Obama's Science debate 2008 answers to 14 scientific questions

Nothing earth shattering, but jesus, at least it's coherent and consistant.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html

Palin from home,

My advice to mccain, get her to go along with it, get it over quick and get rove to spin it as just trying to protect your family, otherwise this is ridiculous to have someone under investigation trying to be vice president, what was mccain thinking.

Do you think this will hurt her? I mean, if the Governor of my state explained he knew we had a state trooper making death threats, drinking alcohol in his patrol car, poaching big game, and tazering his kid while working for the state, I'd be furious if the governor didn't do everything he could to get rid of that trooper, and anyone else that stood in the way.

The Baggini article borders on retarded. Here's an example of his reasoning:

Christians, for example, are not oppressed, despite what some wannabe martyrs would have us believe. British Muslims, in contrast, are a somewhat beleaguered minority.

Besides the obvious stupidity of "it's okay to be offensive as long as you're not the underdog", is the writer so stupid as to think there are no 'oppressed' Christians in the world, or that only British Muslims matter? Islam is the largest religion in the world. So by his reasoning it's perfectly okay to publish 'art' depicting George Bush shitting on Mohammed's head. I mean, after all, they're the majority ... right?

It amazes me every time some person tries to defend 'art' whose obvious purpose is to scandalize and outrage. There are actually people who believe that's the purpose of art, which is a whole other level of stupidity. But even the most biased observer must see that a statue of Christ with a hard-on makes no valid or artistic statement. It exists only to offend. Defending it only reveals his hypocrisy in the matter.

But isn't mockery good, and any belief system incapable of putting up with it deficient in some way?

The answer is no. Mockery is not 'good'. Mockery can be good, just like anything else, but it can also be bad. There is a point in mockery when it just becomes savage and mean and destructive. This statue, along with Piss Christ and other nonsense, easily reaches that point.

I think it's hilarious how desperate Democrats and the media - or is that redundant - are to make hay over this ridiculously trivial matter. Particularly when the facts are entirely supportive of Palin.

From CNN:

In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of "a significant pattern of judgment failures," including using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as "a last chance to take corrective action."

And before you start with the conspiracy theories, understand that 'state investigators' means the same type of people now investigating Palin.

Frankly, even if Palin did 'pressure' people to fire this guy, it sounds like the right thing. There was a cop in Florida who took cold medication, hit three vehicles with her squad car, and tried to cover it up. She was fired. I didn't hear anybody screaming and crying about her cause. Public service is a risky business.

And Wooten even endorses Palin. Again from CNN:

[Wooten] added that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate was "absolutely wonderful for the state of Alaska."

So all you have here are people desperate to make something stick to Palin grasping at straws. And they're so tiresome and uncreative that they can't even think of anything better than 'Troopergate'. Seriously, the 'gate' thing has to stop. How about "Much Ado About Wootin"?

Wow - really missing the point again. The point is not whether or not he was a good cop (I have a pretty good idea you're right - that this family member would not be mistaken for one of the elite.) The point is whether or not - just like when she became mayor of Wasilla and tried to get the librarian fired - it is abuse of power. When Monegan said he couldn't do anymore about Wooten because the case was closed, she decided to take him out of that position. Granted - it's not as bad as the Justice Department abuse of power but - you know, we're looking at Wasilla and Alaska - it's not big time.

Of course this will be a "wonderful thing for the state of Alaska." Duh. It's always a great thing for a state when they have someone in the White House. You do know that, right?

I agree - I hate the -gates. His name is Wooten.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

Now, those two paragraphs, one after the other like that. I dunno: Doesn't this all sound strikingly familiar?

And before you start with the conspiracy theories, understand that 'state investigators' means the same type of people now investigating Palin.

The issue is not whether Wooten was a sleaze, or even whether he "deserved" to be fired. Insofar as I've commented on the matter, I've said all the facts point to that very likely being the case. The issue is whether Palin abused the power of her office by applying illegitimate political pressure, and fired someone who did not submit to her bullying to have Wooten ousted. Why is this such a difficult distinction to grasp?

The point is whether or not - just like when she became mayor of Wasilla and tried to get the librarian fired - it is abuse of power.

I'm not missing the point. I'm just not getting how you can seriously consider this a 'big issue'.

Everybody acknowledges that the police officer in question had problems. He has a record of behavioral problems both on and off the job. He should have been fired.

The only 'damning' factor in this whole case is that there were personal ties between the officer and Palin. I agree that this would be troubling if the officer had done no wrong. But an investigative panel - not Palin - found that there were substantial problems with his behavior. And then he got to keep his job? I'd do some house cleaning of my own, particularly if the guy was harassing members of my family.

Perhaps you can make a case for 'abuse of power' but it would be the most pedantic and trivial case in the history of mankind.

And I'm very pissed I flubbed my punchline. Spelled Wooten right every single time except the last one.

I'm not missing the point. I'm just not getting how you can seriously consider this a 'big issue'.

Look, most of the offices she's held, she's abused. Given her pitiful resume, during which she pettily abused the little amount of power available to her to bully librarians and run up irresponsible debts, yeah, I admit, it's not the end of the world. But, to the extent that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, it's surely not a good sign.

Me personally? I'm much more concerned (1.) that she thinks the Good Lord started our war with Iraq, we wouldn't be there if that wasn't what Jesus wanted, and thinks the end-times are nigh (2.) she is breathtakingly ignorant, and the McCain campaign has decided to sequester her from the media, so that she never has a public appearance with a prepared script (just like the Republicans did with another, much more famous ignoramus).

The only 'damning' factor in this whole case is that there were personal ties between the officer and Palin...I'd do some house cleaning of my own, particularly if the guy was harassing members of my family.

No that is only one factor. Another is that the appropriate protocols were being followed for evaluating the officer and she obsessively abused the power of her office to such an extent that she fired the person who wouldn't fire Wooten. The same rules for everyone, the same punishments and due process for everyone--that is central to the very notion of law. What you have argued is that what she did was understandable, given that family was involved. And I and most people here, I suspect, agree with that, and remark--that is why we don't let families settle justice when one of their members is wronged, but courts.

Sorry, that should be "without a prepared script".