Sorry people, but isn't this girl already enough punished, without becoming the laughing stock of the entire world.
I really feel sorry for her, she is the victim in the end, not the parents. She is being sacrifieced on the altar of politics - probably without having any choice. Sorry this kind of discussion leaves a really bad taste with me.
I think where Palin will help McCain with women is to give GOP women a reason to vote for the ticket (women generally have been unhappier with Bush than men). But more than that it gives the Dems one more chance to show off that sexist strain of fauxgressivism that we all enjoyed so much during the primary. All ready there are sexist comments being made left and right by Democratic operatives, bloggers and commenters. I don't think it will drive Democratic women to vote for McCain, but it could make it harder to vote for Obama. Not that I'm not going to love watching comments at Kos that say things like Palin's nomination shows that McCain wants to screw our "cuntry" (which at one point had 80+ positive ratings so it's not some lone troll) or all the jokes on the word "mate" or having Palin, who has every bit as impressive a life story as Obama even if she is wrong on everything, reduced to being a beauty queen. A brilliant pick not because she's going to win over all those Hillary voters but because she gives the Dems an opportunity to remind women that not everyone who hates us has a (R) after their name.
A brilliant pick not because she's going to win over all those Hillary voters but because she gives the Dems an opportunity to remind women that not everyone who hates us has a (R) after their name.
But then again, you have to note that it would be a wonderful world if unmarried mothers weren't stigmatized in the first place. and that young teenagers were properly educated into how to avoid getting pregnant so that they are able to achieve adulthood and consider where they want their lives to go without already having the decision made for them in a moment of fumbling ignorance a few years previously.
Bristol Palin is facing these situations, not because of the failings of liberals but because of the vicious, dogmatic and ignorant prejudices of people like her very own mother. A situation she wishes to befall thousands of other women if she gets the chance to wreak havoc on contraceptive and abortion services across america. Bristol Palin should vanish from the airwaves immdeiately, but her mother should not be allowed to draw a "Cone of Silence" over the consequences for american women that will arise from her attitudes. keep to the Fen Causeway
We're right about sex ed. They're wrong. We're trying to protect kids. They're killing them and ruining their lives with religious bullshit. Period. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
You can go after the mother for being pro-life. I mean she has this fifth child that has down's syndrom. She CHOSE to keep it, this means she had a CHOICE because of the liberal abortion laws.
Attack her on family values. She again CHOSE to have this child with special needs. She knew it would have special needs and she CHOSE to have it anyway. But what is she doing. Instead of giving this baby with special needs the loving and caring presence of a mother, she prefers to pursue a career, now even as VP which will be very time consuming. So where is this baby with special needs right now? Who is taking care of it? Is she a lousy mother? And remember she had a CHOICE!!!
By the way - this is not specifically to Fran, but for quite a number of comments in this thread - I think there are lots of insults in the comments. I don't know how anybody here can complain about fox news, with such assholism as displayed by many of your comments. Decency is not exactly the strength of the internet. But I start to understand actually, why so many republicans seem to lack empathy - the democrats killed it. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
A right the fundies want to take away from women, but she had it! this has nothing to do with being a hero.
And your insistence, that she chose to have a babay with Down syndrome can easily be interpreted as seeing people with a handicap as less live worthy than healthy ones. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I am personally against abortion if possible, but it is not onto me to decide for others and thus I believe that there should be a choice without criminalisation of the women. because in the end it is primarily the women who suffer in most cases, not the men.
without criminalisation of the women One doesn't have to criminalise women, but physicians, who do abortions, or people dealing with medical drugs.
I know I can't convince you or anybody else already so strongly decided 'pro-choice'. But my comment was about the treatment of people who are 'pro-live'. Ruling about abortion is in any case ruling about very high valued rights. Is there really not a big difference in being 'pro-live' and being 'pro-war' or 'pro-torture' or against universal health care or 'pro-destruction of the planet'? If you read this thread and through ET, it seems like it.
For that matter, the treatment of creationists on ET is as well a bit hyped - and I say this as somebody living from the curiosity of people for the early universe. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
If I were this child's parent I'd have encouraged her to have an abortion while simultaneously trying to make sure she understood that if she chose to keep it, she'd get my full support. That's presumably the sort of pressure you're talking about. But what are parents, friends, etc. supposed to do - refuse to talk about it, offer no advice?
I don't think the pressure is equally on both sides. Maybe in Poland it is that way, maybe in the US, but in Germany I'm pretty sure it isn't. And of course it depends on the milieu. In the small catholic village, things are different than in the city. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I utterly defend a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. This is not equivalent to recklessly having abortions as though it doesn't matter, nor is it forcing abortions on anybody. In my eyes it is a breach of my human rights to take that choice away from me. Ad astra per aspera
Say you are against choice and want to impose the unwanted pregnancy. There are even some arguments for it. But that has nothing to do with being "pro-life". Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Pro-life vs. pro-choice are the two frames of the US debate.
By saying you're anti-choice you're adopting the opposition's frame. But people here are reacting to pro-life by saying they won't debate in that frame. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Where we might disagree, is in our attitudes to human-caused death, whether it's eating meat, putting down unwanted or suffering pets, or going to war in defence. Not to mention all the ways of dying on the road, at work etc in accidents - especially if they are caused by negligence.
Regarding Palin, I find it hard to accept pro-life and hunting as a combination, especially when pro-life is promoted as having religious origins. All god's creatures etc....
I find all sorts of conflicts in my own behaviour: I'll swat a mosquito, a wasp or a moth, but gingerly rescue any bee or butterfly that wanders in to my house. I still eat meat - even having filmed in abattoirs. I have never hunted, but I know countryside Finns who do and I respect their choice, though I don't agree with it. Hunting is strictly controlled in Finland - moose for instance are 'culled' ie in the hunting season permits are issued up to a certain number nationwide.
Death brings out the complicated moral skeins of all our lives. You can't be me, I'm taken
And for the foetus, and 'life': The removal from the human body of a small cluster of cells that would otherwise parasitically suckle life from that body for 9 months before it ruptures alien-like form the female nether-regions is hardly tragic, or problematic, or difficult, or anything else. I don't cry when my body on a monthly basis expels the unfertilized ovum along with the uterine wall. Why would I feel much different about a fertilized lump of cells, or a fish-like thing with gills swimming in amniotic fluid being removed? It is not a person. It does not have a developed sense of self, and no stake in its own life. And it most certainly has no right to claim my body for its nurishment.
As I said - the physical and mental health of the women is paramount. It is your body - you do what you like with it. Same for me - as long as it doesn't impact on the health of someone else.
Thanks for sharing your view. I cannot share what it is like to be a woman, but your view makes sense to me. You can't be me, I'm taken
When I call myself pro-choice, it means pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Ad astra per aspera
For that matter, the treatment of creationists on ET is as well a bit hyped - and I say this as somebody living from the curiosity of people for the early universe.
The treatment of creationists on ET is mild and mellow. And the treatment of creationists in general is incomparably nice, above-board, honest and honourable compared to the way creationists treat honest, hard-working scientists.
If you want an example, you can start with the result of a five-second Google search.
The fact that creationists are routinely ridiculed and showered with contempt is a result of their insistence on shoving their early-19th-century theology down everybody's throat. I think that you'll find that most here (and elsewhere) fully support the right of consenting adult creationists to engage, in the privacy of their homes and churches, in whatever intellectual and religious practises they desire.
But attempting to teach patent bullshit to other people's children and then filing baseless lawsuits in order to get special treatment and/or harass political opponents tends to get under said political opponents' skins. Rather quickly.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Yes, it generally is associated with a fundamentalist religious views. This is because in the USA it is almost entirely associated with a fundamentalist religious view. We might argue that John McCain, who is 100% against abortion and contraception, is not a fundamentalist religionist, but even tho' that makes him an exception amongst "pro-lifers", he's certainly a strong believer in some form of christianity.
Now, I personally don't like to call them "pro-lifers", which is why I put them in quotes, because coupled with a strong belief in the sanctity of life before birth is a strangely callous indifference to life after birth. Most of them are also militarists who are strongly in favour of capital punishment and the ownership of guns. Not exactly pro-life in many of the senses I understand the term. If these religionists were strongly in favour of Jesus' actual message in the gospels I might give them more credence, but fundamentalism seems to edit compassion and forgiveness out and stick to the Old Testament vengeance and wrath.
Then we have the problem that nobody is actually pro-abortion. Not really. It's a ghastly procedure with genuine risks to the health and future reproductive well-being of the mother. Nobody in their right mind is pro-abortion. I'll repeat that : Nobody in their right mind is pro-abortion. Abortion is a failure of education and health care.
All children, once they get anywhere near being interested in sex (which in the UK can be as young as 8 !!) should be educated into what sex is about. Not just having sex, but what it's for, how a loving relationship occurs and why. And especially why they shouldn't venture into one too early. And yes, they should be taught about condoms and contraception and the day-after emergency contraception (which is NOT an abortificant). It is notable that in countries where sex education is comprehensive, open and honest, they have the lowest incidences of teenage preganncies. It's countries like the UK and the US which remain totally messed up about sex where it remains problematically high.
And finally, when fundamentalists are against contraception as well, then we are entering into the freedom of choice for women about how they live their lives. It comes down to whether or not we feel women should be treated as living incubators with the "on/off" switch located in the state legislature. Anti-choicers are all about humanizing embryos, but somehow, they have no problem dehumanizing women in the process. If women are free to act in this world, then they must have a choice about being pregnant beyond not having sex. Unless of course they're willing to hold men to the same account. Not likely judging by the number of scandals we hear about. And so when they feel that sexual maturity for women equals their enslavement to motherhood, then they're saying they have a problem with women that's way bigger than we can deal with here. keep to the Fen Causeway
It's pure Darwinism - wanting to make sure that you have as many off-spring as possible.
A pro-choice culture limits abortion naturally. When it's one choice among others, it's going to be one of the less popular options. While I disagree with Helen because some women do make a point of being casual about abortion they're not in a majority.
A pro-life culture increases the risk to everyone. Without choice, you're stuck with a child you may not want, may not be equipped to parent maturely, and may even have been forced into.
This is great news if you're a man, because you can be sure that women will carry your offspring to term and most likely be mother afterwards.
But the end result of a culture with those values is brood-slavery for women, and insitutionalised sexual abuse. A fundamentalist cult was raided a few months ago, and that's exactly the life style they'd created for themselves.
Specific pro-lifers may be appalled by that possibility, but even so - that's the direction their view pushes the Overton window.
So I'm not allowed to share the opinion of these women? Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
one of my first and only diaries on dkos, years ago, was about this terrible issue.
it was maryscott who slapped me into understanding better.
the problem is that both positions are morally untenable, in the real world, and one must open one's eyes to the company extremists on both sides keep, to help see the bigger picture.
to start with, it is obscene how mens' sexual education is so poor, since we are much more responsible for creating 'unwanted' babies than women are, since mens' sexuality is more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is..
so it is equally obscene that men should rule in laws that convict women to choicelessness, unless there was some other alternative, some utopian solution that would guarantee a baby born to parents too young, unsupported, and inexperienced to be good at it.
and there isn't....reality check!
the facts speak for themselves, for the moral high ground one gains from taking a pure, anti-abortion position, one allies oneself with the baddest authoritarian, warmongering, religiously ignorant, bossy, nosy sons of bitches who ever got too big for their historical boots.
by reluctantly conceding one's own rational loathing of abortion, or on a deeper level, the grief that a society can be so uptight and in denial about sex, that they do not educate their kids intelligently about this trickiest of areas, and their kids act out accordingly, one is allied with those who are actually doing something to create a greener, more intelligent world, where sex will be treated with the respect it deserves, with full disclosure of the facts of life as early as a child seeks to know about them.
it is the sick shame projected together with a judgmental moralism that creates the cognitive dissonance, that then creates naive, undereducated kids, who act out.
so until we create a much better world for all of us, but especially children, i have decided it behooves us men to remain in humble silence as to what we think women should do with their bodies, even if it's our sperm that ìs co-creating the situation.
sex and desire are never going to conveniently wait to arrive only to adults truly conscious, generous and psychologically mature enough to handle raising children in today's worrying world.
society is so atomised by industrialism that instead of a matter for tribal celebration when young adults, as it was for millennia, conceived, now we throw up our hands in horror, clutch our pearls, when this happens, unless the parents have 'good jobs' etc, which increasingly is happening to folks in their mid thirties.
biologically the hormonal system is never so active as at the age of 14-15. we have created a world where young adults are looking at waiting another 15 years of work, waiting, abstinence and/or condoms before their elders clap their hands and smile on the happy couple.
it is reminiscent of the surreal cognitive gap in america between drinking age and the supposed 'maturity' needed to join the armed forces and kill people to order...is it surprising people go nuts with this kind of hypocritical bullshit from those entrusted with preparing them for the world?
there is no good answer politically for the abortion issue, just crap or crappier.
when every child really is welcome, and will be raised by a whole 'village', replete with loving understanding, then we won't even need to discuss this unsolvable problem.
till then, we men who are mortified by the act of abortion should be even more mortified by the context women must live in, pregnant or not, that is created by men, who have resisted any female emancipation historically, then i just feel it's arrogant for men to push their beliefs about this issue into the political arena.
especially as if we controlled ourselves better, women wouldn't have this problem!
sorry for the semi-coherent ramble... logically you are right, but the world is not so linear. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I'm not aware about the quality of men's sexual education, especially at the lower educational end, which probably is most relevant. However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.". Yes, in average they are, but with wide variations. So, if sexual behaviour is at the core of the argument, there is no reason, not to look on the credibility of each one's individual's live.
the facts speak for themselves, for the moral high ground one gains from taking a pure, anti-abortion position, one allies oneself with the baddest authoritarian, warmongering, religiously ignorant, bossy, nosy sons of bitches who ever got too big for their historical boots. I don't understand completely to what you hint? The NAZIs, who by the way had an euthanasia program, which today sometimes is cited, when our special responsibility for disabled (e.g. not abort them) is called, were the first to implement major environmental protection laws in Germany. Does this make todays environmentalists to fascists? Or are you talking about the Republicans of today? Then, to distance oneself from them, there are about a thousand issues, why using one of the less evil ones, to go into a political discussion, which necessarily ends up little nuanced, but completely polemic? If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue, while they are wrong on all others. Obama by the way gets it, and has announced he would fire anybody in his campaign speculating about Sarah Palin's family live - the way ThatBritGuy, Metatone, and gk are doing.
by reluctantly conceding one's own rational loathing of abortion, or on a deeper level, the grief that a society can be so uptight and in denial about sex, that they do not educate their kids intelligently about this trickiest of areas, and their kids act out accordingly, one is allied with those who are actually doing something to create a greener, more intelligent world, where sex will be treated with the respect it deserves, with full disclosure of the facts of life as early as a child seeks to know about them. How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change? And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
it is the sick shame projected together with a judgmental moralism that creates the cognitive dissonance, that then creates naive, undereducated kids, who act out. As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Then you are talking about reality. This reality is made by people, who reality that way. Somebody had a sign like we matter more then pens and pounds. Yes, it seems the reality is often, that pens and pounds matter more. But that is a decision, done by humans, and humans could change it, if they would want to.
Then you are talking about historical load, men discriminating women. Your argument is simply rubbish. I have as many female as male ancients. How does it make boys a culprit and girls a victim, when their father is misbehaving towards their mother? Your argument is not just flawed, it is really really bad! With such arguments today, the extreme discrimination against boys in school is justified.
My selfcontrol is fine, I'm virgin. And if men shouldn't be in the discussion, men shouldn't be in the discussion. My original comment was about mistreating Sarah Palin. If men should not be in the discussion, to place the comment as a response to Fran's was wrong, but I guess some of the comments, I did target with my response do come from males. So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that. It might even be counterproductive, because people might vote for her in defiance of the mistreatment (which probably is one reason for the reaction of Obama). Even as no GOP voter will read this site, it is a matter of decency (which I'm confident, that it is as well a reason for Obama's reaction). Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
In general the one thing I sometimes disagree with certain feminists on is that men don't get a say on abortion on a personal level. It's a major life decision that affects both people in a relationship and it seems to be natural to me that the man would have an opinion. If I were to find out that a serious girlfriend had had an abortion without talking about it with me, I'd be extremely upset - far more so than, say, at a bit of casual cheating. On the other hand, in the end it's the woman's decision, in the same way that a decision to take a job in another location or for radically different hours or pay is. That would impact me, but I don't get a veto. This isn't 'fair', but it's also not 'fair' that women are the ones who have to go through pregnancy.
As for what you say about pro-life vs. pro-choice people - ummh... My college and grad school experiences have been in environments which are both quite competitive and overwhelmingly pro-choice (at least ninety percent). I've definitely not observed that.
I also think you are confusing the life choices of many pro-choice people with a desire to impose them on others. But actually we don't want to force people to have abortions any more than we want to force them to go through with pregnancies - it's up to you. Same goes for sexual choices - those are up to you. All we want is to be able to make our own decisions on all such matters without government coercion.
As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Your physics may be exceptional, but perhaps a little more logic could be useful in that argument.
There is - in most of the world - zero correlation between being pro- or anti-choice and academic ability.
As for the rest - statistics don't agree with your impression.
In fact this is exactly why we're having this argument. Fundies in the US lead far less moral lives, by the their own standards, than liberals do. Fundies are more likely to be in prison, more likely to have substance abuse issues, more likely to commit sex crimes and generally less likely to behave like rational adults - especially not rational adults with an understanding of consequences.
In fact this is the one of the keystones of the progressive movement - to educate conservatives about consequences.
Specifically it's to educate conservatives about the despicable social fallout of abstinence programs, of the disastrous consequences of militarism, of the carnage created by a culture of ownership without responsibility, and above all of the consequences of pretending that personal actions based on 'because I say so' or 'because an authority figure said so' don't work nearly as well for anyone as personal actions based on rational forethought and empathy.
If Sarah Palin is in the middle of the crossfire, it's because everything in her life dramatises these issues. And the last thing anyone wants - and by anyone I mean conservatives and progressives equally - is someone in charge of the biggest war machine in history who doesn't understand how to assess consequences realistically.
If being pro-live would be the source for that, it should apply in every society. But the reality is the other way around. Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
And I would be perfectly happy with an non-interventionist not understanding how to assess consequences person in charge of the biggest war machine in history, while some warmonger, who understands how to assess consequences, but doesn't care about human lives in general, would be really troubling. Actually I doubt the assessment of the consequences of a significant military action is seriously possible.
If you need to use Palin's personal family story, in which I can't see anything bad, to portray Palin's incompetence as president, then you haven't much. Luckily Obama is better than that. Actually his attitude has impressed me so much in the last days, that I have a new signiture: Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
You don't get it, do you? It's all about Abstinence-Only Sex Education which the US has been pushing on the rest of the world.
In 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush announced his Five-Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy. Also known as The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Global AIDS prevention advocates have criticized the funding restriction, and in 2006 a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) also criticized the earmark, outlined the challenges that the funding restriction posed to countries hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, and urged Congress to reconsider how this funding should be spent. A Congressionally authorized three-year evaluation of PEPFAR by the non-partisan Institute of Medicine in 2007 also criticized the earmark. In preparation for PEPFAR's reauthorization, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that would drop the earmark
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good. You can bring up the inefficiency of Abstinence-Only education to fight AIDS, you can ridicule the American obsession with sex references and education any time. But it is not decent, to do that with using existing babys. You imply that this baby is a problem. It isn't. It's just a baby. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I'm not fully sure what Abstinence-Only, really means as sex education. Seems to me not very, uhmm, educated. However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
Or so the theory goes.
The Palins provide a poster case for the failure of Abstinence-only sex education to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancy. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Well, but they don't provide a poster case for the negative consequences on live quality an unplanned baby can have.
And now you are using the girl, Bristol Palin, not Sarah Palin, for a political purpose. You portray a major decision of her live as a failing. Whatever you think about this case being poster case for whatever, this is simply bad style. Sure, what you are doing may be common, on, uhmm, fox news... Nothing else I'm saying. Is that the way politics is discussed in Spain or UK? Would be disappointed to hear that. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I didn't say anything negative about the decision to carry the pregnancy to term. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
No, abstinence is the strategy advocated by her mother.
Which is the strategy being criticised here.
You could claim that the daughter is just a rebellious teenager and the mother's strategy is still the best, if you really wanted. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The abuse of family members, especially of children, of political opponents for political gain is something, which I condemn. And it is not something which is excusable by say people from the other party are doing this, too. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
No, you have to pick one explicit, underaged girl, who is not asked, if she wants to be picked by you as an example. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Also, it is the mother who is being criticised, showing her methods didn't produce what she's claiming to achieve ; I don't give a damn about her daughter, beyond wishing her happiness. I hope she was informed enough about the consequences of sex. And that the shotgun wedding isn't due to her mother's decision to run for VP. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Frankly, I think this insane. Maybe they do it for easier fact checking possibilities, but it is insane. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Another point : I think it makes Palin look even worse, that she accepted McCain's proposition, knowing the kind of scrutiny it would put on her family, and what it would do to her kid daughter. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
You conflate American statistics and my purely German experience.
You don't have a purely German experience. You have a European experience where the authoritarian Catholic church collided with secular social democracy in a series of battles which lasted centuries, and eventually social democracy won - at least for the moment.
In other countries - especially in Africa - that battle is still being fought, and the results are as predicted. I.e. lives are laid waste to, and the consequences are even more horrific than they are in the US.
Martin:
Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
Pro-life authorities in the rest of the world aren't known for encouraging independent thought.
Can you name a pro-life organisation anywhere in the world which supports original scientific and philosophical enquiry and doesn't operate from a 'Because I said so' moral foundation?
Quibble here but that's not completely true in areas where Catholics weren't the majority. Witness the rather different nature of the Catholic political movement in Bavaria and the Rhineland during the Kaiserreich and Weimar.
Of course the only pro-live organisations I'm aware of, the churches in Germany, do support original scientific and philosophical enquiry in nearly every fields. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/2/145254/8466/826/103935
i just reread it, and still feel the same way.
However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.".
i don't like using generalisms, (generally!) but in thic case feel it appropriate. not too many woman-on-man rapes!
Or are you talking about the Republicans of today?
yes.
If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue,
if there ever was a poster-reason for how absolutist thinking was a bridge to nowhere-in-the-real-world.
your logic would hold water IF unborn foetus cells and their fate added up to be more big-picture critical than global warming, police state mentalities and the rest of the sorry list of bullshit values proposed as desirable and appropriate for society.
as it is, i think a society that eschewed abortion would be a wonderful thing, and i try to align my actions to be conducive to that future, but to make a litmus test out of it is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change?
let me count the ways!
you are correct about germany, however. even nazis dug sex! i was happily stunned with how open german talk shows are about sexual issues of all stripes, and even how attractive most of the girls who advertised for company in the local dusseldorf newspaper were.
a german friend, told me it's because most german men are gay or married, and there's therefore a shortage of available hetero males, lol! her tongue may have been in her cheek, i dunno..
the contrast with prissy old england could not have been more shocking-
And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
hello...you've taken my point and pointed it back at me, lol! i do accept other opinions, including the one that statistically shows how the most irresponsible sexual behaviour of all stems from clueless teenagers who've been fed soapy lies, or worse, nothing at all truthful, objective or relevant about this issue, the most central to all our lives.
absolute moralism in the face of uncomfortable reality always creates the opposite effect than intended...jokes about the preacher's daughter have been around for ever.
i do accept others' opinions, especially when it's about others' bodies, and ask the same in return.
quite simple.
wha??? you've totally lost me here...
So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that.
well, i didn't, if you care to reread the threads, i attacked the hypocrisy and double standards that are the so-frequent fruit of this particular form of moral blinkeredness.
the repubs are brushing aside the story, saying 'they're getting married, so it's ok for her to be pregnant...'.
i find that funny, and sad. i hope some parents learn from this, that's all.
thanks for your detailed reply. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so. Having gone to a pretty non-sexist college, and when there finding myself hanging out in an even more egalitarian environment, I can attest that women are quite capable of aggressive sexuality. In the parties I hung out at, that even included some reverse 'girls gone wild' stuff like encouraging guys to flash or egging on straight men to kiss each other. And of course most did - to appear 'cool' and to impress that hot brunette over there - the same reasons women do it. Nor are women immune to saying, oh who cares about that lack of condoms when intoxicated on desire with a possible but not necessary extra assist from ethanol. And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
To sum up, I'm not at all convinced that an egalitarian society if and when it ever comes about, will be that much more responsible about sex.
I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so.
that would make a very interesting discussion, i think.
i take your anthropological point, some cultures give more power to women, and they seem quite happy with the arrangement.
however the horny drunk mobs of ibiza, that come from england, are an example, like most porn, of womens' identity being subsumed to mens' fantasies.
not a pretty sight...
pre-feminist, if you will.
MarekNYC:
And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love, the pressure goes both ways.
why not?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love
I've always been dubious of this point of view, as it leans towards conservative views of the role of Men and Women. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
if they give each other what they want, that is.
of course nothing is absolutely true. exceptions abound, thank the fsm- ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
How many myths do we still unconsciously keep replicating because they are so ingrained in the way societal gender roles are viewed, despite the progress that has been made in liberating women from the most conservative of structures in some places?
We still fall foul of using one myth to argue back against another however hard we try to use actual evidence and stats as much as possible. Ad astra per aspera
the question that follows on from that is If men are Then who are they promiscuous with? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I find anthropological points of view interesting but I do also wonder how relevant they are in some cases. Maybe melo can offer his view on that.
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food. But we don't have those kind of constraints on our society now so how useful is it to try to say 'well men do this and women do that because of our basic primal instincts'?
Any individual's potential role in society has altered drastically over the 100 years let alone the last 1000. In seeking equality for all, I just don't find it helpful when myths about capabilities and desires of one group vs another get thrown about.
When I use stats to represent proportions eg women are still proportionally more likely to bear the burden of being the primary carer for children or disabled/elderly relatives. This is partly because womens still get paid less than men (proportionally) hence if a decision has to be made about who goes part time or leaves work, the one with the lower salary and prospects is going to have to take that on, again, more likely to be a woman. There's statistical evidence for that and it is useful to use when arguing around the need for change and for certain types of interventions to address inequality.
I don't find it useful to say things like, 'women prefer to be homemakers' because that is a myth even if some women do prefer to be. Ad astra per aspera
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food.
"Just-So Stories" Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed] For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed] Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection. Leda Cosmides noted in an interview: "Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?" In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes: "Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed]
For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed]
Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection.
Leda Cosmides noted in an interview:
"Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?"
In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes:
"Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
The norms of society in the UK will differ to other countries, societies and cultures elsewhere in the world. Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women? Ad astra per aspera
yup. but live that out and you'll end up in jail, pronto...
semi-snark ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women?
The philosophical non-starters we inherit from the likes of Rousseau... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The closest I could try to articulate would be how would male and female roles fall into place were a small community/tribe to find themselves living together - no 'cultural' structures or rituals or roles currently established... My first thought there is that it would largely be determined by the environment they were living in and thus would vary. Ad astra per aspera
And none carried over from whatever communities these people come from... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Cue in Lord of the Flies. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
But on a very pessimistic days, I'd say LotF wouldn't be that far from the truth...
And as fictional as reality TV. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
must be the poverty...
i remember hearing that in europe in the middle ages, once a year the whole village would meet by night and bonk their hearts out in the dark with whomever.
mixing up the old gene pool... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i'm looking at the unravelled skeins around our feet.
on the bright side, i see a new global culture forming too, woven from the many threads that survive commodification.
pop over to sven's musical diary for evidence of that... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
yup that's our main contribution.... better KIT ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
then we traded it in for the truman show.
'madmen' is the new 'sopranos'. i was happy to see that obama relaxes to it on the campaign plane.
anyone want to learn through drama how the truman show took over western media culture in the sixties could do worse than check it out. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
lately not so much. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i guess the chinese olympics...
<dux> ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not that that would be too surprising... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
the virtue of other cultures is they're not ours, which of course can lead to romanticisation, of which i have been guilty, but no more, no more...
not since i found ET, lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Except in the case of social creatures (such as humans) in which the social is part of the natural. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
How much of how we behave, live, work and so on is defined by social norms and expectations and upbringing and how much is driven by say genetics or personality? It is an interesting debate to have because depending on whether you believe the 'natural' (whatever that is) or the 'social' is more influential then your view on how to tackle social problems will vary. Ad astra per aspera
And it is not whether - or, is the point. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
my new kitty says hi, btw! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Plus the page refresh takes ages.
I tend to duck out at that point. keep to the Fen Causeway
get a catmac! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
are the only debates that interest you reducible to binary terms?
funny, i find that's exactly what makes these types of discussion so fascinating, and they generate so many comments, too. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
So, yes, I don't find it interesting but not for the reasons you imagine. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
it is now clearer to me why you find it uninteresting.
perhaps because you don't anticipate any novel viewpoints to emerge here?
luckily it is interesting some of us... a hoary argument for sure, but it's the journey, not the arrival.
meaning we may never know, but the conversations it enables are revealing, because it's obviously something many great minds have bent to understand, and some here have reflected quite deeply thereupon, to judge by the interest and comments.
horses for courses... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
how can i refuse?
i love to study others' cultural mores, and am always curious as to how maybe our own have possibly some very fundamental assumptions wrong.
but if you want to try and live cross-culturally, there's a high price to pay. so groupthink is a big part of how we form our own opinions.
more info...more choice. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
doesn't prove a thing, natch... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Why does England have to export its horny drunk mobs? (I'm also thinking about the Praguestag nights, etc) A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
too much rain'll do that. i'm sure many of them would prefer not to go all the way to spain to feel ok about their 'animal spirits'!
where else than britain (and russia) do more people drink with oblivion as sole destination?
in spain they get to bonk before they fall over in a stupor, and don't have to face mum over breakfast the morning after. for the price of a ryan air ticket!
got to have some ecstatic moments before getting back to the office grind...
the perils of too much 'proper', i reckon. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Most of Southern Sweden exports its drunken mobs to Copenhagen for pretty much those reasons. As for why the mobs are horny as well as drunken, I think the horny is just along for the ride whenever drunken mobs get together...
Both do both. Men are just as much prey to the delusion that if only I can get her to sleep with me she'll want me on other levels as well. The social sexual stereotyping that I see on the other side is the belief that a single guy who has no moral problems with casual sex will always want it.
I think that's only partly true - i.e. what that is is also women playing the 'be popular' game, and just doing what it takes to get laid. The college crowd I was in was really not that sort of frat boy type one. And god knows getting straight guys to kiss each other really isn't part of a broader social stereotype of straight male fantasies. That was even more true fifteen years ago.
why not? just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
What I was specifically referring to is the way desire crowds out responsibility once people start fooling around. And I don't see women being less prone to that than men. You start out thinking, well, we can fool around and do all sorts of stuff that doesn't require condoms. A little while later...
The one absolute difference I've seen is in the use of violence and physical coercion to get sex. Women don't seem to do that. How much of that is to do with strength differences I don't know. That difference is also what keeps the more extreme examples of women pressuring guys into sex that I've known about from being rape or sexual assault.
On a semi related note, I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships, as opposed to simply selfishly into cheating. (The difference is honesty and a complete lack of sexual jealousy.)
or: if i can get her to sleep with me it means there's something she sees in me to love...
I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships
straight and/or gay?
great reply, marek, very nice... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
no you're not! the rules clearly state that any difference of opinion here will be severely punished.
how dare you have your own opinion that is not politically correct!
please sign up for ET re-education camp.
/ snarkarola ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
The issue of consent becomes as fuzzy as it occasionally does in rape cases. It's easy to be clear at the extremes, but it can get very fuzzy in the middle, especially if either or both people change their minds about what happened after the event.
That's not going to be a popular idea either, I suppose.
Maybe condom packets could come with pre-printed indemnity contracts which could be signed and exchanged in the presence of a lawyer before the condoms are used?
But until that happy day, I say the fight for gender equality has bigger fish to fry than the rather meagre support money being that the non-parenting parent pays to the parenting one (who are usually, although not universally, male and female, respectively).
I would never criticize any girl who chooses to have a child in such circumstances, although I might wish that she had been better informed of her options in life. However, it is hard to escape the irony of seeing somebody who campaigns for sexual ignorance watching her own daughter's future options close down on her as a result of her sentiments.
My heart goes out to Bristol, and I wish nothing but the best ofr her and her child. I especially hope I never hear of her again as this would mean her privacy is repsected.
But my heart is cold, closed and hardened on a mother who visits this, not only on her own daughter who is probably insulated by a loving family from some of the grimmer consequences of this decision, but wishes to do the same for all american women, irrespective of rape or even the survuval of the mother. Pure evil keep to the Fen Causeway
I think there are lots of insults in the comments. I don't know how anybody here can complain about fox news, with such assholism as displayed by many of your comments. Decency is not exactly the strength of the internet. But I start to understand actually, why so many republicans seem to lack empathy - the democrats killed it.
Cause generally happens before effect. If you read up a bit on the last half-century of US political history, you'll find that the repugs were consistently quite a bit nastier than the dems quite a bit earlier.
By one admittedly very crude metric, consider the number of political murders targeting progressives vs. the number targeting wingnuts. On the progressive side, we have MLK, JFK, a few of JFK's family, Malcom X and a couple of other people I've forgotten. Against the repugs and wingnuts, we have one (failed) assassination of Reagan. So tell me again who dragged US politics into the gutter.
Now, "he started it" is not a particularly good excuse and I'm not a big fan of exitus acta probat, but there is a class war going on here and the democrats are slightly less traitorous than the repugs. As such, I find it really, really hard to muster any sympathy for a republican operative. Whether Palin Jr. is in that category is something I do not have enough information about her to decide, but the mother sure as Hell is.
Why do the Republicans still have a base? Or better, why is the Republican base still producing politicians who favour Bush-like policy, when Bush's policies are a 99% failure? I don't see an answer, other than the polarisation fortified by this tit for tat, which wouldn't be deeply anti-american. I had already, unfortunately inconclusive, discussion about possible reasons, but everything I supposed, was dismissed, which leaves it unexplained, why nearly 60 million Americans voted for Bush in 2004, or why Obama (who has reacted very good so far to anything related with Palin) is leading with only 8-10% in the polls - and not 30-40%. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
This 'cause and effect' is in this case an explaination, not a justification.
It's neither, it's a counterpoint. You claimed, in the block I quoted, that repug nastiness is caused by dem nastiness. Which would put the effect - repug nastiness - before the cause - dem nastiness. Being a physicist by training, I'm sure you appreciate that effect coming before cause is a rather serious problem for a model that attempts to describe reality :-P
As for Bush's base, recall that Bush's handlers own the press and that there is no effective opposition to the Bush regime's policies. It's like asking why people would still vote for Tory Bliar the second time around, despite his administration being a miserable failure, and then blaming it on the tone of his critics on the left. It's a non sequitour.
Also, recall that the people of Rome never rebelled, as long as the bread and circus scheme kept working. For that matter, I wouldn't have as big a problem with bread and circus if everyone could have it (I would still have a problem with it because it's paternalistic, but that's another issue). But the bread and circus provided to Europeans and Americans is bought by a continued rape of the rest of the world (or at least of the parts of it that don't have nukes...). Just as Rome's bread and circus was financed by raping the provinces.
I had more a mean field theory (reference is the one dimensional Ising model) in mind. You have your magnetic dipoles, and of course due to their thermal energy from time to time they flip, but due to the net magnetic field, caused by all the other magnetic dipoles, they stay much longer in the direction of the B field - and cause thereby on average a contribution to this B field keeping the other dipoles aligned. For sue this, lets say piece of iron, was somewhere in the past magnetised externally. But the cause, that the iron remains magnetised is the reaction to all the other dipoles.
For explaining Tony Blair, I have actually another model, this time from economics. The situation is different, because Blair was already in the party, which was assumed to be better at those things you name a failure. Essentially people hadn't a real alternative at the ballot box - and turnout as well as labour's share of the vote were miserable, only order 15% of all possible voters did cast a vote for Blair, on this level Ahmadineshad of Iran can claim the same democratic legitimicy as Blair. In the US, there was a realistic alternative, which could be expected to be better, however little good this better might be assessed.
However, the model I wanted to lay out: You have a beach, homogeniously populated, with two ice sellers, the rightwinger C and the leftwinger S. Where do they place themselves. To get about half of all people who do want to get an ice, both are somewhat close to the center, but there is some space between them, as they want to distinguish from each other.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-S-+-+-+-+-+-+-C-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
The elections are essentially decided by the people living between the two ice sellers. So now comes Blair, and declares NewLabour (and Schroeder, declaring "Die Neue Mitte"). And they move the S somewhat to the right. So they will get all the vote left of them, which is more than before. If they are lucky, the rightwingers are going to keep some distance between themselves and the leftwingers, and move a bit right, too.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-S-+-+-+-C-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
That election is a save win, if not too many people on the left of the beach now say, if the ice seller is so far away, then they are not at all going to buy an ice. Sometimes of course unforeseen things happen, e.g. that a 3rd ice seller says, OK, now I have enough people there on the left side of the beach to open another shop.
-+-L-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-S-+-+-+-C-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
This is of course what happend to Schroeder and the SPD in Germany. But with a proportional representation election system and a party, which was already a major party in eastern Germany, it is much easier to that, than in a majority voting system, with no such party in place (assessing greens and liberals for several reasons standing at a different beach)
And yes, we in Europe might get bread and circus, but in the US I'm not sure, if they haven't somehow managed, to make only circus, but no bread. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I think the ice cream stand is a good analogy, though.
Unseating a sitting President is the hardest political task in the US
10 million more Evangelicals voted in '04 versus '00
Kerry ran a lousy campaign
Lingering nationalism from 9/11
Voter fraud and repression in Ohio
Bush received the highest percentage of Latino vote in GOP history (45%)
Kerry was a lousy campaigner
The GOP constructed a superb GOTV organization and ran it skillfully
The GOP constructed a superb anti-Kerry propaganda campaign and ran it skillfully
The full affect of Bush's policies hadn't become so stark
The Iraq War still had (bare) majority support
The GOP managed to cobble their Center-Right to Right coalition together one more time -- hopefully the last time
Also it is worth pointing-out Kerry received the highest number of votes for a losing presidential bid ever. He would have swamped Bush '00 by 9 million votes.
You know, the past couple of days have provided proof to me that, if there is a God, he/she/it has a vicious sense of humor. In fact, I'm almost convinced that Bill Maher is God, because this reads like a Bill Maher standup routine.
Between the Republicans rushing to take political advantage of a storm that turned out to be not a big deal, and Sarah Palin, major winger and abstinence-only advocate, revealing that her teenage daughter did precisely what we on the Left know kids do when they don't get the education -- I mean, really, you can't buy writing like this. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
just heard a good one-liner on this:
'good thing she's in the NRA, since it'll be a shotgun wedding'
heh ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
LOL i just saw bill mayer last night on leno, (a rerun from aug 28), and yes bill maher is definitely divinely inspired.
no-one gets to be that fu++ing funny without help from upstaire! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
