this is getting a little ridiculous
Posted by christolles | Filed under Switzerland
Incidentally, neither Tory nor I have decided whom we’re voting for, so please post a snarky comment if you’d like to sway us one way or the other. Anything associating Obama with salvation will be deleted without mercy, and the offending commenter will be removed from our blogroll. You’ve been warned.
- via Yahoo! News
ps - alternative interpretation: pull my finger.
34 Responses to “this is getting a little ridiculous”
-
ruth tolles Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pmwait! i wanted a story about paris!
xoxo -
the Vores! Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pmYour old camp counselors are voting for glowboy : )
-
ted tolles Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 8:59 amI suggest you have two ways to vote:
- with your own self-interest in mind, or
- with the greatest good for the greatest number in mind.Your own self interest
Which candidate will create the greatest debt for you and your generation to repay? The issue for you is not who gets taxed tomorrow; the issue is who is going to spend more and leave you holding the debt. One candidate is saying guns and butter - fight wars and “we can address all three - education, health care and entitlement programs” The other is at least trying to suggest we reduce one area of fiscal hemmorage - Iraq war.Greatest good of the greatest number
Has the “trickle-down” strategy of reinforcing wealth creation by a relative few been working? For makers of high ticket, military and luxury goods catering to convenience and comfort, yes. For the greater number of Americans, no. Which candidate is suggesting we continue to rely on the rich to drive our economy and which candidate is suggesting we use tax policy to distribute economic purchasing power more evenly?And my final question - Imagine yourself in Asia or Africa next April. Your Vice President is visiting where you are and will be making a public appearance about American aid to displaced people. You go to the event and are standing in the crowd. Imagine Biden on the dais. A local turns to you and asks, “Is that YOUR leader ?” (emphasis intended) How do you feel? Now put Palin up there. How do you feel?
-
Brooke Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 9:07 amAll I have to say is that you’d better vote! Exercise your civic duty!
This article was written by Michael Smerconish, a Republican talk show host in Philly (my dad worked for him and I got to meet him once)…and he is voting Obama. It’s the first time he’s voted for a Democrat for president since he registered to vote like thirty years ago. Check out why: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_smerconish/20081019_Head_Strong__McCain_fails_the_big_five_tests.html. I disagree with some of his arguments, but not with his choice. Ask me questions if you want. -
Zdenko Juskuv Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 9:22 amI am don’t like either candidate. As one caller on NPR said, both candidates are about Agenda’s, but that is the last thing America needs right now.
I would be tempted to vote for McCain anyway, but his campaign has been awful and sleazy. Why couldn’t it be like this: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12429421
But then again, maybe sleazy is your only option when your opponent forgoes public financing and outspends you 4 to 1 or something like that. Then you have to take money from the RNC and you have no control over the ads they run.
What a lame election.
-
Chris Tolles Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am@Brooke - thanks for the editorial, but it’s a little light on policy. I totally agree with him on Palin, but his perspective on “opportunity” and “hope” seem a bit contrived from someone who voted for Bush twice.
@Zdenko - I, too, have been disappointed by how sleazy McCain’s campaign has been, but haven’t seen Obama to be much better. And I give him a lot of credit for getting booed at his own rallies for defending Obama’s character.
No one seems to be talking much about Supreme Court. Whoever wins will likely appoint 1 or 2 justices, which could be a big deal for Roe v. Wade. McCain’s answer about litmus-testing judges was a hedge, but I can’t help but agree with him…
Keep commenting! I need this! I don’t know many Americans here in Switzerland!
-
joel Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 2:24 pmvote for Wendell Berry!
-
Cousin Matt Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pmQuestion: What’s the deadline for absentee voting? Love the blog!
-
Molly Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pmI’ve been e-mailing Tory a bit, but I’ll put a few points here towards my vote for Obama:
1) Taxes. I think it speaks volumes that McCain is misrepresenting his tax plan in debates and speeches. Some articles:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html
http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/.2) War. (and economy). We are in an economic crises and McCain isn’t proposing any way of increasing government funds nor ending the war. Obama wants to end the war as quickly as possible and I trust this judgement more and more as retired generals continue to endorse Obama. (see latest: Colin Powell).
3) Sarah Palin. WTF. WTF. That earned 2. This woman could be president in McCain/Palin presidency. I mean, a good chance. She has referred to the war in Iraq as a holy war and her latest stunt appears to be intentionally polarizing the country by referring to small towns as the “real America” with “values.” Irregardless of how nauseated she makes me feel and how insulted I am as a feminist by her nomination, she is grossly under-qualified and anti-intellectual and her nomination calls McCain’s judgement and/or control over his campaign into considerable question. I know I am quite liberal, but even conservatives are swinging Obama after her nomination. I think the former editor of the National Review’s endorsement was pretty well written. http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
4) Supreme Court. Coming off of #3, who do you think will have the best judgement in choosing supreme court justices which are level-headed academics of the field? Would you prefer appointees like Biden or like Palin?
5) Our Civil Rights. McCain voted to reinstate the Patriot Act, Obama did not.
6) Sleazy Campaigning. It is one thing to bash your opponent on the issues (both do this), it is another to allow your party and affiliates to call your opponent a terrorist or Muslim and equate these terms. Colin Powell was quite eloquent in his endorsement on this topic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
To me, they are night and day. Here’s a general article on their differences on the issues from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2725487120080604
-
claire Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pmPersonally, I am of the mind that a person should vote for the candidate who, in the event that any number of their campaign promises are actually fulfilled, would appear to do the most good for the most people. In light of that, I think it would actually be unconscionable to vote mccain/palin, and voting for most other candidates would be a wiser choice. My choice in voting was based on the following things:
1) McCain has a very, very high chance of dying in the next few years, as a 72 year old cancer survivor. I won’t beat the Palin drum here, but a woman who makes rape victims pay for their own rape kits and whose biggest leadership position before 5 years ago was being a TV weather girl is woefully unqualified for her position.
2) McCain’s position on Iraq is that we must “stay the course.” I don’t even know what he means! Ostensibly we went into Iraq to “bring democracy,” “bring down Sadam,” and “get rid of weapons of mass destruction.” All of these were either never problems–like the third one–or have been taken care of. “Staying the [indefinite] course” to me sounds like a neo-colonialist money sink.
3) On Obama’s financial hoop-de-doo: I am totally 100% ok with socialized medicine, and I would be totally 100% ok with expensive socialized healthcare. I am not totally 100% ok–at all–with killing civilians in an endless and seemingly pointless war. If our government is going to spend more than it has, let it be on taking care of the sick and not on killing people.
4) Obama’s tax plan is considerably more “Fair” to the middle class than McCain’s: http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/ is a nice set of graphs outlining this. He also is opposed to the Bush tax cuts, which don’t make sense to keep in a time of unbelievable financial distress in our government. McCain WAS anti-Bush-tax-cuts, until this election cycle when he changed his mind.
5) With a grain of salt, because this is from a super-liberal outlet in the first place: Apparently McCain is a bit of a misogynist: http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/almond/McNasty-John-McCains-dirty-little-secret-He-hates-women/
I’m not going to call Obama our lord and savior–his little bit of saying two different things to two different parties about NAFTA proves that quite well–but given the options, he definitely appears to be the lesser of two evils.
-
claire Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 9:07 pmALSO: I’m going to quote David Sedaris in the most recent issue of the New Yorker on this topic:
“I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. ‘Can I interest you in the chicken?’ she asks. ‘Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?’ To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris
-
dory Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 amokay this is not meant in any way derogatory but can someone please give me an example of socialized health care working in a country with more than 250 million people. and by working i mean maintaining a quality rivaling that of the privet sector in the united states-
the big issue for me is foreign policy. the possibility of a nuclear iran seems slightly scarier than lets say the economy- not that the economy isnt a scary mess- but id rather see a recession which will balance out eventually than a nuclear war.
@ claire -just out of curiosity what do you think will happen if we pull out of iraq?
-
christolles Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 am@claire - Thanks for commenting, but I must contend a few things.
1. The rape kit controversy is a bit silly. According to every legitimate source (including the NYT, which has done Palin no favors), there is no evidence that Palin either supported or opposed the rape kit policy. Is this fact in defense of her? No, but you misrepresent the issue.
2. I won’t tolerate unsubstantiated appeals to probability on my Watson blog! Please cite your “very, very high chance” of McCain dying…
3. “Staying the course” means making sure what we have paid so far is worth it. Staying the course means not creating a second post-Russians Afghanistan. Your brackets are rediculous and, again, misrepresent the issue - McCain has clearly said that by 2013, most troops will be out of Iraq, and the ones that remain will be in noncombat roles. Far from indefinite war as you suggest.
4. As for McCain’s misogyny, well, people say stupid crap. $10 says Obama has made an idiot of himself, too. I don’t mean to excuse what he’s said or done (20+ years ago, incidentally), but, myself included, people are generally scumbags when they don’t think anyone’s taping…
5. That Sedaris quote is hilarious and idiotic. His Republican doppleganger might as well forward some more “Obama is an Arab” emails.
@Dory - How do you (imply you) feel McCain’s foreign policy addresses Iran better than Obama’s?
As a general rule, can we please represent each candidate’s positions a little better? I promise you, McCain does not want to continue in Iraq so he can keep killing civilians, and Obama does not want to have a cute fireside chat with Chavez.
-
claire Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am@ Chris:
1) point taken about the rape kits. How about some troopergate, then? http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1849399,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
2) life expectancy of a 72 year old 3-time melanoma survivor: http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html Please scroll down to “TABLE 12A: LIFE EXPECTANCY BY AGE GROUP AND SEX, IN YEARS, 1900 TO 1997″ Statistically, McCain’s death within the next five years is in the middle 99.5% of the bell curve, the peak of which would be at age 76, not including three bouts of cancer or other health antecedents.
3. “most troops will be out of iraq by 2013″ is not the same as saying “We will see to it that troops are out by 2013.” I am NOT advocating leaving immediately. I AM advocating planning to leave. Otherwise, I cite the decolonization of the Congo in the 1960s, or the continued economic subjugation of much of Africa and Latin America (Banana Republics, anyone?) as possible alternative.
4) His comments, combined with his nomination of Sarah Palin, are incredibly insulting and sexist. The end.
5) David Sedaris is a satirist. Read the article, it’s funny, that’s why I cited it.
@Dory:
1) It’s not like we have a healthcare system NOW that effectively addresses the needs of 250 million people. Whether or not a socialist system would work here–and it definitely would have problems, namely in terms of immigration law and transfering the massive private insurance sector into public scrutiny–is not the point. The point is that what we have now simply doesn’t address the needs of the 45 million uninsured americans, and I am unwilling to tie someone’s worth as a human being to their job title. If you would like, you can email me privately and we talk about other healthcare systems that I have researched and worked in.
2) If we pull out of iraq next week, it would be a disaster. I agree. But we can’t just hang out there forever, otherwise you risk essentially recreating the cultural environment of places like Algeria and much of north africa prior to French decolonization, which is the origin of the social theory that brought about the Black Panthers (The Panthers aren’t terrorists, but their philosophy is explicitly based on Fanon) and modern terrorist group organization. I suggest reading Franz Fannon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” and “The Wreched of the Earth,” and watching Pontecorvo’s “The Battle of Algiers.” Also, Aimé Césaire’s “Portrait of the Colonizer, Portrait of the Colonized” is informative.
-
Molly Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 amChris-
Claire’s article on misogyny does mostly older quotes, although they still make me uncomfortable. Would you feel differently about the dating of them if he were using the “n” word?
I do not think the time gap represents a change in his mindset however. Please look at this clip from an interview on Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_MRanG6kqUThis is the first time in my life I have felt worried about my civil rights as a woman.
-
dory Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm@claire
point taken about health care, however i did not in anyway mean to imply that our current health care system was effective, i merely asked someone to provide me with a concrete example of an effective socialized system of health care which provided coverage for a population which roughly rivaled that of the united states. you can make as many arguments for socialized medicine as you can against socialized medicine. i was more or less asking for an example. something i recently read which you might find interesting-Census Bureau report “income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the US: puts the initial number of uninsured individuals in the country roughly around 46.577 million. however this statistic is somewhat skewed if by “individuals” the report meant just “american citizens.” of that 47 million the census data include 9.487 million people who are technically speaking “not a citizen.” subtracting the 10 million non-americans, the number of uninsured americans falls to roughly 37 million. (im not arguing that illegal immigrants shouldn’t have health care, im just pointing out skewed statistics) furthermore according to the same census report, there are around 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. making roughly 17 million people who should be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of roughly $46,000ish give or take a few. so once you subtract “non-citizens” and those who “can” afford health coverage but choose not to purchase it, the number of individuals left is somewhere around 20 million, which is around 7 percent of the total population. now granted this survey doesnt take into account cost of living or age demographics, and is operating under the assumption that illegal immigrants wouldnt be a primary consideration under a new health care system. you can decided whether or not thats right or wrong, i dont think that denying illegal immigrants health care is morally justified; however in some senses you can argue that it is legally justified. personally i dont think this issue is as black and white as both sides like to make.
@chris
our actions in iraq have if anything strengthened iranian power and influence in the middle east. setting a time table for a withdrawal seems silly because it assumes that any “victory” in iraq will be achieved through military action, when in fact US generals have recently been stating that any definitive change in iraq or afghanistan will be facilitated through civil progress not military action. however oddly enough they also cite the need for an over arching sense of security which at this juncture can only be provided through a military presence. ironic?both candidates appear to be saying two different things: obama wants to pull out by 2010 and mccain wants to stay the course- like you said, its ignorant to assume that either of the two presidential candidates would want to keep troop levels in iraq the same as they are now; however in my lowly, and admittedly unqualified opinion, pulling out of iraq without a clear sense of stability would only embolden iranian actions. i tend to agree more with obama’s diplomatic approach to iran than mccain’s -punch ahmadinejad in the nuts approach- however i find it hard to believe that diplomacy would actually be effective against a mindset which has publicly stated that it would like see the physical destruction of Israel (see stinking corpse quote). diplomacy seems ideal, but if we’re pulling out of Iraq we’re effectively allowing the balance of power in the middle east to shift in favor of iran removing any diplomatic edge we might think we have. economic sanctions might seem to be the way to go-
claire is right when she cites examples of history as reasoning to use caution in iraq, however claire you’re re-appropriating a context which doesnt directly apply to iraq. french colonization of of north africa began in the 1830s and ended in the 1960s. the cultural systems and social structures created in north africa over this 200 year period of intense colonial influence are vastly different and do not directly apply to the sociological systems in iraq. i understand the point you’re trying to make about western colonization by citing frantz fanon, and how “imperialism” could effectively create a breading ground for staunchly anti western ideology; however i reiterate, to oversimplify our military action in iraq to colonization, and to compare it to 200+ years of complex sociological history seems extreme. no one is advocating staying in iraq permanently, the issue isnt when we leave its how we leave.
just for the record i agree 100% with zedenko when he said - i dont like either candidate.
-
claire Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm@Dory:
I had a long, elegant response, but unfortunately my computer ate it. Here’s the main points: 20 million people is an awful lot of people, and the CDC says that approximately 44 million Americans–and it can be reasonably extrapolated that they are not including resident aliens or other immigrants–are without health insurance and that their ranks are increasing: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Uninsured/
Also, it is important to note that depending on where you live and the number of dependents you have, $50k a year is definitely NOT a lot of money. If you are a single parent of 2 in philadelphia making that much money, you are barely getting by.
There is also an increasing problem of the underinsured in America, defined as follows: “People falling into the “underinsured” category have two or more of the following complaints about their health plans: It does not adequately cover costs of prescription drugs; doctor visits; medical tests; surgery or other medical procedures; catastrophic medical conditions; or the deductible is too high.
In the survey, the median household income of respondents who were “underinsured” was $58,950, well above the U.S. median. Twenty-two percent live in households making more than $100,000. Still, many of the “underinsured” don’t have the resources to keep up with the rising costs of deductibles and co-pays, so much so that 43% reported that they postponed going to the doctor because they couldn’t afford it.” (consumer affairs, 8/6/07, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/cu_insurance.html)
NPR elaborates on this, quantifying the too-high deductible as greater than or equal to 10% of the annual household income: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91342954 (It’s an episode of morning edition, 6/10/2008).
RE: Iraq: While the literal aspects of French colonialism and the Iraq war may be dissimilar, I think a lesson that should be clear from that history is that using force to import values or to change to social fabric of a population does not end well, and instead tends to breed long-term resentment.
-
christolles Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm1. @Clare - You seem pretty desperate to convince me Palin is a bad VP. Relax! I completely agree.
2. @Claire - “most troops will be out of iraq by 2013″ is in fact !EXACTLY! the same thing as “We will see to it that troops are out by 2013″ if you’re a politician before an election. Neither can be trusted. It’s sort of like “Yes, I will accept public funding for my campaign”…
The issue is not that I think 2013 is a good timetable, but rather I’m pretty sure 16 months is a bad timetable. I don’t really know anything about the Congo c.1960 and don’t have time to read four books in five days. Sorry, but if you can find a good summary I’d be happy to listen.
3. @Molly - I’ll plead ignorance here, but what is so offensive about that McCain clip? And no, I would not feel differently if he had said anything else. People say stupid crap. It seems you’re misconstruing my feelings of general disgust for the human race as pithy irreverence towards the gross comments of the candidate you don’t happen to like.
4. @Anyone - Please help me understand how peace-ing out of Iraq in 16 months is distinct from abandoning Afghanistan the way we did in the late 80s. Preferably someone who was a thinking human being then.
5. @Joel - I would. Oh, I would. But Wendy wouldn’t.
-
claire Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pmChris:
1) Sarah Palin just makes me soooooooo mad. I’ll go eat some chocolate now.
2) DRC Factsheet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1076399.stm
NOTE: Lumumba was killed in part because he did not want to immediate removal of qualified Belgians from government posts in favor of putting new, less qualified, but Conglese folks in those same positions. He also was a bit too much of an idealist for his own good, and Mobutu too power-hungry. -
Molly Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pmChris,
Feminism is by definition is the belief that women are equal to men. The “liberal feminist agenda” he is referring to is the feminist movement to create equality for women. This would be equal pay for equal work, civil rights, the belief that a woman’s body is her own and that the glass ceiling needs to be eliminated. I agree with McCain that Sarah Palin is a direct counter to the “liberal feminist agenda” and find it grossly offensive.
I can understand how you are willing to disregard comments made when he did not know the cameras were on but this was said in an interview.
This is about women’s rights, not about picking apart a candidate with whom I have many ideological differences with. I dislike Bush much much more than McCain, but think that his presidency did not set back the feminist agenda. Bush actually seems to treat women with respect and be able to appoint blind to gender. I think I fantastic example of this is Condoleezza Rice. I do not agree with her on… well, anything… but she is good for the feminist movement. She is treated no differently than a man and if she were not in her position, a male ideological doppleganger would be in her place. I don’t think the same argument can be made for Palin.
-
Kathleen Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pmIt’s a moral issue for me. I’m voting for Obama because I believe he will work harder than McCain to stabilize the country and ensure a productive future for more than just the upper class.
I want a president who responds to conflict with diplomacy, THEN violence, and only if diplomatic efforts fail.
I want a president who realizes that investment in programs such as health care, public education, and infrastructure are necessary for the long-term stability and growth of the country and is willing to fund them appropriately, even if that requires higher taxes.
I believe in a sense of the “greater good” and am happy to pay higher taxes so that our country can lay the foundation for a functional and healthy society in which the American dream truly exists.
I want a president who believes that all people are created equal. I want a president who is committed to preserving the rights of women, gay people, ethnic minorities, legal immigrants, and other groups that have historically suffered discrimination.
I want a president who views energy independence as an environmental issue as well as a security issue. I want a president who is interested in addressing the myriad problems that affect our environment - excessive consumption, food production systems, etc. - with solutions that do not lead to even more easy consumption.
I am not voting for McCain because I think he has shown a lot of hostility throughout the campaign, and he has not done enough to dispel lies and nasty rumors about Obama (for God’s sake, an Arabic middle name does not a terrorist make). His age and health also worry me, and I think he showed a spectacular lack of judgment in selecting Palin as his running mate. I don’t want a trigger-happy, hate-mongering president who will continue along the same old stubborn path we’ve been dealing with since 2003.
And if McCain gets elected and then bites the dust, our country will be led by a woman who clearly does not value equal rights or education; a woman who does not grasp the seriousness of climate change; a woman who did not get her first passport until 2006 and thinks that “being able to see Russia” qualifies as foreign policy experience; a woman who resorts to jokes and cutesy winks whenever she is stumped by a question (that is, when she even agrees to answer the questions asked of her). To put it bluntly, Palin scares the bejesus out of me.
So, there you go.
-
christolles Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 am@Molly - I suppose I’m not bothered by McCain’s YouTube comment because I, too, perceive there to be aspects of “liberal” or “mainstream” feminism that’s unhealthy. I can’t put words in his mouth to explain exactly what he thinks the “liberal feminist agenda” is, but I would guess he’s referring to the seemingly necessary inclusion of abortion in the list of feminist principles you provide above.
I appose abortion. I support equal pay, nondiscrimination, women in leadership, and a host of other “feminist” principles. Aside from abortion, which I’ll assume we disagree on, what is so horrifyingly regressive about Palin?
@Claire - I completely agree that the use of force is saddenly ineffective time and time again re: social fabric, etc. I just don’t see the precedent for leaving so quickly as a preferrable alternative. Would I have supported a 40 month pull-out starting 24 months ago? Of course!
@Kathleen - I agree with every single one of the things you want. It’s just not so clear to me that Obama achieves them all so marvelously that you don’t even state his position. How does he demonstrate such a different committment to health care, education, and infrastructure? How does Obama so clearly address energy and food in such a better way? Regarding hostility, please give me specifics! I’ll only share this clip in McCain’s defense. Regarding rights, your list of those whose rights need preserving conspicuously omits the unborn. I appreciate you posting, but I need a little more concrete policy.
FYI, all, I’m currently leaning Obama:
Iraq War: half point McCain
Abortion: point McCain
Taxes: half point Obama
VP: many points Obama
Energy: half point Obama
Healthcare: even
Bailout: far too complicated for me to form an opinion -
Molly Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 amChris-
First, I’m pro-choice and undecided on abortion. I did not directly refer to abortion in my description of feminism. It’s true that I think choice is a women’s right for her own body, but I think there are other instances of the government attempting to legislate women’s healthcare. I also do NOT think being pro-life is counter to feminism. Perhaps ironically, Palin is an example of this. She repeatedly promotes feminism and calls herself a feminist “without blinking.”
I’d be happy to discuss my views on abortion with you, but I think they’re irrelevant to McCain’s comment. He says NOTHING about abortion in that clip. He speaks about her being a family woman as a counter. Again, Palin sees herself as a feminist.
Again, Palin is a feminist. She, herself, is not anti-feminism. What I was trying to say with my Rice comparison is that her NOMINATION is anti-feminist. It expresses a lower standard for women, for a man with the same qualifications would never have gotten the VP nomination. Her nomination is the definition of sexist.
Third,
-
christolles Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am@Molly - Thank you, I think I understand much better now why her nomination as an act can be seen as anti-feminist. But even after rewatching the clip, I don’t see what’s so offensive about what McCain says…
You did not mention abortion by name, so perhaps I was overzealous in reading between the lines. My apologies. I’m very encouraged to hear you say that feminism and pro-life are not mutually exclusive.
(Also, it looks like WordPress ate your third point. Sorry.)
-
Molly Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 amChris, thank you for clarifying and listening to my point.
Things that are offensive about the comment:
1. The insinuation that feminism is liberal. I actually think this is more insulting to conservative women, but generally find it offensive to imply that feminism is some new-fangled progressive theory… or even that feminism is partisan.2. The assertion that having a lovely family and being a conservative somehow make her a counter to the “liberal feminist agenda.” This implies that the said agenda is to lose family values and that one’s belief in women’s rights is antithetical to being fiscally or socially conservative.
3. The general insinuation of this comment, which I reiterate I do not think has anything to do with abortion, that feminism is bad.
Playing a little mad-libs, I think my points stand. How does this statement sit with you? “As a cold political calculation, Condoleezza Rice is a direct counterpart for the liberal African-American civil rights agenda for America. She is a white-collar, non-urban conservative who chooses to sit in the back of the bus.”
-
claire Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pmI think I’m pretty much done and most of my points/reasons for voting the way I plan to have been decently explained at this point (though I’m not sure the OTHER resident of the house on Carpenter Street feels the same way, evidently
), but just to clarify: I’m not necessarily in favor of, specifically, a 16-month withdrawal plan. I am in favor of a SPECIFIC PLAN OF ACTION for leaving Iraq. What I think would be best, in my non-infinite wisdom, would be to say something like, “By the end of 2010, we should have accoplished X, Y, and Z, and will be in the process of leaving Iraq.” And then, say, halfway through 2009, you can say, “In January 2010, we will accomplish X and Y, and by August we will accomplish Z, and by December A% (where A > 50% of the current amount) of our troops will have left Iraq.” 16 months does seem too short, but a specific, public, and well-planned exit strategy is necessary.Also a funny thing about Sarah Palin:
http://www.superpoop.com/101608/didnt-answer-my-question.jpg
Tee-hee.
-
Jeffro Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pmI will be writing in Jesus, both candidates could use repentance and reconciliation with the Lord.
-
Rachael R. Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 9:09 amLook, I’m am certainly not going to try to swing you either way, it seems that you have certainly given these issues a lot of thought and I’m sure that whomever you finally decide to vote for, it will be a good, well informed decision.
All I can say is that we should all hope and pray that whoever does win, he will be a vast improvement on what we have been put through the past 8 years, and that he will be able to improve the state of the country, while improving our relationship with the international community. Pray that he is guided by God to do what is best and what is right for all peoples.
May God help us all. -
Carlyn Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pmSomeone you may not have thought of:
-
Carlyn Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm…will post something snarky and brilliant to sway you towards Nader and the narrow road of the independant when I have mental faculties with which to do so. The website, for now, will give you some idea.
-
tabitha Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pmwow . . . you got lots of responses on this one.
i’m mostly afraid of what will happen if a certain someone croaks and a certain VP becomes a P . . . she’s stone cold crazy . . . i lived across the street from her in junea all summer . . . ok maybe not stone cold crazy . . . but the VP debate sealed the deal for me . . . she creeped me out. thinking about the high likelihood of HER being commander in cheif? . . . how ironic though if she were to be and hillary never got as close as this.
ok, i’m rambling and i’m not helping. if you want a better answer, email me and i’ll write you back tomorrow when i am sane.
-
tabitha Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pmnext year i am totally voting for bejamin linus to be president of teh united states. you know who i mean.
-
Steve Whitten Says:
November 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pmHey, Chris and Tory - been reading the blog and seeing where you are. We are in the final phase of Watson prep for this year and the on-campus interviews are this Friday. How is the project going? Did the UN access help you to get inside insight? And will you be staying abroad longer now that Barack is prez? - lol. Drop a note and let me know how you all are doing out there.
-
Christian Says:
November 14th, 2008 at 11:56 amcheck this answer.
There is a very strong argument for christian abdication of State. I say give it up. Government is about power OVER people; that’s how it’s organized and run. I object to letting my vote be co-opted by politics.
How’s that for snarky?
I didn’t vote.
