You are viewing motherwell

Moderates of all Nations, Unite! [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
motherwell

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The LA Fitness Murders: Another Manifestation of Right-Wing Madness and Malice [Aug. 7th, 2009|12:11 pm]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Mood |anxiousSo what else are they hiding?]
[Current Music |Don Henley, "Dirty Laundry"]

Joan Walsh caught this tidbit, among others:

In a related tangent, I was stunned by Editor and Publisher's report that AP, the New York Times and other news organizations quoted liberally from Pittsburgh health club murderer George Sodini's diaries, but left out his racist diatribes against Obama. The diary in fact began the day after Obama was elected, and Sodini wrote, "Good luck to Obama! He will be successful. The liberal media LOVES him. Amerika has chosen The Black Man." He then goes on to complain that white "hoes" are choosing black men over him. In the last four months we've seen three mass shootings -- the Pittsburgh cop killings, the Holocaust Museum murders and now this -- in which the murderer has ranted crazily about Obama. I worry with good reason that the Sodini assault won't be the last.

Whatever happened to "If it bleeds, it leads?"

When two major media outlets as established and respected as the AP and New York Times choose to cover up such clear evidence of the dangerous insanity infecting our culture, that can be taken as proof that the insanity is no longer isolated; it's mainstream.
Link6 comments|Leave a comment

Birthers, Death Threats, and the Rising Tide of Antidemocratic Hatred [Aug. 5th, 2009|12:03 pm]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Location |Reality]
[Current Mood |predatorySo when do we attack?]
[Current Music |Pink Floyd, "In My Head"]

Salon has this handy source for refuting all of the idiotic claims of the Birther Movement (BM) impugning Barack Obama's eligibility to be President. It won't do any good, of course, since these morons, like all other conspiracy-buffs, simply ignore contervailing evidence and go on repeating the same long-disproven allegations over an over again. But at least you'll have gone on record with a refutation.

Current de-facto BM "leader" Orly Taitz (who seems to harbor doubts as to whether Obama's mother is really dead) had a rather revealing meltdown on MSNBC, in which she seemed to say (among other nonsensical non-sequiturs) something like "Who cares about Ann Coulter? She is not an Israeli!" Then, a little later she tells her MSNBC hosts "You will be done, you will not be on TV for too long..." All of which led me to wonder whether Taitz, who was "responding" to MSNBC from Tel Aviv, might represent part of an effort by Israel's current right-wing government, and/or AIPAC, to incite hatred against a President whose support for Israel is less than Israel's right-wing religious zealots are accustomed to getting. Israel's far right made a hero of the guy who murdered Yitzhak Rabin; so we really can't expect them to be any more respectful toward another country's elected leaders.

A more disturbing manifestation of the insanity that still grips the Republican Party can be found in this article:

WASHINGTON - A new book about the U.S. Secret Service reveals that threats against President Barack Obama increased 400 percent over former President George Bush and that the agency may not be able to handle the extra load.

Obama reportedly receives more than 30 potential death threats a day.


(And why is the Secret Service "not able to handle the extra load?" Because they've been chronically understaffed since they were rolled into Bush's brand-new consolidated "security" service, the DHS. I warned against this sort of consolidation here. Once again, the Republicans' claim that they're "protecting Americans" is proven a lie. But I digress...)

Seen in a vacuum, the birfers' wild, attention-hogging accusations can easily be viewed as yet another bunch of loons desperately embracing yet another unhinged conspiracy theory; but this particular group of loons are not operating in a vacuum: they're being coddled and pandered to by a Republican Party in the grip of the irresponsible radical right; and their paranoid delusions -- and all-but-explicit refusal to accept our current elected government as legitimate -- are part and parcel of the entire pattern of delusion we've seen in all factions of the radical right since 1993, from the militia/survivalist loons, to the breathtakingly unhinged hatred of Hillary Clinton and even Clelsea, to the David Koresh sympathizers, to the "pro-life" terrorists, to those who routinely equate lawful dissent with support for large-scale terrorism, to the Republican operatives now inciting mobs to disrupt town meetings to prevent Democrats from talking or listening to their constituents.

The Republicans are no longer a "loyal opposition," and have not been since 1993; they're nothing but Nazi thugs, bigots and con-artists in fancier suits, shamelessly disrupting any adult debate -- and any democracy -- that they can't win. The Secret Service are already feeling the consequences of this infantilism; and soon, if we don't take a stand to defend what we've won so far, the rest of the country will be feeling them as well.

SPECIAL SHOUT-OUT TO THE BIRFERS: if any of you birfers find this site and think you can gum it up with your pathetic nonsense, please be advised that a) my readers are educated enough to see through your BS; and b) I will NOT give you yet another forum to repost the same long-debunked stories you've been pasting everywhere else. You don't listen to us, so we in the real world won't be listening to you. And I will not allow my blog to be used to incite or justify violent action against our duly-elected President. Go fuck yourselves.

UPDATE: I have just received the following correction in the comments: You misheard her. She did not say 'Ann Coulter is not an Israeli' she said 'Ann Coulter is not an attorney.' So instead of stupidly pulling rank as an Israeli, she stupidly pulled rank as a lawyer, despite her obvious ignorance of the law and her abysmal inability to answer a single common-sense question.

My questions about the possible loony-Israeli-right/AIPAC connection to this fake-controversy, however, still stand.
Link15 comments|Leave a comment

This Isn't a "Reboot," it's a "Shortout" [Jul. 21st, 2009|09:40 am]
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |disappointeddisappointed]
[Current Music |A song by William Shatner. Or Leonard Nimoy...]

I watched the latest Star Trek movie some time ago, and wanted to write about it after my thoughts about it had cleared. Unfortunately, here it is, many weeks later, and my thoughts are still as muddled as when I left the theater. I've come to the conclusion that this is, quite simply, a hopelessly muddled movie.

To begin with, the scientific/technical inconsistencies were completely over the top, even by Star Trek standards. If you want a good exhaustive list of all the specific things this movie got wrong, this post and the hundreds of comments following is the place to go. I don't have the energy to deal with all this in detail, but I will simply say this: in the original series, most of the fanciful violations of known physical laws were there because, quite simply, none of the stories could have taken place without them. We needed "warp drive" to get to other solar systems, "subspace communication" to keep in touch with the rest of the known Galaxy, "matter-transporters" to go places not served by airstrips or spaceports, "phasers" and "photon torpedoes" to do just the right amount of damage without having to wait for missiles or artillery rounds to get to their targets, "communicators" because we didn't know to call them "cell-phones" yet, "tricorders" and "sensors" to find out what was going on without wasting too much air-time with CSI-style detective work, and "Class M" planets and humanoid aliens all speaking English because there wasn't enough money for better effects. And besides, the series' original creator, Gene Roddenberry, wasn't in it to write science-fiction in the first place; he was in it to write about socio-political issues, and only had to cobble up the space-future stuff to get the socio-political commentary past a media establishment of post-McCarthyist wimps. So it made perfect sense for this series to sacrifice technical realism for the higher goal of telling stories that drove home messages.

It should also be mentioned that the original series came out during the 1960s, when it looked to most of us like science and technology really could do just about anything; when it really did seem that sooner or later, we would indeed be travelling faster than light and solving all manner of problems by taking all manner of unrelated gizmos and connecting them with duct tape or subspace channels in new and ever-more-wonderous ways.

Today, we roll our eyes and laugh when a guy with a hair-holder for eyes says something like "If we use a spoo circuit to reroute enough fleem plasma into the warp-core, we just might keep the containment field going long enough to get out of the Neutral Zone." But let's face it, that's only a more fanciful expression of how we use, and invent, technology to solve real problems on the fly; and how real people did indeed solve life-and-death problems both in modern war and in real space travel (note the use of duct-tape and three-ring binder covers in Apollo 13).

In the latest movie, however, all the gizmos and inconsistencies simply got out of control, right along with the unending noise, insane camera-work, and excessive bash-'em-over-the-head nonstop-shoot-'em-up action. In the original series they served the plot, which served the specific message; in this movie, they completely overwhelm the plot, which doesn't seem to serve any coherent message.

And once, I got the impression that the makers of this movie were going out of their way to mock the technical-realism criticism. I can't help thinking that the water-processor scene in engineering was a direct homage to the banging-metal-plates-of-death scene in Galaxy Quest. (What other purpose could that scene have served?)

It was certainly a lot of fun seeing all the old characters in their earlier years as they were just getting to know each other and finding their proper places aboard the Enterprise. That's pretty much the whole purpose of this movie; and quite frankly, as good as it was, it could have been a lot better with a bit less action-for-action's-sake packed into it like drunk football players in coach seats on an already-overbooked flight. The people who made this movie were trying way too hard to substitute action for character-development, and it showed. And it was kind of sad, since they had good actors playing very interesting and well-loved characters at what must surely have been a very interesting time in their lives. The actors, and characters, would have shone more brightly had they had more believable problems to solve, and more believable situations in which to show their stuff.

I consider myself a stickler for technical realism; but as long as the overall story and characters are believable, I'm willing to tolerate a few lapses for the cause. When too many such lapses combine to make the overall story implausible, that's when the story becomes crap and I start to tune out. This movie couldn't stay internally consistent even in its first third, which to me shows extraordinarily poor writing, lack of imagination, and unwillingness to stick to some semblance of reality. And it was reality, dressed up in futuristic costumes, fake ears and prosthetic foreheads, that made the original low-budget morality-play known as Star Trek, worth watching: they cut corners on the science, but never on the reality of human life. In this movie, however, that reality, that striving for relevance, has simply been overwhelmed and shouted down by people who really didn't seem to have anything to say.

As for specific characters: my second biggest complaint on this issue is that they had James T. Kirk, not just as an arrogant punk, but as a self-destructive arrogant punk; which is not a good quality for a starship commander to have. And how does such a punk get himself promoted to captain of a ship to which he wasn't even officially assigned? If he got away with that, it's no wonder he got away with violating the Prime Directive so many times since.

But my biggest complaint was about the treatment of Uhura. The Enterprise communications officer was: a) a woman of wit, education, culture, dignity, and honor; and b) one of the first, if not the first, major African-American characters in a major American TV show. Her importance as such, and the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. went out of his way to recognize it, is a major bragging-point for hard-core and soft-core Trekkies alike. While Zoe Saldana did an excellent job of playing the younger Uhura, the scriptwriters did an absolutely wretched job of writing for her. For starters, a romance between Uhura and Spock, apparently well underway by day one of the Enterprise mission, was simply not...logical -- and the chemistry just didn't show on screen. (And don't Vulcan males get horny only once every seven years?) But worse yet, in my opinion, was the brief scene, right after Spock sees his entire homeworld destroyed, and his mother along with it, where Uhura flatly tells Spock the she'd do "anything" to make him feel better. It sounded like an overt sexual come-on that was totally inappropriate, poorly timed, and utterly beneath either Uhura or Spock, even in their less mature years. These are two very educated, classy, dignified and articulate characters, both elite in their respective societies; and whatever intimacies or consolations they might share would be verbal long before they got physical (and would be neither verbal nor physical on the bridge of a starship when both were still on duty and dealing with a military crisis). Even if we're to believe Uhura was a ditzy bimbo in her youth, the magnitude of that particular unprecedented disaster would have left her speechless; and she would not have presumed to make such a rash-sounding and insultingly clumsy offer in response to it.

As much as I enjoyed this Star Trek movie, I would have enjoyed it more if the producers had shown a little more understanding of what made the original series, and subsequent spinoffs, so great in their own right; and had had less desperate desire to use the Star Trek name to add luster to yet another sci-fi shoot-em-up. Loud noises and over-the-top effects are not necessarily "revitalizing."

And no, they didn't "reboot" the franchise, they pretty much destroyed it: after a rock-'em-sock-'em battle of this magnitude, with such high stakes, at the beginning of the Enterprise mission, what can anyone do for an encore? If you're going to top all previous movies and TV spinoffs, don't do it in a prequel.
Link12 comments|Leave a comment

Wailin' Palin Quits Again [Jul. 9th, 2009|10:45 am]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Location |here]
[Current Mood |predatoryReality bites at last!]
[Current Music |Pink Floyd, "In My Head"]

Ed Brayton has this post discussing reactions and analyses of Sarah "Bible Spice" Palin's sudden and disorganized resignation as Governor of Alaska. (Her resignation speech is here. It's so badly written, so incoherent, and so transparently infantile and dishonest that I found it physically painful to read.)

In the comments section, I found this well-written and brilliant analysis by a commenter named "ice9," which I reprint here in full with his/her permission, with only minor edits: (emphasis added) HereCollapse )

And here's another comment from one of Ed's readers:

Last Line EPIC Fail: It was NOT McArthur [who] said "we're not retreating, just advancing in another direction" - it was Marine Gen. Oliver P Smith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_P._Smith

A perfect ending for Sarah Stupid


And here's a post by Andrew Sullivan, linking to his previous reporting of Sarah Palin's numerous lies.

And just in case there were still any doubts about how laughably thin-skinned and cowardly intestinally challenged Palin and her supporters are, here's a letter from Palin's lawyer, released the day after her resignation speech, threatening to sue anyone who dares to talk about possible investigations of criminal conduct on Palin's part. It's perfectly okay for Palin to accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists," but mentioning that Palin might someday be charged with a crime is actionable. Got it?

These people aren't just hypocritical and irresponsible; they're downright infantile, possibly to the point of making Michael Jackson look mature, needle-tracks and all. (Hey, at least MJ was actually still working when he died.) And speaking of infantile, check out peaceful_fox's notes on those delightful "Tea Parties" showing the world what "Real America" is all about.

UPDATE: Joan Walsh of Salon has an article about Bible Spice's latest lies about those pesky ethics complaints that alllegedly cost Alaska millions of dollars. Hint: they cost less than $300K, and they weren't orchestrated by Democrats.
Link13 comments|Leave a comment

Obama Statement on Iran, and Other Bits of News [Jun. 23rd, 2009|03:43 pm]
[Tags|, , ]
[Current Mood |curiouscurious]
[Current Music |"Sahara Lounge"]

Here's President Obama's statement on recent developments in Iran, as prepared for delivery ans passed on by Salon War Room: Behind the CutCollapse )

I am especially pleased by his mention of the practice of "using old tensions to scapegoat other countries." There's been a lot of that coming out of the Middle East since the 1970s, and it's only made things worse, for both the locals and the rest of the world. It doesn't do much good when it comes from America's radical right either.

Other news, trickling out of places like this, indicate not only evidence of ballot-box-stuffing (as in, more votes counted in a district than voters residing in that district), but indications that at least a few of Iran's mullahs are taking the side of Mousavi and the protesters:

What can be confirmed is that the Council of Combatant Clerics – which includes in its members Rafsanjani and Nateq Noori – have backed the protesters. Khamanei is going to lead Friday prayers in Tehran. If there was a speech, we'll have a translation availble here within the hour.

The time they are a-changin'. Or at least getting crazy.
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

Our Hollywood Moment...Okay, It's More of an Ellicott City Moment... [Jun. 9th, 2009|11:30 am]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Location |here]
[Current Mood |creativeACTING!!]
[Current Music |"Firefly" theme]

Last Sunday morning, my partner and I got an unpaid gig as extras in a low-budget "Firefly" fanfic/spinoff titled Browncoats: Redemption. I have no idea what the plot is, other than the scene we were "in," in which the owner of a ship makes a typically dodgy deal with the kind of typically dodgy character who appears and drives most of the conflicts in the original series. Here's a quote from director Mike Dougherty, from the above Web site:

We got tired of complaining we weren’t going to see anything more from the ‘verse and went off and made our own. We got Joss Whedon’s blessing, created new characters, and set them in the world left in the wake of the events caused by the crew of Firefly at the end of the film.

The movie is scheduled for a 2010 release. Look for a cafe with bits of decadent-Chinese-looking decor, and me (in a brown suit, red shirt and William Morris tie), my partner (in a really cool-looking black jacket with red, orange and yellow embroidery), and two other guys smoking a hookah and drinking alien umbrella-drinks just to the left of the main action. Maybe you'll see us, maybe there's another couple of extras at a table in front of us, blocking your view of us (damn them, can't they see we're better dressed?!), or maybe the whole scene will end up on the cutting room floor. Hopefully they'll have decent CGI of smoke coming out of our mouths (we couldn't actually smoke anything because the scene was filmed in a non-smoking cafe). You'll never know until you pay for a ticket, which is okay, since it's all being done to raise money for the following organizations:

Equality Now
Kids Need to Read
The Dysliexia Foundation
The Al Wooten Jr. Heritage Center
Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation

(For more information, go to the above URL and click on "Our Charities.")

And best of all, our fifteen minutes of fame are yet to come! Don't blink or you'll miss 'em.
LinkLeave a comment

Angels and Demons and Agnostic Harvard Symbologists, Oh My! [Jun. 8th, 2009|11:08 am]
[Tags|, , ]
[Current Mood |highThe pre-movie hookah helped...]
[Current Music |Catholic heavy-metal, of course]

Okay, I finally saw Angels and Demons, the sequel to The DaVinci Code, in which Symbology Professor Robert Langton (Tom Hanks) is once again called upon to solve a problem for the Vatican using clues that were literally under their noses the whole time, but that they couldn't do anything with because they'd forgotten 90% of their own organizational history, and were doctrinally bound to ignore the other 9%. I suppose Langton could have told his reluctant-but-admiring clients something like "Guys, your own libraries, archives and museums are right next door, why do you have to fly me here from Boston?" Or he could have got all Kanye West and just said "Homeys, this shit is basic!" But that would mean there would be no movie, and no hilariously implusible chase scenes through the Vespa-clogged romantic cobblestone streets of Rome; so off we go once again to give our tourists more cool places to look for the next time they go to Rome. And besides, Langton is a slut for a good symbol-chase and the Church has become a slut for Langton. And let's face it, we, the American movie-watching public, are sluts for action movies that take place in scenic places like Rome. (If Rick Steves wants to make his travel videos more popular, he needs to put more chase scenes and gunfire into them. Just grab a hot local babe, grab a taxi, and force your wife to hire a local PI and chase you at a high speed past whatever monument, museum or other point-of-interest you want to show us. But I digress...)

The movie begins with all of Christendom mourning the death of a "progressive Pope," and right away I'm rolling my eyes and yearning for the believability of a Bourne movie. And it only gets worse from there. Yes, there is a Large Hadron Collider; yes, it's in Switzerland; and yes, there was some controversy about the alleged theoretical danger involved in its activities. But no, they were not trying to create antimatter and store it in a magnetic containment field; nor would this have anything to do with "new energy sources," for obvious reasons; nor, to my knowledge at least, is antimatter considered particularly crucial to understanding the "moment of creation."

And no, the magnetic field required to contain any significant quantity of antimatter cannot be generated by a device that can fit in a backpack. And no, a battery that can fit in your pocket would not be sufficient to power such a force-field for one second, let alone a day. (Although it would have been absolutely hilarious to see Langton and his hot -- excuse me, "high energy" -- particle-physicist partner leading some spiffily-dressed Italian cops on yet another chase to find a drugstore in central Rome that was open late and had the right size of battery to power an antimatter containment field. Good luck explaining that to a Sikh pharmacist. I hope those coantinment fields don't need size "C" batteries -- they're hard as Hell to find, especially during severe weather when people need them to power radios and the Illuminati are conspiring to keep them off the shelves long enough to blow up the Vatican.)

And no, there's no generation-spanning secret society called the Illuminati. That Order was founded in the eighteenth century, and busted not long afterword by the Church and secular authorities, along with its founder Adam Weisshaupt. And if you're living in the present day, and you're dumb enough to imagine/create/join/revive such a "secret society," and think you're doing something significant, then you're too dumb to infiltrate the Vatican hierarchy. Just join the damn Church and pretend to be a cleric; don't mess it all up by pretending to be part of an ancient global conspiracy pretending to be clerics.

And no, there's no way in Hell anyone, or any group for that matter, can kidnap four Cardinals from the most secure parts of the Vatican, imprison them, brand them, and then set them up for elaborate executions in public places all over Rome (even public places closed for renovation) without being caught long before they complete the setup. That kind of thing only happens in stoopid horror movies like Untraceable.

And yet, after the first three-fourths of the movie takes us deeper and deeper into the realm of total impalusible nonsensical bollocks, there's a not-quite-predictable plot-twist that suddenly causes the basic story to make sense. Not the antimatter or Illuminati bits, of course, but the basic conflict between two warring mindsets, both of which turn out to have been horribly misrepresented, and not without any fault of their own, either. I won't add any spoilers this time. Go see this movie. You'll only regret it up until the end.

This movie is much better put together than The DaVinci Code -- which (like the book) was, let's face it, an idea-film first, with a totally ridiculous religio-historical detective story cobbled up to provide "action." This time, people who get paid to write action stories are in the game, and have given us a much more plausible story to follow, without the encumbrance of ideas and insights that, brilliant though they may be, just don't work that well on the big screen. Oh, and the scriptwriters don't have to make up some new fake-techno-jargon "solution" at the very end to get themselves out of the corner they wrote themselves into.
Link7 comments|Leave a comment

Useful Quote about Reason and Dogma [Dec. 4th, 2008|09:11 am]
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |productiveUse the lemons too!]

Rereading an old Time magazine article about Pope Benedict XVI's admiration for America (04/14/08), I stumbled on this very interesting quote:

As Roberto Fontolan, the Vatican-savvy spokesman for the lay group Communion and Liberation, puts it, "Let's not talk about dogma, or whether my God is better than your God. Let's talk about reason that we both have as a gift from God. What does it tell us?"

Those of us who insist that human reason should always be overruled by a rigidly-consistent application of our holy texts and dogmas, need to be reminded that, if we are created by our Gods, then our Gods created us with brains; and it seems reasonable to conclude that our Gods expect us to use the gifts they gave us.

Just sayin'...
LinkLeave a comment

Rambling about Clinton, the Bailout, and Some Other Stuff [Nov. 19th, 2008|12:38 pm]
[Tags|, ]
[Current Mood |cheerfulcheerful]

Overall, I'm pleased, so far, at the direction the Obama team are taking since the election. However...Collapse )

On a lighter note, the votes are in from my "What should I name after Barack Obama?" poll: 5 votes for "civilian orbital station," and one vote each for "civilian self-governing ship," "mostly independent city-state," and "interstellar battleship or trop-carrier." While I did not consider myself bound by the poll results, I do think that in this case, the majority voted for the most sensible option. If I named a ship or interstellar battleship after Obama, then his name would be linked with what that ship does, and/or who commands it; and that would end up making an implied statement about Obama that I might not want to make, or even realize I was making. Naming a city-state after Obama would pose a similar problem: the name would be linked to events in the city, the ruling party and ideology, and its overall climate and character.

Naming an orbital station after Obama, I've concluded, poses no such problem: it's a generic public facility, ubiquitous and non-controversial, like an airport, open to just about everyone who wants to use it, and its management have little or no direct connection to the actions of those who lawfully use it. And there would be large numbers of such stations wherever humans live, so sooner or later, someone would decide to name one after a long-dead head of state who had made history and earned admiration in his time, without having to worry or care what that head of state had actually done.

So thanks for the good ideas, everyone.

UPDATE: The bailout plan, he no looka so good. Apparently no one thinks it's a great idea, and everyone's looking for a way to blame everyone else for its failure. And then there's this gem of win from the GOP:

The White House and congressional Republicans instead called on Democrats to sign on to a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September — designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles — to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.

Right -- we should nix a plan to help automakers do the right thing, for themselves and for their country, and just use the money for short-term pain-avoidance instead. What else could we have expected from a party whose immediate response to 9/11 was to tell us to go on a mindless shopping binge? George W. Bush is just as stupid and infantile as he was in 2000.
Link9 comments|Leave a comment

More Comments on Palin's Know-Nothingism [Nov. 6th, 2008|04:26 pm]
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |pissed offShe's kidding, right?]

Here are two reader reactions to the Huffington Post article about Sarah Palin's ever-more-obvious idiocy that I thought worth passing on:

We now know thanks to fox news (how ironic is that??) the reason Palin is so anti-intellectual. She just does not understand what that word means. I have a special needs nephew. He is such a cutie who happens to have Downs. When Palin gave that speech about helping special needs children and how imporant it was to her, I was about to to actually support her on this issue. Then she made the comments about how stupid it was to pay for fruit fly research, instead of helping special needs children. The study of fruit flies has done two huge things for special needs kids. First they helped us map DNA. Second they have found a compound that should help with autism from the fruit fly. This lack of knowledge about something she claimed to love, scared me. It also scared me about how much damage this woman could do, if actually allowed any power...

...and...

I would like to take a little different path on all this. It is easy for everyone, including me, to take shots at this pathetically incompetent woman. I think it is equally important to give a huge shout out to American women, and their ability to reject the "role model" that the Republicans so cynically tried to create in Palin. My 87 year old mother, who has voted Republican in every race since she became of age, voted for Obama. Her role in life, like so many of her generation, was to be a mother and steward of her family's needs. She is not particularly well versed in political matters, and many would consider her quite simple. Sarah Palin, however, set off a an instinctual alarm in her mind, and she told me "There's just something not right about that woman." Hooray for women's intuition and nurturing instincts. I hope this doesn't sound sexist, but the I believe the smartest among us are often women who have lived life at its most basic and meaningful level. There are so many capable and deserving female candidates out there, including Hillary, and maybe my Mom won't live to see one get elected. But it is just another sign of how out of touch McCain was, when he thought this nitwit from the frozen tundra would capture the vote of intelligent and caring women that populate our country. Way to go, Mom, your son is so proud of you!!

I am in complete agreement with the last comment. I can't claim to understand "what women want," or who "represents" "American womanhood;" but I can say with some certainty that there are millions of ordinary women, liberal and conservative, feminist and traditionalist, of varying degrees of intelligence, who work hard all their lives because a) they can't get away with pretending to understand what they clearly do not; b) they can't shield themselves from accountability or hide behind pouting complaints of "meanness" or "sexism;" c) they don't have a phalanx of religious bigots and phony witch-hunters to coddle and protect them from the consequences of their own actions; d) no one lets them just ignore rules and break laws at their own convenience; and e) they value education, whether or not they got one themselves, because it's the only way they and their children can get better jobs to support themselves. Sarah Palin does not represent those hard-working women, and she probably never will.
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | 20 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]