cleaning up Carters mess he put the country in to the right direction….AND most importantly he did it with the support of a Democratic congress and senate…go figure.

Truth is that if you look at our national debt curve versus GDP it has been consistently going up since Carter.

Since then we had various forms of congress, senate and president. My point is that the money our federal government eats up is pretty much independent from who is in power.

Remember politicians change and bureaucrats remain.

Peter writes:

“Truth is that if you look at our national debt curve versus GDP it has been consistently going up since Carter.”

I wish it were possible to paste in the fascinating graph at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html , which is based on data from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (Table 7.1 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf — not knowing who drew the graph, I thought it important to check its source). I found the former by doing a google search on “national debt gdp graph” and the latter through a link at the former.

Patrick- Thanks for the wish on the weekend. Hope yours is great, also. Still would like to get together for coffee again sometime. Take a look at my post #343. I really appreciate discussing things with you and Jerold. Hey, we might actually be able to live peacefully together in the same town! Wouldn’t that be revolutionary? Liberals and Conservatives living together in harmony in the same town!

After some more praying on the abortion issue, and not wanting to inflame more passions than necessary, I will use the euphemism of ‘abortion’.

First of all, the woman does have rights over her body, just like a man.
Second of all, when a woman becomes pregnant the fetus or baby is not
only hers, in her body. The fetus or baby does in fact partly belong to the
father, and fully belongs to the human race and completely belongs to nature.
And for me, is totally a child of God, that is to say, unless you created it, you have no true right to destroy it, including your own body.

As for Sarah Palin, I believe she is who she says she is and I think she is a strong and energetic woman, fully dedicated to her family, and her country.
Even if she wouldn’t become VP, she adds a healing and vibrant note to the history of this country, not just as a woman, but as a leader.

Griff,

I tried (twice) submitting a reply to Peter Millin’s posting #345 responding to his statement about the national debt curve versus GDP, but it has yet to appear? Technical glitch or guideline violation?

John,
I appreciated your post #343, and that’s why I wanted to chime in and agree. I’ve sent you an email.

We certainly have become more efficient in our killings during war.

During the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese suffered 1.1 million military deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The U.S. suffered 60,000 deaths (including 2,000 MIA). [Source: Wikipedia]

Comparatively, during the Iraq war, the Iraqis suffered up to 1.1 million civilian deaths although Wikipedia writers note that surveys, sources, and causes vary greatly. The U.S. suffered around 4,200 deaths, and other U.S. coalition nations suffered about 4,000.

I can’t mention these numbers without also mentioning that both wars were unnecessary and illegal under international law.

Most of the previously linked sites are a very narrow view of what is going on. BUT I might have confused my terms…I was mostly referring to spending and the increase in the national debt.

Attached link spells out what i was talking about.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.html

Either way our politicians are out of control and we are heading for a financial disaster

Bright: South and North Vietnam never declared war on the other. Because of this, it is a civil war under international law, and illegal for other countries to intervene. The SEATO treaty and Tonkin Resolution did not expressly authorize war with North Vietnam or else they would have been illegal under international law, so presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson interpreted the treaties to permit war.

The Iraq war would clearly be legal if Iraq attacked the U.S. As this was not the case, and as the United Nations did not sanction the U.S. attack on Iraq, the war is clearly illegal.

Nations are not allowed to attack other nations unless they are attacked, or unless the U.N. approves it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes the “inherent right” for a nation to defend itself from an “armed attack”. Any war other than self-defense are presumed to be illegal unless the U.N. sanctions it. Also note in Article 2: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Also note that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution holds U.S. treaties with other nations to have the same effect as federal law. We have treaties with other nations to abide by U.N. resolutions, otherwise what point would U.N. resolutions have if member nations were not obligated to obey them? Because the Bush administration did not receive U.N. approval to attack Iraq, the administration broke U.S. federal law.

Jerold: Here’s a clip from a piece that’s in part about Lt. Gen. William Odom, a critic of the war in Iraq (along with many other generals). Odom died this year. The clip below relates to some of what you’re saying:
…………..
NPR aired an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski right after Odom died that offered a concise insight on the Lt. General’s career.

“I think what was decisive for him was his own experience as a soldier, as an officer fighting the Vietnamese war. I think he came to realize that there are some wars that are not winnable in the conventional sense unless a democracy like the United States embarks on total national mobilization and then engages in total national annihilation of the enemy. And he knew that is the kind of thing a democracy would not do. And he saw some real parallels between his own experience in Vietnam, which made him increasingly critical of our war efforts, and the recent war, the ongoing war in Iraq, which he felt very strongly ought to be terminated as soon as possible,” Brzezinski said.
………………
Bright:
The “no one likes us” line is songwriter Randy Newman’s, not mine.
The song continues,
……………….
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada’s too cold
And South America stole our name
Let’s drop the big one
There’ll be no one left to blame us

….
Boom goes London and boom Paris (“Pair-ee”)
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We’ll set everybody free
You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
And there’ll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the big one now
Let’s drop the big one now
……………………………………

This is a kind of Dr. Strangelove theme song of sorts….
It would’ve fit right in after the “Drill, Baby, Drill” frenzy at the RNC….

A petition is circulating relating to the arrest and present imprisonment of 8 people, charged with conspiring to riot at the RNC.

We the undersigned call for the dismissal of the charge of “Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism,” which you have filed against the RNC 8, activists involved in organizing protests at the 2008 Republican National Convention. This use of a conspiracy charge seeks to punish political speech and thought. Labeling these members of our community as “terrorists” sets a dangerous national precedent for persecuting political activists, threatens political dissent, and greatly distorts the concepts of violence and terrorism. We demand the dismissal of these charges and condemn the use of police state tactics of infiltration, surveillance, and militarization of our streets and community to suppress demonstrations and dissent.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/defendthernc8

John G: Neither of us has patience nor respect for violent protests, and if good police intelligence shows that a violent protest is being planned, I have no reservations about it being disrupted.

Peace officers and public policy should protect everyone’s rights. For the delegates, the right to meet privately. For the demonstrators, the right to protest peacefully.

I can’t judge whether the RNC 8 were planning a peaceful protest or planning to commit crimes at the RNC. I haven’t seen any evidence either way. However, I do take issue with the overall “police state” presence and tactics used outside the RNC. I also take issue with protesters, even violent protesters, being labeled as “terrorists”. Terrorism is a term I would use very carefully, but in my opinion, it’s being used against protesters in order to oppress the RNC 8, and as a tacit threat against other people who may want to protest. I know too much about COINTELPRO-style disruption of conscientious citizens by the government to think that the incredible police presence at the RNC, and calling those arrested “terrorists”, is coincidence. On the contrary, it’s completely disproportionate to the spirit of political protest that the U.S. is supposed to embrace.

John G: I am unaware of any Molotov cocktails, shields or batons that relate to the RNC 8 or any RNC protesters. Do you have a cite?

The Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, with whom I volunteer, has issued regular press releases that claim there is no evidence to support the RNC 8 had any plan for any violent activity.

Affidavits released by law enforcement which were filed in support of the search warrants used in raids over the weekend, and used to support probable cause for the arrest warrants, are based on paid, confidential informants who infiltrated the [protesters’ group] on behalf of law enforcement. They allege that members of the group sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports in St. Paul. Evidence released to date does not corroborate these allegations with physical evidence or provide any other evidence for these allegations than the claims of the informants. Based on past abuses of such informants by law enforcement, the National Lawyers Guild is concerned that such police informants have incentives to lie and exaggerate threats of violence and to also act as provocateurs in raising and urging support for acts of violence.

See http://www.nlgminnesota.org/node/66

It frightens me that eight people are in jail on terrorism charges based entirely on paid informants. If the informants had infiltrated a group that was planning to use Molotov cocktails and other harmful instruments, why has nothing turned up in evidence?

I am eager to read the stories you’ve seen that speak of cocktails, shields and batons.

Jerold- Correction on my last post. The Strib does not have an article yet about these protesters. I just had a chance to glimpse it on the way out of the house this morning, and I thought I saw a headline similar to the one in the Press, but I was wrong. The Pioneer Press article is on the top of the first page of the local section.

John G: I found only one related story in the Pioneer Press, and it doesn’t say anything about what you mentioned. Do you suppose what you read did not make it to the web? Seriously, if there were Molotov cocktails, shields or batons, I would reconsider my position with the RNC 8, but I have heard nothing of the sort. Even this article mentions things that can clearly have several purposes, kin to finding a knife in someone’s kitchen, the knife can’t be said to be intended for violence.

See http://www.twincities.com/ci_10750009?IADID

If you can find the story, or direct me to the article (publication name and date), I want to read what you read.

Pardon the reference, but please understand that “the authorities” are sometimes challenged or frightened by new or contrary ideas. This is part of my understanding of the New Testament. New ideas are sometimes pounded down by government. Considering your background and interests, I respectfully request that you not convict the RNC 8 based solely on what the sheriff declares. There is always more to the story.

While my experience with police has been generally positive, I will always remember a case I worked on as a legal assistant. The police arrested six people for “blocking the sidewalk” at a demonstration. In the police report, the arresting officer said that she “walked into the middle of the group” and they refused to disperse per her orders. The question was later asked, if they were “blocking the sidewalk”, how could the officer walk into the middle of the group? The charge was dropped. I sincerely believe that the officer wanted to disrupt the lawful protest. I can’t say that the same thing was intended with the RNC 8, but from what I’ve read, I am suspicious that’s what happened.

Ben: I am happy to hear that the RNC 8 are out on bail. I fear that my information is outdated, like John’s remark about Molotov cocktails being found.

Ben O.- The Press article does not differentiate between the “RNC 8” and these two individuals. If they are not considered in the group, then I am not aware of it. I can only tell of what I have read. The article and my comments are only directed to the two individuals cited.

Jerold- The article I read is the printed edition dated 10/29. I have no idea how this compares to the on-line article. I have the copy at home if you cannot find it at the library. I do not have a scanner, so I will photo-copy it and mail it to you if you want.

Bill: You state my sentiments perfectly. Citizens must be free to protest, even to disrupt events using lawful means (boycotts, for example, are lawful means to disrupt businesses). If a citizen commits a crime, they should be prosecuted for that crime. Laying down in the road could be a disorderly conduct, j-walking, or some other infraction or misdemeanor. Charging them with felonies, labeling them as terrorists, is disrespectful for everyone in the U.S.’s history who risked their freedom to further political discussion. I remember my history, from the Sons of Liberty to Susan B. Anthony, to John Brown, to Dr. King, and so many others. Yes, they were criminals, but they were not terrorists.

Peter: I think that I agree with what you said, but you inserted a paradox which confuses me. If I have free speech rights so long as I don’t interfere with another’s free speech, does that mean that the other’s free speech is interfering with mine? I suppose having a specific example would help rather than work from an abstract statement.

If the RNC protesters want to protest, that’s peachy. If they break laws while protesting, they should be prosecuted for the laws they break. It’s that simple. I think that means that you and I agree on this matter.

Jerold & Bill- I think I see a differentiation between what you are saying and the position Peter and I are coming from. Free “speech” is different from free “actions”. Under the Bill of Rights, we are granted the freedom of “speech”. I don’t think the framers of our constitution intended this to be inerpreted to cover “actions” to suppress others’ “speech”. Do you see the difference? What some people did during the RNC was not “speech”. It was “actions”, some of which were violent and destructive. These, I believe, are the fly in the ointment of “freedom of speech.”

Jerold- You are definitely an open and aproachable individual, and I think, just from the discussions we have had here, that I could talk to you about any concern I might have with your involvement on the council. That is not the issue with some of those who participated in the RNC demonstrations. Lets say, for example, that I was filled with hatred for what you stand for, as some of these people were toward the GOP, and I decided the best way to keep you from getting into office would be to deter you in any way I could from participating in some of the local candidate discussions. Lets say I planned to baracade your doors so you could not get out of your house, or slash your tires (on both your car AND your bike) so you could not get to the forums. Next, I go out and purchase the materials to carry out these plans.Then, lets say I was stupid enough to reveal these plans in a NN interview. With this prior knowledge, would you say, “Oh, John has a right to demonstrate against my candidacy, so I’ll just take my chances?” I don’t think so. I think you would possibly go to the police and report these plans and ask for increased surveilance, and rightfully so. This may not be line for line what happened in St. Paul, but I think it is close enough to demonstrate my point.

Another area is regarding hate speech. If I take up a vengeful tirade against some minority and publicly defame this minority, this is prosecutable under federal law. It is not considered just an expression of an opinion. Would anyone be physically harmed in this? No. Would they be offended? Most definitely. Is this level of crime worthy of prosecution and incarceration ? Yes, according to the interpretation of these laws on the books right now. I see a discrepency in the application and coverage of these laws if the terrorist laws cannot be used against violent protesters. The concept of zero tolerance leaves no room for mercy.

Jerold- Unfortunately, that is how the law is being intrpreted right now. Perhaps the most important outcome of this next election will not necessarily what is done with the economy but what will be done with the Supreme Court.

John G: Thanks for keeping this topic current. I am dismayed if the Molotov cocktails are indeed what they appear to be. I have known police to mislead the public by calling neutral things (like kitchen knives) dangerous. I can imagine the shields being neutral, and I don’t believe that shields are illegal. I think it’s very unlikely for police to confuse (intentionally or otherwise) anything for a Molotov cocktail.

I think public demonstrations are great, whether they’re silly, annoying, dramatic, or anything nonviolent. If public safety becomes threatened, I have no sympathy for the demonstrators.

Assuming they were Molotov cocktails, I hope that only the culpable people are found guilty, not the entire lot via guilt by association.

I’ll be eager to follow this story as it evolves.

John: I would hesitate to use King in context with the RNC 8.

King had said that if it weren’t for the violent advocacy of Malcolm X, that King didn’t think his own advocacy would have been as effective. It was an unintentional good cop (King), bad cop (Malcolm X) routine that made King seem desirable to a great many white people.

Some may view the RNC 8 — if they were planning violence — as the bad cops who scare society into the arms of the good cops. Like King, the good cops may not have been successful without the bad cops. As such, the bad cops may have been necessary for the good cops to succeed.

This routine works in other contexts. Some believe that it took a really, really, really, really bad white president to scare enough people out of their prejudice, so they would finally vote for an articulate, capable non-white presidential candidate. I don’t have my magic 8-ball to be sure, but I think that Obama would have done much worse in the primary if Bush was a popular guy.

John G: I don’t claim that using fire is “justified” for any protest. Nor do I think that King’s success with using political nonviolence is the model, because Malcolm X’s influence was also a factor. Without Malcolm X, Dr. King said that he would not have been as successful. Therefore, we can’t determine how effective Dr. King was in the absence of Malcom X.

I try to keep my analogies as accurate as I can, so I am not accused of trying to win an argument by using false analogies. Your example with King and now Ezekiel are false analogies. Ethiopians have immutable genetic factors controlling their skin color. No one claims that psychology is immutable, but it’s more difficult to change in some than others. There have been plenty of people accustomed to doing evil who change to doing good and vice versa. Among them, Malcolm X was an imprisoned criminal when he decided to change into a civil rights leader. Malcolm X didn’t change his skin color, but he certainly changed his spots.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html

Since Griff will close the election thread I posted this one here.
I think it’s strange that all the extra “found” votes go to one candidate?

Carol,

Do you deny that in case of the iron range votes votes for Franken were changed from 45 to 145? Due to an clerical error???
How about the ” Frankenvotes” that mysteriously appeared in the back of a car of an election official? Those only were rejected AFTER the Coleman lawyers challenged them?

The issues surrounding the vote counts for senate are questionable and suspicious at best.
It casts ill feeling on no matter who wins in the end.

What is so hard about 1) filling in a ballad correctly? 2) Counting every ballad correctly. This shouldn’t be rocket science I don’t want us to be turned in to another Florida.
If you take a multiple choice test in school and you mark your ballad wrong what happens to that answer???
You get it marked as wrong, there is no room for interpretation or discussion.

Peter – I’m saying your statement that “all all the extra “found” votes go to one candidate,” is false, which it is. I’ve sat through a recount and watched how it works, and I think it would do you good to do the same and learn how it is that ballots are not counted, miscounted, spoiled, all of the above. Voters don’t fill in the circles correctly, or they circle a name rather than fill in a circle, all sorts of things. In a recount, conducted by a neutral team with members of both sides observing, challenging, and each ballot is physically looked at, you can see for yourself.

Peter: Carol already corrected your false statement, that “all the extra votes went in favor of Franken”. Some went to Coleman. It looks like you aren’t reading her responses to you.

Again, voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. If someone votes incorrectly, but their intent is obvious, such as circling the name of the candidate rather than filling in the bubble, then you are advocating that we disenfranchise voters. Again, voting is not an academic exam and it should not be treated as such.

Your proposal, to reject all non-conforming votes even when the voter’s intent is clear, means that you would deny people the vote with vision, reading, or comprehension problems.

You say that you favor a clearly stated rules, such as the clearly stated rules of how to fill out a ballot. Why then do you disfavor the clearly stated rules of an automatic recount if the tally is less than 0.5%? Why are you selective about which rules you like?

Are you happy with the Florida 2000 election results? The official recount was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court even though the Court’s own rules are to stay out of state sovereignty, which applied in this case. The unofficial recount sponsored by Florida newspapers claimed that Gore should have won Florida. Do you think, therefore, that it was right for the Court to stop the recount, or should every vote have been counted even if Gore won the 2000 election?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80

OOPs almost forgot.

Jerold,

All the extra votes in the Iron Range went for Franken……100 to be sure, which in itself is to equal of a number.

I think my kids have learned “filling in the dot” in Pre-K.
If you lazy or stupid or just plain ignorant to execute a simple task as “filling in a dot”…then maybe you are not capable of even comprehending the election process.
Gimme a break. How hard is it?

My nephew who has “down syndrome” knows how to fill in a dot……how far are we willing to dumb down the simplest tasks to support stupidity ???

Peter: Luckily, you are not in charge nor make the rules. The rules have already been made. If you don’t like them, get elected and change it or move to a state where they don’t protect voters rights–like Ohio or Alabama or Texas. (You will not likely be elected in Minnesota on the basis that you want to stop people from voting.)

Peter- On this one point, I agree with you, “…Interpreting voter intend. I.e. Somebody voted for Obama but for nobody else so we give the vote by default to Franken…” I was very happy that supposedly 300,000 people who voted for Obama did NOT vote for Franken. If these votes were to be infered, as you suggest, I think that would be questionable. I don’t think the recount laws would be interpreted in this way.

As far as people’s right to vote, there are still some very sharp people around who never learned to read or write, especially in the older generations where formal schooling was not even available for them. I dare say some of these poeple have more wisdom than some educated people I have met, but then that is just my opinion. I’m not sure that being able to read or write necessarily qualifies a person to vote.

William,

Your example are beyond common sense and reality and I respectfully disagree with MOST of you example.

Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley,

Everything else is childish an immature.

Many great Americans have given their lives so we can vote freely. The least we can do to honor them, is to respect our right to vote and do it in normal, respectful and professional manner.

The rest is just showboating.

Peter- Your opinion, “…Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley…” doesn’t quite hold water. My wife, a BA with honors graduate of ISU, will not vote for anyone or anything she does not have any knowlege of, especially soil conservation candidates or judges. I think we have a choice in this country to vote or not for whomever we desire. I think the 300,000 people who voted for Obama but did not vote for either Coleman or Franken probably decided they would not choose the lesser of two evils. They simply did not vote for either, and that is their free choice.

Peter: If you object to Franken getting votes simply because the person voted for Obama, I agree with you. However, I haven’t heard of this practice ever being done.

Otherwise, I would re-state what William said. If there is a mark on a ballot that a person wanted to vote for a candidate, that vote should be counted for that candidate.

John G.’s point is also extremely important. If someone has comprehension problems for any reason, and that person votes but doesn’t follow directions, that person’s vote should count.

The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

Jerry wrote,

The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

But we used to have a pop quiz before voting, if you were a person of a certain color.

A bit of googling brought up this gem from our racist past: a sample Alabama “literacy test” selectively given to African Americans, for which they were excluded from voting if they didn’t get all questions right:

Quick, see if you can answer these:

– If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?
– At what time of day on January 20 each four years does the term of the president of the United States end?
– If the president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for reconsideration?
– In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?
– The president is forbidden to exercise his authority of pardon in cases of _______.

http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.pdf
http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.htm

Mercifully, those laws were long ago declared unconstitutional. A side effect of striking down those racist policies of the past is that challenging people’s intelligence (even by so apparently simple an act as requiring them to perfectly fill out a little circle) is not legal. Because, among other things, it would disproportionately impair the voting rights of some populations – in this case, including the visually impaired and those with unsteady hands.

Expecting from someone to put a pencil dot in to the right place hardly qualifies for “challenging or testing” someones intelligence.
You are really stretching here Patrick.

And for those that have a physical or mental conditions we already have help in place.

Peter,
You may think that I am stretching things, but the law does not agree with your point of view.

IMHO stupidity should not be excused by law. The fact that we have to have these laws for such a simple task, doesn’t hold well for us.

Jerry,
You are correct: there is no such provision. The relevant portion that addresses this is:

Subd. 15.Blank ballot for one or more offices valid.
If no name or response to a question is marked and no name is written in, the ballot is blank with respect to that office or question.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80

n Associated Press analysis of votes in the tight, still-to-be decided race for a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota shows that most ballots lacking a recorded choice in the election were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.
The finding could have implications for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, who are headed for a recount separated by the thinnest of margins — a couple of hundred votes, or about 0.01 percent.
About 25,000 ballots statewide carried votes for president but not for the Senate race. Although some voters might have intentionally bypassed the race, others might have mismarked their ballot, or optical scanning machines might have misread them.

The Secretary of State Project was a direct response to the actions of Katherine Harris in 2000, as well as some concerns about Ohio.

Peter: Good article, albeit your summary left out some balance. This comment is key, but omitted in your statement. Sometimes people err, and they dutifully correct the mistake:

“We are still investigating,” Franken spokesman Andy Barr said Thursday night, adding that while the woman’s absentee ballot was rejected it was not because of her shaky signature as he reported a few hours earlier.

And how could you miss this jewel?

And a state administrative law judge Thursday dismissed a Coleman lawsuit over a Franken commercial claiming that a watchdog group listed Coleman as one of the four most corrupt U.S. senators. The judge ruled that the group listed just four senators on its corrupt list, so Coleman would be considered one of its four most corrupt.

I favor more election oversight. If Franken’s camp helps ensure that elections are honest, I will be the very last person to complain.

For those of you interested in the finer points of the Senate recount, I highly recommend the following sites as being particularly informative:

At FiveThirtyEight, there is insightful coverage of the recount, and how it is progressing:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/minnesota
I especially recommend the following post:
Minnesota Challenged Ballot Primer http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-challenged-ballot-primer.html

At Star Tribune’s ‘Ballot Challenge’, you can view individual challenged ballots, and personally decide how you think each challenged ballot should be counted:
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/
(Don’t forget to reread the rules for determining voter intent, and do be sure to click on the links to view the entire ballot – as, according to the rules, you sometimes need to compare the mark on the Senate section with the kinds of marks that the voter used elsewhere on the ballot.)

Peter, I am afraid you will be waiting along time because the accountable persons and parties will still spin and twist and the press will be hiding, slicing, dicing the truth until it looks like grandma’s mince meat pie.

I’ll be happy to be wrong on this one.

The only things that are gonna change are we might end the war in Iraq, which I still maintain was and is the best way to route out terrorist, due to the more educated population and favorable landscape over the mountainous and treacherous lands and seasoned warriors of Afghanstan, (if you had to fight a war anywhere, and once you started, you better end it well). So, you’d end the war, which is set to end sometime anyway, and the second thing that might change is the end of Guantanamo Bay, which is nearing the end anyway with only 80 prisoners left so far and some awaiting trial with actual evidence against them. That is happening, too. SO, so far, Obama looks a lot like Bush to me, and the press is saying nothing…even when Biden referred to Obama as Mr. President today, he was not called on it. Come on, Dems, wait your turn!
Come on, Press, act like an American institution with a drive and determination to print the truth.

Peter, regarding creation of the new “office”, we must keep in mind that America is a country just beginning to bloom. We are inexperienced children making things up as we go. That is where both our beauty and our blunders lie.

So, no office last year?, there’s one now and even if it’s no more than a few chairs with blanket over it, it’s our newest creation! America lives for anything new.

John Baer, former White House communications man, 1995-97 said yesterday on C-SPAN, what we see in the American news resports about what is happening on Capital Hill is one “pin prick” of what is really going on behind the scenes. And much less than what our European counterparts see and hear.

I can imagine with all the diversified views of the Obama appointees, there might be a lot more haggling going on than actual progress toward the “there” that we were promised during the campaign.

Bright,

While you might be correct it still speaks to Obama’s character. It’s not about change its about his glory and history.

I don’t know why the absentee ballots were excluded in the first place, ref 441.

Okay, Peter, I hear what you are saying now.
O might make a mistake by being visible too often and playing the transparency card as if it was something in and of itself.

John, Obama said that he likes to have strongly opinionated people around him so he can consider the different views, but it may also be that he is surrounding himself with his future opponents of 2012, in hopes that they will have had enough of the big time by then. You have a good point though and I think there will be
more haggling than “getting there”.

As for the to do about the term “president elect”, Peter was talking about a circular sign that appears at O’s press conferences (five already) that says “offiice of the president elect” and Peter notes that there is no such office officially. My gripe is that Biden looks at Obama at the last conference and calls him “Mr.President”, to which I say, hey, Dems, wait your turn. Although Bush seems way ready to go home and make coffee for Laura every morning and leave it to O now, I think he should serve out his term and help this country move forward into the new era of rebuilding and restructuring.

Minnesota May Be Heading Toward Resolution — In Court
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/minnesota-may-heading-toward-resolution.html

A good summary of where it’s at, where it’s going, and why. The short version:

Minnesota’s recount is a long way from over. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to predict the winner, I would tell you to shoot me.

Peter, you have good points. There is also some real need to look over all of our democratic systems and rework them. This recount, as frustrating and costly of time and money, is one way to get at that, if people will recognize the good opportunity the count represents.

Also, I saw the case of a ballot being cast by a voter who drew an form very much like the
one that should have been filled in, but it was placed about an inch to the left from the actual location, which was not filled in or marked in any way. I have only to guess that this voter has a perception problem and should have the vote counted. Maybe another way of voting could back up the written ones, like answering a verbal question and then have the number match the balloot number. Or the voter could blink their eyes or eye once for candidate Frank, and twice for candidate Norm. Something like that could work as confirmation.

Jerold,

There is no contradiction in my comments at all. Yes evry should be counted and YES every citizen has the duty to fill out the ballot correctly, unless of course any kind of handicap would prevent them to do so.

So where is the contradiction??

Leaving someones vote up to a board of lawyers to interpret is just plain nonsense.

And I also stated if the intend is clear and the rejection is due to a machine error it should be counted.

Where do you see a problem with my position? Unless of course you suggest that we start reading tea leaves??

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rod.blagojevich.charged.2.883170.html

Chicago politics at it’s best……surprisingly this only comes out a month after the election…hmmm..must be a coincidence…??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=konL35ur0Bo&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/09/obama-i-never-talked-to-blagojevich-about-the-senate-seat-axelrod-yes-he-did/&feature=player_embedded

Yes he did talk to Blago….

I can’t believe this. Now that the election is over the AP comes out with this?????

Where was the story before the election? Some here owe me an apology, because they thought I was crazy for making these connections.

Paul???

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbJzaVo_Vcuv1HtB1U1eZDQOrQuQD94VL6S03

Peter…Re: #460…Regarding the article to which you link: Read it.

For the most part this is a rehash of ‘connections’ that voters discounted. The AP in almost every case says Obama’s connection to these people is either limited or irrelevant.

Jerry,

If you fill in your ballad correctly there is no need for interpretation and the recount would be over by now.

Mark Richie, you mean the very same guy who was involved with ACORN?? LOL

Oops. Ruling #2 is: Because of the 133 missing ballots, that single precinct will have its original election night count used in the recount. (same source)

Patrick, thanks for the info on absentee ballots. I decided to work through my feelings about the election by doing some art. There are two pieces in the NAG Membership Show which opened last night and will be up through Jan. 3:

“The Time is Now: Election 2008.” An actual tape of the Bridgewater Township results is a part of it.

“Hogs in Winter” with ag quote from Obama flyer.

Check out the ornaments on the tree inside the NAG shop also.

Peter- Franken didn’t have to have a stand-in on SNL.

In case anyone is interested…

http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_02_08auto1.cfm

Peter…once again you have linked to a story (in # 472) that in no way supports the allegations in your post. Surely among the right wing websites and blogs you can find a link that would actually support what you say.

Left wing radicals are burning the church Palin attends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503_pf.html

Carol, There is a whole lot of surmising here…Patrick Fitzgerald has stepped out early after several years of investigating Gov. B of IL because I think he wanted to precede any actual appointment that would be covered up, swept under the rug, and then burnt. There’s your arson for ya. 😉

I feel as though Obama is not in the camp of Gov B of IL, but he did say he would back him in 2006, after the investigations and after every body already knew that Rod was doing things that made him appear to be punkish.
That in itself makes Obama look less like one would have liked to think of him last week.

Now maybe some people will understand why I was so jumpy about Obama for POTUS from the get go.

Peter: I will add my voice to those of William and Carol. I welcome your opinions (I really, honestly do), but implore you to stop making inflammatory comments and providing links to stories that do not, in any objective sense, support your comments. This does not contribute to enlightened/enlightening discussion. I think Carol is right to suggest that this issue should be addressed by LoGroNo moderator(s). (Although it’s asking a lot of a moderator to continually be the arbiter of whether linked stories supports comments made here.)

I think this is important because many people do not have or make the time to read the stories that people link to, and make their own judgment concerning whether the stories support the opinions voiced here. When you provide a link to a reputable news source such as the Washington Post or AP (two of your recent links), reasonable folks with limited time may reasonably think, “Geez, this guy is linking to a reputable news source to support his stated opinion. He must be on to something…”

I would feel this way whether the opinion expressed, but not supported by the linked story, was from the left, right or in between.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/barackobama-congress

So again at what point was Obama lying????? Please answer the question

If not the fringe left who else would burn a church?? Certainly not the fringe right.

You are right I should read your comments more closely.

Firebombing of at least 75 churches in the mid 1990s
http://www.albionmonitor.com/free/fireprotest.html
There’s a USA Today feature on the many church burnings but I can only find references. Here’s a summary of the many church burnings then:
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/5/churches.asp

Why do you [bloggers] who (1) appropriately put the burden of proof on the one who affirms, (2) want more than specious evidence, and (3) understand that analysis, not fiat, is necessary for a sound conclusion, keep giving Peter your time and insight?

Peter has repeatedly shown us that he puts the burden of proof on the liberals/progressives/intellectuals/etc., he is OK with specious evidence, and his opinion is more important to him than a sound (i.e., supported by evidence and analysis) conclusion.

It’s tiring to read Peter’s posts. It’s becoming tiring to read others’ posts who pretend that Peter can be convinced to respect rules of evidence and logic. A friend once told me that he used to lead truth to where he wanted it to go — but he was confounded by an irrational world that did not conform to the truth that he was leading. When he decided to follow truth, where ever it went, my friend discovered that the world was not irrational.

If Peter is leading the truth, let him, but don’t fool yourselves into thinking you can train him to follow the truth.

I don’t think that Peter needs to be moderated/censored. Rather, he is asking to be ignored. I have honored Peter’s request.

I’m with Jerry. I’ve found that a great deal of peace of mind can be gained by ignoring posters who have consistently shown no ability to engage in an honest dialog.

Bruce & Patrick – you’ve hit on the key words, “honest discussion/dialog,” and it pains me to have blatant misrepresentation sitting there… and frankly, I feel a lot better taking sixty seconds to expose baseless crap than to let obvious false statements go unchallenged in public. In this culture often saying things over and over and over makes it appear true, so IMHO sometimes it’s worth the sixty seconds.

Jerry – Take a look — I think you’ve the one who’s framed it as binary (waste time or ignore) and through a “rhetorical” statement posited as a “question” declared that my two sparse 60 second statements of fact are a waste of my time and that reading Peter’s flase statements are a waste of your time. You can, of course, speak for yourself, but you really can’t speak for anyone else. There are many ways of handling someone who slings around false statements, and we each can choose, and if it’s not a choice of your liking, yes, feel free to ignore and delete! Or any of the many inbetween measures you now acknowledge. We’ll see if Peter’s inflamatory false statements are attention seeking and act accordingly. I’m certainly not making statements in an effort to convince him of anything, but instead making statements to correct the public record rather than let false statements sit like the fart in the elevator.

Carol,
Perhaps you could just copy-and-paste the following statement, whenever appropriate:

Peter,
Once again, the article you have linked to does not support your assertion.

And then leave it at that?

To all,

It is quiet obvious that neither of you is interested in another point of you. Most of you deflect this issue by trying to discredit me.
Some of you just like to hear yourself talk and only listen to those that agree with you.

Not all of my posts are posted in seriousness some of them are posted to get you upset. Because of your attitude towards me. It’s my way of paying you back for your smugness and elitist behavior.

Yeah you can make fun of me and can come up with all sorts of intellectual calisthenics, but it only illustrates your own insecurity and narrow mindedness.

You want to continue to live in your own world, please do so. I have nothing to prove to anybody and all your personal attacks and trying to put me down really have no effect on me.
I am too old and I have seen too much.

Before some of you ” get your knickers in a twist” the above comments are not meant for all here…those I have directed them to…..you know who you are.

Cheers….and peace out.

Peter,
I suggest studying the posts of David Ludescher, Ray Cox, and John George for examples of conservatives who participate in a constructive, honest, and valuable dialog on this site.

Norm Coleman’s lead is down to just 5 votes, and Al Franken is likely to take the lead tomorrow as the Board works its way through Coleman’s ballot challenges (most of Al Franken’s challenges have already been dealt with).

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/franken_the_more_likely_winner.php

http://senaterecount.startribune.com/ballots/

Jerry F said this: “With Gore and Franken in mind, how can I ever vote for my favorite candidate if there’s a chance that it helps my least favorite to get elected?”

Jerry, take a tip from Mother Theresa or whoever wrote the “do it anyway” poem.
No one’s vote is helping or hurting more than anyone else’s, right? Plus, if nothing else the third parties may grow large enough to win elections on a regular basis someday. Besides, they bring up points that often go overlooked by the D and R parties and bring issues to mind that no one else would. That in itself is valuable.

The MN Supreme Court has rejected Coleman’s suit to stop the counting of inappropriately rejected ballots:

Star Tribune:

In a ruling crucial to the disputed U.S. Senate election, the Minnesota Supreme Court Thursday rejected an attempt by incumbent Norm Coleman to block the state Canvassing Board from counting improperly rejected absentee ballots.

However, the court ruled that the campaigns of Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, along with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and vote canvassing boards establish a uniform standard for identifying and counting such absentee ballots. The court said they should then be added to the tally.

Given the Democratic Party’s strong push for early/absentee voting this year, it is likely that at least a slight plurality of the inappropriately rejected absentee ballots will turn out to have been legitimate votes for Franken.

Al’s gotta be considered the most likely to win at this point. And the legal options for the Coleman campaign don’t look too promising:

In objecting to the counting, the Coleman campaign argued that the state Canvassing Board violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by not setting uniform procedures for counties to identify and count improperly rejected ballots.

But Charles said he doubts that argument would sway the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The equal protection issue goes against them. … Their best argument is that some counties are going to count them and others aren’t … But the proper response to that argument is an order telling all the counties to count all legal votes.”

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36406524.html?page=2&c=y

Jerry, I hear you and I know that is how people do generally understand what happens. But I would like to say that once they have you voting against your heart, they have you. Say you went the other route of getting whom you really wanted on board. Maybe you would convince your person, or maybe you’d become the person yourself. Maybe you would convince me to become the person. Cuz for every person who votes like you do, there is another voting for the G or B party for some other reason than which one will be the best for the situation/s at hand so there is little reason to it. Most of us are voting with our hearts anyway and numbers are just numbers.

Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC has said that both sides rule from the center, because that is where most of us really live on most issues. So maybe you don’t really feel that strongly about your issue or person but really have a stronger feeling for the center?
Not accusing, just considering the possibility for continuing the conversation tomorrow.

Patrick- You’re right about the complexity of that ruling. Nothing seems really clear or easy in this recount. It seems like those in authority to come out and say, “This is the way we are going to do it!” are just starting to say that. I think the system actually works. It is whether everyone will be satisfied with the results.

Jerry, first of all, I would frame things differently. I think no matter who wins a place, there are enough outside forces, inside balances and unforeseeable and mysterious things going on, that no one person can cause more than a little ‘bad’ for a small amount of time. We all like blame one person, but when a lot of people vote with that one person, then, a lot of people can take the blame or praise.
I am also a firm believer in the horse story, where everything happens and it always works out. Labeling every person or outcome either good or bad is not really realistic over the long view.
So, saying that, I would vote for the candidate I would truly like to see in that office. If I didn’t like the candidate, I’d not vote and see if I could stir up some one that I did like…or at least plant some seeds for someone to grow.We can’t always have our way right away and the pendulum swings right and left so everyone or their progeny eventually gets a turn.
If we don’t vote for our person, then that person has no way to know whether to try again,or to make necessary changes til that person looks so much like the person we did vote in.
Ralph Nader is a great American, and if it weren’t for him, candidates wouldn’t have anyone to be better than outside of the major parties. He pushes them and that’s a great position to be in, so it’s not all about winning.
Have to get going now, but hope this makes some sense so far.

Well, let me just think out loud for a few paragraphs. If we vote for A, and A dies as a result of a spider bite, and B gets in and makes a crucially bad decision. We voted our duty and it came out bad. I don’t think we can know of the consequences beforehand.
Both sides, Dems and Reps have things they do that have caused lost lives…it’s just a matter of definitions, but they both do. They all voted for the Iraq war, save one. So, I am having a hard time unraveling this one. Do you blame yourself for what happens as a result of your vote, when you really didn’t have any control over anything but putting yourself in the voting booth and believing information you were given?
And what would make you vote for your person over the other one?
Also there is the fact that we will never know what Gore would have done and we will never know that would have been the consequences of his decisions. I think he’s just an old pot head and he would probably be of as little of an asset as he could manage, but that’s just my little ol’ opinion. (Btw, I didn’t vote for either of them, as I don’t feel they are presidential enough. I want my president to be a real good and wise person from day one, and there are people out there like that.)

Obama the Gambler … Rick Warren … WOW ! This will be Chicago politics. Obama has not even had a day in office and he just throws a core constituency under the train to make a grab at a bigger voting bloc. The issue is not talked about much but African-Americans turned out in record numbers but in addition to voting for Obama in California they voted down gay marriage. Obama is seeing an opportunity for a galactic power consolidation and he is going for the gold. I’m not sure how liberals feel about this move but I am surprised in that the move seems likely to backfire.

John – what do you think about this choice, is it admirable or cynical ?

David- I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt- I would say it is admirable. It is a fact that there is a schism between many evangelicals and the GLBT movement. When Obama said he wanted to unify America, not divide it, I now believe his intentions are sincere. It is possible that this is all just a political conspiracy to more firmly establish Obama and the Democratic party in the ruling position for a long period of time, but perhaps it is not. I would have to wait and see what the outcome of this invitation is. I have heard that there is a lot of pressure coming from the left side for him to say this was a mistaken decision on his part and to uninvite Warren, but I hope he does not give in to that pressure. Some of the reports I have heard coming out of California strenghten my opinion that the GLBT movement does not want to have tolerance between them and the Evangelicals. It seems their position is to force acceptance and blessing of their lifestyle onto those who disagree with them. This is, IMHO, the heighth of intolerance, and their pressure on Obama to dump Warren is more confirmation of this intolerance.

Jerry- I cannot get your link to open up, so I can’t really respond to it. I remember when Goldwater was running against Johnson, he said that we either needed to go into Viet Nam and fight that war or get out. The peaceniks of the time decried this course of action in favor of a negotiated peace. I think history is quite evident as to whom was right, but it took a couple years of Johnson’s administration for us to realize this. That is just one case I can use to substantiate my convictions that we do not have enough time elapsed to really make a difinitive decision. You may feel otherwise, but I do not lean toward instant evaluations of and conclusions about historical events. No matter who or how you compare Bush to any other president before him, these are different times. The only other president to have experienced a direct military attack on our country during his office was Roosevelt, and we know what that lead to.

John: I am not aware of a direct military attack on the U.S., at least not since WWII. If you’re referencing 9/11, we were not attacked by any nation nor any military.

Nonetheless, I agree that later generations may hold a different opinion. So I’ll revise my statement to call George Bush the worst U.S. president ever, from the perspective of this generation’s historians (as cited), and my own opinion. Roosevelt’s attack on Japan and Germany was morally and legally justified. Bush’s attack on Iraq was neither.

John: Since you had trouble with the link, here are its first three paragraphs (citing, in part, 415 nonpartisan, professional historians):

The Worst President in History?
One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush

SEAN WILENTZ
Posted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM

George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty — and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression’s onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration’s “pursuit of disastrous policies.” In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton — a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

Hey, Jerry. No problem on the wait time, I am happy to have someone with whom to discuss these ideas.
Well, I don’t know if Bush tainted evidence, they all seem to get accused of such things at one time or another, and I am never really sure of anything that I don’t see and then it’s “Believe none of what you read and half of what you see.”
Well, say I agree that Bush was an awful president…well,I can agree that he wasn’t perfect by any means…and none have been so. There is no school for presidents or place s where you can get the full impact of experience needed for the presidency…altho shrub certainly had an eyeful thru his father’s presidential stint.

And then, I’ll need to pull a fast slick willie and ask how you define “success”?

Furthermore, one of the things I meant to get to before was the notion of unexpected consequences…like when we found out that feeding peoples around the world sometimes creates more crisis by fueling population growth that cannot be well sustained on any level…there are also good consequesnces like people becoming free for the first times in their lives and whether or not you think we should be liberators, forced liberators, or unintentional liberators, it’s still a great great outcome…that is if you think education women and children is a good idea.

Another thing that must be considered by Christians and believers in an afterlife, is that death is not a bad thing, and in fact, may be a really good thing.And one of the things I believe is that not all people come to this earth to live a set amount of time and have a set amount of progeny and do a set amount of tasks. That is manmade parameters and not necessarily of the spirit…though I feel sure that we are not put here to die for nothing.
And, while I don’t expect your point to point response, I’d be happy to hear it, Jerry.

Let me see if I have this straight. You might be for a third party candidate unless there is a tight race between two polar opposite candidates, and then you would feel obliged to vote for the one you felt was the better of the two.

The consequence of that is sort of telling people that a person with great qualifications won’t get your vote if there is a danger of a bad guy getting in as a result.

And, you wonder how I can say people can die and it’s alright and still be against abortion. Well, I am banned against speaking about abortion on this forum so I can’t answer that but if I could, I would. I can tell you off line if you want…brightATbeautywood.commotion. I am writing it that way so it doesn’t get harvested.
In the meantime,let me ask you these question, becasue you seem to have a good understanding, of things that come up as red flags in my mind.

Why would Bush use something so thinly veiled to start a major invasion?
Was it just to
utilize the mfg locations in 42 states that make munitions?
What kind of evidence would Saddam or his assigns leave if they were purchasing uranium, given their history of massive deceit? And by that I mean his telling people he had more weaponry than he actually did to make himself seem more powerful over the years.
How do we know that Valerie Plame was an honest agent? Or that Joe Wilson wasn’t playing a deceitful card himself?
I know we got way off the subject, but it is interesting to me. And once again, I will state that I am not a Bush person, but I do appreciate that we have not been reinvaded.

Bright: Let’s carry the abortion talk over to private e-mail. Answering your post:

Your summary of my position looks accurate.

1. “Why would Bush use something so thinly veiled to start a major invasion?” I don’t know. My assumption is that the Bush Administration plan looked good on paper, but for several unforeseen reasons (like Joe Wilson outing the fake letter) it fell apart.

2. “What kind of evidence would Saddam or his assigns leave if they were purchasing uranium, given their history of massive deceit?” Last I heard before the invasion, the U.N. weapons inspectors wanted more time. One can’t hope for a thorough investigation if the the inspectors’ time was cut short. It’s more suspicious that no evidence of nuclear weapons were found before or after the war, and Bush later admitted that there was no evidence to be found. Whether Hussein had nukes or not is irrelevant. No one found any evidence of them. Even if evidence was found, war is not justified, otherwise we should invade China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and Russia for having nuclear weapons.

3. Regarding Wilson and Plame, first I look at evidence, secondly motive. I am aware of no facts that suggest that Wilson or Plame were dishonest. Further, Plame’s role came only after the fake letter was revealed, so we only have Wilson to look at. Why would Wilson be suspect for telling the world that the Iraq war was predicated on a fake letter, that he told U.S. intelligence agencies was fake? After Wilson discredited the letter, Bush nonetheless used it as the official reason for the invasion, and later said, oops — U.S. intelligence was wrong. Bush’s admission that the letter was fake means Wilson was honest. Add to that, the information came from a U.S. ambassador, not an anonymous tip.

4. “And once again, I will state that I am not a Bush person, but I do appreciate that we have not been reinvaded.” We were not invaded a first time, and we were never attacked by Iraq. If thwarting attacks and invasions are important to you, you should have wanted us to finish what we started in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone. If demolishing Al Qaeda was our mission, Bush messed up repeatedly. Saddam’s government hated Al Qaeda too.

Jerry- Perhaps what we are discussing here is not whom is the worst president but whom is the worst historian. (Ha!Ha!) Take a look at this article by Clifford May on this Strib link.:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/36470139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU.
You and others have refered to our invasion of Iraq and Afganistan as an “illegal war.” I think this article may give you pause to rethink that conclusion. There are other learned people in this country besides liberal educators at Princeton. At least we do still have the freedom to choose which ones we believe.

Jerry- I was not assuming that you would agree with the article, but I like to challenge people with something that is well thought out and articulated. Neither one of us is going to convert the other, and I am not trying to do so with the link. I think you and I can agree on one thing, that the enemy we are fighting here is hatred, and not any particular political block or nationality. This is a human shortcoming that is irrespective of race or creed. It is something, that according to my beliefs, is only overcome with the demonstration of good. That is why Jesus said to bless those who despitefully use you, for in doing so, you heap burning coals upon them. There is One who will ultimately judge the conduct of each man, so I am more concerned about lining up with His revelation than I am with any particular scholar.

I don’t think we did everything right with the Iraq invasion, but my view of world events presupposes that when God says He holds the king’s heart, and it is as a watercourse in His hand, then there is something of eternal significance beyond the mere current events we are witnessing. In the article, May gave a good example of Stalin’s response to Pope Pius XII’s oppositon and how that played out. I think this is an example of what I am talking about.

This is where you and I really differ in our analysis of world events, whatever they be. And that is ok. We each have the freedom to choose our beliefs without fear of recrimination, at least at this time. I believe there will come a time when expressing my views will cost me my life, as it does in most Islamic dominated countries. I am not anxious for that day.

Jerry- Someone else had a dream, and that has affected social trends in this country for the last 40 years. The battles for the hearts of men continue on, and are not yet won, but that is no reason to give up. I desire to dream along with you. And I am not ashamed to do so. We really need to get together for coffee sometime. Give me a call after the first of the year.

Jerry- I’ve been following this somewhat, also. The article I noticed the other day (and I cannot find it right now) was that the man accused of manufacturing molotov cocktails has now changed his plea to guilty. He has also changed his story about being coerced into manufacturing these weapons by a FBI informant. Griff’s original title, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly is appropriate, I think. When public sentiments run as high as they have over the last couple years, there is bound to be some extreme behavior on all sides. I think the word “caution” was lost somewhere in all the security plans for the convention. Martyrdom loves adversity.

Yes we can :

1) Load trillions of debt on to our children.

2) Have the IRS hunt you down for not paying taxes, while put people in government that have done the same.

3) Ask you to drive a smaller car while flying around in a private jet.

4) Raise your taxes to bailout our friends from Wall street.

5) Force you in a government run health care system, while going to a private clinic ourselves.

6) Use the tax code to target a select group of people.

7) Increase the cigarette tax on the poorest in the country, while promoting pot.

8) Use cap and trade to increase energy cost on the poorest.

Change we can believe in?

US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals

Mr Bachus added it would mark ”a new level of absurdity” if financial institutions were ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”

ft.com

On the off chance that any of the few people contributing to this thread still give a damn, I think its worth mentioning that Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner has dropped two of the four totally bogus charges against the RNC 8 defendants. Dropped are one count of ‘Conspiracy to Commit Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism’ and one count of ‘Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage to Property in Furtherance of Terrorism.’

From the ‘Defend the RNC 8’ website:

In removing the controversial MN PATRIOT Act from the debate at this moment, Susan Gaertner obviously hopes to defray the costs of this unprecedented prosecution on her campaign for Governor, and to mitigate the overwhelmingly negative public opinion of Ramsey County’s repressive behavior during and since the RNC.

“Make no mistake,” said defendant Luce Guillen-Givins, “This change to the complaint against us is a token gesture meant to placate our supporters and bolster a floundering political prosecution.”

As defendant Eryn Trimmer pointed out, “This move only focuses attention more acutely on the outrageous nature of the two remaining charges, Conspiracy to Commit Riot and Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage to Property.”

If you’ve got a bone to pick with legitimate political dissent, please further admonish the RNC 8 in this thread. If you think things like the constitution are actually pretty rad, just head over to http://www.rnc8.org, where you can learn more about the criminalization of dissent in Minnesota and even make a donation that contributes to the cost of the defendants’ legal defense.

Don’t forget that there were about 800 arrests of demonstrators at the RNC. Last I heard (last week) there were 34 trials, 1 conviction for parading without a permit, and that conviction is being appealed.

On mass arrests, prosecutors usually try the easiest cases first, so their early wins will build momentum in the public eye. If this is how St. Paul approached the mass arrest, their conviction rate on the easiest cases is lousy.

Such a waste. St. Paul contributes to the police state and spends tax dollars like they have a limitless bank account.

John, you wrote,

This one point I would agree with: the dropping the “Furtherance of Terrorism” clause. This smacks of off-shore influence to topple our government.

Terrorism is a method, not an offshore influence. It has been used by persons who were anti-Vietnam War protesters, abortion clinic bombers, and paranoid isolationists like Timothy McVeigh.

We’ve got plenty of that here at home.

Interesting timing:
Yesterday, Coleman’s lawyers took a verbal beating in their appeal to the MN Supreme Court. It’s well worth a listen, here: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/01/midmorning1/

Today, Pawlenty will announce that he’s not running for reelection in 2012.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/46726117.html

Since the Gov will no longer have to face the voters of Minnesota, my guess is that he’ll feel free to drag out the ‘certification’ process as long as possible – unless the Supreme Court’s ruling is extremely specific in directing him to do otherwise.

in response to 541.5 ; usually a comment like this one of AP’s would have drawn a response, but there has been none in the five days intervening.

Is this a ‘no-no’ because of the ‘religious right’ connection? the Operation Rescue” connection? the alleged mental illness?

This man definitely fits my definition of a terrorist, albeit a single actor… but wait …given the statements of the head of Operation Rescue, is this witnessed murderer a single actor or an ‘agent of influence’ ?

Does it make a difference?

Kiffi- I’ll restate my comment from my post 541.4

I think this is different than
peaceful civil disobedience to protest
a particular policy or societal
attitude. I just don’t agree with the
concept that damage to life, limb and
property is justified to further a
cause.

This type of crime, no matter what side commits it against the other side, is just plain wrong. I think there is a responsibility we have with our free speech in this country, and I think we have been leaving it in the dust.

The effort to subvert Obama’s health insurance plan has also begun:

[THE LINK IS FOUND BY CLICKING ON MY NAME, IN THE TITLE BAR OF THIS COMMENT, ABOVE. GRIFF’S FILTER IS ACTING UP AGAIN.]

The goal of insurance companies: to eliminate any competition from a ‘public option’ which might drive down prices for health insurance.

Anthony- Your comment

having a public option that is just as
good as a private one at a fraction of
the price is just what the economy
needs.

leads me to this question, which I have not found an answer for anywhere. What government administrated health care system in any country of the world has treatments “just as good” but “at a fraction of the price?” I still think it is interesting that if anyone anywhere in the world really wants their medical problems solved, they come to the United States. I also think, as I look at my various EOB’s, the marked difference between the regular price of the treatment I recieve and the “allowed” (contracted) price that the insurance company actually pays says something about the actual cost of the care. I just don’t see how, given the salaries associated with medical carriers, that the government take-over of the industry is actually going to change costs. I just see a shift in where and how the money goes. Instead of private enterprise being profitable, it appears to me that we will see a gigantic growth in the size of government and a loss of tax base along with it. Where are the taxes coming from to fund this program? What amount of tax is going to be required of us next?

It is really two different economic theories we are talking about. I don’t think these are proven or disproven in a short period of time. It would be a tragedy to see our health care system disentegrate just because we are not presently covering 100% of the population all on the same level.

I have a concern that the same thing will happen with this industry as has happened with manufacturing. Sending production off shore has not raised the economic levels of the countries we have sent production to. It has set us on the brink of sinking down to the same level of economic status as most of the third world countries are at.

John,

Obama’s proposal is NOT a plan for the government to take over the health care industry. At the most, he proposes that people have the right to CHOOSE a federal health insurance plan, as one choice in addition to the privately available ones.

Interestingly, insurance companies are worried that the government will actually be able to offer insurance at a lower rate than their profit-based business plans. There’s a very interesting article in the New York Times today on this, titled “State Coverage Model No Help for Uneasy Insurance Industry”

The best bit is this:

But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare’s, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market.

…which prompted this very nice commentary:

So let me get this straight. It’s not fair to have a public option because they don’t have to make obscene profits for their shareholders and they can use the leverage of the combined group of medicare and public option customers to negotiate better fees with doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

Isn’t that the point?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/07/public_health_care_option/

Patrick- The term “federal health insurance plan” doesn’t sound like private enterprise to me. I do not have the advantage of the inside perspective of the health care industry that you have, so I do appreciate your perspective. I can only speak from the experience we had with my mother’s health care costs and treatments in her waning years. I saw the billings for an angioplasty (actually, 5 stints) performed at Abbott Northwestern. Of the total bill, her medical assistance paid about 20%. Medicare covered about 40%. The rest was actually written off as a loss by the hospital, since she had no other insurance. When we were settling her estate, the state of Iowa only recovered about $11,000 of a total bill that was about $250,000. I don’t see how this type of practice can continue any more than ever paying off the billions of dollars we have commited to the whole financial sector. I don’t believe any hospital has a 40% margin of profit on its services. Until I can see some of these figures in black and white, I will be skeptical of the claims of a federal insurance plan.

I think there is validity to the accusations of profiteering within upper management of some of the insurance companies, but what happens to the rank and file people that actually make these companies work? Do you really believe that greed can be forced out of people just because of government competition? I don’t. These people will just go to some other industry to make their bucks. I think the whole industry will shift over to government control, and the government departments have just as much greed and mismanagement as private industry. One of the jokes circulating is how to get an affluent liberal to pay his taxes. You appoint him to a cabinet position. Neither party has a monolopy on virtue or vice.

John, you wrote:

The term “federal health insurance plan” doesn’t sound like private enterprise to me.

It’s not private enterprise. But it would be a public option as an option in competition with private enterprise.

Anyone who prefers private enterprise would be free to choose any of the existing private options.

Personally, I trust private insurance companies about as far as I can throw them. The goal of private insurance is to turn a profit, and the best way to turn a profit often seems to involve finding excuses to refuse payment altogether.

We are in an economic crisis caused by greed compounded by lack of regulation. We are seeing the same problem in the health insurance industry–and private enterprises are attempting to save their excessive salaries, bonuses, retirement plans and stock options. The per capita cost of health insurance in the US is the highest of 12 developed nations and we get the lowest return on our dollar.

When an insurance executive’s bonus is affected by their decisions to raise premiums and deny coverage, they are choosing to benefit themselves over the insured. We have to regulate this industry to reduce the administrative costs. There are 50 million uninsured plus 50 million more underinusred, and another 50 million who are afraid they may not have the coverage there when they need it. We need universal health, and if that means we end up with a system like Canada or Great Britain, so be it. I think we can come up with a better plan by learning from the systems used in other developed nations and making the US system the best in the world.

The profit and corruption in insurance largely has to do with Medicare and Medicaid. How does a bigger government footprint fix that ?

Also, social security is bankrupt and will not fulfill it’s promises. Freddie and Fannie are near to bringing down the whole financial system. So how is that citizens are to accept the vision of universal health care and ignore the reality of other government programs.

The corruption in the health care industry has to do with plain old greed–when the head of United Health is compensated 123 million dollars in one year, that is outrageous. How many premiums were raised for his compensation? How mamy were denied coverage?

Medicare and Medicaid have their own problems, but they are only a small portion of the corruption–it is when companies refuse to look at their compensation practicies as corrupting. We have to eliminate bureaucratic waste–and there minimal waste in the Medicare system while administrative costs in the private insurance industry are upwards of 10 to 12 percent.

And John George–you are worried about paying for healthin insurance twice when you are already paying for it twice–you policy and then the increased policy price due to increased health provider costs becuase the uninsured are not paying their bills–so we get to through higher pass-through costs, higher property taxes (so we can support our local hospital) and increased overall health costs because people are unable to avail themselves of preventive care–so the uninsured cost us 2 and 3 times over.

One proposal is to use a payroll tax to fund insurance–if the business provides insurance, they get a credit from the tax–but business is nervous about this as they worry that the tax may exceed their health care costs now. For many companies, it should be a savings–the excessive cost of insuring their employees has led many companies to reduce their benefits.

Another proposal is to tax health care benefits that are now tax free to employees. The proposal is to tax those who are in the higher income range for the benefits received with an exlusion for those at lower income.

We have to realize we are paying too large a portion of our annual incomes-overall–for everybody–for health care costs. The system is broken and the only people benefiting are–health insurance executives.

Now we need to put it in a package so we know what we are paying–instead of all the hidden costs resulting from the broken system that we have.

Those health insurance executives are going to be the most voracious against real reform. Let’s hope we don’t get a useless “reform” like we just witnessed with credit cards.

David,
Maybe I’m just being thick, but I’m still not following the connection between those articles and your assertion that

The profit and corruption in insurance largely has to do with Medicare and Medicaid.

Corruption and profit in private insurance would seem to be entirely independent of anything that goes on inside of Medicare/Medicaid.

Patrick- I think the thing that is evident in your discussion with David H. is that greed and fraud are as evident in government programs as they are in private programs. Regulation does not eliminate it because of the human factor involved. There are unprincipled people who will find a way to get their hands in the till leaglly or not. Since you will be directly affected in your compensation, I think it would be very important to know how this whole thing is going to work before oyu put your stamp of approval on it. Just because it is an Obama program does not make it advantagious for everyone. I know that the budget cuts are affecting my wife because the whole geriatric care industry is pretty much funded by government payments. It is going to be interesting what will happen when we no longer have money in the funds to pay people.

Patrick, sorry, I see now you are agreeing about the corruption in public programs but were questioning the concept of “profit.” But, of course, all these public programs have coincided with DRAMATIC inflation in medicine (to be fair a society growing richer is going to increase medical spending but not by that degree we have). And this inflation has unquestionably lead to greater profits in medicine.

During this massive run up in health expenditures (I think like $200/year in 1960 to $6000./year per person now) the health spending breakdown % between hosp/rx/admin/office/etc. is largely unchanged. That is very suspicious to me because it appears as more money has flowed into the system it has been divvied up: “one for you, one for me” style. This would suggest that we have gotten limited innovation for the dollars spent. My concern about a public program is that innovation will stop and inflated overhead will be locked in forever.

YEP … and they think the views of those who don’t agree with them are ‘terroristic’, in that they feel their ultra-right, preferred life choices are being affected, i.e. a deterioration of the moral quality of the US.

You’ve heard it here… haven’t you?

John, take a really hard look at the last 2 terrorist attacks. Where does the foundation of their hate come from?

Anthony- I believe these attacks came out of deceived, unregenerate minds of people who reject the truth. As I said

Hatred and intolerance does not have
ethnic, gender, political, or
religious boundaries,

and I think these acts are evident. Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, it doesn’t make them biscuits.

who deceived them, john? it sure wasn’t the atheists.