Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

Article19: She might not tank at all depending on how freaked out they have Biden on how he has to handle her so they won't all come out screaming sexism. She should be able to take hard questions and I don't anticipate she will answer them well (if they actually present her with any), but she is a charming women and she only needs to charm a few middle of the roader's who can be swayed easily and don't seem to care that she in a feather away from being president. Biden has only to have an attitude. Where i wish the debate will be about the issues I'm afraid it will be about the attitude.

"just accept it, lower taxes, better health care, more stable economy, people actually liking your country, maybe, no more war in Iraq, etc, etc."

I think you are looking far down the road for that, don't for a minute think all the problems from the last two terns are going to disappear overnight, if ever. It is going ot be a suck presidency for which ever candidate wins.

I also agree Pelosi has been a horrible speaker and has to go. She has no idea how to get people to work together, something she should have done to save the trillion dollar loss in the market after the bailout failed. a trillion dollar loss which cost hundreds of thousands of retirees or those near retirement a lot of their retirement money. Money they will not be able to recoup.

There are ways to do an emergency bail-out, and set it to be changed within weeks, and that bail-out should have been done. Congress put politics before something which they should have done. I think there are times when your elected officials have to ignore what you have to say because you don't know enough about it and this was one of those times.

Regulation which were in place not follow and a huge warning sign around 18 months ago ignored.

I am understanding the banks actually gambled by giving loans with no margins, evidently before my time there was a twenty percent down rule which decreased the margin significantly thus lowered the gamble. They did the same thing with credit, no longer requiring proof of being able to pay, I mean giving credit cards to people with no means of income is not just the fault of the person with no income it is the fault of the institution who is putting public money at risk.

Everything I've read says there were regulations which were not followed
there were a lot of OTS regulators laid off over the past 5 years, so in that regard the eye was off the ball, the regulations though did not give full transparency.

I admit to finding this whole thing extremely confusing, and the more I read on it the more confusing it gets. Though my grandfather was a banker and I am sure he is rolling over in his grave about now.

The debate between two men that are going to end up running this country, with only a few weeks to go until that decision is made is certainly important.

He does this kind of thing all the time, ( Iowa's floods and Gustav) both of which when told to stay away from because it would cause chaos , even Republicans find it a bit appalling, but it still may work for him if the people believe it was not for political gain.

He also didn't really suspend his campaign, he brought his campaign staff to the White House meeting...Obama at least brought his Senate staffers not his campaign publicity people. I am guessing here, but I imagine if you are serious about doing your Senate work for your constituency you bring your Senate staffers, not your campaign staff.

I think he had no intention of not debating. This was just another ruse. One that may or may not work depending on the outcome of all these talks on the money.

I am interested in seeing the debate though originally I think it was supposed to be on foreign policy, so I'm not sure if they will still do that.

@fuscom

The media has as much to do with this as anything, but I do believe as do many people that McCain was really a non issue before Palin. It seems only natural to address the one who appears to have the power. The Republicans are so breathing a sign of relief, because though the race might have been close in some places it really did look like no contest. I think they are trying to discredit her, as they should because, she is really the only reason McCain now has a breath of fresh air.

If you rememeber one of McCains campaign managers (or adviser, something like that I honestly can't remember and don't have time to look it up), was quoted as saying to the Washington Post something to the effect "it is not about the issues, sure we'll address them but it's about the story" as he alluded to the fact they would making the story compelling. This country is long on voting on identity not issues, and the McCain campaign may be right.

In light of that, as much as I think the issues matter, I do not think what we are seeing now with McCains surge is issue based at all it is identity politics, so I'm not sure anyone is going to knock the nation back to issues. Especially with our history.

The issue of whether Obama's campaign stops focusing on Palin really may be moot, and remember we can hardly get them( Repubs) to address issues. You heard the Repub speech, not one issue addressed except conceptually. The Lancaster event was not really issue based at all it was a pep rally.

fuscom: I do not think someone within 8 weeks of taking that office has the right to make the decision to let it calm down. If there are issues that she doesn't want addressed at a certain time then sorry, she really should not be running. I just feel we have the right to ask questions, at any time, to a candidate about her ideology when it could turn to her supporting a policy which could affect us.

I'm not blinded by any of this though. I know where I stand on certain issues, and those issue wouldn't allow me to vote another way at this time.

I thin all this smoke and mirrors is just ridiculous in light of the fact that the election is only a few weeks away.

Why can't I question her beliefs on abstinence as it has caused her to side with Bush and only advocate abstinence-only education?

@ Mike I presented that poorly you certainly can and we should be able to but it seems that when anyway did they were getting fingers pointed at them and called sexist, or told the family was off limits.

The media thing is rather startling the Stump has an interesting post on the restrictions they put on reporters at a McCain event in Lancaster the other day, and also in his campaign, since before the convention actually, so some of it may not be just her. It looks like they have been restricting access and the ability of the press core which follows him around for awhile now.

McCain Neuters His Press

Some of my problems with Palin.

The speech: Rather snarky speech full of attacks not on policy or issues at all, and though they did not directly attack the the people they did not attack their opponents positions on the issues at all, they attacked the concept without defining the concept. I don't think one policy or issue was argued at all, though I may be mistaken, there may have been one thrown in.

I've always been liberal, but am not under any illusion that the Republicans and Democrats are much different, there are extreme factions on either end, but in the very large middle sits really one party trying to grab votes for their end.

Daily Kos is one of the most biased places to get information, if you ever bother to fact check. They do not lie like "Red State" does,( fact check Red State sometime, but they mislead often by leaving out key facts and statistics. I haven't read them in a couple of years because of that.

My biggest problem is that we can't question her beliefs on abstinence and sex ed, because that is attacking her family. We should be able to question any belief which could lead to policy which would affect us all, and the fact the policy/ideology she is rather rabid in support of did not work for her family, in my opinion, make questions about it fair necessary. We can't question her non support of stem cells as Biden did today, because she has a disabled child and therefore that is off limits despite the fact that to many Americans that research matters. Her support of creationism In public schools should be discussed, even though she retracted that immediately due to public outcry, this should not beoff limits at all because it is a belief based on her idoelogy and it could certainly have ramifications for us all.

We should be able to question this women, who would be a stones throw away from the Presidency, on any policy she heavily supports, or ideology she is glued to if it potentially affects us.

We should certainly be able to know her foreign policy awareness or lack off because, and I know people will ho ha this, McCain is old and he does not always look like he will last another 4 years. This women could be president, and she should not be protected from the questions of real journalists, of which Charlie Gibson is not one.

I watched it some time ago and someone just sent be the little book.

Luckily I guess, I don't have time these day for this here, but I'm sure it is not only here.

Identity politics gets ugly, and that is exactly what this, and most elections are about-here. I'm not sure how it is there, but in this country unfortunately politics gets ugly because our politics is based on identity and the framing, and those who feel their identity is threatened often get ugly about it, on either side.

Now I'll have to go see what all the hoopla is about.

The bigger picture has no bearing on my feeling on this particular issue.

It is much easier to cloud this very succinct issue by trying to encompass the history of the world, which is really not reasonable in a small forum. There are volumes written on it and thousands of academic papers.I answer questions on what my opinion is and because you do not like it you want me to some how qualify my answers via by analyzing it invalidating it because the world has a history of racism. History is only as good as what it teaches us, when used to excuse us it is nothing.

It's just an opinion, mine. You can try to make me look like I have no right to it all you want, and you can insist I reread the history of the world, but it is still my opinion. Do you really think small message board can encompass all the books and discussions,and years of thought which which come with forming an opinion on an issue such as this?

Ozone: I just had no idea what you were saying or why you said it. It sounded pretty strange to me, as if you meant to say "For a Caucasian individual, you seem quick to blame "whites" for the faults of many..." as RO suggested, why didn't yOU just say it.

Right On: I don't believe I've ever said a thing about guilt as a reason for affirmative action. I just don't happen to agree with you on the issue. There is no one to say who is right here, and there are as many arguments on both sides. I've read most of them and I've come to my decision, as you've come to yours.

Most private universities have used legacy based admission policies as no different.

Race-based admission programs are premised on a lack of minority access to higher education based on historical and socio-economic factors that have resulted in minority students performing worse than their white peers academically. At this time I'm for affirmative action.

Affirmative action in case over the last few years has changed due to Supreme Court rulings hiring quota's are illegal in many states are they not? I am thinking about affirmative action being instituted by the various education systems.

Ozone: "Cooper, please forgive me for being dense. All this time I thought you were Caucasian for some reason."

If that was supposed to be sarcastic the sarcasm was lost on me.

It was a bad example as I stated, not a cheap shot.

Slave labor created wealth for Americans,it was the base of our economy for years. Most black Americans were set free with the shirt on their back and still enslaved by the limitations set upon them, racism, treated like third class citizens for a hundred of years post slavery. The fact that some African Americans were able to overcome that does not negate the fact that the socioeconomic conditions of the African Americans today is directly related to slavery and the continued oppression after slavery.

You may say that poor whites were able to get educated they were able to move up etc. Poor blacks were not able to, not for a very long time.

If a poor white person couldn't make it is was not because they were sent to segregated schools, not able to work in certain places etc it was directly related to their ability and their ambition, it was not the case with African Americans.

The legacy of this is what we have today and the legacy has been devastating.

I don't think demanding an education is even an option, though coming out and saying "what we did was wrong, we fucked you for generations upon generations getting rich off the backs of your family - because we still treated you abhorrently, used the process of "redemption" to basically remove the effect of any votes you dare make, and didn't consider treating you like human beings until on into the late 1950's.

I fear the restitution at this point is virtually useless but am for affirmative action, which really is no different than Harvard letting in a certain dumb fuck as a legacy admission . They call it affirmative action for the rich and famous. Only in this case the legacy of slavery.

You're right that was a bad example.

I don't believe for one second that most Caucasians in this country have experienced what African Americans have experienced regarding racism.

There is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

So, when you were young you were offended to be called Chinese – interesting because Asians are another race I see and hear racist comments about all the time. Though many ethnicities went through times when they were the butt of jokes, the jokes ran their course in a generation, not to mention they weren't dragged here in chains, oppressed for two hundred years, freed with no restitution, and eons later still couldn't pee in the same public bathrooms as white men or vote.

Just look up derogatory or racist terms and see how many there are for Black people and how many for white people and other ethnicities combined. That alone should tell you something.

Do people still read that piece of garbage?

Oh right, my roommate in college did, the roommate who slept with a new guy every few weeks.

I think it is not for people who are Caucasian to opine about an experience they have never had. I see it as arrogant to do so.

I think society in general is very disrespectful to human beings of all races and we have become pretty ugly.

White people in this country are really the only peoples who have institutional authority though, so it is not a falsehood it is truth.

Let's see what happens to Robert Novak for hitting that pedestrian and then taking off. If an African American resident of D.C. had hit that pedestrian and had to be run down by a cyclist - and then lied about it saying he didn't know he hit him despite the fact that the guy rolled of his windshield – as stated by many witnesses, I imagine he'd be in jail right now, maybe without bond.

It's satire, didn't come off well at all, got everyone all up in arms because "omg people will be too stupid and take it literally",( which historically shouldn't have been their intention but who knows), and it is felt to be racist. I won't give my opinion on that it's too long.

It was missing a byline which most New Yorker satires have - part of the problem and it has sparked a debate all over the place ad nauseataum as to the rules of true satire, and whether this follow those rules.

I have heard that to understand true adult satire one must have an IQ of at least 115, I have no idea if this is true, but with the average IQ in this country being in the 90's ( I don't know if this is true it's a wiki fact and seems incredibly low), so the fear among liberals is that America's IQ is too low for them to understand it as satire.

I'm tired about all references to things which really have nothing to do with politics, so I'm trying not to read any more on this.

It certainly is degrading to women, and one really doesn't know the industry if one doesn't think that much of what goes on goes on in the way of oppression of women who are undereducated with very few option.

To each his own, but unfortunately technology allows for very young males minds to be forever imprinted with a distorted view of both females and sexuality. They saying is "this ain't your daddy's playboy".

Gail Dines Presents: Pornography and Pop Culture (explicit)

Penn, Porn and Me

Free Book Download: Diana Russell's Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm (explicit)

It's an easy FYI for those who have never looked at the site they have a list of some 500 articles and other pieces of information.

It might at least make you reconsider the impact of pornography on out culture.

It's hard for me to get everything out of a Sci America without reading the full context. But the site the NYU study, (Why are Conservatives Happier than Liberals) is publicly posted at, titled
"The Palliative Function of Conservative Ideology" says it some of it.

The ideology of conservatives acts as a buffer. "System Justifying beliefs, and the endorsement of a fairly wide range of rationalizations of current social economic, and political institutions and
arrangements."

If you haven't read the whole thing it might be worth it.

My family rather large and extended inhibiting several continents are basically liberal, with a few more conservative types thrown in. Overall their happiness level seems pretty high. Admittedly most of them are not hurting financially, which may have some affect.

I am personally happy, but often sad and disappointed in the ways of the world. I am liberal by most accounts.

On one hand I am with the it's a logo get over it. I think it's rather stupid to get all worked up about it with the issues we have before us.He should never have let those Clinton people start working for his campaign,,,,

I'm totally with Gnorb. I am incensed about the FISA bill and his response to it. Whether he was sandbagged. as some suggest. or playing to the right to seem harder on terror. his statement was not good enough for me at this time.

The Republicans call anyone who uses words they like to pretend not to understand an elitist - believe me they understand them and laugh behind the backs of those they fool.

I'll take president who routinely uses the word ""arugula over one who routinely uses the word "cunt" any day.

Because it's hard to tell which diamonds are funding conflicts I'd go with man made set in a good metal like platinum.
I have a few of my grandmother's diamonds and I'll alway appreciate them, but have no real lust for diamonds.

As much as I have a great distaste in my mouth when I listen to McCain, because he simply has gotten so many things wrong when speaking, and he's been caught too many times saying things which show he has a great disdain for many people, in the case of this clip I think it was taken totally out of context. He really didn't mean it didn't matter, though in some ways just saying it puts him in a bad light, he was really trying to explain what mattered more than bringing them home was...blah blah blah.

He isn't pandering though he really believes it which is the scariest part.

That he believes bringing the troops home secondary to satisfying what he sees as the mission is not at all surprising it has been his stance all along. I'm not so sure I really appreciate the media making such a big deal of this as we are going to have to suffer through this on both sides on into November.

I actually lean more toward sending songs like Dylan's "It Ain't me Babe" sung by Joan Baez of course.

But Roebrta Flack did one of the best love songs ever.

I don't think a 13 year old can be held as accountable as someone over 18. He was ignorant and he paid for it. It's too bad , but I don't have that much sympathy. I do however think, after reading what I could find on it - which is not much - that the mother and father both sound like maybe they could use a little jail time for their neglect of their parental responsibilities.

The story actually sound a little fishy to me though, with the quotes from the parents as cavalier as they were it almost doesn't ring true.

This is called avatar profiling, soon to be against the law.

I can see them being important for business blogs. For me I do them after a post, and they are usually only relevant if you've read the post. But I don't really have to worry about that.

I have no sympathy. I guess you shouldn't have sex after only a few conversations without having some real proof of identity. If you are in the habit of doing so you might want to be more careful.

When people take their wedding ceremony more seriously than their real life they are seriously messed up.

I'm not very sympathetic to women who put their all into one day of their life, that being their wedding.

Seriously, it is not the wedding it is the life which follows, and the friendships which encompass that life which matter.

Unless this was the normal pattern of behavior for you,and you've stated it is not, then I find her behavior unreasonable.

Well she has conceded officially and endorsed Obama, gave the speech she had to give trying to calm down some of her supporters,some of who are pretty rancorous at this time.

After all the vetting I just hope they choose the candidate most likely to help him win. Really that is all I care about at this moment.

I can't help, after reading so much really hateful commentary on various sites - even the WAPO and NYT articles are full of it, that race will be a factor/issue and some will try to insert it into the whole process, though he will try to keep it out. It is unbelievable to me how many people out there are still so hateful and racist.

Gnorb is right on perception, and that is clearly because in most cases no matter what someone says when they are running it more often than not does not pan out in the end when - policy is made, so voters go with the rhetoric.

I think that is something a lot of people are thinking about actually.

It is unlikely that amazing changes will take place, and I think deep down most people, even those who are into Obama, understand that. Many even would have preferred a progressive candidate - which he definitely is not. It is the hope to get us on a different road most people want, and maybe instigating an interest in the process will in some ways change the process.

I know there appears to be a craze around him, but there have been crazes around other candidates. I heard Reagan had a rather emblazoned body of supporters, though I don't know I wasn't really participatory at that time....

I think the people must be reasonable in their expectations of a candidate who was chosen by the political process we use, and yes there is a danger in some post election disappointment, but I do not fear his potential policy or his ability to choose the correct advisor's in area in which he is lacking.

I actually think Hilary has some of the most rad ass crazy supporters out there.

McCain: Does that man ever look anyone in the eye? His eyes constantly rove from side to side as he fidgets.

Clinton: I won't go there.

Obama; Good gracious speech.

I think it illogical to assume because one is a hugely successful and charismatic orator that one will probably be unsuccessful as president just because there are other charismatic successful orators who were disasters – there are probably as many hugely successful charismatic orators who were successful.

I don't think people think he is the second coming of JFK.

I get the comparison to Carter because of the similarities of the times surrounding his election, and their level of prior experience ( I do think life experience has to be taken into account though), and I know Carter was a disaster from the standpoint of foreign policy, and that seems to be the biggest concern people have about Obama, saying he will have to rely on his advisers.

Yet We've had 8 years of some of the worst foreign policy ever and if you look at McCains voting in regard to it you might be just as concerned as well, and then take into account his self admitting of lacking foreign policy expertise. He will rely on his advisors as well.

I also think if he does nothing else he has instigated the interest of the youngest generation of voters in polities and the countries policies, something which was greatly in need of being reawakened because the lack of interest in what is going on in government is what allowed government to get where it is.

I'm down with no war too.

It's all ridiculous really, though bushy isn't meeting with them personally he has been conducting business with crazy bags in North Korea for some time, there are talks with Iran in Baghdad ongoing - as it is we have made Iran so much stronger just by what we did they should be kissing our feet. Bushy may be sending an envoy to talk with the tyrant in Sudan.

Envoys, envoys, everywhere to pretend we aren't already talking with tyrants.

I think they will use reason and number to determine who the party would prefer for the VP. Because we use a political system to elect presidents here, I wish it were not so but it is, the candidates - all of them - are politicians first, and they will do what they think will get them into the big house.

I find it interesting that Barr has changed many of his positions since joining the Libertarian party - for one wasn't he was the big no medical marijauna guy? Now isn't he a paid lobbyist for the marijauna project?

The press is orgasmic about anything that keeps people watching, and so they will do high drama until the last drop is squeezed out of the sponge and the well where they get the water to pour over the sponge is dry.

@ Right-On you know as well as I do that it is like some sort of huge Shakespearean play festival, all the old actors want to get in on it, it would have happened on either side should the situation have been similar.

I haven't watched a bit of news until this second, so I will have to go catch up.

Madness and Civilization: Foucault

Water for Elephants:Sara Gruen

Fin-De-Siecle Vienna: Carl Schorske. I had for school at one point, ended up not needing it, but always meant to read it.

--

"Heads in the Sand".
I'll probably get through. I bought it when he was downtown in D.C. at Borders doing a book signing, but I've read him since my first year of college via various publications, so I don't think there will be any surprises I'll get to it eventaully.

Boys on the Bus sounds like something I might be interested in I will have to keep my eye out for that on the cheap.

Most books I read, except for ones I collect - Foucault etc. I either borrow, have hanging around, get free or really cheap.