Discussions on modern topics of chemical physics, biophysics, and theoretical chemistry/physics/biophysics, science education, and the impacts such advents have on society and personal philosophy. Also minor interjections on current events in both the science community and the world.
Already our favorite dipshit is echoing the talking points of the Palin apologists. She "watered down" the explanation since the question was asked by a third grader. To wit, any reasonable person would respond, where was the third grader in the room?
And his deflection to typical rabble is funny. Yes, the Vice President presides over the Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The Pope also shits in the woods, so tell me something I don't know already.
Presiding over the parliamentary procedures as a means to exert power is a dangerous game. To wit, the example of John Adams, who was perhaps the most active Vice President toward his Senate duties in history, but his activity nearly cost him his political career. Since there has been a longstanding tradition of VPs running for head cheese, they tend to relgate their formal duties to the President pro tempore.
Now, onto what Palin actually said:
That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.
Err... no, not really. The President of the Senate can make judgments on point of order and other typical rules of order, but they don't "get in there with the senators". Silly gibberish coming from someone who seems to have never been bothered to read the Constitution at least once.
But I expect nothing less from my favorite little dipshit. Keep on defending the worst vice presidential candidate ever.
While we have some anonymous election lawyer stirring the moonbats into a frenzy over a possibly legitimate case, the FBI is investigating ACORN on potentially aiding in voter registration fraud.
Unbelievable. Something tells me that those self-proclaimed "intellectually honest" GOP loyalists are cheering on the FBI, while the more sane GOP members are bashing them. Say, former US Attorney David Iglesias, one of the attorneys who was fired for not kowtowing to the ridiculous demands of the GOP to prosecute ACORN and other similar programs for voter fraud back in 2006.
For Spanish readers, here is the original letter. For those who lack the education in Spanish, the "damning" portion translates as follows:
You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting. You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in imprisonment, and you will be deported for voting without having the right to do so.
The backstory, according to the LA Times article previously linked, was that the original letter in English had "green-card holders", which was translated into Spanish as "emigrados", which translates back into English as "immigrants".
Of course, green card holders cannot vote, so the original English draft was correct. However, immigrants can, so long as they are U.S. citizens. It is important to make such a syntactical distinction. An immigrant is anyone whose country of origin is different than the one they currently reside. An illegal immigrant is one who resides illegally in a country not of their origin. A legal immigrant is one who resides legally in a country not of their origin. Legal imigrants include not only people who have green-cards and similar documentation, but also people who have become citizens through the naturalization process. Therefore, the bolded is vague and confusing to someone who has earned citizenship but may have been an immigrant to the country. Therefore, the letter was intimidating to some Latino voters.
It is true that no criminal intent was discovered (archived LA Times article). However, this current GOP case is about whether Nguyen obstructed the investigations. I won't comment on this, as I am neither interested in that allegation nor does it affect me in my current geographical location.
However, what i do find entertaining is the overall conspiracy tone of the article. I note that if it weren't for our favorite knight in tin-foil armor, I probably would not have even noticed it. How much of reality do these sycophants have to do in order to justify their nuttery?
The abortion debate is a pivotal issue for a select few voters, so much so that this one issue is the only reason they are involved with politics. That is an unfortunate reality, but not of interest in this post.
Recall the viral ad that has been circulating about Obama's voting record. Nevemind about how the ad is full of baloney, it is simply a pathetic appeal to emotion. The pro-choice can also appeal to emotion on the issue:
I've never agreed with the tactic of appealing to your audiences emotion. Though this ad touches on only a portion of the debate, which is a woman's right of choice in the matter of family planning, it attempts to blurr the line with the addition of the emotional response to rape.
Talk about rape, in this manner, and talk about "I may not exist" are both examples that trivialize the main concern of the public policy debate. They are both disgusting distractions, in my opinion. But the scientific side of me wonders which scenario resonates better in individuals, and in particular voters who are not particularly persuaded on the issue of choice versus life.
The IgNobles have been posted. This year's chemistry recipients are a joint effort on arguing whether Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola are good spermicides. It seems like the verdict is still out (pro, con).
But those are old references. Anyone have any new ones?
And that is pretty much the only thing McCain and I have in common.
Here is an article at McClatchy that summarizes part of the cause of the recent economic turmoil. Basically, it was not Fannie/Freddie since they did not have the ability to invest much into the sub-prime market. Instead, financial institutions that were able to wiggle themselves into regulatory gaps backs much of these subprime loans on the secondary market, and when loans began being defaulted on eveything went to hell in a hand basket.
I hope you have enough pork and beans to last you through the winter.
While our favorite dipshit is preparing his tinfoil hat from the rubbish of Obama-Ayers and the "Chicago political machine", it is time to turn to yet another layer from the onion of old conservatism.
Henry Kissinger is perhaps one of the more detestable men from the Nixonian era of Republicant rule. But despite Palin's ability to claim foreign policy experience as being Russia's neighbor, nonetheless the powers of the GOP decided to further her education on foreign policy with Kissinger as her tutor.
The acts of Ayers and Dohrn from Weather Underground have been linked to a lot of property damage, but not a single instance of life was taken in their terrorist acts. However, Kissinger, who sits as an honorary co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign, has been sent several summons from various South American countries and France to testify of US involvement in the deaths of Argentinian, French, Brazilian, and Chilean civilians.
Guilt by association is a dangerous game to play. It is like playing with a snake. If you don't do it right, the snake will simply rear its head and bite you. The McCain-Palin ticket is a lost cause if they continue pushing the guilt by association ticket.
But that is all they have left since the past eight years have shown that concentrated conservative policies are the death and destruction of America.
The danger of playing the "guilt by association" is that there is a large probability of blowback being a bitch.
Such is the reality of the McCain-Palin ticket. They initiated the need to stretch the imagination that Obama's presence on an education funding board somehow related Obama to a former leader of a domestic terrorist group.
The McCain-Palin campaign has opened a can of worms. McCain's tenure in Washington is replete with shady characters, particularly his association with Rev. Moon. And though Palin's political resume is less than a page, her career seems to have been born from extremist, anti-government radicals.
Country first? Change we can believe in? I look forward to more ironic mottos from their campaign in the next couple of days.
Our favorite sycophant, with mucho gratis to his favorite kool-ade distributor, has linked to a video of Palin claiming Obama had help starting his political career from a domestic terrorist. For a very entertaining read, I recommend reading some of the comments left by the guzzlers there.
You know, this video and the content of other Palin stump speeches makes me ponder something. For a candidate who is complaining about the darn media filter, she hasn't really talked about how she would run the country. Instead, her speeches and her answers revert all back to criticizing the opposition. That is nice, and indeed in any debate-setting we would expect criticisms to be exchanged. But when you criticize an idea while not providing one to replace your opponents, now you are simply patronizing for the sake of partisanship. Voters are not ignorant to candidates that come to the table emptyhanded.
Now, onto what she actually says in the video. She mentions a New York Times article, so I will presume she means the one I had linked to previously explaining the relationship between Obama and Ayers. She says that we are learning that Obama was not aware of Ayers' background. I want to know where the article states this, because I see the following passages:
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
She then claims Barack launched his political career in Ayers' living room, which seems to be the mantra on the conservative blog circuit. But the mantra is failing to recognize the context of such coffee calls. As we see in the very NYT article I cited, the meeting wasn't meant to plan strategy but as a social gathering of Democrats. Oh, I know; to the kool-ade drinkers and tin-foil hat bearers that is all they need to hear and think "conspiracy! guilt! terrorist!":
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor.
Now she vomits a list of grub to feed to her base, including
I think the only thing her and I agree on is that it is about time for the candidates to come out and discuss who they are. So far, though, it seems that McCain and Palin are hiding themselves and instead making empty criticisms toward their opponents. But it seems the Obama camp has been sitting and waiting for the McCain camp to issue silly atttacks:
The Obama campaign swung into action immediately. By the time the Sunday news shows were taping, Democratic surrogates were hitting McCain with opposition research on his associations with extremist, racist groups (Begala) and the Keating Five (Emanuel).
Today, of course, camp Obama is pushing a new Keating Economics website, which begins streaming a documentary about McCain’s Keating problem at noon.
Obama’s campaign has never pushed the Keating button before, so this attack carries an original punch–and is clearly salient given the current financial crisis. Because the scandal involved McCain’s actions in public service, it is more likely to arise during the remaining two debates.
McCain’s dredging up of Bill Ayers, in contrast, is not only old news but has no link to anything Obama has done in public life. Patrick Ruffini, a Republican operative who worked on Bush’s reelection campaign, said today that McCain’s Ayers attacks are so old that airing them now “appears desperate.”
The economy is a sore subject, and it is what is contributing much to the soring poll numbers for Obama. People simply believe that Obama has a better grasp on how to handle the economy than McCain and company. The Keating Five association is going to hurt McCain badly, especially since he admits guilt in his own memoirs. The trailer from the site follows:
There is a Biblical parable about how people in glass houses should not throw stones. I think in this case, the mentioned parable is an understatement. People in a house of cards shouldn't speak, because simply their voice makes their house come tumbling down.
But seriously, here is another example of a McCain internet gaffe. Before the debate, let's put out an ad that quotes a famous person without telling us who this famous person is:
And then after the debate, wait for some famous person tool to say it, verbatim (like...Peggy Noonan!)
I'm with Radley Balko here. I think the McCain camp is sending talking points to favored pundits. This comes from their previous internet gaffe and this one. The evidence is strong on this one.
And no, it isn't wrong. It's just pretty damn pathetic that you have tell your cheerleaders exactly what to say after a completely humiliating lose.
And it seems that the preemptive strike from Obama has ruffled some of the children's feathers, though admittedly the AP article does hint at racism, which is a bit odd.
But since the children will be focused on Ayers and Rezko, I suppose it is time to remind them about all of McCain's former associations?
I am a second-year graduate student in theoretical chemical physics at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. I muse about science and theoretical chemistry in general but do have interests in the arts, humanities, and politics.
