Amazon.com Widgets

« Republicans Thrilled About Palin | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Thursday »

Cindy, Where Do You Stand on Abortion?

Good job Cindy. Let me see if I have this right, you were in favor of Roe vs. Wade before you were against it, but didn't know your husband was opposed to it. But the answer, a decision for the states sounded safe and you didn't have to look so damn stupid so you embraced that answer. And since you left everyone just a bit confused the campaign explained that you are in favor of keeping Rowe vs. Wade. You might want to write that on an index card and carry it around with you lest you forget. Oh and Cindy ask John what he thinks, you wouldn't want to get off message.




Quicktime Video 2.7 MB | Duration: 01'55
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

Norm - I'm the last person in the world to do the whole pedant thing, but the case you're referring to is "Roe v. Wade", not Rowe.

It did look strange to me, thanks for the correction.

It's so hard to remember when John's a maverick and when he's not.

Leave the wives (and husbands) alone, and the kids. We are not electing them.

Also I am pretty sure we should not care about affairs or personal things that don't matter in the performance of your job. (from clinton, to edwards to the national enquirer). I am pretty sure that we should care about lying about professional things, using influence etc.

Now that i am sounding so damn lofty, the truth is I need an intervention, a Palin intervention, I actually googled the national enquirer today. From work. I may have to get rid of the wireless and cable until november.

It certainly is hard to tell where a candidate stands when you keep asking tangentially-related people to tell you their understanding of their position. It's even more difficult when your goal is to show that they're inconsistent, so you ask as many tangentially-related people as possible until you get a contradictory answer.

McCain has clearly defined his position: he's against abortion, with exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and when the birth of the child threatens the life of the mother:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

Cindy McCain's comments echo that position.

And it's all moot anyway. It's not as if they can wave their hands and teach creationism in school and ban abortions. We've had numerous leaders who believe as they do on these subjects - as does most of the country - and we're trucking along just fine.

So no mind changing, but it is curious that you mention it in this context - didn't Roe or Wade change their mind later? The one who wanted an abortion is a staunch 'pro-life' advocate now. I've always been pro-choice, with some concerns over the role of the father in the decision; but people belittle the trauma of the action. It's not like having a wart removed. There's a reason it's such a hotly-debated topic.

This is the Republican talking point.. "it's a state issue".

Katie Couric said that she does not believe in overturning Roe V Wade. But turning this issue over to the states means overturning Roe V Wade. So if a state wants to overturn Roe v wade, that is, if a state wants to outlaw abortion, then a poor woman will have no choice but to have the child, even in she got pregnant due to rape or incest. Women who have the financial means will always be able to have an abortion, be it from another state, or another country.

Furthermore, both McCain and Palin are against sex education being taught in high school.. They don't believe in teaching about contraception. They believe in teaching abstinence only, and as we all know, abstinence-only teaching does not work as concerns preventing teen pregnancy.

If a teen ends up pregnant and their parent is wealthy, fine. But what if this teen is the child of poor family? Then what?

McCain has clearly defined his position: he's against abortion, with exceptions in the case of rape, incest

Palin does not agree with Mccain. Palin is against abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

Should 72 year old McCain, a man who has had melanoma two times, should die, then Sarah Palin is in charge.

Either way, it's either McCain or Palin who will appoint the next Supreme Court Justices, and those appointments could very likely overturn Roe v Wade. and thus turn over this decision to the individual states.

And it's all moot anyway. It's not as if they can wave their hands and teach creationism in school

So you agree that teaching creatiionism is schools is a bad idea? And yet you still respect Sarah Palin?

There's a reason it's such a hotly-debated topic.

So if it's a "hotly-debated topic", then having abortion out-lawed by any state who chooses to outlaw abortion is just fine with you and the other McCain/Palin supporters? Is that it? Even in cases of rape and incest?

i really really wish that Americans would stop fighting about abortion.... really.... Canadians don't, well not yet....

But back to my Palin addiction, she is not doing a great job with her speech. the repubs will love her. she is doing the typical attack against Obama, and all democrats, nothing new. I also cannot believe that they let her keep in the speech the"bridge to nowhere" thing, when it seems pretty clear that the headlines will be about how that is not accurate. Certainly she is a better speaker than most of the other speakers today.

Also the speeches today really were totally unimpressive. If they are trying to bring the country together, they certainly did not convey that. Romney pretty well attacked all democrats, liberals, east coast elite (liberals seem to have been in charge for the last 8 years and what is he if not an east coast elite?) He went on and on about the evil liberals. Lots of attacks on the media. There was nothing in the speechs by Palin or others that would seem to appeal to independents or the middle.

Republicans are shameless. Those of us on the left are asked to respect the privacy of a wacky evangelical yet it is the Republicans that would remove the right to privacy of every woman in the country. WTF?!

wow, the democrats should use that benjie, leaving out the wacky evangelical of course.

Something like Sarah Palin wants her right to privacy but wants to take away americans right to theirs.

(ie roe vs wade based on constitutional right of privacy)

k -

I'm with you on abortion. I'm so sick of the issue. The right loves to harp on partial-birth and late term abortions, the left loves to throw in rape or incest. These circumstances do occur, of course, but they're rare enough that they are almost, but not quite, red herrings. In most discussions I'm certain they are thrown into debates to keep anything from being settled. As The Third Way put it in their "Demographics of Abortion" Brief

The abortion debate is so far removed from reality that it would be like debating the 2000 Presidential election by discussing only the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.

i really really wish that Americans would stop fighting about abortion

Well, abortion is not a candidate away from being outlawed in Canada, so of course you're not fighting about it.

Another reminder on the wonderful Palin, the woman who may well be our next president of the U.S.

INTERVIEW WITH SARAH PALIN

Note that Lyda Green is an over-weight cancer survivor.

Radio Talk Show Host: "Does Lyda have children"?

Palin: "She has three kids."

Radio Talk Show Host: "Does she like em?"

Palin: "ha ha ha ha ha ha"

Radio Talk Show Host: "I mean, I mean, I mean, this woman, she's, I'm tellin' ya, and I know you can't say Governor Palin, but I know you can't, but we can.. she is a cancer.. and she is nothing but a very jealous woman... it's just embarrassing I think.. well, I'm going to say what I wish you could say.. as you always do.... Lyda Green is a bitch.. a ..

Palin: "ha ha ha!"

Radio Talk Show Host: "And she needs to go away because she is a cancer on the progress on the state of Alaska. And if Lyda Green's seat is empty, fly me down because I know it's gotta be a big cushy one"...

Palin: "ha ha ha"

I'm with you on abortion. I'm so sick of the issue. The right loves to harp on partial-birth and late term abortions, the left loves to throw in rape or incest. These circumstances do occur, of course, but they're rare enough that they are almost, but not quite, red herrings.

When McCain or Palin appoints the upcoming Supreme Court justices, it won't be a red herring or a matter of harping. And state who choses to do so will be free to outlaw abortion.

So Palin was perfectly willing to joke about Lyda Green liking her children and thought that question was oh-so-funny ha ha, but any mention of her children should not be discussed? And Palin thought that Hillary Clinton was whining when she mentioned any sexism, but mentioning sexism as concerns Sarah Palin is off limits?

Like I said, is almost a red herring. Don't get me wrong, its the total unproductiveness of the argument that makes me sick of the argument, not the merits of those cases which are rare.

I strongly suspect that if we had a state-by-state patchwork of abortion laws, the about rate of well-heeled women (Christian or otherwise) would be very little affected. There is a reason that wealthy and upper-middle class Republicans are willing to support anti-abortion candidates even if they are pro-choice: they think that they will always have options, i.e., it won't substantially affect them.

... the abortion rate...

the abortion rate of well-heeled women

But of course. But what about women are not well-healed? What about those women who are poor and live pay check to pay check? What about some woman who is finacially poor? What about her and her family? And if she was raped and poor? What about her? This is no small matter for those women and their family.

JoAnn,

Those women will just have to get hitched - like Bristol Palin. See? No problem at all.

k - I understand you want to stick to the issues but, did you read the Lakoff piece in the round-up for today. Pretty interesting. People like Lee Atwater, Frank Luntz and Rove have changed the game by not concentrating on the issues or the truth (what's interesting is Atwater's death bed denouncement of his former ways) and have hooked in people like calligraph (liberals when it was the fashion and then who think they have found "wisdom" with age when they are just following another marketing trend) - they also have hooked a whole lot of elderly and middle Americans, etc.

As far as talking to the wives of Presidents - that has been going on for a very long time - maybe to find out what type of woman they married, to find out whether they influence them, and, in the case of abortion, maybe because it's something no man is ever going to have to decide or experience for himself so they go to the woman in his life. And, there is something to it. If McCain were married to someone like Abigail Adams or, more recently :) Betty Ford, I'm pretty sure I would feel differently about him. I think Kerry ended up being handicapped by his wife while Laura Bush has certainly helped George.

And, I'm sorry, but, for me, when Palin wants an abstinence only program in schools, her daughter's pregnancy becomes relevant as an up close example of how it does not work. Right now, Palin's only able to affect Alaska but as VP she will be able to focus her efforts all over the country (and, how much do you want to bet that abstinence programs would be the type of thing McCain would put Palin in charge of.) This isn't good. Along with pregnancy and the unsafe sex it implies, there are some really nasty sexually transmitted diseases out there. Has Palin learned anything from this experience with her daughter? I think it's valid.

And I love calligraph's answer to it all - that McCain and Palin won't be able to change programs that liberals want - he is essentially saying the liberal influence will keep Roe v. Wade and the teaching of evolution but...one more Supreme Court Justice (very likely to come up) and we might lose Roe v. Wade. Who knows what else they'll do? We've seen what an abuse of power from a President like Bush can bring - and what about when the country had to go on hold while the politicians got involved with Terry Schiavo's case...what kind of lunacy was that? And, the fact that there is even still a debate about teaching creationism in science class is beyond belief. I thought the Scopes Monkey trial ended the debate with the ridicule for the anti-evolutionists...I think the country was smarter then.

BTW - if you haven't seen The Demographics of Abortion brief I was referring to, I recommend it. I recently downloaded it from

http://www.thirdway.org/

but I can't seem to actually locate it on their site.

I hope this hasn't already been posted here. Caribou Barbie tried to have some books banned from the library when she was mayor:

[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.

link

We should admit, though, that the question is vacuous. Now that we have a female on one of the tickets, we can realize that for the most part Todd Palin's views on whatever are pretty irrelevant (though I do find it disturbing that he once warmed up to the slogan "Alaska First, Alaska Always"). Same with Cindy.

When Katie Couric pointed out that Cindy was disagreeing with John, it couldn't tell if it was a kind of offensive eyebrow-raising that a woman would disagree with her husband on policy, or an attempt to coach Cindy through the right answers. Either way, is shows how dumb the exercise is.

K by the way, does not really want to stick to the issues, she really wants to tell you about her incredible irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, but K is too embarrassed to admit that she is convinced that Sarah Palin is really the lead "Heather" from the movie heathers, the girl from "election", the girl from highschool that would invite you to her party to steal your boyfriend (no highschool traumas in K's past, no).

She just seems to me to be the kind of person that would use her friends to get ahead then fire them. That would not let go when her brother in law did not get fired and just keep emailing over and over about him. Someone who would take a plane while she was in labour, because she didn't care if anyone else was inconvenienced. She WOULD NOT even support her mother in law for mayor. She just seems to me to someone who didn't care if her children became tabloid fodder. And finally laugh about her colleagues cancer and weight.

If I was McCain, I would watch my back.

Now I am very embarrased by this post, but i really really don't like this women.

K by the way, does not really want to stick to the issues, she really wants to tell you about her incredible irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, but K is too embarrassed to admit that she is convinced that Sarah Palin is really the lead "Heather" from the movie heathers, the girl from "election", the girl from highschool that would invite you to her party to steal your boyfriend (no highschool traumas in K's past, no).

She just seems to me to be the kind of person that would use her friends to get ahead then fire them. That would not let go when her brother in law did not get fired and just keep emailing over and over about him. Someone who would take a plane while she was in labour, because she didn't care if anyone else was inconvenienced. She WOULD NOT even support her mother in law for mayor. She just seems to me to someone who didn't care if her children became tabloid fodder. And finally laugh about her colleagues cancer and weight.

If I was McCain, I would watch my back.

Now I am very embarrased by this post, but i really really don't like this women.

K by the way, does not really want to stick to the issues, she really wants to tell you about her incredible irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, but K is too embarrassed to admit that she is convinced that Sarah Palin is really the lead "Heather" from the movie heathers, the girl from "election", the girl from highschool that would invite you to her party to steal your boyfriend (no highschool traumas in K's past, no).

She just seems to me to be the kind of person that would use her friends to get ahead then fire them. That would not let go when her brother in law did not get fired and just keep emailing over and over about him. Someone who would take a plane while she was in labour, because she didn't care if anyone else was inconvenienced. She WOULD NOT even support her mother in law for mayor. She just seems to me to someone who didn't care if her children became tabloid fodder. And finally laugh about her colleagues cancer and weight.

If I was McCain, I would watch my back.

Now I am very embarrased by this post, but i really really don't like this women.

K by the way, does not really want to stick to the issues, she really wants to tell you about her incredible irrational hatred of Sarah Palin, but K is too embarrassed to admit that she is convinced that Sarah Palin is really the lead "Heather" from the movie heathers, the girl from "election", the girl from highschool that would invite you to her party to steal your boyfriend (no highschool traumas in K's past, no).

She just seems to me to be the kind of person that would use her friends to get ahead then fire them. That would not let go when her brother in law did not get fired and just keep emailing over and over about him. Someone who would take a plane while she was in labour, because she didn't care if anyone else was inconvenienced. She WOULD NOT even support her mother in law for mayor. She just seems to me to someone who didn't care if her children became tabloid fodder. And finally laugh about her colleagues cancer and weight.

If I was McCain, I would watch my back.

Now I am very embarrased by this post, but i really really don't like this women.

ooops, i guess i really don't like her.

and boy oh boy is the daily show good tonight. if the real media would only step up to the plate like this, norm you will of course post the good bits.

I don't agree that the potential First Lady's take on abortion is irrelevant.

In fact: During her time as First Lady, Ford was also an outspoken advocate of women's rights. She supported the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and lobbied state legislatures to ratify the amendment, and took on opponents of the amendment. She was also an activist for the legalization of abortion and her active political role prompted TIME magazine to call her the country's "Fighting First Lady"...

Hillary Clinton has also shown the role of the First Lady varies according to First Lady.

k - That's funny. There are a couple of women that scare the bejesus out of me - you can see them shouting and moving in for the kill in this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LittleRockDesegregation_1957.jpg I dread to think but there's something about hearing how Palin tried to fire the librarian that makes me wonder....

About the Lyda Green interview: if you listen to it carefully (i.e., not the way Maher or others recommend), you'll hear what can only be described as "nervous laughter," the kind of laugh that says, I can't believe what you just said, but I'm not in a position to call you on it to your face. Who is this Lyda Green woman, a female Borat? What was she trying to get from Palin?

I'm probably one of the few readers of OGM who actually whole-heartedly approve of the Palin nomination, but if the GOP were going to show such conviction, why not just nominate my choice Huckabee in the first place?

the kind of laugh that says, I can't believe what you just said, but I'm not in a position to call you on it to your face.

Sounds like she's fit to lead!

Medhevyev (sp): We feel South Ossettia should be independant of Georgia, and we will fully support them with military reinforcements.

Palin: (Nervous laughter)

With all this talk of Abortion, may I Highly recommend "Lake of Fire", it's about 2 hours long and probably the most honest look at the abortion issue i've ever seen committed to film. If any of you subscribe to netflix, it's available to stream instantly.

Unless you are a Mac user. :-(

So you agree that teaching creatiionism is schools is a bad idea?

Well, of course.

The thing is, this, and the abortion argument, are gigantic red herrings. And like many others, I'm sick of it.

The fact is that, even disregarding that there's very little chance it would change in the near future, you can't expect Roe v. Wade to stand forever. There is a lot of legal debate over it, not just emotional debate over the subject. And strictly on subject, you can't expect any law to stand forever when the majority of the country is against it.

What gets me about these red herrings is just how hypocritical liberals can be about it. You really think it's 'stop presses' because a candidate supports creationism and is against abortion? Seriously? You really think these positions are cause for concern?

Funny how I always hear that when they never seem to lead to anything. Bush believed all that, and even appointed two Supreme Court Justices. Yet you can still get abortions. A few schools have tried to introduce creationism, but have failed (or quickly had their decisions overturned).

Meanwhile, all these ridiculous liberal social engineering concepts are implemented, unchecked. Kids are given sex education in elementary school - and not just functional, health-education type stuff. I mean political crap like 'gender identity' and 'Johnny has two dads'. If a kid calls another kid fat, or gay, they have to go to 'sensitivity training'. Kids can't be punished for acting out, and actually have the right to sue teachers if they feel their 'personal rights' have been violated. When violence does occur in these totally unstructured, undisciplined environments, everyone has to go to 'grief counselors' and so forth. Representatives of the domestic terrorist organizations like PETA, or liberal political groups like the WWF, are allowed to lecture on public campuses and recruit kids, but kids are encouraged to act violently towards military recruiting.

Do I need to keep enumerating? Nobody messes with society more than liberals, and you want me to get upset over the red herrings of abortion and creationism?

That's the problem - you're always ranting about how conservative social ideas will ruin the country. How? You're already ruining it.

It all speaks to my theory of why liberals love Obama so much - besides the obvious 'ooh he speaks so well!' thing. The revelation of his going to a racist, anti-American church wasn't a shock to you. The revelation that he associated with an unapologetic bomber: not a shock. The condescending speech about religious people and gun owners, the wife who isn't proud of her country - Obama's skeletons don't freak you out because they reflect your opinion of the country. Neither of you really like it, and you can't wait to experiment on it with your wacky ideas.

Which is why it's so funny that's his 'revolution', his 'change', are all bullshit. The Democratic party has no ideas for fixing anything. All their policies reflect Republican ideas, barring putting more tax burden on successful people. Yet you'll still vote Democrat. Why? Because you want what comes with Democratic rule - all that fringe lunatic liberal horse hockey. And you're assailing Republicans over some people in the party who believe in creationism and are against abortion? It's incredibly ironic.

There is a lot of legal debate over it, not just emotional debate over the subject.

Is it as widely spread as the "debate" over Marbury Vs. Madison? Just curious.

and the abortion argument, are gigantic red herrings

Yep, totally the democrats fault. In the last many many years of either complete republican rule or republican owned congress/presidency, Abortion has increased. Talking about abortion at the "Judges" level isn't helping. Perhaps we should start talking about why abortion is going up, and what we can do to reduce unwanted pregnancy, instead of using the red hot poker of "abortion".

Perhaps first on the discussion table should be the failure of "abstinence only" sex eduation... eh?

I mean political crap like 'gender identity' and 'Johnny has two dads'.

And those decisions are totally UNCHALLENGED and allowed to go through without a problem, which is why you've heard of them. Please.

Representatives of the domestic terrorist organizations like PETA, or liberal political groups like the WWF, are allowed to lecture on public campuses and recruit kids, but kids are encouraged to act violently towards military recruiting.

Show me one example of PETA or WWF encouraging this please.. Oh wait, you won't..

The revelation of his going to a racist, anti-American church wasn't a shock to you.

And McCain's association with his pastors doesn't shock you either. Or Palin saying this is a "war from God".

The revelation that he associated with an unapologetic bomber: not a shock.

Obama has as much to do with him as Palin had to do with the AIP. If you claim Ayers is a problem, I get to claim Palin associates with a group that wants to withdrawl from the union.

The condescending speech about religious people and gun owners,

The comment was saying that people like you are goaded into believing that Democrats will take away religion, guns, jobs, raise your taxes, etc. so you vote against your own interests.

thanks for proving his point.

The revelation that he associated with an unapologetic bomber: not a shock.

One more thing... From March 20th 2003 to May 2nd 2003, 30,000 bombs were dropped on Iraq, along with 20,000 precision missiles, 67% of the total ever made (from Cobra II: the inside story on the invasion of Iraq By Gordon and Trainor) if you really want to talk about un unapologetic bomber...

Calligraph,

Yours is the best comment I've read on the subject yet!

I guess since we're stuck with the likes of him, someone ought to keep trying to coax the fragile bud of reason atop calligraph's brainstem to bloom.

I sometimes wonder why we even bother. He'd probably just sell it to the forces of evil if it did. But I'll take my turn anyway.

Now, calli, are you listening? I want you to listen reeeeeaaaal close now, calli - I know that's hard for little boys to do, but you have to learn sometime, and you know what? Learning is good for you! Yes it is! Now, who's a smart boy? Are you a smart boy? Show me how well you can listen and learn.

even disregarding that there's very little chance it would change in the near future, you can't expect Roe v. Wade to stand forever.

Little chance? With two Supreme Court appointments likely to take place in the next 4 years? If there's an anti-Roe v. Wade majority in the SCOTUS, the case will be brought to them. Period. The religious right has been itching for this opportunity for quite a while, and now that they feel they're in striking distance, they're openly slavering over the prospect. These people, like you, are not known for their poker faces or subtlety. Your assertion comes of as either lunacy, idiocy, or outright bullshit. (My money's on a toxic blend of all three.)

And strictly on subject, you can't expect any law to stand forever when the majority of the country is against it.

And when would that be? Based on my reading, the numbers don't support your view.

And even if it were close, with a slim margin favoring overturning Roe v. Wade, a 51% majority is not a mandate. It would be reprehensible on multiple levels if, in a democratic republic, especially one founded on religious liberty (and this is a matter of religious freedom: freedom from religion), a 51% majority were to force a religious view on a 49% minority. But of course, the point is moot since the majority in favor of Roe v. Wade has grown, not shrunk.

Again, your position is either one of lunacy, idiocy or outright bullshit, or some combination of the above.

What gets me about these red herrings is just how hypocritical liberals can be about it. You really think it's 'stop presses' because a candidate supports creationism and is against abortion?

Speaking of hypocrisy, yours is downright paranormal. Perhaps Satan himself has crawled out of the rift between perception and reality you have created, and is at the helm in your pea brain.

Who has repeatedly made abortion and creationism into big, fat, stinking, center-stage, stop-presses issues? Say it with me: REPUBLICANS! Who is laying out nasty little red herrings? CALLIGRAPH!

As before, you are either crazy, stupid, or lying. Choose up to three of the above.

As for your laundry list of "liberal social engineering concepts", is it too much to ask for one link to back up your claims? And remember, we're talking about a national election, so you've got to pony up a nationally based social engineering concept from the list you set forth. We all know that in a pluralistic society, a lot of different ideas, many of them silly, are being tried out. (That's kind of the idea behind states' rights, ya know.) You can't characterize a national trend in an honest fashion by picking isolated programs and generalizing them.

I'd love to grind the rest of your diatribe into powder for your consumption, but you are, of course, immune to your own poison...and I have to go to bed.

Thank you - rebutting calligraph is indeed a tiresome task. I still toy with the theory that he is Norm's invention - his 'point-counterpoint' method of pulling comments out of his readers. But then, calligraph is just too perfect a punching bag. He never learns. He is always willing to spout off on any subject whether he knows anything about it or not. The more bullshit one of his posts contains, the more patronizingly antagonistic is his delivery. (My personal favorite is still the SAT math tests that have been changed so that girls would have an advantage over boys.)

Tim - I never thought of c. being Norm's invention - the thought of Norm laughing at the bull# comments he represents as c. is truly appealing - but I do think madfarmer is c.'s.

I agree with Philosopher... He's just an astroturfer

Perspecio - Thank you! I nearly flipped when I read the first two points c. wrote that you brought up and then I burst out laughing when I read madfarmer's comment.

I wanted to write something because my assumption is that c. thinks "well, I really hit a home run with that remarkably brilliant analysis" when it is actually so bad it's just hard to find the energy to respond - and it's hard not to find the whole thing too depressing because I know c. is representative of a large demographic of easily swayed America.

On top of that, you and Tim are much better at cutting through the layers of talking points and other misinformation that c. spews and bringing things back to reality.

The point of this comment is - if you guys ever go to comment on some conservative sites, I would love to read the thread....

Jill, I'm going to be blunt, and I may offend you. I may even misrepresent you. If I do either of these things, I sincerely apologize. But dealing effectively with the kind of intractable wrongheadedness we're addressing here is too important a matter for me to risk missing the target by pulling my punches. I may overstate the case as it applies to c., but he is definitely in the ballpark of what I'm going to describe.

I think you, like many people, have a fundamental misperception of what c. and his ilk are all about. You state,

my assumption is that c. thinks "well, I really hit a home run with that remarkably brilliant analysis"

Your assumption is wrong.

You think c. is trying to build a fact-based argument. He is not. I think if you take a truly honest look, you'll find the evidence strongly contradicts that view. He will use facts if they help his purpose, but his purpose is not to be honest. It is absolutely critical to understand that if you want to deal with him effectively.

You keep looking for hints of integrity where none exist. c. does have a low-level form of integrity, a piece of which is evidenced by his consistent worldview - but it's not the kind of integrity you're looking for. You have to lay aside all your assumptions about how human beings act, look beyond his words, and examine his motives to begin to understand.

Think of a con man. What is the essence of the con? It always has two elements: deception and acquisition.

Let's talk about deception first. A con man employs misdirection in order to get something he wants. He may not ever lie with his words - but he always lies with his behavior. Even his honesty is dishonest. If he can, he'll use it to gain your trust, all the while sizing up your value as a potential asset to a personal cause, should he have need of you.

And that brings me to acquisition. A con man does not need to have a material goal at all. Trust is a worthy acquisition in itself. Or he may simply seek to acquire people's attention, as a validation of his "power", or so that he can practice his "art". The con man understands that it's a give and take world, and he is entirely comfortable being a taker.

The point is, his primary mode of interaction is to use people for his own purposes. He has no experiential understanding of empathy. That apparatus is missing. And it can't be taught. You have to understand that.

It's sometimes hard for people who are intrinsically decent, honest, conscientious and compassionate to come to terms with the fact that not everybody is equipped with the apparatus that makes this possible. Almost everybody assumes that others are essentially like themselves. You really have to let go of all of your assumptions about how are, and accept that a person's behavior is a much more accurate gauge of the truth about him than his words are. But beyond that, you have to be sharpsighted enough to detect behavioral lies.

Let's take a moment to broaden the discussion to sociopaths in general. A con man is, after all, just a subcategory of sociopaths.

There are a great many functional sociopaths in society. Some psychologists estimate the proportion of sociopaths to be somewhere near 1 in 20. But it's important to understand that this is a spectrum, not a toggle. There's no absolute diagnostic line separating sociopaths from the rest of the population, nor is there a single cause that makes them that way. Emotional trauma, brain trauma, and genetic influences can all come into play.

Somewhere along the line, though, most sociopaths learn, as we do, how to behave in society so as to get by. And most of them are pretty much like the rest of us in that respect: they want to be more or less left alone to live their lives as they see fit. So they play by the rules, and are generally able to lead pretty even-keel lives. And if they lack the emotional vocabulary to understand or even recognize certain aspects of human nature, well, they also can't miss what they haven't got, so it kind of balances out.

I have more to say on this subject, and how it specifically relates to c., but I have another matter to attend to right now.

Meanwhile, Jill, you also stated,

if you guys ever go to comment on some conservative sites, I would love to read the thread....

Well, I have done that. For a while I was frequenting American Thinker. Of course, the issues never get resolved, because these people's agenda isn't truth. It becomes a kind of chess game, where they keep moving the pieces...but you can narrow down their options. You might enjoy this, and this, especially in light of what I was talking about above. But you really have to have kind of a cast iron stomach to deal with the vitriol you find there.

Enjoy, if you can.

1 bud move.

"Cindy Lou thinks "well, I really hit a home run with that remarkably brilliant analysis""

If she's so rich, why ain't she smart?

LOL LOL LOL LOL.... (ad intinitum)! This one's for you, Bud:

Hey, where I come from, Criss Chins ain't 'posed ta drink, OR gamble, OR Calli-fronicate. What's up with that?

"Cindy Lou ALSO thinks"

And she ain't anyone's in-vet-ion, chiaro?

I still say Calli-gram is on the (time) clock. He's a PR intern or something.

"domestic terrorist organizations like PETA,"

I agree, like conservative, PETA is anti-science. But not nearly so consistently, Call-boy!

I'm not offended at all - I do feel somewhat misrepresented, though. I don't think c. is trying to put together a fact-based argument - I think he listens to talk radio and/or some of the conservative commentators and gets taught their talking points. (One that I noticed from your American Thinker thread is the Obama as Messiah - pure bull but they all were buying it.) He puts together the talking points the pundits have taught him and makes his case out of them. The problem with something like Bill O's presentation of talking points is no one is there to refute their bogusness. c. trots them out like Bill O' did but - he runs into people that question them and the truthiness facts they are based on and then he retreats. That's what I meant. I could be wrong but I know a few of the brainwashed and that's what I've seen.

Have you ever watched the Frontline piece on the persuaders? There is a section on Frank Luntz there and I think c. is one of the suckers to that type of marketing....

Anyway - not worth any more time. BTW - I got the Philip K. Dick reference, of course, but not the Zelazny although I've read a bit of his stuff (I'll have to google around.) Try the rogerlsimon.com if you have a chance and let me know.... :)

Confucius v. Confuse us.

Frontline on the "Frank" Luntz:

"Confucius advised that if we hoped to repair what was wrong in the world, we had best start with the “rectification of the names.” The corruption of society begins with the failure to call things by their proper names, he maintained, and its renovation begins with the reattachment of words to real things and precise concepts. So what about this much-abused pair of names," Conserve-ative and Maverick?

I will forever have Frankly-not-Frank-at-all Luntz associated in my mind with Kung Fu Tse, whatever's-his-name, Confucius, and his prescription, or diagnosis. I have often wondered why China is such a mess, and Japan is almost Land of the Overman, Rising Sun, I meant to type, Confu. identified the rot, but did not cure it?

I liked it better back when James Garner was Maverick. Good old sufferin' Jim, shoo-oot...

And Barry Goldwater's was the Go-to family for if one needed an abortion (indirectly of course).

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives