Palin Derangement Syndrome

[WIP]

Harry Truman's qualifications were being a failed haberdasher and running a corrupt Missouri county. Yet he turned out to be one of our greatest Presidents.

The fond memories of Harry Truman owe alot to the passage of time. Truman wasn't considered a great president when he left office, but in the rearview mirror of history, he started looking better as the years passed!

I heard an American History professor make the point during an NPR interview that the ranking of past presidents is biased in favour of wartime presidents, and against those who avoided taking their country to war. On that basis, things can only get better for Dubya once he leaves office in January!

I don't know how smart Harry Truman was, but the misgivings many people have about Sarah Palin, is not only about her lack of experience -- there are doubts about her intellectual capabilities. Now, we all know she can talk, but the only smarts she has really demonstrated so far are cunning and having a shrewed sense of timing (such as knowing when to change from being the earmark queen to become the warrior against corruption and kickbacks). When it comes to what we used to call "booksmarts," a red flag goes up around the fact that she had to go through five colleges and universities to get her B.S. degree in journalism. She has admitted previously to local reporters in Alaska that she failed macroeconomics! Now that's something you want in a person who's going to be a faint heartbeat away from moving into the Oval Office!

But wait! You've already tried putting an imbecile in the Whitehouse -- how is that working out?

[WIP]

As I've already stated, there's no such thing as a woman's right to kill. You can sugarcoat it with so-called choice all you want. And the only backwoods ideology, comes from people who rely on science from the 50's and 60's, to back up a legal desicion created in the 70's. It's neanderthal thinking, similar to that of blacks being only two-thirds of a human being asserted in the pre-emancipation constitution of the United States.

Instead of nigger, it's zygote or parasite.

Of course you've already stated! But should we care what you say when you don't offer up any reasons to support your belief that zygotes are conscious human beings deserving full human rights. So, on what basis are you labeling women who have had abortions (and women who have used emergency contraception) as murderers? That is a ridiculous slander considering that you can't prove that there is a dead human being to justify the charge!

[GostHacked]

No doubt, but my contention is that the people around her should not be encouraging this choice!

They should never encourage it, but people should support her decision to abort if needed.

Society as a whole should not rank the lives of unborn fetuses as equal to, or of greater importance than the mother.

This is where it becomes HER choice and no one elses. See??

I mentioned before that in the days before modern medicine, a physician may have been faced with a straight choice during a perilous delivery of whether to crush the infant's skull and remove it, or perform a caesarean section, that would kill the mother. According to the Wiki article, even as late as 1865, 85% of women died from this operation. but it was still performed regardless, because the life of the mother was far from guaranteed greater worth than the life of the fetus.

But as prenatal testing, especially DNA testing improves, the prospect of designer babies and sex-selection calls into question the absolute prochoice argument. A responsible solution will fall somewhere in between two extreme postions on this issue, if a rational debate of the issue can be conducted.

It is great that there are medical advances to allow the chances of the mother's survival to increase if there are going to be complications at birth. This is the progress of science and medicine. But it is still people's views on the subject that will never change no matter what new medical advances are offered.

American Woman

Why do you give "real props" to a woman who decides to end her life for an unborn baby's life? Why is that "the ultimate" in pro choice?

Because she sacraficed herself so the child can live. To give up your life for someone else is noble, and a worth while sacrafice. The mother is already in the mindset she will not survive the birth. Knowing it might be too late to perform any kind of abortion (3rd trimester abortions are illegal in the US and Canada because of the baby's chances of surviving out of the womb are significant.) She takes the most logical choice. Her death, baby's survival.

If a woman chooses her baby's life over her own, it's simply her choice. Same as it's the choice of another not to choose the unborn baby's life over her own. You think if the woman has other children, children who are going to be motherless, she's "selfless?" Don't their lives, their feelings, their well being count?

I agree, and again, this is on a case by case situation. Every situation shuld be treated as unique. Of course you have to weigh in the other options like, is there already a family and other children ect ect.

Sharkman

American woman, there is an error in your premise. When a woman opts to have a child which endangers her own life, she is not choosing one life over another even though that may be the final outcome.

She is making that choice. So there is an error in your premise. She knows she is at risk during either late stages of pregnancy or during childbirth.

So, most may not understand the sacrafice and will of the mother to make sure the baby lives regardless of her outcome (if there is a risk). But whatever her choice is .. it is her choice... and that is the crux of this whole derailed argument.

If she chooses to have the baby regardless of risks, it is her choice.

If she chooses to abort because there is much more at stake, then again, her choice.

Back to the main topic.

[kimmy]

For the life in me I can't take the pro-life argument seriously from anyone who is not a vegan. How can you feel life is bloody precious and then turn around and eat anything with a face on it?

A face? That's really a really arbitrary way to make this distinction. One could argue that insects have faces while an octopus doesn't. Yet, the octopus is the one that is highly intelligent and far more deserving of our sympathy.

I think most people who are pro-life (and pro-choice for that matter) view human life differently from animal life.

Harry Truman's qualifications were being a failed haberdasher and running a corrupt Missouri county. Yet he turned out to be one of our greatest Presidents.

Keep that in mind.

I think experience is somewhat overhyped, as pertains to McCain, Obama, and Palin.

Perhaps being young and Canadian, I think of Stephen Harper as an example of why experience is overrated. Before becoming Prime Minister, Harper had never been in charge of anything except for the "National Citizens Coalition", a lobby group. He had been in parliament briefly as a back-bencher, and the remainder of his political experience was a back-room policy-analyst. Yet he's been a very capable leader.

Of course, Harper is a very smart guy who spent a lot of time studying issues before stepping out in front of a podium. So Obama (and not Palin) is the inexperienced politician I'd liken to Harper in that respect.

-k

[stevoh]

As I've already stated, there's no such thing as a woman's right to kill.

Sure there is, self defence. If a womans life is in danger, she has the right to defend herself. If a pregnancy puts the womans life in danger, she has the right to defend herself.

[BC_chick]

I think most people who are pro-life (and pro-choice for that matter) view human life differently from animal life.

.... and I think you'll find that people who are pro-choice view life differently between an embryo and a living breathing human being.

Hey, at least we're not the ones going on about "life" while showing absolutely no regard for animal lives.

[Shady]

Sure there is, self defence. If a womans life is in danger, she has the right to defend herself. If a pregnancy puts the womans life in danger, she has the right to defend herself.

That premise applies to anyone, woman or man, and has nothing to do with abortion.

.... and I think you'll find that people who are pro-choice view life differently between an embryo and a living breathing human being.

We all start out as an embryo. And it's not just an embryo that's being destroyed. For instance, at week 10 of a pregnancy:

The fetus is only about 1.2 inches / 3 centimetres long from crown to rump and weighs less than a sixth of an ounce / 4 grams. Even so, it's busily swallowing and kicking. Each day more minute details start to appear, such as fingernails and peach-fuzzy hair.

The vital organs -- the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain, and lungs -- are fully formed and functional

Link

We're talking about living, breathing, heart-beating, unborn human beings. You people are freaking monsters.

Hey, at least we're not the ones going on about "life" while showing absolutely no regard for animal lives.

Who's showing absolutely no regard for animal lives? Nice strawman. And please don't equate animal lives with human lives. Yes, I believe that animals should be treated well, but the two are not the same. And it's very troubling that you don't seem to know.

[stevoh]

That premise applies to anyone, woman or man, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Your the one who said no woman has the right to kill. Yes she does. As all people do. When their own lives are in danger.

[WIP]

They should never encourage it, but people should support her decision to abort if needed.

This is where it becomes HER choice and no one elses. See??

We've already established that time and time again! What I don't see is why liberals are so afraid of making moral judgments that they want all issues of conscience and ethics to be shunted off to realm of private, personal choices for fear that someone will impose their beliefs on others!

Well, if you want to know why conservatives have successfully framed secular liberals as amoral or worse, it is precisely because your side has surrendered the public square to the fundamentalists who aren't shy about offering their opinions of what moral choices are ethical and which ones are not! The only opposition being offered to conservative moral arguments is coming from people who are trying to create a religious left and use selective bible quotes to support their arguments. Why not establish some general principles that don't depend on interpretations of old religious texts?

If the pro choice side is only going to offer up the argument of a personal "right to choose," and refuse to step off "choice" even in situations where late term abortion may cause harm and suffering to a fetus (it's worth noting that many jurisdictions are requiring the use of anesthetics for operations on a fetus that is more than 26 weeks old) or have negative social impacts, such as the growing use of abortion for sex selection and other preferred attributes, then your side has already framed themselves as amoral and unable to make moral decisions. No surprise that you are also unwilling to evaluate whether a woman should sacrifice her life in favour of a fetus, except to say it's her right to choose!

American Woman

Because she sacraficed herself so the child can live. To give up your life for someone else is noble, and a worth while sacrafice. The mother is already in the mindset she will not survive the birth.

Is it an equal life for a life sacrifice? And if she wouldn't survive anyway, as you have framed it, then it is not a sacrifice! It's only a sacrifice if she gives up her chance to live.

Knowing it might be too late to perform any kind of abortion (3rd trimester abortions are illegal in the US and Canada because of the baby's chances of surviving out of the womb are significant.)

No! There are exceptions to that ban on third trimester abortions, such as birth defects, threat to the life of the mother etc., and according to surveys I read previously, very few women are going to procrastinate on a decision of whether to seek an abortion. A third trimester abortion is usually sought by women who were intending to have a baby, but then something went drastically wrong during pregnancy.

What will put the mother's life in danger is if a ban is total or has some convoluted rules like the Catholic Church uses in their "Law of Double Effects," where they won't directly allow an abortion in a situation where the mother's life is in danger, but will make a concession to allow the doctors to perform a life-saving operation on the mother that may terminate the fetus's life. It's not hard to see the hazards in making 'saving the mother' conditional to applying a loophole in religious dogma, but this is the real life situation in El Salvador, where Church dogma is public policy.

She takes the most logical choice. Her death, baby's survival.

I agree, and again, this is on a case by case situation. Every situation shuld be treated as unique. Of course you have to weigh in the other options like, is there already a family and other children ect ect.

Sure, treat every situation as unique, but why not have some general principles that can be used to evaluate every situation?

[WIP]

That premise applies to anyone, woman or man, and has nothing to do with abortion.

We all start out as an embryo. And it's not just an embryo that's being destroyed. For instance, at week 10 of a pregnancy:

The fetus is only about 1.2 inches / 3 centimetres long from crown to rump and weighs less than a sixth of an ounce / 4 grams. Even so, it's busily swallowing and kicking. Each day more minute details start to appear, such as fingernails and peach-fuzzy hair.

The vital organs -- the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain, and lungs -- are fully formed and functional

Link

Is swallowing, kicking, growing fingernails, a sign of consciousness? No it isn't; it is just a sign that the brain stem and nervous system are beginning to function. And that's why your prolife propaganda site won't go into any detail about the brain on any of their pages on fetal development. They are running propaganda -- pulling out all the markers that people identify with on an emotional level.

They didn't mention brainwave activity for instance, because the neocortex, which is responsible for conscious awareness, is not present at week 10. Can we be conscious if there are no brainwaves? Brainwaves, the capacity to feel pain (connection between the thalamus and the cortex) aren't present before week 26. But if we established week 26 as the cutoff line for free access to abortion, that would allow the vast majority of abortions to be performed without bogus charges of MURDERER, and that would not make the so called pro life side happy!

We're talking about living, breathing, heart-beating, unborn human beings. You people are freaking monsters.

Show me the brainwaves!

[GostHacked]

WIP

We've already established that time and time again! What I don't see is why liberals are so afraid of making moral judgments that they want all issues of conscience and ethics to be shunted off to realm of private, personal choices for fear that someone will impose their beliefs on others!

It is because (liberals???) many people love to make others minds up for them, but they won't let someone else make the decision on the same topic. That is hypocritical and dangerous. How can I know what is best for you? Only you and your family along with a doctors advice can make that decision for you.

Well, if you want to know why conservatives have successfully framed secular liberals as amoral or worse, it is precisely because your side has surrendered the public square to the fundamentalists who aren't shy about offering their opinions of what moral choices are ethical and which ones are not! The only opposition being offered to conservative moral arguments is coming from people who are trying to create a religious left and use selective bible quotes to support their arguments. Why not establish some general principles that don't depend on interpretations of old religious texts?

Hell, I thought it WAS the conservatives pushing their religious RIGHT and they often use selective bible quotes. Chuck religion out the door altogether in this argument. Then only ones true morals will be revealed. You do not need religion or the bible to have any sense of morality.

If the pro choice side is only going to offer up the argument of a personal "right to choose," and refuse to step off "choice" even in situations where late term abortion may cause harm and suffering to a fetus (it's worth noting that many jurisdictions are requiring the use of anesthetics for operations on a fetus that is more than 26 weeks old) or have negative social impacts, such as the growing use of abortion for sex selection and other preferred attributes, then your side has already framed themselves as amoral and unable to make moral decisions. No surprise that you are also unwilling to evaluate whether a woman should sacrifice her life in favour of a fetus, except to say it's her right to choose!

It is because I am a Pro-Choice supporter, everything you say here is true. Heaven forbid a woman to make her own decision, even if it means she will die because of it. Again, every case is unique and should be treated as such. You can advise the woman all you want, but it is her decision and that is final. The instant you impose your will on her, then she no longer has a choice. The majority of women will not abort jsut for the hell of it, as you say. It is getting more and more expensive to raise a child. Yes, money is a factor for sure. Taking care of a disabled child is even more costly and even more time consuming. Even if, you try all the birth control you can, but sometimes stuff happens. And it is up to them to make the choice.

I would rather put the decision in each woman's hands than rely on the government to make up their mind for them. This is pro choice. My morals are my morals alone. Others do not share the same morals I have, just something we all must accept and live with. I may not support some situations where abortion is wanted, but again, since I am taking the pro-choice stance, it comes down to none of my damn business. Everyone lives their lives differently.

Back to the freakin topic AGAIN.... maybe the title should be Palin Derailment Syndrome, by those who support her often try to detract from the main topic to rant on about something else that really does not deserve this much attention.

edt edit

No surprise that you are also unwilling to evaluate whether a woman should sacrifice her life in favour of a fetus, except to say it's her right to choose!

I am not a doctor. I am no in no way shape or form to offer that kind of advice. I leave it up to those involved to make the best informed decision they can. If that still leads to abortion.. so be it. And the situation where the mother's life is in danger because of the pregnancy is rare, so it should be dealt with on a case by case situation. This is all about the CHOICE.

Let me ask you this. Would any of you be here today to complain about this if you were aborted? If you were aborted, would you care?

Back to the topic.....

Edited September 25, 2008 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Sure, treat every situation as unique, but why not have some general principles that can be used to evaluate every situation?

Those general principles are already in place. And you are right, treat every case as unique.

[Black Dog]

BD, can the State make for better marriages? Can State regulators improve on the choices we ourselves make?

At bottom, I think not. When the State intervenes into something as complex as the intimate relationship between two people, no good will come of it. As Trudeau famoulsy said, the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. In a civilized society, that's true.

Moreover, family is capable of accomplishing certain activities that no other institution - certainly not the State - can accomplish. The State is no substitute for family.

As usual, your analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep. If true: so what?

No one, except your beloved strawman Leftist, thinks so.

It is the success of Palin's family that really irritates Leftists. Leftists invariably portray families as dysfunctional or non-existent. Leftists want the State to become the family they probably never knew or never had.

'kay, now you're just trying to piss me off.

Add a European Leftist class view into the mix. Palin is a "woman of privilege". By all accounts, she's not. And she certainly seems to resonate more with working class Americans than that child of "affirmative action" privilege Obama.

I don't fucking care if Palin resonates with the rubes as one of their own. So did George W. Bush, the Ivy League-educated scion of east coast old money. Palin isn't at that level, but she's white and middle class which, like it or not, is not without its perks.

kimmy

Political correctness is when you've got a black boxer and a white boxer in the ring, and the commentator is differentiating them by the color of their trunks. Political correctness is when Crimestoppers tells you that Tran Ho Nguyen is 5'10, 170 pounds, has dark hair and was last scene wearing a leather jacket.

Whatever.

Making a vicious attack on someone because she holds a particular view, that's an attack on everybody who holds the view, which is in this instance a significant portion of the population.

Like it or lump it, vicious attacks are part of politics. I can't believe you'd be surprised by this and find your whole ingénue routine a bit hollow.

You say you've been up in this ssince Bleinda and Hillary: so why are you surprised that a political figure would draw such fire from her idealogical enemies?

White? I suppose the argument is that since she's white (and presumably, being attractive helps) she was able to succeed despite children, while a woman who is black (or perhaps a fat or unattractive woman) would be less able to?

Who said anything about "succeeding despite children?" She's certainly in a better position to "have it all" than a lot of others.

It's a great bellweather! For example, in India abortion is wildly popular, demonstrating that the country has such a strong feminist tradition! "A few hundred rupees now could save you thousands of rupees later!" One can only envy the women of India and all the ladder-climbing they'll be doing. (low blow? whatever. you deserved it.)

Not a low blow. Childish and petulant? Yes. Stupid? Definitely. Par for the course these days for you? Absolutely.

A "bellweather" is only relevant if you're trying to predict the behaviors of statistically significant groups of people, and I can't imagine why that would be relevant to anything being discussed in this thread.

Another great definition from the kimmictionary. All the term means is "something that serves as a leader or as a leading indicator of future trends". I can use the term "predicator" if you like.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nope. What you said was this:

In other words, it has nothing to do with plain's political beliefs and everything to do with them feminist dykes being jealous. It's the ideology, stupid.

I think your head just exploded. Read everything again. Your IQ is even lower than I thought if you can't see yourself re-wording exactly what I wrote.

[jbg]

You earlier mentioned how you did not care for Palin personally and I never asked you to elaborate. What about her turns you off?

Her present positions are far right. However, she would inevitably have to moderate those if she wants to represent the country, not just a very conservative town in a very conservative state.

[jbg]

The fond memories of Harry Truman owe alot to the passage of time. Truman wasn't considered a great president when he left office, but in the rearview mirror of history, he started looking better as the years passed!

Exactly. He was a decision maker. That makes him look good compared to Ike, JFK and micromanager Carter. His decisions had far superior content to those of moral bankrupts like LBJ and Nixon.

I heard an American History professor make the point during an NPR interview that the ranking of past presidents is biased in favour of wartime presidents, and against those who avoided taking their country to war. On that basis, things can only get better for Dubya once he leaves office in January!

I expect Bush improves in retrospect, much as Truman did, and for the same reasons. Bush made decisions. The Muslim world needed to be fought.

I don't know how smart Harry Truman was, but the misgivings many people have about Sarah Palin, is not only about her lack of experience -- there are doubts about her intellectual capabilities. Now, we all know she can talk, but the only smarts she has really demonstrated so far are cunning and having a shrewed sense of timing (such as knowing when to change from being the earmark queen to become the warrior against corruption and kickbacks). When it comes to what we used to call "booksmarts," a red flag goes up around the fact that she had to go through five colleges and universities to get her B.S. degree in journalism. She has admitted previously to local reporters in Alaska that she failed macroeconomics! Now that's something you want in a person who's going to be a faint heartbeat away from moving into the Oval Office!

But wait! You've already tried putting an imbecile in the Whitehouse -- how is that working out?

Palin and Truman's IQ are probably similar. And Bush is no imbecile.

[the janitor]

Exactly. He was a decision maker. That makes him look good compared to... JFK...

I agree with the passage of time, history might look more favourably on the Bush administration (especially if there is a subsequent Obama administration), BUT there is no way Truman was a better president than John F. Kennedy...No way, no how.

Edited September 26, 2008 by the janitor

[WIP]

WIP

It is because (liberals???) many people love to make others minds up for them, but they won't let someone else make the decision on the same topic. That is hypocritical and dangerous. How can I know what is best for you? Only you and your family along with a doctors advice can make that decision for you.

There is a built in assumption in your argument that privacy rights are absolute. In the real world, there are always situations where there are competing rights, and a decision has to be made who's rights take precedence. The absolute pro choice argument assumes that a fetus has no properties to make a right to life argument valid at any stage of development -- even the day before delivery. The reason why this argument is losing is because what has been learned about fetal development that call into question drawing a line in the sand between the day before and the day after birth.

This has been a weakness in many other ethical debates where liberals retreat to identity politics and have a virtual anything goes attitude as long as no one gets killed. I think we seen the same problem over evaluating the polygamy issue when that crazy compound in Texas was raided awhile back. The fundies in Texas are fighting polygamy on religious grounds, but sociologists who have made detailed analysis of polygamy, are unanimous in agreement that legalizing polygamy will create drastic changes to our society that make it impossible for a secular democratic state to function, such as aggravating the gap between rich and poor, reducing the status of women, and drastically increasing the birth rate. Yet most liberals are content to let them carry on indoctrinating their children to live out Old Testament values as long as 13 year olds aren't being married off. The moral debate over polygamy was only addressed by religious conservatives, while the majority of liberals refused to take a stand.

Hell, I thought it WAS the conservatives pushing their religious RIGHT and they often use selective bible quotes. Chuck religion out the door altogether in this argument. Then only ones true morals will be revealed. You do not need religion or the bible to have any sense of morality.

No one else will know what your moral values are if you refuse to express objections to things that are immoral. As for the religious arguments, if that is the core basis of how many people decide these issues, they should be able to put them in the public square if they want to try to persuade others of their relevance. What sort of debate can you have with Sarah Palin's fans when the cornerstone of their ideology that "life begins at conception" is based on the doctrine of ensoulment. But because theological beliefs are not allowed in the public square abortion debate, they keep raising the same lameoid arguments about denying the zygote's potential to develop. Since that doctrine that a fertilized egg has had a soul dropped in at some point after the fertilization process is complete is the lynchpin of prolife ideology, I'd like to hear someone try to prove it is a rationally based argument instead of dealing with the same retreaded arguments of potentiality that are offered up as a 2nd place option.

It is because I am a Pro-Choice supporter, everything you say here is true. Heaven forbid a woman to make her own decision, even if it means she will die because of it. Again, every case is unique and should be treated as such. You can advise the woman all you want, but it is her decision and that is final. The instant you impose your will on her, then she no longer has a choice. The majority of women will not abort jsut for the hell of it, as you say. It is getting more and more expensive to raise a child. Yes, money is a factor for sure. Taking care of a disabled child is even more costly and even more time consuming. Even if, you try all the birth control you can, but sometimes stuff happens. And it is up to them to make the choice.

I would rather put the decision in each woman's hands than rely on the government to make up their mind for them. This is pro choice. My morals are my morals alone. Others do not share the same morals I have, just something we all must accept and live with. I may not support some situations where abortion is wanted, but again, since I am taking the pro-choice stance, it comes down to none of my damn business. Everyone lives their lives differently.

If there is a basis for recognizing a right to life at a stage of fetal development where conscious awareness and a sense of pain is beginning, then that privacy right can't be regarded as an absolute value. If there is evidence that late term abortions are being selected in ways that may be detrimental to society as a whole, that also provides a valid reason to step in and apply some restrictions on that right.

Back to the freakin topic AGAIN.... maybe the title should be Palin Derailment Syndrome, by those who support her often try to detract from the main topic to rant on about something else that really does not deserve this much attention.

There are enough other Palin threads running now to discuss every aspect of her newfound celebrity. But you can't blame the antiabortion supporters of Sarah Palin for focusing on the abortion issue, since her drastic stance of denying abortion rights to victims of rape and incest, and her personal story of having a Down's Syndrome baby at 44, instead of having an abortion, are the big reasons why they are so high on her in the first place.

edt edit

I am not a doctor. I am no in no way shape or form to offer that kind of advice. I leave it up to those involved to make the best informed decision they can. If that still leads to abortion.. so be it. And the situation where the mother's life is in danger because of the pregnancy is rare, so it should be dealt with on a case by case situation. This is all about the CHOICE.

I am not a doctor either, and I have no post-secondary education aside from taking a few night school classes over the years, but these are issues that society as a whole has to make decisions on.

Let me ask you this. Would any of you be here today to complain about this if you were aborted? If you were aborted, would you care?

Back to the topic.....

When we die, we won't miss being here any more than we did before we were born. Fear of death is primal and comes from a basic biological survival instinct. In response to it, most societies have created all sorts of elaborate doctrines (resurrection, reincarnation, eternal souls) to break the rules that seem apparent -- we are the only animals that are consciously aware that we will die, and this concept of trying to face death rationally without creating imaginary realms where we can live on afterwards, is a recent development and probably not one that can appeal to the majority of people.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I am not a doctor either, and I have no post-secondary education aside from taking a few night school classes over the years, but these are issues that society as a whole has to make decisions on.

When we die, we won't miss being here any more than we did before we were born. Fear of death is primal and comes from a basic biological survival instinct. In response to it, most societies have created all sorts of elaborate doctrines (resurrection, reincarnation, eternal souls) to break the rules that seem apparent -- we are the only animals that are consciously aware that we will die, and this concept of trying to face death rationally without creating imaginary realms where we can live on afterwards, is a recent development and probably not one that can appeal to the majority of people.

Hey - based upon that why don't we legalize homicide while we're at it!

[WIP]

Exactly. He was a decision maker. That makes him look good compared to Ike, JFK and micromanager Carter. His decisions had far superior content to those of moral bankrupts like LBJ and Nixon.

I expect Bush improves in retrospect, much as Truman did, and for the same reasons. Bush made decisions. The Muslim world needed to be fought.

That strategy isn't working out very well, and if an economic collapse results from the debtload created in large part by Bush's military overreach, he's going to be remembered more as another Herbert Hoover than an FDR.

Palin and Truman's IQ are probably similar. And Bush is no imbecile.

I got to disagree on all counts! If Bush received his degree honestly (not bought and payed for like some of the Kennedy clan), he has shown a striking inability to apply his education and learning afterwards. But Palin's story may be the worst of all, since she had so much difficulty in getting her degree. She showed tenacity by going through so many colleges in a six year period to get the credits needed to graduate, but even there it seems she had to lower her sights by going for a batchelor of science degree in journalism, rather than the more typical B.A. From what I understand the B.S. degree is more tightly focused and does not include as wide a range of subjects as the B.A. I suppose that after failing macroeconomics, she focused strictly on subjects needed in journalism -- but that certainly doesn't indicate a well-rounded education you might expect from someone running for such a high public office. A few critics in media, have also noted that she did not work on the school newspapers at the colleges she attended -- another red flag that would have disqualified her application for many entry level media jobs -- and yet, here's John McCain telling us she is the most qualified person for the job!

She is already in over her head in Alaska, and if it wasn't for the surge in oil prices, she wouldn't be able to use that as a job reference for vice president. IF she does make it to the Whitehouse, she will be the most unqualified person for the job since...........George W. Bush.

[guyser]

Hey - based upon that why don't we legalize homicide while we're at it!

In some ways we already have.

[WIP]

Hey - based upon that why don't we legalize homicide while we're at it!

Okay, let's here your conservative proposal for legalizing homicide.

[Black Dog]

Hey - based upon that why don't we legalize homicide while we're at it! laugh.gif

Countries and territories that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Korea (North), Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Christopher & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe

[kimmy]

Like it or lump it, vicious attacks are part of politics. I can't believe you'd be surprised by this and find your whole ingénue routine a bit hollow.

You say you've been up in this ssince Bleinda and Hillary: so why are you surprised that a political figure would draw such fire from her idealogical enemies?

I am not surprised, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or let it pass without comment. Are you as accepting when people insist on mentioning Obama's middle name, for example?

There has been some extraordinarily stupid stuff that has been said of Palin that simply would not have been said of a male candidate. Re-read Heather Mallick's "viewpoint" piece, if you're not convinced of that already. And while you're re-reading it, note this piece of wisdom:

"But do they not know that women have been trained to resent other women and that they only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading columns like this one? I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred."

She notes how petty and stupid women can be toward other women, then immediately proceeds to write an entire editorial proving how petty and stupid women can be toward other women.

Who said anything about "succeeding despite children?" She's certainly in a better position to "have it all" than a lot of others.

Tomato, tomahtah.

"Have it all" and "succeed despite children" mean the same thing. I can only assume the latter carries some connotation you object to.

Not a low blow. Childish and petulant? Yes. Stupid? Definitely. Par for the course these days for you? Absolutely.

Support for abortion access is a great bellweather for someone's beliefs, except in situations where it's not.

Another great definition from the kimmictionary. All the term means is "something that serves as a leader or as a leading indicator of future trends". I can use the term "predicator" if you like.

So you're really just saying you can extrapolate things about people from their position on abortion access? Which is really not much different from August thinking he can extrapolate things about people from their position on nanny-state programs.

-k

[jbg]

I agree with the passage of time, history might look more favourably on the Bush administration (especially if there is a subsequent Obama administration), BUT there is no way Truman was a better president than John F. Kennedy...No way, no how.

Truman integrated the armed forces and housing. JFK talked about racial integration but did nothing. Truman broke the USSR's Berlin Blockade. JFK made a stirring speech where he said "Ich bin ein Berliner" or "we are all Berliners". Truman brought victory in a war with the Japanese. Kennedy surrendered to the USSR in Cuba and with the Test Ban Treaty.

Kennedy talked the talk. Truman walked the walk.