Herd Watching - Latest Comments

Re: Well meaning concerns from my peeps…

rizzn — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:37:12 -0000

Don't call me 'Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins' or it means you're a racist.

Makes perfect sense, right?

Re: Well meaning concerns from my peeps…

Political Virgin — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:33:45 -0000

This is going to sound angry and hurt. It is.

No number of "I respect her" statements change the fact that you are repeatedly using my posts as spring boards for lobbing increasingly indignant attacks against Obama and some invisible left-wing supporters who you seem to have a grudge against.

You can say "I'm not attacking PV" all you want but it's MY WORDS you're using to launch a post that ends up with statements like "Reconciliation is not a synonym for surrender, and working together for our future is not done by demanding that one group bend over and grab their ankles."

Can you *really* not see what you're doing here? Can you really not see how extreme, angry and blind your own bias has become?

And no, my concern was not about the questions and challenges being raised. I would NEVER suggest that questions be silenced, EVEN if they are dangerous. NEVER.

If you'd paid attention to my post (instead of looking for things to argue with) you'd have realized that I was not listing those points as examples of things that shouldn't be discussed, and that I made no attempt to explain why they are or are not relevant, because that wasn't my point

My point was about the way the McCain campaign is framing the election, the obvious effect of that frame, and that he was not taking a leadership role over the crowds of his own supporters. Please go back and re-read my post, and please stop using my blog as raw material for ammunition against whoever it is you're so bloody mad at.

Re: Well meaning concerns from my peeps…

Kathy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:42:14 -0000

I don't understand why it is fine and dandy to attack McCain and Palin mercilessley but NOT to question anything negative about Obama. I'm with you. It;'s time the gloves come off and supporters of McCain and Palin GET THE WORD OUT that the media is HIDING on Obama. It's ridiculous and dangerous not to be informed.

Re: Darn Science!

Political Virgin — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:53:59 -0000

Here's the deal - this whole conversation came about as the result of a quick and sloppy quip I made after the VP debate. It was a minor a note to myself more than anything.. If you'd asked me what I meant, instead of using it as an example of how blind Obama's supporters are, we wouldn't be having this discussion : )

If you had asked, I'd have reminded you that I've written quite a bit on my main blog about my concerns in regards to the anti-Science issue, and no, I do not think it is a "Republican" problem. I think it is a cultural problem, and one that does not break down party lines. Yes, I briefly mentioned that I have problems with both Bush and the McCain/Palin ticket in this regard, but that doesn't imply support for how Gore used science politically, either. I didn't mention him because I wasn't writing about climate change, I was writing about the debate and this election.

Although I'll probably touch more on the anti-Science stuff before the election (because I want to record it when I see it) I'd ask that you limit any debate on it between us until well after the election - because its too easy to try and reduce it to partisan bickering, and I think the subject deserves better than that.

As for the Adler.... you can look at donations and the earmarks and call it influence pedaling. Or you can consider that Obama would be a natural choice for those donors to support and that the project itself is valid, valuable, and justified, a natural project for Obama to have requested funding for. Of all the potential examples of "pork" and "influence peddling", this one is just lousy.

As I said, I don't think this example was trotted out for anti-Science reasons, but because a 3 million dollar overhead-projector is sounds outrageous and its easy to mock. Unfortunately for McCain, it sounds outrageous enough that a lot of people were interested in details. The details backfired, because far from being the over-priced fancy office equipment it sounds like on the surface, this is the sort of project that many Americans are happy to help support for with their tax dollars.

I've deleted my response to astronomy dig, 'cause I've decided to respond in full mock righteous indignation on my own blog. When I have time. Assuming you don't piss me off and force a response another 4 times before I get back to it ;)

P.V.

Re: I’ve been framed!

Political Virgin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:50:59 -0000

I'm going to answer you here, because I don't want to get into an endless back and forth on the blogs - though I do appreciate the attempt to be a kinder, more respectful SoulHuntre (LOL!)

You wrote:
In the end I cannot really explain how PV comes to the conclusions she has.

Bottom line - you and I are very different people. We come from different parts of the country, and we have extremely different family and personal backgrounds. We've been shaped by very different events and experiences, and we have very different world views and values. It isn't at all surprising that we would look at the same person and the same facts, and draw different conclusions.

I'm aware of the situations behind all of your bullet points - those bullet points, though, aren't facts, they are conclusions you've come to after looking at those facts. I looked at most of them early on, and I clearly don't find them as credible or concerning as you do. That doesn't mean I've been somehow brainwashed by the image of Obama. Some of them concern me a little, some don't, but I don't see any of them as a damning evidence against his character. That doesn't mean I'm overlooking them because of the frame of the election, it means I examined the facts I could find, and I did not draw the same conclusions.

I won't deny that the overall Democratic frame appeals to me, and that the Republican campaign alienates me. But I also think I'm savvy enough to set that aside, and make my own judgements.

But there is little doubt that Obama's campaign frame kicks ass ;)

Re: I’ve been framed!

soulhuntre — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:22:09 -0000

I understand your point, and here we simply come to a place of disagreement. I find Obama's image to be dramatically more at odds with his reality than most of them. I think his team have done a truly masterful job of spin and framing with him. This may be a side effect of how thin Obama's record really is... there is a lot more room to play in the margins with Obama than it is with McCain or even Palin. I think they are using that flexibility wonderfully.

Obviously every politicians public image is a crafted fiction but it would be wrong to think it all comes out in the wash. Some politicians are more fictitious than most.

Re: I’ve been framed!

rexm — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:18:40 -0000

For any candidate, It's pretty easy to make two columns, positive and negative, of roughly equal length. It just depends on who is contributing to the lists. The problem is many of those in one column are just as subjective as those in the other - for example I disagree with 3 of the points you offer as incontrovertible evidence of discrepancy between Obama's career and his image.

That's not to say that the image is not manufactured, because all political images are, just like McCain's Maverick and Bush's Compassionate Conservative. But its also disingenuous to say that they are totally without merit. They are not created in a vacuum- they are borne out of at least semi-truths and the intentions of the supporters on which their momentum is built.

Re: I’ve been framed!

soulhuntre — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:55:48 -0000

@rexm - I fully agree that there is attraction to the concepts of "hope" and "change". In fact if we look at McCain supporters we see that most of them too are looking for a change in direction adn have definite hopes for what they want to see accomplished.

Disregarding the hardcore fringe on either side who haven't used their brains in a few decades I don't consider most of the electorate stupid - though if Twitter and FriendFeed are representative the vast majority of mainstream Obama supporters do. I don't think folks have been thrown into a "frenzy" but I do think that their dreams and bias have been given the perfect empty framework to hang on. When we look at what Obama actually has done, what he has actually stood for and how he has actually acted it is astonishing to me that people will still speak of him as the harbinger of hope and change.

It is a tribute to the power of hope and the desire for change that the Obama folks have managed to frame him as it's guardian or deliverer despite the facts, despite his history.

Re: I’ve been framed!

rexm — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:40:57 -0000

I think it is common to underestimate the legitimate value of "hope"/"change" because most Mr Obama supporters have trouble articulating what "hope" and "change" actually mean, but that doesn't mean they are devoid of meaning. I think people are attracted to them on a conceptual level as representing an attitude. A particular attitude with which one approaches the issues of the nation and the world. This election is only about issues insomuch as they reflect the attitude with which the candidates approach an issue and propose it be solved. It's also difficult to objectively enumerate the differences in said attitudes, since I obviously think Mr McCain's attitudes are far from correct.

I think that goes a long way in explaining why the experience argument has been almost totally ineffective for Mr McCain. I do generally hold a very negative opinion of most of my fellow Americans, especially regarding their ability and/or willingness to engage in any intellectual activity, but I do not think that most are stupid and excitable enough to be thrown into a frenzy by mere words "hope" and "change" without there being some attractive concept behind them. Whether Mr Obama will be a particularly competent administrator (it seems to be generally agreed that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama would be decent at it) is not of much consequence.

And in the hope that I can add a little credibility to my argument, I have been an ardent conservative supporter my entire life, and less than a year ago was highly suspicious of Obama and planned on voting for McCain when it appeared even remotely likely that he would be the eventual nominee. It was a non-issue for me. It has been in the last several months, after much research and contemplation, that I have come to find myself planted firmly on the other side, very much because of the attitude thing.

Re: Calling all Beavers…

Concerned — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:19:31 -0000

She's talking, although in very oblique terms, about gendercide; doesn't that imply that her kid is in danger from her? And if so doesn't that legally require the blog-hosting company to call shenanigans and report her to child-services/DYFS/TheHague etc?

Re: The Sex Positive Male Challenge

dg — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:36:41 -0000

No men know what sec positivity means. And they probably don't want to. It's a fringe term with a limited set of participants. To move it into the mainstream it's meaning would have to evolve.

There are lots of men that would like to see women be the main business beneficiaries of the sex trade. It's not old values that hold that back, it's new values based on feminism. Mayor's want to be sensitive and view stripping and prostitution as exploitation of women. Women who are sex workers have to be protected from themselves. Sort of a Big Mother approach to society.

Only way out of it is to sue and to vote non dem or non gop.

Re: The Sex Positive Male Challenge

Beste — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:44:03 -0000

You should read the 'How to End Rape: Deuce's Law" post at her blog..

It's frickin insane.

Re: The farce in Texas

soulhuntre — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:25:50 -0000

That is true, except Polygamy is defined as taking two spouses under the law. It is, effectively, a issue of fraud. In no case did anyone in the compound attempt to legally marry multiple people and thus gaint he legal protectiosn granted by such.

Re: The farce in Texas

Niels — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:45:19 -0000

Hey,

I was under the impression that parents who involve their family in illegal activity put their children at risk of being taken from them. If you smoke crack in a house, your kid can be seized. If you rob a bank and leave the kid in a child seat in the back of the van, your kid can be seized. If you counterfeit money in the den, your kid can be seized. If you commit a FEDERAL CRIME, your kid can be seized. Polyagmy IS A FEDERAL CRIME, your kid can be seized.

These folks are CRIMINALS first. Maybe not convicted, but you don’t, in MOST cases, get to keep access to illegally acquired goods while the police/feds file charges and prosecute the crime. So why should they get their children back while their activities are investigated? Religious freedom does NOT allow you to violate local, state or federal laws.

Societal laws exist to protect the innocent. Where are all the right-wing religious and anti-abortion activists on this? They work to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Why are children 18 and younger not afforded the same outcry and uproar?

Plus, has no one asked where all the little boys are/went? Way too many women/girls too few men/boys. Abandoning a son on a street corner somewhere, means you give up the right to keep your daughter too.

N

Re: The farce in Texas

Brian Cuban — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:13:47 -0000

When as subject touches peoples "base emotions" such as children, you are going to have that....