The fractionalization of America is actually a good thing. The swift boat vets would never have had a forum. Dan Rather would have gotten away with his forged documents. The MSM no longer has total control on the collective mindset. This is all good.
Mixed metaphors. It is always (IMHO) good when the truth gets out. That is accomplished (if it is accomplished) via decentralization of media. Decentralization is a fine thing, though it does produce a lower signal to noise ratio, which must then be accounted for.
I was talking about the dispersion of America into fractions; specifically, I am troubled by the manner in which fractions do not talk to each other, but rather over each other. My remorse over the decentralization of media (good thing) is that it allows more Americans to push themselves away from the central dialog. Rather than water cooler discussions about what's in the news, we have talk radio discussions about shared complaints of a much smaller more homogeneous group.
Here's what happens: In most groups, status is desirable, and one of the easiest ways to gain status is to hold a slightly more radical view than the rest of the group. Perhaps we all agree housing prices are too high, but I can gain notoriety and perhaps status by stating that housing prices are not just too high, but that they are bound to fall 50% (a more radical view than the group). I gain status in the group, which interests others in my ideas, and perhaps encourages them to radicalize their views more so. Pretty soon, predicting 50% declines is not enough to gain status, and someone else is pushing the notion of 80% declines.
If there are not enough dissenting voices in our discourse, it can be very easy for these calls of 80% declines to result in conformation bias. After all, everyone I am talking to agrees that 80% declines are likely. We disregard the fact that we explicitly chose to listen to these people because they agreed with our opinion.
I know I'm getting off course on the thread, but this is vitally important in understanding why we feel our politics and nation are growing more partisan.
So, here's where this leads, a large enough minority can form around biased opinions, that they form a large enough media outlet that their biases appears to be accredited or institutionalized. These people can now completely remove themselves from the more public discourse, and from any need to question their facts...for the most part. And people love this. It feels really good to hear all the time just how right you are. What happens next is perhaps the weirdest part, what if these people are faced with contradictory evidence?
What if the hard right republican is faced with global warming, a view that contradicts many of their deeply held beliefs? Or what if the hard left democrat is forced to confront evidence that a certain social safety-net they cherish is damaging?
Cognitive dissonance: If you hold a belief so strongly, that it becomes part of your psyche or that you begin to measure your self worth by that belief, it becomes tremendously difficult to release it. An example would be, "I derive value from the fact that God loves me, and would never allow harm to come to me." When confronted by some small amount of contradictory evidence, your brain is forced to accommodate both in some way. Let's say the contradiction is you just lost your retirement. If God cherishes you, he would have guarded your nest egg. It's a contradiction, and our brain tries to make sense of it, always with a preference for the belief from which we derive self-worth.
Generally, we change our story somehow. God tried to look out for my finances, when so-and-so told me the market looked bad, but I didn't listen - it was my fault. Sometimes, we try to rationalize what happened instead. I lost my retirement, but it must be part of God's greater plan for my life. Sometimes (rarely and painfully) the contradiction is too great and we're forced to reevaluate the core belief. Maybe God isn't actually very worried about whether or not I can afford to take cruise vacations in retirement. Maybe I need to think ahead instead...
What's important to see, is that once we've formed a bias - especially one that imparts self worth - it becomes very difficult and emotionally painful to break that bias. Which brings us full circle to the original problem I was pointing out. Each election cycle, we are polarizing ourselves even more. Rather than go talk to someone who disagrees with us, we are getting sucked more into the Fox Newses of the world.
This is what's so damaging, and it's why I say I truly hope that Palin-republicans don't just circle the wagons after they lose. I hope they rejoin the national discourse and that through that we can make some real progress. Which is one reason I was concerned by your reference to Revelations.
In one state, workers stopped verifying a batch of 5,000 registrations turned in by Acorn when they had gotten through the first 2100 and ALL of them were fraudulent.
Thanks Robroy. This is definitely disappointing to see, especially because I'd rather not see Obama's victory in November sullied like Bush's was in 2000.
From what you've posted, it does look to me like it's more a case of poor organization and dumb rules (register 20 voters a day or don't get paid) than people attempting to commit fraud. Also, it looked like most cases are caught, where the name/address match (like my example algorithm). So it's unclear what effect this will actually have on the election. My guess, is that we'll see a little fraud (isn't there always?) but Obama will win by enough that it won't mire the election results too much. But if we see another Dade County event, this will indeed be a disturbing and disgusting news story.
Regarding my reference to Revelation, it makes your point - to a point.
And let me explain why:
I have been a Professing Christian Fundamentalist (PCF) since I was 30 – I am now 54. I do not "speak in tongues", don't handle snakes, etc., but I believe the Bible is the un-erring word of God. I have found often that when I thought it contradicted itself it turned out it was only weak interpretations that were contradicting themselves, not the bible itself.
I have been a student of Bible prophesy for over 20 years and about 15 years ago I was looking at Revelation 17 and 18 and suddenly said, "holy cow, this could be discussing the US". Yet when I brought this idea up to leaders in my church they tried to say it was nonsense. The reason was at least partly because they considered the US such a good influence on the world that she could NEVER be the whore discussed there. They were literally mixing up their Christianity with their patriotism. For them, part of being a Christian was being an American!
They were ignoring evidence against their position and focusing on their own "circle jerk" feedback group to reinforce their opinion and simply ignore the facts that may contradict it. And now it is not such an unusual position within Christian circles: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=re ... +states%22
I saw this on Freerepublic and KVI talk radio on a different subject. Whenever someone like me or some other conservative pundit would point out that the economy was tanking, we were accused of being Bush Haters. At the time I really liked Bush but I could not ignore what I was seeing going on with the economy. I am a very black and white thinker and can separate the two.
BTW, regarding my reference to Revelation, I do not think we are there yet – just barely. I think that if Obama were to have won, we would be on the fast track. I have read quite a bit about the man and I think there is a very strong possibility that he has strong Muslim ties to the point that he may be a closet Muslin.
And I consider Islam to be a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid-1930's. I say this as a student of history, the bible and, to a strong but lesser degree, the Koran.
What irony. I just noticed that your just produced the six hundred and sixty sixth post in this thread Robroy. I make no value judgment based on that coincidence, but merely point it out as a fascinating fact.
Philip K Dick believed that this world is an illusion created by Satan to make us forget that Christ left us just a few short years ago and we are actually living under Roman rule with persecution of Christians.
The answer I have come up with may not be correct, but it is the only answer I have. It has to do with time. My theory is this: In some certain important sense, time is not real. Or perhaps it is real, but not as we experience it to be or imagine it to be. I had the acute, overwhelming certitude (and still have) that despite all the change we see, a specific permanent landscape underlies the world of change: and that this invisible underlying landscape is that of the Bible; it, specifically, is the period immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ; it is, in other words, the time period of the Book of Acts.
During the Middle Ages, a curious theory arose, which I will now present to you for what it is worth. It is the theory that the Evil One—Satan—is the "Ape of God." That he creates spurious imitations of creation, of God's authentic creation, and then interpolates them for that authentic creation. Does this odd theory help explain my experience? Are we to believe that we are occluded, that we are deceived, that it is not 1978 but A.D. 50... and Satan has spun a counterfeit reality to wither our faith in the return of Christ?
Shall I go for broke and tell you the rest of this peculiar story? I'll do so, having gone this far already. My novel Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said was released by Doubleday in February of 1974. The week after it was released, I had two impacted wisdom teeth removed, under sodium pentathol. Later that day I found myself in intense pain. My wife phoned the oral surgeon and he phoned a pharmacy. Half an hour later there was a knock at my door: the delivery person from the pharmacy with the pain medication. Although I was bleeding and sick and weak, I felt the need to answer the knock on the door myself. When I opened the door, I found myself facing a young woman—who wore a shining gold necklace in the center of which was a gleaming gold fish. For some reason I was hypnotized by the gleaming golden fish; I forgot my pain, forgot the medication, forgot why the girl was there. I just kept staring at the fish sign.
"What does that mean?" I asked her.
The girl touched the glimmering golden fish with her hand and said, "This is a sign worn by the early Christians." She then gave me the package of medication.
In that instant, as I stared at the gleaming fish sign and heard her words, I suddenly experienced what I later learned is called anamnesis—a Greek word meaning, literally, "loss of forgetfulness." I remembered who I was and where I was. In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, it all came back to me. And not only could I remember it but I could see it. The girl was a secret Christian and so was I. We lived in fear of detection by the Romans. We had to communicate with cryptic signs. She had just told me all this, and it was true.
For a short time, as hard as this is to believe or explain, I saw fading into view the black prison-like contours of hateful Rome. But, of much more importance, I remembered Jesus, who had just recently been with us, and had gone temporarily away, and would very soon return. My emotion was one of joy. We were secretly preparing to welcome Him back. It would not be long. And the Romans did not know. They thought He was dead, forever dead. That was our great secret, our joyous knowledge. Despite all appearances, Christ was going to return, and our delight and anticipation was boundless.
This is a subtle and advanced concept of God, evidently without precedent among the Greek thinkers. "The arguments of Parmenides seemed to show that all reality must indeed be a mind," Hussey writes, "or an object of thought in a mind." Regarding Heraclitus specifically, he says, "In Heraclitus it is difficult to tell how far the designs in God's mind are distinguished from the execution in the world, or indeed how far God's mind is distinguished from the world." The further leap by Anaxagoras has always fascinated me. "Anaxagoras had been driven to a theory of the microstructure of matter which made it, to some extent, mysterious to human reason." Anaxagoras believed that everything was determined by Mind. These were not childish thinkers, nor primitives. They debated serious issues and studied one another's views with deft insight. It was not until the time of Aristotle that their views got reduced to what we can neatly—but wrongly—classify as crude. The summation of much pre-Socratic theology and philosophy can be stated as follows: The kosmos is not as it appears to be, and what it probably is, at its deepest level, is exactly that which the human being is at his deepest level—call it mind or soul, it is something unitary which lives and thinks, and only appears to be plural and material. Much of this view reaches us through the Logos doctrine regarding Christ. The Logos was both that which thought, and the thing which it thought: thinker and thought together. The universe, then, is thinker and thought, and since we are part of it, we as humans are, in the final analysis, thoughts of and thinkers of those thoughts.
As I said to you earlier, my two preoccupations in my writing are "What is reality?" and "What is the authentic human?" I'm sure you can see by now that I have not been able to answer the first question. I have an abiding intuition that somehow the world of the Bible is a literally real but veiled landscape, never changing, hidden from our sight, but available to us by revelation. That is all I can come up with—a mixture of mystical experience, reasoning, and faith. I would like to say something about the traits of the authentic human, though; in this quest I have had more plausible answers.
IT's been a long time since I'd read Revelation and frankly I've spent very little time studying it at all. So I went and read Rev 18 and I guess I don't understand why Obama being elected would make us the new Babylon anymore than McCain being elected. Could you elaborate on why you think an Obama presidency would make this more likely?
Alan, that is certainly an...internally consistent explanation for the problem of Christ returning "this very generation", which is a major eschatological problem for those who believe Revelations is prophetic as opposed to a metaphor used to encourage other believers during trying times. How can one interpret the simple red-letter statements in Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32 as figurative (This generation will not pass away until...) and then explain the crazy stuff in Revelations as literal or prophetic? Using the power of cognitive dissonance (as discussed above), you can always decide that both passages must be literal (it helps your self-worth to believe they are), and then explain away all your senses as living in a fake 50 AD world that just looks like the 21st century because Satan made it so.
Back to the subject at hand, has anyone seen this yet? It's a mention of McCain's own terrorist ties. Now, many will dismiss, regardless of its veracity (I haven't confirmed it), due to the fact that these alleged ties are to Cuban terrorists (in this case we'd call them freedom fighters) and not the kind of terrorists who murder citizens of nations we like. I kind of like the idea of being above reproach in our international dealings (as we've discussed before); however, so I do find this a little disappointing.
From what I've read ACORN is in a pretty tough spot.
I don't think they can legally throw away registrations even if they think they are fake. They aren't allowed to make those decisions, so they try to flag them and send them on to the registrar. Obviously, if you are paying people for signatures, you're going to get people working the system. But are we really supposed to be worried about Mickey Mouse showing up at the polls?
HANNITY: By the way, Barack Obama, you can't land a jet on an aircraft carrier and John McCain can.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but as we discussed earlier it seems McCain was never particularly good at landing jets either. Not that it really matters, I'm sure he could have picked an appropriate example, but I just find it quite funny when anyone comes out with huge hubris and makes a bold statement that is as wrong as it is right.
McCain bringing up Ayers and ACORN was a bad move. It was really the turning point in this debate (IMO). I thought McCain was doing well up to that point, but it was downhill from then on.
He had to know Obama would be prepped to answer, and it really just gave Obama a chance to settle all the questions surrounding the accusations. Things were better for McCain when he could say "Just what is Obama doing pallin' around with these terrorists and voter fraud people" but once you let Obama talk about it on the stage, voters can make a relatively informed decision instead of just being confused and scared.
This is truly the key to Obama's recent success. Like the 1980 election, voters want change, but they want to be reassured that the new choice is relatively safe. The debates have given Obama that opportunity.
Overall, I felt this was the most entertaining debate, and each one shows just how much McCain really does not like Obama. Like, a serious hatred I think.
The Ayers/ACORN thing was a lose/lose for McCain. McCain brings it up and Obama can once and for all settle the rumors about it to the American people. He doesn't bring it up in the debate, he's then labeled a pansyass.
This is truly the key to Obama's recent success. Like the 1980 election, voters want change, but they want to be reassured that the new choice is relatively safe. The debates have given Obama that opportunity.
I agree with you, but wanted to add a higher level observation I've made about this election. While the hyperbole surrounding Obama can often grow to extremes (Obamessiah types of talk), he has done one thing in particular which has set him apart. In every facet of this election, he has remained calm, cool, and in command.
Think about the debates, Obama may not have always had perfect answers to every question (I'm sure Robroy can point some out), but he never got rattled. You can argue that he was dull at times (or often) in the debates (in fact, I would make that argument), but he was dull in the manner of a college professor.
But this attribute extends to the entire campaign, and not just the election. When Clinton won New Hampshire, or various other times during the primaries when things looked to be turning against him, he stuck to a consistent strategy. Meanwhile, Clinton frantically changed strategies time and again until she found a message that kind of worked...but it was too late.
During the general, McCain has behaved erratically in any number of ways. From picking Palin, to suspending his campaign, to an almost entirely negative ad campaign. But Obama consistently stuck to his message, and it's paying off. Especially in times of upheaval like this, I think people respond especially well to Obama's brand of "staying the course" in that he notices flaws early and makes small changes to them gradually, but generally sticks with things that are working. In this way, he's managed to be consistent, but not foolishly so like Bush.
I have to think that after this election is over, many Republicans will be looking back and asking themselves: "How the heck did we end up with McCain as our nominee?"
Watching everything he's done since securing the nomination, he seems like almost the worst possible choice they could have made.
I have to think that after this election is over, many Republicans will be looking back and asking themselves: "How the heck did we end up with McCain as our nominee?"
Watching everything he's done since securing the nomination, he seems like almost the worst possible choice they could have made.
Really, the Republican party had no good choices this year. You had McCain, who was the centrist, you had Romney who was the capitalist, you had Huckabee who was the Fundamentalist and Ron Paul, who is a Liberitarian.
This reminds me of the Democratic choices for 2004. I thought John Kerry was a weak choice right from the beginning. He's been a good senator for his state, but he was way too wishy-washy. The Dems ran on an "Anybody but Bush" platform and that's a terrible way to run a campaign.
This year, the GOP basically ran an "anybody but Obama or Hillary" campaign. And it hasn't worked. It probably would've worked if Hillary had won, since most conservatives hatred of her would've been enough to unite them under a common cause.
I can understand why the Gregoire camp was frustrated and it was a great move by Rossi for the reasons the Dems outlined in their suit. But I don't see that there was any wrongdoing.
I have to think that after this election is over, many Republicans will be looking back and asking themselves: "How the heck did we end up with McCain as our nominee?"
Watching everything he's done since securing the nomination, he seems like almost the worst possible choice they could have made.
Many of us were asking that when he was even making a show of it in the polls. I was not going to vote and that bugged a lot of my republican friends. He is demonstrating all those things that I did not like about him.
But I educated myself on Obama and realized the country will probably not survive an obama presidency. It is at a crossroads. We almost didn't survive the 30's intact as a "free" country. People do not fully grasp just how bad things really can get. Everything from famine to actual shooting wars on US soil are real risks right now.
This is truly the key to Obama's recent success. Like the 1980 election, voters want change, but they want to be reassured that the new choice is relatively safe. The debates have given Obama that opportunity.
I agree with you, but wanted to add a higher level observation I've made about this election. While the hyperbole surrounding Obama can often grow to extremes (Obamessiah types of talk), he has done one thing in particular which has set him apart. In every facet of this election, he has remained calm, cool, and in command.
Think about the debates, Obama may not have always had perfect answers to every question (I'm sure Robroy can point some out), but he never got rattled. You can argue that he was dull at times (or often) in the debates (in fact, I would make that argument), but he was dull in the manner of a college professor.
But this attribute extends to the entire campaign, and not just the election. When Clinton won New Hampshire, or various other times during the primaries when things looked to be turning against him, he stuck to a consistent strategy. Meanwhile, Clinton frantically changed strategies time and again until she found a message that kind of worked...but it was too late.
During the general, McCain has behaved erratically in any number of ways. From picking Palin, to suspending his campaign, to an almost entirely negative ad campaign. But Obama consistently stuck to his message, and it's paying off. Especially in times of upheaval like this, I think people respond especially well to Obama's brand of "staying the course" in that he notices flaws early and makes small changes to them gradually, but generally sticks with things that are working. In this way, he's managed to be consistent, but not foolishly so like Bush.
My 2 cents.
Actually I tend to agree with that. Even his stuttering and saying "that's above my paygrade" was sort of deadpan.
I listened to the owner of the company that made Ballard Bitters back in the 80's talking about the "new microbrew thing" and when asked if his beer would ever compete with Bud he said no for this reason:
Ballard bitters is a beer with character. That means some people will really love it, and some will really hate it. You cannot flood the market with that kind of product. But regarding normal domestic beers of the day, people would think of a "cold beer". The key word was not "beer" but "cold". The secret to Budwiesers success was not that their beer was particularly good, but rather that it was bland and "cold" and didn't put any people off with a strong character.
It is also the secret to Dominoes pizza, Denny's, McDonalds, etc. It is not that you want to be really liked, but that you do not want to be disliked. Blandness gives you that.
And that is why we end up with the leaders we do.
Locally you can get character in your politicians, a-la Baghdad Jim, Barny Frank, Maxine Walters. But nationally you have to be bland to get the most votes.
All that said, I never so much as heard Obama's voice until late summer. I just started hitting youtube hard in the last month. My information on Obama was not from his speeches, it was from looking at his records and who he "pals around with", and their records.
He is not bland at all at that level. Seriously, he scares the crap out of me. I started articulating it in early summer when I went to local festivals and went to both the republican and democrat booths and said the following:
Obama is running on hope and change. Two other 20th century leaders did the same thing in countries that were in "transition": Lenin and Hitler.
Like I said in another post, people do not fully understand how bad it can get.
Comments
Mixed metaphors. It is always (IMHO) good when the truth gets out. That is accomplished (if it is accomplished) via decentralization of media. Decentralization is a fine thing, though it does produce a lower signal to noise ratio, which must then be accounted for.
I was talking about the dispersion of America into fractions; specifically, I am troubled by the manner in which fractions do not talk to each other, but rather over each other. My remorse over the decentralization of media (good thing) is that it allows more Americans to push themselves away from the central dialog. Rather than water cooler discussions about what's in the news, we have talk radio discussions about shared complaints of a much smaller more homogeneous group.
Here's what happens: In most groups, status is desirable, and one of the easiest ways to gain status is to hold a slightly more radical view than the rest of the group. Perhaps we all agree housing prices are too high, but I can gain notoriety and perhaps status by stating that housing prices are not just too high, but that they are bound to fall 50% (a more radical view than the group). I gain status in the group, which interests others in my ideas, and perhaps encourages them to radicalize their views more so. Pretty soon, predicting 50% declines is not enough to gain status, and someone else is pushing the notion of 80% declines.
If there are not enough dissenting voices in our discourse, it can be very easy for these calls of 80% declines to result in conformation bias. After all, everyone I am talking to agrees that 80% declines are likely. We disregard the fact that we explicitly chose to listen to these people because they agreed with our opinion.
I know I'm getting off course on the thread, but this is vitally important in understanding why we feel our politics and nation are growing more partisan.
So, here's where this leads, a large enough minority can form around biased opinions, that they form a large enough media outlet that their biases appears to be accredited or institutionalized. These people can now completely remove themselves from the more public discourse, and from any need to question their facts...for the most part. And people love this. It feels really good to hear all the time just how right you are. What happens next is perhaps the weirdest part, what if these people are faced with contradictory evidence?
What if the hard right republican is faced with global warming, a view that contradicts many of their deeply held beliefs? Or what if the hard left democrat is forced to confront evidence that a certain social safety-net they cherish is damaging?
Cognitive dissonance: If you hold a belief so strongly, that it becomes part of your psyche or that you begin to measure your self worth by that belief, it becomes tremendously difficult to release it. An example would be, "I derive value from the fact that God loves me, and would never allow harm to come to me." When confronted by some small amount of contradictory evidence, your brain is forced to accommodate both in some way. Let's say the contradiction is you just lost your retirement. If God cherishes you, he would have guarded your nest egg. It's a contradiction, and our brain tries to make sense of it, always with a preference for the belief from which we derive self-worth.
Generally, we change our story somehow. God tried to look out for my finances, when so-and-so told me the market looked bad, but I didn't listen - it was my fault. Sometimes, we try to rationalize what happened instead. I lost my retirement, but it must be part of God's greater plan for my life. Sometimes (rarely and painfully) the contradiction is too great and we're forced to reevaluate the core belief. Maybe God isn't actually very worried about whether or not I can afford to take cruise vacations in retirement. Maybe I need to think ahead instead...
What's important to see, is that once we've formed a bias - especially one that imparts self worth - it becomes very difficult and emotionally painful to break that bias. Which brings us full circle to the original problem I was pointing out. Each election cycle, we are polarizing ourselves even more. Rather than go talk to someone who disagrees with us, we are getting sucked more into the Fox Newses of the world.
This is what's so damaging, and it's why I say I truly hope that Palin-republicans don't just circle the wagons after they lose. I hope they rejoin the national discourse and that through that we can make some real progress. Which is one reason I was concerned by your reference to Revelations.
I completely agree and well said.
Thanks Robroy. This is definitely disappointing to see, especially because I'd rather not see Obama's victory in November sullied like Bush's was in 2000.
From what you've posted, it does look to me like it's more a case of poor organization and dumb rules (register 20 voters a day or don't get paid) than people attempting to commit fraud. Also, it looked like most cases are caught, where the name/address match (like my example algorithm). So it's unclear what effect this will actually have on the election. My guess, is that we'll see a little fraud (isn't there always?) but Obama will win by enough that it won't mire the election results too much. But if we see another Dade County event, this will indeed be a disturbing and disgusting news story.
And let me explain why:
I have been a Professing Christian Fundamentalist (PCF) since I was 30 – I am now 54. I do not "speak in tongues", don't handle snakes, etc., but I believe the Bible is the un-erring word of God. I have found often that when I thought it contradicted itself it turned out it was only weak interpretations that were contradicting themselves, not the bible itself.
I have been a student of Bible prophesy for over 20 years and about 15 years ago I was looking at Revelation 17 and 18 and suddenly said, "holy cow, this could be discussing the US". Yet when I brought this idea up to leaders in my church they tried to say it was nonsense. The reason was at least partly because they considered the US such a good influence on the world that she could NEVER be the whore discussed there. They were literally mixing up their Christianity with their patriotism. For them, part of being a Christian was being an American!
They were ignoring evidence against their position and focusing on their own "circle jerk" feedback group to reinforce their opinion and simply ignore the facts that may contradict it. And now it is not such an unusual position within Christian circles: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=re ... +states%22
I saw this on Freerepublic and KVI talk radio on a different subject. Whenever someone like me or some other conservative pundit would point out that the economy was tanking, we were accused of being Bush Haters. At the time I really liked Bush but I could not ignore what I was seeing going on with the economy. I am a very black and white thinker and can separate the two.
BTW, regarding my reference to Revelation, I do not think we are there yet – just barely. I think that if Obama were to have won, we would be on the fast track. I have read quite a bit about the man and I think there is a very strong possibility that he has strong Muslim ties to the point that he may be a closet Muslin.
And I consider Islam to be a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid-1930's. I say this as a student of history, the bible and, to a strong but lesser degree, the Koran.
Philip K Dick believed that this world is an illusion created by Satan to make us forget that Christ left us just a few short years ago and we are actually living under Roman rule with persecution of Christians.
http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm
Back to the subject at hand, has anyone seen this yet? It's a mention of McCain's own terrorist ties. Now, many will dismiss, regardless of its veracity (I haven't confirmed it), due to the fact that these alleged ties are to Cuban terrorists (in this case we'd call them freedom fighters) and not the kind of terrorists who murder citizens of nations we like. I kind of like the idea of being above reproach in our international dealings (as we've discussed before); however, so I do find this a little disappointing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1hN6DFQyDs&eurl=
I don't think they can legally throw away registrations even if they think they are fake. They aren't allowed to make those decisions, so they try to flag them and send them on to the registrar. Obviously, if you are paying people for signatures, you're going to get people working the system. But are we really supposed to be worried about Mickey Mouse showing up at the polls?
I'd giver her a pass on that one. It's like when a rock band calls out the name of some other city. Like "you guys here in Portland rock!".
Of course, when a band does that, I think it's appropriate to boo them also.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but as we discussed earlier it seems McCain was never particularly good at landing jets either. Not that it really matters, I'm sure he could have picked an appropriate example, but I just find it quite funny when anyone comes out with huge hubris and makes a bold statement that is as wrong as it is right.
No, I give her a pass too. It's still funny though. And appropriate for her to be booed.
He had to know Obama would be prepped to answer, and it really just gave Obama a chance to settle all the questions surrounding the accusations. Things were better for McCain when he could say "Just what is Obama doing pallin' around with these terrorists and voter fraud people" but once you let Obama talk about it on the stage, voters can make a relatively informed decision instead of just being confused and scared.
This is truly the key to Obama's recent success. Like the 1980 election, voters want change, but they want to be reassured that the new choice is relatively safe. The debates have given Obama that opportunity.
Overall, I felt this was the most entertaining debate, and each one shows just how much McCain really does not like Obama. Like, a serious hatred I think.
I agree with you, but wanted to add a higher level observation I've made about this election. While the hyperbole surrounding Obama can often grow to extremes (Obamessiah types of talk), he has done one thing in particular which has set him apart. In every facet of this election, he has remained calm, cool, and in command.
Think about the debates, Obama may not have always had perfect answers to every question (I'm sure Robroy can point some out), but he never got rattled. You can argue that he was dull at times (or often) in the debates (in fact, I would make that argument), but he was dull in the manner of a college professor.
But this attribute extends to the entire campaign, and not just the election. When Clinton won New Hampshire, or various other times during the primaries when things looked to be turning against him, he stuck to a consistent strategy. Meanwhile, Clinton frantically changed strategies time and again until she found a message that kind of worked...but it was too late.
During the general, McCain has behaved erratically in any number of ways. From picking Palin, to suspending his campaign, to an almost entirely negative ad campaign. But Obama consistently stuck to his message, and it's paying off. Especially in times of upheaval like this, I think people respond especially well to Obama's brand of "staying the course" in that he notices flaws early and makes small changes to them gradually, but generally sticks with things that are working. In this way, he's managed to be consistent, but not foolishly so like Bush.
My 2 cents.
Watching everything he's done since securing the nomination, he seems like almost the worst possible choice they could have made.
Really, the Republican party had no good choices this year. You had McCain, who was the centrist, you had Romney who was the capitalist, you had Huckabee who was the Fundamentalist and Ron Paul, who is a Liberitarian.
This reminds me of the Democratic choices for 2004. I thought John Kerry was a weak choice right from the beginning. He's been a good senator for his state, but he was way too wishy-washy. The Dems ran on an "Anybody but Bush" platform and that's a terrible way to run a campaign.
This year, the GOP basically ran an "anybody but Obama or Hillary" campaign. And it hasn't worked. It probably would've worked if Hillary had won, since most conservatives hatred of her would've been enough to unite them under a common cause.
I can understand why the Gregoire camp was frustrated and it was a great move by Rossi for the reasons the Dems outlined in their suit. But I don't see that there was any wrongdoing.
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
Turn up the sound and make sure to move your mouse around and click on stuff.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66z5TDrwPxM
This is "interesting"
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=198013
But I educated myself on Obama and realized the country will probably not survive an obama presidency. It is at a crossroads. We almost didn't survive the 30's intact as a "free" country. People do not fully grasp just how bad things really can get. Everything from famine to actual shooting wars on US soil are real risks right now.
So now I'm voting.
I listened to the owner of the company that made Ballard Bitters back in the 80's talking about the "new microbrew thing" and when asked if his beer would ever compete with Bud he said no for this reason:
Ballard bitters is a beer with character. That means some people will really love it, and some will really hate it. You cannot flood the market with that kind of product. But regarding normal domestic beers of the day, people would think of a "cold beer". The key word was not "beer" but "cold". The secret to Budwiesers success was not that their beer was particularly good, but rather that it was bland and "cold" and didn't put any people off with a strong character.
It is also the secret to Dominoes pizza, Denny's, McDonalds, etc. It is not that you want to be really liked, but that you do not want to be disliked. Blandness gives you that.
And that is why we end up with the leaders we do.
Locally you can get character in your politicians, a-la Baghdad Jim, Barny Frank, Maxine Walters. But nationally you have to be bland to get the most votes.
All that said, I never so much as heard Obama's voice until late summer. I just started hitting youtube hard in the last month. My information on Obama was not from his speeches, it was from looking at his records and who he "pals around with", and their records.
He is not bland at all at that level. Seriously, he scares the crap out of me. I started articulating it in early summer when I went to local festivals and went to both the republican and democrat booths and said the following:
Obama is running on hope and change. Two other 20th century leaders did the same thing in countries that were in "transition": Lenin and Hitler.
Like I said in another post, people do not fully understand how bad it can get.