posted
After reading the NYT and WashPost articles on Palin, I'm convinced that McCain is totally off his rocker for picking her. If she were to run America should something happen to McCain like she ran Wasilla and Alaska, I think we'd be screwed.
Either he made an irresponsible choice after carefully viewing her record, or he made an irresponsible choice by choosing her for political expediency and didn't pay attention to her record at all. I'd like the media to spend a hell of a lot less time on her personal foibles and her family drama and a lot more time on her management style and actual job history. There's eerie overtones of Bush in her management style, to say nothing of her recent lackluster responses to major policy questions.
Edit to add: And here's a fun little tidbit. Karl Rove said today that he thinks some recent McCain ads have "gone one step too far," and don't pass the "100% truth test." When Rove is calling you dishonest and saying you've gone too far, you really have to wonder.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Possibly. Your comments about drug use and allusions to Nazis may have driven from my mind all your scintillating commentary on the issues.
To be fair the drug abuse bit is aimed squarely at Ron after someone else had already raised the point.
Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, I certainly agree. I cannot find a child sexual abuse prevention program that does not stand behind using correct clinical terminology to protect children. There must be some, but the standard federal, state, and well-known national programs all seem to advocate this as one of the core principles.
Good for Obama. [Edited to add: And especially, good for you! Rocking the Mom Job! ]
quote:Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
So the answer to my question is "yes." Good to know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a great teaching moment for the Obama Campaign, I hope they seize it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
So the answer to my question is "yes." Good to know.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After reading the NYT and WashPost articles on Palin, I'm convinced that McCain is totally off his rocker for picking her. If she were to run America should something happen to McCain like she ran Wasilla and Alaska, I think we'd be screwed.
Either he made an irresponsible choice after carefully viewing her record, or he made an irresponsible choice by choosing her for political expediency and didn't pay attention to her record at all. I'd like the media to spend a hell of a lot less time on her personal foibles and her family drama and a lot more time on her management style and actual job history. There's eerie overtones of Bush in her management style, to say nothing of her recent lackluster responses to major policy questions.
While I agree that her record is appalling, I have to admit that she might have been one of the better picks for winning the election. While I want VP candidates with whom I'd be comfortable leading the country should the President fall, I do see the need to pick a VP candidate who helps you win. Afterall, what's the point of having a great VP if you don't win?
So to defend his choice a bit. Who else could McCain have picked? Pawlenty's history of pro-choice would turn off many voters. Lieberman would have possibly made inroads with independents, but would turn off the Republican party and enrage the Democrats. Romney was very unpopular in the south, and again would not have energized the party. The only real benefit of Romney is the possible assistance in flipping Michigan.
Palin HAS energized the Republican party, regardless of her positions. Look at the recent polls coming out from some of the closer states from before. North Carolina (McCain +17 Research 2000 9/9), Montana (McCain +5 Rasmussen 9/11), and North Dakota(McCain + 14 Rasmussen 9/8) now seem out of reach. Minnesota's now tied (According to CNN today- Star Tribune has them tied at 45%), and Obama's gap of support in states already leaning his way has dwindled somewhat. (Washington comes to mind)
If McCain can keep this sheen of a new, clean politician on Palin through the next two months, he may very well have won with that decision alone.
I'm hoping that people realize the truth about Palin quickly and she become an albatross around McCain's neck rather than the boost she seems to be.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old. Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents, WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten. This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wholeheartedly approve of sex education for kindergarders.
My not-quite two year old knows the proper names for his body parts and that babies grow in mommies' tummies. He knows that men have penises and women don't. Right now he connects the difference with nursing -- men have penises and women can nurse babies. All of that is sex education, and is age appropriate.
Although I almost choked myself laughing last night when he announced "I nurse with mommy. On her nipple on her breast. Like the piggies on the mommy pig." (We saw baby pigs nursing at the state fair a few weeks ago.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old. Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents, WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten. This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat.
The bill allowed parents to opt out of their children receiving this instruction with no questions asked. So don't pretend it was being forced upon the children.
I also point out the bill was talking about an age range, k-12, and stipulated that instruction would be medically accurate and age-appropriate.
Kindergartners were not going to be taught what you so fear. They were going to be taught how to defend themselves.
Also, there is no 'tyranny of the left' in this bill, because they weren't forcing their beliefs down your throat. Every parent had the right to opt out of their child receiving that instruction. The parent still could teach their child themselves if they found any of the material objectionable. (The bill said that parents would receive full knowledge of the curriculum.)
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, in the USA, children can start school at the age of five, though some can be held back until they are six. I was actually allowed to start school at the age of four, because my birthday is in November.
By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out? Parents could keep their children out--but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it? And in case you hadn't noticed, private schools cost more, and it is a lot of trouble for parents to homeschool their kids--not many parents can do it.
Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure where you are getting the details you lay out about what would be taught, Ron Lambert, as those details are not in the bill itself.
Do you have a link? Other citation?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for. The people there with him on the show who wanted to defend Sen. Obama had no replies, other than trying to stick to the standard Obama talking point that the program was designed to help children avoid sexual predators.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Divine right? Nope. Responsibility? Yes.
Speaking in generalities, it seems to me that liberals want their children to be more educated than they were. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, in the USA, children can start school at the age of five, though some can be held back until they are six. I was actually allowed to start school at the age of four, because my birthday is in November.
By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out? Parents could keep their children out--but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it? And in case you hadn't noticed, private schools cost more, and it is a lot of trouble for parents to homeschool their kids--not many parents can do it.
Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Why didn't it pass? The tyranny of the right. (I jest 'cause I love.)
But seriously, I think a child is going to be exposed to condoms, contraceptives, and masturbation regardless of what education the education system teaches some kids. If enough parents teach their child sex-education outside of the school system, some of those children will help to expose that knowledge. By the way, I'm not sure how homeschooling or private-school was inserted into this conversation, so I'm not trying to ignore it, I just don't see the relevance. Parents teach their children outside of homeschooling.
No, it didn't pass, but it wasn't voted down either. It was stalled, which can be done in many ways. And stalling doesn't require a majority of people saying nay, just a very vocal opposition that filibusters or some other strategy that gets people to eventually table the bill.
But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
EDIT: By the way, if you want the copy of the bill, I posted a link to it back one page.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
I'm not attempting to defend Ron here, but how do you know this is true? It seems you're doing the exact same thing Ron is - seizing on language in the bill and choosing which ages it actually applies to. Certainly the bill itself doesn't prevent Ron's scenario of explicit teaching of kindergarteners. It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted.
Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
I'm not attempting to defend Ron here, but how do you know this is true? It seems you're doing the exact same thing Ron is - seizing on language in the bill and choosing which ages it actually applies to. Certainly the bill itself doesn't prevent Ron's scenario of explicit teaching of kindergarteners. It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted.
Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this.
You've got a strong point, and I concede it. I can't make any guarantees that the curriculum wouldn't carry what Ron is saying, but like you yourself pointed out, what some people deem as 'age-appropriate' you disagree with. The bill did include provisions to let a parent opt out of their child being taught the subject matter (which it also said they would be fully informed of.). So if they did have material the Ron is worried about, he could simply not let his child be taught that. No questions asked.
I argue the bill intended the sexual abuse protections because the age range of the bill was modified to include kindergarten as well as sexual abuse protection education. Something I figured was correlated. Also the arguments that the supporters of the bill made, Barack Obama included, saying that was their intent for Kindergartners.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted."
Which means that the bill is aimed to teach concenpts at age-appropriate is defined, as you yourself just said.
What exactly is "age appropriate" is left up to states, and districts. But the stuff that is supposed to be taught, before graduation, is laid out so that it all has to eventually be included.
The people like Ron, McCain, et al, who are trying to paint this bill as "comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners," are idiots.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We must stop teaching math to kindergartners.
I understand that an "age-appropriate" math curriculum is required for levels k-12, but kindergartners simply cannot handle calculus or advanced trigonometry so the entire curriculum must be stopped and stopped now. I call upon our political leaders to stop this unnecessary cruelty to our children.
Teach your children string theory before they learn to read? Is that the kind of president we want?
[ September 14, 2008, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for. The people there with him on the show who wanted to defend Sen. Obama had no replies, other than trying to stick to the standard Obama talking point that the program was designed to help children avoid sexual predators.
Sean Hannity isn't a reliable, unbiased new source. You are smart enough to know that no one should trust anything said on his show (or many others) without double checking the facts.
This is just a sign of how desperate the right wing is to win this election. They know they can't win it on the issues and the truth so they have to fabricate ridiculous outrageous lies knowing that many people are gullible enough to believe the most outrageous lies and half truths.
McCain and much of the rest of the Republican Party seem to have taken his plays right out of Rush Limbaugh's handbook. If the facts don't support your position, make up some that do. At least when Rush Limbaugh is called on it, he can argue that he is an entertainer not a news source (evidently its OK to lie as long as the lies are entertaining).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Paul, now that you're back in this thread, perhaps you could have the decency to respond to my defense against the unsupported accusations you made about me. I posted some direct counterexamples and you ignored them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this."
So are there comprehensive k-12 sex ed courses going on anywhere now where we can look at the curriculum and tell whether "age-appropriate" kindergarten classes would be "be sure to tell a grownup if someone tries to touch you there" or Kama Sutra book reports?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for.
I daresay it might do well to find out where Mr. Hannity locates this information.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The original controversy dates to 2003, when a bill to modify the teaching of sex education in Illinois was introduced in the Legislature. The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association.
... The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.
In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.
...
It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old.
No, the sex education bill did not have as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators. The inclusion of kindergarteners had as its primary purpose the protection of children against sexual predators.
quote: Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents,
Were this true, there would definitely be no justification! But the parents may fully opt out so it is completely untrue.
quote: WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Do you have children, out of curiosity? I'm still not seeing exactly what you think is wrong with teaching a 5-year-old the names of their privates and what to do if anyone touches them. (Or do you still think someone is going to teach a 5-year-old to masturbate?)
quote: Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten.
Fine. I disagree with them. Loudly. But they are welcome to raise their children how they choose and can opt out.
quote:This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat. [/QB]
I know! People can be so self-righteous about their moral views, thinking they know best. Like those people trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Who gives them the right to tell people who to love? I ask you...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Not if you take the link I put on the last page to the opening skit into account it's not. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The SNL skit was much funnier than I expected it to be. Reading the script is nothing compared to the way it was played out. I think it made fun of Hillary Clinton as much as Sarah Palin. And man, Tina Fey did an incredible impersonation.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The NYTimes has a long article on Palin today, detailing her style of governing.
Firing off officials and replacing them with high school buddies with scant qualifications. Using personal e-mail for the specific purpose of avoiding subpoenas. Pursuing personal vendettas on government time. Refusing to meet with legislators.
Now there is a person with true Executive Experience, at least the kind we have come to expect from the present administration.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
*Note that I'm pretty sure this doesn't include McCain's plan to make employer health benefits taxible income (edit - while providing a tax credit of $2500 for singles/$5000 for families).
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out?
As McCain's ad specifically calls it one of Obama's "few accomplishments", presumably the bill did in fact pass.
If you want to view it as a liberal evil despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think that's a problem with your view, not the bill.
ADD: Further probing shows that the bill indeed did not pass, which makes the way it's been broached somewhat confusing.
Factcheck.org:
quote:The ad claims the bill was Obama's "one accomplishment." This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past "go" in the Senate. So it was not an "accomplishment" at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.
Full text of the bill for the non-hysteria minded is here.
In an October debate with Alan Keyes, Obama said (emphasis mine)
quote:We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it?
So we base all of our public school policies from the legislature on the worst possible scenario imaginable? That sounds workable to me. What the hell is a PTA for if not to deal with issues like this one- why are you even suggesting that such details even *should* be worked out on a national level? I thought you republicans were in favor of less government involvement, not more.
We both know that if inappropriate material is presented to kindergartners, it represents a failure on many levels closer to the students themselves: Their teachers, their district, their parents, their local government, their state government, etc. By the time you get to legislature, I can't see how responsibility for such specifics is really to be expected. These are all problems that can and should be dealt with by more local authorities. The only job of the Senate, in this case, is to put the plan, in broad terms, into motion so that it does get done. The legislature can only develop expectations that each school must meet- it cannot be responsible for the method employed everywhere.
For instance, and this just a for instance, children of kindergarten age or a little older do have a tendency, in some cases, to touch themselves inappropriately in public. I know this from working with kids of that age for a long time. The appropriate response to that behavior is something a teacher must be equipped to give, and it's something that the district and school can help establish with the teachers. That response is going to vary from case to case, but it's important that at every level, the administration of the school is prepared with a response, and is informing its staff of appropriate responses.
Precisely because the subject is a sensitive one, there needs to be a force in place to encourage schools to prepare and effectively handle the concerns and behaviors of their kids.
I was working for a public recreation dept. camp one summer, when on a day that I was not working, two children had inappropriate sexually-directed contact with each other at the camp. The people on the ground in that case had been trained in how to deal with the situation, and were therefore better able to keep the experience from traumatizing one or both of the children involved. Ignoring the reality of child on child sexual abuse, which is a growing concern in schools, would be negligent- and if local communities choose to ignore the danger out of sensitivity, the problem will grow when it can be prevented.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bite me, Rabbit. Someone linked to it earlier in the thread, and I was responding to that link. I'm not interested in your usual nasty metacomments.
And the opening skit really was hilarious. If that statement is too complex and confusing for anyone, I suggest they read the rest of the thread, find the link, and giggle madly along with me.
Rabbit, you owe me an apology.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Not if you take the link I put on the last page to the opening skit into account it's not.
Thank you Lyrhawn, That was the background I was looking for.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting chart, Solar. I'm not sure now is really the time for tax cuts, but I learned Keynsian economics in college which I was later told has been replaced with newer, shinier theories. Still, when you have a large, growing debt, cutting income doesn't seem to make much sense.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it?
So we base all of our public school policies from the legislature on the worst possible scenario imaginable? That sounds workable to me. What the hell is a PTA for if not to deal with issues like this one- why are you even suggesting that such details even *should* be worked out on a national level? I thought you republicans were in favor of less government involvement, not more.
If this were true, I'd still be leaning Republican! I went to the Democratic Caucasus a few months back to throw a vote for Obama. I went with a friend and while we were there, I explained a few of my political positions. I'm in favor of small government, especially at the national level. I want to see more local control. I wouldn't mind seeing the federal department of education bite the dust and control over my children's public education to be funded by and control entirely through state and local agencies.
"So you're a Republican?" she asked.
Nope. I'm independent. Fiercely independent. But that's because I don't buy into one party being evil and the other good. What has the Republican party done lately? They've expanded government, increased the deficit, passed the Patriot Act (and don't even get me started on that), started a questionable war. They are clinging to trickle down economics, giving tax breaks to corporations for sending jobs overseas, sponsoring corporate welfare, and trying to legislate morality.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think I've ever said that. I fully believe the Rabbit was unnecessarily flip, but the world wide web can see you two have issues deeper than one comment. I've said, "You should apologize," but even that rarely. I use should often, but I rarely talk of apology. I digress...
I don't want the McCain/Palin administration to lead the country for the next for years. I'd rather have Obama/Biden in office. It's a lukewarm endorsement, but that's where I stand.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Right, but before he clarified, he tried to do his little "gotcha": "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?" At that point in the conversation, it's still entirely unclear which aspect he's referring to - even after she explicitly asked for clarification.
Yes, I did think he was trying for a "gotcha," and I didn't really dig that. However, it's still incorrect to say that he was wrong about what the Bush Doctrine was.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keynsian is a lie told to undergraduates because the story sounds nice and has a foot in reality. At this point, modern macroeconomics is playing at theory while waiting for better data.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only merit to Keynesian economics is that it appears to work, unlike most of the other economic theories we've tested since.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I assure you that no macroeconomist in the US today uses Keynesian economics to actually do economics, because it doesn't work. Neo-Keynesian, most certainly, but nothing that Keynes actually wrote is used today.
Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious what period you think we tried Keynesian economics, and what economic theories (with periods) you think have been tried since, Tom.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai: a number of intermediate macro courses are starting to teach based on microfoundations. This means they (well, the courses that do it well) don't cover as much theory, but they give a much better (and more grad-similar) foundation for macroeconomic thought.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I jest 'cause I love.) 
