tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post5584625261241046485..comments2024-02-22T13:53:00.516-05:00Comments on Elizabeth Spiegel's blog: please, could someone explain this to me?Elizabeth Vicaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-49594677898955371462008-09-23T19:32:00.000-04:002008-09-23T19:32:00.000-04:00At first, I was quite perplexed by McCain's choice...At first, I was quite perplexed by McCain's choice as well. But it's been quite affective in getting people to compare Obama and Palin (presidential candidate versus vice presidential candidate). I wonder how many people in the end will in their subconscious choose McCain over Obama because they believe that it's better to have an inexperienced Vice President than to have an inexperienced President. This wouldn't have happened if McCain had chosen a better qualified candidate. Strange twist.<BR/><BR/>Also, even evolution isn't a slam dunk. At the biochemical level, evolution is very difficult to fully support (reference: Darwin's Black Box). If someone has found a critical analysis of this book (I've looked and couldn't find any decent scientific refutation), I'd be interested.Von_Igelfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00734490817132359866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-30524848948809443572008-09-23T11:28:00.000-04:002008-09-23T11:28:00.000-04:00Apropos the thread about Obama being "pushed from ...Apropos the thread about Obama being "pushed from the Chicago machine," <A HREF="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/from-celeb-to-c.html" REL="nofollow">we now have this</A>.<BR/><BR/>Maybe McCain's strategists read this blog for smear ideas.Tom Panelashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16043077227993571019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-88475337031748473272008-09-05T03:14:00.000-04:002008-09-05T03:14:00.000-04:00btw I think its already clear that Republicans gai...btw I think its already clear that Republicans gaining a lot of ground because of Palin as the VP. <BR/><BR/>- GregAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-88357906387222017962008-09-04T21:50:00.000-04:002008-09-04T21:50:00.000-04:00Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin, you ask? Why?.....Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin, you ask? Why?<BR/><BR/>....because he wants to fuck her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-72881941723538480732008-09-03T19:43:00.000-04:002008-09-03T19:43:00.000-04:00I'm not above average intelligence.Blue Devil Knig...I'm not above average intelligence.<BR/><BR/>Blue Devil KnightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-84763138104165030372008-09-03T13:17:00.000-04:002008-09-03T13:17:00.000-04:00To Mr. or Miss Anonymous 12:32 pm. Pardon me, and...To Mr. or Miss Anonymous 12:32 pm. Pardon me, and I don't mean to be condescending, but I don't think you fully understand what the phrase "taxation without representation" means. If you are a U.S. citizen then, unless you live in the District of Columbia, you DO have representation via your, er, representative in the House of Representatives and your 2 senators. And if you aren't a citizen then, a.) you probably don't have (U.S.) taxation and b.) you don't really have standing to gripe about who the U.S. citizens elect as their president and vice president.<BR/><BR/>I think that what you're going for here is more along the lines of a violation of the separation of church and state, though there too you are arguably on shaky ground as the phrase "seapration of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution despite the fact that it is widely believed to (I believe this expression originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson long after the constitution was written--the constitution speaks only of freedom of religion, i.e., no official state religion will be allowed). see here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-87427072902845189362008-09-03T12:50:00.000-04:002008-09-03T12:50:00.000-04:00I think you misconstrue my idea of the word "teach...I think you misconstrue my idea of the word "teach". A theory exists, many people believe in it, to me it doesn't make sense to act as though this theory simply doesn't exist. <BR/><BR/> You can simply say "many people in this nation believe in x and y" explain what they believe in, why they believe in it, and then make it clear that according to scientific evidence there is no basis to believe in said theory, however there is something called "faith", explain briefly what that is, etc etc.<BR/><BR/> I mean I just don't see why it's wiser to completely hide the fact that certain things and ideas exist on a massive level, than to present them in a even handed light. This isn't advocating these ideas, it's simply acknowledging their presence. Also I imagine for religious children it's extremely confusing when things they are taught at home aren't even addressed in any semblance whatsoever.<BR/><BR/> Something that such a large % of people in our nation believe in is important to understand at least a tiny bit about, whether it's to understand why people believe in it or whatever.Greg Shahadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233341816210357863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-34843291930179807912008-09-03T12:32:00.000-04:002008-09-03T12:32:00.000-04:00Greg wrote: "I don't think it's wrong for teachers...Greg wrote: "I don't think it's wrong for teachers to at least explain a concept that so many people believe in, as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint."<BR/><BR/>I'm not on top of Palin's views about creationism/"intelligent design" and whether it should be taught in public schools.<BR/><BR/>However, using taxpayer-funded public schools to "explain a concept that so many people believe in" - if the fact that many people believe in it is viewed as in any way justifying the teaching in public schools - is indefensible. It is, quite simply, taxation without representation. <BR/><BR/>"as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint" is a contradiction in terms, in this context. There is no scientific evidence or support for "intelligent design." That term was simply fabricated as a less-religious-sounding label for what its advocates had initially referred to with greater candor (i.e., before they got wise to the need to lie about their agenda) as creationism. <BR/><BR/>Yes, the teach-creationism crowd can point to a few people with Ph.D. degrees in hard sciences as their spokespeople. But none of those creationist "scientists" is currently associated with a respectable institutional of higher learning, and none of their work espousing creationism has ever been published in a respcetable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. In short: It's religion - not science. <BR/><BR/>That's why I said advocating the teaching of it in public schools is "unforgivable." It would be, in fact, un-American, since it would have the effect of hobbling our teaching of scientific thinking and scientific methods and respect for science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-63116377009931691612008-09-03T11:47:00.000-04:002008-09-03T11:47:00.000-04:00From what I've read, her stance on creationism in ...From what I've read, her stance on creationism in the schools isn't unreasonable at all. If you could link me to something she said that you think does sound unreasonable please do. <BR/><BR/> I don't think it's wrong for teachers to at least explain a concept that so many people believe in, as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint.Greg Shahadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233341816210357863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-33675040227256846702008-09-03T11:35:00.000-04:002008-09-03T11:35:00.000-04:00Don't forget that for a professional politician, p...Don't forget that for a professional politician, personal belief may (and perhaps should) be distinguished from positions on public policy issues.<BR/><BR/>Remember when Mario Cuomo was a candidate? He wasn't the only politician who had to address the "personally oppose abortion but it's not the government's business to force people to have children" dilemma...I just associate it most with him I guess because he was both the liberals' saint (for a brief while) and Italian-American so perhaps more tied to Catholic voters than most other Democratic liberals. <BR/><BR/>Yeah plenty of others (including his immediate precedessor Hugh Carey, plus innumerable Massachusetts politicians where it was the norm to be both liberal and Catholic) faced the same conundrum and pretty much answered it the same way. What they believe as an individual and a church member (i.e. "personally oppose abortion" - and, presumably, birth control too, if a real observant Catholic; maybe even divorce???) is one thing; but as a public servant, they stated their a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, be president of all Americans (not just Catholics), etc. So their religion didn't dictate their views on public policy issues.<BR/><BR/>Apply this to creationism, and here's what I come up with: Someone like Palin saying they believe in intelligent design is bad, but perhaps worthy of tolerance the way Greg suggests.<BR/><BR/>But it's applying that belief to a vital public policy issue - i.e., supporting the TEACHING OF CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS - that makes it unforgivable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-16625593334813144982008-09-03T01:43:00.000-04:002008-09-03T01:43:00.000-04:00killa cam: You make a good point. However I think ...killa cam:<BR/><BR/> You make a good point. However I think there are a few reasons why one could believe that her religious beliefs are more specific than Obama. <BR/><BR/> For instance here is a quote from Obama:<BR/><BR/>"It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."<BR/><BR/> I don't claim to know his exact beliefs but it always felt like he believed in science more so than religion, despite being religious himself. I believe this is possible, but I'm not wording it well.<BR/><BR/><BR/> The impression I get from Elizabeth is that she feels Palin believes strongly in creationism and so forth. I don't personally know if these are truly her beliefs, my point is that although they both claim to have some religious background, I can see why one could get the idea that Palin's is much more deeply rooted and "anti-science". <BR/><BR/> I personally couldn't find anything stating Palin's views as such. She said she believes in creationism, which although I disagree, I don't find the idea that fantastic.<BR/><BR/> Based on what I read I wouldn't use religion against her, but I could understand how someone else could read into it a different way.Greg Shahadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233341816210357863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-7794366890255602192008-09-02T23:49:00.000-04:002008-09-02T23:49:00.000-04:00"McCain is about a strong military" some poster wr..."McCain is about a strong military" some poster wrote.<BR/><BR/>He's a sickening warmonger who thought we were "winning" in Vietnam! If it were up to him, we'd still be in that quagmire! One has to think his POW experiences have really distorted him.<BR/><BR/>Why does conservative equate to warmonger in the USA? Why does it equate to environment-destroyer?<BR/><BR/>These fundamental wrongs will, if the religious right (weirdly part of their fanbase) is correct, make them burn in an unholy place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-86615098071521301882008-09-02T22:09:00.000-04:002008-09-02T22:09:00.000-04:00one is inclined to wonder why vicary responds only...one is inclined to wonder why vicary responds only to the brief and/or stupid posts in these threads, and never to detailed rational opposing points.<BR/><BR/>greg shahade, your post was a complete red herring. so what if mccain/palin are religious? so is obama... so how is this relevant? what are you going to do this relection, write-in ellen johnson?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-87699507868016960592008-09-02T18:50:00.000-04:002008-09-02T18:50:00.000-04:00Well I also never said Elizabeth was beyond reproa...Well I also never said Elizabeth was beyond reproach? I was just responding to the seemingly endless requests for her to "open her mind".<BR/><BR/> My take on Palin's nomination is as follows:<BR/><BR/> The people who decided on her are some of the most powerful people in the nation. It doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes, however I find it prudent to believe that they have some idea what they are doing. I might be wrong and for all I know she will turn out to be a terrible nomination, but given that this is their job that they spend hours and hours and ridiculous sums of money focusing on every single day, and I simply follow these things by listening to NPR, reading CNN and etc, I shouldn't value my opinion as much as theirs in this case.<BR/><BR/> It's kind of like making a few chess moves at the chess club and then hearing a conversation from some sub 1000 players who were watching the game about why my move was so terrible. Sure they can have their opinion, but in some sense I feel they should understand that their opinion shouldn't carry too much weight.Greg Shahadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233341816210357863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-13456573483990414202008-09-02T18:30:00.000-04:002008-09-02T18:30:00.000-04:00Greg writes, "Basically there are some issues wher...Greg writes, "Basically there are some issues where one should respect someone else's right to be closed minded, and not scoff at it as though it's some horrible sin."<BR/><BR/>Agreed and well stated. But please recall that this discussion thread was generated by Elizabeth's stated exasperation and incomprehension that anyone could possibly believe that the selection of Sarah Palin was anything other than a bone-headed move by Senator McCain (and her follow-up assertion that Palin must be stupid because she, I guess, presents herself other than your average trendy urban woman).<BR/><BR/>So I ask you, who is the scoffer and who the scoffee?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-75356900919090860442008-09-02T16:05:00.000-04:002008-09-02T16:05:00.000-04:00Leno, Letterman and Conan are going to have a "fie...Leno, Letterman and Conan are going to have a "field day" making jokes about these VP selections! (in both parties)<BR/><BR/>They have fertile material from now until election day. <BR/><BR/>So, relax everyone and enjoy the show. No need to go attacking Liz.Rich in Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687404781023255827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-41510695540565360722008-09-02T15:39:00.000-04:002008-09-02T15:39:00.000-04:00well saidwell saidElizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-23623024107112694592008-09-02T15:36:00.000-04:002008-09-02T15:36:00.000-04:00Sometimes its okay to be relatively closed minded....Sometimes its okay to be relatively closed minded. For instance if I felt either of the following and was running for office, I would expect that certain people would correctly find a bit of contempt for me:<BR/><BR/>1. I believe in Santa Claus<BR/>2. I believe that men are superior to women and should have greater rights<BR/><BR/><BR/> Now while I understand there are a lot of people who believe that belief in God and belief in Santa Claus are totally different ideas, I also believe that its completely reasonable to believe that they are both basically fairy tales, with one being a bit more complex than the other, and there is no way one would want to give someone any chance of running our nation if they believe in fairy tales. <BR/><BR/> Both ideas require pretty much only faith with no accredited scientific data to support the theories, and the main difference between them is that a lot of people have faith in one while almost no one over the age of 10 has faith in the other. <BR/><BR/> There are a lot of benefits to being closed minded on other subjects, such as racism, the idea that it should be fine to indiscriminately kill people on the street etc etc. It's a guarantee and a virtue that everyone is closed minded to some degree, and you simply have to draw a line as to where your closed-mindedness stops. <BR/><BR/> Basically there are some issues where one should respect someone else's right to be closed minded, and not scoff at it as though it's some horrible sin. Once one finds out that a person believes in what they may consider to be a "fairy tale", it may naturally progress for this person to discount the majority of this person's ideas, some of which are guided, directly or loosely by their belief in fairy tales.<BR/><BR/> Note that I'm not directly calling belief in God and religion a fairy tale, however I respect other people's belief to do so on any topic in which there is no scientific data to back it up, and to be terrified of such people having tremendous power.Greg Shahadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233341816210357863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-6890408857117380112008-09-02T15:28:00.000-04:002008-09-02T15:28:00.000-04:00I wish I coulda been a fly on the wall for the con...I wish I coulda been a fly on the wall for the conversation between Palin's daughter and her boyfriend when Mom came banging through the front door saying, 'Well, you'll never believe what job I landed today.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-53139567973791815692008-09-02T15:17:00.000-04:002008-09-02T15:17:00.000-04:00wait, you like me, but I sometimes drive you crazy...wait, you like me, but I sometimes drive you crazy...? <BR/><BR/>I apologize. I guess I just wasn't thinking enough about you and how you feel, Mr. Anonymous. I was only thinking about myself, and how I ... have opinions (?!) <BR/><BR/>In the future, I will try to be nicer, more agreeable, and much, much vaguer. <BR/><BR/>ElizabethElizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-67988139749867874032008-09-02T15:00:00.001-04:002008-09-02T15:00:00.001-04:00Liz, I like you, you're cool and you're a good che...Liz, I like you, you're cool and you're a good chess player, but some of the things you say drive me crazy. How about just trying to be a little bit open-minded?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-77085190111882509692008-09-02T15:00:00.000-04:002008-09-02T15:00:00.000-04:00"because anyone who wears four inch heels and that..."because anyone who wears four inch heels and that much makeup has internalized the patriarchy."<BR/><BR/>one hopes that this is a joke... some women prefer dressing like that. some women want nothing more than to stay home and raise children. some women are pro-life. sentiments opposed to yours aren't always the result of "internalised patriarchy".<BR/><BR/>and it's logical to assume that being located in alaska would provide one with experience in foreign relations. up north there are sovereignty issues between russia, america and canada. discussions with foreign diplomats take place. this is a valuable experience that a representative of, say, missouri, or kansas, would not have.<BR/><BR/>open your mindAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-86642446975790642012008-09-02T14:32:00.000-04:002008-09-02T14:32:00.000-04:00Doug wrote:" you should treat the election as a ch...Doug wrote:<BR/>" you should treat the election as a chess game. You would never, I assume, develop a plan taking into consideration ONLY what your possible moves are. You must also consider the position from your opponents perspective."<BR/><BR/><BR/>At this point, it's looking more and more like McCain's "chess move" was a blunder. <BR/><BR/>She loves pork barrel earmarks. Or should I say she was for them before she was against them. Yep, used to be getting all kinds of pork via Ted Steven's conduit before she became his critic. And I love the way she used lobbying firm with all of their cozy connections, including Ted Steven's son, to bring home the bacon. Yeah, I can see she has real deep reformer roots in her. This definitely shores up one of McCain’s greatest weaknesses. <BR/><BR/>And let's hear some more about the efficacy of 'abstinence only' sex education. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and what's that about being a member of the Alaskan party that advocates secession? That's a really cute little skeleton. <BR/><BR/>And let’s not forget that abuse of power scandal she has going on right now.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with the other posters who note that anyone who adheres to the idea that the earth was created as is only a few thousand years ago can't be very intelligent. <BR/><BR/>Yep, good ol Johnny sure did a great job of vetting his running mate. Makes a great case for the soundness of his judgment. Despite the brave face that the McCain Campaign is putting on, and all of the positive spin they're trying to put on all of these revelations, <BR/><BR/>e.g. <BR/><BR/>“Her daughter’s pregnancy just shows that she has problems in her family like everyone else”<BR/>“Her family problems demonstrate how in touch she is with the lives of ordinary Americans”<BR/>“No candidate is perfect”<BR/><BR/>–can you sense the 'buyers remorse' that's swirling around this strategic chess move?<BR/><BR/>LMAOes_trickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15511350526999060149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-87011294611787741252008-09-02T14:11:00.000-04:002008-09-02T14:11:00.000-04:00Oh, sorry, one more comment and then I'm done. Fr...Oh, sorry, one more comment and then I'm done. From all of the photos I've seen of Sarah Palin, including the ones you posted on your blog, and all of the T.V. clips I've seen it has not been my observation that she wears an excessive amount of makeup, and it certainly has not been obvious from anything I've seen how high her heels are. Perhaps your information is more extensive than mine...or perhaps you are just allowing your preconceptions and prejudices to get the better of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-13554996502649077242008-09-02T13:56:00.000-04:002008-09-02T13:56:00.000-04:00E.V. - "How do I know she's stupid? because anyone...E.V. - "How do I know she's stupid? because anyone who wears four inch heels and that much makeup has internalized the patriarchy."<BR/><BR/>Well, that's a relief! For a moment there I was worried you didn't have a good reason.<BR/><BR/>Obviously you've made up your mind on Governor Palin and nothing I can say will cause you to think differently but I would urge anyone reading this, all 12 of you, to reflect on the irony inherent in the notion that a woman of Sarah Palin's considerable and numerous accomplishments is little more than a stooge of "The Patriarchy".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com