Two years ago PAX was in Bellevue and it was ridiculously packed. You could barely move. Seriously.
So the next year they streched out and got the entire Seattle Convention Center and it was comfortably full and active.
This year they got even more of the convention center and it was uncomfortably packed.
I heard they are planning on renting more of the space next year. They might also have two conventions -- one for the east coast and one for the west coast.
I say they just move the whole production down to Vegas and get a bigger space.
I agree, it was much more packed this year than last, though I don't think it was quite to the level of '06 at the Meydenbauer yet.
I was at the press only Q&A with Mike & Jerry, and they said that next year they're going to get the entire convention center (they didn't have the 5th and 6th floors this year).
PAX east coast starts in 2010 (they already have publishers making reservations!), and will hopefully draw down the crowds at Seattle PAX somewhat. They said that 75% of PAX attendees come from outside Washington State.
They have absolutely no interest in moving PAX to a city other than Seattle, since in their words "we live here." I can appreciate that.
I keep saying that the MSM treats the election like a beauty pageant and is just waiting for someone to rip their dress.
And I agree completely that the feeding frenzy over Palin could backfire a few months down the road.
Still, Palin is all about the base. She's not about Hillary voters or the middle. It does nothing to defuse the McSame argument, since Palin comes from the same idiological family as Bush.
The underlying theme is that the country is voting democratic because they're sick of Bush and Obama is very smart (much smarter than Kerry anyway) in how he's playing that. That is what is going to get Obama elected.
Of course we haven't yet really seen what kind of Swiftboating is going to come out of the Rove-wing of the Republican party yet.
The attacks on Palin right now are going to be in the forgotten history of the campaign by the time election day rolls around. The Karl Rove's out there, however, will be timing their attacks on Obama to not allow for a backlash to weaken them before election day.
Y'know RCC, that was a pretty well reasoned post. I just really differ on one thing strongly. Your response about me saying the press runs a risk was this: "Oh no! Think of the ramifications, the press might not be re-elected!"
I appreciate the humor (it actually did make me laugh) but where I was going was that if people get the feeling she is being unfairly bashed on, it could turn them in their favor. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the ones already on the fence. And of course the 18 million.
I do agree with the assessment that heavy-handed "piling-on" to Palin could help her (it is far from certain however). Where we differ, I think, is that I highly doubt all the negative news on Palin (specifically the speculative news) is coming out because a left-biased MSM is working around the clock to get Obama elected. It's in the news because it sells papers or mouse clicks. It just so happens that Palin is new, so we are getting everything in one fast onslaught, and she is relatively controversial.
Y'know RCC, that was a pretty well reasoned post. I just really differ on one thing strongly. Your response about me saying the press runs a risk was this: "Oh no! Think of the ramifications, the press might not be re-elected!"
I appreciate the humor (it actually did make me laugh) but where I was going was that if people get the feeling she is being unfairly bashed on, it could turn them in their favor. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the ones already on the fence. And of course the 18 million.
I do agree with the assessment that heavy-handed "piling-on" to Palin could help her (it is far from certain however). Where we differ, I think, is that I highly doubt all the negative news on Palin (specifically the speculative news) is coming out because a left-biased MSM is working around the clock to get Obama elected. It's in the news because it sells papers or mouse clicks. It just so happens that Palin is new, so we are getting everything in one fast onslaught, and she is relatively controversial.
I think it is actually both. I discussed this briefly on-air with Ken Schram and John Carlson this afternoon. It is appalling how little either of them know regarding this issue, actually. But I suppose they have to research lots of stories, while I have been focusing on this one.
I think that's still pretty newsworthy. I mean, if Joe Biden's wife had been a registered Socialist and he'd gone to a bunch of Socialist Party conventions, wouldn't that be newsworthy?
I think that's still pretty newsworthy. I mean, if Joe Biden's wife had been a registered Socialist and he'd gone to a bunch of Socialist Party conventions, wouldn't that be newsworthy?
The better analogy is if instead of having her husband, part Eskimo, registered to vote in some Alaskan Independence Party for a few years some years ago, the Palin's had for 20 years until now attended an Alaskan Liberation Theology church, gotten married by the pastor there, and had their kids schooled in that, and given a supposedly historic speech on Alaskan-American racial problems where she defended the pastor against all the videos of anti-American rhetoric. It would all be no problem, be cause she could just say that wasn't the pastor she knew. It would be over in the blink of an eye, thanks to a supine media.
I think that's still pretty newsworthy. I mean, if Joe Biden's wife had been a registered Socialist and he'd gone to a bunch of Socialist Party conventions, wouldn't that be newsworthy?
The better analogy is if instead of having her husband, part Eskimo, registered to vote in some Alaskan Independence Party for a few years some years ago, the Palin's had for 20 years until now attended an Alaskan Liberation Theology church, gotten married by the pastor there, and had their kids schooled in that, and given a supposedly historic speech on Alaskan-American racial problems where she defended the pastor against all the videos of anti-American rhetoric. It would all be no problem, be cause she could just say that wasn't the pastor she knew. It would be over in the blink of an eye, thanks to a supine media.
First of all, that's not a correct analogy, because it's a completely different issue. I do believe my analogy was a bit more relevant to the above issue.
Questioning the salvation of someone voting for John Kerry, saying that being critical of Dubya will send you to hell, likening the Iraq war to a crusade for Jesus, herself saying that the Iraq war is a task from God.
And this is in the church that they were married in and went to for 20 years.
So rather than being theoretical, this will be real.
Questioning the salvation of someone voting for John Kerry, saying that being critical of Dubya will send you to hell, likening the Iraq war to a crusade for Jesus, herself saying that the Iraq war is a task from God.
I don't see a problem.
Most Christians believe in an eternal heaven and an eternal hell. Christians of all denominations, and most other religions, believe that it is only through God's grace that we are saved from the sins that all of us commit and are able to go to heaven. It is natural then for a church to discuss salvation. I presume the issue with support for John Kerry would be the abortion issue. If you believe that God-given life begins at conception, it is pretty automatic to conclude that taking that life would call into question one's salvation. The answer to that question is a natural and essential topic for any church to discuss. I would wonder how serious is a church that does not raise that question. Whether or not you agree with that, that is a mainstream position within the US.
Also, it sounds like she didn't like the phrasing of her prayer when she first said it, and added an explanation as a further part of her prayer to clarify it for people not familiar with evangelical language. The idea that praying that our actions would be pleasing to God is a fine prayer. If you don't like that, then you will also have serious problems with the prayers of people of all religions. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, you have a right to your beliefs. But you won't find anyone who believes in God who will object to that prayer.
I am not familiar with the crusade comparison. That is a very complex topic, and the word crusade has other meanings than the wars 500 to 1000 years ago.
Being a Christian, I am fairly familiar with evangelical language and with alot of the political rhetoric that goes along with that. And I would argue that there are plenty of things that go along with both political parties that are anti-Christian.
I understand why he said what he said. What I'm saying is that most americans reject the idea that voting for a democrat is sinful (I have heard this numerous times) or that questioning Dubya and his policies is also sinful, based on the verse about respecting those in power. This verse was never quoted by evangelicals in the 90's when Clinton was president.
So while many evangelicals took issue with things Reverend Wright had to say (myself included), I think Christians of other stripes are likely to take issue with the viewpoints held by the church she is a long time member of.
Tagging onto tarzanchuck example of not criticizing the president (an admitted straw man since few would associate with it), what concerns me is the hypocrisy. I have never noticed people swinging so quickly on their "deepest held beliefs" as I have during this election.
We're seeing a lot of comparisons of Obama and Palin, and on each side I hear people dismissing the same issues on their own side while exaggerating the concern on their own side. If you look critically, each seems to have almost all the same "positives" as "negatives". Each will break a glass ceiling, each is newer to politics or is new blood, each have numerous rumors swirling regarding their trustworthiness. But because their actual policies are radically different, people seem able to disassociate the similarities and turn them into differences. It's completely absurd at this point.
I will point out, particularly to Robroy, that I was listening to a very conservative radio station this morning and the callers were at-arms over "baby-gate". However, I think your prediction that this will bite Obama is turning out to be rather false. The hosts railed against the media, but applauded Obama's and Biden's maturity and respect for insisting that this not be brought up by their campaigns. The hosts then went on to explain that it's not the candidates jobs to shut up the most extreme bloggers, and a few callers actually represented the opinion that this demonstrated how the media might love Obama but doesn't listen to or respect his authority.
Just an anecdote, but it seems to me that this whole deal might end up being one that actually helps people disassociate Obama from a media bias. Also, it came out so early that unlike Hillary crying it is unlikely this will bump McCain/Palin when the actual election arrives. Instead, it'll just be this seedy thing people have tried to forget but has left a little bit of a bad taste in their mouths.
I agree with you Rose. It's the extremist bloggers that are actually pushing the baby story. Although now it's going to be constant tabloid news from here on out.
Media-wise, this election cycle is so interesting. Pretty much as a rule, in MSM you never talk about politicians children. It's just off limits. Much like how prior to Watergate the MSM didn't talk about things like that that politicians did. JFK would've NEVER gotten away with his infidelities in today's climate. Back then though, it was a sort of thing where everyone knew it, but no one really talked about it.
Now what's happening is with the decline of the MSM and the rise of individual bloggers as a news source and as investigative journalists you have far more muckracking, but also far more people who have access to far more information as well.
So since everyone on the internet is reporting on it and scooping the MSM, they almost have no choice but to report on it, since it's what everyone is talking about.
And since individual bloggers are not beholden to advertising dollars, then people have no recourse to complain or to shut them up about whatever they want to talk about.
Freedom of speech is certainly a powerful tool. Current access to information is so unprecedented in history.
What I'm saying is that most americans reject the idea that voting for a democrat is sinful (I have heard this numerous times) or that questioning Dubya and his policies is also sinful, based on the verse about respecting those in power. This verse was never quoted by evangelicals in the 90's when Clinton was president.
A large number of people do think that voting to support abortion is sinful. Many Catholic voters, for example, I believe simply take the position that they like the welfare position of the Democrats so much they are willing to overlook the abortion position. Evangelicals disagree. But that was a major issue in the Kerry campaign, which is one of the reasons why he is not President.
Obama is now running an ad saying McCain wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I doubt that is really his position, because anyone can see that the country is not ready for a federal mandate one way or the other. Republicans just want for now for the Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that the country can move forward at the state level. Then states can adopt their own constitutional safeguards as however they see fit.
As for respecting those in power, I assume you are referring to Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
There was quite a lot of discussion of that. That's part of why the right is always annoyed by statements like "He's not my president." If someone from the right says that, they are criticized by other people on the right, but it seems to be an acceptable statement on the left. But there is nothing wrong with questioning any leader's positions. I seriously doubt that Palin's paster said that was a sin, and given the unsubstantiated trash that has been disseminated by HuffPo, I am not concerned about them as a source.
A large number of people do think that voting to support abortion is sinful. Many Catholic voters, for example, I believe simply take the position that they like the welfare position of the Democrats so much they are willing to overlook the abortion position. Evangelicals disagree. But that was a major issue in the Kerry campaign, which is one of the reasons why he is not President.
The evangelicals are very confused regarding what our democracy is and why it needs to be secular to protect their rights. Coming from that side of things, I know many (probably the majority) believe ours would be a better country if religion were "just understood separation of church and state". But it's a short-sighted viewpoint to hold, because you don't know that Christianity will be the majority religion in 50 years. If the majority is Islam, should we modify our currency to say "In Allah We Trust"?
My impression is that the catholics get this and the evangelicals don't. The best possible society is one where each person's individual freedom is maximized while their ability to harm another person is minimized. I think we all get that implicitly, there are just a few issues where this philosophy intersects with itself, and that's how you get abortion as such a hot-button issue.
By the way, both liberals and conservatives are right about abortion. Liberals are right that a fetus isn't really a person yet and that different laws should apply and conservatives are right that a fetus kind of is a person and should have some of the same rights as people. Think I'm wrong?
If your liberal, do you think someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach that they can be tried for manslaughter? Pretty much everyone agrees the agressor should be tried.
If your conservative, do you think a woman who miscarriages should be tried for manslaughter? If parents don't nurture a born baby and it dies, pretty much everyone agrees that is murder even if it is unintentional or accidental. If a woman miscarriages a baby, that is her body electing not to nurture that child and unless a fetus is no different than a baby it should be considered manslaughter.
A lot of the problem with issues like these is that neither side is willing to admit their opponents do have a point. Finally, if it were a sin to vote for any candidate whose positions differed from your specific interpretation of your religious text, you would either be unable to vote or have a schizophrenic moral base. If it's a sin to vote for a pro-life candidate, then it must be a sin to vote for a candidate whose policy is to precipitate war and violate the constitution, like Bush. Statements like this are exactly what I mean when I warn against hypocrisy.
Obama is now running an ad saying McCain wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I doubt that is really his position, because anyone can see that the country is not ready for a federal mandate one way or the other. Republicans just want for now for the Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that the country can move forward at the state level. Then states can adopt their own constitutional safeguards as however they see fit.
jon, one of W's tenets of getting elected (both in 2000 and 2004) was replacing members of the 5-4 pro-choice SCOTUS to establish a 6-3 pro-life supermajority. The intent was to then challenge (and overturn) RvW. Ideally, they'd then institute a Constitutional amendment (assuming they had the numbers in Congress to pull it off, which they never quite did). This would all but guarantee the US was a pro-life country for a long time. I don't know what McCain really believes, but his pandering to the Evangelical wing would imply that he believes in this tenet.
Surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be an issue (yet) in 2008. Many of the justices are aging (four in their 70s and Stevens is 88), and it's likely a single term president could seat two justices, and a two-term president could seat as many as 5.
Of course, it's probably better that it's not an issue, because the pro-life forces have always been better at rallying voters who were indifferent about other subjects to vote Republican on that issue alone.
Ideally, they'd then institute a Constitutional amendment (assuming they had the numbers in Congress to pull it off, which they never quite did).
Are you saying ideally from your perspective? If so, that is your right to believe and vote accordingly. But I have never heard anyone else claim that the country is ready for that now. Yes, there will hopefully come a time when the country as a whole will accept such an amendment, but it would cause untold harm at this time. There is a difference between holding something as an ideal versus being in favor of legislation to make it happen right now. It would be like me running ad saying The Tim wants a constitutional amendment for house prices to be lowered.
If your liberal, do you think someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach that they can be tried for manslaughter? Pretty much everyone agrees the agressor should be tried.
Your thought experiment here shows that most liberals are hypocrites about abortion. So are most conservatives, who would have every fetus be born but won't step up to the plate with care or money if there is nobody & no money to raise the kids decently. (No, the black crackbaby isn't getting adopted by a loving family.) The only non-hypocritical stance re abortion that I can see is to make it illegal for viable fetuses, but have the public pony up the non-borrowed funds to raise every child decently, when the parents can't or won't. There's no hypocrisy on my part with killing non-viable or very sickly fetuses, because I believe in euthanasia for humans, for the same reasons I & most people do for other animals.
But I have never heard anyone else claim that the country is ready for that now. Yes, there will hopefully come a time when the country as a whole will accept such an amendment, but it would cause untold harm at this time. There is a difference between holding something as an ideal versus being in favor of legislation to make it happen right now. It would be like me running ad saying The Tim wants a constitutional amendment for house prices to be lowered.
Thirty-seven percent were in favor of an amendment to ban abortions, except when the life of the mother was at stake.
Not only is this belief common, it is so common that if you spend time with your two best friends one of you probably agrees we need a constitutional amendment. Personally, I think the entire issue should be controlled at the state level, as this does not seem to be the kind of domain that the federal government should be involved with.
Personally, I think the entire issue should be controlled at the state level, as this does not seem to be the kind of domain that the federal government should be involved with.
Why? Whether or not an act is murder clearly belongs at the federal level in my book.
The only non-hypocritical stance re abortion that I can see is to make it illegal for viable fetuses, but have the public pony up the non-borrowed funds to raise every child decently, when the parents can't or won't.
How does that differ from someone saying "I'm OK with laws against wife-beating, as long as the public has my dinner ready when I get home."
If your liberal, do you think someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach that they can be tried for manslaughter? Pretty much everyone agrees the agressor should be tried.
Your thought experiment here shows that most liberals are hypocrites about abortion. So are most conservatives, who would have every fetus be born but won't step up to the plate with care or money if there is nobody & no money to raise the kids decently. (No, the black crackbaby isn't getting adopted by a loving family.) The only non-hypocritical stance re abortion that I can see is to make it illegal for viable fetuses, but have the public pony up the non-borrowed funds to raise every child decently, when the parents can't or won't. There's no hypocrisy on my part with killing non-viable or very sickly fetuses, because I believe in euthanasia for humans, for the same reasons I & most people do for other animals.
That was kind of my point. If you move far enough to either side just for the sake of "being right" or just because it feels better to characterize how foolish or ungodly your "opposition" is, you are probably holding a hypocritical or at least contradictory belief.
I think there are several non-contradictory views. Your example is one. Another, which I prefer and find to be the most universally humane, is to determine ethical treatment by the living things ability to suffer and intelligence. Many people dislike this, because it's relativistic morality, but I believe you can produce a consistent belief system. E.g Spain's new laws regarding the ethical treatment of great apes are based on the fact that great apes appear to be as capable of pain and as intelligent as an infant human in their first year.
Personally, I think the entire issue should be controlled at the state level, as this does not seem to be the kind of domain that the federal government should be involved with.
Why? Whether or not an act is murder clearly belongs at the federal level in my book.
The constitution intended for States to legislate on all powers not specifically given to the federal government. We've kind of screwed that up, but that doesn't change my opinion that the original is preferable.
If you read my previous posts, the point is that nobody can agree whether or not the abortion is murder because it is non-intuitive. That makes it a religious or philosophical question The federal government has no right to legislate morals, but state governments do (so long as it does not explicitly conflict with the constitution). That's why it should be a state issue.
Why this bothers people, I'll never understand. Sure it would make it harder to force Massachusetts or California to ban abortion, but it would also make it easy for Kansas or Montana to. Since the status quo is abortion is legal, anyone who is pro-life and has thought it through should prefer it to be a state issue.
Personally, I think the entire issue should be controlled at the state level, as this does not seem to be the kind of domain that the federal government should be involved with.
Why? Whether or not an act is murder clearly belongs at the federal level in my book.
Actually it doesn't. Murder is a state offense, not a federal offense.
Ideally, they'd then institute a Constitutional amendment (assuming they had the numbers in Congress to pull it off, which they never quite did).
Are you saying ideally from your perspective? If so, that is your right to believe and vote accordingly. But I have never heard anyone else claim that the country is ready for that now. Yes, there will hopefully come a time when the country as a whole will accept such an amendment, but it would cause untold harm at this time. There is a difference between holding something as an ideal versus being in favor of legislation to make it happen right now. It would be like me running ad saying The Tim wants a constitutional amendment for house prices to be lowered.
Ideal from the perspective of the Evangelical forces backing W in 2000/2004. I'm quite pro-choice, but more importantly of the belief that the federal government should not be in the business of making personal choices for people.
I hope for this country's sake that such an amendment never gets passed, because of the precedent it would set on using the federal government's powers to dictate morality. It would inevitably be followed by constitutional amendments banning gay sex/marriage/rights, et al.
I'm quite pro-choice, but more importantly of the belief that the federal government should not be in the business of making personal choices for people.
I hope for this country's sake that such an amendment never gets passed, because of the precedent it would set on using the federal government's powers to dictate morality.
As a pro-life person, I agree that such an amendment would be unfortunate and inappropriate. The problem is, the Supreme Court got involved and said that the US Constitution protects abortion. So now pro-life people are forced to address at least repealing Roe v. Wade at the federal level through elections. And for people who think that the Supreme Court is some magical protection, if David Souter had voted the way he was expected to vote, the SCOTUS would have been 5-4 pro-life for 20 years now.
However, I think that the likelihood that 3/4 of the states would ratify a prohibition amendment in the foreseeable future is negligible, so what people say in answer to those polls is pretty difficult to interpret.
I hope for this country's sake that such an amendment never gets passed, because of the precedent it would set on using the federal government's powers to dictate morality. It would inevitably be followed by constitutional amendments banning gay sex/marriage/rights, et al.
Actually, there is already precedent for amendments based on moral dictates: prohibition. So, I don't know about the precedence argument on this one. Of course, we all know how that one turned out.
Comments
So the next year they streched out and got the entire Seattle Convention Center and it was comfortably full and active.
This year they got even more of the convention center and it was uncomfortably packed.
I heard they are planning on renting more of the space next year. They might also have two conventions -- one for the east coast and one for the west coast.
I say they just move the whole production down to Vegas and get a bigger space.
I was at the press only Q&A with Mike & Jerry, and they said that next year they're going to get the entire convention center (they didn't have the 5th and 6th floors this year).
PAX east coast starts in 2010 (they already have publishers making reservations!), and will hopefully draw down the crowds at Seattle PAX somewhat. They said that 75% of PAX attendees come from outside Washington State.
They have absolutely no interest in moving PAX to a city other than Seattle, since in their words "we live here." I can appreciate that.
I keep saying that the MSM treats the election like a beauty pageant and is just waiting for someone to rip their dress.
And I agree completely that the feeding frenzy over Palin could backfire a few months down the road.
Still, Palin is all about the base. She's not about Hillary voters or the middle. It does nothing to defuse the McSame argument, since Palin comes from the same idiological family as Bush.
The underlying theme is that the country is voting democratic because they're sick of Bush and Obama is very smart (much smarter than Kerry anyway) in how he's playing that. That is what is going to get Obama elected.
Of course we haven't yet really seen what kind of Swiftboating is going to come out of the Rove-wing of the Republican party yet.
The attacks on Palin right now are going to be in the forgotten history of the campaign by the time election day rolls around. The Karl Rove's out there, however, will be timing their attacks on Obama to not allow for a backlash to weaken them before election day.
I do agree with the assessment that heavy-handed "piling-on" to Palin could help her (it is far from certain however). Where we differ, I think, is that I highly doubt all the negative news on Palin (specifically the speculative news) is coming out because a left-biased MSM is working around the clock to get Obama elected. It's in the news because it sells papers or mouse clicks. It just so happens that Palin is new, so we are getting everything in one fast onslaught, and she is relatively controversial.
I think that's still pretty newsworthy. I mean, if Joe Biden's wife had been a registered Socialist and he'd gone to a bunch of Socialist Party conventions, wouldn't that be newsworthy?
The better analogy is if instead of having her husband, part Eskimo, registered to vote in some Alaskan Independence Party for a few years some years ago, the Palin's had for 20 years until now attended an Alaskan Liberation Theology church, gotten married by the pastor there, and had their kids schooled in that, and given a supposedly historic speech on Alaskan-American racial problems where she defended the pastor against all the videos of anti-American rhetoric. It would all be no problem, be cause she could just say that wasn't the pastor she knew. It would be over in the blink of an eye, thanks to a supine media.
I don't see a problem.
Most Christians believe in an eternal heaven and an eternal hell. Christians of all denominations, and most other religions, believe that it is only through God's grace that we are saved from the sins that all of us commit and are able to go to heaven. It is natural then for a church to discuss salvation. I presume the issue with support for John Kerry would be the abortion issue. If you believe that God-given life begins at conception, it is pretty automatic to conclude that taking that life would call into question one's salvation. The answer to that question is a natural and essential topic for any church to discuss. I would wonder how serious is a church that does not raise that question. Whether or not you agree with that, that is a mainstream position within the US.
Also, it sounds like she didn't like the phrasing of her prayer when she first said it, and added an explanation as a further part of her prayer to clarify it for people not familiar with evangelical language. The idea that praying that our actions would be pleasing to God is a fine prayer. If you don't like that, then you will also have serious problems with the prayers of people of all religions. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, you have a right to your beliefs. But you won't find anyone who believes in God who will object to that prayer.
I am not familiar with the crusade comparison. That is a very complex topic, and the word crusade has other meanings than the wars 500 to 1000 years ago.
I understand why he said what he said. What I'm saying is that most americans reject the idea that voting for a democrat is sinful (I have heard this numerous times) or that questioning Dubya and his policies is also sinful, based on the verse about respecting those in power. This verse was never quoted by evangelicals in the 90's when Clinton was president.
So while many evangelicals took issue with things Reverend Wright had to say (myself included), I think Christians of other stripes are likely to take issue with the viewpoints held by the church she is a long time member of.
We're seeing a lot of comparisons of Obama and Palin, and on each side I hear people dismissing the same issues on their own side while exaggerating the concern on their own side. If you look critically, each seems to have almost all the same "positives" as "negatives". Each will break a glass ceiling, each is newer to politics or is new blood, each have numerous rumors swirling regarding their trustworthiness. But because their actual policies are radically different, people seem able to disassociate the similarities and turn them into differences. It's completely absurd at this point.
I will point out, particularly to Robroy, that I was listening to a very conservative radio station this morning and the callers were at-arms over "baby-gate". However, I think your prediction that this will bite Obama is turning out to be rather false. The hosts railed against the media, but applauded Obama's and Biden's maturity and respect for insisting that this not be brought up by their campaigns. The hosts then went on to explain that it's not the candidates jobs to shut up the most extreme bloggers, and a few callers actually represented the opinion that this demonstrated how the media might love Obama but doesn't listen to or respect his authority.
Just an anecdote, but it seems to me that this whole deal might end up being one that actually helps people disassociate Obama from a media bias. Also, it came out so early that unlike Hillary crying it is unlikely this will bump McCain/Palin when the actual election arrives. Instead, it'll just be this seedy thing people have tried to forget but has left a little bit of a bad taste in their mouths.
Media-wise, this election cycle is so interesting. Pretty much as a rule, in MSM you never talk about politicians children. It's just off limits. Much like how prior to Watergate the MSM didn't talk about things like that that politicians did. JFK would've NEVER gotten away with his infidelities in today's climate. Back then though, it was a sort of thing where everyone knew it, but no one really talked about it.
Now what's happening is with the decline of the MSM and the rise of individual bloggers as a news source and as investigative journalists you have far more muckracking, but also far more people who have access to far more information as well.
So since everyone on the internet is reporting on it and scooping the MSM, they almost have no choice but to report on it, since it's what everyone is talking about.
And since individual bloggers are not beholden to advertising dollars, then people have no recourse to complain or to shut them up about whatever they want to talk about.
Freedom of speech is certainly a powerful tool. Current access to information is so unprecedented in history.
A large number of people do think that voting to support abortion is sinful. Many Catholic voters, for example, I believe simply take the position that they like the welfare position of the Democrats so much they are willing to overlook the abortion position. Evangelicals disagree. But that was a major issue in the Kerry campaign, which is one of the reasons why he is not President.
Obama is now running an ad saying McCain wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I doubt that is really his position, because anyone can see that the country is not ready for a federal mandate one way or the other. Republicans just want for now for the Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that the country can move forward at the state level. Then states can adopt their own constitutional safeguards as however they see fit.
As for respecting those in power, I assume you are referring to Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
There was quite a lot of discussion of that. That's part of why the right is always annoyed by statements like "He's not my president." If someone from the right says that, they are criticized by other people on the right, but it seems to be an acceptable statement on the left. But there is nothing wrong with questioning any leader's positions. I seriously doubt that Palin's paster said that was a sin, and given the unsubstantiated trash that has been disseminated by HuffPo, I am not concerned about them as a source.
The evangelicals are very confused regarding what our democracy is and why it needs to be secular to protect their rights. Coming from that side of things, I know many (probably the majority) believe ours would be a better country if religion were "just understood separation of church and state". But it's a short-sighted viewpoint to hold, because you don't know that Christianity will be the majority religion in 50 years. If the majority is Islam, should we modify our currency to say "In Allah We Trust"?
My impression is that the catholics get this and the evangelicals don't. The best possible society is one where each person's individual freedom is maximized while their ability to harm another person is minimized. I think we all get that implicitly, there are just a few issues where this philosophy intersects with itself, and that's how you get abortion as such a hot-button issue.
By the way, both liberals and conservatives are right about abortion. Liberals are right that a fetus isn't really a person yet and that different laws should apply and conservatives are right that a fetus kind of is a person and should have some of the same rights as people. Think I'm wrong?
If your liberal, do you think someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach that they can be tried for manslaughter? Pretty much everyone agrees the agressor should be tried.
If your conservative, do you think a woman who miscarriages should be tried for manslaughter? If parents don't nurture a born baby and it dies, pretty much everyone agrees that is murder even if it is unintentional or accidental. If a woman miscarriages a baby, that is her body electing not to nurture that child and unless a fetus is no different than a baby it should be considered manslaughter.
A lot of the problem with issues like these is that neither side is willing to admit their opponents do have a point. Finally, if it were a sin to vote for any candidate whose positions differed from your specific interpretation of your religious text, you would either be unable to vote or have a schizophrenic moral base. If it's a sin to vote for a pro-life candidate, then it must be a sin to vote for a candidate whose policy is to precipitate war and violate the constitution, like Bush. Statements like this are exactly what I mean when I warn against hypocrisy.
jon, one of W's tenets of getting elected (both in 2000 and 2004) was replacing members of the 5-4 pro-choice SCOTUS to establish a 6-3 pro-life supermajority. The intent was to then challenge (and overturn) RvW. Ideally, they'd then institute a Constitutional amendment (assuming they had the numbers in Congress to pull it off, which they never quite did). This would all but guarantee the US was a pro-life country for a long time. I don't know what McCain really believes, but his pandering to the Evangelical wing would imply that he believes in this tenet.
Surprisingly, this doesn't seem to be an issue (yet) in 2008. Many of the justices are aging (four in their 70s and Stevens is 88), and it's likely a single term president could seat two justices, and a two-term president could seat as many as 5.
Of course, it's probably better that it's not an issue, because the pro-life forces have always been better at rallying voters who were indifferent about other subjects to vote Republican on that issue alone.
Are you saying ideally from your perspective? If so, that is your right to believe and vote accordingly. But I have never heard anyone else claim that the country is ready for that now. Yes, there will hopefully come a time when the country as a whole will accept such an amendment, but it would cause untold harm at this time. There is a difference between holding something as an ideal versus being in favor of legislation to make it happen right now. It would be like me running ad saying The Tim wants a constitutional amendment for house prices to be lowered.
WestSideBilly is right. Many people would like to see an abortion ban.
Not only is this belief common, it is so common that if you spend time with your two best friends one of you probably agrees we need a constitutional amendment. Personally, I think the entire issue should be controlled at the state level, as this does not seem to be the kind of domain that the federal government should be involved with.
How does that differ from someone saying "I'm OK with laws against wife-beating, as long as the public has my dinner ready when I get home."
That was kind of my point. If you move far enough to either side just for the sake of "being right" or just because it feels better to characterize how foolish or ungodly your "opposition" is, you are probably holding a hypocritical or at least contradictory belief.
I think there are several non-contradictory views. Your example is one. Another, which I prefer and find to be the most universally humane, is to determine ethical treatment by the living things ability to suffer and intelligence. Many people dislike this, because it's relativistic morality, but I believe you can produce a consistent belief system. E.g Spain's new laws regarding the ethical treatment of great apes are based on the fact that great apes appear to be as capable of pain and as intelligent as an infant human in their first year.
The constitution intended for States to legislate on all powers not specifically given to the federal government. We've kind of screwed that up, but that doesn't change my opinion that the original is preferable.
If you read my previous posts, the point is that nobody can agree whether or not the abortion is murder because it is non-intuitive. That makes it a religious or philosophical question The federal government has no right to legislate morals, but state governments do (so long as it does not explicitly conflict with the constitution). That's why it should be a state issue.
Why this bothers people, I'll never understand. Sure it would make it harder to force Massachusetts or California to ban abortion, but it would also make it easy for Kansas or Montana to. Since the status quo is abortion is legal, anyone who is pro-life and has thought it through should prefer it to be a state issue.
Actually it doesn't. Murder is a state offense, not a federal offense.
Ideal from the perspective of the Evangelical forces backing W in 2000/2004. I'm quite pro-choice, but more importantly of the belief that the federal government should not be in the business of making personal choices for people.
I hope for this country's sake that such an amendment never gets passed, because of the precedent it would set on using the federal government's powers to dictate morality. It would inevitably be followed by constitutional amendments banning gay sex/marriage/rights, et al.
Not correct. Both states and the US have offenses for murder.
WA law is RCW 9A.32.
Federal law is 18 USC 51.
As a pro-life person, I agree that such an amendment would be unfortunate and inappropriate. The problem is, the Supreme Court got involved and said that the US Constitution protects abortion. So now pro-life people are forced to address at least repealing Roe v. Wade at the federal level through elections. And for people who think that the Supreme Court is some magical protection, if David Souter had voted the way he was expected to vote, the SCOTUS would have been 5-4 pro-life for 20 years now.
However, I think that the likelihood that 3/4 of the states would ratify a prohibition amendment in the foreseeable future is negligible, so what people say in answer to those polls is pretty difficult to interpret.
Actually, there is already precedent for amendments based on moral dictates: prohibition. So, I don't know about the precedence argument on this one. Of course, we all know how that one turned out.