Witch Gate

Post Reply New Topic

Evolution may not come up in congress, but education reform does. There has been a significant shift away from science in this country that I find rather disturbing. Politicians like O'Donnell are not helping.

My kid came home from school the other day and told me that all of the apples in the world came from Johnny Appleseed. He said his teacher taught him that. OK, he's only in kindergarten but still, he is perfectly capable of understanding the seed - water - light - grow concept. How much more nonsense am I going to have to smack out of him in the years to come (not literally smack of course). I was not taught such foolishness in school. Well, on second thought, maybe some foolishness.

Where does she say that? Are you just assuming what her position is?

In the quote posted, she says there she'll only base her decisions on the constitution not her personal beliefs.

She could be lying, you know.

And the following quote was taken from the "Why Christine?" section of O'Donnell's official site (I would link you to it, but I'm not allowed to post links yet).

"Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom and will fight to defend those values."

Note the bolded portion. Sounds to me like she'll base her decisions on her evangelical Christian beliefs.

I think of O'Donnell as less a serious candidate and more of a living political hand grenade lobbed at both parties by the voters, her primary victory screams "we'll vote for this lady before we vote for an establishment candidate!" in a most unmistakable way. If by some crazed fluke she actually gets elected, the worst damage I can see her doing is contributing to Congressional gridlock, which I'm generally in favor of since the less those people do the better I tend to feel. In other words, I wouldn't get too anxious about her one way or the other.

Well, it looks like quite a few fundies are getting very upset with O'Donnell's (probably bogus) story of paling around with Satanic witches in the '80s.



http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/image ... mherst.pdf

The title to his paper wasn't self-description, it was an ironic allusion to what some of his jigonistic neocon friends called him.

And you supported Obama's Pollyanna policy of trying to compromise with these people and work in a "bipartisan fashion". Were it not for the inefficiently drawn out process this absurd strategy caused, the progressive base might not be so demobolized. After all, Gallop polls show that most Tea Party supporters aren't people who shifted from Obama to economic conservatism but rather Republican leaning independents who voted McCain last election.

The problem is that Obama's base isn't showing up and half-baked attempts at accomodationism with the GOP caused that.



I think I have a more parsimonious explanation: the Tea Partisans are not right-libertarians. They are predominantly nationalist, paleoconservatives who support draconian anti-immigration policies, a foolish isolationism (note, not just non-interventionism, outright neglect of the rest of the world), and a whole slate of socially conservative policies. At least a large portion of the incoherent Tea Partisans, that is.



That's a horrible prospect as this ain't the 1990s and the bubble economy isn't going to be reinflated any time soon. The more delays to structural reforms of the economy, the greater threat there is of future reccessions on top of the current one.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 03 Oct 2010, 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama and his buddies have really ticked off the Independent voters. In the U.S. the Independent vote is the swing vote. Neither the hard core Democrats nor the Republicans can carry a presidential election by themselves.

ruveyn

You seem to overlook the fact that Independent voters aren't truly "pure centrists" who can "swing either way". A lot of the "indepedents" Obama's offending are (if Tea Party demographics are any indication) are people who voted for McCain in the last election.



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289821

And of course, 43% of Tea Partisans are Independents, but they still lean conservative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-p ... phics.aspx

Of course, the Bloomberg writer might make a bit too much out of the racial demographics. The Tea Partisans percentage of white voters is only marginally statistically above the norm (when you factor in the margin of error).

And, of course, another problem is that Americans (especially indepedents) seem to be somewhat conflicted when it comes to public policy, for instance opposing big gov't interference while supporting a public option or opposing "redistributionist" Democrats while favouring a Swedish Model of redistribution.

Remind me again, when exactly were the democrats "mobilized?" Tree-hugging hippies aren't generally aggressive. There's a reason why alcohol is legal and pot is not. God and money bring out the forces in droves. In spite of the mess we're in, I still believe that no problem will be solved without a degree of compromise from both sides.

Democrats mobilized various ethnic minorities (especially the working poor), unionized workers (which overlaps with categroy 1), civil libertarians, and the young. Various people who are HURTING in this economy (or, in the case of civil libertarians, vomitting over Homeland Security's actions under this administration) and would support , more than anything else, proactive job creation measures and a social welfare state (or a restoration of civil liberties in the case of civil libertarians).

http://www.thenation.com/article/154985 ... otten-base

Thanks, by the way, for repeating a rather antiquated forty year old stereotype.

And the problem with "compromise" - in reality, half measures and watered down versions of an already half-decent bill - is that people associate such ineffective and incomplete measures with "liberalism". The public doesn't like 1/8 of a measure, they like full measures. This is one of the reasons for the cognitive dissonance when it comes to pollsters showing most Americans aren't liberal yet a mjaority of Americans support centre-left policies when it comes to healthcare (public option) and income equality (Swedish style redistribution).

Where do you get your notions that Americans would support anything called "a social welfare state" or Swedish style redistribution? Have you met us? We're way to arrogant a people to follow anyone else's lead and we pretty much hate poor people. Cognitive dissonance doesn't even begin to describe it. Most of the libertarians I know hate the ACLU. I think you way overestimate the intellect of Americans.

As for compromise, it's a basic technique used to solve problems. We teach it to children and they usually grasp the idea by age 4. Johnny wants to play catch and Timmy wants to play tag. They can choose to either:
a) both play catch only
b) both play tag only
c) take turns playing catch and tag
d) throw a fit and go home
You'd be surprised at how easily a child understands that compromise is the most effective and efficient way to get what they want.

Please understand that I in no way mean to condescend you. I'm just trying to illustrate how foolish our government is. When we are polarized, the democrats pass health care and then the republicans promise to repeal it. We accomplish nothing. Most of the times they just throw fits and go home. If only the grown people could just come together at the table and discuss ideas...

The assumption seems to be that the legislators are driven by their concept of the benefit for the health of the country. It is quite obvious that their actions are based on whatever ideas will maintain them in office out of the wealth of their political contributors, the corporations which thrive on government contracts and laws that permit the scamming and rape of the populace. The interests of the bulk of the legislators no longer are aligned with the interests of the general citizenry.

You've summed up our predicament perfectly. For as long as our leaders are allowed to accept public contributions, the power will never truly be with the people.

It's not only Congress but also the judiciary and the media which have been co-opted by the wealthy elite. The recent Supreme Court decision which insanely elevated the personhood of corporations to the point that they have a very forceful and anonymous influence on voting through political contributions indicates that the rule of an educated and aware public (which is basic to a functioning democracy)has reached a nadir in the USA. The current maniacs now spouting well received nonsense is more characteristic of an insane asylum than responsible citizenry.

The fact that Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security are VERY POPULAR programs. This study, as well:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt138956.html

But please, give as much unsupported assertions and personal anecdotes as you like.



I said "civil libertarians", which has a much more specific meaning than "libertarian" - which, in the states, generally refers to people who support the elimination of vast sectors of government services.



The ignorance of most Americans on public policy is more attributable to the lack of mass mobilizing organizations like unions then any differential in native intellect between Americans and non-Americans.



The HUGE problem with that analogy is that the dynamics of compromise are a lot different when one compares the operations of two kids and a ball to how any legislative body works. Such oversimplifictaions are pretty outrageous. Here's a better, though not perfect, example:

There's some bizzaro world junior high school in which the Student Council is tasked with allocating money to school facilities. 60% of students elect a slate of council reps and a president & VP who want to fix a sinkhole right outside the school door that students have to precariously leap over.

40% of students are so myopic and short-term greedy that they think the budget shouldn't go towards that, but instead a new vending machine right outside on of the more prestigous classrooms. So, the 60% block tries to "compromise" with the 40% block, who refuse anything but 100% of funds going to the vending machine. Everything's stalled and, next election, students say "if the 60% slate doesn't do anything, why not just elect the 40%ers".

This is a pretty controvoluted example, mainly because federal US politics has no childhood equivalent.

I think you just made my point for me. When the pendulum is swinging, nothing gets accomplished. Americans tend to freak out when one party controls the presidency AND the house/senate. We get more done when Americans feel a sense of balance.

As far American stupity goes, I should clarify. Sure we have some impressively stupid citizens, but the greater problem is apathy. The unions are plenty mobilized (which can be a good and a bad thing), but the average American feels pretty powerless these days, and for good reason. Sand hit the nail on the head with his comments about corporate personhood. The arguments about pandering are essentially moot anyway. Campaign finance reform is easily the most important reform Americans need to bring the power back to the people where it belongs.