Would anyone care to try a grand synthesis and give a name to that new understanding (hopefully incorporating all of the factors)?
[QUOTE]
By Rebecca Traister
(...) The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin's candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism.
Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like. (...)
(end quote)

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

quote:

---

It seems Death-cult Armageddonist Palin would prefer a hot war with Russia so as not to "repeat a cold war".
No problem. She will be whisked merrily up to her Heaven on a mushroom cloud while ye of incorrect faith can go to Hell.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia
Staff
AP News

Sep 11, 2008 17:29 EST

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally.

"We will not repeat a Cold War," Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain's vice presidential running mate two weeks ago....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source

---

Personally, I think all this talk about Palin is giving her more publicity than she warrants.

But they may choose to ignore it altogether. If they do post an opinion piece with comments, i'll keep you posted.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]

----------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

Thank, er, uh....God?

But, then, we're kinda shocked that someone with Palin's views is put forward as VP candidate, eh? At least, I am!

Should not our mainstream media - any time now - reflect this nation's revulsion and horror? Fear and loathing?

Something?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
National Post readers are hardly representative of the majority of Canadians. Although it may be interesting to see what Neanderthals come out of the wood work.

---

quote:

---

We, of the Neanderthal Memorial Society take issue with specist linking of our departed betters with the more embarrassing displays of homo sappy.

---

[QUOTE]
Why Rednecks May Rule the World
This article originally appeared on the web site of BBC Radio.

By Joe Bageant

During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working class voters."

What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the word "redneck." So I'll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.

The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.

On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what's at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.

Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chawing, guffawing Southerners...
[END QUOTE]
---------------------

It's what he says in his book, and Europeans are now listening raptly to what he says, given what's occurring down there. A team from Italy just finished recording a for TV bit, and he's appearing next week to speak to Edinburghians.

quote:

---

Why Rednecks May Rule the World

---

Pardon the response time.Had to pull myself up off the floor first.

quote:

---

Despite denials by the Palin campaign, new evidence proves that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin had a direct hand in imposing fees to pay for post-sexual assault medical exams conducted by the city to gather evidence.

Palin's role is now confirmed by Wasilla City budget documents available online.

Under Sarah Palin's administration, Wasilla cut funds that had previously paid for the medical exams and began charging victims or their health insurers the $500 to $1200 fees. Although Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella wrote USA Today earlier this week that the GOP vice presidential nominee "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test...To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Palin, as mayor, fired police chief Irl Stambaugh and replaced him with Charlie Fannon, who with Palin's knowledge, slashed the budget for the exams and began charging the city's victims of sexual assault. The city budget documents demonstrate Palin read and signed off on the new budget. A year later, alarmed Alaska lawmakers passed legislation outlawing the practice.

---

In fact, I was rather hoping that you'd take a shot at doing just that.

The concern out there is reaching a new order of magnitude, and I think that Heather Mallick's language reflects that. But let's not parse her sentences again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
As a card-carrying Saskatchewan hayseed, with numerous university degrees and calluses to my credit, I ask that you smug eastern prigs shut up for once and instead contemplate why these baboons keep kicking your lily-white asses whenever the opportunity presents itself.

---

That's "red-rumped" baboons, if you please.

And your generalization about "smug eastern prigs" is not narrowed down enough by the insertion of "lily-white asses" either. But it's getting there.

---

Oh, and I haven't noticed a lot of social analysis between the chuckles from The West .
Howcum? There's a standing invitation.
Can't be diffidence or shyness.

This couldn't be an old Zane Grey western bushwhacking? Naw, you're putting me on, right?

My goodness, I hope so....

--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I posted Bageant some time ago - and he says what you are saying, Al (although in a less intimidating way). He, too, is like a breath of fresh air in a fetid, priggish atmosphere of endless, eastern liberal debate.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Victor:
Got it now.

Zane Grey didn't write about bush-whacking, it was dry-gulching, right?

---

If you're replying to me, please speak english. I googled Zane Grey and still have no idea what subtle speakeasy you're using.

It would be even better if some of us unlearned folk could be given it in layman's terms.

--------------------

Sure glad you pointed this out, Blairza. While Bageant places himself as a "redneck", and shows where they are at, generally, that does not change how some identify (or not) with those around them.

And I see all sorts of references to living personalities posted here that I don't know at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Victor:
RP, the fault is mine. Zane Grey, I guess you saw, wrote some of the earliest popular westerns and died with the dinosaurs. Dates the hell outa me, really.

And I see all sorts of references to living personalities posted here that I don't know at all.

But please, just give me a kick in the IT shins like this and I'll back up.

---

Naw, no need George, I think I was just frustrated with myself.

quote:

---

``I reckon you be a stranger in these parts,''
said a pleasant old fellow. ``His name's Hurtle
--Whitaker Hurtle. Whit fer short. He hain't
lost a gol-darned game this summer. No sir-ee!
Never pitched any before, nuther.''

Hurtle! What a remarkably fitting name!

Rickettsville chose the field and the game began.
Hurtle swung with his easy motion. The ball shot
across like a white bullet. It was a strike, and so was the next, and the one succeeding. He could
not throw anything but strikes, and it seemed the
Spatsburg players could not make even a foul.

Outside of Hurtle's work the game meant little
to me. And I was so fascinated by what I saw in
him that I could hardly contain myself. After
the first few innings I no longer tried to. I yelled with the Rickettsville rooters. The man was a wonder. A blind baseball manager could have
seen that. He had a straight ball, shoulder high,
level as a stretched string, and fast. He had a
jump ball, which he evidently worked by putting
on a little more steam, and it was the speediest
thing I ever saw in the way of a shoot.

He had a wide-sweeping outcurve, wide as the blade of a mowing scythe. And he had a drop--an unhittable drop. He did not use it often, for it made his catcher dig too hard into the dirt. But whenever he did I glowed all over. Once or twice he used an underhand motion and sent in a ball that fairly swooped up. It could not have been hit with a board.

And best of all, dearest to the manager's heart, he had control. Every ball he threw went over the plate. He could not miss it. To him that plate was as big as a house.

---

Partly, RP.

--------------------------

The Arizonian sure knew his baseball. And you got me googling to find out more about him. Maybe 100 books in all (including some aimed at young readers), some 60 westerns, and lots of the others with titles like The Shortstop (1910), and The Young Pitcher (perhaps dating from the year of his death, 1939).

Here's a short break from leftwing puritanism ...

[END QUOTE]

---------------------------------------------

And using another Christian's pulpit offering, here's a short break from John Bunyan's "slough of despond" (which, Wikipedia tells us, young Christian sank into "under the weight of his sins.")

----------------------------------------

Joe Bageant's latest (Sept. 12) Web feature -

Scots-Irish in Canada and US are different

Joe:

I've been reading your blog just about as long as it has been around, and I bought your book as soon as it came out. Kudos on your quickly percolating career as a redneck pundit in the UK press. Try not to turn into one of those 18th Century Savage Red Indians taken back to England for display as a curiosity illustrative of the wonders of the Americas. But I'm sure you won't, and if you do and get paid for it, it's all good anyway.

I recently gave up on the USA (Abu Ghraib was the last straw) and moved to Canada, where I'm now married to a lovely Canadian girl and going through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. I love it up here in Toronto, and we visit quite often with her parents in rural Ontario.

People up here so closely resemble Americans, but seem so much less invested in domination of the world and oppression of the weak: even Sarah's Pentecostal parents (no joke) wouldn't dream of denying gay people the right to get married or of messing with the socialized health care everyone up here is entitled to, and people up here are pretty upset about even Canada's limited peacekeeping involvement in Afghanistan. Churches are drying up for lack of congregations as an ever-increasing chunk of the populace self-reports as non-religious.

My question for you is this: if the Ulster Scots have been such a formative influence on the American psyche, especially vis-a-vis its hard-bitten individualism and its imperialistic belligerence, then why is Canada so singularly lacking in these traits? This place is crawling with Scots-Irish -- they may be the largest ethnic group in the country, and they dominate the maritime provinces.

It's a tough nut to crack, and I don't expect you to have an answer. History is complicated, I guess, and Canada and the US have been through much different experiences in the last 200 years: ongoing membership in the Empire and then the Commonwealth, and their ill use by the English during the World Wars, has done a lot to shape Canadian attitudes toward foreign military adventures, and America's original sin of African slavery is quite a different cup of tea from the aboriginal genocide that continues to have real political consequences up here. But it's an interesting question to contemplate, I think, and if it provides you with any matter for your ruminations on the souls of nations and the way history shapes and is shaped by different cultures, then this will turn out to have been a worthwhile message to send.

I hope you're doing well, Joe. You are a sane human voice crying out in the wilderness, and I can't tell you how much of a comfort it is for a heartbroken expat like me to hear someone sing about the America I thought I grew up in, but that increasingly seems like it never
existed.

Take it easy,

Matt

Toronto

[ 13 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

Also,

Anyways I think that now that people know a heck of lot more about the woman, most of it really negative that she's going to have more people agreeing with her then a few weeks ago. Just look at the comments under the yahoo story.

The most damning thing that's making it's rounds, 'the Palin made women pay for their forensic rape kits, in a State that has one of the highest per capita incidences, most with Native women, and that she had to be ordered by the state to stop doing it.
Oh an her idea of helping to deal with the problem was to pass a bill banning the sale of an action figure from Kill Bill, called 'Rapist #1'.
And one of the reasons that she claims to have fired her Police commisioner was because he went behind her back to try to get some money for sexual assault and anti-rape problems because he wasn't getting any help from the Govies office.

quote:

---

Mallick's piece borders on vicious, sure, but it's hardly off the charts as far as what's present on the blogosphere. But what's so interesting about the response to Mallick is what aspects of it have provoked the biggest response. It all proves that some people simply cannot read.

If you've followed this story without reading the original blog, you'd think that Mallick called Palin white trash. She did not do that, actually. What she said was that by naming Palin to the ticket, McCains sewed up the white trash vote. And, let's admit, there exists some white trash in America.

Also high on the anti-Mallick commentators' list is the claim that Mallick compared Palin to a porn star. Not so. She said that Palin had the porn star look down, a reasonable comment on where her appeal lies and how it might work and not at all tantamount to comparing Palin to Jenna Jameson.

One commentator, FOX's Greta Van Susteran got heavily into the trash talk by calling Mallick a "pig" and continuing to defend it, writing, "She worries about being called a pig because, frankly, she was a pig." This, can I say, is not analysis or anything remotely resembling political discourse and the fact that is masquerading as such is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Also high on the anti-Mallick commentators' list is the claim that Mallick compared Palin to a porn star. Not so. She said that Palin had the porn star look down...

---

Close to the bone for a lot of us. And makes me think that Heather does actually look down her nose at us.

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh for god's sake! And perhaps for the first time ever I agree with Caissa. And I have agreed with Mallick since the article was printed.

IMV, I would have gone further, Palin is trash!

---

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Palin's actions are trash, and she should be trashed as a politician, because of her religious policies and actions impacting upon public policies and in a direct way upon only women. Say nothing of hunting from helicopters, and wanting to drill for oil on the north slope and destroy the cariboo's birthing habitat. And I would say the same about any man doing what she has done, and worse, I would call them misogynist ass hats, at the least, when they made public policies that were harmful to only women.

And intrestingly enough, in respect to the porn star comment, I was flicking through the channels and started watching TMZ (sp?) last night, as they were talking on the street with a well known porn star in the USA and her hair style was exactly, and I mean exactly, like Palin's. It was pretty amusing to see actually, given Mallick's comments.

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

. "I wanted to meet you for many years," Ms. Palin told Mr. Peres, according to an aide to the president. "The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag," she was quoted as saying."

---

quote:

---

Ms. Mallick is free to draw her own conclusions about Ms. Palin’s appearance, as irrelevant as that might be to her worth as a public official, but a similar sortie against one of her children is, at best, in poor taste. Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled “satire,” there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions—they have a certain cartoonish tinge—but even the best and most pointed editorial cartoonists have, at some point, run afoul of sensible editorial authority. There is a significant difference between censorship and appropriate editorial oversight. CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight over material that appears on CBC outlets. Ms. Mallick is entitled to her opinions, and those opinions should not be censored, but those opinions must also be expressed in a manner that meets our Journalistic Standards and Practices. Liberty is not the same as license.
Ms. Mallick has the liberty to hold whatever views she wishes. And the CBC has both the right, and the obligation, to exercise appropriate editorial supervision. Interestingly, had Ms. Mallick’s column been written in the spirit of her note to me, it would still have been pointed and provocative but, with a broader context, would probably not have failed to meet editorial standards.

Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.
CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met.

---

quote:

---

(...)For instance, many of those who complained claimed that there is no one of an opposite ideological viewpoint readily apparent on the service. Unfortunately, this appears to be true.(...)

---

This fact, makes me dislike the right more than what I already do, and I had not thought that possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I agree martin, and the CBC response actually says not much. And I find it amazing that the right wing as represented by Fox news, and the Ann Coulter sorts feel it can call for the deaths of left wingers, and other assorted actions and nasty beliefs, but those of opposing views on the left must not express negative perceptions about right wingers. They can dish them out but not take them apparently as represented by Greta Va... calling Mallick a pig.

This fact, makes me dislike the right more than what I already do, and I had not thought that possible.

Having said that, I find now that I am of a different mind about some of the words Mallick used, however, it is her viewpoint and she has every right to it.

---

She has every right to her viewpoint - as the ombudsman noted - but not a right to go against the CBC's standards and policies, which the ombudsman clearly stated that she did. Does this mean anything at all other than he issued a statement that few people will read? I doubt it.

Similarily, babblers have every right to their viewpoint, but if they go against the rules here they are banned. Is calling a large percentage of low-income Americans "white trash" and writing that a female politician has the "porn star look" okay on babble?

Apparently.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Mallick's column was at Rabble.

And yes, I believe Rabble has every right to carry such a column and they should continue to post what ever the hell type of coloumn they want..

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSION:
Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.
CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met.
Opinion and analysis should be clearly labeled and not lumped together. If an item is meant to be satiric, it should be labeled as such.
CBCNews.ca should have appropriate resources to ensure that a wide range of opinion and analysis is available.
Vince Carlin

---

The ombudsmen's conclusion is a rather weak defence of the myth of journalistic objectivity rather than a strong condemnation of Mallick failing to meet CBC standards.

Personally I cringe any time someone with the Corporate media uses the term "facts" , these facts are in reality constructed within the context of the dominant narrative, the very narrative that this media itself constructs and maintains. Even understanding this it is a stretch to say that Mallick's assertions are unsupportable. It is unsupportable that a great number of the republican base is "loud, ignorant and proudly unlettered."

In terms of referring to Palin as having a "porn star look" I think the implications are clear. Porn is a massive industry that plays a strong role in the patriarchal construction of female identity it influences both self perceptions and expectations in relation to women's presentation in the world. The expectation is that women present themselves in highly sexualized terms in order to access power and privilege in relation to men. It is hardly unsupportable to acknowledge the existence of such a "porn star look." Palin herself was a contestant in a beauty pagent, the distinction between "beauty queen" and "porn queen' is subtle and can easily be located in the sexist archetypes of the "virgin/whore" dichotomy that is prevalent in the dominant construction of female identity. Palin's presentation of self is important in that expresses an acceptance or at least acquiessence to the dominant patriarchal construction of female identity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
And I find it amazing that the right wing as represented by Fox news, and the Ann Coulter sorts feel it can call for the deaths of left wingers, and other assorted actions and nasty beliefs, but those of opposing views on the left must not express negative perceptions about right wingers. They can dish them out but not take them apparently as represented by Greta Va... calling Mallick a pig.

---

The problem, as should be obvious, is that when the right wingers say it, they're playing to type. When left wingers say stuff like that, they look like hypocrites.

Heather Mallick's column was "at best, puerile", as Vince Carlin said, and totally lacking in journalistic merit. He said:

quote:

---

Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled 'satire,' there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions

---

I agree with him. This is material fit for a blog, or The Onion, but not an actual news organization with journalistic standards.

How can anyone defend that?

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fischerville:
How can anyone defend that?

---

quote:

---

fisherville: The problem, as should be obvious, is that when the right wingers say it, they're playing to type. When left wingers say stuff like that, they look like hypocrites.

---

Please excuse the thread drift/rant.

Right wingers should know hypocrisy. They live it, both the leaders and the followers.

"Family values"? Lots of divorces and gay affairs and second marriages, including John McCain (the divorce and the second marriage that is ).

"Just say no to drugs"? Newt G. is one of many examples. Oh, and Cindy McCain, the heiress and wife of John. Oh, and soon-to-be-former President GWB.

As for the vicious and hateful way that right wingers describe anyone that doesn't agree with them (pick a blog any blog. Pick a network news station, any network news station), they are surely not able to take the mildest form of critique in the form of Heather's column that, no, wasn't measured and logical and calm. The argument that lefties always have to be sweet and kind and polite, in service of our lefty values is bullshit.

Like, read babble much?

For the record, I'm generally not a fan of Heather's writing, and didn't like that particular piece myself. Nonetheless, getting vicious hatemail is both typical of right wing internet cowards, and a classic response, to "hatebomb" a woman who they disagree with.

Liberalism is evidently based on intelligent, educated, rational thinking. If you descend to calling your oppnent trash, you might as well be a member of the Sons of Liberty, the unthinking ultra-left-wing rabble that went around lynching moderate conservatives.

I'll tell you why:
...... tumbleweeds .... crickets .....

Creating bandwidth for, oh I don't know, intelligent discourse? I know, I know, I'm a wacky dreamer.

Moreover, I am sick of the double standard hypocrisy when it comes to expecting people to play by some standard of mythical rules that those on the left are suppposed to play by because we are so much better than that!

The reason why the right gets away with it is because the "left"s expected to be better than that, and look what happened GWB got in twice, by playing dirty and getting away with it. because the "left" is supposed to be above all that.

Just like the Cons and Liberals up here, they are used to defaming the NDP, and having the NDP rollover. This rolling over has given the appearance that the NDP are gutless and could not make the hard decisions in governing. It's BS of course, but most people do not see it that way.

Personally, if people change the rules, or operate according to different rules, while expecting others to be "nice", cause they are "nice", while planning on fucking them over, I play by my own set too. Until we reach a point in society, where everyone is on the same page rule wise, and are sick to death of dirty politics, then I am going to give as good as what I am getting, or got.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Tolerance does not mean having to tolerate intolerance, or to tolerate getting fucked over.

---

What does tolerance mean then? I think the left should not lower itself to a worse standard just to "compete" with others using dirty tricks, sexist language and classist terminology. Do we want everyone using this level of discourse. I think Fischerville's point was that we expect that level of discourse from the right.

How exactly did Bristol Palin fuck anyone over or show intolerance? And yet Mallick deems her worthy of the label "pram-faced" and discuses her personal relationship and sex life. She is a 17 yr old private citizen and has never had anything to do with any policy and for all we know may end up rebelling against her upbringing and becomign a leftist politician someday.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

Do we need warning labels:

SATIRE AHEAD MAY CAUSE DISTRESS TO LITERAL THINKERS!!!

Score 1 for the Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
I also don't get the ombudsmen's statement that these statements would be acceptable if it were "labelled satire"

---

Because there was no journalistic merit to her article. That is what distinguishes a opinion column from satire.

quote:

---

Policy calls for opinions to be based on fact. Ms. Mallick’s item generally stays in the opinion column but she does offer some flat statements that appear to offer “facts” without any backup.

---

quote:

---

Because there was no journalistic merit to her article. That is what distinguishes a opinion column from satire

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
What does tolerance mean then?

---

For example, I do not have to tolerate your intolerence and butting into other people's private business and Charter of Rights, rights.

quote:

---

I think the left should not lower itself to a worse standard just to "compete" with others using dirty tricks, sexist language and classist terminology.

---

quote:

---

Do we want everyone using this level of discourse.

---

quote:

---

I think Fischerville's point was that we expect that level of discourse from the right.

---

quote:

---

How exactly did Bristol Palin fuck anyone over or show intolerance? And yet Mallick deems her worthy of the label "pram-faced"

---

quote:

---

and discuses her personal relationship and sex life.

---

quote:

---

She is a 17 yr old private citizen and has never had anything to do with any policy and for all we know may end up rebelling against her upbringing and becomign a leftist politician someday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fischerville:
If i was a fence-sitting American voter, and i was trying to decide for myself some issues, like affirmative action, for instance. The rightwingers say that affirmative action is essentially another form of discrimination, against white people. Leftists say that's ok, because whites are unfairly privileged by our culture, so it's only fair to give a chance to other groups. I think to myself "are proponents of affirmative action just a different kind of racist?" Then i read Heather Mallick's article. Damn that's brutal. I guess leftists are racist after all.

Score 1 for the Republicans.

Intolerance will get you nowhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Journalistic merit? The endless stream of corporate media indoctrination has merit? Once again we're into the realm of fantasy of media objectivity and merit.

---

quote:

---

If i was a fence-sitting American voter, and i was trying to decide for myself some issues, like affirmative action, for instance.

---

So are you likely to fantasize that you were a "fence-sitting American voter" whose thoughts would somehow disagree with the rhetorical point your attempting to make?

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

1. pram face:girl who is a little rough around the edges and wouldn't look at all out of place at 14 years of age pushing a newborn through a council estate.

---

Bristol Palin stopped being a girl the minute she adopted adult responsibilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Do you really NOT get that "pram faced" = baby faced?

---

It absolutely does not mean any such thing. Pramfaced = Breeder. Think an 18-year-old mexican immigrant holding a baby in each hand and living in and affordable housing unit, and you have a basic idea of what pramface means.

Read it in the Guardian.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
The Kennedy family's children have always been targeted, so were the Bush twins and their cousins, as well as the Trudeau boys, and Ben Mulroney. I see no difference here.

---

Ok, so people get upset at George W. for having Iraqis waterboarded. But George W. says "well, that's nothing compared to what they're doing. they're cutting heads off with butcher knives! compared to them we're CIVILISED, DAMMIT!" Why is he wrong? Because he's a hypocrite.

The United States invades countries ostensibly for liberty and all that rot, and everybody hates them because they're hypocrites. It doesn't matter that the Sunnis and Shiites are filming themselves performing executions, because they're not pretending to be principled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Journalistic merit? The endless stream of corporate media indoctrination has merit? Once again we're into the realm of fantasy of media objectivity and merit.

---

Fantasy Schmantasy. Geez people, it's Debate 101.

Let's test something here. Which of the three sentences below don't contain a gaping logical fallacy:

1. "Sarah Palin looks like a porn star, and her supporters are trash to boot"

2. "Sarah Palin should not be the vp candidate because she has no foreign policy experience -- despite her juvenile assertions to the contrary -- and her anti-science views are diametrically opposed to rational thinking"

3. "Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion"

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
fischerville, having said that, I do not accept your analogy to head chopping and invading a country.

---

My kids play this stupid game i call "i'll hurt you if you hurt me". They hit each other back and forth and it's a classic arms race until one of them starts to cry. Based on number of blows delivered and individual occurrences of crying, the 15 year old used to always beat the 11 year old hands down. Except that i taught the 11 year old to walk away.

Now he wins every time.