you sound like a VERY responsible person....With a good sense of right and wrong...I will never understand some adults...A taser kid..Drinking in his squad car no less...and a man legally allowed to carry a guy threatening to murder someone
AND YOU MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM???????????????????????
What excuses were those? Look, the guy should get whatever punishment or reprimands are typical in those cases. He should get it no better and no worse just because his ex-sister-in-law happens to be the governor of his state.
No I'm not making any excuses for him. But none of that helps Palin out, and frankly the way Palin operates is - I think - bad for women everywhere. The tried and stereotypical opinion some people hold about women in leadership roles is that they will allow their mood swings or emotional responses to override their logic.
For the vast majority of women in professional settings of responsibility, this is bullocks. For governor Palin, it appears to actually be true.
By the way, if you were to ask me if I would hire this guy to babysit my kids, the answer would be no. He doesn't sound like a great guy, and he sounds like a poor police officer. Some of the other officers have gone on record (anonymously I think) saying so at least. It seems to me that most everyone tied into the Palin family is a big mess. These are the kinds of people I'd rather not spend too much time chatting with at a bus stop, let alone placing in positions of power.
As to the guy that she fired...She really didn't fire him she offered him another position and he refused it and choose to retire....His actions were well documented with a paper trail and witnesses. But that isn't even the point ....the point is that she had every right to ask for his resignation as he servered at her pleasure ....It was her right as Gov. to put someone else in that position.
It was wrong of me to lead you astray on that one....I wanted to see how much of the Liberal KoolAid you had....Lots it seems
Hehe.
This was the first I'd heard he quit, so I decided to employ my friend Google.
So anyways Big Mike, I call BS on your "trick". Pretty much the entire story so far has been about a firing, and not a quitting. And really, the difference in cases like this is more semantics than anything else. Many employers don't like to answer "why was so and so fired" kinds of questions, so they offer a chance to quit while making it obviously the employee will be fired otherwise.
By the way, while I was looking this up, I found probably the most frightening quote I've ever seen. It's hard to tell if this is legitimate or entirely done in jest, but it was left on the message board of one of these articles I linked.
Does anyone NOT know that is called cherry picking the evidence? Sheesh, I am voting for Sarah because she is evangelical like me so I don't care about anything else...but this! I'm embarrassed. Sarah, you need to fire whoever told you to try this stunt...someone has really lost it to pull something this dumb. Voters are not so stupid. Don't worry, we evangelicals are all fired up. We know only you are willing to bring on the rapture. We have to vote for you to get it...don't worry.
Just thought I'd share this link since nicely summarizes why I think Palin is most dangerous serous candidate we've ever had at this level of government. It's written by Sam Harris.
Though it's a little heavy handed with some of the assertions, I think it adequately explains why here public persona of someone who does without hesitating, which is synonymous to doing without thinking, is so screwed up. Here's a humorous analogy (from the link) which demonstrates the danger nicely.
"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."
Nice article Rose. I think he is a little heavy handed, but there are some good quotables in there.
One of the things that has been a huge concern for me is her religious beliefs. I grew up in a Methodist church, but was baptized in a very charismatic church as a 10 year old. I actually pretended to speak in tongues so I could be baptized there (with my dad).
I then had many friends who went to AoG churches and had this Apocalyptic view of current world events. Palin has said that she thinks that Jesus will return in her lifetime. I think that's a terrifying notion as a possible leader of our country and what many charismatics believe.
It's funny, because I haven't attended a charismatic church in probably 10 years. The church I attend now is more reformed theology. There are a number of people who have fairly fundamentalist views of religion in my church. But I have been outside of the Charismatic, Holy Roller movement for so long that I forgot what alot of it sounds like, until reading more and more about her church.
While I still have friends who attend Charismatic churches, I tend to forget what a different view of the world they have. I remember that while it's not a small number of people who hold these same views, it's also not the majority of Christianity in America that shares those views.
Ultimately knowing what alot of "end timers" think about the rapture and all, I think that it's a scary notion to have someone like that with their hand on the football.
The claims about Obama's economic advisers seem to have been skipped, so I checked it out:
Lawrence Summers: Former treasury secretary under Clinton, former Harvard president. He seems to have a lot of confrontations with far left academics and pissed a lot of ultra-liberals off. I see no issues here, just typical economist foot-in-mouth mistakes.
Robert Rubin: Treasury secretary before Summers, CitiGroup executive. May have used/abused Treasury contacts to benefit CitiGroup. Sound economics, questionable decision making.
Paul Volcker: Chairman of the Fed prior to Greenspan, various banking roles after. Not sure there's anything here, maybe before he was the chairman of the Fed (he seems to have had a role in ending the Fed's gold standard).
In contrast:
Phil Gramm: Former senator, lobbyist for UBS. Career deregulator, claim to fame being the Gramm-Leech-Bliley act which legalized the mergers between banks, insurance companies, and investment firms; which were made illegal after the great Depression to prevent total collapse of the financial industry when one part of it is losing money... woops.
Carly Fiorinia: Former HP chairwoman. We all know her track record there.
WestSideBilly, thanks for the explanation. If this is the dirt that Big Mike has on Obama, I don't understand how he expects the rest of us to react.
Chuck, nice write-up on end-times. This belief is almost exactly the opposite of the philosophical debates over free will. There are actually surprisingly strong arguments that free will does not exist at all, but as a society we have to behave as if we had free will. Otherwise, if you don't get a job, it's not because you were lazy but because you were built that way. If you commit a crime, how can you convict someone who being a murder just happened to?
Conversely, there isn't any admissible evidence for end-times prophecies, and for society to function correctly the vast majority must operate on the assumption that the world isn't going to end in the next couple weeks or months or years. "Do it for the children" is often the call for responsibility, and if you believe and live as if there won't be any children, you're inviting irresponsible behavior. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that end-times prophecies are all correct. Given the world hasn't ended on any day in the last several thousand years of recorded history, why should it end in the next couple hundred?
Totally agree with you Rose. I mean, the Apostle Paul actually had to tell people to get off their asses because they were sitting around thinking Jesus was going to be coming back THEN. People have been predicting end times for as long as people have been around.
2012 is when it's really gonna happen though. At least according to the Mayans.
Hey Westside, let's not forget Phil Gramm's Comodities Modernization act, which allowed companies to trade and sell comodities without any oversight. That's what caused the Enron downfall and is what likely has caused oil prices to skyrocket. In my book, he is the man who is most responsible for all of the worst economic problems in this decade outside of the tech bubble.
Free markets are never free as we can see by our recent bailouts. But, the deregulation helped our economy, right John?
2012 is when it's really gonna happen though. At least according to the Mayans.
In all fairness to the Mayans, 2012 isn't supposed to be when the world ends, but rather when it ceases to exist. Hence, the reason why a calendar cannot be designed which counts into 2013.
Charles, I know Gramm co-sponsored that act in the senate, but I wasn't sure how much of a hand he had in writing it per se (it started life in the House). Not sure how much meat is there.
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that end-times prophecies are all correct. Given the world hasn't ended on any day in the last several thousand years of recorded history, why should it end in the next couple hundred?
Let's just assume that there is turkey somewhere that has been fed by humans for last several hundred days. Why should that turkey believe that this Thanksgiving should be any different?
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that end-times prophecies are all correct. Given the world hasn't ended on any day in the last several thousand years of recorded history, why should it end in the next couple hundred?
Let's just assume that there is turkey somewhere that has been fed by humans for last several hundred days. Why should that turkey believe that this Thanksgiving should be any different?
Interesting argument. First, you cannot argue from the perspective of a human who knows what will happen, that's like applying odds after an event occurs. What are the odds of life on Earth? 100%! So, allow me to rephrase your question in a way that more accurately reflects our reality.
Let's assume there are thousands of turkey's in a settlement somewhere, who have been fed by humans for several hundred years. In that time, none has ever died of anything but natural causes (mostly related to obesity). A turkey knows that November 27th, 2008 is approaching (the humans have given them a calendar).
Now to echo the refrain, why should that turkey believe that this Thanksgiving should be any different?
Further, should the turkey become bulimic or anorexic, knowing that such a diet would ruin its health and might kill it prematurely while the odds of being a meal are slim? Does the answer change if another turkey tells them the end is nigh?
From the perspective of the turkey, the Thanksgiving day execution is a black swan event. It can't be predicted. The turkey simply doesn't have enough information to make that prediction. Maybe a particularly saavy turkey could distinguish the ravings of the mad turkey who claims that turkeykind created mankind to serve (pun not intended) from the ravings of the wise turkey who says that man will serve turkey (pun intended). Or maybe you just need to be lucky to do that.
I think the best course of action is to live your life as best you can. We can't predict if or when God will decide to halt the simulator or if there even is a simulator. Even end time prophecy says that no man will know when it will happen. If you believe in that sort of thing then you also believe that there is no point in trying to predict it. So you just go on about your business for as long as you can.
That was kind of the point of my "for the sake of argument" statement. So long as those kinds of beliefs are treated as irrelevant when forming decisions, I don't mind if any given leader holds them. But, if our president were to believe that a) end-times = good, b) it's bound to happen soon, and c) that certain prophecies are required for it to come about, then I'm worried.
E.g. our foreign involvement in Israel should be prefaced on the fact that they are one of the few middle eastern democracies and not on that regions role as birthplace to the major monotheisms. Likewise, our role in Iraq should be limited to national security and the fact Babylon used to be a city there should in no way influence our policy. I'm more than a little concerned that Palin will struggle to make that differentiation.
To be fair, when he said "I've bought American literally all my life", he wasn't referring to cars, but rather people. While it's appalling that the candidate admitted to treating humans like cattle, he did show integrity in purchasing only American citizens.
To be fair, when he said "I've bought American literally all my life", he wasn't referring to cars, but rather people. While it's appalling that the candidate admitted to treating humans like cattle, he did show integrity in purchasing only American citizens.
:P
Rose, don't be naive. The guy is from Arizona. You think he's never owned an illegal from Mexico?
What I find a little galling is one particular interpretation we hear a lot about politicians who aren't particularly inspirational. From the article:
It's bracing but it also could be spun as normal.
Gee, was George Washington a poor choice for president because he wasn't normal enough? How about Lincoln? FDR?
I'd rather have an exceptional president (or VP) than an average Joe (or Joan). I understand the desire to elect someone who has ties to regular people. How can someone with an heiress wife relate to those of us pinching pennies to survive, but the elitism card is often overused.
Sure, McCain is rich now, but in his 20s he probably wasn't that different than other vets (well, his family had a lineage of X-star generals, so he might have been a little better...). Likewise, sure Obama has a law degree, but he grew up in poverty.
Like Jon Stewart said, don't you WANT someone who thinks they're better than you and is smarter than you to be President? I mean, it's the most difficult job in the world!!!!
Like Jon Stewart said, don't you WANT someone who thinks they're better than you and is smarter than you to be President? I mean, it's the most difficult job in the world!!!!
The hardest job in the world? But parents usually claim parenting is...not to be outdone by teachers who really do have the world's hardest job.
On another topic, I found this article, which explains how cognitive dissonance and a people seeking out reinforcement of their beliefs actually make it nearly impossible to correct erroneous or even ridiculous but deeply held beliefs.
Research like this helps explain why no matter how much evidence is produced that humans share culpability in global warming - for example - that all it does is reinforce the beliefs of those who disagree.
I'd read that article before and almost immediately realized just how true it is.
Just like Joseph Goebbles said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
It amazes me that when I debate with some of my friends, even when you confront them with the truth, they continue to believe the lie.
A good example of that is this. My mom had a friend and co-worker recently whose husband tried to kill her up in Skagit County. He tried to beat her to death with a baseball bat, then assaulted a renter of there's as well when the renter tried to stop him. My mom went and saw her in the hospital 1-2 days after the assault and she described the whole thing in great detail to her and a couple of other friends.
Then a couple of weeks later, he came up with an elaborate story about how it was someone else who assaulted her and that he tried to fight off this assailant. Her and her kids believed this and tried to start this campaign to find the "actual assailant". Even though she had given very vivid accounts of exactly how he attacked her and even though another person had also been attacked by him at the same time.
When the prosecutor talked to her kids about it and laid out all of the evidence for them, pretty much their only response was a blank stare. When faced with actual facts, they still couldn't change their thinking.
I think this is not true for everyone, but it is for the majority of the population.
The rest of Goebbles quote is here:
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
What, because her voice is shrill and her accent funny? Oh, you meant the content...In retrospect, it's actually sort of funny that the knock on Obama was that "all he's done is give one convention speech (2004)".
Maybe Palin has a political future on the national stage, but so far she's played out more or less how I expected. Big excitement over a new bauble, then boredom with it. I just didn't anticipate the far-right high would be so high, nor it's eventual low so low.
Comments
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5844710
What excuses were those? Look, the guy should get whatever punishment or reprimands are typical in those cases. He should get it no better and no worse just because his ex-sister-in-law happens to be the governor of his state.
No I'm not making any excuses for him. But none of that helps Palin out, and frankly the way Palin operates is - I think - bad for women everywhere. The tried and stereotypical opinion some people hold about women in leadership roles is that they will allow their mood swings or emotional responses to override their logic.
For the vast majority of women in professional settings of responsibility, this is bullocks. For governor Palin, it appears to actually be true.
By the way, if you were to ask me if I would hire this guy to babysit my kids, the answer would be no. He doesn't sound like a great guy, and he sounds like a poor police officer. Some of the other officers have gone on record (anonymously I think) saying so at least. It seems to me that most everyone tied into the Palin family is a big mess. These are the kinds of people I'd rather not spend too much time chatting with at a bus stop, let alone placing in positions of power.
Hehe.
This was the first I'd heard he quit, so I decided to employ my friend Google.
Palin's lawyer says he was fired.
So does McCain's campaign.
Monegan himself seems to feel it was a firing.
And I guess even Palin's campaign now refers to it as a firing. This is, of course, two days after they explained it as quitting. Does this qualify as a Palin lie for the day (PLftD)?
So anyways Big Mike, I call BS on your "trick". Pretty much the entire story so far has been about a firing, and not a quitting. And really, the difference in cases like this is more semantics than anything else. Many employers don't like to answer "why was so and so fired" kinds of questions, so they offer a chance to quit while making it obviously the employee will be fired otherwise.
By the way, while I was looking this up, I found probably the most frightening quote I've ever seen. It's hard to tell if this is legitimate or entirely done in jest, but it was left on the message board of one of these articles I linked.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1
Though it's a little heavy handed with some of the assertions, I think it adequately explains why here public persona of someone who does without hesitating, which is synonymous to doing without thinking, is so screwed up. Here's a humorous analogy (from the link) which demonstrates the danger nicely.
One of the things that has been a huge concern for me is her religious beliefs. I grew up in a Methodist church, but was baptized in a very charismatic church as a 10 year old. I actually pretended to speak in tongues so I could be baptized there (with my dad).
I then had many friends who went to AoG churches and had this Apocalyptic view of current world events. Palin has said that she thinks that Jesus will return in her lifetime. I think that's a terrifying notion as a possible leader of our country and what many charismatics believe.
It's funny, because I haven't attended a charismatic church in probably 10 years. The church I attend now is more reformed theology. There are a number of people who have fairly fundamentalist views of religion in my church. But I have been outside of the Charismatic, Holy Roller movement for so long that I forgot what alot of it sounds like, until reading more and more about her church.
While I still have friends who attend Charismatic churches, I tend to forget what a different view of the world they have. I remember that while it's not a small number of people who hold these same views, it's also not the majority of Christianity in America that shares those views.
Ultimately knowing what alot of "end timers" think about the rapture and all, I think that it's a scary notion to have someone like that with their hand on the football.
Lawrence Summers: Former treasury secretary under Clinton, former Harvard president. He seems to have a lot of confrontations with far left academics and pissed a lot of ultra-liberals off. I see no issues here, just typical economist foot-in-mouth mistakes.
Robert Rubin: Treasury secretary before Summers, CitiGroup executive. May have used/abused Treasury contacts to benefit CitiGroup. Sound economics, questionable decision making.
Paul Volcker: Chairman of the Fed prior to Greenspan, various banking roles after. Not sure there's anything here, maybe before he was the chairman of the Fed (he seems to have had a role in ending the Fed's gold standard).
In contrast:
Phil Gramm: Former senator, lobbyist for UBS. Career deregulator, claim to fame being the Gramm-Leech-Bliley act which legalized the mergers between banks, insurance companies, and investment firms; which were made illegal after the great Depression to prevent total collapse of the financial industry when one part of it is losing money... woops.
Carly Fiorinia: Former HP chairwoman. We all know her track record there.
Chuck, nice write-up on end-times. This belief is almost exactly the opposite of the philosophical debates over free will. There are actually surprisingly strong arguments that free will does not exist at all, but as a society we have to behave as if we had free will. Otherwise, if you don't get a job, it's not because you were lazy but because you were built that way. If you commit a crime, how can you convict someone who being a murder just happened to?
Conversely, there isn't any admissible evidence for end-times prophecies, and for society to function correctly the vast majority must operate on the assumption that the world isn't going to end in the next couple weeks or months or years. "Do it for the children" is often the call for responsibility, and if you believe and live as if there won't be any children, you're inviting irresponsible behavior. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that end-times prophecies are all correct. Given the world hasn't ended on any day in the last several thousand years of recorded history, why should it end in the next couple hundred?
2012 is when it's really gonna happen though. At least according to the Mayans.
Hey Westside, let's not forget Phil Gramm's Comodities Modernization act, which allowed companies to trade and sell comodities without any oversight. That's what caused the Enron downfall and is what likely has caused oil prices to skyrocket. In my book, he is the man who is most responsible for all of the worst economic problems in this decade outside of the tech bubble.
Free markets are never free as we can see by our recent bailouts. But, the deregulation helped our economy, right John?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUJ_Qn0AHTU
Amazing that he actually said this after everything that's happened this last week.
In all fairness to the Mayans, 2012 isn't supposed to be when the world ends, but rather when it ceases to exist. Hence, the reason why a calendar cannot be designed which counts into 2013.
The difference is subtle though.
Let's just assume that there is turkey somewhere that has been fed by humans for last several hundred days. Why should that turkey believe that this Thanksgiving should be any different?
Interesting argument. First, you cannot argue from the perspective of a human who knows what will happen, that's like applying odds after an event occurs. What are the odds of life on Earth? 100%! So, allow me to rephrase your question in a way that more accurately reflects our reality.
Let's assume there are thousands of turkey's in a settlement somewhere, who have been fed by humans for several hundred years. In that time, none has ever died of anything but natural causes (mostly related to obesity). A turkey knows that November 27th, 2008 is approaching (the humans have given them a calendar).
Now to echo the refrain, why should that turkey believe that this Thanksgiving should be any different?
Further, should the turkey become bulimic or anorexic, knowing that such a diet would ruin its health and might kill it prematurely while the odds of being a meal are slim? Does the answer change if another turkey tells them the end is nigh?
I think the best course of action is to live your life as best you can. We can't predict if or when God will decide to halt the simulator or if there even is a simulator. Even end time prophecy says that no man will know when it will happen. If you believe in that sort of thing then you also believe that there is no point in trying to predict it. So you just go on about your business for as long as you can.
E.g. our foreign involvement in Israel should be prefaced on the fact that they are one of the few middle eastern democracies and not on that regions role as birthplace to the major monotheisms. Likewise, our role in Iraq should be limited to national security and the fact Babylon used to be a city there should in no way influence our policy. I'm more than a little concerned that Palin will struggle to make that differentiation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 28145.html
To be fair, when he said "I've bought American literally all my life", he wasn't referring to cars, but rather people. While it's appalling that the candidate admitted to treating humans like cattle, he did show integrity in purchasing only American citizens.
:P
Rose, don't be naive. The guy is from Arizona. You think he's never owned an illegal from Mexico?
Has McCain no dignity? Has he no dignity, sir?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... ml?showall
Where's RobRoy to tell us Katie was a condescending bitch in the interview?
What I find a little galling is one particular interpretation we hear a lot about politicians who aren't particularly inspirational. From the article:
Gee, was George Washington a poor choice for president because he wasn't normal enough? How about Lincoln? FDR?
I'd rather have an exceptional president (or VP) than an average Joe (or Joan). I understand the desire to elect someone who has ties to regular people. How can someone with an heiress wife relate to those of us pinching pennies to survive, but the elitism card is often overused.
Sure, McCain is rich now, but in his 20s he probably wasn't that different than other vets (well, his family had a lineage of X-star generals, so he might have been a little better...). Likewise, sure Obama has a law degree, but he grew up in poverty.
The hardest job in the world? But parents usually claim parenting is...not to be outdone by teachers who really do have the world's hardest job.
On another topic, I found this article, which explains how cognitive dissonance and a people seeking out reinforcement of their beliefs actually make it nearly impossible to correct erroneous or even ridiculous but deeply held beliefs.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... -does.html
Research like this helps explain why no matter how much evidence is produced that humans share culpability in global warming - for example - that all it does is reinforce the beliefs of those who disagree.
Just like Joseph Goebbles said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
It amazes me that when I debate with some of my friends, even when you confront them with the truth, they continue to believe the lie.
A good example of that is this. My mom had a friend and co-worker recently whose husband tried to kill her up in Skagit County. He tried to beat her to death with a baseball bat, then assaulted a renter of there's as well when the renter tried to stop him. My mom went and saw her in the hospital 1-2 days after the assault and she described the whole thing in great detail to her and a couple of other friends.
Then a couple of weeks later, he came up with an elaborate story about how it was someone else who assaulted her and that he tried to fight off this assailant. Her and her kids believed this and tried to start this campaign to find the "actual assailant". Even though she had given very vivid accounts of exactly how he attacked her and even though another person had also been attacked by him at the same time.
When the prosecutor talked to her kids about it and laid out all of the evidence for them, pretty much their only response was a blank stare. When faced with actual facts, they still couldn't change their thinking.
I think this is not true for everyone, but it is for the majority of the population.
The rest of Goebbles quote is here:
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n
Yikes!
It's starting to get painful listening to her.
What, because her voice is shrill and her accent funny? Oh, you meant the content...In retrospect, it's actually sort of funny that the knock on Obama was that "all he's done is give one convention speech (2004)".
Maybe Palin has a political future on the national stage, but so far she's played out more or less how I expected. Big excitement over a new bauble, then boredom with it. I just didn't anticipate the far-right high would be so high, nor it's eventual low so low.